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.

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

   >> Chuck: All right, folks, it's the top of the hour but I'll just give one more minute to allow folks who are joining right on time to get with us before we start.
[Pause]
   >> Chuck: All right. Let's get going. Tom, it looks like we have about seven attendees here now. I imagine some more will show up over the next few minutes. But if you'd like to come on and introduce yourself, I'll advance the presentation to the next slide here.
   >> Tom, you're on mute.
   >> You're on mute, sir.
   >> Chuck: Good start.
   >> Tom: I never claimed to be computer savvy. All right. Let's try this again. Thanks, Chuck. 
   Welcome, and good evening to everyone. I'm Tom Forsythe, superintendent here at Big Cypress. Not someone who works in IT. Thank you for joining the public meeting to discuss the Big Cypress National Preserve Backcountry Access Plan and wilderness study. It's hard to believe that this Backcountry Access Planning process has been going on for almost a decade. Many of you were online two years ago when I presented the draft EIS. We received a huge amount of feedback which led us to this supplemental draft EIS. The discussion you'll see will be with the NEPA process, the project background, the alternatives, the timeline, and how you can best share your thoughts and feedback.
   Next slide, please.
   Before we get started, I'd like to thank and recognize the many participants who have developed this overtime. We've learned a lot and we appreciate everyone's cooperation and support over the years. Thank you to everyone. I'm going to hand it over to Chuck to describe how to navigate our system, the basic content and I'll be back to answer questions.
   Take it away, Chuck.
   >> Chuck: Thank you very much, Tom. I'm Chuck Lawson, and I work for the National Park Services Denver Service Center. We help parks with complex planning efforts like the Backcountry Access Plan. Thank you for coming and we're very glad that you're here with us tonight.
   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's on the left hand side of your screen.
   That function should be turned on now so you can begin to send us questions at any time during the presentation over the next 30 minutes or so.
   To do that, you select the featured category tab at the top and click ask a question. You won't be able to see questions from others until we finish the presentation and then we begin answering them one at a time.
   Concerning questions today, we hope to answer the questions that you have about the plan's content and about our process thus far. But today is not the best format for us to respond to questions about why we did or did not consider a specific trailer destination or about specific environmental issues. We ask that you provide those types of formal comments and concerns by visiting the link that's on this slide.
   It's also been shared in that Q&A panel.
   At the end of the presentation, we'll walk 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 bit of background. This effort comes from a long history dating back to the 2000 ORV plan that directed the establishment of a network of primary and secondary trails in the end of dispersed ORV use in the preserve. However, they challenged the preserve's designation of secondary ORV trails that led to a lawsuit and settlement agreement that required the closure of the secondary trail network. The Backcountry Access Plan is serving the park services requirements under that settlement agreement and living up to what we said we would do by providing defensible definitions of secondary trails and destinations and evaluating their suitability on the landscape and their impact on park resources.
   Scoping for the plan began in 2014. Preliminary alternatives were developed in 2015 along with the addition of wilderness study that was intended to be completed as part of the plan.
   The public provided input on those initial alternatives and the wilderness assessment in 2016, after which a draft plan was produced. Before that plan was presented to the public but as a matter of temporary policy in 2020, the wilderness study and the wilderness proposals that were in the alternatives were removed. And as Tom mentioned in his introduction, that 2020 draft resulted in a large number of comments. They were deeply split.
   The ORV user community and the Florida fish and wildlife conservation commission strongly supported alternative 5, which was our preferred and maximized recreational access.
   Environmental groups and like minded individuals opposed that alternative and argued that the increase in recreational access came at the expense of resources. Particularly in association with the size of the ORV trail system and the placement of trails on unsuitable, erodible substrates. Public also argued that the park service needed to prepare a wilderness study before siting motorized trails in the backcountry.
   In May of last year the preserve received the go-ahead to prepare a supplemental draft of the EIS to address public concerns and re‑ include the wilderness study and wilderness appropriate proposals in the action alternatives. For the suitability for trails, the preserve spent a large portion of the 2021 ground truthing all the trails and destinations proposed in any alternative of the 2020 draft to figure out which secondary trails and destinations were most 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 traffic. It's important to note that every ORV trail that has 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 that they cross, looking for resilience substrates that can support ORV traffic.
   But that original substrate identification was derived from remotely sensed GIS data, primarily from vegetation community coverages that themselves were derived from aerial photography. The planning team knew that this method would overestimate the substrates so the 2020 plan included implementation strategies that would have ultimately limited 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 to the 2020 draft.
   So in the development of this draft, we used vegetation at a much higher resolution, but more importantly staff physically ground truthed every trail proposed in any alternative of the 2020 draft. We now know the substrate conditions and the new action alternatives 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 current supplemental. The first one I had mentioned, the preserve’s confidence in the substrate suitability in trails proposed as derived from the ground truthing effort. The new preferred effort is more sustainable than the previous one.
   The second one is the update and that reinclusion of the wilderness study. The interaction of wilderness and motorized use is integral to planning for access. So the wilderness study and eligibility determination and individual proposals for wilderness designation in the alternatives have been added back into the document.
   And the last big difference is proposing a trail system and a permitting system that provides connectivity across the whole preserve. The preferred alternative of the supplemental proposes primary ORV trail connections through Bear Island and through Mullet Slough and it provides for a single permitting system to manage the entirety of Big Cypress.
   So before we go further, I'd like to talk a little bit 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 these trails are currently open and utilized by off road vehicles now.
   Secondary ORV trails are natural surface. They are minimally maintained and the goal is to site them over substrates that can handle ORV traffic without causing erosion or braiding during use. They're not intended for lots of traffic. They branch off at the primaries and provide direct access to designated backcountry destinations. They don't create loops, 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've been closed due to the settlement agreement.
   Backcountry destinations are places that people wanted to access in the preserve and then were selected because they naturally provide an area of open space on dry ground that can be accessed by a 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 destinations accessed by secondary trails, only a handful of them near primary trails are currently open.
   These basic definitions in mind and understanding about what led to the development of the supplemental, let's now talk about the contents of the updated plan.
   The purpose and need for the plan are the basic goals of the Backcountry Access Plan is to provide management guidelines for backcountry access and use while protecting the preserve's resources.
   The plan now also includes that wilderness study and identifies what parts of the original preserve should be preserved ‑‑  proposed for wilderness designation by Congress.
   A bit on that wilderness study. Wilderness proposals for Congress's consideration are in the two action alternatives in the plan. Each one is a subset of the totality of lands found eligible for wilderness designation in the original preserve and the Western Addition. The northeast addition is not included because its wilderness study is already complete and it already has proposed wilderness identified.
   The process began with wilderness 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 that ground truthing of trails that happened last year, has refined the eligibility assessment. The planning team has now identified 258,000 acres of eligible wilderness or 45% of the original preserve and Western Addition. The revised eligibility assessment is included as an appendix to the supplemental draft plan. Here's what it looks like as a comparison.
   On the left of the screen is the 2015 assessment and the right is the current assessment. The Windmill and Airplane make up a significant portion of increase. These areas were mentioned to us by the public in 2015 but we didn't have the data necessary to analyze them at that time.
   We made other adjustments, but Airplane and Windmill are the most significant changes since the 2015 assessment.
   So given the plan purpose and an understanding of the wilderness eligibility, let's discuss the alternatives presented in the supplemental. It carries forward alternative 1, no action alternative from the draft plan and it considers two new action alternatives. The first, revised version of alternative 2 from the 2020 draft. And the second, a new alternative referred to as alternative 3 in the supplemental.
   The former alternative 3 together with alternatives 4 and 5 from the draft plan are not considered in the supplemental draft.
   Alternative 3 is the new NPS preferred alternative.
   The alternatives addressed motorized and nonmotorized trails, backcountry destinations, backcountry camping and wilderness proposals. Unlike the 2020 draft which define that substrate resiliency solely from remotely sensed data, resiliency determinations in the supplemental have been ground truthed by preserve staff and this has resulted in a scaling back of the ORV mileage from the draft plan.
   The action alternatives now include only those trails that would cross resilient to highly resilient substrates.
   In accordance with NEPA, we are required to take into account a range of things. The management of the preserve, with many strategies that do not vary. These strategies are common to all of the action alternatives and ultimately serve to protect resources and values of the preserve. The actions comment both action alternatives include establishing a permanent route for the Florida national scenic hiking trail that separates it to the extent possible from the motorized trail system establishing ORV specifications and permitting requirements.
   Establishing permitting requirements for overnight camping. And articulating policies around backcountry closures necessary for visitor or resource protection. They establish 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 basic groundwork for authorizing bicycle and eBike access to the motorized trail network. There are also things in the plan that the plan articulates. There are no changes proposed to the existing canoe trails in the southwest corner of the preserve or the conceptual primary ORV trail network in the northeast addition. That was laid out in the northeast addition GMP.
   So 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, ORV trails 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.
   ORV and non ORV user groups would share the same trail network and dispersed camping would be continued to be permitted in most of the preserve with free backcountry camping permits required.
   No additional designated backcountry camping areas would be provided under this alternative and the 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 miles total, would remain unchanged. As would the ORV permitting system.
   15 miles of secondary ORV trails would be opened. More than 94% of which would traverse highly resilient to resilient substrates. The Florida national scenic trail would be realigned to improve the backcountry experience by separating ORV users and hikers. And the realigned route would be 44 miles long up from 36. 24 backcountry destinations would be old and one existing site in the stairsteps unit would be closed to protect resources the.
   The 24 new destinations would augment 24 existing backcountry campsites and four campgrounds across the preserve.
   The camping stay limit would be 14 consecutive days and under alternative 2, all dispersed camping would be discontinued. With camping opportunities provided at destinations and campgrounds. Reservations and group size would be implemented. The annual 60‑ day ORV closure would remain in place.
   Alternative 2 proposes a Congress designate approximately 191,000 acres of land as wilderness or 32% of the original preserving and adjoining Western Addition.
   The wilderness proposal generally covers the area known as Mullet Slough, deep lake, loop unit, stairsteps zone 2, and the southeast corner of stairsteps 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 of primary trails in the preserve to 332 miles. Alternative 3 would also open 52 miles of secondary ORV trails, about 93% of reopened primary trail, and over 90% of reopened miles of secondary trail which traverse highly resilient or resilient substrates.
   Of the 54 miles of newly opened primary trail, 39 would consist of airboat trails in the stairsteps units zone 3 and 4. But additional ten miles of reopened primary trail would link the northeast addition to the original preserve at Bear Island and three miles would link it through the Mullet Slough. ORV permits would be capped at 2,000 and of those 2,000, 650 would authorize access to both the original preserve and the northeast addition.
   As in the previous alternative, the Florida national scenic trail will 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.
   The 83 new sites would be in addition to 24 already existing destinations and four campgrounds across the preserve. There would be one new backcountry campground established in Bear Island.
   Dispersed backcountry camping via foot or nonmotorized vessel would be included throughout the preserve including Bear Island but the stairsteps unit would still be required to camp at designated sites. As in alternative 2, the camping stay limit would be 14 consecutive days, if 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 approximately one 48,000 acres of land as wilderness or 25% of the original preserve and adjoining Western Addition. The proposal covers areas known as Mullet Slough, deep lake, loop unit, and the southeast corner of stair step zone 4.
   Of the eligible wilderness established in the study, these are the areas that exhibit the highest degree of wilderness character or the least impacted by modern human activity, and have been essentially managed as wilderness for decades.
   Alternative 3 is the park services preferred alternative because it achieves what we believe is the best balance between increased public access and a sustainable system while at the same time proposing wilderness protection for the most ecologically intact parts of the preserve. Here you can see some of the basic differences between the three alternatives and the supplemental. We want to draw your attention to some of them specifically.
   Generally, alternative 2 only modestly increases access to the backcountry for recreational use and proposes slightly more wilderness for designation than the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative, number 3, provides more motorized recreational access and dramatically increases nonmotorized hiking access.
   You can see that alternative 3 increases primary ORV trail mileage from 278 miles to 332. These new miles are part of a continued implementation of the 2000 ORV plan which set a cap of 400 miles of primary trails but only designated 278. We've added 54. These are mostly airboat trails in the stairsteps unit, but they also include those connector trails between Bear Island and the northeast addition and through Mullet Slough to the northeast addition.
   These are connections that the public has long called for and they will help the park service manage the preserve as one cohesive system.
   On the hiking access front, if you discount the Florida national scenic trail, most existing trails in the preserve are short hikes. Less than three miles or so. The public has called for more opportunities, particularly for long day hikes and loops. And alternative three dramatically increases those opportunities.
   And as mentioned, under both action alternatives, we would reroute portions of the Florida national scenic trail to better separate pedestrian visitors from the ORVs.
   And on a final note concerning the wilderness proposals, under both alternative 2 and 3, none of the acreage proposed for designation overlaps with any of the proposed motorized trail system. In fact, neither does any of the totality of the eligible wilderness identified in the updated wilderness eligibility assessment.
   So our next steps in the plan's progress. This is the second of three public meetings that we are holding during the comment period that closes on September 26th. We will then analyze and prepare responses to substantive public comments and those responses will be made publicly available.
   They will be released along with a final Environmental Impact Statement 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 of environmental compliance have been completed, including with the historic preservation act and Endangered Species Act.
   After they are complete, there will be a rulemaking process before implementation which will include rulemaking for unopened trails in the northeast addition. That process will finally connect management of the whole of the preserve's backcountry.
   So we're going to begin the Q&A session shortly. So if you have not yet entered questions that you wish to ask, now would be a good time to do so. This is a moderated meeting. We're getting your messages as they come in, but we have teammates sorting them and ordering similar questions so we can post and answer them as efficiently as possible. Today we are primarily interested in your questions on the status of the plan, its development process, and anything that could help you formulate your formal comments.
   If you wish to formulate a comment on the content presented in the draft, you need to do so via the online commenting system or in writing to the address on the screen. The address ‑‑  the web address and the National Park Service office address is posted in the Q&A window now as well.
   While you all work on questions, I'll show you a couple of slides with steps for using the online system to formally comment. Then we'll begin the question and answer period.
   So if you follow that web ‑‑  that web address, that link, you will access the National Park Service's planning environment and public commenting website. You can find a lot of information on the project there, including links to the previous ‑‑  previously shared materials associated with the plan.
   The open for comment button on the left‑ hand side of the screen will provide access to the supplemental draft and the commenting system.
   Once you click that, you'll get a link to download the plan and provide comments. And here's what you'll see when it's ‑‑  where you want to click here to type your comments and down here to download 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 we place on the comments that you submit.
   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're comments that identify a relevant environmental issue that we overlooked in the document and they explain why that issue should be given detailed analysis.
   They're also comments that propose a different alternative that's still able to meet the purpose of the plan or they suggest specific modifications to an existing alternative.
   What they do not include are votes for or against an alternative and they do not include comments that disagree with the law, regulation, or any overarching NPS policy that's beyond the scope of the plan. They also don't comment on other projects or issues unrelated to the plan.
   The definition of a substantive comment is also provided at the website.
   Okay. So enough of me talking. Let's get to the point of this meeting and start answering your questions. Superintendent Forsythe is going to field most of them. We have some other teammates on deck, if he needs to phone a friend on any details.
   I'm going to help make sure that the people who are only listening in can hear the questions. So I will 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 things that can help you develop those formal comments.
   And we'll answer as many questions as we can, but if for some reason we run out of time tonight, please note that there's another opportunity tomorrow morning to join one of these meetings. And you are welcome to do so and also note that we will receive a full transcript of all the questions asked that will become part of the record for the project.
   So, Tom, I am going to get myself to the Q&A screen and read off our first question.
   Oh, well, maybe not. Do we ‑‑  I don't see any questions yet.
   >> Tom: We've got plenty of time so we can wait a little bit and give folks a little bit of time to put some thought to it and get some questions.
   I encourage everybody who's on, it's a fairly small crowd, we can give you some pretty personal attention tonight, if you have any questions, please do feel free to type them in. In the meantime, I'll see if Chuck knows how to sing and dance.
   [Laughter].
   >> Chuck: Yeah, yeah, I do.
   >> Tom: That's a no.
   >> Chuck: But I'm not gonna.
   >> Tom: All right. All right.
   Has anything come in yet or can you tell if people are typing or not? Is there a way to show that? Don't see it until it's submitted?
   >> Chuck: I don't see it.
   >> Tom: Yeah.
   >> Chuck: I don't see it until they click submit.
   >> Tom: You know what would make me feel a little bit better if somebody who is out there in the audience would just send a message and say hello even if you don't have a question, that way we know we're reaching at least an audience. Could be it's late after a long day's work and just tired. But I'd like to know that somebody's out there. We're showing that there is a small group, I think it was nine people in attendance when we started. So we know there's some folks out there. Hopefully there's a question. If not, at least maybe a hello confirming that you're able to hear us.
   I've never had to stall for time before.
   >> Chuck: My presentation may have driven people comatose.
   >> Tom: Come on, you did a great job. I'm sure we'll get something in in a second.
   >> Chuck: We have received an anonymous hello.
   >> Tom: Oh, yeah. Thank you.
   >> Chuck: Someone is out there.
   >> Tom: Mr. Or Mrs. Anonymous, I appreciate that. At least we know people can hear us.
   >> Chuck: And we got a hi from Jay.
   >> Tom: Hi, Jay. All right. We have more time scheduled for this meeting so I will hang out here for a bit more. While we're waiting, if there's no questions from the group that's on or if you're thinking about a question, we'll go back to sort of what I said in the beginning and it's the ‑‑  this process has been going on for a long, long time, since 2013 it started.
   It's been through several management teams, different superintendents, different support ‑‑  people in support functions from Denver Service Center and contractors and through a lot of the stakeholders and users here in the local area.
   And to everybody that's been involved, it's been a long process and I truly want to reiterate the thank you that I said in the beginning. It's been a fairly contentious issue over the years. We're super hopeful that we can get this across the finish line this time in the relatively near future.
   We feel very confident that we have a strong plan that can stand up to scrutiny. And the contentiousness that's been surrounding it for all these years, I want to say is meaningful to me and because it wouldn't be contentious if people didn't care. So it doesn't matter what side of the fence you're on, whether it is a matter of wanting more access or wanting less ORV use or more wilderness, doesn't matter, pick a side. They all work in harmony together.
   This place was envisioned in a unique way and hence its designation as the first preserve in the National Park Service, and I think this plan provides a happy balance and it's all those passions around this place that make people care about it that is so special.
   So again, to the folks out there anonymous, Jay, and anybody else, thank you for caring to sit here tonight and listen to us go through the plan in a 50,000‑ foot overview. The link is in the system and you're seeing it there. I encourage you to look at it and give us feedback. When we went out with the draft EIS about two years ago, it was the feedback that we got from this public comment period that was so meaningful that helped us dial this in a little bit and get us to what we think is a good spot.
   It's not going to make everybody happy certainly by any means, but it's a good mix for the group ‑‑  for everybody.
   So it's a solid plan, we're pretty happy with it and I thank everybody for that support and participation throughout this time.
   Has anybody come up with any questions yet, Chuck? Is there any others?
   >> Chuck: There is. There is a question.
   The preferred alternative suggests that you will be opening approximately 100 miles of new trail but since you are opening the trails in the northeast addition lands, won't you actually be opening far more? Will there be enough manpower to take care of all of these additional miles of trail?
   Good question.
   >> Tom: Great question. Awesome. Let's see. Yes, yes, and no.
   Let's see. So the reality is that the additions management GMP envisioned a trail network and as soon as we can get this plan opened, we can use that plan in conjunction to open those trails. So you are correct.
   But the backcountry access plan is what you're looking at and what we're talking about tonight is predominantly related to trails ‑‑  the trails are predominantly related to just the original preserve. So you are correct that the additions trails which have already gone through this public process a number of years ago, I think it was in 2010, will add additional trails as well.
   But inside the original preserve it will be a number that you discussed.
   The manpower to take care of the trails is a fantastic question. And the ‑‑  the short answer is we're going to do the best we can. We struggle to take care of some of the trails right now and people call us and tell us they're too bumpy. Bone rattling, kidney shaking, I'm trying to remember the terms I've had people call and yell at me about. Broken axles, knocked tires off, but as many people who feel that the trails are a little bit rugged, others just as equally many don't want them turned into super highways. This place was not meant to be a place that ATVs, UTVs, ORVs, pick the vehicle, goes fast.
   It's a slow, purposeful meander through the preserve enjoying this place. Taking care of it is kind of a difficult answer because the reality is we're going to do the best we can. A lot of the plan, the secondary trails as you heard Chuck talk about, it's an unimproved trail over a substrate that can withstand the use. It's not a high‑ volume trail. It's not a to and from place, it's to a spot. Not everybody will want to go down that secondary trail so it won't get used as much and it's over a very solid substrate.
   The primary trails getting added largely are airboat trails. So there's no real taking care of that. We'll let people go out in airboats as long as there's water down there in the stairsteps. And when there's no water, that section of the trail network, the airboat trails will be closed when it dries down. And it will probably happen before it dries down, because if you're not familiar with that area, there is some spots down there where you will rip the bottom of your airboat open if you hit a rock wrong. That limestone is unforgiving. The cap rock is just hard as can be. So anyways, it won't be ‑‑  in the original preserve there won't be a huge number of extra trails we'll have to take care of. There will be a large effort in getting the trails open since they haven't been used largely since 2013. So nature does what nature's done and it's grown. So there's going to be a fair amount of trail clearing. That's going to be something we're going to work on, but we're going to ask people to help us work on it as well.
   So we'll be looking for volunteers to help us and, you know, get people trained on how we're going to open trails and then where possible allow volunteers to help us do that to try to get it done more quickly.
   I think I hope I answered your question and maybe give you a little bit extra. But you are certainly welcome to ask a follow‑ up if I didn't quite get to what you were asking me. And anybody else, ask questions.
   Were there any others, Chuck?
   >> Chuck: No, sir, no other questions.
   >> Tom: Nothing yet, all right. All right.
   Well, I'm going to hang on. So we ‑‑  my screen is showing that there are nine people still on this. And you ‑‑  anybody is welcome to stay as long as you like. Chuck shared with you that we have another one of these, it will be a verbatim presentation tomorrow morning from 10:00 to 12:00. You're welcome to join that. You're certainly welcome to join it roughly a half hour after we start because that's about how long it takes us to roll through these slides. You're welcome to join us halfway through and see if there's other questions that may prompt considerations on your behalf.
   But seeing no more questions, we're going to start ‑‑  I'm going to stay on. Chuck and I will stay here and the key folks to this team, this presentation tonight, will stay on until there's nobody left on and the chance somebody was joining late after work.
   Let's see. What's the reminder? Download the document, go to the website there, you can download the document and review it in greater detail. Thank you for that reminder. So everybody, that link is on the page there, you can get the document, print out all of it or pieces of it as you wish with more detail.
   Tomorrow's meeting, and we need your comments and the comments are the feedback on your thoughts about the plan and things you think we should have thought about or haven't thought about, the substantive comments that Chuck described. Those are due ‑‑  the public comment period closes September 26th, I believe.
   >> That's correct.
   >> Tom: So please do give us feedback on your thoughts of this. I say again, the public process last time is what informed so much of what we got. So hopefully we've been able to hit that mark of what the public has asked for.
   All right. We're going to stay on. There won't be much more, you'll probably hear me and Chuck yammering for the next couple of minutes. We'll see if anybody else joins or if there are any other questions that pop up. But to those who are attending, thank you for joining us and you're free to hop off. There will be nothing, I don't imagine ‑‑  I can't guess anybody's going to get on at this point, but maybe. So we're going to try to hold on for a few more minutes.
   Chuck, in your public process experience, is there a point where we say, you know what? We wait a couple ‑‑  and should we define it? Should we say we're going to wait five more minutes or is there a thing that we should do? Do you know?
   >> Chuck: Oh, I think we could ‑‑  it's up to you. I'm happy to hang up anytime. Our attendees are going away. We can give it a minute longer.
   >> Tom: Yeah, let's give it a couple more minutes. All right. Let's see. And everything we say goes on the record, so I can't tell a joke. Can't ask you what you had for dinner.
   >> Chuck: It's earlier here. I haven't had any dinner. It's dinnertime. I can smell it.
   >> Tom: Well, I hope it's a good one. I'm sure it is.
   So I see we're down five attendees, so four people have departed. Three attendees. Let's make it ‑‑  let's wait another minute and a half and see if anybody new jumps on, otherwise we'll call it a night.
[Pause].
   >> Certainly, you know, you were asking about public meetings and when they're live events in person, you, you know, we would tend to hang around and wait to sort of answer questions if people did straggle in late. It's a little harder with a virtual format like this to do that. Especially in that instance where there's not like materials. Of course back in the day you used to have boards or whatever around the room and you could even, you know, individually, you know, reach out to talk to folks. Help them understand the nature of our plan.
   But in this case, you know, if any of the folks did just come on here in the last little bit and you want to introduce yourself as a new attendee, we're happy to try to answer any questions you might have.
   But at some point, yeah, you just call it.
[Pause].
   >> Ben, do you want to introduce yourself?
   >> I guess.
   >> There are two people who may want to know who you are.
   >> I'm sitting in a live oak tree in South Florida. My name is Ben West, I work for the park service in Atlanta in our regional office helping, like Chuck, helping our parks with their more complicated planning endeavors. I've worked on several plans and planning efforts in South Florida over the many years that I've worked for the National Park Service.
   Some of my fondest memories, honestly, are of GMP meetings from the Biscayne national park or general management plan meetings for Everglades.
   >> Tom: And this backcountry plan and evolution here at Big Cypress, I'm sure.
   >> Backcountry access plan, additional plans. GMP.
   >> Tom: All right. There are two attendees still holding on. I'm going to ask, any last questions? Has anything popped up in the chat bar?
   That's a no. Let's go ahead and call it a night and close this session. Thanks to those who joined us and took the time. Thank you for the ‑‑  that one question, it was a great one, whoever that was from, anonymous, appreciate you.
   Chuck, you got it, let's take it out of live and stop this meeting at this point.
   >> Chuck: Bye, everybody. Thank you.