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

SS1 the below exerpt was written by Kurt R. on our freind the Judge...

"A federal judge has said the National Park Service can't legally allow off-road vehicle traffic at Cape Hatteras National Seashore
because it doesn't an ORV management plan in place. And yet, Cape
Hatteras officials say they have to consult with the Interior Department
before prohibiting the traffic.

What sort of message is the Park Service trying to send? I mean, when
a judge declares that illegal behavior is occurring, should you stop
that behavior, or merely think about stopping it?"


I have no way of knowing what the Conservation groups or the ORV access groups will do in the future. 

I have viewed all the available reg/neg tapes and read every transcript and document that I have come across issued by the 3 conservation groups. I have talked one on one with 2 of the group’s representatives and asked them point blank were they pursing closing the NPS
beach to all ORV use now or in the future.  Nothing suggests to me they have that agenda. If you have information contrary to that assessment I would like to read it.

On the other hand I did read the proposal from the ORV access coalition presented at the reg/neg. They proposed an incredible small amount of non-vehicle access of very limited wilderness/esthetic value. They did not propose any alternative access or pedestrian access compromises.

I am much more concerned with what the ORV access side will propose in the future. I am concerned that under the guise of “Recreational Area” they will morph this Park into a ORV seashore parkway.


"They did
not propose any alternative access or pedestrian access compromises."

The ORV community was not planning on closing the beaches, So they did not have to allocate alternative access for specific groups.

"They proposed an incredible small amount of
non-vehicle access of very limited wilderness/esthetic value. "

Such as the existing miles of Pea Island, Frontage of all villages? With all remaining as shared access! There side proposed signs, strings and padlocks...

Recent history (see article above, combined with the suit after agreeing not to at the Regneg .) dictates that this is a pattern with these groups... Millions of minions waiting to add to the lawyers pockets.


Yes, Matt, and those EVIL Republicans are looking more like the People's Party, LOL.  Why don't we just get to the "ultimate preferred alternative" that these enviro groups would like and see where that fits in.  The pendulum swings both ways at pretty similar trajectories.  People are tired of the litigation that is more a career path for the strident.  Take away the financial gain of being adversary to "sense" and we might get a better outcome. 


SSI
When you asked if the conservation groups would pursue closing the beach to ORV access, Did ANY of the representatives respond "No".
Please note that pedestrian access will automatically be assured where ever orv access is retained. Thus, show me the need to single out pedestrian access. Mute point, I'd say.  
As far as I am concerned, the rest of your comment is irrelevent. I think their reputation speaks for itself. The main thing you just don't seem to get, when you keep trying to compare the conservation groups and the orv groups, is that the orv groups have not and are not trying to restrict any activity the conservation folks want to do. The orv groups are simply trying to keep doing what they have been doing for decades. Always defending. 
They are all for reasonable protection of the resources but it will never be enough and you know it. 
Thats it.

Ron (obxguys)


Ron,

“When you asked if the conservation groups would pursue closing the beach to ORV access, Did ANY of the representatives respond "No".”

Every representative I talked with that had anything to do with the reg/neg or the Consent decree all told me they had no agenda of closing all of CAHA's beaches to ORV use, period.
 

“Please note that pedestrian access will automatically be assured where ever orv access is retained. Thus, show me the need to single out pedestrian access. Mute point, I'd say.”

That is the  major problem for me with this issue.  The ORV access groups see little difference between ORV access and vehicle free access.  The ORV side has consistently proposed very small areas of marginal recreational/scenic value to be designated as vehicle free areas.

“They are all for reasonable protection of the resources but it will never be enough and you know it.”

The two sides have differing views about protecting the resource.  I think it would be difficult for conservation groups to ever say this is the only way (final way) to manage any resource.


"The two sides have differing views about protecting the resource. I think it would be difficult for conservation groups to ever say this is the only way (final way) to manage any resource."

When refering to the furture of this island this indeed is a great quote about the future...


To SS1
You refer to representatives for the 3 conservation groups and that you spoke to two of them, you further imply that this occurred during neg-reg. Could you please tell me who these representatives are asI can only recall one person speaking for the conservation groups that actually said anything committal and that was Jason Rylander. Please help me out here. Maybe I missed where it was that anyone said anything to the effect that these groups had no agenda to close down the beaches to orv access. However, the ensuing law suit and resulting Consent Decree as well as additional statements and actions by Judge Boyle certainly left me with the impression that closure of the beaches to ORV access could realistically be an end result.
Convince me my feelings are unfounded. You can do it by just naming someone with the conversation groups, in a position of authority, that has said "NO", we will not pursue closing the beaches to ORV access.

Ron (obxguys)

PS: When you get a chance, could you also fill me in on the situation with walking dogs on the beach in Southern Shores. The VP article left me wondering exactly what is going on with that. I'm not trying to be funny. Contrary to what you might think, I value your points of view.
Ron


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.