Affected Environment

C h a p t e r 3
146 
147

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes the characteristics of 

the environmental components identified as 

impact topics that could be affected by 

implementing the alternatives. It provides 

information for “Chapter 4: Environmental 

Consequences,” which assesses the effects 

that implementing the alternatives might have 

on these topics. The description of the 

affected environment focuses on only those 

environmental components that are 

potentially subject to effects from 

implementing one or more of the alternatives. 

The Big Cypress National Preserve General 

Management Plan and Environmental Impact 

Statement (NPS 1991) included a comprehensive description of the natural resources of 

the original Preserve. The Recreational ORV 

Management Plan (NPS 2000) also included 

detailed descriptions of the affected 

environment as it related to motorized use in 

the original Preserve. This General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Study / ORV 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Addition tiers from those 

documents, in conformance with the Council 

on Environmental Quality (1978) guidelines 

for implementing the National Environmental 

Policy Act. 
148 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Information on the area’s natural resources 

was gathered from several sources, including 

but not limited to, the following documents: 

 General Management Plan for the 

original preserve (NPS 1991) 

 Recreational ORV Management Plan for 

the original Preserve (NPS 2000) 

 Draft South Florida and Caribbean 

Parks Exotic Plant Management Plan

(NPS 2006b) 

 Water Resources Management Plan 

(NPS 1996) 

 Draft Hydrology of the Addition Lands 

Report (NPS 2002) 

 Fire Management Plan (NPS 2005) 

 The Big Cypress National Preserve

(Duever et al. 1986) 

BOTANICAL RESOURCES 

Vegetation, Including Soils 

Five major vegetation communities can be 

found in the Addition: (1) cypress strands and 

domes, mixed-hardwood swamps, and 

sloughs, (2) prairies and marshes, (3) mangrove forests, (4) pinelands, and (5) hardwood 

hammocks. Disturbed areas can also be found 

throughout the Addition and are intermixed 

within all of these vegetation communities. 

Each of these communities is described below 

and identified in the following vegetation maps 

(Maps 9 and 10: Vegetation for the Northeast 

Addition and Western Addition) for the 

Northeast Addition and Western Addition. 

The vegetation classes used in this plan are the 

same as those used in the 2000 Recreational 

ORV Management Plan, with the exception of 

the addition of “disturbed areas.” Disturbed 

areas were identified and described in the 1991 

General Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement for the original Preserve— so 

collectively, the descriptions provided below 

tier to and are compatible with these two 

plans. 

Temperate plants are abundant in Big Cypress, 

but most species are tropical. Pinelands, 

cypress strands and domes, and prairies, and 

marshes are the most prevalent vegetation 

types in the Addition and are dominated by 

temperate species. Tropical species primarily 

occur in hardwood hammocks, but are also 

found in pinelands, mixed-hardwood swamps, 

and cypress strands. Endemic plants, native 

only to the Preserve area, comprise 10 % of the 

Big Cypress vegetation (Long 1974). NPS staff 

are active in the NPS Inventory and Monitoring Program and have completed a thorough 

inventory of the Preserve’s vascular plants. 

The dominant tree in the preserve is cypress. 

Two species have been identified — bald 

(Taxodium distichum) and pond (T. ascendens) 

— although the taxonomic distinctions are still 

in question. Cypress are deciduous trees that 

can grow to 130 feet tall and reach diameters 

of 7 to 10 feet. Most of the larger cypress trees 

have been removed by logging, and only a few 

large trees remain. Cypress trees are highly 

resistant to fire and thrive in saturated soils. 

Cypress Strands and Domes, MixedHardwood Swamps, and Sloughs. Cypress 

forests are swamp communities that are dominated by bald cypress trees. These communities assume differences in response to competition and abiotic factors, so that several types 

of cypress forest can be identified. In southern 

Florida, cypress strands, cypress domes, 

mixed-hardwood and cypress swamps, and 

dwarf (hatrack) cypress communities are 

common. The Big Cypress Swamp, much of 

which occurs in Big Cypress National Preserve, is mostly composed of these types of 

cypress forests. In many situations, the cypress 

trees here live in conditions that do not support robust growth so that the trees do not 

attain great size (e. g., dwarf cypress 
Legend

Addition Boundary

Cypress

Hammocks

Mangrove

Pinelands

Prairie

Disturbed

Water

Northeast Addition 

Big Cypress National Preserve

General Management Plan

National Park Service

United States Department of the Interior

DSC • October 2010 • 176/20081

Vegetation

The National Park Service shall not be held liable for improper or 

incorrect use of the data described and or contained herein. The 

National Park Service gives no warranty, expressed or implied, as 

to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of this data.

Miles

0 .5 21 543

N

Map 9

75

75

29

29

29

837

837 841

839

41

Legend

Addition Boundary

Cypress

Hammocks

Mangrove

Pinelands

Prairie

Disturbed

Water

Western Addition

Big Cypress National Preserve

General Management Plan

National Park Service

United States Department of the Interior

DSC • October 2010 • 176/20082

Map 10

Vegetation

The National Park Service shall not be held liable for improper or 

incorrect use of the data described and or contained herein. The 

National Park Service gives no warranty, expressed or implied, as 

to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of this data.

Miles

0 .5 21 543

N

Turner River Road

Upper

Wagonwheel

Road

Birdon Road

Northeast Addition

Natural Resources 

153 

communities). The name “Big Cypress” is 

derived from the large area dominated by 

various cypress communities, rather than the 

size of the resident trees. 

Limestone caprock, which is common 

throughout much of the Addition, is usually 

only a few inches beneath the ground surface. 

The fracturing and rearrangement of the limestone results in a depression of the substrate 

(the surface on which an organism lives), so 

that the ground surface in the depression or 

solution hole is closer to the water table than 

the surrounding area. Cypress forests typically 

occur in the areas of the solution holes. The 

breaks in the limestone also allow the roots of 

large plants to penetrate well below the soil 

surface, so trees are able to become 

established. Because the substrate surface is 

near to, or below, the water for most of the 

year (i.e., has a long hydroperiod), trees that 

are adapted to long hydroperiods survive and 

dominate these communities. In the region, 

bald cypress trees are the common dominants 

in these hydric communities. As cypress and 

other trees become established, the leaves and 

branches that are shed from the trees collect 

in the solution hole depression, which is 

usually underwater. As a result, organic 

material in the soils of these communities 

decomposes slowly and often becomes a thick 

mantle on the substrate surface. 

This slow decomposition and buildup of 

organic material tends to increase the acidity 

of the water in these communities. Limestone 

(calcium carbonate), which is very common in 

the substrate surrounding the cypress forests, 

is soluble in acidic solutions and neutralizes 

acidity as it dissolves. The dissolution of 

limestone results in a surface water solution 

that is saturated with calcium. This is 

important in the formation of marl, a soil 

component of prairies. 

Cypress Strands — Cypress strands are 

swamps that are dominated by bald cypress 

trees, similar to cypress domes (see below). 

The primary difference is that a strand is a 

linear feature rather than a small, discrete, 

dome-shaped community. Strands are 

generally much larger than domes, and so 

may be more diverse and biologically 

complex. Strands often contain hardwood 

trees that are adapted for hydric conditions, such as pop ash (Fraxinus 

caroliniana) or red maple (Acer rubrum). 

Shrub layers are sparse, but may consist of 

scattered dahoon holly (Ilex cassine), 

myrsine (Rapanea punctata), or swamp 

dogwood (Cornus foemina). Ground cover 

may be nearly absent because hydroperiods are often long, or it may be 

ephemeral and appearing during the dry 

season; swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum) 

is a common ground cover that is dominant in strands. Knolls within this vegetation type comprise a principal habitat for 

the rare royal palm (Roystonea elata), and 

older forests serve as homes for many birds, 

mammals, reptiles, and amphibians (U. S. 

Forest Service, Wade et al. 1980a). The 

substrates of these communities are 

inundated or saturated with water nearly 

year-round. 

Cypress Domes — Cypress domes are 

small, relatively discrete areas of freshwater swamp dominated by bald cypress 

trees. These areas are nearly circular and 

are often surrounded by marl prairies or 

herbaceous marsh community with few 

trees. The domed shape of these communities is produced by taller cypress trees 

growing near the center of the community 

and progressively shorter trees occurring 

near the peripheral areas. The centers of 

the dome communities and their associated 

solution hole substrates support the 

growth of cypress trees, with marginal 

growth conditions in the peripheral areas. 

In the margins of cypress domes, the 

community becomes transitional with the 

surrounding marl prairies. Limestone 

usually occurs near the substrate surface in 

these peripheral areas, and cypress trees 

are often unable to establish root systems 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

154 

beneath this layer of rock. The trees that 

survive in this area are usually smaller than 

those near the wetter central part of the 

dome. Also, because the trees in this marginal area are scattered and do not form a 

complete canopy, sufficient sunlight 

reaches the ground to support a substantial 

grass community, similar to that found in 

the adjacent prairies. 

Dry season fires are common in prairie 

communities, and they are carried into the 

cypress margins by the grassy ground 

cover. These fires ordinarily do not kill the 

cypress trees, but these fires can damage 

the trees enough to slow their growth. 

Thus, a difference in habitat conditions 

occurs, from a moist, nutrient-rich substrate with almost no fires near the center 

of the dome to a seasonally dry, nutrientpoor substrate with frequent fires at the 

periphery. The result is a community that 

supports tall, vigorous trees near the center 

of the dome with progressively shorter, less 

vigorous trees toward the margins. 

Mixed-Hardwood Swamps — Cypress 

swamps that contain significant populations of hardwood trees that co-dominate 

the tree canopy with bald cypress trees are 

often referenced as mixed hardwood and 

cypress swamps. Mixed hardwood swamps 

are essentially wetlands dominated by 

trees. Red bay (Persea borbonia), sabal 

palm (Sabal palmetto), pond apple (Anona 

glabra), or laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) 

commonly co-dominate these communities. Epiphytes are common in these 

communities, as greater tree diversities 

result in greater diversities of substrates 

available to epiphyte establishment. 

Several bromeliads (Tillandsia spp., 

Guzmania monostachia) and orchids, such 

as epidendrums (Epidendrum spp.), and 

ghost orchids (Polyradicion (Polyrrhiza)

lindenii) are found on the trunks and 

branches of these trees. Epiphytic ferns, 

such as shoestring fern (Vittaria lineata) 

and golden serpent fern (Phlebodium 

aureum), are common on the trunks of 

sabal palms. Vines, including poison ivy 

(Toxicodendron radicans), several grapes 

(Vitis spp.) and ratan vine (Berchemia 

scandens), are also common components of 

the tree canopy. These swamp communities are usually diverse, and may represent 

a stage of community succession later than 

the bald cypress-dominated community. 

Sloughs — Sloughs are sinuous, elongated 

natural drainage channels that are 

inundated most of the time. Dominant 

species are aquatic plants and include white 

water lily (Nymphea odorata), water hyssop 

(Bacopa caroliniana), and ludwigia 

(Ludwigia repens). Emergent plants are 

sparse, with spike rush common in some 

areas. Sloughs are generally a few feet to a 

few inches below adjacent marshes. Soils 

are mostly peat or muck, with submerged 

surface sediments rising and falling with 

fluctuating water levels. During severe 

droughts, surface sediments dry out and 

ground fires may develop, but generally 

sloughs are wet most of the year and have 

historically served as fire breaks for 

communities bordering the sloughs. When 

fires do occur, depressions are formed in 

the organic soils, and they fill with water to 

become ponds. Ponds and sloughs provide 

important habitat for alligators. 

Suitability for ORVs — Cypress strands, 

cypress domes, mixed hardwood swamps, 

and sloughs are the wettest of all vegetated 

communities in the Addition. The interiors 

of these areas serve as important refuges 

and concentration points for waterdependent wildlife during the annual dry 

season. Generally these communities are 

natural barriers to off-road vehicles. 

Because these wetlands are associated with 

topographic depressions, water depth 

increases substantially from their edges to 

the center. Most of the areas covered by 

these wetlands have unstable substrate, 

water that is too deep, or too many trees to 

support ORV use. 
Natural Resources 

155 

Deep water and large, closely spaced trees 

confine off-road vehicles to established, 

previously cut trails threading along the 

margins where mineral soil or bedrock 

provides sufficient traction and water 

depth is relatively shallow. ORV tracks 

usually encircle or skirt cypress domes 

along their outermost perimeter for the 

same reasons. There are relatively few 

ORV trails that are perpendicular to the 

forested drainages. ORV trails crossing 

strands and swamps are normally on wellestablished, deeply entrenched routes 

where the forest narrows and water levels 

are shallower. In the original Preserve, 

Duever et al. (1981) found that established 

ORV trails through strands and swamps 

had the deepest ruts of all vegetation types, 

and that typically trails were worn down to 

bedrock and filled with standing water. 

Sloughs typically contain deep water and 

deposits of muck or peat, all of which 

discourage the use of wheeled off-road 

vehicles. 

Prairies and Marshes. 

Prairies — Prairies are treeless areas 

dominated by grasses and grasslike plants. 

Herbaceous (wet) prairies and cypress 

prairies can be found in the Addition. 

Herbaceous (wet) prairie communities in 

the region are typically seasonally inundated short-grass communities. Herbaceous 

broad-leaved plants are common components of these communities, but these 

plants do not usually dominate them. 

Graminoids (herbaceous grasses or 

grasslike plants) such as muhly grass 

(Muhlenbergia capillaris), blue maidencane 

(Amphicarpum muhlenbergianum), or 

south Florida bluestem (Schizachyrium 

rhizomatum) often dominate these prairies. 

Prairie communities may occur on many 

soils, but these communities are often 

found on frequently flooded fine sands or 

calcium carbonate marls. Limestone is 

commonly near the soil surface in prairie 

areas, which does not support trees; thus 

vegetation is limited to ground cover. 

These areas are inundated for part of the 

year, and they receive much sunlight.

Prairies will burn during periods of drought 

and when sufficient fuel is present. Fire 

maintains prairies by eliminating invading 

trees and shrubs. 

Cypress prairies are communities that 

transition between short-grass prairies and 

cypress-dominated swamp communities 

and typically contain elements of both. 

Cypress prairies are usually dominated by 

graminoid ground cover made up of 

species common in prairies, such as muhly 

grass (Muhlenbergia capillaris), or saw grass 

(Cladium jamaicense). Bald cypress trees 

are common in these prairies, but seldom 

attain a large size. This is partly because the 

limestone caprock that is a common 

component of substrates in the region is 

close to the soil surface and inhibits the 

establishment and growth of cypress trees 

unless there are fractures in the limestone 

where the cypress trees can establish 

limited growth. These trees are called 

dwarf or hatrack cypress. These areas are 

inundated (usually less than 1 foot of water 

depth) through much of the wet season. 

Suitability for ORV Use — Prairies appear 

to be the vegetation community most 

impacted by ORV use. ORV trails in this 

community are easily distinguished on 

aerial photography. The tracks made by 

off-road vehicles persist and are even 

visible on small-scale aerial images. 

Impacts of ORV traffic in prairies include 

vegetation loss and exposed soils. Duever 

et al. (1981) and Duever et al. (1986b) 

described effects of ORV traffic in marl 

marshes and sand marshes in the original 

Preserve. Based on the species composition 

of these areas, these now appear to be 

classified as prairies. Duever et al. (1986b) 

observed that sand marshes that were not 

inundated were less likely to sustain heavy 

impacts from ORV use. This suggests that 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

156 

seasonal variation in hydrology may be an 

important factor in determining ORV 

effects, and that ORV use in prairies during 

the wet season should be minimized. 

ORV uses have been shown to alter plant 

community structure. After one year of 

recovery in the original Preserve, Duever et 

al. (1981) found that sawgrass and muhly 

grass were reduced in the tire lanes. 

Hyssop (Bacopa sp.) and bladderwort 

(Utricularia sp.) were common in the 

rutted areas; this was attributed to an 

increased hydroperiod in the tire ruts and 

increased sunlight from tree or shrub 

canopy removal within ORV use areas. 

After seven years, Duever et al. (1986b) 

found that four graminoids were more 

common in ORV trails than in comparison 

areas. Sawgrass was less common in the 

trails used by off-road vehicles than in the 

undisturbed comparison areas. 

Duever et al. (1981) and Duever et al. 

(1986b) also evaluated effects in “small 

cypress” communities. Descriptions of 

these areas in Duever et al. (1981) suggest 

that they may be similar to that of cypress 

prairies outlined above. These areas are 

closely aligned ecologically with marl 

prairies. Duever et al. (1981) indicated that 

of all five vegetative communities in the 

original Preserve tested with wheeled 

vehicles, the small cypress communities 

required the lowest amount of use by 

wheeled off-road vehicles to create “a 

significant impact.” Duever et al. (1986b) 

indicated recovery of small cypress communities was less than other communities 

seven years after intermediate and heavy 

impacts from wheeled off-road vehicles. 

Duever et al. (1981) found that small (less 

than 3 feet tall) cypress trees suffered 

minor damage in areas used by off-road 

vehicles, but that cypress trees between 3 

feet and 10 feet tall had severe damage. 

Damage to these trees and associated 

mortality increased with ORV use. This 

indicates that cypress trees between 3 and 

10 feet tall can be adversely affected in 

areas used by off-road vehicles, but that 

after limited ORV use, recovery of very 

small trees can occur quickly. 

Marshes — Since the preparation of the 

1991 General Management Plan, the 

classification of marshes in the Preserve 

has been changed to be consistent with 

vegetation classification throughout the 

south Florida region. Under the new 

classification of Welch et al. (1999), 

marshes now include many of the areas 

identified as prairies in 1991. 

Freshwater and saline marshes can be 

found in the Addition. Freshwater marshes 

are wetland communities that are dominated by herbaceous plants and occasional 

shrubs. These communities are typically 

inundated nearly year-round and have 

substrates with a thick organic mantle on 

the surface. Marshes are usually dominated 

by herbaceous species, but a marsh that is 

dominated by grasses or sedges may be 

considered a graminoid marsh. Grasses 

usually occur in areas without standing 

water during some part of the year, but 

related graminoids may be common in 

areas with prolonged hydroperiods. The 

graminoid that is probably most common 

in such areas is sawgrass. Sawgrass is a 

sedge (Cyperaceae) that is commonly 

found in wetlands with various depths to 

limestone, often with a significant organic 

peat layer covering the limestone. This 

organic layer is usually derived from 

sawgrass. Other similar communities that 

are dominated by different grasslike plants 

may also be graminoid marshes and would 

be identified by the graminoid that is the 

dominant ground cover plant. 

Freshwater marshes are commonly dominated by broad-leafed plants, such as 

pickerel weed (Pontederia cordata), cattail 

(Typha domingensis or T. latifolia), or duck 

potato (Sagittaria spp.). These wetlands 

have comparatively deep water (1.5–2.0 m) 
Natural Resources 

157 

during the wet season and persist as 

aquatic communities year-round or well 

into the dry season. These deeper areas 

provide refuge for fish during dry seasons, 

when few places are under water, and also 

tend to concentrate populations of fish and 

other aquatic animals as water levels 

decrease with dry weather. Many wading 

birds, such as wood storks (Mycteria 

americana) and American egrets 

(Casmerodius albus), depend on these 

concentrated prey populations to find 

sufficient food for nesting and brood 

rearing. 

Saline marshes occur in coastal areas and 

are often affected by marine systems. 

These communities, influenced by tidal 

fluctuations, have higher soil salinity than 

inland freshwater systems. Saline marshes 

that are far inland may be affected by 

marine waters only during extreme storm 

tides, such as those associated with hurricanes. This produces a change in salinity 

very infrequently, but the effects of this 

change may remain with the marsh 

community for several years. These communities are usually populated with plants 

that are typical of freshwater marshes but 

that are able to tolerate small increases in 

salinity. Plants that inhabit these areas 

include cattail (Typha domingensis), pond 

apple (Anona glabra) and cord grass 

(Spartina bakeri). These areas and other 

communities inland from coastal systems 

may be dominated by fresh water almost all 

of the time but may still be frequently 

influenced by tidal changes in water level. 

During the dry season, decreased flow of 

fresh water may allow salt water to flow 

farther inland than during the wet season. 

Nearer the coast, tidal systems are more 

likely to dominate, so that mixing of fresh 

water and salt water becomes more 

common. When salt water becomes diluted 

by fresh water, brackish water results. 

Communities that are dominated most of 

the year by brackish water are likely to be 

dominated by saline marsh with occasional 

mangrove trees. These saline marshes are 

often populated by black rush (Juncus 

romerianus) salt marsh cord grass 

(Spartina spp.), or salt grass (Distichlis 

spicata). Fires sweep through salt marshes 

when weather conditions and fuel loads are 

conducive. Without fire or frost, trees 

would eventually replace salt marsh 

vegetation (Forest Service, Wade et al. 

1980a). 

Suitability for ORV Use — ORV use has 

been shown to alter marsh plant composition and structure. Duever et al. (1981 and 

1986) described effects of ORV traffic in 

inundated sand marshes and peat marshes 

(wheeled vehicles were not tested in peat 

marshes). These communities appear to 

include much of the “marshes” category 

used here. These are open communities 

with few trees or shrubs, and ground cover 

is dominated by emergent herbs. Inundation is year-round or nearly year-round. 

Duever et al. (1981) indicated that off-road 

vehicles produced heavy impacts in inundated sand prairies, but less impact in 

noninundated sand prairies with the same 

amount of ORV use. Continuously inundated marl marshes were not tested with 

wheeled vehicles but appeared to be more 

affected when they were inundated than 

when the water table was below the ground 

surface. This suggests that marl marshes 

with extended hydroperiods may be 

quickly impacted by ORV use. 

In marl marsh communities in the original 

Preserve, Duever et al. (1981) found that 

panic grass (Panicum sp.), sawgrass and 

muhly grass decreased with increased ORV 

use. Bladderwort, often a floating aquatic 

plant, was common in the rutted areas; this 

was attributed to an increased hydroperiod 

in the tire ruts. Sand marsh communities 

showed little difference in plant diversities 

with comparison areas after one year. After 

seven years, coinwort (Centella asiatica)
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

158 

was more common in marl marsh areas 

used by off-road vehicles. 

Mangrove Forests. Mangrove forests (mangrove swamps) are intertidal wetlands dominated by hardwood trees that are tolerant of 

coastal, saline conditions. Three mangrove 

trees — red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), 

black mangrove (Avicennia germinans), and 

white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa) — 

and buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus), a 

mangrove associate, are common in southern 

Florida. These trees make up a dense forest on 

much of the coast in southern Florida and 

form scattered tree islands farther inland, 

where surface waters become brackish. 

Depending on the distance from the coast and 

seasonal runoff from inland freshwater 

systems, mangrove forest soils can vary in 

salinity. These changes in ground water and 

salt content create adverse conditions for 

most organisms, so that species richness in 

mangrove forests is usually low. Catastrophic 

events such as fires, frosts, hurricanes, and oil 

spills also limit mangrove productivity. Frosts 

severely prune mangroves, and hurricanes can 

destroy them. 

The mangrove communities in the Addition 

are found primarily in the southern part of the 

narrow strip of the Addition that is east of SR 

29 and adjacent to the Barron River and 

Everglades City. This area is currently open to 

motorized and nonmotorized boats. 

Suitability for ORV Use — Mangrove forests 

are not suitable for wheeled vehicles. Airboats 

have also caused damage to mangrove trees 

when wind generated by propellers damages 

leaves and small branches of mangrove trees. 

Florida law prohibits destruction of mangrove 

trees. 

Pinelands. Pinelands occur in areas that are 

higher than most wetlands, so their substrates 

are inundated less frequently. In the Addition, 

slash pine (Pinus elliottii) dominates these 

communities. Slash pine forests are woodland 

communities with pine trees that are spaced 

several yards apart, so that an incomplete tree 

canopy is formed. Depending on substrate, 

some of these woodlands form a pine and 

palmetto community, where scattered pine 

trees form an open (incomplete) canopy with 

a dense shrub layer composed mostly of saw 

palmetto (Serenoa repens). The palmetto 

shrub layer is usually dense so that groundcover does not become well established. 

Slash pine-dominated communities that occur 

on limestone outcrops are called pine rockland communities. These areas also develop a 

palmetto shrub layer, but the palmettos are 

usually not as dense as in the pine and 

palmetto communities. This allows the 

establishment of other shrubs and ground 

cover, so that pine rocklands are often more 

diverse than pine and palmetto communities 

living on sandy substrates. Pine rockland 

communities often contain plants that are 

associated with the Atlantic coastal ridge 

communities. 

The pine and palmetto and pine rockland 

communities are typically mesic communities, 

but frequently include extensive ecotonal 

(transitional) areas that are adjacent to wetlands. These ecotonal communities have brief 

or infrequent hydroperiods and contain elements of the adjacent wetlands. Palmettos 

apparently do not adapt well to hydric conditions and are not common in areas that are 

saturated or inundated often. Slash pines, 

however, tolerate some hydric conditions, so 

that in areas with short hydroperiods, slash 

pines commonly live without the saw palmetto 

understory. In these areas, the open pine 

canopy allows sunlight to penetrate, and 

graminoids commonly found in prairies are 

supported. 

Several ecotonal communities can be found in 

pinelands. These ecotonal communities occur 

in areas with subtle topographic differences, 

so that differences in the communities may 

occur because of differences in soil type, 
Natural Resources 

159 

hydrology, small elevation differences, or fire 

history. 

Pine needles, grasses, and other combustible 

materials accumulate relatively quickly in 

pinelands, and pinelands burn at frequent 

intervals. Pinelands are fire-dependent, and 

prescribed fires by NPS staff maintain the 

habitat viability by preventing hardwood 

succession. If fires are suppressed, pinelands 

eventually succeed to hardwood-dominated 

stands. 

Pinelands provide habitat for the federally 

listed red-cockaded woodpecker. Redcockaded woodpeckers form clusters of cavity 

trees within pinelands. NPS annual surveys of 

red-cockaded woodpecker clusters have 

documented no loss of pines due to ORV 

traffic. 

Suitability for ORV Use — Of all the plant 

communities in the original Preserve tested 

for ORV impacts by Duever et al. (1981), 

pinelands were the most resistant to adverse 

effects from ORV use. Wetter pine communities were more heavily affected. Duever et al. 

(1986b) found that two of three pineland areas 

affected by off-road vehicles had recovered 

after seven years, but that the third, and 

wettest, pineland had not fully recovered. 

Amounts of ground cover did not appear to be 

substantially altered by ORV use. Heights of 

plants in areas of ORV use were decreased, 

but the plants recovered in one growing 

season. 

Within the pineland understory, Duever et al.

(1981) found few differences in plant communities compared with undisturbed areas 

after one year. However, they did note slight 

increases in sawgrass, coinwort, and Hyptis sp. 

compared with undisturbed comparison sites, 

while panic grass and three-awn grass

(Aristida sp.) decreased with increased ORV 

use. After seven years, Duever et al. (1986b) 

indicated that Hypericum sp., Ludwigia sp., 

and yellow-eyed grass (Xyris sp.) were more 

common in ORV trails than in comparison 

areas, while fleabane (Pluchea sp.) was less 

common. Sawgrass was less common in the 

trails used by off-road vehicles than in the 

undisturbed comparison areas. 

Duever (1986) indicated that pinelands 

recovered more quickly than other areas, so 

that these areas may be considered favorably 

for designated trails. 

Hardwood Hammocks. Mesic and hydric 

hardwood hammocks are scattered throughout the Addition. Often appearing as islands of 

trees, hardwood hammock communities 

occur on slightly elevated areas, and the soils 

are generally drier than the surrounding 

wetlands. Hammocks are usually small areas 

(1 hectare or about 2.5 acres or less) that are 

surrounded by other communities; in the Big 

Cypress region, the surrounding community is 

typically a wetland swamp or prairie. These 

slightly elevated areas function as refuges for 

wildlife during periods of high water. Because 

soils remain moist most of the year, hardwood 

hammocks rarely burn, but they are susceptible to fire during extended droughts. Following a fire, the species composition of 

recolonized hammocks often changes 

significantly (Duever et al. 1986a). 

Hammocks are usually dominated by hardwood trees with sabal palms; saw palmettos 

frequently occur as part of the shrub layer and 

often appear to be remnants of an earlier, 

more open successional stage. Near the coast, 

these hammocks are protected from frosts by 

the adjacent Gulf of Mexico, so that tropical 

hardwoods dominate these hammocks. Many 

of these hammocks are located on shell 

mounds that were constructed by the Calusa 

Indians. These shell mounds support a 

diversity of tropical hardwoods, including, 

gumbo limbo (Bursera simaruba), mastic 

(Mastichodendron foetidissimum), and poison 

wood (Metopium toxiferum). 

Hammocks that occur inland are usually 

surrounded by freshwater wetlands; these 

may be swamps (wetlands dominated by trees) 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

160 

or wet prairies (wetlands dominated by 

herbaceous ground cover). Inland hammocks 

are usually dominated by live oak (Quercus 

virginiana or laurel oak trees with understories made up of cocoplum (Chrysobalanus 

icaco), snowberry (Chiococca alba), and 

beauty berry (Callicarpa americana). Ground 

cover is sparse, usually consisting of tufted 

grasses such as bluestem (Andropogon 

virginicus). Epiphytes are common, especially 

on the branches of oak trees, where resurrection fern (Polypodium polypodioides), many 

bromeliads, and several uncommon orchids 

grow. Many epiphytes also occur on the 

trunks and bootjacks (leaf bases that remain 

for some time on the palm trunk) of sabal 

palms, such as shoestring fern and golden 

serpent fern. Vines such as poison ivy, several 

grapes (Vitis spp.), and pepper vine 

(Ampelopsis arborea) are common canopy 

components. Elevated areas with sandy soils 

and limestone near the substrate surface often 

support cabbage palm (sabal palm) hammocks. These hammocks are usually not 

especially diverse, and have few trees other 

than sabal palms forming the tree canopy. 

Shrubs are uncommon, and ground cover is 

sparse. Vines and epiphytes may occur on the 

palm trunks, but these are also usually sparse. 

Suitability for ORV Use — Trees that dominate these hardwood hammock communities 

are often large, such as oaks, sabal palms, or 

wild tamarind (Lysiloma latisiliquum). As a 

result, ORV riders usually avoid hardwood 

hammocks, although the substrate in these 

areas would support ORV use. Hardwood 

hammocks are susceptible to invasion by 

unwanted exotic species, especially Brazilian 

pepper, when their soils and tree canopies are 

disturbed. 

Occasionally, smaller trees and shrubs in the 

understory may be subject to damage because 

they can be bent or broken by vehicles. 

Duever et al. (1986b) stated that abandoned 

trails in the original Preserve were vegetated 

by saltbush (Baccharis spp.) after seven years. 

Saltbush species are opportunistic in 

disturbed areas. Duever et al. (1986b) 

speculated that the abandoned trails would 

eventually succeed to the native understory 

species, but no further assessment has been 

conducted to determine if this is occurring. 

Hardwood hammock communities are 

commonly associated with archeological 

resources, and changes to substrates may 

affect cultural remnants. These communities 

are ordinarily small and isolated enough that 

they can be avoided. To reduce the risk of 

compromising cultural resources that may be 

in the hardwood hammock substrates, ORV 

use should be directed away from hammock 

communities. 

See map 11 for an illustration of the 

relationship between the location of the 

preferred alternative’s primary ORV trails and 

the Addition’s ecosystem types. 

Disturbed Areas. Disturbed areas, found 

throughout the Addition and intermixed 

within all of the above vegetation communities, are areas that have been affected by 

nature (fire, freeze, storms, extreme tides, etc.) 

or by man’s activities such as logging, canal 

and road construction, farming and grazing, 

oil extraction, ORV use, fire, introducing 

exotic species, earth moving, altering drainage, altering the chemistry of water or soils, or 

facility construction. Community succession 

has been altered in disturbed areas. Soils in 

disturbed areas differ with locations and 

original substrates. The result is a change in 

the ecosystem that usually allows colonization 

and recruitment of ruderal (weedy) species. 

These weeds are often exotic plants that 

outcompete natives and quickly dominate the 

disturbed area. 
Jerome

eland

Miles City

stown

Ochopee

DeepLake

Rest Area

BIG CYPRESS

NATIONAL PRESERVE

75

75

29

L-28 Interceptor Canal

Road Birdon

Wagonwheel

Road

No 

access

MM 70

MM 63

MM 51

Turner River Road

Bear Island Grade

Recreation Access Point(access on foot only)

Map 11 • Preferred Alternative Conceptual Primary ORV Trails and Ecosystem Type Big Cypress National Preserve–Addition General Management Plan United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service • DSC • October 2010 

0 5 10

Miles

Legend

Preserve BoundaryAddition BoundaryCanalExisting Access PointUnpavedRoad

UplandsWetlands, No Fill NeededWetlands, Fill NeededExisting Hiking TrailDesignated Primary ORV Trail

Key to Ecosystem

CypressHardwood HammockPinelandMangrove

Freshwater Marl PrairieFreshwater SloughCoastal MarshMarine and Estuarine

Natural Resources 

163 

Protected Plant Species 

As shown in table 12, two species of plants 

that reside in the Addition are listed as candidate species for federal listing as endangered 

or threatened. The state of Florida lists an 

additional 96 species that occur in the Addition as threatened or endangered, along with 

three more that are listed as commercially 

exploited. Collectively, these species warrant 

attention because they have had long-term 

population declines and are vulnerable to 

exploitation or environmental changes. Table 

12 displays the status of all 102 special status 

plant species that occur in the Addition. 

TABLE 12: LISTED PLANT SPECIES FOR BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE ADDITIONa

Common Name Scientific Name Designated Statusb

Federal State

 

Paurotis palm, Everglades palm Acoelorraphe wrightii T 

Golden leather fern Acrostichum aureum T 

Brittle maidenhair Adiantum tenerum E 

Sensitive joint-vetch, meadow 

joint-vetch 

Aeschynomene pratensis 

 E 

White colic-root, bracted colicroot 

Aletris bracteata 

 E 

Pineland-allamanda, pineland 

golden trumpet 

Angadenia berteroi 

 T 

Eared spleenwort Asplenium erosum E 

Bird’s-nest fern, wild birdnest fern Asplenium serratum E 

Pinepink Bletia purpurea T 

Fakahatchee bluethread Burmannia flava E 

Manyflowered grasspink Calopogon multiflorus E 

Spicewood, pale lidflower Calyptranthes pallens T 

Leafless bentspur orchid Campylocentrum pachyrrhizum E 

Narrow strap fern, narrow-leaved 

strap fern 

Campyloneurum angustifolium 

 E 

Tailed strap fern Campyloneurum costatum E 

Powdery strap airplant Catopsis berteroniana E 

Florida strap airplant Catopsis floribunda E 

Southern Florida sandmat Chamaesyce pergamena T 

Porter’s sandmat Chamaesyce porteriana E 

Satinleaf Chrysophyllum oliviforme T 

Coffee colubrina, greenheart Colubrina arborescens E 

Butterflybush, Curacao bush Cordia globosa E 

Quailberry, Christmasberry Crossopetalum ilicifolium T 

Pepperbush Croton humilis E 

Florida tree fern, red-hair comb 

fern 

Ctenitis sloanei 

 E 

Blodgett’s swallowwort Cynanchum blodgettii T 

Cowhorn orchid, cigar orchid Cyrtopodium punctatum E 

Florida prairieclover Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana Candidate E 

Ghost orchid, palmplolly Dendrophylax lindenii E 

Caribbean crabgrass Digitaria filiformis var. dolichophylla T 

Florida pineland crabgrass Digitaria pauciflora Candidate E 

Guiana-plum Drypetes lateriflora T 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

164 

Common Name Scientific Name Designated Statusb

Federal State

Clamshell orchid, cockleshell 

orchid 

Encyclia cochleata 

 E 

Florida butterfly orchid Encyclia tampensis CE 

Dingy-flowered star orchid Epidendrum anceps E 

Acuna’s star orchid Epidendrum blancheanum E 

Umbrella star orchid Epidendrum floridense E 

Night-blooming epidendrum, 

night-scented orchid 

Epidendrum nocturnum 

 E 

Stiff-flower star orchid Epidendrum rigidum E 

Sanibel Island love grass Eragrostis tracyi E 

Beach verbena, coastal mock 

vervain 

Glandularia maritima 

 E 

Wild cotton, upland cotton Gossypium hirsutum E 

West Indian tufted airplant Guzmania monostachia E 

Snowy orchid Habenaria nivea T 

Needleroot airplant orchid Harrisella porrecta T 

Poeppig’s rosemallow Hibiscus poeppigii E 

Hanging club-moss Huperzia dichotoma E 

Delicate violet orchid Ionopsis utricularioides E 

Rockland morningglory Ipomoea tenuissima E 

Pineland clustervine Jacquemontia curtisii T 

Skyblue clustervine Jacquemontia pentanthos E 

West coast lantana, Sanibel 

shrubverbena 

Lantana depressa var. sanibelensis

 E 

Catesby’s lily, pine lily Lilium catesbaei T 

Small’s flax Linum carteri var. smallii E 

Pantropical widelip orchid Liparis nervosa E 

Nodding club-moss Lycopodiella cernua CE 

Hidden orchid Maxillaria crassifolia E 

Pineland blackanthers Melanthera parvifolia T 

Climbing vine fern Microgramma heterophylla E 

Twinberry, Simpson’s stopper Myrcianthes fragrans T 

Giant sword fern Nephrolepis biserrata T 

Wild basil, wild sweet basil Ocimum campechianum E 

Florida dancinglady orchid Oncidium ensatum E 

Hand fern Ophioglossum palmatum E 

Erect pricklypear Opuntia stricta T 

Royal fern Osmunda regalis var. spectabilis CE 

Pineland passionflower Passiflora pallens E 

Comb polypody Pecluma ptilodon var. caespitosa E 

Cypress peperomia Peperomia glabella E 

Florida peperomia, baby 

rubberplant 

Peperomia obtusifolia 

 E 

Yerba linda Peperomia rotundifolia E 

Southern fogfruit Phyla stoechadifolia E 

Greater yellowspike orchid Polystachya concreta E 

Bahama ladder brake Pteris bahamensis T 

Swartz’s snoutbean Rhynchosia swartzii E 

Royal palm, Florida royal palm Roystonea regia E 

Leafless beaked lady’s-tresses Sacoila lanceolata T 

Ray fern Schizaea pennula E 

Florida Keys nutrush Scleria lithosperma E 
Natural Resources 

165 

Common Name Scientific Name Designated Statusb

Federal State

Everglades bully Sideroxylon relinatum subsp. 

Austrofloridense E 

Mullein nightshade Solanum verbascifolium T 

Everglades Keys false buttonweed Spermacoce terminalis T 

Texas ladiestresses Spiranthes brevilabris E 

Lacelip lady’s-tresses Spiranthes laciniata T 

Longlip lady’s-tresses Spiranthes longilabris T 

Southern lady’s-tresses Spiranthes torta E 

West Indian mahogany Swietenia mahagoni T 

Broad halbard fern Tectaria heracleifolia T 

Curtiss’ hoarypea Tephrosia angustissima var. curtissii E 

Lattice-vein fern Thelypteris reticulata E 

Reflexed wild-pine, northern 

needleleaf 

Tillandsia balbisiana 

 T 

Stiff-leaved wild-pine, cardinal 

airplant 

Tillandsia fasciculata var. densispica

 E 

Banded wild-pine, twisted 

airplant 

Tillandsia flexuosa 

 T 

Hoary wild-pine, fuzzywuzzy 

airplant 

Tillandsia pruinosa 

 E 

Giant wild-pine, giant airplant Tillandsia utriculata E 

Soft-leaved wild-pine, leatherleaf 

airplant 

Tillandsia variabilis 

 T 

Chiggery grapes Tournefortia hirsutissima E 

Entire-winged bristle fern Trichomanes holopterum E 

Hoopvine Trichostigma octandrum E 

Florida gamagrass Tripsacum floridanum T 

Leafy vanilla Vanilla phaeantha E 

Rain-lily, redmargin zephyrlily Zephyranthes simpsonii T 

Sources: USFWS 2006; Florida Department of Agriculture, Division of Plant Industry 2006; Florida 

Natural Areas Inventory 2006. 

 a Species in this table include those that have been documented in the preserve- it does not 

include listed species for Collier County that are not present in the preserve. 

 b E = endangered Candidate= species is a candidate for listing as threatened or 

endangered 

 T = threatened CE = commercially exploited

Exotic and Nonnative Plant Species 

Thousands of nonnative plant species have 

been introduced to south Florida for ornamental plantings, agriculture, and other 

human uses. Because of the relative youth of 

the south Florida landmass and the semitropical climate, it is theorized that the region 

is particularly susceptible to invasion by exotic 

plant species (Duever et al. 1986a). Some 297 

exotic plants have become established in south 

Florida (Duever et al. 1986a). Many of these 

are reported from Big Cypress National 

Preserve, but most are restricted to early 

successional stages on disturbed sites, and only 

a few pose a long-term threat to native 

communities. Of these, five species — 

melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), 

Brazilian pepper, water hyacinth (Eichhornia 

crassipes), hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), and 

Old World climbing fern (Lygodium 

microphyllum) — are fairly common in the 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

166 

Preserve and the Addition. Australian pine 

(Casuarina spp.) was identified as an exotic 

species of concern; however, in the last two 

decades it has been eradicated. Today, except 

for those on private property, all known 

Australian pine plants have been eliminated 

from the Preserve and the Addition. Crested 

floatinghart (Nymphoides cristata), a relatively 

new exotic for south Florida, was discovered 

in the Preserve in August 2006. Infestations are 

restricted to about 4 miles of canal along 

Tamiami Trail and two strand swamps south of 

the trail (NPS 2006a). Evidence suggests that 

this species was introduced to the Preserve 

through the transfer of propagules attached to 

a net or other fishing gear. Invasion of the 

adjacent swamps likely occurred from water 

flowing through culverts in the area. Water 

lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) and air potato 

(Dioscorea bulbifera) are also known to be 

present. 

Melaleuca and Brazilian pepper are capable 

of invading native plant communities, and 

control efforts have been concentrated on 

these species. 

The exotic plant control program is carried 

out by the NPS contractors and maintenance 

and resource management staff. NPS staff are 

active participants in the Florida Exotic Pest 

Plant Council, an interagency task force 

organized to share technical information on 

the control of exotics, monitor the distribution of exotics in south Florida, and collaborate on comprehensive control strategies. 

Even though exotics are spread by natural 

events (such as hurricanes) and animals (such 

as raccoons and birds), there are indications 

that off-road vehicles have resulted in the 

spread of exotic and invasive plants within the 

Preserve, including Brazilian pepper,

melaleuca, and Old World climbing fern. Offroad vehicles transport seed in their tire treads 

and vehicle beds and distribute it in currently 

unaffected areas of the Preserve as they travel. 

Evidence of the spread of invasive plants 

along ORV trails has been documented 

around the Monroe Station trailhead (Pernas 

1999). 

Melaleuca. Melaleuca, a native of Australia 

and New Guinea, was introduced to Florida 

around 1910 for landscaping. Perhaps the first 

introduction of melaleuca in Big Cypress was 

at Monroe Station around 1940. Because it 

grows in pure stands at the expense of native 

plants and can occupy large areas, melaleuca is 

considered to be a major threat to the 

ecological integrity of the Preserve. 

Melaleuca has successfully invaded much of 

south Florida because of its outstanding 

ability to propagate. A mature tree may 

contain tens of thousands of small woody 

seed capsules along its branches, and each 

capsule contains about 250 seeds. The capsules remain closed as long as they receive 

moisture from the tree’s vascular system. 

However, if the vascular system fails due to 

damage by fire, frost, cutting, herbicidal 

injury, or simply old age, the capsules will 

slowly dry out, open, and release hundreds 

of thousands of seeds. The seeds fall within a 

short distance of the parent tree and germinate best on open, moist soils. Germination 

is limited on very dry or very wet soils and 

under dense canopy cover. As a result, 

melaleuca does well in prairies and open, 

moist pinelands, but is slower to invade 

wetter communities such as cypress domes 

and strands. 

Melaleuca is extremely fire tolerant. The 

spongy inner bark insulates the trunk while 

the papery outer bark and oil-rich leaves 

readily carry fire. Following a fire, melaleucas 

will both release seeds and resprout, and fires 

create excellent conditions for melaleuca 

seed germination and seedling survival. 

Hence, fire in a mature melaleuca stand can 

encourage the exotic to spread. 

Melaleuca is controlled through two primary 

methods: (1) hand pulling — manually 

pulling the plants when they are small 

enough, and (2) cut stump — brushing or 
Natural Resources 

167 

spraying herbicide on freshly cut stump 

surfaces. Both techniques are labor intensive, 

and trained personnel are required to handle 

the herbicides. Once mature, seed-bearing 

trees have been killed, prescribed fire or 

cutting may be used to control seedlings and 

sprouts. 

The entire Addition has been inspected for 

the presence of melaleuca plants, and about 

632,000 melaleuca stems have been treated 

and/or removed. Today, melaleuca is 

considered to be under control within the 

Preserve and the Addition. Future treatments 

of melaleuca in the Addition will focus on retreating previously treated areas. 

Brazilian Pepper. A native of South 

America, Brazilian pepper was first 

introduced to south Florida around 1900. It 

is now widespread in the region, primarily on 

disturbed, well-drained sites. 

Brazilian pepper reproduces by seed. Seeds 

are produced in bright red berries that are 

ingested by birds and other wildlife and then 

spread to other areas. Ingestion appears to 

improve seed germination potential. 

Fire has variable effects on pepper plants. 

Seedlings are killed by fairly frequent fires; 

however, in more mature stands trees may be 

top-killed by fires but can resprout and 

reoccupy a burned area. Intense fires on 

upland sites tend to eliminate competing 

vegetation and prepare good seedbed 

conditions for a Schinus invasion. 

Like melaleuca, Brazilian pepper occurs in 

dense, pure stands, particularly in the 

Addition. However, unlike melaleuca, dense 

pepper stands are almost always confined to 

areas with substrate disturbance (roadsides, 

canal banks, abandoned homesites, or 

camps— typically areas in which fill has been 

placed to create dry land). As some upland 

areas mature toward hardwood hammock 

vegetation, Brazilian pepper will decline in 

importance. However, in most upland areas 

the natural fire cycle is likely to maintain 

Brazilian pepper as a component of the 

understory indefinitely. Fire and hydrological 

cycles seem to prevent Brazilian pepper from 

invading undisturbed prairies, marshes, and 

other more moist types of environments. 

Brazilian pepper occurs in mesic communities 

nearly throughout the Preserve, especially in 

the Addition. It is often found on old farm 

fields, spoil banks, and canal berms. In 2005 

NPS staff initiated large-scale treatment of 

Brazilian pepper in the Addition north of I-75 

and west of Nobles Grade. This is an area with 

perhaps the greatest concentration of 

Brazilian pepper in the entire Preserve. Much 

of this area was disturbed by small-scale 

agriculture and grazing, with several hunting 

camps and many swamp buggy trails; these 

changes to the landscape created significant 

areas for Brazilian pepper establishment. In 

2005 about 780 acres were treated for dense 

infestation, and in 2006 about 10,058 acres of 

moderate to dense infestation of Brazilian 

pepper were treated, mostly in the area 

between Nobles and Bundschu grades (NPS 

2006a). Collectively, nearly 11,000 acres in the 

Addition have been treated. Infestations were 

heaviest along Nobles Grade and in 

abandoned hunt camp sites. Treatments of 

infestations around Deep Lake and in the strip 

of land along SR 29 are planned for early 2009. 

The overall goal is for stopping the spread of 

Brazilian pepper in the entire Preserve, 

including the Addition, which will likely take 

about 10 years (NPS 2006a). 

Water Hyacinth and Hydrilla. Water 

hyacinth and hydrilla have invaded the 

Addition’s canal systems and excavated 

ponds, where they often form dense mats. 

Neither plant can invade seasonally dry 

wetlands, and the plants appear to be 

restricted to permanent water in canals and 

ponds. For this reason no major control 

program is currently warranted. 

Old World Climbing Fern. This plant is 

rapidly becoming a significant problem 

species throughout southern Florida. It 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

168 

apparently originated in the Palm Beach 

County area on the east coast of the state and 

has been spreading rapidly westward and 

southward. The first recorded treatment of 

Old World climbing fern in the Preserve 

occurred in 1998. Since then this exotic 

species has been found in nearly 100 sites in 

the Preserve. Infestations have been found 

throughout the Preserve, with the greatest 

concentration in the northeast portion of the 

Addition. Most of these infestations are small 

(<0.5 acre), although some larger patches have 

been found. To date all known infestations of 

this plant in the Addition have been treated. 

However, further establishment of this fern in 

the Addition is anticipated, and detailed 

reconnaissance to locate infestations will 

occur annually. All of the known Old World 

climbing fern in the Addition, about 150 acres, 

has been treated. In 2006 treatments were 

focused on infestations in the Kissimmee Billy 

and Cow Bell Strands. The overall goal is to 

prevent incipient infestations of Old World 

climbing fern from becoming major 

eradication problems. 

Another, similar exotic climbing fern 

(Lygodium japonicum) is causing similar 

problems with native communities, but this 

plant is more common to the north. Although 

Lygodium japonicum has been recorded in the 

Addition, it is not common. 

FIRE ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT 

The natural vegetation communities of Big 

Cypress are dynamic, and boundaries of the 

communities shift over time. The two major 

influences on vegetation distribution are 

hydroperiods and fires; other significant 

factors are frost and hurricane damage, 

although they are somewhat less important 

because they occur infrequently. Of these 

influences, only fire can be used as a practical 

management application in natural areas. 

The importance of fire in the natural environment of south Florida is well documented 

(Forest Service, Wade et al. 1980a; NPS 1953; 

Davis 1943). All natural communities in the 

region are affected by fire, and many not only 

survive periodic burning but are ultimately 

dependent on fire for their perpetuation. 

Many plants in fire-dependent communities, 

such as prairies and pinelands, are highly 

flammable, and fires spread rapidly in these 

communities. Ignition sources are plentiful. 

south Florida has the highest incidence of 

lightning of any region in the nation, and 

there is also a long history of human-caused 

fire (Forest Service, Wade et al. 1980a). 

Lightning-caused fires can occur year-round, 

but are more typical during the latter part of 

the dry season just before the summer rains 

begin. Human-caused fires can also occur 

any time but tend to be more frequent in the 

dry winter months. Human-caused fires have 

probably been an influence on the regional 

vegetation for several thousand years 

(Duever et al. 1986a). Frequent ignition and 

high flammability, particularly in combination with annual dry seasons, create an 

extraordinarily high fire frequency, and fires 

in south Florida tend to be large. 

The effects of fires in Big Cypress are 

extremely complex and depend on factors 

such as the season, intensity, extent, and 

duration of burning and the susceptibility 

and responsiveness of vegetation to fire 

damage. The flammability of vegetation types 

varies through the annual wet and dry 

seasons and from year to year. For example, 

drier, more upland types such as pinelands 

and some prairies are susceptible to fire 

earlier in the year than most wet prairies and 

marshlands, which dry out as the season 

progresses. However, hardwood hammocks, 

mixed-hardwood swamps, and cypress 

strands are rarely dry enough to burn except 

during extended droughts. 

Roughly 90% of the Addition consists of 

plant communities (cypress and mixed hardwood swamps, marl prairies and marshes, 

and pinelands) that require periodic fire for 

perpetuation (Burch 2003). In such com-
Natural Resources 

169 

munities, surface fires tend to eliminate 

competing vegetation, stimulate sprouting or 

seed production, create seedbed conditions, 

and release nutrients. Without cyclic fire, 

fire-tolerant species decrease in reproduction as a site is invaded and eventually 

dominated by fire-intolerant plants. Natural 

fire intervals range from as frequent as every 

3 to 5 years in prairies to as long as every 50 

to 100 years in mixed hardwood swamps 

(Burch 2003). 

Although periodic surface fires tend to 

maintain certain communities, extreme fire 

conditions can dramatically alter plant, and 

consequently animal, distribution. When the 

fire cycle is retarded, organic materials 

accumulate and create hazardous fuel levels 

that can threaten even fire-tolerant species. 

Prolonged droughts or human-caused 

drainage can dry out the organic soils of 

many plant communities and, when coupled 

with hazardous fuel accumulations, can 

result in intense fires that consume organic 

soil materials. Peat fires, as such fires are 

called, can literally burn the soil out from 

under established vegetation, radically 

changing the plant composition. Peat fires 

tend to lower the surface level of the burned 

area, thereby extending the hydroperiod and 

affecting the replacement vegetation. The 

pond in the middle of a cypress dome, for 

instance, may be enlarged by a peat fire. In an 

extreme example, a hardwood hammock on 

deep organic soil may be completely burned 

and replaced by an open pond. 

It would not be possible to exclude fire from 

the Addition, nor would it be desirable to do 

so. It is the job of resource managers not 

simply to stop fires, but rather to attempt to 

control where, when, and how intensely they 

burn. 

Recent fire activity in the Addition has 

affected many of its vegetation communities. 

During May and June 2007 a lightning-caused 

fire burned about 64,000 acres east of SR 29 

on both sides of I-75. Two fires that burned 

on the north side of I-75 came together and 

created 24 miles of fire line (from mile 

markers 52 to 76). 

The NPS fire management program covers the 

Addition and is guided by the Fire Management Plan (NPS 2005). The NPS staff uses an 

integrated program of wildland fire suppression and prescribed fire. The Fire Management 

Plan is being amended to include the management of naturally ignited wildland fires to 

accomplish specific, pre-stated resource 

management objectives in predefined geographic areas outlined in the Fire Management 

Plan. The NPS prescribed fire management 

program at Big Cypress is the largest in the 

national park system in terms of the amount of 

burning accomplished — about 40,000 acres 

annually to reduce accumulated fuels in plant 

communities. This program has about 20 fulltime employees. NPS fire management staff 

work closely with property owners in the area 

as well as the state’s Division of Forestry 

because state restrictions often constrain fire 

operations. 

Management-ignited fires (prescribed fires) 

have been used in the Addition to reduce 

hazardous fuel accumulations around 

property and in historically high arson areas, 

to improve pastures on grazing allotments 

(this was a historic land use practice; no 

grazing is currently allowed in the Addition), 

to maintain habitat for the Cape Sable seaside 

sparrow and red-cockaded woodpecker, to 

aid in the removal of exotic plants, and to 

research the effects of fire on prairie 

vegetation. Burning is also used to reduce the 

debris from demolished structures — but 

only at sites that are tolerant of prescribed 

burning. All prescribed fires are conducted in 

compliance with state and federal fire 

management regulations. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

170 

WATER RESOURCES 

Hydrologic Cycle 

The Big Cypress Swamp is a recognized 

physiographic province in southwestern 

Florida. It is a source of recharge for the 

shallow aquifers of south Florida and is 

important to the integrity of the water 

resources in the western part of Everglades 

National Park. The hydrological features of the 

swamp were recognized by Congress when it 

established Big Cypress National Preserve and 

the Addition. 

The original Preserve is essentially a raindriven hydrologic unit, and for the most part it 

is not dependent on adjacent land for water 

flow. However, the Addition is more 

prominently influenced by upstream inputs 

from external drainages (Map 12: Hydrology 

of the Addition). 

Like the original Preserve, the Addition is 

flooded with a shallow sheet of surface water 

starting shortly after the onset of the rainy 

season (usually in June) and ending in the 

winter dry season after surface waters recede. 

Rainfall averages 54 inches per year, but it has 

ranged from 35 inches to 80 inches per year. 

Summer rains are usually short, intense, and 

frequent. Winter rains are a result of frontal 

systems, and they last longer and have less 

intensity. Tropical systems, including 

hurricanes, occur most frequently in 

September and October and can sometimes 

bring significant and torrential rainfall. 

During the rainy season, shallow depressions 

fill with water. Because of the poor drainage, 

water stands on the land until it evaporates, 

infiltrates to the underlying aquifer, or slowly 

drains off through sloughs or strands. Thus, at 

the peak of the rainy season as much as 90% of 

the Addition is inundated to depths ranging 

from a few inches to more than 3 feet. When 

the dry season begins, the water level starts to 

recede. The recession normally continues into 

May, when perhaps only 10% of the Addition 

is covered by water in ponds, cypress domes, 

and sloughs. The water regimen of the area 

largely determines the patterns in which 

temperate and tropical vegetative communities 

and their related wildlife species occur. 

Surface Water Flows 

The Addition lies within a large interconnected freshwater system called the KissimmeeLake Okeechobee-Everglades Watershed. 

This watershed covers almost 11,000 square 

miles in south-central Florida and is the 

dominant freshwater supply for the region’s 

population centers. 

The Addition is exceptionally flat, with a 

typical gradient of only 5 to 10 inches per mile. 

Surface water hydrology of the Addition is 

typically characterized as a “sheet flow” 

flooding regime. During the wet season, the 

landscape becomes covered with a shallow, 

continuous expanse of water that flows slowly 

toward the coast. Water movement is almost 

imperceptible in the interior of the original 

Preserve, where the terrain slopes an average 

of less than a foot per mile. However, flows 

are easily observable where the expanse of 

sheet flow is constricted to pass under a 

roadway or is channeled into a canal. 

Typically, marsh, prairie, and cypress areas 

will have water depths of 1 to 3 feet, while 

pinelands and hammock habitats will have 

little or no water. 

After surface flows have ceased, water losses 

continue through evapotranspiration and 

groundwater seepage. The Addition typically 

has an almost full drydown condition during 

the late spring, before the onset of summer 

rainfall. During drydown condition, standing 

water is retained only in the deepest 

depressions and canals. 

Flows tend to follow bedrock undulations, 

which are generally oriented in a northeastsouthwesterly direction and range in relief 

from approximately 1 foot to as much as 10 
Map 12

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

DSC • October 2010 • 176/20083

Hydrology of the Addition

Big Cypress National Preserve – Addition

General Management Plan

Addition Lands

Big Cypress Swamp

Mangroves

Everglades

General direction of 

surface-water flow

N

Legend

0 5 10 Miles

41

Northeast Addition 

Western Addition 

Hendry County Line

Gulf of 

Mexico

Broward County Line

Everglades National Park

Big Cypress National Preserve

Natural Resources 

173 

feet. These low areas control surface water 

flows because the water table is below the 

crests of the undulations most of the time. 

Surface flows in the Addition are influenced 

by upstream management practices and 

internal barriers to flow. Major physical 

alterations of the landscape and associated 

water management practices have greatly 

modified the volume, timing, distribution, and 

quality of surface water in south Florida. Since 

the 1880s, development was assisted by largescale drainage of wetlands, canal and levee 

building, road construction, agriculture, 

residential and commercial development, and 

operation of pumps and flood gates. Today, 

many portions of the watershed are drier or 

wetter for longer periods than before such 

development and have poorer water quality 

related to agricultural and urban runoff. 

Investigators have documented that surface 

water in the Big Cypress vicinity preferentially 

flows in channels rather than in adjacent 

wetlands (Duever et al. 1981; Pernas et al. 

1995). However, Duever et al. (1986a) also 

observed that topographic irregularities interrupted excessive drainage. Channelization is 

of particular concern at the southern 

boundary of the original Preserve and the 

Addition where fresh water and salt water mix 

and where changes in salinity can change the 

vegetation composition. 

A recent review of historical water-level 

information by NPS staff showed an increase 

in the duration of surface water inundation in 

the 1990s relative to the two previous decades 

(Sobczak and Pernas 2000). It is thought that 

the wetter condition in the 1990s was caused 

by increased rainfall amounts, but upstream 

water releases, gate operations in adjacent 

areas, and features within the Preserve that 

block and channelize flow also contributed to 

the condition. Because the relatively dry 

conditions that prevailed in the 1970s and 

1980s also were influenced by water management practices, there is uncertainty regarding 

future hydrologic conditions, both in terms of 

the weather patterns and the Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan (U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers 1999). 

Major physical and operational alterations 

that will directly impact the Addition during 

the next 50 years include removal of part or all 

of the L-28 canal and levee, partial modification of the L-28 Tie Back, alteration of flows at 

the northern boundary of the Addition, and 

changes in the operational rules for regulating 

flows in adjacent and upstream areas. As 

shown in Map 12: Hydrology of the Addition, 

the L-28 canal system is directly east of the 

Addition boundary and interrupts the 

generally northeast to southwest flow of water 

across the Addition. Water management 

practices from upstream citrus expansion may 

influence high-water conditions along the 

northeast portion of the Addition, but the 

extent of this impact (if any) is unclear. 

Surface Water Flows and ORV Use.

Flattened vegetation and tire tracks at roadside entry points are generally the extent of 

ORV effects seen by most observers. However, aerial views of the Addition show a vast 

network of ORV trails and travel corridors. 

This network of tire ruts and ridges could be 

influencing the volume, timing, and 

distribution of surface water flows. 

The extent, occurrence, and severity of effects 

that off-road vehicles have had on surface 

water flows of the Addition are largely 

unknown. However, ORV ruts, which can be 

two or more feet deep, can channel water and 

potentially alter natural water flow patterns 

and timing. Two studies have documented 

greater water flow rates within ORV ruts than 

in adjacent undisturbed areas. Duever et al. 

(1981) found that over wet and dry seasons, 

water flows accelerated from two to four 

times in trails oriented parallel to the direction 

of water flows. Flows in some trails continued 

after water had ceased flowing in surrounding 

areas, possibly leading to a shortened natural 

hydroperiod in a localized area. Pernas et al. 

(1995) found that surface water flow always 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

174

followed airboat trails, regardless of the trail 

orientation. Within the study area, these flow 

rates were accelerated approximately five 

times faster within the airboat trails than in 

adjacent undisturbed areas. 

Duever et al. (1986a) hypothesized that trails 

that were extensively rutted and oriented 

parallel to flow could drain surface water from 

an adjacent wetland, particularly in low-lying 

areas. However, they also observed that 

topographic irregularities interrupted 

excessive drainage effects, so that impacts 

tended to be localized. 

Groundwater 

The Addition is underlain by an extensive, 

shallow, surficial aquifer, which serves as the 

main source of fresh water in Collier County. 

The aquifer lies in a porous limestone 

formation that is approximately 50-100 feet 

thick on the Addition’s western boundary and 

generally diminishes in thickness to the east. 

Throughout much of the Addition, the 

limestone of this shallow, unconfined aquifer 

is within 10 feet of the surface. Groundwater 

travels relatively quickly through the formation and is recharged quickly by fresh surface 

water flows. Where limestone or other porous 

aquifers are near the coast, salty seawater can 

begin to move inward and infiltrate freshwater 

aquifers. This is particularly problematic 

where fresh groundwater is pumped to provide urban water supplies. Rapid development 

in south Florida has resulted in saline marine 

groundwater moving inward more than 15 

miles in some places (USGS 2001). During the 

rainy season, groundwater levels are high. By 

April, the usual end of the dry season, water 

levels normally reach their annual lows. 

Water Quality 

The water in Big Cypress is relatively unpolluted. The fresh surface waters of Big Cypress 

National Preserve are designated as Outstanding Florida Waters. This is a state designation, 

delegated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Water Act, 

and it is intended to protect existing, highquality waters. The Big Cypress Swamp is also 

designated as an Area of Critical State Concern 

by Florida state statute (Chapter 380.05). This 

designation provides the state’s Division of 

Community Planning with oversight on local 

development projects and comprehensive 

planning within the designated area (Collier 

County). 

Concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus, total 

organic carbon, and persistent pesticides, 

which often serve as indicators of pollution, 

are generally similar to concentrations in 

nearby, relatively uninhabited areas, and 

concentrations are considerably less than 

those of nearby urbanized areas. Water quality 

changes occur seasonally and diurnally in Big 

Cypress and are related to the natural hydrologic and biologic regimes. The seasonal recession of water levels triggers physical, chemical, 

and biological changes in water quality. During 

low water, diurnal fluctuations in dissolved 

oxygen are greatest as a result of the high 

concentration of organisms in the remaining 

water. During the day plants produce excess 

oxygen by photosynthesis. At night dissolved 

oxygen decreases as photosynthesis ceases and 

respiration demands are met. Fish kills sometimes occur during periods of low dissolved 

oxygen; they have been observed in the spring 

in the Tamiami Canal about 10 miles west of 

Forty-Mile Bend, and often they spread both 

east and west for several miles. 

The low-nutrient, high-quality water in the 

Addition is vulnerable to degradation from 

contaminants. Because the water is of such 

high quality, even small amounts of contaminants can result in relatively large adverse 

effects. External sources of pollution primarily 

include nutrient-enriched runoff from 

upstream agricultural and urban activities, 

especially in the north. Internal contaminant 

sources include NPS development, operation 

of boats and vehicles within the original 
Natural Resources 

175 

Preserve, and oil and gas leakage in the 

Preserve. Today, water quality in some 

locations is dramatically different than before 

1900. Surface water entering the Addition is 

nearly completely controlled, and having 

drained from agricultural and developed areas 

is laden with nutrients, dissolved solids, and 

trace amounts of pesticides and herbicides 

(SFWMD 1992). 

 

The National Park Service established a longterm water monitoring program for measuring 

surface water stage and quality in the original 

Preserve in 1988. Water quality samples 

currently are collected every other month at 

20 stations located throughout the original 

Preserve and the Addition. The objective of 

this water monitoring program is to provide a 

long-term record for assessing ambient water 

quality conditions and contamination threats. 

The South Florida Water Management 

District (SFWMD) maintains water-quality 

monitoring programs in lands upstream and 

adjacent to the Addition. The most important 

parameters of interest for tracking long-term 

water quality conditions include total 

phosphorus, nitrate, sulfate, and pesticides. 

Water Quality and ORV Use. The use of offroad vehicles in the original Preserve 

generates visible, localized turbidity in the 

upper portion of the water column. This effect 

is most pronounced in areas where ruts are 

deepest and vegetation has thinned. However, 

a study by Duever et al. (1986b) determined 

that the effects of ORV use on water quality 

were negligible, localized, and produced no 

threat to regional water quality. Localized 

impacts included hydroperiod alteration, 

temperature variation, introduction of 

sediment into the water, chemical pollution, 

and salinity changes. The turbidity that 

resulted from ORV operation was found to 

decrease sunlight penetration, thereby 

decreasing plant productivity. 

According to Beardsley (1995), extensive 

vegetation impacts from ORV use may inhibit 

nutrient uptake, causing greater levels of 

nutrients to remain in the water. Beardsley 

also stated that loss of vegetation cover 

reduces water filtration and removes frictional 

forces that reduce retention of water in the 

wetland. In some cases, subtle modification to 

water quality can impact other biological, 

vegetative, and wildlife components of the 

environment, and the existence of many 

localized impacts can translate into regionalscale and long-term impacts if the processes 

that cause them occur regularly and are permanent. Regional water quality effects would 

be most likely during times of heavy ORV use 

and when ORV trails are heavily rutted and 

oriented in the direction of sheet flow. 

Water quality is not a primary parameter used 

to evaluate ORV impacts because ORV 

impacts on waters tend to be localized and 

ephemeral. However, areas of high ORV use 

show persistent alteration of the local 

vegetative community that is likely related to 

disturbance of soil structure and chemistry. 

Wetlands 

The Addition has been mapped by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as part of 

the National Wetlands Inventory. Most of the 

Addition is classified as wetlands; exceptions 

are scattered hardwood hammocks, some 

pinelands, and artificially filled areas. Twentyseven different types of wetlands occur in the 

Addition, with the majority of them being 

seasonal wetlands. Cowardin classifications 

present in the Addition include periphyton 

communities, marshes, sloughs, prairies, open 

cypress domes, lakes, lake shorelines, and 

drainage canals/ditches. Most of the wetland 

area is seasonal, except for the lacustrine and 

riverine areas. The lacustrine, littoral, and 

riverine systems make up a much smaller area, 

but have more diverse classifications because 

many of these bodies of water and associated 

biological systems result from excavation of 

substrates. 

 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

176

Floodplains 

The southwestern corner of the original 

Preserve, including Ochopee, was mapped for 

floodplains by the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA). This area is 

located along U.S. 41, east of the Western 

Addition. According to FEMA, the 

headquarters and residential area at Ochopee 

are within the 100-year floodplain. A 100-year 

storm or hurricane storm surge could flood 

the Ochopee area to a depth of 8 feet above 

mean sea level. There are no areas within the 

Preserve in the coastal high hazard area, and 

no areas are subject to flash flooding (NPS 

1991). No additional data are available that are 

specific to the Addition. 

Estuarine Resources 

The estuarine habitats of the Addition are 

concentrated in the coastal interface zone 

south of Everglades City. They are influenced 

by freshwater inflows and result in waters of 

mixed salinity that provide unique and highly 

productive wildlife habitat. 

WILDLIFE 

Protected Wildlife Species 

A total of 31 animal species that could occur 

in the Addition receive some level of special 

protection or are recognized as rare species 

by the state of Florida or the federal 

government. Most of these species are 

limited to south Florida, and they are 

endangered as a result of habitat reduction 

caused by water management projects, 

urbanization, and agricultural expansion. 

Nine of the 31 species mentioned above are 

listed as either federally endangered or 

threatened and reside in the preserve — 8 of 

those 9 are known to be present in the 

Addition. The state lists 14 species as species 

of special concern. Collectively, these species 

warrant attention because they have 

experienced long-term population declines 

and are vulnerable to exploitation or 

environmental changes. Table 13 displays the 

status of all 31 special status wildlife species 

that are known to occur in the Preserve. 

Descriptions of those federally listed species 

that will be analyzed in detail in “Chapter 4, 

Environmental Consequences” are provided 

below. 

Florida Panther. The Florida panther (Puma 

concolor coryi) was listed as endangered under 

the federal Endangered Species Act in 1967. 

Critical habitat for the Florida panther has not 

been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Lands in the Addition contain 

suitable habitat for the Florida panther. 

Florida panthers once lived throughout most 

of the southeastern United States, but intensive 

hunting of these animals as a pest species and 

the conversion of wildlands to agriculture have 

severely reduced the population. Today, the 

only confirmed breeding population is in 

south Florida. The population is centered in 

and around Big Cypress, including Everglades 

National Park, Fakahatchee Strand Preserve 

State Park, the Florida Panther National 

Wildlife Refuge, and privately owned lands 

north of the preserve in Collier and Hendry 

counties. The panther population has been 

steadily increasing in recent years. In 2000, the 

estimated population was 62 individuals, with 

a population density of one panther per 31,923 

acres (112,919 hectares) (McBride 2000). In 

2003 the population was estimated at 83 

panthers (117 minus 21 mortalities (FFWCC 

2008). The 2008 population estimate was 84 

panthers (104 minus 20 mortalities) (FFWCC 

2008). 

In general, panther population centers appear 

to indicate a preference toward large, remote 

tracts with adequate prey, cover, and reduced 

levels of human disturbance. A study 

conducted by Kautz et al. (2006) confirmed 

that forest patches comprised an important 

component of Florida panther habitat in 
Natural Resources 

177 

TABLE 13: LISTED WILDLIFE SPECIES FOR BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVEa

Common Name Scientific Name Designated Statusb

Federal State

Mammals 

Everglades mink Mustela vison evergladensis T

Florida panther Puma concolor coryi E E

Mountain lion Puma concolor S/A

Big Cypress fox squirrel Sciurus niger avicennia T

West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus E E

Florida black bear Ursus americanus floridanus T

Florida bonneted bat Eumops floridanus E

 

Birds 

Cape Sable seaside sparrow Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis E E

Limpkin Aramus guarauna SSC

White-crowned pigeon Columba leucocephala T

Little blue heron Egretta caerulea SSC

Reddish egret Egretta rufescens SSC

Snowy egret Egretta thula SSC

Tricolored heron Egretta tricolor SSC

White ibis Eudocimus albus SSC

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus E

Florida sandhill crane Grus canadensis pratensis T

American oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus SSC

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T

Wood stork Mycteria americana E E

Osprey Pandion haliaetus SSC

Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis SSC

Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E SSC

Roseate spoonbill Platalea ajaja SSC

Black skimmer Rhynchops niger SSC

Everglade snail kite Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus E E

Least tern Sterna antillarum T

Reptiles 

American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A) SSC

American crocodile Crocodylus acutus T E

Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi T T

Mollusks 

Florida tree snail Liguus fasciatus SSC

SOURCES: USFWS 2006; USFWS 2007; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2006c; 

Florida Natural Areas Inventory 2006. 

a Species in this table include those that have been documented in the Preserve; it does not 

include listed species for Collier County that are not present in the Preserve. Not all species 

listed in this table have been documented in the Addition. 

b E = Endangered S/A = Similarity of appearance to a threatened or 

endangered species 

 T = Threatened SSC= Species of special concern

(no regulatory authority) 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

178 

south Florida. According to the Kautz study, 

the three most frequently used habitat types 

found within panther home ranges included 

upland hardwood forest, hardwood swamp, 

and pinelands, respectively. The hammocks 

are important foraging areas, and the pine 

flatwoods, with a dense understory, are 

important for denning and resting. Panthers 

prefer to move through vegetated areas, and 

rarely move through open areas except at 

night. It is important to maintain vegetated 

corridors between habitats to allow for 

panther movement. 

Only preliminary data are available on Florida 

panther reproduction. Existing data indicate 

that breeding may occur throughout the year, 

with a peak during winter and spring, a 

gestation period of around 90 to 95 days, litter 

sizes of one to four kittens, and a breeding 

cycle of two years for females successfully 

raising young to dispersal, which typically 

occurs at 18 months (USFWS 2008). 

According to NPS staff, dispersal of young in 

the Preserve typically occurs around 15 to 18 

months. Most panther births occur between 

March and July, and the den sites are used for 

two months after birth. 

The panther’s preferred prey is white-tailed 

deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Reports show 

that while subadults and nonbreeding female 

panthers feed almost exclusively on small 

prey, such as raccoon, marsh rabbit, and 

alligator, breeding females prey primarily on 

white-tailed deer. If deer populations decline, 

the panther population declines. 

The Florida Panther Habitat Preservation 

Plan (Logan et al. 1993) identified about 

926,000 acres of habitat considered essential 

to maintaining a minimum viable population 

of panthers in south Florida. About 582,000 of 

these acres are within Big Cypress National 

Preserve, representing approximately 63% of 

the essential habitat. 

Radio-tracking data and surveys of panther 

sign (e.g., tracks, droppings, and other physical 

evidence) conducted by the National Park 

Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission (FFWCC) indicate 

two population centers in the Big Cypress 

area. One includes the Fakahatchee 

Strand/northern Big Cypress swamp area 

(including the Deep Lake and Bear Island 

units of the original Preserve, the Addition, 

Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park, the 

Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, and 

private lands to the north), and the other 

center includes the eastern half of the original 

Preserve (including all or portions of the Corn 

Dance, Loop, and Stairsteps units). Evidence 

of panthers has been occasionally found in 

other areas of the original Preserve and the 

Addition, but these areas appear to be the most 

regularly inhabited. 

The panther population centers exist relatively 

close to each other, but there are some striking 

differences in the condition of the panthers. In 

1985, panthers in the Bear Island unit and 

adjoining private lands north of I-75 were 

more abundant, heavier, and healthier than 

their counterparts south of I-75 (Roelke et al. 

1985). In fact, one male panther weighed by 

researchers gained 20 pounds when he moved 

to the north side of I-75 from Fakahatchee 

Strand. From 1982 to 1985 panther sign 

declined noticeably in Fakahatchee Strand and 

the Corn Dance unit of the original Preserve, 

but sign did not decline in the Bear Island unit 

or on adjacent private lands. The condition of 

the current population is believed to be in 

better condition than what it was in 1985. 

During the past 25 years, radio telemetry data 

on collared panthers indicates that 1–3 

collared panthers have been using the 

Addition each year. These data represent 

collared panthers only, and it is fair to presume 

that more panthers than those with collars are 

using the area. 

Recruitment — the number of young panthers 

surviving to adulthood — is also higher in the 

Bear Island area. Possible reasons for the 

better condition of panthers north of I-75 are 

that (1) the area may contain a better mix of 
Natural Resources 

179 

vegetation types supporting deer, (2) that past 

range management for cattle grazing in the 

area may have supported more deer, and (3) 

that low hunting pressure on private lands may 

provide a refuge for both deer and panthers. 

The automobile is the most frequent direct 

cause of panther deaths. Between 1981 and 

1986 there were 12 documented panther 

deaths or injuries in south Florida, and half 

were road kills. Of these, four panthers were 

struck by cars on Florida 84 (now I-75) 

between mile-markers 16 and 18; one was hit 

on SR 29 near Copeland; and one was hit on 

U.S. 41 near Turner River Road. Because of the 

threat to panthers from automobiles, the state 

installed special underpasses while constructing I-75 across Big Cypress in order to 

provide for safer panther movements. Road 

kills are still frequent despite the mitigation 

measures that were put into place to avoid 

conflict with vehicles — in 2007, 14 panthers 

were killed in the first six months of the year 

(Schulze 2007). Fifteen panthers were killed 

on roads in 2007 (FFWCC 2008). Additionally, 

there were 10 highway mortalities in 2008 

(FFWCC 2008). The number of panthers 

dying from disease or parasites is unknown. 

More recent data indicates that intra-specific 

aggression (panthers killing panthers) is also a 

factor in panther mortality rates. 

In 1995, eight female Texas cougars were 

released into the Florida panther population, 

including four introduced into the Big 

Cypress, to offset the negative effects of 

inbreeding documented in panthers. 

Several government agencies and advisory 

groups are involved in panther management 

and research in south Florida and Big Cypress. 

Under the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has 

oversight responsibility to review the actions 

of other agencies in relation to federally 

protected species and to establish species 

recovery programs. The National Park Service 

has the primary responsibility for protecting 

the Florida panther (as well as other listed 

species) on lands under its jurisdiction. The 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission is responsible for implementing 

the USFWS panther recovery plan, and the 

National Park Service and the commission 

cooperate for overall wildlife management in 

Big Cypress. 

The survival and recovery of the Florida 

panther is dependent on : (1) protection and 

enhancement of the extant population, 

associated habitats, and prey resources; (2) 

improving genetic health and population 

viability; and (3) reestablishment of at least 

two additional populations within the 

panther’s historic range (USFWS 1999). 

Accordingly, the agencies involved in panther 

management in south Florida have agreed that 

implementing the following management 

actions will improve panther recruitment: 

• Reduce hunting pressure on panther 

prey species, especially deer and hogs. 

• Improve habitat by using prescribed 

burns and habitat manipulation to 

increase deer browse. 

• Regulate ORV use and other human 

activities more closely because of 

potential disturbance to panther habitat. 

• Consider reintroducing panthers bred in 

captivity or translocating other Florida 

panthers to improve the genetic viability 

of the wild population. 

• Continue and expand research on 

panther distribution, behavior, and 

health and on prey species status. 

These actions are consistent with the “Florida 

Panther Revised Recovery Plan” (USFWS 

1987a). 

In 2008 the Panther Recovery Plan was 

updated with a third revision and released by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 

2008). This 2008 plan includes the following 

recovery objectives: 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

180 

• To maintain, restore, and expand the 

panther population and its habitat in 

south Florida and expand the breeding 

portion of the population in south 

Florida to areas north of the 

Caloosahatchee River. 

• To identify, secure, maintain, and 

restore panther habitat in potential 

reintroduction areas within the 

historic range, and to establish viable 

populations of the panther outside 

south and south-central Florida. 

• To facilitate panther recovery through 

public awareness and education. 

The plan also identifies criteria for recovery 

and reclassification under the Endangered 

Species Act. The long-term criteria would 

require two separate, viable populations of at 

least 240 individual panthers (adults and 

subadults) that have been established and 

maintained for a minimum of 12 years. And, 

sufficient habitat quality, quantity, and spatial 

configuration to support these populations 

would need to be secured. 

To work toward this long-term goal, the 2008 

recovery plan identifies an interim goal to 

achieve and maintain a minimum of 80 

panthers in each of two reintroduction areas 

within the historic range and to maintain, 

restore, and expand the south/south-central 

Florida subpopulation. The actions needed to 

achieve this interim goal are as follows: 

1. Maintain, restore, and expand the 

panther population and its habitat in 

south Florida. 

2. Expand the breeding portion of the 

population in south Florida to areas 

north of the Caloosahatchee River. 

3. Identify potential reintroduction areas 

within the historic range of the 

panther. 

4. Reestablish viable panther populations 

outside of south and south-central 

Florida within the historic range. 

5. Secure, maintain, and restore habitat 

in reintroduction areas. 

6. Facilitate panther conservation and 

recovery through public awareness 

and education. 

As mentioned earlier, the National Park 

Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission are involved in panther research 

in Big Cypress. NPS efforts have concentrated 

on the distribution of panthers on NPS lands 

in the original Preserve south of I-75 and east 

of SR 29 and in Everglades National Park. The 

panther recovery program, under the auspices 

of the game commission and supported by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has focused on 

panther home ranges and movement patterns, 

physical condition and health, and breeding in 

captivity. In addition, the game commission 

has also been involved in studies of the condition and health of deer in Big Cypress as the 

panthers’ main prey. 

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission and the National Park Service 

have taken steps to reduce hunting pressure in 

Big Cypress and to enforce speed limits to 

reduce panther road kills. Hunting regulations 

have since been implemented, partially out of 

concern for panther protection. Several 

FFWCC commission enforcement personnel 

have been trained in the use of radar 

equipment and have been involved in speed 

limit enforcement on I-75 and U.S. 41. 

The discovery of mercury contamination in 

some Florida panthers is a relatively new 

concern. In 1989 a dead panther was found in 

the East Everglades. A tissue analysis revealed 

that the dead animal had extremely high levels 

of mercury and might have died from mercury 

poisoning. Further blood and tissue analysis of 

live Florida panthers, as well as fish and 

raccoons in the region, showed a pattern of 

elevated mercury contamination. Release of 

mercury from organic soils into surface waters 

is the apparent source of the toxins. Mercury 

bioaccumulates through the aquatic food 
Natural Resources 

181 

chain into fish and then raccoons. All panthers 

with higher mercury levels primarily preyed on 

raccoons, rather than deer or hogs, which were 

scarcer in the panthers’ home range. As a result 

of these studies, the Florida Panther Interagency Committee recommends that agencies 

manage habitat and public use to increase deer 

and, where appropriate, hogs or other noncontaminated prey. The intent is to shift 

panther predation away from contaminated 

prey species (Florida Panther Interagency 

Committee 1989). 

Panthers are typically shy, secretive animals 

that normally avoid human interaction. 

Interactions with humans can affect panther 

behavior. A study was conducted between 

1994 and 1998 by Janis and Clark to study the 

effects of hunting on panthers (The Effects of 

Recreational Deer and Hog Hunting on the 

Behavior of Florida Panthers, 1999). It 

centered on the panther population north of 

I-75, including the Bear Island Unit in the 

original Preserve. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s “Biological Opinion” for the 2000 

Final Recreational ORV Management Plan

states the following on page 562 of the plan: 

Janis and Clark (1999) surmise that the 

increase in the distance of panther 

locations from trails is “biologically minor” 

and probably related to prey behavior; i.e. 

white-tailed deer moving deeper into the 

forest to avoid ORV users. The decrease in 

panther use of the Bear Island Unit is 

balanced by an increase in use of private 

lands north of BICY [Big Cypress National 

Preserve] as “refugia.” The authors assert 

that this pattern would be of serious 

concern if panther habitat on private lands 

were lost. 

West Indian Manatee. The West Indian 

manatee (Trichechus manatus) was listed as 

federally endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act in 1967. Critical habitat for the 

West Indian manatee was designated by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1976 (41 FR 

41914), and corrected and augmented in 1977 

(42 FR 47840-47845). As published in the 

Federal Register (50 CFR Part 17.95), critical 

habitat, as it applies to the Addition, is defined 

as 

all U.S territorial waters adjoining the 

coast and islands and all connected 

bays, estuaries, and rivers from 

Gordon’s Pass, near Naples, Collier 

County, southward to and including 

Whitewater Bay, Monroe County. 

No specific primary or secondary constituent 

elements were included in the designation. 

Critical habitat for the manatee identifies 

specific areas occupied by the manatee that 

have those physical or biological features that 

are essential to the conservation of the 

manatee and/or may require special 

management considerations. 

Interpretations of the critical habitat criteria 

contained in the Federal Register have led 

biologists to conclude that critical habitat in 

Big Cypress National Preserve is generally 

limited to open water creeks, canals, and 

estuarine areas south of U.S. 41. Within the 

Addition, critical habitat includes near-shore 

mangrove estuaries and creeks, as well as the 

canals along U.S. 41 and SR 29. Occupied 

critical habitat in the SR 29 canal (aka Barron 

River Canal) extends to the north beyond U.S. 

41 as far as the first water control structure. 

The West Indian manatee is one of the largest 

coastal mammals in North America. The West 

Indian manatee is an aquatic mammal with 

grey to grey-brown, thick, tough skin that is 

sparsely covered with small, thick hairs and is 

sometimes covered with barnacles and algae. 

The rounded body of the manatee has no hind 

limbs, but it has paddle-like forelimbs or 

flippers with three to four nails present on the 

dorsal surface of each flipper. The body tapers 

to a flattened tail. 

This unusual marine mammal with its massive, 

seal-like body has been able to adapt well to 

its marine environment. Exact estimates of the 

historic manatee population are uncertain, but 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

182 

overhunting during the 1700s to 1900s is 

believed to be responsible for reducing the 

manatee population to only a few relict groups 

(Hartman 1979). Manatees migrate seasonally 

to adapt to changing water temperatures. 

West Indian manatees roam in fresh, brackish, 

and marine waters throughout Florida, the 

Greater Antilles, Central America, and South 

America. Waters colder than 20 degrees 

Celsius increase the manatees’ susceptibility to 

coldstress and cold-induced mortality. 

Because of this temperature restriction, 

manatees seek out warm water refuges to help 

reduce energetic maintenance costs. The West 

Indian manatee is one of the most endangered 

marine mammals in coastal waters of the 

United States. 

The manatee occurs throughout the southeastern United States. The only year-round 

populations of manatees occur throughout the 

coastal and inland waterways of peninsular 

Florida and Georgia (Hartman 1974). During 

the summer, manatees may range as far north 

along the East Coast of the U.S. as Rhode 

Island, west to Texas, and, rarely, east to the 

Bahamas (USFWS 1996, Lefebvre et al. 1989). 

There are reports of occasional manatee 

sightings from Louisiana, southeastern Texas, 

and the Rio Grande River mouth (Gunter 

1941, Lowery 1974). 

Manatees frequently migrate throughout the 

waterways in south Florida. The south Florida 

ecosystem region is home to the most resident 

manatee populations and transient migrants in 

Florida. In south Florida, manatees are most 

prominent year-round in the following areas: 

Indian River, Biscayne Bay, Everglades and 

Ten Thousand Island area, Estero Bay and 

Caloosahatchee River area, and Charlotte 

Harbor area. Some of the largest winter 

aggregations (50 or more manatees) occur in 

south and central Florida (USFWS 1996). See 

Map 13: West Indian Manatee Habitat, 

Western Addition. 

Manatees occur in both fresh- and saltwater 

habitats within tropical and subtropical 

regions. They depend on areas with access to 

natural springs or manmade warm water refugia and access to areas with vascular plants 

and freshwater sources (Humphrey 1992). 

Several factors contribute to the distribution 

of manatees in Florida. Between October and 

April, Florida manatees concentrate in areas 

of warmer water. When water temperatures 

drop below 21 to 22 degrees Celsius, they 

migrate to south Florida or form large aggregations in natural springs and industrial 

outfalls. Severe cold fronts have been known 

to kill manatees when the animals did not 

have access to warm water refuges. 

During warmer months they appear to choose 

areas based on food supply, water depth, and 

proximity to fresh water. Manatees may not 

need fresh water, but they are frequently 

observed drinking fresh water from sewage 

outfalls and culverts. 

The manatee occupies a prominent position in 

marine and estuarine systems as a prodigious 

grazer of submerged aquatic vegetation. It 

spends about five hours a day feeding, and in 

that time, it consumes about 4%–9% of its 

body weight (44 to 99 pounds or 20 to 45 

kilograms /day) (Bengston 1983). Submerged 

aquatic vegetation, such as seagrasses, is a 

major component of the diet of manatees, and 

although manatees appear to tolerate marine 

and hyper saline conditions, they are most 

frequently found in fresh or brackish waters. 

Manatees inhabit both salt and fresh water of 

sufficient depth (4 feet 11 inches to usually 

less than 19 feet 8 inches or 1.5 meters to 

usually less than 6 meters) and may be 

encountered in canals, rivers, estuarine 

habitats, saltwater bays, and, on occasion, 

have been observed as much as 3.7 miles off 

the Florida gulf coast (USFWS 2005). 
Water-control 

structure in

Barron River Canal

Map Area

Legend

Addition Boundary

Addition Manatee Habitat

Western Addition 

Big Cypress National Preserve

General Management Plan

National Park Service

United States Department of the Interior

DSC • October 2010 • 176/20084

Map 13

West Indian Manatee Habitat

The National Park Service shall not be held liable for improper or 

incorrect use of the data described and or contained herein. The 

National Park Service gives no warranty, expressed or implied, as 

to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of this data.

N

Miles

0 10.5 2

Natural Resources 

185 

Although there are no accurate estimates of 

manatee population size, the state Department 

of Environmental Protection aerial surveys 

determined that there were at least 2,639 

manatees in Florida’s waters in 1996, and a 

minimum of 1,709 in 1997. The synoptic 

(general) aerial survey for 2007 reported 2,817 

manatees in Florida waters, and 3,807 

manatees in 2009 (Fish and Wildlife Research 

Institute 2009). Although this has been the 

highest estimate of manatees since the surveys 

were started, the results of these surveys may 

vary because of such factors as sampling 

methodology, manatee behavior, and weather 

conditions. 

The National Park Service, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and the U.S Geologic Survey 

are collaborators in manatee research and 

management in the Big Cypress. Winter aerial 

surveys have been conducted during the past 

five years; however, they have not been 

systematic surveys. Aerial surveys have not 

been very successful in observing manatees in 

the mangrove area between the Preserve 

headquarters and Everglades City. However, 

surveys are conducted in the canals near NPS 

headquarters and Wooten’s Airboat Tours in 

Ochopee. Everglades National Park and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have also 

counted manatees in the Addition between 

headquarters and Everglades City during their 

surveys. These data confirm that the SR 29 

strip of the Addition is used by manatees. 

Human activities have significantly affected 

manatees by eliminating or modifying suitable 

habitat, altering migratory access routes, 

increasing mortality, and decreasing abundance, all of which can affect manatee 

reproduction, recruitment, distribution, and 

behavior. The greatest current threat to 

manatees is the high rate of manatee mortalities caused by watercraft or propeller 

collisions. In addition to direct collisions with 

boats, secondary effects from boating activity 

include such stresses as disruption of normal 

breeding behavior, disruption of cow-calf 

bonding, interference with migration routes 

and patterns, and the loss of feeding areas. 

The second most significant threat to 

manatees is the loss and degradation of 

habitat, due primarily to direct damage by 

aquatic recreational and commercial boating 

activity, coastal construction, and pollution 

from sewage discharge and stormwater runoff 

(Marine Mammal Commission 1992, Smith 

1993). Other human-related threats include 

manatee death or injury from flood-control 

structures and navigational locks, entanglement in fishing line, entrapment in culverts, 

and poaching. These other threats accounted 

for 162 known mortalities between 1974 and 

1993. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s recovery 

plan for the manatee established four 

objectives: (1) identify and minimize causes of 

manatee disturbance, injury, and mortality, (2) 

protect essential manatee habitat, (3) determine and monitor the status of manatee 

populations and essential habitat, and (4) 

coordinate recovery activities, monitor and 

evaluate progress, and update and/or revise 

the recovery plan (USFWS 1996). 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker. The redcockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) was 

listed as federally endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act in 1970. Critical 

habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker has 

not been designated by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Lands in the Addition contain suitable habitat for the red-cockaded 

woodpecker. 

The red-cockaded woodpecker is one of 22 

species of woodpeckers native to North 

America. Adult red-cockaded woodpeckers 

are approximately 7 to 8 inches (18 to 20 

centimeters) in length and have a wingspan 

that ranges between 1 foot 1 inch to 1 foot 3 

inches (35 to 38 centimeters). The redcockaded woodpecker is easily distinguished 

by its large, conspicuous white cheek patches, 

black cap and neck, and black-and-white 

barred back and wings (Jackson 1994). 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

186 

The red-cockaded woodpecker’s historic 

range encompassed the southeastern U.S. 

from eastern Texas and Oklahoma to New 

Jersey, and the bird was characterized as 

abundant in 19th-century literature. Throughout the 20th century, however, the species 

distribution within its historic range has 

become fragmented, and its total population 

numbers have decreased drastically due to the 

destruction of its habitat. The woodpecker is 

still widely distributed in the southeastern 

United States, but the few remaining colonies 

(a particular group of woodpeckers that use a 

set of cavity trees) are confined to scattered 

refuges. 

The population in the Preserve is the 

southernmost and perhaps the largest in south 

Florida (NPS, 1981). The red-cockaded 

woodpecker can only survive in mature pine 

stands, usually 60 years old or more, that are 

infected with red-heart disease, a fungus that 

weakens the interior “heartwood” of a pine. 

This allows the birds to excavate cavities for 

roosting and nesting. The red-cockaded 

woodpecker typically nests between April and 

August in tree cavities located 20 to 50 feet 

above the ground. In the Preserve, nesting is 

usually over by mid-June (Schulze 2007). 

The pine trees must be widely spaced and 

preferably have an open understory. Such 

stands are uneconomical from a forest products perspective, and most mature pinelands 

in the Southeast have been converted to 

plantations of young pines for the pulp and 

lumber industries, thus removing most woodpecker habitat (Lennartz et al. 1983) and 

causing population decline. 

Beyond direct removal of mature pinelands, 

the woodpecker may also decline if remaining 

mature pinelands are not properly managed. 

The open understory is commonly maintained 

by periodic fire. However, if fires are too 

frequent, then the pine reproduction necessary to perpetuate the stand may be suppressed; if fires are not frequent enough, the 

understory may become too dense to maintain 

the colony, or the fuel build-up may cause an 

intense fire that could destroy cavity trees 

(NPS 1981). 

Red-cockaded woodpeckers forage in a wide 

variety of pine species and especially favor 

areas that contain large trees, which have a 

large surface area and loose bark. They feed 

on adults, larvae, and eggs of arthropods, 

especially ants and termites that they find by 

flaking bark from the tree. In prime habitat the 

forage area for the red-cockaded woodpecker 

surrounds the colony and consists of pine 

forests. But in Big Cypress, where pine forests 

are patchy, the forage area is large and includes 

prairies, swamps, and other vegetation 

communities. Recent studies show that forage 

areas in south Florida average more than 360 

acres rather than 200 acres typical for most of 

the woodpecker’s range (Nesbitt et al. 1983). 

The red-cockaded woodpecker appears to be 

fairly tolerant of human activities as long as the 

colony is maintained. For instance, several 

active colonies in the original Preserve are near 

ORV trails, oil pads, and backcountry camps. 

There appears to be a limit, however, on the 

amount or types of activities that woodpeckers 

will tolerate; in other parts of the South, 

nesting failures have been attributed to noise 

from loud radio music and house construction, continuous chainsaw operation, and 

heavy interstate traffic (Jackson 1983). 

In the 1990s there were 30–40 active redcockaded woodpecker colonies in the original 

Preserve (NPS 1990c, NPS 2000). Currently, 

there are between 70 and 80 active colonies 

(Schulze 2007). A sample of the known colony 

sites is monitored each year during the breeding season by NPS staff to determine the status 

of the colonies. 

There are no known colonies in the Addition, 

although red-cockaded woodpeckers have 

historically colonized the Addition. There are 

a few colonies near the southern boundary of 

the northeast Addition. The habitat in the 

Addition, especially in the Northeast Addition, is suitable for woodpeckers. Recent 
Natural Resources 

187 

management activities in this area have 

improved the quality of woodpecker habitat. 

These areas could be recolonized by the redcockaded woodpecker in the future. 

Management of the red-cockaded woodpecker in the original Preserve currently 

consists of prescribed burning, or allowing 

prescribed natural fire in mature pine stands 

known to support colonies, and restricting oil 

and gas activity to avoid disturbing these 

colonies. NPS staff from the Resource Management and Fire programs meet annually to 

determine prescribed fire needs. Oil and gas 

activity is prohibited near a colony to provide 

an undisturbed forage area around the colony. 

Management actions for this species within 

the Preserve include mechanical removal of 

fuel loads under cavity trees and reduction in 

midstory vegetation through prescribed fire. 

Annual work includes determining cluster 

status, observing nesting activity, making 

nesting cavities in trees, and banding nestlings. 

Habitat fragmentation and/or loss are the 

primary threats to this species. Other rangewide threats to the red-cockaded woodpecker 

include cluster abandonment due to 

encroachment of mid-story vegetation. 

Genetic isolation may be a problem with the 

woodpecker throughout its range. Even 

though genetic problems have not been 

documented within the Preserve, the widely 

scattered habitat may preclude adequate 

genetic mixing. Environmental events such as 

wildfires, hurricanes, and inundation by water 

for extended periods have also affected 

pinelands that host woodpeckers. 

There has been no documentation of the loss 

of trees used by the red-cockaded woodpecker due to compaction or injury along 

ORV trails. Abandonment of clusters due to 

disturbance by off-road vehicles also has not 

been observed. 

Wood Stork. The wood stork (Mycteria 

americana) was listed as federally endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act in 1984. 

Critical habitat for the wood stork has not 

been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Lands within the Addition contain 

potential rookery habitat for the wood stork 

(Maps 14 and 15: Potential Wood Stork 

Rookery Habitat, Northeast and Western 

Addition). A large portion of the northeastern 

portion of the Addition contains the habitat 

parameters required to support nesting. 

The wood stork is a large, long-legged wading 

bird, with a body length (head to tail) of 2 feet 

9 inches to 3 feet 3 inches (85 to 115 centimeters) and a wingspan of 4 feet 11 inches to 5 

feet 5 inches (150 to 165 centimeters). Their 

plumage is white, except for iridescent black 

primary and secondary feathers and a short 

black tail. On adult wood storks, the rough 

scaly skin of the head and neck is unfeathered 

and blackish in color. Their legs are dark with 

dull pink toes. The bill color is blackish. 

Wood storks are birds of fresh water and 

brackish wetlands, primarily nesting in 

cypress or mangrove swamps. In the United 

States, wood storks historically nested in all 

coastal states between Texas and South 

Carolina (Wayne 1910, Bent 1926, Howell 

1932, Oberholser 1938, Dusi and Dusi 1968, 

Cone and Hall 1970, Oberholser and Kincaid 

1974). Currently, wood storks breed in 

Florida, Georgia, and coastal South Carolina. 

Wood storks usually construct their nests in 

medium to tall trees that are usually standing 

in water or in trees that are on dry land if the 

land is a small island surrounded by water. 

Their nests are large rigid structures usually 

found in the forks of large branches or limbs. 

Storks may add guano to the nest to stabilize 

the twigs (Rodgers et al. 1988). The nest may 

be constructed in branches that are only 3 feet 

3+ inches (a meter) above the water or in the 

tops of tall trees. 

The nesting season of wood storks varies 

geographically, but in Florida egg laying 

begins in October, and fledging of young birds 

occurs in February or March. The U.S. 

breeding population of the wood stork 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

188 

declined from an estimated 20,000 pairs in the 

1930s to about 10,000 pairs by 1960. Since 

1978, fewer than 5,000 pairs have bred each 

year. The decline is believed to be due primarily to the loss of suitable feeding habitat, 

especially in south Florida rookeries, where 

repeated nesting failures have occurred 

despite protection of the rookeries. According 

to the South Florida Multi-Species Recovery 

Plan, under pre-drainage conditions wood 

storks formed colonies between November 

and January (December in most years regardless of annual rainfall and water level conditions). In response to deteriorating habitat 

conditions in south Florida, wood storks in 

the Everglades and Big Cypress basins have 

delayed the initiation of nesting to February 

or March in most years since the 1970s. This 

shift in timing is believed to be responsible for 

the increased frequency of nest failures and 

colony abandonment. 

Wood storks feed in freshwater marshes, 

narrow tidal creeks, or flooded tidal pools, 

primarily on fish between 7.8 inches and 9.8 

inches (2 and 25 centimeters) in length. 

Particularly attractive feeding sites are 

depressions in marshes or swamps where fish 

become concentrated during periods of falling 

water levels. Feeding areas in south Florida 

have decreased by about 35% since 1900 

because of human alteration of wetlands. 

Additionally, levees, canals, and floodgates 

have greatly changed natural water regimes in 

south Florida. 

The wood stork forages annually in Big 

Cypress when water levels provide concentrations of fish. Documented nesting in the Big 

Cypress was rare until 1996 when 45 colonies 

were reported (Jansen and Brooks 1996). The 

previous two consecutive years of high water 

and subsequent buildup of the prey base 

apparently provided ideal conditions in which 

to raise young. Wood stork nests have been 

found only sporadically in the Big Cypress 

since 1996. Observations since that time have 

not been systematic and have generally been 

conducted in conjunction with overflights and 

aerial surveys for the Florida panther. Historic 

wood stork nest sites have been randomly 

surveyed by NPS staff during the last 10 years, 

with no documented reoccupation of nest 

sites occurring in the Addition. 

Preservation and/or restoration of natural 

hydrologic processes is critical to the survival 

of the wood stork, as it depends on open 

water to support its nesting, roosting, and 

foraging sites. 

Everglade Snail Kite. The Everglade snail 

kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus) was first 

listed as federally endangered under the 

Endangered Species Conservation Act (which 

preceded the Endangered Species Act) in 1967 

(32 FR 4001). With a very low population at 

that time (only 10 snail kites were counted in 

Florida in 1965), the species was included in 

the first group of species to be listed under the 

act. Subsequent to the initial listing, critical 

habitat for the Everglade snail kite was designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 

1977 (42 FR 40685) and augmented and corrected later that year (42 FR 47840). The 

designated critical habitat areas for the kite are 

east and north of Big Cypress National 

Preserve (along the western perimeter of Lake 

Okeechobee and the South Florida Water 

Management District’s Water Conservation 

Areas 1, 2A, 2B, and 3A). 

Because Water Conservation Area 3A is very 

close to the Preserve (abutting portions of the 

Preserve to the east), potential impacts to snail 

kite critical habitat should be considered. 

Also, in the South Florida Multi-Species 

Recovery Plan, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service recommends a reconsideration of the 

critical habitat boundaries for the Everglade 

snail kite as a “species-level recovery action”

and identifies Big Cypress National Preserve 

as a potential area of inclusion in the critical 

habitat area. 

S2.1. Update the critical habitat 

designation for the Everglade snail kite. 

Critical habitat has not been modified since 
75

75

Northeast Addition 

Big Cypress National Preserve

General Management Plan

National Park Service

United States Department of the Interior

DSC • October 2010 • 176/20085

Potential Wood Stork

Rookery Habitat

The National Park Service shall not be held liable for improper or 

incorrect use of the data described and or contained herein. The 

National Park Service gives no warranty, expressed or implied, as 

to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of this data.

N

Addition Boundary

Cypress Strands and Domes

Known Rookeries

Legend

Miles

0 .5 1 2 3 4 5

Map 14

75

75

29

29

29

837

837 841

839

41

Turner River Road

Upper

Wagonwheel

Road

Birdon Road

Western Addition

Big Cypress National Preserve

General Management Plan

National Park Service

United States Department of the Interior

DSC • October 2010 • 176/20086

Potential Wood Stork

Rookery Habitat

The National Park Service shall not be held liable for improper or 

incorrect use of the data described and or contained herein. The 

National Park Service gives no warranty, expressed or implied, as 

to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of this data.

N

Addition Boundary

Cypress Strands and Domes

Legend

Miles

0 .5 1 2 3 4 5

Northeast Addition 

Map 15

Natural Resources 

193 

its original designation in 1977 and is in need 

of revision. Earlier publications correctly 

pointed out the importance of Lake 

Okeechobee and the Everglades as snail kite 

habitat. However, more recent information 

suggests that although restoration of Lake 

Okeechobee and the Everglades must be 

compatible with snail kite recovery, greater 

emphasis must be placed on larger wetland 

systems in the species’ range and on smaller 

peripheral wetlands. Nesting of snail kites in 

Lake Kissimmee, Lake Tohopekaliga, and 

East Lake Tohopekaliga since the early 

1980s is a significant change that should be 

considered in revising critical habitat. 

Although a portion of the St. Johns Marsh 

south of State Road 60 is included in the 

current critical habitat, the principal areas 

being used by snail kites north of that 

highway need to be included. Other areas 

outside of the Okeechobee/Everglades basin 

that should be considered for designation are 

the Big Cypress National Preserve and 

marshes surrounding the Corkscrew 

Swamp. 

The Everglade snail kite (or snail kite) is 

medium in size, with a wingspan of 43 to 46 

inches (109-116 cm) and a body length of 14 

to 16 inches (36-39.5 cm) (Sykes et al. 1995). It 

is most easily distinguished from other raptors 

by its narrow, curved bill, which it uses to 

extract its primary prey, the apple snail. Also, 

the tail of both sexes is square-tipped with a 

white base. Adult snail kites have red eyes, 

while juveniles have brown eyes (Brown and 

Amadon 1978, Clark and Wheeler 1987). The 

adult males are a uniform slate gray in color, 

whereas adult females are brown with creamcolored streaks from the face down to the 

breast. Immature snail kites tend to resemble 

adult females, with the facial/breast streaking 

being slightly more light brown than cream 

(Sykes et al. 1995). 

The current range of the Everglade snail kite 

includes parts of south Florida, Cuba, and 

northwestern Honduras. However, the 

movement of birds between Florida and Cuba 

has never been confirmed (Sykes 1979, 

Beissinger et al. 1983). Currently, the range 

and distribution of the Everglade snail kite in 

Florida is confined to areas with available 

habitat in the southern half of the state. This 

Florida range is much smaller than it was years 

ago when the snail kite was documented in 

areas of north Florida. Loss of habitat from 

urban development, agricultural operations, 

and hydrologic alterations is the primary 

cause for this reduction in range. Although 

the snail kite is not a migratory bird species, it 

is known to be somewhat nomadic within its 

range in response to habitat changes (i.e., 

hydrologic changes, food availability, etc.) 

The habitat for the Everglade snail kite 

primarily consists of lowland freshwater 

marshes and the shallow littoral zones of lakes 

where an abundance of apple snails (Pomacea 

paludosa) can be found. The snail kite’s diet 

predominantly consists of apple snails. The 

kite generally forages for the snail by flying 

low over the water surface or by perching on 

woody vegetation over open water. Thus the 

kite depends on sustaining healthy populations of apple snails. Sustained wetland 

flooding conditions and low-density emergent 

aquatic vegetation are important for snail 

reproduction. 

However, even if apple snails are thriving in an 

area, the habitat value for the kite may be 

dramatically reduced if turbid or eutrophic 

water conditions exist, or if the kite’s view of 

the water is obstructed by dense vegetation. In 

other words, the snail kite relies heavily on a 

clear view of the water subsurface. Thus, 

marshes or lakes with high nutrient levels can 

also yield diminished habitat value for the 

snail kites because nutrient-rich water often 

generates invasive, exotic plant growth. This 

impact from eutrophication can be two-fold. 

First, algal blooms that result from high 

nutrient levels can diminish water clarity, 

which in turn limits the kite’s ability to locate 

subsurface apple snails. And, dense, nonnative 

growths such as cattail stands can quickly 

displace large areas of open water, which can 

fully eliminate foraging areas for the kite. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

194 

Also, the presence of interspersed shrubs or 

small trees in the emergent vegetation in the 

marsh or lake littoral zone is another 

important habitat feature for the snail kite. 

The kite uses this woody vegetation for 

foraging activities, roosting, and nesting. Kite 

roosting and nesting sites are predominantly 

located over open water. And, nests in shrubs 

or small trees are less susceptible to water 

fluctuations, waves, human disturbances, and 

predators than nests in emergent herbaceous 

vegetation. Thus, the nest sites in interspersed 

shrubs and small trees tend to be more 

successful than those in herbaceous 

vegetation. 

As noted above, the very low Everglade snail 

kite population in the 1960s (less than 20) 

warranted its original listing as an endangered 

species. Subsequently, the snail kite population has grown to several hundred. However, 

the population counts vary considerably from 

year to year. For example, during a 10-year 

monitoring period from 1985 to 1994, the 

Everglade snail kite count went from 563 in 

1986, to 325 in 1987, and back to 498 in 1988. 

This count period ended with a 1994 

population estimate of 996 kites in Florida. 

The year-to-year fluctuations in counts is 

attributed to bird mortality, decreased nesting 

success, dispersal into new areas, or a 

combination of these factors. However, the 

potential for more accurate population 

estimates increases each year as the number of 

marked birds and their resightings increase. 

According to the South Florida Multi-Species 

Recovery Plan, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service has an objective to restore the 

Everglade snail kite to a stable, self-sustaining 

population that would allow a status reclassification to threatened (USFWS 1999). This 

status change would occur if the 10-year 

average total population size is sustained 

above 650 kites (assuming various sustainability and year-to-year variation criteria are 

met). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

considers the Everglade snail kite a resilient 

species in a highly changeable environment. 

However, given the limited distribution of the 

species, its specialized ecological niche, and 

the irreversible loss of its habitat in south 

Florida, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

believes that the snail kite does not have the 

potential to be elevated above the threatened 

status. 

American Crocodile. The American 

crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) is one of two 

crocodilian species that are native to the 

United States. It was first listed as a federal 

endangered species under the Endangered 

Species Act in 1975 (40 CFR 44151). At that 

time, an estimated 100 to 400 nonhatchling 

crocodiles existed in Florida (Ogden 1978). 

Given its low numbers at the time, as well as 

rapidly growing disturbances to its habitat 

from human activities (e.g., recreation, 

hydrology alterations, and urban encroachment), critical habitat for the American 

crocodile was designated in 1979 (44 CFR 

75076). The designated critical habitat for the 

crocodile includes most of Florida Bay and its 

perimeter lands, running from the Florida 

keys north and west to the southern portions 

of the Everglades. 

Given the stabilization of crocodile numbers 

in Florida by the early 21st century, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service reclassified the 

American crocodile to threatened in the state 

of Florida in 2007. According to the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, the Florida crocodile 

population is between 1,400 and 2,000 

individuals (not including hatchlings), with 

more than 90 documented nest sites in 2005 

(USFWS 2007). However, the crocodile population in Florida continues to be susceptible to 

habitat loss from development and recreation, 

road mortality, and extreme weather such as 

hurricanes. And, through the remainder of its 

range, the crocodile remains listed as an 

endangered species. In addition to its south 

Florida range, the American crocodile 

inhabits the coastal wetlands and rivers of 

Cuba, Jamaica, the Caribbean coast from 

Venezuela to the Yucatan peninsula, and the 
Natural Resources 

195 

Pacific coast from central Mexico to northern 

Peru (Moler 1992). 

The American crocodile is the larger of the 

two crocodilian species in Florida. Generally, 

in Florida, both the American crocodile and 

the American alligator coexist without 

conflict. The tolerance for the other species is 

maintained as long as food and essential and 

unique habitat attributes are available to both 

species. Most likely, the coexistence and 

tolerance of these two species result from 

species-specific habitat utilization (spatially or 

temporally), which depends on variations in 

the species’ preferences for water salinity 

levels (USFWS 1999). In addition to its size, it 

can typically be distinguished from the adult 

alligator by its longer, narrower, tapered snout 

and its exposed fourth tooth of the lower jaw 

(when mouth is closed). Adult crocodiles in 

Florida are often more than 12 feet (3.8 

meters) long (Moler 1992). 

The habitat for the American crocodile is 

mainly associated with mangrove swamps and 

mangrove-lined creeks, rivers, and bays. 

However, the habitat use varies seasonally. 

During breeding and nesting season, adult 

crocodiles tend to occupy exposed shoreline 

areas along Florida Bay and nearby inland 

creek banks. Males generally move more 

inland than females during this time. In south 

Florida, breeding typically occurs from late 

February through March, when ambient air 

and water temperatures are high enough to 

trigger reproductive hormonal activity in the 

crocodiles. In nonnesting seasons, crocodiles 

generally prefer the lower saline waters of 

inland swamps, ponds, and creeks (Kushlan 

and Mazzotti 1989). Given this dependence 

on inland waterbodies with low salinity and 

brackish estuaries, the timing and frequency 

of inland freshwater flow deliveries to south 

Florida and Florida Bay are very important 

attributes of American crocodile habitat 

(USFWS 1999). 

Female crocodiles usually locate their nests 

along the exposed shoreline of open water 

bodies (e.g., Florida Bay), or along the banks 

of inland creeks in extreme south Florida. 

They typically select nest sites in well-drained, 

sandy soils at about the normal high water 

level. However, nests in other substrates, such 

as peat, marl, and rocky spoil piles, are not 

uncommon. The nesting success often 

depends on sustained soil moisture, but 

success can also be affected by flooding and 

egg predation. Because females must return to 

the nests to excavate the soil for the hatchlings, human presence during nest building, 

egg laying, and incubation tending can also 

adversely affect nest success. Research 

indicates that some females may abandon 

their nest if they are exposed to repeated 

human disturbances (Kushlan and Mazzotti 

1989). 

Once the hatchlings leave the nest site, they 

typically disperse to seek shelter, stable food 

sources, and brackish to freshwater in nursing 

areas that are generally more inland than their 

nest sites. The hatchlings are very susceptible 

to predation during this dispersal period 

(Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989). Also, a lack of 

available freshwater can adversely affect 

hatchling survival. Periods of low rainfall or 

long distances to available freshwater can be 

detrimental to crocodile hatchlings. Once the 

hatchlings reach the brackish or freshwater 

nursing areas in estuarine and inland mangrove forests, they typically feed on fish, crabs, 

snakes, and small invertebrates (USFWS 

1999). 

Generally, the American crocodile is primarily 

a nocturnal species, doing most of its active 

foraging between sunset and sunrise (Lang 

1975, Mazzotti 1983). The diet of adult 

crocodiles generally consists of small 

mammals, fish, snakes, turtles, and crabs 

(Ogden 1978, Ross and Magnusson 1989). 

Eastern Indigo Snake. The eastern indigo 

snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) was first 

listed as a federally threatened species under 

the Endangered Species Act in 1978. The 

listing was prompted by the snake’s significant 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

196 

population decline, which was caused by 

overcollecting for the domestic and international pet trade, as well as mortalities 

resulting from rattlesnake collectors gassing 

gopher tortoise burrows. With enforcement of 

the Endangered Species Act as well as the 

Lacey Act, exploitation for the pet trade has 

declined but still remains a concern (Moler 

1992). And, although the gassing of tortoise 

burrows is still a threat to the eastern indigo 

snake, it is not the most serious threat to the 

snake. Instead, the displacement and fragmentation of habitat from urban development 

have become the biggest threats to the snake 

since the listing. However, no critical habitat 

areas have been designated for the snake to 

date. 

The eastern indigo snake is a long, black, 

nonvenomous snake found in Florida and 

Georgia. With a length of up to 104 inches 

(265 cm), it is considered one of the longest 

snakes in the United States (Ashton and 

Ashton, 1981). The eastern indigo has large 

and smooth scales with a uniform shiny black 

coloration, except for red or cream tints on 

the throat, chin, or cheeks. 

The eastern indigo snake is an active terrestrial predator that will eat any vertebrate small 

enough to be overpowered. Layne and Steiner 

(1996) documented several instances of 

indigos flushing prey from cover and then 

chasing it. An adult eastern indigo snake’s diet 

may include frogs, toads, snakes (venomous as 

well as nonvenomous), lizards, turtles, turtle 

eggs, fish, juvenile gopher tortoises, small 

alligators, birds, and small mammals (Keegan 

1944, Babis 1949, Kochman 1978, Steiner et al. 

1983). Juvenile eastern indigo snakes eat 

mostly invertebrates (Layne and Steiner 1996). 

Currently, the eastern indigo is primarily 

found in sandhill habitat in northern Florida 

and southern Georgia. However, the snake is 

also widely distributed throughout central and 

south Florida. With their general preference 

for upland habitats, large numbers of eastern 

indigos are not common in the wetland 

complexes of the Everglades region 

(Duellman and Schwartz 1958, Steiner et al. 

1983). Historically, the eastern indigo snake 

was found throughout Florida and in the 

coastal plain of Georgia, Alabama, and 

Mississippi (L`ding 1922, Haltom 1931, Carr 

1940, Cook 1954, Diemer and Speake 1983, 

Moler 1985a). 

Throughout most of its range, the eastern 

indigo uses a variety of habitat types, 

particularly because it needs a mosaic of 

habitats to complete its annual cycle. The 

habitats include pine flatwoods, scrubby 

flatwoods, high pine, dry prairie, tropical 

hardwood hammocks, edges of freshwater 

marshes, agricultural fields, coastal dunes, and 

even human-altered habitats. They are 

especially common in the hydric hammocks 

throughout this region (Moler 1985a). In 

central and coastal Florida, eastern indigos are 

mainly found within many of the state’s high, 

sandy ridges. In extreme south Florida, these 

snakes are typically found in pine flatwoods, 

pine rocklands, tropical hardwood hammocks, and mangrove forests (Kuntz 1977). In 

portions of south Florida, eastern indigos may 

also occupy agricultural sites and areas along 

canals and other artificial waterways. 

Wherever the eastern indigo snake occurs in 

xeric habitats, it is closely associated with the 

gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), the 

burrows of which provide shelter from winter 

cold (Bogert and Cowles 1947, Speake et al. 

1978, Layne and Steiner 1996). In the milder 

climates of central and southern Florida, 

eastern indigo snakes exist in a more stable 

thermal environment, where availability of 

thermal refuge may not be as critical to the 

snake’s survival. However, even though 

thermal stress may not be a limiting factor 

throughout the year in south Florida, eastern 

indigo snakes still seek and use underground 

refuges in the region. On the sandy central 

ridge of south Florida, eastern indigos use 

gopher tortoise burrows more (62%) than 

other underground refuges (Layne and 

Steiner 1996). Other underground refuges 
Natural Resources 

197 

used by this species include burrows of 

armadillos, cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus), 

and land crabs; burrows of unknown origin; 

natural ground holes; hollows at the base of 

trees or shrubs; ground litter; trash piles; and 

in the crevices of rock-lined ditch walls 

(Layne and Steiner 1996, Hyslop 2007). 

Eastern indigo snakes range over large areas 

and into various habitats throughout the year, 

with most activity occurring in the summer 

and fall (Smith 1987, Moler 1985b, Speake 

1993). In peninsular Florida, data on home 

ranges for females vary from 4.75 to 375 acres; 

while male home ranges vary from 4 to 818 

acres (Moler 1985b, Layne and Steiner 1996, 

Bolt 2006, Dodd and Barichivich 2007). 

Summer home ranges tend to be much larger 

than winter home ranges. The eastern indigo’s 

relatively large home range also makes it 

vulnerable to habitat loss, degradation, and 

fragmentation (Lawler 1977, Moler 1985b). 

Extensive tracts of wild land are the most 

important refuge for large numbers of eastern 

indigo snakes (Diemer and Speake 1981, 

Moler 1985b). Additional human population 

growth will increase the risk of direct 

mortality of the eastern indigo snake from 

property owners, domestic animals, and 

highway mortality. Pesticides that are 

introduced into the food chain may also be a 

hazard to the snake. Pesticides used on crops 

or for silviculture would pose a threat to the 

indigo (Speake 1993). Secondary exposure to 

rodenticides used to control rats may also 

occur (Speake 1993). 

Declines in gopher tortoise populations are 

negatively affecting eastern indigo snake 

populations, especially in the northern areas 

of the snake's range. Gopher tortoises are 

declining due to loss of both quantity and 

quality of their habitat. Loss of tortoise habitat 

quantity is occurring from human population 

growth and development and conversion of 

native habitat to agriculture. The use of offroad vehicles in sandhill habitats of the 

tortoise can also destroy groundcover and soil 

stability (Lawler 1977). 

In the southern parts of their range, eastern 

indigo snakes often move among the available 

habitat types. This is one of the reasons why 

the species is especially vulnerable to habitat 

fragmentation (Breininger et al. 2004, Hyslop 

et al. 2006). Large areas of natural habitats, 

protected from roads and the fragmentation 

associated with development, are needed to 

maintain viable snake populations (Layne and 

Steiner 1996, Breininger et al 2004). 

During the past decade, the loss of natural 

areas in Florida has continued to rise 

dramatically (The Nature Conservancy 2006). 

The effects of habitat destruction and 

alteration on the eastern indigo snake are 

likely most substantial along the Florida 

coasts, in the keys, and along the high ridges 

of south-central Florida. Agricultural interests 

(principally citrus) continue to destroy large 

expanses of suitable natural indigo snake 

habitat throughout much of southern Florida. 

More roads create habitat fragmentation and 

increases in mortality when snakes try to cross 

highways (Andrews and Gibbons 2005, Bolt 

2006). At some point, the size of fragmented 

habitat patches will become too small to support viable populations. It has been suggested 

that eastern indigo snake populations that 

occur on managed preservation lands of at 

least 2,500 acres, with few roads or humanaltered habitats that increase habitat fragmentation and mortality, may have the best 

chance of long-term viability (Moler 1992, 

Breininger et al. 2004). 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates 

that the eastern indigo population as a whole 

is declining in south Florida because of habitat 

destruction and degradation. Considering the 

small population of this species, additional 

threats to its survival or habitat could cause 

local extirpations. Current and future habitat 

fragmentation will probably result in a large 

number of isolated, small groups of indigo 

snakes. However, even with continued habitat 

loss, this species will probably persist in most 

localities where large, unfragmented pieces of 

natural habitat remain. According to the South 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

198 

Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service has an objective to 

stabilize and increase the overall eastern 

indigo population and ensure that multiple 

healthy populations exist and are protected. If 

it is determined that sufficient, suitable habitat 

exists in south Florida for the eastern indigo 

snake population to stabilize or increase, 

delisting criteria would be considered. 

Major Game Species 

Of the 13 game species in Big Cypress, whitetailed deer, wild turkey, and European feral 

hogs require special management consideration because of their importance to both 

recreational hunters and the endangered 

Florida panther. Hunting is currently prohibited in the Addition; however, it is anticipated that hunting will be permitted once the 

General Management Plan is completed and 

approved. The Addition is expected to become 

part of the adjacent Big Cypress State Wildlife 

Management Area. As in the original Preserve, 

hunting will be regulated according to the 

requirements, seasons, and bag limits 

established by the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission. NPS staff would 

manage the hunts in the Addition, with 

assistance from the commission, and both NPS 

and commission staff will have the ability to 

enforce state hunting regulations. The current 

status of these three game species and their 

habitat is described below. 

White-tailed Deer. The white-tailed deer 

(Odocoileus virginianus) is the most important 

game species in the Preserve and the Addition. 

In addition to being a popular large game 

animal, white-tailed deer are a prey species for 

the endangered Florida panther. The deer’s 

food preference is the swamp lily (Crinum

americanum), a monocot that grows in 

cypress and hardwood swamps (Labisky 

2003). The decline of the swamp lily, as 

swamps are overrun with exotic plants such as 

melaleuca, would likely affect deer populations, and, consequently, the panther 

population. 

Generally, deer browse in south Florida is 

poor because of low fertility and low 

palatability (Florida Game and Fresh Water 

Fish Commission [FGFWFC], 1959). In the 

later stages of plant succession woody plants 

and graminoids, which tend to be high in 

lignin and low in nutrition, occupy a site. 

Consequently, deer browse declines as the 

vegetation matures. The best deer browse 

occurs after disturbances that encourage new 

growth, because young shoots are relatively 

high in nutritional value and much more 

palatable. Recent fires in the Addition will 

likely improve deer browse and habitat in the 

near-term. 

Although areas within the Preserve and the 

Addition host resident Florida panthers, the 

effect of panther predation on deer herds is 

unknown. McBride (1985) suggests a comparison with western cougar predation on mule 

deer. 

Ackerman (1982) found that a cougar in Utah 

killed a mule deer about each 9.5 days, which 

equates to 39 mule deer per year per cougar. 

Although it is difficult to directly compare kill 

rates by cougars in Utah with Florida panthers, 

the scale of predation (e.g., tens of deer per 

year per panther) may be appropriate where 

deer are abundant. If this level of predation on 

deer is a valid assumption, then Florida panthers and hunters may be competing for the 

same deer. Studies of Florida panther stomach 

and fecal contents show wild hogs, rabbits, 

armadillos, and other small game are also 

preyed upon, but it is not clear if these prey are 

preferred or if panthers are forced to prey on 

smaller game because deer are lacking. If deer 

are the preferred prey, then predation 

probably exerts a significant influence on the 

deer population. 

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission began collecting data on the deer 

herd in the original Preserve in 1984 to 

estimate the population size and assess the 

health and condition of the deer. Since the 

1991 General Management Plan was 
Natural Resources 

199 

completed, the deer population in many areas 

of the original Preserve has increased. Factors 

influencing this increase include area closures, 

favorable environmental conditions, and 

changes in hunting regulations. Data collected 

from aerial surveys and counts have limitations 

and do not allow for accurate estimates of 

herd size. 

Legal hunting does not seem to be a threat to 

deer populations in the Preserve, but the 

cumulative effect of legal and illegal hunting 

and of panther predation is unclear. The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concern in 

the early 1990s that even legal hunting may be 

adversely affecting the panther through 

disturbance. 

Annual surveys of white-tailed deer in the 

Addition have been conducted by the Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

since 2005 to gather baseline data that can be 

used to make hunting management decisions 

for the Addition once it is opened to public 

hunting. The surveys measure the abundance 

and distribution of white-tailed deer in the 

Addition. Two types of surveys were conducted in 2006: aerial surveys for recruitment 

data and land cruise surveys (night and 

morning) for population estimation. In 

general, deer observations were highest north 

of I-75. The survey results were highly 

variable, but in general habitat for white-tailed 

deer is considered to be of higher quality north 

of I-75 (Mihalco 2007). In 2008 the deer herd 

in the Northeast Addition north and south of 

I-75 was estimated to be 133 and 54, 

respectively (Joe Bozzo, Wildlife Biologist, 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission, pers. comm., December 2008). 

Typically, up to 33% of the game population 

can be harvested annually and remain 

sustainable. 

Wild Turkey. Wild turkeys are an important 

prey resource for the Florida panther and are 

one of the principal game animals for hunting 

in the area. Wild turkeys are common in the 

region. Turkey density tends to fluctuate 

widely from year to year due to environmental 

conditions (Powell 1965, Frye 1954). Turkey 

poult mortality is very high if heavy rains occur 

during April or May when young birds are 

susceptible to disease and drowning, but 

populations usually bounce back if conditions 

are favorable during the next breeding season 

(Powell 1965). 

Turkey surveys in the Addition were initiated 

in 2006 by the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission to gather baseline 

data that can be used to make hunting 

management decisions for the Addition. Eight 

sites (all of them north of I-75) were surveyed 

using digital remote cameras. Habitat north of 

I-75 is considered to be better than that in the 

south, supporting a greater number of turkeys. 

Approximately 230,000 acres were sampled 

with the placement of the eight cameras. A 

total of 518 turkeys were documented at four 

of the eight sites. Statistically, this yields a 

minimum population estimate of 14 birds (two 

adult gobblers, three juvenile gobblers, and 

nine hens) (FFWCC 2006). 

Feral Hogs. Feral hogs (Sus scrofa) are second 

to deer in importance as game animals. 

European feral hogs were first introduced to 

Florida by Spanish explorers in the 16th

century. In more recent years feral hogs have 

been managed by the state as a game animal 

and have been stocked in many areas of south 

Florida, including Big Cypress as late as 1975, 

to improve hunting. Illegal stocking of feral 

hogs in Big Cypress may also occur. 

Mast-producing hardwood hammocks are 

probably the preferred habitat for hogs, 

followed by pinelands (because of their short 

hydroperiod), and during the dry season 

mixed-hardwood swamps (Schortemeyer et al. 

1985). Belden et al. (1985) found that hogs 

tend to move into wetter vegetation types as 

the dry season progresses. As with deer, 

cypress prairies and prairies are probably the 

least productive vegetation for hogs (J. 

L.Schortemeyer, Florida Game and Fresh 

Water Fish Commission, pers. comm. 1986). 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

200 

Wild hogs are known for their ability to rapidly 

reproduce. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

reports that in the Merritt Island National 

Wildlife Refuge near Cape Canaveral, hogs 

may produce 1.5 litters per year, with an 

average of 2.3 piglets at weaning (Ron Hight, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 

1986). These numbers could be higher for 

subtropical south Florida; however, the 

summer wet season may be a limiting factor for 

hog populations. Schortemeyer has observed 

hogs freely moving through 1 foot of water or 

less, but when water is deeper than 16 inches, 

their movement appears to be greatly restricted, confining the animals to higher ground 

and limiting available space and food 

(Schortemeyer et al. 1985). Conversely, a 

prolonged winter drought appears to reduce 

hog reproduction and increase hog movements and may cause direct mortality through 

dehydration (J. L. Schortemeyer, Florida Game 

and Fresh Water Fish Commission, pers. 

comm. 1986). Given these limits, the hog 

population in the Big Cypress may be constrained from large or rapid increases by 

environmental conditions. Data in the 1991 

General Management Plan indicated that feral 

hog populations are very susceptible to 

hunting pressure. 

In addition to being a popular game animal, 

feral hogs are a prey species for Florida 

panthers. An analysis of panther feces 

collected in the preserve showed that 15% of 

the samples contained hog remains 

(FGFWFC, Johnson and Belden 1984). The 

report cautioned, however, that the sample 

may have contained both panther and bobcat 

scats, which would probably lower the 

importance of hog remains in the analysis. 

Some concerns have been raised about the 

impact of hogs as an exotic species on natural 

and cultural resources in the preserve. Hogs 

are known to uproot extensive areas in 

hardwood hammocks, and this activity could 

pose a threat to native plants, Liguus tree snail 

eggs, and archeological resources. Rooting 

could encourage exotic plants by providing 

disturbed areas necessary for establishment. 

However, it has also been suggested that 

rooting exposes grubs and other foods for 

turkey, quail, and additional native wildlife and 

encourages browse plants for deer. Rooting 

also occurs during the dry season in marshes. 

Other hog-related problems include diseases 

carried by hogs, possible competition between 

hogs and native wildlife, possible adverse 

effects on wild turkey nesting, and competition 

with deer for the annual mast crop (underwater shoots on trees) (Beckwith 1965); 

however, negative impacts from competition 

have not been quantified or confirmed. Hogs 

are known to be carriers of brucellosis, a 

disease that infects humans and could infect 

the Florida panther. 

The current population of feral hogs in the 

area has declined in recent years and is 

currently very low. Data from the 2006 hunt 

conducted in the original Preserve indicated 

only four animals were taken by hunters, one 

during muzzle loading season and three during 

archery season. The reason(s) why hog 

numbers are so low is not well understood; 

however, it is suspected that increased hunting 

pressure by panthers may be a factor. 

Exotic and Nonnative Wildlife Species 

Exotic species impact natural systems through 

unchecked predation or consuming and 

killing of native plant species. In many cases, 

exotic wildlife have no natural predators and 

can displace native species and multiply 

rapidly. More than 100 exotic animal species 

have been introduced into south Florida 

(Duever et al. 1986a). Sixty of these are 

believed to be breeding populations. At least 

22 exotic species have been collected in the 

Preserve, 18 of which are known to be 

breeding populations. European feral hogs 

have probably the greatest impact of any 

exotics on native species. Other exotic 

mammals have limited distribution in the 

Addition, and apparently none has a 
Natural Resources 

201 

significant influence on native species. Other 

important exotics include the armadillo, 

several fish (walking catfish, black acara, 

spotted tilapia, and oscar), several insects (fire 

ants and lovebugs), and snakes. 

For an example of exotic species impacting 

native species, the Mexican bromeliad weevil 

(Metamasius callizona) is known to attack 

various species of native plants in south 

Florida. Adult weevils consume plant leaves, 

and larval weevils bore into plant stems, which 

often combines to kill the plant. 

The increasing number of exotic snakes found 

in south Florida has also been causing concern 

to biologists. Five Burmese pythons were 

discovered in Big Cypress in 2006, up from 

three in 2005 (Naples Daily News 2007). The 

Burmese python is native to India and 

southeast Asia and has flourished in the 

subtropical climate of south Florida. 

In nearby Everglades National Park, more 

than 624 southeast Asian snakes have been 

found since 2000. In 2006 and 2007, more 

than 418 snakes were captured and/or 

removed from the Everglades. Populations of 

exotic snakes are known to be increasing in 

south Florida in recent years. 

Completed and Ongoing Studies and 

Inventories Related to Natural Resources 

The following studies/plans, some of which 

were done for the original Preserve, may be 

relevant to the Addition. 

 trail stabilization — The National Park 

Service has gained knowledge about trail 

stabilization techniques through 

experience and experimentation that 

would negate the need to conduct a 

research project/study (as recommended 

in the 2000 ORV plan) to answer 

questions about now to best stabilize 

trails. Field tests conducted on Concho 

Billie, Oasis, and Monument Trails have 

demonstrated successful treatments. 

 topographic mapping — Some mapping of 

the original Preserve has been completed 

via Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Plan efforts. 

 an inventory of reptiles and amphibians — 

This inventory has been completed. 

 a small mammal inventory — This 

inventory is in progress and is in its 

second year. 

 a fish inventory — This inventory has been 

completed. 

 a vascular plant inventory — This 

inventory has been completed. 

 water resources monitoring —Although 

an original research project has not been 

conducted regarding surface flow, water 

quality impacts, or wildlife effects, the 

Preserve has established permanent water 

quality and water stage monitoring 

stations in the Addition that could alert 

Preserve staff to changing conditions 

resulting from ORV use and other land 

uses as well. 

 wildlife monitoring — Monitoring of 

wood storks and Florida panthers has 

been conducted annually since the mid 

1990s. 

 a game species inventory — The Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission is also conducting a game 

species inventory of the Addition that 

focuses on deer and turkeys. 
202 

WILDERNESS RESOURCES AND VALUES 

Wilderness resources and values are the 

attributes of an area that are physically present 

— they make up the wilderness character of 

an area. 

WILDERNESS RESOURCES 

IN THE REGION 

There are three designated wilderness areas in 

the south Florida region: 

 the Marjory Stoneman Douglas 

Wilderness (1,296,500 acres in 

Everglades National Park— the largest 

wilderness area in the state) managed 

by the National Park Service in 

Collier, Miami-Dade, and Monroe 

Counties 

 the J.N. “Ding” Darling Wilderness 

(2,619 acres) managed by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service on Sanibel Island 

— Lee County 

 the Florida Keys Wilderness (6,197 

acres) managed by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service in the Florida Keys in 

Monroe County. 

There is no designated wilderness in Big 

Cypress National Preserve. 

WILDERNESS RESOURCES 

IN THE ADDITION 

There is currently no designated wilderness in 

the Addition; however, there are expansive 

areas that contain wilderness characteristics. 

Summarizing the Wilderness Act of 1964, 

wilderness resources and values are generally 

present if an area is untrammeled, 

undeveloped, natural, and has outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined types of recreation. General 

descriptions of the Addition’s wilderness 

resources and values are presented below 

according to these categories, followed by a 

more detailed description of the wilderness 

characteristics present in specific areas of the 

Addition. 

Untrammeled 

An area is considered “untrammeled” if its 

natural processes are essentially unhindered 

and free from modern human manipulation or 

control. Portions of the Addition have never 

been significantly altered by human activities, 

and their natural processes continue to 

function in an essentially unhindered manner. 

This is especially true of the Mullet Slough 

and Kissimmee Billy Strand areas. Although 

portions of the Addition have been altered in 

the past by farming, grazing, road building, 

and other activities, some of these areas have 

since reverted to natural vegetative and 

wildlife communities and are now largely free 

of human manipulation or control. This is 

especially true in the Northeast Addition 

south of I-75. Areas north of I-75, as well as in 

the Western Addition, continue to be 

influenced by human activities and their 

natural communities depend on regular 

intervention. 

Undeveloped 

Although much of the natural landscape of the 

Addition has been modified over time by 

human activity, there are expansive areas that 

retain their primeval character and where the 

“imprint of man’s work is substantially 

unnoticeable.” 

Natural 

Natural systems in the Addition are affected 

by unnatural processes such as the alteration 
Wilderness Resources and Values 

203 

of water systems and other human-induced 

impacts. Much of the Addition is impacted by 

the presence of exotic, nonnative plants, 

although the effect on a visitor’s experience 

and perception of naturalness varies. Despite 

these effects, and particularly when compared 

to surrounding areas, the Addition contains a 

high degree of naturalness. However, regular 

intervention is necessary to maintain natural 

values and conditions. 

Opportunities for Solitude 

The remote character of the Addition 

provides outstanding opportunities for 

solitude. No visitor facilities and services are 

present in the Addition, so visitation is 

relatively low and limited to self-guided 

activities such as hiking, biking, and birdwatching. The Addition is currently open 

mainly to foot and bike travel — it has never 

been legally open to public hunting and 

motorized use. Opportunities for solitude are 

compromised in popular areas, such as at 

access points, along maintained grades, and 

near private camps. Solitude may be 

compromised in areas that are near locations 

that have seasonal or year-round residences. 

Opportunities for Primitive and 

Unconfined Types of Recreation 

The Addition’s remote setting provides a 

backcountry environment that allows for the 

pursuit of many self-reliant recreational 

opportunities. Visitors can experience a sense 

of freedom and rugged individualism through 

a variety of recreational activities. The 

Addition provides outstanding opportunities 

for hiking on- and off-trail, scenic viewing, 

wildlife watching, fishing, camping, and 

exploration. Canoeing and kayaking is also 

possible in certain areas of the Addition. 

Other Wilderness Values 

The Addition is also important for scenic, 

educational, and ecological resources and 

values. These values allow visitors to learn 

about and experience the contrasting scenery 

of the Addition’s various plant communities, 

archeological resources, and water-dependant 

natural systems. All of these resources and 

values contribute to and enhance the 

wilderness character of the area. 

AREA-SPECIFIC DESCRIPTIONS 

Northeast Addition, North of I-75 

This area is more fragmented than the area 

south of I-75, but it still contains a number of 

natural areas, best represented by Kissimmee 

Billy Strand. Kissimmee Billy Strand is mostly 

pristine, although it is bounded on the north 

by old roads and grades. However, aside from 

these man-made improvements, the strand is 

generally wild and free of trails. Natural 

processes predominate in the south and 

western portions of the northeast Addition, 

whereas the northern and eastern portions 

contain numerous camps, trails, and other 

permanent improvements. The L-28 

Interceptor Canal and the oil/gas pipeline 

right-of-way are areas that have been 

substantially manipulated. 

Areas east of Nobles Grade contain some 

evidence of past human disturbance; however, 

most of the area has healed considerably since 

1996 (when acquired by the National Park 

Service) and is now considered wild and 

untrammeled. Some remnant trails are 

present, but many have recovered significantly 

and today are substantially unnoticeable. A 

few smaller areas contain distinguishable 

remnants of human works, but they will likely 

be restored by natural processes over time and 

will become contributing elements to the 

wilderness character of this area. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

204 

The most frequently visited areas, where 

encounters with other visitors can be 

expected, are the mile marker 63 rest area on 

1-75, which provides access to the Florida 

National Scenic Trail, and the L-28 

Interceptor Canal. Private camps and 

residences also exist in the Northeast 

Addition, and thus opportunities for solitude 

are diminished in these areas due to frequent 

access by private landowners. 

Northeast Addition, South of I-75 

Most of the northeast Addition south of I-75 

is natural and largely free from the influences 

of man. This area is best represented by 

Mullet Slough, the largest pristine area within 

the Addition. Here, water quality is high, trails 

and roads are mostly nonexistent, and the 

slough’s remoteness has allowed native 

communities to persist. Natural processes are 

mostly uninhibited south of I-75, with the 

exception of the camps and development that 

exist in the east near the L-28 Interceptor 

Canal. In the southwestern portion there are 

signs of disturbance from previous oil and gas 

operations, but these are limited mostly to 

remnant roads and trails that have recovered 

significantly during the last 10 years. Today, 

they are mostly unnoticeable, and the area 

appears natural. 

Western Addition 

Most of the lands north of I-75 and south of 

U.S. 41 in the Western Addition are natural 

and largely free from the influences of man. 

The rest of the Western Addition includes 

those areas that surround improved private 

properties, roads, and former agricultural 

sites. Lands east of the Western Addition are 

owned by the National Park Service, and most 

are managed in a wilderness-compatible 

fashion, which contributes to the naturalness 

and ecological integrity of lands in the 

Western Addition 

Opportunities for solitude in the Western 

Addition are reduced due to the presence of 

developed areas along the highway corridors, 

such as near Miles City, Copeland, 

Carnestown, and Everglades City, and near 

popular areas like Bear Island Grade. 
205 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

OVERVIEW 

Big Cypress National Preserve and the 

Addition are in the Glades region (an area 

defined by hardwood and pinewood 

hammocks, sawgrass, and dwarf cypress 

interspersed with shallow freshwater marshes 

and prairies) of south Florida. The limited 

vegetation of this region is a result of thin soils 

underlain by limestone bedrock. This region 

also includes the Everglades and portions of 

the Atlantic coast, the Ten Thousand Islands, 

and the Florida Keys. Human habitation of 

the Glades region can be traced back to the 

late Pleistocene or Lithic era. Paleo-Indian 

populations migrating throughout North 

America probably arrived in south Florida 

sometime before 13,000 years ago. Florida’s 

environment was substantially different 

during this period. Its land area was 

approximately twice the state’s current size, 

and the climate was significantly cooler and 

drier. The story of human activity in Florida 

during this period is not well understood, due 

in part to the fact that much of the area 

occupied by humans was inundated by rising 

sea levels that occurred with the retreat of the 

continental ice sheets that began around 

12,000 to 13,000 years ago. This change in 

global glaciations signaled the end of the 

Pleistocene era. 

The prehistoric periods of human culture 

represented by sites in south Florida include 

(1) the Paleo–Indian, (2) the Archaic period, 

which spanned roughly 8,000 BC to 500 BC, 

and (3) the Glades Tradition, which extends 

into the historic period, spanning 500 BC to 

1760 AD. The historic periods of human 

culture begin with the initial Spanish contact 

in 1513 and continue through the 20th century 

and the creation of Big Cypress National 

Preserve. 

 

There are fewer than 100 Paleo–Indian 

archeological sites in Florida, and none 

located within the boundary of Big Cypress 

National Preserve or in the Addition. In all 

likelihood, most sites associated with the 

Paleo–Indians of this era are submerged 

beneath the state’s coastal waters. However, at 

least one area within the Addition, Deep Lake, 

has the potential for association with this 

prehistoric period. 

The Archaic period that followed the 

Pleistocene is divided into three distinct 

divisions; early, middle, and late. The Archaic 

cultures of south Florida are distinguished by 

progressively more diversified hunting, 

fishing, and gathering; the creation of more 

permanent settlements, increasingly 

sophisticated tools, trade networks, and in the 

late Archaic the appearance of pottery. A few 

Archaic period sites have been identified 

within Big Cypress National Preserve. None 

have yet been discovered in the Addition, but 

additional survey work remains to be done. 

The Glades period or Glades tradition succeeded the Archaic period and incorporates 

both the end of the prehistoric period in south 

Florida and the first historic documentation of 

indigenous culture in south Florida. The 

Glades tradition witnessed the introduction of 

decorated pottery and woodworking as well 

as the introduction of European trade goods 

such as metal implements and trade beads. 

Spanish explorers documented the extant 

tribal cultures, which included the Calusa, 

Tekesta, and Key Indians. 

The Spanish established forts and settlements 

along the Florida coast, raided the tribes for 

slaves, and sought to convert the indigenous 

peoples to Christianity. The Spanish managed 

to retain some control of Florida despite 

repeated incursions by the English and 

French. Following the end of the Seven Years’ 

War in 1763, Spain ceded Florida to Great 

Britain. At the end of the American 

Revolution in 1783, the British returned 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

206 

Florida to Spain. The Spanish maintained at 

least nominal control of Florida while the 

British and the Americans tried to assert 

control over the region. The United States 

officially acquired Florida in 1821. American 

expansion into Florida led to the establishment of ports and towns, the introduction of 

the plantation system, and a policy of Indian 

removal, which in turn triggered prolonged 

and intense conflict with the Seminoles. 

The Seminoles trace their origins back to 

bands of the Creek confederacy that had 

migrated into Florida in the 18th century to 

escape Indian removal. Escaped black slaves 

from the colonies and then the United States 

found refuge among the Seminoles. 

Continued conflict over American expansion 

and repeated attempts to remove the 

Seminoles from Florida led to a series of three 

wars fought between 1817 and 1858. Many 

Seminoles were killed during the fighting or 

removed to Indian Territory in present-day 

Oklahoma. Others sought refuge in the 

Everglades and Big Cypress swamp. The 

Seminoles managed to maintain a presence 

even as Americans ultimately asserted control 

over the rest of Florida. 

American dominance in Florida was defined 

in large part by the ascent of southern 

“cracker culture.” This distinctly southern 

cultural group shaped the history of Florida in 

the 19th century and the transition to the 20th

century. The pace of modern development in 

Florida greatly accelerated in the 20th century. 

Farming, ranching, logging, oil and gas 

exploration, and land development opened 

areas that earlier European contact had left 

relatively undisturbed. The completion of the 

Tamiami Trail road in 1928 connected the 

Atlantic and Gulf coasts at the cities of Miami 

and Tampa and opened the interior to motor 

touring and eventually other forms of 

recreation. The Big Cypress area has for 

generations been home to a wide range of 

recreational activities, such as hunting, fishing, 

trapping, boating, and hiking. The establishment of Big Cypress National Preserve in 1974 

recognized the importance of these activities 

to the inherent values of the Preserve. 

Despite changes in use, development, and 

access, the Seminoles maintained a presence 

in the Big Cypress. Under the authority of the 

Indian Reorganization Act, a number of 

Seminoles officially organized as the Seminole 

Tribe of Florida in 1957. Other Seminoles 

incorporated and formed the Miccosukee 

Tribe of Indians of Florida in 1962. The 

establishing legislation for Big Cypress 

National Preserve recognizes special access 

rights for both tribes for “usual and customary 

use and occupancy . . . within the Preserve, 

including hunting, fishing, and trapping on a 

subsistence basis and traditional tribal 

ceremonials.” 

ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES 

Fifty-seven archeological sites have been 

identified in the Addition. These resources are 

associated with the Archaic and Glades 

periods in the Preserve’s cultural chronology. 

Most of these sites are earth middens, which 

are refuse piles commonly made up of cultural 

artifacts, and faunal remains. The remaining 

sites are classified as surface scatters (1), two 

sand mounds, a sand burial mound, a village 

site, and a home site. In field surveys 

conducted in the Addition, researchers from 

the NPS Southeast Archeological Center have 

made preliminary determinations about the 

chronology of these sites. 

Of the 57 sites, 10 have been determined to be 

prehistoric; 23 are determined to be Native 

American sites; and 22 are associated with the 

Glades cultural period. Five sites span a range 

of historic periods and contain artifacts 

representing Native American and Seminole 

cultures. The chronological periods of two 

sites at Deep Lake are unknown. More precise 

determinations of the chronological periods 

of the sites in the Addition will require 

additional research. 

 
Cultural Resources 

207 

Deep Lake 

Although no archeological work has yet been 

conducted within Deep Lake, the potential for 

scientific archeological resources within the 

watery environs of the lake is great. Classic 

sinkholes like this are rare in south Florida. 

Only four others like it are known in south 

Florida, and two of these are exceptionally 

significant archeological sites. Archeological 

evidence from two other south Florida 

limestone sinkholes indicates that they served 

as watering holes during much of the Paleo–

Indian and Archaic periods. Archeologists 

have recovered evidence of Paleo–Indian and 

Archaic-period use of these water sources 

from the submerged ledges of the sinkhole. 

The artifacts recovered were radiocarbon 

dated to between 8,000 BC, and 11,500 BC. It 

is clear from the presence of human remains 

at the site and the radiocarbon dated artifacts 

that water levels were well below present 

levels at approximately 11,000 BC. It is likely 

that the limestone sinkholes, including Deep 

Lake, served as much needed sources of 

freshwater to south Florida’s inhabitants 

when it was a scarce commodity elsewhere. 

Researchers speculate that Deep Lake may 

also retain resources dating from the earliest 

periods of human occupation in south Florida 

and is therefore viewed as having enormous 

archeological potential. 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

Ethnographic resources are a site, structure, 

object, landscape, or natural resource feature 

assigned traditional legendary, religious, 

subsistence, or other significance in the 

cultural system of a group traditionally 

associated with it. Traditionally associated 

peoples are defined as contemporary neighbors or ethnic or occupational groups that 

have been associated with a park unit for two 

or more generations (40 years) and whose 

interests in the park unit began prior to the 

park unit’s establishment. The Seminole and 

Miccosukee tribes are both recognized in the 

enabling legislation as peoples traditionally 

associated with Big Cypress National 

Preserve. 

Some resources within the Addition have 

traditional associations with the Seminole and 

Miccosukee tribes. Information relating to 

these ethnographic resources will be collected 

through collaborative research between the 

National Park Service and designated tribal 

representatives. 
208 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

OVERVIEW 

South Florida 

South Florida offers a variety of recreational 

activities ranging from developed recreation 

to primitive and unconfined, natural 

recreational pursuits. Before the 1920s, south 

Florida was relatively wild and undeveloped. 

Beginning in the 1920s, many newcomers 

began recreating and moving to south Florida 

to enjoy the warm, semitropical environment 

and the pristine, sandy beaches. Most of the 

population and human development in south 

Florida is now within 15 to 20 miles of the 

coastline, and the area has become extensively 

developed. Since the 1920s, the population in 

Florida has continued to rapidly grow, and 

today Florida is the fourth most populous 

state in the United States, with a total population of 17.8 million residents. Owing largely 

to the unique semitropical environment, the 

diverse range of recreational opportunities 

and reputed character, Florida continues to 

experience intense and concentrated visitation by vacationers every year. Because of the 

increasing population and visitation, the 

demand for additional and new recreational 

opportunities also continues to be a major 

factor. 

The seven southernmost Florida counties — 

Broward, Collier, Hendry, Lee, Miami-Dade, 

Monroe, and Palm Beach Counties — 

measure 10,104 square miles, accounting for 

18.7% of Florida’s land mass, yet contain 36% 

of Florida’s total population, totaling 

6,416,981 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). Within 

this land mass, Big Cypress National Preserve 

and Everglades National Park, both administered by the National Park Service, account 

for 3,483 square miles, or 34.4% of the land 

within the southernmost portion of this 

seven-county area. These NPS-administered 

lands represent the largest contiguous area of 

relatively undeveloped land in the entire 

southeastern United States, which is 

immediately adjacent to one of the highest 

population concentrations in the country. 

Although the traditional developed and semideveloped recreational activities involving 

south Florida beaches remain the dominant 

attraction to vacationers, many of the wilder, 

interior recreational experiences are gaining 

interest by residents and visitors. Also, the 

U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the population within this seven-county area is expected to grow to 9,292,316 by the year 2030, 

an increase of 2.9 million persons. It is likely 

that demands for recreational opportunities 

will also increase as the population grows. 

The Addition 

There are no developed facilities in the 

Addition to support visitor use, and Interstate 

75 is a limited access highway. Visitor use in 

the Addition is currently limited to hiking, 

biking on Nobles and Bear Island grades, 

fishing, backcountry camping, nonmotorized 

boating in the main portion of the Addition, 

and motorized boating in the canals and 

estuarine area near Everglades City. No data 

specific to visitor use of the Addition is 

available. The Addition will remain closed to 

hunting and motorized recreational access 

until a final management decision is reached 

and a “Record of Decision” is signed and 

published in the Federal Register. 

ORV trails have been mapped and assessed as 

part of this process to identify sustainable 

trails for visitors seeking ORV access opportunities. Also as part of this document, a 

wilderness study was conducted to identify 

suitable lands for proposal as designated 

wilderness within the Addition for visitors 

seeking opportunities for solitude or primitive 

and unconfined types of recreation within the 

backcountry. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

209 

The Original Preserve 

This General Management Plan is for the Big 

Cypress Addition. The following description 

of the original Preserve is given to provide a 

relative comparison between the Addition and 

the original Preserve. The potential demand 

for recreational opportunities in the Addition 

is likely to be very similar to that occurring 

within the original Preserve. (see table 14). 

The original Preserve is a large, wet, relatively 

flat and undeveloped land named for the 

extensive expanses of cypress trees. Big 

Cypress National Preserve consists of great 

stands of cypress forest swamps, marl wet 

prairies, marshes, and shallow freshwater 

sloughs. These natural resources offer visitors 

relatively natural, primitive and unconfined 

types of visitor experiences compared to the 

popular developed beach and resort 

experiences common in south Florida. The 

primary visitors to Big Cypress during the 

1970s and 1980s were hunters, ORV users, 

and owners of improved properties (privately 

owned in-holdings) (Big Cypress General 

Management Plan 1991). Since the 1990s, 

hiking, canoeing, wildlife viewing, birdwatching, photography, bicycling, camping, 

picnicking, and general sightseeing have all 

emerged as substantial visitor use activities in 

addition to the previously mentioned 

activities. Because of the general lack of 

developed visitor facilities, the Preserve does 

not typically have visitation by the general 

public compared to most units managed by 

the National Park Service. Because of the 

primitive nature of the Preserve, visitation 

typically requires careful planning, fortitude, 

and self-reliance. The number of visitors 

seeking opportunities for solitude or primitive 

and unconfined types of recreation within the 

backcountry has increased within the Preserve 

as a whole. Visitation to Big Cypress National 

Preserve has gradually increased over the past 

15 years as the American public has become 

more informed about the recreational 

opportunities available. 

TABLE 14: PRESERVE VISITATION BY YEAR

Year Total Recreation 

Visits 

1989 81,157 

1990 127,790 

1991 159,172 

1992 212,682 

1993 234,830 

1994 294,307 

1995 365,463 

1996 424,920 

1997 462,553 

1998 474,895 

1999 503,110 

2000 505,062 

2001 409,771 

2002 449,481 

2003 400,902 

2004 385,194 

2005* 768,687 

2006 825,857 

2007 822,864 

* A change was made in data 

 collection methodology. 

SOURCE: NPS Public Use Statistics Office, 2008 

To support these emerging visitor uses within 

the original Preserve, interpretive activities are 

offered to visitors in the Oasis, Concho Billie, 

Bear Island, and Turner River areas where 

ORV trails are sometimes used as access into 

the Preserve. Guided bicycle trips, canoe 

tours, environmental education programs, and 

activities, as well as swamp walks and hikes up 

the Florida Trail, are offered each winter 

season from mid-December through early 

April. 

ORV users assign considerable importance to 

the opportunities provided by their ORVs to 

access and explore the Preserve’s backcountry. Considerable work is performed by 

NPS staff to construct and maintain ORV 

access points, ORV trails, and campsites 

within the original Preserve every year. 

To enhance recreational opportunities, 

improvements are gradually being made to 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

210 

campgrounds, access points, and picnic areas. 

Safety and visitor amenity improvements 

associated with the U.S. 41 project have 

increased visitor opportunities by providing 

easy walking on boardwalks, interpretive and 

educational panels, and safe parking in 

designated areas adjacent to the main 

highway.

Day use visitor facilities currently available in 

the original Preserve include the Oasis Visitor 

Center, two picnic areas at the Kirby Storter 

Roadside Park and the H.P. Williams Roadside Park, a canoe landing, and an interpretive 

trail on Loop Road. Overnight visitor use 

facilities include two developed campgrounds 

at Monument Lake and Midway, and six 

primitive campgrounds located at Bear Island, 

Burns Lake, Pinecrest, Mitchell’s Landing, 

Pink Jeep, and Gator Head. Future projects 

will add interpretive trails, and improved 

parking in many areas. 

RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 

The primary recreational activities within the 

original Preserve include the following: 

 frontcountry driving, sightseeing, and 

visitor centers 

 walking and hiking 

 bird-watching and wildlife viewing 

 paddling 

 motorboating 

 camping 

 bicycling 

 ORV riding 

 hunting, fishing, and frogging 

 opportunities to experience peace and 

quiet in a natural environment 

These primary activities are described below 

in greater detail. Although other recreational 

activities may occur, these listed activities 

account for the dominant types of use. Within 

the Addition, current recreational opportunities are limited to walking and hiking, 

bird-watching and wildlife viewing, paddling, 

limited motorboating, camping, and opportunities to experience peace and quiet in a 

natural environment. Because of the similarity 

of resources in the Addition and the original 

Preserve, descriptions of activities within the 

original Preserve have been included for purposes of comparison. All of these activities 

have been proposed for the Addition, including those that do not currently occur there. 

Frontcountry Driving, 

Sightseeing, and Visitor Centers 

Several major highways transect or run adjacent to the Big Cypress National Preserve 

Addition. Interstate 75, also known as Alligator Alley, crosses the northern portion of 

the Preserve for approximately 30 miles, about 

19 of which are within the Addition and are 

currently used almost solely as a nonrecreationally based travel corridor. Although this 

highway is the primary transit route between 

Fort Lauderdale and Naples, it does offer 

views into the undeveloped land in Big 

Cypress. 

U.S. 41, also known as the Tamiami Trail, is a 

paved highway that crosses the southern 

portion of the Preserve for about 36 miles, 1 

mile of which is in the Addition. Preserve 

headquarters, the Big Cypress Swamp 

Welcome Center, and the Oasis Visitor Center 

are on U.S. 41 in the original Preserve. The Big 

Cypress Swamp Welcome Center and the 

Oasis Visitor Center offer interpretive 

displays, printed materials and books for sale, 

and wildlife viewing platforms. Currently, no 

visitor centers exist in the Addition. 

State Road (SR) 29 is a paved highway that 

runs north/south along the western border of 

the Big Cypress National Preserve Addition 

for approximately 29 miles. Wildlife 

underpasses have been and are being 

constructed under Interstate 75 and SR 29 to 

protect animals and drivers, specifically the 

Florida panther, from being killed in 

automobile accidents. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

211 

A graded dirt administrative road known as 

Bear Island Grade exists in the northwestern 

corner of the Addition and provides access 

into the Bear Island Unit from SR 29. Other 

graded roads in the Addition include 

Bundschu Grade and Nobles Grade, each 

extending approximately 4 miles into the 

Addition, north of Interstate 75, although 

neither of these routes is maintained. 

Numerous unimproved jeep and ORV trails 

exist in the Addition and are fully described in 

the trails section of this chapter. 

Unpaved, graded, gravel-based roads in the 

original Preserve include the approximately 

24-mile Loop Road (south of U.S. 41), the 

approximately 23-mile Turner River Road, the 

10-mile Birdon Road, the almost 3-mile 

Wagonwheel Road that crosses the Addition 

for almost 1 mile, and the 3-mile access road 

to the Burns Lake site. Other than the main 

paved highways, the three unpaved roads 

listed previously, and several rights-of-way to 

private in-holdings, no public access roads 

exist within the Big Cypress National Preserve 

Addition. 

Walking and Hiking 

Walking is the primary method of accessing 

places in the Addition. Although there are no 

designated trails or pathways and no facilities 

in the Addition, existing, nonmaintained 

roads or trails serve as primary access routes 

for visitors. Cross-country travel in the 

Addition is difficult due to the heavily forested 

and swampy environment, but this is the only 

method of accessing the deep backcountry. 

Within the original Preserve, the Florida 

National Scenic Trail received national 

designation in 1983. The trail is currently 

incomplete but is planned to extend 

approximately 1,300 miles from Big Cypress 

National Preserve to Gulf Islands National 

Seashore in Florida’s western panhandle. The 

trail, which is the only designated hiking trail 

longer than 2.5 miles in the original Preserve, 

provides backcountry hiking experiences to 

visitors. Section 1 of this trail (Oasis to the 

original Preserve boundary) was established 

by the Florida Trail Association in the early 

1970s. Section 1 begins at the visitor center 

trailhead and now extends about 35 miles to a 

rest area along Interstate 75. A temporary trail 

informally follows Nobles Grade, a 

nonmaintained road north of Interstate 75, up 

to the Preserve boundary. The official location 

and designation of this section of the trail in 

the Addition is pending the completion of this 

General Management Plan.

Bird-watching and Wildlife Viewing 

The size and relatively pristine condition of 

the Addition offers a wide variety of birdwatching and wildlife viewing opportunities. 

Most bird-watching and wildlife viewing 

activities in the Addition consist of individual 

ventures, as well as formal and informal 

organized group outings. Within the original 

Preserve, formal wildlife observation platforms are located at the H.P. Williams Picnic 

Area, Kirby Storter, the Big Cypress Swamp 

Welcome Center, and at the Oasis Visitor 

Center. Bird-watching opportunities are even 

greater in the original Preserve because of the 

larger acreage and greater accessibility along 

roads, developed trails, boardwalks, and in 

both frontcountry and backcountry areas. 

Within the Big Cypress Addition, wildlife 

viewing and bird-watching opportunities are 

relatively primitive in nature and self-directed 

because no infrastructure has been provided. 

Paddling 

Most paddling opportunities in the Addition 

are in the vicinity of Everglades City and 

Plantation Island. Within the original 

Preserve, most paddling opportunities are 

south of U.S. 41 where accessible water routes 

provide deep enough water. Within the 

original Preserve, the Turner River Canoe 

Trail and the Halfway Creek Canoe Trail 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

212 

provide the opportunity for nonmotorized 

paddling experiences. Other areas are open to 

all boats. In the Addition, the lakes and 

streams adjacent to Everglades City and 

Plantation Island are open to paddlers and 

provide a coastal marsh and mangrove 

experience. 

Motorboating 

Motorboating in the original Preserve and in 

the Addition is generally restricted to the 

deeper water estuarine environments south of 

U.S. 41 outside of Everglades City. Motorized 

vessels are regulated by the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission, who 

serves as the state boating law administrator, 

and by the U.S. Coast Guard navigation rules. 

All vessels must comply with applicable 

federal and state laws. 

Motorboat use in the Addition is generally 

restricted to smaller vessels because of the 

shallow waters and tight turning radiuses in 

the creeks and open waters. As a result, the 

most common vessels are class A boats, less 

than 16 feet in length, and class I boats, 16 feet 

to less than 26 feet. Occasionally, class II 

boats, 26 feet to less than 40 feet overall 

length, operate in the Addition, but because of 

the relatively confined conditions, use by this 

boat class is less frequent and generally 

restricted to the more open, deeper water 

locations. The most common boat types in use 

are traditional single hull or pontoon boats 

powered by outboard motors. In some deeper, 

more open creeks, larger 40-60 passenger jet 

driven boats are occasionally operated. 

Airboat use in the Addition is prohibited by 

regulation. Airboats are defined as a vessel 

that is supported by the buoyancy of its hull 

and powered by a propeller or fan above the 

water line. All commercial boat operations are 

currently prohibited within the Addition. 

Camping 

Backcountry Camping. Backcountry camping is the only type of camping allowed in the 

Addition, and such camping is subject to 

Preserve backcountry camping regulations. 

The Park Service maintains regularly updated 

and published backcountry regulations. 

Developed Campgrounds. No developed 

campgrounds currently exist in Addition. In 

the original Preserve, two developed campgrounds (Monument Lake and Midway), and 

six primitive campgrounds (Bear Island, Burns 

Lake, Pinecrest, Mitchell’s Landing, Pink Jeep, 

and Gator Head) exist. 

Bicycling 

Bicycling in the Addition is currently allowed 

on Nobles and Bear Island grades. In the 

original Preserve, bicycling occurs along many 

of the gravel roads and on several of the ORV 

trails. Because of the rough condition of many 

of the ORV trails in the original Preserve 

regarding the relatively large deep ruts and 

standing water, these trails are oftentimes not 

conducive to bicycle use. 

Horseback Riding 

Horseback riding (equestrian use) in the 

Addition is currently allowed; however, this 

activity is rare due to the fact that the substrate 

and hydrology of the area tend to self-limit 

participation by equestrians. Certain roads 

and grades in the Addition can accommodate 

horse travel. Horseback riding is allowed as a 

dispersed activity in the backcountry of the 

original Preserve; however, use is also 

infrequent.
Visitor Use and Experience 

213 

TABLE 15: SUMMARY OF OVERNIGHT VISITS BY YEAR AT THE NATIONAL PRESERVE

Year 

Total Tent RV Back- Total 

Visits Campers Campers country Overnight 

Campers Stays 

1989 81,157 2,591 5,847 1,117 9,555 

1990 127,790 2,938 12,919 2,532 18,389 

1991 159,172 2,897 15,714 5,267 23,878 

1992 212,682 1,295 16,112 7,824 25,231 

1993 234,830 2,659 18,450 18,786 39,895 

1994 294,307 1,803 10,682 11,123 23,608 

1995 365,463 2,702 12,034 8,701 23,437 

1996 424,920 3,529 10,886 12,959 27,374 

1997 462,553 3,518 9,929 12,836 26,283 

1998 474,895 2,503 7,096 15,093 24,692 

1999 503,110 3,031 13,270 10,158 26,459 

2000 505,062 6,210 15,179 12,294 33,683 

2001 409,771 6,626 15,582 14,326 36,534 

2002 449,481 4,684 12,126 13,063 29,873 

2003 400,902 3,272 10,330 12,292 25,894 

2004 385,194 2,936 6,671 11,715 21,322 

*2005 768,687 10,661 31,000 9,798 51,459 

2006 825,857 3,706 12,422 11,814 27,942 

2007 822,864 3,845 13,240 18,783 35,868 

2008 813,790 3,524 10,383 11,679 25,586 

 * A change was made in data collection methodology 

Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) Use 

ORV use by the general public is currently 

prohibited within the Addition, although 

some of the alternatives in this document 

propose ORV use in the Addition. 

The use of off-road vehicles is a popular 

recreational activity in the original Preserve, 

and great interest has been expressed for 

allowing this activity to occur in the Addition. 

Enabling legislation states that motorized 

vehicular access will be limited and regulated 

in the Preserve. In the original Preserve, 

several types of off-road vehicles are used to 

access the swampy backcountry. These 

include street-legal four-wheel-drive vehicles 

(4 x 4s), light-weight all-terrain cycles (ATCs), 

swamp buggies, and airboats. Recreational 

activities that can involve the use of off-road 

vehicles in the Preserve include hunting, 

fishing, trapping, bird-watching, general 

exploring, and recreational driving. 

Within the Addition, no data on ORV 

numbers could be located for the years prior 

to 1988, when this land was privately owned. 

Within the original Preserve, no data on ORV 

numbers could be located for years prior to 

1980, when the National Park Service 

implemented a mandatory registration for all 

ORVs operated in the Preserve. Within the 

original Preserve, NPS ORV permit data from 

1980 to 2008 are presented in table 16. 

Tracked vehicles were banned in 1988 based 

on research that showed they produced more 

adverse impacts than other ORV types 

(Duever et al. 1981). 

Within the original Preserve, ORV permit 

numbers have ranged from 633 in 1995 to 

2,271 in 1999, 1,702 in 2006, and 2,000 in 2008. 

Fluctuations in the number of ORV permits 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

214 

issued each year primarily reflect water levels 

within the Preserve, with fewer registered 

vehicles in the wetter years (e.g., 1995) when 

portions of the Preserve were closed to 

hunting. 

In the original Preserve, ORV use is heaviest 

during the fall, winter, and spring hunting 

seasons. The greatest use is on opening 

weekends of hunting seasons and holidays. 

Accurate data on ORV-related visitation are 

TABLE 16: NUMBERS OF ORVS REGISTERED FOR USE IN 

BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE, 1980 TO 2008 

Year ATV 

Swamp

Buggy 

Street 

Legal Airboat Totals 

1980 361 180 176 130 871a

1981 1,154 508 347 195 2,252a

1982 1,042 162 464 166 1,853a

1983 1,012 174 404 133 1,737a

1984 1,020 155 410 115 1,706a

1985 300 143 345 96 891a

1986 300 586 165 238 1,324a

1987 456 794 348 328 1,980a

1988 507 810 393 371 2,082 

1989 512 756 398 323 1,989 

1990 580 733 334 261 1,908 

1991 812 773 315 274 2,174 

1992 872 773 314 296 2,255 

1993 842 735 270 331 2,178 

1994 584 559 193 250 1,586 

1995 303 135 108 87 633 

1996 682 586 205 234 1,707 

1997 967 625 202 277 2,071 

1998 1,053 667 219 255 2,194 

1999 1,131 670 220 250 2,271 

 2000b

 

 2001c

 

2002 437 192 90 76 1,754 

2003 528 222 121 87 1,699 

2004 574 241 107 73 1,652 

2005 743 487 146 77 1,444 

2006 

2007 

 615 

 972 

 416 

 491 

 111 

 185 

 67 

 83 

 1,702d

 1,753 

2008 1,097 572 221 110 2,000 

a. Includes counts for tracked vehicles until this vehicle type was banned 

in 1988. 

b. Recreational ORV Management Plan finalized for original Preserve, and 

data is not immediately available. 

c. Data is not immediately available. 

d. 2006: Because of missing information in the database, the total is 

higher than the number of vehicles. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

215 

unavailable, although several efforts have been 

made to gather such information. Duever et al. 

(1986a) attributed the substantial increase in 

ORV trails visible in aerial photographs from 

1953 to 1973 to increased recreational ORV 

use, primarily associated with hunting. They 

further estimated that approximately 2,540 to 

4,000 ORV-related hunters may be present in 

the original Preserve at peak use times 

(weekends) during the hunting season. A 1970 

study estimated 40,000 person-days of use per 

year in the entire Big Cypress region. 

ORV Trail Mapping. ORV trails in the 

Addition are currently closed to public 

recreational ORV use and have had limited 

use in years preceding federal ownership and 

management. Intensive trail mapping has been 

conducted as part of a general inventory of 

Addition trails. Between 2005 and 2007, NPS 

staff carefully studied existing maps, aerial 

photography, and verbal accounts of Addition 

trails to determine where sustainable trails 

were located. Identified routes were then field 

verified to confirm existence and rate 

condition of the trail and evaluate if the trail 

was sustainable for public use. Although many 

miles of tracks exist in the Addition, the key 

was to determine the trails that could be 

included in a designated trail system and be 

sustained in a manner that would not degrade 

Preserve resources. This effort resulted in 

identifying sustainable trails, meaning trails 

capable of withstanding repeated use without 

irreparable resource damage. The criteria for 

evaluating sustainability included the 

following: 

 the degree of improvement to the 

ground surface 

 soil and substrate type identified by 

vegetation type 

 trail width 

 degree of previous disturbance such as 

rutting of trail surface 

 apparent relative level of past use 

 presence of water on trail 

This effort attempted to map all known 

existing trails. Approximately 244 miles of 

trails were assessed (see Map 7: Conceptual 

ORV Trails). Of the 253 miles assessed, 

approximately 135 miles were determined to 

be sustainable ORV trails. 

The Addition offers the National Park Service 

an opportunity to study the Big Cypress 

landscape largely in the absence of active ORV 

traffic. This circumstance presents a relative 

baseline for which to compare the effects of 

ORV traffic in the original Preserve to 

conditions in the Addition where off-road 

vehicles are not permitted. Off-road vehicles 

have largely been absent from the Addition 

since 1988, and prior to 1988 use was 

relatively low and confined to certain trails. 

Characteristics of Off-Road Vehicles. The 

following paragraphs describe the typical 

types of off-road vehicles that would be 

expected to be used (and regulated) in the 

Addition. 

Street Legal 4 x 4s — Street-legal, fourwheel-drive off-road vehicles and trucks 

that are commercially manufactured and 

sold are very restricted in the extent of 

their access within the original Preserve. 

These vehicles require the driest driving 

conditions and rarely venture very far into 

the Preserve’s backcountry. As a group, 

this ORV type is the heaviest, with a mean 

weight of 4,431 pounds (based on 1996/97 

permit data from the Preserve). On 

average, they comprise approximately 12% 

of the ORV permits registered with the 

National Park Service in the original 

Preserve, although this varies from year to 

year. 

All-Terrain Cycles (ATCs) — Small, 

commercially manufactured motorized allterrain cycles are 50 inches or less in width, 

have a dry weight of 900 pounds or less, are 

designed to travel on three or more low 

pressure tires, have a seat designed to be 

straddled by the operator, and use a 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

216 

handlebar steering control. These cycles 

tend to be restricted to drier terrain, as 

they lack the clearance required for deeper 

water and mud. They are also limited in 

their ability to carry camping gear and 

supplies on extended overnight backcountry trips. They are typically less 

expensive to purchase and maintain, easier 

to transport, and can penetrate wooded 

areas more easily than other ORV types. 

These vehicles are the smallest and lightest 

off-road vehicles used in the Preserve; 

current four-wheel drive models range in 

weight from 400 to 600 pounds. On 

average, all-terrain cycles comprise about 

50% of the Big Cypress National Preserve 

ORV permits. 

Swamp Buggies — Swamp buggies include 

a wide variety of custom-designed and –

built vehicles. These vehicles have a wide 

range of configurations based on the 

frames, engines, number of axles, and 

wheel sizes used. Their weights range up to 

7,160 pounds, with an average of 3,629 

pounds. These vehicles are less restricted 

in their access than street-legal vehicles 

and all-terrain cycles, and they can carry 

several individuals and supplies deep into 

the backcountry on extended trips. Swamp 

buggies tend to be more expensive to build 

and maintain, less reliable, and require 

substantially larger trailers to transport to 

and from the area than other ORV types. 

These vehicles are not street legal. Swamp 

buggies annually comprise approximately 

33% of the ORV permits. 

Other Vehicle Types — Currently, the 

above-listed vehicle types are the only 

types of wheeled off-road vehicles 

approved and permitted for use in the 

Preserve. As emerging technologies 

produce new types of off-road vehicles 

that do not specifically match the above 

three descriptions, the National Park 

Service will consider these new types of 

vehicles for inclusion in the ORV program 

as part of an adaptive management aspect 

of the Recreational ORV Management Plan. 

 

Use patterns in the original Preserve management zones are directly influenced by terrain 

characteristics. Airboats can most easily 

negotiate the marshes and wet prairies south 

of U.S. 41 and the Loop Road. Wheeled 

vehicles are used more frequently in shallow 

marl soils, sandy soils, and the drier upland 

areas north of U.S. 41 where permitted in the 

original Preserve. Swamp buggies are less 

restricted, although in forested areas they are 

constrained by the width of the corridor 

through the trees, the size of the vehicle, and 

tire size. All-terrain cycles are less confined to 

trails and can move faster but cannot traverse 

the marl or mucky soils as well as the swamp 

buggies. Street legal four-wheel-drive vehicles 

require mostly dry conditions and infrequently travel very far into the Preserve 

backcountry. 

Characteristics of ORV Users and 

Visitation. The Big Cypress National Preserve 

2000 Final Recreational ORV Management 

Plan gives specific information and statistics 

related to ORV use in the Preserve. A 

description is provided here regarding general 

characteristics of ORV use at Big Cypress. 

Off-road vehicles have customarily been used 

for hunting-related activities, although 

participation in a wide variety of nonhunting 

recreational activities has been observed more 

frequently during the past decade. ORV riding 

is usually considered a social activity. The use 

of off-road vehicles is central to many visitors’ 

enjoyment of the Preserve. Seeing wildlife, the 

ability to reach a favorite destination, sharing 

activities with friends and family, and reaching 

a favorite hunting spot are the primary reasons cited for using off-road vehicles. 

Although users are deeply attached to certain 

places, such as hunting camps or favored 

hunting spots, they also assign considerable 

importance to the opportunity provided by 

their vehicles to roam and explore the 

Preserve’s backcountry. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

217 

Many recreational outings are reported to 

produce long-lasting benefits and valued 

experiences. An analysis of information from 

focus group discussions suggests that Preserve 

ORV users are similar to ORV users in other 

parts of the country. Specifically, they 

 travel in groups 

 prefer little managerial intervention 

 see themselves as skilled risk takers and 

identify with others like themselves 

 say the ORV experience is a way to 

release stress, revitalize spirits, and gain 

a sense of purpose 

 want to protect the natural 

environment 

 enjoy opportunities for social bonding 

 value the ORV as a means to achieve 

solitude and immersion in nature 

Based on information from a larger survey of 

ORV permit holders, many of the most 

significant benefits depend on their specific 

activities and/or on specific places. The 

connections between users, activities, and 

places must be taken into consideration when 

selecting ORV management actions. 

Hunting, Fishing, and Frogging 

The original Preserve has been designated by 

the state as a wildlife management area, and 

the National Park Service permits hunting, 

frogging, and fishing by the public in accordance with state laws and regulations. 

Hunting is currently prohibited within the 

Addition. Fishing is permitted within the 

Addition subject to applicable laws and 

regulations. 

The National Park Service and the Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

have concurrent jurisdiction for enforcing 

game and fish laws in the Preserve. Although 

the National Park Service has authority to 

manage wildlife within the Preserve, the Park 

Service has assigned the management of 

hunting to the commission. The commission 

consults with the National Park Service before 

issuing regulations that affect hunting and 

fishing within Big Cypress National Preserve. 

Likewise, the National Park Service consults 

with the commission before establishing any 

temporary or permanent closures or public 

use limits. 

Hunting is a popular recreational activity in 

the original Preserve. Hunting seasons run 

from September through April. Deer, turkey, 

and feral hogs are the principal species 

hunted. The primary weapons include rifles, 

shotguns, bows, and muzzle-loading guns. 

Bird dogs and waterfowl retrievers are the 

only dogs permitted for hunting. Although 

many hunters use off-road vehicles to get to 

hunting areas, many other hunters access the 

original Preserve on foot. 

The General Management Plan / Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (NPS 1991) 

describes the types of hunting, different 

hunting opportunities, general regulations, 

and permit program. The Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission publishes 

updated regulations specific to the Big 

Cypress Wildlife Management Area related to 

open seasons, game types, quotas, weaponry, 

and other pertinent regulations annually. 

To hunt in the original Preserve, hunters are 

required to purchase Florida state hunting 

licenses and wildlife management area stamps. 

When hunting regulations are established 

within the Addition and hunting activities are 

allowed, state hunting licenses and wildlife 

management area stamps would also be 

required in the Addition. 

Big Cypress National Preserve is home to the 

endangered Florida panther. Because the 

Florida panther is listed as a federal endangered species, hunting regulations in the 

Preserve are relatively restrictive due to the 

associated direct and indirect disturbance of 

the panther by hunting activities, and because 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

218 

white-tailed deer and feral hogs are important 

prey for the panther. 

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission regularly publishes regulations 

for the following activities: 

 deer hunting 

 turkey hunting 

 hog hunting 

 migratory bird hunting 

 small game hunting 

 frogging 

 fishing 

NATURAL SOUND PRESERVATION 

Soundscape 

The Addition’s soundscape is comprised of 

both natural ambient sounds and a variety of 

human-created sounds. The natural soundscape exists in the absence of human-created 

sound and is considered a resource. This 

resource is an aggregate of all natural sounds 

that occur in the Addition. Examples of 

sounds found in the natural soundscape 

include sounds produced by birds, frogs, and 

insects to define territories or attract mates; 

sounds created by animals to detect and avoid 

predators or other danger; and sounds 

produced by physical processes such as wind 

in the trees, rain falling, or thunder. 

The National Park Service will preserve, to the 

greatest extent possible, the natural quiet and 

natural sounds associated with physical and 

biological resources and will restore to the 

natural condition wherever possible those 

soundscapes that have become degraded by 

unnatural sounds (noise). Human-caused 

sounds at Big Cypress National Preserve are 

largely created by motorized vehicles and 

mechanical equipment. Some examples 

include vehicles; motorized watercraft; heavy 

equipment; construction activity; oil and gas 

development; aircraft; and electronic devices. 

The magnitude of noise is usually described by 

its sound pressure. Human-caused sounds in 

the Addition are currently limited to highway 

noise and aircraft overflights since ORV use is 

currently not permitted in the Addition and 

no oil and gas activity currently exists. Since 

the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a 

logarithmic scale is used to relate sound 

pressures to some common reference level, 

usually described in decibels (dB). See table 17 

for examples of sound levels. 

Ambient sound has been described as the 

continuous background sound environment. 

The range in ambient soundscapes can vary 

considerably among locations or by time in a 

single location. Ambient sound levels in the 

original Preserve generally range between 24 

dBA and 40 dBA (dBA refers to the “A” 

frequency weighted decibel scale), depending 

on the contribution of noise by insects. 

Acoustic monitoring was conducted in the 

original Preserve in the summer of 2008 by the 

John A. Volpe National Transportation 

Systems Center (Volpe). These data are 

currently being evaluated. 

Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. 

Sound can become noise due to factors such 

as loudness, pitch, and duration or when it 

occurs at unwanted times, comes from an 

unwanted source or sources, interrupts or 

interferes with a desired activity, or is perceived to be a disturbance. With respect to 

Preserve visitors, what constitutes unacceptable noise will depend on visitor sensitivities 

and expectations. 

When evaluated against the natural soundscape, all human sound is considered noise. 

This does not, however, mean that all human 

sounds are inappropriate or unacceptable. In 

the context of Big Cypress National Preserve, 

noise evaluations must consider management 

guidance such as enabling legislation and 

Preserve purpose, management zoning, 

resource sensitivity, impacts from the activity, 

and desired future conditions for resources 

and visitor experiences. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

219 

TABLE 17: SOUND LEVELS FOR COMMONLY EXPERIENCED SITUATIONS

Reference Sound A-weighted Decibels Level 

Whispering at 5 feet 20 

Quiet residential area 40 

Distant bird calls 45 

Wind through trees /// 

Normal conversation at 5 feet 60 

Helicopter landing at 200 feet 80 

Steam train whistle at 100 feet 90-100 

Jet aircraft takeoff at 500 feet 100 

 Sources: League for the Hard of Hearing 2005 

There are no absolute standards that define 

unacceptable levels, duration, or qualities of 

environmental noise. The Forest Service 

(1980b) has established subjective audibility 

guidelines to assess noise impacts for various 

recreational opportunities. These guidelines 

are included in table 18, and they relate recreational opportunities to the corresponding 

acceptable level above ambient sound levels. 

The U.S. Department of Energy suggests that 

there is a “strong likelihood of individual 

complaints” when the intruding noise is 

greater than 10 dB above ambient sound levels. 

But, typical forest background noise levels are 

around 40 dBA, and 50 dBA in campgrounds, 

small towns, or quiet suburban communities 

(EPA 1980). 

Noise from Off Highway Vehicles 

The increased popularity and widespread use 

of off-road vehicles on federal lands in the 

1960s and early 1970s prompted the 

development of a unified federal policy for 

such use (GAO/RCED-95-209 Off Highway 

Vehicle Use on Federal Lands). Executive 

Order 11644 was issued in February 1972 

TABLE 18: ACCEPTABLE LEVELS ABOVE AMBIENT SOUND LEVELS FOR VARIOUS RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

Recreational Opportunity Acceptable dB Level 

 appropriate for primitive recreational area; intruding noise 

not detectable 0 

 appropriate for trail camps; will not wake most sleepers; intruding 

noise normally not detectable 5 

appropriate for undeveloped roadside camps and those accessible 

by four-wheel drive and all-terrain vehicles 10 

appropriate for roadside camps accessible by highway vehicles 20 

appropriate for highly developed campgrounds in a quiet, suburban 

neighborhood 40 

Source: U.S. Forest Service 1980b 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

220 

to establish policies and provide for 

procedures that will ensure that the use of 

off-road vehicles on public lands will be 

controlled and directed so as to protect 

the resources of those lands, to promote 

the safety of all users on those lands, and 

to minimize conflicts among the various 

uses of those lands. 

Executive Order 11989 was issued in May 

1977 and contained three amendments to EO 

11644. Although these amendments lifted 

restrictions on the use of military and emergency vehicles on public lands during emergencies, they otherwise strengthened protection of the lands by authorizing agency 

heads to (1) close areas or trails to off-road 

vehicles causing considerable adverse effects 

and (2) designate lands as closed to off-road 

vehicles unless the lands are specifically 

designated as open to them. (GAO/RCED-95-

209 Off Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands) 

Off-road vehicles and motorized watercraft 

such as motor boats all produce noise that 

may adversely affect the Addition soundscape 

and visitor experiences. Noise levels emitted 

from off-road vehicles and motorized watercraft vary depending on many factors such as 

engine size, type of motor, vehicle type, speed, 

gearing ratio, and many other factors. 

The Noise Control Act of 1972 provides 

authority for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish limits and 

regulations pertaining to acceptable sound 

levels and to develop procedures by which 

vehicle sound is measured. Regulations for 

boating and water use activities established by 

the National Park Service prohibit vessels 

from operating at more than 82 decibels 

measured at 82 feet from the vessel (36 CFR 

3.7). 

Influence of Off-road Vehicles 

on the Addition Soundscape 

ORV use in backcountry areas with relatively 

low, natural ambient sound levels is generally 

considered undesirable by those engaged in 

non-ORV activities such as hiking, camping, 

and bird-watching. ORV use does affect the 

natural soundscape and the impact is best 

described using the “audibility” criterion. The 

criterion level for audibility is the sound level 

at which an ORV can be discerned from the 

background by the listener or the minimum 

level at which it is detectable. “Audibility 

distances” can be calculated for various types 

of vehicles in recreation areas with low 

ambient natural sound levels. Audibility 

distances for ORV noise are on the order of 

0.5-2 miles, but may differ given changes in 

background and human noise levels, 

vegetation cover, and type of ORV used. 

Influence of Other Human Noise 

Sources on the Addition Soundscape 

Natural sounds generally predominate 

throughout the Addition. There can be 

human-caused noise in the backcountry, such 

as sounds related to NPS management 

activities, recreation activities, and potentially 

oil and gas drilling operations. Most humancaused sounds are usually confined to 

developed areas along major roads and are 

mobile and temporary in nature. 

Activities in adjacent lands and airspace may 

also affect the Addition’s natural soundscape. 

Commercial, private sector, military, and NPS 

aircraft all impact natural soundscapes. Highway traffic on roads that cross the Addition is 

an additional source of noise that affects the 

natural soundscape. 

 

Oil and Gas Development Noise. Preserve 

soundscapes can be affected by oil and gas 

development, including geophysical operations, drilling, production, abandonment, and 

reclamation and may affect the soundscape in 

the Addition in the future. But, oil and gas 

activity does not currently exist in the Addition. Detailed information for noise impacts 

associated with these activities is described in 

the report “Oil and Gas Technology and 

Associated Environmental Effects” prepared 
Visitor Use and Experience 

221 

by Tetra Tech, Inc. for the National Park 

Service in 1987. 

Noise levels associated with drilling operations 

in Big Cypress National Preserve were documented by Vibra-Tech South Corporation in 

1986. The study was conducted for Exxon 

Company in December 1985 during typical 

rotary drilling operations and conductor 

casing drive hammer operations at the Collier 

24 well. Noise levels were recorded at 

varying distances from the operation, ranging 

from 10 feet to 12,000 feet. During conductor 

casing drive hammer operations, decibel levels 

were highest within 10 feet of the drilling rig 

(93 dBA) and lowest (40 dBA or less) at 

distances of 10,000 feet or greater from the rig. 

During rotary drilling operations, 85 dBA was 

recorded 10 feet from the rig and 40 dBA or 

less was recorded 9,200 feet from the drilling 

operation. It is important to note that the noise 

level recording equipment used in this study 

had a minimum detection limit of 40 dBA. 

Using 40 dB as a maximum ambient level, 

noise from rotary drilling operations can be 

detected up to 8,500 feet (1.61 miles) from a 

rig, and noise generated from a conductor 

casing drive hammer operation can be 

detected up to 9,200 feet (1.74 miles) from a rig 

in the preserve. By applying the U. S. Forest 

Service’s acceptable level of 10 dB above 

ambient sound, which if exceeded would likely 

result in public complaints, the threshold 

distance for rotary drilling operations is at 

least 2,400 feet (0.45 mile) and nearly 8,500 

feet (1.61 miles) for conductor casing drive 

hammer operations. 

 

Aircraft Noise. Natural soundscapes 

throughout the Addition are affected by 

aircraft noise from a variety of overflight 

sources. These include high-altitude, commercial jet traffic; military activity; general 

aviation; NPS administrative operations, such 

as resource management, prescribed fire 

activities, emergency response and facility 

maintenance; municipal and commercial air 

traffic from surrounding counties; and the air 

flight training operating out of the DadeCollier Training and Transition Airport 

known locally as the Jetport. The National 

Park Service resource management and 

prescribed fire activities are the predominate 

source of aircraft noise. In addition, another 

source of aircraft noise is from the 1,260 

annual air tour flights over the Preserve. 

In order to minimize aircraft noise, The 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

recommends a minimum altitude of 2000 feet. 

The FAA also limits and regulates noise levels 

generated by aircraft as authorized under 14 

CFR Part 36, “Noise Standards: Aircraft Type 

and Airworthiness Certification.” To be 

certified for operation within the United 

States, all aircraft must meet established noise 

limits based on aircraft type, speed capabilities, operational category (commercial, agricultural, etc.), and age of aircraft. Propellerdriven aircraft, jet aircraft, and helicopters are 

all included. 

Helicopter use is of particular interest within 

the Addition because this type of aircraft is 

often used to access the backcountry. The 

acoustical impact of a helicopter is a function 

of the size and the type of engine used as well 

as the movement of the rotor blades through 

the atmosphere as they produce lift. Turbinepowered helicopters are generally quieter 

than piston powered helicopters with muffled 

engine exhausts. Turbine-powered helicopters produce sounds often no louder than 

familiar surface transportation vehicles. 

Highway Noise. Interstate 75 provides the 

main interstate access route between Fort 

Lauderdale/Miami and Tampa Bay. This 

highway creates a considerable impact on the 

natural soundscape in the northern portion of 

the Addition as a result of the nearly constant 

traffic. To a lesser degree, Highways 29 and 41 

also impact the natural soundscape within the 

Addition. The level of highway traffic noise 

depends on (1) the volume of the traffic, (2) 

the speed of the traffic, and (3) the number of 

trucks in the flow of the traffic. Generally, the 

loudness of traffic noise is increased by 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

222 

heavier traffic volumes, higher speeds, and 

greater numbers of trucks. Vehicle noise is a 

combination of the noises produced by the 

engine, exhaust, and tires. The loudness of 

traffic noise can also be increased by defective 

mufflers or other faulty equipment on 

vehicles. As a person moves away from a 

highway, traffic noise levels are reduced by 

distance, terrain, vegetation, and natural and 

man-made obstacles (FHWA 1995). A 61-

meter (about 200-foot) width of dense 

vegetation, for example, can reduce noise by 

10 decibels, which cuts the loudness of traffic 

noise in half (FHWA 1995). 

Visitor Responses to Noise 

An overwhelming majority of public comments to date have indicated that the use of 

off-road vehicles in the Addition would create 

impacts to natural resources and to opportunities for visitors to experience solitude. 

Although ORV riders enjoy being able to 

easily access the deep backcountry of the 

original Preserve, the use of these vehicles 

impacts the natural soundscape and solitude 

that many non-ORV users seek. Although 

most hunters at Big Cypress use some form of 

off-road vehicle to access prime hunting areas, 

many hunters have expressed their displeasure with off-road vehicles in disturbing 

wildlife and their personal recreational 

experience. Other visitors have commented 

on the noise disturbance created by Interstate 

75, which can be heard thousands of feet into 

the interior of the Addition. 
223 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

OVERVIEW 

Collier County is the primary geographic unit 

for analysis of the socioeconomic impacts. 

When data permit, specific impacts on 

Everglades City, the Big Cypress Seminole 

Indian Reservation, and the Miccosukee 

Indian Reservation will also be discussed in 

this section. 

Collier County is in southwest Florida’s Gulf 

Coast, about 150 miles south of Tampa and 

100 miles west of Fort Lauderdale. Its 

principal city is Naples. The county’s land 

area is 2,025 square miles, and the Preserve 

encompasses most of the eastern half of the 

county. Much of the county’s population lives 

in unincorporated areas along the Gulf Coast 

near Naples. Many Preserve employees live in 

the Naples area because the Preserve 

headquarters is about 35 miles southeast along 

U.S. 41. 

The two other incorporated cities in Collier 

County are Marco Island and Everglades City. 

Marco Island is south of Naples, around 30 

miles from Preserve headquarters. Everglades 

City is the closest incorporated area to the 

Preserve, less than 10 miles from headquarters. A discussion of demographic and 

economic data for Everglades City is included 

in this section because the city caters to 

visitors to both Everglades National Park and 

Big Cypress National Preserve. Public services 

and infrastructure in the Everglades City area 

include the following: 

 fire protection — Ochopee Fire 

Control District 

 police protection — Collier County 

Sheriff 

 health care — several hospitals and 

clinics are in Naples and Marco Island 

 educational infrastructure — 

Everglades City School (K–12, 

approximately 150 students) 

The Big Cypress Seminole Indian Reservation 

borders the Northeast Addition to the north, 

and the Miccosukee Indian Reservation 

borders the Northeast Addition on the east. 

There is very little census data on the 

Miccosukee Reservation. 

DEMOGRAPHICS 

Collier County 

Population. The U.S. Census Bureau (Census) 

reports that the population of Collier County 

in 1990 was 152,099, rising to 251,377 in 2000 

and estimated to be 314,649 in 2006. The compound annual growth rate of Collier County’s 

population from 1990 to 2006 was 4.6%, with 

a 65.3% increase in total population during 

this period — or about 100,000 people. 

According to Census 2000 data and the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and 

Business Research (BEBR) projections from 

2000, the population of Collier County is 

expected to continue growing rapidly. The 

bureau projects that population will increase 

to 397,434 in 2010, 474,192 in 2015, and 

507,388 in 2025 (see figure 2). Based on these 

estimates, the average annual growth rate 

from 2006 to 2025 is expected to average 

2.5%. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

224 

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

1990 2000 2010 2015 2025

Source: 2000 U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Economic and Business Research 

FIGURE 2: TOTAL POPULATION: COLLIER COUNTY

Age Distribution of Population. Table 19 

displays the breakdown of Collier County’s 

population by age group based on 2000 and 

2006 Census data. The data reveal that from 

2000 to 2006 the four fastest growing age 

groups were the 85-year and older, 75-84 year, 

9-year and under, and 20-34 year categories. 

These population age groups grew at average 

annual rates of 10.9%, 6.0%, 5.6%, and 5.5%, 

respectively during this period. The slowest 

growing age groups between 2000 and 2006 

were the 65-74 year, 55-64 year, and 35-44 

year categories, which grew at rates of .8%, 

2.1%, and 3.0%, respectively. 

The table reveals that the Collier County 

population is fairly evenly distributed with 

most age categories representing around 9% 

to 12% of the total population. 

Everglades City 

Population: According to the Census, the 

population of Everglades City was 321 in 1990 

and 479 in 2000, for an average annual growth 

rate of 4.1%. Recent Everglades City 

population projections were provided by 

TABLE 19: AGE DISTRIBUTION IN COLLIER COUNTY

Age Category 2000 2006 

Compound 

Annual Growth 

Rate (CAGR) 

% of 2006 

Population 

9 years and under 27,885 37,507 5.6% 11.9% 

10-19 years 27,059 32,474 3.1% 10.3% 

20-34 years 39,970 55,051 5.5% 17.5% 

35-44 years 33,458 39,845 3.0% 12.7% 

45-54 years 29,515 36,920 3.8% 11.7% 

55-64 years 31,977 36,199 2.1% 11.5% 

65-74 years 35,088 36,736 .8% 11.7% 

75-84 years 21,060 29,917 6.0% 9.5% 

85 years and over 5,365 10,000 10.9% 3.2% 

 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Total Population 
Socioeconomic Environment 

225 

Collier County’s Comprehensive Planning 

Department. According to department 

forecasts, the population was estimated to be 

741 in 2007 and reach 982 in the year 2020. 

This translates into an average annual growth 

rate of 2.2% over the period 2007 to 2020. 

This rate is in line with the 2006 to 2025 

estimated population growth rate for Collier 

County of 2.5% (see figure 3). 

Age Distribution of Population. As indicated 

in table 20, more than 60% of the population 

in Everglades City is over the age of 44. Only 

12.9% of the population is under the age of 20, 

while persons 20-44 represent about 22.1% of 

the total population. 

 

Big Cypress Seminole Reservation 

Population: The Census reported that in 2000, 

the total population of the Big Cypress 

Seminole Indian Reservation was 142. This 

estimate is used as a basis for population 

growth rate calculations by the Bureau of 

Economic and Business Research. This bureau 

and Collier County Comprehensive Planning 

Department estimated a reservation population of 201 in 2004 and expect slow growth in 

the future. The most recently reported population projections for Big Cypress Indian 

Reservation, as calculated by this bureau, 

indicate that in 2010 there will be an estimated 

total population of 209, increasing to 222 in 

2020. The estimated average annual growth 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1990 2000 2007(p) 2010(p) 2020(p)

 Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department 

FIGURE 3: TOTAL POPULATION: EVERGLADES CITY

TABLE 20: AGE DISTRIBUTION OF EVERGLADES CITY POPULATION

Age Category 2000 % of 2000 Population 

9 years and under 26 5.4% 

10-19 years 36 7.5% 

20-34 years 55 11.5% 

35-44 years 51 10.6% 

45-54 years 66 13.8% 

55-64 years 80 16.7% 

65-74 years 110 23.0% 

75-84 years 34 7.1% 

85 years and over 21 4.4% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 

Total Population 

 Year (projection)
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

226 

rate of the reservation during the period 2007 

to 2020 is estimated to be 0.61% (see figure 4). 

Age Distribution of Population. Based on 

Census 2000 data, 75.3% of the population of 

the Big Cypress Seminole Reservation is under 

the age of 44 (see table 21). Within this age 

range, the largest population is in the 9 years 

and under category, followed by the 20 to 34 

age category. These two age categories 

represent 46.4% of the total population. 

ECONOMY AND EMPLOYMENT 

Collier County 

Employment. According to Census estimates, 

in 2006, Collier County’s labor force consisted 

of 144,905 workers. Of these workers, 140,184 

were employed and 4,721 were unemployed, 

for an unemployment rate of 3.9%. Figure 5 

compares the unemployment rates of Collier 

County and the state of Florida from 1990 to 

2006. The figure reveals that unemployment 

rates steadily declined in Collier County 

during the period 1992 to 2000 — from a high 

 

 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 and Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department 

FIGURE 4: TOTAL POPULATION: BIG CYPRESS SEMINOLE INDIAN RESERVATION

TABLE 21: AGE DISTRIBUTION OF BIG CYPRESS INDIAN RESERVATION

Age Category 2000 % of 2000 Population 

9 years and under 35 24.6% 

10-19 years 22 15.5% 

20-34 years 31 21.8% 

35-44 years 19 13.4% 

45-54 years 12 8.5% 

55-64 years 9 6.3% 

65-74 years 4 2.8% 

75-84 years 8 5.6% 

85 years and over 2 1.4% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

2004 2007(p) 2010(p) 2020(p)

Total Po

pulation 

 Year (projection) 
Socioeconomic Environment 

227 

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

Unemployment Rate

Collier County Florida

 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

FIGURE 5: UNEMPLOYMENT RATE: STATE OF FLORIDA AND COLLIER COUNTY

of nearly 10% to about 4% in 2000. 

Unemployment increased in 2001 and 2002 

during a period of national recession, but fell 

consistently every year after 2002 and reached 

a 16-year low of 3.0% in 2006. 

Table 22 reveals that the construction industry 

employed the largest share of Collier County 

workers in 2006, accounting for 19.5% of the 

workforce. The educational/ healthcare/social 

assistance, retail trade, and the arts/ 

entertainment/recreation/ accommodation/ 

food service industries also employed a 

relatively large share of workers in 2006, at 

13.9%, 13.6, and 11.8% of the Collier County 

workforce respectively. Together, these four 

industries employed about 58.7% of the 

Collier County workforce, or 82,329 workers. 

From 1990 to 2006 the arts/entertainment/ 

recreation/accommodation/ food service 

industry had the most rapid employment 

growth, increasing at an average annual rate of 

13.5%. Employment in the construction and 

educational/healthcare/ social assistance 

industries grew relatively rapidly during this 

period, increasing at an average rate of 7.6% 

and 6% per year, respectively. Overall 

employment grew by an average annual rate of 

4.6% in Collier County during the period 1990 

to 2006, with the total number of employed 

workers increasing from around 68,449 in 

1990 to 140,184 in 2006. 

With respect to work location and travel to 

work, the 2000 Census data reveals that the 

total number of workers who commuted to 

work was 126,328. Of this amount, 98,913 

people drove alone in a car, truck, or van and 

13,505 people carpooled. About 1,245 

workers used public transportation, 3,330 

people walked to work, 4,103 people used 

other means of transportation, and 5,232 

people worked from their homes. The mean 

travel time to work was 24.0 minutes, 

indicating that most employees lived far 

enough away from their work location to have 

to use some form of motorized transportation. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

228 

TABLE 22: EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY: COLLIER COUNTY

Employees 

(1990) 

Employees 

(2006) 

% of 2006 

Employees 

Compound 

Annual 

Growth Rate 

(1990–2006) 

Wholesale trade 1,960 3,991 2.8% 4.5% 

Information n/a 1,768 1.3% n/a 

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, 

hunting, and mining 5,431 2,861 2.0% -3.9% 

Manufacturing 3,342 3,709 2.6% 0.7% 

Public administration 2,545 5,615 4.0% 5.1% 

Transportation, warehousing, 

and utilities 3,600 3,952 2.8% .6% 

Other services (except public 

administration) 4,811 7,958 5.7% 3.2% 

Finance, insurance, real estate 

and rental and leasing 7,219 12,716 9.1% 3.6% 

Professional, scientific, 

management, administrative, 

and waste management 

services 7,584 15,285 10.9% 4.5% 

Retail trade 13,630 18,997 13.6% 2.1% 

Arts, entertainment, recreation, 

accommodation, and food 

services 2,201 16,603 11.8% 13.5% 

Educational services, health 

care, and social assistance 7,609 19,428 13.9% 6.0% 

Construction 8,517 27,301 19.5% 7.6% 

Total 68,449 140,184 100.0% 4.6% 

 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990, and 2006 

Personal Income. According to the U.S. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis, in 2006 Collier 

County had a per capita personal income of 

$57,446, significantly higher than the 

statewide average of $36,720. Figure 6 displays 

trends in per capita personal income in Collier 

County compared to the state during the 

period 1990 to 2006 in constant 2006 dollars 

(net of inflation). The figure reveals that per 

capita personal income at the county and state 

level have trended together during this 15-

year period, yet Collier County per capita 

personal income has remained consistently 

higher, at around $13,500 above state per 

capita personal income levels. In real terms, 

per capita personal income has increased in 

Collier County at an average annual rate of 

2.0% over the period, compared to 1.3% for 

the state of Florida. 
Socioeconomic Environment 

229 

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Per Capita Income (2006 $)

Collier County State of Florida

 SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) 

FIGURE 6: PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME (CONSTANT $2006): FLORIDA AND COLLIER COUNTY

Composition of Collier County Economy.

Table 23 displays the approximate economic 

output for each industry category in Collier 

County in 2004. The table reveals that the 

largest economic sectors are the financial/ 

insurance, construction, accommodation/ 

recreation, and professional service industries, 

which together produce 54.6% of all goods 

and services in Collier County. The service 

sector comprises about 52.4% of the Collier 

County economy, while goods-producing 

industries and wholesale/retail trade represent 

about 24.8% and 11.4% of total economic 

output respectively. The state, local, and 

federal government together represent about 

4.7% of the total economic output in the 

county. The table shows that in 2004 the total 

economic output for Collier County was $17.1 

billion, of which approximately $8.9 billion 

represented the value of services performed, 

$4.2 billion reflected goods produced, $1.9 

billion reflected wholesale and retail sales, and 

$802 million represented goods and services 

provided by federal, state, and local 

governments. 

TABLE 23: ESTIMATED ECONOMIC OUTPUT BY SECTOR IN COLLIER COUNTY, 2004 

Sector 2004 Output % of Total 

Information $435,108,000 2.5%

Transportation and warehousing, and utilities $485,707,000 2.8%

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining $525,501,000 3.1%

Wholesale trade $539,910,000 3.2%

Manufacturing $553,130,000 3.2%

Other services, except public administration $591,153,000 3.5%

Public administration $802,074,000 4.7%

Owner-occupied dwellings $1,149,480,000 6.7%

Educational services, health care, and social assistance $1,273,309,000 7.5%

Retail trade $1,395,235,000 8.2%

Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and 

waste management services $1,709,351,000 10.0%

Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services $1,714,814,000 10.0%

Construction $2,686,321,000 15.7%

Finance and insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing $3,221,944,000 18.9%

TOTAL OUTPUT $17,083,037,000 100.0%

Source: Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG), 2004 Collier County Data Set
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

230 

Economic output in Collier County increased 

by an average annual rate of 5.6% over the 

period 1990 to 2005, compared to 4.0% for 

Florida as a whole. More recently, during the 

period 2000 to 2005, economic growth in 

Collier County increased at an average annual 

rate of approximately 7.5%. Whereas 

economic growth has remained relatively 

constant over time for Florida, around 4%, an 

increase in the economic growth rate from 

5.6% to 7.5% suggests an acceleration and 

expansion of economic growth in Collier 

County (as specified from a study conducted 

by the National Ocean Economics Program). 

During the period 2000 to 2005, the county 

typically produced between 1.5% and 1.8% of 

the total Florida gross state product (GSP), 

which represents the total value of all goods 

and services produced in Florida in a given 

year. During this same period, Collier County 

typically ranked 15th out of 67 counties in 

Florida in terms of the amount of production 

of goods and services. Figure 7 displays the 

annual change in economic output for Florida 

and Collier County during the period 1990 to 

2005. The figure reveals that, as expected, 

changes in economic output in Collier County 

have generally tracked with economic growth 

trends observed at the state level. However, 

percentage changes in annual economic 

output have been consistently greater in 

Collier County relative to Florida beginning in 

1998 and continuing to 2005. Following the 

economic downturn in 2001–2002, economic 

output rebounded and expanded in Collier 

County during the period 2003 to 2005. In 

2005, growth slowed in Collier County and 

actually declined slightly in Florida. Despite 

the recent slowdown in growth in 2005, the 

long-term trend in economic growth for 

Collier County suggests that growth and 

economic expansion will continue into the 

future. 

Everglades City 

Employment. Of the 479 residents in Everglades City in the year 2000, 424 were over the 

age of 16 and only 200 were part of the civilian 

labor force, based on data provided by the 

Census. In 2000, 197 workers were employed 

in Everglades City. The city had a very low 

unemployment rate in 2000 of 1.5%. As demographic data from the Census suggests, a large 

portion of the city’s population are older 

residents who are likely retired, which 

-2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

Annual % Increase in Economic Output

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Collier County Florida

Source: National Ocean Economics Program 

FIGURE 7: ANNUAL CHANGE IN ECONOMIC OUTPUT: FLORIDA AND COLLIER COUNTY ($2005) 
Socioeconomic Environment 

231 

explains why the labor force is relatively small 

compared to the population. From 1990 to 

2000 employment increased by 11.9%, or by 

an average annual rate of 1.1%. However, the 

number of persons not part of the labor force 

nearly tripled during this period, increasing at 

an average rate of 11.3% per year. This indicates that Everglades City is likely becoming a 

community increasingly composed of retirees. 

In terms of mode of travel to and from work, 

118 employees traveled alone in a car, truck, 

or van, and 33 carpooled. Around 33 workers 

either walked or used other means of transportation, and the remaining 11 individuals 

worked from their homes. 

Table 24 indicates that a significant portion of 

the Everglades City workforce is employed in 

the arts/entertainment/recreation/ accommodation and food services industries, together 

representing 29.4% of the workforce in 2000. 

Agricultural/mining and transportation/ 

utilities industries also employ a relatively 

large number of workers in Everglades City, 

representing a combined total of about 30% of 

the workforce. 

Personal and Household Income in 

Everglades City. According to the 1990 and 

2000 Censuses, per capita income in Everglades City was $16,394 in 1990 and $20,535 in 

2000, for an average annual increase of 2.2%. 

Figure 8 displays the percentage of total 

households in Everglades City by income 

bracket in comparison to Collier County, 

based on Census 2000 data. 

In comparing Everglades City to Collier 

County, Census data shows that Everglades 

City’s average household income is skewed 

slightly more towards the lower household 

income brackets. The median household 

income for Everglades City was $36,667, 

which was significantly lower than the Collier 

County median income of $48,289. As for the 

per capita income comparisons in 2000, the 

data reflects the same conclusion. Per capita 

income in Everglades City was $20,535 — 

considerably lower than per capita income in 

TABLE 24: EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY IN EVERGLADES CITY

Employees 

(1990) 

Employees 

(2000) 

% of 2000 

Employees 

CAGR 

(1990-2005) 

Manufacturing 5 0 0.0% -100.0%

Information n/a 0 0.0% n/a

Professional, scientific, management, 

administrative, and waste management 

services 10 3 1.5% -11.3% 

Construction 9 5 2.5% -5.7%

Wholesale trade 6 6 3.0% 0.0%

Other services, except public administration 34 7 3.6% -14.6%

Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental 

and leasing 5 8 4.1% 4.8% 

Educational, health and social services 18 14 7.1% -2.5%

Retail trade 27 19 9.6% -3.5%

Public administration 16 19 9.6% 1.7%

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, 

and mining 10 29 14.7% 11.2% 

Transportation and warehousing, and 

utilities 28 29 14.7% 0.4% 

Arts, entertainment, recreation, 

accommodation, and food services 8 58 29.4% 21.9% 

Total 176 197 100% 1.1%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

232 

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Less than $10K

$10K to $14,9K

$15K to $24.9K

$25K to $34.9K

$35K to $49.9K

$50K to $74.9K

$75K to $99.9K

$100K to $149.9K

$150Kto $199.9K

$200K +

Everglades City Collier County

 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 

FIGURE 8: HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME BRACKETS: COLLIER COUNTY AND EVERGLADES CITY, 2000 

Collier County, at an estimated $31,195. 

Census data for Everglades City beyond the 

year 2000 are currently unavailable. 

Composition of Everglades City Economy. 

Output by industry sector for Everglades City 

was estimated based on the ratio of the 

number of employees in Everglades City to 

that of Collier County. Table 25 displays 

estimates of economic output by sector. 

Economic output in Everglades City in 2004 

was estimated at $19.6 million. The table 

reveals that the largest economic sector in 

Everglades City is the arts, entertainment, 

recreation, accommodation, and food services 

sector, which together produced an estimated 

$5.8 million in 2004. 

The total economic output of Everglades City 

in 2004 represented approximately 0.11% of 

total 2004 county economic output. 

TABLE 25: ESTIMATED ECONOMIC OUTPUT BY SECTOR IN EVERGLADES CITY

Sector 

2004 

Output 

% of Total 

Output 

Manufacturing $0 0.0%

Information $0 0.0%

Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste 

management services $298,600 1.5%

Construction $497,600 2.5%

Wholesale trade $597,200 3.0%

Other services (except public administration) $696,700 3.6%

Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing $796,200 4.1%

Educational, health and social services $1,393,400 7.1%

Retail trade $1,891,000 9.6%

Public administration $1,891,000 9.6%

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining $2,886,300 14.7%

Transportation and warehousing, and utilities $2,886,300 14.7%

Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, & food services $5,772,700 29.4%

TOTAL OUTPUT $19,607,000 100.0%

 Source: Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG), 2004 Collier County Data Set; 2000 Census
Socioeconomic Environment 

233 

VISITOR USE AND 

ECONOMIC IMPACT 

Visitation Data 

Table 26 presents NPS data on recreational 

visits to the Preserve during the 1997 to 2007 

period. 

TABLE 26: RECREATION VISITS, 1997–2007 

Year Recreation Visits 

1997 462,553 

1998 474,895 

1999 503,110 

2000 505,062 

2001 409,771 

2002 449,481 

2003 400,902 

2004 385,194 

2005 768,687 

2006 825,857 

2007 822,864 

2008 813,790 

SOURCE: NPS Public Use Statistics Office 

The table shows that the number of recreation 

visits to the Preserve was generally in the 

400,000 to 500,000 range during 1997 to 2004. 

In 2005 the Preserve changed its counting 

methods, adding visitor counts from the Oasis 

Visitor Center parking lot and vehicle counts 

from the east and west ends of the Loop Road. 

This change contributed to the higher 

visitation figures in 2005-2008. 

Visitor Activities 

The Visitor Services Project and Cooperative 

Park Studies Unit of the University of Idaho 

conducted a general visitor survey for Big 

Cypress National Preserve in 2007. The park 

studies unit gathered a large sample of randomly selected visitor groups (N= 634) and 

requested that the visitors complete questionnaires in order to analyze Preserve visitation 

and use patterns. The survey indicated that 

the most common visitor group activities were 

viewing wildlife (69%), taking a scenic drive 

(66%) driving through the Preserve to reach 

another destination (52%), and bird-watching 

(48%). Hiking and photography/painting/ 

drawing were also popular activities, at 39%. A 

smaller portion of visitors participated in 

more traditional forms of outdoor recreation, 

including picnicking (20%), camping (18%), 

airboating (18%), and fishing (15%). Only 9% 

of the visitors surveyed planned to canoe or 

kayak, and only 4% planned to hunt. About 

7% of visitors interviewed had plans to drive 

off road vehicles within the Preserve. Around 

6% of visitors participated in “other” types of 

activities, which may include biking and 

horseback riding. The percentages reported 

exceed 100% because visitors can participate 

in more than one of these activities. Figure 9 

depicts the activities participated in by 

Preserve visitors. 

Response Concerning the Addition. Visitors 

surveyed were also asked their opinions and 

preferences concerning the Big Cypress 

Addition. Of the visitor groups interviewed, 

52% noted that they would be likely to visit 

the Addition on the next trip, with 36% not 

sure about visiting, and 13% not likely to visit. 

Also, 30% reported that they would be more 

likely to visit the Addition if there was an 

outfitter or guide available, with 37% not 

being sure and 34% not likely. 

In terms of activities that visitors would like 

available in the Addition, hiking, camping, 

wildlife viewing, fishing, canoeing, birdwatching, biking, and hiking were the most 

frequently mentioned. 

ORV and Camp User Survey. In addition to 

the visitor study, the University of Idaho 

conducted a survey for Preserve ORV and 

camp users in 2007. In total, 520 questionnaires were successfully sent to a random 

sample of registered ORV holders or camp 

owners, generating 240 respondents (a 46.2% 

response rate). Of the total respondents, 57% 

had visited the Preserve five or more times in 

the past 12 months, which corresponds to the 

fact that 95% of respondents live in Florida 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

234 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Wildlife View ing

Taking a Scenic Drive

Driving Through

Birdw atching

Photograph/Paint/Draw

Hiking/Walking

Picnicking

Camping

Air boating

Fishing

Canoeing/Kayaking

ORV Driving

Other

Hunting

Type of Activity

Percentage that Participated

 Source: Park Studies Unit, University of Idaho, Spring 2007 Report 

FIGURE 9: GENERAL VISITOR ACTIVITIES AND USE, 2007 

(and thus have relatively easy access to the 

Preserve). In terms of average group size, 30% 

were in groups of five or more, 40% were in 

groups of three or four, and 30% were in 

groups of one or two. 

In terms of length of stay, 38% spent less than 

one day at the Preserve during their last visit, 

with 62% staying more than one day. 

Of the 38% that stayed less than one day, 54% 

stayed seven or more hours, 23% stayed five 

or six hours, 12% stayed three or four hours, 

and 11% stayed one or two hours. Of the 62% 

that stayed more than one day, 32% stayed 

three days, 31% stayed two days, 22% stayed 

four or five days, and 16% stayed six days or 

more. As a whole, 56% of respondents stayed 

overnight away from home in the area, with 

44% returning home. 

As shown in figure 10, activities most 

frequently participated in during respondents 

last visit to the Preserve were ORV driving 

(72%), camping (49%), hunting (45%), 

wildlife viewing (42%), and taking a scenic 

drive. 

For most respondents (92%), the Preserve was 

the primary destination on their most recent 

trip. 

Visitor Group Size and Length of Stay 

According to the results of the 2007 visitor 

study, approximately 76% of all Preserve 

visitors spent less than a day at the Preserve, 

and 71% of those spent less than four hours at 

the Preserve. For the 24% that stayed more 

than one day in the Preserve, 30% spent seven 

or more days. The average length of stay for all 

visitors (for those staying less than one day 

and those staying more than one day) was 1.6 

days. The average length of stay for those 

staying more than one day at the Preserve was 

4.3 days. 

The study further shows that 48% of 

respondents were in groups of two or more, 
Socioeconomic Environment 

235 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

ORV Driving

Camping

Hunting

Wildlife View ing

Scenic Drive

Hiking/Walking

Fishing

Photograph/Paint/Draw

Birdw atching

Driving Through

Picknicking

Airboating

Other

Canoe/Kayak

Type of Activity

Percentage that Participated

SOURCE: Park Studies Unit, University of Idaho, Spring 2007 Report 

FIGURE 10: 2007 ORV PERMIT HOLDER AND CAMP OWNER ACTIVITY AND USE

44% were in groups of four or more, and just 

8% were visiting the Preserve alone. The 

average group size for respondents was 2.8 

people. 

Visitor Spending and Trip Purpose 

Based on the 2007 visitor survey, average 

visitor group expenditures were $1,073, with a 

median expenditure of $370. The average total 

expenditure per person was $484. 

As shown in table 27, visitors — as a total of 

overall spending — spent the most on 

noncamping overnight accommodations 

outside the Preserve (36%), restaurants and 

bars (18%), and groceries and take-out food 

(11%). Visitors as a whole spent the least 

amount of money on donations to the 

Preserve (1%), commercial airboat tours, and 

on commercial guided tours to the 

backcountry (2%). 

Of total nonlocal visitors, only 22% of 

respondents noted that they were in the area 

for the primary purpose of visiting the 

Preserve. Approximately 36% said they were 

visiting the area to see other attractions, 19% 

to visit friends and/or relatives, 2% for 

business; and 21% for other reasons. 

TABLE 27: EXPENDITURE CATEGORIES

Types of Expenditures % of 

Total 

Spending 

Hotels, motels, cabins, and bed-andbreakfasts 36%

Restaurants and bars 18%

Groceries and take-out food 11%

Gas and oil 9%

All other purchases 8%

Other transportation costs 6%

Camping fees 5%

Admission, recreation, and 

entertainment 

3%

Commercial guided tours to the 

backcountry 

2%

Commercial airboat tours 1%

Donations to the preserve 1%

TOTAL 100%

Source: Park Studies Unit, University of Idaho, 

Spring 2007 Report 
236 

NPS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION 

The original Preserve is divided into six 

management planning units — the Bear Island, 

Corn Dance, Deep Lake, Loop, Stairsteps, and 

Turner River units. These units encompass 

about 582,000 acres. The Addition was 

established in 1988 and consists of two areas 

— the northeastern section that straddles 

Interstate 75, and the western section that 

parallels the north/south portion of SR 29. 

The two areas of the Addition encompass 

about 147,000 acres. Currently, NPS 

operations in the Addition are focused on 

gathering baseline information and 

fire/natural resource management activities, 

such as exotic plant management. Operations 

will not be fully extended to manage the 

Addition to the same level as the original 

Preserve until this General Management Plan

is finalized and a “Record of Decision” is 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Preserve, including the Addition, is 

administered by a superintendent and a 

deputy superintendent. NPS headquarters is 

in the southwestern portion of the Preserve at 

Ochopee, Florida. 

NPS OPERATIONS 

AND MANAGEMENT 

NPS staffing in 2007 was 77 employees.

Currently, very minimal dedication of staff 

time is given to manage the Addition because 

visitation is minimal and a final management 

plan has yet to be concluded. Because the 

Addition makes up about 20% of the entire 

Preserve, active management for these lands 

will require additional staff and equipment. 

Management of Big Cypress National 

Preserve, including the Addition, is organized 

into the following divisions: Visitor and 

Resource Protection, Interpretation, Resource 

Management, Administration, Fire and 

Aviation, and Maintenance. 

Visitor and Resource Protection Division 

The Visitor and Resource Protection Division 

is primarily responsible for law enforcement 

activities and enforces laws and regulations 

intended to safeguard visitors and resources. 

In addition to law enforcement, this division is 

responsible for search-and-rescue operations 

and emergency medical services Preservewide. Rangers make routine visitor contacts to 

ensure that Preserve regulations and concurrent state hunting and fishing regulations 

are understood and being met, to check for 

safety and resource violations, and to respond 

to or direct visitor inquiries to appropriate 

NPS staff. The recreational fee program, ORV 

special use permit program, and various 

components of the overall special use permit 

program are also managed by the division. 

Interpretation Division 

The Interpretation Division is responsible for 

educating and offering visitors opportunities 

to understand the significance of the Preserve 

and to ensure the protection and enjoyment of 

associated resources. This includes educating 

visitors, stakeholders, and the general public 

about these resources, including the natural 

systems in the south Florida ecosystem; 

cultural resources; wilderness and scenic 

values; scientific opportunities; and the role of 

the Preserve in local, regional, and national 

contexts. NPS staff fulfill these responsibilities 

through formal education and orientation 

programs, interpretive programs, curriculumbased educational programs, and interpretive 

media. Personal services include staffing of 

the visitor centers, ranger-led walks and canoe 

trips, talks and evening programs, demonstrations and special events, and informal contacts 
NPS Operations and Management 

237 

with visitors. This division is also responsible 

for supervision of publications and materials 

available at bookstores and sales outlets, 

exhibits and audiovisual media, the website, 

and electronic media. 

Resource Management Division 

The Resource Management Division manages 

the Preserve’s natural and cultural resources. 

This program includes the management of all 

natural resources in the Preserve to ensure the 

preservation of fundamental physical and 

biological processes, as well as individual 

species, features, and plant communities. This 

division lacks a cultural resource manager and 

uses the Southeastern Archeological and 

Conservation Center for technical assistance 

and guidance on the management of cultural 

resources. This division administers the 

Preserve’s geographic information system 

(GIS) database and all cooperative research 

and research permits in the Preserve. 

Administration Division 

The Administration Division is responsible for 

the Preserve’s budget and financial 

accounting, property management, personnel 

management, procurement, contracting, mail 

services, administrative filing, and management of the Preserve-wide computer systems. 

Fire and Aviation Division 

The Fire and Aviation Division is responsible 

both for fire-fighting activities and for restoring the natural fire regime to areas where fires 

naturally occur. The effects of fire on natural 

ecological systems will also be actively 

monitored by division staff where fires occur. 

Maintenance Division 

The Maintenance Division is responsible for 

the operation and maintenance of all NPS 

facilities and equipment, including buildings 

and maintained grounds; utility systems such 

as water, sewer, and solid waste management; 

employee housing; roads; parking areas and 

trailheads; trails; and picnic areas. This 

division is also responsible for fleet 

management. 

NPS FACILITIES 

NPS facilities are primarily designed to 

provide safe, enjoyable, and educational 

access and support to visitors who come to 

experience Big Cypress National Preserve. 

Facilities are typically located in areas that can 

sustain visitation while protecting resources, 

natural systems, and the generally wild 

character that was intended upon designation 

of these federally managed lands. 

Public Facilities 

Trails and Trailheads. Within the Addition 

there are currently no designated trails or 

developed trailheads. A temporary route of 

the Florida National Scenic Trail has been 

designated through the Addition. 

Within the original Preserve, there are 

officially designated and maintained trails for 

hiking, bicycling and ORV use. NPS staff 

patrols, maintains, and repairs all trails. Trail 

use is divided primarily between ORV riders 

and hikers, with limited use by bicyclists. The 

Recreational ORV Management Plan

(completed in 2000) reflects existing use and 

associated impacts in the original Preserve. 

Roads. Within the Addition, the only NPSmanaged road used by standard highway 

vehicles is that portion of the Loop Road that 

is in Monroe County. Interstate 75 crosses the 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

238 

northern portion of the Preserve for about 30 

miles, 19 miles of which are in the Addition. 

U.S. 41, also known as the Tamiami Trail, is a 

paved highway that crosses the southern 

portion of the Preserve for about 36 miles, 1 

mile of which in the Addition. 

State Road 29 is a paved highway that runs 

north/south between Immokalee and 

Everglades City and is immediately adjacent to 

the western border of the Addition for about 

29 miles. 

Visitor Information 

Within the Addition visitor information is 

limited to way-finding signs. No waysides or 

visitor information is available. 

Within the original Preserve, visitor 

information is provided at the Oasis Visitor 

Center, the Big Cypress Swamp Welcome 

Center, and at a series of waysides along U.S. 

41. 

Camping. Backcountry camping is the only 

type of camping allowed in the Addition and is 

subject to NPS backcountry camping 

regulations and guidelines. No developed 

campgrounds currently exist in the Addition. 

Within the original Preserve camping 

opportunities range from developed 

campgrounds to backcountry camping. 

Administrative Facilities 

Offices, Storage, and Buildings. The NPS 

Fire Operations Center is in the Addition on 

SR 29 at Copeland. This facility provides 

office space for fire management staff and 

equipment storage. A fire station is also 

located at Deep Lake. 

All other NPS operations are based out of 

facilities in the original Preserve. There is 

limited space in these facilities to accommodate additional staff. It is at least an hour’s 

drive from these facilities to access the 

northeast portion of the Addition from 

Interstate 75. 

Preserve Housing. Within the Addition there 

is no housing for NPS staff. There is staff 

housing in the original Preserve, primarily 

NPS headquarters and the Oasis Visitor 

Center. Housing is provided to law enforcement, fire management, and seasonal staff. 
Environmental Consequences

C h a p t e r 4

241 

INTRODUCTION 

The National Environmental Policy Act 

requires that environmental documents discuss the environmental impacts of a proposed 

federal action, feasible alternatives to that 

action, and any adverse environmental effects 

that cannot be avoided. In this case, the 

proposed federal action would be the 

adoption of a General Management Plan/ORV 

Management Plan/Wilderness Study for the Big 

Cypress National Preserve Addition (the 

Addition). This chapter analyzes the environmental impacts of implementing the four 

alternatives on natural resources, cultural 

resources, visitor experience, the socioeconomic environment, and NPS operations and 

management. The analysis is the basis for 

comparing the beneficial and adverse effects 

of implementing the alternatives. 

Because of the general, conceptual nature of 

the actions described in the alternatives, the 

impacts of these actions are analyzed in 

general, qualitative terms. Thus, this 

environmental impact statement should be 

considered a programmatic analysis. For the 

purposes of analysis, it is assumed that all of 

the specific actions proposed in the alternatives would occur during the life of the plan. 

This environmental impact statement 

generally analyzes several actions, such as the 

development of recreational facilities 

(including ORV trails and trailheads), the 

construction of facilities for visitor orientation 

and NPS operations, and the designation of 

lands as wilderness. If and when proposed 

site-specific developments or other actions 

are ready for implementation following the 

approval of the general management plan, 

appropriate detailed environmental and 

cultural compliance documentation would be 

prepared. This compliance would be in 

accordance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 and the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, both as amended, 

and would meet requirements to identify and 

analyze each possible impact for the resources 

affected. 

This chapter begins with a description of the 

methods and assumptions used for each 

impact topic. Impact analysis discussions are 

organized by alternative and then by impact 

topic under each alternative. The existing 

conditions for all of the impact topics that are 

analyzed were identified in the “Affected 

Environment” chapter. All of the impact 

topics retained for detailed analysis are 

assessed for each alternative. 

The analysis of the no-action alternative 

(continue current management) identifies the 

future conditions in the Addition if no major 

changes to facilities or NPS management 

occurred. The three action alternatives are 

then compared to the no-action alternative to 

identify the incremental changes that would 

occur as a result of changes in Addition 

facilities, uses, and management. Impacts of 

recent decisions and approved plans, such as 

the Commercial Services Plan (NPS 2009), are 

not evaluated as part of this environmental 

analysis, except as part of cumulative impact 

analysis. Although these actions would occur 

during the life of the general management 

plan, they have been (or would be) evaluated 

in other environmental documents. 

Cumulative impacts are discussed under each 

alternative and are identified when this 

project is considered in conjunction with 

other actions occurring in the region. The 

discussion of cumulative impacts is followed 

by a conclusion statement. The key impacts of 

each alternative are briefly summarized at the 

end of the “Alternatives, Including the 

Preferred Alternative” chapter in table 11.
242 

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS 

The planning team based the impact analysis 

and the conclusions in this chapter mostly on 

the review of existing literature and studies, 

information provided by experts in the 

National Park Service and in other agencies, 

and staff insights and professional judgment. 

The team’s method of analyzing impacts is 

further explained below. It is important to 

remember that all the impacts have been 

assessed assuming that mitigative measures 

will be implemented to minimize or avoid 

impacts. If mitigative measures described in 

the “Alternatives, Including the Preferred 

Alternative” chapter were not applied, the 

potential for resource impacts and the 

magnitude of those impacts would increase. 

The environmental consequences for each 

impact topic were identified and characterized based on impact type (adverse or 

beneficial), intensity, context, and duration. 

Cumulative effects are discussed later in this 

section. 

Impact intensity refers to the degree or 

magnitude to which a resource would be 

beneficially or adversely affected. Each impact 

was identified as negligible, minor, moderate, 

or major, in conformance with the definitions 

for these classifications provided for each 

impact topic (see table 28 , page 251). Because 

this is a programmatic document, the 

intensities were expressed qualitatively. 

Context refers to the setting within which an 

impact may occur, such as the affected region 

or locality. In this document most impacts are 

either localized (site-specific) or Additionwide. 

Impact duration refers to how long an impact 

would last. The planning horizon for this plan 

is approximately 20 years. Unless otherwise 

specified, in this document the following 

terms are used to describe the duration of the 

impacts: 

Short term: The impact would be 

temporary in nature, lasting one year or 

less, such as the impacts associated with 

construction and/or disruption of visitor 

use to an area of the Addition. 

Long term: The impact would last more 

than one year and could be permanent in 

nature, such as the loss of soil due to the 

construction of a new facility. Although an 

impact may only occur for a short duration 

at one time, if it occurs regularly over a 

longer period of time the impact may be 

considered to be a long-term impact. For 

example, the noise from a vehicle driving 

on a road would be heard for a short time 

and intermittently, but because vehicles 

would be driving the same road throughout the 20-year life of the plan, the impact 

on the natural soundscape would be 

considered to be long term. 

Effects also can be direct or indirect. Direct 

effects are caused by an action and occur at 

the same time and place as the action. Indirect 

effects are caused by the action and occur 

later or farther away, but are still reasonably 

foreseeable. This document discloses and 

analyzes both direct and indirect effects, but 

does not differentiate between them in the 

discussions. 

The impacts of the action alternatives describe 

the difference between implementing the noaction alternative and implementing the 

action alternatives. To understand a complete 

“picture” of the impacts of implementing any 

of the action alternatives, the reader must also 

take into consideration the impacts that 

would occur in the no-action alternative. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Analysis of natural resources (surface water 

flow, water quality, wetlands, soils, floodplains, vegetation, federally threatened and 

endangered species, major game species, 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

243 

wilderness resources and values, and energy 

requirements and conservation potential) was 

based on research, knowledge of the area’s 

resources, and the best professional judgment 

of planners, resource specialists, and 

biologists who have experience with similar 

types of projects. The definitions for impact 

intensity of all impact topics are included in 

table 28, page 251; additional considerations 

used in characterizing the severity or intensity, 

as well as the duration, of certain impact 

topics (floodplains, federally threatened and 

endangered species, and wilderness resources 

and values) are discussed below. 

It should be noted that the impacts of 

developing a minimal amount of secondary 

trails was considered and included as part of 

the impact analysis conducted on the 

conceptual ORV trail system. 

Floodplains 

The “Floodplain Management Guideline” 

(NPS 1993) and the extent of alteration to 

natural hydrologic processes were used to 

determine the intensity of impacts for 

floodplains. 

Federal Threatened 

and Endangered Species 

The environmental consequences for federal 

threatened and endangered species are 

described in such a way that meets the 

requirements of the National Environmental 

Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). The required elements of a “Biological 

Assessment” have been integrated into the 

environmental impact analysis included in this 

chapter. A separate biological evaluation form 

was also prepared and submitted as required 

by the local USFWS Ecological Services office. 

The action area for cumulative impact analysis 

on special status species is identified in the 

cumulative impacts section. Impacts for 

federal threatened and endangered species are 

characterized according to impact type, 

intensity, context, and duration. Within this 

document, the ESA determinations of no 

effect, not likely to adversely affect, and likely to 

adversely affect are based on impact intensity 

equivalents as identified in table 28. The 

definitions in table 28 refer to changes in 

critical habitat designated under the Endangered Species Act — this applies only to the 

West Indian manatee because it is the only 

federal listed species among those retained for 

analysis that has designated critical habitat. 

The definitions of these ESA determination 

categories are based on the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 

National Marine Fisheries Service guidance 

for implementing Section 7 consultation 

under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 

1998). 

No effect — the appropriate conclusion 

when the action agency determines its 

proposed action will not affect a listed 

species or designated critical habitat. 

Not likely to adversely affect — the appropriate conclusion when effects on listed 

species are expected to be discountable, 

insignificant, or completely beneficial. 

Beneficial effects are contemporaneous 

positive effects without any adverse 

effects to the species. Insignificant effects 

relate to the size of the impact and should 

never reach the scale where take occurs. 

Discountable effects are those extremely 

unlikely to occur. Based on best judgment, 

a person would not: (1) be able to meaningfully measure, detect or evaluate 

insignificant effects; or (2) expect 

discountable effects to occur. 

Likely to adversely affect — the appropriate finding in a biological assessment (or 

conclusion during informal consultation) 

if any adverse effect to listed species may 

occur as a direct or indirect result of the 

proposed action or its interrelated or 

interdependent actions, and the effect is 

not discountable, insignificant, or 

beneficial (see definition of “is not likely 

to adversely affect”). In the event the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

244 

overall effect of the proposed action is 

beneficial to the listed species, but is also 

likely to cause some adverse effects, then 

the proposed action “is likely to adversely 

affect” the listed species. If incidental take 

is anticipated to occur as a result of the 

proposed action, an “is likely to adversely 

affect” determination should be made. An 

“is likely to adversely affect” determination requires the initiation of formal 

section 7 consultation.” 

At the time of writing this plan, information 

and data that could be used to analyze impacts 

on the Florida panther from increases in ORV 

use were limited. The National Park Service 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have 

commissioned an analysis of historical data 

regarding ORV use and panther biology in Big 

Cypress National Preserve, including an 

analysis of more than 160,000 hunter check-in 

forms. This data should provide additional 

insight into the effects that hunting and ORV 

use had on panthers in the Bear Island Unit. 

The study will provide evidence regarding 

correlations and patterns of past ORV use and 

panthers over time. The study is being 

conducted by Robert Fletcher and Kyle 

McCarthy of the University of Florida, and it 

is anticipated that it will be completed by the 

end of 2010. 

Additionally, the National Park Service and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been 

working collaboratively to further evaluate the 

relationship between the Park Service’s 

proposed ORV trail system and important 

characteristics of Florida panther habitat 

through geographic information system (GIS) 

analysis. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

intends to use the results of this analysis to 

assist them in evaluating potential impacts on 

the panther. 

The National Park Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service agreed that these data would 

be useful in evaluating potential impacts on 

the Florida panther from the actions included 

in this plan and that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service will use these data in developing their 

“Biological Opinion.” 

Wilderness Resources and Values 

The National Park Service compared the 

management actions of each alternative with 

the wilderness eligibility criteria identified in 

the Wilderness Act to determine how those 

values might be affected. A short-term impact 

would last less than five years following the 

implementation of an alternative. A long-term 

impact would last longer than five years after 

implementing the alternative. Impacts were 

classified as adverse if they would adversely 

affect wilderness values or integrity. Conversely, impacts were classified as beneficial if 

they would enhance wilderness values or 

integrity. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Potential impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative effects) are described in terms of context (are the effects site-specific, local, or even 

regional?), duration (are the effects short term 

(impact lasting less than one year), long term 

(impacts lasting more than one year), or permanent?), and intensity (is the degree or 

severity of effects negligible, minor, moderate, 

or major). Because definitions of intensity 

(negligible, minor, moderate, or major) vary 

by impact topic, intensity definitions are 

provided separately for each impact topic 

analyzed in this environmental impact 

statement. 

Impacts on Cultural Resources and Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act: In this environmental impact statement, 

impacts on cultural resources are described in 

terms of type, context, duration, and intensity, 

which is consistent with the regulations of the 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) that 

implement the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA). These impact analyses are intended, however, to comply with the requirements of both the National Environmental 

Policy Act and Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In 

accordance with the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation’s regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

245 

Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800, Protection 

of Historic Properties), impacts on cultural 

resources were also identified and evaluated 

by (1) determining the area of potential 

effects; (2) identifying cultural resources 

present in the area of potential effects that are 

either listed in or eligible to be listed in the 

National Register of Historic Places; (3) 

applying the criteria of adverse effect to 

affected, national-register-eligible or -listed 

cultural resources; and (4) considering ways to 

avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects. 

Under the Advisory Council’s regulations, a 

determination of either adverse effect or no 

adverse effect must also be made for affected 

national-register-listed or -eligible cultural 

resources. An adverse effect occurs whenever 

an impact alters, directly or indirectly, any 

characteristic of a cultural resource that 

qualifies it for inclusion in the national register, e.g., diminishing the integrity (or the 

extent to which a resource retains its historic 

appearance) of its location, design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse effects also include reasonably 

foreseeable effects caused by actions proposed in the alternatives that would occur 

later in time, be farther removed in distance, 

or be cumulative (36 CFR 800.5, Assessment of 

Adverse Effects). A determination of no 

adverse effect means there is an effect, but the 

effect would not diminish the characteristics 

of the cultural resource that qualify it for 

inclusion in the national register. 

CEQ regulations and the National Park 

Service’s Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis and Decision Making

(Director’s Order #12) also call for a discussion of mitigation, as well as an analysis of 

how effective the mitigation would be in 

reducing the intensity of a potential impact, 

e.g., reducing the intensity of an impact from 

major to moderate or minor. Any resultant 

reduction in intensity of impact due to 

mitigation, however, is an estimate of the 

effectiveness of mitigation under the National 

Environmental Policy Act only. It does not 

suggest that the level of effect as defined by 

Section106 is similarly reduced. Cultural 

resources are nonrenewable resources, and 

adverse effects generally consume, diminish, 

or destroy the original historic materials or 

form, resulting in a loss in the integrity of the 

resource that can never be recovered. 

Therefore, although actions determined to 

have an adverse effect under Section 106 may 

be mitigated, the effect remains adverse. 

A Section 106 summary is included in the 

impact analysis sections. The Section 106 

summary is an assessment of the effect of the 

undertaking (implementation of the alternative), based upon the criterion of effect and 

criteria of adverse effect found in the Advisory 

Council’s regulations. 

Archeological Resources 

The intensity of impacts (see table 28, page 

251) on an archeological resource would 

depend upon the potential of the resource to 

yield important information, as well as the 

extent of the physical disturbance or 

degradation. 

Ethnographic Resources 

The intensity of impacts on an ethnographic 

resource (see table 28) would depend on the 

importance of the resource to an ongoing 

cultural tradition, as well as the extent of 

physical damage or change. 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

This impact analysis considers various aspects 

of visitor use and experience for the following 

recreational uses in the Addition: motorized 

(ORV) use, nonmotorized use (including 

hiking, horseback riding, and bicycling), and 

hunting (including fishing and frogging). 

Camping opportunities and experiences are 

addressed within each of these user categories. Impacts on natural soundscapes and 

the effects on the user are also addressed 

within each of the recreational use categories. 

The analysis is based on how visitor use and 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

246 

experiences would change with changes in the 

application of management zones in the alternatives. The analysis is primarily qualitative 

rather than quantitative due to the conceptual 

nature of the alternatives. 

Impacts were determined using existing and 

projected visitor use data, information on 

recreational trends, and the professional 

judgment of NPS staff. For analysis purposes, 

impact intensities for all visitor experience 

topics were defined as in table 28. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

The following section of the report describes 

the economic impacts of changes in visitor 

spending associated with each of the proposed alternatives, as well as the inputs, 

methodology, and assumptions employed to 

perform such an analysis. Under each 

alternative, a quantitative and qualitative 

analysis was conducted to trace the flow of 

visitor spending in the region (limited to 

Collier County) to identify changes in county 

sales, employment, and housing, as well as 

economic activity associated with the 

Seminole and Miccosukee tribes. 

To effectively determine changes in visitor 

spending under each of the proposed alternatives, various baseline data was gathered 

concerning recent visitor trends and local economic conditions to project future demand 

and expenditure impacts. The majority of this 

information was derived from the 2007 Big 

Cypress National Preserve Visitor Study 

(conducted by the University of Idaho), NPS 

visitation statistics, data from IMPLAN inputoutput modeling software, interviews conducted with businesses within Collier County, 

general demographic and tourism data on 

Collier County, and construction and staffing 

projection estimates provided by NPS staff. 

Money Generation Model (MGM) 

For the purpose of this analysis, the NPSdeveloped Money Generation Model (MGM) 

was used to measure the direct and indirect 

economic impacts of visitor activity in and 

around the Addition. The model calculated 

direct expenditure impacts through the 

compilation and computation of various 

inputs, such as average length of stay, daily 

expenditure rates, and attendance rates for 

projected Preserve visitors under each of the 

proposed alternatives. Indirect or induced 

expenditures were also considered within the 

model to determine multiplier effects in the 

local economy, including factors like sales, 

personal income, jobs, and value added. 

The short form of the MGM model was 

employed, which divides Preserve visitors into 

four category segments: local day users, nonlocal day users, motel users, and camp users. 

Local day users are defined as visitors living 

within Collier County. Nonlocal day users are 

visitors living outside Collier County who are 

not staying overnight within county limits. 

Motel users are visitors who are staying in a 

hotel, motel, bed and breakfast, or cabin 

outside the Preserve but within Collier 

County. Camp users are visitors who are 

camping either inside the Preserve or outside 

the Preserve but in Collier County. 

Changes in Visitor Spending. The number of 

additional visitors coming into the Preserve as 

a result of increased recreational and resource 

opportunities — the primary variable input 

within the model — was estimated under each 

alternative to calculate projected changes in 

total visitor spending within Collier County. 

In particular, visitor spending adjustments 

(based on increased visitation estimates) were 

determined to be attributable to increases in 

the following: 

 Informational resources through the 

creation of visitor contact centers 

 ORV access through the addition of new 

permits and the creation of multiple trails 

for such use 

 Camping opportunities through the 

creation of additional overnight 

backcountry campsites 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

247 

 Hiking, biking, paddling, and horseback 

riding opportunities through the creation 

of additional trails for such use 

 Partnership opportunities through the 

provision of boat tours, canoe rentals, and 

guided hiking trips 

Projected changes in visitor spending as a 

result of each alternative were expected to 

produce varying degrees of economic changes 

to Collier County. In particular, impacts on 

county sales, employment, and housing, as 

well as economic activity associated with the 

Seminole and Miccosukee tribes were 

examined as a result of such expenditure 

changes. The economic impacts of visitor 

spending were expected to primarily occur 

outside the Preserve, where the bulk of 

purchasable goods and services (i.e., food, 

lodging, gas, and retail), housing, and labor are 

located. Areas where the Preserve might 

directly benefit from visitor spending would 

likely be minimal and attributable to revenues 

derived from additional ORV and camping 

permits, as well as partnership opportunities. 

Another initial assumption was that alternative B and the preferred alternative would 

generate the largest increases in visitor 

spending due to greater opportunities for 

recreation and resource use in the Preserve 

relative to the other alternatives. Alterative A 

was expected not to produce any impact at all, 

because resources and recreational opportunities at the Preserve would remain the 

same. Alternative F was assumed to produce 

smaller impacts than alternative B and the 

preferred alternative because recreational and 

resource opportunities would be increased to 

a lesser degree. 

Due to projected increases in Preserve 

visitation under the action alternatives, an 

increase in the number of overnight visitors 

was also expected to occur. Logically, the 

provision of camping opportunities in the 

Addition would likely raise the number of 

total overnight visitors within the Preserve. 

Additionally, the number of visitors staying 

overnight outside the Preserve (but within 

Collier County) was also expected to increase 

under some of the proposed alternatives, 

particularly for new visitors coming to 

participate in ORV use or in some of the 

proposed partnership opportunities. 

A select number of motels, hotels and private 

campgrounds in the nearby vicinity were 

contacted to discuss potential increases in 

occupancy rates under each of the proposed 

alternatives. Although respondents did not 

provide specific occupancy projections, there 

appeared to be a general consensus that 

offering greater recreation and resource 

access within the Preserve would translate 

into higher occupancy rates for overnight 

accommodations. In ranking recreation and 

resource opportunities, increased ORV and 

camping access were cited as activities most 

likely to attract new visitors to stay overnight 

in the area. Offering boating expeditions, 

guided tours to the backcountry, and canoe/ 

kayak rentals were cited as the next activities 

likely to draw new overnight guests. Providing 

greater trail access for hiking, paddling, 

biking, and horseback riding were generally 

viewed as activities least likely to attract new 

visitors to stay overnight in the area. 

Based on respondents’ comments, alternative 

B and the preferred alternative would most 

likely attract new visitors to stay overnight in 

the area, with alternative A having no impact 

on occupancy rates and alternative F 

producing a negligible impact. 

Impacts of Capital Expenditures. One-time 

capital expenditures associated with 

construction were also estimated under each 

alternative and served as a variable input 

within a modified version of the MGM model 

called the MGM2Operate. Rather than 

focusing on visitor spending, this version of 

the model evaluated short-term impacts as a 

result of changes in construction costs on 

employment, housing, sales, and economic 

activity associated with the Seminole and 

Miccosukee tribes. Changes in construction 

costs were determined by estimating the total 

cost of building facilities, trails, and other 

related structures in the Addition needed to 

accommodate the various recreational and 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

248 

resource opportunities proposed under the 

alternatives. The percentage of construction 

activity that remained within Collier County 

was also projected, which considered how 

much of the economic impacts were contained within the local area. 

Long-Term Versus Short-Term 

Economic Impacts of Visitor Spending 

For this analysis, impacts of visitor spending 

were divided into long-term and short-term 

impacts. Long-term impacts are defined as the 

net changes in the local economy (Collier 

County) over an extended period of time due 

to sustainable, yet variable, changes in visitor 

spending under each alternative. Short-term 

economic impacts are defined as the net 

changes to the local economy (Collier 

County) due to one-time capital construction 

expenditures incurred under each alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts. Changes to employment, housing, sales, and economic activity 

associated with the Seminole and Miccosukee 

tribes were analyzed under long-term impacts 

of visitor spending. The cumulative impacts of 

these changes represent potentially new 

stabilized or equilibrium levels of economic 

activity in Collier County. 

 Employment changes were divided into 

two categories: direct and indirect employment. Direct employment refers to additional staff needed as a result of operating 

and maintaining new facilities, trails, and 

services in the Addition, as well as new 

employment created in the tourist industry 

as a result of direct visitor spending. 

Indirect (secondary) employment refers to 

changes in employment due to changes in 

county sales, income, or employment in 

tourist-related industries supplying goods 

and services to tourist-related businesses, 

as well as changes in employment as a 

result of direct employee spending. Most 

new jobs created were assumed to be 

attributable to hiring additional staff to 

operate and maintain new facilities, trails, 

and services offered in the Addition, as 

well as additional employees hired at 

businesses located in the area that provide 

accommodation, food, entertainment, and 

retail services. 

 Housing changes were analyzed under the 

assumption that new employees arriving 

from outside the area, as a result of direct 

and secondary employment changes, 

would need to secure long-term housing 

accommodations. Naples and Marco 

Island appear to be the most viable options 

for new employees relocating from outside 

the area due to their larger population size 

and availability of residential housing 

relative to the surrounding area. It was 

assumed that housing changes, at the 

county level, would be minimal or insignificant, as there appears to be a large 

enough labor pool to draw from within the 

county (particularly for secondary 

employment changes). 

 Sales are defined as the change in total 

annual taxable sales of local goods and 

services as a result of changes in visitor 

spending. Specific industries in Collier 

County that are expected to realize the 

most significant economic gains (i.e., 

largest percentage of increased sales) under 

the four alternatives and over the long term 

are: 1) accommodations and food services; 

2) retail and trade, and; 3) arts, entertainment, and recreation. These industries are 

some of the fastest growing sectors in 

Collier County and currently account for 

roughly 18% of total economic output. 

 Economic impacts on the Seminole and 

Miccosukee tribes were also analyzed due 

to their close proximity to the Preserve and 

importance to the region. Changes in 

economic activity associated with the two 

tribes was based on the assumption that 

new visitors to the area, as a result of 

increased recreation and resource opportunities in the Addition, would generate 

positive economic gains at both reservations. Because the Seminole and Miccosukee reservations offer a variety of goods 

and services that cater to tourists as well as 

locals — such as food, lodging, and a 

variety of recreational activities — new 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

249 

visitors traveling to and from the Preserve 

would have incentive to make a stop at 

either one or both of these sites. Additionally, proposed partnership opportunities in the Preserve, such as offering 

guided tours in the Addition, could 

produce substantive impacts for the tribes 

if they became third-party vendors. 

Short-Term Impacts. Changes to county 

employment, housing, and sales, as well as 

economic activity associated with the 

Seminole and Miccosukee tribes were also 

analyzed under short-term impacts of onetime capital expenditures due to construction 

activity. These capital expenditures include 

the improvement and building of facilities, 

trails, and infrastructure in the Addition under 

each alternative, as well as the acquisition of 

necessary equipment, materials, and labor. 

Impacts from these expenditures would cease 

to occur once construction is completed. 

Although a moderate number of construction 

and material-producing industries exist in 

Collier County, primarily in the Naples 

region, it was assumed a significant portion of 

economic impacts will not remain within 

county boundaries due the strong, diversified, 

and competitive business and labor force 

located outside the area. 

 Employment changes, as a result of construction activity, were also divided into 

direct and secondary categories. Direct 

employment refers to temporary changes 

in employment within the construction 

industry due to one-time capital expenditures as a result of construction activity in 

the Addition. Secondary employment 

refers to changes in employment created 

by industries supplying goods and services 

to the construction industry, as well as by 

changes due to direct employment 

spending. It was assumed that not all direct 

and indirect employees would come from 

Collier County. For example, while many 

of the construction laborers might be 

locally based, specialized professional jobs, 

such as engineers and architects, would 

likely come from other areas of the state or 

country. 

 Housing changes were also analyzed 

under short-term impacts. Because Collier 

County already has a relatively large labor 

pool to draw from in regards to the 

construction industry (a sector that already 

employs approximately 20% of the labor 

force), it is unlikely that the county as a 

whole will experience any substantial 

short-term housing impacts. That said, 

specific areas such as Naples and Marco 

Island might see a marginal impact in the 

demand for housing as a result of new 

employees (particularly in the professional 

fields) residing in the area during the 

construction period. 

 Sales are defined as the change in total 

annual taxable sales of local goods and 

services as a result of changes in one-time 

capital expenditures in the Addition. 

Specific industries that are expected to 

realize the most substantial amounts of 

change under the four alternatives and 

over the short term are construction; 

manufacturing; and transportation, 

warehousing, and utilities. These three 

industries currently account for about 22% 

of total economic output of Collier County 

(based on 2004 data). 

 Economic impacts for the Seminole and 

Miccosukee tribes were evaluated to determine the effects on the two reservations 

as a result of construction activity under 

each alternative. It was assumed that construction employee spending changes, due 

to adjustments in both direct and secondary employment as a result of construction 

activity, would generate some degree of 

economic gains to the reservations over the 

short term. Such changes would be attributable to these new temporary employees 

spending money at the reservations on 

various goods and services, such as gaming, 

food, and other recreational activities. 

Organization of Impact Categories, 

Thresholds, and Overall Benefits 

For both long-term and short-term impacts, 

the consequences of implementing each 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

250 

alternative were further organized into direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects; order-ofmagnitude (thresholds); and overall value to 

the local economy. 

Direct, Secondary, and Cumulative Effects. 

To identify where changes would occur 

within the local economy under each 

alternative, impacts were divided into direct, 

secondary, and total effects: 

 Direct effects trace the changes in 

employment, housing, and economic 

output within Collier County, as well as 

assess specific changes economic activity 

for the Seminole and Miccosukee tribes, as 

a result of changes in visitor spending or 

one-time capital expenditures. 

 Secondary effects are the sum of indirect 

effects (differences in economic output in 

county sectors that provide goods and 

services to county sectors that cater to 

tourists) and induced effects (increased 

economic activity derived from direct 

employee spending changes as a result of 

visitor spending). 

 Cumulative effects are the incremental 

impacts on the social and economic 

environment in Collier County as a result 

of each of the alternatives when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions. 

Impact Thresholds. To discern the degree of 

impact as a result of implementing each alternative, the following order of magnitude scale 

was used. 

 Neutral effects would be actions that do 

not produce any changes at all to the 

social and economic environment. 

 Negligible effects would be below 

detectable levels or detectable only 

through direct means with no discernable 

effect on the character of the social and 

economic environment. 

 Minor effects would be detectable, but 

localized in geographic extent or size of 

population affected and not expected to 

alter the character of the established social 

and economic environment. 

 Moderate effects would be readily 

detectable across a broad geographic area 

or segment of the community and could 

have an appreciable effect on the social 

and economic environment. 

 Major effects would be readily apparent, 

affect a large segment of the population 

across the entire community and region, 

and would have substantial effect on the 

social and economic environment. 

Nature of Impact. Lastly, to determine 

whether short-term or long-term impacts 

produce positive or negative gains for Collier 

County as a whole, effects were classified as 

either adverse or beneficial, as follows: 

 Adverse impacts would diminish the 

established social and economic 

environment. 

 Beneficial impacts would improve the 

established social and economic 

environment. 

NPS OPERATIONS 

AND MANAGEMENT 

The impact analysis evaluated the effects of 

the alternatives on NPS operations, including 

staffing, infrastructure, maintenance, visitor 

facilities, and services. 

The analysis focused on how NPS operations 

and facilities might vary with the different 

management alternatives. The analysis is 

qualitative rather than quantitative because of 

the conceptual nature of the alternatives. Consequently, professional judgment was used to 

reach reasonable conclusions as to the intensity, duration, and type of potential impact. 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

251 

TABLE 28: IMPACT THRESHOLD DEFINITIONS

Impact Topic 

and Duration Negligible Minor Moderate Major 

NATURAL RESOURCES

Surface Water 

Flow 

An action would 

have no measurable 

or detectable effect 

on the timing or 

intensity of surface 

water flows. 

An action would 

have measurable 

effects on the 

timing or intensity 

of surface water 

flows. 

An action would 

have clearly detectable effects on the 

timing or intensity of 

surface water flows 

and potentially 

would affect 

hydrologic 

connectivity, organisms, or natural 

ecological processes. 

The impact would be 

visible to visitors. 

An action would 

have substantial 

effects on the timing 

or intensity of surface 

water flows and 

potentially would 

affect hydrologic 

connectivity, organisms, or natural 

ecological processes. 

The impact would be 

easily visible to 

visitors. 

Water Quality An action would 

have no measurable 

or detectable effect 

on surface water 

quality. 

An action would 

have measurable 

effects on surface 

water quality. Water 

quality effects could 

include increased or 

decreased loads of 

sediment, debris, 

chemical or toxic 

substances, or 

pathogenic 

organisms. 

An action would 

have clearly 

detectable effects on 

surface water quality 

and potentially 

would affect 

organisms or natural 

ecological processes. 

The impact would be 

visible to visitors. 

An action would 

have substantial 

effects on surface 

water quality and 

potentially would 

affect organisms or 

natural ecological 

processes. The 

impact would be 

easily visible to 

visitors. 

Wetlands No measurable or 

perceptible changes 

in wetland size, 

integrity, or 

continuity would 

occur. 

The impact would 

be measurable or 

perceptible, but 

slight. A small 

change in size, 

integrity, or continuity could occur 

due to indirect 

effects such as 

construction-related 

runoff. However, 

the overall viability 

of the resource 

would not be 

affected. 

The impact would be 

sufficient to cause a 

measurable change 

in the size, integrity, 

or continuity of the 

wetland or would 

result in a small loss 

or gain in wetland 

acreage. 

The action would 

result in a measurable change in all 

three parameters 

(size, integrity, and 

continuity) or a loss 

or gain of large 

wetland areas. The 

impact would be 

substantial and 

highly noticeable. 

Soils The action would 

result in a change in 

a soil, but the 

change would be at 

the lowest level of 

detection, or not 

measurable. 

The action would 

result in a detectable change, but 

the change would 

be slight. There 

could be changes in 

a soil’s profile in a 

relatively small area, 

but the change 

would not increase 

the potential for 

erosion. 

The action would 

result in a clearly 

detectable change in 

a soil. There could be 

a loss or alteration of 

the topsoil in a small 

area, or the potential 

for erosion to 

remove small quantities of additional 

soil would increase. 

The action would 

result in the 

permanent loss or 

alteration of soils in a 

relatively large area, 

or there would be a 

strong likelihood for 

erosion to remove 

large quantities of 

additional soil as a 

result of the action. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

252 

Impact Topic 

and Duration Negligible Minor Moderate Major 

Floodplains Impacts would 

occur outside the 

regulatory floodplain as defined by 

the Floodplain 

Management 

Guideline (100-year 

or 500-year 

floodplain, 

depending on the 

type of action), or 

no measurable or 

perceptible change 

in natural 

hydrologic 

processes or aquatic 

habitat would 

occur. 

Actions in the regulatory floodplain 

would potentially 

interfere with or 

improve natural 

hydrologic processses or aquatic habitat in a limited way 

or in a localized 

area. Levee maintenance that would 

protect development areas from 

flooding and road 

and trail construction that would 

alter natural sheet 

flow are example 

actions that would 

have minor adverse 

impacts. Removing 

flood protection 

devices or small 

facilities would have 

beneficial impacts. 

Actions within the 

regulatory floodplain 

would interfere with 

or enhance natural 

hydrologic processes 

or aquatic habitat in 

a substantial way or 

in a large area. 

Examples of 

moderate adverse 

impacts would 

include modification 

of natural watercourses or canals in 

multiple locations or 

development of 

small-scale recreational facilities in the 

floodplain. 

An action would 

greatly alter or 

improve a floodplain, 

natural hydrologic 

process, or aquatic 

habitat. Examples of 

major adverse 

impacts would 

include substantial 

modification of 

natural watercourses 

or canals in multiple 

locations or development of facilities in 

the floodplain. 

Vegetation 

(all vegetation 

types, 

including 

exotics/ 

nonnative 

plants) 

The action might 

result in a change in 

vegetation, but the 

change would not 

be measurable or 

would be at the 

lowest level of 

detection. 

The action might 

result in a detectable change, but 

the change would 

be slight. This could 

include changes in 

the abundance, 

distribution, or 

composition of 

individual species in 

a local area, but 

would not include 

changes that would 

affect the viability of 

vegetation 

communities. 

Changes to local 

ecological processes 

would be minimal. 

The action would 

result in a clearly 

detectable change in 

a vegetation 

community and 

could have an 

appreciable effect. 

This could include 

changes in the 

abundance, distribution, or composition of nearby 

vegetation communities, but would 

not include changes 

that would affect the 

viability of plant 

populations in the 

Addition or Preserve. 

Changes to local 

ecological processes 

would be of limited 

extent. 

The action would be 

severely adverse to a 

vegetation 

community. The 

impacts would be 

substantial and 

highly noticeable, 

and they could result 

in widespread 

change. This could 

include changes in 

the abundance, 

distribution, or 

composition of a 

nearby vegetation 

community or plant 

populations in the 

Addition or Preserve 

to the extent that the 

population would 

not be likely to recover. Key ecological 

processes would be 

altered, and 

“landscape-level”

(regional) changes 

would be expected. 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

253 

Impact Topic 

and Duration Negligible Minor Moderate Major 

Wildlife: 

Federal 

Threatened 

and 

Endangered 

Species 

(Florida 

Panther, West 

Indian 

Manatee, Redcockaded 

Woodpecker, 

Wood Stork, 

Everglade 

Snail Kite, 

American 

Crocodile, 

Eastern Indigo 

Snake) 

There would be no 

effect on the 

species. There 

would be no 

observable or 

measurable impacts 

on the species, their 

habitats (including 

designated critical 

habitat), or the 

natural processes 

that sustain them. 

This impact intensity 

would equate to a 

determination of 

“no effect” under 

Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species 

Act.

Adverse: The 

effects of the action 

would be 

discountable (i.e., 

extremely unlikely 

to occur and not 

able to be meaningfully measured, 

detected, or 

evaluated). Individuals may temporarily avoid areas. 

Impacts would not 

affect critical 

periods (i.e., 

breeding, nesting, 

denning, feeding, 

resting) or habitat. 

In addition, essential 

features of critical 

habitat would not 

be impacted. This 

impact intensity 

would equate to a 

determination of 

“not likely to 

adversely affect” 

under Section 7 of 

the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Beneficial: Impacts 

would result in 

slight increases to 

viability of the 

species in the 

Addition because 

species-limiting 

factors (i.e., habitat 

loss, competition, 

and mortality) 

would be kept in 

check. This impact 

intensity would 

equate to a 

determination of 

“not likely to 

adversely affect” 

under Section 7 of 

the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Adverse: Individuals 

may be impacted by 

disturbances that 

interfere with critical 

periods (i.e., 

breeding, nesting, 

denning, feeding, 

resting) or habitat; 

however, the level of 

impact would not 

result in a physical 

injury, mortality, or 

extirpation from the 

Addition. Some 

essential features of 

designated critical 

habitat would be 

reduced; however 

the integrity of the 

habitat would be 

maintained. This 

impact intensity 

would equate to a 

determination of 

“likely to adversely 

affect” under Section 

7 of the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Beneficial: Impacts 

would result in 

improved viability of 

the species, 

population structure, 

and species 

population levels in 

the Addition, 

because specieslimiting factors (e.g., 

habitat loss, 

competition, and 

mortality) would be 

reduced. This impact 

intensity would 

equate to a 

determination of 

“not likely to 

adversely affect” 

under Section 7 of 

the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Adverse: Individuals 

may suffer physical 

injury or mortality, or 

populations may be 

extirpated from the 

Addition. Essential 

features of 

designated critical 

habitat would be 

reduced, affecting 

the integrity of the 

designated unit. This 

impact intensity 

would equate to a 

determination of 

“likely to adversely 

affect” under Section 

7 of the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Beneficial: Impacts 

would result in highly 

noticeable 

improvements to 

species viability, 

population structure, 

and species 

population levels in 

the Addition, 

because specieslimiting factors (e.g., 

habitat loss, 

competition, and 

mortality) would be 

nearly eliminated. 

This impact intensity 

would equate to a 

determination of 

“not likely to 

adversely affect” 

under Section 7 of 

the Endangered 

Species Act. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

254 

Impact Topic 

and Duration Negligible Minor Moderate Major 

Wildlife: 

Major Game 

Species 

The action might 

result in a change in 

game species, but 

the change would 

not be measurable 

or would be at the 

lowest level of 

detection. 

The action might 

result in a 

detectable change, 

but the change 

would be slight. 

This could include 

changes in the 

abundance or 

distribution of 

individual game 

species in a local 

area, but not 

changes that would 

affect the viability of 

local game 

populations. 

Changes to local 

ecological processes 

would be minimal. 

The action would 

result in a clearly 

detectable change in 

a game population 

and could have an 

appreciable effect. 

This could include 

changes in the 

abundance or 

distribution of local 

game populations, 

but not changes that 

would affect the 

viability of regional 

game populations. 

Changes to local 

ecological processes 

would be of limited 

extent. 

The action would be 

severely adverse or 

exceptionally 

beneficial to a 

population. The 

effects would be 

substantial and 

highly noticeable, 

and they could result 

in widespread 

change and be 

permanent. This 

could include 

changes in the 

abundance or 

distribution of a local 

or regional 

population of a game 

species to the extent 

that the population 

would not be likely 

to recover (adverse) 

or would return to a 

sustainable level 

(beneficial). Important ecological 

processes would be 

altered, and 

“landscape-level” 

(regional) changes 

would be expected. 

Wilderness 

Resources and 

Values 

An action would 

have no discernable 

effects on 

wilderness resources 

and values. 

An action would 

have detectable 

effects on 

wilderness resources 

and values, 

affecting the ability 

for a small area to 

meet wilderness 

eligibility criteria or 

improving and 

protecting its 

wilderness 

characteristics. 

An action would 

have clearly 

detectable effects on 

wilderness resources 

and values, affecting 

the ability of an area 

to meet wilderness 

eligibility criteria or 

improving and 

protecting its 

wilderness 

characteristics. The 

impact would be 

visible to visitors. 

An action would 

have substantial 

effects on wilderness 

resources and values, 

eliminating the 

characteristics that 

make substantial 

areas eligible as 

wilderness or 

improving and 

protecting its 

wilderness 

characteristics. The 

impact would be 

easily visible to 

visitors. 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

255 

Impact Topic 

and Duration Negligible Minor Moderate Major 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological 

Resources 

Impacts would be at 

the lowest levels of 

detection — barely 

perceptible or 

measurable. For 

purposes of Section 

106, the 

determination of 

effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

Impacts would be 

perceptible and 

measurable, and 

would remain 

localized and 

confined to 

archeological site(s) 

with low to 

moderate data 

potential. . For 

purposes of Section 

106, the 

determination of 

effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

Impacts would be 

sufficient to cause a 

noticeable change, 

and would generally 

involve one or more 

archeological sites 

with moderate to 

high data potential. . 

For purposes of 

Section 106, the 

determination of 

effect would be 

adverse effect. 

Impacts would result 

in substantial and 

highly noticeable 

changes, involving 

archeological site(s) 

with high data 

potential. . For 

purposes of Section 

106, the 

determination of 

effect would be 

adverse effect. 

Ethnographic 

Resources 

Impact(s) would be 

barely perceptible 

and would neither 

alter resource conditions, such as 

traditional access or 

site preservation, 

nor the relationship 

between the 

resource and the 

affiliated group’s 

body of practices 

and beliefs. For 

purposes of Section 

106, the 

determination of 

effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

Impact(s) would be 

slight but noticeable 

but would neither 

appreciably alter 

resource conditions, 

such as traditional 

access or site 

preservation, nor 

the relationship 

between the 

resource and the 

affiliated group’s 

body of practices 

and beliefs. For 

purposes of Section 

106, the 

determination of 

effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

Impact(s) would be 

apparent and would 

alter resource 

conditions. 

Something would 

interfere with 

traditional access, 

site preservation, or 

the relationship 

between the 

resource and the 

affiliated group’s 

practices and beliefs, 

even though the 

group’s practices and 

beliefs would survive. 

For purposes of 

Section 106, the 

determination of 

effect would be 

adverse effect. 

Impact(s) would alter 

resource conditions. 

Something would 

block or greatly 

affect traditional 

access, site 

preservation, or the 

relationship between 

the resource and the 

affiliated group’s 

body of practices and 

beliefs, to the extent 

that survival of a 

group’s practices 

and/or beliefs would 

be jeopardized. For 

purposes of Section 

106, the 

determination of 

effect would be 

adverse effect. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

256 

Impact Topic 

and Duration Negligible Minor Moderate Major 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

Recreational 

Uses 

Motorized Use 

(ORVs) 

Nonmotorized 

Use (including 

hiking, 

horseback 

riding, and 

bicycling) 

Hunting 

(including 

fishing and 

frogging) 

Visitors would likely 

be unaware of any 

effects associated 

with 

implementation of 

the alternative. 

There would be no 

noticeable changes 

in visitor use and/or 

experience or in any 

defined indicators 

of visitor satisfaction 

or behavior. 

Changes in visitor 

use and/or experience would be 

slight but detectable, but would 

not appreciably 

diminish or enhance 

critical 

characteristics of 

the visitor experience. Visitor 

satisfaction would 

remain stable. 

Few critical characteristics of the 

desired visitor experience would 

change and/or the 

number of participants engaging in an 

activity would be 

altered. The visitor 

would be aware of 

the effects associated 

with implementation 

of the alternative and 

would likely be able 

to express an opinion 

on the changes. 

Visitor satisfaction 

would begin to 

either decline or 

increase as a direct 

result of the effect. 

Multiple critical 

characteristics of the 

desired visitor 

experience would 

change and/or the 

number of participants engaging in an 

activity would be 

greatly reduced or 

increased. The visitor 

would be aware of 

the effects associated 

with implementation 

of the alternative and 

would likely express a 

strong opinion about 

the change. Visitor 

satisfaction would 

markedly decline or 

increase. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Local 

Economy 

The effect would be 

below detectable 

levels or detectable 

only through direct 

means, with no 

discernable effect 

on the character of 

the social and 

economic 

environment. 

Effects identified as 

neutral would be 

actions that do not 

produce any 

changes at all to the 

social and economic 

environment. 

The effect would be 

detectable but 

limited in geographic extent or 

size of population 

affected and not 

expected to alter 

the character of the 

established social 

and economic 

environment. 

The effect would be 

readily detectable 

across a broad 

geographic area or 

segment of the 

community and 

could have an 

appreciable effect on 

the social and 

economic 

environment. 

The effect would be 

readily apparent, 

affect a large 

segment of the 

population across the 

entire community 

and region, and 

would have 

substantial effect on 

the social and 

economic 

environment. 

NPS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT

NPS 

Operations 

and 

Management 

The effect would be 

at or below the level 

of detection, and 

would not have an 

appreciable effect 

on preserve 

operations and 

management. 

The effects would 

be detectable, but 

would be of a 

magnitude that 

would not have an 

appreciable effect 

on preserve 

operations and 

management. 

The effects would 

result in a change in 

preserve operations 

and management in 

a manner readily 

apparent to staff and 

possibly to the 

public. 

The effects would 

result in a substantial 

and widespread 

change in preserve 

operations and 

management in a 

manner readily 

apparent to staff and 

the public. 
257 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS 

A cumulative impact is described in the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s 

regulation 1508.7 as follows: 

Cumulative impacts are the impacts that 

result from incremental impacts of the 

action when added to other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions, 

regardless of what agency (federal or 

nonfederal) or person undertakes such 

other action. Cumulative impacts can 

result from individually minor, but 

collectively significant, actions taking 

place over time. 

The action area for assessing cumulative 

impacts on the resources retained for detailed 

analysis varies depending upon the resource. 

Although these areas extend well beyond the 

boundaries of the Addition, the projects or 

actions in these areas can affect the resources 

of the Addition. For water resources, the 

action area is the Big Cypress Watershed, 

which includes most of Collier County and 

parts of Hendry, Broward, Miami-Dade, and 

Monroe counties. The action area for the 

Florida panther is defined as the known 

occupied range of the species, which is centered in and around Big Cypress and includes 

Everglades National Park, Fakahatchee Strand 

Preserve State Park, Florida Panther National 

Wildlife Refuge, and privately owned lands 

north of the Addition in Collier and Hendry 

counties. The action area for all other natural 

resources is the Addition plus the surrounding 

region, which is generally limited to the nearby fringes of the six counties that surround the 

Addition. This geographic area encompasses 

the habitats and resources of the four other 

special status species that are analyzed in this 

chapter and is more than sufficient for analysis of the other natural resource impact topics. 

The action area for assessing cumulative 

impacts on cultural resources would be 

Collier and Monroe counties. 

The action area for assessing cumulative 

impacts on visitor use and experience topics 

includes the Addition and federal, state, tribal, 

and private lands within 25 miles of the 

Addition. 

The action area for assessing cumulative 

impacts on the socioeconomic environment is 

Collier County. 

To determine the potential cumulative impacts on the resources, other projects and 

actions within these action areas were identified. Projects were identified by discussions 

with NPS staff, federal land managers, and 

representatives of city and county governments. Potential projects identified as possible 

contributors to cumulative impacts included 

any planning or development activity that was 

currently being implemented, or is expected 

to be implemented in the future. Impacts of 

past actions were also considered in the analysis. Projects and actions that could contribute 

to cumulative impacts include the following: 

Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management Plan — The NPS completed this 

ORV management plan for the original 

Preserve in 2000. Included in this plan is 

the development of 15 ORV access points 

and no more than 400 miles of designated 

primary trails. A maximum of 2,000 permits 

per year can be granted to ORV users. The 

plan requires monitoring of field conditions and impacts from off-road vehicles 

and outlines an adaptive management 

framework to do so. 

Commercial Services Plan — The 

Commercial Services Plan is intended to 

address the existing conditions and law in a 

manner that will be compliant with the 

1998 National Park Service Concessions 

Management Improvement Act (PL 105-

391) and regulations. As an implementation 

plan, this Commercial Services Plan must 

also be consistent with the established 

planning direction in the 1991 General 

Management Plan for the Preserve and 

achieve the desired future conditions or 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

258 

goals for the Preserve. This plan covers the 

original Preserve only; the Addition will be 

addressed in an addendum to this plan 

after the completion of the General 

Management Plan for the Addition. 

The National Park Service has several 

authorization instruments available to 

manage commercial services within 

national park system units. Currently, 

concession contracts and permits are used 

to manage commercial services that are 

assigned land and/or facilities in national 

park system units. Before the National Park 

Service will commit resources to those 

facilities, these commercial activities must 

be identified as a necessary and appropriate use of the Preserve resources and 

facilities. The Commercial Services Plan is 

the document that identifies activities 

currently considered necessary and 

appropriate, as well as guidance on the 

process for reviewing activities that may be 

proposed in the future. 

The preferred alternative for the original 

Preserve’s Commercial Services Plan 

proposes to develop the Preserve’s visitor 

services to the level and quality described 

in the 1991 General Management Plan. The 

concept of this alternative is to enhance the 

Preserve’s visitor services by developing 

one facility at Monroe Station to provide 

the visitor services deemed necessary and 

appropriate, with the opportunity to provide a second, smaller facility at Seagrape 

Drive as funding permits. Other services 

may begin and end outside the Preserve. 

Some services expected to be provided 

include the following: hunting and fishing 

guides; buggy tours; hiking tours (both day 

use and multiday); boat and kayak rentals, 

livery, and guided tours; firewood sales for 

campgrounds; bicycle rentals; general van 

tours, birding and wildlife viewing, and 

photography — by van, foot, or buggy, and 

offered through a cooperative association 

(The Everglades Association). The plan 

also proposes the development of a 

backcountry camping complex in the 

northern portion of the Turner River 

Management Unit. Some management 

changes could be made to improve 

effectiveness and efficiency, and some 

minor changes to the level of services could 

be made for resource protection and visitor 

experience enhancement to be consistent 

with the management zone prescriptions 

established in the 1991 General 

Management Plan. 

The Preserve will require the use of indicators and standards as part of the visitor 

experience and resource protection 

(VERP) method to answer the question of 

how much visitor use can be accommodated without causing undesirable impacts 

on Preserve resources and visitor experience, commonly referred to as “user capacity.” Once this user capacity is established, 

continuous monitoring and adaptive 

management will be required to ensure that 

the quality of visitor experience is maintained and that resources are protected. 

Future Oil and Gas Operations —Plans 

for future oil and gas operations are a 

reasonably foreseeable expectation for the 

Addition. Future oil and gas proposals 

would likely include conducting a 

geophysical survey within portions of the 

Addition and could include the use of 

specialized off-road equipment that would 

travel cross-country. An environmental 

analysis of these proposals and their 

potential cumulative impacts would be 

conducted for such submissions. 

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration

Projects — The south Florida ecosystem 

stretches south from Orlando through the 

Chain of Lakes, the Kissimmee Valley, 

Lake Okeechobee, and the remaining 

Everglades to the waters of Florida Bay and 

coral reefs. The ecosystem encompasses 

about 18,000 square miles within 16 

counties. This region supports 68 federally 

threatened and endangered plant and 

animal species. There is an intense, 

cooperative effort among federal, state, 

and local government agencies, tribes, 

environmental organizations, universities, 
Cumulative Impact Analysis 

259 

businesses, and local citizens to preserve 

and restore the greater Everglades ecosystem. More than 200 restoration projects 

within this region have been identified. 

Listed below are projects that would have 

the most influence on the Addition. 

• “Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan” (CERP), commonly 

known as the “Restudy.” This is a 

multibillion-dollar water system 

improvement plan led by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. It will reconfigure 

the artificially created drainage patterns 

of south Florida back to more natural 

conditions. Several projects under the 

umbrella of this plan that will have 

direct effects on the Big Cypress 

ecosystem include: 

9 Big Cypress / L-28 Interceptor 

Modifications — The purpose of 

this project is to (1) reestablish 

sheet flow from the West Feeder 

Canal across the Big Cypress 

Reservation and into the Big 

Cypress National Preserve, (2) 

maintain flood protection on 

Seminole tribal lands, and (3) 

ensure that inflows to the North 

and West Feeder canals meet 

applicable water quality standards. Upstream flows entering 

the West and North Feeder 

canals will be routed through two 

stormwater treatment areas to be 

located at the upstream ends of 

the canals. Sheet flow will be 

reestablished south of the West 

Feeder Canal. These improvements will be consistent with the 

“Big Cypress Seminole Tribe's 

Water Conservation Plan.” 

9 Water Conservation Area 3 

(WCA 3) Decompartmentalization — The project is a 

cooperative effort between the 

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 

and the South Florida Water 

Management District (SFWMD). 

WCA 3 (made up of WCA 3A and 

WCA 3B) is located immediately 

north of Everglades National 

Park. The compartmentalization 

and constriction of historically 

broad wetlands, altered hydroperiods, reduction of wildlife, 

and degradation of water quality 

are among the environmentally 

detrimental effects resulting from 

the construction of the Central 

and Southern Florida projects. 

Water Conservation Area 3 is part 

of this project. The project, when 

implemented, would reduce barriers to sheet flow such as canals 

and levees to the extent practicable. The goal is to restore historical sheet flow distributions, depth 

patterns, hydroperiods, and 

hydrologic connectivity in the 

various landscapes within WCA 3 

and in Northeast Shark River 

Slough within Everglades 

National Park, thereby creating a 

sustainable environment that is 

suitable for the recovery and 

long-term survival of native flora 

and fauna in concert with related 

projects. 

Regional Growth and Development 

Projects— Based on the most recent data 

from the Southwest Florida Regional 

Planning Council, southwest Florida is one 

of the most rapidly growing areas of the 

nation. Since April 1, 2000, the southwest 

Florida population has grown by at least 

24% and is expected to continue growing 

at an average rate of 3.4% per annum. It is 

estimated that the region will double its 

current capacity by the year 2030. 

Historically, development has occurred to 

the east and west of the Addition along the 

coasts. As population growth continues, 

the likelihood is greater that natural and 

agricultural lands close to the Addition will 

be developed. Recently, private lands 

northwest of the Addition have received 

approval for major developments. As this 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

260 

growth occurs, increasing demand will 

occur on all of the region’s resources. The 

following projects are among those that 

could have cumulative impacts: 

• Town of Ave Maria — This project 

includes the build out of 11,000 

housing units on approximately 5,000 

acres. The planned development will 

also include a private university. 

• Town of Big Cypress — This project 

includes the proposed town of Big 

Cypress, which would include 9,000 

housing units on approximately 3,600 

acres. (This project is in the review 

process and has not yet been approved 

at the time of this writing.) 

• Florida Gulf Coast University/ 

Redevelopment of SW Regional 

Airport —This project includes the 

redevelopment of an airport site into a 

new state university, along with 

associated housing development that 

will support the site’s new uses. 

These projects and actions were evaluated in 

conjunction with the impacts of each alternative to determine if they would result in any 

cumulative impacts on a particular natural or 

cultural resource, the socioeconomic environment, visitor use, or NPS operations and 

management. Because most of these actions 

are in the early planning stages, the evaluation 

of cumulative impacts is qualitative and based 

on a general description of the project. 
261 

IMPAIRMENT OF ADDITION RESOURCES 

In addition to determining the environmental 

consequences of implementing the alternatives, NPS Management Policies 2006 (section 

1.4) requires analysis of potential effects to 

determine whether alternatives would impair 

the Addition’s resources and values. 

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 

resources and values. NPS managers must 

always seek ways to avoid, or to minimize to 

the greatest degree practicable, adverse 

impacts on resources and values. Although 

Congress has given the National Park Service 

the management discretion to allow certain 

impacts within a unit, that discretion is limited 

by the statutory requirement that the National 

Park Service must leave 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 resources and values, including the 

opportunities that otherwise would be present 

for the enjoyment of those resources or values 

(NPS Management Policies 2006 section 1.4.5). 

An impact on any resource or value may 

constitute impairment. An impact would be 

more likely to constitute impairment if it 

results in a moderate or major adverse affect 

on a resource or value whose conservation is 

 necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation or 

proclamation of the area; 

 key to the natural or cultural integrity of 

the area or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the area; or 

 identified as a goal in the area’s general 

management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents. 

Impairment may result from NPS activities in 

managing the area; visitor activities; or activities undertaken by concessioners, contractors, 

and others operating in the Addition. A 

determination on impairment is made in the 

“Conclusion” section for each required impact topic related to the Addition’s resources 

and values. An evaluation of impairment is not 

required for topics related to visitor use and 

experience (unless the impact is resource 

based), NPS operations, or the socioeconomic 

environment. When it is determined that an 

action or actions would have a moderate to 

major adverse effect, an explanation is presented of why this would not constitute 

impairment. Impacts of only negligible or 

minor intensity would, by definition, not 

result in impairment. The impairment 

analysis, later in this chapter, for each of the 

impact topics has determined that none of the 

alternatives presented in this plan would 

result in impairment of Addition resources. 
262 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION) 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Surface Water Flow 

Analysis. Under alternative A, impacts on 

surface water flow would be attributed 

primarily to the maintenance of existing 

facilities that prevent natural sheet flow. 

Maintaining Nobles, Jones, and Bear Island 

Grades in their current state restricts hydrologic connectivity within the Northeast 

Addition. Facilities and structures at Deep 

Lake (fill pad), Copeland (Fire Operations 

Center), and Carnestown also would continue 

to affect natural hydrology in localized areas. 

Limited NPS administrative ORV use would 

continue to affect surface water flow in 

localized areas on a short-term basis. Most 

impacts on surface water flow are due to the 

presence of roads and grades. These impacts 

would continue to be long term, adverse, and 

of moderate intensity. Although the effects 

could extend beyond the boundaries of the 

Addition, they would be localized in nature. 

Impacts related to the continued presence of 

NPS facilities and structures would be long 

term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

Ongoing NPS restoration to improve soil 

conditions and reestablish natural ground 

contours would have beneficial effects on 

surface water flow; these impacts would be 

long term, minor to moderate, and localized. 

Ongoing vegetation management could also 

improve surface water flow by eliminating 

exotic vegetation that impedes flow or 

reduces water availability. The impact would 

continue to be long term, minor to moderate, 

beneficial, and Addition-wide. 

Collectively, the impacts on surface water 

flow would be long term, minor to moderate, 

adverse, and localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Implementation of the 

2000 Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within the original Preserve would 

minimize the impacts of off-road vehicles on 

surface water flow into that portion of the 

Addition that abuts the original Preserve at 

localized sites because best management 

practices and mitigation would maintain or 

improve hydrologic flow. The impact on 

surface water flow in the watershed would be 

negligible. 

Implementation of future oil or gas plan of 

operations proposals could have adverse 

impacts on surface water flow. If the 

proposals include using off-road equipment 

and constructing roads and pads, this would 

alter local hydrology. Construction and 

operations activities would affect the timing 

and intensity of surface water flows. The 

impacts of these activities would be reduced 

because NPS approval of the operation plans 

would require mitigative measures. Shortterm impacts on surface water flow would be 

adverse, minor to moderate, and localized; 

long-term residual impacts would be adverse, 

minor, and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for restoration of surface water flow within the region. 

Proposals involving the Addition include the 

removal of the L-28 interceptor canal levee, 

modification of the L-28 Tie Back Canal, and 

operational changes to various water control 

structures. Decompartmentalization of Water 

Conservation Area 3 would also improve 

sheet flow and hydrologic connectivity. The 

impact of these efforts on the hydrology of the 

Addition, as well as within the watershed, is 

expected to be long term, major, and 

beneficial. 

Regional growth and development is expected 

to result in an increase in the conversion of 

natural lands and alter the hydrology of the 

general area. Changes in sheet flow, including 

timing and intensity, would affect hydrologic 

function and connectivity in the watershed. 

The impact of these activities is expected to be 

long term, minor to moderate, and adverse. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative A (No Action) 

263 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on surface 

water flow would accrue from ORV management and ecosystem restoration projects. 

Adverse impacts would be expected from oil 

and gas operations and regional growth and 

development. Overall, the effects of the 

projects discussed above would be adverse on 

surface water flow in the watershed. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative A are added to 

the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long-term, minor, 

adverse cumulative impact on surface water 

flow. The actions contained in alternative A 

would contribute a small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative A, impacts on 

surface water flow would be long term, 

adverse, minor to moderate, and localized. 

There could be a long-term, minor, adverse 

cumulative impact on surface water flow. The 

actions contained in alternative A would 

contribute a small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this alternative would not result in impairment of 

surface water flow in the Addition. (See 

specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" section.) 

Water Quality 

Analysis. Under alternative A, impacts on 

water quality would be attributed to visitor 

use at a few discrete sites as well as from NPS 

operations and maintenance activities. Visitor 

use, such as hiking and backcountry camping, 

could continue to cause soil erosion and 

generate human waste that would affect 

turbidity and surface water quality. Inadvertent leaks or spills of fuel or oil from NPS 

administrative ORV use could affect surface 

water quality by elevating chemical concentrations. Impacts from parked vehicles would 

be more common at destination sites or along 

roads. The maintenance of roads, grades, and 

trails within the Addition would likely cause 

erosion that could enter canals and waterways 

and increase turbidity. The impacts of these 

activities would be long term, minor, adverse, 

and localized. Impacts would be minor due to 

the limited visitation in the Addition and the 

limited development and maintenance that 

would occur under alternative A. 

Cumulative Impacts. Implementation of the 

2000 Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within the original Preserve would 

minimize the impacts of off-road vehicles on 

water quality at localized sites in the portion 

of the Addition that abuts the original 

Preserve because best management practices 

and other mitigation would be used to 

minimize soil erosion and chemical contamination. The impact of these activities on water 

quality in the watershed would be negligible. 

Implementation of future oil or gas plan of 

operations proposals could have adverse 

impacts on water quality. If the proposals 

included the use off-road equipment and 

construction of roads and pads, this could 

result in degrading water quality due to 

turbidity and chemical contamination. The 

impacts of these activities would be reduced 

because NPS approval of the operation plan 

would require mitigative measures. Shortterm impacts on water quality would be 

adverse, moderate, and localized; long-term 

residual impacts would be adverse, minor, and 

localized. This is due to the number and 

complexity of the proposals and uncertainty 

with their levels of success. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration project includes several proposals for restoration 

of surface water flow within the region. 

Although the proposals would increase surface water flow and connectivity, the discharged waters are expected to have elevated 

chemical concentrations that would degrade 

water quality. Because the current condition 

of water resources in the Addition is cleaner 

than what is expected to be discharged, the 

impact is predicted to be long term, adverse, 

and Addition-wide, but the intensity is 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

264 

unknown. The impact on water quality within 

the watershed is unknown. This is due to the 

number and complexity of the proposals and 

uncertainty with their levels of success. 

Regional growth and development is expected 

to result in an increase in the conversion of 

natural lands to development and alter the 

hydrology of the general area. Water quality 

would be affected by inputs from urban and 

suburban development, including increases in 

organic compounds and chemical concentrations. The impact on water quality within the 

watershed is expected to be adverse, but the 

intensity is unknown. 

Collectively, adverse impacts could be 

expected from oil and gas operations, ecosystem restoration projects, and regional 

growth and development. Overall, the effects 

of the projects discussed above could be 

adverse on water quality in the watershed, but 

the intensity is unknown. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative A are added to 

the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions as described above, 

there would be a long-term, adverse cumulative impact on water quality in the watershed. 

The intensity of the impact is unknown. The 

actions contained in alternative A would 

contribute a very small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative A, impacts on 

water quality would be long term, minor, 

adverse, and localized. 

There would be a long-term, adverse cumulative impact on water quality in the watershed. The intensity of the impact is unknown. 

The actions contained in alternative A would 

contribute a very small adverse increment to 

this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this alternative would not result in impairment of water 

quality in the Addition. (See specific definition 

of impairment in the "Impairment of Addition 

Resources" section.) 

Wetlands 

Analysis. Under alternative A, impacts on 

wetlands would be attributed primarily to the 

retention and maintenance of existing facilities, such as roads, grades, and trails. Impacts 

would include vegetation loss and alteration 

of soils, which would result in permanent 

effects on wetland size and integrity that 

would be long term, minor, adverse, and 

localized. Indirect impacts, such as increased 

runoff and sedimentation, would be long 

term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

NPS efforts to reestablish natural ground contours and restore soil integrity would have 

positive effects on wetlands — the impact 

would be long term, beneficial, minor to 

moderate, and localized. 

Collectively, impacts on wetlands under 

alternative A would continue to be long term, 

minor, adverse, and localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Implementation of 

future oil or gas plan of operations proposals 

could have adverse impacts on wetlands. If the 

proposals included using off-road equipment 

and constructing roads and pads, this would 

result in altering wetland soils and vegetation. 

The impacts of these activities would be 

reduced because NPS approval of the operations plan would require mitigative measures. 

Short-term impacts on wetlands would be 

adverse, moderate, and localized; long-term 

residual impacts would be adverse, minor, and 

localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would affect wetlands 

by increasing the availability of water, which 

in turn could increase the size and integrity 

and improve the function of wetlands. The 

impact of these efforts on wetlands is 

expected to be long term, moderate to major, 

and beneficial. 

Regional growth and development is expected 

to result in an increase in the conversion of 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative A (No Action) 

265 

natural lands to development and alter the 

hydrology of the general area. Changes in 

sheet flow and water quality would affect the 

size, integrity, and function of wetlands in the 

watershed. The impact of these activities on 

wetlands would be long term, moderate to 

major, and adverse. The adverse impacts 

would be at least partially offset by wetlands 

mitigation required by permitting agencies. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on wetlands 

would accrue from ecosystem restoration 

projects. Adverse impacts would be expected 

from oil and gas operations and regional 

growth and development. Overall, the effects 

of the projects discussed above would be 

adverse on wetlands. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative A are added to 

the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long-term, minor, 

adverse cumulative impact on wetlands. The 

actions contained in alternative A would 

contribute a small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative A, impacts on 

wetlands would be long term, minor, adverse, 

and localized. 

There would be a long-term, minor, adverse 

cumulative impact on wetlands. The actions 

contained in alternative A would contribute a 

small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

wetlands in the Addition. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the "Impairment 

of Addition Resources" section.) 

Soils 

Analysis. Under alternative A, impacts on 

soils would be attributed primarily to facility 

maintenance, limited NPS administrative 

ORV use, and NPS restoration activities. 

Facilities such as temporary access points, 

trails, and grades and roads require recurring 

maintenance, which could displace or erode 

soils. The impacts from these activities would 

be long term, minor to moderate, adverse, and 

localized. Some rutting and displacement of 

soils might occur from NPS administrative or 

illegal public ORV use; however, activity 

would be infrequent, and the impact would be 

long term, negligible to minor, adverse, and 

localized. 

Users participating in nonmotorized activities 

could also cause erosion, but the adverse 

impacts would likely be negligible to minor. 

NPS efforts to reestablish natural ground 

contours and restore natural hydrologic 

conditions would have beneficial long-term, 

minor to moderate, and localized effects on 

soils. 

Collectively, impacts on soils from 

implementing alternative A would continue to 

be minor, adverse, long term, and localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Implementation of 

future oil or gas plan of operations proposals 

could have adverse impacts on soils. If 

proposals include the use of off-road 

equipment and construction of roads and 

pads, this would alter soils. The impacts of 

these activities would be reduced because 

NPS approval of the operations plan would 

require mitigative measures. Short-term 

impacts on soils would be adverse, moderate, 

and localized; long-term residual impacts 

would be adverse, minor, and localized. 

Changes in the availability of water resources 

due to the south Florida ecosystem restoration project would affect soil properties. The 

integrity of hydrologic soils could be improved or restored by increases in water — a 

beneficial impact. 

Decreases in water or permanent soil loss 

resulting from regional growth and development would adversely impact soils. The 

impact of these efforts on soils is expected to 

be long term, moderate to major, and adverse. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

266 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative A are added to 

the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions as described above, 

there would be a long-term, moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on soils. The 

permanent loss of soils would be expected to 

outweigh any beneficial impacts that might be 

realized from ecosystem restoration projects. 

The actions contained in alternative A would 

contribute a very small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative A, impacts on 

soils would be long term, minor, adverse, and 

localized. 

There would be a long-term, moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on soils. The 

actions contained in alternative A would 

contribute a very small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this alternative would not result in impairment of soils 

in the Addition. (See specific definition of 

impairment in the "Impairment of Addition 

Resources" section.) 

Floodplains 

Analysis. Under alternative A, impacts on 

floodplains would continue to be limited to 

those derived from the retention of two 

existing facilities in the 100-year floodplain — 

the NPS Fire Operations Center at Copeland 

and the facilities at Carnestown. Retaining 

these facilities would continue to only slightly 

affect the capacity of the floodplain to store 

flood waters. The flow of water in the 

floodplain during floods would also be slightly 

affected. The impact on floodplains would 

continue to be long term, minor, adverse, and 

localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Regional growth and 

development is expected to affect floodplains 

in the region. Floodplains could be physically 

altered, changing their capacity and altering 

the natural course of floodwater flow. Natural 

flood patterns would be adversely affected, 

but any adverse impacts on property and life 

should be mitigated through proper permitting. The impact of these activities on floodplains could be long term, minor to major 

(depending on the nature of the floodplain 

design), and adverse. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration project includes several proposals for restoration 

of surface water flow within the region. The 

proposals would affect floodplains by reclaiming some floodplains and improving their 

integrity and function — a beneficial impact. 

The impact of these efforts on floodplains 

would be long term and beneficial, but the 

intensity is unknown. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative A are added to 

the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions as described above, 

there would be a long-term, minor to major, 

adverse cumulative impact on floodplains. 

The actions contained in alternative A would 

contribute a very small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative A, impacts on 

floodplains would continue to be long term, 

minor, adverse, and localized. 

There would be a long-term, minor to major, 

adverse cumulative impact on floodplains. 

The actions contained in alternative A would 

contribute a very small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this alternative would not result in impairment of 

floodplains in the Addition. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the "Impairment 

of Addition Resources" section.) 

Vegetation —Cypress Strands and Domes, 

Mixed Hardwood Swamps, and Sloughs 

Analysis. Under alternative A, impacts on 

cypress strands and domes, mixed hardwood 

swamps, and sloughs would be attributed 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative A (No Action) 

267 

primarily to NPS restoration efforts and 

limited NPS administrative ORV use. Ongoing 

vegetation management and efforts to restore 

natural hydrologic processes would continue 

to improve conditions for native vegetation 

because water availability and connectivity 

would increase, and competition from exotic 

plants would be minimized. Impacts on 

cypress strands and domes, mixed hardwood 

swamps, and sloughs from vegetation 

management would be long term, minor to 

moderate, beneficial, and Addition-wide. 

ORV use by NPS staff (or from illegal public 

use) would remain infrequent. The conditions 

that often discourage ORV use (deep water, 

closely spaced trees, etc.) would continue, and 

adverse impacts from off-road vehicles would 

most often be limited to the margins of the 

plant community. Adverse impacts could 

include injury to a plant or group of trees, or 

might include plant loss in a discrete area due 

to repeated use. The trampling of vegetation 

by nonmotorized visitors (i.e., hikers) would 

be more common at frontcountry destinations 

(Deep Lake and Bear Island Grade) and less 

common in the backcountry. Impacts on 

cypress strands and domes, mixed hardwood 

swamps, and sloughs from NPS use of offroad vehicles and current visitor use would be 

long term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

Collectively, impacts on cypress strands and 

domes, mixed hardwood swamps, and sloughs 

from implementing alternative A would 

continue to be minor, adverse, long term, and 

localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Implementation of the 

2000 Recreational Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan within the original Preserve 

would minimize the impacts, such as 

trampling, injury, or loss of plant cover, of offroad vehicles on vegetation. The impact 

would be long term, minor to moderate, 

beneficial, and localized. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

vegetation; however, it is unknown what plant 

communities would be affected. If proposals 

include the use of off-road equipment and 

constructing roads and pads, this would alter 

vegetation. The impacts of these activities 

would be reduced because NPS approval of 

the operations plan would require mitigative 

measures. Short-term impacts on vegetation 

would be adverse, moderate, and localized; 

long-term residual impacts would be adverse, 

minor, and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect plant communities and would 

likely improve plant vigor, abundance, and 

distribution. The impact of these efforts on 

cypress strands and domes, mixed hardwood 

swamps, and sloughs is expected to be long 

term, minor to moderate, and beneficial. 

Regional growth and development is expected 

to result in an increase in the conversion of 

natural lands to development and alter the 

hydrology of the general area. Changes in 

sheet flow, and its timing and intensity, would 

affect plant communities. The impact of these 

activities on cypress strands and domes, 

mixed hardwood swamps, and sloughs is 

expected to be long term, minor to moderate, 

and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on cypress 

strands and domes, mixed hardwood swamps, 

and sloughs would accrue from ORV management and ecosystem restoration projects. 

Adverse impacts would be expected from oil 

and gas operations and regional growth and 

development. Overall, the effects of the 

projects discussed above could slightly benefit 

cypress strands and domes, mixed hardwood 

swamps, and sloughs. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative A are added to 

the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long-term, minor, 

beneficial cumulative impact on cypress 

strands and domes, mixed hardwood swamps, 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

268 

and sloughs. The actions contained in 

alternative A would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative A, impacts on 

cypress strands and domes, mixed hardwood 

swamps, and sloughs would be long term, 

adverse, minor, and localized. 

There could be a long-term, minor, beneficial 

cumulative impact on cypress strands and 

domes, mixed hardwood swamps, and 

sloughs. The actions contained in alternative 

A would contribute a small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

cypress strands and domes, mixed hardwood 

swamps, and sloughs in the Addition. (See 

specific definition of impairment in the 

“Impairment of Addition Resources” section.) 

Vegetation — Prairies and Marshes 

Analysis. Under alternative A, impacts on 

prairies and marshes would be attributed 

primarily to NPS restoration efforts and 

limited NPS administrative ORV use. 

Ongoing vegetation management, including 

the use of prescribed fire, and efforts to 

restore natural hydrologic processes would 

continue to improve conditions for native 

vegetation because water availability and 

connectivity would increase and competition 

from exotic plants would be minimized. 

Impacts on prairies and marshes from 

vegetation management would continue to be 

long term, beneficial, minor to moderate, and 

Addition-wide. 

ORV use by NPS staff (or from illegal public 

use) would remain infrequent; however, even 

infrequent use could produce adverse 

impacts. The soil conditions in prairies and 

marshes cause poor traction for off-road 

vehicles, and rutting and braiding of trails is 

common. Most NPS operators understand the 

sensitivity of prairies and marshes and know 

to avoid these areas. Adverse impacts could 

include injury to a plant or group of plants, or 

might include plant loss in a discrete area due 

to rutting or repeated use. Impacts on prairies 

and marshes from ORV use would be long 

term, minor, adverse, and localized. The impacts of trampling of vegetation by nonmotorized visitors (i.e., hikers) would be negligible. 

Collectively, the impact on prairies and 

marshes under alternative A would be long 

term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Implementation of the 

2000 Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within the original Preserve would 

minimize the impacts, such as trampling, 

injury, or loss of plant cover, of off-road 

vehicles on vegetation. The impact would be 

long term, minor to moderate, beneficial, and 

localized. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

vegetation; however, it is unknown what plant 

communities would be affected. If proposals 

included the use of off-road equipment and 

construction of roads and pads, this would 

alter vegetation. The impacts of these activities 

would be reduced because NPS approval of 

the operations plan would require mitigative 

measures. Short-term impacts on vegetation 

would be moderate, adverse, and localized; 

long-term residual impacts would be minor, 

adverse, and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect plant communities and would 

likely improve plant vigor, abundance, and 

distribution. The impact of these efforts on 

prairies and marshes is expected to be long 

term, minor to moderate, and beneficial. 

Regional growth and development is expected 

to result in an increase in the conversion of 

natural lands to development and alter the 

hydrology of the general area. Changes in 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative A (No Action) 

269 

sheet flow, and its timing and intensity, would 

affect plant communities. Prairies and 

marshes on private land outside the Addition 

would continue to be impacted by population 

growth and development. The impact of these 

activities on prairies and marshes is expected 

to be long term, minor to moderate, and 

adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on prairies 

and marshes would accrue from ORV 

management and ecosystem restoration 

projects. Adverse impacts would be expected 

from oil and gas operations and regional 

growth and development. Overall, the effects 

of the projects discussed above on prairies 

and marshes would be long term, minor, and 

adverse. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative A are added to 

the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions as described above, 

there would be a long-term, minor, adverse 

cumulative impact on prairies and marshes. 

The actions contained in alternative A would 

contribute a very small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative A, impacts on 

prairies and marshes would be long term, 

adverse, minor, and localized. 

There could be a long-term, minor, adverse 

cumulative impact on prairies and marshes. 

The actions contained in alternative A would 

contribute a very small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

prairies and marshes in the Addition. (See 

specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" section.) 

Vegetation — Mangrove Forests 

Analysis. Under alternative A, motorized 

boating would continue to be allowed south 

of U.S. 41 in the Western Addition. Motorized 

boating does not include airboating because 

airboats are classified by the Preserve as offroad vehicles. Most of the boating in the 

Addition occurs in the deep, open-water 

environs, outside the dense mangrove forests. 

Motorized boating could continue to injure 

individual plants or prevent their expansion 

into the shallower margins of the welltravelled boating corridors. Impacts on 

mangrove forests would continue to be long 

term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Implementation of the 

2000 Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within the original Preserve would 

minimize the impacts, such as trampling, 

injury, or loss of plant cover, of off-road 

vehicles on vegetation. Because airboats are 

not allowed in the Addition, beneficial 

impacts on mangroves would be negligible. 

Regional growth and development, including 

waterfront development, is expected to result 

in an increase in the conversion of natural 

lands to development and alter the hydrology 

of the general area. Mangroves receive special 

protection under state law, and any impacts 

on mangrove forests would be expected to be 

negligible. 

Conclusion. Under alternative A, impacts on 

mangrove forests would continue to be long 

term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

Cumulative impacts on mangrove forests 

would be negligible. The actions contained in 

alternative A would contribute a very small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

mangrove forests in the Addition. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the "Impairment 

of Addition Resources" section.) 

Vegetation —Pinelands 

Analysis. Under alternative A, impacts on 

pinelands would be attributed primarily to 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

270 

NPS restoration efforts and limited NPS 

administrative ORV use. 

Ongoing vegetation management, including 

the use of prescribed fire, would decrease 

competition from exotic plants and improve 

the integrity of native habitats. Impacts on 

pinelands from vegetation management would 

continue to be long term, beneficial, minor to 

moderate, and Addition-wide. 

ORV use by NPS staff (or from illegal public 

use) would continue in the Addition. The 

durability of the substrate present in pinelands 

minimizes adverse impacts from ORV use. 

The loss of pines from ORV use has not been 

documented in the original Preserve; however, wheeled use could have adverse impacts 

on other plant species present within these 

communities or within certain ecotonal areas. 

Adverse impacts could include injury to a 

plant or group of plants, or might include 

plant loss in a discrete area due to repeated 

use. Impacts on pinelands from ORV use 

would be long term, adverse, minor, and 

localized. 

Collectively, the impact on pinelands under 

alternative A would be long term, minor, 

adverse, and localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Implementation of the 

2000 Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within the original Preserve would 

minimize the impacts, such as trampling, 

injury, or loss of plant cover, of off-road 

vehicles on vegetation. The impact would be 

long term, minor to moderate, beneficial, and 

localized. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

vegetation in the Addition; however, it is 

unknown what plant communities would be 

affected. If proposal included the use off-road 

equipment and construction of roads and 

pads, this would alter vegetation. The impacts 

of these activities would be reduced because 

NPS approval of the operation plan would 

require mitigative measures. Short-term 

impacts on vegetation would be adverse, 

moderate, and localized; long-term residual 

impacts would be adverse, minor, and 

localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect water tables and could impact 

the abundance and distribution of pinelands. 

The assemblage of pines and palmettos could 

change as a result of changes in hydrology or 

periods of inundation. The impact is uncertain 

because drying often adversely impacts 

pinelands, and increasing the water table 

could also cause a net reduction in pinelands 

compared to current conditions. It is expected 

that restoring natural hydrologic conditions 

would have a beneficial impact on pinelands. 

Regional growth and development is expected 

to result in an increase in the conversion of 

natural lands to development and alter the 

hydrology of the general area. Studies have 

shown that pinelands are the most impacted 

by human land conversion. Pinelands on 

private land in the region would continue to 

be lost. The impact would be long term, 

moderate to major, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on pinelands 

would accrue from ORV management and 

ecosystem restoration projects. Adverse 

impacts would be expected from oil and gas 

operations and regional growth and development. Overall, the effects of the projects 

discussed above would be adverse on 

pinelands in the Addition. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative A are added to 

the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions as described above, 

there would be a long-term, moderate to 

major, adverse cumulative impact on 

pinelands. The actions contained in 

alternative A would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative A (No Action) 

271 

Conclusion. Under alternative A, impacts on 

pinelands would be long term, adverse, minor, 

and localized. 

There could be a long-term, moderate to 

major, adverse cumulative impact on pinelands. The actions contained in alternative A 

would contribute a small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

pinelands in the Addition. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the "Impairment 

of Addition Resources" section.) 

Vegetation — Hardwood Hammocks 

Analysis. Under alternative A, impacts on 

hardwood hammocks would be attributed 

primarily to NPS restoration efforts and 

limited NPS administrative ORV use. 

Ongoing vegetation management would 

decrease competition from exotic plants and 

improve the integrity of native habitats. 

Impacts on hardwood hammocks from 

vegetation management would continue to be 

long term, beneficial, minor to moderate, and 

Addition-wide. 

ORV use by NPS staff (or from illegal public 

use) would continue in the Addition. 

Although the substrate present in hardwood 

hammocks is suitable for ORV use, use tends 

to be infrequent because of the size and 

density of trees present in these areas. However, infrequent ORV use could continue to 

adversely impact understory plants. Adverse 

impacts could include injury to a plant or 

group of plants, or might include plant loss in 

a discrete area due to repeated use. Backcountry camping could also cause trampling 

or loss of vegetation at localized sites. Impacts 

on hardwood hammocks from ORV use and 

backcountry visitor use would be long term, 

adverse, minor, and localized. Impacts would 

be expected to be minor because areas 

affected would be relatively small and 

dispersed. 

Collectively, the impact on hardwood hammocks under alternative A would continue to 

be long term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Implementation of the 

2000 Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within the original Preserve would 

minimize the impacts, such as trampling, 

injury, or loss of plant cover, of off-road 

vehicles on vegetation. The impact would be 

long term, minor to moderate, beneficial, and 

localized. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

vegetation in the Addition; however, it is 

unknown what plant communities would be 

affected. If proposal included the use off-road 

equipment and construction of roads and 

pads, this would alter vegetation. The impacts 

of these activities would be reduced because 

NPS approval of the operation plan would 

require mitigative measures. Short-term 

impacts on vegetation would be adverse, 

moderate, and localized; long-term residual 

impacts would be adverse, minor, and 

localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect water tables and could impact 

the abundance and distribution of hardwood 

hammocks. The impact is uncertain, but 

restoring natural conditions is expected to 

have a long term, minor, beneficial impact. 

Regional growth and development is expected 

to result in an increase in the conversion of 

natural lands to development and alter the 

hydrology of the general area. Changes in 

sheet flow, and its timing and intensity, would 

affect plant communities. The impact of these 

activities on hardwood hammocks is expected 

to be long term, minor to moderate, and 

adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on hardwood 

hammocks would accrue from ORV 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

272 

management and ecosystem restoration 

projects. Adverse impacts would be expected 

from oil and gas operations and regional 

growth and development. Overall, the effects 

of the projects discussed above could slightly 

benefit hardwood hammocks. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative A are added to 

the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long-term, minor, 

beneficial cumulative impact on hardwood 

hammocks. The actions contained in 

alternative A would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative A, impacts on 

hardwood hammocks would be long term, 

adverse, minor, and localized. 

There could be a long-term, minor, beneficial 

cumulative impact on hardwood hammocks. 

The actions contained in alternative A would 

contribute a small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

hardwood hammocks in the Addition. (See 

specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" section.) 

Exotic/Nonnative Plants 

Analysis. Under alternative A, impacts on 

exotic/nonnative plants would be attributed 

primarily to NPS restoration efforts, limited 

ORV and visitor use, and facility maintenance 

activities. Ongoing vegetation management 

(including the use of prescribed fire and 

chemical and mechanical treatment) in the 

Addition would continue to decrease competition from exotic plants and improve the 

integrity of native habitats. The continuation 

of monitoring efforts would also help to 

detect and mitigate new exotic species that 

could affect native plant communities. 

Impacts on exotic/nonnative species from 

ongoing resource management activities 

would be long term, beneficial, moderate, and 

Addition-wide. 

Limited NPS administrative ORV use, as well 

as visitor use and facility maintenance in the 

Addition, could continue to cause impacts on 

the distribution and establishment of exotic 

plants. Visitors and off-road vehicles can be 

agents for seed dispersal, increasing the threat 

to native plant communities. Exotic plants can 

have severe effects on the integrity of native 

systems and habitats. Impacts on exotic/ 

nonnative plants from these activities would 

be long term, minor, and adverse. Although 

the effects would continue to be most 

pronounced along travel corridors and at 

disturbed sites, the impacts could extend 

beyond these immediate areas and become 

Addition-wide. 

Collectively, the impact on exotic/nonnative 

plants under alternative A would continue to 

be long term, minor, beneficial, and 

potentially Addition-wide. 

Cumulative Impacts. Implementation of the 

2000 Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within the original Preserve would 

minimize the impacts of off-road vehicles on 

exotic plants and native vegetation in the 

original Preserve and reduces the potential for 

dispersal into the Addition — a beneficial 

impact on nonnative vegetation. Furthermore, 

the designated trail system would facilitate 

management of exotic species, including 

reporting and removal. The impact on exotic 

plants and nonnative vegetation in the region 

would be negligible. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

native vegetation because of the potential for 

the spread of exotic plants in the Addition. If 

such proposals included using off-road 

equipment and constructing roads and pads, 

this would disturb soils and native vegetation. 

Short-term impacts could include the 

establishment of exotic plants on disturbed 

sites and the dispersal of seeds and plant 

stock. The impacts of these activities would be 

reduced because NPS approval of the 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative A (No Action) 

273 

operations plan would require mitigative 

measures. Short-term impacts on native 

vegetation because of the potential for the 

spread of exotic and nonnative species would 

be adverse, moderate, and localized; longterm residual impacts would be adverse, 

minor, and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect water tables and could impact 

the abundance and distribution of exotic 

plants. The impact on exotic plants is 

uncertain, but restoring natural conditions is 

expected to have a long-term, minor to 

moderate, beneficial impact on native plants 

and vegetation. 

Regional growth and development is expected 

to result in an increase in the conversion of 

natural lands to development and alter the 

hydrology of the general area. Changes in 

sheet flow, and its timing and intensity, would 

affect exotic plants, as would increases in the 

amount of disturbed land that is available for 

colonization by exotic species. The impact of 

these activities on exotic plants and nonnative 

vegetation is expected to be long term, minor 

to moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on native 

vegetation would accrue from ecosystem 

restoration projects. Adverse impacts would 

be expected from oil and gas operations and 

regional growth and development. Overall, 

the effects of the projects discussed above 

could have a minor adverse impact on exotic 

plants and nonnative vegetation. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative A are added to 

the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions as described above, 

there would be a long-term, minor, adverse 

cumulative impact on exotic plants. The 

actions contained in alternative A would 

contribute a small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative A, impacts on 

native vegetation because of the potential for 

the spread of exotic and nonnative plants 

would be long term, minor, beneficial, and 

potentially Addition-wide. 

There could be a long-term, minor, adverse 

cumulative impact on exotic plants and 

nonnative vegetation. The actions contained 

in alternative A would contribute a very small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this alternative would not result in impairment of 

native vegetation in the Addition. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the "Impairment 

of Addition Resources" section.) 

Federal Threatened 

and Endangered Species 

Florida Panther. Under alternative A, 

impacts on the Florida panther would be 

attributed primarily to NPS restoration efforts 

and limited NPS administrative ORV use and 

visitor use. 

Ongoing vegetation management efforts 

would continue to improve habitat for 

panthers as well as for the major game species 

in the Addition that serve as their primary 

food source. Partnerships with the Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would 

continue and would contribute to the 

monitoring and improved understanding of 

the species. Impacts on panthers from 

ongoing resource management activities 

would continue to be long term, beneficial, 

minor, and Addition-wide. 

Public ORV use would continue to be 

prohibited in the Addition under alternative 

A. The hunting pressure associated with walkin access only would be expected to be 

minimal, with no substantial effect on the 

panther’s prey base. Consequently, human use 

and disturbance in the Addition would 

continue to be minimal and would maintain 

conditions that support panther use of the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

274 

area as well as robust prey populations. 

Adverse impacts, such as flushing and 

displacement of panthers, would continue. 

The impact would be long term, minor to 

moderate, adverse, and localized. 

Limited administrative ORV use by NPS staff, 

as well as nonmotorized public use (primarily 

backcountry hiking), would continue to affect 

Florida panthers, potentially causing displacement and avoidance of certain areas within 

the Addition. The impact would continue to 

be long term, adverse, minor, and localized. 

Overall, impacts on the Florida panthers 

resulting from the continuation of current 

management (alternative A) would be long 

term, adverse, minor, and mostly localized. 

The determination of effect under Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act would be not 

likely to adversely affect. 

Cumulative Impacts — Implementation 

of the 2000 Recreational Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan within the original 

Preserve would minimize the impacts of 

ORVs on panthers in the region, a beneficial impact because an individual panther’s 

range may include the Preserve as well as 

the Addition and other adjacent lands. In 

other words, improving and protecting 

habitat value on the original Preserve could 

yield a regional benefit to the species. 

Eliminating some and designating new 

ORV trails and conducting education, best 

management practices, research, and 

mitigation would limit impacts on 

panthers. Adverse impacts on panthers 

would still occur from ORV use in the 

original Preserve, but the effects would be 

less than with no ORV management. With 

implementation of the terms and 

conditions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s “Biological Opinion” (USFWS 

2000), the plan is not likely to result in 

jeopardy to the panther. Overall, the 

impact of the 2000 Recreational Off-road 

Vehicle Management Plan on the Florida 

panther would be long term, moderate, and 

beneficial compared to no ORV 

management. 

Implementation of future oils and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

Florida panthers in the Addition. If such 

proposals included using off-road 

equipment and construct ingroads and 

pads, this could create human disturbances 

and result in degradation and loss of 

panther habitat. Short-term adverse 

impacts from construction could include 

flushing and displacement of panthers, 

effects on feeding and sheltering behavior, 

and an increase in mortality from vehicle 

collisions. The same types of adverse 

impacts would be long term due to ongoing 

operations and maintenance activities. 

These adverse impacts would be minor and 

localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect vegetation communities and 

in turn wildlife habitat. The impact on the 

Florida panther is uncertain, but restoring 

natural conditions is assumed to have a 

long-term, minor, beneficial impact 

because it would return vegetation 

communities to historic conditions and 

improve predator/prey relationships. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and result in an 

increase in the conversion of natural lands 

to development in the general area. The 

loss of natural areas and the increasing 

urbanization of the region have led to a 

substantial loss of panther habitat. Natural 

areas that remain are more fragmented and 

contain higher levels of human disturbance, both of which adversely affect 

panthers and their long-term survival. 

Increased panther mortality due to vehicle 

collisions could also be attributed to the 

effects of regional growth and development. The impact of these activities on the 

Florida panther is expected to be long 

term, moderate to major, and adverse. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative A (No Action) 

275 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on the 

Florida panther would accrue from ORV 

management and ecosystem restoration 

projects. Adverse impacts would be 

expected from oil and gas operations and 

regional growth and development. 

Overall, the effects of the projects 

discussed above would likely be long term, 

minor to moderate, and adverse on Florida 

panthers in the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in alternative A are 

added to the effects of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions as 

described above, there would be a longterm, minor to moderate, adverse 

cumulative impact on the Florida panther. 

The actions contained in alternative A 

would contribute a small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion — Continuation of current 

management under alternative A would 

result in long-term, minor, adverse, mostly 

localized impacts on the Florida panther 

across the Addition. The determination of 

effect under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act would be not likely to adversely 

affect. 

There would be a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on 

the Florida panther. The actions contained 

in alternative A would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not likely result in 

impairment of the Florida panther in the 

Addition because habitat conditions would 

be maintained or enhanced and the 

National Park Service would strive to meet 

the species recovery goals. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

West Indian Manatee. Under alternative A, 

impacts on the West Indian manatee would be 

attributed primarily to continued motorboat 

use associated with recreational fishing 

(airboat use is prohibited). Manatees in the 

creeks, canals, and estuarine area south of U.S. 

41 in the Western Addition would be 

subjected to potential injury from collisions 

with boat hulls and/or propellers. Manatees 

would also be displaced from and/or avoid 

certain areas, which could affect feeding and 

other behaviors. The National Park Service 

already manages boating in this area to reduce 

impacts on manatees and their designated 

critical habitat. Partnerships with the Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would 

continue and would help improve monitoring 

and recovery of the species. Essential features 

of critical habitat would not be impacted. 

Impacts on the West Indian manatee would 

continue to be long term, adverse, minor, and 

localized. The determination of effect under 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

would be not likely to adversely affect. 

Cumulative Impacts — The south Florida 

ecosystem restoration project includes 

several proposals for restoration of surface 

water flow within the region. The proposals would improve sheet flow and hydrologic connectivity, which would increase 

the quantity of freshwater inputs into the 

estuarine system, a beneficial impact on the 

manatees. The quality of freshwater inputs 

is predicted to be less than current conditions, which could adversely impact 

manatee habitat. Overall, it is expected that 

restoring natural hydrologic conditions 

would produce long-term, minor beneficial 

impacts for the West Indian manatee. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and could result in an 

increase in the number of recreational 

boaters in the region. Injury and mortality 

of the manatees associated with recreational boating could increase as a result of 

increased motorboat use. Incompatible 

coastal development could also adversely 

affect manatees by loss of habitat and 

feeding areas, as well as pollution discharges. These activities would adversely 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

276 

impact manatees and could affect their 

long-term survival. The impact on the West 

Indian manatee is expected to be longterm, moderate to major, and adverse. 

Overall, the effects of the projects 

discussed above would likely be adverse to 

West Indian manatees in the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in alternative A are 

added to the effects of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions as 

described above, there would be a longterm, moderate, adverse cumulative impact 

on the West Indian manatee. The actions 

contained in alternative A would contribute a very small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion — Implementation of 

alternative A would result in localized, 

long-term, minor adverse impacts on the 

West Indian manatee. The determination 

of effect under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act would be not likely 

to adversely affect. 

There would be a long-term, moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on the West 

Indian manatee. The actions contained in 

alternative A would contribute a very small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment 

of the West Indian manatee in the Addition 

because habitat conditions would be 

maintained or enhanced and the National 

Park Service would strive to meet the 

species recovery goals. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the "Impairment of Addition Resources" section.) 

Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. Under 

alternative A, impacts on the red-cockaded 

woodpecker would be attributed primarily to 

NPS restoration efforts and limited ORV and 

visitor use. 

Ongoing vegetation management efforts, 

including the use of prescribed fire to 

maintain preferred understory conditions, 

would continue to improve habitat for redcockaded woodpeckers. Long-term, minor to 

moderate, beneficial, impacts would be anticipated from ongoing resource management 

activities. 

Nonmotorized visitor use (primarily hiking) 

could continue to affect woodpeckers, 

potentially causing displacement and their 

avoidance of certain areas in the Addition; the 

impact would be long term, negligible to 

minor, adverse, and localized. 

Because there are currently no known nest 

sites within the Addition, effects on 

woodpeckers would be limited to impacts on 

foraging habitat and avoidance of certain 

areas during periods of human activity. The 

impacts would be long term, adverse, minor, 

and localized. 

Overall, the continuation of current management (alternative A) would continue to result 

in long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial, 

impacts on this species across the Addition. 

The determination of effect under Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act would be not 

likely to adversely affect. 

Cumulative Impacts — Implementation 

of the 2000 Recreational Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan within the original 

Preserve would minimize the impacts of 

off-road vehicles on red-cockaded woodpeckers in the region, a beneficial impact. 

Eliminating some and designating new 

ORV trails and conducting education, best 

management practices, research, and mitigation would limit impacts on woodpeckers. Cavity trees and active clusters would 

be avoided as trail sites, thereby reducing 

adverse impacts. Adverse impacts on 

woodpeckers would still occur from ORV 

use in pinelands in the original Preserve, 

but the impact would be minor. Overall, 

the impact of the 2000 Recreational Offroad Vehicle Management Plan on the red-
Environmental Consequences of Alternative A (No Action) 

277 

cockaded woodpecker would continue to 

be long-term, negligible, and adverse. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

the red-cockaded woodpecker in the 

Addition. If such proposals included using 

off-road equipment and constructing roads 

and pads, this could degrade and reduce 

available woodpecker habitat. The impacts 

of these activities would be reduced 

because NPS approval of the operations 

plans would require mitigative measures. 

Short-term adverse impacts could include 

flushing and displacement of woodpeckers, while long-term impacts could 

include the loss of cavity nesting trees. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect vegetation communities 

(including pinelands) and in turn wildlife 

habitat. The impact on the red-cockaded 

woodpecker is uncertain, but restoring 

natural conditions is assumed to have a 

long-term, minor, beneficial impact 

because returning vegetation communities 

to historic conditions and improving 

foraging resources would be beneficial. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and result in an 

increase in the conversion of natural lands 

to development in the general area. The 

loss of natural areas and the increasing 

urbanization of the region have led to a 

substantial loss of woodpecker habitat 

(pinelands) in the region. Natural areas 

that remain are more fragmented and 

contain higher levels of human disturbance 

and displacement of woodpeckers, both of 

which adversely affect woodpeckers and 

their long-term survival. The impact of 

these activities on the red-cockaded 

woodpecker is expected to be long-term, 

moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on the redcockaded woodpecker would accrue from 

ecosystem restoration projects. Adverse 

impacts would be expected from oil and 

gas operations and regional growth and 

development. Overall, the effects of the 

projects discussed above would likely be 

adverse to red-cockaded woodpeckers in 

the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in alternative A are 

added to the effects of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions as 

described above, there would be a longterm, minor to moderate, adverse cumulative impact on the red-cockaded woodpecker. The actions contained in 

alternative A would contribute a small 

beneficial increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion — The continuation of current 

management (alternative A) would result in 

long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial 

impacts across the Addition. The determination of effect under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act would be not likely 

to adversely affect. 

There would be a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on 

the red-cockaded woodpecker. The 

actions contained in alternative A would 

contribute a small beneficial increment to 

this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment 

on the red-cockaded woodpecker in the 

Addition because habitat conditions would 

be maintained or enhanced, and the 

National Park Service would strive to meet 

the species recovery goals. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the "Impairment of Addition Resources" section.) 

Wood Stork. Under alternative A, ongoing 

NPS efforts to improve natural hydrologic 

processes would continue, but the wood 

stork’s habitat also would continue to be 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

278 

affected primarily by water levels and drying 

conditions resulting from natural climatic 

events. Currently there are no known stork 

nest sites within the Addition, and they have 

nested in the Preserve only sporadically since 

1996. The continuation of current management (alternative A), including limited human 

activity in the Addition associated with limited 

NPS administrative ORV use and backcountry 

hiking, would continue to result in negligible 

adverse impacts on the wood stork. Public 

hunting would be allowed via walk-in access 

only. The determination of effect under 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

would be no effect. 

Cumulative Impacts — Implementation 

of the 2000 Recreational Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan within the original 

Preserve would reduce the impacts of offroad vehicles on the wood stork’s foraging 

habitat (prairies and marshes) in the 

region, a beneficial impact. Eliminating 

some and designating new ORV trails and 

conducting education, best management 

practices, research, and mitigation would 

limit impacts on storks. Nesting habitat 

(cypress trees in open water) would likely 

not be affected because off-road vehicles 

typically avoid the deep, open water areas 

that storks commonly nest in. Consequently, the effect on nesting habitat due to the 

actions in the 2000 Recreational Off-road 

Vehicle Management Plan would be 

negligible. Overall, the impact of that plan 

on the wood stork in the region would be 

long term, minor, and beneficial. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

the wood stork in the Addition. If such 

proposals included using off-road 

equipment and constructing roads and 

pads, this could result in loss and 

degradation of wood stork habitat. The 

impacts of these activities would be 

reduced because NPS approval of the 

operations plans would require mitigative 

measures. Adverse impacts could include 

flushing and displacement of wood storks. 

Short-term impacts on wood storks would 

be adverse, moderate, and localized; longterm residual impacts would be adverse, 

minor, and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect habitat conditions, including 

food supply. The impact on the wood stork 

is unknown, but restoring natural hydrologic conditions is expected to have a longterm, minor to moderate, beneficial impact 

because vegetation communities would 

return to historic conditions and foraging 

resources would improve. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and result in an 

increase in the conversion of natural lands 

to development and alteration of the 

hydrology of the general area. Impacts 

such as the loss of wetlands and compromised water quality from discharge of 

urban pollutants into hydrologic systems 

would adversely affect storks. The impact 

of these activities on the wood stork is 

expected to be long term, minor to 

moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on the 

wood stork would accrue from ORV management and ecosystem restoration projects. Adverse impacts would be expected 

from oil and gas operations and regional 

growth and development. Overall, the 

effects of the projects discussed above 

would likely be adverse for wood storks in 

the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in alternative A are 

added to the effects of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions as 

described above, there would be a longterm, minor, adverse cumulative impact on 

the wood stork. The actions contained in 

alternative A would add a very small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative A (No Action) 

279 

Conclusion — Under alternative A, 

impacts on the wood stork would be long 

term, negligible, and adverse. The 

determination of effect under Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act would be no 

effect. 

There would be a long-term, minor, 

adverse cumulative impact on the wood 

stork. The actions contained in alternative 

A would add a very small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment 

of the wood stork in the Addition because 

habitat conditions would be maintained or 

enhanced and the National Park Service 

would strive to meet the species recovery 

goals. (See specific definition of 

impairment in the "Impairment of 

Addition Resources" section.) 

Everglade Snail Kite. Under alternative A, 

impacts on the Everglade snail kite would be 

attributed primarily to NPS restoration efforts 

and limited NPS administrative ORV use and 

nonmotorized visitor use. 

The snail kite’s diet is predominantly apple 

snails. Given this distinct dependence, the 

kite can also be affected by actions that affect 

apple snail populations or affect the kite’s 

access to apple snails. Although there are no 

known snail kite nest sites in the Addition, 

kites may occasionally use marshes and open 

water littoral zones in the Addition for 

foraging on apple snails. They may also roost 

in the vicinity of these water bodies. Over 

time, without disturbances from recreation or 

hydrologic alterations, it may be possible for 

kites to nest in the Addition. 

Under alternative A, ongoing NPS efforts to 

improve natural hydrologic processes would 

continue to benefit apple snail populations in 

the Addition, which in turn would benefit the 

kite. However, natural hydrologic cycles 

would continue to bring yearly fluctuations in 

apple snail abundance in the Addition, which 

would affect foraging opportunities for the 

kite. 

The kite’s ability to forage for apple snails 

depends on water clarity and the lack of dense 

vegetation in wetlands or pond/lake shallows, 

because the kite needs to see snails below the 

water surface. Thus, under alternative A, 

continued NPS management of invasive plants 

and water quality in the Addition would also 

continue to benefit the snail kite by maintaining open, accessible foraging areas in wetlands 

and open water. 

The continuation of current recreation 

management (alternative A), including limited 

human activity associated with limited NPS 

administrative ORV use, backcountry hiking, 

and walk-in hunting, may continue to 

occasionally flush or displace foraging or 

roosting kites in the Addition. This would 

continue to result in negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on the Everglade snail kite 

and its foraging habitat. 

Collectively, the continuation of current 

management (alternative A) would continue 

to result in long-term, minor to moderate, 

beneficial, impacts on this species across the 

Addition. The determination of effect under 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

would be not likely to adversely affect. 

Cumulative Impacts — Implementation 

of the 2000 Recreational Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan within the original 

Preserve would reduce the impacts of offroad vehicles on the snail kite’s foraging, 

roosting, and nesting habitat (marshes and 

pond/lake fringes) in the region, a 

beneficial impact. Eliminating some and 

designating new ORV trails and 

conducting education, best management 

practices, research, and mitigation would 

limit impacts on the kites in the region. 

However, foraging, roosting, or possible 

nesting habitat for snail kites could be 

adversely affected in areas where ORV use 

is permitted under the plan, particularly in 

specific ORV use areas that are near 

marshes, ponds, or lakes. Overall, the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

280 

impact of that plan on the snail kite in the 

region would be long term, minor, and 

beneficial. 

Implementation of future oils and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

the snail kite habitat in the Addition. If 

such proposals included using off-road 

equipment and constructing roads and 

pads, this could result in loss and 

degradation of snail kite habitat. The 

impacts of these activities would be 

reduced because NPS approval of the 

operations plan would require mitigative 

measures. Adverse impacts could include 

flushing and displacement of snail kites. 

Short-term impacts on snail kites would be 

adverse, moderate, and localized, while 

long-term impacts would be adverse, 

minor, and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect habitat conditions, including 

food supply and water quality. This would 

be particularly beneficial to the snail kite, 

because its diet predominantly consists of 

apple snails that depend on adequate 

hydrological conditions. Furthermore, the 

return of natural hydrological conditions 

and improved water quality to the region 

would also enhance or increase the 

availability of quality foraging, roosting, 

and nesting habitat for the Everglade snail 

kite. The restoration of natural hydrologic 

conditions would have long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impacts. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and result in an 

increase in the conversion of natural lands 

to development and alter the hydrology of 

the general area. Impacts such as the loss of 

wetlands and compromised water quality 

from discharge of urban pollutants into 

hydrologic systems would adversely affect 

snail kites and their primary food source, 

the apple snail. The impact of these 

activities on the snail kite is expected to be 

long term, minor to moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on the snail 

kite would result from improved ORV 

management and ecosystem restoration 

projects by mitigating ORV impacts and 

allowing habitat restoration. Adverse 

impacts would be expected from oil and 

gas development and regional growth and 

urban development. Overall, the effects of 

the projects discussed above would likely 

be adverse to snail kite habitat in the 

region. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in alternative A are 

added to the effects of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions as 

described above, there would be a longterm, minor, adverse cumulative impact on 

the Everglade snail kite. The actions 

contained in alternative A would add a 

small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion — Under alternative A, 

impacts on the Everglade snail kite would 

be long term, minor to moderate, and 

beneficial. The determination of effect 

under Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act would be not likely to adversely affect. 

However, there would be a long-term, 

minor, adverse cumulative impact on the 

snail kite. The actions contained in 

alternative A would add a small increment 

to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment 

of the Everglade snail kite in the Addition 

because habitat conditions would be 

maintained or enhanced and the National 

Park Service would strive to meet the 

species recovery goals. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

American Crocodile. Under alternative A, 

impacts on the American crocodile and its 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative A (No Action) 

281 

habitat would primarily be attributed to 

continued human activities near mangrove 

forests, particularly motorized boating 

associated with recreational fishing in the 

Western Addition (airboat use is prohibited). 

Mangrove forests are the primary habitat for 

the American crocodile in south Florida, 

although crocodiles are generally rare in Big 

Cypress National Preserve. The mangrove 

habitat areas along creeks, canals, and 

estuaries south of U.S. 41 in the Western 

Addition are where effects would most likely 

occur. 

In these areas, crocodiles may be affected by 

motorboat noise, boat wakes and waves, 

human noise or actions, or boat hulls or 

propellers. Because most American crocodile 

activity occurs from just before sunset to just 

after sunrise, most of these human-induced 

actions would disturb the crocodiles when 

they are at rest during daytime hours. These 

disturbances may cause resting crocodiles to 

be flushed, resulting in unnecessary energy 

use and stress. Boating in early morning or 

evening hours may also alter crocodile 

foraging behavior or flush the possible prey of 

the crocodile. Depending on the level and 

frequency of human disturbances, crocodiles 

could avoid some areas entirely. 

Crocodiles are not known to nest in the 

Addition. However, if nesting occurs, the 

hatching success would primarily depend on 

risks from flooding, predation, lack of soil 

moisture during incubation, and extreme 

storms. The nest success also depends on the 

female crocodile returning to the nest to 

excavate the hatchlings. Research suggests 

that some female crocodiles may abandon 

their nests if the area is subjected to repeated, 

close human presence (Kushlan and Mazzotti 

1989). Once hatched, juveniles would then be 

affected by similar human disturbances as 

highlighted above. The young crocodiles 

would be at greatest risk during their journey 

through open water from their nest site to 

more distant nursery habitat. 

Given the infrequent presence of crocodiles in 

the area, the above effects from human 

recreation activities such as boating would be 

long term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

Alternative A would also continue current 

NPS vegetation management actions that 

would help maintain or improve habitat 

conditions in the Addition. These actions 

would help address invasive plant infestations 

that could degrade or displace habitat for the 

American crocodile. The impacts of ongoing 

NPS vegetation management would be long 

term, minor to moderate, beneficial, and 

localized. 

Under alternative A, the impacts on the 

American crocodile would continue to be long 

term, adverse, minor, and localized. The 

determination of effect under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act would be not likely to 

adversely affect. 

Cumulative Impacts — The south Florida 

ecosystem restoration project includes 

several proposals for restoration of surface 

water flow within the region. The proposals would improve sheet flow and hydrologic connectivity, which would increase 

the quantity of freshwater inputs into the 

estuarine system, a beneficial impact on the 

American crocodile. This restoration of 

hydrologic flows and connectivity would 

be most beneficial to the crocodile in the 

nonnesting season when they seek inland 

freshwater habitats. However, the 

freshwater inflows are predicted to have 

lower water quality than current conditions, which could adversely impact 

crocodile habitat. Overall, it is expected 

that restoring natural hydrologic 

conditions would produce long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impacts for the 

American crocodile. 

Regional growth and development, 

including waterfront development, is 

expected to continue in south Florida. This 

would result in the alteration or 

displacement of natural lands and changes 

to the local and regional hydrology. 

Because mangrove forests receive special 

protection under state law, any direct 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

282 

impacts on mangrove forests would be 

expected to be negligible. However, even if 

direct impacts on mangroves are avoided, 

urban encroachment may diminish 

mangrove habitat values if human activity 

and development is near the mangroves. 

Road mortality would likely increase as 

development and regional population 

increase. Growth and development could 

also result in an increase in boating and 

other recreational activities in the area. 

Crocodile foraging, breeding, resting, and 

nesting may be affected by increases in 

motorboat disturbances, boat wakes and 

waves, and human noise or actions. 

Crocodiles could avoid some areas entirely 

depending on the level and frequency of 

human disturbances. The impact on the 

American crocodile from urban growth 

and development is expected to be long 

term, moderate, and adverse. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in alternative A are 

added to the effects of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions as 

described above, there would be a longterm, minor to moderate, adverse 

cumulative impact on the American 

crocodile. The actions contained in 

alternative A would contribute a very small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion — Implementation of 

alternative A would result in localized, 

long-term, minor, adverse impacts on the 

American crocodile. The determination of 

effect under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act would be not likely to adversely 

affect. 

There would be a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on 

the American crocodile. The actions 

contained in alternative A would 

contribute a very small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment 

of the American crocodile in the Addition 

because habitat conditions would be 

maintained or enhanced and the National 

Park Service would strive to meet the 

species recovery goals. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the "Impairment of Addition Resources" section.) 

Eastern Indigo Snake. Under alternative A, 

impacts on potential habitat for the eastern 

indigo snake would be attributed primarily to 

NPS restoration efforts, limited NPS 

administrative ORV use, and nonmotorized 

visitor use. 

NPS vegetation management efforts would 

continue to improve habitat values for the 

indigo snake and its prey. Given the snake’s 

dependence on a mosaic of habitat types 

throughout its lifecycle and its generalist 

nature in south Florida, the combination of 

these Addition-wide active management 

efforts and natural restoration processes (that 

restore previously disturbed lands) would 

enhance the conditions for the eastern indigo 

snake. Impacts on the snake from these 

ongoing resource management activities 

would continue to be long term, beneficial, 

minor, and Addition-wide. 

Public ORV use would continue to be 

prohibited in the Addition under alternative 

A. Therefore, little or no disturbance to 

vegetative groundcover or soil substrates 

would be expected. Other impacts, such as 

being flushed by public ORV noises, would 

also be avoided. This continued effect would 

be particularly beneficial to the eastern indigo 

in the upland areas of the Addition, such as 

pinelands or successional hardwood 

hammocks, which provide habitat conditions 

for foraging, breeding, and snake burrows or 

refuges. The prohibition of ORV use under 

this alternative would also retain the Addition 

as a large, unfragmented, mosaic of 

undisturbed snake habitat types, which is 

essential for viable eastern indigo populations 

(Layne and Steiner 1996, Breininger et al. 

2004). 

The hunting pressure associated with walk-in 

access only would be expected to be minimal, 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative A (No Action) 

283 

with negligible effect on the eastern indigo 

snake or its prey. In addition, continued 

enforcement of the Endangered Species Act 

and the Lacey Act would limit the risk of 

illegal snake capture for the pet trade. Other 

nonmotorized public use (e.g., backcountry 

hiking) would also continue, but would only 

cause sporadic flushing of the snake or its 

prey. Limited administrative ORV use by NPS 

staff would also be an occasional, short-term 

disturbance. Consequently, human use and 

disturbance in the Addition would continue to 

be minimal and would maintain habitat 

conditions that support the eastern indigo 

snake and its prey. The impact from human 

activity would be long term, negligible to 

minor, adverse, and localized. 

Collectively, the continuation of current 

management (alternative A) would continue 

to result in long-term, minor to moderate, 

beneficial, impacts on this species across the 

Addition. The determination of effect under 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

would be not likely to adversely affect. 

Cumulative Impacts — Implementation 

of the 2000 Recreational Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan within the original 

Preserve would reduce the impacts of 

ORVs on the wide variety of habitat types 

that support the eastern indigo snake. Most 

importantly, the improved ORV 

management efforts would reduce 

disturbance or degradation to vegetative 

groundcover and soil substrates in areas 

that provide for foraging, breeding, and 

snake burrows or refugia, such as pinelands or successional hardwood hammocks. Eliminating some and designating 

new ORV trails and conducting education, 

best management practices, research, and 

mitigation would limit impacts on the 

indigo snakes in the region. However, 

snake habitat might be altered or displaced, 

and individual snakes may be flushed, in 

areas where ORV use is permitted under 

the plan. Overall, the impact of that plan on 

the eastern indigo in the region would be 

long term, minor, and beneficial. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

the eastern indigo snake habitat in the 

Addition. If such proposals included using 

off-road equipment and constructing roads 

and pads, this could result in the loss and 

degradation of several habitat types that 

support the snake. Adverse impacts would 

include displacement of vegetative cover 

for the snake; soil and burrow disturbances; possible roadway injury/mortality; and 

disruption of normal foraging, breeding, 

and dispersal behaviors. The impacts of 

these activities would be reduced because 

NPS approval of the operations plan would 

require mitigative measures. Short-term 

impacts on the snake would be adverse, 

moderate, and localized, while long-term 

impacts would be adverse, minor, and 

localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect habitat conditions for many 

species. This hydrologic restoration could 

benefit the eastern indigo directly during 

times of the year when the snake uses 

wetter habitats in the area. At other times, 

it would benefit the eastern indigo 

indirectly by restoring a natural system that 

could improve conditions and increase 

populations of the snake’s food base. 

However, the reintroduction of natural 

flows could displace some existing upland 

areas. This effect could decrease available 

upland habitat for the eastern indigo snake 

and its prey that depend on upland habitat. 

The restoration of natural hydrologic 

conditions would have long-term, minor to 

moderate impacts that could be both 

beneficial and adverse to the snake. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and result in an 

increase in habitat displacement for the 

snake. Because the eastern indigo uses a 

variety of habitat types and has a large 

home range, it is particularly susceptible to 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

284 

habitat loss and habitat fragmentation from 

urban development. In addition to habitat 

displacement and fragmentation, urban 

development also brings injury or mortality 

threats from domestic animals, vehicles, 

and property owners, as well as from 

pesticides and rodenticides in the food 

chain. All of these would adversely affect 

eastern indigos. The impact of these 

activities on the snake is expected to be 

long term, moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on the 

eastern indigo snake would result from 

improved ORV management and 

ecosystem restoration projects. Adverse 

impacts would be expected from oil and 

gas development and regional growth and 

urban development. Overall, the effects of 

the projects discussed above would likely 

be adverse to the snake’s habitat in the 

region. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in alternative A are 

added to the effects of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions as 

described above, there would be a longterm, minor to moderate, adverse cumulative impact on the eastern indigo snake. 

The actions contained in alternative A 

would add a small beneficial increment to 

this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion — Under alternative A impacts 

on the eastern indigo snake would be long 

term, minor to moderate, and beneficial. 

The determination of effect under Section 

7 of the Endangered Species Act would be 

not likely to adversely affect. 

However, there would be a long-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse cumulative 

impact on the eastern indigo. The actions 

contained in alternative A would add a 

small beneficial increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment 

of the eastern indigo snake in the Addition 

because habitat conditions would be 

maintained or enhanced and the National 

Park Service would strive to meet the 

species recovery goals. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

Major Game Species 

Analysis. Under alternative A, impacts on the 

major game species of the Addition (whitetailed deer, feral hogs, and wild turkey) would 

be attributed primarily to NPS restoration 

efforts, limited NPS administrative ORV use, 

and visitor use. 

Ongoing vegetation management efforts, 

including the use of prescribe fire, would 

continue to improve habitat for major game 

species by decreasing competition from exotic 

plants and increasing the availability of native 

plants as food sources. The deer’s preferred 

browse, the swamp lily, would be favored by 

reductions of melaleuca. The use of 

prescribed fire to promote early successional 

stages of vegetation would provide new 

vegetative growth for deer browse. Hogs and 

turkeys would also benefit from ongoing 

resource management activities. This impact 

would continue to be minor to moderate, 

beneficial, and Addition-wide. Short-term 

adverse impacts, such as flushing and displacement, could occur during implementation of these management activities. 

Human activity in the Addition under alternative A would remain minimal — limited to 

occasional ORV use by NPS staff, infrequent 

backcountry hiking by the public, and future 

public hunting via walk-in access only. The 

hunting pressure associated with walk-in 

access would be expected to be minimal, with 

no important effect on the viability of game 

populations. Short-term, minor adverse 

impacts, such as flushing and displacement of 

game species, would continue. Long-term, 

moderate beneficial impacts could also occur 

from hunting and management of game 

populations, such as disease mitigation and 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative A (No Action) 

285 

improvements in population genetics. 

Partnerships with the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission would 

continue and would contribute to the 

monitoring and improved understanding of 

game populations. 

Overall, impacts on major game species from 

the continuation of current management 

(alternative A) would continue to be long 

term, beneficial, minor, and Addition-wide. 

Cumulative Impacts. Implementation of the 

2000 Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within the original Preserve would 

reduce the adverse impacts of off-road 

vehicles on major game species in the region, a 

beneficial impact. Eliminating some and designating new ORV trails would make ORV noise 

and movement more predictable, thereby 

displacing animals away from travel corridors 

but reducing the impacts on wildlife habitat 

and game populations. Conducting education, 

best management practices, research, and 

mitigation called for in the 2000 ORV plan 

would also limit impacts on wildlife. Adverse 

impacts on major game species would still 

occur from ORV use in the original Preserve, 

but the effects on the species from the actions 

in the 2000 ORV plan would be less than with 

no ORV management. Overall, the impact of 

the 2000 ORV plan on major game species 

would be long term, minor, and beneficial. 

Implementation of future oils and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

major game species in the Addition. If such 

proposals included using off-road equipment 

and constructing roads and pads, this would 

create human disturbances and alter wildlife 

habitat. The impacts of these activities would 

be reduced because NPS approval of the 

operations plan would require mitigative 

measures. Adverse impacts could include 

flushing and displacement of game species. 

Short-term impacts on major game species 

would be adverse, moderate, and localized; 

long-term residual impacts would be adverse, 

minor, and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect vegetation communities and in 

turn wildlife habitat. The impact on the major 

game species is unknown, but restoring 

natural conditions is expected to have a longterm, minor to moderate, beneficial impact. 

Regional growth and development is expected 

to continue and result in an increase in the 

conversion of natural lands to development in 

the general area. The loss of natural areas and 

the increasing urbanization of the region have 

led to a loss of wildlife habitat. The major 

game species are considered generalists and 

have demonstrated their resiliency and ability 

to adapt to changing conditions. Within the 

region, the three species (deer, hogs, and 

turkey) are widespread. However, continued 

urbanization has fragmented remaining 

natural areas and increased the risks and 

threats to these species, including automobile 

collisions, exotic species, and pathogens. The 

impact of these activities on the major game 

species is expected to be long term, minor to 

moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on major game 

species would accrue from ORV management 

and ecosystem restoration projects. Adverse 

impacts would be expected from oil and gas 

operations and regional growth and development. Overall, the effects of the projects 

described above would likely be adverse on 

major game species in the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative A are added to 

the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long-term, minor, 

adverse cumulative impact on the major game 

species. The actions contained in alternative A 

would contribute an appreciable beneficial 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative A, impacts on 

major game species from the continuation of 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

286 

current management would be long term, 

beneficial, minor, and Addition-wide. 

There would be a long-term, minor, adverse 

cumulative impact on the major game species. 

The actions contained in alternative A would 

contribute an appreciable beneficial 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

the major game species in the Addition. (See 

specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" section.) 

WILDERNESS 

RESOURCES AND VALUES 

Analysis 

Per NPS Management Polices 2006, eligible

land in the Addition would continue to be 

managed to preserve its wilderness qualities 

and maintain its potential eligibility for 

wilderness designation; however, lands within 

the Addition would not receive any special 

status or protection from wilderness 

designation. Because no public ORV use 

would be allowed, fragmentation of habitats 

would be minimized, and the current condition of the natural soundscape would continue to be preserved. Opportunities for 

solitude and primitive and unconfined 

recreation would continue to be preserved 

and available. These actions would result in 

minor to moderate, long-term beneficial 

impacts. 

Hunting, frogging, and fishing would be 

allowed but would be accommodated by 

walk-in access only. The minimal public use in 

the Addition would cause only negligible to 

minor adverse impacts on wilderness 

resources and values. Ongoing NPS resource 

management activities, as well as natural 

reclamation processes, would continue to 

improve the long-term naturalness of the 

Addition, but could cause some short-term 

adverse impacts on soundscapes and visitor 

opportunities from restoration actions. 

Overall, the impacts on wilderness resources 

and values would continue to be long term, 

minor, beneficial, and localized. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Implementation of the 2000 Recreational Offroad Vehicle Management Plan within the 

original Preserve would minimize the effects 

of off-road vehicles on wilderness resources 

and values by reducing the potential for 

dispersal and establishment of exotic plants, a 

beneficial impact. The impact on natural 

soundscapes resulting from the management 

of off-road vehicles in the original Preserve 

would be negligible because about the same 

number of off-road vehicles would be using 

the original Preserve and in about the same 

areas. Consequently, impacts on a visitor’s 

wilderness experience (freedom and natural 

sights and sounds) resulting from the 2000 

ORV plan would be negligible. Impacts on 

wilderness resources and values in the region 

would be negligible. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

wilderness resources and values. If such 

proposals included using off-road equipment 

and constructing roads and pads, this would 

create human disturbances and alter natural 

habitats. NPS approval of the operations plan 

would require mitigative measures to 

eliminate or reduce the impact of activities on 

natural resources. Short-term impacts on 

wilderness resources and values would be 

adverse, moderate, and localized; long-term 

residual impacts would be adverse, minor, and 

localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect natural communities. Restoring 

natural conditions is expected to have a longterm, moderate, beneficial impact on 

wilderness resources and values. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative A (No Action) 

287 

Regional growth and development is expected 

to continue and result in an increase in the 

conversion of natural lands in the general 

area. Increasing urbanization, fragmentation 

of habitat, and the loss of natural areas have 

led to the degradation of natural resources, 

ecosystem function, and natural soundscapes 

in the region. The impact of these activities on 

wilderness resources and values is expected to 

be long term, moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on wilderness 

resources and values would accrue from ecosystem restoration projects. Adverse impacts 

would be expected from oil and gas operations and regional growth and development. 

Overall, the effects of the projects discussed 

above would likely be adverse to wilderness 

resources and values in the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative A are added to 

the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions as described above, 

there would be a long-term, minor, adverse 

cumulative impact on wilderness resources 

and values in the region. The actions 

contained in alternative A would contribute a 

very small increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion 

Under alternative A, impacts on wilderness 

resources and values from the continuation of 

current management would be long term, 

minor, beneficial, and localized. 

There would be a long-term, minor, adverse 

cumulative impact on wilderness resources 

and values in the region. The actions 

contained in alternative A would contribute a 

very small increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this alternative would not result in impairment of 

wilderness resources and values in the Addition. (See specific definition of impairment in 

the "Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Resources 

Analysis. Under alternative A, impacts on 

archeological resources could result from 

visitor activities such as hiking, camping, 

cycling, and equestrian use. Most of the 

archeological sites in the Addition are 

middens. These raised mound areas would be 

potentially attractive to backcountry users, 

and trampling or disturbance could result in a 

loss of surface archeological materials, alteration of artifact distribution, and a reduction of 

contextual evidence. Impacts related to these 

activities would be permanent, adverse, and of 

minor intensity. 

Archeological resources adjacent to or easily 

accessible from trails could be vulnerable to 

looting and vandalism. Continued ranger patrol 

and emphasis on visitor education, as well as 

keeping the Addition closed to public 

recreational ORV use, would minimize adverse 

effects and any adverse effects would be 

anticipated to range in intensity from negligible 

to minor and be permanent. However, looting 

and vandalism associated with illegal ORV use, 

as well as the displacement of soils and potential 

erosion of archeological sites resulting from 

such ORV use, could result in permanent, 

minor, adverse impacts on archeological 

resources. 

There is no potential for impacts on 

archeological sites resulting from facility 

development. 

Cumulative Impacts. Current research 

indicates relatively little disturbance of 

archeological sites in the Addition resulting 

from past actions such as hunting and 

camping, logging, looting, and energy 

exploration. Large-scale water projects and 

commercial and residential development 

could pose some impacts on archeological 

resources in the vicinity of the Addition. The 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

288 

number and extent of these archeological 

resources is unknown so the potential impact 

cannot be assessed with any degree of accuracy. However, significant archeological 

resources would likely be avoided to the 

greatest extent possible, and any impact on 

archeological resources would be adverse and 

permanent and range in intensity from minor 

to moderate. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

archeological resources. If such proposals 

included using off-road equipment and 

constructing roads and pads, this could affect 

archeological resources. However, because 

approval of the operations plan would require 

mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce the 

impact of activities on archeological 

resources, the permanent effect of energy 

exploration on archeological resources should 

be negligible. 

When the permanent, minor, adverse effects 

of implementing the actions in alternative A 

are added to the permanent, minor to 

moderate adverse effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions as 

described above, there would be a permanent, 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on 

archeological resources. The actions 

contained in alternative A would contribute a 

small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative A, impacts on 

archeological resources would be permanent, 

minor, and adverse. 

There would be a permanent, moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on archeological 

resources. The actions contained in 

alternative A would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementation 

of alternative A would generally result in a no 

adverse effect on archeological resources. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

archeological resources in the Addition. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Analysis. Access to these resources would be 

limited to recognized traditionally associated 

peoples. Visitor activities such as hiking, 

camping, cycling, equestrian use and other 

recreational uses would not be allowed in or 

near identified ethnographic sites. Therefore, 

under alternative A there would be no 

potential for impacts on ethnographic 

resources. 

There would be no potential for impacts on 

ethnographic resources or sites resulting from 

facility development because new development would be sited to avoid ethnographic 

resources. 

Cumulative Impacts. Although other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions may affect ethnographic resources in 

the area, alternative A would have no impacts 

on ethnographic resources and therefore 

would not contribute to the effects of other 

actions. Consequently, there would be no 

cumulative impacts on ethnographic 

resources under alternative A. 

Conclusion. Under alternative A there would 

be no impacts on ethnographic resources. 

Therefore there would be no cumulative 

impacts. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementation 

of alternative A would generally result in a no 

adverse effect on ethnographic resources. 

This would not result in impairment of 

ethnographic resources in the Addition. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative A (No Action) 

289 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

Recreational Opportunities 

Motorized Use. The no-action alternative 

would not change the current management of 

the Addition. The National Park Service 

would continue to manage the Addition to 

preserve its wilderness characteristics and 

values, and it would remain closed to ORV use 

— other than for private property owners with 

a special use permit and limited NPS 

administrative use. Access points would be 

developed at mile markers 51 and 63 per the I75 Recreational Access Plan, providing pulloffs/stopping points within the Addition, but 

no new facilities would be developed under 

this alternative. The lack of access and 

opportunity for ORV users to experience the 

Addition would continue to have a long-term, 

moderate, adverse impact on ORV users. 

Nonmotorized Use (including hiking, 

horseback riding, and bicycling). Hikers 

would continue to enjoy temporary access to 

the Florida National Scenic Trail, but the trail 

would remain temporary and undesignated. 

Access points would be developed at mile 

markers 51 and 63 per the I-75 Recreational 

Access Plan, providing limited access to the 

Addition for nonmotorized users. Opportunities for backcountry hiking, horseback 

riding, and dispersed camping would continue 

to be allowed throughout the Addition. The 

lack of designated trails would continue to 

limit the less adventurous nonmotorized 

user’s ability to experience the Addition. The 

availability of these recreational opportunities 

would result in long-term, moderate, 

beneficial impacts for those seeking solitude 

and a primitive experience, but the lack of 

designated trails would result in long-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse impacts on less 

adventurous hikers. 

Bicycling would continue to be available at 

Nobles Grade in the Addition. The development of an access point at mile marker 63 

would enhance biker experiences by eliminating the need to park on the shoulder of I75. These opportunities would result in longterm, minor, beneficial impacts on bicyclists. 

Overall, impacts on nonmotorized users 

would be long term, negligible, and adverse. 

Hunting (including fishing and frogging). 

Under this alternative walk-in hunting would 

be allowed in the Addition. Nonmotorized 

hunting would be allowed in designated areas 

and seasons as determined by the National 

Park Service in cooperation with the Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 

New access points at mile markers 51 and 63 

would facilitate accessibility to many parts of 

the Addition. Although hunting with the use 

of an ORV would not be allowed in the 

Addition, ORV hunters traveling through the 

Addition on I-75 would benefit from 

additional stopping points. Camping access 

and opportunities would remain dispersed 

and undeveloped. The ability to hunt in the 

Addition and an increase in the number of 

access points would have a long-term, minor 

to moderate, beneficial impact on nonmotorized hunters and a long-term, negligible, 

beneficial impact on hunters with off-road 

vehicles because of more pull-offs/stopping 

points. 

Collectively, implementation of all the actions 

described above would result in long-term, 

moderate, adverse impacts on visitor use and 

experience. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Implementation of the 2000 Recreational Offroad Vehicle Management Plan would provide 

up to 400 miles of designated primary ORV 

trails, 15 ORV access points, and up to 2,000 

annual permits in the original Preserve. This 

quantity of trail miles and permits provides 

abundant opportunities for operating off-road 

vehicles. The availability of these opportunities adjacent to the Addition would have longterm, moderate, beneficial impacts on ORV 

users in the local area. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could adversely impact the 

experience of visitors. Noise and human 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

290 

activity from the construction of roads and 

pads and the use of off-road equipment could 

detract from the experience of those seeking a 

primitive experience and natural soundscape. 

Impacts resulting from a reduction in the 

natural settings of the Addition due to the 

operation of oil and gas equipment would be 

long term, minor, and adverse in localized 

areas. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project is a large-scale effort among public, 

private, and nongovernmental entities to 

restore surface water flows within the region. 

Implementation of the proposals would 

improve sheet flows and hydrologic connectivity and likely restore natural conditions to 

the Addition. This effort would enhance the 

visitor use and experience by providing 

increased opportunities for wildlife viewing 

and experiencing natural settings. Opportunities for hunting in the Addition would also 

improve with more abundant, healthy wildlife 

populations. Impacts resulting from the 

effects of a healthy, fully-functioning 

ecosystem would be long term, moderate, 

beneficial, and regionwide. 

Regional growth and development are 

expected to result in increased visitation to 

the Addition. More visitations over time may 

result in increased congestion and user conflicts at mile markers 51 and 63. Impacts from 

growth and development would be long term, 

minor to moderate, and adverse as a result of 

increased congestion and user conflict. 

Implementation of the Commercial Services 

Plan will initially only affect the original 

Preserve. The Addition will be addressed in an 

addendum to that plan after the completion of 

this General Management Plan for the 

Preserve Addition. The Commercial Services 

Plan proposes to enhance the original 

Preserve’s visitor services through the 

development of one or more new facilities; a 

new backcountry camping complex; hunting 

and fishing guides; buggy, van, and hiking 

tours; boat and bicycle rentals; and expanded 

opportunities for birding, wildlife viewing, 

and photography. Enhanced and expanded 

opportunities in the Preserve, prior to an 

addendum to include the Addition, would 

increase visitation and may result in increased 

congestion and user conflicts. Impacts 

resulting from increased visitation and 

congestion at mile markers 51 and 63 would 

result in long-term, minor, adverse impacts on 

visitors. When the Addition is addressed in an 

addendum, visitor opportunities to explore 

and use the Addition could be expanded, but 

only minimally given the lack of motorized 

access and minimal access points. If so, 

impacts from implementing the Commercial 

Services Plan in the Addition would be long 

term, negligible, and beneficial as a result of 

expanded opportunities. 

Combining the likely effects of implementing 

the no-action alternative with the effects of 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions described above, the cumulative 

impact on visitor use and experience in the 

Addition would be long term, moderate, and 

adverse. The actions contained in the noaction alternative would contribute an 

appreciable increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion 

Under the no-action alternative, recreational 

ORV use would be nonexistent, whereas 

informal nonmotorized opportunities would 

continue and walk-in hunting would be 

allowed. Collectively, the resulting impacts on 

visitor use and experience would be long 

term, moderate, and adverse. 

The cumulative impact on visitor use and 

experience in the Addition would be long 

term, moderate, and adverse. The actions 

contained in the no-action alternative would 

contribute an appreciable increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Analysis of economic impacts under alternative A was based on projected visitation to the 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative A (No Action) 

291 

Preserve (including the Addition) as well as 

estimated one-time capital expenditures due 

to construction activities, if appropriate. 

Because alternative A would maintain the 

status quo, visitor spending is assumed to 

remain as it is today. 

Local Economy 

Employment. Under this no action alternative, long-term direct and indirect employment would remain the same in Collier 

County. Based on historical trends, the 

construction, tourist (i.e. entertainment, 

accommodation, and food service), educational services, and healthcare sectors would 

continue to be the dominant employers in the 

county. But, because no new jobs would be 

created under alternative A, Collier County 

would not realize any changes to its 

employment levels. As a result, long-term 

impacts resulting from alternative A would be 

localized, negligible, and neutral. 

Furthermore, because there would be no new 

capital expenditures in the Addition, shortterm employment impacts would also remain 

unaffected, because there would be no need to 

hire labor for construction activity. Based on 

historical trends, the construction sector 

would continue to serve as an important 

employer, employing approximately 20% of 

the county’s workforce (based on 2004 

estimates). Consequently, short-term impacts 

of alternative A would be localized, negligible, 

and neutral. 

Housing. Under alternative A, the housing 

market would remain unaffected in the longterm because employment levels, the primary 

driver of residential construction, would 

remain the same. Naples and Marco Island 

would continue to serve as the primary 

housing locations for those moving into and 

within Collier County due to the relatively 

high availability of residential housing in these 

areas. Although population growth in the 

region is one of the fastest in the nation, 

Collier County is currently experiencing a 

slowdown in the residential housing market 

(as are many parts of southwest Florida), in 

part due to factors such as overbuilding, 

inflated prices, sub-prime mortgages, and an 

overall weaker U.S. economy. Because 

alternative A would neither increase nor 

decrease housing supply and demand, it is 

assumed Collier County’s housing market 

would continue to trend with southwest 

Florida as a whole. Consequently, the longterm impacts of alternative A would be 

localized, negligible, and neutral. 

Due to a lack of construction activity, alternative A would not create additional temporary 

jobs and therefore demand for residential 

housing would remain unchanged. Short-term 

impacts resulting from alternative A would be 

localized, negligible, and neutral. 

Sales. Total sales of goods and services in 

Collier County, as a result of visitor spending, 

would remain unchanged under the no-action 

alternative. In 2004 Collier County had more 

than 1.4 million visitors who spent roughly 

$713 million in the area, providing annual 

direct and indirect (secondary) sales of more 

than $1.06 billion. This represents approximately 17% of the $6.1 billion in sales for all 

county industries in 2004. Given that annual 

taxable sales from 1999 to 2004 grew at a 6.5% 

compound annual growth rate, it is anticipated that Collier County’s economy will 

continue to grow over the long-term. Because 

alternative A does not increase or decrease 

sales revenue, long-term impacts would be 

localized, negligible, and neutral. 

Short-term economic impacts resulting from 

changes in sales of goods and services would 

remain unchanged under the no-action alternative. Although the construction industry 

will continue to serve as a primary economic 

driver in the region, alternative A does not 

increase or decrease total economic activity. 

Without capital expenditures for construction 

activity, short-term impacts would be 

localized, negligible, and neutral. 

Tribal Impacts. In assessing long-term 

impacts to the Seminole and Miccosukee 

reservations, it appears that neither tribe 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

292 

would realize any change in economic activity 

as a result of implementing alternative A. 

Consequently, long-term impacts under 

alternative A would be assumed to be 

localized, negligible, and neutral. 

There would be no short-term economic 

impacts on the tribes under alternative A 

because there would be no new construction 

in the Addition. Consequently, short-term 

impacts under alternative A would be 

localized, negligible, and neutral. 

Collectively, the long-term and short-term 

impacts resulting from implementing the noaction alternative would be localized, 

negligible, and neutral. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The action area for evaluating cumulative 

impacts on the socioeconomic environment is 

Collier County. The likely effects of implementing the actions contained under alternative A, in combination with the effects of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions are described below. 

The implementation of the Recreational OffRoad Vehicle Plan, which provides for a 

maximum of 2,000 permits, 15 access points, 

and 400 miles of designated trails, has a strong 

likelihood of attracting new visitors and locals 

to the Preserve. Such an increase in Preserve 

visitation would translate into greater visitor 

spending in the area, resulting in positive 

long-term gains for Collier County in terms of 

employment, housing, and taxable annual 

sales, as well as increased economic activity 

for the Miccosukee and Seminole tribes. 

However, relative to the economy of the 

entire county, long-term economic impacts 

would likely be minimal. Short-term impacts 

as a result of one-time capital expenditures 

from building ORV trail access, facilities, and 

other structures are also likely to be minimal 

relative to the overall level of construction 

activity within the county. As a result, both 

long-term and short-term cumulative impacts 

would be localized, negligible, and beneficial. 

Although the Commercial Services Plan does 

not include the Addition, social and economic 

impacts to the county as a whole would be 

positive due to increased visitation and visitor 

spending in the area, and expansion of facilities, services, and recreational opportunities in 

the Preserve. In particular, the implementation of the Commercial Services Plan’s

preferred alternative, which includes the 

potential to develop two new visitor facilities, 

partnership agreements for offering a variety 

of guided tours and equipment rentals, and 

the creation of a backcountry camping 

complex, could translate into moderate longterm gains in visitor spending at the county 

level. Depending on the level of construction 

activity generated from implementation of the 

Commercial Services Plan, short-term impacts 

could be substantial at the county level. As a 

result, both long-term and short-term 

cumulative impacts would be localized, 

negligible to moderate, and beneficial. 

The potential exists for exploration activities, 

as proposed under the oil and gas plan, to 

reduce visitation in the Preserve due to 

environmental disruptions from the use of 

off-road equipment and the development of 

roads and pads for oil and gas exploration. 

Due to multiplier effects, long-term impacts 

from reduced visitation could result in 

reductions in county employment, housing, 

and sales, as well as reduced economic activity 

for the Miccosukee and Seminole tribes. 

However, such effects will likely be minimal in 

relation to the entire county economy. Shortterm impacts from construction could be both 

positive and substantial, depending on the 

level of construction and percentage of that 

economic activity that remains within the 

county. Long-term impacts would be 

localized, negligible, and adverse, while shortterm impacts would be localized, negligible to 

moderate, and beneficial. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

projects would likely attract additional visitors 

to the region due to the rehabilitation of 

natural ecosystems within and near the 

Preserve through various water system 

improvements. In particular, the Big Cypress 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative A (No Action) 

293 

Interceptor Modification Plan would likely 

increase use across a variety of recreational 

activities offered in the Preserve, particularly 

for visitors interested in enjoying the natural 

habitat and wildlife. Collier County would 

also benefit from restoration efforts in nearby 

sites, such as Everglades National Park, 

because additional visitors may pass through 

or decide to make an additional stop at the 

Preserve. Because these restoration projects 

are relatively large in scale, are occurring at 

multiple sites, and are at a regional level, the 

long-term impacts on county employment, 

housing, and sales, as well as economic activity 

for the Miccosukee and Seminole tribes could 

be substantial. Short-term impacts would also 

be positive because capital expenditures on 

water infrastructure improvements (estimated 

at multi-billions of dollars) would likely 

generate substantial temporary gains to 

county employment, housing, and sales, as 

well as economic activity for the Miccosukee 

and Seminole tribes. As a result, both longterm and short-term impacts would be 

localized, moderate, and beneficial. 

The development of lands northwest of the 

Addition could increase Preserve visitation 

and result in positive long-term economic 

impacts at the county level. In particular, the 

availability of greater residential housing and 

the building of a new private and state 

university in the area could greatly increase 

the number of residents living in Collier 

County. The provision of additional services, 

goods, and facilities would also likely be 

expanded to accommodate these new 

residents, which in turn would also attract a 

greater number of visitors from outside the 

region. As a result, increased local and visitor 

spending would produce long-term positive 

gains to county employment, housing, and 

sales, as well as economic activity for the Miccosukee and Seminole tribes. Short-term economic impacts could be substantial at the 

county level, because large scale construction 

activity would be needed to support new residents, the universities, and visitors. As a result, 

long-term and short-term impacts would be 

localized, moderate to major, and beneficial. 

Each of the tribes, to varying degrees, is 

expanding services offered to reservation 

visitors, which currently includes retail, food, 

accommodations, and entertainment. Although these projects could increase economic activity within the reservations, alternative 

A would not further benefit these activities. 

Combining the likely effects of implementing 

the no-action alternative with the effects of 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions described above, the cumulative 

socioeconomic impacts would be localized, 

moderate, and beneficial. Alternative A would 

contribute a very small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion 

Because there would be no changes to visitor 

spending or construction activity within Collier County under alternative A, long-term and 

short-term impacts on the socioeconomic environment would be localized, negligible, and 

neutral. As a result, county employment, housing, and sales, as well as economic activity for 

the Miccosukee and Seminole tribes, would 

remain constant. 

In terms of cumulative impacts, long-term and 

short-term impacts would be localized, 

moderate, and beneficial. Alternative A would 

contribute a very small increment to this total 

cumulative effect. 

NPS OPERATIONS 

AND MANAGEMENT 

Analysis 

Under the no-action alternative, NPS operations would be conducted much as they are 

now. Operations would continue to be based 

in the original Preserve, which is at a minimum an hour drive from the Northeast 

Addition. NPS staff’s reduced efficiency and 

ability to respond to fire or enforcement 

issues in the Addition would be a continuing, 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

294 

minor to moderate, long-term, adverse 

impact. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Expansion of nearby communities, including 

the towns of Ave Maria and Big Cypress, 

Everglades ecosystem restoration activities, 

and oil and gas exploration activities would 

require time and attention by NPS staff. The 

expansion of commercial services offered in 

the original Preserve would require time from 

staff spent managing the commercial service 

authorizations and leases. Cooperation and 

coordination with neighboring agencies and 

entities regarding planning, land use 

resources, and development proposals near 

the Preserve also would require substantial 

amounts of staff time and result in minor to 

moderate, long-term, adverse impacts. 

Combined with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future impacts, the noaction alternative would result in minor to 

moderate, long-term, adverse impacts on NPS 

operations. The actions proposed for implementation in alternative A would contribute a 

modest increment to these cumulative effects. 

Conclusion 

Operational and visitor facilities in the original 

Preserve would result in continuing minor to 

moderate, long-term, adverse impacts on NPS 

operations. 

The cumulative impacts of the no-action 

alternative and other actions would be minor 

to moderate, long term, and adverse. The 

actions proposed for implementation in 

alternative A would contribute a modest 

increment to these cumulative effects. 

EFFECTS ON ENERGY 

REQUIREMENTS AND 

CONSERVATION POTENTIAL 

Under alternative A, no new facilities would 

be developed, thereby eliminating any new 

energy requirements for facility construction. 

Public use of the Addition would remain very 

limited. The fuel and energy consumed by 

visitors traveling to the Addition would not be 

likely to increase because visitation is not 

likely to increase. Energy would still be 

consumed to maintain existing facilities and 

for resource management of the Addition. 

 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Unavoidable adverse impacts are defined as 

impacts that cannot be fully mitigated or 

avoided. Adverse impacts on natural and 

cultural resources and visitor experience 

could occur in some areas throughout the 

Addition, resulting from limited public use or 

NPS management activities. 

IRRETRIEVABLE OR IRREVERSIBLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

Under alternative A, the energy requirements 

identified above would result in an irreversible 

commitment of resources. There would be no 

permanent effects on Addition resources. 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL 

SHORT-TERM USES OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE 

OR ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY 

In this alternative, most of the Addition would 

be protected in a natural state and would 

maintain their long-term productivity. Only a 

small percentage of the Addition would be 

maintained as developed areas.
295 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE B 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Surface Water Flow 

Analysis. Under alternative B, impacts on 

surface water flow would be attributed primarily to the development of new facilities, 

the maintenance of existing facilities, and 

restoration activities. Development of new 

facilities such as trails, trailheads, and access 

points would alter natural sheet flow, 

degrading hydrologic connectivity in some 

localized areas. Development (including 

formalization of and improvements to 

existing trails) of about 132 miles of ORV 

trails would create localized barriers to 

surface water flow due to raised trail treads 

and ORV use. Culverts and other best 

management practices such as at-grade trail 

construction and low-water crossings would 

reduce the impacts, resulting in long-term, 

moderate, adverse, localized impacts. NPS 

administrative ORV use would continue to 

affect surface water flow in localized areas 

on a short-term basis. 

Impacts on surface water flow due to the 

presence of roads and grades would be 

about the same as in the no-action alternative. These impacts would continue to be 

long term, adverse, and of moderate intensity. Existing grades, such as Jones, Nobles, 

and Bear Island grades, would be maintained 

and converted to trails, which would continue to affect hydrologic connectivity within 

localized areas of the Northeast Addition. 

The effects could extend beyond the immediate area of impact and become Additionwide, because impediments to water flow 

could affect areas beyond the boundaries of 

the Addition. Impacts related to the 

presence of facilities and structures would 

be long term, moderate, adverse, and 

localized. 

In the context of the regional hydrology of 

south Florida, the actions of alternative B 

would have negligible effects on the 

hydrologic restoration efforts associated 

with the Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan or related projects. For 

example, the surface water restoration 

benefits that would result from the proposed 

L-28 interceptor project to the east of the 

Addition would not be adversely affected by 

the ORV management of alternative B. 

Collectively, the impact of these activities on 

surface water flow would be long term, 

moderate, adverse, and mostly localized in 

the Addition compared to the no-action 

alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative B would generally be the 

same as under the no-action alternative. 

Implementation of the 2000 Recreational 

Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within 

the original Preserve would minimize the 

impacts of off-road vehicles on surface water 

flow into the portion of the Addition that 

abuts the original Preserve at localized sites 

because best management practices and 

mitigation would maintain or improve 

hydrologic flow. The impact on surface 

water flow in the watershed would be 

negligible. 

Implementation of future oil and gas proposals could have adverse impacts on surface 

water flow. If such proposals included using 

off-road equipment and constructing roads 

and pads, this would alter local hydrology. 

Construction and operations activities 

would affect the timing and intensity of 

surface water flows. The impacts of these 

activities would be reduced because NPS 

approval of the operations plan would 

require mitigative measures. Short-term 

impacts on surface water flow would be 

adverse, minor to moderate, and localized; 

long-term residual impacts would be 

adverse, minor, and localized. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

296 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. Proposals involving the Addition 

include the removal of the L-28 interceptor 

canal levee, modification of the L-28 Tie 

Back canal, and operational changes to 

various water control structures. Decompartmentalization of Water Conservation 

Area 3 would also improve sheet flow and 

hydrologic connectivity. The impact of these 

efforts on the hydrology of the Addition, as 

well as within the watershed, is expected to 

be long term, major, and beneficial. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to result in an increase in the 

conversion of natural lands to development 

and alter the hydrology of the general area. 

Changes in sheet flow, and its timing and 

intensity, would affect hydrologic function 

and connectivity in the watershed. The 

impact of these activities is expected to be 

long term, minor to moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on surface 

water flow would accrue from ORV management and ecosystem restoration projects. 

Adverse impacts would be expected from oil 

and gas operations and regional growth and 

development. Overall, the effects of the 

projects discussed above would be negligible 

on surface water flow in the watershed. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative B are added 

to the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there could be a long term, minor, 

adverse cumulative impact on surface water 

flow. The actions contained in alternative B 

would contribute a small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative B, impacts 

on surface water flow would be long term, 

moderate, adverse, and mostly localized. 

There could be a long-term, minor, adverse 

cumulative impact on surface water flow. 

The actions contained in alternative B would 

contribute a small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this alternative would not result in impairment of surface water flow in the Addition. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the "Impairment 

of Addition Resources" section.) 

Water Quality 

Analysis. Under alternative B, impacts on 

water quality would be attributed primarily 

to the development and maintenance of 

facilities and ongoing visitor use. Development of new facilities such as trails, trailheads, and access points would affect water 

quality by causing erosion that could contribute to turbidity. Inadvertent spills of fuel or 

oil from construction machinery could also 

adversely affect water quality. Impacts from 

these activities would be mostly short term, 

minor to moderate, adverse, and localized; 

however, some long-term impacts could 

occur from larger spills or from ongoing 

pollution due to runoff from developed sites. 

The maintenance of roads, grades, and trails 

within the Addition would likely result in 

similar long-term adverse impacts. 

Visitor use, such as ORV use, hiking, biking, 

horseback riding, and backcountry camping, 

could continue to cause soil erosion and 

generate human waste that would affect turbidity and surface water quality. Impacts on 

water quality would be reduced by the 

designated trail system; however, they would 

be greater than under the no-action alternative because off-road vehicles are not 

allowed in alternative A. Inadvertent leaks or 

spills of fuel or oil from ORV use (public and 

NPS administrative use) could affect surface 

water quality by elevating chemical concentrations. Similar impacts from parked 

vehicles would be more common at destination sites, such as mile markers 51 and 63, or 

Deep Lake. The impacts of these activities 

would be long term, minor, adverse, and 

localized. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative B 

297 

Collectively, the impact of these activities on 

water quality would be long term, moderate, 

adverse, and localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Implementation of 

the 2000 Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within the original Preserve 

would minimize the impacts of off-road 

vehicles on water quality at localized sites in 

the portion of the Addition that abuts the 

original Preserve because best management 

practices and mitigation would be used to 

minimize soil erosion and chemical contamination. The impact of these activities on 

water quality in the watershed would be 

negligible. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

water quality. If such proposals included 

using off-road equipment and constructing 

roads and pads, this could degrade water 

quality due to turbidity and chemical contamination. The impacts of these activities 

would be reduced because NPS approval of 

the operation plan would require mitigative 

measures. Short-term impacts on water 

quality would be adverse, moderate, and 

localized; long-term impacts would be adverse, minor, and localized. This is due to the 

numbers and complexity of the proposals 

and uncertainty with their levels of success. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. Although the proposals would 

increase surface water flow and connectivity, 

the discharged waters are expected to have 

elevated chemical concentrations that would 

degrade water quality. Because the current 

condition of water resources in the Addition 

is cleaner than what is expected to be 

discharged, the impact is predicted to be 

long term, adverse, and Addition-wide, but 

the intensity is unknown. This is due to the 

numbers and complexity of the proposals 

and uncertainty with their levels of success. 

The impact on water quality in the 

watershed is unknown. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to result in an increase in the 

conversion of natural lands to development 

and alter the hydrology of the general area. 

Water quality would be affected by inputs 

from urban and suburban development, 

including increases in organic compounds 

and chemical concentrations. The impact on 

water quality within the watershed is 

expected to be adverse, but the intensity is 

unknown. 

Collectively, adverse impacts could be 

expected from oil and gas operations, 

ecosystem restoration projects, and regional 

growth and development. Overall, the 

effects of the projects discussed above could 

be adverse to water quality in the watershed, 

but the intensity is unknown. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative B are added 

to the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long-term, adverse 

cumulative impact on water quality in the 

watershed. The intensity of the impact is 

unknown. The actions contained in alternative B would contribute a very small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative B, impacts 

on water quality would be long term, 

moderate, adverse, and localized. 

There would be a long-term, adverse cumulative impact on water quality in the watershed. The intensity of the impact is unknown. The actions contained in alternative 

B would contribute a very small increment to 

this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

water quality in the Addition. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the "Impairment 

of Addition Resources" section.) 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

298 

Wetlands 

Analysis. Under alternative B, impacts on 

wetlands would be attributed primarily to 

the development and maintenance of 

facilities. The development of new facilities, 

such as trails, trailheads, access points, and 

specific improvements to develop Deep 

Lake into a day use area would result in 

permanent loss of wetlands. 

The designation and construction of ORV 

trails could also adversely impact wetland 

function and integrity. The proposed 132 

miles of primary ORV trails under alternative B , which would also be used by equestrians, bicyclists, and hikers, would cause the 

direct displacement of a relatively small 

acreage of wetlands (from trail construction 

and treatment). These impacts on wetland 

size and functionality from ORV trail 

development would be long term, minor to 

moderate, adverse, and localized. 

However, the public use of the ORV trails 

would also have other adverse effects on 

wetland values in several other areas 

throughout the designated ORV trail 

network. Under alternative B, several miles 

of primary ORV trails would run through 

wetland areas. This could amount to direct 

adverse impacts on wetland functions or 

values for a notable acreage of wetlands. 

Also, adverse impacts on additional acreages 

of wetlands would also be expected because 

many of the impacts on wetland values or 

functions would likely extend beyond the 

12-foot width of the primary trail or would 

be associated with secondary spur trails that 

develop outside the alignment of the primary 

trail. 

Some effects on wetland functions and 

values that would be expected along ORV 

trail corridors (primary or secondary) 

include wetland vegetation displacement, 

rutting, altered wetland hydrology, soil 

compaction, and diminished wetland habitat 

value or habitat displacement (loss of 

vegetation, ORV noise, etc.). These impacts 

on wetland values and functional integrity 

from ORV use in the Addition would be long 

term, moderate, adverse, and localized. 

 

The NPS maintenance of roads, grades, and 

trails could also impact wetlands. Impacts 

from these activities would include vegetation loss and alteration of soils, which would 

result in permanent effects on wetland size 

and integrity and impacts would be long 

term, moderate, adverse, and localized. 

Indirect impacts, such as increased runoff 

and sedimentation, would be long term, 

minor, adverse, and localized. 

Collectively, compared with alternative A 

(no action), impacts on wetland values and 

functions under alternative B would be long 

term, moderate, adverse, and localized. 

The site-specific functional analysis of 

wetland impacts from ORV trails throughout 

the Addition is beyond the scope of this 

management plan. However, before any 

action implementation, NPS staff would 

conduct more detailed wetland impact and 

mitigation analyses per NPS policy and 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (as 

administered by the Army Corps of Engineers). For example, NPS policy requires the 

development of a “Wetlands Statement of 

Findings,” that identifies and analyzes all 

wetland functions and values affected by 

NPS actions in a park unit. The “Wetlands 

Statement of Findings” for this management 

plan for the Addition would quantify all 

wetland impacts from management actions 

specified in this management plan. Although 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act pertains 

only to wetland filling and dredging, the NPS 

statement of findings policy addresses the 

impacts on several other wetland values, 

such as wildlife habitat, soils, vegetation 

communities, surface hydrology, aesthetics, 

and cultural values. 

The detailed functional analysis of wetland 

impacts and the development of wetland 

avoidance and mitigation measures would be 

completed as part of the “Wetlands 

Statement of Findings.” The effects of ORV 

use associated with this management plan 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative B 

299 

would likely be the primary focus of the 

“Wetlands Statement of Findings” for the 

Addition. No ORV use, ORV trail development, or other actions with wetland impacts 

would be implemented or allowed until the 

appropriate wetland policy requirements are 

met. 

Collectively, compared with the no-action 

alternative, impacts on wetlands under 

alternative B would be long term, moderate, 

adverse, and localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative B would generally be the 

same as under the no-action alternative. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

wetlands. If such proposals included using 

off-road equipment and constructing roads 

and pads, this would alter wetland soils and 

vegetation. The impacts of these activities 

would be reduced because NPS approval of 

the operations plan would require mitigative 

measures. Short-term impacts on wetlands 

would be adverse, moderate, and localized; 

long-term residual impacts would be 

adverse, minor, and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow in the 

region. The proposals would affect wetlands 

by increasing the availability of water, which 

in turn could increase the size, integrity, and 

function of wetlands. The impact of these 

efforts on wetlands is expected to be long 

term, moderate to major, and beneficial. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to result in an increase in the 

conversion of natural lands to development 

and alter the hydrology of the general area. 

Changes in sheet flow and water quality 

would affect the size, integrity, and function 

of wetlands in the watershed. The impact of 

these activities on wetlands would be long 

term, moderate to major, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on wetlands 

would accrue from ecosystem restoration 

projects. Adverse impacts would be 

expected from oil and gas operations and 

regional growth and development. Overall, 

the effects of the projects discussed above 

would be slightly adverse on wetlands. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative B are added 

to the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long-term, 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on 

wetlands. The actions contained in 

alternative B would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative B, impacts 

on wetlands would be long term, moderate, 

adverse, and localized. 

There would be a long-term, moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on wetlands. The 

actions contained in alternative B would 

contribute a small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

wetlands in the Addition. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the "Impairment 

of Addition Resources" section.) 

Soils 

Analysis. Under alternative B, impacts on 

soils would be attributed primarily to facility 

development and maintenance and visitor 

use. 

Development and maintenance of new 

recreational facilities, such as at mile 

markers 51 and 63, Bear Island Grade, and 

Deep Lake, would result in displacement or 

permanent loss of soil resources. Designating 132 miles of ORV trails would cause 

similar impacts; however, these impacts 

would be reduced by using existing trails and 

designating ORV routes. Frontcountry 

development would typically compact 

previously disturbed/filled areas, while 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

300 

backcountry developments could impact 

native soils. The impacts from these activities 

would be long term, moderate, adverse, and 

localized. 

Some rutting and displacement of soils might 

occur due to ongoing ORV use, resulting in 

long-term, minor, adverse, localized impacts. 

Impacts on soils from ORVs would be confined to the designated trail system. Nonmotorized use (equestrians, bicyclists, and 

hikers) could also cause erosion, but the 

adverse impact would likely be negligible to 

minor. 

Collectively, impacts on soils from alternative B would be long term, moderate, 

adverse, and localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative B would generally be the 

same as under the no-action alternative. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

soils. If such proposals included using offroad equipment and constructing roads and 

pads, this would alter soils. The impacts of 

these activities would be reduced because 

NPS approval of the operations plan would 

require mitigative measures. Short-term 

impacts on soils would be adverse, 

moderate, and localized; long-term impacts 

would be minor, adverse, and localized. 

Changes in the availability of water 

resources due to the south Florida 

ecosystem restoration project would affect 

soil properties. The integrity of hydrologic 

soils could be improved or restored by 

increases in water — a beneficial impact. 

Decreases in water or permanent soil loss 

resulting from regional growth and development would adversely impact soils. The 

impact of these efforts on soils is expected to 

be long term, moderate to major, and 

adverse. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative B are added 

to the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long-term, 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on 

soils. The permanent loss of soils would be 

expected to outweigh any beneficial impacts 

that might be realized from ecosystem 

restoration projects. The actions contained 

in alternative B would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative B, impacts 

on soils would be long term, moderate, 

adverse, and localized. 

There would be a long-term, moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on soils. The 

actions contained in alternative B would 

contribute a small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

soils in the Addition. (See specific definition 

of impairment in the "Impairment of 

Addition Resources" section.) 

Floodplains 

Analysis. Alternative B would have no 

impact on floodplains. Two facilities located 

in the 100-year floodplain would be 

retained, but would cause no additional 

impacts to floodplains beyond what is 

accounted for under the no-action 

alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts. No cumulative 

impacts to floodplains would occur under 

alternative B because there would be no 

impacts on floodplains resulting from the 

alternative B. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would have no 

impact on floodplains. Two facilities located 

in the 100-year floodplain would be 

retained, but would cause no additional 

impacts to floodplains beyond what is 

accounted for under the no-action 

alternative. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative B 

301 

No cumulative impacts to floodplains would 

occur under alternative B because there 

would be no impacts on floodplains 

resulting from the alternative B. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

floodplains in the Addition. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the "Impairment 

of Addition Resources" section.) 

Vegetation — Cypress Strands and 

Domes, Mixed Hardwood Swamps, and 

Sloughs 

Analysis. Under alternative B, impacts on 

cypress strands and domes, mixed hardwood swamps, and sloughs would be 

attributed to new facility development and 

visitor use. 

Development of trailheads and access points 

at mile markers 51 and 63, Bear Island 

Grade, and Deep Lake would result in 

vegetation loss or injury from construction 

activities. Establishment of 132 miles of ORV 

trails would result in similar impacts on 

vegetation. Impacts on this vegetation 

community from facility development would 

be long term, moderate, adverse, and 

localized. 

Impacts on this vegetation community such 

as trampling, injury, or loss of plant material 

due to the effects of ORV traffic could occur 

within and along designated ORV trails. The 

conditions that often discourage ORV use 

(deep water, closely spaced trees, etc.) would 

continue, and adverse impacts from off-road 

vehicles would most often be limited to the 

margins of the plant community. Adverse 

impacts could include injury to a plant or 

group of trees, or might include plant loss in 

a discrete area due to repeated use. Impacts 

from nonmotorized visitor use, such as 

trampling from hiking and camping, would 

be more common at frontcountry destinations and less common in the backcountry. 

Impacts on cypress strands and domes, 

mixed hardwood swamps, and sloughs from 

these visitor activities would be long term, 

moderate, adverse, and localized. 

Collectively, the impact on cypress strands 

and domes, mixed hardwood swamps, and 

sloughs under alternative B would be long 

term, moderate, adverse, and localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative B would generally be the 

same as under the no-action alternative. 

Implementation of the 2000 Recreational 

Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within 

the original Preserve would minimize the 

impacts, such as trampling, injury, or loss of 

plant cover, of off-road vehicles on 

vegetation. The impact would be long term, 

minor to moderate, beneficial, and localized. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

vegetation; however, it is unknown what 

plant communities would be affected. If such 

proposals included using off-road 

equipment and constructing roads and pads, 

this would have the potential to alter 

vegetation. The impacts of these activities 

would be reduced because NPS approval of 

the operations plan would require mitigative 

measures. Short-term impacts on this 

vegetation community would be adverse, 

moderate, and localized; long-term impacts 

would be adverse, minor, and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect plant communities and would 

likely improve plant vigor, abundance, and 

distribution. The impact of these efforts on 

cypress strands and domes, mixed hardwood swamps, and sloughs is expected to be 

long term, minor to moderate, and 

beneficial. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to result in an increase in the 

conversion of natural lands to development 

and alter the hydrology of the general area. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

302 

Changes in sheet flow, and its timing and 

intensity, would affect plant communities. 

The impact of these activities on cypress 

strands and domes, mixed hardwood 

swamps, and sloughs is expected to be long 

term, minor to moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on cypress 

strands and domes, mixed hardwood 

swamps, and sloughs would accrue from 

ORV management and ecosystem restoration projects. Adverse impacts would be 

expected from oil and gas operations and 

regional growth and development. Overall, 

the effects of the projects discussed above 

could slightly benefit cypress strands and 

domes, mixed hardwood swamps, and 

sloughs. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative B are added 

to the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long-term, minor, 

beneficial cumulative impact on cypress 

strands and domes, mixed hardwood 

swamps, and sloughs. The actions contained 

in alternative B would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative B, impacts 

on cypress strands and domes, mixed 

hardwood swamps, and sloughs would be 

long term, moderate, adverse, and localized. 

There could be a long-term, minor, 

beneficial cumulative impact on cypress 

strands and domes, mixed hardwood 

swamps, and sloughs. The actions contained 

in alternative B would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

cypress strands and domes, mixed 

hardwood swamps, and sloughs in the 

Addition. (See specific definition of 

impairment in the "Impairment of Addition 

Resources" section.) 

Vegetation — Prairies and Marshes 

Analysis. Under alternative B, impacts on 

prairies and marshes would be attributed 

primarily to visitor use. New facilities 

(including ORV trails) would be sited to 

avoid prairies and marshes to the greatest 

extent possible, although some adverse 

impacts on the margins of these plant 

communities could occur from ORV use. 

The soil conditions in prairies and marshes 

cause poor traction for off-road vehicles, 

and rutting and braiding of trails is common. 

Adverse impacts could include injury to a 

plant or group of plants, or might include 

plant loss in a discrete area due to rutting or 

from repeated use. Impacts on prairies and 

marshes from ORV use would be long term, 

minor, adverse, and localized. 

Ongoing vegetation management, including 

the use of prescribed fire, and efforts to 

restore natural hydrologic processes would 

continue to improve conditions for native 

vegetation because water availability and 

connectivity would increase and competition from exotic plants would be minimized. 

Impacts on prairies and marshes from 

vegetation management would continue to 

be long term, beneficial, minor to moderate, 

and Addition-wide. 

Some prairies and marshes would be accessible to nonmotorized users, and therefore 

could be subject to impacts, such as 

trampling of vegetation. Impacts would be 

greatest and more concentrated in 

frontcountry locations and less common in 

the backcountry. Impacts on prairies and 

marshes from visitor use would be long 

term, negligible, adverse, and localized. 

Collectively, the impact on prairies and 

marshes under alternative B would be long 

term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative B would generally be the 

same as under the no-action alternative. 

Implementation of the 2000 Recreational 

Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative B 

303 

the original Preserve would minimize the 

impacts, such as trampling, injury, or loss of 

plant cover, of off-road vehicles on 

vegetation. The impact would be long term, 

minor to moderate, beneficial, and localized. 

Implementation of future oils and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

vegetation; however, it is unknown what 

plant communities would be affected. If such 

proposals included using off-road equipment and constructing roads and pads, this 

would alter vegetation. The impacts of these 

activities would be reduced because NPS 

approval of the operations plan would 

require mitigative measures. Short-term 

impacts on vegetation would be moderate, 

adverse, and localized; long-term impacts 

would be minor, adverse, and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect plant communities and would 

likely improve plant vigor, abundance, and 

distribution. The impact of these efforts on 

prairies and marshes is expected to be long 

term, minor to moderate, and beneficial. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to result in an increase in the 

conversion of natural lands to development 

and alter the hydrology of the general area. 

Changes in sheet flow, and its timing and 

intensity, would affect plant communities. 

Prairies and marshes on private land outside 

of the Addition would continue to be 

impacted by population growth and 

development. The impact of these activities 

on prairies and marshes is expected to be 

long term, minor to moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on prairies 

and marshes would accrue from ORV 

management and ecosystem restoration 

projects. Adverse impacts would be 

expected from oil and gas operations and 

regional growth and development. Overall, 

the effects of the projects discussed above on 

prairies and marshes would be long term, 

minor, and adverse. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative B are added 

to the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long-term, minor, 

adverse cumulative impact on prairies and 

marshes. The actions contained in alternative B would contribute a small increment to 

this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative B, impacts 

on prairies and marshes would be long term, 

minor, adverse, and localized. 

There would be a long-term, minor, adverse 

cumulative impact on prairies and marshes. 

The actions contained in alternative B would 

contribute a small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

prairies and marshes in the Addition. (See 

specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

Vegetation — Mangrove Forests 

Analysis. Impacts on mangrove forests 

under alternative B would generally be the 

same as under the no-action alternative 

because recreational use in this vegetation 

community would be the same as in alternative A (no action). As in alternative A, motorized boating would continue to be allowed 

south of U.S. 41 in the Western Addition in 

the deep, open-water environs outside the 

dense mangrove forests. Motorized boating 

could continue to cause injury to individual 

plants or prevent their expansion into the 

shallower margins of the well-travelled 

boating corridors. Consequently, compared 

to the no-action alternative, there would be 

no impact on mangrove forests in the 

Addition under alternative B. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

304 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative B would generally be the 

same as under the no-action alternative. 

Regional growth and development, 

including waterfront development, is 

expected to result in an increase in the 

conversion of natural lands to development 

and alter the hydrology of the general area. 

Mangroves receive special protection under 

state law, and any adverse impacts on mangrove forests would be expected to be negligible. Because alternative B would not contribute any increment, there would be no 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would have no 

impact on mangrove forests. Impacts on 

mangroves would be the same as what was 

accounted for under the no-action 

alternative. 

There would be no cumulative impacts on 

mangrove forests under alternative B. 

Impacts from actions contained in this alternative would not result in impairment of 

mangrove forests in the Addition. (See 

specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

Vegetation — Pinelands 

Analysis. Under alternative B, impacts on 

pinelands would be attributed to new facility 

development and visitor use. 

Ongoing vegetation management, including 

the use of prescribed fire, would decrease 

competition from exotic plants and improve 

the integrity of native habitats. Impacts on 

pinelands from vegetation management 

would continue to be long term, beneficial, 

minor to moderate, and Addition-wide. 

Development of trails, trailheads, and access 

points at mile markers 51 and 63, Bear Island 

Grade, and Deep Lake would result in 

vegetation loss or injury from construction 

activities. Establishment of 132 miles of ORV 

trails would affect pinelands. Impacts on 

pinelands would likely be proportionately 

greater than for the other vegetation communities because pinelands are often 

targeted as appropriate development sites 

and trail corridors. The durability of the 

substrate present in pinelands reduces 

adverse impacts from ORV use. The loss of 

pines from ORV use has not been documented in the original Preserve; however, 

wheeled use could have adverse impacts on 

other plant species present within these 

communities or within certain ecotonal 

areas. Adverse impacts could include injury 

to a plant or group of plants or reduced 

regeneration, or plant loss in a discrete area 

due to repeated use. Impacts on pinelands 

from facility development and trail development and use would be long term, moderate, 

adverse, and localized. 

Impacts from nonmotorized visitor use, such 

as trampling due to hiking or equestrian use, 

would be more common at frontcountry 

destinations and less common in the backcountry. Although individual understory 

plants could be injured or killed, the integrity of the pineland community would not 

likely be affected due to the durable 

substrate and the resiliency of mature trees 

to relatively benign activities. Impacts on 

pinelands from these activities would be 

long term, negligible to minor, adverse, and 

localized. 

Collectively, the impact on pinelands under 

alternative B would be long term, minor, 

adverse, and localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative B would generally be the 

same as under the no-action alternative. 

Implementation of the 2000 Recreational 

Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within 

the original Preserve would minimize the 

impacts, such as trampling, injury, or loss of 

plant cover, of off-road vehicles on 

vegetation. The impact would be long term, 

minor to moderate, beneficial, and localized. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative B 

305 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

vegetation in the Addition; however, it is 

unknown what plant communities would be 

affected. If such proposals included using 

off-road equipment and constructing roads 

and pads, this would alter vegetation. The 

impacts of these activities would be reduced 

because NPS approval of the operations plan 

would require mitigative measures. Shortterm impacts on vegetation would be 

moderate, adverse, and localized; long-term 

impacts would be minor, adverse, and 

localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect water tables and could impact 

the abundance and distribution of pinelands. 

The assemblage of pines and palmettos 

could change as a result of changes in 

hydrology or periods of inundation. The 

impact is uncertain because drying often 

adversely impacts pinelands, and increasing 

the water table could also cause a net 

reduction in pinelands compared to current 

conditions. It is expected that restoring 

natural hydrologic conditions would have a 

beneficial impact on pinelands. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to result in an increase in the 

conversion of natural lands to development 

and alter the hydrology of the general area. 

Studies have shown that pinelands are the 

habitat most impacted by human land 

conversion. Pinelands on private land in the 

region would continue to be lost. The impact 

would be long term, moderate to major, and 

adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on pinelands 

would accrue from ORV management and 

ecosystem restoration projects. Adverse 

impacts would be expected from oil and gas 

operations and regional growth and 

development. Overall, the effects of the 

projects discussed above would be adverse 

on pinelands in the Addition. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative B are added 

to the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long-term, moderate 

to major, adverse cumulative impact on 

pinelands. The actions contained in 

alternative B would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative B, impacts 

on pinelands would be long term, minor, 

adverse, and localized. 

There could be a long-term, moderate to 

major, adverse cumulative impact on 

pinelands. The actions contained in 

alternative B would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

pinelands in the Addition. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the "Impairment 

of Addition Resources" section.) 

Vegetation — Hardwood Hammocks 

Analysis. Under alternative B, impacts on 

hardwood hammocks would be attributed 

primarily to new facility development and 

visitor use. 

Ongoing vegetation management would 

decrease competition from exotic plants and 

improve the integrity of native habitats. 

Impacts on hardwood hammocks from 

vegetation management would continue to 

be long term, beneficial, minor to moderate, 

and Addition-wide. 

Development of trails, trailheads, and access 

points at mile markers 51 and 63, Bear Island 

Grade, and Deep Lake could result in 

vegetation loss or injury from construction 

activities. Establishment of 132 miles of ORV 

trails would affect hardwood hammocks. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

306 

Although the substrate present in hardwood 

hammocks is suitable for ORV use, use tends 

to be infrequent because of the size and density of trees present in these areas. However, 

infrequent ORV use could adversely impact 

understory plants. Adverse impacts could 

include injury to a plant or group of plants or 

might include plant loss in a discrete area 

due to repeated use. Impacts on hardwood 

hammocks from facility development and 

ORV use would be long term, minor to 

moderate, adverse and localized. 

Impacts from nonmotorized visitor use, such 

as trampling due to hiking or equestrian use, 

would be more common at frontcountry 

destinations and less common in the backcountry. Backcountry camping could cause 

trampling or loss of vegetation at localized 

sites. Although individual understory plants 

could be injured or killed, the integrity of the 

hammock community would not likely be 

affected due to the durable substrate and the 

resiliency of mature trees to relatively benign 

activities. Impacts on hardwood hammocks 

from these activities would be long term, 

negligible to minor, adverse, and localized. 

Collectively, the impact on hardwood 

hammocks under alternative B would be 

long term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative B would generally be the 

same as under the no-action alternative. 

Implementation of the 2000 Recreational 

Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within 

the original Preserve would minimize the 

impacts, such as trampling, injury, or loss of 

plant cover, of off-road vehicles on 

vegetation. The impact would be long term, 

minor to moderate, beneficial, and localized. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

vegetation in the Addition; however, it is 

unknown what plant communities would be 

affected. If such proposals included using 

off-road equipment and constructing roads 

and pads, this would alter vegetation. The 

impacts of these activities would be reduced 

because NPS approval of the operation plan 

would require mitigative measures. Shortterm impacts on vegetation would be 

adverse, moderate, and localized; long-term 

impacts would be adverse, minor, and 

localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect water tables and could impact 

the abundance and distribution of hardwood hammocks. The impact is uncertain, 

but restoring natural conditions is expected 

to have a long-term, minor, beneficial 

impact. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to result in an increase in the 

conversion of natural lands to development 

and alter the hydrology of the general area. 

Changes in sheet flow, and its timing and 

intensity, would affect plant communities. 

The impact of these activities on hardwood 

hammocks is expected to be long term, 

minor to moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on hardwood hammocks would accrue from ORV 

management and ecosystem restoration 

projects. Adverse impacts would be expected from oil and gas operations and regional 

growth and development. Overall, the 

effects of the projects discussed above on 

hardwood hammocks would be long term, 

minor, and adverse. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative B are added 

to the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long-term, minor, 

adverse cumulative impact on hardwood 

hammocks. The actions contained in 

alternative B would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative B 

307 

Conclusion. Under alternative B, impacts 

on hardwood hammocks would be long 

term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

There could be a long-term, minor, adverse 

cumulative impact on hardwood hammocks. 

The actions contained in alternative B would 

contribute a small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this alternative would not result in impairment of 

hardwood hammocks in the Addition. (See 

specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

Exotic/Nonnative Plants 

Analysis. Under alternative B, impacts on 

exotic/nonnative plants would be attributed 

primarily to facility development and 

maintenance, visitor use, NPS restoration 

efforts, and NPS administrative ORV use. 

Ongoing vegetation management (including 

the use of prescribed fire and chemical and 

mechanical treatment) in the Addition 

would continue to decrease competition 

from exotic plants and improve the integrity 

of native habitats. The continuation of 

monitoring efforts would also help to detect 

and mitigate new exotic species that could 

affect native plant communities. Impacts on 

exotic/nonnative species from ongoing 

resource management activities would be 

long term, beneficial, moderate, and 

Addition-wide. 

New facility development — such as trails, 

trailheads, and access points at mile markers 

51 and 63, Bear Island Grade, and Deep Lake 

— would create disturbed lands that would 

be subject to colonization by invasive plants. 

Construction materials and activities could 

also be a seed source for exotic plants and 

would increase the potential for their 

dispersion. Maintaining these facilities 

would also create disturbed habitats that 

could increase the density of exotic plants 

and affect the integrity of adjacent natural 

areas. Exotic plants can have severe effects 

on the integrity of native systems and 

habitats. The impact from these activities 

would be long term, moderate, adverse, and 

localized. 

NPS administrative ORV use and expanded 

visitor use, including the establishment and 

use of 132 miles of ORV trails, would 

increase the dispersal of exotic plants and 

also create additional disturbed areas that 

would be subject to colonization by invasive 

plants. The impact on exotic plants from 

visitor use would be long term, moderate, 

adverse, and localized. Although the effects 

would be most pronounced along travel 

corridors and at disturbed sites, the impacts 

could extend beyond these immediate areas 

and become Addition-wide. However, ORV 

management includes education, prevention, and mitigation components that would 

limit the establishment and distribution of 

exotic plants in the Addition. 

Collectively, impacts on exotic/nonnative 

plants under alternative B would be long 

term, moderate, adverse, and potentially 

Addition-wide. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative B would generally be the 

same as under the no-action alternative. 

Implementation of the 2000 Recreational 

Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within 

the original Preserve would minimize the 

impacts of off-road vehicles on exotic plants 

and nonnative vegetation in the Preserve and 

reduce the potential for dispersal into the 

Addition. The impact on exotic plants and 

nonnative vegetation in the region would be 

negligible. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

native vegetation because of the potential for 

the spread of exotic and nonnative plants in 

the Addition. If such proposals included 

using off-road equipment and constructing 

roads and pads, this would disturb soils and 

native vegetation. Short-term impacts could 

include the establishment of exotic plants on 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

308 

disturbed sites and the dispersal of seeds and 

plant stock. The impacts of these activities 

would be reduced because NPS approval of 

the operations plan would require mitigative 

measures. Short-term impacts on native 

vegetation because of the potential for the 

spread of exotic and nonnative species 

would be adverse, moderate, and localized; 

long-term impacts would be minor, adverse, 

and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect water tables and could impact 

the abundance and distribution of exotic 

plants. The impact on exotic plants is 

unknown, but restoring natural conditions is 

expected to have a long-term, minor to 

moderate, beneficial impact on native plants 

and vegetation. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to result in an increase in the 

conversion of natural lands to development 

and alter the hydrology of the general area. 

Changes in sheet flow, and its timing and 

intensity, would affect exotic plants, as 

would increases in the amount of disturbed 

land that is available for colonization by 

exotic species. The impact of these activities 

on exotic plants and nonnative vegetation is 

expected to be long term, minor to 

moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on native 

vegetation would accrue from ecosystem 

restoration projects. Adverse impacts would 

be expected from oil and gas operations and 

regional growth and development. Overall, 

the effects of the projects discussed above 

could be minor and adverse on exotic plants 

and nonnative vegetation. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative B are added 

to the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long-term, minor, 

adverse cumulative impact on exotic plants. 

The actions contained in alternative B would 

contribute a small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative B, impacts 

on native vegetation because of the potential 

for the spread of exotic and nonnative plants 

would be long term, moderate, adverse, and 

potentially Addition-wide. 

There could be a long-term, minor, adverse 

cumulative impact on exotic plants and 

nonnative vegetation. The actions contained 

in alternative B would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this alternative would not result in impairment of 

native vegetation in the Addition. (See 

specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

Federal Threatened 

and Endangered Species 

Florida Panther. Under alternative B, 

impacts on the Florida panther would be 

attributed to new facility development, 

expanded visitor use and expanded NPS 

administrative ORV use. 

New facility development — such as trails, 

trailheads, and access points at mile markers 

51 and 63, Bear Island Grade, and Deep Lake 

— would impact panthers by causing shortterm disturbances associated with construction activities and permanent loss of habitat. 

Development footprints would be confined 

to previously disturbed areas to the greatest 

extent possible while also considering design 

needs and standards(e.g., using disturbed 

areas near existing access points along major 

highways). There would still be a loss of 

habitat within the panther home range. 

Facility development under alternative B 

would be greater than in the no-action 

alternative. The impact would be long term, 

minor to moderate, adverse, and localized. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative B 

309 

Public ORV use in the Addition under 

alternative B would be allowed on up to 132 

miles of designated trails and through the 

issuance of up to 660 annual ORV permits. 

Adverse impacts from ORV use could 

include displacement of panthers and their 

avoidance of certain areas within the 

Addition. Public hunting would also be 

allowed but is not expected to adversely 

impact the viability of the panther’s prey 

base because game populations would be 

managed for sustainable harvests. Although 

no studies have shown that ORV use alone 

causes changes in panther behavior (NPS 

2000), the Janis and Clark (1999) study on 

the effects of human activity in the original 

Preserve showed that panthers’ home range 

shifted and they avoided designated ORV 

trails during higher levels of human activity 

associated with the hunting season. Total 

human use and disturbance within panther 

habitat in the Addition would increase 

substantially relative to the no-action 

alternative. The impacts from these activities 

would be long term, moderate, adverse, and 

could be Addition-wide. 

Nonmotorized visitor use (primarily backcountry hiking) could continue to affect 

Florida panthers, potentially causing 

occasional displacement of panthers and 

their avoidance of certain areas within the 

Addition; the impact would be long term, 

minor, adverse, and localized. 

Designating lands as wilderness under 

alternative B could result in beneficial 

impacts on the panther. Habitat would be 

preserved, and all uses and activities in 

wilderness would be subject to the provisions of the Wilderness Act, including the 

use of the minimum requirements process. 

This could likely result in greater protection 

of panther habitat; however, compared to 

the no-action alternative and the fact that 

eligible land in the Addition must be 

maintained to preserve its wilderness 

characteristics and its eligibility as 

wilderness, the beneficial impact would be 

negligible. 

 

Collectively, impacts on the Florida panther 

under alternative B would be long term, 

moderate, adverse, and mostly localized. 

The determination of effect under Section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act would be 

likely to adversely affect. 

Cumulative Impacts — Cumulative 

impacts under alternative B would 

generally be the same as under the noaction alternative. Implementation of the 

2000 Recreational Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan within the original 

Preserve would minimize the impacts of 

off-road vehicles on panthers in the 

region — a beneficial impact (because an 

individual panther’s range may include 

the Preserve as well as the Addition and 

other adjacent lands). In other words, 

improving and protecting habitat value 

on the original Preserve could yield a 

regional benefit to the species. 

Eliminating some and designating new 

ORV trails and conducting education, 

best management practices, research, and 

mitigation would limit impacts on 

panthers. Adverse impacts on panthers 

could still occur from ORV use in the 

original Preserve, but the effects on the 

species would be less than with no ORV 

management. With implementation of the 

terms and conditions of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s “Biological Opinion” 

(USFWS 2000), the plan is not likely to 

result in jeopardy to the panther. Overall, 

the impact of the 2000 ORV plan on the 

Florida panther would be long term, 

moderate, and beneficial compared to no 

ORV management. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

Florida panthers in the Addition. If such 

proposals included using off-road 

equipment and constructing roads and 

pads, this could create human 

disturbances and result in degradation 

and loss of panther habitat. Short-term 

adverse impacts from construction could 

include flushing and displacement of 

panthers, effects on feeding and 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

310 

sheltering behavior, and an increase in 

mortality from vehicle collisions. 

Panthers have been seen at existing oil 

and gas operations in other portions of 

the Preserve. The same types of adverse 

impacts would be long term due to 

ongoing operations and maintenance 

activities. These adverse impacts would 

be minor and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within 

the region. The proposals would improve 

sheet flow and hydrologic connectivity, 

which would affect vegetation communities and in turn wildlife habitat. The impact on the Florida panther is uncertain, 

but restoring natural conditions is 

assumed to have a long-term, minor, 

beneficial impact because it would return 

vegetation communities to historic 

conditions and improve predator/prey 

relationships. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and result in an 

increase in the conversion of natural 

lands to development in the general area. 

The loss of natural areas and the 

increasing urbanization of the region 

have led to a substantial loss of panther 

habitat. Natural areas that remain are 

more fragmented and contain higher 

levels of human disturbance, both of 

which adversely affect panthers and their 

long-term survival. Increased panther 

mortality due to vehicle collisions could 

also be attributed to the effects of 

regional growth and development. The 

impact of these activities on the Florida 

panther is expected to be long term, 

moderate to major, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on the 

Florida panther would accrue from ORV 

management and ecosystem restoration 

projects. Adverse impacts would be 

expected from oil and gas operations and 

regional growth and development. 

Overall, the effects of the projects 

discussed above would likely be adverse 

to Florida panthers in the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in alternative B are 

added to the effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions as described above, there would 

be a long-term, moderate, adverse 

cumulative impact on the Florida 

panther. The actions contained in 

alternative B would contribute a modest 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion — Impacts on the Florida 

panther under alternative B would be 

long term, moderate, adverse, and mostly 

localized. The determination of effect 

under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act would be likely to adversely 

affect. 

There would be a long-term, moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on the Florida 

panther. The actions contained in 

alternative B would contribute a modest 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not likely result in 

impairment of the Florida panther in the 

Addition because habitat conditions 

would be maintained or enhanced and 

the NPS would strive to meet the species 

recovery goals. (See specific definition of 

impairment in the "Impairment of 

Addition Resources" section.) 

West Indian Manatee. Impacts on the 

West Indian Manatee under alternative B 

would generally be the same as under the 

no-action alternative. Designating new 

paddling trails in tidal areas south of U.S. 41 

could increase displacement or avoidance 

behavior, which could affect feeding and 

other behaviors. The impact would be longterm, minor, adverse, and localized. 

Overall, compared to the no-action 

alternative, impacts on the West Indian 

manatee would be long term, minor, 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative B 

311 

adverse, and localized. The determination of 

effect under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act would be not likely to adversely 

affect. 

Cumulative Impacts — Cumulative 

impacts under alternative B would 

generally be the same as under the noaction alternative. The south Florida 

ecosystem restoration project includes 

several proposals for restoration of 

surface water flow within the region. The 

proposals would improve sheet flow and 

hydrologic connectivity, which would 

increase the quantity of freshwater inputs 

into the estuarine system, a beneficial 

impact on manatees. The quality of 

freshwater inputs is predicted to be less 

than current conditions, which could 

adversely impact manatee habitat. 

Overall, it is expected that restoring 

natural hydrologic conditions would 

produce long-term, minor beneficial 

impacts on the West Indian manatee. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and could result in 

an increase in the number of recreational 

boaters in the region. Injury and mortality 

of manatees associated with recreational 

boating could increase as a result of 

increased motorboat use. Incompatible 

coastal development could also adversely 

affect manatees by loss of habitat and 

feeding areas, as well as pollution discharges. These activities would adversely 

impact manatees and could affect their 

long-term survival. The impact on the 

West Indian manatee is expected to be 

long term, moderate to major, and 

adverse. 

Overall, the effects of the projects 

discussed above would likely be adverse 

to West Indian manatees in the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in alternative B are 

added to the effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions as described above, there would 

be a long-term, moderate, adverse 

cumulative impact on the West Indian 

manatee. The actions contained in 

alternative B would contribute a very 

small increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion — Impacts on the West 

Indian manatee under alternative B 

would be long term, minor, adverse, and 

localized. The determination of effect 

under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act would be not likely to 

adversely affect. 

There would be a long-term, moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on the West 

Indian manatee. The actions contained in 

alternative B would contribute a very 

small increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of the West Indian manatee in the 

Addition because habitat conditions 

would be maintained or enhanced and 

the National Park Service would strive to 

meet the species recovery goals. (See 

specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. Under 

alternative B, impacts on potential habitat 

for the red-cockaded woodpecker would be 

attributed to new facility development and 

expanded visitor use. 

New facility development — such as trails, 

trailheads, and access points at mile marker 

51, mile marker 63, Bear Island Grade, and 

Deep Lake — could impact potential habitat 

and thus woodpeckers by causing shortterm disturbances associated with 

construction activities and permanent loss of 

habitat. Development footprints would be 

confined to previously disturbed areas to the 

greatest extent possible while also 

considering design needs and standards 

(e.g., using disturbed areas near existing 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

312 

access points along major highways). There 

would still be a loss of habitat. The impact 

would be long term, minor to moderate, 

adverse, and localized. 

Public ORV use in the Addition under alternative B would be allowed on up to 132 miles 

of designated trails and through the issuance 

of up to 660 annual ORV permits. Adverse 

impacts on woodpeckers from recreational 

ORV use would include displacement of 

woodpeckers and their avoidance of certain 

areas within the Addition. NPS administrative ORV use could add slightly to these 

impacts. Public hunting would also be 

allowed, but it is not expected to adversely 

impact woodpecker habitat because the 

integrity of cavity trees and forage resources 

would be maintained. Total human use and 

disturbance in the Addition would increase 

substantially relative to the no-action alternative. Conditions that support woodpecker 

use of the area would continue to be 

maintained. Because there are currently no 

known nest sites within the Addition, effects 

on woodpeckers would be limited to impacts 

on foraging habitat and their avoidance of 

certain areas during periods of human 

activity. The impacts would be long term, 

minor to moderate, adverse, and localized. 

Nonmotorized visitor use (primarily backcountry hiking) would continue to affect 

woodpeckers, potentially causing occasional 

displacement of woodpeckers and their 

avoidance of certain areas within the 

Addition. The impact would be long term, 

negligible to minor, adverse, and localized. 

Designating lands as wilderness under 

alternative B could result in beneficial 

impacts on the woodpeckers. Habitat would 

be preserved, and all uses and activities in 

wilderness would be subject to the 

provisions of the Wilderness Act, including 

the use of the minimum requirements 

process. This would likely result in greater 

protection of woodpecker habitat; however, 

compared to the no-action alternative and 

the fact that eligible land in the Addition 

must be maintained to preserve its 

wilderness characteristics and its eligibility 

as wilderness, the beneficial impact would be 

negligible. 

Collectively, impacts on the red-cockaded 

woodpecker under alternative B would be 

long term, minor to moderate, adverse, and 

mostly localized. The determination of effect 

under Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act would be likely to adversely affect. 

Cumulative Impacts — Cumulative 

impacts under alternative B would generally be the same as under the no-action 

alternative. Implementation of the 2000 

Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within the original Preserve 

would minimize the impacts of off-road 

vehicles on red-cockaded woodpeckers 

in the region, a beneficial impact. Eliminating some and designating new ORV 

trails and conducting education, best 

management practices, research, and 

mitigation would limit impacts on woodpeckers. Cavity trees and active clusters 

would be avoided as trail sites, thereby 

also reducing adverse impacts. Adverse 

impacts on woodpeckers would still 

occur from ORV use in pinelands in the 

original Preserve, but the impact would 

be minor. Overall, the impact of the ORV 

plan on the red-cockaded woodpecker 

would be long term, negligible, and 

adverse. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

the red-cockaded woodpecker in the 

Addition. If such proposals included 

using off-road equipment and constructing roads and pads, this could degrade 

and reduce available woodpecker habitat. 

The impacts of these activities would be 

reduced because NPS approval of the 

operations plan would require mitigative 

measures. Short-term adverse impacts 

could include flushing and displacement 

of woodpeckers, while long-term impacts 

would include the loss of cavity nesting 

trees. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative B 

313 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within 

the region. The proposals would improve 

sheet flow and hydrologic connectivity, 

which would affect vegetation communities (including pinelands) and in turn 

wildlife habitat. The impact on the redcockaded woodpecker is uncertain, but 

restoring natural conditions is assumed to 

have a long-term, minor, beneficial 

impact because returning vegetation 

communities to historic conditions and 

improving foraging resources should be 

beneficial. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and result in an 

increase in the conversion of natural 

lands to development in the general area. 

The loss of natural areas and the 

increasing urbanization of the region 

have led to a substantial loss of 

woodpecker habitat (pinelands) in the 

region. Natural areas that remain are 

more fragmented and contain higher 

levels of human disturbance and 

displacement of woodpeckers, both of 

which adversely affect woodpeckers and 

their long-term survival. The impact of 

these activities on the red-cockaded 

woodpecker is expected to be long term, 

moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on the 

red-cockaded woodpecker would accrue 

from ecosystem restoration projects. 

Adverse impacts would be expected from 

oil and gas operations and regional 

growth and development. Overall, the 

effects of the projects discussed above 

would likely be adverse on red-cockaded 

woodpeckers in the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in alternative B are 

added to the effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions as described above, there would 

be a long-term, moderate, adverse 

cumulative impact on the red-cockaded 

woodpecker. The actions contained in 

alternative B would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion — Impacts on the potential 

habitat for and thus the red-cockaded 

woodpecker under alternative B would 

be long term, minor to moderate, adverse, 

and mostly localized. The determination 

of effect under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act would be likely 

to adversely affect. 

There would be a long-term, moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on the 

potential habitat for and thus the redcockaded woodpecker. The actions 

contained in alternative B would 

contribute a small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of the red-cockaded woodpecker in 

the Addition because habitat conditions 

would be maintained or enhanced, and 

the National Park Service would strive to 

meet the species recovery goals. (See 

specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

Wood Stork. Under alternative B, impacts 

on the wood stork would be attributed to 

new facility development and expanded 

visitor use. 

Because there are currently no known nest 

sites within the Addition, and they have 

nested in the original Preserve only 

sporadically since 1996, effects on wood 

storks would be limited to impacts on 

foraging habitat and avoidance of certain 

areas during periods of human activity. 

Because new facility development, such as 

trailheads and access points, would be confined mostly to developed corridors and 

areas of existing disturbance, impacts on 

wood stork habitat would be negligible. 

Establishment of 132 miles of ORV trails 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

314 

could cause adverse impacts on storks by 

creating short-term disturbances associated 

with construction activities and permanent 

loss of habitat. Use of the ORV trails and the 

increase in human occupation and disturbance in the backcountry could displace 

birds and cause them to avoid certain areas. 

NPS administrative ORV use could add 

slightly to these impacts. Public hunting 

would also be allowed, but is not expected to 

adversely impact wood stork habitat because 

the integrity of roost and next trees and 

forage resources would be maintained. Total 

human use and disturbance in the Addition 

would increase substantially relative to the 

no-action alternative; however, conditions 

that support wood stork use of the area 

would continue to be maintained. The 

impact of these activities would be long 

term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

Nonmotorized visitor use, (primarily backcountry hiking) would continue to affect 

wood storks, potentially causing displacement and their avoidance of certain areas in 

the Addition — the impact would be long 

term, negligible to minor, adverse, and 

localized. 

Designating lands as wilderness under alternative B would likely result in beneficial 

impacts on the wood stork. Potential habitat 

would be preserved, and all uses and 

activities in wilderness would be subject to 

the provisions of the Wilderness Act, 

including the use of the minimum requirements process. This would likely result in 

greater protection of stork habitat; however, 

compared to the no-action alternative and 

the fact that eligible land in the Addition 

must be maintained to preserve its wilderness characteristics and its eligibility as 

wilderness, the beneficial impact would be 

negligible. 

Collectively, impacts on the wood stork 

under alternative B would be long-term, 

minor, adverse, and mostly localized. The 

determination of effect under Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act would be not 

likely to adversely affect. 

Cumulative Impacts — Cumulative impacts under alternative B would generally 

be the same as under the no-action 

alternative. Implementation of the 2000 

Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within the original Preserve 

would reduce the impacts of off-road 

vehicles on the wood stork’s foraging 

habitat (prairies and marshes) in the 

region, a beneficial impact. Eliminating 

some and designating new ORV trails and 

conducting education, best management 

practices, research, and mitigation in the 

original Preserve would limit impacts on 

storks. Nesting habitat (cypress trees in 

open water) would likely not be affected 

because off-road vehicles typically avoid 

the deep, open water areas that storks 

commonly nest in. Consequently, the 

effect on nesting habitat in the region due 

to the actions in the ORV plan would be 

negligible. Overall, the impact of the ORV 

plan on the wood stork in the region 

would be long term, minor, and 

beneficial. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

the wood stork in the Addition. If such 

proposals included using off-road 

equipment and constructing roads and 

pads, this could result in loss and 

degradation of wood stork habitat. The 

impacts of these activities would be 

reduced because NPS approval of the 

operations plan would require mitigative 

measures. Adverse impacts could include 

flushing and displacement of wood 

storks. Short-term impacts on wood 

storks would be adverse, moderate, and 

localized; long-term impacts would be 

adverse, minor, and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within 

the region. The proposals would improve 

sheet flow and hydrologic connectivity, 

which would affect habitat conditions, 

including food supply. The impact on the 

wood stork is unknown, but restoring 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative B 

315 

natural hydrologic conditions is expected 

to have a long-term, minor to moderate, 

beneficial impact because returning 

vegetation communities to historic 

conditions and improving foraging 

resources should be beneficial. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and result in an 

increase in the conversion of natural 

lands to development and alter the 

hydrology of the general area. Impacts 

such as the loss of wetlands and compromised water quality from discharge of 

urban pollutants into hydrologic systems 

would adversely affect storks. The impact 

of these activities on the wood stork is 

expected to be long term, minor to 

moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on the 

wood stork would accrue from ORV 

management and ecosystem restoration 

projects. Adverse impacts would be 

expected from oil and gas operations and 

regional growth and development. 

Overall, the effects of the projects 

discussed above would likely be adverse 

to wood storks in the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in alternative B are 

added to the effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions as described above, there would 

be a long-term, minor, adverse cumulative impact on the wood stork. The 

actions contained in alternative B would 

add a very small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion — Impacts on the wood 

stork under alternative B would be long 

term, minor, adverse, and mostly 

localized. The determination of effect 

under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act would be not likely to 

adversely affect. 

There would be a long-term, minor, 

adverse cumulative impact on the wood 

stork. The actions contained in 

alternative B would add a very small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of the wood stork in the Addition 

because habitat conditions would be 

maintained or enhanced and the NPS 

would strive to meet the species recovery 

goals. (See specific definition of 

impairment in the "Impairment of 

Addition Resources" section.) 

Everglade Snail Kite. Under alternative B, 

impacts on the Everglade snail kite would be 

attributed to new facility development, trail 

development, and expanded visitor use. 

Because no snail kite nest sites are known 

within the Addition, effects on existing snail 

kite habitat would be limited to impacts on 

foraging and roosting habitat near marshes 

and open water bodies. However, the 

increased recreation and human activity 

associated with alternative B might preclude 

possible future kite nesting in the Addition. 

New facility development, such as trailheads 

and access points, would be confined mostly 

to developed corridors and areas of existing 

disturbance. Therefore, the impacts from 

constructing these facilities on snail kite 

habitat would be negligible. However, the 

establishment of 132 miles of ORV trails 

would cause adverse impacts on snail kite 

habitat. The noise and human activity 

associated with construction and maintenance of these trails could generate shortterm disturbances on kite habitat in areas 

where trail segments are near marshes, lakes, 

and other snail kite foraging areas. These 

impacts would be short term, minor, 

adverse, and localized. 

The long-term public use of the ORV trails 

and the increase in human occupation and 

disturbance in the backcountry would also 

have adverse effects on snail kite habitat. 

Noise from ORVs and nearby human 

presence and activity would disturb or flush 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

316 

kites that are roosting or foraging for apple 

snails in nearby marshes, ponds, and lakes in 

the Addition. Over time, this might cause 

snail kites to avoid foraging or roosting in 

certain habitat areas that are near ORV trail 

corridors or associated zones of human 

activity (which may radiate or spur off of the 

designated ORV trails). Larger habitat areas 

that become fragmented into smaller habitat 

“islands” by ORV trail corridors may also be 

avoided because of diminished habitat value. 

NPS administrative ORV use could add to 

these impacts. Public hunting would also be 

allowed and would have adverse impacts on 

snail kite foraging habitat if the hunting takes 

place in or near the marshes and open water 

bodies. Human presence and gun noise 

would contribute to these hunting impacts. 

The total human use and disturbance in the 

Addition associated with alternative B would 

be a substantial increase relative to the noaction alternative. The impact of these 

activities would be long term, minor to 

moderate, adverse, and localized. 

Nonmotorized visitor use (primarily backcountry hiking) would continue to affect 

Everglade snail kites in a manner that is 

similar to the no-action alternative. Snail 

kites could avoid foraging in areas that 

receive high levels of human activity. The 

impact would be long term, negligible to 

minor, adverse, and localized. 

Designating lands as wilderness under 

alternative B would likely result in beneficial 

impacts on the snail kite. Potential habitat 

would be preserved, and all uses and 

activities in wilderness would be subject to 

the provisions of the Wilderness Act, 

including the use of the minimum requirements process. This would likely result in 

greater protection of kite habitat; however, 

compared to the no-action alternative and 

the fact that eligible land in the Addition 

must be maintained to preserve its wilderness characteristics and its eligibility as 

wilderness, the beneficial impact would be 

negligible. 

Under alternative B, ongoing NPS efforts to 

improve natural hydrologic processes, water 

quality, and invasive plant control would 

continue just as in the no-action alternative. 

These NPS management actions could 

benefit apple snail populations in the 

Addition, as well as improve the snail kite’s 

accessibility to the apple snails. 

Collectively, impacts on the Everglade snail 

kite under alternative B would be long term, 

minor to moderate, adverse, and mostly 

localized. The determination of effect under 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

would be likely to adversely affect. 

 

Cumulative Impacts — Cumulative impacts under alternative B would be similar to that of the no-action alternative. 

Implementation of the 2000 Recreational 

Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within 

the original Preserve would reduce the 

impacts of ORVs on the snail kite’s 

foraging, roosting, and nesting habitat 

(marshes and pond/lake fringes) in the 

region, a beneficial impact. Eliminating 

some and designating new ORV trails and 

conducting education, best management 

practices, research, and mitigation would 

limit impacts on the kites in the region. 

However, foraging, roosting, or possible 

nesting habitat for snail kites could be 

adversely affected in areas where ORV 

use is permitted under the plan, particularly in specific ORV use areas that are 

near marshes, ponds, or lakes. Overall, 

the impact of that plan on the snail kite in 

the region would be long term, minor, 

and beneficial. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

the snail kite habitat in the Addition. If 

such proposals included using off-road 

equipment and constructing roads and 

pads, this could result in loss and 

degradation of snail kite habitat. The 

impacts of these activities would be 

reduced because NPS approval of the 

operations plan would require mitigative 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative B 

317 

measures. Adverse impacts could include 

flushing and displacement of snail kites. 

Short-term impacts on snail kites would 

be adverse, moderate, and localized, 

while long-term impacts would be 

adverse, minor, and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within 

the region. The proposals would improve 

sheet flow and hydrologic connectivity, 

which would affect habitat conditions, 

including food supply and water quality. 

This would be particularly beneficial to 

the snail kite, because its diet 

predominantly consists of apple snails, 

which are very dependent on adequate 

hydrological conditions. Furthermore, 

the return of natural hydrological 

conditions and improved water quality to 

the region would also enhance or 

increase the availability of quality 

foraging, roosting, and nesting habitat for 

the Everglade snail kite. The restoration 

of natural hydrologic conditions would 

have long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impacts. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and result in an 

increase in the conversion of natural 

lands to development and alter the 

hydrology of the general area. Impacts 

such as the loss of wetlands and compromised water quality from discharge of 

urban pollutants into hydrologic systems 

would adversely affect snail kites and 

their primary food source, the apple snail. 

The impact of these activities on the snail 

kite is expected to be long term, minor to 

moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on the 

snail kite would result from improved 

ORV management and ecosystem 

restoration projects by mitigating ORV 

impacts and allowing habitat restoration. 

Adverse impacts would be expected from 

oil and gas development and regional 

growth and urban development. Overall, 

the effects of the projects discussed above 

would likely be adverse to snail kite 

habitat in the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in alternative B are 

added to the effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions as described above, there would 

be a long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on the 

Everglade snail kite. The actions 

contained in alternative B would add a 

small increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion — Impacts on the Everglade 

snail kite under alternative B would be 

long term, minor to moderate, adverse, 

and mostly localized. The determination 

of effect under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act would be likely 

to adversely affect. 

There would be a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on 

the snail kite. The actions contained in 

alternative B would add a small increment 

to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of the Everglade snail kite in the 

Addition because habitat conditions 

would be maintained or enhanced and 

NPS staff would strive to meet the species 

recovery goals. (See specific definition of 

impairment in the "Impairment of 

Addition Resources" section.) 

American Crocodile. Impacts on the 

American crocodile and its habitat under 

alternative B would generally be the same as 

under the no-action alternative because 

recreational use in and near mangrove 

forests of the Addition would be the same as 

in alternative A (no action). 

Under alternative B, impacts on the 

American crocodile and its habitat would 

primarily be attributed to continued human 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

318 

activities near mangrove forests, particularly 

motorized boating associated with 

recreational fishing in the Western Addition 

(airboat use is prohibited). Mangrove forests 

are the primary habitat for the American 

crocodile in south Florida, although 

crocodiles are generally rare in Big Cypress 

National Preserve. The mangrove habitat 

areas along creeks, canals, and estuaries 

south of U.S. 41 in the Western Addition are 

where effects would most likely occur. 

In these areas, crocodiles may be affected by 

motorboat noise, boat wakes and waves, 

human noise or actions, or boat hulls or 

propellers. Because most American 

crocodile activity occurs from just before 

sunset to just after sunrise, most of these 

human-induced actions would disturb the 

crocodiles when they are at rest during 

daytime hours. These disturbances might 

cause resting crocodiles to be flushed, 

resulting in unnecessary energy use and 

stress. Boating in early morning or evening 

hours might also alter crocodile foraging 

behavior or flush the possible prey of the 

crocodile. Depending on the level and 

frequency of human disturbances, 

crocodiles could avoid some areas entirely. 

Crocodiles are not known to nest in the 

Addition. However, if nesting occurs, the 

hatching success would primarily depend on 

risks from flooding, predation, lack of soil 

moisture during incubation, and extreme 

storms. The nest success also depends on the 

female crocodile returning to the nest to 

excavate the hatchlings. Research suggests 

that some female crocodiles may abandon 

their nests if the area is subjected to 

repeated, close human presence (Kushlan 

and Mazzotti 1989). Once hatched, juveniles 

would then be affected by similar human 

disturbances as highlighted above. The 

young crocodiles would be at greatest risk 

during their journey through open water 

from their nest site to more distant nursery 

habitat. 

Given the infrequent presence of crocodiles 

in the area, the above effects from human 

recreation activities such as boating would 

be long term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

Alternative B would also continue current 

NPS vegetation management actions that 

would help maintain or improve habitat 

conditions in the Addition. These actions 

would help address invasive plant 

infestations that could degrade or displace 

habitat for the American crocodile. The 

impacts of ongoing NPS vegetation 

management would be long term, minor to 

moderate, beneficial, and localized. 

Under alternative B, the impacts on the 

American crocodile would continue to be 

long term, adverse, minor, and localized. 

The determination of effect under Section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act would be not 

likely to adversely affect. 

Cumulative Impacts — Cumulative 

impacts under alternative B would 

generally be the same as under the noaction alternative. The south Florida 

ecosystem restoration project includes 

several proposals for restoration of 

surface water flow within the region. The 

proposals would improve sheet flow and 

hydrologic connectivity, which would 

increase the quantity of freshwater inputs 

into the estuarine system, a beneficial 

impact on the American crocodile. This 

restoration of hydrologic flows and 

connectivity would be most beneficial to 

the crocodile in the nonnesting season 

when they seek inland freshwater 

habitats. However, the water quality of 

freshwater inflows is predicted to be less 

than current conditions, which could 

adversely impact crocodile habitat. 

Overall, it is expected that restoring 

natural hydrologic conditions would 

produce long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impacts for the American crocodile. 

Regional growth and development, 

including waterfront development, is 

expected to continue in south Florida. 

This would result in the alteration or 

displacement of natural lands and 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative B 

319 

changes to the local and regional 

hydrology. Because mangrove forests 

receive special protection under state law, 

any direct impacts on mangrove forests 

would be expected to be negligible. 

However, even if direct impacts on 

mangroves are avoided, urban encroachment may diminish mangrove habitat 

values if human activity and development 

is near the mangroves. Road mortality 

would likely increase as development and 

regional population increase. Growth and 

development could also result in an 

increase in boating and other recreational 

activities in the area. Crocodile foraging, 

breeding, resting, and nesting may be 

affected by increases in motorboat 

disturbances, boat wakes and waves, and 

human noise or actions. Crocodiles could 

avoid some areas entirely depending on 

the level and frequency of human disturbances. The impact on the American 

crocodile from urban growth and 

development is expected to be long term, 

moderate, and adverse. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in alternative B are 

added to the effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions as described above, there would 

be a long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on the American crocodile. The actions contained in 

alternative B would contribute a very 

small increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion — Implementation of 

alternative B would result in localized, 

long-term, minor, adverse impacts on the 

American crocodile. The determination 

of effect under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act would be not 

likely to adversely affect. 

There would be a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on 

the American crocodile. The actions 

contained in alternative B would 

contribute a very small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of the American crocodile in the 

Addition because habitat conditions 

would be maintained or enhanced and 

the National Park Service would strive to 

meet the species recovery goals. (See 

specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

Eastern Indigo Snake. Under alternative B, 

impacts on the potential habitat for the 

eastern indigo snake would be attributed to 

new facility development, ORV trail 

development, and expanded visitor use. 

New facility development, such as the 

construction of trailheads and access points, 

would be confined mostly to developed 

corridors and areas of existing disturbance. 

Therefore, the impacts from construction of 

these facilities on existing snake habitat 

would be negligible. However, debris and 

brush piles generated during site construction might be an attractant to eastern indigo 

snakes. This could lead to snake injury or 

mortality during construction, which would 

be an impact that is short term, minor to 

moderate, adverse, and very localized. Also, 

the establishment and designation of 132 

miles of ORV trails could cause adverse 

impacts on the snakes and their habitat. The 

noise and human activity associated with 

construction and maintenance of these trails 

could generate short-term disturbances on 

habitat areas where trail segments are close 

to active snake foraging, breeding, or 

burrowing areas. These impacts would be 

short term, minor to moderate, adverse, and 

localized. 

The long-term public use of the ORV trails, 

radiating spur trails, and the increase in 

human occupation and disturbance in the 

backcountry would have adverse effects on 

potential eastern indigo snake habitat. Noise 

from ORVs and nearby human presence and 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

320 

activity would disturb or flush snakes and 

thus may disrupt normal foraging, breeding, 

or dispersal. In addition, ORV use and 

undesignated spur trails that extend beyond 

the immediate vicinity of designated ORV 

trails would also displace a variety of potential snake habitat types. This off-trail activity 

by the public could disturb or degrade 

vegetative groundcover and soil substrates in 

areas that support foraging, breeding, and 

snake burrows or refuges such as pinelands 

or successional hardwood hammocks. The 

combination of these impacts could cause 

eastern indigos to leave the area, abandon 

den sites, and miss foraging and mating 

opportunities. NPS administrative ORV use 

could add to these impacts. Also, the ORV 

use would have similar impacts on many 

prey species of the eastern indigo, which 

would indirectly have adverse effects on the 

snake. Under alternative B, the ORV use and 

associated human disturbances in the 

Addition would be an increase relative to the 

no-action alternative. The impact of these 

activities would be long term, minor to 

moderate, adverse, and localized. 

Given the snake’s large home range and 

need to disperse across a variety of habitat 

types to sustain viable populations, the 

eastern indigo is particularly vulnerable to 

habitat fragmentation and the resulting 

“edge effect” (Layne and Steiner 1996, 

Breininger et al. 2004). Unlike the no-action 

alternative, large habitat areas would 

become fragmented into smaller habitat 

“islands” by ORV trail corridors. This would 

result in diminished habitat value for the 

snake throughout the Addition. The effect of 

this habitat fragmentation would be long 

term, minor to moderate, adverse, and 

Addition-wide. 

Public hunting would also be allowed (walkin or via ORV access) and would have 

adverse impacts on eastern indigo habitat if 

the hunting frequently takes places in or 

near vegetation communities that are 

commonly occupied by the snake (e.g., 

pinelands, successional hardwood 

hammocks, and mangrove forests). 

Other nonmotorized visitor use (primarily 

backcountry hiking) would continue to 

affect eastern indigo snake habitat in a 

manner that is similar to the no-action 

alternative. Although increased human use 

would be expected with alternative B, these 

pedestrian activities would cause sporadic 

flushing of the snake. Eastern indigo snakes 

could avoid foraging in areas that receive 

high levels of human activity. The impact 

would be long term, negligible to minor, 

adverse, and localized. 

Designating lands as wilderness under alternative B would likely result in beneficial 

impacts on eastern indigo habitat. Potential 

habitat would be preserved, and all uses and 

activities in wilderness would be subject to 

the provisions of the Wilderness Act, 

including the use of the minimum requirements process. This would likely result in 

greater protection of the snake’s habitat; 

however, compared to the no-action alternative and the fact that eligible land in the 

Addition must be maintained to preserve its 

wilderness characteristics and its eligibility 

as wilderness, the beneficial impact would be 

negligible. Also, most of the proposed 

wilderness under alternative B is south of I75. Most of this area to the south of the 

highway is the wettest land in the Addition 

and would be least suitable habitat for the 

indigo snake. 

Under alternative B, ongoing NPS efforts to 

improve natural hydrologic processes, water 

quality, and invasive plant control would 

continue as in the no-action alternative. 

Given the snake’s dependence on a mosaic 

of habitat types throughout its lifecycle, 

these active NPS management actions could 

benefit the eastern indigo snake habitat 

directly and indirectly. 

Collectively, impacts on the potential eastern 

indigo snake habitat under alternative B 

would be short term and long term, minor to 

moderate, adverse, and localized to 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative B 

321 

Addition-wide. The determination of effect 

under Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act would be likely to adversely affect. 

Cumulative Impacts — Cumulative 

impacts under alternative B would be 

similar to those under the no-action 

alternative. Implementation of the 2000 

Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within the original Preserve 

would reduce the impacts of ORVs on the 

wide variety of habitat types that support 

the eastern indigo. Most importantly, the 

improved ORV management efforts 

would reduce disturbance or degradation 

to vegetative groundcover and soil 

substrates in areas that provide for 

foraging, breeding, and snake burrows or 

refuges, such as pinelands or successional 

hardwood hammocks. Eliminating some 

and designating new ORV trails and 

conducting education, best management 

practices, research, and mitigation would 

limit impacts on the indigo snakes in the 

region. However, snake habitat might be 

altered or displaced, and individual 

snakes might be disturbed, in areas where 

ORV use is permitted under the plan. 

Overall, the impact of that plan on the 

eastern indigo in the region would be 

long term, minor, and beneficial. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

the eastern indigo snake habitat in the 

Addition. If such proposals included 

using off-road equipment and constructing roads and pads, this could result in 

the loss and degradation several habitat 

types that support the snake. Adverse 

impacts would include displacement of 

vegetative cover for the snake; soil and 

burrow disturbances; possible roadway 

injury/mortality; and disruption of 

normal foraging, breeding, and dispersing 

behaviors. The impacts of these activities 

would be reduced because NPS approval 

of the operations plan would require 

mitigative measures. Short-term impacts 

on the snake would be adverse, moderate, 

and localized, while long-term impacts 

would be adverse, minor, and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within 

the region. The proposals would improve 

sheet flow and hydrologic connectivity, 

which would affect habitat conditions for 

many species. This hydrologic restoration 

could benefit the eastern indigo directly 

during times of the year when the snake 

uses wetter habitats. At other times, it 

would benefit the eastern indigo indirectly by restoring a natural system that could 

improve conditions and increase populations of the snake’s food base. However, 

the reintroduction of natural flows could 

displace some existing upland areas. This 

effect could decrease available upland 

habitat for the eastern indigo snake and 

its prey that depend on upland habitat. 

The restoration of natural hydrologic 

conditions would have long-term, minor 

to moderate impacts that could be both 

beneficial and adverse to the snake. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and result in an 

increase in habitat displacement for the 

snake. Because the eastern indigo uses a 

variety of habitat types and has a large 

home range, it is particularly susceptible 

to habitat loss and habitat fragmentation 

from urban development. In addition to 

habitat displacement and fragmentation, 

urban development also brings injury or 

mortality threats from domestic animals, 

road vehicles, property owners, and 

pesticides and rodenticides in the food 

chain. All of these could adversely affect 

eastern indigos. The impact of these 

activities on the snake is expected to be 

long term, moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on the 

eastern indigo snake would result from 

improved ORV management and 

ecosystem restoration projects. Adverse 

impacts would be expected from oil and 

gas operations and regional growth and 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

322 

development. Overall, the effects of the 

projects discussed above would likely be 

adverse to the snake’s habitat in the 

region. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in alternative B are 

added to the effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions as described above, there would 

be a long-term, moderate, adverse cumulative impact and a short-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on 

the potential habitat for the eastern 

indigo snake. The actions contained in 

alternative B would contribute a small 

increment to this adverse cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion — Impacts on the potential 

habitat for and thus the eastern indigo 

snake under alternative B would be shortterm and long term, minor to moderate, 

adverse, and localized to Addition-wide. 

The determination of effect under 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

would be likely to adversely affect. 

There would be a short-term and longterm, moderate, adverse cumulative 

impact on the potential habitat for the 

eastern indigo snake. The actions 

contained in alternative B would 

contribute a small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of the eastern indigo snake in the 

Addition because habitat conditions 

would be maintained or enhanced and 

the National Park Service would strive to 

meet the species recovery goals. (See 

specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

Major Game Species 

Analysis. Under alternative B, impacts on 

the major game species of the Addition 

(white-tailed deer, feral hogs, and wild 

turkey) would be attributed to new facility 

development and expanded visitor use. 

New facility development — such as trails, 

trailheads, and access points at mile markers 

51 and 63, Bear Island Grade, and Deep Lake 

— would impact game species by causing 

short-term disturbances associated with 

construction activities and permanent loss of 

habitat. Development footprints would be 

confined to previously disturbed areas to the 

greatest extent possible (such as at existing 

access points along major highways and the 

interstate), but there would still be a loss of 

habitat. The impact would be long term, 

minor, adverse, and localized. 

Establishment of 132 miles of ORV trails 

would fragment game habitat, and ongoing 

use of the trails would cause flushing, 

displacement, and avoidance of certain 

areas. NPS administrative ORV use could 

add slightly to these impacts. The impacts on 

game species from ORV use in the Addition 

would likely be long term, minor, adverse, 

and localized. Game species typically adapt 

to changes in habitat conditions and can 

become habituated to the predictable use of 

designated ORV routes. 

Public hunting would be allowed under 

alternative B, and the 132-mile network of 

ORV trails would allow hunters to access 

much of the Addition and increase hunting 

opportunities. The Addition would be 

expected to become part of the adjacent Big 

Cypress State Wildlife Management Area. As 

in the original Preserve, hunting would be 

regulated according to the requirements, 

seasons, and bag limits established by the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission. Short-term, minor adverse 

impacts, such as flushing and displacement 

of game species, would continue. Long-term, 

moderate beneficial impacts could also 

occur from harvesting and management of 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative B 

323 

game populations, such as disease mitigation 

and improvements in population genetics. 

Partnerships with the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission would 

continue and would contribute to the 

monitoring and improved understanding of 

game populations. 

Designating lands as wilderness under 

alternative B would likely result in beneficial 

impacts on major game species. Habitat 

would be preserved, and all uses and 

activities in wilderness would be subject to 

the provisions of the Wilderness Act, 

including the use of the minimum requirements process. This would likely result in 

greater protection of game habitat; however, 

compared to the no-action alternative and 

the fact that eligible land in the Addition 

must be maintained to preserve its 

wilderness characteristics and its eligibility 

as wilderness, the beneficial impact would be 

negligible. 

Collectively, impacts on major game species 

under alternative B would be long term, 

minor to moderate, adverse, and mostly 

localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative B would generally be the 

same as under the no-action alternative. 

Implementation of the 2000 Recreational 

Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within 

the original Preserve would reduce the 

adverse impacts of off-road vehicles on 

major game species in the region — a 

beneficial impact. Eliminating some and 

designating new ORV trails would make 

ORV noise and movement more predictable, 

thereby displacing animals away from travel 

corridors but reducing the impacts on 

wildlife habitat and game populations. 

Conducting education, best management 

practices, research, and mitigation called for 

in the ORV plan would also limit impacts on 

wildlife. Adverse impacts on major game 

species would still occur from ORV use in 

the Preserve, but the effects on the species 

would be less than with no ORV plan / 

management / permitting. Overall, the 

impact of the ORV plan on major game 

species in the region would be long term, 

minor, and beneficial. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

major game species in the Addition. If such 

proposals included using off-road equipment and constructing roads and pads, this 

would create human disturbances and alter 

wildlife habitat. The impacts of these 

activities would be reduced because NPS 

approval of the operations plan would 

require mitigative measures. Adverse 

impacts could include flushing and displacement of game species. Short-term impacts on 

major game species would be moderate, 

adverse and localized; long-term impacts 

would be minor, adverse, and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect vegetation communities and in 

turn wildlife habitat. The impact on the 

major game species is unknown, but restoring natural conditions is expected to have a 

long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial 

impact. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and result in an 

increase in the conversion of natural lands to 

development in the general area. The loss of 

natural areas and the increasing urbanization 

of the region have led to a loss of wildlife 

habitat. The major game species are considered generalists and have demonstrated 

their resiliency and ability to adapt to 

changing conditions. Within the region, the 

three species (deer, hogs, and turkey) are 

widespread. However, continued urbanization has fragmented remaining natural areas 

and increased the risks and threats to these 

species, including automobile collisions, 

exotic species, and pathogens. The impact of 

these activities on the major game species is 

expected to be long term, minor to 

moderate, and adverse. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

324 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on major 

game species would accrue from ORV 

management and ecosystem restoration 

projects. Adverse impacts would be 

expected from oil and gas operations and 

regional growth and development. Overall, 

the effects of the projects discussed above 

would likely be adverse to major game 

species in the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative B are added 

to the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on the 

major game species. The actions contained 

in alternative B would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Impacts on major game species 

under alternative B would be long term, 

minor to moderate, adverse, and mostly 

localized. 

There would be a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on the 

major game species. The actions contained 

in alternative B would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

the major game species in the Addition. (See 

specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

WILDERNESS 

RESOURCES AND VALUES 

Analysis 

Under alternative B, impacts on wilderness 

resources and values would be attributed 

primarily to ORV trail development and use 

and designation of lands as wilderness. 

Development of approximately 132 miles of 

ORV trails would fragment native habitat 

and degrade natural conditions in certain 

areas that were evaluated as eligible for 

wilderness designation. ORV use would 

affect the natural soundscape of the area. 

Impacts would be confined to a designated 

trail system, limiting changes to natural 

conditions and wilderness character outside 

of the trail system. Impacts from visitor use 

would be long term, moderate, and adverse. 

Approximately 37,567 acres of the Addition 

would be proposed for designation as 

wilderness (53% of those lands considered 

eligible under the wilderness study and 26% 

of the Addition’s total acreage). The special 

status and protection afforded to these lands 

under the Wilderness Act would preserve 

their wilderness resources and values in 

perpetuity, a moderate to major beneficial 

impact. Opportunities for solitude and 

primitive and unconfined recreation would 

continue to be preserved and available, but 

the extent and availability of the opportunities would be reduced compared to the noaction alternative. 

Overall, the impacts on wilderness resources 

and values would be long term, moderate, 

beneficial, and Addition-wide. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts on wilderness resources 

and values under alternative B would 

generally be the same as under the no-action 

alternative. Implementation of the 2000 

Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management 

Plan within the original Preserve would 

minimize the effects of off-road vehicle use 

on wilderness resources and values by 

reducing the potential for dispersal and 

establishment of exotic plants, a beneficial 

impact. The impact on natural soundscapes 

resulting from the management of off-road 

vehicles in the original Preserve would be 

negligible because approximately the same 

number of off-road vehicles would be using 

the original Preserve and in roughly the same 

areas. Consequently, impacts on a visitor’s 

wilderness experience (freedom and natural 

sights and sounds) resulting from the 2000 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative B 

325 

ORV plan would be negligible. Impacts on 

wilderness resources and values in the 

region would be negligible. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

wilderness resources and values. If such 

proposals included using off-road 

equipment and constructing roads and pads, 

this would create human disturbances and 

alter natural habitats. NPS approval of the 

operations plan would require mitigative 

measures to eliminate or reduce the impact 

of activities on natural resources. Short-term 

impacts on wilderness resources and values 

would be moderate, adverse, and localized; 

residual long-term impacts would be minor, 

adverse, and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect natural communities. Restoring 

natural conditions is expected to have a 

long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and result in an 

increase in the conversion of natural lands to 

development in the general area. Increasing 

urbanization, fragmentation of habitat, and 

the loss of natural areas have led to the 

degradation of natural resources, ecosystem 

function, and natural soundscapes in the 

region. The impact of these activities on 

wilderness resources and values is expected 

to be long term, moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on 

wilderness resources and values would 

accrue from ecosystem restoration projects. 

Adverse impacts would be expected from oil 

and gas operations and regional growth and 

development. Overall, the effects of the 

projects discussed above would likely be 

adverse to wilderness resources and values 

in the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative B are added 

to the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long-term, 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on 

wilderness resources and values in the 

region. The actions contained in alternative 

B would contribute a modest beneficial 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion 

Impacts on wilderness resources and values 

under alternative B would be long term, 

moderate, beneficial, and Addition-wide. 

There would be a long-term, moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on wilderness 

resources and values in the region. The 

actions contained in alternative B would 

contribute a modest beneficial increment to 

this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this alternative would not result in impairment of 

wilderness resources and values in the 

Addition. (See specific definition of impairment in the "Impairment of Addition 

Resources" section.) 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Resources 

Analysis. As appropriate, archeological surveys would precede any ground disturbance 

for the construction of parking, restrooms, 

trailheads, and trails, and national registereligible or -listed archeological resources 

would be avoided. No adverse impacts on 

archeological resources would be anticipated. If during construction previously 

unknown archeological resources were 

discovered, all work in the immediate 

vicinity of the discovery would be halted 

until the resources could be identified and 

documented and, if the resources cannot be 

preserved in situ, an appropriate mitigation 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

326 

strategy would be developed in consultation 

with the state historic preservation officer 

and any associated Indian tribes. 

Most of the archeological sites in the 

Addition are middens. These raised mound 

areas would be potentially attractive to ORV 

and backcountry users, and trampling or 

disturbance could result. Increased visitor 

use under this alternative would increase the 

potential for looting and vandalism, and 

unauthorized off-trail ORV use could displace soils and cause erosion of archeological sites. Continued ranger patrol and 

emphasis on visitor education would 

discourage vandalism and inadvertent 

destruction of cultural remains, but any 

adverse impacts would be permanent, minor 

to moderate, and adverse. 

 

Cumulative Impacts. Current research 

indicates relatively little disturbance of 

archeological sites in the Addition resulting 

from past actions such as hunting and 

camping, logging, looting, and energy 

exploration. These impacts would be 

characterized as permanent and negligible. 

Large-scale water projects and commercial 

and residential development could pose 

some impacts on archeological resources in 

the vicinity of the Addition. The number and 

extent of these archeological resources is 

unknown so the potential impact cannot be 

assessed with any degree of accuracy. 

However, significant archeological resources 

would likely be avoided to the greatest extent 

possible, and any impacts on archeological 

resources would be adverse and permanent, 

and range in intensity from minor to 

moderate. 

Implementation of future oils and gas could 

have adverse impacts on archeological 

resources. If such proposals included using 

off-road equipment and constructing roads 

and pads, this could affect archeological 

resources. However, because approval of the 

operations plan would require mitigation 

measures to eliminate or reduce the impact 

of activities on archeological resources, the 

permanent effect of energy exploration on 

archeological resources should be negligible. 

When the permanent, minor to moderate 

effects of implementing the actions in alternative B are added to the permanent, minor 

to moderate adverse effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, 

there would be a permanent, moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on archeological 

resources. The actions contained in 

alternative B would contribute a smaller 

increment to the cumulative impact than 

would the actions of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions. 

 

Conclusion. Under alternative B, impacts 

on archeological resources would be 

permanent, minor to moderate, and adverse. 

There would be a permanent, moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on archeological 

resources. The actions contained in 

alternative B would contribute a smaller 

increment to the cumulative impact than 

would the actions of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions. 

Section 106 Summary. As appropriate, 

archeological surveys would precede any 

ground disturbance for the construction of 

parking, restrooms, trailheads, and trails, 

and significant archeological resources 

would be avoided. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementation 

of alternative B would result in a potential 

adverse effect on archeological resources.

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

archeological resources in the Addition. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Analysis. Under alternative B, there would 

be limited potential for impacts on 

ethnographic resources. Access to these 

resources would be limited to recognized 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative B 

327 

traditionally associated peoples. Visitor 

activities such as hiking, camping, cycling, 

and equestrian use would not be allowed in 

or near identified ethnographic sites. 

However, increases in motorized recreation, 

specifically ORV use and the construction of 

trails for ORVs, hiking, camping, cycling, 

and equestrian use would pose the potential 

of impacts such as trampling, looting or 

vandalism on ethnographic resources. 

Increased ranger patrols and education 

programs informing visitors of the sensitive 

nature of these sites would result in longterm, negligible impacts. 

The National Park Service would work with 

traditionally associated people to identify 

ethnographic resources and identify appropriate protection strategies for these 

resources. Consultation with traditionally 

associated peoples would precede construction in order to avoid or mitigate potential 

impacts resulting from trail or facility 

development (such as parking areas, 

restrooms, and trailheads). With this mitigation, no adverse impacts on ethnographic 

resources would be anticipated from 

construction. 

Cumulative Impacts. Current research 

indicates negligible impacts on ethnographic 

resources in the Addition resulting from 

hunting and camping and looting. Past 

actions, including road construction, energy 

exploration, logging, and agricultural 

development, might have impacted 

ethnographic resources at Deep Lake and 

other sites within the Addition. Any adverse 

impacts would have been long term and of 

negligible to minor intensity. 

Large-scale water projects and commercial 

and residential development could pose 

some impacts on ethnographic resources in 

the vicinity of the Addition. However, 

ethnographic resources would likely be 

avoided to greatest extent possible, and any 

impacts on ethnographic resources would be 

adverse and permanent and range in 

intensity from negligible to minor. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

ethnographic resources. However, because 

approval of the operations plan would 

require mitigation measures to eliminate or 

reduce the impact of activities on ethnographic resources, the permanent effect of 

energy exploration on ethnographic 

resources should be negligible. 

When the long-term, negligible adverse 

effects of implementing the actions 

contained in alternative B are added to the 

negligible to minor adverse effects of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions, there would be a long-term, 

negligible to minor, adverse cumulative 

impact on ethnographic resources. The 

actions contained in alternative B would 

contribute a very small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative B, there 

would be negligible, long-term, impacts on 

ethnographic resources. 

Combined with the impacts of past actions, 

including road construction and agricultural 

development, there would be a long-term, 

negligible to minor, adverse cumulative 

impact. The actions proposed in this 

alternative would contribute a very small 

increment to any cumulative impacts. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementation 

of alternative B would generally result in a 

no adverse effect on ethnographic resources. 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

Recreational Opportunities 

Motorized Use. ORV access and opportunities to explore, sightsee, and camp 

would be greatly expanded with the 

development of up to 132miles of primary 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

328 

ORV trails, issuance of a maximum of 660 

annual ORV permits, and access points and 

visitor information at mile markers 51 and 63 

and Bear Island Grade. The construction of 

a new visitor contact station and NPS 

operation facility at mile marker 63 would 

also have beneficial impacts by greatly 

expanding education and interpretation 

opportunities, services, and NPS operational 

capacity in the Addition. An increased NPS 

staff presence would also improve visitor 

safety and increase opportunities for 

interpretation. Impacts resulting from ORV 

access and opportunities as well as visitor 

services and information would be long 

term, moderate to major, beneficial, and 

Addition-wide. 

Allowing ORV use in the Addition, along 

with the construction of a new contact 

station, might lead to user congestion and 

user conflicts at trailheads and along the 

primary and secondary ORV trail network, 

resulting in long-term, minor, adverse, 

impacts on users. But dispersing users across 

multiple access points as proposed would 

minimize the impact. Finally, the provision 

of additional services at Carnestown would 

result in long-term, negligible to minor, 

beneficial impacts to ORV users seeking 

additional information and services. Overall, 

implementation of alternative B would result 

in long-term, moderate to major, beneficial 

impacts to motorized users. 

Nonmotorized Use (including hiking, 

horseback riding, and bicycling). The 

primary and secondary ORV trail network, 

new access points and visitor information, 

and the new contact station would also be 

open to hikers, expanding both access and 

opportunities The construction of a new day 

use area and ADA-compliant boardwalk at 

Deep Lake would have beneficial impacts by 

providing a comfortable area to enjoy the 

natural surrounding and provide an easy, 

safe route to access the lake. Opportunities 

for challenging adventure and primitive 

solitude as well as less primitive hiking 

would be available. Impacts resulting from 

expanding access and opportunity for 

nonmotorized user groups would be long 

term, moderate to major, and beneficial. 

The addition of ORV users and the 

construction of a new contact station might 

result in user congestion and user conflict at 

trailheads and along the primary and 

secondary ORV trail network and would 

reduce the quality of the natural soundscape. 

The addition of hunting under alternative B 

would likely further increase encounters, 

reduce the quality of the natural soundscape, 

and could periodically affect access. Impacts 

on hikers as a result of congestion and a 

reduced natural soundscape would be long 

term, minor to moderate, and adverse. 

Dispersing users across multiple access 

points as proposed would minimize the 

impact. Impacts resulting from the provision 

of additional visitor services at Carnestown 

would be long term, minor, and beneficial. 

Access to the Addition and parking would be 

improved in comparison to alternative A. 

Although bicycling would be allowed on all 

designated primary and secondary ORV 

trails, many of these trails would not be 

conducive to bicycling; therefore, bicycling 

opportunities would only be slightly 

expanded beyond alternative A. New access 

points and the ability to use the primary and 

secondary ORV trail network would 

disperse bicyclists across the Addition, 

reducing the potential for congestion and 

user conflict. Impacts resulting from an 

expansion of access and opportunity would 

be long term, minor, beneficial, and 

Addition-wide. Conflict between user 

groups at trailheads and along the primary 

and secondary ORV trail network and a 

reduction of the natural soundscape due to 

ORV use would detract from the experience 

of bicycling in a natural setting, resulting in 

long-term, minor, adverse impacts on 

bicyclists. Finally, the provision of additional 

services at Carnestown would result in longterm, negligible to minor, beneficial impacts 

on bicyclists seeking additional information 

and services. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative B 

329 

Overall, impacts on nonmotorized users 

would be long term, moderate, and 

beneficial. 

Hunting (including fishing and frogging). 

Nonmotorized and ORV hunting would be 

allowed in designated areas and seasons as 

determined by the National Park Service in 

cooperation with the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission in the 

areas zoned as primitive backcountry, 

backcountry recreation. Hunters using offroad vehicles, however, would not have the 

opportunity to operate their vehicles off 

designated trails. Conflict between ORV and 

nonmotorized hunters and with other trail 

users at trailheads and along primary and 

secondary ORV trails would likely be infrequent due to sensible facility design, resulting in long-term, minor, adverse impacts. 

The operation of off-road vehicles might 

detract from the hunting experience of those 

that prefer walk-in hunting and solitude. 

Overall, impacts on hunters in the Addition 

would be long term, moderate, and 

beneficial.

Collectively, impacts on visitor use and 

experience resulting from alternative B 

would be long term, moderate, and 

beneficial. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Implementation of the 2000 Recreational 

Off-road Vehicle Management Plan would 

provide up to 400 miles of designated 

primary ORV trails, 15 ORV access points, 

and up to 2,000 annual permits in the 

original Preserve. This quantity of trail miles 

and permits provides abundant opportunities for operating off-road vehicles. The 

availability of these opportunities adjacent to 

the Addition would have long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impacts on ORV users 

in the local area. 

Implementation of future oil and gas proposals could adversely impact the experience 

of visitors. The construction of roads and 

pads and the use of off-road equipment, if 

included in the proposals, could detract 

from the experience of those seeking a 

primitive experience and natural 

soundscape. Impacts resulting from a 

reduction in the natural settings of the 

Addition due to the operation of oil and gas 

equipment would be long term, minor, and 

adverse in localized areas. 

The south Florida Ecosystem Restoration 

Project is a large-scale effort among public, 

private, and nongovernmental entities to 

restore surface water flows within the 

region. Implementation of the proposals 

would improve sheet flows and hydrologic 

connectivity and likely restore natural 

conditions in the Addition. This effort 

would enhance the visitor use and experience by providing increased opportunities 

for wildlife viewing and experiencing natural 

settings. Opportunities for hunting in the 

Addition would also improve with more 

abundant, healthy wildlife populations. 

Impacts resulting from the effects of a 

healthy, fully functioning ecosystem would 

be long term, moderate, beneficial, and 

regionwide. 

Regional growth and development are 

expected to result in increased visitation to 

the Addition. More visitation over time 

might result in increased congestion and 

user conflicts at access points and along the 

primary and secondary ORV trail network. 

Impacts from growth and development 

would be long term, minor to moderate, and 

adverse because of increased congestion and 

user conflict. 

Implementation of the Commercial Services 

Plan will initially only affect the original 

Preserve. The Addition will be addressed in 

an addendum to the Commercial Services 

Plan after the completion of the General 

Management Plan for the Addition. The 

Commercial Services Plan proposes to 

enhance the original Preserve’s visitor 

services through the development of one or 

more new facilities; a new backcountry 

camping complex; hunting and fishing 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

330 

guides; buggy, van, and hiking tours; boat 

and bicycle rentals; and expanded opportunities for birding, wildlife viewing, and 

photography. Enhanced and expanded 

opportunities in the original Preserve, before 

an addendum to include the Addition, 

would increase visitation in the Addition and 

might result in increased congestion and 

user conflicts. Impacts resulting from 

increased visitation and congestion at access 

points and along the primary and secondary 

ORV trail network would result in longterm, minor, adverse impacts on visitors. 

When the Addition is addressed in an 

addendum, visitor opportunities to explore 

and use the Addition could be expanded. If 

so, impacts from implementing the 

Commercial Services Plan in the Addition 

would be long term, minor to moderate, and 

beneficial as a result of expanded 

opportunities. 

The likely effects of implementing alternative B, in combination with the effects of 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions described above, would result in 

long-term, moderate, and beneficial cumulative impacts on visitor use and experience 

in the Addition. The actions contained in 

alternative B would contribute an appreciable increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion 

Under alternative B, designated access 

points and abundant trail opportunities 

would be provided for ORV use, hunting, 

and nonmotorized uses. Collectively, the 

resulting impacts on visitor use and 

experience would be long term, moderate, 

and beneficial. 

The cumulative impact on visitor use and 

experience in the Addition would be long 

term, moderate, and beneficial. The actions 

contained in the alternative B would 

contribute an appreciable increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Analysis of economic impacts under alternative B was based on projected increases in 

visitation to the Preserve (including the 

Addition) (which in turn would affect visitor 

spending patterns), as well as estimated onetime capital expenditures due to construction activity. A total of 39,479 new visitors 

were estimated to visit the Preserve each 

year as a result of implementing this alternative. Of this total, it was assumed that 

8,291 were local visitors, 15,002 were nonlocal day visitors, 11,054 were motel visitors, 

and 5,132 were campers. In terms of capital 

expenditures, it was estimated that alternative B would produce $6.7 million in total 

construction costs. 

Local Economy 

Employment. Approximately 41 jobs (35 

direct and six indirect) would be created in 

Collier County as a result of visitor spending 

under alternative B. This would generate a 

total labor income of $604,000 annually 

(which covers wages, salaries, and payroll 

benefits), representing $458,000 in direct 

labor income effects as a result of new job 

growth and $146,000 in indirect labor 

income effects from new job growth in 

tourism-related industries. Approximately 

half of direct employment would be attributable to increases in Preserve staff needed to 

operate and maintain new facilities, trails, 

and services in the Addition; the remaining 

jobs would result from partnerships at 

Carnestown and businesses that cater to 

tourists. Indirect employment increases 

would result from firms that support touristrelated businesses, as well as from firms that 

hire additional staff as a result of changes in 

direct employment spending. Employment 

in Collier County is approximately 140,184 

(2006 estimate) so the additional jobs only 

increase county employment by .03%. 

Consequently, as a result of alternative B, 

long-term impacts related to employment 

would be localized, negligible, and 

beneficial. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative B 

331 

In terms of short-term impacts, approximately 51 temporary jobs would be created 

due to construction activity in the Addition, 

generating about $1.6 million in personal 

labor income. Most direct employment 

increases would be attributable to temporary 

labor needed during the construction 

period. Secondary employment increases 

would be attributable to new staff needed in 

industries that provide goods and services to 

the construction sector as well to businesses 

that need additional staff to support changes 

in direct employee spending. However, the 

additional jobs only increase county 

employment by 0.04%. Short-term impacts 

related to employment in alternative B 

would be localized, negligible, and 

beneficial. 

Housing. The addition of jobs could 

translate into greater demand for housing, if 

most of the additional employees come from 

outside the county (and thus need to seek 

housing near the Preserve). However, such 

impacts, if felt at all, would likely be concentrated in the Naples and Marco Island areas, 

because the creation of 41 jobs is not large 

enough to create a discernable impact on the 

housing market at the county level. Consequently, the long-term impacts related to 

housing would be localized, negligible, and 

beneficial. 

Short-term housing impacts as a result of 

construction activity are also likely to be 

insignificant from a county perspective. 

Specific locales such as Naples and Marco 

Island might see temporary increases in the 

demand for housing as a result of transitory 

employees moving into the area during the 

construction period. However, in relation to 

the overall housing market in Collier 

County, this impact is likely to be undetectable. Consequently, short-term impacts 

related to the housing market would be 

localized, negligible, and beneficial. 

Sales. Long-term impacts of visitor spending 

under alternative B would generate a total of 

$1.76 million annually in direct and indirect 

sales of goods and services by businesses in 

Collier County. The majority of businesses 

that would realize these financial gains 

would be in industries that cater directly to 

tourism, such as retail, arts, entertainment, 

recreation, accommodation and food 

services. As a total of Collier County’s 

annual taxable sales, estimated to be over 

$6.10 billion in 2004, such changes represent 

only a .03% increase. Consequently, the 

long-term impacts related to sales under 

alternative B would be localized, negligible, 

and beneficial. 

Capital construction expenditures would 

also increase short-term sales under 

alternative B. Total annual taxable sales of 

goods and services were estimated to be $4.3 

million, with $3.4 million (79%) of that 

amount attributable to transactions 

occurring within Collier County. The 

majority of direct sales would be attributable 

to construction-related businesses, with 

indirect sales attributable to industries that 

support the construction industry and its 

temporary employees. Consequently, the 

short-term impacts related to sales under 

alternative B would be localized, negligible, 

and beneficial. 

 

Tribal Impacts. In qualitatively assessing 

long-term impacts to the Miccosukee and 

Seminole tribes, it appears that both 

reservations would realize some degree of 

positive long-term benefits under alternative 

B. Increased visitation to the Preserve as a 

result of this alternative would likely 

generate a small to moderate boost in sales 

of tourist-related goods and services (i.e. 

gaming, dining, and entertainment) provided 

at these reservations. Both tribes could also 

directly benefit from entering into select 

partnership agreements with the Preserve, as 

specified under this alternative. However, 

the magnitude of such gains is based on 

reasonable speculation due to the limited 

amount of data available on the tribes’ 

economic activities. Consequently, the longterm impacts related to economic activity 

under alternative B would be localized, 

negligible to moderate, and beneficial. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

332 

New construction activity in the Addition 

would generate temporary construction 

jobs. Additional construction workers in the 

area would likely increase visitation to the 

two reservations, leading to an increase in 

the sales of tourist-related goods and 

services. Consequently, the short-term 

impacts related to economic activity under 

alternative B would be localized, negligible 

to moderate, and beneficial. 

Collectively, the long-term and short-term 

impacts resulting from implementing 

alternative B would be localized, negligible, 

and beneficial. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The action area for evaluating cumulative 

impacts on the socioeconomic environment 

is Collier County. The likely effects of 

implementing the actions contained under 

alternative B, in combination with to the 

effects of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions are described below. 

The implementation of the Final 

Recreational Off-Road Vehicle Plan, which 

provides for a maximum of 2,000 permits, 15 

access points, and 400 miles of designated 

trails, has a strong likelihood of attracting 

new visitors and locals to the Preserve. Such 

an increase in Preserve visitation would 

translate into greater visitor spending in the 

area, resulting in positive long-term gains for 

Collier County in terms of employment, 

housing, and taxable annual sales, as well as 

increased economic activity for the 

Miccosukee and Seminole tribes. However, 

relative to the economy of the entire county, 

long-term economic impacts will likely be 

minimal. Short-term impacts as a result of 

one-time capital expenditures from building 

ORV trail access, facilities, and other structures are also likely to be minimal relative to 

the overall level of construction activity in 

the county. As a result, both long-term and 

short-term cumulative impacts would be 

localized, negligible, and beneficial. 

Although the Commercial Services Plan does 

not include the Addition, social and 

economic impacts to the county as a whole 

would be positive due to increased visitation 

and visitor spending in the area, and expansion of facilities, services, and recreational 

opportunities in the Preserve. In particular, 

the implementation of the Commercial 

Services Plan’s preferred alternative, which 

includes the potential to develop two new 

visitor facilities, partnership agreements for 

offering a variety of guided tours and 

equipment rentals, and the creation of a 

backcountry camping complex, could 

translate into moderate long-term gains in 

visitor spending at the county level. 

Depending on the level of construction 

activity generated from implementation of 

the Commercial Services Plan, short-term 

impacts could be substantial at the county 

level. As a result, both long-term and shortterm cumulative impacts would be localized, 

negligible to moderate, and beneficial. 

The potential exists for exploration 

activities, as proposed under the oil and gas 

plan, to reduce visitation in the Preserve due 

to environmental disruptions from the use 

of off-road equipment and the development 

of roads and pads for oil and gas exploration. Due to multiplier effects, long-term 

impacts from reduced visitation could result 

in reductions in county employment, 

housing, and sales, as well as reduced 

economic activity for the Miccosukee and 

Seminole tribes. However, such effects will 

likely be minimal in relation to the entire 

county economy. Short-term impacts from 

construction could be both positive and 

substantial, depending on the level of 

construction and percentage of that 

economic activity that remains within the 

county. Long-term impacts would be 

localized, negligible, and adverse, while 

short-term impacts would be localized, 

negligible to moderate, and beneficial. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

projects would likely attract additional 

visitors to the region due to the rehabilitation of natural ecosystems within and near 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative B 

333 

the Preserve through various water system 

improvements. In particular, the Big Cypress 

Interceptor Modification Plan would likely 

increase use across a variety of recreational 

activities offered in the Preserve, particularly 

for visitors interested in enjoying the natural 

habitat and wildlife. Collier County would 

also benefit from restoration efforts in 

nearby sites, such as Everglades National 

Park, because additional visitors may pass 

through or decide to make an additional 

stop at the Preserve. Because these restoration projects are relatively large in scale, are 

occurring at multiple sites, and are at a 

regional level, the long-term impacts on 

county employment, housing, and sales, as 

well as economic activity for the Miccosukee 

and Seminole tribes could be substantial. 

Short-term impacts would also be positive 

because capital expenditures on water 

infrastructure improvements (estimated at 

multi-billions of dollars) would likely 

generate substantial temporary gains to 

county employment, housing, and sales, as 

well as economic activity for the Miccosukee 

and Seminole tribes. As a result, both longterm and short-term impacts would be 

localized, moderate, and beneficial. 

The development of lands northwest of the 

Addition could increase Preserve visitation 

and result in positive long-term economic 

impacts at the county level. In particular, the 

availability of greater residential housing and 

the building of a new private and state 

university in the area could greatly increase 

the number of residents living in Collier 

County. The provision of additional services, 

goods, and facilities would also likely be 

expanded to accommodate these new residents, which in turn would also attract a 

greater number of visitors from outside the 

region. As a result, increased local and visitor 

spending would produce long-term positive 

gains to county employment, housing, and 

sales, as well as economic activity for the 

Miccosukee and Seminole tribes. Short-term 

economic impacts could be substantial at the 

county level, because large scale construction activity would be needed to support 

new residents, the universities, and visitors. 

As a result, long-term and short-term 

impacts would be localized, moderate to 

major, and beneficial. 

Combining the likely effects of implementing alternative B with the effects of 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions described above, the 

cumulative long-term and short-term 

socioeconomic impacts would be localized, 

moderate, and beneficial. Alternative B 

would contribute a very small increment to 

this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion 

Because of increased visitor spending under 

alternative B, long-term and short-term 

impacts on the socioeconomic environment 

would be localized, negligible, and beneficial. As a result, county employment, 

housing, and sales, as well as economic 

activity associated with the Miccosukee and 

Seminole tribes would realize positive gains, 

although such increases would be minimal 

when compared to the county as a whole. 

In terms of total cumulative effects, longterm and short-term impacts would be 

localized, moderate, and beneficial. 

Alternative B would contribute a very small 

increment to the total cumulative impact. 

NPS OPERATIONS 

AND MANAGEMENT 

Analysis 

Alternative B proposes a visitor contact 

station, an operations center, and employee 

housing to be located in the Addition. The 

visitor contact station would allow staff to 

orient and educate visitors to the Addition, 

which would not be as easily done without a 

local visitor facility. An operations center, 

which would station employees and 

equipment in the Addition, would increase 

operational efficiency and reduce response 

time for fire, law enforcement, maintenance, 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

334 

and interpretation staff. Currently, staff must 

travel a minimum of an hour to reach the 

Northeast Addition from the original 

Preserve. Employee housing for three law 

enforcement and two fire division staff 

would increase efficiency and reduce 

response time for fire and enforcement 

scenarios. Having staff based at these NPS 

facilities in the Addition would result in 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts on 

NPS operations. 

Oversight of design and construction 

processes for new facilities would require 

managerial and contracting staff time. 

Additionally, new facilities must be maintained, and this would burden maintenance 

staff. A day use area at Deep Lake, up to 132 

miles of primary ORV trails, trailheads, and 

interpretive panels are also proposed for 

development in the Addition. Managing the 

Addition would require time and effort from 

administrative, visitor and resource protection, interpretation, resource management, 

and fire division staff. Maintenance and 

resource management in areas proposed as 

wilderness would require the use of the 

minimum requirements process, which 

would require staff time and, in some cases, 

could increase the cost of management 

actions. Increased visitation due to the new 

facilities would also require time from all 

staff divisions. Therefore, management of 

the Addition and construction and 

maintenance of facilities under alternative B 

would result in moderate, long-term, 

adverse impacts to NPS operations. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Expansion of nearby communities, including 

the towns of Ave Maria and Big Cypress, 

Everglades ecosystem restoration activities, 

and oil and gas exploration activities, would 

require time and attention by NPS staff. The 

expansion of commercial services offered in 

the original Preserve would require staff 

time for managing the commercial service 

authorizations and leases. Cooperation and 

coordination with neighboring agencies and 

entities regarding planning, land use 

resources, and development proposals near 

the Preserve also would require substantial 

amounts of staff time and result in minor to 

moderate, long-term, adverse impacts. 

Alternative B would place an additional 

burden on NPS staff, but this burden would 

be lessened with adequate staffing. Combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future impacts, alternative B 

would result in moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts on NPS operations. Although 

the extra staff time required to manage the 

Addition facilities and actions taken by other 

entities would have an adverse impact, the 

new facilities would play a much larger role 

in the overall impact by allowing staff to be 

located within the Addition and respond to 

operational and visitor needs in an efficient 

and timely manner. Alternative B’s proposed 

actions would contribute a modest 

increment to these cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion 

Operational efficiencies achieved through 

development of new facilities in the 

Addition, along with the increased staffing 

burdens associated with managing those 

lands and constructing and maintaining new 

facilities, would have overall long-term, 

moderate, adverse and beneficial impacts on 

NPS operations. 

The cumulative impacts of alternative B and 

other actions would be moderate, long term, 

and beneficial. Alternative B’s proposed 

actions would contribute a modest 

increment to these cumulative impacts. 

EFFECTS ON ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION 

POTENTIAL 

The construction of new facilities under 

alternative B, such as trails, trailheads, access 

points, and visitor/operations facilities, 

would result in more energy use and con-
Environmental Consequences of Alternative B 

335 

sumption; however, the projects would 

follow NPS policies concerning sustainability and energy conservation to minimize 

the overall energy requirements. The carbon 

footprint of the facilities would be minimized through appropriate design and the 

use of green technology to the greatest 

extent possible. To maintain, operate, and 

protect the facilities, NPS travel to and 

within the Addition also would increase, and 

the increased travel would increase energy 

consumption. The fuel and energy consumed by visitors traveling to and within the 

Addition would increase because visitation 

would be expected to increase as a result of 

the Addition being open to the public and 

the expansion of ORV and nonmotorized 

recreational opportunities. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Human use and the construction of new 

facilities under the alternative B would result 

in minor to moderate adverse impacts to 

natural resources, primarily vegetation and 

wildlife, in some areas throughout the 

Addition. Impacts on certain aspects of 

visitor experience, namely solitude and 

primitive conditions, would also be 

unavoidable. Mitigation to reduce these 

impacts would be carried out where 

possible. 

IRRETRIEVABLE OR IRREVERSIBLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

The additional energy requirements identified above would result in an irreversible 

commitment of resources. In addition, there 

would be a commitment of material used to 

construct new visitor facilities such as 

trailheads and access points and the visitor 

and operations facilities at mile marker 63. 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL 

SHORT-TERM USES OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF 

LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

As in alternative A, most of the Addition 

would be protected in a natural state and 

would maintain its long-term productivity 

under alternative B. Only a small percentage 

of the Addition would be converted to 

development. No actions in this alternative 

would jeopardize the long-term productivity 

of the environment. Short-term impacts 

might result from construction, such as local 

air and water pollution, as detailed in the 

analysis of specific impact topics. Noise and 

human activity from construction and 

restoration might displace some wildlife 

from the immediate area. However, these 

activities would not jeopardize the long-term 

productivity of the environment. 
336 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Surface Water Flow 

Analysis. Under the preferred alternative, 

impacts on surface water flow would be 

attributed primarily to the development of 

new facilities, the maintenance of existing 

facilities, and restoration activities. Development of new facilities such as trails, trailheads, 

and access points would alter natural sheet 

flow, degrading hydrologic connectivity in 

some localized areas. Development (including 

improvements to existing trails) of up to 130 

miles of ORV trails would create localized 

barriers to surface water flow due to raised 

trail treads and ORV use. Culverts and other 

best management practices such as at-grade 

trail construction and low-water crossings 

would reduce the impacts, resulting in longterm, moderate, adverse, localized impacts. 

Development of backcountry camping areas 

near the Nobles and Jones grades airstrips 

would have similar impacts on surface water 

flow. Limited NPS administrative ORV use 

would continue to affect surface water flow in 

localized areas on a short-term basis. 

Impacts on surface water flow due to the 

continued presence of roads and grades 

would be about the same as in the no-action 

alternative. Existing grades, such as Jones, 

Nobles, and Bear Island grades, would be 

maintained and converted to trails, which 

would continue to affect hydrologic connectivity within localized areas of the Northeast 

Addition. The effects could extend beyond 

the immediate area of impact and become 

Addition-wide, because impediments to water 

flow could affect areas beyond the boundaries 

of the Addition. Impacts related to the 

presence of facilities and structures would be 

long term, moderate, adverse, and localized. 

Although some localized hydrological adverse 

impacts could occur from recreational use, in 

the context of the regional hydrology of south 

Florida, the actions of the preferred 

alternative would have negligible effects on 

the hydrologic restoration efforts associated 

with the Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan or related projects. For 

example, the surface water restoration 

benefits that would result from the proposed 

L-28 interceptor project to the east of the 

Addition would not be adversely affected by 

the ORV management of the preferred 

alternative. 

Collectively, the impact of these activities on 

surface water flow would be long term, 

moderate, adverse, and mostly localized in the 

Addition compared to the no-action 

alternative. 

 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under the preferred alternative would 

generally be the same as under the no-action 

alternative. Implementation of the 2000 

Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management 

Plan within the original Preserve would 

minimize the impacts of off-road vehicles on 

surface water flow into the portion of the 

Addition that abuts the original Preserve at 

localized sites because best management 

practices and mitigation would maintain or 

improve hydrologic flow. The impact on 

surface water flow in the watershed would be 

negligible. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

surface water flow. If such proposals included 

using off-road equipment and constructing 

roads and pads, this would alter local 

hydrology. Construction and operations 

activities would affect the timing and intensity 

of surface water flows. The impacts of these 

activities would be reduced because NPS 

approval of the operations plan would require 

mitigative measures. Short-term impacts on 

surface water flow would be minor to 

moderate, adverse, and localized; long-term 

residual impacts would be minor, adverse, and 

localized. 
Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative 

337 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. Proposals involving the Addition 

include the removal of the L-28 interceptor 

canal levee, modification of the L-28 Tie Back 

canal, and operational changes to various 

water control structures. Decompartmentalization of Water Conservation Area 3 would 

also improve sheet flow and hydrologic 

connectivity. The impact of these efforts on 

the hydrology of the Addition, as well as 

within the watershed, is expected to be long 

term, major, and beneficial. 

Regional growth and development is expected 

to result in an increase in the conversion of 

natural lands to development and alter the 

hydrology of the general area. Changes in 

sheet flow, and its timing and intensity, would 

affect hydrologic function and connectivity in 

the watershed. The impact of these activities is 

expected to be long term, minor to moderate, 

and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on surface 

water flow would accrue from ORV 

management and ecosystem restoration 

projects. Adverse impacts would be expected 

from oil and gas operations and regional 

growth and development. Overall, the effects 

of the projects discussed above would be 

negligible on surface water flow in the 

watershed. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in the preferred alternative 

are added to the effects of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions as 

described above, there could be a long-term, 

minor, adverse cumulative impact on surface 

water flow. The actions contained in the 

preferred alternative would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under the preferred alternative, 

impacts on surface water flow would be long 

term, moderate, adverse, and mostly localized. 

There could be a long-term, minor, adverse 

cumulative impact on surface water flow. The 

actions contained in the preferred alternative 

would contribute a small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this alternative would not result in impairment of 

surface water flow in the Addition. (See 

specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" section.) 

Water Quality 

Analysis. Under the preferred alternative, 

impacts on water quality would be attributed 

primarily to the development and maintenance of facilities and ongoing visitor use. 

Development of new facilities such as trails, 

trailheads, and access points would affect 

water quality by causing erosion that could 

contribute to turbidity. Inadvertent spills of 

fuel or oil from construction machinery could 

also adversely affect water quality. Impacts 

from these activities would be mostly short 

term, minor to moderate, adverse and 

localized; however, some long-term impacts 

could occur from larger spills or from ongoing 

pollution due to runoff from developed sites. 

Development of backcountry camping areas 

near the Nobles and Jones grades airstrips 

would have similar impacts on water quality. 

The maintenance of roads, grades, and trails 

within the Addition would likely result in 

similar long-term adverse impacts. 

Visitor use, such as ORV use, hiking, and 

backcountry camping, could continue to 

cause soil erosion and generate human waste 

that would affect turbidity and surface water 

quality. Impacts on water quality would be 

reduced by the designated trail system; 

however, they would be greater than under 

the no-action alternative because off-road 

vehicles are not allowed in alternative A. 

Inadvertent leaks or spills of fuel or oil from 

ORV use (public and NPS administrative use) 

could affect surface water quality by elevating 

chemical concentrations. Similar impacts from 

parked vehicles would be more common at 

destination sites, such as mile markers 51 and 

63, or Deep Lake. The impacts of these activi-
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

338 

ties would be long term, minor, adverse, and 

localized. 

Collectively, the impact of these activities on 

water quality would be long term, moderate, 

adverse, and localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Implementation of the 

2000 Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within the original Preserve would 

minimize the impacts of off-road vehicles on 

water quality at localized sites in the portion 

of the Addition that abuts the original 

Preserve because best management practices 

and other mitigation would be used to 

minimize soil erosion and chemical contamination. The impact of these activities on water 

quality in the watershed would be negligible. 

Implementation of future oil and gas proposals could have adverse impacts on water 

quality. If such proposals included using offroad equipment and constructing roads and 

pads, this could degrade water quality due to 

turbidity and chemical contamination. The 

impacts of these activities would be reduced 

because NPS approval of the operations plan 

would require mitigative measures. Shortterm impacts on water quality would be adverse, moderate, and localized; long-term 

impacts would be adverse, minor, and 

localized. This is due to the number and 

complexity of the proposals and uncertainty 

with their levels of success. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration project includes several proposals for restoration 

of surface water flow within the region. 

Although the proposals would increase 

surface water flow and connectivity, the 

discharged waters are expected to have 

elevated chemical concentrations that would 

degrade water quality. Because the current 

condition of water resources in the Addition is 

cleaner than what is expected to be 

discharged, the impact is predicted to be long 

term, adverse, and Addition-wide, but the 

intensity is unknown. This is due to the 

number and complexity of the proposals and 

uncertainty with their levels of success. The 

impact on water quality within the watershed 

is unknown. 

Regional growth and development is expected 

to result in an increase in the conversion of 

natural lands to development and alter the 

hydrology of the general area. Water quality 

would be affected by inputs from urban and 

suburban development, including increases in 

organic compounds and chemical concentrations. The impact on water quality within the 

watershed is expected to be adverse, but the 

intensity is unknown. 

Collectively, adverse impacts could be 

expected from oil and gas operations, 

ecosystem restoration projects, and regional 

growth and development. Overall, the effects 

of the projects discussed above could be 

adverse on water quality in the watershed, but 

the intensity is unknown. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in the preferred alternative 

are added to the effects of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions as 

described above, there would be a long-term, 

adverse cumulative impact on water quality in 

the watershed. The intensity of the impact is 

unknown. The actions contained in the 

preferred alternative would contribute a very 

small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under the preferred alternative, 

impacts on water quality would be long term, 

moderate, adverse, and localized. 

There would be a long-term, adverse cumulative impact on water quality in the watershed. 

The intensity of the impact is unknown. The 

actions contained in the preferred alternative 

would contribute a very small increment to 

this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

water quality in the Addition. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the "Impairment 

of Addition Resources" section.) 
Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative 

339 

Wetlands 

Analysis. Under the preferred alternative, 

impacts on wetlands would be attributed 

primarily to the development and maintenance of facilities. The development of new 

facilities, such as trails, trailheads, access 

points, and specific improvements to develop 

Deep Lake into a day use area, would result in 

permanent loss of wetlands. 

The designation and construction of ORV 

trails could also adversely impact wetland 

function and integrity. The proposed 130 

miles of primary ORV trails under this 

alternative would necessitate the direct 

displacement of an estimated 0.70 acres of 

wetlands (from trail construction and 

treatment over a distance of 0.48 miles of 

trails). These impacts on wetland size and 

functionality from ORV trail development 

would be long term, minor to moderate, 

adverse, and localized. 

The public use of the ORV trails would also 

have other adverse effects on wetland values 

in several other areas throughout the designated ORV trail network. Under the preferred 

alternative, an estimated 54 miles of primary 

ORV trails would go through wetland areas. 

This could amount to direct adverse impacts 

on wetland functions or values for approximately 79 acres of wetlands (i.e., 54 miles of 

trail at a 12-foot trail width). However, 

adverse impacts on additional acreages of 

wetlands would also be expected because 

many of the impacts on wetland values or 

functions would likely extend beyond the 12-

foot width of the primary trail or would be 

associated with secondary spur trails that 

develop outside the alignment of the primary 

trail. 

Some effects on wetland functions and values 

that would be expected along ORV trail 

corridors (primary or secondary) include 

wetland vegetation displacement, rutting, 

altered wetland hydrology, soil compaction, 

and diminished wetland habitat value or 

habitat displacement (loss of vegetation, ORV 

noise, etc.). These impacts on wetland values 

and functional integrity from ORV use in the 

Addition would be long term, moderate, 

adverse, and localized. 

The NPS maintenance of roads, grades, and 

trails could also impact wetlands. Impacts 

from these activities would include vegetation 

loss and alteration of soils, which would result 

in permanent effects on wetland size and 

integrity and impacts would be long term, 

moderate, adverse, and localized. Indirect 

impacts, such as increased runoff and 

sedimentation, would be long term, minor, 

adverse, and localized. 

Collectively, compared with alternative A (no 

action), impacts on wetland values and functions under the preferred alternative would be 

long term, moderate, adverse, and localized. 

The site-specific functional analysis of 

wetland impacts from ORV trails throughout 

the Addition is beyond the scope of this 

management plan. 

However, before any action implementation, 

NPS staff would conduct more detailed 

wetland impact and mitigation analyses per 

NPS policy and Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act (as administered by the Army 

Corps of Engineers). For example, NPS policy 

requires the development of a “Wetlands 

Statement of Findings,” which identifies and 

analyzes all wetland functions and values 

affected by NPS actions in a park unit. The 

“Wetlands Statement of Findings” for this 

management plan would quantify all wetland 

impacts from management actions specified in 

this management plan. Although Section 404 

of the Clean Water Act pertains only to 

wetland filling and dredging, the NPS statement of findings policy addresses the impacts 

on several other wetland values, such as 

wildlife habitat, soils, vegetation communities, 

surface hydrology, aesthetics, and cultural 

values. 

The detailed functional analysis of wetland 

impacts and the development of wetland 

avoidance and mitigation measures would be 

completed as part of the “Wetlands Statement 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

340 

of Findings.” The effects of ORV use 

associated with this management plan would 

likely be the primary focus of the “Wetlands 

Statement of Findings” for the Addition. No 

ORV use, ORV trail development, or other 

actions with wetland impacts would be 

implemented or allowed until the appropriate 

wetland policy requirements are met. Also 

refer to table 29 in chapter 5 entitled, “Future 

Compliance Required for Implementation of 

Specific Actions under the Preferred 

Alternative”. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under the preferred alternative would 

generally be the same as under the no-action 

alternative. Implementation of future oil and 

gas proposals could have adverse impacts on 

wetlands. If such proposals included using 

off-road equipment and constructing roads 

and pads, this would alter wetland soils and 

vegetation. The impacts of these activities 

would be reduced because NPS approval of 

the operations plan would require mitigative 

measures. Short-term impacts on wetlands 

would be adverse, moderate, and localized; 

long-term residual impacts would be adverse, 

minor, and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would affect wetlands 

by increasing the availability of water, which 

in turn could increase the size, integrity, and 

function of wetlands. The impact of these 

efforts on wetlands is expected to be long 

term, moderate to major, and beneficial. 

Regional growth and development is expected 

to result in an increase in the conversion of 

natural lands to development and alter the 

hydrology of the general area. Changes in 

sheet flow and water quality would affect the 

size, integrity, and function of wetlands in the 

watershed. The impact of these activities on 

wetlands would be long term, moderate to 

major, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on wetlands 

would accrue from ecosystem restoration 

projects. Adverse impacts would be expected 

from oil and gas operations and regional 

growth and development. Overall, the effects 

of the projects discussed above would be 

adverse on wetlands. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in the preferred alternative 

are added to the effects of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions as 

described above, there would be a long-term, 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on 

wetlands. The actions contained in the 

preferred alternative would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under the preferred alternative, 

impacts on wetlands would be long term, 

minor to moderate, adverse, and localized. 

There would be a long-term, moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on wetlands. The 

actions contained in the preferred alternative 

would contribute a small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

wetlands in the Addition. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the "Impairment 

of Addition Resources" section.) 

Soils 

Analysis. Under the preferred alternative, 

impacts on soils would be attributed primarily 

to facility development and maintenance, and 

visitor use. 

Development and maintenance of new 

recreational facilities, such as at mile markers 

51 and 63, Bear Island Grade, and Deep Lake, 

would result in displacement or permanent 

loss of soil resources. Development of 

backcountry camping areas near the Nobles 

and Jones grades airstrips could have similar 

impacts on soils. Formalizing up to130 miles 

of ORV trails would cause similar impacts. 

Frontcountry development would typically 

compact previously disturbed/filled areas, 
Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative 

341 

while backcountry developments could 

impact native soils. The impacts from these 

activities would be long term, moderate, 

adverse, and localized. 

Some rutting and displacement of soils might 

occur due to ongoing ORV use, resulting in 

long-term, minor, adverse, localized impacts. 

Nonmotorized use could also cause erosion, 

but the adverse impact would likely be 

negligible to minor. 

Collectively, impacts on soils from the 

preferred alternative would be long term, 

moderate, adverse, and localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under the preferred alternative would 

generally be the same as under the no-action 

alternative. Implementation of future oil and 

gas proposals could have adverse impacts on 

soils. If such proposals included using offroad equipment and constructing roads and 

pads, this would alter soils. The impacts of 

these activities would be reduced because 

NPS approval of the operation plan would 

require mitigative measures. Short-term 

impacts on soils would be adverse, moderate, 

and localized; long-term impacts would be 

minor, adverse, and localized. 

Changes in the availability of water resources 

due to the south Florida ecosystem restoration project would affect soil properties. The 

integrity of hydrologic soils could be improved or restored by increases in water — a 

beneficial impact. 

Decreases in water or permanent soil loss 

resulting from regional growth and development would adversely impact soils. The 

impact of these efforts on soils is expected to 

be long term, moderate to major, and adverse. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in the preferred alternative 

are added to the effects of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions as 

described above, there would be a long-term, 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on soils. 

The permanent loss of soils would be 

expected to outweigh any beneficial impacts 

that might be realized from ecosystem 

restoration projects. The actions contained in 

the preferred alternative would contribute a 

small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under the preferred alternative, 

impacts on soils would be long term, 

moderate, adverse, and localized. 

There would be a long-term, moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on soils. The 

actions contained in the preferred alternative 

would contribute a small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this alternative would not result in impairment of soils 

in the Addition. (See specific definition of 

impairment in the "Impairment of Addition 

Resources" section.) 

Floodplains 

Analysis. The preferred alternative would 

have no impact on floodplains. Two facilities 

located in the 100-year floodplain would be 

retained, but would cause no additional 

impacts on floodplains beyond what is 

accounted for under the no-action alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts. No cumulative impacts 

on floodplains would occur under the 

preferred alternative because there would be 

no impacts on floodplains resulting from the 

actions proposed in the preferred alternative. 

Conclusion. The preferred alternative would 

have no impact on floodplains. Two facilities 

located in the 100-year floodplain would be 

retained, but would cause no additional 

impacts on floodplains beyond what is 

accounted for under the no-action alternative. 

No cumulative impacts on floodplains would 

occur under the preferred alternative because 

there would be no impacts on floodplains 

resulting from actions proposed in the 

preferred alternative. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

342 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

floodplains in the Addition. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the "Impairment 

of Addition Resources" section.) 

Vegetation — Cypress Strands and Domes, 

Mixed Hardwood Swamps, and Sloughs 

Analysis. Under the preferred alternative, 

impacts on cypress strands and domes, mixed 

hardwood swamps, and sloughs would be 

attributed to new facility development, and 

visitor use. 

Development of trailheads and access points 

at mile markers 51 and 63, Bear Island Grade, 

and Deep Lake would result in vegetation loss 

or injury from construction activities. 

Development of backcountry camping areas 

near the Nobles and Jones grades airstrips 

could have similar impacts on vegetation. 

Formalization and establishment of up to 130 

miles of ORV trails would result in similar 

impacts on vegetation. Impacts on cypress 

strands and domes, mixed hardwood swamps, 

and sloughs from facility development would 

be long term, moderate, adverse, and 

localized. 

Impacts on this vegetation community, such 

as trampling, injury, or loss of plant material 

due to the effects of ORV traffic could occur 

within and along designated ORV trails. The 

conditions that often discourage ORV use 

(deep water, closely spaced trees, etc.) would 

continue, and adverse impacts from off-road 

vehicles would most often be limited to the 

margins of the plant community. Adverse 

impacts could include injury to a plant or 

group of trees, or might include plant loss in a 

discrete area due to repeated use. Impacts 

from nonmotorized visitor use, such as 

trampling from hiking and camping, would be 

more common at frontcountry destinations 

and less common in the backcountry. Impacts 

on cypress strands and domes, mixed hardwood swamps, and sloughs from these visitor 

activities would be long term, moderate, 

adverse, and localized. 

Collectively, the impact on cypress strands 

and domes, mixed hardwood swamps, and 

sloughs under the preferred alternative would 

be long term, moderate, adverse, and 

localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under the preferred alternative would 

generally be the same as under the no-action 

alternative. Implementation of the 2000 

Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management 

Plan within the original Preserve would 

minimize the impacts, such as trampling, 

injury, or loss of plant cover, of off-road 

vehicles on vegetation. The impact would be 

long term, minor to moderate, beneficial, and 

localized.

Implementation of future oil and gas proposals could have adverse impacts on vegetation; 

however, it is unknown what plant communities would be affected. If such proposals 

included using off-road equipment and 

constructing roads and pads, this would alter 

vegetation. The impacts of these activities 

would be reduced because NPS approval of 

the operations plan would require mitigative 

measures. Short-term impacts on vegetation 

would be adverse, moderate, and localized; 

long-term impacts would be adverse, minor, 

and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect plant communities and would 

likely improve plant vigor, abundance, and 

distribution. The impact of these efforts on 

cypress strands and domes, mixed hardwood 

swamps, and sloughs would be expected to be 

long term, minor to moderate, and beneficial. 

Regional growth and development is expected 

to result in an increase in the conversion of 

natural lands to development and alter the 

hydrology of the general area. Changes in 

sheet flow, and its timing and intensity, would 

affect plant communities. The impact of these 

activities on cypress strands and domes, 
Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative 

343 

mixed hardwood swamps, and sloughs is 

expected to be long term, minor to moderate, 

and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on cypress 

strands and domes, mixed hardwood swamps, 

and sloughs would accrue from ORV 

management and ecosystem restoration 

projects. Adverse impacts would be expected 

from oil and gas operations and regional 

growth and development. Overall, the effects 

of the projects discussed above could slightly 

benefit cypress strands and domes, mixed 

hardwood swamps, and sloughs. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in the preferred alternative 

are added to the effects of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions as 

described above, there would be a long-term, 

minor, beneficial cumulative impact on 

cypress strands and domes, mixed hardwood 

swamps, and sloughs. The actions contained 

in the preferred alternative would contribute a 

small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under the preferred alternative, 

impacts on cypress strands and domes, mixed 

hardwood swamps, and sloughs would be 

long term, moderate, adverse, and localized. 

There could be a long-term, minor, beneficial 

cumulative impact on cypress strands and 

domes, mixed hardwood swamps, and 

sloughs. The actions contained in the 

preferred alternative would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

cypress strands and domes, mixed hardwood 

swamps, and sloughs in the Addition. (See 

specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" section.) 

Vegetation — Prairies and Marshes 

Analysis. Under the preferred alternative, 

impacts on prairies and marshes would be 

attributed primarily to visitor use. New 

facilities (including ORV trails) would be cited 

to avoid prairies and marshes to the greatest 

extent possible, although some adverse impacts on the margins of these plant communities could occur from ORV use. The soil 

conditions in prairies and marshes cause poor 

traction for off-road vehicles, and rutting and 

braiding of trails is common. Adverse impacts 

could include injury to a plant or group of 

plants or might include plant loss in a discrete 

area due to rutting or from repeated use. 

Impacts on prairies and marshes from ORV 

use would be long term, minor, adverse, and 

localized. 

Ongoing vegetation management, including 

the use of prescribed fire, and efforts to 

restore natural hydrologic processes would 

continue to improve conditions for native 

vegetation because water availability and 

connectivity would increase and competition 

from exotic plants would be minimized. 

Impacts on prairies and marshes from 

vegetation management would continue to be 

long term, beneficial, minor to moderate, and 

Addition-wide. 

Some prairies and marshes would be accessible to nonmotorized users, and therefore 

could be subject to impacts, such as trampling 

of vegetation. Impacts would be greatest and 

more concentrated in frontcountry locations 

and less common in the backcountry. Impacts 

on prairies and marshes from visitor use 

would be long term, negligible, adverse, and 

localized. 

Collectively, the impact on prairies and 

marshes under the preferred alternative 

would be long term, minor, adverse, and 

localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under the preferred alternative would generally be the same as under the no-action 

alternative. Implementation of the 2000 

Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management 

Plan within the original Preserve would 

minimize the impacts, such as trampling, 

injury, or loss of plant cover, of off-road 

vehicles on vegetation. The impact would be 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

344 

long term, minor to moderate, beneficial, and 

localized.

Implementation of future oil and gas proposals could have adverse impacts on vegetation; 

however, it is unknown what plant communities would be affected. If such proposals 

included using off-road equipment and 

constructing roads and pads, this would alter 

vegetation. The impacts of these activities 

would be reduced because NPS approval of 

the operations plan would require mitigative 

measures. Short-term impacts on vegetation 

would be moderate, adverse, and localized; 

long-term impacts would be minor, adverse, 

and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect plant communities and would 

likely improve plant vigor, abundance, and 

distribution. The impact of these efforts on 

prairies and marshes is expected to be long 

term, minor to moderate, and beneficial. 

Regional growth and development is expected 

to result in an increase in the conversion of 

natural lands to development and alter the 

hydrology of the general area. Changes in 

sheet flow, and its timing and intensity, would 

affect plant communities. Prairies and 

marshes on private land outside of the 

Addition would continue to be impacted by 

population growth and development. The 

impact of these activities on prairies and 

marshes is expected to be long term, minor to 

moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on prairies 

and marshes would accrue from ORV 

management and ecosystem restoration 

projects. Adverse impacts would be expected 

from oil and gas operations and regional 

growth and development. Overall, the effects 

of the projects discussed above on prairies 

and marshes would be long-term, minor, and 

adverse. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in the preferred alternative 

are added to the effects of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions as 

described above, there would be a long-term, 

minor, adverse cumulative impact on prairies 

and marshes. The actions contained in the 

preferred alternative would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under the preferred alternative, 

impacts on prairies and marshes would be 

long term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

There would be a long-term, minor, adverse 

cumulative impact on prairies and marshes. 

The actions contained in the preferred 

alternative would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this alternative would not result in impairment of 

prairies and marshes in the Addition. (See 

specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" section.) 

Vegetation — Mangrove Forests 

Analysis. Impacts on mangrove forests under 

the preferred alternative would generally be 

the same as under the no-action alternative 

because recreational use in this vegetation 

community would be the same as in alternative A. As with the no action alternative, 

motorized boating would continue to be 

allowed south of U.S. 41 in the Western 

Addition in the deep, open water environs, 

outside of the dense mangrove forests. 

Motorized boating could continue to cause 

injury to individual plants or prevent their 

expansion into the shallower margins of the 

well-travelled boating corridors. Consequently, compared to alternative A, there would be 

no impact on mangrove forests in the 

Addition under the preferred alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under the preferred alternative would generally be the same as under the no-action alternative. Regional growth and development, 
Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative 

345 

including waterfront development, is 

expected to result in an increase in the 

conversion of natural lands to development 

and alter the hydrology of the general area. 

Mangroves receive special protection under 

state law, and any adverse impacts on mangrove forests would be expected to be 

negligible. Because the preferred alternative 

would not contribute any increment, there 

would be no cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. The preferred alternative would 

have no impact on mangrove forests. Impacts 

on mangroves would be the same as what was 

accounted for under the no-action alternative. 

There would be no cumulative impacts on 

mangrove forests under the preferred 

alternative. 

 

Impacts from actions contained in this alternative would not result in impairment of 

mangrove forests in the Addition. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the "Impairment 

of Addition Resources" section.) 

Vegetation — Pinelands 

Analysis. Under the preferred alternative, 

impacts on pinelands would be attributed to 

new facility development, and visitor use. 

Ongoing vegetation management, including 

the use of prescribed fire, would decrease 

competition from exotic plants and improve 

the integrity of native habitats. Impacts on 

pinelands from vegetation management would 

continue to be long term, beneficial, minor to 

moderate, and Addition-wide. 

Development of trails, trailheads, and access 

points at mile marker 51, mile marker 63, Bear 

Island Grade, and Deep Lake would result in 

vegetation loss or injury from construction 

activities. Development of backcountry camping areas near the Nobles and Jones grades 

airstrips could have similar impacts on vegetation. Formalization and establishment of up to 

130 miles of ORV trails would affect 

pinelands. Impacts on pinelands would likely 

be proportionately greater than for the other 

vegetation communities because pinelands are 

uplands that are often targeted as appropriate 

development sites and trail corridors. The 

durability of the substrate present in pinelands 

(for ORV use) reduces adverse impacts from 

ORV use. The loss of pines from ORV use has 

not been documented in the original Preserve; 

however, wheeled use could have adverse 

impacts on other plant species present within 

these communities or within certain ecotonal 

areas. Adverse impacts could include injury to 

a plant or group of plants, reduced regeneration, or plant loss in a discrete area due to 

repeated use. Impacts on pinelands from 

facility development and trail development 

and use would be long term, moderate, 

adverse, and localized. 

Impacts from nonmotorized visitor use, such 

as trampling due to hiking or equestrian use, 

would be more common at frontcountry 

destinations and less common in the backcountry. Although individual understory 

plants could be injured or killed, the integrity 

of the pineland community would not likely 

be affected due to the durable substrate and 

the resiliency of mature trees to relatively 

benign activities. Impacts on pinelands from 

these activities would be long term, negligible 

to minor, adverse, and localized. 

Collectively, the impact on pinelands under 

the preferred alternative would be long term, 

minor, adverse, and localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under the preferred alternative would 

generally be the same as under the no-action 

alternative. Implementation of the 2000 

Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management 

Plan within the original Preserve would 

minimize the impacts, such as trampling, 

injury, or loss of plant cover, of off-road 

vehicles on vegetation. The impact would be 

long term, minor to moderate, beneficial, and 

localized. 

Implementation of future oil and gas could 

have adverse impacts on vegetation in the 

Addition; however, it is unknown what plant 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

346 

communities would be affected. If such 

proposals included using off-road equipment 

and constructing roads and pads, this would 

alter vegetation. The impacts of these activities 

would be reduced because NPS approval of 

the operations plan would require mitigative 

measures. Short-term impacts on vegetation 

would be moderate, adverse, and localized; 

long-term impacts would be minor, adverse, 

and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect water tables and could impact 

the abundance and distribution of pinelands. 

The assemblage of pines and palmettos could 

change as a result of changes in hydrology or 

periods of inundation. The impact is uncertain 

because drying often adversely impacts 

pinelands, and increasing the water table 

could also cause a net reduction in pinelands 

compared to current conditions. It is expected 

that restoring natural hydrologic conditions 

would have a beneficial impact on pinelands. 

Regional growth and development is expected 

to result in an increase in the conversion of 

natural lands to development and alter the 

hydrology of the general area. Studies have 

shown that pinelands are the most impacted 

by human land conversion. Pinelands on 

private land in the region would continue to 

be lost. The impact would be long term, 

moderate to major, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on pinelands 

would accrue from ORV management and 

ecosystem restoration projects. Adverse 

impacts would be expected from oil and gas 

operations and regional growth and development. Overall, the effects of the projects 

discussed above would be adverse on 

pinelands in the Addition. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in the preferred alternative 

are added to the effects of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions as 

described above, there would be a long-term, 

moderate to major, adverse cumulative impact 

on pinelands. The actions contained in the 

preferred alternative would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under the preferred alternative, 

impacts on pinelands would be long term, 

minor, adverse, and localized. 

There could be a long-term, moderate to 

major, adverse cumulative impact on pinelands. The actions contained in the preferred 

alternative would contribute a small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this alternative would not result in impairment of 

pinelands in the Addition. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the "Impairment 

of Addition Resources" section.) 

Vegetation — Hardwood Hammocks 

Analysis. Under the preferred alternative, 

impacts on hardwood hammocks would be 

attributed primarily to new facility development and visitor use. 

Ongoing vegetation management would 

decrease competition from exotic plants and 

improve the integrity of native habitats. 

Impacts on hardwood hammocks from 

vegetation management would continue to be 

long term, beneficial, minor to moderate, and 

Addition-wide. 

Development of trails; trailheads; and access 

points at mile markers 51 and 63, Bear Island 

Grade, and Deep Lake could result in vegetation loss or injury from construction activities. 

Development of backcountry camping areas 

near the Nobles and Jones grades airstrips 

could have similar impacts on vegetation. 

Establishment of up to 130 miles of ORV trails 

would affect hardwood hammocks. Although 

the substrate present in hardwood hammocks 

is suitable for ORV use, use tends to be 

infrequent because of the size and density of 

trees present in these areas. However, this 
Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative 

347 

infrequent ORV use could adversely impact 

understory plants. Adverse impacts could 

include plant injury or loss in a discrete area 

due to repeated use. Impacts on hardwood 

hammocks from facility development and 

ORV use would be long term, minor to 

moderate, adverse, and localized. 

Impacts from nonmotorized visitor use, such 

as trampling due to hiking or equestrian use 

would be more common at frontcountry 

destinations and less common in the backcountry. Backcountry camping could cause 

trampling or loss of vegetation at localized 

sites. Although individual understory plants 

could be injured or killed, the integrity of the 

hammock community would not likely be 

affected due to the durable substrate and the 

resiliency of mature trees to relatively benign 

activities. Impacts on hardwood hammocks 

from these activities would be long term, 

negligible to minor, adverse, and localized. 

Collectively, the impact on hardwood 

hammocks under the preferred alternative 

would be long term, minor, adverse, and 

localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under the preferred alternative would 

generally be the same as under the no-action 

alternative. Implementation of the 2000 

Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management 

Plan within the original Preserve would 

minimize the impacts, such as trampling, 

injury, or loss of plant cover, of off-road 

vehicles on vegetation. The impact would be 

long term, minor to moderate, beneficial, and 

localized. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

vegetation in the Addition; however, it is 

unknown what plant communities would be 

affected. If such proposals included using offroad equipment and constructing roads and 

pads, this would alter vegetation. The impacts 

of these activities would be reduced because 

NPS approval of the operations plan would 

require mitigative measures. Short-term 

impacts on vegetation would be adverse, 

moderate, and localized; long-term impacts 

would be adverse, minor, and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect water tables and could impact 

the abundance and distribution of hardwood 

hammocks. The impact is uncertain, but 

restoring natural conditions is expected to 

have a long-term, minor, beneficial impact. 

Regional growth and development is expected 

to result in an increase in the conversion of 

natural lands to development and alter the 

hydrology of the general area. Changes in 

sheet flow, and its timing and intensity, would 

affect plant communities. The impact of these 

activities on hardwood hammocks is expected 

to be long term, minor to moderate, and 

adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on hardwood 

hammocks would accrue from ORV management and ecosystem restoration projects. 

Adverse impacts would be expected from oil 

and gas operations and regional growth and 

development. Overall, the effects of the projects discussed above on hardwood hammocks would be long term, minor, and 

adverse. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in the preferred alternative 

are added to the effects of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions as 

described above, there would be a long-term, 

minor, adverse cumulative impact on hardwood hammocks. The actions contained in 

the preferred alternative would contribute a 

small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under the preferred alternative, 

impacts on hardwood hammocks would be 

long term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

There could be a long-term, minor, adverse 

cumulative impact on hardwood hammocks. 

The actions contained in the preferred 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

348 

alternative would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

hardwood hammocks in the Addition. (See 

specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" section.) 

Exotic/Nonnative Plants 

Analysis. Under the preferred alternative, 

impacts on exotic/nonnative plants would be 

attributed primarily to facility development 

and maintenance, visitor use, and expanded 

NPS administrative ORV use. Ongoing 

vegetation management (including the use of 

prescribed fire and chemical and mechanical 

treatment) in the Addition would continue to 

decrease competition from exotic plants and 

improve the integrity of native habitats. The 

continuation of monitoring efforts would also 

help to detect and mitigate new exotic species 

that could affect native plant communities. 

Impacts on exotic/nonnative species from 

ongoing resource management activities 

would be long term, beneficial, moderate, and 

Addition-wide. 

New facility development — such as trails, 

trailheads, and access points at mile markers 

51 and 63, Bear Island Grade, and Deep Lake 

— would create disturbed lands that would be 

subject to colonization by invasive plants. 

Development of backcountry camping areas 

near the Nobles and Jones grades airstrips 

could have similar impacts on vegetation. 

Construction materials and activities could 

also be a seed source for exotic plants and 

would increase the potential for their 

dispersion. Maintaining these facilities would 

also create disturbed habitats that could 

increase the density of exotic plants and affect 

the integrity of adjacent natural areas. Exotic 

plants can have severe effects on the integrity 

of native systems and habitats. The impact 

from these activities would be long term, 

moderate, adverse, and localized. 

NPS administrative ORV use and expanded 

visitor use, including the establishment and 

use of up to 130 miles of ORV trails, would 

increase the dispersal of exotic plants and also 

create additional disturbed areas that would 

be subject to colonization by invasive plants. 

The impact on exotic plants from visitor use 

would be long term, moderate, adverse, and 

localized. Although the effects would be most 

pronounced along travel corridors and at 

disturbed sites, the impacts could extend 

beyond these immediate areas and become 

Addition-wide. However, ORV management 

includes education, prevention, and 

mitigation components that would limit the 

establishment and distribution of exotic plants 

in the Addition. 

Collectively, impacts on exotic/nonnative 

plants under the preferred alternative would 

be long term, moderate, adverse, and 

potentially Addition-wide. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under the preferred alternative would 

generally be the same as under the no-action 

alternative. Implementation of the 2000 

Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management 

Plan within the original Preserve would help 

minimize the impacts of off-road vehicles on 

exotic plants and nonnative vegetation in the 

original Preserve and reduce the potential for 

dispersion into the Addition. The impact on 

exotic plants and nonnative vegetation in the 

region would be negligible. 

Implementation of future oil and gas proposals could have adverse impacts on native 

vegetation because of the potential for the 

spread of exotic and nonnative plants in the 

Addition. If such proposals included using 

off-road equipment and constructing roads 

and pads, this would disturb soils and native 

vegetation. Short-term impacts could include 

the establishment of exotic plants on 

disturbed sites and the dispersal of seeds and 

plant stock. The impacts of these activities 

would be reduced because NPS approval of 

the operations plan would require mitigative 

measures. Short-term impacts on native 

vegetation because of the potential for the 
Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative 

349 

spread of exotic and nonnative plants would 

be adverse, moderate, and localized; longterm impacts would be minor, adverse, and 

localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect water tables and could impact 

the abundance and distribution of exotic 

plants. The impact on exotic plants is 

uncertain, but restoring natural conditions is 

expected to have a long-term, minor to 

moderate, beneficial impact on native plants 

and vegetation. 

Regional growth and development is expected 

to result in an increase in the conversion of 

natural lands to development and alter the 

hydrology of the general area. Changes in 

sheet flow, and its timing and intensity, would 

affect exotic plants, as would increases in the 

amount of disturbed land that is available for 

colonization by exotic species. The impact of 

these activities on exotic plants and nonnative 

vegetation is expected to be long term, minor 

to moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on native 

vegetation would accrue from ecosystem 

restoration projects. Adverse impacts would 

be expected from oil and gas operations and 

regional growth and development. Overall, 

the effects of the projects discussed above 

could be minor and adverse on exotic plants 

and nonnative vegetation. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in the preferred alternative 

are added to the effects of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions as 

described above, there would be a long-term, 

minor, adverse cumulative impact on exotic 

plants. The actions contained in the preferred 

alternative would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under the preferred alternative, 

impacts on native vegetation because of the 

potential for the spread of exotic and nonnative plants would be long term, moderate, 

adverse, and potentially Addition-wide. 

There could be a long-term, minor, adverse 

cumulative impact on exotic plants and 

nonnative vegetation. The actions contained 

in the preferred alternative would contribute a 

small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

native vegetation in the Addition. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the "Impairment 

of Addition Resources" section.) 

Federal Threatened 

and Endangered Species 

Florida Panther. Under the preferred 

alternative, impacts on the Florida panther 

would be attributed to new facility 

development, expanded visitor use, and 

expanded NPS administrative ORV use. 

New facility development — such as trails, 

trailheads, and access points at mile markers 

51 and 63, Bear Island Grade, and Deep Lake 

— would impact panthers by causing shortterm disturbances associated with construction activities and permanent loss of habitat. 

Development of backcountry camping areas 

near the Nobles and Jones grades airstrips 

could have similar impacts. Development 

footprints would be confined to previously 

disturbed areas to the greatest extent possible 

while also considering design needs and 

standards (e.g., using disturbed areas near 

existing access points along major highways). 

There would still be a loss of habitat within 

the panther home range. Facility development 

under the preferred alternative would be 

greater than under the no-action alternative. 

The impact would be long term, minor to 

moderate, adverse, and localized. 

Public ORV use in the Addition under the 

preferred alternative would be substantially 

greater than the no-action alternative, with up 

to 130 miles of designated trails and 650 ORV 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

350 

permits available. The ORV trails and permits 

would be phased in over time, depending on 

the results of monitoring. This approach 

would be more cautious and protective than 

the approach included under alternative B. 

Adverse impacts from ORV use could include 

displacement of panthers and their avoidance 

of certain areas within the Addition. Public 

hunting would also be allowed but is not 

expected to adversely impact the viability of 

the panther’s prey base because game populations would be managed for sustainable 

harvests. Although no studies have shown that 

ORV use alone causes changes in panther 

behavior (NPS 2000), the Janis and Clark 

(1999) study on the effects of human activity 

in the original Preserve showed that panthers’

home range shifted and they avoided designated ORV trails during higher levels of human 

activity associated with hunting season. Total 

human use and disturbance within panther 

habitat in the Addition would increase substantially relative to the no-action alternative. 

The impacts from these activities would be 

long term, moderate, adverse, and could be 

Addition-wide. 

Nonmotorized visitor use (primarily backcountry hiking) could continue to affect 

Florida panthers, potentially causing displacement of panthers and their avoidance of 

certain areas within the Addition. The impact 

would be long term, minor, adverse, and 

localized. 

Designating lands as wilderness under the 

preferred alternative could result in beneficial 

impacts on the panther. Habitat would be 

preserved, and all uses and activities in 

wilderness would be subject to the provisions 

of the Wilderness Act, including the use of the 

minimum requirements process. This could 

result in greater protection of panther habitat; 

however, compared to the no-action 

alternative and the fact that eligible land in the 

Addition must be maintained to preserve its 

wilderness characteristics and its eligibility as 

wilderness, the beneficial impact would be 

negligible. 

Collectively, impacts on the Florida panther 

under the preferred alternative would be long 

term, moderate, adverse, and mostly localized. 

The determination of effect under Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act would be likely to 

adversely affect. 

Cumulative Impacts — Cumulative 

impacts under the preferred alternative 

would generally be the same as under the 

no-action alternative. Implementation of 

the 2000 Recreational Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan within the original 

Preserve would minimize the impacts of 

off-road vehicles on panthers in the region, 

a beneficial impact (because an individual 

panther’s range may include the Preserve 

as well as the Addition and other adjacent 

lands). In other words, improving and 

protecting habitat value on the original 

Preserve could yield a regional benefit to 

the species. Eliminating some and designating new ORV trails and conducting 

education, best management practices, 

research, and mitigation would limit 

impacts on panthers. Adverse impacts on 

panthers would still occur from ORV use 

in the original Preserve, but the effects on 

the species would be less than with no 

ORV management. With implementation 

of the terms and conditions of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s “Biological Opinion” 

(USFWS 2000), the plan is not likely to 

result in jeopardy to the panther. Overall, 

the impact of the ORV plan on the Florida 

panther would be long-term, moderate, 

and beneficial compared to no ORV 

management. 

Implementation of future oil and gas could 

have adverse impacts on Florida panthers 

in the Addition. If such proposals included 

using off-road equipment and constructing 

roads and pads, this could create human 

disturbances and result in degradation and 

loss of panther habitat. Short-term adverse 

impacts from construction could include 

flushing and displacement of panthers, 

effects on feeding and sheltering behavior, 

and an increase in mortality from vehicle 

collisions. Panthers have been seen at 
Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative 

351 

existing oil and gas operations in other 

portions of the Preserve. The same types of 

adverse impacts would be experienced 

over the long term due to ongoing operations and maintenance activities. These 

adverse impacts would be minor and 

localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect vegetation communities and 

in turn wildlife habitat. The impact on the 

Florida panther is uncertain, but restoring 

natural conditions is assumed to have a 

long-term, minor, beneficial impact 

because it would return vegetation 

communities to historic conditions and 

improve predator/prey relationships. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and result in an 

increase in the conversion of natural lands 

to development in the general area. The 

loss of natural areas and the increasing 

urbanization of the region have led to a 

substantial loss of panther habitat. Natural 

areas that remain are more fragmented and 

contain higher levels of human disturbance, both of which adversely affect 

panthers and their long-term survival. 

Increased panther mortality due to vehicle 

collisions could also be attributed to the 

effects of regional growth and development. The impact of these activities on the 

Florida panther is expected to be long 

term, moderate to major, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on the 

Florida panther would accrue from ORV 

management and ecosystem restoration 

projects. Adverse impacts would be 

expected from oil and gas operations and 

regional growth and development. Overall, 

the effects of the projects discussed above 

would likely be adverse to Florida panthers 

in the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in the preferred 

alternative are added to the effects of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions as described above, there would be 

a long-term, moderate, adverse cumulative 

impact on the Florida panther. The actions 

contained in the preferred alternative 

would contribute a modest increment to 

this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion — Impacts on the Florida 

panther under the preferred alternative 

would be long term, moderate, adverse, 

and mostly localized. The determination of 

effect under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act would be likely to adversely 

affect. 

There would be a long-term, moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on the Florida 

panther. The actions contained in the 

preferred alternative would contribute a 

modest increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not likely result in 

impairment of the Florida panther in the 

Addition because habitat conditions would 

be maintained or enhanced and the NPS 

would strive to meet the species recovery 

goals. (See specific definition of impairment in the "Impairment of Addition 

Resources" section.) 

West Indian Manatee. Impacts on the West 

Indian Manatee under the preferred 

alternative would generally be the same as 

under the no-action alternative. However, 

designating new paddling trails in tidal areas 

south of U.S. 41 could increase displacement 

or avoidance behavior, which could affect 

feeding and other behaviors. This impact 

would be long term, minor, adverse, and 

localized. 

Overall, compared to the no-action 

alternative, impacts on the West Indian 

manatee would be long term, minor, adverse, 

and localized. The determination of effect 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

352 

under Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act would be not likely to adversely affect. 

Cumulative Impacts — Cumulative 

impacts under the preferred alternative 

would generally be the same as under the 

no-action alternative. The south Florida 

ecosystem restoration project includes 

several proposals for restoration of surface 

water flow within the region. The 

proposals would improve sheet flow and 

hydrologic connectivity, which would 

increase the quantity of freshwater inputs 

into the estuarine system, a beneficial 

impact on the manatee. The quality of 

freshwater inputs is predicted to be less 

than current conditions, which could 

adversely impact manatee habitat. Overall, 

it is expected that restoring natural 

hydrologic conditions would produce 

long-term, minor beneficial impacts on the 

West Indian manatee. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and could result in an 

increase in the number of recreational 

boaters in the region. Injury and mortality 

of the manatees associated with recreational boating could increase as a result of 

increased motorboat use. Incompatible 

coastal development could also adversely 

affect manatees by loss of habitat and 

feeding areas, as well as pollution discharges. These activities would adversely 

impact manatees and could affect their 

long-term survival. The impact on the West 

Indian manatee is expected to be long 

term, moderate to major, and adverse. 

Overall, the effects of the projects 

discussed above would likely be adverse to 

West Indian manatees in the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in the preferred 

alternative are added to the effects of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions as described above, there would be 

a long-term, moderate, adverse cumulative 

impact on the West Indian manatee. The 

actions contained in the preferred 

alternative would contribute a very small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion — Impacts on the West Indian 

manatee under the preferred alternative 

would be long term, minor, adverse, and 

localized. The determination of effect 

under Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act would be not likely to adversely affect. 

There would be a long-term, moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on the West 

Indian manatee. The actions contained in 

the preferred alternative would contribute 

a very small increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment 

of the West Indian manatee in the Addition 

because habitat conditions would be 

maintained or enhanced and the National 

Park Service would strive to meet the 

species recovery goals. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. Under the 

preferred alternative, impacts on potential 

habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker 

would be attributed to new facility development and expanded visitor use. 

New facility development — such as trails, 

trailheads, and access points at mile markers 

51 and 63, Bear Island Grade, and Deep Lake 

— could impact potential habitat for woodpeckers by causing short-term disturbances 

associated with construction activities and 

permanent loss of habitat. Development 

footprints would be confined to previously 

disturbed areas to the greatest extent possible 

while also considering design needs and 

standards (e.g., using disturbed areas near 

existing access points along major highways). 

There would still be a loss of habitat. The 

impact would be long term, minor to 

moderate, adverse, and localized. 

 
Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative 

353 

Public ORV use in the Addition under the 

preferred alternative would be allowed on up 

to 130 miles of designated trails. The ORV 

trails and permits would be phased in over 

time depending on the results of monitoring. 

This approach would be more cautious and 

protective than the approach under alternative B. Adverse impacts on woodpeckers from 

ORV use would include their displacement 

and avoidance of certain areas within the 

Addition. NPS administrative ORV use would 

add slightly to these impacts. Public hunting 

would also be allowed, but is not expected to 

adversely impact woodpecker habitat because 

the integrity of cavity trees and forage 

resources would be maintained. Total human 

use and disturbance in the Addition would 

increase substantially relative to the no-action 

alternative. Conditions that support woodpecker use of the area would continue to be 

maintained. Because there are currently no 

known nest sites within the Addition, effects 

on woodpeckers would be limited to impacts 

on foraging habitat and their avoidance of 

certain areas during periods of human activity. 

The impacts would be long term, minor to 

moderate, adverse, and localized. 

Nonmotorized visitor use (primarily backcountry hiking) would continue to affect 

woodpeckers, potentially causing displacement and their avoidance of certain areas 

within the Addition; the impact would be long 

term, negligible to minor, adverse, and 

localized. 

Designating lands as wilderness under the 

preferred alternative could result in beneficial 

impacts on the woodpeckers. Habitat would 

be preserved, and all uses and activities in 

wilderness would be subject to the provisions 

of the Wilderness Act, including the use of the 

minimum requirements process. This would 

likely result in greater protection of woodpecker habitat; however, compared to the noaction alternative and the fact that eligible 

land in the Addition must be maintained to 

preserve its wilderness characteristics and its 

eligibility as wilderness, the beneficial impact 

would be negligible. 

Collectively, impacts on the red-cockaded 

woodpecker under the preferred alternative 

would be long term, minor to moderate, 

adverse, and mostly localized. The 

determination of effect under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act would be likely to 

adversely affect. 

Cumulative Impacts — Cumulative 

impacts under the preferred alternative 

would generally be the same as under the 

no-action alternative. Implementation of 

the 2000 Recreational Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan within the original 

Preserve would minimize the impacts of 

off-road vehicles on red-cockaded 

woodpeckers in the region, a beneficial 

impact. Eliminating some and designating 

new ORV trails and conducting education, 

best management practices, research, and 

mitigation would limit impacts on woodpeckers. Cavity trees and active clusters 

would be avoided as sites for the trails, 

thereby reducing adverse impacts. Adverse 

impacts on woodpeckers would still occur 

from ORV use in pinelands in the original 

Preserve, but the impact would be minor. 

Overall, the impact of the 2000 ORV plan 

on the red-cockaded woodpecker would 

be long term, negligible, and adverse. 

Implementation of future oils and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

the red-cockaded woodpecker in the 

Addition. If such proposals included using 

off-road equipment and constructing roads 

and pads, this could degrade and reduce 

available woodpecker habitat. The impacts 

of these activities would be reduced 

because NPS approval of the operations 

plan would require mitigative measures. 

Short-term adverse impacts could include 

flushing and displacement of the 

woodpeckers, while long-term impacts 

would include the loss of cavity nesting 

trees. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

354 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect vegetation communities 

(including pinelands) and in turn wildlife 

habitat. The impact on the red-cockaded 

woodpecker is uncertain, but restoring 

natural conditions is assumed to have a 

long-term, minor, beneficial impact 

because returning vegetation communities 

to historic conditions and improving 

foraging resources should be beneficial. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and result in an 

increase in the conversion of natural lands 

to development in the general area. The 

loss of natural areas and the increasing 

urbanization of the region have led to a 

substantial loss of woodpecker habitat 

(pinelands) in the region. Natural areas 

that remain are more fragmented and 

contain higher levels of human disturbance 

and displacement of the woodpeckers, 

both of which adversely affect woodpeckers and their long-term survival. The 

impact of these activities on the redcockaded woodpecker is expected to be 

long term, moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on the redcockaded woodpecker would accrue from 

ecosystem restoration projects. Adverse 

impacts would be expected from oil and 

gas operations and regional growth and 

development. Overall, the effects of the 

projects discussed above would likely be 

adverse to red-cockaded woodpecker in 

the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in the preferred 

alternative are added to the effects of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions as described above, there would be 

a long-term, moderate, adverse cumulative 

impact on the red-cockaded woodpecker. 

The actions contained in the preferred 

alternative would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion — Impacts on the potential 

habitat for and thus the red-cockaded 

woodpecker under the preferred alternative would be long term, minor to 

moderate, adverse, and mostly localized. 

The determination of effect under Section 

7 of the Endangered Species Act would be 

likely to adversely affect. 

 

There would be a long-term, moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on the potential 

habitat for and thus the red-cockaded 

woodpecker. The actions contained in the 

preferred alternative would contribute a 

small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment 

of the red-cockaded woodpecker in the 

Addition because habitat conditions would 

be maintained or enhanced, and the 

National Park Service would strive to meet 

the species recovery goals. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

Wood Stork. Under the preferred alternative, impacts on the wood stork would be 

attributed to new facility development and 

expanded visitor use 

Because there are currently no known nest 

sites within the Addition, and they have 

nested in the original Preserve only sporadically since 1996, effects on wood storks 

would be limited to impacts on foraging 

habitat and avoidance of certain areas during 

periods of human activity. 

Because new facility development, such as 

trailheads and access points would be 

confined mostly to developed corridors and 

areas of existing disturbance, impacts on 

wood stork habitat would be negligible. 

Establishment of up to 130 miles of ORV trails 

could cause adverse impacts on storks by 

creating short-term disturbances associated 

with construction activities and permanent 

loss of habitat. Use of the ORV trails and the 

increase in human occupation and 

disturbance in the backcountry could displace 

birds and cause them to avoid certain areas. 
Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative 

355 

NPS administrative ORV use could add 

slightly to these impacts. Public hunting would 

also be allowed, but is not expected to 

adversely impact wood stork habitat because 

the integrity of roost and nest trees and forage 

resources would be maintained. Total human 

use and disturbance in the Addition would 

increase substantially relative to the no-action 

alternative; however, conditions that support 

wood stork use of the area would continue to 

be maintained. The impact of these activities 

would be long term, minor, adverse, and 

localized. 

Nonmotorized visitor use (primarily 

backcountry hiking) could affect wood storks 

to a greater degree than under the no-action 

alternative due to greater use levels, 

potentially causing displacement and their 

avoidance of certain areas within the 

Addition. The impact would be long term, 

negligible to minor, adverse, and localized. 

Designating lands as wilderness under the 

preferred alternative would likely result in 

beneficial impacts on the wood stork. 

Potential habitat would be preserved, and all 

uses and activities in wilderness would be 

subject to the provisions of the Wilderness 

Act, including the use of the minimum 

requirements process. This would likely result 

in greater protection of stork habitat; 

however, compared to the no-action 

alternative and the fact that eligible land in the 

Addition must be to preserve its wilderness 

characteristics and its eligibility as wilderness, 

the beneficial impact would be negligible. 

Collectively, impacts on the wood stork under 

the preferred alternative would be long term, 

minor, adverse, and mostly localized. The 

determination of effect under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act would be not likely to 

adversely affect. 

Cumulative Impacts — Cumulative 

impacts under the preferred alternative 

would generally be the same as under the 

no-action alternative. Implementation of 

the 2000 Recreational Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan within the original 

Preserve would reduce the impacts of offroad vehicles on the wood stork’s foraging 

habitat (prairies and marshes) in the 

region, a beneficial impact. Eliminating 

some and designating new ORV trails and 

conducting education, best management 

practices, research, and mitigation would 

limit impacts on storks. Nesting habitat 

(cypress trees in open water) would likely 

not be affected because off-road vehicles 

typically avoid the deep, open water areas 

that storks commonly nest in. Consequently, the effect on nesting habitat in the 

region due to the actions in the ORV plan 

would be negligible. Overall, the impact of 

the ORV plan on the wood stork in the 

region would be long term, minor, and 

beneficial. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

the wood stork in the Addition. If such 

proposals included using off-road equipment and constructing roads and pads, this 

could result in loss and degradation of 

wood stork habitat. The impacts of these 

activities would be reduced because NPS 

approval of the operations plan would 

require mitigative measures. Adverse 

impacts could include flushing and 

displacement of the wood storks. Shortterm impacts on wood storks would be 

adverse, moderate, and localized; longterm impacts would be adverse, minor, and 

localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect habitat conditions, including 

food supply. The impact on the wood stork 

is unknown, but restoring natural hydrologic conditions is expected to have a longterm, minor to moderate, beneficial impact 

because returning vegetation communities 

to historic conditions and improving 

foraging resources should be beneficial. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

356 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and result in an 

increase in the conversion of natural lands 

to development and alter the hydrology of 

the general area. Impacts such as the loss of 

wetlands and compromised water quality 

from discharge of urban pollutants into 

hydrologic systems would adversely affect 

storks. The impact of these activities on the 

wood stork is expected to be long term, 

minor to moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on the 

wood stork would accrue from ORV 

management and ecosystem restoration 

projects. Adverse impacts would be 

expected from oil and gas operations and 

regional growth and development. Overall, 

the effects of the projects discussed above 

would likely be adverse on wood storks in 

the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in the preferred 

alternative are added to the effects of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions as described above, there would be 

a long-term, minor, adverse cumulative 

impact on the wood stork. The actions 

contained in the preferred alternative 

would add a very small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion — Impacts on the wood stork 

under the preferred alternative would be 

long term, minor, adverse, and mostly 

localized. The determination of effect 

under Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act would be not likely to adversely affect. 

There would be a long-term, minor, 

adverse cumulative impact on the wood 

stork. The actions contained in the 

preferred alternative would add a very 

small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment 

of the wood stork in the Addition because 

habitat conditions would be maintained or 

enhanced and the NPS would strive to 

meet the species recovery goals. (See 

specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

Everglade Snail Kite. Under the preferred 

alternative, impacts on the Everglade snail kite 

would be attributed to new facility development, trail development, and expanded visitor 

use. 

Because no snail kite nest sites are known 

within the Addition, effects on existing snail 

kite habitat would be limited to impacts on 

foraging and roosting habitat near marshes 

and open water bodies. However, the 

increased recreation and human activity 

associated with the preferred alternative 

might preclude future kite nesting in the 

Addition. 

New facility development, such as trailheads 

and access points, would be confined mostly 

to developed corridors and areas of existing 

disturbance. Therefore, the impacts from 

construction of these facilities on snail kite 

habitat would be negligible. However, the 

establishment of 130 miles of ORV trails 

would cause adverse impacts on snail kite 

habitat. The noise and human activity 

associated with construction and maintenance 

of these trails could generate short-term 

disturbances on kite habitat in areas where 

trail segments are near marshes, lakes, and 

other snail kite foraging areas. These impacts 

would be short term, minor, adverse, and 

localized. 

The long-term public use of the ORV trails 

and the increase in human presence and 

disturbance in the backcountry would also 

have adverse effects on snail kite habitat. 

Noise from off-road vehicles and nearby 

human presence and activity would disturb or 

flush kites that are roosting or foraging for 

apple snails in nearby marshes, ponds, and 

lakes in the Addition. Over time, this might 

cause snail kites to avoid foraging or roosting 

in certain habitat areas that are near ORV trail 

corridors or associated zones of human 

activity (which may radiate or spur off of the 
Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative 

357 

designated ORV trails). Larger habitat areas 

that became fragmented into smaller habitat 

“islands” by ORV trail corridors might also be 

avoided because of diminished habitat value. 

NPS administrative ORV use could add to 

these impacts. Public hunting would also be 

allowed and could have adverse impacts on 

snail kite foraging habitat if the hunting takes 

places in or near the marshes and open water 

bodies. Human presence and gun noise would 

contribute to these hunting impacts. The total 

human use and disturbance in the Addition 

associated with the preferred alternative 

would be an increase relative to the no-action 

alternative. The impact of these activities 

would be long term, minor to moderate, 

adverse, and mostly localized. 

Nonmotorized visitor use (primarily 

backcountry hiking) would continue to affect 

Everglade snail kites in a way and degree that 

is similar to the no-action alternative. Snail 

kites could avoid foraging in areas that receive 

high levels or repeated occurrences of human 

activity. The impact would be long term, 

negligible to minor, adverse, and localized. 

Designating lands as wilderness under the 

preferred alternative would likely result in 

beneficial impacts on the snail kite. Potential 

habitat would be preserved, and all uses and 

activities in wilderness would be subject to the 

provisions of the Wilderness Act, including 

the use of the minimum requirements process. 

This would likely result in greater protection 

of kite habitat. However, compared to the noaction alternative and the fact that eligible 

land in the Addition must be maintained to 

preserve its wilderness characteristics and its 

eligibility as wilderness, the beneficial impact 

would be negligible. 

Under the preferred alternative, ongoing NPS 

efforts to improve natural hydrologic 

processes, water quality, and invasive plant 

control would continue as in the no-action 

alternative. These NPS management actions 

could benefit apple snail populations in the 

Addition, as well as improve the snail kite’s 

accessibility to the apple snails. 

Collectively, impacts on the Everglade snail 

kite under the preferred alternative would be 

long term, minor to moderate, adverse, and 

mostly localized. The determination of effect 

under Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act would be likely to adversely affect. 

 

Cumulative Impacts — Cumulative 

impacts under the preferred alternative 

would be similar to that of the no-action 

alternative. Implementation of the 2000 

Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management 

Plan within the original Preserve would 

reduce the impacts of off-road vehicles on 

the snail kite’s foraging, roosting, and 

nesting habitat (marshes and pond/lake 

fringes) in the region, a beneficial impact. 

Eliminating some and designating new 

ORV trails and conducting education, best 

management practices, research, and 

mitigation would limit impacts on the kites 

in the region. However, foraging, roosting, 

or possible nesting habitat for snail kites 

could be adversely affected in areas where 

ORV use is permitted under the plan, 

particularly in specific ORV use areas that 

are near marshes, ponds, or lakes. Overall, 

the impact of the ORV management plan 

on the snail kite habitat in the region would 

be long term, minor, and beneficial. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

the snail kite habitat in the Addition. If 

such proposals included using off-road 

equipment and constructing roads and 

pads, this could result in loss and degradation of snail kite habitat. The impacts of 

these activities would be reduced because 

NPS approval of the operations plan would 

require mitigative measures. Adverse 

impacts could include flushing and 

displacement of snail kites. Short-term 

impacts on snail kites would be adverse, 

moderate, and localized, while long-term 

impacts would be adverse, minor, and 

localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

358 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect habitat conditions, including 

food supply and water quality. This would 

be particularly beneficial to the snail kite 

because its diet predominantly consists of 

apple snails that depend on adequate 

hydrological conditions. Furthermore, the 

return of natural hydrological conditions 

and improved water quality to the region 

would also enhance or increase the 

availability of quality foraging, roosting, 

and nesting habitat for the Everglade snail 

kite. The restoration of natural hydrologic 

conditions would have long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impacts. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and result in an 

increase in the conversion of natural lands 

to development and alter the hydrology of 

the general area. Impacts such as the loss of 

wetlands and compromised water quality 

from discharge of urban pollutants into 

hydrologic systems would adversely affect 

snail kites and their primary food source, 

the apple snail. The impact of these 

activities on the snail kite is expected to be 

long term, minor to moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on the snail 

kite would accrue from ORV management 

and ecosystem restoration projects. 

Adverse impacts would be expected from 

oil and gas operations and regional growth 

and development. Overall, the effects of 

the projects discussed above would likely 

be adverse to snail kite habitat in the 

region. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in the preferred 

alternative are added to the effects of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions as described above, there would be 

a long-term, minor to moderate, adverse 

cumulative impact on the Everglade snail 

kite. The actions contained in the preferred 

alternative would add a small increment to 

this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion — Impacts on the snail kite 

under the preferred alternative would be 

long term, minor to moderate, adverse, and 

mostly localized. The determination of 

effect under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act would be likely to adversely 

affect. 

There would be a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on 

the snail kite. The actions contained in the 

preferred alternative would add a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment 

of the Everglade snail kite in the Addition 

because habitat conditions would be 

maintained or enhanced and the National 

Park Service would strive to meet the 

species recovery goals. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

American Crocodile. Impacts on the 

American crocodile and its habitat under the 

preferred alternative would generally be the 

same as under the no-action alternative 

because recreational use in and near 

mangrove forests of the Addition would be 

the same as in alternative A (no action). 

Under the preferred alternative, impacts on 

the American crocodile and its habitat would 

primarily be attributed to continued human 

activities near mangrove forests, particularly 

motorized boating associated with recreational fishing in the Western Addition (airboat 

use is prohibited). Mangrove forests are the 

primary habitat for the American crocodile in 

south Florida, although crocodiles are 

generally rare in Big Cypress National 

Preserve. The mangrove habitat areas along 

creeks, canals, and estuaries south of U.S. 41 

in the Western Addition are where effects 

would most likely occur. 

In these areas, crocodiles might be affected by 

motorboat noise, boat wakes and waves, 

human noise or actions, or boat hulls or 
Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative 

359 

propellers. Because most American crocodile 

activity occurs from just before sunset to just 

after sunrise, most of these human-induced 

actions would disturb the crocodiles when 

they are at rest during daytime hours. These 

disturbances might cause resting crocodiles to 

be flushed, resulting in unnecessary energy 

use and stress. Boating in early morning or 

evening hours might also alter crocodile 

foraging behavior or flush the possible prey of 

the crocodile. Depending on the level and 

frequency of human disturbances, crocodiles 

could avoid some areas entirely. 

 

Crocodiles are not known to nest in the 

Addition. However, if nesting occurs, the 

hatching success would primarily depend on 

risks from flooding, predation, lack of soil 

moisture during incubation, and extreme 

storms. The nest success also depends on the 

female crocodile returning to the nest to 

excavate the hatchlings. Research suggests 

that some female crocodiles may abandon 

their nests if the area is subjected to repeated, 

close human presence (Kushlan and Mazzotti 

1989). Once hatched, juveniles would then be 

affected by similar human disturbances as 

highlighted above. The young crocodiles 

would be at greatest risk during their journey 

through open water from their nest site to 

more distant nursery habitat. 

Given the infrequent presence of crocodiles in 

the Addition, the above effects from human 

recreation activities such as boating would be 

long term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

The preferred alternative would also continue 

current NPS vegetation management actions 

that would help maintain or improve habitat 

conditions in the Addition. These actions 

would help address invasive plant infestations 

that could degrade or displace habitat for the 

American crocodile. The impacts of ongoing 

NPS vegetation management would be long 

term, minor to moderate, beneficial, and 

localized. 

Under the preferred alternative, the impacts 

on the American crocodile would continue to 

be long term, adverse, minor, and localized. 

The determination of effect under Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act would be not 

likely to adversely affect. 

Cumulative Impacts — Cumulative 

impacts under the preferred alternative 

would generally be the same as under the 

no-action alternative. The south Florida 

ecosystem restoration project includes 

several proposals for restoration of surface 

water flow within the region. The proposals would improve sheet flow and hydrologic connectivity, which would increase 

the quantity of freshwater inputs into the 

estuarine system, a beneficial impact on the 

American crocodile. This restoration of 

hydrologic flows and connectivity would 

be most beneficial to the crocodile in the 

nonnesting season when they seek inland 

freshwater habitats. However, the water 

quality of freshwater inflows is predicted 

to be worse than current conditions, which 

could adversely impact crocodile habitat. 

Overall, it is expected that restoring natural 

hydrologic conditions would produce 

long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts for 

the American crocodile. 

Regional growth and development, 

including waterfront development, is 

expected to continue in south Florida. This 

would result in the alteration or 

displacement of natural lands and changes 

to the local and regional hydrology. 

Because mangrove forests receive special 

protection under state law, any direct 

impacts on mangrove forests would be 

expected to be negligible. However, even if 

direct impacts on mangroves are avoided, 

urban encroachment might diminish 

mangrove habitat values if human activity 

and development is near the mangroves. 

Road mortality would likely increase as 

development and regional population 

increase. Growth and development could 

also result in an increase in boating and 

other recreational activities in the area. 

Crocodile foraging, breeding, resting, and 

nesting might be affected by increases in 

motorboat disturbances, boat wakes and 

waves, and human noise or actions. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

360 

Crocodiles could avoid some areas entirely 

depending on the level and frequency of 

human disturbances. The impact on the 

American crocodile from urban growth 

and development is expected to be long 

term, moderate, and adverse. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in the preferred 

alternative are added to the effects of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions as described above, there would be 

a long-term, minor to moderate, adverse 

cumulative impact on the American 

crocodile. The actions contained in the 

preferred alternative would contribute a 

very small increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion — Implementation of the 

preferred alternative would result in 

localized, long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts on the American crocodile. The 

determination of effect under Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act would be not 

likely to adversely affect. 

There would be a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on 

the American crocodile. The actions 

contained in the preferred alternative 

would contribute a very small increment to 

this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment 

of the American crocodile in the Addition 

because habitat conditions would be 

maintained or enhanced and the National 

Park Service would strive to meet the 

species recovery goals. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the "Impairment of Addition Resources" section.) 

Eastern Indigo Snake. Under the preferred 

alternative, impacts on the potential habitat 

for the eastern indigo snake would be 

attributed to new facility development, ORV 

trail development, and expanded visitor use. 

New facility development, such as the 

construction of trailheads and access points, 

would be confined mostly to developed 

corridors and areas of existing disturbance. 

Therefore, the impacts from construction of 

these facilities on eastern indigo habitat would 

be negligible. However, debris and brush piles 

generated during site construction might be 

an attractant to eastern indigo snakes. This 

could lead to snake injury or mortality during 

construction, which would be an impact that 

is short term, minor to moderate, adverse, and 

very localized. Also, the establishment and 

designation of 130 miles of ORV trails could 

cause adverse impacts on the snakes and their 

habitat. The noise and human activity 

associated with construction and maintenance 

of these trails could generate short-term 

disturbances on habitat areas where trail 

segments are close to active snake foraging, 

breeding, or burrowing areas. These 

disturbance impacts would be short term, 

minor, adverse, and localized. 

The long-term public use of the ORV trails, 

radiating spur trails, and the increase in 

human occupation and disturbance in the 

backcountry would have adverse effects on 

potential eastern indigo snake habitat. Noise 

from off-road vehicles and nearby human 

presence and activity would disturb or flush 

snakes and thus might disrupt normal 

foraging, breeding, or dispersing. In addition, 

ORV use and spur trails that extend beyond 

the immediate vicinity of designated ORV 

trails would also displace a variety of potential 

snake habitat types. This off-trail activity by 

the public could disturb or degrade vegetative 

groundcover and soil substrates in areas that 

support foraging, breeding, and snake 

burrows or refuges, such as pinelands or 

successional hardwood hammocks. The 

combination of these impacts could cause 

eastern indigos to leave the area, abandon den 

sites, and miss foraging and mating opportunities. NPS administrative ORV use could 

add to these impacts. Also, the ORV use 

would also have similar impacts on many prey 

species of the eastern indigo, which would 

have adverse effects on the snake. Under the 

preferred alternative, the ORV use and 
Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative 

361 

associated human disturbances in the 

Addition would be an increase relative to the 

no-action alternative. The impact of these 

activities would be long term, minor to 

moderate, adverse, and localized. 

Given the snake’s large home range and need 

to disperse across a variety of habitat types to 

sustain viable populations, the eastern indigo 

is particularly vulnerable to habitat 

fragmentation and the resulting “edge effect”

(Layne and Steiner 1996, Breininger et al. 

2004). Unlike the no-action alternative, large 

habitat areas would become fragmented into 

smaller habitat “islands” by ORV trail 

corridors. This would result in diminished 

habitat value for the snake throughout the 

Addition. The effect of this habitat 

fragmentation would be long term, minor to 

moderate, adverse, and Addition-wide. 

Public hunting would also be allowed (walk-in 

or via ORV access), and this would have 

adverse impacts on eastern indigo habitat if 

the hunting frequently takes places in or near 

vegetation communities that are commonly 

occupied by the snake (e.g., pinelands, 

successional hardwood hammocks, and 

mangrove forests). 

Other nonmotorized visitor use (primarily 

backcountry hiking) would continue to affect 

eastern indigo snake habitat in a way and 

degree that is similar to the no-action 

alternative. Although increased human use 

would be expected with the preferred 

alternative, these pedestrian activities would 

only cause sporadic flushing of the snake. 

Eastern indigos could avoid foraging in areas 

that receive high levels or repeated 

occurrences of human activity. The impact 

would be long-term, negligible to minor, 

adverse, and localized. 

Designating lands as wilderness under the 

preferred alternative would likely result in 

beneficial impacts on eastern indigo habitat. 

Potential habitat would be preserved, and all 

uses and activities in wilderness would be 

subject to the provisions of the Wilderness 

Act, including the use of the minimum 

requirements process. This would likely result 

in greater protection of the snake’s habitat; 

however, compared to the no-action alternative and the fact that eligible land in the 

Addition must be maintained to preserve its 

wilderness characteristics and its eligibility as 

wilderness, the beneficial impact would be 

negligible. 

Under the preferred alternative, ongoing NPS 

efforts to improve natural hydrologic 

processes, water quality, and invasive plant 

control would continue as in the no-action 

alternative. Given the snake’s dependence on 

a mosaic of habitat types throughout its 

lifecycle, these active NPS management 

actions could benefit the eastern indigo 

habitat directly. The snake would also benefit 

indirectly because NPS management actions 

would also enhance habitat values for the 

snake’s prey species. 

Collectively, impacts on the potential eastern 

indigo snake habitat under the preferred 

alternative would be short term and long term, 

minor to moderate, adverse, and localized to 

Addition-wide. The determination of effect 

under Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act would be likely to adversely affect. 

Cumulative Impacts — Cumulative 

impacts under the preferred alternative 

would be similar to that of the no-action 

alternative. Implementation of the 2000 

Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management 

Plan within the original Preserve would 

reduce the impacts of off-road vehicles on 

the wide variety of habitat types that support the eastern indigo. Most importantly, 

the improved ORV management efforts 

would reduce disturbance or degradation 

to vegetative groundcover and soil substrates in areas that provide for foraging, 

breeding, and snake burrows or refuges, 

such as pinelands or successional hardwood hammocks. Eliminating some and 

designating new ORV trails and conducting education, best management 

practices, research, and mitigation would 

limit impacts on the indigo snakes in the 

region. However, snake habitat might be 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

362 

altered or displaced and individual snakes 

might be disturbed, in areas where ORV 

use is permitted under the plan. Overall, 

the impact of that plan on the eastern 

indigo in the region would be long term, 

minor, and beneficial. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

the eastern indigo snake habitat in the 

Addition. If such proposals included using 

off-road equipment and constructing roads 

and pads, this could result in the loss and 

degradation of several habitat types that 

support the snake. Adverse impacts would 

include displacement of vegetative cover 

for the snake; soil and burrow 

disturbances; possible roadway 

injury/mortality; and disruption of normal 

foraging, breeding, and dispersal 

behaviors. The impacts of these activities 

would be reduced because NPS approval 

of the operations plan would require 

mitigative measures. Short-term impacts 

on the snake would be adverse, moderate, 

and localized, while long-term impacts 

would be adverse, minor, and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect habitat conditions for many 

species. This hydrologic restoration could 

benefit the eastern indigo directly during 

times of the year when the snake uses 

wetter habitats in the area. At other times, 

it would benefit the eastern indigo 

indirectly by restoring a natural system that 

could improve conditions and increase 

populations of the snake’s food base. 

However, the reintroduction of natural 

flows could displace some existing upland 

areas. This effect could decrease available 

upland habitat for the eastern indigo snake 

and its prey that depend on upland habitat. 

The restoration of natural hydrologic 

conditions would have long-term, minor to 

moderate impacts that could be both 

beneficial and adverse to the snake. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and result in an 

increase in habitat displacement for the 

snake. Because the eastern indigo uses a 

variety of habitat types and has a large 

home range, it is particularly susceptible to 

habitat loss and habitat fragmentation from 

urban development. In addition to habitat 

displacement and fragmentation, urban 

development also brings injury or mortality 

threats from domestic animals, vehicles, 

property owners, and pesticides and 

rodenticides in the food chain. All of these 

would adversely affect eastern indigos. The 

impact of these activities on the snake is 

expected to be long term, moderate, and 

adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on the 

eastern indigo snake would accrue from 

ORV management and ecosystem restoration projects. Adverse impacts would be 

expected from oil and gas operations and 

regional growth and development. Overall, 

the effects of the projects discussed above 

would likely be adverse to the snake’s 

habitat in the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in the preferred 

alternative are added to the effects of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions as described above, there would be 

a long-term, moderate, adverse cumulative 

impact and a short-term, minor to 

moderate adverse cumulative impact on 

the eastern indigo snake. The actions 

contained in the preferred alternative 

would contribute a small increment to this 

adverse cumulative impact. 

Conclusion — Impacts on the potential 

habitat for and thus the eastern indigo 

snake under the preferred alternative 

would be short term and long term, minor 

to moderate, adverse, and localized to 

Addition-wide. The determination of effect 

under Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act would be likely to adversely affect. 
Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative 

363 

There would be a short-term and longterm, moderate, adverse cumulative impact 

on the potential habitat for the eastern 

indigo snake. The actions contained in the 

preferred alternative would contribute a 

small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment 

of the eastern indigo snake in the Addition 

because habitat conditions would be 

maintained or enhanced and the National 

Park Service would strive to meet the 

species recovery goals. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

Major Game Species 

Analysis. Under the preferred alternative, 

impacts on the major game species of the 

Addition (white-tailed deer, feral hogs, and 

wild turkey) would be attributed to new 

facility development and expanded visitor use. 

New facility development — such as trails, 

trailheads, and access points at mile marker 

51, mile marker 63, Bear Island Grade, and 

Deep Lake — would impact game species by 

causing short-term disturbances associated 

with construction activities and permanent 

loss of habitat. Development of backcountry 

camping areas near the Nobles and Jones 

grades airstrips could have similar impacts. 

Development footprints would be confined to 

previously disturbed areas to the greatest 

extent possible (such as at existing access 

points along major highways and the 

interstate), but there would still be a loss of 

habitat. The impact would be short and long 

term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

The formalization and establishment of up to 

130 miles of ORV trails would fragment game 

habitat, and ongoing use of the trails would 

cause flushing, displacement, and avoidance 

of certain areas. NPS administrative ORV use 

could add slightly to these impacts. The 

impacts on game species from ORV use in the 

Addition would likely be long term, minor, 

adverse, and localized. Game species typically 

adapt to changes in habitat conditions and can 

become habituated to the predictable use of 

designated ORV routes. 

Public hunting would be allowed under the 

preferred alternative and the up to 130-mile 

network of ORV trails would allow hunters to 

access much of the Addition and increase 

hunting opportunities. The Addition would be 

expected to become part of the adjacent Big 

Cypress State Wildlife Management Area. As in 

the original Preserve, hunting would be regulated according to the requirements, seasons, 

and bag limits established by the Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 

Short-term, minor adverse impacts, such as 

flushing and displacement of game species, 

would continue. Long-term, moderate 

beneficial impacts could also occur from 

harvesting and management of game populations, such as disease mitigation and 

improvements in population genetics. 

Partnerships with the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission would 

continue and would contribute to the 

monitoring and improved understanding of 

game populations. 

Designating lands as wilderness under the 

preferred alternative would likely result in 

beneficial impacts on major game species. 

Habitat would be preserved, and all uses and 

activities in wilderness would be subject to the 

provisions of the Wilderness Act, including 

the use of the minimum requirements process. 

This would likely result in greater protection 

of game habitat; however, compared to the 

no-action alternative and the fact that eligible 

land in the Addition must be maintained to 

preserve its wilderness characteristics and its 

eligibility as wilderness, the beneficial impact 

would be negligible. 

Collectively, impacts on major game species 

under the preferred alternative would be long 

term, minor to moderate, adverse, and mostly 

localized. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

364 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under the preferred alternative would 

generally be the same as under the no-action 

alternative. Implementation of the 2000 

Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management 

Plan within the original Preserve would 

reduce the adverse impacts of off-road 

vehicles on major game species in the region 

— a beneficial impact. Eliminating some and 

designating new ORV trails would make ORV 

noise and movement more predictable, 

thereby displacing animals away from travel 

corridors but reducing the impacts on wildlife 

habitat and game populations. Conducting 

education, best management practices, 

research, and mitigation called for in the ORV 

plan would also limit impacts on wildlife. 

Adverse impacts on game species would still 

occur from ORV use in the original Preserve, 

but the effects on the species would be less 

than with no ORV management. Overall, the 

impact of the ORV plan on major game 

species would be long term, minor, and 

beneficial. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

major game species in the Addition. If such 

proposals included using off-road equipment 

and constructing roads and pads, this would 

create human disturbances and alter wildlife 

habitat. The impacts of these activities would 

be reduced because NPS approval of the 

operations plan would require mitigative 

measures. Adverse impacts could include 

flushing and displacement of game species. 

Short-term impacts on major game species 

would be moderate, adverse and localized; 

long-term impacts would be minor, adverse, 

and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect vegetation communities and in 

turn wildlife habitat. The impact on the major 

game species is unknown, but restoring 

natural conditions is expected to have a longterm, minor to moderate, beneficial impact. 

Regional growth and development is expected 

to continue and result in an increase in the 

conversion of natural lands to development in 

the general area. The loss of natural areas and 

the increasing urbanization of the region have 

led to a loss of wildlife habitat. The major 

game species are considered generalists and 

have demonstrated their resiliency and ability 

to adapt to changing conditions. Within the 

region, the three species (deer, hogs, and 

turkey) are widespread. However, continued 

urbanization has fragmented remaining 

natural areas and increased the risks and 

threats to these species, including automobile 

collisions, exotic species, and pathogens. The 

impact of these activities on the major game 

species is expected to be long term, minor to 

moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on major game 

species would accrue from ORV management 

and ecosystem restoration projects. Adverse 

impacts would be expected from oil and gas 

operations and regional growth and development. Overall, the effects of the projects 

discussed above would likely be adverse to 

major game species in the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in the preferred alternative 

are added to the effects of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions as 

described above, there would be a long-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse cumulative 

impact on the major game species. The actions 

contained in the preferred alternative would 

contribute a small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Impacts on major game species 

under the preferred alternative would be long 

term, minor to moderate, adverse, and mostly 

localized. 

There would be a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on the 

major game species. The actions contained in 

the preferred alternative would contribute a 

small increment to this cumulative impact. 
Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative 

365 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

the major game species in the Addition. (See 

specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" section.) 

WILDERNESS 

RESOURCES AND VALUES 

Analysis 

Under the preferred alternative, impacts on 

wilderness resources and values would be 

attributed primarily to ORV trail development 

and use, and designation of lands as 

wilderness. Development of up to 130 miles of 

ORV trails would fragment native habitat and 

degrade natural conditions in certain areas 

that were evaluated as eligible for wilderness 

designation. ORV use would adversely affect 

the natural soundscape of the area. Impacts 

would be reduced by the use of a designated 

trail system, limiting changes to natural 

conditions and wilderness character outside 

of the trail system. Impacts from visitor use 

would be long term, moderate, and adverse. 

Approximately 47,067 acres of the Addition 

would be proposed for designation as wilderness (66% of those lands considered eligible 

and 32% of the Addition’s total acreage). The 

special status and protection afforded to these 

lands under the Wilderness Act would 

preserve their wilderness resources and values 

in perpetuity — a moderate to major beneficial 

impact. Opportunities for solitude and 

primitive and unconfined recreation would 

continue to be preserved and available, but the 

extent and availability of the opportunities 

would be reduced compared to the no-action 

alternative. Overall, the impacts on wilderness 

resources and values would be long term, 

moderate, beneficial, and Addition-wide. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts on wilderness resources 

and values under the preferred alternative 

would generally be the same as under the noaction alternative. Implementation of the 2000 

Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management 

Plan within the original Preserve would 

minimize the effects of off-road vehicles on 

wilderness resources and values by reducing 

the potential for dispersal and establishment 

of exotic plants, a beneficial impact. The 

impact on natural soundscapes resulting from 

the management of off-road vehicles in the 

original Preserve would be negligible because 

approximately the same number of off-road 

vehicles would be using the original Preserve 

and in roughly the same areas. Consequently, 

impacts on a visitor’s wilderness experience 

(freedom and natural sights and sounds) 

resulting from the ORV plan would be 

negligible. Impacts on wilderness resources 

and values in the region would be negligible. 

Implementation of future oil and gas proposals could have adverse impacts on wilderness 

resources and values. If such proposals 

included using off-road equipment and 

constructing roads and pads, this would create 

human disturbances and alter natural habitats. 

NPS approval of the operations plan would 

require mitigative measures to eliminate or 

reduce the impact of activities on natural 

resources. Short-term impacts on wilderness 

resources and values would be moderate, adverse, and localized; residual long-term impacts would be minor, adverse, and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect natural communities. Restoring 

natural conditions is expected to have a longterm, moderate, beneficial impact. 

Regional growth and development is expected 

to continue and result in an increase in the 

conversion of natural lands to development in 

the general area. Increasing urbanization, 

fragmentation of habitat, and the loss of 

natural areas have led to the degradation of 

natural resources, ecosystem function, and 

natural soundscapes in the region. The impact 

of these activities on wilderness resources and 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

366 

values is expected to be long term, moderate, 

and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on wilderness 

resources and values would accrue from ecosystem restoration projects. Adverse impacts 

would be expected from oil and gas operations and regional growth and development. 

Overall, the effects of the projects discussed 

above would likely be adverse to wilderness 

resources and values in the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in the preferred alternative 

are added to the effects of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions as 

described above, there would be a long-term, 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on 

wilderness resources and values in the region. 

The actions contained in the preferred alternative would contribute a modest beneficial 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion 

Impacts on wilderness resources and values in 

the preferred alternative would be long term, 

moderate, beneficial, and Addition-wide. 

There would be a long-term, moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on wilderness 

resources and values in the region. The 

actions contained in the preferred alternative 

would contribute a modest beneficial 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

wilderness resources and values in the 

Addition. (See specific definition of 

impairment in the "Impairment of Addition 

Resources" section.) 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Resources 

Analysis. Under the preferred alternative, 

impacts to archeological resources could 

result from increases in motorized recreation, 

specifically ORV use. The construction of 

trails for ORVs that could also accommodate 

some mixed use (use by hikers, equestrians, 

and bicyclists), and additional trails for hiking, 

camping, bicycling, and equestrian use would 

pose the potential of impacts on archeological 

resources. Most of the archeological sites 

within the Addition are middens. These raised 

mound areas would be potentially attractive to 

ORV and backcountry users, and trampling or 

disturbance could result. Impacts related to 

these activities would be permanent, adverse, 

and of moderate intensity. 

Increased visitor use under this alternative 

increases the potential for looting and vandalism. Related impacts would be permanent, 

adverse, and of moderate intensity. 

As appropriate, archeological surveys would 

precede any ground disturbance for the 

construction of parking, restrooms, trailheads, 

and trails, and national register-eligible or -

listed archeological resources would be 

avoided. No adverse impacts on archeological 

resources would be anticipated. If during 

construction previously unknown archeological resources were discovered, all work in 

the immediate vicinity of the discovery would 

be halted until the resources could be identified and documented and, if the resources 

cannot be preserved in situ, an appropriate 

mitigation strategy developed in consultation 

with the state historic preservation officer and 

any associated Indian tribes. 

Cumulative Impacts. Current research indicates relatively little disturbance of archeological sites in the Addition resulting from past 

actions such as hunting and camping, logging, 

looting, and energy exploration. These 

impacts would be characterized as permanent 

and negligible. Implementation of future oils 

and gas proposals could have adverse impacts 

on archeological resources. If such proposals 

included using off-road equipment and 

constructing roads and pads, this could affect 

archeological resources. However, because 

approval of the operations plan would require 

mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce the 
Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative 

367 

impact of activities on archeological 

resources, the permanent effect of energy 

exploration on archeological resources should 

be negligible. 

Large-scale water projects and commercial 

and residential development could pose some 

impacts on archeological resources in the 

vicinity of the Addition. The number and 

extent of these archeological resources is 

unknown so the potential impact cannot be 

assessed with any degree of accuracy. 

However, significant archeological resources 

would likely be avoided to greatest extent 

possible, and any impacts on archeological 

resources would be adverse and permanent 

and range in intensity from minor to 

moderate. 

When the permanent, minor to moderate 

effects of implementing the actions in the 

preferred alternative are added to the 

permanent, minor to moderate, adverse 

effects of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions, there would be a 

permanent, moderate, adverse cumulative 

impact on archeological resources. The 

actions contained in the preferred alternative 

would contribute a smaller increment to this 

cumulative impact than would the actions of 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions. 

 

Conclusion. Under the preferred alternative, 

impacts on archeological resources would be 

permanent, adverse, and minor to moderate. 

There would be a permanent, moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on archeological 

resources. The actions contained in the 

preferred alternative would contribute a 

smaller increment to this cumulative impact 

than would the actions of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions. 

Section 106 Summary. As appropriate, archeological surveys would precede any ground 

disturbance for the construction of parking, 

restrooms, trailheads, and trails, and significant archeological resources would be 

avoided. After applying the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse 

effects (36 CFR part 800.5, Assessment of 

Adverse Effects), the National Park Service 

concludes that implementation of the 

preferred alternative would result in a 

potential adverse effect on archeological 

resources. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

archeological resources in the Addition. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Analysis. Under the preferred alternative, 

there would be limited potential for impacts to 

ethnographic resources resulting from 

increases in motorized recreation, specifically 

ORV use. The construction of trails for offroad vehicles that could also accommodate 

some mixed use (use by hikers, equestrians, 

and bicyclists) and additional trails for hiking, 

camping, cycling, and equestrian use could 

impact ethnographic resources through 

trampling, looting, and vandalism. Increased 

ranger patrols and education programs 

informing visitors of the sensitive nature of 

these sites would result in long-term, 

negligible impacts. 

The National Park Service would work with 

traditionally associated people to identify 

ethnographic resources and identify appropriate protection strategies for these 

resources. Consultation with traditionally 

associated peoples would precede construction in order to avoid or mitigate potential 

impacts resulting from trail or facility development (such as parking areas, restrooms, and 

trailheads). With this mitigation, no adverse 

impacts on ethnographic resources would be 

anticipated from construction. 

Cumulative Impacts. Current research 

indicates negligible impacts on ethnographic 

resources in the Addition resulting from 

hunting and camping and looting. Past 

actions, including road construction, energy 

exploration, logging, and agricultural 

development, may have impacted 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

368 

ethnographic resources at Deep Lake and 

other sites within the Addition. Any adverse 

impacts would have been long term and of 

negligible to minor intensity. 

Large-scale water projects and commercial 

and residential development could pose some 

impacts on ethnographic resources in the 

vicinity of the Addition. However, ethnographic resources would likely be avoided to 

greatest extent possible, and any impacts on 

ethnographic resources would be adverse and 

permanent and range in intensity from 

negligible to minor. 

Implementation of future oil and gas proposals could have adverse impacts on ethnographic resources. However, because approval of 

the operations plan would require mitigation 

measures to eliminate or reduce the impact of 

activities on ethnographic resources, the 

permanent effect of energy exploration on 

ethnographic resources should be negligible. 

When the long-term, negligible, adverse 

effects of implementing the actions contained 

in the preferred alternative are added to the 

negligible to minor adverse effects of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions, there would be a long-term, negligible 

to minor, adverse cumulative impact on ethnographic resources. The actions contained in 

the preferred alternative would contribute a 

very small increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Under preferred alternative, 

there could be long-term, negligible adverse 

impacts on ethnographic resources. 

Combined with the impacts of past actions, 

including road construction and agricultural 

development, there would be a long-term, 

negligible to minor, adverse cumulative 

impact on ethnographic resources. The 

actions proposed in this alternative would 

contribute a very small increment to any 

cumulative impact. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementation 

of the preferred alternative would generally 

result in a no adverse effect on ethnographic 

resources. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

ethnographic resources in the Addition. 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

Recreational Opportunities 

Motorized Use. ORV access and opportunities to explore, sightsee, and camp would be 

greatly expanded with the development of up 

to 130 miles of primary ORV trails, issuance of 

a maximum of 650 annual ORV permits, 

providing access points and visitor information at mile markers 51 and 63 and Bear Island 

Grade, and allowing backcountry camping 

near the Nobles and Jones grades. The number of primary ORV trail miles constructed 

and permits issued would be phased in over 

time if resource impacts remain at or below 

acceptable limits. Beneficial impacts would 

result from connecting the Bear Island Grade 

trailhead to existing ORV trails in the original 

Preserve and providing more convenient ORV 

access to Bear Island for visitors from the 

north. There would also be a potential future 

ORV trail connection from the Northeast 

Addition to the existing trail system in Bear 

Island. The development of backcountry 

campsites near the Nobles and Jones grades 

would also have beneficial impacts. The 

construction of a new visitor contact station 

and NPS operation facility at mile marker 63 

would have beneficial impacts by greatly 

expanding education and interpretation 

opportunities, services, and NPS operational 

capacity in the Addition. An increased NPS 

staff presence also would improve visitor 

safety and increase opportunities for 

interpretation. Impacts resulting from ORV 

access and opportunities would be long term, 

moderate to major, beneficial, and Additionwide. 
Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative 

369 

Allowing ORV use in the Addition, along with 

the construction of a new contact station, 

might lead to user congestion and user conflicts at trailheads and along the primary and 

secondary ORV trail network, resulting in 

long-term, minor, adverse impacts on users. 

But, dispersing users across multiple access 

points as proposed would minimize the 

impacts. Finally, the provision of additional 

commercial services and/or partner organizations, including the provision of boat tours 

south of U.S. 41, would enhance the number 

and type of visitor services provided in the 

Addition. Impacts resulting from increased 

visitor services would be long term, minor, 

and beneficial. 

Overall, implementation of the preferred 

alternative would result in long-term, 

moderate, and beneficial impacts on 

motorized users. 

Nonmotorized Use (including hiking, 

horseback riding, and bicycling). The 

primary and secondary ORV trail network 

and new access points at MM51 and MM63 

would also be open to hikers, expanding both 

access and opportunity. The construction of a 

new day use area and ADA-compliant boardwalk at Deep Lake would have beneficial 

impacts by providing a comfortable area to 

enjoy the natural surrounding and provide an 

easy, safe route to access the lake. The 

development of designated camping sites in 

backcountry recreation zones, and where 

needed for resource protection in primitive 

backcountry zones, would have beneficial 

impacts. Opportunities for challenging 

adventure and primitive solitude would be 

abundant, yet land would also be zoned for a 

less isolated backcountry recreation 

experience, providing ample opportunities for 

all nonmotorized users. Impacts resulting 

from expanded access and opportunities for 

hikers would be long-term, moderate to 

major, and beneficial. 

The addition of ORV users and the construction of a new visitor contact station might 

result in user congestion and user conflict at 

trailheads and along the primary and 

secondary ORV trail network and would 

reduce the quality of the natural soundscape. 

The addition of hunting under the preferred 

alternative would likely further increase 

encounters, reduce the quality of the natural 

soundscape, and could periodically affect ease 

of access. Impacts on hikers would be long 

term, minor to moderate, and adverse. 

Dispersing users across multiple access points 

as proposed would minimize the impact. 

Finally, the provision of additional commercial services and/or partner organizations at 

Carnestown would enhance the number and 

type of visitor services provided in the 

Addition. Impacts resulting from increased 

services would be long term, minor, beneficial, 

and localized. 

Access to the Addition and parking would be 

improved in comparison to alternative A. 

Although bicycling would be allowed on all 

designated primary and secondary ORV trails, 

many of them would not be conducive to 

bicycling; therefore, bicycling opportunities 

would only be slightly expanded beyond 

alternative A. New access points and the 

ability to use the primary and secondary ORV 

trail network would disperse bicyclists across 

the Addition, reducing the potential for congestion and user conflicts. Impacts resulting 

from an expansion of access and opportunity 

would be long-term, minor, beneficial, and 

Addition-wide. Potential conflicts between 

user groups at trailheads and along the 

primary and secondary ORV trail network 

and a reduction of the quality of the natural 

soundscape due to ORV use would detract 

from the experience of bicycling in a natural 

setting, resulting in long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts on bicyclists. Finally, providing 

commercial services and/or partner 

organizations at Carnestown would result in 

negligible to minor, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on bicyclists seeking additional 

information and services. Overall, impacts on 

nonmotorized users would be long term, 

moderate, and beneficial. 

Hunting (including fishing and frogging). 

Nonmotorized and ORV hunting would be 

allowed in designated areas and seasons as 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

370 

determined by the National Park Service in 

cooperation with the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission in the areas zoned 

as primitive backcountry, backcountry 

recreation. Hunters using off-road vehicles, 

however, would not have the opportunity to 

operate their vehicles off designated trails. 

Conflict between ORV and nonmotorized 

hunters and with other trail users at trailheads 

and along primary and secondary ORV trails 

would likely be infrequent due to sensible 

facility design, resulting in long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts. The operation of off-road 

vehicles might detract from the hunting 

experience of those that prefer walk-in 

hunting and solitude. Overall, impacts on 

hunters in the Addition would be long term, 

moderate, and beneficial. 

Collectively, impacts on visitor use and 

experience resulting from the preferred 

alternative would be long term, moderate, and 

beneficial. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Implementation of the 2000 Recreational Offroad Vehicle Management Plan would provide 

up to 400 miles of designated ORV trails, 15 

ORV access points, and up to 2,000 annual 

permits in the original Preserve. The quantity 

of trail miles and permits provides abundant 

opportunities for operating off-road vehicles. 

The availability of these opportunities 

adjacent to the Addition would have longterm, moderate, beneficial impacts on ORV 

users in the local area. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could adversely impact the 

experience of visitors. If included in the 

proposals, the construction of roads and pads 

and the use of off-road equipment could 

detract from the experience of those seeking a 

primitive experience and natural soundscape. 

Impacts resulting from a reduction in the 

natural settings of the Addition due to the 

operation of oil and gas equipment would be 

long term, minor, and adverse in localized 

areas. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project is a large-scale effort among public, 

private, and nongovernmental entities to 

restore surface water flows within the region. 

Implementation of the proposals would 

improve sheet flows and hydrologic connectivity and likely restore natural conditions in 

the Addition. This effort would enhance the 

visitor use and experience by providing 

increased opportunities for wildlife viewing 

and experiencing natural settings. Opportunities for hunting in the Addition would also 

improve with more abundant, healthy wildlife 

populations. Impacts resulting from the 

effects of a healthy, fully functioning ecosystem would be long term, moderate, beneficial, 

and regionwide. 

Regional growth and development would be 

expected to result in increased visitation to 

the Addition. More visitations over time might 

result in increased congestion and user conflicts at access points and along the primary 

and secondary ORV trail network. Impacts 

from growth and development would be long 

term, minor to moderate, and adverse as a 

result of increased congestion and user 

conflict. 

Implementation of the Commercial Services 

Plan will initially only affect the original 

Preserve. The Addition will be addressed in an 

addendum to the Commercial Services Plan

after the completion of this General Management Plan for the Preserve Addition. The 

Commercial Services Plan proposes to 

enhance the original Preserve’s visitor services 

through the development of one or more new 

facilities; a new backcountry camping 

complex; hunting and fishing guides; buggy, 

van, and hiking tours; boat and bicycle rentals; 

and expanded opportunities for birding, wildlife viewing, and photography. Enhanced and 

expanded opportunities in the Preserve, 

before an addendum to include the Addition, 

would increase visitation and might result in 

increased congestion and user conflicts. 

Impacts resulting from increased visitation 

and congestion at access points and along the 

primary and secondary ORV trail network 

would result in long-term, minor, adverse 
Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative 

371 

impacts on visitors. When the Addition is 

addressed in an addendum, visitor opportunities to explore and use the Addition could 

be expanded. If so, impacts from implementing the Commercial Services Plan in the 

Addition would be long term, minor to 

moderate, and beneficial as a result of 

expanded opportunities. 

The likely effects of implementing the 

preferred alternative in combination with the 

effects of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions described above, would 

result in long-term, moderate, beneficial 

cumulative impacts on visitor use and experience in the Addition. The actions contained in 

the preferred alternative would contribute an 

appreciable increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion 

Under the preferred alternative, designated 

access points and abundant trail opportunities 

would be provided for ORV use, hunting, and 

nonmotorized uses. Collectively, the resulting 

impacts on visitor use and experience would 

be long term, moderate, and beneficial. 

The cumulative impact on visitor use and 

experience in the Addition would be longterm, moderate, and beneficial. The actions 

contained in the preferred alternative would 

contribute an appreciable increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Analysis of economic impacts under the 

preferred alternative was based on projected 

increases in visitation to the Preserve 

(including the Addition), which in turn would 

affect visitor spending patterns as well as 

estimated one-time capital expenditures due 

to construction activity. A total of 43,515 new 

visitors were estimated to visit the Preserve 

each year as a result of implementing this 

alternative. Of this total, it was assumed that 

9,138 were local visitors, 16,536 were nonlocal day visitors, 12,184 were motel visitors, 

and 5,657 were campers. In terms of capital 

expenditures, it was estimated that the 

preferred alternative would produce $6.7 

million in total construction costs. 

Local Economy 

Employment. As a result of increased visitor 

spending under the preferred alternative, a 

total of 45 jobs would be created, representing 

39 direct jobs and six indirect jobs. These 

increases would generate $665,000 in total 

labor income, representing $505,000 from 

direct labor income effects as a result of new 

job growth and $160,000 from indirect labor 

income effects from new job growth in 

tourism-related industries. Similar to alternative B, approximately half of this direct 

employment would be attributable to 

increases in NPS staff needed to operate and 

maintain new facilities, trails, and services in 

the Addition; the remaining jobs would result 

from partnerships at Carnestown and 

businesses that cater to tourists. Indirect 

employment increases would occur in firms 

that support tourist-related businesses, as well 

as from firms that hire additional staff as a 

result of changes in direct employment 

spending. Because total employment in Collier 

County is approximately 140,184 (2006 

estimate), these additional jobs would only 

represent about a .03% increase in county 

employment. As such, long-term impacts 

related to employment would be localized, 

negligible, and beneficial. 

In terms of short-term impacts, approximately 

55 temporary jobs would be created due to 

construction activity in the Addition, 

generating about $1.7 million in personal 

labor income. Most direct employment would 

be attributable to additional temporary 

construction jobs. Secondary employment 

increases would occur as a result of staffing 

increases in industries that provide goods and 

services to the construction sector as well as 

from businesses that hire additional staff due 

to changes in direct employee spending. 

Compared to total employment in Collier 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

372 

County, the additional jobs would only 

represent a .04% increase in county employment. Consequently, as a result of the preferred alternative, short-term impacts related 

to employment would be localized, negligible, 

and beneficial. 

 

Housing. Similar to alternative B, long-term 

housing impacts would be minimal, and if felt 

at all, would likely be concentrated in the 

Naples and Marco Island areas, because the 

creation of 45 jobs is not large enough to 

create a discernable impact on the housing 

market at a county level. Consequently, the 

long-term impacts related to housing would 

be localized, negligible, and beneficial. 

Short-term housing impacts from construction activity would also likely be minimal 

when compared to overall changes in the 

county’s residential housing market. Although 

specific areas such as Naples and Marco 

Island might have a temporary increase in 

housing demand, such effects would not likely 

be felt throughout the remainder of the 

county. Consequently, the short-term impacts 

related to housing would be localized, 

negligible, and beneficial. 

Sales. Long-term sales impacts, as a result of 

increased visitor spending under the preferred 

alternative, would generate an estimated $1.96 

million annually in direct and indirect taxable 

sales of goods and services by businesses 

within Collier County. Most businesses that 

would benefit from these sales are in Industries that cater directly to tourism, such as 

retail, arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services. As a total of 

Collier County’s annual taxable sales, estimated to be more than $6.10 billion, such 

changes represent only a .03% increase. 

Consequently, the long-term impacts related 

to sales under the preferred alternative would 

be localized, negligible, and beneficial. 

Short-term sales impacts due to construction 

activity would also have a marginal benefit. 

Total annual sales were estimated to be $4.7 

million, with $3.6 million (75%) of that 

amount attributable to transactions occurring 

within Collier County. Most direct sales 

would be attributable to construction-related 

businesses, with indirect sales attributable to 

industries that support the construction 

industry and temporary spending by 

construction workers. Consequently, the 

short-term impacts related to economic 

output under the preferred alternative would 

be localized, negligible, and beneficial. 

Tribal Impacts. In qualitatively assessing 

long-term impacts to the Miccosukee and 

Seminole tribes, it appears that both reservations would realize some degree of positive 

long-term economic benefits under the 

preferred alternative. Increased visitation to 

the Preserve as a result of this alternative 

would likely generate a small to moderate 

boost in sales of tourist-related goods and 

services provided at these reservations (i.e. 

gaming, dining, and entertainment). Both 

tribes could also directly benefit from entering 

into select partnership agreements with the 

National Park Service, as specified under this 

alternative. However, the magnitude of such 

gains is based on reasonable speculation due 

to the limited amount of data available on the 

tribes’ economic activities. Consequently, the 

long-term impacts related to economic output 

under the preferred alternative would be 

localized, negligible to moderate, and 

beneficial. 

New construction activity in the Addition 

would generate temporary construction jobs. 

Additional construction workers in the area 

would likely increase visitation to the two 

reservations, leading to an increase in the sales 

of tourist-related goods and services. Consequently, the short-term impacts related to 

economic activity under the preferred alternative would be localized, negligible to 

moderate, and beneficial. 

Collectively, the long-term and short-term 

impacts resulting from implementing the 

preferred alternative would be localized, 

negligible, and beneficial. 
Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative 

373 

Cumulative Impacts 

The action area for evaluating cumulative 

impacts on the socioeconomic environment is 

Collier County. The likely effects of implementing the actions contained under the 

preferred alternative, in combination with to 

the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions are described below. 

The implementation of the Recreational OffRoad Vehicle (ORV) Plan, which provides for 

a maximum of 2,000 permits, 15 access points, 

and 400 miles of designated trails, has a strong 

likelihood of attracting new visitors and locals 

to the Preserve. Such an increase in Preserve 

visitation would translate into greater visitor 

spending in the area, resulting in positive 

long-term gains for Collier County in terms of 

employment, housing, and taxable annual 

sales, as well as increased economic activity 

for the Miccosukee and Seminole tribes. 

However, relative to the economy of the 

entire county, long-term economic impacts 

would likely be minimal. Short-term impacts 

as a result of one-time capital expenditures 

from building ORV trail access, facilities, and 

other structures are also likely to be minimal 

relative to the overall level of construction 

activity within the county. As a result, both 

long-term and short-term cumulative impacts 

would be localized, negligible, and beneficial. 

Although the Commercial Services Plan does 

not include the Addition, social and economic 

impacts to the county as a whole would be 

positive due to increased visitation and visitor 

spending in the area, and expansion of facilities, services, and recreational opportunities in 

the Preserve. In particular, the implementation of the Commercial Services Plan’s

preferred alternative, which includes the 

potential to develop two new visitor facilities, 

partnership agreements for offering a variety 

of guided tours and equipment rentals, and 

the creation of a backcountry camping 

complex, could translate into moderate longterm gains in visitor spending at the county 

level. Depending on the level of construction 

activity generated from implementation of the 

Commercial Services Plan, short-term impacts 

could be substantial at the county level. As a 

result, both long-term and short-term 

cumulative impacts would be localized, 

negligible to moderate, and beneficial. 

The potential exists for exploration activities, 

as proposed under the oil and gas plan, to 

reduce visitation in the Preserve due to 

environmental disruptions from the use of 

off-road equipment and the development of 

roads and pads for oil and gas exploration. 

Due to multiplier effects, long-term impacts 

from reduced visitation could result in 

reductions in county employment, housing, 

and sales, as well as reduced economic activity 

for the Miccosukee and Seminole tribes. 

However, such effects will likely be minimal in 

relation to the entire county economy. Shortterm impacts from construction could be both 

positive and substantial, depending on the 

level of construction and percentage of that 

economic activity that remains within the 

county. Long-term impacts would be 

localized, negligible, and adverse, while shortterm impacts would be localized, negligible to 

moderate, and beneficial. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

projects would likely attract additional visitors 

to the region due to the rehabilitation of 

natural ecosystems within and near the 

Preserve through various water system 

improvements. In particular, the Big Cypress 

Interceptor Modification Plan would likely 

increase use across a variety of recreational 

activities offered in the Preserve, particularly 

for visitors interested in enjoying the natural 

habitat and wildlife. Collier County would 

also benefit from restoration efforts in nearby 

sites, such as Everglades National Park, 

because additional visitors may pass through 

or decide to make an additional stop at the 

Preserve. Because these restoration projects 

are relatively large in scale, are occurring at 

multiple sites, and are at a regional level, the 

long-term impacts on county employment, 

housing, and sales, as well as economic activity 

for the Miccosukee and Seminole tribes could 

be substantial. Short-term impacts would also 

be positive because capital expenditures on 

water infrastructure improvements (estimated 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

374 

at multi-billions of dollars) would likely 

generate substantial temporary gains to 

county employment, housing, and sales, as 

well as economic activity for the Miccosukee 

and Seminole tribes. As a result, both longterm and short-term impacts would be 

localized, moderate, and beneficial. 

The development of lands northwest of the 

Addition could increase Preserve visitation 

and result in positive long-term economic 

impacts at the county level. In particular, the 

availability of greater residential housing and 

the building of a new private and state 

university in the area could greatly increase 

the number of residents living in Collier 

County. The provision of additional services, 

goods, and facilities would also likely be 

expanded to accommodate these new 

residents, which in turn would also attract a 

greater number of visitors from outside the 

region. As a result, increased local and visitor 

spending would produce long-term positive 

gains to county employment, housing, and 

sales, as well as economic activity for the 

Miccosukee and Seminole tribes. Short-term 

economic impacts could be substantial at the 

county level, because large scale construction 

activity would be needed to support new 

residents, the universities, and visitors. As a 

result, long-term and short-term impacts 

would be localized, moderate to major, and 

beneficial. 

Combining the likely effects of implementing 

the preferred alternative with the effects of 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions described above, the cumulative 

long-term and short-term socioeconomic 

impacts would be localized, moderate to 

major, and beneficial. The preferred 

alternative would contribute a very small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion 

Because of changes in visitor spending under 

the preferred alternative, long-term and shortterm impacts on the socioeconomic environment would be localized, negligible, and 

beneficial. As a result, county employment, 

housing, and sales, as well as economic activity 

associated with the Miccosukee and Seminole 

tribes, would realize some positive gains, 

although such increases would be minimal 

when compared to the county as a whole. 

Long-term and short-term cumulative impacts 

would be localized, moderate to major, and 

beneficial. The preferred alternative would 

contribute a very small increment to this total 

cumulative impact. 

NPS OPERATIONS 

AND MANAGEMENT 

Analysis 

The NPS preferred alternative proposes a 

visitor contact station, an operations center, 

and employee housing to be located in the 

Addition. The visitor contact station would 

allow staff to orient and educate visitors to the 

Addition, which would not be as easily done 

without a local visitor facility. An operations 

center, which would station employees and 

equipment in the Addition, would increase 

operational efficiency and reduce response 

time for fire, law enforcement, maintenance, 

and interpretation staff. Currently, staff must 

travel a minimum of an hour to reach the 

Northeast Addition from the original 

Preserve. Employee housing for three law 

enforcement and two fire division staff would 

increase efficiency and reduce response time 

for fire and enforcement scenarios. Having 

staff based at these NPS facilities in the 

Addition would result in moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impacts on NPS operations. 

Oversight of design and construction processes for new facilities would require managerial 

and contracting staff time. Additionally, new 

facilities must be maintained, and this would 

burden maintenance staff. Campgrounds near 

the Nobles and Jones grades; a day use area at 

Deep Lake; up to 130 miles of ORV trails; 

trailheads; and interpretive panels are also 

proposed for development in the Addition. 
Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative 

375 

Managing the Addition would require time 

and effort from administrative, visitor and 

resource protection, interpretation, resource 

management, and fire staff. Maintenance staff 

would be required to use the minimum 

requirements process to determine what kind 

of equipment and method to construct and 

maintain hiking trails in wilderness areas. 

Visitor protection and fire division staff would 

also be limited in their use of motorized 

vehicles in wilderness, which could reduce 

their effectiveness. Increased visitation due to 

the new facilities would also require time from 

all staff divisions. Therefore, management of 

the Addition and construction and 

maintenance of facilities under the preferred 

alternative would result in moderate, longterm, adverse impacts on NPS operations. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Expansion of nearby communities, including 

the towns of Ave Maria and Big Cypress, 

Everglades ecosystem restoration activities, 

and oil and gas exploration activities would 

require time and attention by senior NPS staff. 

The expansion of commercial services offered 

in the original Preserve would require time 

from staff spent managing the commercial 

service authorizations and leases. Cooperation 

and coordination with neighboring agencies 

and entities regarding planning, land use 

resources, and development proposals near 

the Preserve also would require substantial 

amounts of staff time and result in minor to 

moderate, long-term, adverse impacts. 

The NPS preferred alternative would place an 

additional burden on NPS staff, but this 

burden would be lessened with adequate 

staffing. Combined with other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future impacts, the 

NPS preferred alternative would result in 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts on 

NPS operations. Although the extra staff time 

required to manage the Addition facilities and 

actions taken by other entities would have an 

adverse impact, the new facilities would play a 

much larger role in the overall impact by 

allowing staff to be located within the 

Addition and respond to operational and 

visitor needs in an efficient and timely 

manner. The preferred alternative’s proposed 

actions would contribute a modest increment 

to these cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion 

Operational efficiencies achieved through 

development of new facilities in the Addition, 

along with the increased staffing burdens 

associated with managing those lands and 

constructing and maintaining new facilities, 

would have long-term, moderate, adverse and 

beneficial impacts on NPS operations. 

The cumulative impacts of the preferred 

alternative and other actions would be 

moderate, long term, and beneficial. The 

preferred alternative’s proposed actions 

would contribute a modest increment to these 

cumulative impacts. 

EFFECTS ON ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION 

POTENTIAL 

The construction of new facilities under the 

preferred alternative, such as trails, trailheads, 

access points, and visitor/operations facilities, 

would result in more energy use and consumption; however, the projects would follow 

NPS policies concerning sustainability and 

energy conservation to minimize the overall 

energy requirements. The carbon footprint of 

the facilities would be minimized through 

appropriate design and the use of green 

technology to the greatest extent possible. To 

maintain, operate, and protect the facilities, 

NPS travel to and within the Addition also 

would increase, and the increased travel 

would increase energy consumption. The fuel 

and energy consumed by visitors traveling to 

and within the Addition would increase as a 

result of the Addition being open to the public 

and the expansion of recreational 

opportunities. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

376 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Human use and the construction of new 

facilities under the preferred alternative 

would result in minor to moderate adverse 

impacts to natural resources, primarily 

vegetation and wildlife, in some areas 

throughout the Addition. Impacts on certain 

aspects of visitor experience, namely solitude 

and primitive conditions, would also be 

unavoidable. Mitigation to reduce these 

impacts would be carried out where possible. 

IRRETRIEVABLE OR IRREVERSIBLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

The additional energy requirements identified 

above would result in an irreversible commitment of resources. In addition, there would be 

a commitment of material used to construct 

new visitor facilities such as trailheads and 

access points and the visitor and operations 

facilities at mile marker 63. 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL 

SHORT-TERM USES OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE 

AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONGTERM PRODUCTIVITY 

As in alternative A, most of the Addition 

would be protected in a natural state and 

would maintain its long-term productivity 

under the preferred alternative. Only a small 

percentage of the Addition would be 

converted to development. No actions in this 

alternative would jeopardize the long-term 

productivity of the environment. Short-term 

impacts might result from construction, such 

as local air and water pollution, as detailed in 

the analysis of specific impact topics. Noise 

and human activity from construction and 

restoration might displace some wildlife from 

the immediate area. However, these activities 

would not jeopardize the long-term 

productivity of the environment. 
377 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE F 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Surface Water Flow 

Analysis. Under alternative F, impacts on 

surface water flow would be attributed primarily to the development of new facilities, 

the maintenance of existing facilities, and 

restoration activities. Development of new 

facilities such as trails, trailheads, and access 

points would alter natural sheet flow, 

degrading hydrologic connectivity. 

Maintaining the Jones and Bear Island 

grades in their current state would continue 

to affect hydrologic connectivity within the 

Northeast Addition. Facilities and structures 

at Deep Lake (fill pad) and Copeland (Fire 

Operations Center) also would continue to 

affect natural hydrology in localized areas. 

NPS administrative ORV use also would 

continue to affect surface water flow in 

localized areas on a short-term basis. Most 

impacts on surface water flow are due to the 

presence of roads, grades, and trams. These 

impacts would continue to be long term, 

adverse, and of moderate intensity. The 

effects could extend beyond the boundaries 

of the Addition. Impacts related to the 

continued presence of NPS facilities and 

structures would be long term, minor, 

adverse, and localized. 

The removal of the facilities at Carnestown 

and the rehabilitation of the site would 

restore hydrologic conditions and surface 

water flow. This would result in a long-term, 

minor to moderate, beneficial impact on 

surface water flow that would be localized. 

Removing and restoring Nobles Grade 

would improve hydrologic function in the 

Northeast Addition as well as perhaps across 

the entire Addition. Removing this road 

would restore natural sheet flow, resulting in 

a long-term, moderate to major, beneficial 

impact on surface water flow across the 

Northeast Addition. 

Ongoing vegetation management could also 

improve surface water flow by eliminating 

exotic vegetation that impedes flow or 

reduces water availability. The impact would 

be long term, minor to moderate, beneficial, 

and Addition-wide. 

Collectively, the impact of these activities on 

surface water flow would be long term, 

minor, beneficial, and mostly localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative F would generally be the 

same as under the no-action alternative. 

Implementation of the 2000 Recreational 

Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within 

the original Preserve would minimize the 

impacts of ORVs on surface water flow into 

the portion of the Addition that abuts the 

original Preserve at localized sites because 

best management practices and mitigation 

would maintain or improve hydrologic flow. 

The impact on surface water flow in the 

watershed would be negligible. 

Implementation of future oil and gas proposals could have adverse impacts on surface 

water flow. If such proposals included using 

off-road equipment and constructing roads 

and pads, this would alter local hydrology. 

Construction and operations activities 

would affect the timing and intensity of 

surface water flows. The impacts of these 

activities would be reduced because NPS 

approval of the operations plan would 

require mitigative measures. Short-term 

impacts on surface water flow would be 

adverse, minor to moderate, and localized; 

long-term residual impacts would be 

adverse, minor, and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. Proposals involving the Addition 

include the removal of the L-28 interceptor 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

378 

canal levee, modification of the L-28 Tie 

Back canal, and operational changes to 

various water control structures. Decompartmentalization of Water Conservation 

Area 3 would also improve sheet flow and 

hydrologic connectivity. The impact of these 

efforts on the hydrology of the Addition, as 

well as within the watershed, is expected to 

be long term, major, and beneficial. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to result in an increase in the 

conversion of natural lands to development 

and alter the hydrology of the general area. 

Changes in sheet flow, and its timing and 

intensity, would affect hydrologic function 

and connectivity in the watershed. The 

impact of these activities is expected to be 

long term, minor to moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on surface 

water flow would accrue from ORV 

management and ecosystem restoration 

projects. Adverse impacts would be 

expected from oil and gas operations and 

regional growth and development. Overall, 

the effects of the projects discussed above 

would benefit surface water flow in the 

watershed. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative F are added 

to the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial cumulative impact on 

surface water flow. The actions contained in 

alternative F would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative F, impacts 

on surface water flow would be long term, 

minor, beneficial, and mostly localized. 

There could be a long-term, moderate, 

beneficial cumulative impact on surface 

water flow. The actions contained in 

alternative F would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

surface water flow in the Addition. (See 

specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

Water Quality 

Analysis. Under alternative F, impacts on 

water quality would generally be the same as 

under the no-action alternative. Impacts 

would be attributed to visitor use at a few 

discrete sites as well as from NPS operations 

and maintenance activities. Visitor use, such 

as hiking and backcountry camping, could 

continue to cause soil erosion and generate 

human waste that would affect turbidity and 

surface water quality. Inadvertent leaks or 

spills of fuel or oil from NPS administrative 

ORV use could affect surface water quality 

by elevating chemical concentrations. 

Impacts from parked vehicles would be 

more common at destination sites, such as 

mile markers 51 and 63, or Deep Lake. The 

maintenance of roads, grades, and trails 

within the Addition would likely cause 

erosion that could enter canals and waterways and increase turbidity. The impacts of 

these activities would be long term, minor, 

adverse, and localized. Impacts would be 

minor due to the limited visitation in the 

Addition and the limited development and 

maintenance that would occur under 

alternative F. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative F would generally be the 

same as under the no-action alternative. 

Implementation of the 2000 Recreational 

Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within 

the original Preserve would minimize the 

impacts of off-road vehicles on water quality 

at localized sites in the portion of the 

Addition that abuts the original Preserve 

because best management practices and 

mitigation would be used to minimize soil 

erosion and chemical contamination. The 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative F 

379 

impact of these activities on water quality in 

the watershed would be negligible. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

water quality. If such proposals included 

using off-road equipment and constructing 

roads and pads, this could degrade water 

quality due to turbidity and chemical 

contamination. The impacts of these 

activities would be reduced because NPS 

approval of the operations plan would 

require mitigative measures. Short-term 

impacts on water quality would be adverse, 

moderate, and localized; long-term impacts 

would be adverse, minor, and localized. This 

is due to the number and complexity of the 

proposals and uncertainty with their levels 

of success. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. Although the proposals would 

increase surface water flow and connectivity, 

the discharged waters are expected to have 

elevated chemical concentrations that would 

degrade water quality. Because the current 

condition of water resources in the Addition 

is cleaner than what is expected to be 

discharged, the impact is predicted to be 

long term, minor, adverse, and Additionwide, but the intensity is unknown. The 

impact on water quality within the 

watershed is unknown. This is due to the 

number and complexity of the proposals and 

uncertainty with their levels of success. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to result in an increase in the 

conversion of natural lands to development 

and alter the hydrology of the general area. 

Water quality would be affected by inputs 

from urban and suburban development, 

including increases in organic compounds 

and chemical concentrations. The impact on 

water quality within the watershed is 

expected to be adverse, but the intensity is 

unknown. 

Collectively, adverse impacts could be 

expected from oil and gas operations, 

ecosystem restoration projects, and regional 

growth and development. Overall, the 

effects of the projects discussed above could 

be adverse on water quality in the watershed, 

but the intensity is unknown. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative F are added 

to the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long-term, adverse 

cumulative impact on water quality in the 

watershed. The intensity of the impact is 

unknown. The actions contained in alternative F would contribute a very small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative F, impacts 

on water quality would be long term, minor, 

adverse, and localized. 

There would be a long-term, adverse cumulative impact on water quality in the watershed. The intensity of the impact is unknown. The actions contained in alternative 

F would contribute a very small adverse 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

water quality in the Addition. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the "Impairment 

of Addition Resources" section.) 

Wetlands 

Analysis. Under alternative F, impacts on 

wetlands would be attributed primarily to 

the retention and maintenance of existing 

facilities, as well as from the removal of 

facilities. Maintaining roads, grades, and 

trails could impact wetlands. Impacts would 

include vegetation loss and alteration of 

soils, which would result in permanent 

effects on wetland size and integrity and 

would be long term, minor to moderate, 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

380 

adverse, and localized. Indirect impacts, 

such as increased runoff and sedimentation, 

would be long term, minor, adverse, and 

localized. 

NPS efforts to reestablish natural ground 

contours and restore soil integrity would 

have beneficial effects on wetlands. 

Removing and restoring Nobles Grade 

would improve the hydrologic function and 

connectivity of wetlands in the Northeast 

Addition as well as create new wetlands 

where the road is removed and restored. The 

impact would be long term, moderate to 

major, beneficial, and localized. 

Collectively, impacts on wetlands under 

alternative F would be long term, minor to 

moderate, beneficial, and localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative F would generally be the 

same as under the no-action alternative. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

wetlands. If such proposals included using 

off-road equipment and constructing roads 

and pads, this would alter wetland soils and 

vegetation. The impacts of these activities 

would be reduced because NPS approval of 

the operations plan would require mitigative 

measures. Short-term impacts on wetlands 

would be adverse, moderate, and localized; 

long-term residual impacts would be 

adverse, minor, and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would affect wetlands 

by increasing the availability of water, which 

in turn could increase the size and integrity 

and improve the function of wetlands. The 

impact of these efforts on wetlands is 

expected to be long term, moderate to 

major, and beneficial. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to result in an increase in the 

conversion of natural lands to development 

and alter the hydrology of the general area. 

Changes in sheet flow and water quality 

would affect the size, integrity, and function 

of wetlands in the watershed. The impact of 

these activities on wetlands would be long 

term, moderate to major, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on wetlands 

would accrue from ecosystem restoration 

projects. Adverse impacts would be 

expected from oil and gas operations and 

regional growth and development. Overall, 

the effects of the projects discussed above 

would be slightly adverse to wetlands. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative F are added 

to the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long-term, minor, 

adverse cumulative impact on wetlands. The 

actions contained in alternative F would 

contribute a small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative F, impacts 

on wetlands would be long term, minor to 

moderate, beneficial and localized. 

There would be a long-term, minor, adverse 

cumulative impact on wetlands. The actions 

contained in alternative F would contribute 

a small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

wetlands in the Addition. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the "Impairment 

of Addition Resources" section.) 

Soils 

Analysis. Under alternative F, impacts on 

soils would be attributed primarily to facility 

maintenance and new facility development, 

NPS administrative ORV use, and NPS 

restoration activities. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative F 

381 

Maintaining facilities such as access points, 

trails, grades, and roads requires recurring 

maintenance. These maintenance activities 

could displace soils and/or cause increased 

soil erosion. Development of new recreational facilities, such as at mile markers 51 

and 63, Bear Island Grade, and Deep Lake, 

would result in displacement or permanent 

loss of soil resources. The impacts from 

these activities would be long term, minor to 

moderate, adverse, and localized. Frontcountry development would typically 

compact previously disturbed/filled areas, 

while backcountry developments could 

impact native soils. Some rutting and 

displacement of soils might occur from 

permitted NPS administrative ORV use as 

well as from illegal ORV use; however, the 

use would be infrequent and the impact 

would be long term, negligible to minor, 

adverse, and localized. 

Nonmotorized users could also cause 

erosion, but the adverse impacts would 

likely be negligible to minor. 

NPS efforts to reestablish natural ground 

contours and restore natural hydrologic 

conditions would have beneficial long-term, 

minor to moderate, and localized effects on 

soils. 

Collectively, impacts on soils from alternative F would be long term, minor, adverse, 

and localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative F would generally be the 

same as under the no-action alternative. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

soils. If such proposals included using offroad equipment and constructing roads and 

pads, this would alter soils. The impacts of 

these activities would be reduced because 

NPS approval of the operations plan would 

require mitigative measures. Short-term 

impacts on soils would be adverse, 

moderate, and localized; long-term impacts 

would be minor, adverse, and localized. 

Changes in the availability of water 

resources due to the south Florida ecosystem restoration project would affect soil 

properties. The integrity of hydrologic soils 

could be improved or restored by increases 

in water — a beneficial impact. 

Decreases in water or permanent soil loss 

resulting from regional growth and development would adversely impact soils. The 

impact of these efforts on soils is expected to 

be long term, moderate to major, and 

adverse. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative F are added 

to the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long-term, 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on 

soils. The permanent loss of soils would be 

expected to outweigh any beneficial impacts 

that might be realized from ecosystem 

restoration projects. The actions contained 

in alternative F would contribute a very 

small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative F, impacts 

on soils would be long term, minor, adverse, 

and localized. 

There would be a long-term, moderate, adverse cumulative impact on soils. The 

actions contained in alternative F would 

contribute a very small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

soils in the Addition. (See specific definition 

of impairment in the "Impairment of 

Addition Resources" section.) 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

382 

Floodplains 

Analysis. Under alternative F, impacts on 

floodplains would be attributed to the 

removal of the NPS facilities at Carnestown, 

which is in the 100-year floodplain. The 

removal of this facility would restore the 

function, integrity, and capacity of the 

floodplain at this site. The impact would be 

long term, minor to moderate, beneficial, 

and localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative F would generally be the 

same as under the no-action alternative. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to affect floodplains in the region. 

Floodplains could be physically altered, 

changing their capacity and altering the 

natural course of flood water flow. Natural 

flood patterns would be adversely affected, 

but any adverse impacts on property and life 

should be mitigated and eliminated through 

proper permitting. The impact of these 

activities on floodplains could be long term, 

minor to major (depending on the nature of 

the design), and adverse. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would affect 

floodplains by reclaiming some floodplains 

and improving their integrity and function – 

a beneficial impact. The impact of these 

efforts on floodplains would be long term 

and beneficial, but the intensity is unknown. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative F are added 

to the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long-term, minor to 

major, adverse cumulative impact on 

floodplains. The actions contained in 

alternative F would contribute a very small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative F, impacts 

on floodplains would be long term, minor to 

moderate, beneficial, and localized. 

There would be a long-term, minor to major, 

adverse cumulative impact on floodplains. 

The actions contained in alternative F would 

contribute a very small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

floodplains in the Addition. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the "Impairment 

of Addition Resources" section.) 

Vegetation — Cypress Strands and 

Domes, Mixed Hardwood Swamps, and 

Sloughs 

Analysis. Under alternative F, impacts on 

cypress strands and domes, mixed 

hardwood swamps, and sloughs would be 

attributed to new facility development, 

visitor use, NPS restoration efforts, and 

limited NPS administrative ORV use. 

Development of trails, trailheads, and access 

points at mile markers 51 and 63, Bear Island 

Grade, and Deep Lake would result in 

vegetation loss or injury from construction 

activities. Impacts on cypress strands and 

domes, mixed hardwood swamps, and 

sloughs from facility development would be 

long term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

Impacts on vegetation from visitor use, such 

as from trampling, would be more common 

at frontcountry destinations and less common in the backcountry. Impacts on cypress 

strands and domes, mixed hardwood 

swamps, and sloughs from visitor use would 

be long term, negligible to minor, adverse, 

and localized. 

Ongoing vegetation management and efforts 

to restore natural hydrologic processes 

would continue to improve conditions for 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative F 

383 

native vegetation because water availability 

and connectivity would increase and 

competition from exotic plants would be 

minimized. Impacts on cypress strands and 

domes, mixed hardwood swamps, and 

sloughs from vegetation management would 

be long term, minor to moderate, beneficial, 

and Addition-wide. 

ORV use by NPS staff (or from illegal public 

use) would remain infrequent. The 

conditions that often discourage ORV use 

(deep water, closely spaced trees, etc.) would 

continue, and adverse impacts from off-road 

vehicles would most often be limited to the 

margins of the plant community. Adverse 

impacts could include injury to a plant or 

group of trees, or might include plant loss in 

a discrete area due to repeated use. Impacts 

resulting from ORV use would be long term, 

minor, adverse, and localized. 

Collectively, the impact on cypress strands 

and domes, mixed hardwood swamps, and 

sloughs under alternative F would be long 

term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative F would generally be the 

same as under the no-action alternative. 

Implementation of the 2000 Recreational 

Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within 

the original Preserve would minimize the 

impacts, such as trampling, injury, or loss of 

plant cover, of off-road vehicles on 

vegetation. The impact would be long term, 

minor to moderate, beneficial, and localized. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

vegetation; however, it is unknown what 

plant communities would be affected. If such 

proposals included using off-road 

equipment and constructing roads and pads, 

this would alter vegetation. The impacts of 

these activities would be reduced because 

NPS approval of the operations plan would 

require mitigative measures. Short-term 

impacts on vegetation would be adverse, 

moderate, and localized; long-term impacts 

would be adverse, minor, and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect plant communities and would 

likely improve plant vigor, abundance, and 

distribution. The impact of these efforts on 

cypress strands and domes, mixed hardwood swamps, and sloughs is expected to be 

long term, minor to moderate, and 

beneficial. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to result in an increase in the 

conversion of natural lands to development 

and alter the hydrology of the general area. 

Changes in sheet flow, and its timing and 

intensity, would affect plant communities. 

The impact of these activities on cypress 

strands and domes, mixed hardwood 

swamps, and sloughs is expected to be long 

term, minor to moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on cypress 

strands and domes, mixed hardwood 

swamps, and sloughs would accrue from 

ORV management and ecosystem restoration projects. Adverse impacts would be 

expected from oil and gas operations and 

regional growth and development. Overall, 

the effects of the projects discussed above 

could slightly benefit cypress strands and 

domes, mixed hardwood swamps, and 

sloughs. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative F are added 

to the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long-term, minor, 

beneficial cumulative impact on cypress 

strands and domes, mixed hardwood 

swamps, and sloughs. The actions contained 

in alternative F would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

384 

Conclusion. Under alternative F, impacts 

on cypress strands and domes, mixed 

hardwood swamps, and sloughs would be 

long term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

There could be a long-term, minor, beneficial cumulative impact on cypress strands 

and domes, mixed hardwood swamps, and 

sloughs. The actions contained in alternative 

F would contribute a small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this alternative would not result in impairment of 

cypress strands and domes, mixed hardwood swamps, and sloughs in the Addition. 

(See specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

Vegetation — Prairies and Marshes 

Analysis. Under alternative F, impacts on 

prairies and marshes would be attributed to 

visitor use, NPS restoration efforts, and 

limited NPS administrative ORV use. 

Some prairies and marshes would be accessible to nonmotorized users, and therefore 

could be subject to visitor use impacts, such 

as trampling of vegetation. Impacts would be 

greatest and more concentrated in frontcountry locations and less common in the 

backcountry. Impacts on prairies and 

marshes from visitor use would be long 

term, negligible, adverse, and localized. 

Ongoing vegetation management, including 

the use of prescribed fire, and efforts to 

restore natural hydrologic processes would 

continue to improve conditions for native 

vegetation because water availability and 

connectivity would increase and competition from exotic plants would be minimized. 

Impacts on prairies and marshes from 

vegetation management would be long term, 

minor to moderate, beneficial, and Additionwide. 

ORV use by NPS staff (or from illegal public 

use) would remain infrequent; however, 

even infrequent use could produce adverse 

impacts. The soil conditions in prairies and 

marshes cause poor traction for off-road 

vehicles, and rutting and braiding of trails is 

common. Most NPS operators understand 

the sensitivity of prairies and marshes and 

know to avoid these areas. Adverse impacts 

could include injury to a plant or group of 

plants, or might include plant loss in a 

discrete area due to rutting or repeated use. 

Impacts on prairies and marshes from ORV 

use would be long term, minor, adverse, and 

localized. The impacts of trampling of 

vegetation by nonmotorized visitors (i.e., 

hikers) would be negligible. 

Collectively, the impact on prairies and 

marshes under alternative F would be long 

term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative F would generally be the 

same as under the no-action alternative. 

Implementation of the 2000 Recreational 

Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within 

the original Preserve would minimize the 

impacts, such as trampling, injury, or loss of 

plant cover, of off-road vehicles on vegetation. The impact would be long term, minor 

to moderate, beneficial, and localized. 

Implementation of future oil and gas proposals could have adverse impacts on vegetation; however, it is unknown what plant 

communities would be affected. If such 

proposals included using off-road equipment and constructing roads and pads, this 

would alter vegetation. The impacts of these 

activities would be reduced because NPS 

approval of the operations plan would 

require mitigative measures. Short-term 

impacts on vegetation would be moderate, 

adverse, and localized; long-term impacts 

would be minor, adverse, and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative F 

385 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect plant communities and would 

likely improve plant vigor, abundance, and 

distribution. The impact of these efforts on 

prairies and marshes is expected to be long 

term, minor to moderate, and beneficial. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to result in an increase in the 

conversion of natural lands to development 

and alter the hydrology of the general area. 

Changes in sheet flow, and its timing and 

intensity, would affect plant communities. 

Prairies and marshes on private land outside 

the Addition would continue to be impacted 

by population growth and development. The 

impact of these activities on prairies and 

marshes is expected to be long term, minor 

to moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on prairies 

and marshes would accrue from ORV 

management and ecosystem restoration 

projects. Adverse impacts would be 

expected from oil and gas operations and 

regional growth and development. Overall, 

the effects of the projects discussed above on 

prairies and marshes would be long term, 

minor, and adverse. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative F are added 

to the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long term, minor, 

adverse cumulative impact on prairies and 

marshes. The actions contained in alternative F would contribute a very small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative F, impacts 

on prairies and marshes would be long term, 

minor, adverse, and localized. 

There could be a long-term, minor, adverse 

cumulative impact on prairies and marshes. 

The actions contained in alternative F would 

contribute a very small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this alternative would not result in impairment of 

prairies and marshes in the Addition. (See 

specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

Vegetation — Mangrove Forests 

Analysis. Impacts on mangrove forests 

under alternative F would generally be the 

same as under the no-action alternative 

because recreational use in this vegetation 

community would be the same as in alternative A. As with the no-action alternative, 

motorized boating would continue to be 

allowed south of U.S. 41 in the Western 

Addition in the deep, open-water environs 

outside the dense mangrove forests. 

Motorized boating could continue to cause 

injury to individual plants or prevent their 

expansion into the shallower margins of the 

well-travelled boating corridors. Consequently, compared to the no-action alternative, there would be no impact on mangrove 

forests in the Addition under alternative F. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative F would generally be the 

same as under the no-action alternative. 

Regional growth and development, 

including waterfront development, is 

expected to result in an increase in the 

conversion of natural lands to development 

and alter the hydrology of the general area. 

Mangroves receive special protection under 

state law, and any adverse impacts on 

mangrove forests would be expected to be 

negligible. Because alternative F would not 

contribute any increment, there would be no 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative F would have no 

impact on mangrove forests. Impacts on 

mangroves would be the same as what was 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

386 

accounted for under the no-action 

alternative. 

There would be no cumulative impacts on 

mangrove forests under alternative F. 

Impacts from actions contained in this alternative would not result in impairment of 

mangrove forests in the Addition. (See specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

Vegetation — Pinelands 

Analysis. Under alternative F, impacts on 

pinelands would be attributed to new facility 

development, visitor use, NPS restoration 

efforts and limited NPS administrative ORV 

use. 

Development of trails, trailheads, and access 

points (at mile markers 51 and 63, Bear 

Island Grade, and Deep Lake) would result 

in vegetation loss or injury from construction activities. Impacts on pinelands would 

likely be proportionately greater than for the 

other vegetation communities because 

pinelands are uplands that are often targeted 

as appropriate development sites. Impacts 

on pinelands from facility development 

would be long term, minor, adverse, and 

localized. 

Impacts from visitor use, such as from 

trampling, would be more common at 

frontcountry destinations and less common 

in the backcountry. Although individual 

understory plants could be injured or killed, 

the integrity of the pineland community 

would not likely be affected due to the 

durable substrate and the resiliency of 

mature trees to relatively benign activities. 

Impacts on pinelands from visitor use would 

be long term, negligible to minor, adverse, 

and localized. 

Ongoing vegetation management, including 

the use of prescribed fire, would decrease 

competition from exotic plants and improve 

the integrity of native habitats. Impacts on 

pinelands from vegetation management 

would be long term, beneficial, minor to 

moderate, and Addition-wide. 

ORV use by NPS staff (or from illegal public 

use) would continue in the Addition. The 

durability of the substrate present in 

pinelands minimizes adverse impacts from 

ORV use. The loss of pines from ORV use 

has not been documented in the original 

Preserve; however, wheeled use could have 

adverse impacts on other plant species 

present within these communities or within 

certain ecotonal areas. Adverse impacts 

could include injury to a plant or group of 

plants, or might include plant loss in a 

discrete area due to repeated use. Impacts on 

pinelands from ORV use would be long 

term, adverse, minor, and localized. 

Collectively, the impact on pinelands under 

alternative F would be long term, minor, 

adverse, and localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative F would generally be the 

same as under the no-action alternative. 

Implementation of the 2000 Recreational 

Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within 

the original Preserve would minimize the 

impacts, such as trampling, injury, or loss of 

plant cover, of off-road vehicles on 

vegetation. The impact would be long term, 

minor to moderate, beneficial, and localized. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

vegetation in the Addition; however, it is 

unknown what plant communities would be 

affected. If such proposals included using 

off-road equipment and constructing roads 

and pads, this would alter vegetation. The 

impacts of these activities would be reduced 

because NPS approval of the operations plan 

would require mitigative measures. Short-
Environmental Consequences of Alternative F 

387 

term impacts on vegetation would be 

adverse, moderate, and localized; long-term 

impacts would be adverse, minor, and 

localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect water tables and could impact 

the abundance and distribution of pinelands. 

The assemblage of pines and palmettos 

could change as a result of changes in 

hydrology or periods of inundation. The 

impact is uncertain because drying often 

adversely impacts pinelands and increasing 

the water table could also cause a net 

reduction in pinelands compared to current 

conditions. It is expected that restoring 

natural hydrologic conditions would have a 

beneficial impact on pinelands. 

 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to result in an increase in the 

conversion of natural lands to development 

and alter the hydrology of the general area. 

Studies have shown that pinelands are the 

most impacted by human land conversion. 

Pinelands on private land in the region 

would continue to be lost. The impact would 

be long term, moderate to major, and 

adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on pinelands 

would accrue from ORV management and 

ecosystem restoration projects. Adverse 

impacts would be expected from oil and gas 

operations and regional growth and 

development. Overall, the effects of the 

projects discussed above would be adverse 

on pinelands in the Addition. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative F are added 

to the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long-term, moderate 

to major, adverse cumulative impact on 

pinelands. The actions contained in alternative F would contribute a small increment 

to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative F, impacts 

on pinelands would be long term, minor, 

adverse, and localized. 

There could be a long-term, moderate to 

major, adverse cumulative impact on pinelands. The actions contained in alternative F 

would contribute a small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this alternative would not result in impairment of 

pinelands in the Addition. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the "Impairment 

of Addition Resources" section.) 

 

Vegetation — Hardwood Hammocks 

Analysis. Under alternative F, impacts on 

hardwood hammocks would be attributed to 

visitor use, NPS restoration efforts and NPS 

administrative ORV use. 

Impacts on vegetation from visitor use, such 

as from trampling, would be more common 

at frontcountry destinations and less common in the backcountry. Impacts could 

include plant injury or mortality. Backcountry camping could also cause trampling or 

loss of vegetation at localized sites. Impacts 

on hardwood hammocks from visitor use 

would be long term, negligible to minor, 

adverse, and localized. 

Ongoing vegetation management would 

decrease competition from exotic plants and 

improve the integrity of native habitats. 

Impacts on hardwood hammocks from 

vegetation management would be long term, 

beneficial, minor to moderate, and Additionwide. 

ORV use by NPS staff (or from illegal public 

use) would continue in the Addition. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

388 

Although the substrate present in hardwood 

hammocks is suitable for ORV use, use tends 

to be infrequent because of the size and density of trees present in these areas. However, 

infrequent ORV use could continue to 

adversely impact understory plants. Adverse 

impacts could include injury to a plant or 

group of plants, or might include plant loss 

in a discrete area due to repeated use. 

Impacts on hardwood hammocks from ORV 

use would be long term, minor, adverse and 

localized. Impacts would be expected to be 

minor because areas affected would be 

relatively small and dispersed. 

Collectively, the impact on hardwood 

hammocks under alternative F would be 

long term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative F would generally be the 

same as under the no-action alternative. 

Implementation of the 2000 Recreational 

Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within 

the original Preserve would minimize the 

impacts, such as trampling, injury, or loss of 

plant cover, of off-road vehicles on 

vegetation. The impact would be long term, 

minor to moderate, beneficial, and localized. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

vegetation in the Addition; however, it is 

unknown what plant communities would be 

affected. If such proposals included using 

off-road equipment and constructing roads 

and pads, this would alter vegetation. The 

impacts of these activities would be reduced 

because NPS approval of the operations plan 

would require mitigative measures. Shortterm impacts on vegetation would be 

adverse, moderate, and localized; long-term 

impacts would be adverse, minor, and 

localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect water tables and could impact 

the abundance and distribution of hardwood hammocks. The impact is uncertain, 

but restoring natural conditions is expected 

to have a long-term, minor, beneficial 

impact. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to result in an increase in the 

conversion of natural lands to development 

and alter the hydrology of the general area. 

Changes in sheet flow, and its timing and 

intensity, would affect plant communities. 

The impact of these activities on hardwood 

hammocks is expected to be long term, 

minor to moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on hardwood hammocks would accrue from ORV 

management and ecosystem restoration 

projects. Adverse impacts would be 

expected from oil and gas operations and 

regional growth and development. Overall, 

the effects of the projects discussed above 

could slightly benefit hardwood hammocks. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative F are added 

to the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long-term, minor, 

beneficial cumulative impact on hardwood 

hammocks. The actions contained in alternative F would contribute a small increment 

to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative F, impacts 

on hardwood hammocks would be long 

term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

There could be a long-term, minor, beneficial cumulative impact on hardwood hammocks. The actions contained in alternative 

F would contribute a small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative F 

389 

hardwood hammocks in the Addition. (See 

specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

Exotic/Nonnative Plants 

Analysis. Under alternative F, impacts on 

exotic/nonnative plants would be attributed 

to facility development and maintenance, 

visitor use and limited NPS administrative 

ORV use. Ongoing vegetation management 

(including the use of prescribed fire and 

chemical and mechanical treatment) in the 

Addition would continue to decrease competition from exotic plants and improve the 

integrity of native habitats. The continuation 

of monitoring efforts would also help to 

detect and mitigate new exotic species that 

could affect native plant communities. 

Impacts on exotic/nonnative species from 

ongoing resource management activities 

would be long term, beneficial, moderate, 

and Addition-wide. 

New facility development — such as trails, 

trailheads, and access points at mile marker 

51, mile marker 63, Bear Island Grade, and 

Deep Lake — would create disturbed lands 

that would be subject to colonization by 

invasive plants. Construction materials and 

activities could also be a seed source for 

exotic plants and would increase the 

potential for their dispersion. Maintaining 

these facilities would also create disturbed 

habitats that could increase the density of 

exotic plants and affect the integrity of 

adjacent natural areas. Exotic plants have 

severe effects on the integrity of native 

systems and habitats. The impact of these 

activities would be long term, minor to 

moderate, adverse, and localized. 

Expanded visitor use would increase the 

dispersal of exotic plants and also create 

additional disturbed areas that would be 

subject to colonization by invasive plants. 

The impact on exotic plants from visitor use 

would be long term, minor, adverse, and 

localized. 

Limited NPS administrative ORV use could 

continue to cause impacts on the distribution and establishment of exotic plants. 

Visitors and off-road vehicles can be agents 

for seed dispersal, increasing the threat to 

native plant communities. Impacts on 

exotic/nonnative plants from these activities 

would be long term, minor, and adverse. 

Although the effects would be most 

pronounced along travel corridors and at 

disturbed sites, the impacts could extend 

beyond these immediate areas and become 

Addition-wide. 

Collectively, impacts on exotic/nonnative 

plants under alternative F would be long 

term, minor, adverse, and potentially 

Addition-wide. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative F would generally be the 

same as under the no-action alternative. 

Implementation of the 2000 Recreational 

Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within 

the original Preserve would minimize the 

impacts of off-road vehicles on exotic plants 

and nonnative vegetation in the original 

Preserve and reduces the potential for 

dispersal into the Addition —a beneficial 

impact on native vegetation. Furthermore, 

the designated trail system would facilitate 

management of exotic species, including 

reporting and removal. The impact on exotic 

plants and nonnative vegetation in the 

region would be negligible. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

native vegetation because of the potential for 

the spread of exotic and nonnative plants in 

the Addition. If such proposals included 

using off-road equipment and constructing 

roads and pads, this would disturb soils and 

native vegetation. Short-term impacts could 

include the establishment of exotic plants on 

disturbed sites and the dispersal of seeds and 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

390 

plant stock. The impacts of these activities 

would be reduced because NPS approval of 

the operations plan would require mitigative 

measures. Short-term impacts on native 

vegetation because of the potential for the 

spread of exotic and nonnative plants would 

be adverse, moderate, and localized; longterm impacts would be adverse, minor, and 

localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect water tables and could impact 

the abundance and distribution of exotic 

plants. The impact on exotic plants is uncertain, but restoring natural conditions is 

expected to have a long-term, minor to 

moderate, beneficial impact on native plants 

and vegetation. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to result in an increase in the 

conversion of natural lands to development 

and alter the hydrology of the general area. 

Changes in sheet flow, and its timing and 

intensity, would affect exotic plants, as 

would increases in the amount of disturbed 

land that is available for colonization by 

exotic species. The impact of these activities 

on exotic plants and nonnative vegetation is 

expected to be long term, minor to 

moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on native 

vegetation would accrue from ecosystem 

restoration projects. Adverse impacts would 

be expected from oil and gas operations and 

regional growth and development. Overall, 

the effects of the projects discussed above on 

exotic plants and nonnative vegetation could 

be minor and adverse. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative F are added 

to the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long-term, minor, 

adverse cumulative impact on exotic plants. 

The actions contained in alternative F would 

contribute a small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative F, impacts 

on native vegetation because of the potential 

for the spread of exotic and nonnative plants 

would be long term, minor, adverse, and 

potentially Addition-wide. 

There could be a long-term, minor, adverse 

cumulative impact on exotic plants and 

nonnative vegetation. The actions contained 

in alternative F would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this alternative would not result in impairment of native vegetation in the Addition. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the "Impairment 

of Addition Resources" section.) 

Federal Threatened 

and Endangered Species 

Florida Panther. Under alternative F, 

impacts on the Florida panther would be 

attributed to new facility development, 

expanded visitor use, and limited NPS 

administrative ORV use. 

New facility development — such as trails, 

trailheads, and access points at mile markers 

51 and 63, Bear Island Grade, and Deep Lake 

— would impact panthers by causing shortterm disturbances associated with 

construction activities and permanent loss of 

habitat. Development footprints would be 

confined to previously disturbed areas to the 

greatest extent possible (such as at existing 

access points along major highways), but 

there would still be a loss of habitat within 

the panther home range. The impact would 

be long term, minor, adverse, and localized. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative F 

391 

Public recreational ORV use would continue 

to be prohibited in the Addition under 

alternative F. However, public hunting 

would be allowed via walk-in access only. 

Human use and disturbance in the Addition 

would continue to be minimal, but would be 

increased relative to the no-action alternative. The hunting pressure associated with 

walk-in access only would be expected to be 

minimal, with no substantial effect on the 

panther’s prey base. Adverse impacts, such 

as flushing and displacement of panthers, 

would continue. The impact would be long 

term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

Ongoing vegetation management efforts 

would continue to improve habitat for 

panthers as well as for the major game 

species in the Addition that serve as their 

primary food source. Partnerships with the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service would continue and would 

contribute to the monitoring and improved 

understanding of the species. Impacts on 

panthers from ongoing resource management activities would be long term, minor, 

beneficial, and Addition-wide. 

Limited NPS administrative ORV use, as 

well as nonmotorized public use (primarily 

backcountry hiking), would continue to 

affect Florida panthers, potentially causing 

displacement and avoidance of certain areas 

within the Addition. The impact would be 

long term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

Designating lands as wilderness under 

alternative F could result in beneficial 

impacts on the panther. Habitat would be 

preserved, and all uses and activities in 

wilderness would be subject to the 

provisions of the Wilderness Act, including 

the use of the minimum requirements 

process. This would likely result in greater 

protection of panther habitat; however, 

compared to the no-action alternative and 

the fact that eligible land in the Addition 

must be maintained to preserve its 

wilderness characteristics and its eligibility 

as wilderness, the beneficial impact would be 

negligible. 

Collectively, impacts on the Florida panther 

under alternative F would be long term, 

minor, adverse, and mostly localized. The 

determination of effect under Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act would be not 

likely to adversely affect.

Cumulative Impacts — Cumulative 

impacts under alternative F would 

generally be the same as under the noaction alternative. Implementation of the 

2000 Recreational Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan within the original 

Preserve would minimize the impacts of 

off-road vehicles on panthers in the 

region, a beneficial impact (because an 

individual panther’s range may include 

the Preserve as well as the Addition and 

other adjacent lands). In other words, 

improving and protecting habitat value 

on the original Preserve could yield a 

regional benefit to the species. Eliminating some and designating new ORV trails 

and conducting education, best management practices, research, and mitigation 

would limit impacts on panthers. Adverse 

impacts on panthers would still occur 

from ORV use in the original Preserve, 

but the effects would be less than with no 

ORV management. With implementation 

of the terms and conditions of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s “Biological 

Opinion” (USFWS 2000), the plan is not 

likely to result in jeopardy to the panther. 

Overall, the impact of the ORV plan on 

the Florida panther would be long term, 

moderate, and beneficial compared to no 

ORV management. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

could have adverse impacts on Florida 

panthers in the Addition. If such 

proposals included using off-road 

equipment and constructing roads and 

pads, this could create human 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

392 

disturbances and result in degradation 

and loss of panther habitat. Short-term 

adverse impacts from construction could 

include flushing and displacement of 

panthers, effects on feeding and sheltering behavior, and an increase in mortality 

from vehicle collisions. The same types of 

adverse impacts would be long term due 

to ongoing operations and maintenance 

activities. These adverse impacts would 

be minor and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within 

the region. The proposals would improve 

sheet flow and hydrologic connectivity, 

which would affect vegetation communities and in turn wildlife habitat. The impact on the Florida panther is unknown, 

but restoring natural conditions is 

assumed to have a long-term, minor, 

beneficial impact because it would return 

vegetation communities to historic 

conditions and improve predator/prey 

relationships. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and result in an 

increase in the conversion of natural 

lands to development in the general area. 

The loss of natural areas and the 

increasing urbanization of the region 

have led to a substantial loss of panther 

habitat. Natural areas that remain are 

more fragmented and contain higher 

levels of human disturbance, both of 

which adversely affect panthers and their 

long-term survival. Increased panther 

mortality due to vehicle collisions could 

also be attributed to the effects of 

regional growth and development. The 

impact of these activities on the Florida 

panther is expected to be long term, 

moderate to major, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on the 

Florida panther would accrue from ORV 

management and ecosystem restoration 

projects. Adverse impacts would be 

expected from oil and gas operations and 

regional growth and development. 

Overall, the effects of the projects 

discussed above would likely be adverse 

to Florida panthers in the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in alternative F are 

added to the effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions as described above, there would 

be a long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on the Florida 

panther. The actions contained in 

alternative F would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion — Impacts on the Florida 

panther under alternative F would be 

long term, minor, adverse, and mostly 

localized across the Addition. The 

determination of effect under Section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act would be 

not likely to adversely affect. 

There would be a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on 

the Florida panther. The actions proposed in alternative F would contribute a 

small increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not likely result in 

impairment of the Florida panther in the 

Addition because habitat conditions 

would be maintained or enhanced and 

the NPS would strive to meet the species 

recovery goals. (See specific definition of 

impairment in the "Impairment of 

Addition Resources" section.) 

West Indian Manatee. Impacts on the 

West Indian Manatee under alternative F 

would generally be the same as under the 

no-action alternative. Impacts would be 

attributed primarily to continued motorboat 

use associated with recreational fishing 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative F 

393 

(airboat use would continue to be 

prohibited). Manatees in the creeks, canals, 

and estuarine area south of U.S. 41 in the 

Western Addition would be subjected to 

potential injury from collisions with boat 

hulls or propellers. Manatees would also be 

displaced from or avoid certain areas, which 

could affect feeding and other behaviors. 

Designating new paddling trails in tidal areas 

south of U.S. 41 could increase the displacement or avoidance behavior, but the impact 

would be negligible. The National Park 

Service already manages boating in this area 

to reduce impacts on manatees and their 

designated critical habitat. Partnerships with 

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service would continue and would help 

improve monitoring and recovery of the 

species. Essential features of critical habitat 

would not be impacted. Impacts on the West 

Indian manatee would be long term, minor, 

adverse, and localized. The determination of 

effect under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act would be not likely to adversely 

affect. 

Designating the lands south of U.S. 41 in the 

Western Addition as wilderness under 

alternative F could result in beneficial 

impacts on the manatee. Habitat would be 

preserved, and all uses and activities in 

wilderness would be subject to the 

provisions of the Wilderness Act, including 

the use of the minimum requirements 

process. Because motorboating is a permissible activity in wilderness because of its 

historic use there and this use would 

continue to be allowed in the Addition, any 

beneficial impact would be negligible and 

the area would function and be managed 

similar to the no-action alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts — Cumulative 

impacts under alternative F would 

generally be the same as under the noaction alternative. The south Florida 

ecosystem restoration project includes 

several proposals for restoration of 

surface water flow within the region. The 

proposals would improve sheet flow and 

hydrologic connectivity, which would 

increase the quantity of freshwater inputs 

into the estuarine system, a beneficial 

impact on the manatee. The quality of 

freshwater inputs is predicted to be less 

than current conditions, which could 

adversely impact manatee habitat. 

Overall, it is expected that restoring 

natural hydrologic conditions would 

produce long-term, minor beneficial 

impacts on the West Indian manatee. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and could result in 

an increase in the number of recreational 

boaters in the region. Injury and mortality 

of manatees associated with recreational 

boating could increase as a result of 

increased motorboat use. Incompatible 

coastal development could also adversely 

affect manatees by loss of habitat and 

feeding areas, as well as pollution discharges. These activities would adversely 

impact manatees and could affect their 

long-term survival. The impact on the 

West Indian manatee is expected to be 

long term, moderate to major, and 

adverse. 

Overall, the effects of the projects 

discussed above would likely be adverse 

to West Indian manatees in the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in alternative F are 

added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions as 

described above, there would be a longterm, moderate, adverse cumulative 

impact on the West Indian manatee. The 

actions contained in alternative F would 

contribute a very small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion — Impacts on the West 

Indian manatee under alternative F 

would be long term, minor, adverse, and 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

394 

localized. The determination of effect 

under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act would be not likely to 

adversely affect. 

There would be a long-term, moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on the West 

Indian manatee. The actions contained in 

alternative F would contribute a very 

small increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of the West Indian manatee in the 

Addition because habitat conditions 

would be maintained or enhanced and 

the NPS would strive to meet the species 

recovery goals. (See specific definition of 

impairment in the "Impairment of 

Addition Resources" section.) 

Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. Under alternative F, impacts on potential habitat for the 

red-cockaded woodpecker would be attributed to new facility development, expanded visitor use, NPS restoration efforts, 

and limited NPS administrative ORV use. 

New facility development — such as trails, 

trailheads, and access points at mile markers 

51 and 63, Bear Island Grade, and Deep Lake 

— could impact potential habitat and thus 

woodpeckers by causing short-term disturbances associated with construction activities and permanent loss of habitat. Development footprints would be confined to 

previously disturbed areas to the greatest 

extent possible (such as at existing access 

points along major highways), but there 

would still be a loss of habitat. The impact 

would be long term, minor, adverse, and 

localized. 

Public recreational ORV use would continue 

to be prohibited in the Addition under alternative F. However, public hunting would be 

allowed via walk-in access only. Public 

hunting would not be expected to impact 

woodpecker habitat because the integrity of 

cavity trees and forage resources would be 

maintained. Human use and disturbance in 

the Addition would continue to be minimal 

but would be increased relative to the noaction alternative. Conditions that support 

woodpecker use of the area would continue 

to be maintained. Because there are 

currently no known nest sites within the 

Addition, effects on woodpeckers would be 

limited to impacts on foraging habitat and 

avoidance of certain areas during periods of 

human activity. The impacts would be long 

term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

Nonmotorized visitor use (primarily backcountry hiking) could continue to affect 

woodpeckers, potentially causing displacement and their avoidance of certain areas 

within the Addition; the impact would be 

long term, negligible to minor, adverse, and 

localized. 

Designating lands as wilderness under alternative F could result in beneficial impacts on 

the woodpecker. Potential habitat would be 

preserved, and all uses and activities in 

wilderness would be subject to the provisions of the Wilderness Act, including the 

use of the minimum requirements process. 

This would likely result in greater protection 

of woodpecker habitat; however, compared 

to the no-action alternative and the fact that 

eligible land in the Addition must be maintained to preserve its wilderness characteristics and its eligibility as wilderness, the 

beneficial impact would be negligible. 

Limited NPS administrative ORV use would 

continue to affect woodpeckers, potentially 

causing displacement and avoidance of 

certain areas within the Addition. The impact would be long term, minor, adverse, 

and localized. 

Collectively, impacts on the red-cockaded 

woodpecker under alternative F would be 

long term, minor, adverse, and mostly 

localized. The determination of effect under 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative F 

395 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

would be not likely to adversely affect. 

Cumulative Impacts — Cumulative 

impacts under alternative F would 

generally be the same as under the noaction alternative. Implementation of the 

2000 Recreational Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan within the original 

Preserve would minimize the impacts of 

off-road vehicles on red-cockaded 

woodpeckers in the region, a beneficial 

impact. Eliminating some and designating 

new ORV trails and conducting 

education, best management practices, 

research, and mitigation would limit 

impacts on woodpeckers. Cavity trees 

and active clusters would be avoided as 

sites for the trails, thereby reducing 

adverse impacts. Adverse impacts on 

woodpeckers would still occur from ORV 

use in pinelands in the original Preserve, 

but the impact would be minor. Overall, 

the impact of the 2000 ORV plan on the 

red-cockaded woodpecker would be long 

term, negligible, and adverse. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

could have adverse impacts on the redcockaded woodpecker in the Addition. If 

such proposals included using off-road 

equipment and constructing roads and 

pads, this could degrade and reduce 

available woodpecker habitat. The 

impacts of these activities would be 

reduced because NPS approval of the 

operations plan would require mitigative 

measures. Short-term adverse impacts 

could include flushing and displacement 

of woodpeckers, while long-term impacts 

would include the loss of cavity nesting 

trees. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within 

the region. The proposals would improve 

sheet flow and hydrologic connectivity, 

which would affect vegetation communities (including pinelands) and in turn 

wildlife habitat. The impact on the redcockaded woodpecker is uncertain, but 

restoring natural conditions is assumed to 

have a long-term, minor, beneficial 

impact because returning vegetation 

communities to historic conditions and 

improving foraging resources should be 

beneficial. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and result in an 

increase in the conversion of natural 

lands to development in the general area. 

The loss of natural areas and the 

increasing urbanization of the region 

have led to a substantial loss of woodpecker habitat (pinelands) in the region. 

Natural areas that remain are more 

fragmented and contain higher levels of 

human disturbance and displacement of 

woodpeckers, both of which adversely 

affect woodpeckers and their long-term 

survival. The impact of these activities on 

the red-cockaded woodpecker is 

expected to be long term, moderate, and 

adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on the 

red-cockaded woodpecker would accrue 

from ecosystem restoration projects. 

Adverse impacts would be expected from 

oil and gas operations and regional 

growth and development. Overall, the 

effects of the projects discussed above 

would likely be adverse to red-cockaded 

woodpecker in the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in alternative F are 

added to the effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions as described above, there would 

be a long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on the redcockaded woodpecker. The actions 

contained in alternative F would contribute a small beneficial increment to this 

cumulative impact. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

396 

Conclusion — Impacts on the potential 

habitat for and thus the red-cockaded 

woodpecker under alternative F would 

be long term, minor, adverse, and mostly 

localized. The determination of effect 

under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act would be not likely to 

adversely affect. 

There would be a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on 

the potential habitat for and thus the redcockaded woodpecker. The actions proposed in alternative F would contribute a 

small increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of the red-cockaded woodpecker in 

the Addition because habitat conditions 

would be maintained or enhanced and 

the NPS would strive to meet the species 

recovery goals. (See specific definition of 

impairment in the "Impairment of 

Addition Resources" section.) 

Wood Stork. Under alternative F, impacts 

on the wood stork would be attributed to 

expanded visitor use, NPS restoration 

efforts, and limited NPS administrative ORV 

use. 

Public ORV use would continue to be 

prohibited in the Addition under alternative 

F. However, public hunting would be 

allowed via walk-in access only. 

Nonmotorized visitor use would also be 

allowed. Human use and disturbance in the 

Addition would continue to be minimal, but 

would be increased relative to the no-action 

alternative. Conditions that support wood 

stork’s use of the area would continue to be 

maintained. Because there are currently no 

known nest sites within the Addition, and 

they have nested in the original Preserve 

only sporadically since 1996, effects on 

wood storks would be limited to impacts on 

foraging habitat and avoidance of certain 

areas during periods of human activity. The 

impacts would be long term, negligible to 

minor, adverse, and localized. 

Ongoing NPS efforts to improve natural 

hydrologic processes would continue, but 

the stork’s habitat parameters also would 

continue to be affected primarily by water 

levels and drying conditions resulting from 

natural climatic events. The impacts on the 

wood stork would be negligible, long term, 

and beneficial. 

Designating lands as wilderness under alternative F could result in beneficial impacts on 

the wood stork. Potential habitat would be 

preserved, and all uses and activities in 

wilderness would be subject to the provisions of the Wilderness Act, including the 

use of the minimum requirements process. 

This would likely result in greater protection 

of stork habitat; however, compared to the 

no-action alternative and the fact that 

eligible land in the Addition must be maintained to preserve its wilderness characteristics and its eligibility as wilderness, the 

beneficial impact would be negligible. 

Limited NPS administrative ORV use could 

affect storks, potentially causing displacement and avoidance of certain areas within 

the Addition — the impact would be long 

term, minor, adverse, and localized. 

Collectively, impacts on the wood stork 

under alternative F would be long term, 

minor, adverse, and mostly localized. The 

determination of effect under Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act would be not 

likely to adversely affect. 

Cumulative Impacts — Cumulative 

impacts under alternative F would 

generally be the same as under the noaction alternative. Implementation of the 

2000 Recreational Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan within the original 

Preserve would reduce the impacts of offroad vehicles on the wood stork’s 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative F 

397 

foraging habitat (prairies and marshes) in 

the region, a beneficial impact. Eliminating some and designating new ORV trails 

and conducting education, best management practices, research, and mitigation 

would limit impacts on storks. Nesting 

habitat (cypress trees in open water) 

would likely not be affected because offroad vehicles typically avoid the deep, 

open water areas that storks commonly 

nest in. Consequently, the effect on 

nesting habitat due to the actions in the 

ORV plan would be negligible. Overall, 

the impact of the ORV plan on the wood 

stork in the region would be long term, 

minor, and beneficial. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

the wood stork in the Addition. If such 

proposals included using off-road 

equipment and constructing roads and 

pads, this could result in loss and 

degradation of wood stork habitat. The 

impacts of these activities would be 

reduced because NPS approval of the 

operations plan would require mitigative 

measures. Adverse impacts could include 

flushing and displacement of wood 

storks. Short-term impacts on wood 

storks would be adverse, moderate, and 

localized; long-term impacts would be 

adverse, minor, and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within 

the region. The proposals would improve 

sheet flow and hydrologic connectivity, 

which would affect habitat conditions, 

including food supply. The impact on the 

wood stork is unknown, but restoring 

natural hydrologic conditions is expected 

to have a long-term, minor to moderate, 

beneficial impact because vegetation 

communities would return to historic 

conditions and foraging resources would 

improve. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and result in an 

increase in the conversion of natural 

lands to development and alter the 

hydrology of the general area. Impacts 

such as the loss of wetlands and compromised water quality from discharge of 

urban pollutants into hydrologic systems 

would adversely affect storks. The impact 

of these activities on the wood stork is 

expected to be long term, minor to 

moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on the 

wood stork would accrue from ORV 

management and ecosystem restoration 

projects. Adverse impacts would be 

expected from oil and gas operations and 

regional growth and development. 

Overall, the effects of the projects 

discussed above would likely be adverse 

on wood storks in the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in alternative F are 

added to the effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions as described above, there would 

be a long-term, minor, adverse cumulative impact on the wood stork. The 

actions contained in alternative F would 

add a very small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion — Impacts on the wood 

stork under alternative F would be long 

term, minor, adverse, and mostly 

localized. The determination of effect 

under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act would be not likely to 

adversely affect. 

There would be a long-term, minor, 

adverse cumulative impact on the wood 

stork. The actions contained in 

alternative F would add a very small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

398 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in 

impairment of the wood stork in the 

Addition because habitat conditions 

would be maintained or enhanced and 

the NPS would strive to meet the species 

recovery goals. (See specific definition of 

impairment in the "Impairment of 

Addition Resources" section.) 

Everglade Snail Kite. Under alternative F, 

impacts on the snail kite would be attributed 

to expanded visitor use, NPS restoration 

efforts, and limited NPS administrative ORV 

use. 

Public off-road vehicle use would continue 

to be prohibited in the Addition under alternative F. Walk-in public hunting would be 

allowed. Nonmotorized human activity and 

disturbance in the Addition would continue 

to be minimal but would increase somewhat 

relative to the no-action alternative. Limited 

human activity associated with NPS administrative ORV use would occur. However, the 

conditions that support the snail kite’s 

foraging and roosting in the area would 

continue to be maintained. Although there 

are no known snail kite nest sites in the 

Addition, kites might occasionally use 

marshes and open water littoral zones in the 

Addition for foraging on apple snails. They 

might also roost in the vicinity of these water 

bodies. Effects on snail kites would primarily 

be limited to impacts on foraging habitat and 

avoidance of certain areas during periods of 

human activity. Over time, under alternative 

F, without substantial disturbances from 

recreation or hydrologic alterations, it might 

be possible for kites to nest in the Addition. 

The impacts from public use associated with 

this alternative would be long-term, 

negligible to minor, adverse, and localized. 

Under alternative F, ongoing NPS efforts to 

improve natural hydrologic processes, water 

quality, and invasive plant control would 

continue as in the no-action alternative. 

These NPS management actions could 

benefit apple snail populations in the 

Addition and improve the snail kite’s 

accessibility to the apple snails. 

Designating lands as wilderness under 

alternative F could result in beneficial 

impacts on the snail kite. Potential habitat 

would be preserved, and all uses and 

activities in wilderness would be subject to 

the provisions of the Wilderness Act, 

including the use of the minimum requirements process. This would likely result in 

greater protection of snail kite habitat; 

however, compared to the no-action alternative and the fact that eligible land in the 

Addition must be maintained to preserve its 

wilderness characteristics and its eligibility 

as wilderness, the beneficial impact would be 

negligible. 

Collectively, impacts on the Everglade snail 

kite under alternative F would be long term, 

negligible to minor, adverse, and mostly 

localized. The determination of effect under 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

would be not likely to adversely affect. 

Cumulative Impacts — Cumulative 

impacts under alternative F would 

generally be the same as under the noaction alternative. Implementation of the 

2000 Recreational Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan within the original 

Preserve would reduce the impacts of offroad vehicles on the snail kite’s foraging, 

roosting, and nesting habitat (marshes 

and pond/lake fringes) in the region, a 

beneficial impact. Eliminating some and 

designating new ORV trails and conducting education, best management 

practices, research, and mitigation would 

limit impacts on the kites that inhabit the 

region. However, foraging, roosting, or 

possible nesting habitat for snail kites in 

the original Preserve could be adversely 

affected in areas where ORV use is 

permitted under the ORV plan in the 

original Preserve, particularly in specific 

ORV use areas that are near marshes, 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative F 

399 

ponds, or lakes. Overall, the impact of 

that plan on the snail kite in the region 

would be long term, minor, and 

beneficial. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

the snail kite habitat in the Addition. If 

such proposals included using off-road 

equipment and constructing roads and 

pads, this could result in loss and 

degradation of snail kite habitat. The 

impacts of these activities would be 

reduced because NPS approval of the 

operations plan would require mitigative 

measures. Adverse impacts could include 

flushing and displacement of snail kites. 

Short-term impacts on snail kites would 

be adverse, moderate, and localized, 

while long-term impacts would be 

adverse, minor, and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within 

the region. The proposals would improve 

sheet flow and hydrologic connectivity, 

which would affect habitat conditions, 

including food supply and water quality. 

This would be particularly beneficial to 

the snail kite because its diet 

predominantly consists of apple snails, 

which are very dependent on adequate 

hydrological conditions. Furthermore, 

the return of natural hydrological 

conditions and improved water quality to 

the region would also enhance or 

increase the availability of quality 

foraging, roosting, and nesting habitat for 

the Everglade snail kite. The restoration 

of natural hydrologic conditions would 

have long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impacts. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and result in an 

increase in the conversion of natural 

lands to development and alter the 

hydrology of the general area. Impacts 

such as the loss of wetlands and compromised water quality from discharge of 

urban pollutants into hydrologic systems 

would adversely affect snail kites and 

their primary food source, the apple snail. 

The impact of these activities on the snail 

kite is expected to be long term, minor to 

moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on the 

snail kite would result from improved 

ORV management in the original 

Preserve and ecosystem restoration 

projects in the region. Adverse impacts 

would be expected from oil and gas 

development and regional growth and 

urban development. Overall, the effects 

of the projects discussed above would 

likely be adverse to snail kite habitat in 

the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in alternative F are 

added to the effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions as described above, there would 

be a long-term, minor, adverse cumulative impact on the Everglade snail kite. 

The actions contained in alternative F 

would add a small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion — Impacts on the snail kite 

under alternative F would be long term, 

negligible to minor, adverse, and mostly 

localized. The determination of effect 

under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act would be not likely to 

adversely affect. 

There would be a long-term, minor, 

adverse cumulative impact on the 

Everglade snail kite. The actions proposed in alternative F would add a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of the snail kite in the Addition 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

400 

because habitat conditions would be 

maintained or enhanced and the National 

Park Service would strive to meet the 

species recovery goals. (See specific 

definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

American Crocodile. Impacts on the 

American crocodile and its habitat under 

alternative F would generally be the same as 

under the no-action alternative because 

recreational use in and near mangrove 

forests of the Addition would be the same as 

in alternative A (no action). 

Under alternative F, impacts on the American crocodile and its habitat would primarily 

be attributed to continued human activities 

near mangrove forests, particularly 

motorized boating associated with 

recreational fishing in the Western Addition 

(airboat use is prohibited). Mangrove forests 

are the primary habitat for the American 

crocodile in south Florida, although 

crocodiles are generally rare in Big Cypress 

National Preserve. The mangrove habitat 

areas along creeks, canals, and estuaries 

south of U.S. 41 in the Western Addition are 

where effects would most likely occur. 

In these areas, crocodiles might be affected 

by motorboat noise, boat wakes and waves, 

human noise or actions, or boat hulls or 

propellers. Because most American 

crocodile activity occurs from just before 

sunset to just after sunrise, most of these 

human-induced actions would disturb the 

crocodiles when they are at rest during 

daytime hours. These disturbances might 

cause resting crocodiles to be flushed, 

resulting in unnecessary energy use and 

stress. Boating in early morning or evening 

hours might also alter crocodile foraging 

behavior or flush the possible prey of the 

crocodile. Depending on the level and 

frequency of human disturbances, 

crocodiles could avoid some areas entirely. 

Crocodiles are not known to nest in the 

Addition. However, if nesting occurs, the 

hatching success would primarily depend on 

risks from flooding, predation, lack of soil 

moisture during incubation, and extreme 

storms. The nest success also depends on the 

female crocodile returning to the nest to 

excavate the hatchlings. Research suggests 

that some female crocodiles may abandon 

their nests if the area is subjected to 

repeated, close human presence (Kushlan 

and Mazzotti 1989). Once hatched, juveniles 

would then be affected by similar human 

disturbances as highlighted above. The 

young crocodiles would be at greatest risk 

during their journey through open water 

from their nest site to more distant nursery 

habitat. 

Given the infrequent presence of crocodiles 

in the Addition, the above effects from 

human recreation activities such as boating 

would be long term, minor, adverse, and 

localized. 

Alternative F would also continue current 

NPS vegetation management actions that 

would help maintain or improve habitat 

conditions in the Addition. These actions 

would help address invasive plant 

infestations that could degrade or displace 

habitat for the American crocodile. The 

impacts of ongoing NPS vegetation 

management would be long term, minor to 

moderate, beneficial, and localized. 

Under alternative F, the impacts on the 

American crocodile would continue to be 

long term, adverse, minor, and localized. 

The determination of effect under Section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act would be not 

likely to adversely affect. 

Cumulative Impacts — Cumulative 

impacts under alternative F would 

generally be the same as under the noaction alternative. The south Florida 

ecosystem restoration project includes 

several proposals for restoration of 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative F 

401 

surface water flow within the region. The 

proposals would improve sheet flow and 

hydrologic connectivity, which would 

increase the quantity of freshwater inputs 

into the estuarine system, a beneficial 

impact on the American crocodile. This 

restoration of hydrologic flows and 

connectivity would be most beneficial to 

the crocodile in the nonnesting season 

when they seek inland freshwater 

habitats. However, the water quality of 

freshwater inflows is predicted to be 

worse than current conditions, which 

could adversely impact crocodile habitat. 

Overall, it is expected that restoring 

natural hydrologic conditions would 

produce long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impacts for the American crocodile. 

Regional growth and development, 

including waterfront development, is 

expected to continue in south Florida. 

This would result in the alteration or 

displacement of natural lands and 

changes to the local and regional 

hydrology. Because mangrove forests 

receive special protection under state law, 

any direct impacts on mangrove forests 

would be expected to be negligible. 

However, even if direct impacts on 

mangroves are avoided, urban 

encroachment might diminish mangrove 

habitat values if human activity and 

development is close to the mangroves. 

Road mortality would likely increase as 

development and regional population 

increase. Growth and development could 

also result in an increase in boating and 

other recreational activities in the area. 

Crocodile foraging, breeding, resting, and 

nesting might be affected by increases in 

motorboat disturbances, boat wakes and 

waves, and human noise or actions. 

Crocodiles could avoid some areas 

entirely depending on the level and 

frequency of human disturbances. The 

impact on the American crocodile from 

urban growth and development is 

expected to be long-term, moderate, and 

adverse. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in alternative F are 

added to the effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions as described above, there would 

be a long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on the 

American crocodile. The actions 

contained in alternative F would contribute a very small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion — Implementation of 

alternative F would result in localized, 

long-term, minor, adverse impacts on the 

American crocodile. The determination 

of effect under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act would be not 

likely to adversely affect. 

There would be a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on 

the American crocodile. The actions 

contained in alternative F would contribute a very small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of the American crocodile in the 

Addition because habitat conditions 

would be maintained or enhanced and 

the National Park Service would strive to 

meet the species recovery goals. (See 

specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

Eastern Indigo Snake. Under alternative F, 

impacts on potential habitat for the eastern 

indigo snake would be attributed to new 

facility development, expanded visitor use, 

NPS restoration efforts, and limited NPS 

administrative ORV use. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

402 

The continuation of NPS vegetation 

management efforts would continue to 

improve habitat values for the indigo snake 

and its prey. Given the snake’s dependence 

on a mosaic of habitat types throughout its 

lifecycle and its generalist nature in south 

Florida, the combination of these Additionwide active management efforts and natural 

restoration processes (that restore 

previously disturbed lands) would enhance 

the conditions for the eastern indigo. 

Impacts on the snake from these ongoing 

resource management activities would 

continue to be long-term, beneficial, minor, 

and Addition-wide. 

New facility development — such as hiking 

trails, trailheads, and access points at mile 

markers 51 and 63, Bear Island Grade, and 

Deep Lake — would impact potential 

eastern indigo habitat by causing short-term 

disturbances associated with construction 

activities and permanent loss of habitat. 

Development footprints would be confined 

to previously disturbed areas to the greatest 

extent possible (such as at existing access 

points along major highways), but there 

would still be a loss of habitat. The impact 

would be long term, minor, adverse, and 

localized. 

Public ORV use would continue to be 

prohibited in the Addition under alternative 

F. Therefore, little or no disturbance to 

vegetative groundcover or soil substrates 

would be expected. Other impacts, such as 

disturbance from public ORV noises, would 

also be avoided. This continued effect would 

be particularly beneficial to the eastern 

indigo in the upland areas of the Addition, 

such as pinelands or successional hardwood 

hammocks, which provide habitat conditions for foraging, breeding, and snake 

burrows or refuges. The prohibition of ORV 

use under this alternative would also retain 

the Addition as a large, unfragmented, 

mosaic of undisturbed snake habitat types, 

which is essential for viable eastern indigo 

populations (Layne and Steiner 1996, 

Breininger et al. 2004). 

The hunting pressure associated with walkin access only would be expected to be 

minimal, with negligible effect on the eastern 

indigo or its prey. In addition, continued 

enforcement of the Endangered Species Act 

and the Lacey Act would limit the risk of 

illegal snake capture for the pet trade. Other 

nonmotorized public use (e.g., backcountry 

hiking) would also continue and would be 

increased relative to that of the no-action 

alternative. However, this nonmotorized use 

would cause sporadic disturbance to the 

snake or its prey and would yield negligible 

to minor degradation of eastern indigo 

habitat. Limited administrative ORV use by 

NPS staff would also be an occasional, shortterm disturbance. Consequently, human use 

and disturbance in the Addition would 

continue to be minimal under alternative F 

and would maintain habitat conditions that 

support the eastern indigo snake and its 

prey. The impact from human activity would 

be long term, negligible to minor, adverse, 

and localized. 

Designating lands as wilderness under alternative F could result in beneficial impacts on 

potential eastern indigo habitat. The snake’s 

habitat would be preserved, and all uses and 

activities in wilderness would be subject to 

the provisions of the Wilderness Act, including the use of the minimum requirements 

process. This would likely result in greater 

protection of the snake’s habitat. However, 

compared to the no-action alternative and 

the fact that eligible land in the Addition 

must be maintained to preserve its 

wilderness characteristics and its eligibility 

as wilderness, the beneficial impact would be 

negligible. 

 

Overall, the impacts on the potential habitat 

for the eastern indigo snake under alternative F would result in long-term, minor to 

moderate, beneficial, impacts on this species 

across the Addition. The determination of 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative F 

403 

effect under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act would be not likely to adversely 

affect. 

Cumulative Impacts — Cumulative 

impacts under alternative F would generally be the same as under the no-action 

alternative. Implementation of the 2000 

Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within the original Preserve 

would reduce the impacts of off-road 

vehicles on the wide variety of habitat 

types that support the eastern indigo. 

Most importantly, the improved ORV 

management efforts in the original 

Preserve would reduce disturbance or 

degradation to vegetative groundcover 

and soil substrates in areas that provide 

for foraging, breeding, and snake 

burrows or refugia, such as pinelands or 

successional hardwood hammocks. This 

would benefit snakes in the region. 

Eliminating some and designating new 

ORV trails and conducting education, 

best management practices, research, and 

mitigation would limit impacts on the 

indigo snakes in the region. However, 

snake habitat might be altered or 

displaced, and individual snakes might be 

flushed in areas where ORV use is 

permitted under the plan. Overall, the 

impact of that plan on the eastern indigo 

in the region would be long term, minor, 

and beneficial. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

the eastern indigo snake habitat in the 

Addition. If such proposals included 

using off-road equipment and constructing roads and pads, this could result in 

the loss and degradation of several 

habitat types that support the snake. 

Adverse impacts would include displacement of vegetative cover for the snake; 

soil and burrow disturbances; possible 

roadway injury/mortality; and disruption 

of normal foraging, breeding, and 

dispersal behaviors. The impacts of these 

activities would be reduced because NPS 

approval of the operations plan would 

require mitigative measures. Short-term 

impacts on snake would be adverse, 

moderate, and localized, while long-term 

impacts would be adverse, minor, and 

localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within 

the region. The proposals would improve 

sheet flow and hydrologic connectivity, 

which would affect habitat conditions for 

many species. This hydrologic restoration 

could benefit the eastern indigo directly 

during times of the year when the snake 

uses wetter habitats in the area. At other 

times, it would benefit the eastern indigo 

indirectly by restoring a natural system 

that could improve conditions and 

increase populations of the snake’s food 

base. However, the reintroduction of 

natural flows could displace some 

existing upland areas. This effect could 

decrease available upland habitat for the 

eastern indigo snake and its prey that 

depend on upland habitat. The 

restoration of natural hydrologic 

conditions would have long-term, minor 

to moderate impacts that could be both 

beneficial and adverse to the snake. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and result in an 

increase in habitat displacement for the 

snake. Because the eastern indigo uses a 

variety of habitat types and has a large 

home range, it is particularly susceptible 

to habitat loss and habitat fragmentation 

from urban development. In addition to 

habitat displacement and fragmentation, 

urban development also brings injury or 

mortality threats from domestic animals, 

vehicles, property owners, and pesticides 

and rodenticides in the food chain. All of 

these would adversely affect eastern 

indigos. The impact of these activities on 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

404 

the snake is expected to be long term, 

moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on the 

eastern indigo snake would result from 

improved ORV management in the 

original Preserve and ecosystem 

restoration projects in the region. 

Adverse impacts would be expected from 

oil and gas development and regional 

growth and urban development. Overall, 

the effects of the projects discussed above 

would likely be adverse to the snake’s 

habitat in the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

the actions contained in alternative F are 

added to the effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions as described above, there would 

be a long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on the eastern 

indigo snake. The actions contained in 

alternative F would add a small beneficial 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion — Under alternative F, 

impacts on the eastern indigo snake 

would be long term, minor to moderate, 

and beneficial. The determination of 

effect under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act would be not likely to 

adversely affect. 

However, there would be a long-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse cumulative 

impact on the eastern indigo. The actions 

contained in alternative F would add a 

small beneficial increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in 

alternative F would not result in 

impairment of the eastern indigo snake in 

the Addition because habitat conditions 

would be maintained or enhanced and 

the National Park Service would strive to 

meet the species recovery goals. (See 

specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

 

Major Game Species 

Analysis. Under alternative F, impacts on 

the major game species of the Addition 

(white-tailed deer, feral hogs, and wild 

turkey) would be attributed to new facility 

development, expanded visitor use, and 

limited NPS administrative ORV use. 

New facility development — such as trails, 

trailheads, and access points at mile markers 

51 and 63, Bear Island Grade, and Deep Lake 

— would impact game species by causing 

short-term disturbances associated with 

construction activities and permanent loss of 

habitat. Development footprints would be 

confined to previously disturbed areas to the 

greatest extent possible (such as at existing 

access points along major highways), but 

there would still be a loss of habitat. The 

impact would be long term, minor, adverse, 

and localized. 

Public recreational ORV use would continue 

to be prohibited in the Addition under 

alternative F. However, public hunting 

would be allowed via walk-in access only. 

The Addition would be expected to become 

part of the adjacent Big Cypress State 

Wildlife Management Area. As in the original 

Preserve, hunting would be regulated 

according to the requirements, seasons, and 

bag limits established by the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission. Human 

use and disturbance in the Addition would 

continue to be minimal, but would be 

increased relative to the no-action alternative. The hunting pressure associated with 

walk-in access only would be expected to be 

minimal, with no important effect on the 

viability of game populations. Short-term, 

minor adverse impacts, such as flushing and 

displacement of game species, would 

continue. Long-term, moderate beneficial 

impacts could also occur from hunting and 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative F 

405 

management of game populations, such as 

disease mitigation and improvements in 

population genetics. Partnerships with the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission would continue and would 

contribute to the monitoring and improved 

understanding of game populations. 

Designating lands as wilderness under alternative F would likely result in beneficial 

impacts on major game species. Habitat 

would be preserved, and all uses and 

activities in wilderness would be subject to 

the provisions of the Wilderness Act, 

including the use of the minimum requirements process. This would likely result in 

greater protection of habitat for major game 

species; however, compared to the no-action 

alternative and the fact that eligible land in 

the Addition must be maintained to preserve 

its wilderness characteristics and its eligibility as wilderness, the beneficial impact 

would be negligible. 

Limited NPS administrative ORV use would 

continue to affect game species, potentially 

causing displacement and avoidance of 

certain areas within the Addition. The 

impact would be long term, minor, adverse, 

and localized. 

Collectively, impacts on major game species 

under alternative F would be long term, 

minor, adverse, and mostly localized. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative F would generally be the 

same as under the no-action alternative. 

Implementation of the 2000 Recreational 

Off-road Vehicle Management Plan within 

the original Preserve would reduce the 

adverse impacts of off-road vehicles on 

major game species in the region — a 

beneficial impact. Eliminating some and 

designating new ORV trails would make 

ORV noise and movement more predictable, 

thereby displacing animals away from travel 

corridors but reducing the impacts on 

wildlife habitat and game populations. 

Conducting education, best management 

practices, research, and mitigation called for 

in the ORV plan would also limit impacts on 

wildlife. Adverse impacts on major game 

species would still occur from ORV use in 

the original Preserve, but the effects on the 

species from the actions in the 2000 ORV 

plan would be less than with no ORV 

management. Overall, the impact of 

implementing the ORV plan on major game 

species would be long term, minor, and 

beneficial. 

Implementation of future oil and gas proposals could have adverse impacts on major 

game species in the Addition. If such proposals included using off-road equipment 

and constructing roads and pads, this would 

create human disturbances and alter wildlife 

habitat. The impacts of these activities would 

be reduced because NPS approval of the 

operations plan would require mitigative 

measures. Adverse impacts could include 

flushing and displacement of game species. 

Short-term impacts on major game species 

would be adverse, moderate, and localized; 

long-term impacts would be adverse, minor, 

and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect vegetation communities and in 

turn wildlife habitat. The impact on the 

major game species is unknown, but 

restoring natural conditions is expected to 

have a long-term, minor, beneficial impact. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and result in an 

increase in the conversion of natural lands to 

development in the general area. The loss of 

natural areas and the increasing urbanization 

of the region have led to a loss of wildlife 

habitat. The major game species are considered generalists and have demonstrated 

their resiliency and ability to adapt to 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

406 

changing conditions. Within the region, the 

three species (deer, hogs, and turkey) are 

widespread. However, continued urbanization has fragmented remaining natural areas 

and increased the risks and threats to these 

species, including automobile collisions, 

exotic species, and pathogens. The impact of 

these activities on the major game species is 

expected to be long term, minor to 

moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on major 

game species would accrue from ORV 

management and ecosystem restoration 

projects. Adverse impacts would be 

expected from oil and gas operations and 

regional growth and development. Overall, 

the effects of the projects discussed above 

would likely be adverse to major game 

species in the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative F are added 

to the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long-term, minor, 

adverse cumulative impact on the major 

game species. The actions contained in 

alternative F would contribute an appreciable beneficial increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Impacts on major game species 

under alternative F would be long term, 

minor, adverse, and mostly localized. 

There would be a long-term, minor, adverse 

cumulative impact on the major game 

species. The actions contained in alternative 

F would contribute an appreciable beneficial 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

the major game species in the Addition. (See 

specific definition of impairment in the 

"Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

 

WILDERNESS 

RESOURCES AND VALUES 

Analysis 

Under alternative F, the wilderness 

resources and values of the Addition would 

be enhanced and protected compared to the 

no-action alternative. Ongoing NPS 

resource management activities, as well as 

natural reclamation processes, would 

continue to improve the long-term 

naturalness of the Addition, but could cause 

some short-term adverse impacts on 

soundscapes and visitor opportunities from 

restoration actions. Several man-made 

features and sites (Nobles Grade and 

Carnestown facilities) would be removed, 

improving natural hydrologic function and 

permanently removing remnants of man’s 

imprint on the land, a beneficial impact. 

Because no public ORV use would be 

allowed, fragmentation of habitats would be 

minimized and the current condition of the 

natural soundscape would be preserved. 

Opportunities for solitude and primitive and 

unconfined recreation would continue to be 

preserved and available. Hunting, frogging, 

and fishing would be allowed but would be 

accommodated by walk-in access only. 

Approximately 71,260 acres of the Addition 

would be proposed for designation as 

wilderness (100% of those lands considered 

eligible under the wilderness study and 48% 

of the Addition’s total acreage). The special 

status and protection afforded to these lands 

under the Wilderness Act would preserve 

their wilderness resources and values in 

perpetuity — a beneficial impact. The 

portion of the Addition south of U.S. 41 

would be managed consistent with adjacent 

designated “marine” wilderness in 

Everglades National Park. 

Overall, the impacts on wilderness resources 

and values would be long term, major, 

beneficial, and Addition-wide. 

 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative F 

407 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts on wilderness resources 

and values under alternative F would 

generally be the same as under the no-action 

alternative. Implementation of the 2000 

Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management 

Plan within the original Preserve would 

minimize the effects of off-road vehicles on 

wilderness resources and values by reducing 

the potential for the dispersal and establishment of exotic plants, a beneficial impact. 

The impact on natural soundscapes resulting 

from the management of off-road vehicles in 

the original Preserve would be negligible 

because approximately the same number of 

off-road vehicles would be using the original 

Preserve and in roughly the same areas. 

Consequently, impacts on a visitor’s wilderness experience (freedom and natural sights 

and sounds) resulting from implementing 

the 2000 ORV plan would be negligible. 

Impacts on wilderness resources and values 

in the region would be negligible. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

wilderness resources and values. If such 

proposals included using off-road 

equipment and constructing roads and pads, 

this would create human disturbances and 

alter natural habitats. NPS approval of the 

operation plan would require mitigative 

measures to eliminate or reduce the impact 

of activities on natural resources. Short-term 

impacts on wilderness resources and values 

would be adverse, moderate, and localized; 

residual long-term impacts would be 

adverse, minor, and localized. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project includes several proposals for 

restoration of surface water flow within the 

region. The proposals would improve sheet 

flow and hydrologic connectivity, which 

would affect natural communities. Restoring 

natural conditions is expected to have a 

long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. 

Regional growth and development is 

expected to continue and result in an 

increase in the conversion of natural lands to 

development in the general area. Increasing 

urbanization, fragmentation of habitat, and 

the loss of natural areas have led to the 

degradation of natural resources, ecosystem 

function, and natural soundscapes in the 

region. The impact of these activities on 

wilderness resources and values is expected 

to be long term, moderate, and adverse. 

Collectively, beneficial impacts on 

wilderness resources and values would 

accrue from ecosystem restoration projects. 

Adverse impacts would be expected from oil 

and gas operations and regional growth and 

development. Overall, the effects of the 

projects discussed above would likely be 

adverse to wilderness resources and values 

in the region. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative F are added 

to the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

above, there would be a long-term, minor, 

adverse cumulative impact on wilderness 

resources and values in the region. The 

actions contained in alternative F would 

contribute a modest beneficial increment to 

this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion 

Impacts on wilderness resources and values 

under alternative F would be long term, 

major, beneficial, and Addition-wide. 

There would be a long-term, minor, adverse 

cumulative impact on wilderness resources 

and values in the region. The actions contained in alternative F would contribute a 

modest beneficial increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Impacts from actions contained in this alternative would not result in impairment of 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

408 

wilderness resources and values in the Addition. (See specific definition of impairment 

in the "Impairment of Addition Resources" 

section.) 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Resources 

Analysis. Under alternative F, there would 

be no impacts on archeological resources 

resulting from authorized ORV use. No 

ORV use would be allowed other than NPS 

administrative use and use by owners of 

inholdings operating under special permits. 

Illegal ORV use could displace soils and 

cause erosion of archeological sites. These 

impacts would be permanent, adverse, and 

of minor intensity. 

Most of the archeological sites in the 

Addition are middens. These raised mound 

areas would be potentially attractive to 

backcountry users, and trampling or 

disturbance could result in a loss of surface 

archeological materials, alteration of artifact 

distribution, and a reduction of contextual 

evidence. Continued ranger patrol and 

emphasis on visitor education would help 

minimize adverse effects, and any adverse 

effects would be permanent and of minor 

intensity. 

As appropriate, archeological surveys would 

precede any ground disturbance for the 

construction of parking, trailheads, new 

access points, and the operations facility and 

national register-eligible or -listed archeological resources would be avoided. No 

adverse impacts on archeological resources 

from such construction would be anticipated. If during construction previously 

unknown archeological resources were 

discovered, all work in the immediate 

vicinity of the discovery would be halted 

until the resources could be identified and 

documented. If the resources cannot be 

preserved in situ, an appropriate mitigation 

strategy would be developed in consultation 

with the state historic preservation officer 

and any associated Indian tribes. 

Cumulative Impacts. Current research 

indicates relatively little disturbance of 

archeological sites in the Addition resulting 

from past actions such as hunting and 

camping, logging, looting, and energy 

exploration. These impacts would be 

characterized as permanent and negligible. 

Implementation of future oil and gas 

proposals could have adverse impacts on 

archeological resources. If such proposals 

included using off-road equipment and 

constructing roads and pads, this could 

affect archeological resources. However, 

because approval of the operations plan 

would require mitigation measures to 

eliminate or reduce the impact of activities 

on archeological resources, the permanent 

effect of energy exploration on archeological 

resources should be negligible. 

However, significant archeological resources 

would likely be avoided to the greatest extent 

possible, and any impacts on archeological 

resources would be adverse, permanent, and 

negligible. 

When the permanent, minor, adverse effects 

of implementing the actions in alternative F 

are added to the permanent, negligible, 

adverse effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions, there would 

be a permanent, minor, adverse cumulative 

impact on archeological resources. The 

actions contained in alternative F would 

contribute a slightly larger increment to the 

cumulative impact than past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions. 

 

Conclusion. Under alternative F, impacts 

on archeological resources would be 

permanent, adverse, and minor. 

There would be a permanent, negligible, 

adverse cumulative impact on archeological 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative F 

409 

resources. The actions contained in 

alternative F would contribute a slightly 

larger increment to the cumulative impact 

than past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementation 

of alternative F would generally result in a 

no adverse effect on archeological resources. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

archeological resources in the Addition. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Analysis. Under alternative F, there would 

be minimal potential for impacts to ethnographic resources. No ORV use would be 

allowed other than NPS administrative use 

and use by owners of inholdings operating 

under special permits. The construction of 

trails for hiking, camping, cycling, and 

equestrian use, parking, trailheads, and 

interpretive signs could have impacts on 

previously unknown ethnographic 

resources. The National Park Service would 

work with traditionally associated people to 

identify ethnographic resources and identify 

appropriate protection strategies for these 

resources. Consultation with traditionally 

associated peoples would precede construction in order to avoid or mitigate impacts 

resulting from trail, parking, or other facility 

development. With this mitigation, no 

adverse impacts on ethnographic resources 

would be anticipated from construction. 

Cumulative Impacts. Although other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions may affect ethnographic resources 

in the area, alternative F would have no 

impacts on ethnographic resources and 

therefore would not contribute to the effects 

of other actions. Consequently, there would 

be no cumulative impacts on ethnographic 

resources under alternative F. 

Conclusion. Under alternative F, there 

would be no impacts on ethnographic 

resources. Therefore there would be no 

cumulative impacts. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementation 

of alternative F would generally result in a 

no adverse effect on ethnographic resources. 

Impacts from actions contained in this 

alternative would not result in impairment of 

ethnographic resources in the Addition. 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

Recreational Opportunities 

Motorized Use. ORV access and use would 

not be allowed under alternative F, with the 

exception of private property owners with a 

special use permit and limited NPS administrative use. The development of formal 

access points at Bear Island Grade and Deep 

Lake would provide additional pull-offs/ 

stopping points and visitor information and 

interpretation opportunities for visitors 

passing traveling on SR 29. Compared to 

alternative A, an increase in pull-offs/ 

stopping points and visitor information 

would have a long-term, negligible, 

beneficial effect. 

Nonmotorized Use (including hiking, 

horseback riding, and bicycling). Most of 

the Addition would be zoned as either 

primitive backcountry or would be proposed 

wilderness. The primitive backcountry zone 

would be compatible with the legal 

requirements associated with wilderness. 

Backcountry hiking, horseback riding, and 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

410 

dispersed camping would continue to be 

allowed, and result in beneficial impacts. 

Hikers and horseback riders would be able 

to experience a natural landscape and 

soundscape with opportunities for solitude 

and primitive and unconfined recreation in 

the Addition. The Florida National Scenic 

Trail would be formally designated, and new 

access points, including parking and visitor 

information, would be added at Bear Island 

Grade and Deep Lake. The mile marker 63 

access point would be enhanced and would 

include parking, a trailhead, visitor information and a new NPS operation facility. An 

increased NPS staff presence would have 

beneficial impacts by improving visitor 

safety and increasing opportunities for 

interpretation. The Deep Lake access point 

would include the addition of a boardwalk 

that would provide a safe and comfortable 

trail to the lake for frontcountry hikers. 

Existing use of the Nobles Grade as a trail 

would be eliminated, but would be offset by 

new trail opportunities and improved access. 

Existing facilities at Carnestown would also 

be removed. The expansion of access, recreational opportunities, visitor information 

and interpretation opportunities, and NPS 

operations in the Addition would result in 

long-term, moderate, and beneficial impacts 

on nonmotorized users. 

Existing roads and grades would be open to 

bicyclists, and new access points with additional visitor information and interpretation 

opportunities would be developed at mile 

markers 51 and 63 and Bear Island Grade. 

The trails leading from them would expand 

opportunities to explore and enjoy the 

Addition on a bike. User conflicts with other 

nonmotorized users at trailheads and along 

developed trails would be infrequent. 

Impacts on bicyclists would be long term, 

minor to moderate, and beneficial because 

of increased access and opportunity to enjoy 

the Addition. 

Hunting (including fishing and frogging). 

Nonmotorized hunting would be allowed in 

designated areas and seasons as determined 

by the National Park Service in cooperation 

with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. New access points and 

visitor information and interpretation 

opportunities at mile markers 51 and 63 and 

Bear Island Grade would increase accessibility to many parts of the Addition and 

enhance understanding of the Addition’s 

resources for nonmotorized hunters. 

Although hunting with the use of an ORV 

would not be allowed in the Addition, ORV 

hunters traveling through the Addition 

would benefit from additional stopping 

points. Camping access and opportunities 

would be the same for all nonmotorized 

users, including hunters as described above. 

The ability to hunt in the Addition and an 

increase in the number of access points 

would have a long-term, minor to moderate, 

beneficial impact on nonmotorized hunters 

and a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact 

on hunters with off-road vehicles because of 

more pull-offs/stopping points. 

Collectively, implementation of alternative F 

would result in long-term, minor, beneficial 

impacts on visitor use and experience. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Implementation of the 2000 Final Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management Plan

would provide up to 400 miles of designated 

primary ORV trails, 15 ORV access points, 

and up to 2,000 annual permits in the original Preserve. This quantity of trail miles and 

permits provides abundant opportunities for 

operating off-road vehicles and results in 

long-term, moderate, beneficial, impacts on 

ORV users in the local area. 

Implementation of future oil and gas proposals for exploration activities could adversely 

impact the experience of visitors. Noise and 

human activity from the construction of 

roads and pads and the use of off-road 

equipment, if included in the proposals, 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative F 

411 

could detract from the experience of those 

seeking a primitive experience and natural 

soundscape. Impacts resulting from a 

reduction in the natural settings of the 

Addition due to the operation of oil and gas 

equipment would be long term, minor, and 

adverse in localized areas. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

project is a large-scale effort among public, 

private, and nongovernmental entities to 

restore surface water flows within the 

region. Implementation of the proposals 

would improve sheet flows and hydrologic 

connectivity and likely restore natural 

conditions to the Addition. This effort 

would enhance the visitor use and experience by providing increased opportunities for 

wildlife viewing and experiencing natural 

settings. Opportunities for hunting in the 

Addition would also improve with more 

abundant, healthy wildlife populations. 

Impacts resulting from the effects of a 

healthy, fully functioning ecosystem would 

be long term, moderate, beneficial, and 

regionwide. 

Regional growth and development would be 

expected to result in increased visitation to 

the Addition. More visitations over time 

might result in increased congestion and 

user conflicts at access points and along 

trails. Resulting impacts from growth and 

development would be long term, minor to 

moderate, and adverse. 

Implementation of the Commercial Services 

Plan will initially only affect the original 

Preserve. The Addition will be addressed in 

an addendum to the Commercial Services 

Plan after the completion of this General 

Management Plan for the Preserve Addition. 

The Commercial Services Plan proposes to 

enhance the original Preserve’s visitor 

services through the development of one or 

more new facilities — a new backcountry 

camping complex; hunting and fishing 

guides; buggy, van, and hiking tours; boat 

and bicycle rentals; and expanded opportunities for birding, wildlife viewing, and 

photography. Enhanced and expanded 

opportunities in the Preserve, before an 

addendum to include the Addition, would 

increase visitation and might result in 

increased congestion and user conflicts. 

Impacts resulting from increased visitation 

and congestion at access points would result 

in long-term, minor, adverse impacts on 

visitors. When the Addition is addressed in 

an addendum, visitor opportunities to explore and use the Addition could be 

expanded, but only minimally given the lack 

of motorized access. If so, impacts from 

implementing the Commercial Services Plan

in the Addition would be long term, negligible, and beneficial as a result of expanded 

opportunities. 

 

Combining the likely effects of implementing alternative F with the effects of 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions described above, the cumulative impact on visitor use and experience in 

the Addition would be long-term, minor, 

and beneficial. The actions contained in 

alternative F would contribute an appreciable increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion 

Under alternative F recreational ORV riding 

and ORV hunting opportunities would be 

unavailable, whereas designated 

nonmotorized access and opportunities 

would increase. Collectively, the resulting 

impacts on visitor use and experience would 

be long term, minor, and beneficial. 

The cumulative impact on visitor use and 

experience in the Addition would be longterm, minor, and beneficial. The actions 

contained in alternative F would contribute 

an appreciable increment to this cumulative 

impact. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

412 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Analysis of economic impacts under alternative F were based on projected increases 

in visitation to the Preserve (including the 

Addition) (which in turn would affect visitor 

spending patterns), as well as estimated onetime capital expenditures because of construction activity. A total of 18,656 new 

visitors were estimated to visit the Preserve 

each year as a result of implementing this 

alternative. Of this total, it was assumed that 

3,918 were local visitors, 7,089 were nonlocal day visitors, 5,224 were motel visitors, 

and 2,425 were campers. In terms of capital 

expenditures, it was estimated that 

alternative F would produce $4.9 million in 

total construction costs. 

Local Economy 

Employment. The long-term impacts on 

employment as a result of implementing 

alternative F would be the creation of 19 

new jobs (17 direct and two indirect) in 

Collier County. This additional employment 

would generate a total labor income of 

$285,000 annually (covering wages, salaries, 

and payroll benefits), representing $216,000 

in direct labor income effects as a result of 

new job growth and $69,000 in indirect labor 

income effects from new job growth in 

tourism-related industries. Approximately 

half of this direct employment would be 

attributable to increases in staff needed to 

operate and maintain new facilities, trails, 

and services in the Addition; the remainder 

of new jobs would be created at businesses 

that cater to tourist-related activities. 

Indirect employment increases would be 

found in firms that support tourist-related 

businesses, as well as in firms that hire 

additional staff because of changes to direct 

employment spending. Because employment 

in Collier County is approximately 140,184 

(2006 estimate) these additional jobs would 

only increase county employment by .01%. 

Consequently, as a result of alternative F, 

long-term impacts related to employment 

would be localized, negligible, and 

beneficial. 

In terms of short-term impacts, approximately 37 temporary jobs would be created 

due to construction activity in the Addition, 

generating about $1.1 million in labor 

income. Most direct employment would be 

temporary labor during the construction 

period. Secondary employment increases 

would be the result of staffing increases in 

industries that provide goods and services to 

the construction sector as well as from 

businesses that hire additional employees as 

a result of changes in direct employee 

spending. The temporary jobs only represent 

a .02% increase in county employment. 

Consequently, as a result of alternative F, 

short-term impacts related to employment 

would be localized, negligible, and 

beneficial. 

Housing. Similar to alternative B and the 

preferred alternative, long-term housing 

impacts would be minimal due to such a 

small increase in employment, and if felt at 

all, would likely be concentrated in the 

Naples and Marco Island areas. Consequently, the long-term impacts related to 

housing would be localized, negligible, and 

beneficial. 

Short-term impacts from construction 

activity would also likely be minimal 

compared to total housing impacts at the 

county level. Although specific areas such as 

Naples and Marco Island might have a 

temporary increase in residential housing 

demand, such effects would not be felt 

throughout the rest of the county. Consequently, short-term impacts related to 

housing would be localized, negligible, and 

beneficial. 

Sales. Long-term sales impacts, as a result of 

increased visitor spending under alternative 

F, would generate a total of $839.0 million 

annually in taxable sales of goods and 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative F 

413 

services by businesses in Collier County. 

This represents the smallest increase in 

county sales of all the alternatives (aside 

from alternative A which would have no 

impact at all). Most businesses realizing 

these financial gains are within touristrelated industries, such as retail, arts, 

entertainment, recreation, accommodation 

and food services. As a total of Collier 

County’s annual taxable sales, estimated to 

be more than $6.10 billion, such a change 

roughly translates into a .01% increase. 

Consequently, the long-term impacts related 

to sales under alternative F would be 

localized, negligible, and beneficial. 

Short-term sales impacts related to construction activity would also be positive. 

Total annual sales under alternative F were 

estimated to be $3.1 million, with $2.5 

million (80%) of that amount attributable to 

transactions occurring within Collier 

County. Most direct sales would be linked to 

construction-related businesses, with 

indirect sales linked to industries that 

support the construction industry as well as 

spending by construction workers. Consequently, short-term impacts related to sales 

under alternative F would be localized, 

negligible, and beneficial. 

Tribal Impacts. In qualitatively assessing 

long-term economic impacts to the Miccosukee and Seminole tribes, both reservations would realize some positive long-term 

benefits under alternative F. Increased 

visitation to the Preserve as a result of this 

alternative would likely generate a small to 

moderate boost in sales of tourist-related 

goods and services provided at these 

reservations. However, the magnitude of 

such gains is based on reasonable speculation due to the limited amount of data 

available on the tribes’ economic activities. It 

can be assumed that any economic benefits 

realized under this alternative would be less 

than the gains realized under alternatives B 

and the preferred. This is in part because 

there would be no new partnership opportunities in the Addition under this alternative 

and the tribes would not realize any benefits 

as third-party vendors. Consequently, longterm impacts related to economic activities 

under alternative F would be localized, 

negligible to moderate, and beneficial. 

New construction activity in the Addition 

would generate temporary construction 

jobs. Additional construction workers in the 

area would likely increase visitation to the 

two reservations, leading to an increase in 

the sales of tourist-related goods and 

services. Positive affects would likely be less 

under this alternative than under alternatives 

B and the preferred. Consequently, shortterm impacts related to economic activity 

under alternative F would be localized, 

negligible to moderate, and beneficial. 

Collectively, the long-term and short-term 

impacts resulting from implementing 

alternative F would be localized, negligible, 

and beneficial. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The action area for evaluating cumulative 

impacts on the socioeconomic environment 

is Collier County. The likely effects of 

implementing the actions contained under 

alternative F, in combination with to the 

effects of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions are described below. 

The implementation of the Final Recreational Off-Road Vehicle Plan, which provides 

for a maximum of 2,000 permits, 15 access 

points, and 400 miles of designated trails, has 

a strong likelihood of attracting new visitors 

and locals to the Preserve. Such an increase 

in Preserve visitation would translate into 

greater visitor spending in the area, resulting 

in positive long-term gains for Collier 

County in terms of employment, housing, 

and taxable annual sales, as well as increased 

economic activity for the Miccosukee and 

Seminole tribes. However, relative to the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

414 

economy of the entire county, long-term 

economic impacts would likely be minimal. 

Short-term impacts as a result of one-time 

capital expenditures from building ORV trail 

access, facilities, and other structures are 

also likely to be minimal relative to the 

overall level of construction activity within 

the county. As a result, both long-term and 

short-term cumulative impacts would be 

localized, negligible, and beneficial. 

Although the Commercial Services Plan does 

not include the Addition, social and 

economic impacts to the county as a whole 

would be positive due to increased visitation 

and visitor spending in the area, and expansion of facilities, services, and recreational 

opportunities in the Preserve. In particular, 

the implementation of the Commercial 

Services Plan’s preferred alternative, which 

includes the potential to develop two new 

visitor facilities, partnership agreements for 

offering a variety of guided tours and equipment rentals, and the creation of a backcountry camping complex, could translate 

into moderate long-term gains in visitor 

spending at the county level. Depending on 

the level of construction activity generated 

from implementation of the Commercial 

Services Plan, short-term impacts could be 

substantial at the county level. As a result, 

both long-term and short-term cumulative 

impacts would be localized, negligible to 

moderate, and beneficial. 

The potential exists for exploration 

activities, as proposed under the oil and gas 

plan, to reduce visitation in the Preserve due 

to environmental disruptions from the use 

of off-road equipment and the development 

of roads and pads for oil and gas exploration. Due to multiplier effects, long-term 

impacts from reduced visitation could result 

in reductions in county employment, 

housing, and sales, as well as reduced 

economic activity for the Miccosukee and 

Seminole tribes. However, such effects will 

likely be minimal in relation to the entire 

county economy. Short-term impacts from 

construction could be both positive and 

substantial, depending on the level of 

construction and percentage of that 

economic activity that remains within the 

county. Long-term impacts would be 

localized, negligible, and adverse, while 

short-term impacts would be localized, 

negligible to moderate, and beneficial. 

The south Florida ecosystem restoration 

projects would likely attract additional 

visitors to the region due to the rehabilitation of natural ecosystems within and near 

the Preserve through various water system 

improvements. In particular, the Big Cypress 

Interceptor Modification Plan would likely 

increase use across a variety of recreational 

activities offered in the Preserve, particularly 

for visitors interested in enjoying the natural 

habitat and wildlife. Collier County would 

also benefit from restoration efforts in 

nearby sites, such as Everglades National 

Park, because additional visitors may pass 

through or decide to make an additional 

stop at the Preserve. Because these 

restoration projects are relatively large in 

scale, are occurring at multiple sites, and are 

at a regional level, the long-term impacts on 

county employment, housing, and sales, as 

well as economic activity for the Miccosukee 

and Seminole tribes could be substantial. 

Short-term impacts would also be positive 

because capital expenditures on water 

infrastructure improvements (estimated at 

multi-billions of dollars) would likely 

generate substantial temporary gains to 

county employment, housing, and sales, as 

well as economic activity for the Miccosukee 

and Seminole tribes. As a result, both longterm and short-term impacts would be 

localized, moderate, and beneficial. 

The development of lands northwest of the 

Addition could increase Preserve visitation 

and result in positive long-term economic 

impacts at the county level. In particular, the 

availability of greater residential housing and 

the building of a new private and state 

university in the area could greatly increase 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative F 

415 

the number of residents living in Collier 

County. The provision of additional services, 

goods, and facilities would also likely be 

expanded to accommodate these new 

residents, which in turn would also attract a 

greater number of visitors from outside the 

region. As a result, increased local and visitor 

spending would produce long-term positive 

gains to county employment, housing, and 

sales, as well as economic activity for the 

Miccosukee and Seminole tribes. Short-term 

economic impacts could be substantial at the 

county level, because large scale 

construction activity would be needed to 

support new residents, the universities, and 

visitors. As a result, long-term and shortterm impacts would be localized, moderate 

to major, and beneficial. 

Combining the likely effects of implementing the no-action alternative with the effects 

of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions described above, the 

cumulative long-term and short-term 

socioeconomic impacts would be localized, 

moderate to major, and beneficial. The 

preferred alternative would represent a very 

small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion 

Because of changes in visitor spending under 

alternative F, long-term and short-term 

impacts to the socioeconomic environment 

would be localized, negligible and beneficial. 

As a result, county employment, housing, 

sales, and economic activity associated with 

the Miccosukee and Seminole tribes would 

realize some positive gains, although such 

increases would be minimal when viewed at 

a county level. 

In terms of cumulative effects, long-term 

and short-term impacts would be localized, 

moderate to major, and beneficial. 

Alternative F would contribute a very small 

increment to this total cumulative impact. 

 

NPS OPERATIONS 

AND MANAGEMENT 

Analysis 

Alternative F proposes an operations center 

and employee housing to be located in the 

Addition. An operations center, which 

would station employees and equipment in 

the Addition, would increase operational 

efficiency and reduce response time for fire, 

law enforcement, maintenance, and interpretation staff. Currently, staff must travel a 

minimum of an hour to reach the Northeast 

Addition from the original Preserve. 

Employee housing for three law enforcement and two fire division staff would 

increase efficiency and reduce response time 

for fire and enforcement scenarios. Alternative F also proposes interpretive panels to 

orient and educate visitors to the Addition, 

which would reduce staff time required to 

orient visitors. These new facilities would 

result in moderate, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on NPS operations. 

However, the new facilities must be built, 

and oversight of design and construction 

processes would require managerial and 

contracting staff time. Additionally, new 

facilities must be maintained, and this would 

burden maintenance staff. Formalized 

trailheads at Deep Lake and Bear Island 

Grade and interpretive panels are also 

proposed for development in the Addition. 

Managing the Addition would require time 

and effort from administrative, visitor and 

resource protection, interpretation, resource 

management, and fire division staff. Maintenance and resource management in areas 

proposed as wilderness would require the 

use of the minimum requirements process, 

which would require staff time and, in some 

cases, could increase the cost of management actions. Increased visitation due to the 

new facilities would also require time from 

all staff divisions. Therefore, management of 

the Addition and construction and maintenance of facilities under alternative F 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

416 

would result in moderate, long-term, 

adverse impacts on NPS operations. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Expansion of nearby communities, including 

the towns of Ave Maria and Big Cypress, 

Everglades ecosystem restoration activities, 

and oil and gas exploration activities, would 

require time and attention by senior NPS 

staff. The expansion of commercial services 

offered in the original Preserve would 

require time from staff spent managing the 

commercial service authorizations and 

leases. Cooperation and coordination with 

neighboring agencies and entities regarding 

planning, land use resources, and development proposals near the preserve also would 

require substantial amounts of staff time and 

result in minor to moderate long-term 

adverse impacts. Alternative F would place 

an additional burden on NPS staff, but this 

burden would be lessened with adequate 

staffing. Combined with other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future impacts, 

alternative F would result in minor to 

moderate, long-term, beneficial cumulative 

impacts on NPS operations. Although the 

extra staff time required to manage the 

Addition facilities and actions taken by other 

entities would have adverse impact, the new 

facilities would play a much larger role in the 

overall impact by allowing staff to be located 

within the Addition and respond to 

operational and visitor needs in an efficient 

and timely manner. Alternative F’s proposed 

actions would contribute a modest 

increment to these cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion 

Operational efficiencies achieved through 

development of new facilities in the 

Addition, along with the increased staffing 

burdens associated with managing those 

lands and constructing and maintaining new 

facilities, would have overall moderate, longterm, beneficial and adverse impacts on NPS 

operations. 

The cumulative impacts of alternative F and 

other actions would be minor to moderate, 

long term, and beneficial. Alternative F’s 

proposed actions would contribute a modest 

increment to these cumulative impacts. 

EFFECTS ON ENERGY 

REQUIREMENTS AND 

CONSERVATION POTENTIAL 

The construction of new facilities under 

alternative F, such as trails, trailheads, access 

points, and an operations center, would 

result in more energy use and consumption; 

however, the projects would follow NPS 

policies concerning sustainability and energy 

conservation to minimize the overall energy 

requirements. The carbon footprint of the 

facilities would be minimized through 

appropriate design and the use of green 

technology to the greatest extent possible. 

To maintain, operate, and protect the facilities, NPS travel to and within the Addition 

also would increase, and the increased travel 

would increase energy consumption. The 

fuel and energy consumed by visitors 

traveling to and within the Addition would 

increase because visitation would be 

expected to increase slightly as a result of the 

Addition being open to the public and the 

offering of new nonmotorized recreational 

opportunities. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Human use and the construction of new 

facilities under alternative F would result in 

minor adverse impacts on natural resources 

in some areas throughout the Addition. The 

impacts on wildlife, vegetation, and the 

visitor experience, which are discussed in 

detail under each of the impact topics, would 

be unavoidable. Although all these impacts 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative F 

417 

would be unavoidable, mitigation to reduce 

them would be carried out where possible. 

IRRETRIEVABLE OR IRREVERSIBLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

The additional energy requirements 

identified above would result in an 

irreversible commitment of resources. In 

addition, there would be a commitment of 

material used to construct new visitor 

facilities such as trailheads and access points 

and the operations center at mile marker 63. 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL 

SHORT-TERM USES OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF 

LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

As in alternative A, most of the Addition 

would be protected in a natural state and 

would maintain its long-term productivity 

under alternative F. Only a small percentage 

of the Addition would be converted to 

development. No actions in this alternative 

would jeopardize the long-term productivity 

of the environment. Short-term impacts 

might result from construction, such as local 

air and water pollution, as detailed in the 

analysis of specific impact topics. Noise and 

human activity from construction and 

restoration might displace some wildlife 

from the immediate area. However, these 

activities would not jeopardize the long-term 

productivity of the environment.

Consultation and Coordination

C h a p t e r 5

421 

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

This Final General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Study / Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Big Cypress National 

Preserve Addition was based on input from 

the National Park Service, other agencies, 

American Indian tribes, and the public. 

Consultation and coordination among these 

groups were vitally important throughout the 

planning process. The public had several 

available avenues to provide comments during 

the development of the plan, including public 

meetings, postal mail, email, and the Internet. 

PUBLIC MEETINGS 

AND NEWSLETTERS 

Public meetings and seven newsletters were 

used to keep the public informed and involved 

in the planning process for the Addition. A 

mailing list was compiled that consisted of 

governmental agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, businesses, legislators, local 

governments, and interested citizens. 

The notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement was published in the 

Federal Register on June 12, 2001. 

The first newsletter concerning the general 

management plan for the Addition was issued 

in July 2001, and it outlined the purpose of the 

Preserve and the Addition. It also stated the 

Addition’s significance, including its natural 

and cultural heritage, and outlined the 

planning process for completing the general 

management plan. It urged the public to 

actively participate in the process by 

commenting on the purpose and significance 

statements and by attending one of the four 

public scoping meetings held during the 

summer of 2001 in Everglades City, Naples, 

Miami, and the Big Cypress Seminole 

Reservation. 

The public was engaged in the project as 

shown by the number of responses received 

following the release of the first newsletter. 

Approximately 90 people attended the 

scoping meetings, and more than 100 

comments and suggestions were received 

from individuals, organizations, and agencies. 

Comments received following publication of 

the first newsletter focused on the Addition’s 

role in the Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan (CERP); the need to 

implement science-based resource management; restoration of previously disturbed 

lands; and the need to address exotic species, 

fire, threatened and endangered species 

recovery, and protection of contemporary 

cultural sites. 

The planning staff paid close attention to 

comments and suggestions received. In 

addition, the Addition’s enabling legislation, 

legislative history, and federal law and policy 

were carefully reexamined. This process 

resulted in the revision of the purpose and 

significance statements proposed in the first 

newsletter. 

The second newsletter was issued in August 

2002 and included revised purpose and 

significance statements, an overview of the 

issues and comments received in response to 

the first newsletter, and a description of the 

next steps for the project. 

The third newsletter, issued in October 2005, 

outlined the preliminary alternatives and 

management zones for the Addition. Three 

public meetings were held in December 2005 

in Everglades City, Naples, and Weston to 

discuss and receive feedback on the preliminary alternatives. A total of 794 individuals 

provided comments in response to this 

newsletter, with more than 70% of the 

responses attributed to commenters from 

outside Florida. The comments indicated 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

422 

support for both ends of the spectrum of 

preliminary alternatives — from full 

motorized ORV access to little or no ORV 

access. 

A fourth newsletter was released in May 2006 

outlining the need for a wilderness study and 

off-road vehicle management plan for the 

Addition. The expansion of the scope of the 

planning process was a result of the strong 

response received from interested individuals, 

organizations, and public agencies as well as 

legal requirements. The notice of intent to 

expand the scope of the plan was published in 

the Federal Register on April 25, 2006. Three 

public meetings were announced and held in 

May 2006 in Everglades City, Naples, and Fort 

Lauderdale to gather comments on expanding 

the scope of the project to include the 

additional planning elements. 

A fifth newsletter was released in April 2007 

that outlined the revised preliminary 

alternatives and management zones for the 

Addition, incorporating proposed wilderness 

and ORV trails. Three public meetings were 

held in May 2007 in Everglades City, Naples, 

and Weston to gather input concerning the 

revised preliminary alternatives. Public 

interest was again significant, with about 4,800 

responses. Common issues and concerns 

included impacts of off-road vehicles on 

wildlife and vegetation; level of ORV access 

provided for recreational riding, hunting, and 

game management; trailhead parking 

capacities; impacts on the Florida panther 

from motorized use at Bear Island; and 

spending on proposed visitor facilities. 

A sixth newsletter published in February 2008 

provided a status update, with emphasis on 

how the general management plan would 

address access to the Addition from I-75. 

A seventh and final newsletter was issued in 

July 2010 updating the public on the next 

steps of the project and the expected dates for 

release of the final management plan and the 

agency’s “Record of Decision” on the project. 

RELEASE OF THE DRAFT GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS 

STUDY / OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT 

The Draft General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Study / Off-road Vehicle Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement

was released to the public on July 10, 2009. 

Four public meetings/wilderness hearings 

were held across south Florida to review the 

draft plan and receive public input: August 10, 

2009, in Miami, Florida; August 11, 2009, in 

Naples, Florida; August 12, 2009, in 

Everglades City, Florida; and September 22, 

2009, in Weston, Florida. The public comment period closed on September 30, 2009. 

A total of four wilderness hearings were held 

in the project area. These hearings were held 

in conjunction with the public meetings for 

the draft plan, but included a specific opportunity to provide input and comments on the 

wilderness study and proposal. A total of 104 

individuals spoke and provided oral comments. A hearing officer presided over the 

hearings and moderated the public comment 

session. A certified court reporter attended all 

four meetings, recorded all testimony, and 

prepared an official transcript of the meetings. 

A total of 16,912 pieces of correspondence 

about the draft plan were received from 

individuals, organizations, tribes, and 

agencies: 

 15,481 pieces of correspondence were 

received from individuals responding 

to an e-mail action alert produced by 

the National Parks Conservation 

Association. Of these, 14, 326 were 

form letters (where the text content 

was the same as what was included in 

the action alert message) and 1,155 

were personalized. 

 778 form letters were received from 

individuals using language prepared 
Public and Agency Involvement 

423 

by the Big Cypress Sportsmen’s 

Alliance. 

 653 comments were received via the 

NPS online comment system 

(Planning, Environment, and Public 

Comment (PEPC), through e-mail, or 

from comment forms or letters 

submitted via postal mail. 

All comment letters received from agencies 

and organizations, as well as the transcripts 

from the wilderness hearings, are posted to 

the PEPC Internet site (http://parkplanning. 

nps.gov/bicy) for public inspection. A report 

was also prepared that summarized the 

comments that were received during the 

review period for the draft plan; it was posted 

to the PEPC site in December 2009. 

RELEASE OF THE FLOODPLAINS 

STATEMENT OF FINDINGS 

To comply with Executive Order 11988, 

“Floodplain Management” and NPS 

Director’s Order 77-2, a “Floodplain 

Statement of Findings” was prepared and 

released to the public on May 11, 2010. The 

document was posted to the PEPC site and 

was available for review and comment for 

three weeks. A direct mailing was sent to all 

parties that received a copy of the draft plan 

informing them of the availability of the 

“Floodplain Statement of Findings” and 

inviting their review and comment. A news 

release was also prepared and was issued. 

No comments were received on the 

document, and it was approved by the NPS 

southeast regional director on June 22, 2010 

(see appendix D). 

CONSULTATION WITH AGENCIES, 

TRIBES, AND ORGANIZATIONS 

National Historic Preservation 

Act Section 106 Consultation 

Federal agencies that have direct or indirect 

jurisdiction over historic properties are 

required by Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

(16 United States Code 270, et seq.) to take into 

account the effect of any undertaking on 

properties eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places. To meet the 

requirements of 36 Code of Federal Regulations 

800, the National Park Service mailed a letter 

to the Florida state historic preservation 

officer on February 22, 2001, inviting their 

participation in the planning process. 

The National Park Service determined that 

the draft plan would have no adverse effect on 

cultural resources and mailed a copy of the 

draft management plan to the state historic 

preservation officer with a request for written 

concurrence with that determination. 

In a letter dated September 18, 2009, from the 

Florida Department of State, Division of 

Historical Resources, the state historic 

preservation office stated that cultural and 

historical resources were adequately 

addressed by the draft plan and that they 

agreed that the preferred alternative has the 

potential to adversely affect cultural resources 

(see appendix C). Therefore, continued 

consultation will be required before the 

initiation of ground-disturbing activities. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7 Consultation 

During the preparation of this document, NPS 

staff coordinated with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), Vero Beach, 

Florida office, and the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration’s National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA-NMFS). A 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

424 

letter was sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service on August 21, 2001 (see appendix C), 

initiating informal consultation and requesting a species list. 

The USFWS South Florida Ecological Services 

Office provided comments throughout the 

planning process, including a response in June 

2007 on the revised preliminary alternatives 

issued in newsletter #5. The list of threatened 

and endangered species included in this plan 

was compiled using lists and information 

received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

 

In accordance with the Endangered Species 

Act and relevant regulations at 50 CFR Part 

402, the National Park Service determined 

that the preferred alternative is likely to 

adversely affect four listed species — the 

Florida panther, red-cockaded woodpecker, 

Everglade snail kite, and eastern indigo snake; 

and not likely to adversely affect another three 

listed species — the West Indian manatee, 

wood stork, and American crocodile. NPS 

managers sent a copy of the draft management 

plan to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with 

a request to initiate formal consultation. The 

letter included references to the sections and 

pages of the draft plan that contain a 

description of the impacts on listed species 

and will serve as the “Biological Assessment.” 

The National Park Service determined that 

the draft plan would have no effect on listed 

species that are under the jurisdiction of the 

National Marine Fisheries Service and also 

mailed a copy of the draft plan to the National 

Marine Fisheries Service in accordance with 

section 7 (a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act. 

In addition, the National Park Service has 

committed to consult on future actions 

conducted under the framework described in 

this management plan to ensure that such 

actions are not likely to adversely affect 

threatened or endangered species. 

In a letter dated October 9, 2009, the USFWS 

South Florida Ecological Services Office 

stated that the draft plan did not contain 

sufficient analysis of the potential effects of 

the alternatives on federally listed species, 

especially the Florida panther (see appendix 

C). They indicated that additional information 

was needed for the plan and the “Biological 

Assessment.” In particular, they indicated that 

three species, the Everglade snail kite, eastern 

indigo snake, and American crocodile could 

be affected by the actions included in the plan 

and that these species should be included in 

the environmental impact analysis and 

“Biological Assessment.” 

In response to their letter, the National Park 

Service has continued to consult with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service on information 

needs for appropriate analysis of effects on 

federal threatened and endangered species. In 

particular, the two agencies have been 

working collaboratively to evaluate the 

applicability of certain studies and data to be 

used in evaluating impacts on the Florida 

panther. A study is to be completed by the 

University of Florida evaluating historical data 

and the correlation between ORV use and 

panther impacts. Another analysis being done 

using GIS evaluates the relationship between 

the NPS proposed ORV trail system and 

panther habitat. Both studies are being 

completed to assist the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service in evaluating effects on the Florida 

panther and developing their “Biological 

Opinion” (see chapter 4 for more information). Several conference calls and in-person 

meetings have been conducted with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission since 

the release of the draft plan to discuss data 

needs and potential improvements to the plan. 

USFWS staff also accompanied NPS staff on 

field trips to further evaluate the trail system. 

The plan has been revised to meet their 

requirements and respond to their comments 

and concerns. Please see the next section of 

this chapter for detailed information on their 
Public and Agency Involvement 

425 

comments, the NPS response, and how the 

document was revised to address their 

concerns. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

and Clean Air Act Compliance 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

has the authority and duty to evaluate federal 

agency compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Air 

Act. A copy of the Draft General Management 

Plan / Wilderness Study / Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement was mailed to the Environmental 

Protection Agency with a request for their 

review and concurrence. 

In a letter dated September 3, 2009, the 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 

stated that the draft plan did not contain sufficient information to fully assess the environmental impacts that should be avoided in 

order to protect the environment (see 

appendix C). They rated the draft plan EC-2 

(Environmental Concerns, additional 

information requested) and indicated that 

additional information should be included in 

the final plan. 

The plan has been revised to meet their 

requirements and respond to their comments 

and concerns. Please see the next section of 

this chapter for detailed information on their 

comments, the NPS response, and how the 

document was revised to address their 

concerns. 

Coastal Zone Management 

The Coastal Zone Management Act was 

enacted in 1972 to preserve, protect, develop, 

and where possible, to restore and enhance 

the resources of the nation's coastal zone. The 

act requires federal agency activities (i.e., 

“direct” agency activities) to be fully 

consistent with a state’s approved coastal 

management program, unless full consistency 

is prohibited by federal law. The Florida 

coastal management program was approved 

by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration in 1981 and is codified at 

Chapter 380, Part II, F.S. The Florida Coastal 

Management Program consists of a network 

of 23 Florida statutes that are administered by 

eight state agencies and five water management districts. This framework allows the 

state to make integrated, balanced decisions 

that ensure the wise use and protection of the 

state's water, property, cultural, historic, and 

biological resources; protect public health; 

minimize the state's vulnerability to coastal 

hazards; ensure orderly, managed growth; 

protect the state's transportation system; and 

sustain a vital economy. 

The National Park Service proposes no 

development in any area of the Addition that 

would conflict with the coastal zone 

management program. 

A copy of the Draft General Management Plan/ 

Wilderness Study / Off-road Vehicle Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement

was mailed to the Florida State Clearinghouse 

with a request for their review and 

concurrence. 

In a letter dated September 29, 2009, the 

Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection, on behalf of all state agencies that 

reviewed the draft plan, stated that the draft 

plan was inconsistent with the state’s coastal 

management program (see appendix C). They 

stated that for the plan to receive a 

“consistency determination,” two specific 

conditions must be met. 

The plan has been revised to meet their 

requirements and respond to their comments 

and concerns. Please see the next section of 

this chapter for detailed information on their 

comments, the NPS response, and how the 

document was revised to address their 

concerns. 

 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

426 

The State of Florida 

The Preserve’s enabling legislation, PL 93-440, 

as amended by the Addition Act, PL 100-301, 

requires the National Park Service to consult 

and cooperate with the state of Florida on 

such issues as implementation of hunting 

restrictions and the establishment of recreational access points into the Preserve along I75. During preparation of this document, NPS 

staff conducted several meetings with the 

Florida Department of Transportation and the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) to gather input and to 

ensure that facilities and activities contemplated in the alternatives were consistent with 

the plans, standards, and regulatory requirements of these agencies. The 1990 I-75 

Recreational Access Plan called for two access 

points in the Addition, and NPS staff met 

several times with the transportation department concerning planning of these sites to 

ensure consistency with that plan and the 

alternatives described in this document. 

Because hunting is mandated by the enabling 

legislation and regulated by the Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission, close 

consultation with that agency was essential to 

consider expanding hunting opportunities in 

the Addition. The Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission was regularly 

briefed on the status of this management plan 

at commission meetings, and a two-day 

workshop attended by several state and 

regional FFWCC representatives was held at 

the Preserve in November 2008 to review and 

comment on the draft document. 

A copy of the Draft General Management Plan/ 

Wilderness Study / Off-road Vehicle Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement

was mailed to the Florida State Clearinghouse 

with a request for their review and concurrence. The draft plan was distributed to the 

following state agencies for review: 

Department of Environmental Protection; 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services, Division of Forestry; Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission; 

Department of Community Affairs; South 

Florida Water Management District; 

Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council; 

and the Department of State. 

In a letter dated September 29, 2009, the 

Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection, on behalf of all of the state 

agencies that reviewed the draft plan, stated 

that the draft plan was inconsistent with the 

department’s statutory authorities under 

Chapters 253, 259 and 373 of Florida Statute. 

(see appendix C). The letter included a 

number of concerns, requests, and recommendations that reflect the consensus 

position of the state on this project. 

The plan has been revised to meet their 

requirements and respond to their comments 

and concerns. Please see the next section of 

this chapter for detailed information on their 

comments, the NPS response, and how the 

document was revised to address their 

concerns. 

Consultation with Native Americans 

The National Park Service recognizes that 

indigenous peoples may have traditional and 

contemporary interests and ongoing rights in 

lands now under NPS management, as well as 

concerns and contributions to make for the 

future via the scoping process for general 

management plans and other projects. Related 

to tribal sovereignty, the need for 

government-to-government Native American 

consultations stems from the historic power 

of Congress to make treaties with American 

Indian tribes as sovereign nations. 

Consultations with American Indians and 

other Native Americans, such as Alaska 

Natives and Native Hawaiians, are required by 

various federal laws, executive orders, regulations, and policies. For example, such consultations are needed to comply with Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, as amended. Implementing regulations 
Public and Agency Involvement 

427 

of the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) for the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969), as amended, also call for Native 

American consultations. 

Letters were sent to the Seminole Tribe of 

Florida, the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, 

and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of 

Florida on December 12, 2001, to invite their 

participation in the planning process. Each 

tribe was invited to meet at his or her 

convenience, at a tribally selected place such 

as the headquarters of the tribe. The purpose 

of the meeting was to discuss the general 

management planning process underway and 

any concerns the tribal government, on behalf 

of the members of the tribe, might have about 

protecting, preserving, and managing Big 

Cypress National Preserve’s cultural and 

natural resources. 

The tribes were briefed on the scope of the 

planning project and the preliminary alternatives by newsletter and follow-up telephone 

calls soliciting comments. Oral comments by 

the tribes included recommendations to adopt 

alternative A with hunting and no proposed 

wilderness. Conversations have been ongoing 

throughout the planning process to inform the 

tribes about the progress of the plan and 

identify how and to what extent they would 

like to be involved. 

 

The rights, privileges, concerns, and interests 

of the Preserve’s American Indian neighbors 

are very important to consider; it is equally 

important to work out mutually acceptable 

arrangements on particular issues. The tribes 

have been kept fully informed throughout the 

planning process and have been sent all 

newsletters and a copy of the Draft General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Study / Off-road 

Vehicle Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

Seminole Tribe of Florida. A number of 

concerns, requests, and recommendations 

were stated in a letter dated September 30, 

2009, from the law firm of Lewis, Longman & 

Walker, P.A. representing the Seminole Tribe 

of Florida (see appendix C). 

The plan has been revised to meet their 

requirements and respond to their comments 

and concerns. Please see the next section of 

this chapter for detailed information on their 

comments, the NPS response, and how the 

document was revised to address their 

concerns. 

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma. No 

comments were received from the Seminole 

Nation of Oklahoma. 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. A 

consultation meeting was held with the 

Miccosukee Tribe for this project on 

September 24, 2009, where several concerns 

were raised. 

The plan has been revised to meet their 

requirements and respond to their comments 

and concerns. Please see the next section of 

this chapter for detailed information on their 

comments, the NPS response, and how the 

document was revised to address their 

concerns. 

Communications with 

Other Native Americans 

In addition to consulting with federally 

recognized tribes, the National Park Service 

met with the Council of the Original 

Miccosukee Simanolee Nation, Aboriginal 

People in September 2009. The National Park 

Service received and considered comments 

from the council as well as from the 

Independent Traditional Seminole Nation of 

Florida and posted them on the NPS PEPC 

website. 

Other Outreach Efforts 

In addition to consultation required by law, 

Preserve staff conducted outreach with 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

428 

various stakeholder groups and agencies. In 

April 2006 Preserve staff convened a focus 

group meeting attended by representatives of 

the Florida-based recreational and environmental groups closely involved in the planning 

process. The purpose was to seek common 

ground between the polarized groups. In 

spring 2008 Preserve staff met separately with 

stakeholder groups, congressional staff, 

agencies, and tribes, concluding with a joint 

stakeholder meeting in May 2008. Additional 

outreach with interested or affected parties 

will be continued until the plan is approved 

and also during its implementation. 

FUTURE COMPLIANCE 

REQUIREMENTS 

The National Park Service will comply with all 

appropriate laws in implementing the 

preferred alternative. In the following table 

the specific future compliance requirements 

of the preferred alternative are listed. Other 

compliance, as appropriate, is also listed. 

TABLE 29: FUTURE COMPLIANCE REQUIRED FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIFIC ACTIONS UNDER THE PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE

Action Compliance Requirement 

 Routinely monitoring and stabilizing 

archeological sites. 

 Monitoring cultural landscapes and 

historic structures to protect, preserve, 

maintain, and research them. 

These items are programmatically excluded from future 

Section 106 review and state historic preservation 

officer consultation. 

 If eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places, discovery of archeological 

sites that cannot be avoided via surveying 

new trails or formalizing existing trails. 

Future Section 106 review and state historic 

preservation officer consultation would likely be 

necessary and required before construction at the 

project implementation planning or design stages. 

Consultations with associated American Indian groups 

would also be necessary. 

 I-75 recreational access facility design and 

levels of ORV use by area 

Before any access facilities are built and open to the 

public, compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act would be required for the proposed 

recreation access points that are included in the 

preferred alternative. Although NEPA compliance for 

the I-75 access points was completed in 1991 with the 

I-75 Recreational Access Plan Environmental 

Assessment, this Section 7 compliance would include 

consideration and assessment of appropriate levels of 

ORV use, by area, within the Addition. Any new 

research and data regarding special status species, such 

as the Florida panther, would be incorporated into the 

Section 7 compliance and access decisions. This 

compliance would also include consultation with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission, and other 

appropriate resource agencies. 
Public and Agency Involvement 

429 

 Ground-disturbing activities and 

construction associated with new trail 

development, formalizing existing social 

trails, trailhead and parking lot 

development, and the development of 

visitor facilities such as visitor contact 

stations and interpretive facilities. 

Relevant permits, such as Section 404 permits from the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, would be required for 

construction in jurisdictional wetlands. 

Also, according to NPS policies, the National Park 

Service would be required to develop a “Wetlands 

Statement of Findings” that quantifies all wetland 

impacts from trail and facility development in the 

Addition. This analysis would be completed before any 

NPS facilities or trail development were constructed that 

could affect wetland resources in the Addition. The 

“Wetlands Statement of Findings” would include a 

functional analysis of wetland impacts throughout the 

Addition. As per NPS policy, this analysis would address 

a wide variety of wetland values and functions (i.e., 

beyond the areas that are directly dredged or filled, as 

per Clean Water Act, Section 404 requirements). The 

“Wetlands Statement of Findings” would also identify 

all possible impact mitigation measures to be included 

in facility or trail development. These environmental 

documents will tier from this management plan and 

include additional site-specific data needed for impact 

assessment and mitigation. 

Threatened and endangered species surveys and 

coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

would be required before, during, and after 

implementation of new developments within the 

Addition. 

 Hunting management in the Addition Before the Addition is open for hunting, the National 

Park Service would develop a hunting management 

plan that would follow NEPA compliance requirements. 

The environmental impact analysis in this compliance 

process would include an assessment of the effects of 

hunting activities on special status species such as the 

Florida panther. This would include both the effects of 

human presence (i.e., hunters dispersed throughout the 

Addition) and the effects of white-tailed deer 

management on the panther’s primary food source. 

Any new research and data regarding special status 

species, such as the Florida panther, would be 

incorporated into the hunting management decisions. 

This NEPA compliance would also necessitate 

consultation with the appropriate resource agencies. 

The National Park Service would work closely with the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the development of 

the hunting management plan. 
430 

COMMENTS ON, CHANGES TO, AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON 

THE DRAFT PLAN 

INTRODUCTION 

This section of the plan describes the 

comments that the National Park Service 

received on the Draft General Management 

Plan / Wilderness Study / Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement (the Draft GMP/EIS, DGMP/EIS, 

the general management plan, the draft EIS, or 

the draft plan). It includes a list of 

commenters, an overview of the range of 

comments received, a summary of the changes 

and clarifications made to the plan as a result 

of the comments, and specific responses to 

substantive comments. 

COMMENTERS ON THE DRAFT PLAN 

The Draft General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Study / Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement was made available for public 

review on July 10, 2009. The public comment 

period ended on September 30, 2009. The 

document was sent to about 60 agencies, 

tribes, organizations, businesses, and elected 

officials. Other copies were also provided to 

individuals upon request. The draft plan was 

also posted on the Internet and distributed at 

meetings. Nearly 17,000 comments were 

received. 

Federal Government Agencies 

The following government agencies submitted 

comments on the draft plan. Copies of all 

letters received from agencies are posted to 

the NPS planning (PEPC) website at 

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/bicy. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

American Indian Tribes 

The following American Indiana tribes 

submitted comments on the draft plan. Copies 

of all letters received from tribes are posted to 

the PEPC website. 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida 

Seminole Tribe of Florida 

Comments were also received from the 

Council of the Original Miccosukee 

Simanolee Nation, Aboriginal People and 

the Independent Traditional Seminole 

Nation of Florida. 

State Agencies 

The following state government agencies 

submitted comments on the draft plan. Copies 

of all letters received from agencies are posted 

to the PEPC website. 

Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (Florida State Clearinghouse) 

Organizations 

The following organizations submitted 

comments on the draft plan. Copies of all 

letters received from organizations are posted 

to the PEPC website. 

Allied Sportsmen’s Associations of Florida 

Audubon of Florida and Collier County 

Audubon Society 

Big Cypress Sportsmen’s Alliance 

Collier Sportsmen and Conservation Club, 

Inc. 

Collier Resources Company 

Conservancy of Southwest Florida 
Comments on, Changes to, and Responses to Comments on the Draft Plan 

431 

Council of the Original Miccosukee 

Simanolee Nation, Aboriginal People 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Everglades Coordinating Council 

Florida Trail Association 

Florida Wildlife Federation 

Independent Traditional Seminole Nation 

of Florida 

Jetport Conservation and Recreation Club 

National Parks Conservation Association 

National Wild Turkey Federation — 

Everglades Longbeards Chapter 

National Wild Turkey Federation — 

Florida State Chapter 

North American Butterfly Association — 

Miami Blue Chapter 

Pegasus Foundation 

Public Employees for Environmental 

Responsibility 

Safari Club International 

Sierra Club 

The Future of Hunting in Florida, Inc. 

Tropical Audubon Society 

Individuals 

More than 16,000 individuals provided 

comments on the draft plan. Copies of all 

comments received from individuals are 

posted to the NPS PEPC website. 

RANGE OF COMMENTS 

A summary of the public comments received 

on the draft plan was prepared and posted to 

the PEPC website (at http://parkplanning. 

nps.gov/bicy) in December 2009. This report 

summarized the range and nature of 

comments received from individuals, 

organizations, government agencies, and 

American Indian tribes. 

Commenters expressed both support and 

opposition to motorized access in the 

Addition for a variety of reasons. Commonly 

cited concerns included ORV access and trail 

opportunities, hunting, ORV administration, 

impacts to wildlife including federally listed 

species, wilderness preservation, exotic 

species management, and visitor experience. 

Commenters also expressed both support and 

opposition to wilderness designation in the 

Addition. Commonly cited reasons included 

ORV access, fire management, exotic species 

management, and opportunities for solitude. 

CHANGES AND CLARIFICATIONS 

TO THE DOCUMENT 

Changes to the Alternatives 

In response to comments received on the 

draft plan, the following key changes were 

made to the alternatives. 

1. Wilderness 

A final “Wilderness Eligibility 

Determination” was completed (see 

appendix B). The amount of wilderness 

proposed in each of the alternatives was 

updated based on the findings of this 

process. Wilderness proposed in the 

preferred alternative is limited to the 

Northeast Addition south of I-75 only. 

2. ORV Trails and Permits 

Additional field investigation of the 

sustainable ORV trail system was 

conducted, which resulted in minor 

changes to the trail system. The number of 

miles of trail in the preferred alternative 

was reduced to further limit impacts to 

sensitive species and their habitats. The 

number of miles included in alternative B 

was adjusted to correlate to the number of 

sustainable trail miles available for ORV 

use. The number of permits included in 

alternative B and the preferred alternative 

was reduced to correspond to the 

reduction in the number of trail miles 

included in each of the alternatives. 

3. ORV Management and Administration 

The user capacity section was revised to 

better explain and justify the proposed 

system of indicators and standards. 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

432 

4. Future Compliance Requirements 

Additional details were added to the 

“Future Studies and Implementation Plans 

Needed” section, as well as to the table 29 

in “Chapter 5: Consultation and 

Coordination” that describes future 

compliance requirements so that the 

public and agencies are clear on what 

decisions would be made by this plan and 

which actions would need future 

compliance (and/or permits). 

 

The next section, “Responses to Comments 

on the Draft Plan,” includes more detail on 

specific changes made to the alternatives 

chapter, including sections and page numbers 

that were revised.

Changes to the Affected Environment 

and Environmental Consequences 

Changes were made throughout the 

document to clarify language and respond to 

questions and concerns that were raised by 

comments received on the draft plan. Sections 

that include the most new information include 

water resources (surface water flows, 

wetlands, and floodplains), wildlife (protected 

wildlife species and exotic and nonnative 

wildlife species), and cultural resources 

(archeological resources and ethnographic 

resources). The next section, “Responses to 

Comments on the Draft Plan,” includes more 

detail on specific changes made to the 

“Affected Environment” and “Environmental 

Consequences” chapters, including sections 

that were revised. 

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 

ON THE DRAFT PLAN 

All comments submitted by government 

agencies, American Indian tribes, organizations, and members of the public were 

carefully reviewed. Substantive comments 

were identified, and categories were 

developed to organize similar comments. A 

substantive comment is defined by NPS 

Director’s Order 12 (Section 4.6A) as one that 

does one or more of the following: 

 Questions, with a reasonable basis, the 

accuracy of information in the 

environmental impact statement; 

 Questions, with a reasonable basis, the 

adequacy of the environmental analysis; 

 Presents reasonable alternatives other 

than those presented in the EIS; and/or 

 Causes changes or revisions in the 

proposal. 

The substantive comments have been 

summarized below along with NPS responses. 

The comments are presented as summaries or 

paraphrases of the original comments. 

Comments from, and responses to, government agencies and American Indian tribes are 

presented first, followed by comments and 

responses from state agencies, organizations, 

and individuals. Comments from individuals 

and nongovernmental organizations are 

presented and organized by broad categories. 

The comments included are intended to 

characterize the concern and sentiment of 

individual respondents. 

Responses to the substantive comments are 

provided only once. For example, if an 

individual and an organization raise the same 

concern or substantive comment, then it is 

presented only once along with the NPS 

response. 

Agency and tribal letters are reprinted in 

appendix C. 

COMMENTS FROM FEDERAL 

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

1. Comment: “The FEIS should identify how it 

was determined that 140 miles of ORV trails is 
Comments on, Changes to, and Responses to Comments on the Draft Plan 

433 

the least amount necessary in order to provide 

access throughout the site and still maintain an 

ecological balance within the Addition. Also, 

information on the use of the remaining 113 

miles of ORV trails located within the Addition 

should be provided. EPA recommends that any 

trails not used be restored to its natural 

community type.”

Response: As stated in the draft plan on 

page 100, NPS staff evaluated the existing 

trails in the Addition to determine if they 

were sustainable for ORV use. NPS staff 

also considered the presence and needs of 

sensitive species in the design of the 

conceptual primary trail system. Based on 

comments received, the NPS staff 

reevaluated certain areas of the conceptual 

trail system and determined that the 

number of miles of sustainable trails should 

be reduced to 135. The miles of trails 

proposed in the ORV trail system were 

determined by the planning team to meet 

public access needs while affording 

necessary environmental protection. The 

amount of trails included in the preferred 

alternative was reduced from 140 miles to 

130 miles to further minimize impacts on 

wetlands and sensitive species. 

As stated in the draft plan on page 108, the 

remaining trails that would not be used for 

public ORV use would be reclaimed 

(natural elevations and plant communities 

restored) as funding permits. 

2. Comment: “The DEIS did not include 

information on efforts taken to avoid or 

minimize wetland and other waters of the US 

impacts. EPA requests that the FEIS provide 

information on measures that have been taken 

to avoid or minimize onsite waters of the US 

impacts.”

Response: Trail siting criteria, as 

described on page 100 of the draft plan, 

included avoidance and minimization of 

impacts on wetlands. Evaluation of 

substrate was a component of the trail 

sustainability evaluation. Impacts on 

wetlands were further minimized by 

locating most of the ORV trails in upland 

areas north of I-75 where the substrate is 

more suitable for ORV riding. South of I75, the trail system was limited to existing 

roads and trails. The NPS planning team 

evaluated trail conditions in the field again 

in January 2010 in certain areas south of I75 and made adjustments to the proposed 

trail system to further minimize impacts on 

wetlands and the environment. 

Furthermore, ORV access is limited to 

designated trails only. Based on initial 

evaluations, the National Park Service has 

determined that less than 1 acre of direct 

impact on wetlands would occur from 

needed trail treatment activities. The 

National Park Service would apply to the 

South Florida Water Management District 

and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the 

necessary permits to accomplish this 

activity and would work cooperatively with 

them to further minimize impacts on 

wetlands. As described in table 29 of this 

plan, a “Wetlands Statement of Findings” 

would also be prepared that describes 

measures to avoid or minimize wetland 

impacts. 

Additional information on wetland impacts 

and mitigation actions, as well as future 

compliance activities, has been added to 

the document in chapter 4 in the 

“Wetlands” topic for each alternative. 

Mitigation would be completed as 

required. 

3. Comment: “The DEIS did not include 

information on the total amount of wetland 

impacts that will occur per alternative and the 

mitigation necessary to offset those impacts. The 

FEIS should provide a description of the 

wetland impacts which will occur by alternative 

and how those impacts will be mitigated. In 

addition, a wetland functional analysis for all 

proposed wetland impacts and mitigation 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

434 

necessary to offset those impacts should be 

provided. Technical rationale for each score 

should also be included.”

Response: Wetland impacts for each of 

the alternatives have been quantified to the 

degree possible at this stage of planning 

(see chapter 4 in the “Wetlands” topic for 

each alternative. Additional mitigation 

measures have been added and existing 

ones clarified to ensure proper mitigation. 

Based on initial evaluations, NPS staff has 

determined that less than 1 acre of direct 

impact to wetlands would occur from 

needed trail treatment activities. The 

National Park Service would apply to the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the 

necessary permits to accomplish this 

activity and would work cooperatively with 

them to further minimize impacts on 

wetlands. 

A wetlands functional analysis, although 

not completed as part of this GMP/EIS 

process, would be completed before 

implementation of any action that would 

affect wetlands, as required by Executive 

Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands.” A 

“Wetlands Statement of Findings” (as 

required by NPS Director’s Order 77-1) 

would be prepared and released to the 

public for review and comment before 

initiation of any ORV trail or facility 

development that could impact wetlands. 

Mitigation of wetland impacts would be 

completed as required. 

4. Comment: “The DEIS lacked detailed 

information on the cumulative impacts the 

proposed alternatives would have on the 

environment. EPA requests that the FEIS 

provide a cumulative impact analysis for the 

entire Big Cypress National Preserve, including 

the Addition.”

Response: The EIS does include an 

analysis of cumulative impacts (see chapter 

4). According to Council on 

Environmental Quality implementing 

regulations for the National Environmental 

Policy Act, a cumulative effect is derived by 

assessing the impacts of the actions proposed in the alternatives in combination 

with the impacts of other present, past, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions in the 

project area. The scope of this plan is the 

Addition of Big Cypress National Preserve. 

To determine cumulative effects, the 

planning team identified several projects 

(see pages 246-249 in the draft plan) in the 

original Preserve that could affect the 

resource topics to be analyzed. Accordingly, the document includes an analysis of 

how these projects and actions, in combination with the actions proposed in the 

alternatives, would affect the resources of 

the project area and the impact topics 

included in the EIS. A cumulative impact 

analysis was not completed based on the 

notion of the NPS Preserve boundary, but 

rather was completed for the action area 

determined to be appropriate for each of 

the impact topics. Often, this action area 

greatly exceeds the physical boundary of 

the Preserve. 

5. Comment: Page 80 of the DEIS — “The 

DEIS states that a maximum of 700 ORV 

permits would be issued annually for the 

Addition. How was it determined that the 

issuance of 700 ORV permits would not have a 

negative impact on the aquatic environment?”

Response: As stated on pages 98–100 of 

the draft plan, the approach that was used 

to develop the ORV permit cap was based 

on the ratio of trail miles to permits (5:1 

ratio) in the original Preserve. In the 

original Preserve, where this ratio has been 

used in on-the-ground management for 

nearly 10 years, monitoring results indicate 

that ecological conditions are acceptable 

and actually improving for certain sensitive 

species. Therefore, the National Park 

Service applied this ratio to the Addition to 

determine the total number of permits. 
Comments on, Changes to, and Responses to Comments on the Draft Plan 

435 

Monitoring and adaptive management are 

a component of the preferred alternative 

that would ensure that unacceptable 

impacts to the aquatic environment do not 

occur. 

6. Comment: Page 108 of the DEIS — “The 

DEIS states that the NPS would restore areas 

that have been impacted by off-road vehicles 

within the Addition. The FEIS should document 

the total number of acres impacted by off-road 

vehicles, the restoration efforts proposed, and 

how future off-road impacts will be restricted.”

Response: Approximately 244 miles of 

ORV trails have been documented in the 

Addition. These trails were established and 

used before the federal government 

became the owner and the National Park 

Service became manager of the Addition. A 

formal quantification of the extent of 

impacts attributed to these trails has not 

been conducted. However, given that an 

average ORV trail is about 12 feet wide, the 

National Park Service estimates that about 

355 acres have been impacted by prior 

ORV use. As stated in the draft plan, the 

National Park Service intends to reclaim 

the trails that would not be used as part of 

the ORV trail system. Future impacts from 

ORV use would be restricted by requiring 

ORV use on designated trails only, by 

monitoring and adjusting management 

actions, and through education of ORV 

users and enforcement of regulations. 

7. Comment: Page 200 of the DEIS — “The 

DEIS states that no developed campgrounds 

currently exist in the Addition. It is unclear if the 

NPS is proposing to develop these types of 

campgrounds within the Addition. The FEIS 

should be clear on this point and identify any 

ecological impacts should developed 

campgrounds be proposed.”

Response: Currently, dispersed camping 

is allowed in the Addition. The preferred 

alternative includes a proposal for providing designated camping opportunities at 

the terminus of Jones and Nobles grades. 

Primitive backcountry group campsites 

(see “Preferred Alternative” section on 

Nobles and Jones grades) would be 

established in previously disturbed locations. These campsites would not be 

accessible by street legal vehicles, only by 

backcountry motorized and nonmotorized 

users. The environmental consequences of 

this action have been evaluated in the EIS. 

8. Comment: Page 336 of the DEIS — “The 

DEIS did not provide any discussions on the 

proposed authorization of horseback riding 

within the Addition. EPA believes that the FEIS 

should include restrictions on horseback riding 

to insure it does not have an adverse impact on 

the aquatic functions of the Addition.

Response: Horseback riding restrictions 

are given in the descriptions of the alternatives. Horseback riding is currently 

allowed in the Preserve, including the 

Addition, except in developed areas and on 

the Florida National Scenic Trail. Very 

little horseback riding occurs, and this is 

not expected to change because the terrain, 

substrate, and water conditions are 

generally not conducive to this activity. 

Because of the low level of activity, 

environmental impacts would be negligible 

for all alternatives. The environmental 

consequences section for each alternative 

has been revised accordingly. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

9. Comment: “While we agree with most of the 

“topics” that are dismissed, we believe that some 

topics should be evaluated further. The 

Everglade snail kite, American crocodile, and 

eastern indigo snake should be retained and 

analyzed because the description in Table 1 

suggests a “may affect, not likely to adversely 

affect” determination. In order to fulfill the 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

436 

requirement of the implementing regulations (50 

CFR Section 402), an informal consultation is 

likely to be necessary for those species. 

Therefore, a complete analysis of the potential 

effects should be documented in either the GMP 

or a Biological Evaluation.”

Response: The Everglade snail kite, 

American crocodile, and Eastern indigo 

snake were added as impact topics in the 

final plan, along with a complete analysis of 

the potential effects on these species (see 

chapter 4 in the final plan). 

10. Comment: “The draft GMP does not 

include information on administrative (NPS, 

FWC, researchers, oil and gas operators, 

contractors) ORV use. Please include 

information on the type of administrative ORV 

use that would be allowed in each of the 

alternatives.” 

Response: Administrative ORV use by 

NPS staff, its agency partners, and 

cooperators would be managed the same as 

it is in the original Preserve, except that 

activities in eligible or proposed wilderness 

would be consistent with requirements of 

the Wilderness Act and NPS Management 

Policies 2006. See “ORV Administration 

and Management” subsection of Chapter 2 

(under “The Alternatives and User 

Capacity , Adaptive Management, ORV 

Administration and Management, and 

Wilderness”) for more information. 

11. Comment: “Information presented on the 

Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) is 

dated. This section should present the most 

current science on the species as well as its status 

and the status of recovery actions taking place 

within BICY. Please update the science of the 

species to enable the NPS to make informed 

decisions regarding the potential effects of the 

alternatives on the Florida panther. Updated 

information on the Florida panther may be 

found in the 2008 revision of the Florida 

panther recovery plan (Service 2008).”

Response: The “Affected Environment” 

(chapter 3, pages 170-174 in the draft plan) 

and “Environmental Consequences” 

(chapter 4, pages 262-264, 291-293, 324-

326, and 358-360 in the draft plan) sections 

for the Florida panther were revised to 

include more recent information and data. 

The National Park Service consulted with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on their 

information requirements and worked 

collaboratively with them to prepare 

updated material for inclusion in the final 

plan. See “Chapter 5: Consultation and 

Coordination” in the final plan for more 

information. 

12. Comment: “Level of use restrictions such 

as management unit quotas for hunting or ORV 

use, are not mentioned in the draft GMP. As 

noted in our June 13,2007, memorandum 

providing comments on the alternatives 

described in NPS' Newsletter 3, we recommend 

determining management unit quotas by vehicle 

type and number of permits appropriate for a 

given management unit. We recommend level of 

use quotas to be established for all management 

units in BICY, which will help in assessing the 

effects of specific levels of use on federally-listed 

species and their habitats.”

Response: Management units and quotas 

were not included in the plan; however, the 

plan does include a maximum number of 

ORV permits that could be issued for the 

entire Addition. Although NEPA compliance for the I-75 access points was completed in 1991 with the I-75 Recreational 

Access Plan Environmental Assessment, the 

National Park Service has committed to 

assessing levels of ORV use in the Addition 

through future compliance with Section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act that is 

required for the development of the I-75 

recreational access points (see table 29 in 

the final plan. The access points along I-75 
Comments on, Changes to, and Responses to Comments on the Draft Plan 

437 

will accommodate visitor entry into the 

Addition, and ORV use levels could be 

established for areas based on entry site. 

The National Park Service would consult 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

prepare the required materials to support 

analysis of effects to federal listed species. 

The Addition would not be opened to 

public hunting until a hunting management 

plan is developed. The National Park 

Service has committed to developing such 

a plan in consultation with the Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The 

hunting management plan would determine appropriate game harvest levels by 

evaluating species population status and 

trends, hunter densities, and impacts on 

the Florida panther. Best practice game 

management techniques would be used as 

needed in the development of proposed 

regulations by the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission. 

The Addition would not be opened to 

public ORV use until the recreational 

access points are developed and trails are 

treated (as needed), designated, and 

adequately marked. This could be 

accomplished in phases; but areas that do 

not meet this standard would not be 

opened for public motorized use. 

13. Comment: “We recommend greater 

analysis of the impact of non-native animals on 

fish and wildlife resources in the Addition 

Lands. Most discussion of impacts of non-native 

species is limited to plants. Non-native animals, 

such as the Mexican bromeliad weevil 

(Metamasius callizona), have an impact on 

rare native plant species. Additionally, the 

proliferation of exotic fish in south Florida 

impacts the aquatic ecosystems in the area. 

Please address the potential impacts of the 

spread of invasive non-native animals by 

human activity in the Addition.”

Response: Additional information on 

nonnative animals was added to “Chapter 

3: Affected Environment” and to the 

mitigation measures included in chapter 2. 

The “Guiding Principles for Management” 

subsection included in chapter 1 also 

references the need and desire to eliminate 

and manage nonnative/exotic species. 

14. Comment: “Climate change is not 

mentioned in the draft GMP. Please clarify how 

climate change was considered in the 

development of the alternatives and the analysis 

of the environmental consequences for each 

alternative.”

Response: Climate change was included in 

the “Guiding Principles for Management” 

subsection of chapter 1 of the draft plan 

(see page 28). A climate change action plan 

was also included as one of the “Future 

Studies and Implementation Plans 

Needed” in chapter 2 (see page 124 of the 

draft plan). This climate change action plan 

would provide a more detailed, specific 

evaluation of climate science, predicted 

impacts to Preserve resources, and potential adaptation responses or strategies. 

Climate change was considered in the 

development of the alternatives by limiting 

new facility development, using sustainable 

design and development principles in the 

facility proposals, and developing a balance 

of actions that afford recreational access 

and protect the conservation values of the 

Addition. The resource management 

activities that are a part of the alternatives 

would increase the resiliency and integrity 

of the resources in the Addition so that 

they will better adjust and respond to 

future impacts from climate change. The 

environmental impact analysis included in 

chapter 4 was developed with these 

assumptions in mind. 

15. Comment: “Page 64 — The section 

describing how the alternatives were developed 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

438 

should include a description of the analyses used 

to develop the different alternatives.”

Response: Additional language was added 

to chapter 2 that explains the process and 

analyses used to develop the alternatives. 

16. Comment: “Pages 75 and 81 — Please 

describe the methodology used to conclude that 

140 miles of designated trail system was 

appropriate for the Addition Lands. We 

recommend using an analysis similar to that 

developed during the development of the ORV 

Plan. This analysis included the resiliency of the 

substrate, sensitivity of the resources present, 

and proximity to sensitive resources among 

other parameters. Also, please specify how 

many miles of secondary trails may be created 

or opened in the Addition Lands under 

Alternative B and the Preferred Alternative.”

Response: The process used to evaluate 

the sustainability of ORV trails and 

determine the number of trail miles was 

included on page 100 of the draft plan. No 

maximum number of miles of secondary 

trails was established for the alternatives; 

however, secondary trails are intended to 

be short spur trails that receive less use 

than the primary trail system and would be 

allowed only within the backcountry 

recreation management zone. Trails 

allowing motorized use would be 

prohibited in the primitive backcountry 

zone. 

17. Comment: “Pages 80 and 81 — The 

Preferred Alternative does state that connecting 

trails from the Addition Lands to Bear Island 

would require additional NEPA, but Alternative 

B does not include this statement. Please clarify 

why this statement was not included in the 

description of Alternative B or include it in the 

description of this alternative. Please specify in 

greater detail how 700 permits were derived 

and what the environmental effects of issuance 

of these permits would be on natural resources. 

The amount of additional parking proposed for 

the access areas is not enumerated in this 

alternative either.”

Response: This statement has been added 

to alternative B. The process for determining the ORV permit cap is described on 

page 98 of the draft plan, and the potential 

impacts on natural resources from ORV 

use are analyzed in chapter 4 for each of 

the relevant resource topics. The amount 

of parking spaces proposed for access 

points or trailheads was described in the I75 Recreational Access Plan (1990). 

Additional detail would be determined at 

the site planning and design stage. 

18. Comment: “Page 105 — The wood stork 

(Mycteria americana) and Florida panther 

criteria lacks supporting scientific citations. 

Please ensure that the most current guidelines 

are referenced and include them in an 

appendix. In addition, if the guidelines are 

revised, the version used during development of 

this document needs to be clear to future 

readers. For the Florida panther, what research 

or data were used to determine that a trail 

would be closed if a den was located within 0.5 

miles? Please provide information or citations 

on the development of these criteria.”

Response: Citations and clarifying 

language were added to the final plan. For 

the wood stork and the Florida panther, 

pages 574 and 575 respectively of the Final 

Recreational Off-Road Vehicle Management 

Plan and Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement: Big Cypress National 

Preserve (NPS 2000) contains the USFWS 

“Biological Opinion” concurring with the 

NPS plans to use the Habitat Management 

Guidelines for the Wood Stork in the 

Southeast Region (USFWS 1990) “to ensure 

that setbacks for ORV trails from colony 

sites are consistent with the recommendations in the referenced document.” Page 

46 of the 2000 Recreational ORV Management Plan prescribes the determination 
Comments on, Changes to, and Responses to Comments on the Draft Plan 

439 

method for wood storks using the revised 

guidelines being prepared (at that time) by 

Rodgers. The ORV plan “Biological 

Opinion” similarly prescribes a change in 

the extent of designated trails in the Bear 

Island Unit of the Preserve that could 

provide additional buffer in popular 

denning areas. 

19. Comment: “Page 121 — We suggest the 

last word of the first sentence should be changed 

from ‘plants’ to ‘species’ since nonnative plants 

are not the only invasive species present within 

the Preserve.”

Response: The wording has been updated 

in the same section of the final plan. 

20. Comment: “Page 121 — Under the 

‘Wildlife’ section, please change the word 

‘spawning’ to ‘breeding’ as not all species are 

considered to spawn.”

Response: The wording has been updated 

in the same section of the final plan. 

21. Comment: “Page 121 — Under the 

Threatened and Endangered Species section, 

second bullet, we do not believe any of the 

alternatives would completely eliminate human 

disturbance.”

Response: We have revised the mitigation 

measure to acknowledge that human 

disturbance would be eliminated to the 

greatest extent possible, in accordance 

with USFWS recommendations. 

22. Comment: “Page 137 — Summary of Key 

Impacts Table. ...the eastern indigo snake 

(Drymarchon corais couperi) should be added 

to this list.”

Response: The table has been updated in 

the same section of the final plan. 

23. Comment: “Page 170 — This section 

should be updated with information contained 

in the 2008 Florida Panther Recovery Plan.”

Response: The wording has been updated 

in the same section of the final plan. 

24. Comment: “Page 240 — In Table 28, the 

categories of Negligible, Minor, Moderate, and 

Major are used to categorize the intensity levels 

of the potential effects the proposed alternatives 

may have on different resources. For threatened 

or endangered species, the resulting effect 

determination included in these columns may 

not correlate to the Endangered Species Act (16 

U.S.C,1531 et seq. as amended, in 1988) 

definition of minor. For an activity to be "not 

likely to adversely affect," the effects of the 

activity must be insignificant and discountable, 

that is, they should not be measurable. If this 

was the intention, then the text should be 

clarified.”

Response: Language has been added and 

clarified in the same table in the final plan. 

25. Comment: “Page 263 — The first 

paragraph described effects including "flushing 

and displacement" of panthers. These types of 

effects are measurable and not likely 

insignificant or discountable; therefore, they 

would not qualify as minor effects to the 

panther. Also, the mention of the 2000 ORV 

Management Plan is confusing with respect to its 

relevance to this GMP. The ORV Management 

Plan specifically excluded the Addition Lands 

since a GMP was not in place. Please clarify its 

relevance or remove references to the 2000 ORV 

Management Plan.”

Response: The impact intensity was 

revised from minor to minor to moderate. 

References and analysis of the relationship 

and effects of the 2000 Recreational ORV 

Management Plan are included because it is 

part of the cumulative impacts analysis 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

440 

required by the National Environmental 

Policy Act. 

26. Comment: “Page 292 — Under Cumulative Impacts, the 2000 ORV Management Plan 

is referenced without any clarification on its 

relevance to the GMP. In addition, the Collier 

Resources Company Oil and Gas Plan of 

Operations is mentioned but no details or 

indication of its relevance to the GMP is 

included. In the second to last paragraph on this 

page, reference is made to regional growth and 

development. How is this a cumulative effect of 

the proposed alternative? Please provide 

clarification on these points.”

Response: An analysis of cumulative 

effects is required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act and the Council 

on Environmental Quality’s implementing 

regulations. Pages 246-249 of the draft plan 

included a description of the projects or 

actions that would be included in the 

cumulative effects analysis. The 2000 

Recreational ORV Management Plan was 

one of the cumulative projects listed 

because it was an action or past project that 

could influence resource conditions in the 

Addition or in the region. Consequently, 

each of the resource impact topics includes 

an analysis of cumulative impacts that may 

be attributed to ORV management in the 

original Preserve. The same is true for the 

“future oil and gas operations” and 

“regional growth and development 

projects.” Furthermore, the relationship of 

these plans to this general management 

planning effort was described on pages 34 

and 42 of the draft plan. 

27. Comment: “Page 368 — In the 

environmental consequences section for this 

alternative and all the alternatives, there is 

insufficient analysis of the potential effects of the 

actions on federally listed threatened or 

endangered species. We look forward to 

discussing the information necessary for a 

complete analysis of the potential effects of the 

alternatives on threatened and endangered 

species that should be included in the GMP or 

Biological Evaluation.”

Response: Since the time of releasing the 

draft plan and receiving the USFWS 

response letter, the National Park Service 

has consulted with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to further discuss their 

concerns and requirements. Additional 

language and analysis of potential impacts 

has been added to all of the alternatives to 

further describe the potential effects on 

listed species. Further consultation and 

compliance with Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act for listed species 

would be necessary for certain actions 

included in this plan, including the 

development of the I-75 recreational 

access points and the opening of the 

Addition to public hunting. 

COMMENTS FROM AMERICAN 

INDIAN TRIBES

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida 

A consultation meeting was held on 

September 24, 2009. The following comment 

came from that meeting. 

28. Comment: There was a concern about 

impacts to the Reservation from public access 

into the Addition from the L-28 Canal.

Response: The National Park Service 

would work with the tribe and the South 

Florida Water Management District to 

define and implement public access 

strategies to ensure that Reservation lands 

are not accessed by the public without 

permission from the tribe. Public access to 

the L-28 exists already, and it is anticipated 

that this can be managed in a manner 

similar to the existing locked gate system. 
Comments on, Changes to, and Responses to Comments on the Draft Plan 

441 

Seminole Tribe of Florida 

29. Comment: Public use of the area will 

disrupt the migration patterns of large 

mammals (Florida panthers, black bears, deer, 

turkey) traveling between the Preserve and the 

Addition, adversely impact wood stork 

rookeries and potential nesting habitat for the 

red-cockaded woodpecker near the 

Reservation’s southern border, degrade browse 

and ground cover that are needed to support 

game and panther prey habitat, and degrade 

panther denning habitat.

Response: Although Janis and Clark 

(1999) did find that the average distance of 

panther locations from trails increased, 

and that the frequency of panther use in 

one area decreased when human presence 

in the area increases during the hunting 

season, they surmised that those changes in 

behavior were biologically minor and 

probably related to prey behavior. 

Although eight variables were examined — 

(1) morning activity, (2) movement, (3) 

predation success, (4) home range size, (5) 

home range shifts, (6) habitat selection, (7) 

distance from trails, and (8) frequency of 

use in Bear Island — the authors failed to 

detect any relationship between ORV use 

and the first six variables. There is no 

evidence that supports the comment above 

with regard to the areas comprising the 

original Preserve boundary; in fact with 

regard to Florida panthers, they demonstrate a high tolerance to human presence, 

to the point of lingering around developed 

areas in east Naples, Florida. Limiting the 

levels of use in the Addition, through 

implementation of permitting and 

temporal and spatial closures, and using 

conservation measures derived through 

consultation with the U.S Fish and Wildlife 

Service should mitigate the potential for 

adverse impacts on listed species. 

30. Comment: Surface water flow and 

wetlands will be adversely impacted by ORV use 

and would degrade the investment that the 

Tribe and Army Corps of Engineers have put 

into the restoration of natural sheet flow. The 

plan should more specifically describe impacts to 

surface water flow and wetlands and identify 

best management practices and compensatory 

mitigation.

Response: The plan acknowledges that 

localized (site-specific) impacts to water 

resources could occur from ORV use. 

However, the actions included in the plan 

would not adversely affect water resources 

on a regional scale and would not adversely 

affect the investments that the Tribe or any 

government agencies have made in 

hydrologic and ecosystem restoration in 

the Everglades system. It is important to 

note that ORV use would be restricted to 

existing trails, and that trails not designated 

for use would be eventually restored to 

natural elevations and vegetation. 

Furthermore, the National Park Service 

would strive to add additional water 

conveyance structures to existing raised 

grades where appropriate. Additional 

language was added to further describe and 

evaluate potential impacts to surface water 

flow and wetlands in each of the 

alternatives. The mitigative measures for 

water resources were also revised to 

include additional conservation measures. 

COMMENTS FROM THE 

STATE OF FLORIDA 

31. Comment: “Ongoing south Florida 

ecosystem restoration projects include several 

proposals for the restoration of surface water 

flows in the region, including the Big Cypress/L28 Interceptor Modifications and the Seminole 

Tribe Big Cypress Water Conservation Plan, 

designed to reestablish sheet flow and restore the 

more natural water flows from the Big Cypress 

Reservation and into the Big Cypress National 

Preserve. The final Plan/EIS must evaluate the 

potential effects that ORV trail development will 

have on restoration benefits expected from these 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

442 

projects. The selected plan should detail the 

proposed activities to facilitate the Department’s 

determination of anticipated adverse impacts to 

south Florida ecosystem restoration projects 

identified under 373.470, F.S., and whether the 

proposed activities comply with the 

requirements of Chapters 373 and 403, F.S. 

Response: Additional information was 

added to the cumulative impact analysis of 

each of the alternatives to indicate that the 

actions proposed in the alternatives would 

have only localized adverse effects on 

surface water flow and hydrology (i.e., 

limited to the Addition and to site-specific 

areas) and that the overall effects on 

ecosystem restoration projects included in 

373.470 Florida Statutes would be negligible. The investment that the state is making 

in projects near the Preserve would not be 

adversely affected by the actions included 

in this general management plan. The 

National Park Service would apply to the 

state for the necessary permits and licenses 

that are required to implement actions that 

are a part of this plan and would work 

cooperatively to ensure that the actions are 

consistent with Florida statute. It is also 

important to note that the National Park 

Service is not developing a new trail 

network, but rather intending to allow use 

on trails that already exist. Actions associated with the south Florida ecosystem 

restoration effort are also scheduled for 

implementation beyond the intended life 

of this plan. Nothing proposed would 

inhibit the federal, state, or local efforts to 

engage in comprehensive ecosystem 

restoration. 

32. Comment: “In addition to the foregoing, 

the Department has several other concerns that 

should be addressed in the final plan and prior 

to the commencement of any activity that would 

require the issuance or renewal of a state license 

under Chapters 373 and 403, F.S. Final agency 

action on an application (i.e., issuance or 

renewal of a license) for any activity regulated 

by the Department shall constitute the state’s 

final determination on whether an activity is 

consistent with the federally approved Florida 

Coastal Management Program. See Sections 

373.428 and 380.23, F.S. The Department has 

the following additional concerns: 

A. Paragraph 2 of the Department’s letter 

dated August 27, 2001, identified several 

important issues, including the designation 

of waters and wetlands as “special waters”

— a category of Outstanding Florida 

Waters that prohibits dredge-and-fill 

activities not clearly in the public interest. 

Public access features that involve adverse 

impacts to wetlands should be avoided. A 

copy of the 2001 letter is available upon 

request. 

B. The Florida Scenic Trail traverses the 

northeast portion of the Addition land and 

the portion of the Preserve that begins south 

of I-75. The maps for Alternative B and the 

Preferred Alternative depict some overlap 

between ORV and other trails. Potential 

conflicts should be evaluated and explained 

in the final Plan/EIS. 

C. Typically, in draft federal actions related to 

projects or plans of this importance, the NPS 

consults with the FWC and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service regarding Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act. The Department 

was unable to find in Appendix C any letters 

or comments from either agency addressing 

compliance with the Endangered Species 

Act.”

Response: The National Park Service 

recognizes that the Addition is classified as 

Outstanding Florida Waters. The National 

Park Service has avoided and minimized 

impacts to wetlands in developing its 

proposed ORV trail system. Preliminary 

analysis included in the plan indicates that 

dredge-and-fill needs for trail treatment 

would be limited to less than 1 acre. The 

National Park Service would apply to the 

state for the necessary permits and licenses 

that are required to implement actions that 
Comments on, Changes to, and Responses to Comments on the Draft Plan 

443 

are a part of this plan and would work 

cooperatively to ensure that the actions are 

in the public interest and are consistent 

with Florida statute. 

The National Park Service has documented 

the potential for user conflict on multiuse 

trails and has developed a system of 

indicators and standards to ensure that 

conflicts are minimized and that the quality 

of the visitor experience is maintained (see 

the “User Capacity” subsection (under 

“The Alternatives and User Capacity, 

Adaptive Management, ORV Administration and Management, and Wilderness”) in 

chapter 2 of the final plan. Furthermore, 

the plan specifically states that the National 

Park Service would work cooperatively 

with the Florida Trail Association and U.S. 

Forest Service to establish a route for the 

Florida National Scenic Trail that 

minimizes trail conflicts. This route would 

be formally designated through the 

Addition and the Preserve. 

The National Park Service has been working cooperatively with the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for more 

than 10 years on this project. The planning 

process has included many public and 

agency comment opportunities. Both the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service have provided extensive comments 

on the general management plan. These 

comments are included in the administrative record of the project. Informal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act has occurred to date. A consultation response letter from the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (dated October 9, 

2009 and included in appendix C) indicated that additional information was necessary to complete consultation requirements for listed species. The National Park 

Service has completed the necessary 

information for the “Biological Assessment” required by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and has responded to all 

concerns and requests that were included 

in the USFWS response letter. USFWS staff 

will evaluate the information included in 

this final plan and prepare a “Biological 

Opinion” necessary to complete Section 7 

consultation under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

33. Comment: “In accordance with 15 C.F.R. 

§ 930.4, the Draft Plan/EIS will be consistent 

with the enforceable policies of the Florida 

Coastal Management Program and the 

Department will concur with the NPS’

determination that the Draft Plan/EIS is 

consistent with the previously cited provisions of 

state law (in Chapters 253, 259 and 373, F.S.), if 

and only if the following conditions are 

satisfied: 

I. Any Wilderness designation in the Addition 

must include specific language that directs 

the Park Superintendent of Big Cypress 

National Preserve to work with other 

federal, state and local agencies to eradicate 

exotic plants and animals and prevent their 

spread into and out of the Addition; to use 

prescribed fire as a management tool for 

restoring and maintaining native plant 

communities; and to conduct necessary law 

enforcement activities. Any Wilderness 

designation must also include language 

directing the Park Superintendent to use the 

most effective and timely methods for 

conducting these critical management 

activities, including the use of mechanized 

equipment. In addition, any Wilderness 

designation must allow the Park 

Superintendent and cooperating agencies to 

suppress and contain fires that threaten 

adjacent natural or built areas using the 

most effective and timely methods, including 

the use of mechanized equipment. 

II. The final Plan/EIS must evaluate the 

potential effects that recreational 

development activities, including ORV trail 

modifications, will have on the surface 

hydrology of the area and the anticipated 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

444 

benefits of the south Florida ecosystem 

restoration projects identified in § 373.470, 

F.S. The selected alternative must provide 

details regarding proposed trail development 

and improvement activities, so the 

Department can determine whether the 

activities will adversely impact south Florida 

ecosystem restoration projects and whether 

the activities may be eligible for licensing 

under Chapters 373 and 403, F.S. The 

Department’s evaluation of the trail 

development or improvement activities 

during its review of the final Plan/EIS will 

not bind or prejudice any future 

determination of the Department or the 

South Florida Water Management District in 

their evaluation of applications submitted 

pursuant to Chapters 373 and 403, F.S., nor 

shall the fulfillment of this condition for the 

purpose of the final Plan/EIS’s consistency 

with state law be considered the final 

consistency determination for any of those 

applications.” 

Response: Appropriate language was 

added to the description of proposed 

wilderness for all action alternatives that 

directs the National Park Service (and 

other parties involved in the wilderness 

designation process) to include certain 

language in the wilderness transmittal 

package (and ultimately the bill that seeks 

to designate wilderness in the Addition). 

Wilderness is created and designated by 

Congress; therefore, the language included 

by the National Park Service in this plan 

must be considered a recommendation 

that would require Congress to include and 

act upon. As discussed in NPS Management 

Policies 2006, the National Park Service 

would apply the minimum requirement 

concept to determine the techniques and 

types of equipment needed to ensure that 

impacts on wilderness resources and 

character are minimized. 

Additional language was added to the plan 

that further describes the impact that the 

plan would have on surface water flow and 

ecosystem restoration projects included in 

Florida statutes. The National Park Service 

would apply to the state (or its designee) 

for the necessary permits and licenses that 

are required to implement actions that are 

a part of this plan and would work 

cooperatively to ensure that the actions are 

consistent with the Florida Coastal 

Management Program. 

COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS 

AND NONGOVERNMENTAL 

ORGANIZATIONS 

Analysis and Use of Scientific Data and 

Supporting Information 

34. Comment: The Addition should not be 

subject to seasonal or nightly closures because 

there is no science that supports these limitations 

on use.

Response: The plan allows for an annual 

60-day seasonal closure to allow resources 

a time free from any pressures related to 

ORV use (this does not apply to 

landowners who hold special use permits 

to access their private properties via a 

designated route through the Addition). 

The Addition would be closed to ORV use 

between the hours of 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. to 

ensure visitor safety. These temporal and 

spatial closures would minimize impacts on 

wildlife by reducing the potential for direct 

mortality, increased legal and illegal 

harvest, disturbance, and habitat loss. 

Seasonal and nightly closures were a part 

of the 2000 Recreational ORV Management 

Plan and have been used by the National 

Park Service in the original Preserve since 

that time. These conservation and safety 

measures are supported by scientific 

literature and the professional judgment of 

agency staff. 

35. Comment: The National Park Service has 

failed to adequately study the effects of ORV use 
Comments on, Changes to, and Responses to Comments on the Draft Plan 

445 

on natural resources in the Addition and use the 

best available science to develop the plan. 

Response: It is acknowledged that ORV 

use in the Addition would have an effect on 

the natural resources of that area. The plan 

for ORV use is designed to minimize and 

mitigate those effects so that the use does 

not represent a detriment to the purposes 

of the Preserve. It was the intent of 

Congress in creating the Preserve that 

certain uses of this landscape be authorized, even though those uses may be consumptive in nature and may not necessarily 

represent the same experience one might 

have had in other national park system 

units. The objective of the Addition ORV 

plan is to fulfill the will of Congress and 

provide diverse visitor use experiences 

while conserving those values articulated in 

the legislation establishing the Preserve. 

ORV use would also be restricted to 

designated trails, would be monitored, and 

would be modified to conform to the 

standards developed for balancing 

sustained use while providing natural 

resource protection. 

Several studies recommended in the 2000 

Recreational ORV Management Plan and 

the corresponding U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s “Biological Opinion” have been 

completed or are in progress. Floridapanther-related research includes an 

ongoing study of levels of ORV use and 

panther response in Bear Island. In addition, the National Park Service has 

established 20 permanent water quality and 

water monitoring stations that could alert 

NPS staff to changing conditions resulting 

from not only ORV use but also from other 

land uses. The monitoring of endangered/ 

threatened species began before the ORV 

planning process started. The National 

Park Service would continue to rely on 

science to support management decisions 

and update and refine its plans and actions 

with new science and information as it 

becomes available. 

36. Comment: The National Park Service 

should not open panther habitat to ORV use 

because research has shown that ORV traffic 

impacts panther habitat and use of an area. 

Response: NPS staff has consulted with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

regarding all listed species within the 

Addition to determine if the actions 

proposed would have any potential adverse 

affect on them or their habitats. Conservation measures would be followed in accordance with the USFWS recommendations 

if and when the actions in this management 

plan are implemented. Although Janis and 

Clark (1999) did find that the average 

distance of panther locations from trails 

increased, and that the frequency of 

panther use in one area decreased when 

human presence in the area increases 

during the hunting season, they surmised 

that those changes in behavior were 

biologically minor and probably related to 

prey behavior. Although eight variables 

were examined — (1) morning activity, (2) 

movement, (3) predation success, (4) home 

range size, (5) home range shifts, (6) habitat 

selection, (7) distance from trails, and (8) 

frequency of use in Bear Island — the 

authors failed to detect any relationship 

between ORV use and the first six variables. NPS and USFWS staff are currently 

working on at least two projects that will 

assist them in evaluating human use 

impacts on panthers. NPS staff would work 

with USFWS staff to mitigate any adverse 

impacts on the panther from the actions in 

the plan. 

37. Comment: ORV use and hunting should 

not be allowed in the Addition because studies 

have shown that these uses will have significant 

adverse effects on the Florida panther and its 

prey base. 

Response: Per Public Law 100-301 the 

National Park Service is required to allow 

for hunting, fishing, and frogging in the 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

446 

Addition and to cooperate with the state of 

Florida to establish the rules and 

regulations associated with such activities. 

Accordingly, the agencies involved in 

panther management in south Florida have 

agreed that panther recruitment can be 

improved in part by reducing hunting 

pressure on panther prey species, 

especially deer and hogs. The National 

Park Service would cooperate and work 

closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission (FFWCC) to 

manage panther prey species as 

appropriate. Furthermore, the National 

Park Service has committed to developing 

a hunting management plan, in 

cooperation with USFWS and FFWCC 

staff. This hunting management plan would 

evaluate impacts on the Florida panther 

and its prey and establish game harvest 

limits. The Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission would then 

develop appropriate hunting regulations 

for hunting in the Addition before opening 

the area to public hunting. These measures 

would ensure that the panther and its prey 

are adequately protected. 

38. Comment: The Draft EIS lacks the necessary scientific data to make the decision to open 

the Addition to ORV use and has not 

demonstrated proper consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service on endangered species. 

Response: The original Preserve has been 

open to ORV use since 1974. No specific 

adverse impacts on wildlife, including the 

panther, have been documented and 

attributed to ORV use. The National Park 

Service has evaluated all relevant scientific 

data on the relationship between ORV use 

and impacts to wildlife and has incorporated conservation planning measures to 

minimize adverse impacts into the general 

management plan. NPS staff has been 

working collaboratively with the USFWS 

staff on this planning effort since 2001. 

Endangered Species Act consultation has 

been initiated, and USFWS staff will 

prepare a “Biological Opinion.” The 

National Park Service would complete all 

necessary actions to complete Endangered 

Species Act consultation. 

39. Comment: The National Park Service has 

not adequately used scientific data to analyze 

impacts to endangered species. 

Response: NPS staff have identified and 

used a number of scientific and scholarly 

studies, reports, and data in the development of the plan and its analysis of the 

potential effects to listed species. The 

National Park Service worked with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service to expand the 

analysis of federally listed species and 

incorporated several of the USFWS recommendations, especially for the preferred 

alternative, that would reduce impacts to 

listed species. At the request of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, the National 

Park Service added additional citations, all 

of which can be found in the “References” 

section of the plan. 

40. Comment: The number of sustainable 

trails miles identified is not accurate and will 

not be sustainable over time. 

Response: NPS staff used a methodical 

process to evaluate existing ORV trails in 

the Addition and determine which of the 

trails were appropriate for inclusion in the 

primary ORV trail network (see page 100 in 

the draft plan). As defined on page 100 in 

the draft plan, a sustainable trail would still 

require some level of treatment over time 

to accommodate continued recreation use; 

however, its use should not substantially 

impact the soil resources and flora and 

fauna of the area. The National Park 

Service would monitor trail use and use 

adaptive management to ensure that the 
Comments on, Changes to, and Responses to Comments on the Draft Plan 

447 

trail system is functional and sustainable 

over time. 

41. Comment: Additional justification is 

needed for the standards established in the draft 

plan. 

Response: General management plans are 

required by law to address user capacity — 

the types and extent of visitor use that can 

be accommodated while sustaining the 

quality of resources and visitor opportunities consistent with an NPS unit’s 

legislative purpose. This general management plan looks at 16 of what are 

considered to be the most important user 

capacity indicators and standards. These 

indicators and standards are grounded in 

the desired conditions for the proposed 

management zones and acknowledge that 

the evaluating process is continuous and 

may be adjusted based on the monitoring 

results. The indicators and standards 

included in the plan were developed by 

evaluating the resources and determining 

the most important potential impacts to 

resource and social conditions. Standards 

were developed by considering the desired 

conditions, data on existing conditions, 

relevant research studies, staff management experience, and scoping on public 

preferences. Additional language was 

added to further explain and justify the 

indicators and standards included in the 

plan (see “User Capacity subsection of 

Chapter 2 (under “The Alternatives and 

User Capacity, Adaptive Management, 

ORV Administration and Management, 

and Wilderness”). 

42. Comment: Additional data and supporting 

information is needed regarding energy 

consumption and carbon footprint as a result of 

the proposed action. 

Response: Impacts on air quality due to 

greenhouse gas emissions resulting from 

actions included in the plan would be 

minor, as stated in the rationale for 

dismissing air quality as an impact topic 

(see page 52 of the draft plan). Emissions 

resulting from facility development and 

operation would be minimized through 

sustainable design and development 

practices. Proposed facilities would be 

developed to minimize construction and 

operations costs. Emissions from ORV use 

would be minimized through the ORV 

inspection program, which would ensure 

that all vehicles have proper exhaust 

apparatus. 

43. Comment: The Florida panther does not 

inhabit the Addition anymore. 

Response: NPS panther telemetry data 

shows that panthers have been using and 

inhabiting the Addition each of the last 25 

years, when systematic monitoring began. 

Historical data also confirms that panthers 

have been present in the Addition since 

before the Preserve’s creation. 

44. Comment: The “Hydrology of the 

Addition” map (Map 11) improperly depicts the 

flow of surface water. 

Response: The flows on this map, as 

labeled, correctly depict the general 

direction of surface water flow. Details 

specific to characterizing surface water 

flows are captured in the accompanying 

text of the “Water Resources” section of 

the plan’s “Chapter 3: Affected 

Environment.” 

45. Comment: The DGMP/EIS does not 

contain adequate guidance for near- and longterm management of the Addition because it 

does not meet the scientific needs of the Addition 

and does not contain an adequate analysis of 

the direct, indirect, and cumulative threats to 

Addition resources. 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

448 

Response: The DGMP/EIS is not 

intended to be a science plan for the 

Addition. The plan provides adequate 

guidance for management of the Addition 

because it addresses the planning issues 

identified in chapter 1 of the plan. Chapter 

2 identifies certain science and planning 

needs; however, a future resource 

stewardship strategy would be the vehicle 

in which specific science, research, and 

resource management strategies would be 

identified. The plan discusses threats and 

stressors to Addition resources and 

includes an analysis of direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (see 

chapter 4). 

46. Comment: The plan did not properly 

address, and include an analysis of the impacts 

to, the Gladesman culture. 

Response: Although the DGMP/EIS is not 

intended to be an ethnographic study of 

the Addition, the National Park Service 

analyzed the potential for impacts on cultural resources related to the Gladesmen. 

The National Park Service has determined 

that the actions in the DGMP/EIS pose no 

impacts on resources associated with the 

Gladesmen. NPS staff have consulted with 

the Florida state historic preservation 

officer on this plan under the framework of 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act and the state historic 

preservation officer concurred with the 

analysis and determinations of potential 

effects to cultural resources included in the 

plan (see appendix C). 

47. Comment: The plan does not contain 

adequate information on invertebrate species 

and their contribution to the values of the 

Preserve. 

Response: Although the plan does not 

specifically discuss invertebrates, they are 

indeed an important component of the 

ecology of the Addition. The National Park 

Service is not aware of any quantitative 

sampling of invertebrates in south Florida 

that would provide information for a 

substantive analysis of these species. The 

actions and guidance included in the plan 

seek to conserve these species and protect 

the natural values of the Addition. 

48. Comment: The Florida panther should not 

be retained as an impact topic because no data 

exists to prove that ORV use (or other human 

use) adversely impacts the species. 

Response: Although the body of scientific 

literature and data on impacts to panther 

from ORV use is limited, the Endangered 

Species Act requires the National Park 

Service to evaluate potential impacts to 

listed species. Because some of the actions 

proposed in the plan could have a potential 

effect on the behavior of panthers in the 

Addition, the National Park Service must 

retain the panther as an impact topic and 

consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Compliance with Addition Act, the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), the Wilderness Act, or Other Legal 

Mandates 

49. Comment: The Addition should not be 

proposed as wilderness because it does not meet 

wilderness eligibility criteria because of prior 

land uses and it does not meet the intent and 

spirit of the Wilderness Act. 

Response: A final “Wilderness Eligibility 

Determination” was completed as required 

by the Addition Act (Public Law 100-301) 

and NPS Management Policies 2006 (see 

appendix B of the final plan). Prior land use 

practices and impacts do not affect an 
Comments on, Changes to, and Responses to Comments on the Draft Plan 

449 

area’s eligibility as long as the criteria are 

met at the time of the assessment. 

50. Comment: The draft plan violates the 

National Environmental Policy Act and the 

National Historic Preservation Act because it 

does not assess potential impacts to the 

“Gladesmen culture” and provide for the 

continuation of “traditional use” of the 

Addition. 

Response: The National Environmental 

Policy Act and the National Historic 

Preservation Act require agencies to 

evaluate potential impacts to cultural 

resources, including ethnographic 

resources and traditional peoples. The plan 

evaluates impacts to known cultural 

resources. There would be no impacts 

anticipated to cultural resources associated 

with the Gladesmen. The plan calls for 

allowing traditional uses in the Addition, 

such as hunting, fishing, frogging, and ORV 

access, which would be available to the 

public under reasonable rules and 

regulations administered by the National 

Park Service. 

51. Comment: The draft GMP does not 

include a reasonable range of alternatives as 

required by the National Environmental Policy 

Act. 

Response: The general management 

planning process was initiated in 2001 and 

has included a number of potential 

management alternatives. The range of 

alternatives included in the draft and final 

plans is responsive to the issues that were 

identified in scoping and through the 

extensive public involvement process 

conducted for this project. The alternatives 

present a range of reasonable alternatives 

that respond to the project issues and 

objectives and meet the project’s purpose 

and need. 

 

52. Comment: The Draft GMP does not 

provide enough detail regarding impacts 

associated with the development of visitor 

parking areas. 

Response: A general management plan is 

intended to provide a broad decisionmaking framework for NPS managers over 

the next 15 to 20 years. Actual construction 

of the visitor contact station, trailheads, 

and parking spaces would require additional planning and design to determine 

the specific facility features. Site planning 

and future environmental analysis would 

be needed to implement and construct 

some of the proposed facilities included in 

this plan. 

53. Comment: The Draft GMP mentions the 

affiliated American Indian tribes, but it does not 

address unaffiliated Indians or aboriginal 

peoples that also have certain rights to use the 

area. 

Response: The two federally recognized 

tribes named in the legislation establishing 

the Preserve who lawfully retain customary 

use and occupancy rights, subject to 

reasonable regulation, are the Miccosukee 

Tribe of Indians of Florida and the 

Seminole Tribe of Florida. The National 

Park Service consulted with these two 

tribes, as well as a third federally 

recognized tribe, the Seminole Tribe of 

Oklahoma, on a government-togovernment basis in accordance with 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation with 

Indian Tribal Governments (2000); 

Executive Memorandum, Government-toGovernment Relationship with Tribal 

Governments (2004); and the National 

Historic Preservation Act (16 USC §

470a(d)(6)(B) and 470h (1992)). 

The views of the Independent Traditional 

Seminole Nation of Florida and other 

native peoples, who are not represented by 

a federally recognized tribe, were solicited 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

450 

as members of the public. The 

Independent Traditional Seminole Nation 

of Florida were notified of the scoping 

process, received the planning newsletters 

and invitations to public meetings, and 

were provided a copy of the Draft 

GMP/EIS for review and comment. 

Throughout the planning process, the 

Independent Traditional Seminole Nation 

of Florida and others were provided a 

reasonable opportunity to identify their 

concerns about historic properties; advise 

on the identification and evaluation of 

historic properties, including those of 

traditional religious and cultural importance to them; and articulate their views on 

any potential effects to such properties. 

The planning team considered the views of 

the Independent Traditional Seminole 

Nation of Florida and other native peoples 

throughout the planning process and in the 

development of the changes to the 

alternatives that are included in this final 

plan. 

54. Comment: The Draft GMP does not 

adequately address climate change and the 

anticipated impacts to Preserve resources. 

Response: Climate change was included 

in the “Guiding Principles for Management” subsection of chapter 1 of the Draft 

GMP (see page 20 of the draft plan). A 

climate change action plan was also 

included as one of the “Future Studies and 

Implementation Plans Needed” section in 

chapter 2 (see page124 of the draft plan). 

This future plan would provide a more 

detailed evaluation of climate science, 

predicted impacts to Preserve resources, 

and potential adaptation responses or 

strategies. Climate change was considered 

in the development of the alternatives by 

limiting new facility development, using 

sustainable design and development 

principles in the facility proposals, and 

developing a balance of actions that afford 

recreational access and protect the 

conservation values of the Addition. The 

resource management activities that are a 

part of the alternatives would increase the 

resiliency and integrity of the resources in 

the Addition so that they would better 

adjust and respond to future impacts from 

climate change. The actions proposed in 

the plan also have the capacity to adapt for 

managing natural and cultural resources 

and infrastructure under a changing 

climate. The environmental impact analysis 

included in chapter 4 was developed with 

these assumptions in mind. 

55. Comment: The proposal to build facilities 

at the intersection of I-75 and SR 29 violates the 

terms of the settlement agreement entered into 

between the state of Florida and National 

Audubon Society, which prohibits development 

at this interchange. 

 

Response: The development would be 

located on SR 29 approximately 1 mile 

south of the interchange, putting it out of 

the scope of the settlement agreement. 

56. Comment: The National Park Service is 

violating Section 10 of the Addition Act by not 

providing ORV trails that connect to the existing 

trails in the original Preserve. 

Response: Section 10 of the Addition Act 

requires access for and continuation of 

traditional opportunities in the Addition. It 

does not specify the placement of ORV 

trails. 

Visitor Experience, 

Opportunities, and Safety 

57. Comment: The plan should include 

designated camping areas, individual 

backcountry campsites, and primitive campsites 

along ORV trail routes. 
Comments on, Changes to, and Responses to Comments on the Draft Plan 

451 

Response: The primitive backcountry and 

backcountry recreation management zones 

allow for dispersed camping and 

designated campsites where necessary for 

resource protection. Backcountry group 

campsites are proposed at the terminus of 

Jones and Nobles grades in the preferred 

alternative. 

58. Comment: Development of an access point 

and parking lot at MM51 on I-75 is not feasible 

because of the lack of law enforcement capacity, 

especially because a parking area already exists 

at MM63. 

Response: The Addition Act requires the 

establishment of three access points along 

I-75 in the Preserve. The I-75 Recreational 

Access Plan (1990) identified mile markers 

53 and 61 (MM53 and MM61) as the 

preferred access point locations. This 

GMP proposes additional NPS staffing, 

including law enforcement personnel, who 

would enable the National Park Service to 

manage these sites and patrol and enforce 

regulations as necessary. 

59. Comment: Existing trails and roads should 

be used to the greatest extent possible to provide 

for a comprehensive system of trails for 

pedestrian access and other multiple uses. 

Response: The National Park Service has 

used as much of the existing road and trail 

system as possible to provide ORV trails 

and nonmotorized recreation 

opportunities while ensuring that the 

ecological values of the Addition are 

protected. 

60. Comment: The entire Addition should be 

zoned backcountry recreation to allow 

maximum opportunities for traditional uses 

(hunting, fishing, frogging, dispersed camping, 

and ORV use). 

Response: To zone the entire Addition as 

“backcountry recreation” would not 

achieve the range of visitor opportunities 

and experiences that the National Park 

Service is striving to provide. The National 

Park Service used a combination of management zones to provide reasonable 

access while ensuring that the ecological 

values of the Addition are protected. In the 

preferred alternative, traditional opportunities (including hunting, frogging, 

fishing, and ORV use) are all accommodated. 

61. Comment: Alternative B should be 

modified to remove all proposed wilderness, 

zone the entire Addition as backcountry 

recreation, and eliminate any restrictions on the 

amount of ORV trails allowed. 

Response: The National Park Service used 

a combination of management zones and 

levels of proposed wilderness and ORV 

trails to provide reasonable access while 

ensuring that the ecological values of the 

Addition are protected. 

62. Comment: The plan would adversely 

affect opportunities to establish and designate a 

permanent route for the Florida National 

Scenic Trail because it proposes motorized use 

along the trail route, which conflicts with the 

requirements of the National Trails System Act. 

An alternative would be to prohibit off-road 

vehicles from using the Florida National Scenic 

Trail except for designated crossings and 

establish a buffer of at least 1 mile along the 

scenic trail to protect the trail and the wilderness 

experiences of hikers. 

Response: The existing route of the 

Florida National Scenic Trail in the 

Addition is not certified in part because of 

the lack of a general management plan for 

the area. The stated objective of the scenic 

trail and National Park Service for the 

management of the trail is to “maximize the 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

452 

primitive, undisturbed experience.” As a 

result, over time it was planned to reroute 

the trail as needed to meet primitive trail 

standards as defined by the U.S. Forest 

Service on Page 144, Appendix L, Forest 

Service Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, 

Table 1. These standards state (on page 

147, Evidence of Humans Criteria 

(Primitive) — “Setting is essentially an 

unmodified natural environment. Evidence 

of humans would be unnoticed by an 

observer wandering through the area. 

Evidence of trails is acceptable, but should 

not exceed standard to carry expected use. 

Structures are extremely rare.” Thus, it has 

always been contemplated that the scenic 

trail would be moved off the obvious 

human-built raised grade. As stated in this 

general management plan, the National 

Park Service would work cooperatively 

with the Florida Trail Association to 

identify, designate, and obtain certification 

for a route for the Florida National Scenic 

Trail through the Addition. The National 

Park Service would work with the 

association to identify a route that 

minimizes trail conflicts and maximizes the 

solitude and experience of hikers. 

63. Comment: The National Park Service 

should include improvements to signs for the 

Florida National Scenic Trail in its plan, 

especially along the trail as it passes through the 

MM63 rest area and under I-75. 

Response: The National Park Service 

would work with the Florida Trail 

Association and U.S. Forest Service to 

develop a sign plan and implement 

recommended improvements for the 

portion of the scenic trail that is in the 

Addition. Specifically in the section passing 

through the rest area at MM63 the 

National Park Service would work with the 

trail association and Florida Department of 

Transportation to develop adequate signs 

and safe passage. 

 

64. Comment: If the National Park Service 

retains the backcountry recreation management 

zone, they should allow for dispersed camping in 

the zone. 

Response: The list of permitted activities 

for the backcountry recreation 

management zone was revised to allow 

dispersed camping. 

Protected Species and Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) Compliance 

65. Comment: The preferred alternative in the 

Draft EIS should not be allowed because it 

causes significant adverse impacts to federally 

protected species, including the Florida panther, 

red cockaded woodpecker, and the wood stork. 

Response: An analysis of the impacts and 

potential effects to federally listed species 

is included in the plan and determines no 

major adverse impacts to federally 

protected species. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service will issue a separate 

“Biological Opinion” in response to the 

information and conclusions included in 

this plan. Their “Biological Opinion” will 

likely include specific conservation 

measures that must be implemented to 

ensure protection of listed species and 

ensure compliance with the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Management Objectives and Funding 

66. Comment: The NPS analysis of impacts on 

Preserve operations from ORV use is inaccurate 

because they did not account for the significant 

time and financial resources that will be 

necessary to monitor resource impacts, restore 

areas, and provide proper management and 

enforcement of ORV use. 

Response: The analysis of impacts on NPS 

operations did include an evaluation of 

NPS staff time needed to manage and 
Comments on, Changes to, and Responses to Comments on the Draft Plan 

453 

enforce public use of the Addition. The 

cost estimates for each of the alternatives 

includes the cost of employees needed to 

properly manage recreation use in the 

Addition. The cost estimates also included 

the costs of capital construction projects. 

Costs for research and monitoring 

associated with the indicators included in 

table 7 and the activities included in table 8 

are not included in the cost estimates 

presented in table 6. 

Surface Water Flow and Water Quality 

67. Comment: The National Park Service has 

not properly analyzed potential impacts on 

surface water flow from the introduction of 

ORV use in the Addition, including cumulative 

impacts on hydrologic restoration efforts 

already underway in the region. 

Response: Additional language was added 

to the plan that further describes the 

localized and temporary impact that 

actions could have on surface water flow. 

Additional information was also added to 

the cumulative impact analysis of each of 

the alternatives to indicate that the actions 

proposed in the alternatives would have 

only localized adverse effects on surface 

water flow and hydrology (i.e., limited to 

the Addition and to site-specific areas) and 

that the overall effects on ecosystem 

restoration projects in south Florida would 

be negligible. 

68. Comment: The National Park Service 

incorrectly states that ORV use may affect water 

quality because there is no evidence that ORVs 

cause water pollution. 

Response: There is evidence of water 

quality impacts (such as turbidity and 

contamination from oils and fuel) from 

ORV use. The analysis included in the plan 

discusses and discloses the potential for 

impacts on water quality that might result 

from ORV use in the Addition. 

Monitoring, Restoration, and Research 

69. Comment: The National Park Service has 

not adequately explained how and when 

monitoring would occur to guide adaptive 

management and limit or eliminate impacts on 

flora and fauna in the Addition. 

Response: The indicators and standards 

included in table 7 would be the tools used 

to monitor important resource and social 

conditions and provide information on 

when management actions need to be 

adjusted. The management strategies and 

actions discussed in the “User Capacity” 

and “ORV Administration and 

Management” sections of the plan would 

be taken when needed to minimize impacts 

on flora and fauna. As noted on page 93 of 

the draft plan, the rigor of monitoring the 

indicators (e.g., frequency of monitoring 

cycles, amount of geographic area 

monitored) might vary depending on how 

close existing conditions are to the 

standards, how fast conditions are 

changing, whether specific and important 

values are threatened by visitation, and/or 

if the effects of management actions taken 

to address impacts are uncertain. Further, 

page 106 in the draft plan includes a 

general description of the methods for 

monitoring and a note that more detailed 

monitoring protocol and techniques would 

be developed as part of the phase I 

implementation of the ORV trail system. 

Monitoring protocol and techniques are 

detailed and often need to be adjusted as 

indicators are tested in the field, so this 

type of information is better suited to the 

implementation phases of the general 

management plan rather than being 

included in the plan itself. 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

454 

Vegetation 

70. Comment: The impact conclusion 

identified for “prairies and marshes” does not 

correlate with the individual impact analysis 

that is presented for each of the topical areas. 

Response: The overall impact determination for prairies and marshes is accurate. 

The analysis of direct and indirect impacts 

resulting from the actions included in the 

plan is made up of individual analyses of 

impacts that would accrue from certain 

activities proposed in the plan, each with a 

different magnitude and intensity. The 

same is true for cumulative impacts. When 

the effects of the actions included in the 

plan are combined with the effects of 

actions from other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects, 

there would be a long-term, minor, adverse 

cumulative impact to prairies and marshes. 

Scope of the Plan 

71. Comment: The plan does not provide any 

guidance on “acquisition-deferred” or exempt 

properties in the Addition. If this issue is beyond 

the scope of this plan, then a reference to the 

proper document or plan should be added to the 

plan. 

Response: This issue is outside the scope 

of this plan. Exempt properties are 

referenced on page 8 of the draft plan. 

Additional language was added to further 

explain the relationship of this topic to this 

general management plan (see section on 

“Issues and Concerns Not Addressed in 

this General Management Plan” in chapter 

1). 
455 

AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING A COPY OF 

THIS DOCUMENT 

FEDERAL AGENCIES 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Department of Agriculture 

 Forest Service 

 Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Department of Defense 

 Army Corps of Engineers 

Department of the Interior 

 Bureau of Indian Affairs 

 National Park Service 

 Everglades National Park 

 Biscayne National Park 

 Southeastern Archeological Center 

 Fish and Wildlife Service 

 South Florida Ecological Services 

 Office 

 Florida Panther National Wildlife 

 Refuge 

 Geological Survey 

 South Florida Ecosystem Restoration 

Task Force 

Environmental Protection Agency 

STATE OF FLORIDA 

Department of Community Affairs 

Department of Environmental Protection 

 Office of the Secretary 

 South District Office 

 Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park 

Department of Transportation 

 District One Office 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

Office of the Governor 

South Florida Water Management District 

 Executive Director 

 Lower West Coast Service Center 

 Big Cypress Basin 

State Historic Preservation Office 

COUNTY/LOCAL GOVERNMENT 

Collier County 

 Manager 

 Commission 

 Sheriff 

Everglades City 

 Mayor 

 Council 

Miami-Dade County Commissioner, José 

“Pepe” Diaz 

Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 

AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES 

Seminole Tribe of Florida 

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida 

FLORIDA CONGRESSIONAL 

DELEGATION 

U.S. House of Representatives 

 Mario Diaz-Balart 

U.S. Senate 

 Bill Nelson 

 George LeMieux 

FLORIDA STATE LEGISLATURE 

Florida House of Representatives 

 David Rivera 

 Matt Hudson 

 Ron Saunders 

Florida Senate 

 Larcenia Bullard
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

456 

ORGANIZATIONS AND BUSINESSES 

Allied Sportsmen’s Associations of Florida 

Audubon of Florida and Collier County 

Big Cypress Sportsmen’s Alliance 

BreitBurn Energy Partners L.P. 

Collier Resources Company 

Collier Sportsmen & Conservation Club 

Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

Council of the Original Miccosukee 

Simanolee Nation, Aboriginal People 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Everglades Coordinating Council 

Florida Biodiversity Project 

Florida Outdoor Alliance 

Florida Trail Association 

Florida Wildlife Federation 

Fort Myers News-Press 

Independent Traditional Seminole Nation of 

Florida 

Jetport Conservation & Recreation Club 

Miami Herald 

Naples Daily News 

National Audubon Society 

National Parks Conservation Association 

National Wild Turkey Federation –

Everglades Longbeards Chapter 

National Wild Turkey Federation - Florida 

State Chapter 

North American Butterfly Association –

Miami Blue Chapter 

Pegasus Foundation 

Public Employees for Environmental 

Responsibility 

Safari Club International 

Sierra Club 

South Florida Sun-Sentinel 

The Humane Society of the United States 

The Future of Hunting in Florida, Inc. 

The Wilderness Society 

Tropical Audubon Society 

Wildlands CPR 

INDIVIDUALS 

There is an extensive list of individuals; these 

individuals will be notified of the availability 

of the final plan.