"In utilizing and conserving the natural resources of the Nation, the one characteristic more essential than any other is foresight.... The conservation of our natural resources and their proper use constitute the fundamental problem which underlies almost every other problem of our national life."

Theodore Roosevelt
Address to the National Editorial Association,
Jamestown, Virginia, June 10, 1907

These comments were submitted to the National Park Service on behalf of the Broward Group of the Sierra Club. As in our previous comments, the Broward Group maintains its position that the Addition Lands of the Big Cypress National Preserve be managed for future designation as a national wilderness area. And since wilderness designation would preclude the use of motorized transportation within the boundaries of an area so designated, this will also serve as our view of the off road vehicle management plan which the public was asked to comment on in the Superintendent's most recent newsletter. With the exception of land owners access to and from the remaining legal in holdings within the Addition and entry by NPS officers for the purpose of research, preserve maintenance and law enforcement, our view is that no motorized vehicles should be permitted to access these very special yet extremely fragile lands for the purpose of recreational travel or hunting.

We feel that this view is the one most in accord with 1) the enabling legislation which created both the original preserve and the Addition as well as the Department of the Interior management policies which apply to all units of the National Park Service and 2) the opinions of the overwhelming majority of citizens who have expressed their views on this topic both through the public comment period and through the poll conducted by the Park Unit Studies visitor study in January of 1999.

The following sections will attempt to summarize each of the above areas as they relate to the question of off road vehicle use in the Addition lands.

LEGISLATION, MANDATES AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES

In discussions with ORV users and occasionally Big Cypress Preserve officers, supporters of the wilderness option for the Addition Lands frequently receive the response that "This is a preserve ­ not a park". However, it is very clear when actually reading the legislation which created the Preserve that although there are certain activities which are prohibited from a National Park that can be permissible within the boundaries of a preserve, and that does include ORV use, there is absolutely no requirement that they take place. A passage from the Final Recreational Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan (NPS, Final Recreational Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan, 2000, pg.10) explains this principle clearly ­

"The enabling legislation states that the preserve, as a unit of the national park system, is to be managed in a manner that will ensure its "natural and ecological integrity in perpetuity." The legislation further states the management of the area should be in accordance "with the provisions of the Act of August 25, 1916" (NPS Organic Act). Thus, the natural and ecological integrity of the preserve is the fundamental value that Congress directed the National Park Service to protect.

In the enabling legislation for Big Cypress Natural Preserve, Congress directs the National Park Service to limit and control the use of federal lands and waters with respect to motorized vehicles and certain other activities. The enabling legislation directs the secretary of the interior to develop appropriate rules and regulations to carry out the purpose of the act, protecting the natural and ecological integrity of the watershed. This provision allows, but does not mandate, ORV use in the preserve, and directs the National Park Service to manage ORV use so that it does not impair the natural or cultural resources of the preserve.

The Senate and House reports that comprise part of the preserve's legislative history both contained identical language discussing the management of the preserve (U.S. House of Representatives 1973; U.S. Senate 1974).

The area included in the preserve is largely undeveloped at the present time and . . . it will be managed in a manner which will assure its return to the true wilderness character which once prevailed

These reports indicate an intent to limit and control uses authorized at the time the preserve was created to allow the wilderness character of the area to be restored".

While I apologize for a lengthy quote, it is at the heart of the controversy and clearly indicates the intention of the US Congress that wilderness predominate in the Preserve. It also states that there is absolutely no requirement that ORV use be permitted ­ especially where they have led to impairment of the natural resources, the scenic values and the wilderness quality of the Preserve. With the experience we have gained over the last thirty years, this is far more of a proven fact today than when the above legislation was enacted. The above statements also apply to the Preserve as a whole and would include the Addition Lands.

The 'precautionary principle' ("In all situations involving conflicts between resource protection and resource use, the National Park Service would decide in favor of resources protection." ­ Management Plan, pg. 29) would clearly indicate the necessity for the NPS to prohibit ORVs from areas not yet impaired when there is even the strong possibility of damage to natural resources. Yet the Management Plan is not ambiguous on this topic ­ clearly stating throughout the publication what damage is likely and what damage is definite. A single short example will suffice ­ "Soils. ORV use causes soil rutting, displacement, and compaction. This causes soil loss or reduced productivity." (Management Plan, pg. 19). No ambiguity here whatsoever - according to the National Park Service, ORV usage damages the soils, the very foundation for all life found within the Preserve.

There is also a fundamental difference between the ORV Management Plan written for the main part of the Preserve and the one which will be written for the Addition. This is worth some explanation. In the former case the Plan, written in response to a successful lawsuit against the NPS for its failure to fulfill its primary mandate of resource protection, restricted dispersed ORV use which had caused enormous damage to the natural soil and vegetation. The effects of this damage can still easily be found today. In the case of the Addition Lands, any ORV Management Plan which allowed for recreational use of ORVs would be introducing degradation of the natural resources of the Preserve into an area where it currently does not take place. Here it is also frequently argued that ORV use, if allowed, would not be 'dispersed' but would only use existing raised roads such as Nobles or Bunchu Grades and therefore no soil disturbance would take place. However, any field trip into the Preserve on designated trails such as Concho Billy Trail (itself evidence of damage to the natural and scenic values of the preserve due to the NPS' heavy use of plastic geowebbing and tons of limestone used to protect the underlying substrate of Concho Billy from ORV damage.) quickly illustrates the fact that many ORV riders will not stay on the trail but will engage in exploration on secondary, tertiary trails and beyond. This becomes ever more likely as the capability and reliability of these vehicles increase due to technological improvements and the utilization of sophisticated GPS based navigational aids. This point is also made in the Management Plan.

I have walked through many miles of the Addition Lands either on Sierra Club outings which I frequently lead or through exploratory trips for planning future outings. Remnants of trails are found throughout the Addition. Many of these are left over from decades old logging activities, ranches and leased hunting camps. These are in the extremely slow process of returning to a more natural condition with soil cover and vegetation gradually reforming. However, the rutting and compaction caused by former use has altered the natural hydrology of those areas affected. The movement of water through these trails during periods of inundation is one factor which maintains their visible aspect. Throughout the Addition, where ORV use is currently prohibited, these types of trails are frequently targeted for illegal usage which insures that they will not return to a natural state. Since the Preserve administration has stated many times that the financial resources are not there to provide for enforcement - even in areas where ORV use is currently prohibited which currently includes most of the Addition - it is almost a certainty that once permit holders are legally accessing the Addition on 'elevated roadways' there will be an enormous amount of usage into sensitive habitats and closed areas.

A 1997 study of ORV users found the following ­ "Strong agreement was voiced for the statements "I like to explore new places in Big Cypress" and "I am very attached to a special place in Big Cypress." Such statements indicate that while ORV visitors are deeply attached to certain places such as hunting camps or favored hunting spots, they also assign considerable importance to the opportunity provided by their ORVs to roam and explore the preserve's backcountry". (Management Plan, pg. 117) While some may find exploring new areas not yet disturbed on one's ORV to be fun and exciting, applying the precautionary principle of natural resource protection over visitor use ­ this activity simply cannot be permitted. There is no guarantee that ORV users will stay on the roadways and no enforcement if they don't. And while the concept of 'active management' is frequently brought in at this point to say ­ "We can always close the trails if it doesn't work out", the wet, soft soils of Big Cypress give way so readily to the effects of ORVs that the effects and damage are for all intents and purposes permanent.

"There are no known processes that restore the soil once disturbed. Farm field furrows that existed prior to the preserve's establishment are still clearly visible from the air and on the ground decades later. Soil impacts from ORVs appear to be having a similar persistence over time, with associated hydrological and biological impacts". (Management Plan, pg. 4)
In a very recent news statement dated June 19, 2006, the Department of the Interior (DOI) released the National Park Service's revised draft 2006 Management Policies. I have been told by a Departmental spokesperson that the policies will in all likelihood officially go into effect this coming August. They are extremely sensible and reaffirm our nation's commitment to the natural resources of our deservedly world famous National Parks. They are summarized in the excerpt from the DOI press release below:

"When there is a conflict between conserving resources unimpaired for future generations and the use of those resources, conservation will be predominant," Kempthorne (Secretary of the Department of the Interior Designate) said. "That is the heart of these policies and the lifeblood of our Nation's commitment to care for these special places and provide for their enjoyment."

Key Principles Guiding the National Park Service's Development of the 2006 Management Policies

• When there is a conflict between the protection of resources and use, conservation will be predominant.
• A key tenet of park management is preventing the impairment of natural and cultural resources.
• Park resources should be passed on to future generations in a better condition than currently exists.
• The policies will clarify the NPS commitment to the appropriate use of parks and public enjoyment of park resources and values.
• The policies should reflect NPS legacy goals, cooperative conservation, and civic engagement.
• The NPS will place greater emphasis on consultation and cooperation with local, state, tribal and federal entities.
• The NPS will pursue the best contemporary business practices.
• Key authorities and decision making are the responsibility of the NPS.
• The policies will encourage consistency across the system ­"one" National Park System.
• The policies will comply with all laws, regulations, and executive orders.

Looking at the above first three principles laid out for managing all National Park units by the Department of the Interior, and given the wealth of scientific study that has demonstrated both the probable and certain ecological effects of ORV use in Big Cypress to the soil, vegetation and animal life (relevant sections citing scientific studies which confirm this are easily found throughout the NPS' own Management Plan for the preserve. While the management plan may not apply specifically to the Addition, the scientific evidence does.) It would seem difficult to reconcile the introduction of recreational ORV use in the Addition with the management policies affirmed by the DOI.

PUBLIC OPINION

In dedicating the gateway to Yellowstone in 1903, President Roosevelt said that the "essential feature" of the National Parks was their "essential democracy" in that the parks preserved wilderness and scenery "for the people as a whole."

The recent call for public comments on the alternative management plans for the Addition put forward by the National Park Service received over 800 responses. "A preliminary tally by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel found comments ran about 5-to-1 against allowing off-road vehicles on the Addition Lands". (Source: Sun-Sentinel newspaper, David Fleshler, "Battle Over Big Cypress", March 20, 2006) While the attempt has been made to place these comments in some type of hierarchy in terms of demographics (e.g. those who live in Florida, those who live in south Florida, and those who use the Preserve more frequently than others), this is not in the spirit of what a National Park or a National Preserve represents and should not be done. Whereas expert scientific opinion rightfully carries the most weight in the substantive issues of natural resource management and should always be the basis for management decisions, no arbitrary distinction should be made as to which opinions within the general public should be deemed more important.

As the Park Studies Unit in their 1999 study showed, most visitors to Big Cypress are not locals who use the Preserve on a regular basis. Instead they are first time visitors from nearly every state in the nation as well as international visitors from a variety of countries. The Big Cypress Preserve can be found on every tourist map of Florida and the Preserve is listed in all of the tourist guides. If the guidebook is oriented towards the outdoors and nature activities, the description of the Preserve will be prominent and this assures a steady flow of new visitors to the preserve who come to south Florida not only for our beaches, but also for our truly unique natural beauty. This is decidedly not a local Collier County Park and should not be viewed that way. Of the 582 returned questionnaires in the PSU study, 61% were from visitors making their first trip to Big Cypress (Source: Visitor Services Project, Big Cypress National Preserve Report Summary, January, 1999) In terms of what the visitors polled liked and disliked in the Preserve, this study was also completely consistent with the comments submitted. "Most visitor groups (90%) indicated that the issue of wildlife habitat is either "extremely important" or "moderately important" to the future of Big Cypress NPres. Eighty-six percent of groups rated endangered species as an "extremely important" or "very important" issue".

Due to time considerations, I will not be able to go in detail into the provisions of the Endangered Species Act as they apply to the use of ORVs in the Addition. A single quote applied to Florida's most famous endangered species and again, from the Management Plan, will have to suffice ­ "To reduce the potential adverse impacts, the USFWS recommended that the National Park Service prohibit ORV use in areas regularly used by panthers, except where ORV use was determined essential for the preserve to comply with its mandates". Since there is no mandate to allow for recreational usage, and the precautionary principle is very much in effect, it seems clear that new usage should not be permitted in an area known to be critical panther habitat. In a similar regard, the USFWS has recently proposed the creation of 'Panther Habitat Conservation Banks' in order to set aside and preserve the little bit of critical habitat left in the panther's primary range. The Addition Lands, a still more or less undisturbed area with a known panther population, were not specifically mentioned but should be a prime candidate for the establishment of such a zone as the concentration of panther within the Addition boundaries ­ especially the area north of I-75 and west of the 'Interceptor Canal' ­ is well established. I passed along USFWS' proposal to the preserve administration when I wrote in to support it and solicited opinion from the preserve administration on the topic. To date I have received no reply.

The plight of the panther and the other listed species within the Addition is a topic that must be covered at length in any study which looks at the suitability of the Addition Lands for recreational use of off-road vehicles. To aid that effort, I am enclosing with these comments, the study already done on the Addition Lands by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory. A single paragraph from the cover letter sent to me with that report summarizes their position ­

"Based on the information available, this site appears to be located within a significant region of natural areas and habitat for several rare species. Special consideration should be taken to avoid and/or mitigate impacts to these natural resources, and to design land uses that are compatible with these resources". The Florida panther is specifically cited in that report along with numerous other threatened and endangered species. Current levels of biodiversity in the Addition may well be unparalleled in south Florida as well as in the entire state.

Another set of numbers from the summary report on visitor use is also revealing--

Many visitor groups (78%) felt that viewing wildlife was either "extremely important" or "moderately important" to their visit. Seventy-three percent felt scenic views were "extremely important" or "moderately important," and 72% felt experiencing wilderness was "extremely important" or "moderately important" to their visit. The highest "not important" ratings were given to hunting (80%), off-road vehicle use (66%), fishing (61%), and airboating (53%). Each of these activities were "extremely important" or "moderately important" to some visitors: 7% for hunting, 16% for fishing, and 15% for airboating.

Clearly, even folks who don't necessarily go out in wilderness, place an extremely high value on its existence. In some ways, this is similar to the public reaction that resulted from the President's and some members of Congress' proposal to allow oil and natural gas extraction operations in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ­ another unit of the National Park Service similar in many respects to Big Cypress. The desire to preserve the ANWR unit as wilderness was deeply felt by many Americans, most of whom had never been and have no intention of ever going to that part of Alaska due to distance, time and expense. They simply value wilderness as an important part of our national heritage. In the case of the Addition Lands, a relatively easily accessible area with a far higher concentration of listed plants and animal species (ANWR to my knowledge contains few if any) would be severely compromised. And the damage created would not be done in the process of energy research and supply but simply for the recreational usage of a relatively small number of ORV permit holders.

There are two other points I would like to make before closing these remarks. The first concerns another common criticism of the wilderness proposal. Critics will complain that the area is not "absolutely pristine" and therefore cannot possibly be made a wilderness. The following quotation from a well researched book on Florida ecosystems sheds needed light on that discussion--

"The term 'natural' as used here, is not meant to convey superiority - rather, it simply describes ecosystems that are relatively undisturbed by human influence, ecosystems that still function as they did in pre-Columbian times. This demarcation line is somewhat arbitrary. Even before Columbus, the native people who inhabited Florida purposefully altered the land somewhat by cleaning, burning, and planting, but not nearly so drastically as the Europeans and Africans who succeeded them. 'Natural' is therefore an approximate term that represents a range of values. Some natural ecosystems are nearly pristine and some resemble Florida's original ecosystems sufficiently to be considered natural for the purposes of this book".

Elie Whitney, Ph.D., Bruce Means, Ph.D., Anne Rudloe, Ph.D, Priceless Florida, Natural Ecosystems and Native Species (Sarasota, FL: Pineapple Press, Inc., 2004, pg. 3)

In other words, there can be no solid lines in land classification. Virtually none of the continental United States is absolutely undisturbed at this point in history. However, placed on a continuum between development and untouched wilderness, (with areas like golf courses and local parks lying in between) the Addition Lands lie about as close to wilderness as one is likely to find today. It contains enormous tracts of roadless, undisturbed areas far larger than the five thousand acre minimum required in the Wilderness Act. Visitors are often stunned by the beauty and quietude they find there and by the near total lack of man made disturbances. A staggering variety of animal life and vegetation along with soil, air and water interact in a way that is for all intents and purposes nearly identical to the way it was before south Florida became the overcrowded metropolitan area it is today.

A final remark. In the current newsletter which these comments are in response to, the public has been told that the preserve Administration has "decided to expand the scope of the GMP to include a wilderness study and off-road vehicle management plan for the Addition. The inclusion of the wilderness study will fulfill the legal requirements of the enabling legislation and the Record of Decision for the Recreational Off -Road Vehicle Management Plan. Expanding the scope to include these additional elements will result in efficiency and cost savings".

To begin with, combining the two studies makes no logical sense. Any area deemed suitable for entry into process of designation as wilderness would preclude recreational ORV use. Also, in justifying a combined wilderness study/off-vehicle management plan the emphasis has been placed on speed and economy. We are dealing here with the future of what may well be the last pristine section of south Florida as well as an enormous diversity of plants and animals which depend on it. There is no need to rush this process. According to the Big Cypress National Preserve Enabling Act, the wilderness suitability study was due 13 years ago ­ five years after its signing and I have no idea what has delayed it. However, whereas the decision to create a designated wilderness would be a long process with many stages of study, research and legislative discussion, the decision to permit ORVs on this land would irrevocably change these lands in a single season of use.

In writing these comments I have relied heavily on the use of materials supplied by the National Park Service and other agencies. I have also received enormous help in understanding both the biology of the preserve and the laws which surround it from the staff of Big Cypress Preserve. I would like to thank all of them for their always courteous responses and desire to supply needed information wherever possible. I also drew on my experiences gained from attending a field trip organized by Lyle McCandless and other members of the Big Cypress Sportsmen's Alliance. The trip was enjoyable for all of us and gave me good insight into the respect that these users have for this land however strong the current disagreement over the Addition is. I would add that both Lyle McCandless and Frank Denninger also accompanied me on a Sierra hike to the Addition and were able to share their long experience of Big Cypress with the hikers. I hope that the spirit of cooperation will continue as we arrive at a lawful solution that is in the best interest of the natural resources of the preserve itself.

Sincerely,

Matthew Schwartz
Political Chair and Outings Leader
Broward Group of the Sierra Club