8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
1/73
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION
ASSOCIATION
777 6th
Street, NW Suite 700
Washington, DC 20001(800) 628-7275
JOHN ADORNATO III
450 N. Park Road Suite 301
Hollywood, FL 33020(954) 961-1280, ext. 207
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
(202) 208-3100
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
(202) 208-6843
UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFESERVICE
1849 C Street, NWWashington, DC 20240
(202) 208-4646
Defendants.
)
No.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
))
))
)
)
)
)
)
)))
COMPLAINT FOR REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTIONS UNDER THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT AND FOR AN INJUNCTION
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 1 of 73 PageID 1
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
2/73
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction and Summary ................................................................................................. 1
Jurisdiction and Venue....................................................................................................... 9
The Parties and Standing ...................................................................................................10
Allegations Common to All Counts...................................................................................12
The Preserve...........................................................................................................12
Off-Road Vehicles .................................................................................................15
The 2000 ORV Plan for the Original Preserve ......................................................15
ORV Impacts on the Florida Panther.....................................................................17
The GMP and the Wilderness Eligibility Determination.......................................18
The FWSs Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement............................22
The NPSs ROD.....................................................................................................23
First Claim for Relief (Wilderness Act of 1964) ...............................................................24
Second Claim for Relief (The Laws Governing the National Park Systemand the Preserve)....................................................................................................30
Impairment.............................................................................................................31
Elevation of Recreational Use Over Conservation ................................................36
Administration of the Preserve Inconsistent with the Enabling Act......................39
Third Claim for Relief (National Park Service Rule 4.10) ................................................40
Fourth Claim for Relief (National Environmental Policy Act) .........................................43
Fifth Claim for Relief (Arbitrary and Capricious Agency Action
and Abuse of Discretion) .......................................................................................56
Sixth Claim for Relief (Endangered Species Act 7(a))...................................................57
The FWS Biological Opinion at Issue Here ..........................................................59
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 2 of 73 PageID 2
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
3/73
ii
Seventh Claim for Relief (Endangered Species Act 7(b)(4), 7(o) and 9).....................63
The FWSs Incidental Take Statement at Issue Here ............................................65
Eighth Claim for Relief (Federal Advisory Committee Act).............................................66
Prayer for Relief.................................................................................................................69
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 3 of 73 PageID 3
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
4/73
1
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1. Plaintiff National Parks Conservation Association brings this action under
the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551-559, and the other Federal statutes
relied on below to seek review of and to challenge the National Park Services (NPS)
Final General Management Plan/Wilderness Study/Off-Road Vehicle Management
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement dated October 20, 2010 (the GMP) relating to
the Addition at Big Cypress National Preserve, a unit of the National Park System; the
Record of Decision (ROD) thereon; and the Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS)
biological opinion and incidental take statement relating thereto under the Endangered
Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. (the ESA). Plaintiffs NPCA and John Adornato
III also bring this action under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 5 and the Department of the Interiors
regulations thereunder, seeking review of the NPSs decisions concerning the
composition of its ORV Advisory Committee which, among other things, is to
participate in the implementation of the GMP, and to enjoin the further operation of that
Committee unless and until it is reconfigured in such a manner as to comply with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act.
2. Congress established Big Cypress National Preserve to assure the
preservation, conservation and protection of the natural, scenic, hydrologic, floral and
faunal and recreational values of the Big Cypress watershed. 16 U.S.C. 698f(a). The
Preserve as originally established consisted of approximately 582,000 acres (the
Original Preserve). In 1988, Congress added an additional 147,000 acres (the
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 4 of 73 PageID 4
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
5/73
2
Addition). The Preserve, which now includes the Original Preserve and the Addition
(together, the Preserve), is a mosaic of pinelands, prairies and cypress tree swamps.
More than 20 animal species which are rare, endangered or otherwise in jeopardy also
have their habitat in the Preserve. Migrating birds utilize the area as a critical resting
place and as an area for feeding and nesting.
3. While NPS has previously opened portions of the Original Preserve to use
by off-road vehicles (ORVs), the Addition has been closed to ORV use since the land
was acquired by NPS. State and local officials and ORV users, however, have pressured
NPS to open the Addition to ORV use and to do so at an early date. Succumbing to that
pressure, NPS prepared the GMP and obtained the legally required FWS biological
opinion and incidental take statement at issue here. In February 2011, NPS issued its
ROD, setting forth NPSs decisions based upon the GMP and those FWS documents.
NPS decided to open 130 miles of primary ORV trails through the Addition, which will
be available for recreational swamp buggies, all-terrain vehicles, and four-wheel-drive
street legal vehicles such as SUVs. In addition, NPS proposed only about 47,000 acres of
Additions 147,000 acres for protection under the Wilderness Act of 1964, 16 U.S.C.
1131-1136 (the Wilderness Act). Under that Act, designated wilderness is off-limits
to ORV use. 16 U.S.C. 1133(c).
4. ORVs have long been recognized, however, to have significant adverse
impacts on natural areas. See, e.g., Exec. Order 11644, 37 FED. REG. 2877 (Feb. 8, 1972)
(Exec. Order 11644). In 2000, NPS documented as to the Original Preserve that ORVs
had created ruts as deep as two feet, affecting water flows; had altered plant species
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 5 of 73 PageID 5
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
6/73
3
composition and distribution and had otherwise damaged vegetation; and had had a
dramatic adverse effect on wildlife, including by reducing their hunting and mating
opportunities.
5. In the GMP, NPS purported to analyze the environmental impact of such
ORV use, as required under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-
4347 (NEPA). NPS there recognized the significant and unique natural resources of
the Addition. NPS envisioned the Preserve, including the Addition, as a nationally
significant ecological resource . 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. GMP at 16. Among other things, the Florida National Scenic Trail goes
through the Addition.
6. The Preserve is also critically important as a wildlife sanctuary, as the
GMP also recognized. The ESA mandates that all federal agencies insure that any
action authorized, funded or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered species. 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2). The Florida
panther has been listed as an endangered species under the ESA. In 2006, moreover,
the FWS found that there is a significant threat of extinction of the Florida panther, of
which it is estimated that only 113 remain, concentrated heavily in the area of the
Addition. Nevertheless, in its biological opinion, FWS arbitrarily and capriciously
concluded that creating 130 miles of primary ORV trails through the panthers habitat in
the Addition was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Florida panther.
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 6 of 73 PageID 6
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
7/73
4
The NPS relied on that flawed opinion in taking the actions at issue here. As required by
the ESA, FWS also issued an incidental take statement, purporting to impose terms and
conditions on the NPSs actions. Id. 1536(b)(4). However, those terms and conditions
fail to comply with the requirements of the ESA because they imposed no limitation on
the extent of harm ORV use is permitted to cause the Florida panther. See Miccosukee
Tribe Indians of Florida v. U.S., 566 F.3d 1257, 1275 (11th Cir. 2009) (incidental take
statements must impost limitations on harm permitted, expressed in terms of specific
population data unless that is impracticable, but in any event an incidental take statement
must contain an adequate trigger to terminate the activity until further FWS review).
By letter dated May 26, 2011, Plaintiff notified Defendants of their violations of the ESA
and of Plaintiffs intent to sue for those violations in accordance with the requirements of
16 U.S.C. 1540(g).
7. More generally, the Addition is also a critical part of the south Florida
ecosystem. The Addition, which is covered with water much of each year, serves as a
large reservoir and nutrient filter, permitting natural biological processes to nourish
diverse ecological communities that are distinctive to southern Florida. The Addition is
very flat and slopes very gradually, and water slowly flows through the Addition and into
Everglades National Park. The GMP recognized that that water flow is vital for the
health of parts of the Everglades.
8. NEPA is designed to prevent agencies from acting on incomplete
information about the environmental impacts of agency actions and to ensure that
important environmental impacts will not be overlooked or underestimated. Sierra Club
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 7 of 73 PageID 7
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
8/73
5
v. U.S. Army Corps of Engrs, 295 F.3d 1209, 1214 (11th Cir. 2002). However,
succumbing to the pressure to open the Addition to use by ORVs, NPS completed the
GMPs environmental impact analysis and made the other decisions described in
Paragraph 3 above despite the fact that NPS was still lacking information and studies
which were essential to the decisions being made. For example:
NPS had not sufficiently studied the impact of ORV use on the highlyendangered Florida panther.
NPS does not have an understanding of the impacts of ORV trails andORV use on critical surface water flows through the Addition, including
water flows into Everglades National Park.
NPS had not evaluated the impact of ORV use on the natural soundscapeof the Preserve, which is critical both to the enjoyment of non-motorized
visitors and to the health and habitat of wildlife in the Addition.
NPS found that adverse impacts of ORV use in the Addition would bemitigated by applying there the same ORV Management Plan adopted in
2000 for the Original Preserve, but NPS had never studied whether thatPlan had been effective in mitigating adverse impacts in the OriginalPreserve.
In fact, in part because of the enormous area of the Original Preserve and the lack of
adequate enforcement and monitoring resources, that 2000 plan has not been effective in
minimizing or eliminating the adverse impacts from authorized ORV use or in controlling
unauthorized ORV use in the Original Preserve. See United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Comment Letter, January 4, 2011 at 3 (commenting that
[i]nsufficient enforcement of existing regulations has resulted in thousands of miles of
unauthorized routes across the landscape.).
9. However, when NPS finalized the GMP and made the decisions described
in Paragraph 3 above, the information NPS did have made clear that ORV use in the
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 8 of 73 PageID 8
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
9/73
6
Addition would have serious negative impacts on the natural, scenic, hydrologic, floral
and faunal and non-motorized recreational values of the Addition. NPSs decisions were
therefore inconsistent with the Congressional mandate that NPS must manage the
Preserve lands in a manner which will assure their natural and ecological integrity in
perpetuity . 16 U.S.C. 698i(a). Well aware of the significant damage that ORVs
cause, Congress also directed NPS to limit or control the use of ORVs in the Preserve
to carry out the purposes for which Congress established it. 16 U.S.C. 698i(b). And
Congress made clear that, while outdoor recreation was to be permitted, recreational uses
must be limited to activities where, or periods when, such human visitation would not
interfere with or disrupt the values which the area is created to preserve. See S. Rep.
No. 93-1128, at 27; H.R. Rep. No. 93-502, at 80. NPS sought to circumvent Congress
purposes in establishing the Preserve and adding the Addition, as clearly reflected in the
language and legislative history, by mischaracterizing that purpose in the GMP.
Similarly, the GMP failed to disclose that NPSs own system-wide ORV regulation has
long prohibited authorization of ORVs in the National Park System, of which the
Preserve is a part, unless NPS determines that off-road vehicle use in such locations will
not adversely affect their natural, aesthetic, or scenic values. Exec. Order 11644
3(a)(4), incorporated into NPS Rule 4.10, 36 C.F.R. 4.10. ORV use in the Addition
will clearly adversely affect those values, and NPS has made no determination to the
contrary.
10. In an effort to justify its unjustifiable decisions, NPS also manipulated the
process by which it evaluated the adverse impacts of permitting ORVs in the Addition in
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 9 of 73 PageID 9
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
10/73
7
order to downplay those impacts and thereby avoid the legal mandates to which NPS is
subject. For example, NPS downplayed the adverse impacts of permitting ORV use in
the Addition by claiming that such impacts would be offset by, among other things, the
benefits of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Plan. However, that Plan which
contemplates changing the South Florida hydrology cannot properly be considered to
mitigate the adverse impacts because NPSs decisions are not conditioned upon
implementation of that Plan and because there is no reasonable possibility that that very
long term Plan will be implemented in the foreseeable future in ways which would
actually offset the adverse impacts of ORV use in the Addition. Indeed, the budget for
that plan was only recently cut substantially.
11. To remove another barrier to permitting ORV use in the Addition, NPS
manipulated its analysis of portions which would be eligible for protection as
wilderness under the Wilderness Act. Not only is land designated as wilderness
under that Act barred to recreational ORVs, but NPS must manage and maintain as
wilderness any area that is eligible for wilderness protection under that Act until
Congress decides whether to designate it as such. NPS therefore faced a dilemma
because it had conducted a wilderness study of the Addition in 2006, which had
concluded that more than 111,000 acres in the Addition were eligible for wilderness
protection. NPS therefore had to find a way to change that conclusion in order to open
more of the Additions 147,000 acres to ORV use. In late 2009 and early 2010, NPS did
so, reducing the area found to be wilderness-eligible by 40,000 acres. NPS achieved that
result by the device of applying a novel, unprecedented and incorrect interpretation of the
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 10 of 73 PageID 10
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
11/73
8
statutory requirements for wilderness. NPS failed even to acknowledge in the GMP
that it was applying such a new interpretation.
12. In a further effort to appease the supporters of more ORV use in the
Preserve, NPS also decided that its ORV Advisory Committee established in 2007 will
participate in making decisions and/or recommendations concerning the implementation
of the GMP and the ROD in the Addition. The make-up of that committee has been
heavily weighted since its creation in favor of supporters of ORV use in the Preserve.
Sportsmen and other users of ORVs and their supporters have constituted more than half
of the membership of that Committee. NPS has violated the Federal Advisory committee
Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 5 (FACA), by creating and relying on the decisions and/or
recommendations of such a committee that is not fairly balanced in terms of the points of
view represented and because special interests have inappropriately significant
membership on that Committee.
13. Defendants have accordingly put at risk the unique and significant natural
resources of the Preserve, including the highly endangered Florida panther, have
interfered with the ability of other visitors to enjoy the Preserve and have thwarted the
intent of Congress in establishing the Preserve. NPSs actions have violated NEPA; the
Wilderness Act; the National Park System Organic Act, as amended and supplemented,
16 U.S.C. 1-18f; the Acts establishing Big Cypress National Preserve and adding the
Addition to it, 16 U.S.C. 698f-698m; the ESA; FACA; and regulations governing the
use of ORVs in the National Park System, 36 C.F.R. 4.10, and Executive Order 11644
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 11 of 73 PageID 11
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
12/73
9
incorporated into that regulation. FWSs actions have violated the ESA. Defendants
actions are also arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion.
14. The NPCA therefore asks the Court to invalidate the NPSs GMP and
ROD and the FWSs biological opinion and incidental take statement and to remand to
NPS and FWS for further proceedings to comply with their statutory and regulatory
mandates. In addition, NPCA and Plaintiff Adornato ask the Court to enjoin (i) the
continued operation of the Preserves ORV Advisory Committee unless and until its
membership has been reconstituted so as to comply with FACA and (ii) NPSs taking any
action which relies on or implements any decision and/or recommendation made by that
Committee prior to the issuance of such an injunction.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15. This action arises under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
551-559, and the statutes and regulations cited in Paragraphs 12 and 14 above, which
are incorporated here by reference. This Court accordingly has jurisdiction over this
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331.
16. Venue in this case is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(e). A significant
portion of the Preserve and the Addition are located in this judicial district. Defendant
NPS has an office in this district. A substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise
to the claims occurred in this district.
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 12 of 73 PageID 12
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
13/73
10
THE PARTIES AND STANDING
17. Plaintiff National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) is a non-
profit membership organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., the Sun Coast
Regional Office of which is located in Hollywood, Florida. Founded in 1919, the NPCA
is the largest national organization in the United States dedicated to the protection and
enhancement of the National Park System. NPCA has approximately 340,000 members,
more than 18,000 of whom reside in the State of Florida.
18. NPCAs members have an aesthetic, educational, health and spiritual
interest that will be harmed by the environmental impacts that will result from the GMP
and NPSs decisions thereunder, including impacts to the land, water, scenery and
wildlife in the Addition. Many of the NPCAs members live near and regularly visit the
Preserve, including the Addition, for wildlife observation, hiking, photography and other
similar uses, and they will continue to do so. They are drawn to the unusual scenic
beauty of the area and enjoy exploring the wilderness and trails of the Preserve and the
Addition, as well as looking for, and the possibility of observing, rare, threatened or
endangered species, or signs of such species, including the Florida panther. They have
observed the damages caused by ORV use, such as deep-rutted soils, destroyed prairie
and grasses and other vegetation, and those machines interference with wildlife. They
have observed the interference with water flows caused by authorized and unauthorized
ORV trails. By permitting such damage in the Addition, Defendants actions interfere
with and will interfere in the future with NPCAs members ability to enjoy the Preserve,
including the Addition.
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 13 of 73 PageID 13
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
14/73
11
19. One member of the NPCA is Christopher M. Gratz. Mr. Gratz has hiked
in the Addition multiple times, each time taking photos and enjoying the abundant plant
and animal wildlife. In hikes just a month apart in 2011, Mr. Gratz witnessed the
remarkable natural changes to the wilderness and landscape that occur in such an
ecologically diverse and complex area, and he enjoyed seeing panther and other animal
paw prints. Mr. Gratz eagerly anticipates his next trip to the Addition, which he plans to
make as early as October or November 2011, so he can see what other natural changes
have occurred, and so he can visit areas he has not yet experienced. During previous
hikes in the Addition, Mr. Gratz has observed the significant negative impacts of ORV
use. Some parts of the paths Mr. Gratz walked had been made impassable by ORV ruts.
The ORV tracks negatively impacted Mr. Gratz enjoyment of the Addition. Permitting
ORVs in the Addition will interfere with Mr. Gratz ability to enjoy the Addition in the
future.
20. Another member of the NPCA is Plaintiff John Adornato III.
Mr. Adornato has hiked in the Original Preserve and in the Addition and plans to do so in
the future, including in the coming dry season. In places where ORVs have traveled,
legally and illegally, he has observed the significant impacts those machines cause on the
natural environment. The ugly scars they leave and their other adverse impacts on the
natural environment has adversely impacted his enjoyment of that environment.
Permitting ORVs in the Addition will interfere with Mr. Adornatos ability to enjoy the
Addition in the future. Mr. Adornato is also the Regional Director of the Sun Coast
Regional Office of the NPCA, headquartered in Hollywood, Florida. As Regional
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 14 of 73 PageID 14
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
15/73
12
Director, he is charged with leading NPCAs campaign to restore and protect the natural
resources of Floridas national parks and preserves, including the Preserve. He has
expertise in wetland management and wetland ecology. Since 2008, Mr. Adornato has
served as a member of the NPSs ORV Advisory Committee for the Preserve (the
Committee). See the Eighth Claim for Relief, below. During Mr. Adornatos service
on the Committee, the decisions and recommendations of that Committee reflected the
fact that its membership has been heavily weighted in favor of those supporting more
ORV use in the Preserve, and his views were given little or no weight by that dominant
group of members.
21. Defendants are a department and two agencies of the United States and are
charged by Congress with administering, conserving and protecting the National Park
System, including the Preserve and its Addition, and the wildlife therein, in accordance
with the laws at issue here. Defendants are the federal agencies that took the actions
challenged here.
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
The Preserve
22. Congress established the Original Preserve in 1974, with 582,000 acres.
An Act to Establish the Big Cypress National Preserve in the State of Florida, and for
Other Purposes, Pub. L. No. 93-440, 88 Stat. 1258 (1974). In 1988, Congress amended
that law by adopting the Big Cypress National Preserve Addition Act, expanding the
Preserve by an additional 147,000 acres. An Act to Establish the Big Cypress National
Preserve Addition in the State of Florida, and for Other Purposes, Pub. L. No. 100-301,
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 15 of 73 PageID 15
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
16/73
13
102 Stat. 443 (1988). The Addition consists of two separate areas. The Northeast
Addition consists of approximately 128,000 acres and is adjacent to the Original
Preserves northeast boundary. The Western Addition consists of approximately 19,000
acres and runs along the western boundary of the Original Preserve.
23. Congress established the Preserve, including the Addition, [i]n order 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 . 16 U.S.C.
698f(a). The Addition, which is covered with water much of each year, serves as a
large reservoir and nutrient filter, permitting natural biological processes to nourish
diverse ecological communities that are distinctive to southern Florida. Because the
Addition is very flat and slopes very gradually, water slowly flows through the Addition
and into Everglades National Park. The ecology of the Addition is finely tuned to the
seasonal flow of water, and any hydrologic changes can alter its sensitive subtropical
habitat.
24. The Preserve, including the Addition, is largely comprised of dwarf
cypress tree communities and other forms of cypress forests, such as cypress strands,
cypress domes, mixed-hardwood and cypress swamps. Hardwood hammocks and
pinelands, prairies and marshes and mangrove forests also cover portions of the Addition.
As Congress explained when it created the Original Preserve:
It is difficult to imagine an area with more outstanding
scientific values than Big Cypress-Everglades ecosystem.
Students of the evolution of life and biologists will find the
resources of this area almost unequaled. It is equally
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 16 of 73 PageID 16
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
17/73
14
important as a wildlife sanctuary. In addition to the
thousands of migrating birds which utilize the area as afeeding, nesting, and resting place, it provides the properhabitat for more than twenty animals whose status has been
listed by the Secretary of Interior as rare, endangered, or
otherwise in jeopardy.
S. Rep. No. 93-1128, at 25; H.R. Rep. No. 93-502, at 78 (Committee reports
recommending the establishment of the Original Preserve).
25. Wildlife is abundant in the Addition, including great blue herons,
kingfishers, alligators and other wildlife. The Addition also constitutes a significant
portion of the scant remaining natural habitat for the highly endangered Florida panther
(Puma concolor coryi), which has been federally listed as endangered since 1967. The
NPS recognized in 1991 that [t]he Florida Panther is perhaps the most sensitive natural
resource in south Florida any action that led to losses of individual panthers, their
prey, or the quality of Panther habitat would contribute to the loss of the species as an
ecological and genetic resource. NPS General Management Plan: Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Vol. I, at 3 (1991) (the 1991 GMP). The area is habitat for other
endangered species as well, including the threatened eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon
corais couperi) and the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis).
26. The Preserve, including the Addition, is envisioned by NPS 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. GMP at 16.
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 17 of 73 PageID 17
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
18/73
15
Off-Road Vehicles
27. Off-road vehicles are motorized vehicles designed for or capable of cross-
country travel on or immediately over land, water, marsh, swamp land or other natural
terrain. NPSs decision at issue here authorizes three types of ORVs in the Addition:
All-terrain cycles, which are commercially manufactured vehicleshaving a seat designed to be straddled by the operator and using
handle bar steering control. In the Original Preserve, all-terrain
cycles comprise about 50 percent of the permits issued for ORVs.
Some of these vehicles can travel extremely fast and are so
equipped that they can travel through stream beds, mud and deep
water. GMP at 215-16.
Swamp buggies, which include a wide variety of custom-designedand built vehicles having a wide range of configurations and
capable of traveling into the backcounty. Swamp buggies
comprise approximately 33 percent of the ORV permits in the
Original Preserve. Id. at 216. Swamp buggies generally utilize
large tractor tires, which raise the sitting platforms on the vehicleshigh above ground level, permitting the machines to travel through
swamp water.
Street legal four-wheel drive off-road vehicles and trucks, whichare commercially manufactured and sold. These vehicles compriseapproximately 12 percent of the ORV permits in the Original
Preserve. These vehicles can weigh more than 4,000 pounds. Id.
at 215.
The 2000 ORV Plan for the Original Preserve
28. In 1995, NPS entered into a settlement of a lawsuit which had charged that
NPSs unlawful management of ORVs in the Original Preserve was causing extensive
damage to natural resources and had harmed, threatened and endangered species,
particularly the Florida panther. Under the settlement, NPS agreed to prepare a
management plan for ORVs in the Original Preserve. In 2000, NPS issued its Final
Recreational Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan and Supplemental Environmental
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 18 of 73 PageID 18
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
19/73
16
Impact Statement, addressing the management of recreational ORV use in the Original
Preserve (the 2000 ORV Plan).
29. The environmental impact statement which was part of the 2000 ORV
Plan documented devastating impacts ORV use had caused in the Original Preserve. For
example, NPS there documented that:
ORVs had created ruts that were sometimes as deep as two feet.Those ruts affect water flows, which causes other damage. Aerial
infra-red photographs had revealed a network of features caused byORV use in Original Preserve totaling approximately 29,000 miles.
ORV use can result in the loss of soil cover, and once disturbed,few natural mechanisms are capable of restoring soil cover and
contour. These effects are therefore cumulative and worsen overtime.
ORV use had been shown to alter plant species composition anddistribution and to damage juvenile trees.
ORV use had a dramatic effect on wildlife, including by reducingtheir hunting and mating opportunities.
ORV use had substantially impaired visitor enjoyment.
30. In light of these adverse impacts, NPS limited ORV use in the Original
Preserve to designated trails from designated access points, closed portions of the
Original Preserve to any ORV use and adopted other measures. NPS found that
[i]mplementing the proposed action would result in long-term benefits to water
resources, soils and vegetation. The plan may also benefit endangered and threatened
species, including the Florida panther. 2000 ORV Plan at vii.
31. Nevertheless, the 2000 ORV Plan authorized ORV use on 400 miles of
primary trail. Notwithstanding a number of specific requirements on ORV users in the
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 19 of 73 PageID 19
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
20/73
17
Original Preserve and limitations on areas where such use was permitted, illegal ORV use
has been experienced in the Original Preserve even after adoption of the 2000 ORV Plan.
ORV users have traveled in areas where ORV use was not authorized; continued to create
unauthorized trails; engaged in mudding, a highly-damaging form of all-terrain vehicle
recreation; used machines that had not been inspected by NPS; and otherwise flouted the
2000 ORV Plan. As EPA stated in one of its comment letters on the GMP at issue here,
[i]nsufficient enforcement of existing regulations has resulted in thousands of miles of
unauthorized routes across the landscape. Letter from Heinz J. Muller, Office of Policy
and Management, EPA, to Pedro Ramos, Superintendent, Big Cypress National Preserve,
at 3 (Jan. 4, 2011).
ORV Impacts on the Florida Panther
32. The population of the Florida panther, isolated to southernmost Florida, is
estimated at approximately 113 adults and immature panthers. That population
represents the last known members of a sub-species that once roamed much of the
southeastern United States. In 1991, the NPS found that the decline of the Florida
Panther has been attributed to the loss of habitat quality due to increased hunting [and]
ORV use. 1991 GMP at 231.
33. The conservation of remaining panther habitat is crucial to the Florida
panthers survival. In 2000, the FWS concluded that [c]ontinued deterioration,
fragmentation, loss of habitat, and further reductions in the current extent of the occupied
range will likely reduce the south Florida population below the level necessary for
demographic and genetic health. FWS, Biological Opinion on Impacts of ORV
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 20 of 73 PageID 20
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
21/73
18
Management Plan to Endangered Species in Big Cypress National Preserve (July 14,
2000). And in 2008, FWS concluded that there is a significant threat of extinction of
the Florida panther. FWS, Florida Panther Recovery Plan 4-5 (3rd rev. 2008).
34. The size, distribution, and abundance of available prey species in
particular are critical factors to the persistence of panthers in south Florida and often
determine the extent of panther use of an area. Florida Panther Recovery Program,
supra, at 56. Panthers traverse the Preserves diverse terrain in search of prey and to den.
The Preserve is considered by panther experts as the species primary zone land
that, if preserved, would contribute most to the long-term persistence of the species in the
wild.
35. Increased ORV use in the Preserve has threatened and continues to
threaten Florida panthers by increasing human activity in remote panther habitat and
displacing panthers, by fragmenting habitat, and by facilitating hunting that has already
significantly reduced panther prey in the Preserve.
The GMP and the Wilderness Eligibility Determination
36. The 2000 ORV Plan did not apply to the lands constituting the Addition,
which were not acquired by NPS until 1996. Since that time, the Addition has been
closed to ORV use, although illegal ORV use there has occurred. On information and
belief, ORV users and state and local officials have urged the management of the
Preserve to open the Addition to ORV use and to permit extensive ORV use there. The
Preserves management, succumbing to that pressure, therefore prepared and finalized the
GMP despite the fact that NPS had not yet obtained studies critical to any such decision,
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 21 of 73 PageID 21
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
22/73
19
had not evaluated critical studies obtained and had not obtained other information critical
to any such decision.
37. In 2006, an interdisciplinary NPS team had conducted a study of the
Addition to determine the portions of the Addition which meet the statutory definition of
wilderness under the Wilderness Act, i.e., areas eligible for treatment as wilderness.
That study concluded that 111,601 acres in the Addition were wilderness-eligible. In late
2009 and early 2010, in order to permit the opening of a larger portion of the Addition to
ORV use than would have been permitted under the 2006 studies conclusions, NPS
revisited those conclusions. In March 2010, NPS completed its revised determination of
wilderness eligibility. NPSs new finding was that only 71,263 acres meet the wilderness
criteria of that Act. In order to reach that new finding, NPS applied a new,
unprecedented and incorrect interpretation of wilderness as used in that Act. NPSs
new finding cleared the way for more extensive ORV use in the Addition.
38. The GMP was finalized in October 2010. It consisted, in a single
document, of a general management plan for the Addition, an ORV management plan, a
wilderness area assessment and a NEPA environmental impact statement. In order to
accede to the pressure to open the Addition as soon as possible to ORV use, NPS
finalized the GMP before NPS had obtained all of the studies and other information
essential to the decisions presented by the GMP.
39. The GMP identified and analyzed four alternative plans for the
management and use of the Addition. Each of those alternatives considered the extent to
which portions of the Addition would be made available for recreational ORV use and
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 22 of 73 PageID 22
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
23/73
20
the extent to which, on the contrary, portions of the Addition would be preserved and
protected, including by recommending areas to be designated as wilderness under the
Wilderness Act. The GMP identified one of those alternatives as NPSs preferred
alternative. As NPS stated, that alternative would provide, among other things,
substantial ORV access, [and] provide a moderate amount of proposed wilderness .
GMP at ii (emphasis added). Specifically, that alternative would establish approximately
130 miles of ORV trails as part of a primary ORV trail network. Additional
secondary trails branching off from the primary trails would be designated at a later
date. Six hundred fifty ORV permits would be issued annually for the use of those trails.
Under the preferred alternative, only about 47,000 acres of the 71,263 acres found
eligible were recommended to be protected as wilderness under the Wilderness Act.
40. The preferred alternative elevated ORV recreational opportunities above
NPSs mandate to preserve the resources and values of the Preserve. The GMP
recognized that permitting ORVs in the Addition could have significant adverse impacts
on surface water flow, water quality, wetlands, vegetation, endangered and threatened
species such as the Florida panther, major prey and game species, archeological and other
cultural resources, the natural soundscape, wilderness resources and values and other the
experience of non-motorized visitors.
41. Nevertheless, the GMPs analysis of the preferred alternative reflected the
Preserves managements determination to accede to the pressure to open the Addition to
extensive ORV use. Accordingly, the GMP mischaracterized the legal mandates
governing such a plan, including the purpose of the legislation establishing the Preserve
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 23 of 73 PageID 23
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
24/73
21
and adding the Addition; stated conclusions about the preferred alternatives adverse
impacts that lacked factual support and that reflected a myopic view of the issues, rather
than analyzing the cumulative impacts required to be analyzed; downplayed the adverse
impacts of the preferred alternative, in part by asserting that those impacts would be
offset by beneficial impacts of other projects despite the fact that the preferred
alternative was not conditioned on implementation of those other projects and despite
the fact that those other projects might not be implemented, if ever, for many years after
implementation of the preferred alternative; and otherwise reached arbitrary and
capricious conclusions.
42. Of the enormous number of comments received by NPS on its draft of the
GMP, 93 percent received from individuals opposed ORV use in the Addition. Among
others commenting was EPA, which found that the preferred alternative may adversely
impact surface water flow; the control of exotic/non-native plants; the Florida panthers
food supply; the redcockaded woodpecker and localized impacts on major game species.
EPA also has concerns for potential impacts to wetlands and other waters of the US.
Among other things, EPA recommended that NPS provide a cumulative impact analysis
for the entire Preserve, including the Addition. EPA also recommended consideration of
a different alternative which would emphasize resource preservation, restoration, and
research while providing recreational opportunities with limited facilities and support.
GMP at 485. After publication of the GMP, EPA submitted a further comment. The
EPA there catalogued the extensive research finding that ORVs pose a serious threat to
wildlife, water, soil, plants, and the rest of the natural world. EPA stated that NPS
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 24 of 73 PageID 24
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
25/73
22
should permit ORVs, if at all, only after NPS can demonstrate that the use of ORVs will
not cause adverse environmental impacts to ecologically sensitive areas containing a vast
array of animal life and its aquatic and terrestrial habitats. It is imperative the
environmentally sensitive areas stay contiguous. EPA again recommended the
alternative which would provide the maximum amount of wilderness, no ORV use and
minimal new facilities for visitor contact along I-75.
The FWSs Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement
43. Because the Addition is home to a number of species listed under the ESA
as endangered, including the Florida panther, NPS was required to obtain a biological
opinion from the FWS as to whether or not the GMPs preferred alternative was likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of those species. On November 17, 2010, the FWS
rendered its opinion, concluding that implementation of the preferred alternative is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Florida panther (2010 BiOp). The
opinion addressed only in a cursory fashion the impact of the preferred alternative on
other endangered species.
44. The ESA requires, when such an opinion is rendered, that the FWS also
issue an incidental take statement, specifying the extent of the impact on which the
opinion is based, specifying reasonable and prudent measures necessary or appropriate
to minimize such impact and imposing terms and conditions to be complied with to
implement those measures. 16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(4). The FWS accordingly included an
incidental take statement in its biological opinion, but that statement failed to comply
with the requirements of the ESA. The terms and conditions imposed merely stated such
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 25 of 73 PageID 25
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
26/73
23
broad, non-measureable and ineffective conditions as minimize human disturbance and
habitat degradation, such as by providing educational materials to ORV users; and
minimize take through a better understanding of the interactions of the Florida panther
and its environment. 2010 BiOp at 45.
The NPSs ROD
45. On February 4, 2011, NPS issued its ROD. NPS there adopted the
preferred alternative which had been described in the GMP; adopted so-called
mitigation measures and so-called best management practices as identified in the GMP;
and identified NPSs preferred alternative as the environmentally preferable
alternative. In addition, misstating the laws governing such a decision, NPS stated that
its selected alternative best balances NPSs need to provide high-quality visitor
experiences and protect Addition resources. ROD at 20-21. Because NPS is prohibited
by its governing legislation from taking any action that would impair the resources or
values under its care, the ROD attached a Determination of Impairment for NPS
Preferred Alternative, in which NPS concluded that the preferred alternative would
not impair the Additions resources or values. That Determination of Impairment for
NPS Preferred Alternative suffered from many of the same fundamental flaws as the
GMP itself.
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 26 of 73 PageID 26
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
27/73
24
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(As to Department of the Interior and NPS; Section 10(e)(B)(1) of the
Administrative Procedure Act for Agency Action Not in Accordance with Law,
Violation of Wilderness Act of 1964)
46. Section 10(e)(B)(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
706(2)(A) authorizes a reviewing court to hold unlawful and set aside agency action,
findings and conclusions found to be not in accordance with law.
47. The allegations in Paragraphs 1-14, 36-42 and 45 above are incorporated
in this First Claim for Relief by reference as fully as if repeated here.
48. The Wilderness Act implements Congressional policy that areas be
established as wilderness areas in order to preserve and protect them in their natural
condition as an enduring resource of wilderness and for their enjoyment as such. 16
U.S.C. 1131. The Secretary of the Interior, among others, is directed to recommend
areas under his jurisdiction, including those managed by NPS, that meet the Acts
definition of wilderness, and the President is directed to advise Congress of his
recommendation whether such areas should be designated by Congress thereunder as
wilderness. 16 U.S.C. 1132(c).
49. The Wilderness Act defines wilderness as having the following
characteristics:
[A]n 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 in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land
retaining its primeval character and influence, withoutpermanent improvements or human habitation, which is
protected and managed so as to preserve its natural
conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 27 of 73 PageID 27
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
28/73
25
affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint
of mans work substantially unnoticeable; (2) hasoutstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive andunconfined 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.
16 U.S.C. 1131(c).
50. In the words of NPSs own Wilderness Reference Manual: Wilderness
Preservation and Management (July 1999) (the Wilderness Reference Manual), the
Wilderness Act provides a degree of protection to the resources of the National Park
System that the National Park Service Organic Act does not. The Wilderness Act directs
that wilderness areas, even within national parks, shall be administered for the use and
enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for
future use and enjoyment as wilderness. The effect of the Wilderness Act is to
unambiguously place an additional layer of protection on wilderness areas within the
National Park System. Wilderness Reference Manual at 9 (emphasis in original).
51. The legislation establishing the Preserve, and that later adding the
Addition, also expressly mandated that the Secretary of the Interior review areas therein
and determine those portions that should be recommended to the President and the
Congress for protection as wilderness under the Wilderness Act. 16 U.S.C. 698l.
Shortly after having established the Preserve in 1974, Congress found in the Eastern
Wilderness Areas Act that in the more populous eastern half of the United States there is
an urgent need to identify, study, designate, and preserve areas for addition to the
National Wilderness Preservation System. Congress further there declared and found
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 28 of 73 PageID 28
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
29/73
26
that additional areas should be identified and protected as wilderness areas to perpetuate
the wilderness character of the land and its specific values of solitude, physical and
mental challenge, scientific study, inspiration, and primitive recreation. Eastern
Wilderness Areas Act, Pub. L. No. 93-622, 88 Stat. 2096 (1975). According to the
Wilderness Reference Manual, the Eastern Wilderness Areas Act resolved a long-
standing debate concerning how pure an area must be before it can be considered for
wilderness designation. By including lands that had previously been clearcut or had
abandoned roads, Congress implied that wilderness did not have to consist solely of
pristine old-growth forests, and that lands previously disturbed could be rehabilitated to
meet wilderness standards and qualities. Wilderness Reference Manual at 11.
52. In 2006, an interdisciplinary NPS team conducted a study of the Addition
to determine areas eligible for treatment as wilderness. That study determined that
111,601 acres in the Addition, approximately 76%, were eligible as wilderness under
the Wilderness Act. That area consisted of 93,959 acres in the Northeast Addition and
17,642 acres in the Western Addition. Draft GMP at 114-15, 398 (May 2009).
53. NPS Management Policies provide that [t]he National Park Service will
take no action that would diminish the wilderness eligibility of an area possessing
wilderness characteristics until the legislative process of wilderness designation has been
completed. Until that time, management decisions will be made in expectation of
eventual wilderness designation. 2006 Management Policies 6.3.1.
54. Accordingly, if the 2006 wilderness study were accepted, the Preserves
management would be required to manage the 111,601 wilderness-eligible acres as if
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 29 of 73 PageID 29
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
30/73
27
they were all designated as wilderness by Congress, whether or not NPS actually
proposed that that whole area be so designated. Id.
55. However, by 2009 or early 2010, on information and belief, the
management of the Preserve was being urged by ORV users and by state and local
officials to reduce the area to be found wilderness-eligible in order to increase the area
that could be made accessible to ORV use. In order to accede to those urgings, the
Preserves management decided to revise the 2006 studys wilderness-eligible findings.
As NPSs Wilderness Reference Manual states, [f]or areas determined to be nonsuitable
for wilderness designation, the wilderness preservation provisions of the National Park
Service Management Policies are no longer applicable. Wilderness Reference Manual,
at 14.
56. Accordingly, in February 2010, the management of the Preserve held a
meeting to reevaluate the 2006 wilderness studys eligibility determination. The agenda
for the meeting stated that the meeting was called, among other things, to discuss the
need to adjust the assumptions on which the 2006 wilderness study had been conducted.
At that meeting, the participants agreed to adopt new assumptions for the wilderness
assessment. Those assumptions were not assumptions at all, however, but were instead
new tests and glosses on the legislative definition of wilderness, tests and glosses
which were unjustified by the language or the purpose of the Wilderness Act or by any
official NPS policy or interpretation. Those glosses and tests were instead designed to
permit the Preserves management to reduce the portion of the Addition to be found
wilderness-eligible.
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 30 of 73 PageID 30
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
31/73
28
57. Applying the unjustified assumptions referred to in the preceding
paragraph, NPS adopted a new eligibility determination in March 2010 which reduced
the eligible wilderness from 111, 601 to 71,263 acres. GMP at 469.
58. NPS violated the Wilderness Act by improperly determining that more
than 40,000 acres of the Addition are not eligible for protection as wilderness under the
Wilderness Act when in fact those areas are eligible for protection as wilderness under
that Act. In particular, NPS wrongfully applied the requirements of the Wilderness Act
to its 2010 eligibility assessment in the following respects, among others:
(a) NPS wrongfully excluded portions of the Addition from wilderness
eligibility on the ground that those portions contained previously illegally-established
ORV trails. The presence of a trail or road does not alone make an area legally ineligible
for wilderness protection, however. Yet NPS used findings of such previously-
established trails as an excuse to determine that large areas otherwise wilderness-eligible
were for that reason ineligible for wilderness protection.
(b) NPS wrongfully excluded from a wilderness-eligibility determination
those previously illegally-established ORV trails which NPS wished to, and did, decide to
reopen as ORV trails under its preferred alternative. NPS also wrongfully excluded the
area one-quarter mile of either side of each such trail. These trails and other areas should
not have been considered in isolation from the larger area in which each such trail is
found. Such a segregation for eligibility purposes of the trails from the other parts of the
areas through which the trails run is artificial and violates the language and purpose of
the Wilderness Act. If such a practice were consistent with the Wilderness Act, which it
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 31 of 73 PageID 31
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
32/73
29
is not, the statutory prohibition against roads through wilderness areas, see 16 U.S.C.
1133(c), would become a nullity, because agencies could simply exclude present or
planned roads from their wilderness eligibility determinations.
(c) Lacking any basis in the actual language of the Wilderness Act, NPS used
as a test of eligibility [w]hether the imprint of humans work is substantially
unnoticeable was viewed from the perspective of a land manager and not a common
visitor. Mans past work is, in many cases, substantially noticeable to a land manager,
but may not be to the common visitor. GMP at 469. That test violates the language and
the purpose of the Wilderness Act. If a common visitor cannot detect prior human
activity on the land, the land generally appears to have been affected primarily by the
forces of nature, 16 U.S.C. 1131(c), and is therefore not excluded from the Acts
definition of wilderness for this reason alone.
(d) NPS wrongfully applied the Wilderness Act to the Addition by artificially
segregating the Addition from adjacent lands in the Original Preserve in assessing
wilderness eligibility. GMP at 469. The Addition is not a separate entity, but an integral
part of the Preserve. On information and belief, some areas of the Original Preserve
adjacent to the Addition qualify as wilderness for purposes of the Wilderness Act. Yet by
artificially segregating the analysis of the lands in the Addition from adjacent lands in the
Original Preserve, NPS justified excluding parts of the Addition from wilderness
eligibility on the ground that they consisted of areas too small to manage as wilderness.
(e) NPS wrongfully excluded some areas from eligibility as wilderness on the
ground that motorized use would continue. GMP at 473. If that reference is to use
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 32 of 73 PageID 32
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
33/73
30
needed by owners of private lands in the Addition to access their land, that use does not
disqualify the area from wilderness protection.
(f) NPS wrongfully excluded some areas from wilderness eligibility on the
ground that trails are needed there for restoration efforts or for other administrative uses.
But the need for such uses does not legally disqualify areas from treatment as wilderness.
See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. 1133(c) (exception to prohibition of roads in wilderness when
needed for administrative uses); Wilderness Reference Manual at 13 (An area will not
be excluded from a determination of wilderness suitability solely because proposed
management practices require the use of tools, equipment, or structures, if those practices
are necessary to meet the minimum requirements for the administration of the area as
wilderness.); NPS Directors Order No. 41: Wilderness Stewardship at 9 (instructing
that fire management is permitted in wilderness areas to restore or maintain ecological
function).
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(As to Department of the Interior and NPS; Section 10(e)(B)(1) of the
Administrative Procedure Act for Agency Action Not in Accordance with Law,
Violation of the Laws Governing the National Park System and the Preserve)
59. Section 10(e)(B)(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
706(2)(A) authorizes a reviewing court to hold unlawful and set aside agency action,
findings and conclusions found to be not in accordance with law. NPSs actions
violated the laws governing the National Park System of which the Preserve is a part.
60. Paragraphs 1-14 and 22-45 above and Paragraph 90 below are hereby
incorporated by reference in this Second Claim for Relief as if fully set forth herein.
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 33 of 73 PageID 33
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
34/73
31
61. The National Park System consists of areas singled out for their national
significance, justifying special recognition and protection in accordance with various acts
of Congress. The Addition is part of the Preserve, and Congress provided that the
Preserve shall be administered as a unit of the National Park System in a manner
which will assure their natural and ecological integrity in perpetuity in accordance with
the provisions of sections 698f to 698m-4 of this title [the Enabling Act] and with the
provisions of sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this title, as amended and supplemented [the
National Park Service Organic Act]. 16 U.S.C. 698i(a).
62. As discussed below, NPS is prohibited by the statutes governing its
administration of the National Park System and of the Preserve from taking any actions
which either:
(a) would impair the resources or values of the Preserve; or
(b) would, even if not creating an impairment, elevate recreational
uses above conservation and preservation of those resources and
values, other than as necessary and appropriate to carry out the
purposes for which the Preserve was created; or
(c) would not assure the natural and ecological integrity of the
Preserve.
Impairment
63. The National Park Service Organic Act, as amended and supplemented, 16
U.S.C. 1-18f, created the National Park Service and directed it to promote and
regulate the use of the [National Park System] by such means and measures as conform
to the fundamental purpose of the [National Park System], which purpose is to conserve
the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 34 of 73 PageID 34
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
35/73
32
the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them
unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. 16 U.S.C. 1.
64. NPS has defined a prohibited impairment to park resources as any
action that would harm the integrity of park resources or values, including the
opportunities that otherwise would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or
values. NPS 2006 Management Policies 1.4.5. Whether an impact meets this
definition depends on the particular resources and values that would be affected; the
severity, duration and timing of the impact; the direct and indirect effects of the impact;
and the cumulative effects of the impact in question and on other impacts. Id. In
addition, the 2006 Management Policies state that [a]n impact would be more likely to
constitute an impairment to the extent that it affects a resource or value whose
conservation is necessary to fulfill specific purposes indentified in the establishing
legislation or proclamation of the park; or key to the natural or cultural integrity of the
park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or identified in the parks general
management plan or other relevant NPS planning documents as being of significance.
Id.
65. The Management Policies define the park resources and values subject
to the non-impairment requirement to include, inter alia, the following: the parks
scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife, and the processes and conditions that
sustain them, including, to the extent present in the park: the ecological, biological, and
physical processes that created the park and continue to act upon it; scenic features;
natural visibility, both in daytime and at night; natural landscapes; natural soundscapes
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 35 of 73 PageID 35
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
36/73
33
and smells; water and air resources; soils; geological resources; paleontological
resources; archeological resources; cultural landscapes; ethnographic resources; historic
and prehistoric sites, structures, and objects; museum collections; and native plants and
animals. Id. 1.4.6.
66. The actions adopted by the ROD will impair the Preserve and the Addition
because those actions will harm the integrity of many significant resources and values of
the Addition that are necessary to the purposes for which the Preserve was established
and which are key to its natural and cultural integrity.
67. Prior to approving any proposed action that could lead to an impairment of
park resources and values, an NPS decision maker must consider the impacts of the
proposed action, and determine, in writing, that the activity will not lead to an
impairment of park resources and values. Id. 1.4.7. Attachment 3 to the ROD
contains NPS Determination of Impairment for NPS Preferred Alternative (the
Impairment Determination), which evaluates the impacts of the preferred alternative
upon a number of park resources and values, and determines that those impacts will not
rise to levels that would constitute impairment. ROD at 126. However, this
determination is deeply flawed, and fails to comply with the requirements set forth in the
Organic Act in the following respects, among others:
(a) In the Impairment Determination, NPS found, as to a number of resources
and values adversely impacted by the preferred alternative, that their conservation is
necessary to fulfill specific purposes indentified in the Enabling Act and are key to the
natural or cultural integrity of the Addition. Nevertheless, NPS stated that the adverse
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 36 of 73 PageID 36
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
37/73
34
impacts of ORV use upon those resources and values will not result in impairment
because those adverse impacts will supposedly be offset by beneficial impacts of other
projects. Those other projects, as to each of those resources and values, are one or more
of (i) the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration project, (ii) vegetation restoration
projects, and (iii) the ORV management plan set forth in the GMP. However, NPS has
failed to explain in what particular respects those plans or projects, other than the ORV
management plan, would offset the adverse effects of ORV use in the Addition, and those
plans or projects will not offset those adverse effects. For example, the ecosystem
restoration plan is a very long term strategy for changing the hydrology of South Florida,
but it will have little, if any, beneficial impact on the Addition if and when it is fully
implemented. Moreover, the GMP is not contingent upon implementation of that plan,
and there is accordingly no reason to believe that it will be implemented before the GMP
is implemented. Moreover, NPS has, on information and belief, failed to evaluate the
effectiveness of the ORV management plan in the Original Preserve more than 10 years
after its adoption there, and NPS admits that it does not have the resources to implement
that plan in the Addition.
(b) In determining what impacts constitute impairment of park resources and
values, the responsible NPS manager must consider the cumulative effects of the impact
in question and other impacts. 2006 Management Policies 1.4.5. However, the
Impairment Determination only considers the impacts of ORV use on each particular
resource or value of the park separately and fails to consider the cumulative effects of all
those adverse impacts together upon the Addition. The Impairment Determination also
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 37 of 73 PageID 37
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
38/73
35
fails to consider the cumulative impact of ORV use in the Addition and in the Original
Preserve. And the Impairment Determination fails to consider the adverse impact of the
GMP on Everglades National Park, despite the admitted impact of the preferred
alternative on sheet water flows in the Addition and the importance of those flows on
Everglades National Park.
(c) In determining what impacts constitute impairment, NPS must consider
both the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed use. 2006 Management Policies
1.4.5. However, the Impairment Determination ignores many known indirect impacts of
ORV use that must be considered to determine whether such use constitutes an
impairment. For example, when NPS opens the Addition to ORV use, it is highly likely
based on NPSs experience in the Original Preserve and elsewhere in the National Park
System that there will be a significant amount of unauthorized ORV use in the Addition,
including among other things by users without permits and by users taking their machines
into areas where ORVs are not authorized to go. In addition, the GMP acknowledges that
secondary trails will be permitted to branch off the primary trails evaluated in the GMP.
However, NPS failed to include the likelihood of or the impacts that will result from such
unauthorized use or such secondary trails.
(d) The Impairment Determination conflicts in certain respects with the GMP.
For example, the Impairment Determination concludes that the natural soundscape will
not be impaired by ORV use because noise from ORV use on trails will be only
localized, mobile and temporary. ROD at 125. But the GMP recognizes that, while a
noise from a vehicle driving on a road would be heard for a short time and intermittently,
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 38 of 73 PageID 38
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
39/73
36
but because vehicles driving on a road would be driving the same road throughout the 20-
year life of the plan, the impact on the natural soundscape would be considered long
term. GMP at 242. In any event, NPS says ORV noise can be heard up to two miles
away, depending upon various factors. GMP at 220. The layout of the ORV trails in the
Northeast Addition would therefore make ORV noise audible throughout virtually that
entire area.
Elevation of Recreational Use Over Conservation
68. The Organic Act imposes a separate mandate on NPS, independent of the
prohibition on impairment, which is to place preservation of the resources and values of
the Preserve over recreational values when they conflict, to permit adverse impacts only
when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purpose of the Preserve and, even then, to
minimize such adverse impacts to the extent possible.
69. The fundamental purpose of the National Park System the conservation
of our national heritage was reaffirmed by Congress in a 1978 amendment:
Congress further reaffirms, declares, and directs that the
promotion and regulation of the various areas of the
National Park System shall be consistent with and
founded in the purpose established by [16 U.S.C. 1] to thecommon benefit of all the people of the United States. The
authorization of activities shall be construed and the
protection, management, and administration of these areasshall 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.
16 U.S.C. 1a-1.
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 39 of 73 PageID 39
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
40/73
37
70. In 2005, NPS published for public comment a revision, among other
things, of its interpretation of the Organic Act, proposing that that interpretation should
henceforth be that recreational opportunities and conservation stand on an equal footing
and that NPS should balance those conflicting purposes supposedly found in the
Organic Act. This is the same flawed interpretation adopted in the ROD at issue here.
See ROD at 20-21. After a massive outcry from the American public against such a
change, the Secretary of the Interior and the Director of NPS jointly announced that they
were rejecting such a change in interpretation. Instead, on August 31, 2006, NPS adopted
the 2006 Management Policies, to govern NPSs management of the National Park
System, which included NPSs official agency interpretation of the Organic Act. The
2006 Policies contain NPSs official interpretation of the Organic Acts requirements.
That interpretation stated unequivocally that when there is a conflict between conserving
resources and values and providing for enjoyment of them, conservation is to be
predominant. 2006 Management Policies 1.4.3. Furthermore, the fundamental
purpose of the national park system, established by the Organic Act and reaffirmed by the
General Authorities Act, as amended, begins with a mandate to conserve park resources
and values. This mandate is independent of the separate prohibition on impairment and
applies all the time with respect to all park resources and values, even when there is no
risk that any park resources or values may be impaired. Id.
71. NPSs actions at issue here will, as it found, cause significant adverse
impacts on the resources and values of the Addition. However, those adverse impacts are
not necessary or appropriate to fulfill the purpose of the Preserve, which is preservation,
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 40 of 73 PageID 40
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
41/73
38
not recreation, and particularly not motorized recreation. Both the language and the
legislative history of the Enabling Act make clear that the principal thrust of these areas
should be the preservation of the natural values which they contain. S. Rep. No. 93-
1128, at 26; H.R. Rep. No. 93-502, at 79 (emphasis added). Congress intended the
Preserve to be managed in a manner which will assure its return to the true wilderness
character which once prevailed. S. Rep. No. 93-1128, at 22; H.R. Rep. No. 93-502, at
74. While outdoor recreational opportunities for the visiting public were contemplated,
such recreational uses were to be limited to activities where, or periods when, such
human visitation would not interfere with or disrupt the values which the area is created
to preserve. S. Rep. No. 93-1128, at 27; H.R. Rep. No. 93-502, at 80. Those reports
also make clear that any ORVs permitted must be carefully regulated to protect the
natural, wildlife and wilderness values of the Preserve. S. Rep. No. 93-1128, at 22; H.R.
Rep. No. 93-502, at 74.
72. The GMP, however, elevates recreational uses above conservation and
preservation, fails to limit adverse impacts to those necessary and appropriate to fulfill
the purpose of the Preserve and fails to minimize adverse impacts, in the following
respects among others:
(a) The authorization of 130 miles of primary ORV trails through sensitive
ecological areas, which will cause significant adverse impacts to the Additions resources
and values, but such trails are not necessary or appropriate to fulfill the purpose of the
Preserve.
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 41 of 73 PageID 41
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
42/73
39
(b) Even if permitting some ORV use were necessary and appropriate to carry
out the purpose of the Preserve, which it is not, it is not necessary or appropriate to add
an additional 130 miles of ORV trails to the 400 miles of primary ORV trails already
authorized in the Original Preserve. The GMP does not even discuss or explain whether,
and if so why, the 440 miles of ORV trails in the Original Preserve is not sufficient to
meet the needs of ORV users in the Preserve. Instead, NPS artificially separates its
evaluation of the Addition from the Original Preserve as if they were somehow different
units of the National Park System, instead of parts of one unit.
(c) NPS has chosen an approach that, in its own words, allows substantial
ORV use and only a moderate amount of wilderness. This approach elevates
recreational use over preservation, and does so to an extent and in a manner that will
cause substantial adverse effects on key resources and values of the Preserve.
(d) One of the most significant resources of the Preserve is the Florida
panther, yet the GMP acknowledges that [t]otal human use and disturbance within the
panther habitat in the Addition would increase substantially relative to the no-action
alternative. GMP at 350.
Administration of the Preserve Inconsistent with the Enabling Act
73. In the Enabling Act, Congress provided that the purpose for which the
Preserve was established, including the Addition, was [i]n order 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 . 16 U.S.C. 698f(a).
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 42 of 73 PageID 42
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
43/73
40
74. Congress provided that NPS shall administer the Preserve, including the
Addition, as a unit of the National Park System in a manner which will assure their
natural and ecological integrity in perpetuity in accordance with the provisions of [the
Enabling Act] and with the provisions of the [Organic Act]. 16 U.S.C. 698i. See also
Paragraph 71 above, incorporated here by reference.
75. Congress required NPS to adopt regulations necessary and appropriate to
limit or control the use of motorized vehicles, among other things, in order to carry out
the purposes of the Enabling Act. 16 U.S.C. 698i(b). The purposes of the Enabling
Act are to assure [the Preserves] natural and ecological integrity in perpetuity. Id.
698i(a).
76. NPS has decided, contrary to the Enabling Act, to administer the Preserve
in a manner as described in the GMPs preferred alternative and the ROD which
will undermine the purpose of the Enabling Act and undermine the natural and ecological
integrity of the Addition.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(As to Department of the Interior and NPS; Section 10(e)(B)(1) of the
Administrative Procedure Act for Agency Action Not in Accordance with Law,
Violation of NPS Rule 4.10)
77. Section 10(e)(B)(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
706(2)(A) authorizes a reviewing court to hold unlawful and set aside agency action,
findings and conclusions found to be not in accordance with law. The GMP violates
36 C.F.R. 4.10.
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 43 of 73 PageID 43
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
44/73
41
78. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-14 and 22-45 above are
incorporated by this reference into this Third Claim for Relief as if fully set forth herein.
79. For almost forty years, the U.S. Government has recognized the threat
posed by ORV use on federally owned public lands. As part of the implementation of
NEPA, President Nixon signed Executive Order 11644 on February 8, 1972. Executive
Order 11644 establish[ed] policies and provide[d] for procedures [to] ensure that the use
of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed so as to protect the
resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands, and to minimize
conflicts among the various uses of those lands. Exec. Order 11644 1, 37 FED. REG.
2877 (Feb. 8, 1972). In 1977, President Carter amended Executive Order 11644 to
strengthen it. Exec. Order 11989, 42 FED. REG. 26959 (May 24, 1977).
80. Executive Order 11644 directs the head of each federal agency that
manages public lands (including the Secretary of the Interior) to promulgate regulations
to provide for administrative designation of the specific areas and trails on public lands
on which the use of off-road vehicles may be permitted, and areas in which the use of off-
road vehicles may not be permitted, and further directs that the designation of areas for
ORV use be in accordance with three principles:
(1) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize
damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or otherresources of the public lands.
(2) Areas and trails shall be located to minimizeharassment of wildlife or significant disruption of
wildlife habitats.
(3) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize
conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 44 of 73 PageID 44
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
45/73
42
existing or proposed recreational uses of the same
or neighboring public lands, and to ensure thecompatibility of such uses with existing conditionsin populated areas, taking into account noise and
other factors.
Exec. Order 11644 3.
81. In addition, Executive Order 11644 prohibits the designation of ORV use
anywhere in the National Park System unless the Secretary of the Interior specifically
determines that off-road vehicle use in such locations will not adversely affect their
natural, aesthetic, or scenic values. Exec. Order 11644, 3(a)(4).
82. To fulfill the obligations imposed by Executive Order 11644, NPS
adopted Rule 4.10, which prohibits ORV use in the National Park System except on
routes or in areas designated for such use by regulation and provides that [t]he
designation of routes and areas shall comply with [Executive Order] 11644. 36
C.F.R. 4.10(b). Accordingly, Rule 4.10 prohibits the authorization of ORVs in the
Preserve unless the Secretary of the Interior determines that ORV use in the authorized
locations will not adversely affect their natural, aesthetic, or scenic values, and, even if
such a determination can be made, that Rule requires that the areas in which ORV use is
permitted are chosen so as to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation and other
resources; to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife
habitats; and to minimize conflicts with other recreational users of the same or
neighboring lands, taking into account noise and other factors.
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 45 of 73 PageID 45
8/3/2019 NPCA Complaint
46/73
43
83. NPS has violated Rule 4.10 by failing to make the required determination
under Rule 4.10 so as to comply with Executive Order 11644 when permitting ORVs in
the Addition.
84. NPS has violated Rule 4.10 by permitting ORV use in areas in the
Addition, when such use will adversely affect the natural, aesthetic, and scenic values in
the locations where such use is permitted. The GMP finds that there will be adverse
impacts, some of which will be moderate or even major, but the GMP finds that at
least some of those impacts will only be localized. Localized impacts are prohibited by
Rule 4.10 as much as are impacts which are Preserve-wide.
85. NPS has violated Rule 4.10 by designating ORV use on routes which do
not minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation and other resources of the Addition;
do not minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats; and
do not minimize conflicts with other recreational users.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(As to Department of the Interior and NPS; Section 10(e)(B)(1) of the
Administrative Procedure Act for Agency Action that was Arbitrary and Capricious
and Not in Accordance with Law Based on Violation of National Environmental
Policy Act and the Regulations Thereunder)
86. Section 10(e)(B)(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
706(2)(A) authorizes a reviewing court to hold unlawful and set aside agency action,
findings and conclusions found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law. NPS violated NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4335, and
Case 2:11-cv-00578-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 46 of 73 PageID 46