You are here

Groups Announce Intent To Sue Over Big Cypress National Preserve ORV Plan

Share

A coalition of groups has announced its intention to sue the National Park Service over the off-road vehicle plan approved for the Addition lands in Big Cypress National Preserve.

The legal move was not unexpected, as several conservation groups last fall had voiced concerns over the plan, which would allow upwards of 130 miles of primary off-road vehicle routes -- and an undetermined number of secondary routes -- to be threaded through the Addition lands.

The Addition parcel is a 147,000-acre tract in the northeastern corner of the preserve. It was given to the Park Service in 1996 in a land swap with the state of Florida. At the time, Congress directed the Park Service to ban off-road vehicles and hunting in the Addition until a management plan could be developed. That plan was released in its final form in November, and officially approved by the Park Service's Southeast regional director in February.

By adopting its preferred alternative, one criticized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, members of Congress, and conservation groups, the Park Service chose to "maximize motorized access, provide the least amount of wilderness, and develop limited new hiking only trails." With this approach, the Park Service apparently was not swayed by moderate, long-term adverse impacts to water flows, to the control of non-native vegetation, or to the Florida panther the plan would deliver.

Cast aside was the "environmentally preferred" alternative, which 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."

On Wednesday a Notice of Intent to Sue (attached below) was filed by the Sierra Club, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the South Florida Wildlands Association, and the Florida Biodiversity Project. Filing the notice on behalf of the groups was the Washington, D.C., law firm of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal. By filing the notice, the groups give the Park Service, Interior Department, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 60 days to correct potential violations of the Endangered Species Act cited by the groups.

Specifically, the groups maintain that the management plan will be detrimental to such endangered species as the Florida panther and red-cockaded woodpecker, as well as to threatened species such as the Eastern indigo snake, that reside in the Addition lands.

“We are asking the federal agencies involved to protect three highly-endangered species: the Florida Panther, the Indigo Snake and the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker,” said Bradley Stark, Esq., representing the Sierra Club. “This letter is intended to provide the agencies with an opportunity to reconsider whether this level of off-road vehicle use is allowable under federal law considering the anticipated impacts to wildlife, habitat, and one of the last pieces of wilderness that remains east of the Rocky Mountains.”

The Notice of Intent argues that the Big Cypress ORV plan would carve up thousands of acres of habitat essential to the survival of the highly endangered Florida panther.

Among the impacts that the agencies failed to even analyze was ORV traffic and motorized hunting that will significantly diminish available prey for the predatory cat, the groups maintain.

“The National Park Service is well aware of the critical importance of these lands for numerous threatened and endangered plants and animals in south Florida,” said Matthew Schwartz of South Florida Wildlands Association. “The agency could and should have chosen a course of action which puts protection of irreplaceable natural resources above motorized recreation.”

In its criticism of the selected alternative, the EPA in January expressed concern about ORVs “fragmenting the landscape into a disorganized and destructive web of trails and roads.” EPA also predicted increased air, soil and water pollution

“These lands represent the largest remaining tract of undesignated wilderness in Florida – a scarce and precious treasure of the American people,” added Brian Scherf of the Florida Biodiversity Project, pointing out that the impacts from parking lots and access points into formerly undisturbed lands were also completely overlooked.

If no measures are taken by the agencies to bring themselves into compliance with the Endangered Species Act, the groups intend to bring their legal concerns under the Endangered Species Act and other statutes that they maintain were overlooked in the decision-making process into federal court.

“Big Cypress is supposed to be a natural preserve, not a motorized recreation area,” said Jeff Ruch of PEER, noting that the Park Service improperly stripped wilderness eligibility from 40,000 acres of Preserve lands that were then re-designated for ORV trails. “This Big Cypress plan represents a new low for the National Park Service.”

Comments

Matt, the beaches at CAHA will NEVER be closed to people, and saying that is just ridiculous and obscures the facts.  I can understand your concern, but half the NPS mission is for recreation, that will secure people's use of the beaches until the Organic Act is re-written or CAHA ceases to be a unit of the NPS.


Matt, your arguments are hard to swallow even if there may be some validity to them.  When you start using hyperbole such as, ". . .. why he cannot see all of this beautiful seashore without thousands of signs blocking his view," you lose a lot of credibility.

I've read many of your posts here, and although I've agreed with some of your points, much of what you say is obscured by over the top statements that are not backed up by any kind of data.

Do you, by any chance, have some kind of commercial or financial interest you are trying to support here?
 


"there will be another suit from the enviros side because they did not get their way and they will find a way to bend and shape the rules to fit"

I suppose this would be an issue if the "enviros" were also the ones ruling on their suit.


"the beaches at CAHA will NEVER be closed to people, and saying that is just ridiculous and obscures the facts."

DO the Math 19 plover nest at 1,000 meters apart is >the islands available beaches. Simple, but you are saying that the NPS will have to accomodate the people for recreation? where is that written in any form? Enough data Lee?

Lee, the famous items are obstructing my view is the same arguement used by anti ORV people, even though none of them are on the beach at the same locations I am...I do positively know there were none because I was there. What is more desturbing to you while lying on the beach in CAHA thousands of signs or the ORV's... Hint the signs stay there for months and ORV's leave each day.

"I suppose this would be an issue if the "enviros" were also the ones ruling on their suit."

In fact the judge (Terrance Boyle) on this case has specifically tried several times to end ORV's on the beaches and he has stated so in court.


"In fact the judge (Terrance Boyle) on this case has specifically tried several times to end ORV's on the beaches and he has stated so in court."

I'm not sure I follow your point, Matt.  You seem to be suggesting that this judge is himself actually one of the "enviros" bend[ing] and shap[ing] the rules--i.e. the law.  If this is so, why did he only "try" and not succeed?  What prevented this?


justinh

The conservative republican judge (Judge Boyle) that was appointed
by Bush didn’t close all the beaches to ORV access because Defenders, Audubon
and SELC didn’t pursue that outcome. There interest was solely in resource
protection. They do not have an agenda to keep people out of the Park as ORV
access supporters suggest.


Justinh
Are you sure of that, and if so, Please tell me on what you base that statement. I particularly like the part " The conservative republican judge (judge Boyle) that was appointed by Bush didn't close all the beaches to ORV access because Defenders, Audubon and SELC didn't pursue that outcome". I totally agree with you on that one. I believe, as apparently you do, that had they pursued that outcome, we would have no doubt faced closure of all beaches to ORV access.  Says a lot about our judicial system concerning this matter, don't you think. Furthermore, these folks are pretty smart and have done this alot. There is no rush. They take you out a little at a time. No agenda ?  Hope ypu know what you are talking about. Are your dues paid up, because I want you to have a lot of influence.

Ron (obxguys)   


To correct my previous comment.
It was intended to be addressed to SS1.
My apologies to justinh.

Ron (obxguys)


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.