National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Big Cypress National Preserve - Addition

Florida

Final General Management Plan /Wilderness Study /

Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement

October • 2010

Big Cypress National Preserve – Addition

United States Department of the Interior 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Big Cypress National Preserve 

33100 Tamiami Trail East 

 Ochopee, Florida 34141-1000 IN REPLY REFER TO: 

October 2010 

Dear Friends: 

I am very pleased to announce the release of the Final General Management Plan/Wilderness 

Study/Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for the Addition. It is the 

culmination of a great deal of time, effort, energy, and input from members of the public; American 

Indian tribes; other federal, state, and local agencies; and the National Park Service. Please take some 

time to look it over. 

The 147,000 acres of the Addition were added to the Preserve in 1988 but were not included in the 

planning process for the 1991 General Management Plan, which covered only the original Preserve. 

The planning effort for the Addition began in 1999, and a Draft General Management Plan/Wilderness 

Study/Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement was issued in July 2009. 

The Final General Management Plan for the Addition includes a preferred alternative that is 

representative of the extensive civic engagement we all participated in over the past 10 years and 

follows the intent of the Preserve’s enabling legislation. It provides for strong natural and cultural 

resource protection of this very special resource while at the same time providing for a diversity of 

recreational opportunities. The National Park Service values the public’s interest in continuing to enjoy 

a meaningful connection with the Preserve, and we look forward to implementing this plan with your 

support and in the spirit of partnership.

The National Park Service will soon prepare and execute its “Record of Decision” (ROD) for this 

project, which will be published in the Federal Register.

On behalf of the entire National Park Service family, please accept our most sincere gratitude for your 

commitment and dedication to this process over the past 10 years. It is time now to come together in the 

work ahead to implement the plan! 

Sincerely,

Pedro Ramos 

Superintendent

Final 

General Management Plan / Wilderness Study / Off-road Vehicle Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Big Cypress National Preserve Addition 

Collier County, Florida 

Big Cypress National Preserve was authorized by Congress on October 11, 1974 (Public Law 93-

440), with 582,000 acres. That law was amended on April 29, 1988, when Congress passed Public 

Law 100-301, the Big Cypress National Preserve Addition Act or “Addition Act,” to expand the 

Preserve by 147,000 acres. This expansion area is referred to as the Addition. 

The National Park Service (NPS) finalized a General Management Plan for the original Preserve in 

1991. That plan contained no guidance for the Addition. The National Park Service began 

administration of the Addition in 1996. No comprehensive planning effort has been conducted 

for the Addition. A general management plan is needed to clearly define resource conditions and 

visitor experiences to be achieved in the Addition. The plan will provide a framework for NPS 

managers to use when making decisions about how to best protect Addition resources, identify 

appropriate areas for visitor access and facilities, and determine how the National Park Service 

will manage its operations. 

This plan examines four alternatives for managing the Addition for the next 15 to 20 years. It also 

analyzes the impacts of implementing each of the alternatives. Alternative A (no action) describes 

the continuation of existing management and trends and serves as the basis for evaluating the 

other alternatives. The three action alternatives (Alternative B, the NPS Preferred Alternative, and 

Alternative F) present a spectrum of off-road vehicle opportunities, proposed wilderness, and 

visitor facilities. 

A Draft General Management Plan / Wilderness Study / Off-road Vehicle Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement was distributed to other agencies, interested organizations, and 

individuals for their review and comment. Changes and clarifications were made to the plan in 

response to comments received. Following distribution of the final plan and a 30-day no-action 

period, a “Record of Decision” may be signed by the Preserve superintendent and the NPS 

regional director documenting the NPS selection of an alternative for implementation. 

For further information on this plan, contact Big Cypress National Preserve headquarters at 

33100 Tamiami Trail East, Ochopee, FL 34141-1000, (239) 695-2000. 

U.S. Department of the Interior  National Park Service 

i 

SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION 

Big Cypress National Preserve was authorized 

by an act of Congress on October 11, 1974, 

(Public Law 93-440) with a boundary 

surrounding 582,000 acres. That act was 

amended on April 29, 1988, when Congress 

passed the Big Cypress National Preserve 

Addition Act (Public Law 100-301), hereafter 

referred to as the Addition Act, to expand the 

Preserve boundary by about 147,000 acres. 

The expansion area is referred to as the 

Addition. 

The National Park Service (NPS) finalized a 

General Management Plan for the Preserve in 

1991. That plan addressed only the original 

Preserve and contained no guidance for the 

Addition. 

The National Park Service began administration of the Addition in 1996. The Addition has 

been closed to public recreational motorized 

use and hunting since that time; the only 

public uses that are currently allowed are 

hiking, camping, bicycling, fishing, and 

frogging. No comprehensive planning effort 

has been conducted for the Addition. A plan is 

needed to clearly define resource conditions 

and visitor experiences to be achieved in the 

Addition. The plan will provide a framework 

for NPS managers to use when making 

decisions about how to best protect Addition 

resources, identify appropriate areas for 

visitor access and facilities, and determine 

how the National Park Service will manage its 

operations in the Addition area. 

This Final General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Study / Off-road Vehicle Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement

presents four alternatives, including the 

National Park Service’s preferred alternative, 

for future management of the Addition. The 

alternatives, which are based on the Preserve’s 

purpose, significance, and special mandates, 

present different ways to manage resources 

and visitor use and improve facilities and 

infrastructure in the Addition. The four alternatives include the “no-action” alternative 

(alternative A), which describes the continuation of current management direction, and 

three “action” alternatives (alternative B, the 

preferred alternative, and alternative F). 

Additional alternatives (alternatives C, D, and 

E) and actions were considered. However 

these alternatives and actions were dismissed 

from further detailed analysis. These dismissed alternatives and actions are presented, 

along with the rationale for dismissing them, 

in the “Alternatives, Including the Preferred 

Alternative” discussion in chapter 2. 

ALTERNATIVE A: THE NO-ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE (CONTINUE 

CURRENT MANAGEMENT) 

The no-action alternative describes a continuation of existing management and trends in 

the Addition and provides a baseline for 

comparison in evaluating the changes and 

impacts of the other alternatives. The 

National Park Service would continue to 

manage the Addition as it is currently being 

managed. The Addition would remain closed 

to public recreational motorized use and 

motorized hunting, and only minor new 

construction (other than the MM51 and 

MM63 access points) would be authorized to 

accommodate visitor access, primarily for 

hiking and biking. Existing operations and 

visitor facilities would remain in place. 

Natural ecological processes would be 

allowed to occur, and restoration programs 

would be initiated where necessary. No 

wilderness would be proposed for 

designation. 

The key impacts of continuing existing 

management conditions and trends would 
SUMMARY

ii 

include minor to moderate adverse localized 

impacts on surface water flow; moderate longterm adverse impacts on visitor use and 

experience; and minor to moderate impacts 

on NPS operations and management. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

The concept for management under alternative B would be to enable visitor participation in a wide variety of outdoor recreational 

experiences. It would nearly maximize 

motorized access, provide the least amount of 

proposed wilderness, and develop limited new

hiking-only trails. The entire off-road vehicle 

(ORV) trail system would be implemented 

without the benefit of phased establishment 

and the assessment of monitoring results. 

New visitor and operations facilities along the 

I-75 corridor would also be provided. 

The key impacts of implementing alternative B 

would include moderate, long-term, adverse, 

and mostly localized impacts on surface water 

flow; long-term, moderate, adverse and 

potentially Addition-wide impacts on exotic/ 

nonnative plants; long-term, moderate, 

adverse and mostly localized impacts on 

(likely to adversely affect) the Florida panther; 

long-term, minor to moderate, adverse and 

mostly localized impacts on (likely to adversely affect) the red-cockaded woodpecker; longterm, minor to moderate, adverse and mostly 

localized impacts on major game species; 

long-term, moderate, beneficial and Additionwide impacts on wilderness resources and 

values; long-term, moderate, and beneficial 

impacts on visitor use and experience; and 

long-term, moderate and beneficial and 

adverse impacts on NPS operations and 

management. 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The preferred alternative would provide 

diverse frontcountry and backcountry 

recreational opportunities, enhance day use 

and interpretive opportunities along road 

corridors, and enhance recreational 

opportunities with new facilities and services. 

This alternative would provide substantial 

ORV access, provide a moderate amount of 

proposed wilderness, provide nonmotorized 

trail opportunities and new camping 

opportunities, and develop a partnership 

approach to visitor orientation. 

Implementation of the ORV trail system 

would be phased to ensure protection of 

sensitive species and the environment. Areas 

that were found to be eligible for wilderness 

designation but were not proposed as 

wilderness would be protected through 

management zoning that would maintain and 

protect natural values. New visitor and 

operations facilities along the I-75 corridor 

would also be provided. 

The key impacts of implementing the 

preferred alternative would include moderate, 

long-term, adverse, and mostly localized 

impacts on surface water flow; long-term, 

moderate, adverse and potentially Additionwide impacts on exotic/nonnative plants; 

long-term, moderate, adverse and mostly 

localized impacts on (likely to adversely 

affect) the Florida panther; long-term, minor 

to moderate, adverse and mostly localized 

impacts on (likely to adversely affect) the redcockaded woodpecker; long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse and mostly localized 

impacts on major game species; long-term, 

moderate, beneficial and Addition-wide 

impacts on wilderness resources and values; 

long-term, moderate, and beneficial effects on 

visitor use and experience; and long-term, 

moderate, and beneficial and adverse impacts 

on NPS operations and management. 

ALTERNATIVE F 

Alternative F would emphasize resource 

preservation, restoration, and research while 

providing recreational opportunities with 

limited facilities and support. This alternative 

would provide the maximum amount of 
Summary 

iii 

wilderness, no ORV use, and minimal new 

facilities for visitor contact along I-75. 

The key impacts of implementing the alternative F would include minor, beneficial, 

long-term, and mostly localized impacts on 

surface water flow; long-term, minor, adverse, 

and mostly localized impacts on (not likely to 

adversely affect) the Florida panther; longterm, major, beneficial, and Addition-wide 

impacts on wilderness resources and values; 

long-term, minor, beneficial impacts on visitor 

use and experience; and long-term, moderate 

and beneficial and adverse impacts on NPS 

operations and management. 

THE NEXT STEPS 

This Final General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Study / Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement includes comment letters from 

governmental agencies, any substantive 

comments on the draft document, and NPS 

responses to those comments. The final plan 

also includes changes and clarifications made 

to the document in response to comments 

received. Following distribution of the final 

plan and a 30-day no-action period, a “Record 

of Decision” may be signed by the Preserve 

superintendent and the NPS southeast 

regional director and published in the Federal 

Register. The “Record of Decision” 

documents the NPS selection of an alternative 

for implementation. With the signed “Record 

of Decision,” the plan can then be 

implemented, depending on funding and 

staffing. However, a “Record of Decision” 

does not guarantee funds and staff for 

implementing the approved plan. 

v 

CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE ADDITION 3

Background 3

Brief Description of the Addition 4

Natural Resources 4

Cultural Resources 7

Development and Use 8

Landownership 8

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 11

Purpose of and Need for the General Management Plan 11

Purpose and Need for the Wilderness Study 12

Purpose and Need for the ORV Management Plan 13

The Next Steps 13

Implementation of the Plan 14

GUIDANCE FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT 15

Direction for the Plan 15

National Park Service Mandates 15

Preserve Vision 16

Purpose and Significance Statements 16

Primary Interpretive Themes 17

Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments 18

Guiding Principles for Management 20

Cultural Resources 20

Natural Resources 22

NPS Management 28

RELATIONSHIP OF OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS TO THIS GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 32

National Park Service Plans 32

Big Cypress National Preserve 32

Everglades National Park 35

Other Federal Agency Plans 35

Army Corps of Engineers 35

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 35

Tribal Plans 37

Seminole Tribe of Florida 37

State Agency Plans 37

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry 37

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 37

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks 38

Local Plans 38

Collier County 38

PLANNING ISSUES AND CONCERNS 40

Introduction 40

Issues 40

Management Direction 40

Visitor Access and Use Levels 40

Resource Impacts from Visitor Use and Facility Development 40

Resource Preservation and Restoration 40
CONTENTS

vi 

Wilderness 41

Addition Operations and Management 41

Issues and Concerns Not Addressed in this General Management Plan 41

Usual and Customary Use and Occupancy by American Indians 41

Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping Management 41

Oil and Gas Management 42

Acquisition Deferred (Exempt) Properties 42

ORV Management in the Original Preserve 42

IMPACT TOPICS — RESOURCES AND VALUES AT STAKE IN THE PLANNING PROCESS 43

Identification of Impact Topics 43

Impact Topics Retained and Dismissed 43 

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

INTRODUCTION 63

How the Alternatives Were Developed 64

Identification of the Preferred Alternative 65

Changes to the Preferred Alternative Resulting from Public Comment on the Draft General 

Management Plan 65

Potential for Boundary Adjustments 65

Management Zones 65

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION: CONTINUATION OF CURRENT MANAGEMENT) 70

Concept and General Management Strategies 70

Motorized Recreational Opportunities — Trails and Permits 70

Nonmotorized Recreational Opportunities 70

Visitor Orientation and Education 70

Wilderness 70

Partnerships, Programs, and Activities 70

Facilities 73

I-75 Mile Marker 51 73

I-75 Mile Marker 63 73

Bear Island Grade at SR 29 73

Nobles and Jones Grades 73

Miles City (I-75 at SR 29) 73

Deep Lake (SR 29) 73

Copeland (SR 29) 73

Carnestown (U.S. 41 at SR 29) 73

Estimated Costs 73

ALTERNATIVE B 75

Concept and General Management Strategies 75

Motorized Recreational Opportunities — Trails and Permits 75

Nonmotorized Recreational Opportunities 75

Visitor Orientation and Education 76

Wilderness 76

Partnerships, Programs, and Activities 76

Facilities 76

I-75 Mile Marker 51 76

I-75 Mile Marker 63 76

Bear Island Grade at SR 29 79

Nobles and Jones Grades 79
Contents 

vii 

Miles City (I-75 at SR 29) 79

Deep Lake (SR 29) 79

Copeland (SR 29) 79

Carnestown (U.S. 41 at SR 29) 79

Estimated Costs 79

PREFERRED ALERNATIVE 80

Concept and General Management Strategies 80

Motorized Recreational Opportunities — Trails and Permits 80

Nonmotorized Recreational Opportunities 81

Visitor Orientation and Education 81

Wilderness 81

Partnerships, Programs, and Activities 81

Facilities 82

I-75 Mile Marker 51 82

I-75 Mile Marker 63 82

Bear Island Grade at SR 29 82

Nobles and Jones Grades 82

Miles City (I-75 at SR 29) 82

Deep Lake (SR 29) 82

Copeland (SR 29) 82

Carnestown (U.S. 41 at SR 29) 82

Estimated Costs 85

ALTERNATIVE F 86

Concept and General Management Strategies 86

Motorized Recreational Opportunities — Trails and Permits 86

Nonmotorized Recreational Opportunities 86

Visitor Orientation and Education 87

Wilderness 87

Partnerships, Programs, and Activities 87

Facilities 87

I-75 Mile Marker 51 87

I-75 Mile Marker 63 87

Bear Island Grade at SR 29 87

Nobles and Jones Grades 87

Miles City (I-75 at SR 29) 87

Deep Lake (SR 29) 88

Copeland (SR 29) 88

Carnestown (U.S. 41 at SR 29) 88

Estimated Costs 88

DEVELOPMENT OF COST ESTIMATES 91

THE ALTERNATIVES AND USER CAPACITY, ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT, ORV ADMINISTRATION 

AND MANAGEMENT, AND WILDERNESS 93

User Capacity 93

Resource Indicators and Standards 97

Visitor Experience Indicators and Standards 98

Adaptive Management 99

ORV Administration and Management 100

ORV Administration 100

ORV Management 103

Management Actions 109
CONTENTS

viii 

Implementation Strategy and Schedule 112

Wilderness 115

Definition of Wilderness 115

Uses and Management in Wilderness 115

Wilderness Eligibility Assessment 117

Summary of Findings 118

MITIGATIVE MEASURES COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 121

Natural Resources 121

General 121

Air Quality 121

Soils 121

Water Resources 122

Wetlands 122

Vegetation 123

Nonnative Species 123

Wildlife 124

Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern 124

Soundscape 126

Scenic Resources 126

Cultural Resources 126

Visitor Safety and Experiences 127

Socioeconomic Environment 127

FUTURE STUDIES AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS NEEDED 128

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 129

ALTERNATIVES AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED 131 

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

INTRODUCTION 147

NATURAL RESOURCES 148

Botanical Resources 148

Vegetation, Including Soils 148

Protected Plant Species 163

Exotic and Nonnative Plant Species 165

Fire Ecology and Management 168

Water Resources 170

Hydrologic Cycle 170

Surface Water Flows 170

Groundwater 174

Water Quality 174

Wetlands 175

Floodplains 176

Estuarine Resources 176

Wildlife 176

Protected Wildlife Species 176

Major Game Species 198

Exotic and Nonnative Wildlife Species 200

Completed and Ongoing Studies and Inventories Related to Natural Resources 201

WILDERNESS RESOURCES AND VALUES 202

Wilderness Resources in the Region 202
Contents 

ix 

Wilderness Resources in the Addition 202

Untrammeled 202

Undeveloped 202

Natural 202

Opportunities for Solitude 203

Opportunities for Primitive and Unconfined Types of Recreation 203

Other Wilderness Values 203

Area-Specific Descriptions 203

Northeast Addition, North of I-75 203

Northeast Addition, South of I-75 204

Western Addition 204

CULTURAL RESOURCES 205

Overview 205

Archeological Sites 206

Deep Lake 207

Ethnographic Resources 207

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 208

Overview 208

South Florida 208

The Addition 208

The Original Preserve 209

Recreational Opportunities 210

Frontcountry Driving, Sightseeing, and Visitor Centers 210

Walking and Hiking 211

Bird-watching and Wildlife Viewing 211

Paddling 211

Motorboating 212

Camping 212

Bicycling 212

Horseback Riding 212

Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) Use 213

Hunting, Fishing, and Frogging 217

Natural Sound Preservation 218

Soundscape 218

Noise from Off Highway Vehicles 219

Influence of Off-road Vehicles on the Addition Soundscape 220

Influence of Other Human Noise Sources on the Addition Soundscape 220

Visitor Responses to Noise 222

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 223

Overview 223

Demographics 223

Collier County 223

Everglades City 224

Big Cypress Seminole Reservation 225

Economy and Employment 226

Collier County 226

Everglades City 230

Visitor Use and Economic Impact 233

Visitation Data 233

Visitor Activities 233
CONTENTS

x 

Visitor Group Size and Length of Stay 234

Visitor Spending and Trip Purpose 235

NPS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT 236

Administrative Organization 236

NPS Operations and Management 236

Visitor and Resource Protection Division 236

Interpretation Division 236

Resource Management Division 237

Administration Division 237

Fire and Aviation Division 237

Maintenance Division 237

NPS Facilities 237

Public Facilities 237

Visitor Information 238

Administrative Facilities 238 

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

INTRODUCTION 241

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS 242

Natural Resources 242

Floodplains 243

Federal Threatened and Endangered Species 243

Wilderness Resources and Values 244

Cultural Resources 244

Archeological Resources 245

Ethnographic Resources 245

Visitor Use and Experience 245

Socioeconomic Environment 246

Money Generation Model (MGM) 246

Long-Term Versus Short-Term Economic Impacts of Visitor Spending 248

Organization of Impact Categories, Thresholds, and Overall Benefits 249

NPS Operations and Management 250

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS 257

IMPAIRMENT OF ADDITION RESOURCES 261

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION) 262

Natural Resources 262

Surface Water Flow 262

Water Quality 263

Wetlands 264

Soils 265

Floodplains 266

Vegetation —Cypress Strands and Domes, Mixed Hardwood Swamps, and Sloughs 266

Vegetation — Prairies and Marshes 268

Vegetation — Mangrove Forests 269

Vegetation —Pinelands 269

Vegetation — Hardwood Hammocks 271

Exotic/Nonnative Plants 272

Federal Threatened and Endangered Species 273

Major Game Species 284
Contents 

xi 

Wilderness Resources and Values 286

Analysis 286

Cumulative Impacts 286

Conclusion 287

Cultural Resources 287

Archeological Resources 287

Ethnographic Resources 288

Visitor Use and Experience 289

Recreational Opportunities 289

Cumulative Impacts 289

Conclusion 290

Socioeconomic Environment 290

Local Economy 291

Cumulative Impacts 292

Conclusion 293

NPS Operations and Management 293

Analysis 293

Cumulative Impacts 294

Conclusion 294

Effects on Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 294

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 294

Irretrievable or Irreversible Commitments of Resources 294

Relationship between local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance or 

Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 294

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE B 295

Natural Resources 295

Surface Water Flow 295

Water Quality 296

Wetlands 298

Soils 299

Floodplains 300

Vegetation — Cypress Strands and Domes, Mixed Hardwood Swamps, and Sloughs 301

Vegetation — Prairies and Marshes 302

Vegetation — Mangrove Forests 303

Vegetation — Pinelands 304

Vegetation — Hardwood Hammocks 305

Exotic/Nonnative Plants 307

Federal Threatened and Endangered Species 308

Major Game Species 322

Wilderness Resources and Values 324

Analysis 324

Cumulative Impacts 324

Conclusion 325

Cultural Resources 325

Archeological Resources 325

Ethnographic Resources 326

Visitor Use and Experience 327

Recreational Opportunities 327

Cumulative Impacts 329

Conclusion 330
CONTENTS

xii 

Socioeconomic Environment 330

Local Economy 330

Cumulative Impacts 332

Conclusion 333

NPS Operations and Management 333

Analysis 333

Cumulative Impacts 334

Conclusion 334

Effects on Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 334

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 335

Irretrievable or Irreversible Commitments of Resources 335

Relationship between local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and 

Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 335

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 336

Natural Resources 336

Surface Water Flow 336

Water Quality 337

Wetlands 339

Soils 340

Floodplains 341

Vegetation — Cypress Strands and Domes, Mixed Hardwood Swamps, and Sloughs 342

Vegetation — Prairies and Marshes 343

Vegetation — Mangrove Forests 344

Vegetation — Pinelands 345

Vegetation — Hardwood Hammocks 346

Exotic/Nonnative Plants 348

Federal Threatened and Endangered Species 349

Major Game Species 363

Wilderness Resources and Values 365

Analysis 365

Cumulative Impacts 365

Conclusion 366

Cultural Resources 366

Archeological Resources 366

Ethnographic Resources 367

Visitor Use and Experience 368

Recreational Opportunities 368

Cumulative Impacts 370

Conclusion 371

Socioeconomic Environment 371

Local Economy 371

Cumulative Impacts 373

Conclusion 374

NPS Operations and Management 374

Analysis 374

Cumulative Impacts 375

Conclusion 375

Effects on Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 375

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 376

Irretrievable or Irreversible Commitments of Resources 376
Contents 

xiii 

Relationship between local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and 

Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 376

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE F 377

Natural Resources 377

Surface Water Flow 377

Water Quality 378

Wetlands 379

Soils 380

Floodplains 382

Vegetation — Cypress Strands and Domes, Mixed Hardwood Swamps, and Sloughs 382

Vegetation — Prairies and Marshes 384

Vegetation — Mangrove Forests 385

Vegetation — Pinelands 386

Vegetation — Hardwood Hammocks 387

Exotic/Nonnative Plants 389

Federal Threatened and Endangered Species 390

Major Game Species 404

Wilderness Resources and Values 406

Analysis 406

Cumulative Impacts 407

Conclusion 407

Cultural Resources 408

Archeological Resources 408

Ethnographic Resources 409

Visitor Use and Experience 409

Recreational Opportunities 409

Cumulative Impacts 410

Conclusion 411

Socioeconomic Environment 412

Local Economy 412

Cumulative Impacts 413

Conclusion 415

NPS Operations and Management 415

Analysis 415

Cumulative Impacts 416

Conclusion 416

Effects on Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 416

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 416

Irretrievable or Irreversible Commitments of Resources 417

Relationship between local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and 

Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 417 

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 421

Public Meetings and Newsletters 421

Release of the Draft General Management Plan / Wilderness Study / Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 422

Release of the Floodplains Statement of Findings 423

Consultation with Agencies, Tribes, and Organizations 423
CONTENTS

xiv 

National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation 423

Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation 423

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Clean Air Act Compliance 425

Coastal Zone Management 425

The State of Florida 426

Consultation with Native Americans 426

Communications with Other Native Americans 427

Other Outreach Efforts 427

Future Compliance Requirements 428

COMMENTS ON, CHANGES TO, AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PLAN 430

Introduction 430

Commenters on the Draft Plan 430

Federal Government Agencies 430

American Indian Tribes 430

State Agencies 430

Organizations 430

Individuals 431

Range of Comments 431

Changes and Clarifications to the Document 431

Changes to the Alternatives 431

Changes to the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 432

Responses to Comments on the Draft Plan 432

Comments from Federal Government Agencies 432

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 432

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 435

Comments from American Indian Tribes 440

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida 440

Seminole Tribe of Florida 441

Comments from the State of Florida 441

Comments from Individuals and Nongovernmental Organizations 444

Analysis and Use of Scientific Data and Supporting Information 444

Compliance with Addition Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 

Wilderness Act, or Other Legal Mandates 448

Visitor Experience, Opportunities, and Safety 450

Protected Species and Endangered Species Act (ESA) Compliance 452

Management Objectives and Funding 452

Surface Water Flow and Water Quality 453

Monitoring, Restoration, and Research 453

Vegetation 454

Scope of the Plan 454

AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT 455 

APPENDIXES, GLOSSARY, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS, AND 

INDEX

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION 459

APPENDIX B: WILDERNESS ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION 467

APPENDIX C: CONSULTATION LETTERS 481

APPENDIX D: FLOODPLAINS STATEMENT OF FINDINGS 568
Contents 

xv 

GLOSSARY 576

SELECTED REFERENCES 577

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 588

INDEX 590

Tables 

Table 1: Impact Topics Retained and Dismissed for Big Cypress National Preserve Addition 44 

Table 2: Management Zones 67 

Table 3: Management Zones in Alternative B 75 

Table 4: Management Zones in the Preferred Alternative 80 

Table 5: Management Zones in Alternative F 86 

Table 6: Cost Comparison of the Alternatives 92 

Table 7: User Capacity Indicators and Standards 95 

Table 8: Implementation Schedule for the ORV Program 112 

Table 9: Environmentally Preferable Alternative Analysis 130 

Table 10: Summary Comparison of the Alternatives 132 

Table 11: Summary of Key Impacts of Implementing the Alternatives 139 

Table 12: Listed Plant Species For Big Cypress National Preserve Addition 163 

Table 13: Listed Wildlife Species for Big Cypress National Preserve 177 

Table 14: Preserve Visitation by Year 209 

Table 15: Summary of Overnight Visits by Year at the National Preserve 213 

Table 16: Numbers of ORVs Registered for Use in Big Cypress National Preserve, 1980 to 2008 

214 

Table 17: Sound Levels for Commonly Experienced Situations 219 

Table 18: Acceptable Levels above Ambient Sound Levels for Various Recreational Opportunities 

219 

Table 19: Age Distribution in Collier County 224 

Table 20: Age Distribution of Everglades City Population 225 

Table 21: Age Distribution of Big Cypress Indian Reservation 226 

Table 22: Employment by Industry: Collier County 228 

Table 23: Estimated Economic Output by Sector in Collier County, 2004 229 

Table 24: Employment by Industry in Everglades City 231 

Table 25: Estimated Economic Output by Sector in Everglades City 232 

Table 26: Recreation Visits, 1997–2007 233 

Table 27: Expenditure Categories 235 

Table 28: Impact Threshold Definitions 251 

Table 29: Future Compliance Required for Implementation of Specific Actions under the 

Preferred Alternative 428 

Figures 

Figure 1: Diagram of the Adaptive Management Process 99 

Figure 2: Total Population: Collier County 224 

Figure 3: Total Population: Everglades City 225 

Figure 4: Total Population: Big Cypress Seminole Indian Reservation 226 

Figure 5: Unemployment Rate: State of Florida and Collier County 227 

Figure 6: Per Capita Personal Income (Constant $2006): Florida and Collier County 229 
CONTENTS

xvi 

Figure 7: Annual Change in Economic Output: Florida and Collier County ($2005) 230 

Figure 8: Households by Income Brackets: Collier County and Everglades City, 2000 232 

Figure 9: General Visitor Activities and Use, 2007 234 

Figure 10: 2007 ORV Permit Holder and Camp Owner Activity and Use 235 

Maps 

Map 1: Region/Vicinity 5 

Map 2: The National Preserve 9 

Map 3: Alternative A, No-Action Alternative 71 

Map 4: Alternative B 77 

Map 5: Preferred Alternative 83 

Map 6: Alternative F 89 

Map 7: Conceptual ORV Trails 105 

Map 8: Eligible Wilderness 119 

Map 9: Vegetation, Northeast Addition 149 

Map 10: Vegetation, Western Addition 151 

Map 11: Conceptual Primary ORV Trails and Ecosystem Type 161 

Map 12: Hydrology of the Addition 171 

Map 13: West Indian Manatee Habitat, Western Addition 183 

Map 14: Potential Wood Stork Rookery Habitat, Northeast Addition 189 

Map 15: Potential Wood Stork Rookery Habitat, Western Addition 191 
xvii 

A GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT 

This integrated Final General Management 

Plan / Wilderness Study / Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement is organized in accordance with the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s implementing regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Park Service’s 

Management Policies 2006, and Director’s 

Order #12 on “Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision 

Making”. 

Chapter 1: Introduction sets the framework 

for the entire document. It describes why the 

document is being prepared and what needs it 

must address. Chapter 1 gives guidance for the 

alternatives that are being considered, which 

is based on the Addition’s legislation, its purpose, the significance of its resources, special 

mandates and administrative commitments, 

guiding principles for management, and other 

planning efforts in the area. The chapter also 

details the planning opportunities and issues 

that were raised during public scoping (see 

inset box below) meetings and initial planning 

team efforts; the alternatives in the next 

chapter address these issues and concerns to 

varying degrees. This chapter concludes with 

a statement of the scope of the environmental 

impact analysis — specifically what impact 

topics were or were not analyzed in detail. 

The primary goal of scoping is to identify 

issues and determine the range of alternatives to be addressed. During scoping, the 

NPS staff provides an overview of the 

proposed project, including purpose and 

need and alternatives. The public is asked to 

submit preliminary comments, concerns, 

and suggestions relating to these goals. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the 

Preferred Alternative, begins by describing 

the management zones that would be used to 

manage the Addition in the future. Alternative 

A, the no-action alternative (continuation of 

current management and trends in the Addition) is described, followed by alternative B, 

the preferred alternative, and then alternative 

F. Information on user capacity, adaptive 

management, ORV administration and management, and wilderness is then presented, 

which applies to all of the action alternatives. 

Mitigative measures proposed to minimize or 

eliminate the impacts of some proposed 

actions are described just before the discussion of future studies and/or implementation 

plans that will be needed. The determination 

of the environmentally preferred alternative is 

followed by summary tables of the alternative 

actions and the environmental consequences 

(based on information in chapter 4) of 

implementing those alternative actions. The 

chapter concludes with a discussion of 

alternatives or actions that were considered 

but dismissed from detailed evaluation. 

Chapter 3: The Affected Environment 

describes those areas and resources that 

would be affected by implementing actions in 

the various alternatives ― cultural resources, 

natural resources, visitor use and experience, 

the socioeconomic environment, and NPS 

operations and facilities. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

analyzes the impacts of implementing the 

alternatives on topics described in chapter 3. 

Methods that were used for assessing the 

impacts in terms of the intensity, type, and 

duration of impacts are outlined at the 

beginning of the chapter. 

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

describes the history of public and agency 

coordination during the planning effort and 

any future compliance requirements; it also 

lists agencies and organizations who will be 

receiving copies of the document. 

Appendixes, Selected References, a list of 

Preparers and Consultants, and the Index

are found at the end of the document. 

Introduction

C h a p t e r 1

3 

BACKGROUND AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE ADDITION 

Why We Do General Management Planning

The National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 requires each unit of the National Park Service 

(NPS) to have a general management plan (GMP), and NPS Management Policies 2006 states 

“[t]he Park Service will maintain a general management plan for each unit of the national park 

system” (2.3.1 General Management Planning). But what is the value, or usefulness, of general 

management planning? 

The purpose of a general management plan is to ensure that a national park system unit has a 

clearly defined direction for resource preservation and visitor use to best achieve the National 

Park Service’s mandate to preserve resources unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations. In addition, general management planning makes the National Park Service more 

effective, collaborative, and accountable by 

• providing a balance between continuity and adaptability in decision making — Defining the 

desired conditions to be achieved and maintained in a park unit provides a touchstone that 

allows NPS managers and staff to constantly adapt their actions to changing situations while 

staying focused on what is most important about the park unit. 

• analyzing the park unit in relation to its surrounding ecosystem, cultural setting, and community — This helps NPS managers and staff understand how the park unit can interrelate 

with neighbors and others in ways that are ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable. Decisions made within such a larger context are more likely to be successful over time.

• affording everyone who has a stake in decisions affecting a park unit an opportunity to be 

involved in the planning process and to understand the decisions that are made — National 

park system units are often the focus of intense public interest. Public involvement 

throughout the planning process provides focused opportunities for NPS managers and 

staff to interact with the public and learn about public concerns, expectations, and values. 

Public involvement also provides opportunities for NPS managers and staff to share 

information about the park unit’s purpose and significance, as well as opportunities and 

constraints for the management of park unit lands. 

The ultimate outcome of general management planning for national park system units is an 

agreement among the National Park Service, its partners, and the public on why each area is 

managed as part of the national park system, what resource conditions and visitor experience 

should exist there, and how those conditions can best be achieved and maintained over time. 

BACKGROUND 

This Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement presents and 

analyzes four alternative future directions for 

the management and use of the Big Cypress 

National Preserve Addition —hereafter 

referred to as the Addition. The potential 

environmental impacts of all alternatives are 

also identified and assessed. 

General management plans are intended to be 

long-term documents that establish and 

articulate a management philosophy and 

framework for decision-making and problem 

solving in the parks. This General 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

4 

Management Plan will provide guidance for 

the Addition for the next 15 to 20 years. 

Actions directed by general management 

plans or in subsequent implementation plans 

are accomplished over time. Budget, 

requirements for additional data or regulatory 

compliance, and competing national park 

system priorities could determine the timing 

of many actions. Major or especially costly 

actions could be implemented 10 or more 

years into the future. 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION 

OF THE ADDITION 

The Addition, located in Collier County, 

Florida, was established in 1988 (PL 100-301; 

see appendix A) as part of Big Cypress 

National Preserve. The Addition is about 

147,000 acres and consists of two separate 

areas — the Northeast Addition and the 

Western Addition (see Map 1: Region/ 

Vicinity). Most of the lands, about 128,000 

acres in the Northeast Addition, are northeast 

of the original Preserve boundary. The 

Western Addition is an approximately 1-mile 

strip of land (approximately 19,000 acres) 

between State Road 29 (hereafter referred to 

as SR 29) and the western boundary of the 

original Preserve. When unspecified, the 

“Addition” refers to lands in both areas. The 

Addition includes private lands (inholdings), 

some of which are exempt from NPS 

acquisition. 

The Addition is part of the Big Cypress 

Swamp, which covers more than 2,400 square 

miles of southern Florida. First-time visitors to 

the area see a flat, wet, primitive land. The area 

was named Big Cypress because of its extent, 

not because of the size of its trees, and visitors 

can travel for miles through an expanse of 

open prairies dotted with cypress trees, distant 

pinelands, and tree islands broken at intervals 

by dark, forested swamps. Wildlife is abundant; great blue herons, kingfishers, and 

alligators line the roadside canals and give 

visitors an exciting visual focus. On the whole, 

first impressions are likely to be of an inhospitable land, with no firm ground beyond the 

highway shoulders. 

Naturalists study the area's rich natural history 

and its delicate ecological balances. And some 

Miccosukee and Seminole Indians who make 

their homes in the area depend on the Addition’s resources for food, shelter, and spiritual 

needs. 

For all of these people and the visitors, 

however, the Addition must be experienced on 

its own terms. It never becomes too familiar, 

and getting lost, stuck, or broken down is part 

of the challenge of this formidable land. 

Natural Resources 

Water is a principal natural resource of the 

entire south Florida region, and most of the 

Addition is flooded during the wet season. 

Because of the high annual rainfall (mean 

annual precipitation is 54 inches, with about 

75% falling during the summer) and the flat 

limestone topography (a seaward slope of 

about 2 inches per mile), the inundation lasts 

for several months beyond the actual rainfall 

period (Duever et al. 1986a). Because the 

Addition is relatively undeveloped, it serves as 

a large natural reservoir and nutrient filter, 

permitting natural biological processes to 

nourish diverse ecological communities that 

are distinctive to southern Florida. In the 

Northeast Addition the water flows in a southeasterly direction towards the water conservation areas throughout the wet season. The 

ecology of the Addition is finely tuned to the 

seasonal flow of water, and any hydrologic 

changes can alter this sensitive subtropical 

habitat. 

Extensive prairies and marshes, forested 

swamps, pinelands, and shallow sloughs 

characterize the Addition. The hydroperiod, 

the amount of time each year that soils are 

saturated, is the major determinant of 
75

95

75

75

75

29

29

41

41

Big Cypress National Preserve

Northeast Addition

Western 

Addition

ST. PETERSBURG

FORT MYERS

NAPLES

FLORIDA

MIAMI

SFWMD Water

Conservation

Area 3A

SFWMD Water

Conservation

Area 1

SFWMD Water

Conservation

Area 2A

Florida State 

Miccosukee 

Indian Reservation

Big Cypress Seminole 

Indian Reservation

Florida Panther National 

Wildlife Refuge

Picayune Strand 

State Forest

Collier-Seminole 

State Park

Ten Thousand

Islands National 

Wildlife Refuge

Fakahatchee Strand 

Preserve State Park

Big Cypress 

National 

Preserve

Everglades 

National 

Park

Lake

Okeechobee

Biscayne 

National 

Park

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

GULF 

OF 

MEXICO

Big Cypress National Preserve

General Management Plan

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

DSC • October 2010 • 176/20076

Region/ Vicinity

Map 1

Background and Brief Description of the Addition 

7 

vegetative communities, and a difference of 

only a few inches in elevation changes the 

hydroperiod and leads to the establishment of 

totally different plant communities. At one 

time Big Cypress contained pristine cypress 

strands and old-growth pinelands, but by 1950 

virtually all the cypress strands of commercial 

value and much of the pinelands within the 

Addition had been logged. The young cypress 

strands, mixed-hardwood swamps, and 

pinelands in the Addition today are still 

recovering. Big Cypress is also noted for its 

widespread cypress prairies ― natural 

grasslands dotted with stunted cypress trees. 

Most wildlife species native to south Florida 

occur within the Big Cypress watershed. A 

total of 31 animal species in the Addition 

receive some level of special protection by 

the federal government or the state of 

Florida. Most of these species are limited to 

south Florida, and they are declining 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. One of the United States' 

most endangered mammals, the Florida 

panther (Puma concolor coryi), is the subject 

of an intensive recovery effort throughout the 

region, including the Addition. 

Cultural Resources 

The Preserve and the Addition are located 

within 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, 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. 

The prehistoric periods of human culture 

represented by sites in south Florida include 

(1) the Paleo–Indian period (10,000–8,000 BC, 

(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 AD 1760). 

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. 

Evidence of Paleo-Indian human habitation is 

rare in south Florida, and none has been found 

within 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 (a sinkhole), has the 

potential for association with this prehistoric 

period. 

Fifty-seven archeological sites have been 

identified in the Addition. These resources are 

associated with the Archaic and Glades 

periods in the Addition’s cultural chronology. 

Most of these sites are earth middens, which 

are refuse piles commonly made up of cultural 

artifacts and faunal remains. 

Based on the archeological evidence, Big 

Cypress was used year-round by early inhabitants for transitory hunting and gathering. 

Agriculture was apparently insignificant, 

perhaps because rich plant, fish, and animal 

food sources were available. Land animals and 

seafood were the primary sources of protein. 

Early cultures in the Big Cypress were not as 

highly developed as other cultures in the 

Southeast, possibly because people relied on 

wild food sources rather than cultivating 

crops, and the foods, especially shellfish, were 

not easily preserved and stored for later use. 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

8 

Consequently, only a few large, relatively 

permanent settlements have been identified. 

Today, Seminole and Miccosukee Indians live 

in the Preserve, including the Addition, and 

also use these lands as a source of natural 

materials for housing, crafts, and other cultural 

and religious uses. 

Development and Use 

Currently, the Addition is closed to hunting 

and public recreational motorized use (with 

the exception of motorized boating in the 

Everglades City area) ― only hiking, camping, 

bicycling, fishing, and frogging are permitted. 

Recreational activities allowed in the original 

Preserve include hunting and fishing, off-road 

vehicle (ORV) use, hiking, boating and 

paddling, bicycling, and camping; these same 

types of activities could be allowed in the 

Addition. 

The principal hiking trail in the Addition is the 

Florida National Scenic Trail, which uses a 

temporary route along Nobles Grade and 

continues north onto Seminole land. It also 

extends south from I-75 into the original 

Preserve. 

NPS development in the Addition is limited to 

the Fire Operations Center off SR 29 at 

Copeland, a fire cache at Deep Lake, and the 

facilities at Carnestown, which are leased to 

the Collier County Sheriff’s Office and the 

Everglades City Chamber of Commerce. No 

formalized/developed access to the Addition 

currently exists; temporary access is being 

provided at Interstate 75 (I-75) mile marker 51, 

Bear Island Grade, and the Florida 

Department of Transportation rest area at the 

I-75 mile marker 63. See Map 2: The National 

Preserve. 

South Florida has been the site of oil exploration since 1930. The first productive well was 

drilled in 1943 immediately northwest of the 

Addition on the Sunniland trend, a productive 

oil and gas area that crosses the Addition. 

Subsequent discoveries have followed a 

northwest–southeast orientation along the 

northern and eastern boundaries of the 

Addition, ending at the northern boundary of 

Everglades National Park. Bear Island and 

Raccoon Point are the two major producing oil 

fields in the original Preserve. The relatively 

recent discoveries of oil and gas both within 

and adjacent to the Addition have prompted 

interest in additional testing, including 

geophysical exploration and exploratory 

drilling. Most mineral rights and subsurface 

estates remain with the respective private or 

state interests. 

Landownership 

The Addition boundary encompasses about 

147,000 acres, and the National Park Service 

owns about 112,400 acres in the Addition. 

Nonfederal land in the Addition is owned by 

the Florida Department of Transportation 

(about 27,236 acres), the Board of Trustees of 

the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (3,500 

acres), and the Florida State School Board 

(1,920 acres). There are about 217 privately 

owned tracts throughout the Addition. Some 

of these will be classified as improved 

properties in accordance with the Addition 

Act, and as such they would be considered 

acquisition deferred (exempt) unless owners 

are willing to sell or uses on the land could be 

detrimental to the purposes of the Addition. 

About 75 acquisition-deferred, 3-acre parcels 

are expected to remain. 

The state of Florida has agreed to transfer the 

lands that they own in the Addition to the 

National Park Service. The land transfer is 

currently pending and is expected to take 

place in the future. 
Wilderness

Waterway

Turner River Canoe

Trail

Halfway Creek

Canoe Trail

29

837

837

841

839

839

75

75

29

29

41

Okaloacoochee Slough

Cow Bell Strand

Mullet Slough

Bamboo Slough

California Slough

East Crossing Strand

Gator Hook Swamp

Lostmans Slough

Gator Bay

Prairie

Dayhoff Slough

East Slough

Dixons Slough

Roberts Lakes Strand

Gator Hook

Strand

Skillet Strand

Georges Strand

New

River Strand

Monroe

Gannet

Strand

Strand

Sig

Walker Strand

East Hinson Marsh

Barron Lane River Cove

Cross Bays Sunday

Bay

House

Hammock

Bay

Duck

Rock

Cove

Storter Bay

Bird Key

Bight

Crab Key

Bight

Alligator Cove

Toms Bight

Oyster

Bay

Huston

Bay

Chevalier

Bay

Cannon

Bay

Alligator

Bay

Dads

Bay Plate Creek Bay

Lostmans Five Bay

Two Island Bay

Mullet Bay

Last

 Huston

 Bay

Ferguson

Bay

ey Pass

Rabbit Key Pass Lopez River

Huston River

Chatham

River

New River

Chokoloskee Bay

Levee 28 Canal

Tamiami Canal

Levee 28 Interceptor Canal

Levee 28 Tie Back Canal

Chatham Bend

Buttonwood Prairie

Windmill

Prairie

Copeland

Prairie

Airplane Prairie

Miles City

Prairie

Rock Island Prairie

Stakes Prairie

Doctors

Prairie

Kissimmee Billy

Strand

Deep Lake

Strand

Gum Slough

S

h

a

r

k

Sweetwater

Strand

Fakahatchee Strand

13.0 mi

20.9km 2.5 mi

4.0 km

9.8mi

15.8 k m

6.1 mi

9.8 k m

4.0 mi

6.4 km

2.8 mi

4.5 km

3.0 mi

4.8 km

2.9 mi

4.7 km

2.5 mi

4.0 km

BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE

Preserve Boundary

EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK

EVERGLADE

NATIONAL PA

FLORIDA PANTHER

TIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

FLORIDA

STATE

MICCOSUKEE

INDIAN

RESERVATION

BIG CYPRESS SEMINOLE INDIAN RESERVATION

FAKAHATCHEE

STRAND 

PRESERVE

STATE PARK

Sunniland

Jerome

Copeland

Ochopee

Carnestown

EVERGLADES CITY Plantation

Island Monroe

Station

Pinecrest

CHOKOLOSKEE

Alligator Alley 

Snake Road

amiami Trail

Tamiami Trail

Loop

Road (scenic drive)

Janes Scenic

Birdon

Dona Drive

Turner River Road

Road

Wagonwheel

Road

No 

access

Drive

 Seagrape Drive

Burns

Road

Bear Island

Panther Refuge

Trails

Recreation Access

(mile marker 70)

(Backcountry travel only;

no off-road vehicle access)

Midway

Pinecrest

Shark Va

Visitor Cen

Bobcat Boar

Otter Cave Hammoc

Miccosukee

Cultural Center

Tamiami

Ranger

Station

Mitchell Landing

Obser

Tree Snail

Hammock Trail

Loop Road

Education

Center

Monument

Lake

Oasis Visitor Center Kirby Storter

Roadside Park

Rest Area/Information

 (mile marker 63)

Recreation Access

(Backcountry travel only;

authorized vehicles only) 

Preserve 

Headquarters

Dump

Station

Dump

Station

Sunday Bay Chickee

H.P. Williams

Roadside Park

SWAMP

Education

Center

Burns Lake

Lopez

River

The

Watson

Place

Darwins Place

Plate Creek Bay

Chickee

Lostmans Five Bay

Turkey Key

New Turkey Key

Pavilion Key

Sweetwater Bay

Chickee

f Coast Visitor Center

Rabbit Key

 Bend

Dade-Collier

Training and

Transition Airport

Water Conserva

Area 3A

Coconut

Hammock Tenmile

Corner

Fortymile Bend

Hess

Hammock

Tamarind

Hammock

Dr. Tiger

Hammock

Florida National Scenic

Trail

Lostmans Pines

Raccoon

Point

For

Fire Prairie Trail 

avel not recommended

eyond this point. Get a local

ap from Oasis Visitor Center in

g Cypress National Preserve.

No off-road vehicles

allowed in the area enclosed by

I-75, Fla.29, Fla. 837, Fla. 839

No off-road vehicles,

including airboats, allowed

in Everglades National Park

No off-road vehicles,

allowed within area enclosed by

the Tamiami Trail and Loop Road

No off-road vehicles,

including airboats, allowed

in Everglades National Park

Access into this area

 is by permit only

kins

Sandfly

Island

Jack

Daniels

Key

Jewel Key

Turtle Key

Lumber Key

Crate Key

Opossum Key

Gopher Key

Onion Key

Mormon Key

Snake Key

Buzzard Key

North Plover Key

Plover Key

Bird Key

Dog Key

Deer

Island

Baxter

Island

Gun Rock Point

Alligator Point

ISLANDS

Vehicles on U.S. 41 travel at

high speeds. If you must stop,

pull completely off the road.

Watch out for traffic from both

directions when on foot.

Distance

indicator 2.3 mi

3.7 km

0-3 feet

(0-1 meter)

3-6 feet

(1-2 meters)

More than 6 feet

(more than 2 meters)

Hiking trail

Water depths

Unpaved road

Gas station

Boat launch

and canoe launch

Canoe launch

State Park campground

Private campground

National Park Service

primitive campsite

National Park Service

campground

Lodging

Interpretive trail Picnic area

Food service Big Cypress National Preserve

General Management Plan 

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

DSC • October 2010 • 176/2077

Map 2

The National Preserve

Color key to ecosystems

Cypress

Hardwood

Hammock

Pineland

Freshwater

Marl Prairie

Freshwater

Slough

Coastal Marsh

Mangrove

Developed or

disturbed land

Marine and Estuarine

Big Cypress National Preserve

0

0 1 5 10 Miles

1 5 10 Kilometers

9

11 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE 

GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 

As outlined above, the Addition was established in 1988. Under the provisions of the 

Arizona-Florida Land Exchange, authorized 

by Public Law 100-696, the United States 

acquired approximately 108,000 acres of 

environmentally sensitive land in southwest 

Florida, and in return the Collier companies 

received 68 acres of property in downtown 

Phoenix, Arizona. The Florida lands acquired 

by the United States in the exchange serve as 

additions to the Big Cypress National Preserve 

and the Florida Panther National Wildlife 

Refuge, and created the Ten Thousand Islands 

National Wildlife Refuge. As part of the 

overall public lands effort, the state of Florida 

was required to contribute 20% of the value of 

the land to be acquired within the expanded 

Big Cypress National Preserve. 

This general management plan for the Addition is needed because no comprehensive 

planning effort has ever been conducted for 

this area of the Preserve. A General Management Plan was completed for the Preserve in 

1991, but that plan addressed only the original 

portion of the Preserve and contained no 

guidance for the Addition because the Addition was in private ownership until it was 

acquired and transferred to the National Park 

Service in 1996. The plan is needed to provide 

direction on how the National Park Service 

will accommodate and manage visitor access, 

manage resources, and manage its operations 

within the Addition. The scope of this general 

management plan is the Addition only. 

A general management plan also is needed to 

meet the requirements of the National Parks 

and Recreation Act of 1978 and NPS policy, 

which mandate development of a general 

management plan for each unit in the national 

park system. 

When approved, this General Management 

Plan will be the basic document for managing 

the Addition for the next 15 to 20 years. The 

purposes of this management plan are as 

follows: 

 Confirm the purpose, significance, and 

special mandates of the Big Cypress 

National Preserve Addition. 

 Clearly define resource conditions and 

visitor uses and experiences to be 

achieved in the Addition. 

 Provide a framework for NPS managers to 

use when making decisions about how to 

best protect Addition resources, how to 

provide quality visitor uses and 

experiences, how to manage visitor use, 

and what kinds of facilities, if any, to 

develop in or near the Addition. 

 Ensure that this foundation for decisionmaking has been developed in 

consultation with interested stakeholders 

and adopted by the NPS leadership after 

an adequate analysis of the benefits, 

impacts, and economic costs of alternative 

courses of action is completed. 

Legislation establishing the National Park 

Service as an agency and governing its management provides the fundamental direction 

for the administration of the Addition and 

other units and programs of the national park 

system. This General Management Plan will 

build on these laws and the legislation that 

established the Big Cypress National Preserve 

Addition to provide a vision for its future. The 

“Guidance for the Planning Effort” section 

calls the reader’s attention to topics that are 

important to understanding the management 

direction for the Addition. The alternatives in 

this General Management Plan address the 

desired conditions that are not mandated by 

law and policy and must be determined 

through a planning process. 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

12 

A general management plan does not describe 

how particular programs or projects should be 

prioritized or implemented. Those decisions 

will be addressed in future, more detailed 

planning efforts. All future plans will tier from 

the approved general management plan. 

Unlike typical general management plans, this 

management plan includes a wilderness study 

and an ORV management plan. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR 

THE WILDERNESS STUDY 

A wilderness study of the Addition was 

required by the enabling legislation for Big 

Cypress National Preserve (Public Law 93-

440), as amended by the Addition Act (Public 

Law 100-301): 

[T]he Secretary shall review the area 

within the preserve or the area within the 

Addition (as the case may be) and shall 

report to the President, in accordance 

with section 3 (c) and (d) of the Wilderness Act (78 Stat. 891; 16 U.S.C. 1132 (c) 

and (d)), his recommendations as to the 

suitability or nonsuitability of any area 

within the preserve or the area within the 

Addition (as the case may be) for 

preservation as wilderness, and any 

designation of any such areas as a 

wilderness shall be accomplished in 

accordance with said subsections of the 

Wilderness Act. 

No wilderness study of the Addition has 

previously been completed. This wilderness 

study provides a public forum for evaluating 

lands within the Addition for possible 

recommendation to Congress for inclusion in 

the national wilderness preservation system. 

Wilderness, which can be designated only by 

Congress, provides for permanent protection 

of lands in their natural condition. The 

wilderness study is included as part of this 

General Management Plan because of public 

interest and timeliness. A wilderness study 

may be a separate document accompanied by 

an environmental impact statement, or it may 

be part of a general management plan / 

environmental impact statement. 

Incorporating the wilderness study in this 

General Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement provides efficiencies of time 

and money because the two processes have 

similar legal requirements and public 

involvement needs. 

Public comment has indicated significant 

interest in the possible designation of wilderness in the Addition. Many believe that in the 

interest of protecting endangered species such 

as the Florida panther, the entire Addition 

should be designated wilderness, thereby 

excluding the use of motorized vehicles. 

Others maintain that none of the Addition 

qualifies as wilderness, and thus motorized 

use should be allowed. Because of the 

requirements of law and the implications that 

a wilderness recommendation would have on 

public use and management of the Addition, a 

wilderness study is needed. 

The first step of this wilderness study was to 

conduct a formal evaluation, known as a 

wilderness eligibility assessment, of lands in 

the Addition that are eligible for wilderness 

consideration, i.e., that meet the criteria for 

wilderness as described in the Wilderness Act. 

State-owned lands within the Addition were 

evaluated with permission. To conduct this 

assessment, interdisciplinary teams of NPS 

staff reviewed current data, visited key areas 

of the Addition during 2006, and obtained 

additional field data. A workshop of NPS staff 

was conducted in July 2006 to evaluate 

wilderness characteristics of the Addition. 

After the approximately 109,000 acres of 

wilderness-eligible lands were identified, the 

next step was to determine which of these 

lands, if any, should be incorporated into each 

of the action alternatives in this document. 

The final step was to evaluate the impacts of 

the various wilderness proposals set forth in 

the alternatives. This process was completed 

by an interdisciplinary team of NPS staff from 

the Preserve, Southeast Regional Office, 

Denver Service Center, and the Wilderness 
Purpose and Need for the Plan 

13 

Stewardship and Recreation Management 

Division (Washington, D.C. program office). 

The results of the eligibility assessment and 

lands proposed for wilderness in the 

preliminary alternatives were shared with the 

public in a newsletter and were included in 

the Draft General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Study / Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement. Public meetings were also held to 

provide members of the public opportunities 

to contribute and comment. 

Based on the public comment received on the 

wilderness study included in the Draft General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Study / Off-road 

Vehicle Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement, the National Park Service 

reevaluated the eligibility of the Addition in 

February 2010. The revised eligibility 

assessment and final wilderness eligibility 

determination found that 71,260 acres are 

eligible for wilderness designation (see 

appendix B). 

Wilderness studies typically result in a recommendation to Congress to designate all, some, 

or none of the lands possessing wilderness 

character as part of the national wilderness 

preservation system. Based on the wilderness 

study included in this document, the National 

Park Service will prepare a proposal for such a 

recommendation to forward to the U.S. 

Department of the Interior. This proposal will 

be based on the proposed wilderness incorporated in the selected alternative and 

documented in the “Record of Decision.” 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE 

ORV MANAGEMENT PLAN 

The purpose of the ORV (off-road vehicle) 

management plan is to provide guidance on 

how to manage motorized recreational ORV 

use in the Addition. The plan provides 

direction on use levels, suitable locations to 

develop ORV trails, and details on permitting 

and managing off-road vehicles and permits. 

An ORV management plan is needed because 

the Addition Act calls for some level of public 

recreational access, and the National Park 

Service currently does not have a plan in place 

to meet this mandate. This plan, under alternative B and the preferred alternative, will 

provide direction that would allow the 

National Park Service to develop ORV 

opportunities in the Addition while meeting 

its responsibilities for resource protection. 

Through the process of this GMP planning 

effort, about 135 miles of trails in the Addition 

were found to be suitable and sustainable for 

ORV use (see Map 7: Conceptual ORV Trails 

on page 105)

This plan addresses ORV administration and 

management in the Addition. Issues related to 

numbers of permits issued, miles of trail designated, and overall ORV management are 

evaluated solely with respect to the Addition 

rather than the original Preserve as a whole. 

The reason for this approach is that the 

National Park Service has already evaluated 

ORV use and associated impacts in the original Preserve. See the Final Recreational Offroad Vehicle Management Plan / Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (2000). To 

have addressed integrated ORV use over the 

entire Preserve in the present document 

would have necessitated expanding the 

environmental impact statement to cover the 

entire Preserve. The result would have been 

significant delays stemming from a greatly 

expanded planning effort and related environmental analysis. It should be noted, however, 

that the analysis in this document for the Addition does include an analysis of cumulative 

impacts associated with ORV use. This 

analysis includes a consideration of impacts to 

— and from — lands outside the Addition. 

THE NEXT STEPS 

This Final General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Study / Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement includes comment letters from 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

14 

governmental agencies, any substantive 

comments on the draft document, and NPS 

responses to those comments. Following 

distribution of the final plan and a 30-day noaction period, a “Record of Decision” may be 

signed by the Preserve superintendent and the 

NPS regional director and published in the 

Federal Register. The “Record of Decision” 

documents the NPS selection of an alternative 

for implementation. With the signed “Record 

of Decision,” the plan can then be 

implemented. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN 

The implementation of the approved plan will 

depend on future funding. The approval of a 

plan does not guarantee that the funding 

needed to implement the plan will be forthcoming. Full implementation of the approved 

plan could be many years in the future or may 

not occur if funding is not obtained. 

The implementation of the approved plan also 

could be affected by other factors. Once the 

General Management Plan has been approved, 

additional legislation, additional feasibility 

studies, and more detailed planning and appropriate environmental documentation may 

be required before any proposed actions can 

be carried out. These more detailed plans 

would tier from this plan, describing specific 

actions managers intend to take to achieve 

desired conditions and long-term goals. 
15 

GUIDANCE FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT 

DIRECTION FOR THE PLAN 

The direction for the alternatives considered 

in this draft plan is based on the applicable 

legislative mandates (see appendix A), NPS 

policies, and the Preserve’s purpose and 

significance. The purpose statements 

describe why Big Cypress was established as 

a national preserve. The significance section 

describes the unique qualities that make the 

Preserve a special place. Other legislative 

mandates help to further define the parameters of how planning should be done and 

certain elements that the plan must address. 

Legislative mandates and special commitments include measures that apply to the 

entire national park system as well as 

Preserve-specific requirements. In addition, 

the National Park Service must comply with 

all federal statutes, executive orders, and 

NPS policies. The intent of all the mandates 

and commitments is to establish sustainable 

conservation and to preserve these lands. As 

a result, use can occur only to the extent that 

it does not result in significant adverse 

effects on the Preserve’s natural and cultural 

resources. 

National Park Service Mandates 

The National Park Service and its mandates 

are authorized under the NPS Organic Act 

(16 USC 1, 2–4) and the General Authorities 

Act (16 USC 1a-8). The Organic Act directs 

the National Park Service to promote and 

regulate the use of the national park system 

units 

by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the 

said parks, . . . which purpose is to 

conserve the scenery, and the natural 

and historic objects and the wildlife 

therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by 

such means as will leave them 

unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations. 

The Redwood Act, passed in March 1978, 

amended the NPS Organic Act of 1916. In 

that act, Congress reaffirmed the mandates 

of the Organic Act and provided the following additional guidance for managing 

national park system units: 

The authorization of activities shall be 

construed and the protection, management, and administration of these areas 

shall be conducted in light of the high 

public value and integrity of the 

National Park System and shall not be 

exercised in derogation of the values 

and purposes for which these various 

areas have been established. 

According to Senate Report 95-528, the 

restatement of these principles of park 

management in the Redwood Act was 

intended to serve as the basis for any judicial 

resolution of competing private and public 

values and interests in the national park 

system. If a conflict between visitors’ use of a 

park unit and the protection of resources 

should occur, this act confirms the intent of 

Congress to favor resource protection. 

The National Park Omnibus Management 

Act of 1998 (PL 105-391), title II, “National 

Park System Resource Inventory and 

Management,” supports the integration of 

scientific study into management practices. 

This act directs the Secretary of the Interior 

to take necessary steps to ensure the full and 

proper use of the results of scientific studies 

in making management decisions. In conformance with the 1998 act and the National 

Environmental Policy Act, this plan has 

attempted to make use of the best available 

scientific information. 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

16 

Preserve Vision 

The National Park Service envisions Big 

Cypress National Preserve as a nationally 

significant ecological resource ― a primitive 

area where ecological processes are restored 

and maintained and cultural sites are protected from unlawful disturbance. Visitors 

will benefit from aesthetic gratification and 

relaxation in a natural setting, the challenge 

of exploring the landscape, the chance to 

test traditional backcountry skills, and the 

opportunity to learn more about the natural 

environment. 

What is a National Preserve, and How Is It 

Different from a National Park? 

The diversity of national park system units is 

reflected in the variety of titles given to them. 

These include designations such as national 

park, national preserve, national monument, 

national memorial, national historic site, 

national historical park, national seashore, and 

national battlefield park. Although some titles 

are self-explanatory, others have been used in 

many different ways. 

Generally, a national park contains a variety 

of resources and encompasses large land or 

water areas to help provide adequate 

protection of the resources. A national 

preserve is established primarily for the 

protection of certain resources. Activities such 

as hunting and fishing or the extraction of 

minerals and fuels may be permitted if they 

do not jeopardize the natural values. Big 

Cypress and Big Thicket were authorized as 

the first national preserves in 1974. As with all 

units of the national park system, the enabling 

legislation that accompanies the authorization 

of a particular park system unit describes its 

purpose and provides the direction for its 

establishment and management. 

Big Cypress National Preserve was established 

to protect the watershed values of the Big 

Cypress Swamp while allowing for the 

continuation of traditional uses (such as 

hunting, fishing, ORV use, and mineral 

extraction) in the area. The national preserve 

designation of Big Cypress presents unique 

opportunities to integrate multiple uses with 

conservation and preservation — and that is 

what makes it so different from any other 

designation within the national park system. 

Purpose and Significance Statements 

Purpose Statements. Purpose statements 

are based on the Preserve’s legislation, 

legislative history, and NPS policies. The 

statements reaffirm the reasons for which 

the Preserve was set aside as a unit of the 

national park system and provide the 

foundation for Preserve management and 

use. 

The purpose of Big Cypress National 

Preserve, as stated in the enabling legislation, 

is 

to assure the preservation, conservation, and protection of the natural, 

scenic, hydrologic, floral and faunal, 

and recreational values of the Big 

Cypress Watershed in the State of 

Florida and to provide for the enhancement and public enjoyment thereof. 

Significance Statements. Significance 

statements capture the essence of the 

Preserve’s importance to our country’s 

natural and cultural heritage. Significance 

statements do not inventory Preserve 

resources; rather, they describe the 

Preserve’s distinctiveness and help to place 

the Preserve within its regional, national, 

and international contexts. Significance 

statements answer questions such as why are 

the Preserve’s resources distinctive? What 

do they contribute to our natural/cultural 

heritage? Defining the Preserve’s significance 

helps managers make decisions that preserve 

the resources and values necessary to 

accomplish the purpose of the Preserve. 

The significance of Big Cypress National 

Preserve is as follows. 
Guidance for The Planning Effort 

17 

Big Cypress National Preserve, including 

the Addition, contains vestiges of 

primitive southwest Florida. It is 

significant as a unit of the national park 

system because it 

 is a large wetland mosaic that supports a vast remnant of vegetation 

types found only in this mix of 

upland and wetland environments 

 contains the largest strands of dwarf 

cypress in North America 

 is habitat for the Florida panther and 

other animal and plant species that 

receive special protection or are 

recognized by the state of Florida, 

the U.S. government, or the 

Convention on International Trade 

in Endangered Species (CITES) 

 provides opportunities for the public 

to pursue recreational activities in a 

subtropical environment 

 is home to the Miccosukee Tribe of 

Indians of Florida and Seminole 

Tribe of Florida and sustains 

resources that are important to their 

cultures 

 is a watershed that is an important 

component to the survival of the 

greater Everglades ecosystem 

Primary Interpretive Themes 

Based on the Preserve’s purpose and 

significance, the following interpretive 

themes have been developed. Primary 

interpretive themes are the key stories, 

concepts, and ideas of a park unit. They are 

the groundwork that NPS staff will use for 

educating visitors about the Preserve and for 

inspiring visitors to care for and about the 

Preserve's resources. With these themes, 

visitors can form intellectual and emotional 

connections with Preserve resources and 

experiences. Subsequent interpretive 

planning may elaborate on these primary 

themes. 

Although the following themes were 

written for the original Preserve, they will 

apply to the Addition after approval of 

this management plan. 

Water ― Preserving the Big Cypress 

watershed is key to the survival of the south 

Florida ecosystem.

 Fresh water flowing through the Big 

Cypress Swamp provides a steady 

supply of life-giving nourishment to 

the Ten Thousand Islands, a vital 

estuary system. 

 Wetlands are one of the most 

endangered ecosystems in the world. 

Development, recreational use, and 

non-point source pollutants threaten 

the Big Cypress Swamp from all 

sides. 

 Subtle geologic features influence 

water flow and vegetation patterns 

that, in turn, affect wildlife, fire 

frequency, and soil compaction. 

Biological Diversity ― Acting as 

custodian for ecological and biological 

processes, Big Cypress National Preserve 

provides habitat and protection for a great 

diversity of plant and animal species. 

 The diversity of habitat types found 

in Big Cypress, from pinelands, 

mixed hardwood hammocks, wet 

prairies, dry prairies, and marshes to 

estuarine mangrove forests, provides 

for a diversity of plant and animal 

species. 

 Rare subtropical and temperate 

plants and animals have retreated to 

this remaining stronghold. Rare 

orchids, Florida panthers, redcockaded woodpeckers, and unusual 

ferns are found here and few other 

places in the world. 

 The vast biological diversity existing 

in the Big Cypress National Preserve 

makes it one of the most unusual 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

18 

natural areas in the world. The Big 

Cypress is a wetland interspersed 

with pine islands and hardwood 

hammocks. One may experience a 

variety of ecological communities as 

they are modified and characterized 

by the presence or absence of water, 

depending on the hydroperiod. 

 Fire and living things have evolved 

together. Fire is responsible for 

sculpting the landscape. Prescribed 

fire returns nutrients to the ecosystem and prevents excessive fuel 

buildup. 

 Exotic species such as melaleuca 

(Melaleuca quinquenervia), Brazilian 

pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), Old 

World climbing fern (Lygodium 

microphyllum), water lettuce (Pistia 

stratiotes), hydrilla (Hydrilla 

verticillata), air potato (Dioscorea 

bulbifera), and Australian pine 

(Casuarina equisetifolia) threaten 

native plant communities. With no 

natural enemies, exotics multiply 

rapidly and crowd out native species. 

Human/Culture ― Big Cypress National 

Preserve reveals stories from times long 

past and into the future, reflecting a pattern 

of changing culture and human 

involvement.

 A rich history of human involvement 

with the swamp spans time. The 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of 

Florida and the Seminole Tribe of 

Florida; escaped slaves; land speculators; timber harvesters; and 

hunters, fishermen, guides, cattlemen, and recreationists have all left 

their trails through the swamp. 

 The establishment of Big Cypress 

National Preserve is a story of 

cooperation and conflict between 

various user groups to stop a threat 

to a treasured place. 

Recreation/Multiuse ― Big Cypress 

National Preserve manages a spectrum of 

human, recreational, and commercial 

activities. 

 Big Cypress National Preserve 

provides an important oasis of 

wildness for recreation, reflection, 

and rejuvenation. 

 Providing a unique environment 

with scenic vistas and wild areas, Big 

Cypress National Preserve hosts 

opportunities for human activities. 

 Water birds, alligators, turkey, deer, 

raccoons, and many other creatures 

call the Big Cypress their own. With 

increasing development in south 

Florida, opportunities to view such 

wildlife are becoming rare. 

 Allowed multiple uses make the Big 

Cypress National Preserve different 

from other national park system 

units. Integrating multiple uses with 

conservation and preservation 

presents unique opportunities for 

Preserve management. 

 Open space, quiet places, and 

wilderness are endangered in south 

Florida. Big Cypress National 

Preserve, along with other natural 

areas in the region, is vital to the 

quality of life in the state. 

 The Big Cypress is a unique expanse 

of cypress-dominated scenery. A 

windshield tour across Alligator 

Alley or Tamiami Trail provides vast 

scenic vistas. 

Special Mandates and 

Administrative Commitments 

Special mandates and administrative commitments refer to specific legal requirements 

that apply directly to an individual national 

park system unit. These formal agreements 

are most often established concurrently in 

the unit’s enabling legislation. Special 
Guidance for The Planning Effort 

19 

requirements for the Addition (PL 100-301) 

include the following: 

The Secretary shall administer the lands 

as a unit of the national park system in a 

manner that will assure their natural 

and ecological integrity in perpetuity 

and in accordance with the NPS 

Organic Act. 

The Addition Act and its legislative history 

identify the following six categories of use 

that are allowed within the Addition, subject 

to reasonable regulation: 

 uses associated with "improved 

properties" 

 exercise of rights associated with 

oil and gas 

 hunting 

 fishing 

 trapping 

 certain Indian rights 

The Addition Act further directs that rules 

and regulations necessary and appropriate to 

limit or control the following uses be 

developed: 

 motorized vehicles 

 exploration for and extraction of oil, 

gas, and other minerals 

 grazing 

 the draining or constructing of works 

or structures that alter natural 

watercourses 

 agriculture 

 hunting, fishing, and trapping 

 new construction 

 such other uses as may need to be 

limited or controlled 

The Addition Act gives specific guidelines 

regarding the development of rules and 

regulations for hunting, fishing, trapping, and 

entry. 

The Secretary shall permit hunting, 

fishing, and trapping on lands and 

waters under his jurisdiction within the 

preserve and the Addition in accordance with the applicable laws of the 

United States and the State of Florida, 

except that he may designate zones 

where and periods when no hunting, 

fishing, trapping, or entry may be 

permitted for reasons of public safety, 

administration, floral and faunal 

protection and management, or public 

use and enjoyment. Except in emergencies, any regulations prescribing such 

restrictions relating to hunting, fishing, 

or trapping shall be put into effect only 

after consultation with the appropriate 

State agency having jurisdiction over 

hunting, fishing, and trapping activities. 

The Senate and House reports (S. Rept. 93-

1128 and H. Rept. 93-502) also give guidance 

as to how ORVs are to be managed. Although 

this guidance does not prohibit their use 

along designated roads and trails, it does say 

that the use of such vehicles must be carefully 

regulated to protect the natural, wildlife, and 

wilderness values of the Preserve (and thus 

the Addition). 

The regulations in 36 CFR (Code of Federal 

Regulations) 7.86 (a)(2)(iii) mandate, among 

other things, consultation with the state of 

Florida before making a temporary or 

permanent closure of an area or route. The 

point of contact for the state is the executive 

director of the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission. 

The Addition Act also permits members of 

the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida 

and the Seminole Tribe of Florida, subject to 

reasonable regulations, to continue their 

usual and customary use and occupancy, 

including hunting, fishing, and trapping on a 

subsistence basis and traditional tribal 

ceremonies. 

Regarding recreational access, the 

Addition Act states that 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

20 

The Secretary and other involved 

Federal agencies shall cooperate with 

the State of Florida to establish 

recreational access points and roads, 

rest and recreation areas, wildlife 

protection, hunting, fishing, frogging, 

and other traditional opportunities in 

conjunction with the creation of the 

Addition and in the construction of 

Interstate Highway 75. Three of such 

access points shall be located within the 

Preserve (including the Addition). 

One of these access points has been 

constructed at mile marker 71 and 

provides walk-in access to the original 

Preserve both north and south of I-75. 

Regarding oil and gas exploration and 

development, the Addition Act states 

that 

The Secretary shall promulgate . . . rules 

and regulations governing the exploration for development and production of 

non-Federal interests in oil and gas 

located within the boundaries of Big 

Cypress National Preserve and the 

Addition . . . as are necessary and 

appropriate to provide reasonable use 

and enjoyment of privately owned oil 

and gas interests, and consistent with 

the purposes for which the Big Cypress 

National Preserve and Addition were 

established. 

Currently, oil and gas exploration in the 

Addition is managed in accordance with the 

“Agreement among the United States of 

America, Collier Enterprises, Collier 

Development Corporation, and Barron 

Collier Company” (Addition Lands Agreement) dated May 1988. A Preserve-wide oil 

and gas management plan is currently in 

preparation by the National Park Service. 

When completed, this plan will provide 

guidance for oil and gas exploration for the 

entire Preserve, including the Addition. 

Regarding wilderness, the Addition Act says 

the following: 

[T]he Secretary shall review the area 

within the preserve or the area within the 

Addition (as the case may be) and shall 

report to the President, in accordance 

with section 3 (c) and (d) of the 

Wilderness Act (78 Stat. 891; 16 U.S.C. 

1132 (c) and (d)), his recommendations 

as to the suitability or nonsuitability of 

any area within the preserve or the area 

within the Addition (as the case may be) 

for preservation as wilderness, and any 

designation of any such areas as a 

wilderness shall be accomplished in 

accordance with said subsections of the 

Wilderness Act. 

GUIDING PRINCIPLES 

FOR MANAGEMENT 

A number of guiding principles and strategies for management are described below. 

These are based on legal mandates and NPS 

policies that would continue to shape the 

way in which the Addition is managed under 

the alternatives being considered in this 

plan. All the alternatives support the purposes and significance of Big Cypress 

National Preserve. Some of these principles 

and strategies describe approaches that NPS 

staff is currently taking. Other principles and 

strategies are not being implemented at 

present, but they are consistent with NPS 

policy, they are not controversial, and their 

implementation may not require additional 

analysis under the National Environmental 

Policy Act. 

Cultural Resources 

The protection of the Addition’s cultural 

resources is essential for understanding the 

past, present, and future relationship of 

people with the area. The strategies 

mentioned below will enable the National 

Park Service to protect the Addition’s 
Guidance for The Planning Effort 

21 

cultural resources. At the same time, these 

strategies will encourage visitors and 

employees to recognize and understand the 

value of the Addition’s cultural resources 

and allow their integrity to be preserved 

unimpaired. 

Archeological Resources, Historic 

Structures, Cultural Landscapes, and 

Ethnographic Resources. The strategies 

for managing archeological resources, 

historic structures, cultural landscapes, and 

ethnographic resources will be as follows: 

 NPS staff will continue to survey and 

document or inventory cultural 

resources in accordance with the 

National Historic Preservation Act and 

other applicable regulations. 

 Field data regarding archeological 

resources will be gathered to develop a 

more accurate predictive model of 

prehistoric site distribution and address 

related research questions. 

 All identified resources will continue to 

be evaluated in accordance with the 

eligibility criteria for the National 

Register of Historic Places. 

 Avoidance techniques and other 

measures will be used to prevent impacts 

on known significant sites from visitors 

and project-related disturbances. 

 NPS staff will continue to support 

research and consultation to increase the 

understanding of all cultural resources. 

 As appropriate, federally recognized 

tribes (the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians 

of Florida, the Seminole Tribe of Florida, 

and the Seminole Tribe of Oklahoma), 

the tribal historic preservation officers, 

and the state historic preservation officer 

will continue to be consulted on surveys, 

studies, excavations, and actions that 

potentially could affect cultural 

resources. 

 Interpretive- and curricula-based 

programs and media will continue to 

educate visitors and the public about 

cultural and historic issues relating to the 

Addition. 

Museum Collections. Museum collections 

(prehistoric and historic objects, artifacts, 

works of art, archival material, and natural 

history specimens) would be acquired, 

accessioned and cataloged, preserved, 

protected, and made available for access and 

use according to NPS standards and 

guidelines. 

Relationships with American Indians. 

The National Park Service recognizes that 

the Big Cypress area has long occupied a 

prominent position for American Indians in 

southern Florida. NPS staff will work to 

ensure that traditional American Indian ties 

to the Big Cypress are recognized and will 

strive to maintain positive, productive 

government-to-government relationships 

with federally recognized tribes that are 

culturally affiliated with the Addition. The 

viewpoints and needs of tribes will continue 

to be respected, and issues that arise will be 

promptly addressed. American Indian values 

will be incorporated in the management and 

operation of the Addition. To enhance its 

relationship with the tribes, the National 

Park Service will carry out the following 

strategies and actions: 

 Consult regularly and maintain 

government-to-government relations 

with federally recognized tribes that 

have traditional ties to resources within 

the Addition (the Miccosukee Tribe of 

Indians of Florida, the Seminole Tribe of 

Florida, and the Seminole Tribe of 

Oklahoma) to ensure productive, 

collaborative working relationships. 

 Continue to identify and deepen the 

understanding of the significance of the 

Addition’s resources and landscapes to 

American Indian people through 

collaborative research and sharing. 

 Once they have been identified, protect 

and preserve the sites, resources, 

landscapes, and structures of 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

22 

significance to the federally recognized 

tribes as required under federal laws and 

NPS Management Policies 2006.

 Encourage the participation of tribes in 

protecting the Addition’s natural and 

cultural resources of interest and 

concern to them. 

 Involve tribes in the Addition’s interpretation program to promote accuracy 

of information about American Indian 

cultural values and to enhance public 

appreciation of those values. 

 Support the continuation of traditional 

activities in the Addition by members of 

the Miccosukee and Seminole tribes to 

the extent allowed by applicable laws 

and regulations. 

Natural Resources 

The protection, study, and management of 

the Addition’s natural resources and 

processes are essential for achieving the 

Addition’s purpose and maintaining its 

significance. The following principles and 

strategies will help the National Park Service 

to retain the ecological integrity of the 

Addition, including its natural resources and 

processes. These actions will help ensure 

 that the Addition’s natural features are 

unimpaired, 

 that the Addition continues to be a 

dynamic, biologically diverse 

environment, and 

 that the Addition is recognized and 

valued as an outstanding example of 

resource stewardship, conservation, 

education, and public use. 

Management activities will be evaluated to 

ensure that the best management practices 

are used to carry out the proposed action. 

This evaluation will determine the best 

method to use to ensure that management 

actions are completed in a manner that is 

best for the resource and is conducted in an 

efficient manner. NPS administrative ORV 

use will be limited to what is determined to 

be necessary to conduct emergency operations and to accomplish essential NPS 

management activities. 

Air Quality. The Addition is designated a 

class II area under the Clean Air Act. The 

Addition is currently within a designated 

attainment area (i.e., concentrations below 

standards) for criteria pollutants. The following policies and strategies will ensure 

that the Addition’s air quality will be 

enhanced or maintained with no significant 

degradation and that scenic views are 

maintained. 

 Emissions associated with administration of the Addition will be reduced. 

 Baseline information about air-qualityrelated values will be expanded through 

research, inventory, and monitoring programs to identify human stressors and 

general air quality trends. 

 The National Park Service will expand 

programs for sharing air quality information with surrounding agencies and will 

develop educational programs to inform 

visitors and regional residents about the 

threats of air pollution to preserve 

resources. 

 The National Park Service will continue 

to participate in regional air quality 

planning, research, and the implementation of air quality standards. 

 Fire management will be conducted in 

compliance with regional air quality 

standards, and efforts will be made to 

minimize the effects of smoke from 

prescribed fire activity. 

 The National Park Service will protect 

views of the Addition’s noteworthy night 

sky for resource purposes and for visitor 

enjoyment. 

Ecosystem Management. Approaches to 

ecosystem management are varied and occur 

at many levels. To achieve the desired 
Guidance for The Planning Effort 

23 

conditions described for Addition resources, 

a regional perspective must be considered, 

and it must be recognized that actions taken 

on lands surrounding the Addition directly 

and indirectly affect the Addition. Many of 

the threats to Addition resources, such as 

water quality degradation and invasive 

species, come from outside Addition 

boundaries. An ecosystem approach is 

required to understand and manage the 

Addition’s natural resources. An understanding of the health and condition of the 

ecosystem also is imperative. 

Cooperation, coordination, and partnerships with agencies, tribal governments, and 

neighbors are crucial to meeting or maintaining the desired conditions for the 

Addition. This approach to ecosystem 

management may involve many parties or 

cooperative arrangements with federal and 

state agencies, tribes, or private landowners 

to obtain a better understanding of 

transboundary issues. 

Big Cypress is managed holistically as part of 

a greater ecological, social, economic, and 

cultural system. The following strategies will 

allow the National Park Service to lead in 

resource stewardship and in the conservation of ecosystem values within and outside 

the Addition. These strategies will allow the 

National Park Service to maintain good 

relations with owners of adjacent property, 

surrounding communities, and private and 

public groups that affect and are affected by 

the Addition. The strategies also will allow 

proactive management of the Addition and 

will be designed to resolve external issues 

and concerns and to ensure that Addition 

values are not compromised. 

 The National Park Service will continue 

its involvement in the implementation of 

the Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan. 

 The National Park Service will continue 

to seek agreements with the South 

Florida Water Management District, the 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, 

the Seminole Tribe of Florida, and other 

owners of adjacent property to protect 

the Big Cypress watershed. 

 The National Park Service will continue 

to work cooperatively to manage 

nonnative species in the region. 

 The National Park Service will continue 

to act as a partner with the research 

community to further the knowledge of 

the natural and cultural resources of the 

Addition. 

 The National Park service will work to 

protect the values of marine and 

estuarine resources, including 

preservation of fundamental physical 

and biological processes. 

Fire Management. Prescribed and wildland 

fire will be used as a tool to meet NPS 

management objectives. The following 

strategies will ensure that wildland fire will 

be used in an effective manner to protect 

Addition resources. 

 The National Park Service will maintain 

a current fire management plan for the 

Preserve, including the Addition. 

 NPS staff will collaborate with adjacent 

communities, groups, state and federal 

agencies, and tribes to manage fire in the 

Addition and the region. 

 NPS staff will continue to support 

national, regional, and local fire 

management activities and provide 

public education on the role of fire 

management in its historic and 

ecological context. 

 Fire will be used to maintain and restore 

native plant communities and control 

nonnative plant species. 

Floodplains. Natural floodplain values will 

be preserved or restored. Long-term and 

short-term environmental effects associated 

with the occupancy and modification of 

floodplains will be avoided. 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

24 

When it is not practicable to locate or 

relocate development or inappropriate 

human activities to a site outside the 

floodplain or where the floodplain will be 

affected, the National Park Service will 

 prepare and approve a “Statement of 

Findings” in accordance with Director’s 

Order 77-2 

 use nonstructural measures as much as 

practicable to reduce hazards to human 

life and property while minimizing 

impacts of floodplains on the natural 

resources 

 ensure that structures and facilities are 

designed to be consistent with the intent 

of the standards and criteria of the 

National Flood Insurance Program (44 

CFR 60) 

Inventory and Monitoring. Knowing the 

condition of natural resources in a particular 

park unit is fundamental to the National 

Park Service’s ability to protect and manage 

it. The National Park Service is confronted 

with increasingly complex and challenging 

issues in the Addition, and NPS staff need 

scientifically credible data to make good 

management decisions. Inventories involve 

compiling existing information as well as 

collecting new information. Inventories 

contribute to a statement of the condition of 

Addition resources in relation to a standard 

condition, especially the natural or 

unimpaired state. 

A long-term ecosystem monitoring program 

is necessary to enable managers to make 

better informed decisions, to provide early 

warning of changing conditions in time to 

develop effective mitigating measures, to 

convince individuals and other agencies to 

make decisions benefiting the Addition, to 

satisfy certain legal mandates, and to provide 

reference data for relatively pristine sites for 

comparison with areas outside the Addition. 

Monitoring also enables NPS staff to evaluate the effectiveness of management actions 

and obtain more accurate assessments of 

progress towards management goals. Using 

monitoring information will increase confidence in managers’ decisions and improve 

their ability to manage Addition resources. 

 Inventories and long-term monitoring 

programs will continue to be developed 

to address the status and health of 

Addition resources. Key indicators of 

resource or ecosystem conditions will be 

developed and monitored over the long 

term to record ecosystem health. 

 Inventories will be conducted to identify 

vertebrate and invertebrate animal 

species, vascular and nonvascular plant 

species, and air and water resources in 

the Addition. 

 The Addition will continue to participate 

in the South Florida/Caribbean Inventory and Monitoring Network. NPS staff 

will work with its partners, such as the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and collaborators to 

inventory resources and monitor vital 

components of the ecosystem including 

the exchange of relevant natural 

resource data. This will make it possible 

to better assess the condition of Addition resources and trends and to develop 

databases, data analyses, and retrieval 

tools so that the usefulness of natural 

resource information can be improved. 

 NPS staff will continue to cooperate 

with the National Park Service’s Fire 

Management Office in the ongoing fire 

effects monitoring. The monitoring will 

be used to determine if resource 

objectives are being met and if any 

unwanted effects are occurring. 

Natural Sound. Natural sound predominates in the Addition. The acoustic 

environment is both a natural and cultural 

resource that is in a healthy and robust 

condition. Visitors have the opportunity 

throughout most of the Addition to 

experience natural sounds. The sounds of 
Guidance for The Planning Effort 

25 

modern society are generally confined to the 

areas near highways in the Addition. 

 The National Park Service will protect 

the Addition’s natural sounds for 

resource purposes and for visitor 

enjoyment. 

Soil Resources. Soil resources are an 

essential component of ecosystem function 

and plant diversity in the Addition. The 

following policies and strategies will ensure 

that the Addition’s soil resources are not 

significantly degraded. 

 The National Park Service will allow 

natural geologic processes to proceed 

unimpeded. 

 NPS staff will actively seek to 

understand and preserve the Addition’s 

soil resources and prevent to the extent 

possible its physical removal or 

contamination. 

 High-impact visitor use areas will be 

monitored, and actions will be taken to 

reduce impacts on soil resources. 

Threatened or Endangered Species. The 

Endangered Species Act mandates that 

agencies, including the National Park 

Service, promote the conservation of all 

federally listed threatened or endangered 

species and their critical habitats on lands 

and in waters administered by the agency. 

Several federally listed and state-listed 

threatened or endangered species are known 

to exist in and around the Addition and to 

use habitats in the area. The following 

actions will be taken to protect threatened or 

endangered species. 

 NPS staff will continue to work with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, tribal 

governments, and the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission to 

ensure that NPS actions help special 

status species (state-listed or federally 

listed threatened, endangered, rare, 

declining, sensitive, candidate, or special 

concern species) to recover. If any state 

or federally listed or proposed 

threatened or endangered species are 

found in areas that would be affected by 

construction, visitor use, or restoration 

activities proposed under any of the 

alternatives in this plan, NPS staff will 

consult with the above agencies. 

 NPS staff will cooperate with the 

agencies mentioned above to inventory, 

monitor, protect, and perpetuate the 

natural distribution and abundance of all 

special status species and their essential 

habitats in the Addition. These species 

and their habitats will be specifically 

considered in ongoing planning and 

management activities. 

 The National Park Service will continue 

to be a partner with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, American Indian tribes, 

Florida state agencies, and nongovernmental organizations in the recovery of 

the Florida panther, one of North 

America’s most endangered mammals. 

 Interpretive- and curricula-based 

education programs and media will 

continue to educate visitors and the 

public about NPS efforts to maintain 

native biodiversity. 

Vegetation. Whenever possible, natural 

processes will be relied on to maintain native 

plants and plant communities. Communities 

will include the diverse species, genetic 

variability, plant associations, and successional stages representative of an ecologically functioning system in subtropical 

south Florida. The following actions will be 

taken to manage the Addition’s vegetation. 

 Plant communities will be inventoried to 

determine the species present and monitored to assess their condition. NPS staff 

will continue efforts to inventory rare 

plants. 

 The National Park Service will continue 

efforts to eradicate invasive exotic 

(nonnative) plants in the Addition. NPS 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

26 

staff will continue to work with other 

federal, state, and local agencies and 

private landowners to prevent the spread 

of exotic plant species into and out of 

the Addition. 

 NPS staff will continue to use fire as a 

management tool for restoring and 

maintaining native plant communities. 

 Interpretive and curricula-based 

programs and media will continue to 

educate visitors and the public about 

NPS efforts to restore native wetland 

vegetation and manage exotic plant 

species. 

Water Resources and Wetlands. Surface 

water and groundwater will be protected, 

and water quality will be met or exceed all 

applicable water quality standards. To 

achieve these goals, the National Park 

Service will 

 maintain baseline water quality and 

water stage monitoring programs 

 maintain and operate NPS and NPSpermitted programs and facilities to 

avoid pollution of surface water and 

groundwater 

 preserve and enhance the natural and 

beneficial values of wetlands 

 conform with NPS management policies 

and Director’s Order 77-1 concerning 

wetland protection 

 maintain a “no net loss of wetlands” 

policy and strive to achieve a longerterm goal of net gain of wetlands across 

the national park system through the 

restoration of previously degraded 

wetlands 

 avoid to the extent possible the longand short-term adverse impacts 

associated with the destruction or 

modification of wetlands and avoid 

direct or indirect support of new 

construction in wetlands wherever there 

is a practicable alternative 

 compensate for remaining unavoidable 

adverse impacts on wetlands by 

restoring wetlands that have been 

previously degraded 

Wilderness. This document includes a 

wilderness study, and the alternatives 

included in the plan contain different 

amounts of land that are proposed for 

wilderness designation. 

All the alternatives in this document have 

been developed to ensure that lands 

proposed for wilderness designation are 

managed in accordance with the mandates 

of the Wilderness Act, which defines 

wilderness character based on the following 

four criteria: 

untrammeled — The Wilderness Act states 

that wilderness is “an area where the 

earth and its community of life are 

untrammeled by man,” and “generally 

appears to have been affected primarily 

by the forces of nature.” In short, 

wilderness is essentially unhindered and 

free from modern human control or 

manipulation. This quality is degraded 

by modern human activities or actions 

that control or manipulate the 

components or processes of ecological 

systems inside the wilderness. 

natural — The Wilderness Act states that 

wilderness is “protected and managed so 

as to preserve its natural conditions.” In 

short, wilderness ecological systems are 

substantially free from the effects of 

modern civilization. This quality is 

degraded by intended or unintended 

effects of modern people on the 

ecological systems inside the wilderness 

since the area was designated. 

undeveloped — The Wilderness Act states 

that wilderness is “an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval 

character and influence, without 

permanent improvements or human 

habitation,” “where man himself is a 

visitor who does not remain” and “with 
Guidance for The Planning Effort 

27 

the imprint of man’s work substantially 

unnoticeable.” This quality is degraded 

by the presence of structures, installations, habitations, and by the use of 

motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or 

mechanical transport that increases 

people’s ability to occupy or modify the 

environment. 

solitude or a primitive and unconfined 

type of recreation — The Wilderness 

Act states that wilderness has 

“outstanding opportunities for solitude 

or primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation.” This quality is about the 

opportunity for people to experience 

wilderness; it is not directly about visitor 

experiences per se. This quality is 

degraded by settings that reduce these 

opportunities, such as visitor 

encounters, signs of modern civilization, 

recreation facilities, and management 

restrictions on visitor behavior. 

The National Park Service will adhere to the 

following strategies in the event that 

Congress designates wilderness in the 

Addition. 

 Management decisions affecting wilderness will be consistent with the minimum requirement concept in accordance with federal laws and policies. 

 A wilderness management plan will be 

developed that will guide the preservation, management, and use of the wilderness area. The plan would, among other 

elements, address desired future conditions, user capacity indicators and standards, and establish a monitoring 

program. 

 The wilderness will be monitored to 

ensure that management actions and 

visitors do not unacceptably impact 

wilderness resources, values, and 

character as specified in an approved 

wilderness plan. 

 Natural processes will be allowed to 

shape and control the wilderness 

ecosystems. 

 Wilderness educational programs will be 

expanded to inform visitors about 

wilderness ethics and how to minimize 

their impacts on the Addition. “Leave 

No Trace” and “Tread Lightly” practices 

will be emphasized. 

 Efforts will be expanded to ensure that 

wilderness features, such as natural 

soundscapes and views of the night skies, 

are not degraded. 

Until such time as wilderness is designated 

by Congress, the National Park Service 

would manage those parts of the Addition 

eligible for wilderness designation in such a 

way as to maintain their wilderness 

character, in accordance with NPS policy. 

Wildlife and Fish. The condition of wildlife 

and fish will be determined through baseline 

inventories and long-term monitoring programs. The following policies and strategies 

will ensure that the Addition’s wildlife and 

fish are protected. 

 NPS staff will seek to perpetuate the 

native animal life as part of the natural 

ecosystem. Minimizing human impacts 

on native animals will be emphasized, as 

will minimizing human influence on 

naturally occurring fluctuations of 

animal populations. Ecological processes 

will be relied on to control the populations of native species to the greatest 

extent practicable. 

 The preservation of populations and 

habitats of migratory species inhabiting 

the Addition will be ensured. Whenever 

possible, NPS staff will cooperate with 

others to ensure the preservation of the 

populations and habitats of migratory 

species outside the Addition. 

 Educational programs will be developed 

to inform visitors and the general public 

about wildlife issues and concerns. 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

28 

 The management of populations of 

exotic animal species will be undertaken 

whenever such species threaten 

Addition resources or public health and 

when control is prudent and feasible. 

 NPS staff will continue to work to 

restore extirpated native species where 

suitable habitat exists and restoration is 

compatible with social, political, and 

ecological conditions. 

 The National Park Service will manage 

wildlife and hunting in the Addition in 

accordance with Executive Order 13433, 

“Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and 

Wildlife Conservation.” 

 Interpretive- and curricula-based 

programs and media will continue to 

educate visitors and the public about 

wildlife issues and concerns. 

NPS Management 

Climate Change. Climate change is perhaps 

the most far-reaching and irreversible threat 

the national park system has ever faced. 

Climate change refers to a suite of changes 

occurring in the earth’s atmospheric, 

hydrologic, and oceanic systems. These 

changes, including increased global air and 

ocean temperatures, widespread melting of 

snow and ice, and rising global average sea 

level, provide unequivocal evidence that the 

climate system is warming (IPCC 2007). 

Although the warming trend, commonly 

referred to as global warming, is discernable 

over the entire past century and a half, 

recent decades have exhibited an accelerated 

warming rate, with 11 of the last 12 years 

ranking among the 12 warmest years on 

record. Most of the observed temperature 

increase can be attributed to human activities that contribute heat-trapping gases to 

the atmosphere (IPCC 2007). These “greenhouse gases,” particularly carbon dioxide 

from the burning of fossil fuels, cause 

Earth’s atmosphere to act like a blanket and 

trap the sun’s heat. Although the insulating 

effect (or greenhouse effect) of our 

atmosphere is important to living systems, 

the rapid increase in greenhouse gases since 

the mid 19th century has turned the thermostat up higher than what our systems are 

adapted to. 

Although climate change is a global phenomenon, it manifests itself differently in different places. One of the most dramatic 

effects of global warming is the impact it has 

on extreme weather events. A disrupted 

climate could affect natural and cultural 

resources, and is likely to interfere with 

public use and enjoyment of the Addition. 

Although many places in the world have 

already observed and recorded changes that 

can be attributed to climate change, the impacts to the Addition have not been 

specifically determined, and the actual implications within the lifespan of this general 

management plan (15-20 years) are 

unknown. 

Climate change is expected to affect human 

health; damage infrastructure; and alter crop 

production, animal habitats, and many other 

features of our natural and managed 

environments. Rising mean sea levels in 

combination with increasingly severe storms 

and high tides are expected to cause more 

frequent and severe flooding, erosion, and 

damage to coastal systems and structures. In 

a place where differences in mean elevation 

are measured in inches, rising sea levels 

could have a serious impact on Addition 

resources, inundating more areas and 

changing natural communities. 

The strategies for responding to the effects 

of climate change include the following: 

 NPS staff will continue to audit their 

greenhouse gas contributions and make 

decisions to reduce the Preserve’s 

carbon footprint. 

 NPS staff will engage their partners to 

assist with appropriate climate change 

research. 
Guidance for The Planning Effort 

29 

 NPS staff will engage visitors and the 

public on the topic of climate change 

through interpretive and educational 

media. 

 NPS staff will use adaptive management 

to respond to the effects of climate 

change on Addition resources, including 

facilities. 

Commercial Services. Commercial services 

could become a part of providing visitor 

services in the Addition to achieve the goals 

and objectives for visitor services. By NPS 

policy, commercial services must be determined to be necessary and appropriate. NPS 

authorization is necessary for all commercial 

services in the Addition. Strategies and 

objectives for managing possible future 

commercial services are as follows: 

 All commercial operations serving 

Addition visitors are managed through 

appropriate types of authorizations such 

as concession contracts and commercial 

use authorizations. 

 All commercial activities in the Addition 

provide high-quality visitor experiences 

while protecting important natural, 

cultural, and scenic resources. 

 Levels of commercial use are consistent 

with resource protection and highquality visitor experiences. 

 Only those necessary and appropriate 

commercial operations not conveniently 

located outside the Addition are 

authorized. 

 The commercial services program in the 

Addition is managed efficiently and 

effectively consistent with all applicable 

laws and policies. 

A commercial services plan for the original 

Preserve was completed in September 2009. 

It describes the actions required to achieve 

NPS goals for commercial services and 

related visitor experiences. The commercial 

services plan will be amended to include the 

Addition after this General Management Plan

is approved. 

Orientation, Interpretation, and 

Education. A variety of methods are used to 

orient visitors to the Addition, to provide 

information about the Addition, and to 

interpret the Addition’s resources. NPS staff 

will continue to pursue strategies to ensure 

that information is available so that visitors 

can plan a rewarding visit. Increasing outreach and educational programs will help 

connect diverse audiences to the Addition’s 

resources, build a local and national constituency, and gain public support for 

protecting the Addition’s resources. Continuing to provide interpretation will build 

emotional, intellectual, and recreational ties 

with the Addition and its cultural and 

natural heritage. 

The strategies for managing orientation, 

interpretation, and education will be as 

follows: 

 Emphasis will continue to be placed on 

providing information, orientation, and 

interpretive services in the most effective 

manner possible. Appropriate techniques and technologies will be used to 

increase the visibility of the national park 

system and its programs and to make 

people aware of issues facing the 

Addition. 

 Interpretive- and curricula-based 

education programs and media will 

continue to be grounded in key resource 

issues, management priorities, and 

public safety while providing opportunities for visitors to connect Addition 

resources with national and global 

issues. 

 Cooperative efforts and partnerships 

with local communities, public and 

private agencies, tribes, organizations, 

stakeholders, and land managers in the 

region will be enhanced so that visitors 

can be better informed about the 

abundance, variety, and availability of 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

30 

the region’s recreational and interpretive 

opportunities. This information will 

orient visitors about what to do (and 

what not to do), attractions to see, and 

how to enjoy the Addition in a safe, lowimpact manner. 

 When feasible, the National Park Service 

will seek partnerships with other public 

agencies and with the Miccosukee Tribe 

of Indians of Florida and the Seminole 

Tribe of Florida to share orientation, 

contact stations, and administrative 

facilities. 

 NPS staff will strengthen partnerships 

with local and state agencies and other 

national parks, educational institutions, 

and other organizations to enrich interpretive and educational opportunities 

regionally and nationally. 

Public Health and Safety. While 

recognizing that there are limitations on its 

capability and constraints imposed by the 

Organic Act to not impair resources, the 

National Park Service and its cooperators 

will seek to provide a safe and healthful 

environment for visitors and employees. The 

following strategies will be pursued: 

 NPS staff will strive to identify recognizable threats to safety and health and 

protect property by applying nationally 

accepted standards. 

 Consistent with mandates and nonimpairment, NPS staff will reduce or 

remove known hazards and/or apply 

appropriate mitigation measures, such as 

closures, guarding, gating, education, 

and other actions. 

User Capacity. The strategy of addressing 

user capacity for the Addition is a tiered 

approach that will examine broad trends 

while focusing more specific monitoring and 

management on areas where action is most 

likely needed to achieve desired conditions. 

 Sixteen indicators were developed for 

the Addition, along with standards that 

could serve as management thresholds 

for the quality of resources and visitor 

experiences in the Addition. 

 The National Park Service will use a 

variety of visitor management tools to 

help minimize impacts and maintain 

desired conditions, including education, 

ORV management through permitting 

and administration, site and trail 

management, and regulating access. 

 The National Park Service will continue 

to develop and refine the user capacity 

indicators and standards to ensure 

resource protection and facilitate 

effective management of the Addition 

and its uses. 

Relations with Private and Public Organizations, Owners of Adjacent Land, and 

Government Agencies. The National Park 

Service must consider that the Addition — 

socially, politically, ecologically, and 

historically — is part of a greater area and 

that actions in the Addition affect the 

surrounding environment and society. For 

instance, the management of the Addition 

influences local economies through tourism 

expenditures and the goods and services the 

Park Service purchases to support Addition 

operations. To ensure that the National Park 

Service continues to have good relations 

with landowners and communities surrounding the Addition and to ensure that the 

Addition is managed proactively to resolve 

external issues and concerns, the following 

strategies will be implemented: 

 NPS staff will continue to establish 

partnerships with public and private 

organizations to achieve the purposes 

and mission of the Addition. Partnerships will be sought for the purposes of 

resource protection, research, 

education, visitor enjoyment, visitor 

access, and management. 

 To foster a spirit of cooperation and 

encourage compatible uses of adjacent 

lands, NPS staff will keep landowners, 

land managers, tribes, local 
Guidance for The Planning Effort 

31 

governments, and the public informed 

about NPS management activities. NPS 

staff will consult periodically with landowners and communities that are 

affected by or potentially affected by 

Addition visitors and management 

actions. 

 The National Park Service will work 

closely with local, state, and federal 

agencies and tribal governments whose 

programs affect or are affected by 

activities in the Addition. In particular, 

to meet mutual management needs, NPS 

managers will maintain a close working 

relationship with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Everglades National 

Park, the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of 

Florida, the Seminole Tribe of Florida, 

the Florida Division of Forestry, the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission, the South Florida Water 

Management District, and the owners of 

adjacent private land. 

Sustainable Design/Development. NPS 

staff will strive to develop facilities that are 

harmonious with Addition resources, 

compatible with natural processes, aesthetically pleasing, functional, as accessible as 

possible to all segments of the population, 

energy-efficient, and cost-effective. To meet 

these goals, the National Park Service will 

employ the following strategies: 

 NPS staff will ensure that all decisions 

regarding NPS operations, facilities 

management, and development in the 

Addition — from the initial concept 

through design and construction —

reflect principles of resource 

conservation. Thus, all developments 

and NPS operations will be sustainable 

to the maximum degree possible and 

practical. New developments and 

existing facilities will be located, built, 

and modified according to the NPS 1993 

“Guiding Principles of Sustainable 

Design” or other similar guidelines. 

Through sustainable design and 

development, the National Park Service 

will strive to minimize the Addition’s 

carbon footprint. 

Transportation to and within the 

Addition. Visitors will have reasonable 

access to the Addition. 

 Transportation facilities in the Addition 

will provide access for the protection, 

use, and enjoyment of Addition 

resources. They will preserve the 

integrity of the surroundings, respect 

ecological processes, protect resources, 

and provide the highest visual quality 

and a rewarding visitor experience. 

 The National Park Service will 

participate in all transportation planning 

forums that may result in links to the 

Addition or impact Addition resources. 

Working with federal, tribal, state, and 

local agencies on transportation issues, 

the National Park Service will seek 

reasonable access to the Addition and 

connections to external transportation 

systems. 

Utilities and Communication Facilities. 

Addition resources or public enjoyment of 

the Addition will not be denigrated by 

nonconforming uses. Telecommunication 

structures will only be permitted in the 

Addition to the extent that they do not 

jeopardize the Addition’s mission and 

resources. No new nonconforming use or 

rights-of-way will be permitted through the 

Addition without specific statutory authority 

and approval by the director of the National 

Park Service or his representative, and will 

be permitted only if there is no practicable 

alternative to such use of NPS lands.
32 

RELATIONSHIP OF OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS TO THIS GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN 

The Addition is located in Collier County, 

Florida. A variety of public lands surround the 

Addition. Everglades National Park is located 

to the south; to the east is the Miccosukee 

Indian Reservation and South Florida Water 

Management District Conservation Area 3A; 

to the north is the Big Cypress Seminole 

Indian Reservation and private lands; and to 

the west is Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State 

Park and the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (see Map 1: Region/Vicinity). 

Private lands are scattered in the area, 

including within the Addition, but are 

relatively small in size. 

Several plans have influenced or would be 

influenced by the approved General Management Plan for the Addition. These plans have 

been prepared (or are being prepared) by the 

National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the state of Florida, and 

several local agencies and organizations. Some 

of these plans are described briefly here, along 

with their relationship to this general 

management plan. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PLANS 

Big Cypress National Preserve 

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 

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 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 Commercial Services Plan was 

reviewed during the development of this 

General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Study / Off-road Vehicle Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement. 
Relationship of Other Planning Efforts to This General Management Plan 

33 

Draft South Florida and Caribbean Parks 

Exotic Plant Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement (2006c) 

The plan outlines the management of 

exotic plants in nine south Florida and 

Caribbean parks, including Big Cypress 

National Preserve and the Addition. The 

plan promotes restoration of native plant 

communities and habitat conditions in 

ecosystems that have been invaded by 

exotic plants and protects resources, 

values, visitors, staff, and area residents 

from adverse effects resulting from exotic 

plant presence and control activities. The 

plan takes a collaborative approach to 

managing exotic plants across the nine 

parks, improving effectiveness and 

efficiency and providing a consistent 

management framework for responding to 

this threat. The plan also seeks to establish 

plant and treatment location priorities, 

reduce new exotic plant introductions, and 

reduce the number of individually targeted 

plants to protect natural resources. The 

range of actions includes a no-action alternative, increased planning, monitoring and 

mitigation, and active restoration. The

South Florida and Caribbean Parks Exotic 

Plant Management Plan includes the Addition and provides specific management 

direction for exotic plant management in 

the Addition. 

Fire Management Plan / Environmental 

Assessment (2005) 

NPS Director’s Order #18, “Wildland Fire 

Management” (NPS 2008), states “Every 

park area with burnable vegetation must 

have a fire management plan approved by 

the superintendent.” Fire is recognized as 

an ecological process necessary for the 

maintenance and health of the ecosystem. 

Fire must be managed to ensure the health 

and safety of visitors; protect property; 

ensure firefighter safety; minimize resource 

damage and costs; protect natural and 

cultural resources; and perpetuate, restore, 

replace, or replicate natural processes. This 

plan seeks to implement an integrated 

program of wildland fire suppression, 

prescribed fire, and wildland fire for 

resource benefits. The Preserve has the 

largest fire load of any unit in the national 

park system, and many plant communities 

in the original Preserve and the Addition 

depend on burning for their survival. 

Wildfire suppression and prescribed fire 

are covered in the 1991 General Management Plan; however, this 2005 Fire Management Plan provides detailed guidance 

regarding fire management for the original 

Preserve and the Addition.

General Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement (1991) 

The general management plan is mandated 

by the National Parks and Recreation Act 

of 1978. This plan for the original Preserve 

was completed in 1991, and it guides visitor 

use, natural and cultural resource management, and general development for the 

next 10 to 15 years. It provides a clearly 

defined direction for resource management and preservation as well as appropriate visitor use and interpretation of the 

resources of the original Preserve. The 

General Management Plan for the original 

Preserve contains descriptions of resources 

that were used in preparation of this 

General Management Plan for the Addition; 

it also contains guidance for Preserve 

management that is complimentary and 

relevant to the Addition. 

I-75 Recreational Access Plan / Environmental 

Assessment (1991) 

The Addition Act directed the National 

Park Service to cooperate with the state to 

develop three recreation access points 

along I-75 within the Preserve, including 

the Addition. Many of the requirements 

and recommendations included in this 

access plan are incorporated in the 1991 

General Management Plan. The I-75 

Recreational Access Plan was used in the 

development of this management plan for 

the Addition. The development of 

recreational access points along I-75 is 

included as a component of all alternatives 

(including the no-action alternative) 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

34 

included in this general management plan 

because they are legally required in the 

Addition Act. 

 

Land Protection Plan (1988) 

This plan was written in response to the 

May 1982 policy statement in the Federal 

Register regarding use of the federal portion of the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund. The monies were to be used to 

identify land and/or interests in land to be 

in federal ownership to achieve management purposes that include resource 

protection and public access in a cooperative, cost-effective manner. The plan 

identifies methods for protecting the 

Preserve’s resources while taking into 

consideration public access and visitor 

experiences. Such resources include 

natural, historic, scenic, cultural, and 

recreational resources among others. Due 

to severance of subsurface oil and gas 

rights from the surface estate, oil and gas 

activities are not identified within the plan. 

The plan delineates the Preserve into zones 

and subzones for management purposes, 

and outlines the acceptable activities on 

“improved property”. The Land Protection 

Plan was reviewed during the development 

of this management plan for the Addition. 

Long-Range Interpretive Plan (2002) 

This plan provides the vision for visitor 

experiences in the Preserve based on the 

purpose, significance, and mission put 

forth in the “Preserve’s Strategic Plan.” The 

Interpretive Plan proposes both development and management activities to satisfy 

current visitor demands, and identifies a 

media and activity action plan to meet 

future visitor needs. The interpretive plan 

was meant to guide the Preserve’s interpretation direction for 10 years. The 

significance statements and primary 

interpretive themes included in the LongRange Interpretive Plan are applied to the 

Addition in this management plan.

Minerals Management Plan (1991) 

The 1991 General Management Plan

included a “Minerals Management” section 

for the original Preserve that focused on 

specific surface protection stipulations and 

actions needed to protect important 

resource values within those areas of the 

original Preserve that are open to oil and 

gas activity. This section will be superseded 

by a Preserve-wide oil and gas management 

plan that is currently in preparation. The 

new plan will provide guidance for oil and 

gas exploration for the entire Preserve, 

including the Addition. 

Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management 

Plan / Environmental Impact Statement (2000) 

This plan is called for and directed by the 

1991 General Management Plan. It was also 

prepared to comply with the 1995 settlement agreement negotiated between the 

Florida Biodiversity Project and several 

agencies and bureaus. ORV use is allowed 

in the original Preserve by the enabling 

legislation in a manner that is compatible 

with resource preservation. The ORV plan 

outlines the management of recreational 

ORV use in the original 582,000 acres of 

the Preserve. It specifies that ORV travel is 

facilitated by a system of designated access 

points and trails; that sensitive areas be 

closed; that temporal and seasonal closures 

be instituted; and that permits and 

education be required to operate off-road 

vehicles in the original Preserve. Many of 

the elements included in the Recreational 

Off-road Vehicle Management Plan are 

included in the ORV plan for the Addition.

Resource Management Plan (n. d.) 

The original Preserve was established "to 

assure the preservation, conservation and 

protection of the natural, scenic, hydrologic, floral and faunal, and recreational 

values of the Big Cypress Watershed." The 

boundary of the Preserve was expanded in 

1988 to include about 147,000 acres of 

adjacent tracts. This plan includes initial 

planning and resource inventorying for the 

Addition. Resource conditions in the 
Relationship of Other Planning Efforts to This General Management Plan 

35 

Preserve vary from nearly pristine to areas 

where natural function no longer exists. 

The historical timber harvest, as well as 

past agriculture activities in the area and 

those currently occurring outside the 

Preserve, threaten natural systems. Urban 

expansion as well as large-scale expansion 

of oil and gas extraction is also of concern. 

The plan outlines issues within the 

Preserve, including natural resources, 

cultural resources, exotic plants and 

wildlife, and the hydrologic environment. 

The plan emphasizes that conservation, 

restoration, and preservation must take 

place on an ecosystem scale. The Resource 

Management Plan was reviewed during the 

development of this management plan for 

the Addition. 

Water Resources Management Plan (1996) 

The plan complements and is consistent 

with the 1991 General Management Plan

and Minerals Management Plan for the Preserve and addresses the water resources 

component of the Resources Management 

Plan in more detail. The plan reviews 

existing information, analyzes water 

resource issues, and presents a coordinated 

action plan to address such issues. This 

plan reconfirms the premise of the 

Preserve’s original enabling legislation — 

that water is a controlling force on the 

ecosystems of the Preserve and provides 

direction and guidance to staff in managing 

water problems in the Preserve. The 

Preserve faces many hydrologic threats to 

its environmental integrity and thus this 

plan has been developed. The plan outlines 

natural resource management and permitting activities in the Preserve and contributes to south Florida water resource 

management more broadly. The Water 

Resources Management Plan was reviewed 

during the development of this general 

management plan. 

Everglades National Park 

General Management Plan (in progress) 

Everglades National Park is currently 

developing a general management plan to 

replace its 1979 Master Plan. The new plan 

will provide a broad conceptual framework to 

guide decisions for long-term NPS management and resource protection during the 

next 20 years. The Everglades General 

Management Plan was reviewed during the 

development of this management plan for the 

Addition. 

OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY PLANS 

Army Corps of Engineers 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 

(CERP) (2000) 

The comprehensive plan is a framework 

and guide to restore, protect, and preserve 

the water resources of central and 

southern Florida, including the Preserve. 

The plan was approved in the Water 

Resources Development Act of 2000, and it 

is a component of the world’s largest 

ecosystem restoration effort, encompassing 16 counties and an 18,000-square-mile 

area. The comprehensive plan includes 

more than 60 elements designed to 

capture, store, and redistribute fresh water. 

Implementation of the comprehensive plan 

will take more than 30 years to complete 

and will improve the quality, quantity, 

timing, and distribution of water flows 

through the Preserve. The Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan was reviewed 

during the development of this 

management plan for the Addition.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (1998) 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 requires the U.S. 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

36 

Fish and Wildlife Service to develop 

comprehensive conservation plans for all 

lands and waters of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. The Florida Panther 

National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan meets the requirements 

of the act. The refuge was established to 

conserve fish, wildlife, and plants listed as 

endangered and/or threatened species 

under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

specifically the Florida panther. The 

Refuge abuts the northwest boundary of 

the Preserve and functions as a vital habitat 

linkage for panthers. The Florida Panther 

National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan was reviewed during the 

development of this management plan for 

the Addition. 

Interagency Florida Panther Response Plan 

(2008) 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in 

partnership with the National Park Service 

and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, prepared a final response plan in October 2008 that includes 

guidelines for the agencies responding to 

human-panther interactions and depredations. The plan also provides guidelines 

for developing an outreach and education 

program to help people understand 

panther behavior and actions humans 

should take when living or recreating in 

panther habitat. 

Related to the response plan is the Florida 

Panther Recovery Plan, updated and

released in 2006. This is the third update of 

the Service’s panther recovery plan since 

1981 when the first plan was crafted. The 

revised plan will be substituted for the 

panther chapter in the Service’s MultiSpecies Recovery Plan as well as its rangewide species recovery plan for the panther. 

These plans were reviewed during the 

development of this management plan for 

the Addition. 

Manatee Management Plan 

In 2001 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

Southeast Region published a third 

revision to the Florida Manatee Recovery 

Plan, which identified information on the 

manatee’s endangered status, as well as 

recovery goals, criteria to ensure a healthy 

population, and ultimate removal from the 

endangered list. Future management and 

information exchange with researchers 

throughout the world is also outlined. The 

plan is part of the Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan and is part of 

ongoing research from scientists in the 

Florida Integrated Science Center, Florida 

Marine Research Institute, Ten Thousand 

Islands National Wildlife Refuge, Big 

Cypress National Preserve, and Everglades 

National Park (USGS 2005). Manatees are 

found in the Preserve, and this plan will 

contribute to their protection. The 

Manatee Management Plan was reviewed 

during the development of this management plan for the Addition.

South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan 

(1999) 

This plan was written to recover multiple 

species by restoring ecological communities throughout the south Florida ecosystem (26,002 square miles). There are more 

than 600 species considered either rare or 

imperiled in south Florida, 68 of which are 

federally listed as threatened or endangered. A number of limiting factors for 

habitat-limited species are outlined, 

including habitat loss, fragmentation, and 

degradation as a result of urbanization, 

agriculture or other land-use conversions, 

wetland drainage and alteration of hydrological patterns, invasion of exotic species, 

fire suppression, soil subsidence, degradation of water quality, and increased levels 

of contaminants. Recovery objectives are 

identified at the species level, while 

recovery criteria are identified at the 

species and community level. Recovery 

actions have been developed to provide 

consistency between each of the 68 species, 

and habitat level recovery actions have 
Relationship of Other Planning Efforts to This General Management Plan 

37 

been developed to facilitate the integration 

of individual species needs at the community level. The plan does not replace 

existing approved species recovery plans, 

but rather outlines south Florida’s contribution to rangewide recovery. A number of 

threatened and endangered species reside 

within the Preserve, and the Preserve is a 

critical habitat link in the ecosystem. The 

South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan 

was consulted during the development of 

this management plan for the Addition. 

TRIBAL PLANS 

Seminole Tribe of Florida 

Seminole Big Cypress Water Conservation Plan 

(1997) 

The plan was completed in 1997 and 

addresses a number of issues, including 

water transfer and conveyance, storage, 

water quality, and historic flows. This 

water project began as a Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan pilot program 

under the 1996 Water Resource Development Act, is considered a “Critical Restoration Project,” and is currently being 

implemented. The plan seeks to mitigate 

man-made impacts on the natural system 

and contributes to overall ecosystem 

restoration. The plan ensures that the 

reservation’s federal water right is met. 

Further, the plan provides for additional 

water retention and storage to alleviate 

flooding and increase residential development potential. Water quality is addressed, 

and water resource areas will be used to 

reduce phosphorus loads. These areas, in 

conjunction with bypass structures under 

the west feeder canal, will ensure full sheet 

flow contact across the entire wetland 

system, rehydrating wetlands and 

mimicking flows prior to the Central and 

Southern Florida projects. Big Cypress 

National Preserve is directly linked to the 

Seminole Reservation by the flows from 

the reservation into the Preserve. The 

Seminole Big Cypress Water Conservation 

Plan was reviewed during the development 

of this management plan for the Addition.

STATE AGENCY PLANS 

Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services, Division of Forestry 

Picayune Strand State Forest Management Plan 

(2008) 

The 10-year plan was approved in August 

2008. The plan establishes goals for critical 

elements of the forest, including restoration, recreation, reforestation, horticulture, 

exotic plant management, threatened and 

endangered species, and prescribed fire. It 

is the first detailed, long-range plan for the 

forest, and it will guide the management of 

the forest from 2008 through 2018. The 

forest is adjacent to Fakahatchee Strand 

Preserve State Park, which abuts Big 

Cypress National Preserve to the west. The 

Picayune Strand State Forest Management 

Plan was reviewed during the development 

of this management plan for the Addition. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission 

A Conceptual Management Plan for the 

Everglades Complex of Wildlife Management 

Areas (ECWMA) (2002) 

The Everglades Complex is part of the 

Kissimmee-Okeechobee-Everglades basin 

and lies within three counties — southwestern Palm Beach, western Broward, and 

northwestern Miami-Dade. It includes 

three management areas — Holey Land, 

Rotenberger, and Everglades-Francis S. 

Taylor. Through a cooperative management agreement with the South Florida 

Water Management District, the Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has management authority over 

ECWMA lands (mainly lands in Water 

Conservation Areas 2 and 3) for game and 

fresh water fish preservation, protection, 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

38 

propagation, and recreational use. The 

plan lists 28 state and federally listed and 

endangered or threatened species and their 

habitat. The majority of the complex is east 

and northeast of the Preserve; however, the 

southwest corner of Everglades-Francis S. 

Taylor Wildlife Management Area abuts 

the eastern boundary of the Preserve from 

the Tamiami Ranger Station north to the 

Broward County line. The ECWMA plan 

was reviewed during the development of 

this management plan for the Addition. 

Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection, Division of Recreation and 

Parks 

Coastal Zone Management Program

The Florida Coastal Zone Management 

Program was developed with the passage of 

the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1966 

and approved by the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration in 1981. The 

program gives the state oversight responsibilities in controlling dredge and fill 

operations, pollution abatement, and other 

environmental concerns. The National Park 

Service has reviewed the state coastal zone 

management plan and has determined that 

this General Management Plan for the 

Addition is consistent with the Coastal 

Zone Management Act. 

Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park 

Management Plan (2000)

The plan is intended to meet the requirements in Sections 253.034 and 259.032, 

Florida Statute and Chapter 18-2, Florida 

Administrative Code. The primary purpose 

of the state park is outdoor recreation and 

conservation, with preservation and 

enhancement of natural conditions taking 

precedent over user considerations. Park 

goals outlined in the plan include restoring 

park hydrology, assisting in the recovery of 

the Florida panther, appropriately 

managing cultural resources, and 

eliminating exotic plant species. 

Development is restricted to the minimum 

necessary for ensuring the state park’s 

protection and maintenance, limited 

access, user safety and convenience, and 

appropriate interpretation. In relation to 

the Preserve, the park serves as a critical 

link in the water resources of the region. 

Surface water from the Preserve and the 

Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge 

enters the park from the north on its way 

to Everglades National Park to the south. 

The Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State 

Park Management Plan was reviewed 

during the development of this management plan for the Addition. 

State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 

―- Outdoor Recreation in Florida (2000) 

This plan assesses recreational supply, 

demand, and needs for 11 regions in the 

state. Region 9 (Southwest Florida) 

includes the Preserve and the surrounding area. The plan identifies goals for 

recreational opportunities and facilities, 

including hiking, bicycling, horseback 

riding, camping, fishing, and ORV use. 

The actions contained in this general 

management plan will help meet the 

state’s goals for outdoor recreation. 

LOCAL PLANS 

Collier County 

Collier County Manatee Protection Plan (1995) 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the 

Department of the Interior protects manatees under the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973. In addition, the Florida Manatee 

Sanctuary Act, Chapter 16N-22, Florida 

Administrative Code, provides manatee 

protection by declaring the state of Florida a 

“refuge and sanctuary for the manatee, the 

‘Florida State Marine Mammal.’” The 

Addition is in Collier County, one of 13 key 

manatee counties in Florida. This plan seeks 

to reduce the number of boat-related 
Relationship of Other Planning Efforts to This General Management Plan 

39 

manatee mortalities, achieve an optimal 

sustainable manatee population, protect 

manatee habitat, promote boating safety, 

and increase public awareness of the need to 

protect manatees and their environment. 

This general management plan is consistent 

with the Collier County Manatee Protection 

Plan. 

Collier County 2030 Long-range 

Transportation Plan (2007) 

The 2030 Long-range Transportation Plan’s

purpose is to ensure an organized scope of 

needs and goals regarding transportation 

within Collier County and outlying areas 

through 2030. This plan is updated as 

necessary and was last done in July 2007. 

The 2030 Long-range Transportation Plan

demonstrates the need for both regional 

and alternative transportation strategies 

and defines the opportunity to incorporate 

those components into an overall transportation program. The plan provides for 

the enhanced funding to expand the operations and services of transit, improve connectivity through the use of pedestrian and 

bicycle facilities and local road interconnection, congestion management system 

and intelligent transportation system (CMS 

and ITS) programs and improvements. The 

plan has also included the Metropolitan 

Planning Organization’s regional partners 

in the development and integration of 

multimodal regional components. This 

plan also addresses things such as wildlife 

crossings along SR 29. This general 

management plan is consistent with the 

Long-range Transportation Plan.

Growth Management Plan 

The plan is required under the 1985 

Florida Growth Management Act and is to 

be consistent with state and regional plans. 

It is composed of many elements, namely 

the Future Land Use Element, the Golden 

Gate Area Master Plan, the Immokalee Area 

Master Plan, the Capital Improvement 

Element, Intergovernmental Coordination 

Element, Housing Element, Recreation and 

Open Space Element, Conservation and 

Coastal Management Element, the Economic Element, and Public Utilities 

Element. When combined, these elements 

provide the framework to effectively guide 

future development, while providing for 

the protection of open space; natural 

resources; and public health, safety, and 

welfare. Development in Collier County 

directly impacts natural resources in the 

Preserve and Addition. Therefore, 

managed growth policies outlined in this 

plan are necessary to reduce negative 

impacts of development and ensure that 

the entire Preserve is protected for future 

generations.
40 

PLANNING ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

INTRODUCTION 

The general public; NPS staff; representatives 

from other county, state, and federal agencies; 

and representatives from various organizations identified various issues and concerns 

during scoping (early information gathering) 

for this General Management Plan. An issue is 

defined as an opportunity, conflict, or problem regarding the use or management of 

public lands. Comments were solicited at 

public meetings, through planning newsletters, and on the NPS web site (see the 

“Consultation and Coordination” chapter). 

Comments received during scoping demonstrated that there is much that the public likes 

about the original Preserve and the Addition. 

The issues and concerns for the Addition 

generally involve determining the appropriate 

types and levels of visitor use and facility 

development in the Addition while remaining 

compatible with desired resource conditions. 

The alternatives in this general management 

plan provide strategies for addressing the 

issues within the context of the Addition’s 

purpose, significance, and special mandates. 

ISSUES 

The following issues were identified for the 

Addition. 

Management Direction 

Although acquisition of the Addition was 

authorized in the 1988 legislation, these lands 

were in private ownership until 1996 when 

most of the lands were acquired through the 

Arizona–Florida Land Exchange and 

transferred to the National Park Service. No 

comprehensive planning has been conducted 

for the Addition since that time. A general 

management plan is needed to provide 

direction for managing the Addition consistently with the original Preserve and determining what kind of resource conditions and 

visitor experiences the National Park Service, 

in consultation with the public, American 

Indians, and landowners, will seek to achieve. 

Visitor Access and Use Levels 

Many people were concerned about the type 

of access provided to visitors as well as the use 

levels that would occur in the Addition. Some 

expressed concern that not enough motorized 

access would be allowed for traditional uses; 

others were concerned that too much 

motorized use would be allowed, with adverse 

impacts on resources. People’s opinions about 

ORV permitting, hunting, and commercial 

services were highly polarized. The location, 

number, and types of recreational access 

points were major points of interest. More 

than 6 million vehicles per year travel the I-75 

corridor. Many of the people in those vehicles 

use the Addition, further underscoring the 

importance of addressing access and use 

concerns. 

Resource Impacts from Visitor 

Use and Facility Development 

Many people were concerned about the 

effects ORV use would have on cultural 

resources, sensitive wildlife, including the 

Florida panther, and native plant communities. The level of facility development and the 

impact it would have on natural hydrologic 

processes and wildlife habitat was also an 

issue. 

Resource Preservation and Restoration 

The National Park Service’s ability to preserve 

and restore natural resources in the Addition 
Planning Issues and Concerns 

41 

is highly dependent on the range of uses and 

the levels of motorized access and facility 

development that are approved. Many people 

were concerned about the National Park 

Service’s ability to protect resources while 

meeting the allowed multiple uses in the 

Addition, including management of hunting, 

oil and gas operations, motorized use, and 

access for owners of private property. 

Wilderness 

Evaluating the Addition for wilderness eligibility has been a long-standing controversial 

issue. The National Park Service is required to 

study the Addition for wilderness suitability 

based on the requirements of the Addition’s 

enabling legislation passed by Congress. 

Public opinion about wilderness designation 

in the Addition is centered on protecting 

resources through wilderness designation 

while at the same time providing for a diversity of ORV riding opportunities. Furthermore, public opinion differs regarding 

whether these lands possess wilderness 

character. 

Addition Operations and Management 

With the exception of two fire management 

facilities in the Western Addition, the 

National Park Service currently has no 

operations facilities in the Addition. The 

Northeast Addition has no NPS presence, and 

staff have to drive up to an hour (60 miles) 

from the Preserve headquarters in Ochopee to 

get there. To effectively and efficiently 

manage resources and visitor use in the 

Addition, suitable locations for operations 

facilities that will provide for adequate patrol 

and enforcement, emergency response, 

resource management, visitor orientation and 

education, fire management, and maintenance 

must be determined. No NPS facility exists 

along the I-75 corridor where the NPS staff 

can engage and educate the many visitors who 

travel the interstate annually. 

ISSUES AND CONCERNS NOT 

ADDRESSED IN THIS GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Not all of the issues or concerns raised by the 

public are included in this management plan 

because they 

 are already prescribed by law, regulation, 

or policy (see the “Guidance for the 

Planning Effort” section) 

 would be in violation of laws, regulations, 

or policies 

 were at a level that was too detailed for a 

general management plan and would be 

more appropriately addressed in 

subsequent planning documents 

This section briefly describes each of these 

issues, and the basis for excluding them from 

this management plan. 

Usual and Customary Use and 

Occupancy by American Indians 

The Addition’s enabling legislation states that 

the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida 

and the Seminole Tribe of Florida have the 

right to continue their usual and customary 

use and occupancy of the Addition subject to 

reasonable regulations. 

The National Park Service will work cooperatively with the tribes to develop regulations to 

accommodate their use and occupancy rights 

accordingly. 

Hunting, Fishing, and 

Trapping Management 

The Addition Act states that 

the Secretary shall permit hunting, fishing, 

and trapping on lands and waters under his 

jurisdiction within the preserve and the 

Addition in accordance with the applicable 

laws of the United States and the State of 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

42 

Florida, except that he may designate zones 

where and periods when no hunting, fishing, 

trapping, or entry may be permitted for 

reasons of public safety, administration, 

floral and faunal protection and management, or public use and enjoyment. Except in 

emergencies, any regulations prescribing such 

restrictions relating to hunting, fishing, or 

trapping shall be put into effect only after 

consultation with the appropriate State 

agency having jurisdiction over hunting, 

fishing, and trapping activities. 

No matter which alternative is implemented, 

the National Park Service will work with the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission to define hunting seasons and 

develop hunting regulations consistent with 

both agencies’ policies and goals for the 

Addition. (Hunting access is addressed in this 

plan and is provided for in all alternatives.) 

Oil and Gas Management 

Oil and gas exploration in the Addition is 

currently managed in accordance with the 

“Agreement among the United States of 

America, Collier Enterprises, Collier 

Development Corporation, and Barron 

Collier Company” (Addition Lands Agreement) dated May 1988. Nothing in this 

general management plan would affect the 

existing legal rights of mineral owners or 

change the approved exploration plans and 

practices of operators. A Preserve-wide oil 

and gas management plan is currently being 

prepared by the National Park Service. When 

completed, this plan will provide guidance for 

oil and gas exploration for the entire Preserve, 

including the Addition. 

Acquisition Deferred (Exempt) Properties 

There are more than 200 privately owned 

tracts in the Addition. Some of these tracts will 

be classified as improved properties in accordance with the Addition Act, and as such they 

would be considered acquisition deferred 

(exempt) unless owners are willing to sell or 

uses on the land could be detrimental to the 

purposes of the Addition. This general management plan does not provide guidance nor 

make any decisions about the treatment of 

these privately owned parcels. Land acquisition and disposition issues are handled according to the terms outlined in the Addition Act 

and are conducted by NPS real estate 

specialists and attorneys. 

ORV Management in the Original Preserve 

ORV management in the original Preserve was 

addressed in the Recreational Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement (2000). Therefore, any concerns or 

updates needed to the 2000 ORV plan are 

outside the scope of this general management 

plan for the Addition.
43 

IMPACT TOPICS — RESOURCES AND VALUES AT STAKE IN THE 

PLANNING PROCESS 

IDENTIFICATION OF IMPACT TOPICS 

An important part of planning is seeking to 

understand the consequences of making one 

decision over another. To this end, this 

general management plan is accompanied by 

an environmental impact statement, which 

identifies the anticipated impacts of possible 

actions on Addition resources and on visitors 

and neighbors. Impacts are organized by 

topic, such as “impacts on the visitor experience” or “impacts on vegetation.” Impact 

topics focus the environmental analysis and 

ensure the relevance of impact evaluation. 

Impact topics for this document were identified based on federal laws and other legal 

requirements, Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) guidelines, NPS management 

policies, staff subject-matter expertise, and 

issues and concerns expressed by the public 

and other agencies early in the planning 

process (see previous section). The planning 

team selected the impact topics for analysis 

based on the potential for each topic to be 

affected by the alternatives. Also included is a 

discussion of some impact topics that are 

commonly addressed in general management 

plans, but that are dismissed from detailed 

analysis in this plan for the reasons given. 

The “Environmental Consequences” chapter 

contains a detailed description of the impacts 

that would result from implementing the 

actions described in the alternatives. 

IMPACT TOPICS RETAINED 

AND DISMISSED 

To focus the analysis on the key or important 

impacts, some topics have been dismissed 

from detailed analysis. Impact topics were 

dismissed if they were considered during the 

planning process but determined not to be 

relevant to the development of this management plan because either: (a) implementing 

the alternatives would have no effect, negligible effect, or minor effect on the resource, or 

(b) the resource does not occur in the 

Addition. 

Table 1 identifies all of the impact topics considered for this General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Study / Off-road Vehicle Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

and states whether they were retained or 

dismissed. The table is organized by theme 

(e.g., natural resources, wilderness, cultural 

resources, visitor use and experience, socioeconomic environment, and NPS operations) 

and includes a rationale as to why the impact 

topic was retained or dismissed. 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

44 

TABLE 1: IMPACT TOPICS RETAINED AND DISMISSED FOR BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE ADDITION

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy 

Natural Resource Impact Topics 

Surface Water Flow Retained Water was named as a prime resource in the 

Addition’s enabling legislation. The hydrologic 

cycle is the primary determinant of the distribution, composition, and structure of the 

Addition’s ecological communities. Development 

can alter, and has altered in the past, natural 

surface flows, with subsequent effects on the 

natural environment. Many actions proposed in 

the plan, including recreational facility development and ORV use, may displace soils in such a 

way that they change water flow patterns and 

directions. Therefore, surface water flow was 

retained as an impact topic. 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006; Director’s 

Order 77-2

Water Quality Retained Surface and subsurface water quality directly 

affect the health and condition of natural 

communities, as well as the human environment. Proposed actions outlined in the alternatives, such as continued oil and gas operations, the provision of visitor use facilities, ORV 

use, and the application of herbicides for exotic 

plant control, involve potential contaminants. 

Therefore, water quality was retained as an 

impact topic. 

Clean Water Act; 

Executive Order 12088; 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006 

Wetlands Retained Most of the Addition is classified as wetlands, 

with the exceptions being scattered hardwood 

hammocks, some pinelands, and artificially filled 

areas. During the wet season (May through 

October), as much as 90% of the Addition can 

be inundated with water. Due to the likelihood 

that one or more actions proposed in the plan 

could have an impact on wetlands, it was 

retained as an impact topic. 

Executive Order 11990; 

Clean Water Act; NPS 

Director’s Order 77-1; 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Soils Retained Soils are key to maintaining the ecological 

integrity of the Addition. Actions included in the 

alternatives, including recreational facility 

development, ORV use, and restoration, could 

cause soil loss or reduced productivity. Any 

impacts that would adversely affect soil 

resources would be of concern to NPS managers 

and the public. Therefore, soils were retained as 

an impact topic. 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006
Impact Topics — Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process 

45 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy 

Floodplains Retained Portions of the Addition, primarily in the southwest, are classified as being within the 100-year 

floodplain. Retention of existing facilities and 

the development of new facilities could 

adversely affect the protection, management, 

and use of these floodplains, or substantially 

change the character and natural processes of 

the floodplains. Therefore, floodplains were 

retained as an impact topic. 

Executive Order 11988; 

Director’s Order 77-2; 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Vegetation: 

Cypress Strands 

and Domes, 

Mixed-Hardwood 

Swamps, and 

Sloughs 

Retained The vegetation communities that exist in the Big 

Cypress region are considered an important 

resource. The Addition contains a diversity of 

native plant species. The vegetation types included 

in this document are identical to those identified 

in the 2000 Recreational ORV Management Plan, 

which contains the most comprehensive and 

current listing of plant communities. Actions in 

the alternatives of this document, including 

recreational facility development, ORV use, and 

prescribed fire use, could result in changes in 

plant composition or the loss of vegetation. 

Proposed actions could beneficially or adversely 

affect these resources, which would be of 

concern to many people as well as NPS 

managers. Therefore, this vegetative community 

was retained as an impact topic. 

NPS Organic Act and 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Vegetation: 

Prairies and 

Marshes 

Retained The vegetation communities that exist in the Big 

Cypress region are considered an important 

resource. The Addition contains a diversity of 

native plant species. The vegetation types included 

in this document were modeled on those identified in the 2000 Recreational ORV Management 

Plan, which contains the most comprehensive and 

current listing of plant communities. Actions in 

the alternatives of this document, including 

recreational facility development, ORV use, and 

prescribed fire use, could result in changes in 

plant composition or the loss of vegetation. 

Proposed actions could beneficially or adversely 

affect these resources, which would be of concern to many people as well as NPS managers. 

Therefore, this vegetative community was 

retained as an impact topic. 

NPS Organic Act and 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

46 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy 

Vegetation: 

Mangrove Forests 

Retained The vegetation communities that exist in the Big 

Cypress region are considered an important 

resource. The Addition contains a diversity of 

native plant species. The vegetation types included 

in this document were modeled on those identified in the 2000 Recreational ORV Management 

Plan, which contains the most comprehensive and 

current listing of plant communities. Actions in 

the alternatives of this document, including 

recreational facility development, ORV use, and 

prescribed fire use, could result in changes in 

plant composition or the loss of vegetation. 

Proposed actions could beneficially or adversely 

affect these resources, which would be of concern to many people as well as NPS managers. 

Therefore, this vegetative community was 

retained as an impact topic. 

NPS Organic Act and 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Vegetation: 

Pinelands 

Retained The vegetation communities that exist in the Big 

Cypress region are considered an important 

resource. The Addition contains a diversity of 

native plant species. The vegetation types included 

in this document were modeled on those identified in the 2000 Recreational ORV Management 

Plan, which contains the most comprehensive and 

current listing of plant communities. Actions in 

the alternatives of this document, including 

recreational facility development, ORV use, and 

prescribed fire use, could result in changes in 

plant composition or the loss of vegetation. 

Proposed actions could beneficially or adversely 

affect these resources, which would be of concern to many people as well as NPS managers. 

Therefore, this vegetative community was 

retained as an impact topic. 

NPS Organic Act and 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Vegetation: 

Hardwood 

Hammocks 

Retained The vegetation communities that exist in the Big 

Cypress region are considered an important 

resource. The Addition contains a diversity of 

native plant species. The vegetation types included 

in this document were modeled on those identified in the 2000 Recreational ORV Management 

Plan, which contains the most comprehensive and 

current listing of plant communities. Actions in 

the alternatives of this document, including 

recreational facility development, ORV use, and 

prescribed fire use, could result in changes in 

plant composition or the loss of vegetation. 

Proposed actions could beneficially or adversely 

affect these resources, which would be of concern to many people as well as NPS managers. 

Therefore, this vegetative community was 

retained as an impact topic. 

NPS Organic Act and 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006
Impact Topics — Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process 

47 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy 

Vegetation: 

Exotic/ 

Nonnative Species 

Retained The native plant communities that exist in the Big 

Cypress region are considered an important 

resource. The Addition contains a diversity of 

native plant species. Exotic, or nonnative, plant 

species impact native species by outcompeting 

them ― they aggressively take over disturbed 

habitats, expand their distribution and displace 

natives at alarming rates, use more water, and 

impact wildlife that depend on native plant 

communities and functional ecosystems. Exotic 

plants are easily distributed by recreational use 

and other activities in the Addition and require 

steadfast management. Another consideration is 

the effect that wilderness designation and 

management would have on exotic plant control 

activities and restoration techniques. The 

implications of the “minimum tool requirement” 

could be substantial. Actions in the alternatives 

could beneficially or adversely affect these 

resources, which would be of concern to many 

people as well as NPS managers. Because of the 

seriousness of these issues, exotic species were 

specifically included as an impact topic. 

NPS Organic Act and 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Federal Threatened 

and Endangered 

Species: 

Florida Panther 

Retained Panthers have been observed in the Addition. 

They are subject to the effects of management, 

visitor use, and development. Proposed actions, 

including ORV use, hunting, and other activities, 

could impact the quality of habitat preferred by 

this species, as well as its behavior and foraging 

opportunities. Therefore, Florida panthers were 

retained as an impact topic. 

Endangered Species Act; 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Federal Threatened 

and Endangered 

Species: 

West Indian 

Manatee

Retained Manatees use marine resources and waterways 

within the Addition. Manatees are highly 

sensitive to the effects that management, visitor 

use, or development has on marine habitats. 

Proposed actions, such as motorboat use and 

other visitor use, could reduce the quality of 

habitat preferred by these species, directly disturb 

individual animals, or reduce foraging 

opportunities. Therefore, the West Indian manatee 

was retained as an impact topic. 

Endangered Species Act; 

Marine Mammal 

Protection Act; NPS 

Management Policies 

2006

Federal Threatened 

and Endangered 

Species: 

Red-Cockaded 

Woodpecker 

Retained At least one red-cockaded woodpecker colony 

lives in the Addition. Proposed actions, such as 

ORV use and other visitor use, could reduce the 

quality of habitat preferred by these species, 

directly disturb individual animals, or reduce 

foraging opportunities. Therefore, red-cockaded 

woodpeckers were retained as an impact topic. 

Endangered Species Act; 

Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act; NPS Management 

Policies 2006
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

48 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy 

Federal Threatened 

and Endangered 

Species: 

Wood Stork 

Retained Wood stork rookeries can be found within the 

Addition. The wood stork is sensitive to human 

interference and would likely be subject to the 

effects of NPS management, visitor use, or 

development. Proposed actions, such as ORV use 

and other visitor use, could impact nest sites, 

reduce the quality of habitat preferred by these 

species, directly disturb individual animals, or 

reduce foraging opportunities. Therefore, the 

wood stork was retained as an impact topic. 

Endangered Species Act; 

Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act; NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Federal Threatened 

and Endangered 

Species: 

Cape Sable 

 Seaside Sparrow 

Dismissed No suitable habitat for Cape Sable seaside 

sparrows exists in the Addition. None of the 

proposed actions in the alternatives would affect 

sparrow habitat. Therefore, this sparrow was 

dismissed from further consideration. 

Endangered Species Act; 

Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act; NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Federal Threatened 

and Endangered 

Species: 

Everglade 

Snail Kite

Retained No Everglade snail kite nests exist within the 

Addition. Their primary habitat and nest sites are 

found in adjacent conservation area lands 

owned by the South Florida Water Management 

District. The kite currently only uses the Addition 

for foraging purposes. The actions proposed in 

this plan could reduce the quality of kite habitat, 

disturb individuals, displace foraging 

opportunities, or limit potential range expansion 

into the Preserve. Therefore, the Everglade snail 

kite was retained as an impact topic. 

Endangered Species Act; 

Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act; NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Federal Threatened 

and Endangered 

Species: 

American 

Crocodile

Retained Although the American crocodile has been 

recently observed in the Addition, they are not 

typically found in the immediate area. The 

crocodile’s range seems to be expanding, which 

provides further evidence that crocodile 

populations are stable or growing. Some of the 

actions being proposed in the alternatives could 

adversely affect crocodiles that use the Addition 

or their habitat; however, the level of 

development included in the plan is generally 

minimal and not located in crocodile use areas. 

Recreational use could also affect water quality 

in the mangrove estuaries in the Western 

Addition, which could affect crocodiles or their 

prey. Therefore, the American crocodile was 

retained as an impact topic. 

Endangered Species Act 

and NPS Management 

Policies 2006
Impact Topics — Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process 

49 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy 

Federal Threatened 

and Endangered 

Species: 

American 

Alligator

Dismissed The American alligator is listed because of the 

similarity of its appearance to the endangered 

American crocodile. Alligators in the Addition 

are numerous. The actions proposed in the 

alternatives would have only negligible to minor 

effects on alligators, including localized impacts 

on water quality and habitat values associated 

with recreational use and limited development. 

Overall, the integrity of alligator habitat would 

be maintained. Therefore, the American alligator 

was dismissed from further consideration. 

Endangered Species Act 

and NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Federal Threatened 

and Endangered 

Species: 

Eastern Indigo 

Snake

Retained The eastern indigo snake has been observed 

only sporadically in the Addition. No real data 

on its use of the Addition exists. The greatest 

threat to these snakes is habitat loss. Most of 

the ORV use associated with the action 

alternatives will be on designated ORV trails and 

avoid snake burrows and use areas. However, 

this recreational use may flush snakes (or their 

prey), which may disrupt the snake’s foraging, 

breeding, and dispersing behaviors. The ORV 

access may also lead to spur trails that have 

direct effects on snake burrowing and foraging 

areas. Limiting the number of ORV permits 

under the two alternatives that include ORV use 

would help minimize habitat disturbance. Given 

these effects, the eastern indigo snake was 

retained as an impact topic. 

Endangered Species Act 

and NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Other Federal and 

State Listed Species 

Dismissed Other federally protected species known to 

occur in Collier County, such as the piping 

plover, crested caracara, roseate tern, Florida 

scrub-jay, Kemp’s ridley, hawksbill, leatherback, 

green turtle, and loggerhead were dismissed 

because these species are not found in the 

Addition. 

Bald eagles do not nest in the Addition, but they 

do roost and forage in the area. The bald eagle 

was recently removed from the federal 

Threatened and Endangered Species List and is 

no longer subject to the Endangered Species 

Act. However, the species is still protected by 

other federal and state laws. Visitor use in the 

Addition could cause short-term adverse impacts 

on bald eagles, such as flushing and displacement; however, the effect would be negligible 

to minor. The integrity of bald eagle habitat 

would be maintained under all alternatives. 

Therefore, this topic was dismissed from further 

consideration. 

Endangered Species Act; 

Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act; National 

Environmental Policy Act; 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006 

Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act; Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act; NPS

Management Policies 

2006
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

50 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy 

Other Federal and 

State Listed Species 

(cont.) 

Dismissed Other state protected species known to occur in 

Collier County, such as the Big Cypress fox 

squirrel, Miami blue butterfly, southeastern 

American kestrel, snowy plover, least tern, 

Florida sandhill crane, Florida black bear, 

peregrine falcon, and white-crowned pigeon 

were dismissed because these species typically 

are not found in the Addition and/or their 

preferred habitat would not be physically 

disturbed by any of the actions proposed in the 

alternatives. Therefore, specific measures to 

protect these species are not needed, other than 

the general protection afforded by the Addition. 

The Liguus tree snail is listed as a state species of 

special concern. Impacts from actions proposed 

in the alternatives would have only a minor 

effect on the species due to ongoing threats 

from illegal collection. The National Park Service 

currently has a permit process in place to allow 

for special collection of this species, which 

should serve to minimize adverse impacts from 

collection. 

More than 100 state-protected plant species 

occur in the Addition, three of which are 

candidates for federal listing. The actions 

proposed in this plan would have no effect on 

the relative abundance of these species and 

would not jeopardize their long-term survival 

and success. Any facility development would be 

sited to avoid the preferred habitat of these 

species. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation 

Commission’s List of 

Endangered, Threatened, 

or Species of Special 

Concern 

Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation 

Commission’s List of 

Endangered, Threatened, 

or Species of Special 

Concern 

Rule Chapter 5B-40 of 

the Florida 

Administrative Code 

(Regulated Plant Index) 

Major Game 

Species: 

White-tailed 

Deer, Feral Hogs, 

and Wild Turkey 

Retained White-tailed deer, feral hogs, and wild turkey 

are common in the region. They are included as 

an impact topic because of their importance as 

prey for the endangered Florida panther and as 

the principal game animals for potential hunting 

in the Addition. Hunting activities in the 

Addition could reduce local populations, thus 

potentially affecting the panther’s foraging 

opportunities. Actions in the alternatives could 

beneficially or adversely affect these species, 

which would be of concern to many people as 

well as NPS managers. 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006 and 

Executive Order 13443, 

“Facilitation of Hunting 

Heritage and Wildlife 

Conservation”
Impact Topics — Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process 

51 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy 

Other Wildlife 

Species 

Dismissed Potential impacts to other wildlife species, such 

as other birds, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, and mammals, resulting from recreational facility development and ORV use would 

likely include flushing and displacement of 

individual species, but overall habitat integrity in 

the Addition would be maintained. The species 

that are sensitive to habitat loss and the effects 

of increases in human activity and disturbance 

have been retained for detailed analysis; those 

species in the category of “other wildlife” are 

considered to be generalists and thus more 

resilient to change and minor impacts. The 

adverse impact on other wildlife species from 

the actions included in the alternatives would be 

negligible to minor. Therefore, effects to other 

wildlife species were dismissed from further 

consideration. 

NPS Organic Act and 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006 

Fisheries/ 

Aquatic Life 

Dismissed The Addition contains a variety of native and 

nonnative fishes. Recreational fishing in the 

Addition is regulated by the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission. None of the 

alternatives would change the management of 

fishing or result in changes that would affect the 

fish populations in the Addition. Recreational 

fishermen would continue to be able to harvest 

fish in the Addition under all of the alternatives, 

subject to the regulations of the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission. The National 

Park Service would continue to work with the 

state to ensure that healthy fish populations are 

maintained. No commercial fishing is allowed or 

would be allowed in the Addition under any of 

the alternatives. 

Herbicides are used for exotic plant control in 

the Addition, but NPS staff follows all Environmental Protection Agency, Florida Department 

of Agriculture, and manufacturer requirements. 

Therefore, impacts on water quality and any 

biotic components that fisheries and aquatic life 

rely on should be negligible or minor. 

Because of the reasons stated above, any 

adverse effects on fisheries/aquatic life from the 

activities proposed in the alternatives would be 

negligible to minor. Therefore, this topic has 

been dismissed from further analysis. 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

52 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy 

Air Quality Dismissed The Addition has been designated a Class II area 

under the Clean Air Act. The Addition is currently within a designated attainment area (i.e., 

concentrations are below standards) for criteria 

pollutants. The contribution of pollutants 

resulting from implementing any of the alternatives would be negligible compared to current 

levels. Fugitive dust and exhaust emissions 

would be produced by recreational development 

activities, ORV use, and increased vehicular 

traffic to the Addition; however, these activities 

would not be expected to cause national ambient air quality standards to be exceeded because 

visitation increases would be relatively small and 

the level of new development proposed is 

minimal. Air quality impacts from the use of 

prescribed fire were analyzed in the Preserve’s 

Fire Management Plan/ Environmental 

Assessment, which also addresses the Addition. 

Any amount of pollutants added because of the 

actions proposed in the alternatives would be 

negligible compared to existing levels. Therefore, air quality was dismissed from further 

consideration. 

Clean Air Act and NPS 

Management Policies 

2006 

Lightscape 

Management 

(Dark Night Sky 

Preservation) 

Dismissed Light pollution is present in some areas of the 

Addition, although many areas retain a high 

degree of natural darkness. The National Park 

Service strives to minimize the intrusion of 

artificial light into the night scene by limiting the 

use of artificial outdoor lighting to basic safety 

requirements, shielding the lights when possible, 

and using minimal impact lighting techniques. 

Any new facilities proposed in the alternatives 

that would necessitate new night-time lighting 

would be constructed with down lighting that 

would minimize light pollution. Furthermore, the 

level and type of new development and lighting 

proposed in the plan is minimal and dispersed. 

The effects of actions contained in this plan on 

natural lightscapes would be minor. Therefore, 

lightscape was dismissed from further analysis. 

NPS Organic Act; 

enabling legislation; NPS 

Management Policies 

2006
Impact Topics — Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process 

53 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy 

Prime and Unique 

Farmlands 

Dismissed Prime farmland is soil that produces general 

crops such as common foods, forage, fiber, and 

oil seed; unique farmland produces specialty 

crops such as fruits, vegetables, and nuts. The 

Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 USC 4201 et 

seq.) and the U.S. Department of the Interior 

(Environmental Statement Memorandum No. 

ESM94-7 – Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands) 

require an evaluation of impacts on prime or 

unique agricultural lands. No prime or unique 

agricultural lands exist in the Addition according 

to the Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS). Therefore, this topic was dismissed from 

further consideration. 

Council on 

Environmental Quality 

1980 memorandum 

Natural or 

Depletable 

Resource 

Requirements and 

Conservation 

Potential 

Dismissed The Addition’s enabling legislation permits oil 

and gas exploration and development by 

mineral owners. Consequently, oil and gas 

operations in the Addition are allowed under all 

Addition management scenarios. None of the 

actions included in the General Management 

Plan would result in changes to oil and gas 

exploration or the extraction of new resources 

from the Addition. The use and consumption of 

fuel and other nonrenewable resources for NPS 

operations, activities, and development associated with the alternatives is small in comparison 

to that of the region. The National Park Service 

strives to use sustainable practices and technology and reduce its impact on natural or 

depletable resources. Under all of the alternatives, ecological principles would be applied 

to ensure that the Addition’s natural resources 

were maintained and conserved. Therefore, this 

topic was dismissed from further consideration. 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Wilderness Impact Topics 

Wilderness 

Resources and 

Values 

Retained Lands within the Addition have been found to 

possess wilderness characteristics and values. 

Proposed actions, including visitor use and NPS 

management activities, could have an impact on 

wilderness qualities. Actions in the alternatives 

could beneficially or adversely affect these 

resources, which would be of concern to many 

people as well as NPS managers. Therefore, 

wilderness resources and values were retained 

as an impact topic. 

Wilderness Act and NPS 

Management Policies 

2006

 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

54 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy 

Cultural Resource Impact Topics 

Archeological 

Resources 

Retained Actions under the alternatives that allow 

increased access to the Addition, including 

backcountry camping, hiking, hunting, and ORV 

use, could result in impacts to archeological 

resources. Therefore, this topic has been 

retained for further analysis. 

Secretarial Order 13007; 

National Environmental 

Policy Act; Director's 

Order 28; NPS Management Policies 2006; NPS28A, “Archeological 

Resources Management” 

American Indian 

Ethnographic 

Resources 

Retained Actions under the alternatives that allow 

increased access to the Addition, including 

backcountry camping, hiking, hunting, and ORV 

use, could result in impacts on American Indian 

ethnographic resources, including sacred sites. 

Therefore, this topic has been retained for 

further analysis. 

Executive Order 13007; 

National Environmental 

Policy Act; Director's 

Order 28; NPS Management Policies 2006; NPS28, “Cultural Resources 

Management” 

Other Ethnographic 

Resources 

Dismissed Recent investigations have documented the 

historic connections between the “Gladesmen” 

and the natural environment of south Florida, 

including Big Cypress National Preserve. The 

term “Gladesmen” refers to a predominantly 

Anglo-American group of settlers who have 

occupied areas in south Florida since the end of 

the Civil War. Here they developed a subsistence 

economy heavily dependent on hunting and 

fishing. The Gladesmen became renowned over 

several generations for their knowledge of the 

Big Cypress and their ability to navigate the 

area’s labyrinth of waterways in light skiffs. 

Gladesmen became highly valued as guides for 

explorers, hunters, fishermen, and researchers. 

The Gladesmen traditions gradually evolved in 

the 20th century as airboats and all-terrain 

vehicles replaced skiffs as the preferred modes 

of transportation in the Big Cypress. 

None of the sites or structures associated with 

the Gladesmen have been identified as 

ethnographic resources or traditional cultural 

properties. There are no impacts anticipated to 

cultural resources associated with the 

Gladesmen. Therefore, this topic has been 

dismissed from further analysis. 

National Environmental 

Policy Act; Director's 

Order 28; NPS Management Policies 2006; NPS28, “Cultural Resources 

Management”; and 

National Register Bulletin 

— "Guidelines for 

Evaluating and 

Documenting 

Traditional Cultural 

Properties." 

Cultural Landscapes Dismissed No cultural landscapes have been identified in 

the Addition. Some village sites and historic 

homesteads may be evaluated in the future as 

potential cultural landscapes. However, none of 

the actions under the alternatives pose impacts 

on features that would contribute to the 

integrity of potentially important cultural 

landscapes. Therefore, this topic was dismissed 

from further consideration. 

NPS-28, “Cultural 

Resources 

Management”, NPS 

Management Policies 

2006
Impact Topics — Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process 

55 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy 

Historic Structures Dismissed None of the structures in the Addition are listed 

or have been determined eligible for listing in 

the National Register of Historic Places. Some 

structures associated with village sites and 

historic homesteads may be evaluated in the 

future for listing on the National Register. 

However, none of the actions under the alternatives pose impacts to these sites. Therefore, 

this topic was dismissed from further 

consideration. 

NPS-28, “Cultural 

Resources Management” 

and NPS Management 

Policies 2006 

Museum 

Collections 

Dismissed None of the actions under the alternatives pose 

direct impacts on NPS museum collections. No 

museum collections are stored in the Addition. 

All Preserve museum collections are stored in 

facilities at Everglades National Park. Any 

museum collections that are generated as a 

result of implementing the alternatives would be 

properly catalogued, curated, and managed as 

part of the Preserve’s museum collections 

program. The Preserve has a current 

“Collections Management Plan” that was 

completed in conjunction with all other south 

Florida national park system units. Therefore, 

this topic was dismissed from further 

consideration. 

DO-24, Museum 

Collections 

Management” and NPS 

Management Policies 

2006

Indian Trust 

Resources 

Dismissed Secretarial Order 3175 requires that any anticipated impacts on Indian trust resources from a 

proposed project or action by Department of the 

Interior agencies be explicitly addressed in environmental documents. The federal Indian trust 

responsibility is a legally enforceable fiduciary 

obligation on the part of the United States to 

protect tribal lands, assets, resources, and treaty 

rights, and it represents a duty to carry out the 

mandates of federal law with respect to 

American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. 

None of the actions that might be implemented 

as a result of the plan alternatives would change 

any existing conditions or practices concerning 

American Indian treaty or statutory rights or 

cultural interests that the tribes traditionally 

associated with the Addition maintain in relation 

to the Addition. However, such recognition does 

not translate into the creation of a trust resource 

because these actions take place in the context 

of preserving and managing the resources for 

the benefit of all Americans as required by the 

Organic Act and subsequent legislation. There 

are no Indian trust resources as defined in the 

order in the Addition. Therefore, this topic was 

dismissed from further consideration. 

Secretarial Order 3175 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

56 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy 

Visitor Use And Experience Impact Topics 

Recreational 

Opportunities 

Motorized Use 

(ORV Riding) 

Nonmotorized Use 

(hiking, horseback 

riding, and 

bicycling) 

Hunting (including 

fishing and 

frogging) 

Retained Opportunities for recreational public motorized 

use (ORV use), nonmotorized use, and hunting 

vary among the alternatives. The types and 

levels of access are important components of 

visitor use and experience in the Addition and 

are of concern to many people as well as NPS 

managers. Therefore, the impact topic of 

recreational opportunities was retained. 

Enabling legislation; NPS 

Management Policies 

2006

Soundscape 

(Natural Sound 

Preservation) 

Retained An important part of the NPS mission is the 

preservation of natural soundscapes associated 

with national park system units. Natural soundscapes exist in the absence of human-caused 

sound. The natural ambient soundscape is the 

aggregate of all the natural sounds that occur in 

a park unit, together with the physical capacity 

for transmitting natural sounds. Natural sounds 

occur within and beyond the range of sounds 

that humans can perceive and can be transmitted through air, water, or solid materials. The 

frequencies, magnitudes, and durations of 

human-caused sound considered acceptable 

varies among national park system units, as well 

as potentially throughout each park unit; 

generally acceptable levels are greater in 

developed areas and less in undeveloped areas. 

Unnatural sounds, often a byproduct of 

recreational activities, can be intrusive and can 

impact natural soundscape conditions that 

affect visitor experience and use and wildlife. 

Uses involving motorized activities under one or 

more of the alternatives could create conditions 

that would be of concern to NSP managers and 

the public. Section 8.2 of NPS Management 

Policies 2006 requires that visitor uses within 

park units do not “impede the attainment of a 

park’s desired condition for natural and cultural 

resources as identified through the park’s 

planning process, or . . . unreasonably interfere 

with the atmosphere of peace and tranquility or 

the natural soundscape maintained in wilderness 

and natural, historic, or commemorative locations within the park.” Therefore, soundscape 

was retained as an impact topic, but is discussed 

under visitor use and experience, relevant wildlife topics, and wilderness resources and values. 

NPS Organic Act; NPS 

Management Policies 

2006; Director’s Order 

47 
Impact Topics — Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process 

57 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy 

Public Health and 

Safety 

Dismissed The proposed developments and actions in the 

alternatives would not result in any identifiable 

adverse impacts on human health or safety. 

Therefore this topic was dismissed from further 

analysis. 

CEQ regulations; DO-12 

Handbook

Socioeconomic Environment Impact Topics 

Local Economy Retained Recreation-related tourism plays an important 

role in the local and regional economy. The 

alternatives included in this plan propose varying 

levels of recreational access and opportunities 

that would affect visitation levels and possibly 

spending in the local area. Furthermore, the 

facility development actions and NPS staffing 

components of the alternatives could affect the 

local economy. Therefore, local economy was 

retained as an impact topic. 

National Environmental 

Policy Act 

Transportation Dismissed The plan alternatives would have only minor 

impacts on transportation in or through the 

Addition. All federal and state highways 

(including I-75, U.S. 41, and SR 29) would 

continue to function as they do today. 

Temporary impacts on traffic flow on I-75 could 

be experienced as a result of access improvements at mile markers 51 and 63; however, the 

adverse impacts would only be experienced on a 

short-term basis during construction and were 

accounted for under the I-75 Recreational 

Access Plan/EA. Furthermore, visitor access to 

the Addition is addressed as part of visitor use 

and experience, which was retained as an 

impact topic. Therefore, transportation was 

dismissed from further analysis. 

National Environmental 

Policy Act 

Conformity with 

Local Land Use 

Plans 

Dismissed The basic land use of the Addition as a public 

recreation and resource management area is in 

conformance with local land use plans. The 

creation of additional recreation and visitor 

service opportunities in the Addition as 

proposed in the alternatives would be consistent 

with existing Addition land uses or local (nonNPS) or tribal land use plans, policies, or controls 

for the area. Therefore, this topic was dismissed 

from further consideration. 

CEQ regulations; 

DO-12 Handbook 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

58 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy 

Urban Quality and 

Design of the Built 

Environment 

Dismissed The quality of urban areas is not a concern in 

this planning project except possibly in the 

Carnestown area. Throughout the Addition, 

vernacular architecture and Addition -

compatible design would be considered for new 

structures built under all of the alternatives. 

Emphasis would be placed on designs and 

materials and colors that blend in and do not 

detract from the natural and built environment. 

Therefore, adverse impacts are anticipated to be 

negligible. No further consideration of this topic 

is necessary. 

40 Code of Federal 

Regulations

(CFR)1502.16 
Impact Topics — Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process 

59 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy 

Environmental 

Justice 

Dismissed Executive Order 12898 requires all federal 

agencies to incorporate environmental justice 

into their missions by identifying and addressing 

the disproportionately high or adverse human 

health or environmental effects of their 

programs and policies on minorities and lowincome populations and communities. 

According to the Environmental Protection 

Agency, environmental justice is the 

fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, 

color, national origin, or income, with 

respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. 

Fair treatment means that no group of 

people, including a racial, ethnic, or 

socioeconomic group, should bear a 

disproportionate share of the negative 

environmental consequences resulting 

from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of 

federal, state, local, and tribal programs 

and policies. 

Collier County contains both minority and lowincome populations; however, environmental 

justice is dismissed as an impact topic for the 

following reasons: 

 NPS staff and planning team actively 

solicited public participation as part of the 

planning process and gave equal consideration to input from all persons regardless of 

age, race, income status, or other 

socioeconomic or demographic factors. 

 Implementation of any of the alternatives 

would not result in any disproportionate 

human health or environmental effects on 

minorities or low-income populations and 

communities. 

 The impacts associated with implementation of the alternatives would not result in 

any effects that would be specific to any 

minority or low-income community. Any 

anticipated impacts, such as traffic, would 

not disproportionately affect minority or 

low-income populations. 

 Impacts would not occur all at one time but 

would be spread over a number of years. 

 The impacts to the socioeconomic 

environment resulting from implementation 

of any of the alternatives would be 

negligible. 

Executive Order 12898, 

“General Actions to 

Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority 

Populations and LowIncome Populations,” 

 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

60 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy 

Addition Operations Impact Topics 

NPS Operations and 

Facilities 

Retained Actions proposed in the alternatives could 

impact staffing, facility management, 

resource management, and other management and operations. Support facilities 

necessary to house, transport, inform, and 

serve visitors and staff require proper 

planning, design, programming, construction, operation and maintenance. Facilities 

should be cost-effective, integrate sustainable design, and consider impacts on the 

landscape, environs, and resources of the 

Addition. Actions proposed in the 

alternatives could impact NPS operations 

and facilities. Therefore this was retained as 

an impact topic. 

NPS Organic Act; DOI 

Departmental Manual; 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006 ; enabling 

legislation; Director’s 

Order 80
Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

C h a p t e r 2

63

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter is organized into several sections: 

 The “Introduction” explains how the 

alternatives, including the preferred 

alternative, were developed; explains 

possible boundary adjustments; and 

describes the management zones. 

 Then, alternatives (A, B, preferred, and F) 

are described, both with text and maps, 

and a summary of the possible costs for 

each alternative are explained. 

 The next large section, “The Alternatives 

and User Capacity, Adaptive 

Management, ORV Administration and 

Management, and Wilderness,”

describes how the user capacity framework 

will assist the National Park Service in 

managing visitor use impacts, how 

managers will use adaptive management 

to ensure resource protection; how ORV 

use will be managed, including permits 

and numbers of permits, types of vehicles, 

potential closures, education about ORV 

use, and a schedule for implementing the 

ORV program and trail system; and a 

discussion of wilderness that includes a 

definition, permitted uses in wilderness, 

the wilderness eligibility assessment 

process, and a summary of findings. 

 This is followed by sections on 

o mitigative measures that will be 

followed under all the action 

alternatives, 

o a section that describes future 

studies and implementation plans

that will be needed, 

o a discussion about the 

environmentally preferred 

alternative, 

o a discussion of the 

alternatives/actions that were 

considered but dismissed, 

o tables that summarize the 

alternatives and the impacts of 

implementing the alternatives (the 

analysis for this table is in chapter 4).

Many aspects of the desired conditions of the 

Big Cypress National Preserve Addition are 

defined in the Addition’s establishing legislation, its purpose and significance statements, 

and the guiding principles for management 

that were described in chapter 1. Within these 

parameters, the National Park Service solicited input from the public, NPS staff, government agencies, tribal officials, and other 

organizations regarding issues and desired 

conditions for the Addition. Planning team 

members gathered information about 

expected visitation and the condition of the 

Addition’s facilities and resources. Then a set 

of four management zones and four management alternatives were developed to reflect 

the range of ideas proposed by NPS staff and 

the public. 

This chapter describes the management zones 

and the alternatives for managing the Addition 

for the next 15 to 20 years. It includes tables 

that summarize the key differences among the 

alternatives (see table 10) and the differences 

in key impacts (see table 11) that would be 

expected from implementing each alternative. 

Table 11 is based on the analysis in “Chapter 

4, Environmental Consequences." Chapter 2 

also describes mitigative measures that would 

be used to lessen or avoid impacts, and the 

environmentally preferred alternative. Also 

discussed are the future studies that would be 

needed, as well as several actions and alternatives that the planning team considered but 

dismissed. 

This Final General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Study / Off-road Vehicle Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement

presents four alternatives, including the 

National Park Service’s preferred alternative, 

for future management of the Big Cypress 

National Preserve Addition. Alternative A, the 

“no-action” alternative, which is required by 

law, presents a continuation of existing 

management direction and is included as a 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

64 

baseline for comparing the consequences of 

implementing each alternative. The other 

three “action” alternatives are alternative B, 

the preferred alternative, and alternative F. 

These action alternatives present different 

ways to manage resources and visitor use and 

improve facilities and infrastructure in the 

Addition. These four alternatives embody the 

range of what the public and the National 

Park Service want to see accomplished with 

regard to natural resource conditions, cultural 

resource conditions, visitor use and 

experience conditions, and management in 

the Addition. 

As noted in the previous "Guidance for 

Planning" section in chapter 1, the National 

Park Service would continue to follow existing agreements and servicewide mandates, 

laws, and policies regardless of the alternatives 

considered in this plan. These mandates and 

policies are not repeated in this chapter. 

HOW THE ALTERNATIVES 

WERE DEVELOPED 

A set of six preliminary alternatives (alternatives A, B, C, D, E, and F) were developed and 

presented to the public in October 2005. The 

alternatives were developed by the National 

Park Service based on public input and 

Addition management considerations to 

explore different ways to manage resources, 

visitor use, and improve facilities and 

infrastructure in the Addition. 

In April 2007 the preliminary alternatives were 

revised to include conceptual ORV trails and 

areas of proposed wilderness; these revisions 

were presented to the public. Together the 

alternatives represent a reasonable range of 

wilderness and ORV opportunities. 

Since April 2007, the planning team dismissed 

preliminary alternatives C, D, and E from 

further consideration because they included 

goals and actions for environmental protection, visitor use, and ORV opportunities that 

were the same as those in alternative B, the 

preferred alternative, and alternative F (see 

the “Alternatives and Management Actions 

Considered but Dismissed” section later in 

this chapter for more details). The naming 

structure of the current set of alternatives is 

intended to track the original set of preliminary alternatives and minimize confusion. 

The alternatives included in this plan present 

a continuum of resource preservation and 

recreation opportunities as prescribed in the 

Addition’s enabling legislation. The no-action 

alternative (alternative A) is required by law 

and serves as a baseline for analyzing the 

action alternatives. Alternative B includes the 

highest level of motorized access and trail 

designation and the lowest level of proposed 

wilderness. Alternative F contains the lowest 

level of motorized access and trail designation 

and the highest level of proposed wilderness. 

The preferred alternative contains the 

agency’s selected combination of ORV 

opportunities and resource preservation and 

proposed wilderness. In developing this range 

of alternatives, the National Park Service 

adhered to the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act and the Wilderness 

Act, while giving careful consideration to the 

national preserve designation that Congress 

assigned to the Addition. 

The alternatives focus on what resource 

conditions and visitor uses/experiences 

should be at the Addition rather than on 

details of how these conditions and 

uses/experiences should be achieved. Thus, 

the alternatives do not include many details 

on resource or visitor use management. 

More detailed plans or studies will be 

required before most conditions proposed in 

the alternatives are achieved. The implementation of any alternative also depends on 

future funding and completion of appropriate 

environmental compliance. Approval of this 

plan does not guarantee that funding will be 

forthcoming. The plan establishes a vision of 

the future that will guide day-to-day and year-
Introduction 

65

to-year management of the Addition, but full 

implementation could take many years. 

IDENTIFICATION OF THE 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The development of a preferred alternative 

involved evaluating the alternatives through 

the use of an objective analysis process called 

“choosing by advantages” or CBA. Through 

this process, the planning team identified and 

compared the relative advantages of each 

alternative according to a set of factors. The 

benefits or advantages of each alternative 

were compared for each of the following CBA 

factors: 

1. provide for a range of appropriate 

visitor opportunities and access 

2. protect cultural and natural resources 

and restore natural processes 

3. preserve or enhance wilderness values 

4. provide for effective/efficient NPS 

operations and public safety 

The relationships between the advantages and 

costs of each alternative were established. 

This information was used to combine the 

best attributes of the preliminary alternatives 

into the preferred alternative. This alternative 

gives the National Park Service (and the 

public) the greatest overall benefits for each 

point listed above for the most reasonable 

cost. 

This process indicated that alternative D 

provided the greatest advantages. The 

differences between alternatives B and C and 

between E and F were relatively slight. Factor 

2 was identified as having the paramount 

advantage and the scoring for this factor 

varied widely among the alternatives. 

As part of the CBA process, the highest 

ranking advantages of the alternatives were 

analyzed and considered for inclusion in the 

development of the preferred alternative. 

Important elements of preliminary alternatives C, D, and E were used to develop the 

preferred alternative, providing the highest 

number of advantages to the National Park 

Service. The preferred alternative provides the 

best combination of motorized access, backcountry recreational opportunities, proposed 

wilderness, new visitor facilities, and facilities 

needed for Addition operations and 

management. 

CHANGES TO THE PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE RESULTING FROM 

PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DRAFT 

GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 

The preferred alternative included in this final 

plan was developed based on public comments received on the Draft General Management Plan / Wilderness Study / Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement. Changes to the wilderness eligibility assessment (see appendix B), proposed 

wilderness, ORV trail routes and mileage, and 

ORV administration and management were 

made as a result of the input received from 

agencies, American Indian tribes, and the 

public. The sections that follow, including the 

description of the preferred alternative, 

include these changes. 

POTENTIAL FOR 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 

The National Park and Recreation Act of 1978 

requires general management plans to address 

whether boundary modifications should be 

made to park units. The planning team 

reviewed the Addition boundary and determined that no boundary adjustments are 

warranted. The alternatives do not contain 

any proposals for boundary adjustments. 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 

The management zones were developed as 

part of this planning effort and were 

presented to the public in newsletters and 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

66 

public meetings; then they were modified in 

response to public comments. A management 

zone defines specific resource conditions and 

visitor experiences to be achieved and maintained in each specific area of the Addition 

under each action alternative. (Because 

management zones are not part of the 

Addition’s current management tools, 

management zones are not included in the noaction alternative.) The four management 

zones for the Addition are presented in table 

2. In the table, resource conditions, visitor 

experience, and appropriate activities and 

facilities are described for each zone. 

Although the zones describe the type of 

development that is allowed, they do not 

dictate the developments that will occur. 

 In formulating the alternatives, the management zones were placed in different locations 

or configurations on the maps according to 

the overall concept of each alternative. That is, 

each management alternative represents a 

different way to apply the four management 

zones to the Addition. For example, alternative B, whose overall concept emphasizes 

motorized recreation, has more of the 

backcountry recreation zone than alternative 

F, whose overall concept is to maximize 

wilderness in the Addition. 

The primitive backcountry management zone 

is compatible with the legal requirements 

associated with wilderness. Should wilderness 

be designated in the Addition, the management emphasis and actions of this zone would 

preserve wilderness resources and values. 

Furthermore, as discussed in the “Guiding 

Principles for Management” section of this 

document, management decisions for 

designated wilderness areas would be made in 

accordance with the minimum requirement 

concept outlined in the Wilderness Act and 

NPS policies. Permitted and prohibited uses in 

designated wilderness are addressed on page 

116.
Introduction 

67

TABLE 2: MANAGEMENT ZONES

Management Zone 

Resource

Conditions 

Visitor

Experience 

Appropriate Facilities / 

Activities 

DEVELOPED 

Visitor 

orientation/education 

would be the 

dominant goals for 

this zone. NPS 

administrative 

facilities would also 

be included in this 

zone. 

 Natural environment 

could be modified 

for essential visitor 

and NPS operational 

needs. 

 Known cultural 

resources would be 

avoided to extent 

possible or impacts 

would be mitigated 

appropriately. 

 Facilities would be 

designed and 

managed to ensure 

resource protection 

and public safety. 

 Human-related 

noise would 

predominate. 

Natural sounds may 

be audible during 

low visitor use 

periods. 

 Visitor attractions 

would be convenient 

and easily accessible. 

 NPS or self-guided 

opportunities would 

be available. 

 Moderate to high 

levels of encounters 

with other visitors and 

NPS staff would be 

expected, including 

relatively high levels 

of human-related 

noise. 

 I-75 access points 

 orientation and 

interpretation facilities, 

such as visitor centers 

 comfort stations 

 boardwalks and trails to 

access adjacent natural/ 

cultural features 

 NPS administrative/staff 

facilities — offices, 

housing, support facilities 

for NPS management 

(shops, storage areas, fire 

cache, etc.) 

 commercial facilities to 

support appropriate visitor 

activities 

 closed to hunting 

FRONTCOUNTRY 

Visitor orientation 

and access would be

the dominant goals 

for this zone. 

 Natural environment 

could be modified 

for essential visitor 

needs. 

 Known cultural 

resources would be 

avoided to extent 

possible or impacts 

would be mitigated 

appropriately. 

 Facilities would be 

designed and 

managed to ensure 

resource protection 

and public safety. 

 Natural sounds may 

exist, but they 

would be frequently 

interrupted by 

human activity. 

 Visitor attractions 

would be convenient 

and easily accessible. 

 Self-guided 

opportunities would 

be available. 

 Low to moderate 

levels of encounters 

with other visitors and 

NPS staff would be 

expected, including 

relatively moderate 

levels of humanrelated noise. 

 recreational access or 

trailhead parking 

 picnic areas 

 orientation facilities and 

signs 

 campgrounds 

 comfort stations 

 boardwalks and trails to 

access adjacent natural/ 

cultural features 

 commercial activities that 

are consistent with the 

visitor opportunities and 

activities 

 closed to hunting 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

68 

Management Zone 

Resource

Conditions 

Visitor

Experience 

Appropriate Facilities / 

Activities 

BACKCOUNTRY 

RECREATION 

Preservation of 

natural and cultural 

resources, restoration 

of degraded 

resources, and 

continuation of 

natural processes 

would be the 

dominant goals in 

this zone. Visitors 

would experience a 

natural landscape 

through a variety of 

recreational 

opportunities 

supported by a 

network of 

designated trails. 

 Native species and 

natural processes 

would predominate. 

 Cultural resources 

would exhibit a high 

degree of integrity. 

 Evidence of human 

impact would be 

apparent along trail 

corridors and 

designated 

campsites, but 

would be infrequent 

and limited in extent 

elsewhere in this 

zone. 

 Natural sounds 

would be audible in 

this zone, but they 

would be 

interrupted by 

noises from motors 

and other human 

activity. 

 Some opportunities 

for solitude, 

challenge, adventure, 

and self-reliance 

would be provided. 

 Variety of visitor 

experiences would be 

available ― from NPSled to self-discovery. 

 Encounters with NPS 

staff and other visitors 

could be frequent — 

should expect to 

experience humanrelated noise. 

 activities could include 

hiking, backpacking, 

hunting, fishing, horseback 

riding, camping, boating, 

bicycling, ORV use 

 trails and routes may be 

designated for hiking, 

bicycling, and boating. 

 navigational markers may 

be provided 

 information/interpretation 

kiosks and signs 

 backcountry support 

facilities such as ranger 

stations and fire cache 

 resource protection and 

monitoring equipment 

 vehicle and stock use 

allowed only on

designated roads and trails 

 hunting allowed in 

designated areas and 

seasons as determined by 

the National Park Service in 

consultation with the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission 

 dispersed camping, and 

where necessary for 

resource protection, 

designated campsites 

 outfitter/guide activities 

would be consistent with 

visitor opportunities and 

activities 
Introduction 

69

Management Zone 

Resource

Conditions 

Visitor

Experience 

Appropriate Facilities / 

Activities 

PRIMITIVE 

BACKCOUNTRY 

Preservation of 

natural and cultural 

resources, restoration 

of degraded 

resources, and 

continuation of 

natural processes 

would be the 

dominant goals in 

this zone. Visitors 

would experience a 

natural landscape 

with opportunities 

for primitive and 

unconfined 

recreation directly 

dependent on ability, 

knowledge, and selfreliance. 

 Native species and 

natural processes 

would predominate. 

 Cultural resources 

would exhibit a high 

degree of integrity. 

 Evidence of human 

impact would be 

infrequent and 

limited in extent. 

 Natural sounds 

would dominate in 

this zone; however, 

human-related noise 

would likely be 

more audible near 

other zones and 

primary visitor use 

areas. 

 Numerous 

opportunities would 

be available for 

challenge, adventure, 

solitude, and selfreliance. 

 Visitors might find 

discovery areas with 

no on-site 

interpretation and 

very limited facilities. 

 Encounters with NPS 

staff and other visitors 

would be infrequent 

— should expect to 

experience natural 

sounds. 

 visitor facilities — limited 

to designated trails, 

marked routes, and 

designated campsites 

 dispersed camping, and 

where necessary for 

resource protection, 

designated campsites 

 resource protection and 

monitoring equipment 

 activities could include 

hiking, backpacking, 

hunting, fishing, horseback 

riding, camping, 

nonmotorized boating, 

bicycling 

 no motorized use allowed 

 mechanized use would be 

limited to bicycling on 

designated roads and trails 

only (outside eligible 

wilderness) 

 hunting allowed in 

designated areas and 

seasons as determined by 

the National Park Service in 

consultation with the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission 

 outfitter/guide activities 

would be consistent with 

visitor opportunities 
70 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION: CONTINUATION OF CURRENT 

MANAGEMENT) 

CONCEPT AND GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

The Addition would be managed the way it is 

being managed now. No management zones 

would be used to guide planning and 

decision-making — current management 

trends and strategies would continue. 

MOTORIZED RECREATIONAL 

OPPORTUNITIES — TRAILS AND 

PERMITS 

The Addition would continue to be closed to 

public recreational ORV use. Motorized 

boating would continue to be permitted in the 

canals and waterways adjacent to SR 29. 

No ORV permits would be granted, and no 

trails would be designated because public 

recreational ORV use would not be allowed. 

ORV access to private property by inholders 

would continue to be allowed by special use 

permit. 

NONMOTORIZED 

RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 

Limited opportunities for hiking, paddling, 

horseback riding, and bicycling would 

continue to be available. New opportunities 

for walk-in hunting would be provided. 

Access points would be developed at mile 

markers 51 and 63 under the I-75 Recreational 

Access Plan; however, access would be walk-in 

only. 

Access to the Florida National Scenic Trail 

would remain at I-75 mile marker 63, and the 

northern route would remain temporary and 

undesignated. 

The National Park Service would work with 

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission to provide hunting access, define 

hunting seasons, and develop hunting 

regulations consistent with both agencies’ 

policies and goals for the Addition. 

VISITOR ORIENTATION 

AND EDUCATION 

No new facilities would be developed under 

this alternative, which means that no visitor 

contact facilities would be present in the 

Addition. Visitor orientation to the Addition 

would continue to occur at the NPS facilities 

on U.S. Highway 41 (hereafter referred to as 

U.S. 41). Environmental education would 

continue to be conducted at the Birdon Road 

facility, with no presence in or connection to 

the Addition. 

WILDERNESS 

No land would be proposed for wilderness 

designation under this alternative; however, 

those lands in the Addition eligible for 

wilderness designation would continue to be 

managed to preserve their wilderness 

characteristics and values (see map 8). 

PARTNERSHIPS, 

PROGRAMS, AND ACTIVITIES 

No new partnerships, programs, or activities 

would be initiated for the Addition. Existing 

partnerships, programs, and activities would 

continue. 
Sunniland

Jerome

Copeland

Miles City

Carnestown

Plantation Island

Welcome 

Center

Chokoloskee

Monroe

Station

Visitor Center

Ochopee

Everglades City

Deep Lake

BIG CYPRESS SEMINOLE INDIAN RESERVATION

Tamiami

Ranger

Station

Rest Area

Preserve 

Headquarters

Dade-Collier

Training and

Transition Airport

BIG CYPRESS

NATIONAL PRESERVE

L-28 Interceptor Cana

Recreation Access Point l

(access on foot only)

Loop Road

MM 70 MM 63

Snake Road

Birdon

Road

Wagonwheel

Road

No 

access

Turner River Road

FLORIDA 

PANTHER

NATIONAL 

WILDLIFE

REFUGE

FAKAHATCHEE

STRAND

PRESERVE

STATE PARK

75

75

29

29

41

41

41

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service • DSC • October 2010 • 176 / 20074

Map 3 • Alternative A • No-Action Alternative

Big Cypress National Preserve–Addition

General Management Plan

Legend

Preserve Boundary

Addition Boundary

Canal

Existing Access Point

Florida National Scenic Trail

Designated Primary ORV Trail

Unpaved Road

Existing Hiking Trail

0 5 10

Miles

EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK

Alternative A 

73

FACILITIES 

No new facilities would be developed under 

this alternative. Existing facilities would 

continue to be maintained as at present. 

I-75 Mile Marker 51 

An access point would be developed at mile 

marker 51 under the I-75 Recreational Access 

Plan; however access would be only from 

nonmotorized use. 

I-75 Mile Marker 63 

Informal walk-in access would continue to be 

available via the rest area. An access point 

would be developed at mile marker 63 under 

the I-75 Recreational Access Plan; however 

access would be only from nonmotorized use. 

Bear Island Grade at SR 29 

This location would remain undeveloped and 

informal, nonmotorized access would 

continue. 

Nobles and Jones Grades 

No new facilities would be developed. Only 

nonmotorized access would remain along the 

road grades. 

Miles City (I-75 at SR 29) 

This intersection would remain undeveloped. 

Deep Lake (SR 29) 

No facility improvements would be made at 

this location. Parking would remain on the 

shoulder of SR 29, and access to the site would 

continue to be informal. 

Copeland (SR 29) 

The NPS Fire Operations Center would 

continue to be used by fire management staff 

and would remain at this location. 

Carnestown (U.S. 41 at SR 29) 

The facilities would continue to be leased to 

other government agencies and organizations. 

ESTIMATED COSTS 

The NPS staffing level under the no-action 

alternative would continue to be the equivalent of 77 full-time staff members. This 

includes 6 employees in the superintendent’s 

office, 10 in administration, 20 in maintenance, 12 in interpretation, 14 in resource 

management, and 15 in visitor and resource 

protection. An additional 21 employees work 

for the Preserve’s fire program, but these fulltime-equivalent employees are not accounted 

for in the staffing numbers because they 

would remain the same across all alternatives. 

Volunteers and partnerships would continue 

to be key contributors to NPS operations. 

The total cost of this alternative (annual 

operating costs) would be $6.5 million. 

The cost estimates provided here are given for 

comparison to other alternatives only; they 

are not to be used for budgeting purposes. 

Although the numbers appear to be absolutes, 

they represent a midpoint in a possible range 

of costs. 

Presentation of these costs in this plan does 

not guarantee future NPS funding. Project 

funding would not come all at once; it would 

likely take many years to secure and may be 

provided by partners, donations or other 

nonfederal sources. Although the National 

Park Service hopes to secure this funding and 

would prepare itself accordingly, the Preserve 

may not receive enough funding to achieve all 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

74 

desired conditions within the timeframe of the 

General Management Plan (the next 20 or 

more years). More information on costs is 

provided in the “Development of Cost 

Estimates” section and table 6. 
75

ALTERNATIVE B 

CONCEPT AND GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

Alternative B would enable participation in a 

wide variety of outdoor recreational 

experiences. It would nearly maximize 

motorized access, provide the least amount of 

proposed wilderness, and develop limited new

hiking-only trails. New visitor and operations 

facilities along the I-75 corridor would also be 

provided. 

The approximate acreages and percentages of 

the Addition that would be in each of the 

management zones under alternative B are 

shown in table 3. 

TABLE 3: MANAGEMENT ZONES IN ALTERNATIVE B 

Zone Acreage 

% of 

Addition

Developed 18 < 1

Frontcountry 6 < 1

Backcountry 

Recreation 

94, 529 65

Primitive 

Backcountry 

51, 294 35

The National Park Service would work with 

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission to provide hunting access, define 

hunting seasons, and develop hunting 

regulations that are consistent with both 

agencies’ policies and goals for the Addition. 

Management of the Addition and the actions 

that would be taken by the National Park 

Service in the next 20 years under alternative 

B are described in the following sections. 

MOTORIZED RECREATIONAL 

OPPORTUNITIES — TRAILS AND 

PERMITS 

Motorized recreational opportunities, 

including ORV use, motorized boating, and 

hunting, would be nearly maximized under 

this alternative. Up to 132 miles would be 

included as part of the conceptual primary 

(see glossary) ORV trail network. Secondary 

trails would be allowed within the backcountry recreation management zone. Specific 

access points and facilities to support 

motorized use are described in the “Facilities” 

section, including a potential connection from 

SR 29 to existing trails in the Bear Island area. 

Future connections to existing ORV trails 

south of the Northeast Addition would 

require additional National Environmental 

Policy Act compliance. 

 

A maximum of 660 ORV permits would be 

issued annually for the Addition, and up to 

132 miles of primary ORV trails would be 

designated. This maximum number of ORV 

permits is based on the ratio of ORV trail 

mileage to issued permits in the original 

Preserve (as detailed later in this chapter in 

the section titled “The Alternatives and User 

Capacity, Adaptive Management, ORV 

Administration and Management, and 

Wilderness”). Under alternative B, the entire 

ORV trail system would be implemented 

without phased establishment and the 

assessment of monitoring results as described 

under the preferred alternative. 

NONMOTORIZED 

RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 

New access points would be established for 

hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, and 

hunting. Some new hiking trails would be 

developed at frontcountry locations. Access 

points would be developed at mile markers 51 

and 63 under the I-75 Recreational Access Plan.

These access points would provide access for 

both motorized and nonmotorized uses. 

Hiking, bicycling, and horseback riding would 

also be allowed on the approximately 132 

miles of primary ORV trails in the Addition. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

76 

New paddling trails would be developed in 

the tidal areas south of U.S. 41 in the Western 

Addition. Specific access points and facilities 

to support nonmotorized uses are described 

in the “Facilities” section. 

Conceptual hiking trails would be included as 

part of this alternative — one completing a 

north-south connection and one completing 

an east-west connection through the 

Addition. 

The National Park Service would work 

cooperatively with the Florida Trail 

Association and the U.S. Forest Service to 

determine the appropriate access points and 

routing of the Florida National Scenic Trail to 

minimize conflicts between motorized and 

nonmotorized users. The trail would be 

formally designated. 

VISITOR ORIENTATION 

AND EDUCATION 

A visitor contact station and outdoor 

orientation and interpretive panels would be 

developed along I-75 under this alternative as 

described in the “Facilities” section. 

WILDERNESS 

About 37,567 acres of land would be proposed 

for wilderness designation under this 

alternative (see following map). 

NPS staff would work cooperatively with the 

state of Florida and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (and other appropriate federal, state, 

and local agencies) to ensure that the legislative act that formally designates wilderness in 

the Addition contains language that allows for 

effective management of exotic species, wildland and prescribed fire, and law enforcement 

activities. 

PARTNERSHIPS, 

PROGRAMS, AND ACTIVITIES 

The National Park Service would explore new 

partnerships to provide visitor services at 

Carnestown. 

FACILITIES 

I-75 Mile Marker 51 

A new access point would be developed at this 

location that includes parking and restrooms. 

The site would provide access for motorized 

and nonmotorized activities. Visitor orientation and interpretation panels would also be 

installed. The National Park Service would 

establish a partnership with the Florida 

Department of Transportation and the Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

to establish other facilities as appropriate, 

such as a wildlife check station and boat ramp 

to access the South Florida Water Management District canal. 

I-75 Mile Marker 63 

Using the Florida Department of Transportation rest area at this location, a new access 

point would be developed that would include 

parking and trailhead. The site would provide 

access for motorized and nonmotorized 

activities. A new visitor contact station and 

NPS operations facility would also be 

developed at this location. The National Park 

Service would establish a partnership with the 

Florida Department of Transportation and the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission to establish other facilities as 

appropriate, such as a wildlife check station. 

 
Monroe

Station

Visitor Center

BIG CYPRESS SEMINOLE INDIAN RESERVATION

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENTDISTRICT WATER CONSERVATION AREA 3A

FLORIDA 

PANTHER

NATIONAL 

WILDLIFE

REFUGE

FAKAHATCHEE

STRAND

PRESERVE

STATE PARK

Sunniland

Jerome

Copeland

Miles City

Carnestown

Plantation Island

Chokoloskee

Ochopee

Everglades City

Deep Lake

Rest Area

Dade-Collier

Training and

Transition Airport

BIG CYPRESS

NATIONAL PRESERVE

75

75

29

29

41

41

L-28 Interceptor Canal

FLORIDA STATE MICCOSUKEE 

INDIAN RESERVATION

Snake Road

Birdon

Road

Wagonwheel

Road

No 

access

MM 70 MM 63 MM 51

Turner River Road

Bear Island Grade

EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK

Welcome 

Center

Preserve 

Headquarters

0 5 10

Miles

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service • DSC • October 2010 • 176 / 20075

Map 4 • Alternative B • Big Cypress National Preserve–Addition

General Management Plan

Legend

Preserve Boundary

Addition Boundary

Canal

Existing Access Point

Proposed Access Point

Frontcountry 

Primitive Backcountry 

Backcountry Recreation

Developed 

Proposed Wilderness

Conceptual Hiking Trail

Designated Primary ORV Trail

Conceptual Primary ORV Trail

Unpaved Road

Existing Hiking Trail

Alternative B 

79

Bear Island Grade at SR 29 

A new trailhead and parking area would be 

developed at this location, providing 

motorized and nonmotorized access to the 

Bear Island Grade. This new access point 

would provide a connection to ORV trails in 

the original Preserve. Visitor orientation and 

interpretation panels would also be installed. 

Nobles and Jones Grades 

No new facilities would be developed. The 

road grades would only be used for access. 

Miles City (I-75 at SR 29) 

This intersection would remain undeveloped. 

Deep Lake (SR 29) 

The site would be developed into a day use 

area with parking, restrooms, and a hiking 

trail/boardwalk to Deep Lake. 

Copeland (SR 29) 

The NPS Fire Operations Center would 

remain at this location. 

Carnestown (U.S. 41 at SR 29) 

Facilities at the site would be used to support 

visitor service partnership needs. 

ESTIMATED COSTS 

The NPS staffing level needed to implement 

alternative B would be the equivalent of 93 

full-time staff members(16 additional fulltime-equivalent employees or 17 positions) — 

15 permanent full-time employees and 2 halftime temporary/seasonal employees). These 

16 additional employees include 2 permanent 

interpreters, 2 seasonal interpreters, 4 

maintenance workers, 5 law enforcement 

rangers, 2 visitor use assistants, 1 ORV 

program manager, and 1 biological science 

technician. Volunteers and partnerships 

would continue to be key contributors to NPS 

operations. 

One-time capital costs of alternative B, 

including projects that are planned for the 

near future or are underway, new 

construction, and nonfacility costs such as 

major resource plans and projects, are 

estimated at $6.7 million. Annual operating 

costs under this alternative would be $7.9 

million. 

The cost estimates provided here are given for 

comparison to other alternatives only; they 

are not to be used for budgeting purposes. 

Although the numbers appear to be absolutes, 

they represent a midpoint in a possible range 

of costs. 

Presentation of these costs in this plan does 

not guarantee future NPS funding. Project 

funding would not come all at once; it would 

likely take many years to secure and may be 

provided by partners, donations or other 

nonfederal sources. Although the National 

Park Service hopes to secure this funding and 

would prepare itself accordingly, the Preserve 

may not receive enough funding to achieve all 

desired conditions within the timeframe of the 

General Management Plan (the next 20 or 

more years). More information on costs is 

provided in the “Development of Cost 

Estimates” section and table 6. 
80 

PREFERRED ALERNATIVE 

CONCEPT AND GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

The preferred alternative would provide 

diverse frontcountry and backcountry 

recreational opportunities, enhance day use 

and interpretive opportunities along road 

corridors, and enhance recreational opportunities with new facilities and services. This 

alternative would provide a substantial 

amount of ORV access and riding opportunities, provide a moderate amount of wilderness, provide nonmotorized trail opportunities and new camping opportunities, and 

develop a partnership approach to visitor 

orientation. New visitor and operations 

facilities along the I-75 corridor would also 

be provided. 

The approximate acreages and percentages 

of the Addition that would be in each of the 

management zones under the preferred 

alternative are shown in table 4. 

TABLE 4: MANAGEMENT ZONES IN THE PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE

Zone Acreage 

% of 

Addition

Developed 18 < 1

Frontcountry 11 < 1

Backcountry 

Recreation 

49,449 33

Primitive 

Backcountry 

96,413 65

Areas that were found to be eligible for 

wilderness designation, but were not 

included as proposed wilderness in the 

preferred alternative, would be zoned 

primitive backcountry. No public motorized 

use would be allowed in these areas, and 

they would be managed to protect their 

natural values. 

NPS staff would work with the Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission to 

provide hunting access, define hunting 

seasons, and develop hunting regulations 

that are consistent with both agencies’ 

policies and goals for the Addition. 

Management of the Addition and the actions 

that would be taken by the National Park 

Service in the next 20 years under the 

preferred alternative are described in the 

following paragraphs. 

MOTORIZED RECREATIONAL 

OPPORTUNITIES — TRAILS AND 

PERMITS 

Motorized recreational opportunities, 

including ORV use, motorized boating, and 

hunting would be phased in over time. 

Approximately 130 miles of trails would be 

included as part of the conceptual primary 

(see glossary) ORV trail network. Secondary 

trails would be allowed only within the 

backcountry recreation management zone. 

Access points and facilities to support 

motorized use are described in the 

“Facilities” section, including a potential 

connection to existing trails in the Bear 

Island area. Future connections to existing 

ORV trails in the original Preserve may 

require additional environmental 

compliance. 

A maximum of 650 ORV permits would be 

issued annually for the Addition, and up to 

130miles of primary ORV trails would be 

designated. This number of ORV permits is 

based on the ratio of ORV trail mileage to 

issued permits in the original Preserve (as 

detailed later in this chapter in the section 

titled “The Alternatives and User Capacity, 

Adaptive Management, ORV Administration 

and Management, and Wilderness”). 

However, under the preferred alternative, 

the extent of trails and the number of 
Preferred Alernative 

81

permits available to the public would be 

accomplished in phases. For example, a 

certain amount of trails would be designated 

and a certain number of permits would be 

allowed. The number of initial permits 

available would be proportionate to the 

initial extent of the trail system. For 

example, using a factor of five permits per 

mile of trail, if 20 miles of trail were opened, 

then 100 permits would be issued. The 

National Park Service would determine the 

initial extent of the trail system based on 

field conditions, proximity to access points, 

and levels of trail stabilization needed. 

Monitoring of the impacts would take place, 

and if impacts were at or below acceptable 

limits, more trails would be designated and 

more permits would be allowed. 

NONMOTORIZED 

RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 

New access points would be established for 

hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, and 

hunting. Access points would be developed 

at mile markers 51 and 63 under the I-75 

Recreational Access Plan. These access points 

would provide access for both motorized 

and nonmotorized uses. Hiking, bicycling, 

and horseback riding would also be allowed 

on the up to 130 miles of ORV trails in the 

Addition. Some new hiking trails would be 

developed at frontcountry locations. New 

paddling trails would be developed in the 

tidal areas south of U.S. 41 in the Western 

Addition. Specific access points and facilities 

to support nonmotorized uses are described 

in the “Facilities” section. 

 Conceptual hiking trails would be included 

as part of this alternative — one completing a 

north-south connection and one completing 

an east-west connection through the 

Addition. 

The National Park Service would work 

cooperatively with the Florida Trail 

Association and the U.S. Forest Service to 

determine the appropriate access points and 

routing of the Florida National Scenic Trail 

to minimize conflicts between motorized 

and nonmotorized users. The trail would be 

formally designated. 

VISITOR ORIENTATION 

AND EDUCATION 

A new visitor contact station and some 

outdoor orientation and interpretive panels 

would be developed along I-75 under this 

alternative as described in the “Facilities” 

section. 

WILDERNESS 

About 47,067 acres of land would be 

proposed for wilderness designation under 

this alternative (see following map). 

NPS staff would work cooperatively with the 

state of Florida and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (and other appropriate 

federal, state, and local agencies) to ensure 

that the legislative act that formally 

designates wilderness in the Addition 

contains language that allows for effective 

management of exotic species, wildland and 

prescribed fire, scientific research and 

monitoring, and law enforcement activities. 

PARTNERSHIPS, 

PROGRAMS, AND ACTIVITIES 

The National Park Service would pursue 

partnerships to achieve management 

objectives and consider partnerships that 

provide a range of commercial services, 

including boat tours south of U.S. 41. The 

original Preserve’s Commercial Services Plan

would be amended to include the Addition. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

82 

FACILITIES 

I-75 Mile Marker 51 

A new access point would be developed at 

this location that includes parking. The site 

would provide access for motorized and 

nonmotorized activities. Visitor orientation 

and interpretation panels would also be 

installed. The National Park Service would 

establish a partnership with the Florida 

Department of Transportation and the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission to establish other facilities as 

appropriate, such as a wildlife check station 

and boat ramp to access the South Florida 

Water Management District canal. 

I-75 Mile Marker 63 

Using the Florida Department of Transportation rest area at this location, a new access 

point would be developed that includes 

parking and trailhead. The site would provide access for motorized and nonmotorized 

activities. A new visitor center and NPS 

operations facility would also be developed 

at this location. The National Park Service 

would establish a partnership with the 

Florida Department of Transportation and 

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission to establish other facilities as 

appropriate, such as a wildlife check station. 

Bear Island Grade at SR 29 

A new trailhead and parking area would be 

developed at this location, providing motorized and nonmotorized access to the site and 

to Bear Island Grade. This new access point 

would provide a connection to ORV trails in 

the original Preserve. Visitor orientation and 

interpretation panels would also be installed. 

Nobles and Jones Grades 

Primitive backcountry group camping areas 

would be provided at the terminus of these 

grades. 

Miles City (I-75 at SR 29) 

A new hiking trailhead, information kiosk, 

and small parking area would be developed 

outside the interchange area, which is closed 

to development. 

Deep Lake (SR 29) 

The site would be developed into a day use 

area with parking, restrooms, picnic shelters, 

and a hiking trail/boardwalk to Deep Lake. 

Copeland (SR 29) 

The NPS Fire Operations Center would be 

maintained at this location and expanded as 

necessary for other NPS operational needs. 

Carnestown (U.S. 41 at SR 29) 

The facilities would be used to support 

commercial services and/or partner 

organizations (such as the Sheriff’s Office) 

that would operate at this location, including 

enhancements that would support visitor 

service needs. 
Monroe

Station

Visitor Center

BIG CYPRESS SEMINOLE INDIAN RESERVATION

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENTDISTRICT WATER CONSERVATION AREA 3A

FLORIDA 

PANTHER

NATIONAL 

WILDLIFE

REFUGE

FAKAHATCHEE

STRAND

PRESERVE

STATE PARK

Sunniland

Jerome

Copeland

Miles City

Carnestown

Chokoloskee

Ochopee

Deep Lake

Dade-Collier

Training and

Transition Airport

BIG CYPRESS

NATIONAL PRESERVE

75

75

29

29

41

L-28 Interceptor Canal

FLORIDA STATE MICCOSUKEE 

INDIAN RESERVATION

Snake Road

Birdon

Road

Wagonwheel

Road

No 

access

MM 70

MM 63

MM

51

Turner River Road

Bear Island Grade

Jones 

Grade 

Campsite

Nobles Grade Campsite

EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK

Plantation Island

Everglades City

Welcome 

Center

Preserve 

Headquarters

0 5 10

Miles

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service • DSC • October 2010 • 176 / 20078

Map 5 • Preferred Alternative • Big Cypress National Preserve–Addition

General Management Plan

Legend

Preserve Boundary

Addition Boundary

Canal

Existing Access Point

Proposed Access Point

Frontcountry 

Primitive Backcountry 

Backcountry Recreation

Developed 

Proposed Wilderness

Conceptual Hiking Trail

Designated Primary ORV Trail

Conceptual Primary ORV Trail

Unpaved Road

Existing Hiking Trail

Preferred Alternative 

85

ESTIMATED COSTS 

The NPS staffing level needed to implement 

the preferred alternative would be the 

equivalent of 93 full-time staff members (16 

additional full-time-equivalent employees or 

17 positions) — 15 permanent full-timeemployees and 2 half-time temporary/ 

seasonal employees). These 16 additional 

employees include 2 permanent interpreters, 2 

seasonal interpreters, 4 maintenance workers, 

5 law enforcement rangers, 2 visitor use 

assistants, 1 ORV program manager, and 1 

biological science technician. Volunteers and 

partnerships would continue to be key 

contributors to NPS operations. 

One-time capital costs of the preferred alternative, including projects that are planned for 

the near future or are underway, new 

construction, and nonfacility costs such as 

major resource plans and projects, are estimated at $6.7 million. Annual operating costs 

under this alternative would be $7.9 million. 

The cost estimates provided here are given for 

comparison to other alternatives only; they 

are not to be used for budgeting purposes. 

Although the numbers appear to be absolutes, 

they represent a midpoint in a possible range 

of costs. 

Presentation of these costs in this plan does 

not guarantee future NPS funding. Project 

funding would not come all at once; it would 

likely take many years to secure and may be 

provided by partners, donations or other 

nonfederal sources. Although the National 

Park Service hopes to secure this funding and 

would prepare itself accordingly, the Preserve 

may not receive enough funding to achieve all 

desired conditions within the time frame of 

the General Management Plan (the next 20 or 

more years). More information on costs is 

provided in the “Development of Cost 

Estimates” section and table 6.
86 

ALTERNATIVE F 

CONCEPT AND GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

Alternative F would emphasize resource 

preservation, restoration, and research while 

providing recreational opportunities with 

limited facilities and support. This alternative 

would provide the maximum amount of 

wilderness, no ORV use, and minimal new 

facilities for visitor contact along I-75. 

The approximate acreages and percentages of 

the Addition that would be in each of the 

management zones under alternative F are 

shown in table 5. 

TABLE 5: MANAGEMENT ZONES IN ALTERNATIVE F 

Zone Acreage 

% of 

Addition

Developed 15 < 1

Frontcountry 6 < 1

Backcountry 

Recreation 

3,422 2

Primitive 

Backcountry 

142,442 98

The management of the Addition and the 

actions that would be taken by the National 

Park Service in the next 20 years under 

alternative F are described in the following 

paragraphs. 

MOTORIZED RECREATIONAL 

OPPORTUNITIES — TRAILS AND 

PERMITS 

No ORV use would be available under this 

alternative. Motorized boating would 

continue to be permitted in certain areas of 

the canals and waterways adjacent to SR 29. 

No ORV permits would be granted and no 

trails would be designated because public 

recreational ORV use would not be allowed. 

ORV access to private property by inholders 

would continue to be allowed by special use 

permit. 

NONMOTORIZED 

RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 

New access points would be established, and 

trails would be developed for hiking, camping, 

bicycling, horseback riding, and walk-in 

hunting. Access points would be developed at 

mile markers 51 and 63 under the I-75 

Recreational Access Plan; however, access 

would be walk-in only. Some new hiking trails 

would be developed at frontcountry locations. 

New paddling trails would be developed in 

the tidal areas south of U.S. 41 in the Western 

Addition. Specific access points and facilities 

to support nonmotorized uses are described 

in the “Facilities” section. 

Conceptual hiking trails would be included as 

part of this alternative — one completing a 

north-south connection and one completing 

an east-west connection through the 

Addition. 

The National Park Service would work 

cooperatively with the Florida Trail 

Association to determine the appropriate 

access points and routing of the Florida 

National Scenic Trail to minimize conflicts 

between motorized and nonmotorized users. 

The trail would be formally designated. 

The National Park Service would work with 

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission and the U.S. Forest Service to 

provide hunting access, define hunting 

seasons, and develop hunting regulations that 

are consistent with both agencies’ policies and 

goals for the Addition. 
Alternative F 

87

VISITOR ORIENTATION 

AND EDUCATION 

Visitor information/orientation panels would 

be developed along I-75 under this alternative, 

as described in the “Facilities” section. 

WILDERNESS 

About 71,260 acres of land would be proposed 

for wilderness designation under this 

alternative, including the Everglades City area 

which would allow historic motorboating to 

continue within designated wilderness (see 

following map). 

NPS staff would work cooperatively with the 

state of Florida and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (and other appropriate federal, state, 

and local agencies) to ensure that the 

legislative act that formally designates 

wilderness in the Addition contains language 

that allows for effective management of exotic 

species, wildland and prescribed fire, and law 

enforcement activities. 

PARTNERSHIPS, 

PROGRAMS, AND ACTIVITIES 

No new partnerships, programs, or activities 

would be initiated for the Addition. 

FACILITIES 

I-75 Mile Marker 51 

A new access point (nonmotorized only) 

would be developed at this location that 

includes parking and visitor information. 

Visitor orientation and interpretation panels 

would also be installed. The National Park 

Service would establish a partnership with the 

Florida Department of Transportation and the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission to establish other facilities as 

appropriate, such as a wildlife check station 

and boat ramp to access the South Florida 

Water Management District canal. 

I-75 Mile Marker 63 

Using the Florida Department of 

Transportation rest area at this location, a new 

access point (nonmotorized only) would be 

developed that includes parking, a trailhead, 

and visitor information. Visitor orientation 

and interpretation panels would be installed. 

A new NPS operations facility would also be 

developed at this location. The National Park 

Service would establish a partnership with the 

Florida Department of Transportation and the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission to establish other facilities as 

appropriate, such as a wildlife check station. 

Bear Island Grade at SR 29 

A new trailhead and parking area would be 

developed at this location, providing nonmotorized access to the Bear Island Grade. 

Only hiking, bicycling, and horseback riding 

would be allowed on the trail within the 

Western Addition. Outside the Western 

Addition (in the original Preserve), ORV use 

would continue on the designated ORV trails 

in the Bear Island area. Visitor orientation and 

interpretation panels would also be installed 

at the trailhead. 

Nobles and Jones Grades 

These sites would remain undeveloped, and 

Nobles Grade would be removed and 

restored. Nonmotorized public access would 

remain on Jones Grade. 

Miles City (I-75 at SR 29) 

This intersection would remain undeveloped. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

88 

Deep Lake (SR 29) 

A new trailhead would be developed at this 

location, including a hiking trail/boardwalk to 

Deep Lake. 

Copeland (SR 29) 

The NPS Fire Operations Center would be 

maintained at this location and expanded as 

necessary for other NPS operational needs. 

Carnestown (U.S. 41 at SR 29) 

Facilities would be removed, and the site 

would be restored to natural conditions. 

ESTIMATED COSTS 

The NPS staffing level needed to implement 

alternative F would be the equivalent of 87 

full-time staff members (10 additional 

positions). These 10 additional positions (10 

full-time employees) would include 2 

permanent interpreters, 2 maintenance 

workers, 5 law enforcement rangers, and 1 

visitor use assistant. Volunteers and 

partnerships would continue to be key 

contributors to NPS operations. 

One-time capital costs of alternative F, 

including projects that are planned for the 

near future or are underway, new 

construction, and nonfacility costs such as 

major resource plans and projects, are 

estimated at $4.9 million. Annual operating 

costs under this alternative would be $7.5 

million. 

The cost estimates provided here are given for 

comparison to other alternatives only; they 

are not to be used for budgeting purposes. 

Although the numbers appear to be absolutes, 

they represent a midpoint in a possible range 

of costs. 

Presentation of these costs in this plan does 

not guarantee future NPS funding. Project 

funding would not come all at once; it would 

likely take many years to secure and may be 

provided by partners, donations or other 

nonfederal sources. Although the National 

Park Service hopes to secure this funding and 

would prepare itself accordingly, the Preserve 

may not receive enough funding to achieve all 

desired conditions within the timeframe of the 

General Management Plan (the next 20 or 

more years). More information on costs is 

provided in the “Development of Cost 

Estimates” section and table 6. 
Monroe

Station

Visitor Center

BIG CYPRESS SEMINOLE INDIAN RESERVATION

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENTDISTRICT WATER CONSERVATION AREA 3A

FLORIDA 

PANTHER

NATIONAL 

WILDLIFE

REFUGE

FAKAHATCHEE

STRAND

PRESERVE

STATE PARK

Sunniland

Jerome

Copeland

Miles City

Carnestown

Chokoloskee

Ochopee

Deep Lake

Rest Area

Dade-Collier

Training and

Transition Airport

BIG CYPRESS

NATIONAL PRESERVE

75

75

29

29

41

L-28 Interceptor Canal

FLORIDA STATE MICCOSUKEE 

INDIAN RESERVATION

Snake Road

Birdon

Road

Wagonwheel

Road

No 

access

MM 70 MM 63

MM 51

Turner River Road

Bear Island Grade

EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK

Plantation Island

Everglades City

Welcome 

Center

Preserve 

Headquarters

0 5 10

Miles

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service • DSC • October 2010 • 176 / 20079

Map 6 • Alternative F • Big Cypress National Preserve–Addition

General Management Plan

Legend

Preserve Boundary

Addition Boundary

Canal

Existing Access Point

Proposed Access Point

Frontcountry 

Primitive Backcountry 

Backcountry Recreation

Developed 

Proposed Wilderness

Conceptual Hiking Trail

Designated Primary ORV Trail

Unpaved Road

Existing Hiking Trail

91

DEVELOPMENT OF COST ESTIMATES 

NPS decision-makers and the public must 

consider an overall picture of the complete 

costs and advantages of various alternatives, 

including the no-action alternative, to make 

wise planning and management decisions for 

the Big Cypress National Preserve Addition. 

In estimating costs of the alternatives, 

different types of costs need to be taken into 

account, including one-time and annual 

operating costs. 

One-time costs include initial construction for 

new facility development (including NPS 

infrastructure costs) or for nonfacility costs 

related to natural and cultural resources 

management and visitor use projects. 

Annual operating costs are the total annual 

costs for maintenance and operations 

associated with each alternative, including 

maintenance, utilities, supplies, staff salaries 

and benefits, leasing, and other materials. 

The presentation of costs within a general 

management plan is applied to the types and 

general intensities of development in a 

comparative format. The following applies to 

costs presented within this general 

management plan: 

 The costs are presented as estimates and 

are not appropriate for budgeting 

purposes. 

 The cost estimates were developed in 

2008; they are very general and intended 

for alternative comparison purposes only. 

 The costs presented have been developed 

using industry standards to the extent 

available. 

 Actual costs will be determined at a later 

date and will take into consideration the 

design of facilities, identification of 

detailed resource protection needs, and 

changing visitor expectations. 

 Approval of the general management plan 

does not guarantee funding or staffing for 

proposed actions. 

 Project funding will not come all at once; 

it will likely take many years to secure and 

may be provided by partners, donations, 

or other nonfederal sources. 

 Some proposals may not be funded within 

the life of this General Management Plan

and full implementation may occur many 

years into the future. 

The implementation of the approved plan will 

depend on future funding. The approval of a 

plan does not guarantee that the funding 

needed to implement the plan will be forthcoming. Full implementation of the approved 

plan could be many years in the future or may 

not occur if funding is not obtained. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

92 

TABLE 6: COST COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A Alternative B 

Preferred 

Alternative Alternative F 

Annual Operating 

Costs (ONPS)1,6 $6,500,000 $7,900,000 $7,900,000 $7,500,000 

Staffing (FTE)2 77 for the Preserve 

No additional staff 

for the Addition 

93 for the Preserve 

16 of those FTEs 

(or 17 positions) 

are for the 

Addition 

93 for the Preserve 

16 of those FTEs 

(or 17 positions) 

are for the 

Addition 

87 for the Preserve 

10 of those 

FTEs/positions are 

for the Addition 

One-Time Costs 

Visitor Contact 

Station 0 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 0 

Operations Center 0 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,400,000 

Other Facility Costs4 0 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $900,000 

Nonfacility Costs5 0 0 0 $600,000 

Total One-Time 

Costs3

 $6,700,000 $6,700,000$ $4,900,000

Note: All cost estimates are in 2008 dollars. The total construction cost for the two I-75 recreational access 

points is estimated at $13.9 million. The state has $7.2 million approved for construction of the MM51 access 

point in 2011-2012 and has funds programmed for construction of the MM63 access point in 2017-2018. 

The access points are required by the Addition Act. 

1. Annual operating costs (ONPS) for the entire Preserve are the total costs per year for maintenance and 

operations associated with each alternative, including utilities, facility and trail maintenance, staff salaries, 

and benefits. Cost and staffing estimates assume that the alternative is fully implemented as described in 

the narrative. 

2. The total number of FTEs (full-time equivalent employees) is the number of person-years of staff required 

to maintain the assets of the Preserve and Addition at a good level, provide acceptable visitor services, 

protect resources, and generally support NPS operations. The FTE number indicates ONPS-funded NPS staff 

only, not volunteer positions or positions funded by partners. FTE salaries and benefits are included in the 

annual operating costs. 

3. The total one-time costs are the sum of all elements listed in the rows that precede the total. 

4. One-time facility costs include those for the design, construction, or rehabilitation of housing, ORV trails, 

campgrounds, trailheads, and day use areas. 

5. One-time nonfacility costs include removal of the Carnestown facilities and associated revegetation. 

6. These costs do not include research and monitoring efforts as identified later in table 8. 
93

THE ALTERNATIVES AND USER CAPACITY, ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT, 

ORV ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT, AND WILDERNESS 

User capacity, adaptive management, ORV 

administration and management, and wilderness topics discussed in this section are very 

much part of the action alternatives (B, 

preferred, and F) just described, and thus this 

management plan. They are presented separately because they apply to all action alternatives, although some applications vary by 

alternative — for example, the numbers of 

ORV trails and permits vary depending on the 

alternative. 

USER CAPACITY 

The National Park Service defines user 

capacity as the types and extent of visitor use 

that can be accommodated while sustaining 

the quality of resources and visitor 

opportunities consistent with the purposes of 

the park unit. It is a process involving 

planning, monitoring, and management 

actions to ensure that a park unit’s values are 

protected. 

Managing user capacity in national park units 

is inherently complex and depends not only 

on the number of visitors, but also on where 

they go, what they do, and the “footprints” 

they leave behind. In managing for user 

capacity, NPS staff rely on various management tools and strategies, rather than solely 

on regulating the number of people in a park 

unit or simply establishing limits on visitor 

use. In addition, the ever-changing nature of 

visitor use in park units requires a deliberate 

and adaptive approach to user capacity 

management. 

The foundations for making user capacity 

decisions in this plan are the Addition’s 

purpose, significance, special mandates, and 

management zones. These define why the 

Addition was established and identify the 

most important resources and values, 

including visitor experience opportunities, 

that will be protected or provided. The 

management zones qualitatively describe the 

desired resource conditions and visitor 

experiences, including appropriate recreation 

activities, for different locations throughout 

the Addition. These elements direct the 

National Park Service how to protect 

resources while offering a diversity of visitor 

opportunities. 

Based on the desired conditions described in 

the management zones, indicators and 

standards are identified in this plan. An 

indicator is a measurable variable that can be 

used to track changes in resource and social 

conditions related to human activity, so that 

existing conditions can be compared to 

desired conditions. A standard is the minimum acceptable condition for an indicator. 

The indicators and standards help translate 

the broader qualitative descriptions of desired 

conditions in the management zones into 

measurable conditions. As a result, NPS 

managers can track changes in resource conditions and visitor experiences, and provide a 

basis for the NPS staff to determine whether 

desired conditions are being met. The 

monitoring component of this process also 

helps test the effectiveness of management 

actions and provides a basis for informed 

adaptive management of visitor use. 

This plan also includes a range of actions that 

would be taken to maintain or restore desired 

conditions. For example, management actions 

may include providing information about low 

impact recreational use and the principles of 

“Leave No Trace” and “Tread Lightly”; 

directing visitors to designated facilities or 

areas; adding or altering facilities (e.g., trails, 

campsites) for containment of use to 

designated areas; directing visitors to lesserused areas or off-peak times; restricting the 

types of recreation activities permitted; and/or 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

94 

reducing the amount of visitor use in certain 

areas. 

With limited staffs and budgets, NPS managers will focus more frequently on areas where 

there are likely visitor use changes, and/or 

clear evidence of problems, or where problems can reasonably be anticipated during the 

life of this plan. This means monitoring will 

more frequently take place where conditions 

are approaching or violate standards, 

conditions are changing rapidly, specific and 

important values are threatened by visitation, 

and/or the effects of management actions 

taken to address impacts are uncertain. 

User capacity decision-making is a continuous 

process; decisions are adjusted based on 

monitoring the indicators and standards. 

Management actions are taken to minimize 

impacts when needed. As monitoring of the 

Addition’s conditions continues, managers 

might decide to modify, add, or eliminate 

indicators if better ways are found to measure 

important changes in resource and social 

conditions. Also, if new use-related resource 

or visitor experience concerns arise in the 

future, additional indicators and standards 

will be identified as needed to address these 

concerns. 

User capacity management for general visitor 

and ORV use in the Addition is addressed in 

different ways. Capacity management for 

general visitor use is grounded in the desired 

conditions for the management zones. NPS 

staff would monitor use levels and patterns 

and would conduct periodic visitor surveys of 

visitor characteristics, expectations, evaluations, and preferences ― as they do in the 

original Preserve. Certain indicators (see table 

7) would be used to monitor visitor use and 

experience as identified later in this chapter. 

The effectiveness of management actions 

would be tested against meeting the desired 

conditions. 

User capacity management for ORV use in the 

Addition would be guided by the elements 

and criteria included in the later “ORV 

Administration and Management” section of 

this chapter. This section includes indicators, 

standards, and management strategies that are 

designed to protect resources and enhance 

visitor experiences, including strategies to 

minimize and manage adverse impacts from 

motorized use ― such as vehicle regulations, 

user permit allocations, a monitoring 

program, and potential management actions 

that would be used to correct issues and 

minimize impacts on resources. The overall 

approach to user capacity for ORV use also 

includes adaptive management, which allows 

managers to base decisions on monitoring 

results. In addition, the committee charter for 

the original Preserve’s ORV Advisory 

Committee would be amended to include the 

Addition. This would enable the committee to 

work with the National Park Service on 

adopting and refining the indicators and 

standards over time. 

In summary, this General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Study / Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan addresses user capacity in 

the following ways: 

 The plan outlines the Addition’s purpose, 

significance, and management zones, 

which provide the foundation for user 

capacity management. 

 The plan describes the Addition’s most 

pressing use-related resource and visitor 

experience concerns. This helps NPS 

managers focus limited resources on 

specific issues that may need management 

attention now or into the future. It also 

helps determine the most important 

potential indicators and standards to 

consider. 
The Alternatives and User Capacity, Adaptive Management, ORV Administration and Management, and Wilderness 

95

TABLE 7: USER CAPACITY INDICATORS AND STANDARDS

Indicator Topic Indicator Measure What Does It 

Indicate?

Standard 

Change in 

population of 

prey species as a 

result of visitor 

use 

abundance and 

distribution; 

demographics 

change in population 

trend 

populations of prey species are maintained 

to satisfy sustainable predator needs* 

*Continued census of predator and prey 

species will be necessary to determine # of 

prey available/# of predators that will be 

seeking the prey. 

Change in 

population of 

game species as 

a result of visitor 

use 

abundance and 

distribution; 

demographics 

change in population 

trend 

populations of game species are maintained 

to satisfy sustainable harvest* 

* Continued census of game species and 

hunter success will be necessary to 

determine # of game species available for 

harvest as game and for predators. 

Change in 

population of 

T&E species/ 

species of management concern as a result 

of visitor use 

abundance and 

distribution; 

demographics 

change in population 

trend 

no adverse affects* 

*Further specificity on standards for 

population changes will be provided in the 

future hunting management plan. 

Monitoring of T&E populations will be 

conducted to determine if species’ status is 

stable, improving, or in decline. 

Surface Water 

Flow 

feet of elevation 

expressed in .00 of a 

foot mean sea level 

whether land use 

affecting natural 

surface water flow 

requires mitigation 

surface water flow is maintained* 

*The specific effects of visitor use will be 

determined as part of a problem analysis 

prior to taking corrective management 

action. 

Water Quality turbidity, total 

phosphorus, total 

nitrogen 

water quality change persistence of parameters greater than 

background relative to the Outstanding 

Florida Waters designation* 

* The specific effects of visitor use will be 

determined as part of a problem analysis 

prior to taking corrective management 

action. 

Change or 

measured 

difference from 

ambient soil 

conditions 

nitrogen, sodium, 

ammonium, pH, 

carbon, ion absorption, 

inorganic/organic soil 

composition 

change in soil 

chemistry or structure 

that affects its ability 

to maintain plant 

growth 

thresholds and parameters could vary, 

depending on the setting. Goal is to 

maintain background soil chemistry and 

structure* 

*The specific effects of visitor use will be 

determined as part of a problem analysis 

prior to taking corrective management 

action. 

Invasive plants, 

changes in plant 

communities 

% of plant densities, 

presence of individual 

nonnative or invasive 

plants 

potential distribution 

of nonnative or 

invasive plants by 

disturbance (ORVs, 

land development, 

backcountry use) 

Maintenance of native plant communities 

and eradication of invasive or nonnative 

plants resulting from land use. 

Incidences of 

disturbance to 

cultural 

resources 

number of incidences 

of disturbance to 

cultural resources per 

year 

trends in visitor 

behavior and 

compliance with 

Preserve rules/ 

regulations 

no (0) incidences of disturbance to cultural 

resources 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

96 

Indicator Topic Indicator Measure What Does It 

Indicate?

Standard 

Off-trail travel 

by motorized 

and nonmotorized users 

number of incidences* 

per winter/spring (i.e., 

high use) season of offtrail travel 

*Incidences = observed 

real-time occurrence of 

off-trail activity, as well 

as physical impact 

resulting from off-trail 

activity. 

vegetation loss, 

spread of invasive 

species, disruption to 

surface water flow, 

contact with sensitive 

resources, habitat 

fragmentation, 

noncompliance with 

Preserve 

rules/regulations 

no more than 6 incidences per winter/spring 

season of off-trail travel for either motorized 

or nonmotorized use 

Trail widening as 

a result of 

motorized and 

nonmotorized 

use 

number of occurrences 

per winter/spring (i.e., 

high use) season of 

motorized and 

nonmotorized trails 

exceeding a length of 

widening beyond the 

standard 

vegetation loss, 

spread of invasive 

species, disruption to 

surface water flow, 

contact with sensitive 

resources, habitat 

fragmentation, 

noncompliance with 

Preserve rules/ 

regulations 

no more than 6 occurrences per 

winter/spring season of motorized trails 

exceeding 36 feet wide for at least 50 linear 

feet 

no more than 6 occurrences per 

winter/spring season of nonmotorized trails 

exceeding 18 feet wide for at least 25 linear 

feet 

Documented 

visitor use 

related 

complaints or 

conflicts per area 

documented visitor use 

related complaints or 

conflicts between users 

per month for each 

management unit,* 

trail system, or visitor 

facility 

* N of I-75, S of I-75, 

and Western Addition 

potential user 

conflicts on trails or 

in specific areas 

5 per month per management unit, trail 

system, or visitor facility 

Documented 

visitor userelated 

complaints or 

conflicts for the 

Addition 

documented visitor 

use-related complaints 

or conflicts between 

users per year for the 

entire Addition 

potential user 

conflicts on trails or 

in specific areas 

25 per year for the Addition 

Documented 

violations 

number of 

documented violations 

(includes warnings, 

citations, or arrests) for 

noncompliance per 

month for each 

management unit, trail 

system, or access point 

compliance with 

designated trail policy 

and identification of 

specific areas of 

concern 

30 per month per management unit, trail 

system, or access point 

Number of 

groups 

encountered 

number of groups 

(hunting and nonhunting) encountered 

per hour in the 

Frontcountry zone 

crowding and use 

conflicts 

20 groups encountered per hour 

Number of 

groups 

encountered 

number of groups 

(hunting and nonhunting) encountered 

per day more than 1 

mile from access points 

in Backcountry 

Recreation zone 

crowding and use 

conflicts 

10 groups encountered per day more than 1 

mile from access points 
The Alternatives and User Capacity, Adaptive Management, ORV Administration and Management, and Wilderness 

97

Indicator Topic Indicator Measure What Does It 

Indicate?

Standard 

Number of 

groups 

encountered 

number of groups 

(hunting and nonhunting) encountered 

per day on trails in the 

Primitive Backcountry 

zone 

crowding and use 

conflicts 

6 groups encountered per day 

 The plan identifies the most important 

indicators that will be monitored and sets 

standards to determine if desired conditions are not being met due to impacts 

from visitor use. 

 The plan outlines management actions 

that might be used to avoid or minimize 

impacts from visitor use, especially ORV 

use. 

Resource Indicators and Standards 

The priority resource indicators for the Addition are associated with the following issues: 

 disturbance of wildlife 

 impacts on surface water flow and water 

quality 

 changes to ambient soil conditions and 

vegetation patterns 

 disturbances to cultural resources 

The condition of these resources is already 

being monitored and managed in various 

ways, but the indicators described below 

would help the NPS staff track specific 

influences to these resources as a result of 

visitor use. 

The following information describes the 

nature of potential impacts to the resource 

topics mentioned above and discusses some of 

the management strategies that would be used 

to reduce or mitigate these impacts. Additional specific management strategies are 

described in the “ORV Administration and 

Management” section. 

The Addition is home to a number of 

important prey and game species, as well as 

threatened and endangered species and 

species of management concern. These 

various wildlife species can be sensitive to 

activities associated with visitor use, particularly ORV use and hunting. Visitor use of the 

Addition could affect the quality of habitat 

preferred by these species, directly disturb 

individual animals, change behavior, and 

reduce foraging opportunities. These impacts 

could lead to changes in population trends 

such as the abundance, distribution, and 

demographics of individual species. Minimizing the extent and severity of impact on wildlife has been the focus of ongoing management strategies, including educating visitors 

on low-impact recreation practices and 

regulating the amount of use permitted. The 

indicators and standards included in table 7 

would encourage the use of adaptive management to help reduce influences from visitor 

use on wildlife. The goal of these efforts 

would be to maintain prey species to satisfy 

sustainable predator needs and maintain game 

species to support sustainable harvest. In 

addition, management activities would be 

focused on ensuring no adverse effects on 

threatened and endangered species and 

species of management concern. 

Water was named as a prime resource in the 

Addition’s enabling legislation. Visitor use can 

affect surface water flow, particularly through 

the displacement of soils that may change 

water flow patterns and directions. Also, 

visitor use, such as ORV use, hiking, biking, 

horseback riding, and camping, can cause soil 

erosion and generate contaminants that would 

affect turbidity and surface water quality. The 

indicators and standards for surface water 

flow and water quality would be used to 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

98 

ensure that management efforts are effectively 

maintaining natural surface water flow 

patterns and that changes to water quality stay 

within the parameters required by the 

Outstanding Florida Waters designation. 

Protecting soils and vegetation is key to maintaining the ecological integrity of the Addition. Several indicators related to potential 

influences of visitor use on soils and vegetation are included in table 7. Visitor use activities such as hiking, biking, and horseback 

riding, and particularly ORV use, may lead to 

some rutting and displacement of soils, as well 

as soil compaction and erosion. These types 

of impacts can lead to soil loss and reduced 

productivity of soils. In addition, visitor use 

can influence vegetation by changing vegetation composition or causing the loss of vegetation. Indicators and standards related to 

impacts on soils and vegetation from visitor 

use include a change in ambient soil conditions, incidences of off-trail travel, trail 

widening, and the presence and distribution 

of nonnative or invasive plants. Management 

efforts would be focused on minimizing both 

the extent and severity of impacts on soils and 

vegetation from visitor use. The standard for 

trail widening varies by type of trail given the 

desire to maintain nonmotorized trails to a 

smaller design standard than motorized trails. 

Visitor use impacts on cultural resources 

include unintentional disturbances and 

vandalism to archeological resources and 

ethnographic resources. Many cultural 

resources are nonrenewable, so impacts 

(especially those resulting from disrespectful 

behavior) must be minimized to the extent 

possible. The indicator and standard for 

disturbance to cultural resources would be 

used to ensure that cultural resources in the 

Addition would not be affected by visitor use 

activities. Management strategies would 

include visitor education and enforcement of 

regulations, and closure of particularly 

vulnerable areas would be considered, if 

needed. 

 

Visitor Experience 

Indicators and Standards 

The priority visitor experience indicators for 

the Addition are associated with the following 

issues: 

 crowding, measured by encounter rates 

between visitor groups 

 compliance with regulations 

 visitor complaints 

Similar to the resource indicators, visitors’ 

opportunities and related experiences in the 

Preserve are already being monitored and 

managed in various ways, but the indicators 

described below would help NPS staff track 

these specific issues more systematically to 

ensure that desired conditions are being 

achieved. 

Visitors to the Addition would be seeking 

opportunities for solitude, contemplation of 

nature, and enjoyment of their chosen 

recreation activity in a relatively independent 

manner. Crowding and conflicts can be of 

particular concern for such visitors. An indicator of the number of other visitor groups 

encountered was identified as an important 

measure of crowding. Because visitors expect 

to see fewer people in a backcountry setting 

versus the frontcountry, the standard for this 

indicator was set at a lower level in the primitive backcountry and backcountry recreation 

zones, with no more than 6 or 10 groups 

encountered per day, respectively. The 

frontcountry zone standard would be higher, 

at 20 groups encountered per hour, because 

most visitors would expect to see a higher 

volume of people in these areas and the 

congregation of people around access points 

is unavoidable. 

Failure to adhere to regulations for trail 

policies and permit conditions can also lead to 

crowding or conflict between users. NPS staff 

would monitor an indicator related to permit 

compliance. The standard would ensure that 

most visitors comply with trail policy and 
The Alternatives and User Capacity, Adaptive Management, ORV Administration and Management, and Wilderness 

99

permit conditions to minimize conflicts with 

other visitors. NPS staff would use management strategies such as education on regulations, encouraging use at less busy times, and 

regular enforcement to maintain high levels of 

permit compliance. 

NPS staff would also continue to track and 

evaluate visitor comments that may indicate 

problems associated with crowding, use 

conflicts, or violations of regulations. These 

problems may affect visitors’ ability to experience high quality recreation opportunities and 

could, on occasion, affect visitor health and 

safety. If complaints exceed the established 

standard, or trends indicate a problem area, 

appropriate management actions would be 

taken to mitigate the problem. 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

Within the context of ORV management at 

the Addition, the adaptive management 

framework was first described in the 2000

Recreational ORV Management Plan. That 

plan described a decision-making framework 

that was based on evaluating impacts, 

increasing the understanding of resource 

dynamics, and adjusting management actions 

to meet objectives. Since that time, the U.S. 

Department of the Interior (DOI) has 

developed guidance on adaptive management 

and how to apply it to federal land management decisions. The Adaptive Management 

Technical Guide (Williams et al. 2007) uses the 

National Research Council’s definition of 

adaptive management: 

[A] decision process that promotes flexible decision making that can be 

adjusted in the face of uncertainties as 

outcomes from management actions 

and other events become better understood. Careful monitoring of these 

outcomes both advances scientific 

understanding and helps adjust policies 

or operations as part of an iterative 

learning process. Adaptive management 

also recognizes the importance of 

natural variability in contributing to 

ecological resilience and productivity. It 

is not a “trial and error” process, but 

rather emphasizes learning while doing. 

Adaptive management does not represent an end in itself, but rather a means 

to more effective decisions and 

enhanced benefits. Its true measure is in 

how well it helps meet environmental, 

social, and economic goals, increases 

scientific knowledge, and reduces 

tensions among stakeholders. 

The Technical Guide describes adaptive 

management as a systematic approach for 

improving resource management by learning 

from management outcomes. Figure 1 below 

illustrates the adaptive management process. 

FIGURE 1: DIAGRAM OF THE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

PROCESS

The adaptive management framework 

included in the 2000 Recreational ORV 

Management Plan is compatible with current 

DOI guidance. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

100 

ORV ADMINISTRATION 

AND MANAGEMENT 

ORV Administration 

Administration and management of ORV use 

(the ORV program) for the Addition would be 

the same as it is in the original Preserve, with a 

few exceptions. 

 Only wheeled mechanized use would be 

allowed on designated trails in the 

Addition. 

 No public recreational airboat use 

would be allowed in the Addition 

because no public access can be 

provided to areas that would be 

appropriate for airboat use. 

Furthermore, this is consistent with 

other closures in the original Preserve 

and adjacent Everglades National Park. 

 The motorized boating that occurred 

historically would be allowed to 

continue in the Everglades City area. 

Other exceptions are discussed below, where 

necessary, and include topics such as the 

number of vehicle permits. 

Vehicle Types and Specifications. It is the 

intent of the National Park Service to establish 

vehicle specifications that protect the 

Addition’s resources while providing for 

reasonable recreational access. Vehicle 

specifications for the Addition would be the 

same as what is currently in place for the 

original Preserve. 

The following vehicle types are authorized for 

use in the Addition: swamp buggies, allterrain cycles, and street-legal 4x4s. Vehicles 

are currently required to meet the following 

specifications. 

 Vehicle width and length: 

 Wheeled vehicles could not 

exceed 8.0 feet in total width, 

including tires. 

 Noise control: 

 All wheeled vehicles would be 

required to have a muffler in good 

working condition and in constant 

operation. 

 Other ORV equipment: 

 All ORV mechanical systems 

important for safe operation must 

be in good operating condition. 

 Tires on all buggies and streetlegal vehicles must have a 

minimum of 9 inches of tread face. 

 On all-terrain cycles, the minimum 

tire tread face requirement would 

be 7 inches in the front and 9 

inches in the rear. 

 Any device used to push aside, 

shear off, or otherwise damage 

vegetation would be prohibited. 

 Any tire chain, bar grip, or other 

device affixed to a tire in any way 

would be prohibited. 

 All tracked vehicles would 

continue to be prohibited. 

These vehicle specifications were established 

in the Final Recreational Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan / Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (NPS 2000). The 

criteria used to develop these specifications 

were based on the best available information 

and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 

Vehicle types are defined in 36 CFR 7. The 

vehicle specifications contained in the 2000 

plan as shown above would be adopted by this 

General Management Plan and would be 

common to all alternatives except alternatives 

A and F where ORV use for the general public 

would not be allowed. 

NPS staff would continuously evaluate ORV 

equipment and its effects on resources and the 

visitor experience. If it was determined that 

certain ORV equipment was causing unacceptable impacts, ORV equipment specifications would be modified and the NPS would 

promulgate regulations accordingly. 
The Alternatives and User Capacity, Adaptive Management, ORV Administration and Management, and Wilderness 

101

NPS staff would continue to research vehicle 

specifications to refine them to mitigate 

resource damage. Based on research results, 

limits could be established in the future for a 

number of vehicle characteristics, such as 

overall weight, tire size, tire type, noise, and 

ground-bearing pressure (measured in weight 

per unit area, such as pounds per square inch). 

Vehicle Inspection Program. The vehicle 

inspection program for the Addition would be 

operated the same as it is in the original 

Preserve. Vehicles would be required to meet 

specifications for that particular type of 

vehicle (all-terrain cycle, swamp buggy, or 

street-legal four-wheel-drive vehicle) before 

being eligible for a permit. Each vehicle would 

have to pass an inspection conducted by the 

National Park Service. 

Vehicle inspections would result in a sticker 

that designated the vehicle as having met 

vehicle specification and safety requirements. 

This sticker would identify the vehicle over 

time. The inspection number would be 

included in a computer database and would 

stay with the vehicle for the entire time it was 

under the same ownership. Possession of an 

inspection sticker would mean only that the 

vehicle was eligible for the vehicle permit 

drawing and would not, by itself, allow for use 

of the vehicle in the Addition. 

ORV owners would be encouraged to have 

their vehicles inspected between October 1 

and November 30, before the drawing. This 

would allow the ORV owner to be ready to 

participate in the drawing. 

NPS staff would affix inspection stickers as 

follows: 

 swamp buggy — steering column 

 street legal — inside the driver’s door 

 all-terrain cycle — center of steering 

mechanism 

The free inspection sticker would be valid for 

a three-year period, and then the vehicle 

would need to be reinspected and a 

revalidated sticker would be obtained. 

Number of Vehicle Permits. The ORV 

program for the Addition would be managed 

much the same as it is in the original Preserve. 

However, a total of three permits would be 

required: an ORV permit (specific to the 

Addition), an ORV operator’s permit, and a 

backcountry use permit. Users who already 

have a permit for the original Preserve wishing 

to access the Addition would also be required 

to have a separate permit for the Addition. 

The number of vehicle permits issued for the 

Addition would depend on the alternative 

selected. A maximum number of permits has 

been established for each alternative. The 

maximum number of permits established 

under alternative B (660) and the preferred 

alternative (650) is based on the ratio of 

vehicle permits to trail miles in the original 

Preserve (2,000 permits:400 miles or 5:1), 

where the ORV management program has 

been successful based on management 

experience and associated monitoring. Under 

the preferred alternative, the number of initial 

permits issued would be based on the initial 

extent of primary ORV trails included times 

five. For example, if 20 miles of sustainable 

trail were designated as part of the initial trail 

network, then 100 permits (20 miles x 5 

permits/mile = 100 permits) would be 

released. Additional permits would be phased 

in as monitoring results indicate that resource 

conditions are acceptable and additional trails 

are designated. 

Allocation of Vehicle Permits. The allocation of vehicle permits would be as it is for the 

original Preserve. A random drawing would be 

held each December for the opportunity to 

obtain a permit. Permits would be valid from 

January 1 of each year through January 31 of 

the following year. This 13-month permit 

would allow for a month grace period to 

obtain a new permit, should the owner be 

successful in the drawing the previous year. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

102 

Announcement of the drawing would be sent 

out each October by letter to all permit 

holders and by press release. For the first year 

of Addition permits, all holders of permits for 

the original Preserve would be notified about 

the drawing. In subsequent years, only holders 

of permits for the Addition would continue to 

be notified. Cards for the drawing would be 

sent with announcement letters and would 

also be available at the Addition. Cards would 

also be given to those who had their vehicles 

inspected during the 13 months from October 

1 to November 30. During the first year of 

implementation, drawing cards would be 

filled out at the time of inspection. Drawing 

cards would be due into the permit station or 

postmarked by November 30. 

The system would be designed to provide an 

opportunity for each vehicle owner, regardless of how many vehicles they may own, to 

receive at least one ORV permit unless the 

total number of individual owners exceeded 

the maximum number of permits available. 

More than one permit per person would be 

available if the initial drawing resulted in 

fewer permit requests than was available. A 

maximum of five permits would be allowed 

per individual. A waiting list would be 

developed to reassign permits not claimed by 

January 31. 

Successful drawing participants would be 

notified immediately after the drawing and 

would be required to purchase their permit by 

mail or in person before January 31. If the 

individual failed to purchase the permit by 

that date, the permit would go to the next 

person on the waiting list. 

The owner would have the option of placing 

the purchased permit on any of the vehicles 

that were entered in the drawing. However, 

because the vehicle inspection number would 

be on the permit, the owner would have to 

specify the vehicle at the time of permit purchase. Permits would be permanently fixed to 

the vehicle and would be nontransferable. In 

each subsequent year, the vehicle owner 

would be required to reapply for the drawing, 

but could do so by mail unless an inspection 

was due. 

Fees. The recreational ORV special use 

permit for the Addition would initially cost 

$50.00 per year — a separate fee from that for 

the original Preserve. ORV inspections, ORV 

operator’s permits, and backcountry use 

permits would continue to be free. Funds 

generated from the vehicle permits would be 

applied toward such costs as permit printing, 

administration of the drawing, education 

program materials, and operating the ORV 

permit system. Although the cost of the permit 

is supposed to offset the cost of administering 

the ORV program, the fee would actually pay 

only a small portion of the program costs. The 

fee could be changed. 

Special Use Permit for Private Property 

Owners. Access for owners of private property within the Addition would be permitted, 

the same as it is in the original Preserve. 

Legislation, laws, and regulations do not 

provide right of access via off-road vehicles 

unless an exempt property owner has legal 

right-of-way or preexisting access rights. 

Owners of improved private property within 

the Addition would be issued a free special use 

permit that would allow them reasonable 

access to and from their private property. The 

special use permit would authorize them to 

cross federal lands to access their property via 

a reasonably direct route. In most cases, the 

property access trail would be limited to use 

by the landowner. The property access route 

would be 

 resource-protection based 

 described in detail on the permit 

 determined by the National Park 

Service in consultation with the 

landowner 

The special use permit would not be included 

in the number of recreational ORV permits 

allocated annually. However, it also would not 
The Alternatives and User Capacity, Adaptive Management, ORV Administration and Management, and Wilderness 

103

allow for recreational ORV use in the 

Addition. If landowners wanted to recreate 

with an off-road vehicle within the Addition, 

they would have to participate in the annual 

drawing for vehicle permits. If they did not 

draw vehicle permits, landowners would be 

restricted to using their off-road vehicles on 

their private property and on the access route 

specified on their special use permit. 

Owners of private properties would not be 

allowed to enter the Addition on off-road 

vehicles from any point along their property 

boundary. They would have to use a 

designated access point. 

Special use permit holders would have to meet 

all of the other requirements for ORV use in 

the Addition. This would include, but not be 

limited to, holding a valid ORV operator 

permit for the Addition, meeting all vehicle 

specifications, completing the education 

course, and complying with all rules and 

regulations relating to recreational ORV use in 

the Addition. 

Administrative ORV Use. Administrative 

ORV use by NPS staff, its agency partners, and 

cooperators would be the same as it is in the 

original Preserve except that ORV access into 

proposed or designated wilderness would be 

subject to the minimum requirements process. 

ORV access and use by researchers would be 

addressed through issuance of a research 

permit. ORV access and use by oil and gas 

operators or other contractors would be 

addressed through an approved operations 

plan. 

ORV Management 

Methods for Determining Sustainable 

Trails. To develop a conceptual ORV trail 

system for the Addition, NPS staff first 

mapped the locations of existing roads, trails, 

and other disturbed areas in the Addition. 

Staff used available maps, aerial photographs, 

and global positioning system equipment to 

locate roads and trails in the field and produce 

a map of potentially sustainable ORV trails 

(see Map 7: Conceptual ORV Trails map). 

A sustainable trail is defined as a travel surface 

that can support currently planned and future 

uses with minimal impact to the natural 

systems of the area. Sustainable trails have 

negligible soil loss or movement and allow 

naturally occurring plant communities to

inhabit the area; however, pruning, removal 

of certain plants, and stabilization over time 

may be required to accommodate recreational 

use. Sustainable trails should not adversely 

affect the naturally occurring hydrology, flora, 

and fauna. Sustainable trail design accommodates existing and future uses while only 

allowing appropriate uses. 

The GMP planning team conducted field 

investigations (see Map 7: Conceptual ORV 

Trails) to determine which roads and trails 

could sustain ORV use. The following information was collected to help determine trail 

sustainability: 

 vegetation and soil type 

 trail width 

 level of use 

 the presence of ruts, water, exotic 

plants, trail improvements, and rare or 

protected species 

The data were then consolidated to produce a 

map of sustainable trails that served as the 

basis for the conceptual trail systems that are 

included in the alternatives. 

Of the 244 miles of trail assessed in the 

Addition, approximately 135 miles of primary 

ORV trails were considered sustainable and 

potentially usable as part of a conceptual ORV 

trail system (see Map 7: Conceptual ORV 

Trails). 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

104 

ORV Access Points and Trails. 

Access Points — As described earlier in the 

description of the alternatives, the number 

and type of designated ORV access points 

in the Addition varies by alternative. Each 

alternative includes a description of the 

locations, parking, types of vehicles 

allowed, and facilities that would be 

available at each access point. 

ORV Trails — ORV trails would be 

designated within the Addition, and the 

location and number of miles of trails 

would also vary by alternative. Each 

alternative includes a map that identifies 

the conceptual location of the primary 

ORV trails within the Addition as well as 

the total miles of designated primary trails 

available. The trail mileage is based on the 

conceptual alignments of the sustainable 

trails previously identified. Trails would be 

designated for specific vehicle types. 

Primary trails would be those trails 

emanating from the designated access 

points and providing recreational access 

within the Addition. Primary trails would 

be maintained at an appropriate width and 

at grade so that they would not inhibit 

surface water flow. Trails that require 

stabilization are typically designed and 

maintained to be approximately 12 feet 

wide. 

Secondary trails would be identified to 

provide access to private property or 

specific destinations such as campsites or 

other recreational opportunities. Like the 

primary network, secondary trail alignments would be based on field surveys and 

GIS analyses. Secondary trails would 

branch off the primary trails and would 

receive less use. Secondary trails for accessing features such as designated campsites, 

hunting areas, or other recreational use 

areas would extend for a short distance 

from the primary trail. Trails accessing a 

private property would be limited to use by 

that landowner if no other destination 

existed along that route. 

The ORV trail system would be sited 

within an approximate 0.5-mile wide 

corridor (approximately 0.25 mile on 

either side of the primary trail) that would 

contain primary trails as well as secondary 

trails. This corridor would provide enough 

flexibility for siting the primary and 

secondary trails, as well as provide for 

future trail relocation, if necessary. 

 

Closure of Areas. Recreational ORV use 

would be permitted only on designated trails 

within the Addition. All other areas of the 

Addition would be closed to ORV use under 

the authority of 36 CFR. 

To protect resources and to ensure visitor 

safety a series of regular closures would be 

implemented for the Addition. These closures 

are similar to the actions that have been implemented in the original Preserve and include 

the following: 

Nightly Closures — Recreational ORV use 

would be prohibited throughout the 

Addition between 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. 

Seasonal Closures — A seasonal 60-day 

period would be established to allow 

resources a time free from any pressures 

related to ORV use. This moratorium on 

ORV use would not apply to landowners 

who hold special use permits to access 

their private properties via a designated 

route through the Addition. The optimal 

time for the seasonal rest period would be 

determined by research. 

In addition to these regular closures, the 

National Park Service may need to institute 

occasional closures of the designated trail 

system to ORV travel. These would include, 

but not be limited to, the following: 

Safety Closures — Safety closures would 

be implemented in all or portions of the 
Monroe

Station

Visitor Center

BIG CYPRESS SEMINOLE INDIAN RESERVATION

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENTDISTRICT WATER CONSERVATION AREA 3A

FLORIDA 

PANTHER

NATIONAL 

WILDLIFE

REFUGE

FAKAHATCHEE

STRAND

PRESERVE

STATE PARK

Sunniland

Jerome

Copeland

Miles City

Carnestown

Plantation Island

Chokoloskee

Ochopee

Everglades 

City

Deep Lake

Rest Area

Preserve 

Headquarters

Dade-Collier

Training and

Transition Airport

BIG CYPRESS

NATIONAL PRESERVE

75

75

29

29

41

L-28 Interceptor Canal

FLORIDA STATE MICCOSUKEE 

INDIAN RESERVATION

Snake Road

Birdon

Road

Wagonwheel

Road

No 

access

MM 70 MM 63

Turner River Road

Bear Island Grade

Recreation Access Point

(access on foot only)

EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK

MM

51

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service • DSC • October 2010 • 176 / 20079

Map 7 • Conceptual ORV Trails

Big Cypress National Preserve–Addition

General Management Plan

Legend

Preserve Boundary

Addition Boundary

Canal

Existing Access Point

Designated Primary ORV Trail

Sustainable Primary ORV Trail

Assessed Trail

Unpaved Road

Existing Hiking Trail

0 5 10

Miles

The Alternatives and User Capacity, Adaptive Management, ORV Administration and Management, and Wilderness 

107

Addition to ensure the protection of 

visitors. Safety closures primarily would be 

related to environmental conditions such 

as high fire danger or threats from 

hurricanes. 

Resource Protection Closures — All or 

portions of the designated trail system 

could be closed to ensure protection of 

Preserve resources. These would include, 

but not be limited to, the following: 

High and Low Water Events. 

Closures could be implemented for 

extreme high- or low-water events. 

High-water conditions place demands 

on the Preserve’s terrestrial wildlife 

(Jansen 1996). Low water can also 

represent high fire danger. Therefore, 

the National Park Service would use 

the closure criteria and methodology 

developed in 2006 (“Criteria for OffRoad Vehicle and Hunting Access 

within Big Cypress National Preserve 

in Response to Surface Water Levels”) 

for resource protection in the 

Addition and would temporarily close 

areas when those criteria were met. 

The 2006 document states 

High water closures would be 

implemented within a management unit when a two-week 

average of daily water levels 

observed within that unit 

reaches or exceeds the xeric 

water level threshold listed in 

table 1 of that document. Access 

to the closed management unit 

would be reopened when a twoweek average of daily water 

levels was less than or equal to 

the mesic water level threshold 

for that management unit.

 

Preservation of Threatened and 

Endangered Species. Under the 

Endangered Species Act, the National 

Park Service has an obligation to 

protect federally listed threatened and 

endangered species. If the National 

Park Service, in consultation with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

determines that ORV use might result 

in adverse effects on listed species, 

area closures might be implemented. 

Such closures could be seasonal or 

permanent, depending on the nature 

of the adverse effects. Under the 

adaptive management framework, 

additional closures might be 

implemented where monitoring shows 

adverse environmental impacts.

Criteria for closing areas to protect threatened 

and endangered wildlife would include, but 

may not be limited to, the following: 

 Wood stork — determination that a 

designated trail was within the 

distances stated for different habitat 

types and sites described in the 

“Habitat Management Guidelines for 

the Wood Stork in the Southeast 

Region” (USFWS 1990). The National 

Park Service will use the most current 

version of this guideline. 

 Red-cockaded woodpecker — 

determination that a designated trail 

was within 200 feet of an active cavity 

tree (Hendry 1989). 

 Florida panther — determination that 

a designated trail was within 0.5 mile 

of a den. The National Park Service 

established this buffer distance based 

on the data and information included 

in the Janis and Clark (1999) study. 

Education and Communication. Education 

and communication about the ORV management program for the Addition would be the 

same as it is for the original Preserve. To 

protect resources and provide a safe operating 

environment, the following types of 

information would be given to ORV users: 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

108 

 an orientation to the Addition, the 

mission of the National Park Service, 

and the geography of the area 

 a review of the rules and regulations 

governing ORV use in the Addition 

 safety procedures for operating an offroad vehicle in the Addition 

 introduction to the designated access 

points and trails 

 resource sensitivity, including staying 

on designated trails, low-impact 

camping techniques, and wildlife 

awareness 

 details of the permit process, including 

how to apply and the privileges and 

responsibilities of the permit holder 

 awareness of previous adverse effects, 

how they occurred, ways the new 

ORV management system mitigates 

past effects, and what is being done to 

restore areas 

This information would be provided through 

any or all of the following: 

 an ORV user’s guide, with map 

 an operator’s orientation that would 

be required as a prerequisite to 

obtaining an ORV operator’s permit 

 an Internet page specifically for ORV 

users 

 posting on the bulletin boards at each 

access point 

All materials would be designed to be easily 

understood. They would be easily adapted to 

changing management strategies and flexible 

enough to incorporate new materials as 

research revealed additional information on 

operating techniques. NPS staff, subjectmatter experts, and local recreational ORV 

users would be sources of information for the 

materials. 

Rules and Enforcement. The Secretary of 

the Interior is authorized to designate, pursuant to standards prescribed in regulations by 

the secretary, 

certain officers or employees of the 

Department of the Interior whom shall 

maintain law and order and protect 

persons and property within areas of 

the national park system. The Secretary 

of the Interior shall make and publish 

such rules and regulations, as he may 

deem necessary or proper for the use 

and management of the parks, 

monuments, and reservations under the 

jurisdiction of the national park system 

(16 USC). 

ORV rules for the Addition would be the same 

as those for the original Preserve, which are 

published in Code of Federal Regulations (36 

CFR 7.86). In general, these include 

 using only designated access points 

and trails 

 staying out of closed areas 

 having all required licenses and 

permits 

 meeting all applicable vehicle 

specifications and training 

requirements 

To facilitate compliance with regulations, the 

National Park Service would publish and 

distribute an ORV user’s handbook, which 

would be updated as needed. 

Enforcement of ORV rules for the Addition 

would be the same as in the original Preserve. 

NPS rangers would regularly conduct ground 

and aerial patrols of the Addition, visiting the 

access points, and traveling the designated 

trails to determine compliance. 

As provided by law, a person convicted of 

violating a provision of the regulations within 

the Addition could be punished by a fine, by 

imprisonment, or both, and could be 

adjudged to pay all costs of the proceedings 

(36 CFR 1.3). ORV operators who did not 

comply with Addition rules or permit 
The Alternatives and User Capacity, Adaptive Management, ORV Administration and Management, and Wilderness 

109

requirements could also have their permits 

suspended or revoked, could be required to 

pay restitution for damages caused to the 

resources, could be subject to seizure of their 

vehicle and other property used during the 

offense, and could be banned from applying 

for an ORV permit for a specified period. It 

would continue to be the responsibility of the 

user to know and follow all rules and 

regulations that apply to the Addition. 

Monitoring. Monitoring of potential impacts 

from ORV use in the Addition would be conducted using the indicators and standards 

included previously in table 7 (page 95). These 

indicator topics were selected based on their 

ease of measuring important changes to 

resource conditions and visitor experiences. 

Additions and improvements to these indicators would be made based on experience 

gained in implementing this plan, including 

revisions to the unit of measurement used for 

each indicator topic. 

Standards would be identified for each of the 

indicators to define minimum acceptable 

conditions and establish a trigger mechanism 

for management action. The standards 

included in table 7 are a starting point and 

would be further developed and refined with 

the assistance of interested federal agencies 

and the Preserve’s ORV Advisory Committee. 

The scope of the ORV Advisory Committee 

would be expanded to include the Addition. 

Once adopted, the indicators and standards 

would be periodically reevaluated as the 

National Park Service collects additional data. 

The National Park Service would continue to 

consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

regarding potential impacts to federally listed 

species and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection regarding research on 

water quality impacts from off-road vehicles. 

Methods of Monitoring. Monitoring for 

most of the indicators (including water 

resources, soils and vegetation, compliance, 

and cultural resources) would be performed 

along or near the trails and access points 

designated for use by off-road vehicles and 

would be designed to determine whether 

management actions were needed. Monitoring for wildlife would cover a larger area and 

would be part of the Preserve’s and Addition’s 

larger wildlife research and monitoring program. The optimal frequency of monitoring 

would be determined as part of the adaptive 

management approach. The monitoring 

results would be used to help NPS managers 

identify important trends and, along with 

professional judgment, select appropriate 

management actions. 

Monitoring protocols and techniques would 

be developed following the approval of this 

plan. Monitoring would be conducted during 

routine field activities by NPS staff specifically 

assigned to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the user capacity monitoring 

program. 

Management Actions 

To protect Addition resources, if monitoring 

indicated that standards had been exceeded 

based on the indicators and standards 

described in table 7, the National Park Service 

would implement management actions. The 

management actions could include, but would 

not be limited to, trail closures, trail relocation, trail maintenance, and alteration of the 

level or type of use on the trail. A description 

of these management actions is presented 

below. The course of action would be based 

on problem analysis, including such factors as 

the degree of the problem, the location of the 

trail, experience at other similar sites, 

consultation with experts, and the 

professional judgment of NPS staff. 

 trail/area closures — Closures could be 

implemented immediately if a trail 

exceeded the standards for any of the 

trail-related indicators in table 7. The 

National Park Service would use problem analysis to evaluate the situation 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

110 

and to determine if problems could be 

corrected to allow recreational use to 

continue. If the trail problem could not 

be corrected, the closure would be made 

permanent, and the trail/area would be 

restored. 

 trail relocation — This option would 

be used when trail degradation was 

occurring and more suitable routes were 

available that would resolve unsuitable 

conditions. When trails were relocated, 

the original trail would be restored. The 

new trail locations would be based on 

the geographic information system 

suitability model and professional 

judgment of NPS staff. 

 trail maintenance — Maintenance 

would be used to stabilize or improve 

trails that were degrading. Maintenance 

would be conducted so that any 

improvements did not cause further 

adverse impacts on resources (for 

example, impede sheet flow). Maintenance activities would use methods 

and materials that were compatible with 

the surroundings. 

 alter levels or types of trail use — This 

option would be used if the National 

Park Service determined that trail degradation was being caused by a particular 

type of ORV or by excessive use. As part 

of this action, the National Park Service 

may implement a program to further 

regulate use at access points for 

resource protection and/or visitor 

safety. 

 education — Educate the public on the 

impacts and effects of their actions and 

encourage them to alter their behavior. 

This technique would be used in 

advance, or in combination with, the 

other management actions. 

It would not be necessary or desirable to bring 

rough routes up to a filled-roadway standard. 

Stabilization and improvement methods 

would be chosen based on their ability to 

reverse existing impacts and prevent 

additional deterioration. For example, 

 Existing filled roads or trams (an 

elevated causeway or travel corridor) 

would be maintained as roads, where 

appropriate. Where existing filled trams 

or roads were used for designated trails, 

water conveyance structures would be 

maintained to allow water flow. 

 Trails would be improved at the natural 

grade so that water flow was not 

compromised. Trails would not be 

improved to such a standard as to make 

a trail easy or to encourage a higher level 

of ORV use than would occur in the 

absence of such improvements. 

Standard trail stabilization would typically 

include the use of lime rock fill supplemented 

by geotextile and geowebbing. The goal would 

be to determine the most appropriate 

methods of stabilization at each type of site 

based on site characteristics. Consistent with 

the adaptive management framework, recommendations for management actions would be 

continually updated as better information 

became available. 

Whenever management actions involved 

dredging or filling of wetlands, the National 

Park Service would consult with the agencies 

involved in regulating activities in wetlands. 

Appropriate permits, such as Section 404 

permits under the Clean Water Act, would be 

obtained as necessary. 

Restoration. The National Park Service 

would restore areas that had been impacted by 

off-road vehicles in the Addition using the 

same approach and techniques that were 

developed for the original Preserve in the 

2000 Recreational ORV Management Plan. 

NPS staff would seek to return areas impacted 

by ORV traffic to their desired condition and 

monitor the success of those recovery 

activities. This section briefly describes the 

approach that was included in the 2000 plan. 
The Alternatives and User Capacity, Adaptive Management, ORV Administration and Management, and Wilderness 

111

Restoration is defined as the “return of an 

ecosystem to a close approximation of its 

condition prior to disturbance” (National 

Research Council 1992). The NPS staff would 

seek to 

 remove the scars caused by vehicles and 

recover a sustainable, self-regulating, 

self-organizing ecosystem, by restoring 

the biological, physical, and chemical 

characteristic of the system to the extent 

possible 

 meet biological, physical, and chemical 

targets defined by performance 

measures 

Restoration plans would be developed for 

identified areas and would provide specific 

guidance for earthwork, revegetation, invasive 

plant control, and recovery monitoring at 

each site. Factors that would be considered 

when selecting the most feasible restoration 

techniques for a given area include the spatial 

scale, cost, and environmental impacts or risk 

associated with the technique. The adaptive 

management framework would be 

implemented to meet restoration goals. 

Research. The need for research related to 

ORV impacts would be the same as it is in the 

original Preserve; therefore, the research 

framework, goals, and actions included in the

2000 Recreational ORV Management Plan

would be implemented in the Addition. The 

following six research goals were included in 

the 2000 plan: 

1. Support the siting, construction, 

maintenance, and monitoring of the 

designated trail system. 

2. Determine existing levels of recreational 

use and the types of vehicles best suited 

for use in the Big Cypress environment. 

3. Initially conduct or update inventories 

of the Addition’s flora, fauna, and soils. 

The results would be used to establish a 

baseline to determine future trends in 

resource condition, identify ecosystem 

stresses and associated environmental 

indicators, and determine if sensitive 

resources were or had the potential to 

be adversely affected by the designated 

trail system. 

4. Determine the effects of ORV use on the 

Addition’s flora, fauna, and soils. 

5. Examine recreational interactions to 

ensure that all visitors to the Addition 

have an enjoyable and educational 

experience. 

6. Determine the most efficient and 

effective means of mitigating effects 

caused by ORVs and establish best 

management practices for use in the 

Addition. 

The results from this research would be used 

to make continuous improvements to the 

ORV management program. 

The 2000 Recreational ORV Management Plan

recommended studies for each of the research 

goals and the priorities of each. However, as 

many as 25 of the studies may not have the 

relevance that they had in 2000. For example, 

the ground-truthing of University of Georgia 

mapping data was assigned a high priority in 

2000. Those data were based on 1994 and 

1995 aerial photography, which has little 

relevance now that implementation of the 

original Preserve’s trail system is well underway. Also, evaluation of trail stabilization 

techniques, given a high priority in 2000, is no 

longer needed, since the National Park Service 

has, through experimentation and at least 

eight years of trail stabilization experience, 

determined the best and most cost-efficient 

methods. 

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. Florida-panther-related 

research includes an ongoing study of levels of 

ORV use and panther response in Bear Island. 

This study is first analyzing historical data 

concerning 25 years of hunting, ORV use, 

panther telemetry, and backcountry use to 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

112 

provide baseline information for a more 

comprehensive examination of ORV use and 

its impacts on panthers and other natural 

resources. Completion of this study will 

determine whether further research is needed 

to determine carrying capacity, or if that 

determination can be made immediately. 

Baseline inventories of reptiles, amphibians, 

fishes, and vascular plants have been completed, and a small mammal inventory is in 

progress. Although a research project 

regarding surface water flow, water quality 

impacts, or wildlife effects has not been 

conducted, the Preserve has established 20 

permanent water quality and water stage 

monitoring stations that could alert Preserve 

staff to changing conditions resulting from not 

only ORV use but other land uses as well, and 

monitoring of endangered/threatened species 

has been constant since before the ORV 

planning process began. 

Implementation Strategy and Schedule 

Development of the designated access points 

and trail system that would provide riding 

opportunities for the public may take up to 

five years. Initially, recreational ORV use 

would be restricted to those trails requiring 

little or no treatment and for which access 

points would already be in place. More trails 

would be added to the system as the necessary 

treatment is completed and access points are 

constructed. It is important for the designated 

access points and trail system to be in place 

before opening the area for ORV use so that 

NPS staff can design and provide quality visitor experiences and minimize resource impacts. NPS staff would strive to provide ORV 

opportunities to the public as quickly as possible. Table 8 includes the major action items 

required to provide ORV access, implement 

the ORV trail network, and develop necessary 

programs for research, ORV management, 

and resource management in the Addition. 

The implementation of the approved general 

management plan will depend on future funding. The approval of a plan does not guarantee 

that the funding needed to implement the plan 

will be forthcoming. Full implementation of 

the approved plan could be many years in the 

future or may not occur if funding is not 

obtained. 

TABLE 8: IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR THE ORV PROGRAM

Activity Phase I Phase II Phase III

Trail system 

Design plan for trail designation and construction X

Ground-truth and mark trails X X 

Establish temporary trails around designated sensitive areas X

Stabilize existing trails selected for designation X X X

Maintain trail system X X X

Access points 

Designate X

Develop X X 

Maintain X X X 

Implement spatial closures. Refine the boundaries of sensitive 

areas and endangered species nesting areas closed under the 

authority of 36 CFR. 

X X X 
The Alternatives and User Capacity, Adaptive Management, ORV Administration and Management, and Wilderness 

113

Activity Phase I Phase II Phase III

Implement temporal closures X X X 

Hydrologic triggers for resource protection

Seasonal closure to provide rest period for resources 

(optimal season to be determined as part of the program’s 

adaptive management) 

Prohibit recreational ORV operation between 10:00 p.m. 

and 5:00 a.m. 

ORV user map 

Develop X

Revise as needed X X 

Permit program 

Define vehicle specifications X X X 

Initiate vehicle inspection program X

Issue annual recreational ORV permits X

Initiate ORV operator permit program and education 

requirement 

X

Initiate permit system for all backcountry use X

On-going implementation X X 

Research 

Initiate highest priority research projects X

On-going X X 

Initiate environmental permitting, compliance, and mitigation 

required for various ORV program components 

X 

Expand scope of advisory committee X

Restoration 

Establish interdisciplinary team X

Initiate implementation X

Continue implementation X X 

Education program 

Initiate ORV operators course X

Refine course and other materials X X 

Trail condition monitoring 

Develop trail standards X

Establish techniques for determining baseline conditions X

Monitor trail conditions X X 

Resource recovery monitoring 

Establish and refine monitoring techniques X X 

On-going monitoring X X 

Enforce all NPS legal mandates related to ORV program 

management 

X X X 

Apply adaptive management to ORV program based on 

research and feedback from implementation 

X X X 

 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

114 

Activity Phase I Phase II Phase III

Phase I would start in the first year of implementation. It 

would include actions that could be completed or initiated 

immediately, or would be necessary for completion of 

subsequent actions. 

Phase II generally would be started in years 2 through 3 of 

the program. It would include a continuation of some of the 

actions started in phase I and the initiation of actions 

dependent on phase I completion. 

Phase III would include long-term and on-going efforts, 

including monitoring, research, restoration, maintenance, 

and enforcement. All of these activities would be started 

before the end of year five. 
The Alternatives and User Capacity, Adaptive Management, ORV Administration and Management, and Wilderness 

115

WILDERNESS 

The United States Congress established the 

national wilderness preservation system to 

ensure that an increasing population, 

accompanied by expanding settlement and 

growing mechanization, does not occupy and 

modify all areas within the United States. 

Wilderness designation is intended to 

preserve and protect certain lands in their 

natural state and provide for compatible 

recreational opportunities, education, and 

scientific study. Wilderness areas are intended 

to contrast with lands where human activities 

dominate the landscape. Only Congress may 

designate areas as wilderness. 

The enabling legislation for Big Cypress 

National Preserve (Public Law 93-440), as 

amended by the Addition Act (Public Law 

100-301), requires that the National Park 

Service conduct a wilderness study of all lands 

in the Addition that it finds to be eligible for 

wilderness designation. The wilderness study 

must consider a range of alternatives for 

wilderness designation, including a “no 

wilderness” alternative. The purpose of the 

wilderness study is to develop a formal 

proposal for designating wilderness in the 

Addition, which will serve as the basis for any 

wilderness recommendation that the 

president may submit to Congress, should he 

choose to do so. The wilderness study is 

guided by the Wilderness Act of 1964, where 

wilderness is defined and its values are 

articulated. 

Definition of Wilderness 

The Wilderness Act (16 USC 1132) defines 

wilderness in the following manner: 

A wilderness, in contrast with those areas 

where man and his own works dominate 

the landscape, is hereby recognized as an 

area where the earth and its community 

of life are untrammeled by man, where 

man himself is a visitor who does not 

remain. An area of wilderness is further 

defined to mean . . . an area of 

undeveloped Federal land retaining its 

primeval character and influence, 

without permanent improvements or 

human habitation, which is protected and 

managed so as to preserve its natural 

conditions and which (1) generally 

appears to have been affected primarily 

by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

man's work substantially unnoticeable; 

(2) has outstanding opportunities for 

solitude or a primitive and unconfined 

type of recreation; (3) has at least five 

thousand acres of land or is of sufficient 

size as to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpaired 

condition; and (4) may also contain 

ecological, geological, or other features of 

scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historical value. 

Uses and Management in Wilderness 

NPS Wilderness Policy. NPS Management 

Policies 2006 contains the following provisions 

related to wilderness planning and 

management: 

 All NPS lands will be evaluated for 

their eligibility for inclusion within the 

national wilderness preservation 

system. (6.2.1) 

 Lands will be evaluated according to 

the provisions outlined in the 

Wilderness Act of 1964. (6.2.1.1) 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

116 

USES AND MANAGEMENT IN WILDERNESS 

Although this study is not examining use or management of wilderness, the Wilderness Act and NPS policies permit 

and prohibit various uses, developments, and actions. These directions need to be considered in evaluating the 

impacts of the wilderness proposals. 

Various recreational uses, management actions, and facilities are permitted in wilderness areas under the Wilderness 

Act and NPS policies. Among the uses, management actions, and facilities permitted in wilderness are: 

 nonmotorized recreational uses (e.g., hiking, backpacking, picnicking, camping) 

 hunting, trapping, and fishing 

 Native American religious activities and other actions recognized under treaty-reserved rights 

 guided interpretive walks and onsite talks and presentation 

 use of wheelchairs, service animals, and reasonable accommodations for the disabled that are not in conflict 

with the Wilderness Act (e.g., barrier-free trails, accessible campsites) 

 scientific activities/research 

 monitoring programs 

 management actions taken to correct past mistakes or impacts of human use, including restoration of 

extirpated species, controlling invasive alien species, endangered species management, and protection of air 

and water quality 

 fire management activities (including fire suppression) 

 protection and maintenance of historic properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places 

 trails 

 campsites 

 certain administrative facilities if necessary to carry out wilderness management objectives (e.g., storage or 

support structures, ranger station) 

 signs necessary for visitor safety or to protect wilderness resources 

 uses and facilities permitted for landowners with valid property rights in a wilderness area 

The Wilderness Act also specifically prohibits certain uses and developments. Under sections 2(c) and 4(c) of the 

act, the following uses are not permitted in a wilderness: 

 permanent improvements or human habitation 

 structures or installations 

 permanent roads 

 temporary roads 

 use of motor vehicles 

 use of motorized equipment 

 landing of aircraft (except for emergency purposes) 

 other forms of mechanical transport (e.g., bicycles) 

 commercial enterprises (except for commercial services that are necessary for realizing the recreational or other 

wilderness purposes of the area, such as guiding and outfitting) 

With the exception of permanent roads, the act does recognize that the above uses may be permitted if necessary 

to meet the minimum requirements for the administration of the area as wilderness or for emergency purposes. 

In addition to the above prohibitions, NPS policies also prohibit some developments: 

 new utility lines 

 permanent equipment caches 

 site markings or improvements for nonemergency use 

 borrow pits (except for small quantity use of borrow material for trails) 

 new shelters for public use 

 picnic tables 

 interpretive signs and trails and waysides (unless necessary for visitor safety or to protect wilderness resources)
The Alternatives and User Capacity, Adaptive Management, ORV Administration and Management, and Wilderness 

117

 Lands that have previously been used 

for extractive purposes may be found 

eligible for wilderness designation so 

long as their wilderness character 

could be restored through appropriate 

management action. Furthermore, 

lands subject to existing rights (e.g., 

mineral exploration and development) 

may be considered for designation as 

wilderness or potential wilderness so 

long as they have been found to 

contain wilderness character. Lands 

containing aboveground or buried 

utility lines normally will not be 

considered eligible for wilderness 

designation, but they can be 

considered as eligible for “potential” 

wilderness if there is a long-term 

intent to remove the lines. The 

established use of motorboats does 

not make an area ineligible for 

wilderness. (6.2.1.2) 

 For lands found to possess wilderness 

characteristics, no action that would 

diminish their wilderness eligibility 

will be taken until the legislative 

process of wilderness designation has 

been completed. (6.3.1) 

 All decisions concerning management 

activities in proposed or designated 

wilderness will be based on the 

minimum requirements concept. This 

concept is a process that determines 

(1) if the proposed action is necessary 

for administration of the area as wilderness, and (2) if so, the techniques 

and equipment needed to ensure that 

impacts on wilderness resources and 

character are minimized. (6.3.5) 

 Wilderness considerations will be 

integrated into all planning documents 

to guide the preservation, 

management, and use of a park’s 

wilderness area and ensure that 

wilderness is unimpaired for future 

use and enjoyment as wilderness. 

(chapter 6, title page) 

 The superintendent of each park 

containing wilderness resources will 

develop and maintain a wilderness 

management plan or equivalent 

planning document. (6.3.4.2) 

Wilderness Eligibility Assessment 

In 2006 an interdisciplinary NPS team 

comprised of Preserve, Denver Service 

Center, Southeast Regional Office, and 

Washington Office staff conducted an 

evaluation of the Addition to determine those 

areas meeting the criteria for wilderness 

described in the Wilderness Act. Per NPS 

Management Policies 2006, to be eligible for 

wilderness designation, an area of federal land 

in the Addition had to have the following 

characteristics: 

1. Generally appear to have been affected 

primarily by the forces of nature, with the 

imprint of man's work substantially 

unnoticeable, 

2. Be undeveloped and retain its primeval 

character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, 

3. Be untrammeled by man, where man 

himself is a visitor who does not remain, 

4. Offer outstanding opportunities for 

solitude or a primitive and unconfined type 

of recreation, and 

5. Be protected and managed so as to preserve 

its natural conditions. 

The team first examined data to exclude from 

wilderness consideration lands clearly not 

meeting one or more of the above criteria, 

such as private lands and lands containing 

permanent improvements, e.g., buildings, 

roads, and canals. The remaining lands were 

evaluated against the criteria and visited as 

necessary. All lands meeting the criteria and at 

least 5,000 acres or of such size that they could 

be managed as wilderness were determined to 

be eligible; all other lands were excluded from 

further wilderness consideration. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

118 

Based on the public comments received on the 

wilderness study included in the Draft General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Study / Off-road 

Vehicle Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement, the National Park Service 

reevaluated the eligibility of the Addition and 

completed a final wilderness eligibility 

determination that has been approved by the 

NPS director (see appendix B). 

Summary of Findings 

The study area contains lands and waters 

owned by federal and state governments, as 

well as private owners; however, only federal 

and state lands (with state permission) were 

evaluated for wilderness eligibility. 

A field evaluation was conducted by NPS staff 

to determine the suitability of the Addition for 

wilderness character. The wilderness study 

identified about 71,260 acres (approximately 

48% of the Addition’s total acreage) as 

meeting the wilderness criteria outlined above 

and being eligible for wilderness designation 

(see Map 8: Eligible Wilderness). This land 

consists of 65,042 acres in the Northeast 

Addition and 6,218 acres in the Western 

Addition east of SR 29. Eligible acreage 

includes federal lands owned by the National 

Park Service and state lands owned by the 

Florida Department of Transportation and 

Florida State Lands. 

Areas that were determined not to be eligible 

(approximately 76,413 acres) did not meet 

wilderness criteria. For a more detailed 

description of this analysis and the wilderness 

eligibility findings, see appendix B. 
Monroe

Station

Visitor Center

BIG CYPRESS SEMINOLE INDIAN RESERVATION

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENTDISTRICT WATER CONSERVATION AREA 3A

FLORIDA 

PANTHER

NATIONAL 

WILDLIFE

REFUGE

FAKAHATCHEE

STRAND

PRESERVE

STATE PARK

Sunniland

Jerome

Copeland

Miles City

Carnestown

Chokoloskee

Ochopee

Deep Lake

Rest Area

Dade-Collier

Training and

Transition Airport

BIG CYPRESS

NATIONAL PRESERVE

75

75

29

29

41

L-28 Interceptor Canal

FLORIDA STATE MICCOSUKEE 

INDIAN RESERVATION

Snake Road

Birdon

Road

Wagonwheel

Road

No 

access

MM 70 MM 63

MM 51

Turner River Road

Recreation Access Point

(access on foot only)

EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK

Plantation Island

Everglades City

Welcome 

Center

Preserve 

Headquarters

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service • DSC • October 2010 • 176 / 20080

Map 8 • Eligible Wilderness

Big Cypress National Preserve–Addition

General Management Plan

Legend

Preserve Boundary

Addition Boundary

Canal

Existing Access Point

Wilderness Eligible Land

Wilderness Ineligible Land

Designated ORV Primary Trail

Unpaved Road

Existing Hiking Trail

0 5 10

Miles

121

MITIGATIVE MEASURES COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

Congress charged the National Park Service 

with managing the lands under its stewardship 

“in such manner and by such means as will 

leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of 

future generations” (NPS Organic Act, 16 USC 

1). As a result, NPS staff routinely evaluate 

and implement mitigation measures whenever 

conditions occur that could adversely affect 

the sustainability of national park system 

resources. 

To ensure that implementation of the action 

alternatives protects natural and cultural 

resources that are unimpaired and the quality 

of the visitor experience, a consistent set of 

mitigation measures would be applied to 

actions proposed in this plan. The National 

Park Service would prepare appropriate environmental compliance (i.e., those required 

by the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), and other relevant legislation) for 

these future actions. As part of the environmental compliance, the National Park Service 

would avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse 

impacts when practicable. The implementation of a compliance-monitoring program 

would be within the parameters of NEPA and 

NHPA compliance documents, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits, etc. 

The compliance-monitoring program would 

oversee these mitigation measures and would 

include reporting protocols. 

The following mitigation measures and best 

management practices would be applied to 

avoid or minimize potential impacts from 

implementation of the action alternatives. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

General 

The Addition’s resources, including air, water, 

soils, vegetation, and wildlife, would be 

periodically inventoried and monitored to 

provide information needed to avoid or 

minimize impacts of future development. Any 

museum collections related to natural 

resources generated by such activities would 

be managed according to NPS policies. 

Whenever possible, new facilities would be 

built in previously disturbed areas or in carefully selected sites with as small a construction 

footprint as possible and with sustainable 

design. During design and construction 

periods, NPS natural and cultural resource 

staff would identify areas to be avoided and 

monitor activities. 

Fencing or other means would be used to 

protect sensitive resources adjacent to 

construction areas. 

Construction materials would be kept in work 

areas, especially if the construction takes place 

near streams, springs, natural drainages, or 

other water bodies. 

Visitors would be informed of the importance 

of protecting the Addition’s natural resources 

and leaving these undisturbed for the 

enjoyment of future generations. 

Air Quality 

A dust abatement program would be implemented. Standard dust abatement measures 

could include watering or otherwise stabilizing soils, covering haul trucks, employing 

speed limits on unpaved roads, minimizing 

vegetation clearing, and revegetating after 

construction. 

Soils 

New facilities would be built on soils suitable 

for development. Soil erosion would be 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

122 

minimized by limiting the time soil is left exposed and by applying other erosion control 

measures such as erosion matting, silt fencing, 

and sedimentation basins in construction 

areas to reduce erosion, surface scouring, and 

discharge to water bodies. Once work was 

completed, construction areas would be revegetated with native plants in a timely period. 

To minimize soil erosion on new trails, best 

management practices for trail construction 

would be used. Examples of best management 

practices could include installing water bars, 

check dams and retaining walls; contouring to 

avoid erosion; and minimizing soil 

disturbance. 

Water Resources 

To prevent disruption of natural surface water 

flows, all trails that would receive ORV, 

hiking, biking, or horseback riding use (for 

NPS operations or public use) would be 

designed, built, and/or maintained so the trail 

surface is kept at the natural grade of the 

surrounding landscape. Techniques that 

would help mitigate trail rutting that could 

otherwise occur in wet areas of the Addition 

include “at-grade” maintenance, trail 

stabilization with aggregate material, the use 

of culverts, and low-water crossings. This 

mitigation would help preserve the natural 

sheet flow through the Addition at a local and 

regional level. In addition, if trail conditions 

eventually become degraded in areas and 

surface flow becomes altered, the indicator 

and standards monitoring program would be 

applied to remedy the situation and restore 

surface water flows (as described in the 

previous User Capacity section). The use of 

culverts, low-water crossings, and at-grade 

trail construction and maintenance are 

examples of such techniques. 

To prevent water pollution during construction, erosion control measures would be used, 

discharges to water bodies would be minimized, and construction equipment would be 

regularly inspected for leaks of petroleum and 

other chemicals. 

Best management practices for water quality 

protection, such as the use of silt fences, 

would be followed to ensure that 

construction-related effects were minimal and 

to prevent long-term impacts on water quality, 

wetlands, and aquatic species. 

Caution would be exercised to protect water 

resources from activities with the potential to 

damage water resources, including damage 

caused by construction equipment, erosion, 

and siltation. Measures would be taken to 

keep fill material from escaping work areas, 

especially near streams, springs, natural 

drainages, and wetlands. 

For new facilities, and to the extent practicable for existing facilities, stormwater management measures would be implemented to 

reduce nonpoint source pollution discharge 

from parking lots and other impervious 

surfaces. Such actions could include use of 

oil/sediment separators, street sweeping, 

infiltration beds, permeable surfaces, and 

vegetated or natural filters to trap or filter 

stormwater runoff. 

The NPS spill prevention and pollution 

control program for hazardous materials 

would be followed and updated on a regular 

basis. Standard measures could include (1) 

procedures for hazardous materials storage 

and handling, spill containment, cleanup, and 

reporting, and (2) limitation of refueling and 

other hazardous activities to upland/ 

nonsensitive sites. 

Wetlands 

Wetlands would be avoided if possible, and 

protection measures would be applied during 

construction. Wetlands would be delineated 

by qualified NPS staff or certified wetland 

specialists and clearly marked before construction work. Construction activities would 
Mitigative Measures Common to All Action Alternatives 

123

be performed in a cautious manner to prevent 

damage caused by equipment, erosion, 

siltation, etc. 

In addition to the above wetland mitigation 

measures, NPS staff would conduct additional 

future wetland impact and mitigation analysis, 

as per NPS policy and Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act (as administered by the Army 

Corps of Engineers). 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 the 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 

mitigative measures would be completed as 

part of the “Wetlands Statement 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.” 

Vegetation 

Areas used by visitors (e.g., trails, developed 

areas, and designated campsites) would be 

monitored for signs of native vegetation 

disturbance. Public education, revegetation of 

disturbed areas with native plants, erosion 

control measures, and barriers would be used 

to control potential impacts on plants from 

trail erosion or social trailing. 

Proposed sites for new trails and other 

facilities would be surveyed for sensitive 

species before construction. If sensitive 

species were present, new developments 

would be relocated to avoid impacts. 

Revegetation plans would be developed for 

disturbed areas. Revegetation plans should 

specify such features as seed/plant source, 

seed/plant mixes, soil preparation, fertilizers, 

and mulching. Salvage vegetation, rather than 

new planting or seeding, would be used to the 

greatest extent possible. To maintain genetic 

integrity, native plants that grow in the project 

area or the region would be used in restoration efforts, whenever possible. Use of nonnative species or genetic materials would be 

considered only where deemed necessary to 

maintain a cultural landscape or to prevent 

severe resource damage, and would be approved by the NPS resource management 

staff. Restoration activities would be instituted 

immediately after construction was completed. Monitoring would occur to ensure that 

revegetation was successful, plantings were 

maintained, and unsuccessful plant materials 

were replaced. 

Nonnative Species 

Special attention would be devoted to 

preventing the spread of exotic and invasive 

plant and animal species. For exotic invasive 

plants, standard measures could include the 

following elements: ensure that constructionrelated equipment arrives on-site free of mud 

or seed-bearing material, certify all seeds and 

straw material as weed-free, identify areas of 

nonnative plants before construction, treat 

exotic plants or exotic infested topsoil before 

construction (e.g., topsoil segregation, storage, 

herbicide treatment), and revegetate with 

appropriate native species. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

124 

Nonnative animals would be addressed with 

more direct, species-specific control methods. 

In many cases, NPS control methods would be 

in cooperation with other agencies, such as 

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission. Some examples of exotic animal 

control efforts include the trapping and 

removal of the walking catfish (Clarias 

batrachus), the authorized agent python 

capture program, or the "Partner with 

Hunters" pilot program that permits game 

hunters to kill exotic pythons in the Preserve. 

Wildlife 

To the extent possible, new or rehabilitated 

facilities would be sited to avoid sensitive 

wildlife habitats, including feeding and resting 

areas, major travel corridors, nesting areas, 

and other sensitive habitats. 

Construction activities would be timed to 

avoid sensitive periods, such as nesting or 

breeding seasons. Ongoing visitor use and 

NPS operational activities could be restricted 

if their potential level of damage or 

disturbance warranted doing so. 

Measures would be taken to reduce the 

potential for wildlife to get food from humans. 

Wildlife-proof garbage containers would be 

required in developed areas (including visitor 

centers, picnic areas, trails, and interpretive 

waysides). Signs would continue to educate 

visitors about the need to refrain from feeding 

wildlife. 

Other visitor impacts on wildlife would be 

addressed through such techniques as visitor 

education programs, restrictions on visitor 

activities, and ranger patrols. 

Also, the National Park Service, in partnership 

with the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission, will establish 

white-tailed deer harvest limits in the 

Addition via deer population monitoring. The 

National Park Service would develop a 

hunting management plan for the Addition, 

which would require NEPA compliance. Both 

the Preserve’s hunting management plan and 

the white-tailed deer harvest limits set by the 

commission, in partnership with the National 

Park Service, would be developed in 

consideration of one another, because other 

public uses allowed under this general 

management plan may also affect white-tailed 

deer behavior and population. 

Also, because the endangered Florida panther 

is dependent on white-tailed deer, both the 

NPS hunting management plan and the 

commission’s limits would consider the effect 

of game management and hunting on the 

panther. The development of the hunting 

management plan through the required NEPA 

process would incorporate any new data that 

identifies correlations between hunting, 

white-tailed deer populations, and the Florida 

panther. To ensure informed decision making 

regarding deer and endangered species 

protection, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the commission would work cooperatively with the National Park Service on 

hunting management issues in the Addition, 

both through the NEPA compliance process 

as well as via interim coordination. Also refer 

to table 29 in chapter 5 entitled, “Future 

Compliance Required for Implementation of 

Specific Actions under the Preferred 

Alternative.” 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species and Species of Concern 

Conservation measures would occur during 

normal operations as well as before, during, 

and after construction to minimize long-term, 

immediate impacts on rare species and 

threatened and endangered species where 

they are identified in the Addition. These 

mitigation measures would be incorporated, 

as necessary, into each specific action of this 

plan as the plan is implemented. These 

measures may vary slightly for each specific 

project and for each affected area of the 
Mitigative Measures Common to All Action Alternatives 

125

Addition. Many of the measures listed above 

for vegetation and wildlife would also benefit 

rare, threatened, and endangered species by 

helping to preserve habitat. Conservation 

measures specific to rare, threatened, and 

endangered species would include the 

following actions: 

 Surveys would be conducted for special 

status species, including rare, threatened, 

and endangered species, before deciding 

to take any action that might cause harm 

or disturb habitat value. To provide baseline data, the surveys would be conducted 

before any introduced action or disturbance, including recreational facilities and 

uses. In consultation with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, and Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission, 

appropriate measures would be taken to 

protect any sensitive species whether 

identified through surveys or presumed to 

occur. 

 If breeding or nesting areas for threatened 

and endangered species were observed in 

the Addition, these areas would be 

protected from human disturbance to the 

greatest extent possible, as per the 

guidelines and recommendations of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, and Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 

 New facilities and management actions 

would be located and designed to avoid 

adverse effects on habitat for rare, 

threatened, and endangered species. If 

avoidance of adverse effects on rare, 

threatened, and endangered species is not 

possible, appropriate conservation 

measures would be taken in consultation 

with the appropriate resource agencies. 

 A special status species education plan 

that targets all human occupants of the 

Preserve (including NPS staff, contractors, 

and the public) would be developed and 

implemented. The plan would aim at 

providing important information about 

the various species in an attempt to 

minimize or eliminate avoidable habitat 

disturbances from human activity. 

 Restoration or monitoring plans would be 

developed and implemented per the 

recommendation and standards of the 

appropriate resource agencies. Plans 

should include methods for implementation, performance standards, monitoring 

criteria, and adaptive management 

techniques. The plans would include 

scheduling future surveys of special status 

species, which would be used to assess the 

impact of management actions and public 

uses on the various species. 

 Measures would be taken to reduce 

adverse effects of nonnative plants and 

wildlife on habitat for rare, threatened, 

and endangered species. 

In addition to the above mitigation measures, 

protection of special status species will be 

maintained through future compliance with 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for 

the development of the Addition’s recreation 

access points along Interstate 75. This Section 

7 compliance would correlate to the NEPA 

compliance that was completed in 1991 

through the I-75 Recreational Access Plan 

Environmental Assessment. Although, 

consideration would be given to all special 

status species during these future actions, 

particular attention would be given to the 

endangered Florida panther. Additional 

research is being conducted that analyzes 

possible correlations between ORV use, 

hunting, and panther populations and 

distribution. The National Park Service would 

incorporate any new data about recreation 

impacts on the panther into the future Section 

7 compliance for recreation access points. 

This future compliance would involve the 

assessment of appropriate ORV levels of use 

by area (i.e., permit numbers and opened trail 

locations and mileages) and the effects of 

these management actions on the Florida 

panther and its habitat. 

To ensure informed decision-making 

regarding ORV use and endangered species 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

126 

protection, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the commission would be consulted 

through the Endangered Species Act Section 7 

compliance processes as well as via interim 

informal coordination with NPS staff. Also 

refer to table 29 in chapter 5 entitled “Future 

Compliance Required for Implementation of 

Specific Actions under the Preferred 

Alternative”. 

Soundscape 

Standard noise abatement measures would be 

followed during construction. Standard noise 

abatement measures could include the following elements: a schedule that minimizes 

impacts on adjacent noise-sensitive resources, 

the use of the best available noise control 

techniques wherever feasible, the use of 

hydraulically or electrically powered tools 

when feasible, and the location of stationary 

noise sources as far from sensitive resources 

as possible. Facilities would be located and 

designed to minimize objectionable noise. 

Scenic Resources 

Mitigation measures are designed to minimize 

visual intrusions. These measures could 

include the following: 

 Where appropriate, facilities such as 

boardwalks and fences would be used to 

route people away from sensitive natural 

and cultural resources while still permitting access to important viewpoints. 

 Facilities would be designed, sited, and 

constructed to avoid or minimize visual 

intrusion into the natural environment or 

landscape. 

 Vegetative screening would be provided, 

where appropriate. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

All projects with the potential to affect historic 

properties and cultural landscapes would be 

carried out in compliance with Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act to 

ensure that the effects are adequately 

addressed. All reasonable measures would be 

taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse 

effects in consultation with the Florida State 

Historic Preservation Officer and, as 

necessary, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation and other concerned parties, 

including American Indian tribes. In addition 

to adhering to the legal and policy requirements for cultural resources protection and 

preservation, the National Park Service would 

also undertake the measures listed below to 

further protect the Addition’s resources. 

All areas selected for construction (including 

any trail improvements) would be surveyed to 

ensure that cultural resources (i.e., archeological, historic, ethnographic, and cultural 

landscape resources) in the area of potential 

effects are adequately identified and protected 

by avoidance or, if necessary, mitigation. 

Compliance with the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 

1990 would apply in the unlikely event that 

human remains believed to be Native 

American were discovered inadvertently 

during construction. Prompt notification 

and consultation with the tribes traditionally associated with Big Cypress 

National Preserve would occur in accordance with the act. If such human remains 

were believed to be non-Indian, standard 

reporting procedures to the proper 

authorities would be followed, as would all 

applicable federal, state, and local laws. 

Archeological documentation would be 

done in accordance with the Secretary of 

the Interior’s Standards for Archeology and 

Historic Preservation (1983, as amended 

and annotated).
Mitigative Measures Common to All Action Alternatives 

127

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 

would be developed in consultation with 

the state historic preservation officer and, 

if necessary, associated Indian tribes. 

Ethnographic resources would be protected and mitigated by such means as 

identifying and maintaining access for 

recognized and affiliated groups to 

traditional, spiritual/ceremonial, resource 

gathering, and other activity areas. As 

practical, new developments would be 

screened from these areas, and conflicting 

uses would be relocated or timed to 

minimize disruptions. 

Further background research, resource 

inventories, and National Register of 

Historic Places evaluation of historic 

properties would be carried out where 

management information is lacking. The 

surveys and research necessary to determine the eligibility of a structure, district, 

or landscape for listing in the national 

register are a prerequisite for understanding the resource’s significance, as well as 

the basis of informed decision-making in 

the future regarding how the resource 

should be managed. The results of these 

efforts would be incorporated into sitespecific planning and compliance 

documents. 

 

No National Register of Historic Places 

listed or eligible property would be 

removed or allowed to decay naturally 

(“molder”) without prior review by NPS 

cultural resource specialists and consultation with the Florida state historic preservation office. Before a national register 

listed or eligible property is removed or 

allowed to molder, appropriate documentation recording the property would be 

prepared in accordance with Section 110 

(b) of the National Historic Preservation 

Act and the documentation submitted, as 

appropriate, to the Historic American 

Buildings Survey/Historic American 

Engineering Record/ Historic American 

Landscapes Survey program. 

Visitors would be educated on the importance of protecting the Addition’s historic 

properties and leaving these undisturbed 

for the enjoyment of future visitors. 

VISITOR SAFETY AND EXPERIENCES 

Measures to reduce adverse effects of construction on visitor safety and experience 

would be implemented, including project 

scheduling and best management practices. 

Visitor safety concerns would be integrated 

into Preserve educational programs. Directional signs would continue to orient visitors, 

and education programs would continue to 

promote understanding among visitors. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

During the future planning and implementation of the approved management plan for the 

Addition, NPS staff would work with local 

communities and county governments to 

further identify potential impacts and mitigation measures that would best serve the 

interests and concerns of both the National 

Park Service and the local communities. 

Partnerships would be pursued to improve the 

quality and diversity of community amenities 

and services.
128 

FUTURE STUDIES AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS NEEDED 

After the completion and approval of this 

General Management Plan for the Addition, 

other more detailed studies and plans will be 

needed before specific actions can be 

implemented. 

As required, additional environmental 

compliance (National Environmental Policy 

Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and 

other relevant laws and policies) and public 

involvement would be conducted. These 

additional studies include the following: 

 a restoration plan that provides guidance 

and implementation details for restoring 

unsustainable trails and old camps in the 

Addition 

 a resource stewardship strategy that 

provides comprehensive, long-range 

direction for natural and cultural resource 

management (NPS policy now requires 

that a resource stewardship strategy be 

completed to replace the resource 

management plan.) 

 a climate change action plan or other 

implementation plan that outlines the NPS 

response to global warming and the effects 

of climate change on Addition resources 

 a wilderness management plan (should 

wilderness be designated in the Addition) 

 a hunting management plan for the 

Addition 

 a backcountry management plan (which 

addresses camping and other recreation) 

 an equestrian management plan 

 a commercial services plan for the 

Addition (through an update to the 

Commercial Services Plan for the original 

Preserve) to guide private businesses (such 

as tour boat operations and concessioners) as necessary for visitor services 

 an air tour management plan as required 

by the National Parks Air Tour 

Management Act of 2000 

 evaluate the feasibility and costeffectiveness of creating a combined 

general management plan, wilderness 

management plan, and off-road vehicle 

management plan for the entire Preserve 

(including the Addition) so that all 

pertinent information would be in one 

document 

Implementation of these recommended 

studies/plans will depend on future funding. 

The approval of this management plan does 

not guarantee that the funding needed for 

implementation will be forthcoming. Full 

implementation could be many years in the 

future or may not occur if funding is not 

obtained. 
129

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 

The environmentally preferable alternative is 

defined as “the alternative that will promote 

national environmental policy as expressed in 

Section 101 of the National Environmental 

Policy Act.” Section 101 states that it is the 

continuing responsibility of the federal 

government to 

1. fulfill the responsibilities of each 

generation as trustee of the environment 

for succeeding generations; 

2. assure for all Americans safe, healthful, 

productive, and aesthetically and 

culturally pleasing surroundings; 

3. attain the widest range of beneficial uses 

of the environment without degradation, 

risk to health or safety, or other 

undesirable and unintended 

consequences; 

4. preserve important historic, cultural, and 

natural aspects of our national heritage; 

and maintain, wherever possible, an 

environment which supports diversity, 

and a variety of individual choices; 

5. achieve a balance between population and 

resource use which would permit high 

standards of living and a wide sharing of 

life’s amenities; and 

6. enhance the quality of renewable 

resources and approach the maximum 

attainable recycling of depletable 

resources. 

A description of how each alternative would 

or would not achieve the requirements of 

sections 101 and 102(1) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act criteria is provided 

below and illustrated through a rating system 

in table 9. 

Criteria 1 — The Big Cypress National 

Preserve Addition is a unit of the national park 

system, and as the trustee of this area the 

National Park Service would continue to fulfill 

its obligation to protect this area for future 

generations. The no-action alternative would 

provide less direction on important issues 

needed to successfully manage the Addition; 

consequently it was ranked lower than the 

action alternatives. Alternative F would 

provide the greatest level of protection for 

Preserve resources over time. 

Criteria 2 — All the alternatives would ensure 

safe, healthful, productive, and culturally 

pleasing surroundings for all Americans. 

Criteria 3 — Alternative F includes more 

emphasis on resource preservation and 

enhancement; however, it limits the beneficial 

uses that could be derived from human 

recreation and learning. Therefore, alternative 

B and the preferred alternative received 

equally high ratings. The no-action alternative 

provides less beneficial uses due to the fact 

that it would remain closed to public 

recreational off-road vehicle use. 

Criteria 4 — Alternatives A and F do not 

include the same level of diversity of recreational opportunities and individual choices 

that are included in the preferred alternative 

and alternative B. The preferred alternative 

includes the same level of recreational opportunities as in alternative B. However, the 

phased implementation of ORV permits and 

trails under the preferred alternative best 

protects the natural resources and values of 

the Addition. 

Criteria 5 — All of the alternatives offer 

environmental protection benefits to society. 

However, alternative B and the preferred 

alternative both offer opportunities for 

resource use and enjoyment that are not 

available in alternatives A and F. 

Criteria 6 — All of the alternatives would 

result in enhancing the quality of the 

renewable resources through NPS 

management. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

130 

The environmentally preferable alternative for 

the Addition’s General Management Plan is 

the preferred alternative. According to the 

ratings included in table 9, this alternative 

would surpass the other alternatives in 

realizing the full range of national 

environmental policy goals in Section 101. In 

particular, the preferred alternative best 

responds to criteria 4 by providing maximum 

opportunities for diverse types of recreation 

while ensuring that resources are not 

degraded and are protected through sound 

management. 

TABLE 9: ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

CRITERIA ALTERNATIVES 

A B Preferred F

1. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as 

trustee of the environment for succeeding 

generations. 

3 4 4 5 

2. Ensure safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings for 

all Americans. 

5 5 5 5 

3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of 

the environment without degradation, risk of 

health or safety, or other undesirable and 

unintended consequences. 

2 4 5 3 

4. Preserve important historic, cultural, and 

natural aspects of our national heritage and 

maintain, wherever possible, an environment 

that supports diversity and a variety of individual 

choices. 

2 4 5 3 

5. Achieve a balance between population and 

resource use that will permit high standards of 

living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities. 

2 5 5 3 

6. Enhance the quality of renewable resources 

and approach the maximum attainable recycling 

of depletable resources. 

5 5 5 5 

Total Points* 19 27 29 24

* Five points were given to the alternative if it fully meets the criteria; four points if it meets nearly all of 

the elements of the criteria; three points if it meets more than one element of the criteria; two points if 

it meets only one element of the criteria; and one point if the alternative does not meet the criteria. 
131

ALTERNATIVES AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT 

DISMISSED 

During the planning process for the Addition, 

six preliminary alternatives (alternatives A, B, 

C, D, E, and F) were developed. These six 

alternatives represented a range of management options that focused on different 

amounts of ORV trails, visitor use opportunities, facility development, and proposed 

wilderness. 

Upon further analysis, the planning team 

decided that preliminary alternatives C, D, 

and E should be eliminated from further 

consideration because they included goals and 

actions for environmental protection, visitor 

use, and ORV opportunities that were the 

same as those in alternative B, the preferred 

alternative, and alternative F. The differences 

between those alternatives dismissed from 

consideration were minor and contained only 

slight iterations along the continuum of 

motorized recreation and proposed wilderness. Furthermore, public comment and 

support for alternatives C, D, and E were 

relatively low. 

With the development of the preferred alternative, which includes many of the important 

elements contained in those preliminary 

alternatives, a range of reasonable management alternatives is adequately reflected 

through the four alternatives included in this 

plan.
CHAPTER 2:THE ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

132 

TABLE 10: SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A (No 

Action) 

Alternative B Preferred Alternative A

Concept and General Management Strategies 

This alternative would continue current management.

Alternative B would enable participation in a wide variety of outdoor recreational experiences. It would nearly maximize amount of motorized access, the least 

amount of proposed wilderness, and limited new hiking-onlytrails. New visitor and operations facilities would be provided along the I-75 corridor.

The preferred alternative would provide diverse frontcountry and backcountry recreational opportunities, enhance day use and interpretive opportunities along road corridors, and enhance recreational opportunities with new facilities and services. This alternative would provide substantial ORV access and riding opportunities and include a moderate amount of wilderness, nonmotorized trail opportunities, new camping opportunities, and a partnership approach to visitor orientation. New visitor and operations facilities would be provided along the I-75 corridor. 

Alternative resource prestorationproviding opportunifacilities aalternative maximum no ORV usfacilities foI-75. 

Approximate Acreages and Percentages for Addition Management Zones 

No management zones are currently in use for guidance. 

Developed <1% of AdditionFrontcountry <1% of Addition Backcountry Recreation 94,529 

acres (65 % of Addition) 

Primitive Backcountry 51,294 

acres (35% of Addition) 

Developed <1% of AdditionFrontcountry <1% of Addition Backcountry Recreation 49,449 

acres (33 % of Addition) 

Primitive Backcountry 96,413 

acres (65% of Addition) 

Developed FrontcounBackcount

acres (

Primitive B

acres (

Motorized Recreational Opportunities 

The Addition would continue to be closed to public recreational ORV use. Motorized boating would continue to be permitted in certain areas in canals and waterways adjacent to SR 29. 

Motorized recreational opportunities, including ORV use, motorized boating, and hunting, would be nearly maximized. Up to 132 miles would be included as part of the conceptual primary ORV trail network. 

Up to 130 miles of motorized trails would be available as part of the conceptual primary ORV trail system. Trails would be phased in over time. This alternative includes a potential connection to existing trails in the Bear Island area. 

No ORV uunder this boating wpermitted canals and to SR 29. 
Table 10: Summary Comp

133

Alternative A (No 

Action) 

Alternative B Preferred Alternative A

ORV Permits 

and Trail 

Mileage 

No ORV permits would be granted and no trails would be designated because public recreational ORV use would not be allowed. ORV access to private property by inholders would continue to be allowed by special use permit. 

A maximum of 660ORV permits for the Addition would be issued annually for the Addition, and up to 132 miles of primary ORV trails would be designated. 

A maximum of 650 ORV permits for the Addition would be issued annually, and up to 130 miles of primary ORV trails would be designated; number of trail miles completed and number of permits would be accomplished in phases. 

Same as a

Nonmotorized Recreational Opportunities 

Activities/ 

Access

New walk-in access points would be developed as a result of the I-75 Recreational Access Plan. Limited opportunities for hiking, paddling, horseback riding, and bicycling would continue to be available. New opportunities for walk-in hunting would be provided. 

New access points would be established for hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, and hunting. 

Same as alternative B. New acces

establishedeveloped bicycling, walk-in hu
CHAPTER 2:THE ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

134 

Alternative A (No 

Action) 

Alternative B Preferred Alternative A

Trails No new trails would be 

developed. 

Some new hiking trails would be developed at frontcountry locations. Hiking, bicycling, and horseback riding would be allowed on the up to 132 miles of primary ORV trails in the Addition. New paddling trails would be developed in the tidal areas south of U.S. 41 in the Western Addition (see “Facilities” below). Conceptual hiking trails would be included — one completing a north-south connection and one completing an east-west connection through the Addition. 

Essentially the same as alternative B except that nonmotorized recreation would be available on up to 130 miles of primary ORV trails. 

Some new developed locations. would be areas soutWestern Ahiking trai— one coconnectioan east-wthe Additi

Florida National 

Scenic Trail 

Access to the Florida National Scenic Trail would remain at I-75 mile marker 63, and the route would remain temporary and undesignated. 

Appropriate access points and routing of the Florida National Scenic Trail would be determined, and the trail would be formally designated. 

Same as alternative B. Same as a

Visitor Orientation and Education 

No new facilities would be developed under this alternative, which means that no visitor contact facilities would exist in the Addition. Visitor orientation to the Addition would continue to occur at the NPS facilities on U.S. 41. 

A visitor contact station and outdoor orientation and interpretive panels would be developed along I-75 (see “Facilities” below). 

A new visitor contact station and visitor center and some outdoor orientation and interpretive panels would be developed along I-75 (see “Facilities” below). 

Visitor infopanels woalong I-75 below). 
Table 10: Summary Comp

135

Alternative A (No 

Action) 

Alternative B Preferred Alternative A

Wilderness No land would be 

proposed for wilderness designation; however, those lands in the Addition eligible for wilderness designation would continue to be managed to preserve their wilderness characteristics and values. 

About 37,567 acres of land would be proposed for wilderness designation. 

About 47,067 acres of land would be proposed for wilderness designation. 

About 71,would be wilderness the Evergl

Partnerships, Programs, and Activities 

No new partnerships, programs, or activities would be initiated for the Addition. 

New partnerships to provide visitor services at Carnestown would be explored. 

The National Park Service would pursue partnerships to achieve management objectives and consider partnerships that provide a range of commercial services, including boat tours south of U.S. 41. The original 

Preserve’s Commercial Services Plan would be amended to include the Addition. 

Same as a

Facilities 

I-75 Mile 

Marker 51 

No new NPS access would be developed at this location. Access would be provided under the I-75 Recreational Access Plan; however, access would be for nonmotorized uses only. 

A new access point would be developed that includes parking and restrooms. The site would provide access for motorized and nonmotorized activities. Visitor orientation and interpretation panels would also be installed. Also, the National Park Service would establish a partnership to establish other facilities as appropriate, such as a wildlife check station and boat ramp access to the water district canal. 

Same as alternative B except no restrooms would be developed. 

A new acc(nonmotodeveloped and visitor orientatiopanels woAlso, the Nwould estestablish oappropriatcheck stataccess to t
CHAPTER 2:THE ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

136 

Alternative A (No 

Action) 

Alternative B Preferred Alternative A

I-75 Mile 

Marker 63 

Informal walk-in access would continue to be available via the rest area. Access would be provided under the I-75 Recreational Access Plan; however, access would be for nonmotorized uses only. 

A new access point would be developed that includes parking and trailhead. The site would provide access for motorized and nonmotorized activities. A new visitor contact station and NPS operations facility would also be developed at this location. The National Park Service would establish a partnership with the Florida Department of Transportation and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to establish other facilities as appropriate, such as a wildlife check station.

Same as alternative B except a new visitor center and NPS operations facility would be developed here. The National Park Service would establish a partnership with the Florida Department of Transportation and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to establish other facilities as appropriate, such as a wildlife check station.

A new acc(nonmotodeveloped a trailheadinformatioand interpbe installeoperations developed National Pestablish a Florida DeTransportaFish and WCommissiofacilities awildlife ch

Bear Island 

Grade at SR 29 

This location would remain undeveloped, and informal nonmotorized access would continue. 

A new trailhead and parking area would be developed at this location, providing motorized and nonmotorized access to the Bear Island Grade. This new access point would provide a connection to ORV trails in the original Preserve. Visitor orientation and interpretation panels would also be installed. 

Same as alternative B. A new tra

area woullocation, paccess to tOnly hikinhorseback allowed oWestern Aorientatiopanels wothe trailhe

Nobles and 

Jones Grades 

No new facilities would be developed. Only nonmotorized access would remain along the road grades. 

No new facilities would be developed. The road grades would only be used for access. 

Primitive backcountry group camping areas would be provided at the terminus of these grades. 

These siteundevelopwould be Nonmotorwould rem
Table 10: Summary Comp

137

Alternative A (No 

Action) 

Alternative B Preferred Alternative A

Miles City (I-75 

at SR 29) 

This intersection would remain undeveloped. 

Same as alternative A. A new hiking trailhead, information kiosk, and small parking 

area would be developed outside the interchange area that is closed to development. 

Same as a

Deep Lake (SR 

29) 

No facility improvements would be made at this location. Parking would remain on the shoulder of SR 29, and site access would remain informal. 

The site would be developed into a day use area with parking, restrooms, and a hiking trail/boardwalk to Deep Lake. 

Same as alternative B plus picnic shelters. 

A new tradevelopedtrail/board

Copeland (SR 

29) 

The NPS Fire Operations Center would remain at this location. 

Same as alternative A. The NPS Fire Operations Center 

would be maintained at this location and expanded as necessary for other NPS operational needs. 

Same as p

Carnestown Facilities at the site 

would continue to be leased to other government agencies and organizations. 

Facilities at the site would be used to support visitor service partnership needs. 

Facilities would be used to support commercial services and/or partner organizations that would operate here, including 

enhancements that would support visitor service needs. 

Facilities wthe site wnatural co

STAFFING No additional staff for 

the Addition Total staff of 77 fulltime-equivalent employees for the Preserve 

16 additional full-time-equivalent employees (or 17 positions) for the Addition Total staff of 93 full-timeequivalent employees for the Preserve 

16 additional full-time-equivalent employees (or 17 positions) for the Addition Total staff of 93 full-timeequivalent employees for the Preserve 

10 additioemployeesAddition Total staff equivalent Preserve 

Estimated One-Time Construction Costs 

N/A $6.7 million $6.7 million $4.9 millio
CHAPTER 2:THE ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

138 

Alternative A (No 

Action) 

Alternative B Preferred Alternative A

Annual Operating Costs (for the entire Preserve) 

$6. 5 million $7.9 million $7.9 million $7.5 millio
139 

TABLE 11: SUMMARY OF KEY IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING THE ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A – No Action Alternative B Preferred Alter

Impacts on Natural Resources Surface Water Flow 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. 

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. 

Same as alternative B. 

Water Quality 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. 

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. 

Same as alternative B. 

Wetlands 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. 

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. 

Under alternative B, impacts be long term, minor to mode

localized. There would be a long-term, cumulative impact on wetlancontained in the preferred alcontribute a small increment impact. 

Soils 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. 

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. 

Same as alternative B. 

Floodplains 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. 

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 on floodplains beyond what is accounted for under the no-action alternative. No cumulative impacts on floodplains would occur under alternative B because there would be no impacts on floodplains resulting from actions proposed in alternative B. 

Same as alternative B. 
CHAPTER 2:THE ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

140 

Alternative A – No Action Alternative B Preferred Alter

Vegetation —Cypress Strands and Domes, Mixed Hardwood Swamps, and Sloughs 

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. 

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. 

Same as alternative B. 

Vegetation — Prairies and Marshes

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. 

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. 

Same as alternative B. 

Vegetation — Mangrove Forests 

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. 

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. 

Same as alternative B. 

Vegetation — Pinelands 

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 in alternative A would contribute a small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. 

Vegetation — Hardwood Hammocks 

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. 

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. 

Same as alternative B. 
141

Alternative A – No Action Alternative B Preferred Alter

Exotic/Nonnative Plants 

Under alternative A, impacts on native vegetation because of the potential for the spread of exotive 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. 

Under alternative B, impacts on native vegetation because of the potential for the spread of exotive 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. 

Same as alternative B. 

Impacts on Federal Threatened and Endangered Species 

Florida Panther 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 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. 

Same as alternative B. 

West Indian Manatee 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 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. 

Same as alternative B. 

Red-Cockaded 

Woodpecker 

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 on the potential habitat for and thus thered-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 red-cockaded woodpecker. The actions contained in alternative B would contribute a small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Same as alternative B. 
CHAPTER 2:THE ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

142 

Alternative A – No Action Alternative B Preferred Alter

Everglade Snail Kite 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. 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 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. 

Same as alternative B. 

American Crocodile 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. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. 

Eastern Indigo Snake 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 on the potential habitat for and thus the eastern indigo snake under alternative B 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. There would be a short-term and long-term, 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. 

Same as alternative B. 

Major Game Species Under alternative A, impacts on major game 

species from the continuation of 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 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. 

Same as alternative B. 
143

Alternative A – No Action Alternative B Preferred Alter

Wilderness Resources and Values 

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 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 on wilderness resouunder the preferred alternatiterm, moderate, beneficial, aThere would be a long-term, cumulative impact on wildervalues in the region. The actthe preferred alternative woumodest beneficial increment impact. 

Impacts on Cultural Resources Archeological Resources 

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. Implementation of alternative A would generally result in a no adverse effect on archeological resources. 

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 this cumulative impact than would the actions of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Section 106 Summary. Implementation of alternative B would result in a potential adverse effect on archeological resources. 

Under the preferred alternatarcheological resources wouadverse, and minor to modeThere would be a permanenverse cumulative impact on asources. The actions containealternative would contribute ment to this cumulative impaactions of other past, presenforeseeable actions. Section 106 Summary. Imppreferred alternative would gpotential adverse effect on aresources. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Under alternative A there would be no impacts on ethnographic resources. Therefore there would be no cumulative impacts. This would not result in impairment of ethnographic resources in the Addition. Section 106 Summary. Implementation of alternative A would generally result in a no adverse effect on ethnographic resources. 

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. Implementation of alternative B would generally result in a no adverse effect on ethnographic resources. 

Same as alternative B. 
CHAPTER 2:THE ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

144 

Alternative A – No Action Alternative B Preferred Alter

Impacts on Visitor Use and Experience Recreational Opportunities 

Motorized Use 

(ORVs) 

Nonmotorized Use 

(including hiking, 

horseback riding, and 

bicycling) 

Hunting (including 

fishing and 

 frogging) 

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. 

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. 

Same as alternative B. 

Impacts on the Socioeconomic Environment Local Economy 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. 

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, long-term and short-term impacts would be localized, moderate, and beneficial. Alternative B would contribute a very small increment to the total cumulative impact. 

Because of changes in visitor the preferred alternative, lonterm impacts on the socioecoenvironment would be localibeneficial. As a result, counthousing, and sales, as well aassociated with the Miccosutribes, would realize some poalthough such increases wouwhen compared to the counLong-term and short-term cuwould be localized, moderatbeneficial. The preferred altecontribute a very small incremcumulative impact. 

Impacts on NPS Operations and Management 

Operational and visitor facilities located 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. 

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, long-term, 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. 

Same as alternative B.