Stop NPS from opening 147,000 acres to off-road vehicles without public map access
Big Cypress National Preserve; Off-Road Motor Vehicles
National Park Service· Big Cypress National PreserveFederal Register 2026-20251 ↗
The groups on this fight
4 groups predicted likely to care in Florida
Predicted likely to care is a guess from footprint in Florida, by the same match the STAND matchmaker runs, with no link to this decision. Give straight to them; nothing routes through us.
- Everglades Foundation
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works Florida: the science and restoration muscle behind Everglades protection.
- Friends of the Everglades
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works Florida: founded by Marjory Stoneman Douglas to defend the River of Grass.
- National Parks Conservation Association
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works Florida: sued Interior in 2020 and won the March 2024 ruling ordering the Park Service to propose the regulation for Biscayne's long-promised marine reserve zone.
- National Wildlife Federation
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works Florida: co-plaintiff defending Gulf park wildlife, from sea turtles to the Rice's whale, in the God Squad suit.
Every group above is on STAND for Public Lands, with its court record, its filings and who backs it.
This rule would open roughly 147,000 acres in the Big Cypress Addition to ORV designation authority, but the controlling map that defines those areas is not available in the public docket.
What’s at risk
The Addition has been closed to ORV use since 1988 and contains active Tribal villages, ceremonial grounds, burial grounds, and habitat for the Florida panther across more than 729,000 acres of the Big Cypress Swamp. Hydrological impacts from ORV use can extend well beyond federal boundaries into a watershed covering more than 2,400 square miles of southern Florida.
If this goes through
The rule would allow the Superintendent to designate ORV routes throughout the 147,000-acre Addition under a default-open regulatory structure, with no codified prohibition on dispersed use and no map in the public record that commenters can examine. Once the rule is finalized, future route designations in the Addition could proceed through the Superintendent's Compendium without additional public rulemaking.
Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.
By the numbers, from the agency’s own document
- Acreage of the Addition opened to ORV designation
- approximately 147,000 acres
- Total acreage of the National Preserve
- over 729,000 acres
- Original Preserve acreage at establishment
- 582,000 acres
- Size of Big Cypress Swamp watershed
- more than 2,400 square miles
- Active traditional Tribal villages in the Preserve
- 15 villages
- Years the Addition has been closed to ORV use under existing rules
- since 1988 (approximately 38 years)
Purpose and Significance of Big Cypress National Preserve
Open the document ↗“In 1988, Congress expanded the boundary to include within the National Preserve an additional approximately 147,000 acres, an area referred to as the Addition.”
Purpose and Significance of Big Cypress National Preserve
Open the document ↗“Protecting over 729,000 acres of this vast swamp, the National Preserve contains a mixture of tropical and temperate plant communities”
Purpose and Significance of Big Cypress National Preserve
Open the document ↗“The original boundary of the preserve surrounded 582,000 acres. This area is referred to as the Original Preserve.”
Purpose and Significance of Big Cypress National Preserve
Open the document ↗“The National Preserve is part of the Big Cypress Swamp, which covers more than 2,400 square miles of southern Florida.”
Consultation With Indian Tribes (Executive Order 13175 and Department Policy)
Open the document ↗“Currently, there are 15 Miccosukee and Seminole active traditional villages in the National Preserve”
ORV Management
Open the document ↗“As written, the special regulations give the Superintendent no authority to allow recreational ORV use in the Addition because it was added to the National Preserve in 1988”
Each figure is checked word for word against the decision document ↗; open a label to read the sentence it comes from and the document it’s in.
The agency’s case, tested
What the agency argues, and whether its own record backs it
- 1
- Holds up
- 5
- No support given yet
The National Park Service wants to replace the outdated 1975 map in its Big Cypress off-road vehicle rules with a map of the preserve's current boundary. That change would let the Superintendent designate off-road routes in the Addition, which joined the preserve in 1988. The agency says the current rules leave approximately 147,000 acres outside the framework it uses everywhere else in the preserve.
“This proposed rule would broaden the scope of the existing special regulations so that the long-standing regulatory framework for managing ORV use in the Original Preserve is applied to managing ORV use in the Addition.”
Proposed Rule
Each Ask below goes into your letter when you write it with PLAN on this page, matched to what you tell it about how this land reaches you.
Purpose and need
No support given yet
The current rules rely on an outdated 1975 map. Because the Addition isn't on that map, the Superintendent has no authority to allow off-road use there.
The rules point to a map numbered BC-91-001, dated November 1975, which shows only the Original Preserve. The Addition, approximately 147,000 acres, joined the preserve in 1988. Since the Addition isn't on that map, the general ban on off-road vehicles applies there. The document's own dates and boundary description back the claim that the map is outdated and leaves the Addition out.
The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words
The agency says
“As written, the special regulations give the Superintendent no authority to allow recreational ORV use in the Addition because it was added to the National Preserve in 1988 and therefore is not depicted on the 1975 map.”
ORV Management
Elsewhere in the same document
“Rather, the special regulations refer to a map numbered BC-91-001, dated November 1975.”
ORV Management
“This map depicts the outer boundary of the Original Preserve, which was the extent of the National Preserve in 1975.”
ORV Management
Purpose and need
No support given yet
The rule would increase recreation and access opportunities at the preserve.
Under the current rules, recreational off-road use is banned in the Addition because the Addition isn't on the 1975 map. A map of the current boundary would let the Superintendent designate routes there. The document's own description of the current ban supports the claim that off-road access would grow. How much it grows depends on routes this notice doesn't describe.
The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words
The agency says
“This rule is a ``one-time'' enabling regulation that would allow the Superintendent to expand consumption options for the American public by increasing opportunities for recreation and access at the National Preserve.”
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 14192)
Elsewhere in the same document
“This means that ORV use is prohibited in the Addition under NPS general regulations that prohibit ORV use except on areas and routes designated in special regulations.”
ORV Management
Effects
No support given yet
Off-road use in the Addition would be limited to designated routes under the record of decision, with no dispersed use.
The agency's strongest support is the record of decision. Its selected alternative allows off-road use only on designated motor vehicle and airboat routes in both the Original Preserve and the Addition, and it doesn't allow dispersed use. Since 2000, Superintendents have used this same framework in the Original Preserve: they designate routes through the Superintendent's Compendium, which closes everything else. Still, the proposed rule text opens every mapped area to motor vehicles unless the Superintendent closes or restricts it. The routes-only limit sits in the Compendium, not in the regulation. The notice also doesn't say whether the Addition designations will be in place when the rule takes effect.
AskWrite the routes-only limit for the Addition into the regulation text, or confirm that the Compendium designations and closures will be in place the day the rule takes effect.
The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words
The agency says
“The Addition is north of Tamiami Trail, meaning that it would become open to ORV use on designated trails consistent with the ROD, which would occur by designating specific routes and areas for ORV use in the Addition through the Superintendent's Compendium.”
Proposed Rule
Elsewhere in the same document
“All other areas within the Original Preserve are open to ORV use under the special regulations, unless closed by the Superintendent.”
ORV Management
Show 2 more claims +Show fewer
Effects
No support given yet
The rule will have no substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian Tribes, so Tribal consultation isn't required.
The agency says it reviewed the rule under the executive order and the Department's Tribal consultation policy. The rule itself only replaces map references. Any routes in the Addition would be designated later through the Superintendent's Compendium. The agency found consultation wasn't required, but it still formally consulted the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, the Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma throughout the Backcountry Access Plan. The same section, though, says there are 15 active traditional villages in the preserve, plus active ceremonial grounds and active burial grounds scattered throughout it. Some tribal members also depend on the preserve's resources. The notice doesn't say where these sites are in relation to the Addition or its routes, so it doesn't show the basis for the finding of no substantial direct effect.
AskExplain how the Addition routes avoid active villages, ceremonial grounds and burial grounds, and reconsider whether formal consultation on this rule is required.
The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words
The agency says
“The NPS has evaluated this proposed rule under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and under the Department's Tribal consultation policy and has determined that Tribal consultation is not required because this rule will have no substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian Tribes.”
Consultation With Indian Tribes (Executive Order 13175 and Department Policy)
Elsewhere in the same document
“Currently, there are 15 Miccosukee and Seminole active traditional villages in the National Preserve, and more sites that are now considered historic cultural sites, multiple active ceremonial grounds, and active burial grounds scattered throughout the preserve.”
Consultation With Indian Tribes (Executive Order 13175 and Department Policy)
“Some Miccosukee and Seminole Indians who make their homes in the area depend on the resources of the preserve for food, shelter, and spiritual needs.”
Purpose and Significance of Big Cypress National Preserve
Economics
No support given yet
The rule won't require state, local or Tribal governments or the private sector to spend money above the unfunded mandates threshold.
The rule only replaces two references to the 1975 map and changes no other provisions. Its effect is to let the Superintendent designate routes. Nothing in the rule text requires governments or businesses to spend money. The fuller economic analysis is in the Regulatory Analysis report, which isn't in this text.
The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words
The agency says
“This regulation will not result in expenditures by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, in excess of the threshold.”
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Elsewhere in the same document
“Without changing any other provisions in the special regulations, this rule would replace two references to the 1975 map with references to a map that depicts the current boundary of the National Preserve, which includes the Addition.”
Proposed Rule
Where its own record backs the agency
AuthorityCongress meant to allow off-road vehicles in the preserve under careful regulation, so the Park Service can designate areas for them through a special regulation.Why it holds +
The document quotes the enabling act, which directs rules that limit or control motor vehicles. It also says Park Service rules allow off-road routes to be designated by special regulation in national preserves, and Big Cypress is one. So the cited power covers this action. That power comes with a condition, though: off-road use has to be carefully regulated to protect natural, wildlife and wilderness values.
The agency says
“The legislative history of the enabling act indicates that Congress intended to allow off-road motorized vehicles (ORVs) in the National Preserve, but only if their use is carefully regulated to protect the natural, wildlife, and wilderness values of the preserve.”
Authority To Promulgate Regulations
Read from the agency’s own notice ↗, the notice that opens this window; the full analysis comes later, so what it leaves unsupported is what to ask it to show. Every quote is checked word for word against it, a claim marked contradicted stands on a quote from the same document, and a second reading argued the agency’s side of every verdict before it was published. The verdicts are our reading; the quotes are the agency’s. A court can set aside agency action it finds “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” (5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A) ↗), which is why these gaps are worth putting in the record.
What to say
Make these points, in your own words
- I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below.
- The proposed rule opens approximately 147,000 acres in the Addition to potential ORV use, but the Federal Register notice provides no environmental analysis of its own for that expansion. The agency says this rule merely implements the ROD and BAP, but the notice contains zero site-specific impact data, no summary of impacts to soils, hydrology, or listed species in the Addition, and no stand-alone NEPA analysis attached to the rulemaking itself. Readers are told only that the BAP EIS exists elsewhere online. Under NEPA, a proposed rule with direct environmental consequences must carry or incorporate by reference a sufficient analytical record in the rulemaking docket. The agency should publish a plain-language summary of the BAP's impact findings for the Addition directly in the rulemaking record, or explain precisely which BAP sections and findings the rule relies on and why those…
- The rule characterizes itself as a 'deregulatory action' under Executive Order 14192 that 'expands consumption options' and increases 'recreation and access,' but the same document acknowledges that ORV use has been prohibited in the 147,000-acre Addition since at least 1988 because the 1975 map did not cover it. Treating the removal of a long-standing prohibition as deregulation that requires no cost-benefit showing contradicts the agency's own account of the legal status quo. The agency should explain why a rule that opens roughly 147,000 additional acres to motorized vehicles qualifies as a purely deregulatory action with no countervailing costs, and it should disclose whether that characterization caused any required economic analyses to be omitted or truncated.
- The Tribal consultation section concedes that the Miccosukee and Seminole Tribes shared a specific view about the human-land relationship and that the selected alternative was chosen 'in part because it is responsible to the concerns expressed' by the Tribes, yet the notice provides no description of what those concerns were, what routes or areas the Tribes objected to, or how the selected alternative addresses those concerns. At the same time, the agency determined that formal Tribal consultation was 'not required' for this rulemaking. Given that there are 15 active traditional villages, active ceremonial grounds, and active burial grounds in the Preserve, the agency should either conduct formal Tribal consultation on this proposed rule and publish the results, or explain in detail why the BAP consultation record fully covers the regulatory action now proposed.
- The notice states that the special regulations refer to a 1975 map and that 'this map is outdated and does not depict the current boundary of the National Preserve,' yet the replacement map (numbered 26-001, dated May 1, 2026) is described only as 'available for public inspection at the office of the Superintendent.' There is no link, no image, and no description of its contents in the Federal Register notice or the online docket as described. Commenters cannot meaningfully evaluate what areas are being opened or closed without seeing the controlling map. The agency should make map 26-001 directly available in the public docket on regulations.gov before the comment period closes, so that any member of the public can examine it without traveling to Ochopee, Florida.
Show every point from the document
- The notice states that ORV use has been managed since 2000 through the Superintendent's Compendium, which designates specific routes and closes all other locations. It then says this rule will allow the Superintendent to designate routes in the Addition 'consistent with the selected alternative in the ROD, which does not allow for dispersed ORV use.' But the rule text itself does not codify any prohibition on dispersed use in the Addition; it simply opens areas to motorized vehicles subject to the Superintendent's discretion. Nothing in the amended regulatory text prevents a future Superintendent from compendium-opening broad areas rather than discrete routes. The agency should amend the regulatory text to expressly prohibit dispersed ORV use in the Addition and limit authorization to designated routes, matching the stated intent of the ROD.
- The notice asserts that the rule 'would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more' and lists no significant adverse effects on competition or employment, yet the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis is contained only in a separate document available at an external website and is not summarized in the Federal Register notice itself. Small entities, including outfitters, guides, and hunting camp operators who depend on access to the Addition, cannot assess their regulatory exposure without locating and reading that separate report. The agency should publish at minimum a summary of the IRFA findings in the Federal Register notice, including the number of small entities affected and the nature and estimated magnitude of the impacts, as the RFA requires.
- Congress directed the Secretary to 'carefully regulate' ORV use to protect 'natural, wildlife, and wilderness values,' and the legislative history is cited as evidence of that intent. The notice states the National Preserve contains the Florida panther, a federally listed species. Yet the proposed rule contains no discussion of Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service specifically for this rulemaking, and no mention of any Biological Assessment or Biological Opinion covering the regulatory action of opening 147,000 acres in the Addition to ORV designation authority. The agency should disclose whether a Section 7 consultation was completed for this proposed rule as distinct from the BAP, and if not, explain why the BAP consultation is legally adequate to cover the rulemaking.
- The notice describes a 60-day public comment window (October 2 to December 1, 2026) for a proposed rule that opens roughly 147,000 acres to ORV designation authority, involves listed species including the Florida panther, implicates active tribal villages and burial grounds, and relies on a controlling map that is not in the public docket. The BAP and ROD that form the analytical foundation for this rule are available only at an external planning website, not incorporated into the docket. Sixty days is insufficient for the public to locate, read, and comment on hundreds of pages of supporting documents that are not part of the rulemaking record as published. The agency should extend the comment period to at least 90 days and place the full BAP, ROD, IRFA, and map 26-001 directly in the regulations.gov docket.
- The notice states that 'since the issuance of the Final Recreational Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) in 2000, Superintendents of the National Preserve have managed ORV use in the Original Preserve by designating specific routes and areas.' This means the practical effect in the Original Preserve has been route-specific designation, not preserve-wide openness. The proposed rule, however, does not carry that compendium-based management structure into its text; it simply replaces the map reference, leaving the default rule that all areas shown on the new map are open unless closed by the Superintendent. The agency should explain why it chose a default-open regulatory structure for the Addition rather than codifying a default-closed structure consistent with how the Original Preserve has actually been managed for the past 26 years.
- The notice says the rule will have 'no direct effects on other areas' under the Federalism analysis and will 'not result in expenditures by State, local, or Tribal governments' above the UMRA threshold. However, the National Preserve is part of the Big Cypress Swamp, which covers more than 2,400 square miles of southern Florida, and ORV use affects hydrology in a watershed that extends well beyond federal boundaries. The notice makes no attempt to analyze downstream hydrological or water-quality effects on state lands, adjacent private lands, or Tribal lands. The agency should analyze and disclose any hydrological connectivity between the Addition and adjacent non-federal lands, and explain why no state, local, or Tribal government expenditures will result from managing increased ORV-related hydrological impacts.
- Say something only you can say. The law requires the agency to consider and respond to substantive comments, and specifics are what make a comment substantive.
In the agency’s own words
The National Park Service proposes to amend special regulations for Big Cypress National Preserve that regulate the use of motorized vehicles off roads. The current regulations refer to a map that identifies areas within the National Preserve where motorized vehicles can be used unless closed by the Superintendent. This map is outdated and does not depict the current boundary of the National Preserve, which was expanded in 1988 by approximately 147,000 acres. This rule would replace references to the outdated map with references to a map showing the current boundary of the National Preserve, with the effect of ex…
Federal Register 2026-20251 ↗Read the docket on regulations.gov ↗
Did the agency answer?
10 issues are on this record. The agency has not published its decision document yet, so each one stays pending until the agency answers.
Issues on the record, awaiting the decision
- PendingThe notice asserts that the rule 'would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more' and lists no significant adverse effects on competition or employment, yet the Regulatory Flex
The notice asserts that the rule 'would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more' and lists no significant adverse effects on competition or employment, yet the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis is contained only in a separate document available at an external website and is not summarized in the Federal Register notice itself. Small entities, including outfitters, guides, and hunting camp operators who depend on access to the Addition, cannot assess their regulatory exposure without locating and reading that separate report. The agency should publish at minimum a summary of the IRFA findings in the Federal Register notice, including the number of small entities affected and the nature and estimated magnitude of the impacts, as the RFA requires.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe proposed rule opens approximately 147,000 acres in the Addition to potential ORV use, but the Federal Register notice provides no environmental analysis of its own for that expansion.
The proposed rule opens approximately 147,000 acres in the Addition to potential ORV use, but the Federal Register notice provides no environmental analysis of its own for that expansion. The agency says this rule merely implements the ROD and BAP, but the notice contains zero site-specific impact data, no summary of impacts to soils, hydrology, or listed species in the Addition, and no stand-alone NEPA analysis attached to the rulemaking itself. Readers are told only that the BAP EIS exists elsewhere online. Under NEPA, a proposed rule with direct environmental consequences must carry or incorporate by reference a sufficient analytical record in the rulemaking docket. The agency should publish a plain-language summary of the BAP's impact findings for the Addition directly in the rulemaking record, or explain precisely which BAP sections and findings the rule relies on and why those findings are adequate for the regulatory action being taken.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe rule characterizes itself as a 'deregulatory action' under Executive Order 14192 that 'expands consumption options' and increases 'recreation and access,' but the same document acknowledges that O
The rule characterizes itself as a 'deregulatory action' under Executive Order 14192 that 'expands consumption options' and increases 'recreation and access,' but the same document acknowledges that ORV use has been prohibited in the 147,000-acre Addition since at least 1988 because the 1975 map did not cover it. Treating the removal of a long-standing prohibition as deregulation that requires no cost-benefit showing contradicts the agency's own account of the legal status quo. The agency should explain why a rule that opens roughly 147,000 additional acres to motorized vehicles qualifies as a purely deregulatory action with no countervailing costs, and it should disclose whether that characterization caused any required economic analyses to be omitted or truncated.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe Tribal consultation section concedes that the Miccosukee and Seminole Tribes shared a specific view about the human-land relationship and that the selected alternative was chosen 'in part because
The Tribal consultation section concedes that the Miccosukee and Seminole Tribes shared a specific view about the human-land relationship and that the selected alternative was chosen 'in part because it is responsible to the concerns expressed' by the Tribes, yet the notice provides no description of what those concerns were, what routes or areas the Tribes objected to, or how the selected alternative addresses those concerns. At the same time, the agency determined that formal Tribal consultation was 'not required' for this rulemaking. Given that there are 15 active traditional villages, active ceremonial grounds, and active burial grounds in the Preserve, the agency should either conduct formal Tribal consultation on this proposed rule and publish the results, or explain in detail why the BAP consultation record fully covers the regulatory action now proposed.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe notice states that the special regulations refer to a 1975 map and that 'this map is outdated and does not depict the current boundary of the National Preserve,' yet the replacement map (numbered
The notice states that the special regulations refer to a 1975 map and that 'this map is outdated and does not depict the current boundary of the National Preserve,' yet the replacement map (numbered 26-001, dated May 1, 2026) is described only as 'available for public inspection at the office of the Superintendent.' There is no link, no image, and no description of its contents in the Federal Register notice or the online docket as described. Commenters cannot meaningfully evaluate what areas are being opened or closed without seeing the controlling map. The agency should make map 26-001 directly available in the public docket on regulations.gov before the comment period closes, so that any member of the public can examine it without traveling to Ochopee, Florida.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe notice states that ORV use has been managed since 2000 through the Superintendent's Compendium, which designates specific routes and closes all other locations.
The notice states that ORV use has been managed since 2000 through the Superintendent's Compendium, which designates specific routes and closes all other locations. It then says this rule will allow the Superintendent to designate routes in the Addition 'consistent with the selected alternative in the ROD, which does not allow for dispersed ORV use.' But the rule text itself does not codify any prohibition on dispersed use in the Addition; it simply opens areas to motorized vehicles subject to the Superintendent's discretion. Nothing in the amended regulatory text prevents a future Superintendent from compendium-opening broad areas rather than discrete routes. The agency should amend the regulatory text to expressly prohibit dispersed ORV use in the Addition and limit authorization to designated routes, matching the stated intent of the ROD.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingCongress directed the Secretary to 'carefully regulate' ORV use to protect 'natural, wildlife, and wilderness values,' and the legislative history is cited as evidence of that intent.
Congress directed the Secretary to 'carefully regulate' ORV use to protect 'natural, wildlife, and wilderness values,' and the legislative history is cited as evidence of that intent. The notice states the National Preserve contains the Florida panther, a federally listed species. Yet the proposed rule contains no discussion of Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service specifically for this rulemaking, and no mention of any Biological Assessment or Biological Opinion covering the regulatory action of opening 147,000 acres in the Addition to ORV designation authority. The agency should disclose whether a Section 7 consultation was completed for this proposed rule as distinct from the BAP, and if not, explain why the BAP consultation is legally adequate to cover the rulemaking.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe notice describes a 60-day public comment window (October 2 to December 1, 2026) for a proposed rule that opens roughly 147,000 acres to ORV designation authority, involves listed species including
The notice describes a 60-day public comment window (October 2 to December 1, 2026) for a proposed rule that opens roughly 147,000 acres to ORV designation authority, involves listed species including the Florida panther, implicates active tribal villages and burial grounds, and relies on a controlling map that is not in the public docket. The BAP and ROD that form the analytical foundation for this rule are available only at an external planning website, not incorporated into the docket. Sixty days is insufficient for the public to locate, read, and comment on hundreds of pages of supporting documents that are not part of the rulemaking record as published. The agency should extend the comment period to at least 90 days and place the full BAP, ROD, IRFA, and map 26-001 directly in the regulations.gov docket.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe notice states that 'since the issuance of the Final Recreational Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) in 2000, Superintendents of the National Preser
The notice states that 'since the issuance of the Final Recreational Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) in 2000, Superintendents of the National Preserve have managed ORV use in the Original Preserve by designating specific routes and areas.' This means the practical effect in the Original Preserve has been route-specific designation, not preserve-wide openness. The proposed rule, however, does not carry that compendium-based management structure into its text; it simply replaces the map reference, leaving the default rule that all areas shown on the new map are open unless closed by the Superintendent. The agency should explain why it chose a default-open regulatory structure for the Addition rather than codifying a default-closed structure consistent with how the Original Preserve has actually been managed for the past 26 years.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe notice says the rule will have 'no direct effects on other areas' under the Federalism analysis and will 'not result in expenditures by State, local, or Tribal governments' above the UMRA threshol
The notice says the rule will have 'no direct effects on other areas' under the Federalism analysis and will 'not result in expenditures by State, local, or Tribal governments' above the UMRA threshold. However, the National Preserve is part of the Big Cypress Swamp, which covers more than 2,400 square miles of southern Florida, and ORV use affects hydrology in a watershed that extends well beyond federal boundaries. The notice makes no attempt to analyze downstream hydrological or water-quality effects on state lands, adjacent private lands, or Tribal lands. The agency should analyze and disclose any hydrological connectivity between the Addition and adjacent non-federal lands, and explain why no state, local, or Tribal government expenditures will result from managing increased ORV-related hydrological impacts.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
The reporting behind this
From More Than Just ParksAfter more than a decade chasing peak color across America, we built the foliage map we always wanted.
More logging. Fewer protections for big trees, roadless country and wildlife. Another sweeping change to America’s public lands is moving fast.
Another foreign mining company wants a piece of America’s public lands. This one comes with millions of gallons of groundwater pumping and radioactive radon.
More actions that need you
Go deeper, free
See how your members of Congress vote on public lands
Every representative, graded on the votes that decide the fate of parks, forests, and refuges.
Open ↗The mapSee the places under active threat
A live map of the parks, monuments, and wild country in the crosshairs right now.
Open ↗A wrong fact, a dead link, a form that wouldn’t take your letter: one tap and it comes to the people who build PLAN, with this fight attached.
Know an open comment period we are missing, or spotted a wrong deadline? .