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.

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

>> Good morning, folks!  If you see my screen here, you're in the right place.  We'll get started in a few minutes.  If you need closed captioning, there's a link in the Q & A field on left hand side of your screen. 
	Good morning folks!  It's 10 a.m. but I'm just going to give it one more minute in case people are navigating the internet and trying to get to the meeting so we'll get started in just a second.  I think it's a little past the hour so we should get started.  We have an intimate crowd of three attendees with us right now so perhaps some more folks will join as we work our way through the presentation but I'm going to hand these introductions off to you in just a second.  It's all yours.  
	
>> All right, thanks, Chuck!  Intimate crowd indeed!  This is the third of three public meetings.  I would like to welcome and thank everybody for joining us.  Good morning, everybody!  I'm Tom, superintendent here at Big Cypress National Preserve.  Thank you for joining our virtual online public meeting to discuss the public review process for the Big Cypress National Preserve back country access plan and wilderness study, supplemental draft and environmental impact statement.  It's hard to believe this back country access planning process has been going on for almost a decade.  Many of you are online with us almost two years ago when I presented the draft at DIS.  We received a huge amount of feedback that truly deserved this.  So this is the NEPA process, the project background, the updated alternatives, the time line for this process and how you can best share your thoughts and feedback.  Next slide, please.  
	
	Before we get started, I would like to recognize and thank the many participants who help developed 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, everyone!  I'm going to hand it to Chuck to navigate our system and the basic content of the plan and I'll be back to answer your questions.  
	
>> Chuck:  Thank you, Tom!  My name is Chuck Larson and I work for the National Park Services Denver center.  We help with like the back country access plan.  I want to thank you for coming and we're glad you're here.  As an attendee today, you can be in listen only mode but you can communicate your questions about the plan and the planning process using the Q & A function on the left hand side of your screen.  It should be turned on now so you can begin to send us questions any time during the presentation.  To do so, you just need to select the feature category tab and then click ask a question.  You won't be able to see questions from others until we finish the presentation and then we'll start answering them one at a time.  
	
	Concerning questions, today we hope to answer what you have about the plan's content and about our process thus far.  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 any specific environmental issues.  We ask that you provide those types of formal comments and concerns by visiting the link on in slide.  It's also been shared in the 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 supplementary draft.  A bit of background.  This comes from a long history relating back to the 2000ORV plan which established a network of primary and secondary ORV trails and the end of the use in the preserve.  However, environmental groups challenged the preserve's designation of second ORV which led to a lawsuit and required the closure of the secondary network.  The back country plan is serving the requirements under that settlement agreement by living to what we said we would do by providing defensible definitions of secondary trails and destinations and evaluating that are suitability on the landscape and their impact on park resources.  Scoping for the back country access plan began in 2014.  Preliminary alternatives were developed in 2015.  Along with the addition of a wilderness study to be completed as a part of the plan.  The public provided input on the initial alternatives and on 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 wilderness proposals and the alternatives were removed.  As Tom mentioned during his introduction, the 2020 plan got 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 the Park Service preferred and maximized recreational access.  Environmental groups and like minded individuals opposed 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 off road vehicle system and the placement of trails on unsuitable roadable substrates.  The public also argued that the Park Service needed to prepare a wilderness study before siting motorized trails in the back country.  
	
	In May of 2021, the preserve received a go ahead to prepare a supplemental draft of the environmental impact statement to address public concerns and to include the wilderness study and wilderness proposals in the action alternatives.  To better inform the substrate suitable for trails, they spend the summer of 2021, ground proofs all of the trails and destinations proposed in any alternative of the 2020 draft to determine which secondary trails and destinations are truly suitable for use.  
	
	This slide presents a bit more on that ground truthing effort.  In order to develop new alternatives for the supplemental, the preserve opted for a direct analysis of the suitability of the landscape to support ORV traffic.  It's important to know that every ORV trail that has been proposed in any alternative has existed at the ground at some point.  The various trails concluded in the 2020 draft, were selected among the previous existing routes by analyzing the substrates they crossed, looking for resilient ones that can support ORV traffic.  But the original was derived from remotely sense GIS data, primarily vegetation community coverages that were derived from aerial photography.  So the 2020 planning included implementation strategies that would have ultimately limited reopening some trails if they were determined to be unsuitable once staff got out there and laid them on the ground.  
	
	Our reliance on that method was questioned by commenters in 2020.  So in the development of the supplemental, we used updated vegetation communities at a much higher resolution but more importantly, preserved staff physically ground truth every trail proposed in every alternative of the 2020 draft.  We know the substrate conditions and the new action alternatives in the supplemental cross substrate.  So what is new in the supplemental draft?  There's three primary differences between the 2020 draft and the supplemental, the first one is derived from the ground truthing effort.  The second is the update and e inclusion.  The interaction is integral to planning for access so that the wilderness study and the eligibility determination, have been added back into the document.  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 between the northeast addition and the original preserve through bear island and mull let slew and provides for a single permitting system to manage the entirety of big cypress.  
	
	Before we go further, let's talk more 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 back country destinations.  Primary ORV trails are the main arteries for motorized access into and throughout the back country.  They're maintained routes.  In some places we use heavy equipment and fill to keep them in good condition.  Most of these trails are currently opened and utilized by ORVs now.  A secondary ORV trail is natural surface and minimally maintained.  The goal is to site them that can handle ORV traffic without causing erosion or braiding.  They are not intended for lots of traffic and branch off the primaries and provide direct access.  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 have been used in the past but they are closed as a result of that 2013 settlement agreement.  
	
	Back country destinations are undeveloped spots or points of interest for visitors.  They were initially identified in public scoping as places that people want to access in the preserve and they were selected because they naturally provided an area of open space on dry ground and can be accessed by a sustainable secondary trail.  They can support camping, hunting, wildlife viewing or just achieving solitude in the back country.  The plan does not specifically identify public uses at destinations.  Because destinations are accessed by secondary trails, only a handful of them that are near primary trails are currently open.  With these basic definitions in mind, and an understanding about what had led to the development of the supplemental, let's now talking about the contents of the updated plan.  
	
	Purpose and need.  Over the basic goals of the back country access plan is to provide management guidelines for back country access and use while protecting the preserve's resources.  The plan now includes a wilderness study and identifies what parts of the original preserve should be proposed by the wilderness designation in Congress.  A bit on that wilderness study as restored as a component.  They are presented in two action alternative of the plan.  Each proposal is a subset of the totality of lands found in wilderness designation and the original preserve and western edition.  The northeast edition is not included because the wilderness is already complete and has proposed wilderness identified.  This wilderness study effort started with an assessment signed in 2015 and found approximately 188,000 acres eligible.  That effortful mostly conducted with the table top analysis of maps and since 2015, more on the ground efforts, particularly that ground truthing of trails in 2021 has refined the eligibility assessment.  The planning team is now identified nearly 258 thousand acres of eligible wilderness or about 35 percent of the original preserve and western edition.  This is included as an appendix to the supplemental 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 star areas, airplane and windmill prairies make up a significant portion of the eligible acreage increase.  This was mentioned by the public in 2015 but the park did not have the data they needed to fully analyze them at that time.  We also made minor adjustments in other areas but airplane and windmill prairie are the most significant changes since the 2015 assessment.  
	
	Given the plan purpose, let's discuss the alternatives presented in the supplemental.  It carries forward alternative one which is the no action alternative from the draft plan, from the 2020 draft and it considers two new action alternatives.  The first is a 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 with 4 and 5 from the draft plan are not considered in the supplemental draft.  Alternative 3 is the new NPS preferred alternative.  This addresses motorized and non motorized trails, back country camping and wilderness proposals.  Like mentioned, unlike the 2020 which talks about the substrate resiliency from the remotely sense data, the resiliency determination in the supplemental have been ground truthed by preserved staff.  This resulted in a scaling back of the ORV trailing mileage.  The action alternative now, both action alternatives now only include those trails that mostly cross resilient to highly resilient substrates.  
	
	So in accordance with NEPA, the National Park Services required to examine a range of alternatives when preparing an environmental impact statement.  While each alternative presents unique approaches to the management of the preserve, there's many strategies that do the not vary among the alternatives.  These are considered common to all of the action alternatives and ultimately serve to protect the resources and values of the preserve.  The actions common to both action alternatives include establishing a permanent route for the Florida national scenic hiking trail that separates it from the point and also, establishing ORV specifications and be permitting requirements and establishing permitting requirements for overnight camping.  
	
	And articulating policies around back country closures necessary for visitor or resource protection and the common actions also establish some basics for visitor communication and education associated with the stewardship of resources.  They also call for the development of a standardized signage plan to improve way finding and they lay the basic ground work for authorizing E bicycle access.  There's things that the plan articulates as unchanged both of the action alternatives.  No change in the canoe trails or to the conceptual primary ORV trail network in the northeast edition.  That was laid out in the northeast edition GMP.  
	
	Lets now look at the three alternatives themselves and how they differ.  The no action AMT represents the continuation of the current practices.  Under this alternative, ORV trails would continue among existing trails and no primary or secondary ORV trails would be opened.  Back country access would continue as it is today.  The ORV and non ORV user groups which share the same trail network and this would be continue to be permitted in most of the preserve with free camps needed.  No additional back country areas would be provided under this alternative and camping stay limits would remain unchanged.  The schedule 60 day closure for resource protection would remain in effect.  As a continuation of current management, no wilderness is proposed for designation in alternative one. 
	
	Alternative two offers visitors slightly increased access compared to the no action alternative.  The existing primary ORV trail system, 278 total miles would remain unchanged.  As would the ORV permitting system.  15 miles of secondary ORV trails would be opened which would more than be 94% would traverse highly resilient to resilient substrates.  The Florida national scenic trail would be realigned to improve the experience by separating ORV users and hikers.  That realigned route would be 44 miles long up from 36 miles.  24 back country designations would be opened and one existing site in the stair steps unit would be closed to protect resources.  The 24 new destinations would augment 24 existing back country camp sites and four campgrounds across the preserve.  The camping stay limit would be 14 consecutive days.  Under alternative 2, all dispersed camping would be discontinued with only provided destinations and campgrounds and a reservation would be existing and group size would be implemented.  The current annual ORV closure would remain in place.  
	
	Alternative two proposes that Congress designate approximately 191,000 acres of land as wilderness.  32% of the original preserve and adjoining western edition.  The proposal generally covers the areas known as Mullet Slough, deep lake, stair zone two and the southeast of stair step unit zone four.  
	
	Alternative three, would provide more back country access to visitors than alternative two.  It would open 54 additional miles of primary ORV trails on preexisting routes, bring the total mileage of primary trails in the preserve to 332 miles.  Alternative 3 would open 52 miles of secondary ORV trails, about 93% of the reopened primary trail and 90% of the reopened miles of secondary trail would traverse highly resilient to resilient substrates.  Of the 54 newly opened miles, about 39 would consistent of airboat trails in the stair step unit 3 and 4, but an additional ten miles would link the northeast edition to the original preserve at bear island and three miles would link it to the original one through mull et slew.  All of the permits would be capped at 2,000 and of those 2,000, 650 would authorize access to the original preserve and the northeast edition.  As in the previous alternative, the Florida national scenic trail would be realigned to improve the back country experience and other would be established to a total of 185 miles, an increase of this.  Alternative 3 would open 83 new back country destinations in the original preserve and close one existing site in the stair step unit to protect the resources.  
	
	The 83 would be in destination of the already 24, and campgrounds across the preserve.  There would be one back country campground established in bear island.  Via foot or non motorized vessel would be permitted throughout the preserve, including bear island but airboat would be required to camp at designated sites.  It would be 14 consecutive days but no reservation system would be implemented for camping.  The closure would be lifted, with the specific areas identified by staff.  It would be closed at night and during periods of high water.  
	
	Alternative 3 proposes that Congress designate approximately 148,000 acres of land as wilderness or about 25% of the original preserve in adjoining western edition.  Proposal generally covers the areas at mull let slew, deep lake, the loop unit and the southeast unit of the stair step corner four.  On this one, of the eligible wilderness established in the updated wilderness 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 by the preserve as wilderness for decades.  On this slide, you can see the basic differences between the three alternatives and the supplemental.  We want to draw your attention to them.  
	
	And proposes a slightly more wilderness than the preferred alternative.  The preferred alternative three, provides more motorized recreational access and dramatically increases non motorized hiking access.  You can see ORV three, is a different amount of miles.  This is part of the continued implementation which set a cap of 400 miles of primary trails but only designated 278.  We have added 54.  These are mostly airboat trail LS in the stair steps unit but include the connecter trails between bear island in the northeast edition and into mull let slew in the northeast edition.  These are the connections that the public has called for and will help the National Park Service manage the preserve as one cohesive system.  
	
	On the hiking access front, if you discount the Florida scenic trail, most existing trails are short hikes, less than three miles or so.  The public has called for more hiking opportunities, particularly for long day hikes and loops so alternative three dramatically increases those opportunities.  And as mentioned under both action alternatives, we would reroute portions to better be separate pedestrian visitors from ORV users.  And on the final note, concerning the wilderness proposals, under alternative 2 and 3, non of the acreage overlaps with the proposed system.  In fact, neither does the totality identified in the updated wilderness eligible assessment.  
	
	So the next steps in this plan's process, this is the last of our public meetings that we're holding during the comment period that closes on September 26th.  We'll then analyze and prepare responses to substantiate public responses and they will be made publicly available.  They will be released with the final environmental impact statement and a decision document.  What we call the record of decision or more commonly referred to as an RAD.  The final environmental impact statement and the RAD would not be released until all aspects have been completed with the national preservation act and endangered species act.  
	
	After the statements are complete, there will be a rule making process before implementation that will include rule making for the unopened trails in the northeast edition.  That process will finally connect the management of the whole of the preserve's back country.  We're going to begin with the Q & A session shortly.  So if you haven't yet entered your questions you wish to ask, now is the time to do so.  This is a moderated meeting so we're getting your messages that are coming in and we have teammates who are sorting and posting them so we can answer them as efficiently as possible.  Remember today we're primarily interested in your questions about the status of the plan, about its development and anything to help formulate your formal comments.  If you wish to comment on the analysis presented, you need to do so via the online commenting system which is again, the link is in the Q & A window or by writing to the address on the screen.  And put that address in the Q & A window as well.  While you all work on questions, I will show you a couple of slides with steps for using the online system to formally content and then we'll open the question and answer period.  
	
	To provide us comments, follow the link to access the Park Services planning environment and public commenting website where you can find a lot of information on the projects including links to the previously shared materials and documents associated with the back country access plan.  Click the open for comment button on the left to get access to the supplemental draft.  If you click that, you'll get this page which will get you to a link to download the plan and provide comments.  Press the green button to provide those comments and the link to the document is down below.  This website is going to request, if you comment with identifying information about you, which we typically keep private but we can't guarantee that it won't be released, you can however, comment anonymously without impacting the weight we place on the comments 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 factual error in the document and offer corrective information.  They are comments that identify relevant environmental issue that we over looked in the document.  And they explain why the issues 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 individual alternative.  Substantive comments do not include votes for or against an alternative and they do not include comments that disagree with the law, a regulation, or any other arching policy that is beyond the scope of the plan.  They also don't comment on other projects or issues unrelated to the plan.  The definition of substantive comment is also provided on the website for your review before you send us notes.  
	
	So enough of me talking to you.  Let's get to the point of this meeting and start answering your questions.  The superintendent is going to field most of them but we have other teammates on deck if he needs to phone a friend for details.  I'm going to make sure those who are listening can hear the questions so I will read them off for him to answer.  Remember, formal substantive comments suggests changes to the plan should be submitted online or writing.  Today, limit the questions to things that can help you develop the formal comments.  I anticipate getting through the questions you have to ask today, but to note, if we do for some reason run out of time, we will receive a full transcript of all of the questions that have been asked and they will be a part of the project record.  So let me move my screens around a little bit and Tom, I will get to the first question for you.  
	
	All right, Tom.  Anonymous, you stated that trails are on mostly suitable substrate.  Are some of the trails in alternative 2 and 3 not on suitable substrate?  Please clarify.  
	
>> Tom:  Great question!  Thanks for asking, anonymous.  That's a great question.  The answer is yes.  So let me clarify.  We did everything that we could to place trails on cap rock and things like that when we went out and ground truthed them, but anything on less than highly resilient are airboat trails and by our own definition of determining suitability substrate, those areas where the water is inundated, the soil would not be resilient, not highly resilient certainly but it's not impactful because the airboats only go when there's water so they would not be disturbing the soil per se.  
	
	Part of the plan is the airboat trails get closed when the water drys out but when we place our map over the definition of what a suitable substrate are, the airboat miles show up.  That's where the vast majority is.  On page 87 of the EIS, you can see the break down and it goes into the amount of area or miles by alternatives and you can get more specific but to answer this question, I hope this answers largely your question that most of the those miles are predominantly considered airboat miles.  Please type if you need more specificity.  Great question.  What's the next one?  
	
>> All right, so this question is from Sue King.  Were any of the trails at ‑‑  grove, ground truthed and recommended not to be included in any alternatives allowed into any of the alternatives?  
	
>> Any trails that we ground truthed ‑‑  good morning, Sue!  I need to make sure I understand the question.  Drove and truthed and not recommended, not included?  
	
	So the first part of that question, were any of the trails that the staff thought were good and recommended not included.  Of the answer is no.  If we thought it was good, we included them and allowed any alternatives?  I would say that's the same answer.  If they thought it was a good trail, so they drove from the first EIS that we released about two years ago, that alternative five which had the most amount of trails in it, we drove or walked each of those trails over several months.  If they thought that trail and alternative 5 was good, it became part of alternative 3.  I hope that answered your question.  
	
>> I think it does.  I think she's asking, was there disagreement among staff, like this should not be in and were people over ruled and I think the answer is no.  
	
>> And these trails weren't evaluated by committee.  A couple of biologists or botanist came out and drove those trails.  It was a huge undertaking, very time intense and it took months of people working 8 to 10 hour days getting to these places and we didn't do it by committee.  So we had special people who could drive and take a look at it them.  Some of the trails were over grown to the point they couldn't be driven easily so they were hiked.  But if they were recommended, they were put in alternative 3 of the supplemental EIS.  
	
>> Another question from Sue, ‑‑  good question.  As part of the original ORV plan, there would be a sixty days to try to give nature a chance to rest from ORV use.  As we have gone through time in that 60 day closure has been implemented for, I want to say a decade at this point, we have learned through experience, it's not the best serving.  It's a role that doesn't give a lot of flexibility, I should say.  So what we found now is that the closures are done in June and July and the reality is, most people are not on ORVs in June and July.  There's no tourism.  The land owners that are able to use them and they're the only ones to get to their camps so the 60 day closure doesn't really make any change in reality.  There's just not the tourism going on.  What we would prefer to do is have the flexibility to close the trails, a trail, as needed, when needed, so alternative 3 talks about us being able to manage each trail individually and if we see over use on one, or impacts being made to nature that are detrimental to what we're trying to do, we close that trail specifically.  So getting rid of the rule that doesn't really make any impact in trying to change it to something that gives us the flexibility to manage it as we need to is the goal.  Good question!  
	
>> All right, this question is from Matthew.  I believe you said that the current wilderness eligibility and proposals were based on the second wilderness review conducted in 2016 but the suitability of the substrates for proposed trails was conducted later, I think, you said 2020.  Did any of the ground truths for proposed trail network impact the wilderness eligibility rule or acres that were proposed for federal wilderness?  
	
>> Holy cow!  Good morning, Matthew.  Let me see.  So I think the answer is yes.  So we looked at trails that had been proposed in airplane, prairie and windmill.  We saw that the area was starting to show some signs of recovery.  We knew those two areas specifically, and other areas as well, but those two areas specifically, we put extra focus on after we saw the recovery so the folks went out and started to look at the trails and they said, yes, this could be a trail but we ‑‑  and we knew in the background there had been conversation in 15 during the eligibility conversation, that there was large interest in these two areas specifically.  So we also asked when we're out there ground truthing the areas, to take a look and see how the area is looking, is recovery moving forward in a good way and the answer was yes.  
	
	So me and Tony went out and looked at the two areas specifically and tried to see if it was appropriate to let a trail end in that area or to move it towards consideration.  So I think the answer to your question is yes.  
	
>> Hey Chuck, I would suggest just to illustrate what Tom said, go back to the slide that shows the difference in the eligibility between 2015 and 2021, where we are today.  I think this is fundamentally what Tom talked about visually.  This is where we were based on the work that the team did in 2015.  The one on the right obviously shows the editions that were fundamentally driven by largely the ground truthing and on the ground work that was done that was not part of the original eligibility assessment in 2015.  
	
>> Ben, did you introduce yourself?  
	
>> I didn't.  Good morning, gang!  My name is Ben West and I work in Atlanta helping with the planning and compliance endeavors so it's nice to see everybody.  Good morning and thanks for coming out!  
	
>> Okay, I'm going to move to the next question.  If this was proposed in alternative two, why was it removed in alternative 3?  
>> Good question.  A lot of this shows the actions from the previous actions from logging and the dispersed ORV use.  They have a higher degree and need for active management to deal with invasives and pythons and fire to help in their recovery so allowing us to be able to get in there and do the stuff to help nature, help itself, is important to us at this point.  
	
>> Already, the next question is from Doug.  I haven't seen a park ranger on the trails in eight years.  I have only seen one FWC ranger last year.  I'm out there four to six weeks a year.  How many will you be hiring since there isn't enough now and you plan to open even more trails?  
	
>> Good morning, Doug!  I'm sorry you haven't seen anybody.  They're out there every week.  I don't know which trails you go on when you're here.  They predominantly focus their activities in enforcement efforts on the highly used trails so I would say this, it's commonly known launching out of monument and oh YA sis.  If there's other opportunities, they go from other locations but when we're trying to be visible in what we're doing, those are the two areas that we go out on.  There's a huge benefit in positive policing and so being seen visible at the right area at the right time is a strategy we work hard on.  I'm sorry you haven't seen anybody, but they're definitely out there.  And will we be hiring more?  I can't answer that question because we don't know.  
	
	Our budget comes down annually and as Congress decides we need more, something to do something, they give us money accordingly.  Right now, there hasn't been a conversation on changing my operating budget or big cypress operating budget with respect to the back access plan.  I can say internally, one of the conversations on how to keep an eye on these places with more areas open, and to be clear, let me go back.  There's two parts to this kind of, the way you framed your question.  So the secondary trails are not really adding.  Most of the trails are already there.  The primary trails are essentially in place.  The secondary trails other than the airboat trails aren't huge amounts of miles.  They're short segments.  They don't go to other places but go to a destination so the secondary trails, we don't anticipate having what I call high usage.  It's going to be the person who wants to get there for a certain reason, whether it's to go camping or hunting or night sky viewing or just a picnic in a quiet spot.  
	
	So we don't anticipate the secondary trails having a high amount of use.  And there's not a huge amount of miles in that.  The real impact is the opening of the edition trails and that would require more monitoring and so the conversation internally we have in other places, in the National Park Service, they are what we call volunteer programs and so, many places we have a group of volunteers that are called park watch volunteers and they go out and we give them a radio and a first aid kit and et cetera, depending on what they're doing.  We say, be visible so everyone knows who they are to create the visibility and a radio to report in on things.  I will say that most of the users have my cell phone.  And I get phone calls almost every weekend ‑‑  let me rephrase that.  I get phone calls regularly when on the weekends, people say something they don't like seeing and then we dispatch law enforcement accordingly.  There's been some user groups that don't understand the ORV trails and the purpose so like we had a couple of jeep clubs come out here and think they can go what I would call four wheeling.  We had to work with those jeep clubs to re explain what the purpose of our trail network is and they have been very receptive to that.  We've also had some groups, especially during COVID that were trying to get out in a place where they could feel safe and they brought, from my word, not everyone, but like dune buggy looking things, like, high performance vehicles and the only way I can describe T they think it's like running through sand dunes so they go over the speed limits.  They caused some problems and we had to deal with those parties as well.  
	
	I will say, most of the users have direct connection with me and I call immediately to the law enforcement staff on duty and we have been able to address most of those things as they happen.  So great question!  I hope to see you out there myself.  I'm not out on the trails enough either.  Myself, personally.  But I hope to see you out there and sorry you haven't seen one of our rangers in 8 years.  I don't know how to respond to that actually.  
	
>> Tom, let me ‑‑  well, Tom did a great answer, on the ground, park ranger, the day to day realities and obviously touched on a lot of different subjects in terms of enforcement.  There's a question about the misuse or, you know, activities that are inappropriate which he started to sort of get into as well.  I guess I will also offer my perspective as the next level up in the Park Service food chain, right?  Trying to sort of advocate and understand and more importantly to define what their needs are.  There is a table in the document that describes the costs and even the staffing needs that would be appropriate to support the maintenance and monitoring that we have defined and having a plan and the basis for that is honestly, a big part of the Park Services process for justification to be able to at least articulate the reasons why in meetings like this and the feedback we get from the public also serves to bolster that in the context of future asks that Tom will have to make.  
	
	At the end of the day, the reality is the way he described it in trying to manage in the mix of volunteers and fees, different fees from the ORV user groups themselves, that are paying the fees that can support the staffing necessary to maintain and monitor the system.  So any way, I just want to offer it as well as an additional support that hopefully, with the approval of the plan, will have a basis for potentially getting more resources to support that.  
	
>> Thank you, Ben!  And I love the sounds of that.  We love more resources.  
	
>> All right, next question.  There's issues with misuse of the trails now, how will the preserve and the NPS deal with the increase trail mileage and misuse?  
	
>> In is kind of tied directly to the same question.  I will add additionally, our visitor and resource protection, we call them VRP staff, law enforcement rangers have some people who have been promoted and moved on to other opportunities.  One gentleman was able to relocate closer to home so I have a couple of vacancies right now in the law enforcement division.  And that has put us a little bit thin.  We are working on filling those and hoping to get back to staff, knock on wood, before the end of the year if all goes according to plan which will put more people out there but we are working with each of the user groups, trying to have a presence, trying to make sure we can educate people on the trail out there.  
	
	We have preferred not to write tickets but if people force us to, we do.  I don't know, I will say the ‑‑  what I will call the most outlandish excuse to this point just to share a story.  We have a couple of minutes.  We had an ORV, a big roll cage.  I'm going to call it a dune buggy because I don't know the word, it's like, a fancy side by side, but they rolled twice.  They ended up falling off trail, rolling into the swamp, two rolls and when the ranger got there to extricate them, they said they were going the speed limit and there's no way you can roll a thing going five miles an hour.  So we are working on educating and when people have one ranger who has a catch phrase is, when you enter a stupid contest, you win a stupid prize and that's when he issues tickets or otherwise.  So we are working appropriately as we can to try to make sure everyone understands how this place was meant to be used and enjoyed and most of the clubs are very receptive.  You get the one off person and those are the folks we have to catch.  
	
	So if you don't have my phone number and you're out there and you don't have the dispatch number for law enforcement and you're out there, as many eyes as we can have on this resource, we consider everyone a partner in taking care of this public space.  I would encourage you, if you see something silly going on, see something, say something.  This is a common phrase these days but the more people talk to us about what they're seeing, the better we are at enforcing it.  Thanks!  
	
>> All right.  Thank you!  Next question, as a follow up to the 60 day closure topic.  Does NPS have the resources and capacity needed to assess when individual trails need to be closed due to impacts?  
	
>> We think so.  We're out in the preserve whether it's, you know, the fire staff getting ready for either the prescribed fire or the wild fire season, the trail staff working on whatever segments they're working on at that moment in time or the botanist that is seeing a threatened endangered species or the botanist doing a survey or whatever it is.  There are people out.  730,000 acres is a big space!  I get why you guys don't always see us but we're out there.  So staff will come back in and say, Tom, we see something happening over here.  We can issue temporary closures as ‑‑  we have been using our compendium to issue the sixty day close closures but this is a way to make it easier to enforce.  We're absolutely out there.  I'm not going to say we see it the day it happens but if people talk to us, we learn a lot more, a lot faster but we see mostly what is going on out there.  
	
>> Good question.  Matthew, parts of the collecting trail of Mullet slew is not on suitable substrates and should be off limits per the ORV management plan in 2000, how does the NPS justify opening that trail to ORV use?  How will ORVs get across I75 from that trail to the northern edition?  
	
>> Good question, Matthew!  The purpose of making that chunk of trail a primary trail is so we can put something down to protect the substrate.  So that segment will not get rutted up so we can put something down.  So the primary trail is something we take care of.  The secondary trail is a natural one we hope not to do a lot of maintenance on but specifically that connection was described to be a primary trail so that we can make sure that the connection is stable and doesn't impact that area.  Getting across 75, you're not driving from one spot across the highway so you have to buggy up and get.  Right now, there's not a mechanism to get across other than that.  So that's somebody else's problem in the future.  It's not part of this plan.  
	
>> Next question, you mentioned ‑‑  in the edition lands, how will the increase in needed maintenance be handled in the addition lands?  
	
>> The edition trails are largely agricultural words so they were improved decades ago.  When you're out there on that area now, and you're driving, you ‑‑  they haven't been driven on largely, maybe, ever.  It's been a long time.  I don't know how long it's been since it has been used regularly.  And they are still roads.  They were most of the trails up in what is called the editions land today was former agricultural roads so we don't suspect there will be a huge amount of maintenance needed on them.  They were pretty much hardened surfaces.  
	
>> Okay, next question.  From Matthew, over the years and especially in the edition, I saw folks pull in trailers loaded with ATVs and driving vehicles on trails that are clearly closed.  I have mentioned it to folks I meet but don't feel comfortable saying someone is doing wrong.  What can be done to stop the use?  How is that link trail going to be regulated?  
	
>> All right, Matthew.  There's a couple of questions in there.  Let me go back.  So you can see folks pulling trails with ATVs and going to places that are clearly closed, I wouldn't ask you to put yourself in jeopardy telling people they're doing something wrong.  I will share this weekend, we had a group, just to share a like story.  We had a group with a bunch of rifles and pistols that went hiking on fire prairie trail.  The hiker I knew, that knew me, was on the trail as well when he passed the persons with these firearms, he just casually asked, where are you going with all of these guns?  It's not hunting season yet and they said, they were planning to do target shooting.  He shared with them, you're not allowed to target shoot here and he just said it casually and then just walked on.  He immediately called me.  I immediately dispatched my law enforcement.  Law enforcement got up to fire prairie trail within 20 minutes, saw the group of individuals but they were fairly responsible individuals, heated what the gentleman said even though it was a kind suggestion and they were packing their weapons up and heading out.  
	
	So never ask anybody to do anything they don't feel comfortable doing.  I agree, when you meet people out in the back country, sometimes you feel more comfortable not saying anything at all and I understand that.  But I would say the phone call to me, or to dispatch is the big help to us.  You know, the forest multiplier effect of having everyone who cares about this place, communicate with us about what is going on is so important.  You go on to say, big drop in ORV permits for the addition versus the original preserve.  I'm not sure what you mean by that.  The edition plan called for 650 permits maximum and the original preserve had a 2,000 max and there's no change to that.  So the number of permits we issue has gone down over time.  The last numbers I saw, I think, in 2019, 20, 21, we were issuing about 13 hundred a year.  I think we're at 1200.  We're pretty much at the end of the year so it's likely going to be similar numbers so I don't know.  I don't know if I answered your question but that's the numbers we're seeing.  And how is the link trail going to be regulated?  The same way the rest of the trails are regulated.  We have rules, policies, and we enforce them as best as we can.  I will say that the area that connects the edition to the original preserve is way out there.  And I don't know how many people are going to use it.  It's way out there.  It's ‑‑  it took me, I think, three and a half hours one way to get to it.  When I drove it, I wanted to see it for myself.  That's one of the trails I personally walked.  So I drove, I wanted to put eyes on it myself.  I think it took me three and a half hours one way to get there and it's over some trails that are pretty rugged so it bounces you pretty hard, the cap rock.  So it probably won't be used a whole lot but it's important to connect the two areas so we have the ability to manage it as a place.  I hope that answered your question, Matthew.  
	
>> Okay, next question.  The question also asks why the ORV prohibition was not adhered to?  
	
>> I trouble answering that question.  I don't know the specific prohibition you were talking about so I have to check on that.  Ben, you have been a part of this process for a few years.  Are you familiar with it?  I hate to put you on the spot but are you familiar with the reference that Matthew is making?  
	
>> Unfortunately, I am not versed so Matthew, thanks again.  This is the type of substantive comments, right, that we really hope ‑‑  and we know you will, put in this and make sure that we do the right analysis and research to make sure we're on solid footing.  I will say fundamentally, this plan does summit and amend the previous planning effort.  That is the whole part of this tiering approach to do park based planning where you have, a plan from one point in time and then obviously, the planning that subsequently follows either amends, supplements, that's the framework for our decision making.  
	
	So you know, I don't want to make a bold statement about something related to what the 2000 plan did or didn't describe.  I appreciate you pointing it out very much and we'll be very clear in describing the extent either it does amend the previous planning effort or how it sort of tiers off the previous effort.  
	
>> Thanks, all right, next question, the current material used in the primary trails for support breaks down and leaves debris in the preserve.  Is this the material that would continue to be used specifically in mull mullet slew?  
	
>> I'm specifically thinking you're talking about the geo tech fabric under the crushed stone and that was fifteen years ago.  It was a new product at the time and they thought it would do good.  You're correct, it doesn't hold up and it's almost impossible to get it right out and you have to grade the road and we don't want to do that.  So it doesn't look as attractive as I would like our trails to look and it creates some black pieces of fabric‑ mesh stuff that we have to remove as it comes loose and cut away and no, we haven't been using it for a number of years.  It didn't hold up the way it was described or thought that it would.  This was before my time but I asked the same questions when I got out there and saw the stuff on the trail network.  It was something they thought would work, they tried it, it didn't work and it's hard for us to undue it so we don't use it anymore.  
	
>> Tom, I think, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the last question we have right now.  Is there anybody else out there who would like to ask anything or any follow ups?  Hold on for a minute while you think.  
	
>> This is a good time to reinforce the idea of making sure we go in PEPSI and put comments in.  That's where the substantive stuff goes that we can track and research.  I just want to reinforce that.  
	
>> All right, we have another question or comment.  The prohibition in the ORVMP, the 2000 plan, Matt is following up.  It was put in place of the mullet slew, a built up trail will muck that trail up.  
	
>> I understand what you're saying, Matthew.  It's not going to ‑‑  well, it's not envisioned as an elevated trail per se so I understand what you're saying but we're trying not to do anything that alters significantly.  We're not going to alter the significant flow there.  It's a slough.  Swamp buggies are made to be under water.  There's times that the decks of our buggy RS four and a half or five feet off the ground and there's times where the deck is almost wet.  These things are made to get wet.  We're not trying to stop the flow.  This is one of the most important things we do here.  Yes, one of the most important things we do.  The work we're doing to return the sheet flow to normal is something I do every day, whether it's in partnership with the Army Corp of engineers and the work project or with our own hydrologist Bob and working on just trying to get culverts where they need to be so the water can get where it wants to go when it wants to go.  That's been a focus of mine since I have got here and we're not going to alter that strategy.  
	
>> Anymore questions?  
	
>> While we're letting people think, is there any other housekeeping we should take care of at this point?  We have reminded you to use Pepsi.  This is the last of the three meetings so there's no invite to the next one.  
	
>> September 26th, just remember to get your comments either in the mail to us by that day or up on Pepsi so that we can act on them appropriately and keep the process moving.  
	
>> Chuck, please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the public meeting, like, these public meetings and the recordings are available after the meeting.  So for instance, if you have buddies who couldn't participate or attend, if they go to the same link and click on it for today, they should be able to launch the same thing and they can look at it in their own time and go through, and watch the whole thing fundamentally.  So please pass the word to your friends that couldn't make it out.  If they would benefit from watching at least the presentation to get a summary of the project beyond digging into the actual documents itself.  Of course, that's what we would love for you to do, to download the document, comment on it and send it in.  They can't access it, right, after the meeting is over?  
	
>> The end of the day today, transcripts will be posted for each of the three public meetings and the links that got you.  The link that got you to this meeting today will still work tomorrow.  You will just see the recording.  
	
>> Well, if there's no more questions, I want to stop and sum up.  You have time.  If a question comes NIEND, please, please do enter it but I have been trying to say to every group, every time we talk whether it's in this form or some other group setting I'm in is that this back country access plan is something that has been going on for a long time.  It got contentious at times.  I think that the public process of involving the public in this process has shown the victory of this way of doing things.  The feedback that we got throughout the times has been so important whether it's where a group of people said a trails should be or they would like them to be, to saying the trail shouldn't be here or whatever.  The public process works and the reason it works is because you folks care about this place and you're so passionate about protecting and sharing it and making sure that people are able to use and enjoy it for future generations which is our mission.  So that passion that is connected to this project or any of the others is so important to me, if this place didn't have passion, then it wouldn't be special.  
	
	So I appreciate all of the passion around this and your participation, your support, your comments, all of that being said is so important to us in what we do.  So thank you for caring enough to be a part of this specific process as well.  And Sue and Doug and Matthew and I don't know if it was one anonymous or a bunch of anonymous but you gave part of your time today and that's valuable to us.  Your time is valuable and you're willing to share it with us today.  I appreciate that.  Doug, I hope to see you out there.  If you see me on a buggy, stop me and say I'm Doug.  I would love to meet you.  Matthew, I'm sure I'll see you around.  Sue, same thing.  If you see me out, please stop me and say hey!  All of the anonymouses, I hope to see you out there as well!  
	
>> We did get one more question that came in.  Why were increased hiking trails only put in alternative 3?  
	
>> The purpose of the environmental impact statement is we go through this process to show a range of alternatives and things we considered.  We had five alternatives and the last draft EIS, we took that feedback and sort of condensed those thoughts into this alternative three so that's kind of where all of that feedback came.  So there was consideration, a range of considerations for hiking trails in each of those alternatives previously.  Are we getting other questions, Chuck?  
	
>> No, sir, that was the last one.  
	
>> Rock and roll!  I say it's 11:05.  We can wait a minute to see if any other thoughts come in.  I'm going to ask for the 45 seconds we still have left, by saying, Matthew I appreciate that you don't want to approach some folks out there who might be doing things that you don't think is appropriate but I hope that you're willing to approach one of those silly snakes.  If you see a python out there, you have to let me know.  Pythons are changing this place and more eyes on pythons, the better.  They are hard to see.  It's kind of a joke.  You're not going to see one more than likely but pythons are a thing and we need everybody's help with this.  
	
>> All right, I'm not seeing any more questions.  From my chair, I would like to thank everyone for their participation and remind folks, again, September 26th, now is the time.  Please, please, do scrutinize the plan and provide us with the best comments that you can.  
	
>> All right, I will second that.  Thank you everybody, again, for giving us some of your time today and sharing were thoughts, wisdom and insights with us.  The team from NPS and Denver and everybody else internally, I want to thank you guys.  This is the last of the public meetings so I don't know if I will see you or talk to some of you again but I want to thank you for your support in this process as well.  It's been invaluable to me.  Your guidance in helping me get through this is so important.  So to the stakeholders, the people who care about this place, thank you to the support folks who help us get there so far.  Chuck, if there's nothing else, why don't we call it a day and hope to see you out there in the preserve.  
	
>> All right, thanks!  Have a great day everybody!