CONFIDENTIAL ROUGHLY EDITED REALTIME FILE
Compliments of HRICART.com

***************************************
This file was created in real time by a Human Realtime Captioner for the purpose of communication access. It is not a certified legal transcript and may not be entirely verbatim. It is intended for use by the consumer only as notes of the proceedings. A consumer should check with the presenter for any clarification of the presentation.

***************************************

   >> Hello, folks. We're almost at our start time. We're going to give it one to two minutes so people can get a chance to get logged in.
   Thanks for your patience.
[Pause]
   >> All right. Tom, it looks like we've got seven folks on the line so far. I imagine some other people may join, but it is one after, so why don't we get started.
   We will advance this slide for folks.
   >> Thank you, Chuck. And welcome, and good afternoon to everyone. I'm Tom, superintendent here at Big Cypress National Preserve. Thank you for joining our virtual online public meeting to discuss the Big Cypress National Preserve BAP supplemental draft Environmental Impact Statement.
   It's hard to believe that this planning process has been going on for almost a decade. Many of you were online with us two years ago when I presented the draft EIS. We received a huge amount of feedback that truly deserved consideration which has led to us this supplemental draft EIS. The presentation will discuss the NEPA process, the timeline for the process, the updated terms, and how you can best share your thoughts and your feedback.
   Next slide, please.
   Before we get started, I'd like to recognize and thank the many participants who helped develop this plan over time. It's been a long process, we have learned a lot and we appreciate everyone's cooperation and support over the years. Thank you, everyone. Now I'm going to hand it over to Chuck to describe how to navigate our system and the basic content of the program.
   Take it away, chuck.
   >> Thank you very much, Tom. For all you people out there, my name is Chuck Lawson, I work for the Denver park services center. We work with parks planning efforts like Big Cypress backcountry planning access plan. As an attendee you'll be in listen‑ only mode but you can communicate your questions about the plan and planning process to us by using the Q&A function that you can see on the left hand side of your screen.
   We're going to turn that on now so that you can begin sending us questions at any time during the presentation. Do it, just select the featured category tab and then click ask a question. You will not be able to see questions from others until we finish the presentation and then we'll begin answering them one at a time.
   Concerning questions today, we hope to answer your questions about the plan's content and about our process this far. But today is not the best format for us to respond to questions about why we did or did not consider specific trails or destinations or specific environmental issues. We ask that you provide those types of formal comments and concerns by visiting the link on this slide. It's also being shared in that Q&A panel.
   At the end of the presentation, we'll walk you through a step‑ by‑ step process for how you can post formal comments online.
   So let's talk a little bit about what led to the development of the supplemental draft.
   A little bit of background. This effort comes from a long history dating back to the 2000 ORV plan that directed the sustainment of a network of primary and secondary trails. However, they preserved the secondary ORV trails leading to a lawsuit and settlement agreement that required the closure of the secondary trail network.
   The backcountry access plan is serving the requirements under that settlement agreement, evaluating the suitability on the landscape and impact on park resources.
   Scoping for the Backcountry Access Plan began in 2014. Preliminary alternatives were developed in 2015 along with a wilderness study. In 60, a draft plan was produced. Before the plan was presented to the public and a temporary policy in 2020, the wilderness study and proposals were removed. As Tom  mentioned, no RV user community and they strongly supported  alt  ‑‑  alternative five. They proposed the preferred alternative and argued that the increase in recreational access came at the expense of resources, particularly in association with the size of the system and the placement of trails on unsuitable, erodible substrates.
   The public also noted that they needed to do that before citing wilderness trails.
   In 2021, they received the go-ahead to prepare a supplemental draft of EIS to address public concerns and include the wilderness study and proposals in the action alternatives. To better inform decision‑ making about substrate suitability for trails, the preserve spent the summer of 2021 ground truthing all of the trails proposed in any 2020 draft to determine which secondary trails and destinations were truly suitable for use.
   This slide presents a little bit more on that ground truthing effort. The preserve opted for a more direct analysis of the suitability of the landscape to support ORV use. It's important to note that every ORV trail that's been proposed in any alternative has existed on the ground at some point. The various trails included in the 2020 draft were selected from among those previously existing routes by analyzing the soil substrates they crossed while looking for resilience substrates that can support ORV traffic. But the original substrate identification was derived from remotely sensed GIS data, primarily vegetation coverages that were derived from photography. They thought this would overestimate the suitable substrates, so the plan included implementation strategies that would limit reopening some trails if they were determined to be unsuitable once staff laid them out on the ground.
   Our reliance on that method was questioned by commenters in the 2020 public review period.
   So in the development of the supplemental, we used updated vegetation communities at a higher resolution, but more importantly preserve staff proposed any alternative in the 2020 draft. We now know the substrate conditions and the actions in the supplemental cross mostly suitable substrates.
   So what is new in the supplemental draft? There are three primary differences between the 2020 draft and the supplemental. The first I have mentioned, the preserve’s confident in the suitability of the trails proposed as derived from the ground truthing effort.
   The second is the update and reinclusion of the wilderness study. The interaction of wilderness and motorized use is integral to planning for access. The wilderness study and eligibility determination and proposals for wilderness designation in the alternative have been added back in.
   Lastly, we provide connectivity across the whole preserve. It proposes primary ORV trail connections between the northeast addition and the original preserve through Bear Island and Mullet Slough and provides a single permitting system to manage the entirety of the preserve.
   So before we go further, let's talk a little about basic definitions of the features in the plan. Part of the value of the plan for the preserve is the development of a common understanding between the National Park Service and our stakeholders as to the definitions of motorized trails and backcountry destinations.
   Primary ORV trails are the main arteries for motorized access into and throughout the backcountry. They are maintained routes. In some places we use fill and heavy equipment to keep them in good condition. Most of the trails are currently open and utilized by ORV's now. Secondary are natural surface and minimally maintained and we need to cite them over substrates without causing erosion or braiding during use. They're not for lots of traffic. They provide direct access to designated backcountry destinations. They don't create lines, they just get users to the destination they want to reach.
   These trails all currently exist on the landscape to some extent because they've been used in the past, but they're closed as a result of the 2013 settlement agreement. Those are undeveloped spots for points of interest for visitors. They were initially identified in public scoping as people wanted to access in the preserve and they were selected because they naturally provide an area of open space on dry ground that can be accessed by sustainable secondary trail. They can support camping, hunting, wildlife viewing, or just achieving solitude in the backcountry.
   The plan does not specify specific public uses at destinations. Because definite petitions are accessed by second tear trails, only a few are open.
   Understanding what led to the development of the supplemental, we must now talk a little bit about the contents of the updated plan.
   The purpose and need for the plan were the basic goals of the Backcountry Access Plan is to provide management guidelines for backcountry access and use while protecting the resources. It includes a wilderness study and identifies what parts of the original preserve should be proposed for wilderness designation by Congress.
   A bit of the wilderness study. Proposals for Congress's consideration are presented in two actions of the plan. Two propose a subset of the totality of lands found in wilderness designation in the original preserve and Western Addition. The north is not completed because its study is complete and it has proposed wilderness identified.
   The wilderness study process began with the eligibility assessment that was signed in 2015 and found approximately 188,000 acres eligible. That effort was mostly conducted with a tabletop analysis of aerial imagery and maps. Since 2015, more on the ground efforts particularly the ground truthing effort on trails last year has refined the eligibility assessment.
   The planning team has now identified nearly 258,000 acres of eligible wilderness for 45% of the western reserve and addition. The revised plan is included in the appendix of the draft plan.
   Here's what it looks like in comparison. On the left is the 2015 assessment, on the right is the current assessment of eligibility. The two starred areas, airplane and window prairies, make up a significant portion of the eligible acreage increase. These areas were mentioned by the public in 2015, but the park didn't have the data needed to fully analyze them at that time. We made other minor adjustments in other places, but airplane and Windmill are the two most significant changes since 2015.
   So given the plan purpose and understanding the wilderness eligibility, let's discuss the alternatives. It carries four alternatives with no action and considers two new action alternatives. A revised version being a revised version of 2022, and the new alternative referred to alternative three in the supplemental. The former alternative 3 along with four and five are not considered in the supplemental. Alternative three is the new NPS preferred alternative. They address moat  ‑‑  motorized and nonmotorized trails. As mentioned, unlike the 2020 draft which designs substrate resiliency derived solely from remotely sensed data, the resiliency determinations in the supplemental have been ground truthed by preserve staff. This has resulted in a scaling back of ORV trail mileage from the draft. They include those that cross mostly resilient to highly resilient substrates.
   In accordance with NEPA, we are required to examine a range of alternatives when preparing the Environmental Impact Statement. While each alternative provides unique approaches, there are many strategies that do not vary among the two action alternatives. These strategies are considered common to all the action alternatives and serve to protect the resources and values of the preserve.
   The actions common to both, action establishing a permanent route for the Florida national scenic hiking trail that separates it to the extent possible from the motorized trail system. Specifying permitting requirements. Establishing permitting requirements for overnight camping. And articulating policies around backcountry closures necessary for visitor or resource protection.
   Common actions also established some basics for visitor communication and education associated with the stewardship of resources.
   And they call for the development of a standardized signage plan to improve wayfinding within the preserve and they lay the basic groundwork for authorizing bicycle and eBike access to the motorized trail network.
   There are also things in the plan that the plan articulates as unchanged. There are no existing canoe trails in the preserve or in the northeast addition which was laid out in the northeast addition January management plan.
   Let's now look at the three alternatives themselves and how they differ. The no action alternative represents the continuation of current management practices. Under this alternative, they would continue along existing primary trails and no new primary or secondary ORV trails would be opened.
   ORV backcountry access would continue as it is today. The ORV and non‑ ORV user groups would share the same trail network and most camping would continue to be permitted in most of the preserve with free backcountry permits needed. No additional designated camping areas would be provided under this alternative and camping stay limits would remain unchanged. The scheduled 60 day closure for resource protection would remain in effect. As a continuation of current management, no wilderness is proposed for designation in alternative 1.
   Alternative 2 offers visitors slightly increased access compared to the no action alternative. The existing primary ORV trail system, 278 total miles would remain unchanged as well as the ORV permitting system. Second tear trails would be opened, more than 94% would traverse highly resilient to resilient substrates. The Florida national scenic trail would be realigned to improve the backcountry experience by separating ORVs and hikers and the route would be 44 miles long up from 36. One existing site in the stairsteps unit would be closed to protect resources. The 24 new destinations would augment 24 existing backcountry campsites and four campgrounds across the preserve. Camping stay limit would be 14 consecutive days.
   Under alternative 2, there would be camping provided as campgrounds and camping destinations.
   The current annual 60‑ day ORV closure would remain in place.
   Alternative 2 proposes that Congress designate approximately 191,000 acres of land as wilderness or about 32% of the original preserve and joining Western Addition. The proposal generally covers the areas known as Mullet Slough, the lake, loop unit, stairsteps zone 2 and the southeast corner of stairsteps unit zone 4.
   Alternative 3 would provide more backcountry access for visitors than alternative 2. It would open 54 additional miles of primary ORV trails on preexisting routes bringing the total mileage to 323 miles. About 93% of reopened primary trail and they would traverse resilient substrates.
   Approximately 39 of the trails would consist of airboat trails in stair step zones 3 and 4, but an additional 10 miles of reopened primary trail would link the northeast addition to the original preserve at Bear Island and three miles would link the northeast addition to the original preserve through Mullet Slough. In ORV permits would be capped at 2,000 and they would have access to the original preserve and the northeast addition. As in the previous alternative, the Florida national scenic trail would be realigned to improve that backcountry experience and new hiking trails would be established to a total of 185 miles, an increase of 122 miles over current conditions.
   Alternative 3 would open 83 new backcountry destinations in the original preserve and close one existing site in the stairsteps unit to protect resources. 83 new sites would be in addition to 24 already existing destinations and four campgrounds across the preserve. There would be one new campground established in Bear Island. Dispersed camping via foot or nonmotorized vessel would be permitted throughout the preserve including Bear Island. But air boat users would be required to camp at designated sites. As in alternative two, camping stay limit is 14 consecutive days, no reservation system would be implemented for camping.
   The annual 60‑ day ORV closure would be lifted in favor of targeted closures of specific problem areas identified by staff. The ORV trail system would be closed at night and during periods of high water.
   Alternative 3 proposes that Congress designate 148,000 acres of land as wilderness. 25% of the original preserve and adjoining Western Addition. It covers the areas of Mullet Slough, deep lake, loop unit and southeast corner of stair step zone 4. Of the eligible wilderness established in the updated wilderness study, these exhibit the highest degrees of wilderness character, least impacted by human activity and have been essentially managed as wilderness for decades.
   Alternative 3 is the park service's preferred alternative because it achieves the best balance between increased public access and a sustainable system while sustaining the park for intact parts of the original preserve.
   Here you see some of the basic differences in the three alternatives and the supplemental. Generally, alternative 2 only modestly increases access to the backcountry for recreational use and proposes slightly more wilderness for designation than provided alternative. The third, provides more motorized recreational access and dramatically increases nonmotorized hiking access. You can see 3 increases trail mileage from 278 to 332. These new miles are part of continued implementation of the 2,000 ORV plan which set a cap of 400 miles of trails, but designated 278. They include the connector trails in Bear Island and other places. These will help the National Park Service manage to serve as one cohesive system.
   On the hiking front, if you discount the Florida scenic trail, most trails are short hikes, less than three miles or so. Public has called for more opportunities, particularly for long day hikes and loops and alternative 3 dramatically increases those opportunities. As mentioned under both action alternatives, we would reroute portions of the Florida national scenic trail to separate pedestrian user from ORV user.
   On a final note concerning the wilderness proposals, under both alternative 2 and 3, none acreage overlaps with any of the proposed motorized trail system. Neither does any of the totality of the eligible wilderness in the one dated wilderness settlement.
   Here are the next steps. This is the first of three public meetings we're holding during the comment period that closes on September 26. We will then analyze and prepare responses to substantive public comments. Those responses will be made publicly available. They'll be released along with a final EIS and a decision document which we call a record of decision or more commonly a rod.
   The final EIS and rod will not be released until all aspects have been completed including compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and the endangered species act. There will be a rule making process before implementation which will include rulemaking for unopened trails in the northeast addition. On which we'll finally connect the management of the whole of the preserve's backcountry.
   We're going to begin the question and answer session shortly, so if you have not yet entered questions that you wish to ask, now's a good time to do so. This is a moderated meeting. We are getting your messages as they come in, but we have teammates that are sorting them and ordering similar questions so we can post answers to them as efficiently as possible. We are primarily interested in your questions on the status of the plan and its development process and anything that would help you formulate your comments. If you wish to have comments presented in the supplemental draft, you must do so on the online system or in writing to address on the screen.
   We'll be posting the link to the website and the address is for written comments in the Q&A window right now.
   While you work on your questions, I'm going to show you a couple slides for steps using the online system to formally commented and then we'll start the question and answer period.
   To follow the link that's been provided to the NPS planning environment and public commenting website, you can find a lot of information on the project there, including links to previously shared materials associated with the plan.
   The open for comment button on the left will provide access to the supplemental draft. Once you click that, you'll get a link to download the plan, provide comments.
   And this is what you'll see when it's time to type your comments in and access the document. The website will request identifying information about you, which we typically keep private but can't guarantee that it won't be released. You can, however, comment anonymously without impacting the weight that we place on the comments you submit.
   And one last thing about the types of comments that are most useful to us. Substantive comments are what we need. They include things that identify a factual error in the document and offer corrected information.
   They are comments that identify a relevant environmental issue that we overlooked in the document and may explain why that issue should be given detailed analysis.
   Or they are comments that propose a different alternative that is able to meet the purpose of the plan or they suggest specific modifications to an existing alternative.
   Substantive comments do not include votes for or against an alternative. They do not include comments that disagree with a law or regulation or any overarching NPS policy that is beyond the scope of the plan. They also don't comment on other projects or issues that are unrelated to the plan.
   A definition of a substantive comment is provided on the website for your review before you submit your formal comments.
   Enough of me talking to you, let's get to the point of the meeting and start answering your questions. Superintendent Forsythe will field most of them and we have other teammates on deck if he needs to phone a friend on any of the details. I'm going to help make sure that folks who are only listening can hear the questions. So I'll read them off for the superintendent to answer.
   Remember, formal substantive comments suggesting changes to the plan should be submitted online or in writing. Today, try to limit your questions to the things that can help you develop those formal comments.
   We're going to answer as many questions as we can, but for some reason we run out of time, there will be two more opportunities, tomorrow and Wednesday, to join another one of these meetings. You're welcome to do so. And also note that we will receive a full transcript of all the questions that have been asked, and they will become part of the project record for the project.
   So let me change my screen and I'll get to the pictures. I mean questions. Sorry.
   All right. All right. So the first question, Tom, what is the NPS rationale for recommending removal of the 60‑ day closure? Has park service done any studies such as those outlined in the 2000 ORV management plan to support these proposals of removing the closure?
   >> Thanks, Chuck. And thank you for that presentation. Well done. 60‑ day closure. The reality is, there's several points to this that in the summertime, June and July when the trails are typically closed and the idea originally back in the day when the trail closure was created, was to give nature a rest from backcountry use. What we're seeing at this point is that in June and July it's the hottest time of the year, people aren't really going out there. The tourists aren't here. The only people using the trails at that point are the landowners and we feel it would be much more appropriate to close trails as needed, not necessarily the whole network. So if we see an area where there's some stress of some kind happening, it gives us the ability to do that closure in a targeted area. And that way it gives the relief to nature that we see as we're on the ground.
   >> Next question from Doug. Can my group volunteer to clean the overall secondary trails once opened in our area where we hunt?
   >> Quite likely that's a yes. That's a great question. As we try to figure out the strategy for reopening these trails, it's going to be a little bit of an effort. There will need to be some trail marking done and some clearing of stuff that's grown up on the sides of the trail in the meantime.
   So the initial idea is that we will lay out the trail and then try to get some people to help us do it ‑‑  if we have to do it all ourselves, it will take a long time. So there's been a conversation about creating a volunteer group, train you how to do it, show you the pieces of what we want done, what to cut, what not to cut, et cetera. Still conversational, but that's one of the ideas we're bantering about to get these things open.
   >> The next question is from Matthew. Why aren't all of the close secondary trails which are regularly used by hikers in the preserve not noted as hiking access? I described only a very limited number of hiking trails as opposed to those that are actually used.
   >> Great question, Matthew.
   So hiking you can literally go anywhere you want to so there is no restriction of any kind of where you want to go walking. Just where we're going to make trails that we think are relatively easy and where we can mark them safely. And people can get to them with relative ease. So one of the, like, to the campgrounds we're trying to put a trail so people who come and stay overnight can enjoy nature safely around their campground. Where there's an old tram road up next to Fire Prairie trail, same thing, it's easily ‑‑  you're not going to get lost. It goes and connects to the road on both ends.
   Up in the additions we're trying to make it east/west corridor for people who like through hiking. Similar to the Florida scenic trail. But the old secondaries, if people want to hike them, they can, we're just not going to designate them as a hiking trail.
   The secondaries went to a place, so it would be kind of an out and back. We don't want people getting lost. The trails aren't ‑‑  in some cases, nature's so grown in you can't even hardly see them anymore and we don't want people getting lost. But go back to I think the original point of the question, you can kind of hike ‑‑  not kind of, you can hike anywhere you want to. If you want to use those old trails, go for it.
   >> Another question from Matthew. Why did NPS choose not to develop an alternative similar to the no action but which proposed the maximum nun number of wilderness?
   >> Alternative 2 did have some other acreage and Chuck described the Windmill and airplane prairie. Those have been in conversation, from my understanding in the wilderness conversation, for probably six, seven years now. And it's a  good idea. It's a thought. Many of those areas show the impacts from previous actions from logging to dispersed ORV use. They're definitely in the process of recovery. However, they also have a higher degree and need for active management to deal with invasives, pythons, and fire to aid in their recovery.
   So we looked at them and we sort of think what we've got is the right mix right now.
   >> Question from Doug. How about maintenance of the existing primary trails? Some further back in the preserve are in bad shape.
   >> Amen. So that is not ‑‑  I'm going to say ‑‑  specific to this plan. This is the secondary trails and the connections of the additions and stuff. But I will say that we recognize that trails need repair, maintained. I went down ‑‑  which one? Skillet strand back when we were doing prescribed fire back in that area. And it's ‑‑  it's not even deep in the backcountry and that limestone is with the whole solution holes is so jarring, it's a brutal ride.
   I know the others have a rough ride, rock road is a rough ride. We hit Oasis last year and we're hitting Skillet this year. We're actually doing Skillet this dry season. We have a five‑ year plan where we rotate through the trails. It seemed that Oasis was getting most of the attention for so long and from my understanding, the idea was that it's one of the most used pieces of trail so they wanted to keep it in the best shape they could.
   Couple of questions were asked during the discussion of sort of formulating trail maintenance, and simple question I asked ‑‑  I don't know it was simple. My question was if Skillet was in better shape, would it relieve some pressure on Oasis? Because nobody goes on Skillet because it's such a brutal trail.
   Anyways, we're trying to get to each of the areas, we're trying to do better. Our maintenance team has put projects in that should hopefully get us to a better reach more frequently. But some of those trails are pretty rough, there's no doubt.
   And, Doug, I don't know if I answered your question. But if you have a follow up to it, anybody has a follow up, let me know.
   >> Okay. Next question, Tom. On backcountry destinations, is there a list that the public can access of the backcountry destinations? What are they intended for?
   They're dotted on the map and in some cases it looks like there are two destinations on top of each other. Can we have clarity on what each of those proposed destinations is so we can better understand?
   >> Let's see. So I'm not aware of any being on top of each other and I'm not quite sure what dotted on the map means. I printed off the map that you guys should have in the book. I printed it off in big scale so I could see it a little bit better, which is ‑‑  but I don't see any dotted lines. I wonder if that's just a scale issue. I'm not sure. But there shouldn't be any destinations on top of each other.
   I think the base part of the question, though, is there a list of what those destinations are intended for?
   And the definition of a destination is, you know, it could be a campsite or it could be a place where people want to go view nature or something like that. We did not specify what any one destination could be used for. It's a destination. If you want to go there and watch birds, go watch birds. If you want to go there and camp and take a nap, go for it. It's a destination and it could be used today by somebody for camping and tomorrow by somebody bird watching or getting out into nature. So there's no specific purpose for any one destination.
   >> Next question. Concho Billie was the one I was referring to is a test of how well your ORV is made. Not a question, a comment.
   >> I will agree that it is a test of how well your spine holds up and your kidneys hold up.
   [Laughter]
   >> Okay. I'm not ‑‑  Tom, I'm not seeing any other questions at the moment. Is there anybody else out there that's looking to ask anything or any follow‑ ups?
   >> And we'll take a minute and let people stew on it for a second and think if they have any other questions.
   We had ‑‑  I think it was 12 attendees when we started the meeting, it went up to 14 for a few minutes and then it's now back down to 12. We've been, you know there are processes that have been going on for a decade, roughly. Lots of conversation around it. And I really appreciate all the conversation that we have had. If people weren't so passionate about this issue, then it would mean they didn't care about this place. So no matter what perspective and what your goal and your personal aim for this place is, you know, the preserve is a unique designation, first one of its kind in the park service units. And as it was imagined, we think that this plan does a pretty good job of living up to the intent of the use and preservation of this place. So I just ‑‑  I'm happy that the public cares about it and the amount of feedback I've had lots of one‑ on‑ one phone calls with people, meeting people out in the backcountry, meeting people here in my office, et cetera.
   So these conversations have been had since I've been here coming up on two and a half, three years now, I really appreciate the engagement that everybody's had around this issue, but so many issues. It just means that everybody cares about this place and that's meaningful. So thank you.
   Any questions popped in while I was yammering?
   >> Yeah, we have a couple. From Matthew. Was happy to see the eastern Bear Island was removed from new or reopened primaries and secondaries. It was open once before and the results showed unsustainable terrain for ORVs. Why wasn't this area proposed as wilderness? No idea what it is in there that made NPS believe it should not be proposed. Was it considered eligible wilderness?
   >> I'm going to go to Mark on this one, but I think that was additions in that wilderness had already been dealt with. Mark, can you steer me clear on that one?
   >> I don't honestly know. If we did not include it as eligibility wilderness, it was because there was some sort of disturbance there or some sort of permanent structure or something of that nature that kicked it out. But if the commenter feels like that was a mistake and that the area is eligible after all, we'd love to have that in comments so we can reconsider.
   >> Thank you, Mark.
   >> Mark, could you introduce yourself?
   >> The world famous Mark Kenzer, come on.
   >> Hi. My name's Mark Kenzer, I'm the regional wilderness coordinator and a member of the Backcountry Access Plan team.
   >> I hate to interrupt and take us down a rabbit hole, but since we're sort of introducing ourselves, I was going to ask Chuck, Chuck, maybe go back to the map of the Wilder ‑‑  the eligible wilderness, because I think what Matthew's asking, I think the area is eligible, it's just not being proposed, right?
   >> It is not.
   >> What is not?
   >> It is not on the ‑‑  it is not in the eligible ‑‑  on the eligible area.
   >> The eastern part of Bear Island.
   >> Eastern part of Bear Island. I'm also going to point out on that question, I could be misunderstanding, but alternative ‑‑  preferred alternative does propose a connection into the northeast addition.
   I wanted to make sure that's clear.
   So there's more follow‑ up to be asked about that, please do so.
   All right. But I'm going to read the next question. Were sensitive species locations taken into account when considering new potential trails both motorized and on foot especially north of I‑ 75?
   >> That's a pretty easy answer. Yes.
   >> How would you keep up with primary trail maintenance under alternative 3 if it's hard to currently maintain trails? 
   >> The ‑‑  so the trail network expansion, most of the miles that are added are those airboat miles down in zone 4 stairsteps. So there's not any maintenance, it's water. Those airboat trails would be closed when it's dry. They would ‑‑  it wouldn't be ORVs, just airboats. So when it dries up, won't get used. That's where the vast majority of those miles are, so it's not adding any kind of significant workload to the group.
   >> There seems to be some overlapping looping proposed primary airboat trails. Perhaps this is also a map scale issue. Can you speak to the rationale for the major increase in air boat trails?
   >> Let's see, I'm not sure of any overlapping. Again, to your point that may be a scale issue. I don't ‑‑  I do not see any ‑‑  what I would call overlapping happening. I'm trying to look at that time on screen now to see what everybody sees.
   Anyways, there's not really an overlapping. And those airboat trails were airboat trails that existed. They are pretty well defined. They've been used, I'm going to call it administratively for the past ‑‑  I'm sure since ‑‑  for a long time. It's where some of the species are down that we have to get to to go take care of. So we've been using existing trails or previous trails and the vast majority of those ‑‑  matter of fact, all of those were previous airboat trails. So there's nothing new. Let's see, looping around. Rationale for the major increase. It's just airboat trails that were down there.
   >> You had referenced prairie and Windmill in an explanation about why NPS chose not continue to ‑‑  to include those in alternative 3. Can you say why they weren't in the other proposals?
   >> It's the same answer. They're in a higher grief need for us to be actively engaged in those areas to help them. It's just the vast majority of the acreage difference was in those two units.
   >> Question from Matthew. Curious if wildlife impacts were considered along with sustainable substrate when secondaries and destinations were considered. The sustainable areas are also the ones preferred by panthers and other wildlife.
   >> I think ‑‑  good afternoon, Matthew. The answer is kind of yes. I mean, anywhere there was a teeny species or wildlife or known panther den or anything like that, the wildlife was taken into consideration. And buffers were created and a proposed trail ‑‑  I'm going to hypothetically, let's say that something that was a trail that had a suitable substrate within went an area that we knew was an RCW roost or went within an area of a panther den or culturally sensitive site, we just didn't do the trail, it just got pulled out. So those kind of considerations were all part of the formula.
   >> Okay. Next question, can you please tell us more about the realignment of the Florida national scenic trail? It's hard to tell from the map exactly where the new alignment will be. Can you tell us some of the names of the preserve areas where the realignment will be most significant?
   >> Yeah. And even on the big scale map it's kind of hard to see so I completely understand. The ‑‑  where Chuck has it up on the screen now, and I would say ‑‑  so what we're trying to do is up there sort of as you go through Mullet Slough where his cursor is, where you go through Mullet Slough up to mile marker 63 is the area where the vast majority of the trail aligns with the ORV trail. And so we're just trying to get the mixed use so that people who are hiking and wanting to be in nature aren't out somewhere where an ORV is going to be running past.
   So the separation is just going to be getting it off trail. We're working with the Florida national scenic trail alliance on going out and picking the spots where a hiking trail is doable. And this is going to be chunks along the boundary of that just to try to get it off the trail as much as possible and that the scale is at its ‑‑  when you're moving  ‑‑  so that map is showing twice the State of Rhode Island, Rhode Island, New Jersey, one of them. It's 750,000 acres and you move it a hundred yards or 200 yards and you just can't see it. But it's up there in that area mostly going up from Mullet Slough, yeah, where his cursor is up to mile marker 63. There's going to be some overlap there because that's where the gate is, so we accept the fact that there will be some overlap but we're trying to make the experience as best as we can for the hikers.
   >> Okay. I'm not seeing any more questions.
   >> Well, we'll pause for a second more and make sure if something else comes up. I'm trying to think if I can ‑‑  I don't have any jokes I can tell to pass the time. I will say that as much as I thanked just in general the people who are passionate about this place, the 13 of you who are on right now took time out of your day to listen to us yammer and to ask a couple questions. And I want to thank you for your time that you've given us today as well. We appreciate the fact that people care about this place.
   Ben pinged me and said remind everybody that there are two more public meeting opportunities. One tomorrow night and then one again on Wednesday morning. Ben, you should have just came on and said ‑‑  everybody likes seeing your smiling face.
   Anything else there, Chuck?
   >> No, I'm not seeing any ‑‑  sorry, everybody. I am not seeing any additional questions so I think it might be a good time to say thank you. Thank you from me as well. Appreciate everybody's attendance today. And, Tom, if you have any other last words before we close it out.
   >> No. Thank you, everybody, and please take the time. Chuck did such a good job of outlining how to give us your formulated thoughts and feedback. It means a lot to us. Make sure you go into PEPC and get it documented if you need to write a letter there was an address in that link that Tess shared with you, I believe. We want to hear your feedback. We care because you care. Everybody, thank you so much. Everybody have a great afternoon and hopefully we'll see you around the preserve. Keep in touch.
   >> Thank you, everyone.
   >> There's a new question as well.
   >> Are we still on? 
   >> Is it really going to take until 2023 to make the plan final?
   >> Hopefully, I think is the best answer. So we have to ‑‑  there's ‑‑  everything's timing. So we have to leave the comment period open so long, then we get so long to review the comments to see if there's anything that we need to give extra consideration to. Then we have to go through the process of getting it formalized. So there's just these time gatekeeping things that happen. And I would say spring of '23 after, you know, February, March, and I don't know, don't hold me to any months, but the ‑‑  that would be good if we got a signature and we got to be able to go public and then start, you know, after the rulemaking and start trying to get some trails opened and stuff like that.
   So I think it's not ‑‑  it's not an unrealistic timeline. Things can happen quicker. Things can also take longer. I think this is a good we should shoot for kind of thing. Does that sound right? Chuck, you do more planning than I do. Did I answer that reasonably okay?
   >> I think so. I think spring '23 is the reasonable target to complete the NEPA compliance. But for all of you out there who know all the details, there are other environmental compliance processes that we have to get through as well and there are, you know, as Tom said, time‑ certain pauses in the NEPA process that we have to allow for. So yes, as he said, spring of '23 is an excellent target that is our fingers crossed completion.
   All right. Well, we said good‑ bye a few times and there aren't any other questions, so I think we're ‑‑  I think we're good to end and thank you, everybody, for coming.
   >> Bye, everybody.