Improved access for vehicles and pedestrians, better parking, and vehicle capacity limits are among the items contained in the draft off-road-vehicle management plan released Friday by Cape Hatteras National Seashore officials.
The voluminous draft environmental impact statement, spanning more than 800 pages, seeks to find a suitable middle ground between the access ORVers want and protection for threatened or endangered shorebirds and sea turtles sought by environmental and conservation groups. It will be open for public review for 60 days before a final decision is made on an official ORV management plan for the seashore.
The spit of sand that buffers the North Carolina coast from the worst the Atlantic Ocean can toss at it carries an array of contentious issues that seemingly have no easy answers. Foremost among the issues at the national seashore is the use of off-road vehicles to negotiate beaches that are either far from parking lots or which are just far enough from those lots to make it difficult to carry all your gear for a weekend fishing trip.
Cape Hatteras, authorized as America's first national seashore in 1937 but not actually established until 1953, is a beach lover's jewel. The heart of North Carolina's Outer Banks, the cape offers some of the best beaches in the country, is renowned for its surf fishing, has some of the East Coast's best waves for surfing, and has a decided tinge of wildness that is a welcome respite from the Mid-Atlantic's metropolitan areas.
But the seashore's lack of an official ORV management plan led conservation groups a few years back to sue the National Park Service to protect bird and turtle nesting from ORV traffic.
That lack of a formal management plan has "led over time to inconsistent management of ORV use, user conflicts, and safety concerns," as the DEIS notes, and nearly prompted a federal judge to ban ORV traffic entirely. He acquiesced when a management team representing both the Park Service and the opposing groups agreed to work toward a long-term plan while temporary rules were instituted to protect shorebird and sea turtle nesting sites by seasonally and intermittently restricting beach driving access to popular fishing areas.
Environmentalists defended the strict controls on beach driving, arguing that protecting wildlife resources should trump recreationists’ demands for convenient ORV access to the beach. Beach driving fishermen have strongly protested the strict rules. They argue that the federal government has greatly exaggerated the threat posed to wildlife by ORV driving on the beach, and that the current rules make it unreasonably difficult to get to traditionally popular fishing areas. Area businesses detest the restrictions too, citing reduced spending by ORV users.
With that as a backdrop, seashore officials have produced a DEIS that looks at five options, two of which essentially are "no action" proposals. Among the provisions of the seashore's preferred alternative are:
* A permit system for ORV access, although no permit limit would be instituted;
* Annual and short-term permits would be available;
* There would be a "carrying-capacity requirement (peak use limit) for all areas based on a physical space requirement of one vehicle per 20 linear feet for Bodie Island, Hatteras Island, and Ocracoke Island Districts, except that 400 vehicles would be allowed within a 1-mile area centered on Cape Point";
* There would be a variety of access points for "both ORV and pedestrian users, including access to the spits and points, but often with controls or restrictions in place to limit impacts on sensitive resources. This means that some areas may be kept open to ORV users for longer periods of time by reopening some ORV corridors at the spits and points sooner
after shorebird breeding activity is completed" than would be allowed in other alternatives, "or by improving interdunal road and ORV ramp access";
* Increasing parking at pedestrian-access points leading to vehicle-free areas of the seashore, and;
* Seasonal and year-round ORV routes would be designated, although they still could be impacted by temporary closures "when protected-species breeding behavior warrants and/or if new habitat is created."
It's worth noting that while the number of sea turtle nests observed on Cape Hatteras in 2009 slightly declined from 2008, the 104 verified nests were far above the 43 counted just five years ago. Those 2009 nests also produced roughly 5,000 turtle hatchlings, according to the seashore's annual sea turtle report.
Comments
Bobby,
The CHNSRA was designated as such by Congress for the people to enjoy the beaches in a recreational manner.
Even without the caveats of the Organic act (of which Congress was aware), this continues to be a poor argument for contributing to the extirpation of the native breeding birds of Cape Hatteras.
The first Congress designated suffrage to property-owning white males and determined black slaves should only be counted as 3/5ths human.
Obviously you believe nothing Congress has ever done should be examined in a new light and/or altered if need be. Or, do you?
Cro
“They were against the closures before they were for them. They bad-mouthed everyone and their dog because of the interim plan, but once the consent decree was signed, the interim plan is the greatest thing since sliced bread. If you pay attention, it appears to them a "reasonable" closure is one which doesn't close any shoreline and pins the chicks back into the 140 degree dunes (thanks dap) and blocks access to the intertidal zone which the chicks prefer and allows ORVs, except for the villages (and that doesn't sit well with some) unfettered access from one end of the island to the other.”
Not true for folks that understood the need for protection AND reasonable and responsible access. While CHAC, NCBBA, OBPA may have groused a little, the NPS management strategy was transparent and *flexible* and I believe a good working relationship developed. Areas were closed for cause and opened when predation & weather exacted their toll and there no need for closures.
“The seashore IS NOT at the edge of the plover's range. One might be able to say Cape Lookout is, but they have more than 40 pair.”
Technically, no, but as the islands of CALO don’t have Hwy 12 running down the middle to interrupt the natural barrier island ecology and topography and, as such, fledge about 70% of the plovers in NC. It will always be better habitat. As will be the spoil islands for skimmers & terns.
The Plaintiffs that designed the Consent Decree should have insisted on habitat creation/improvement for the plovers around Cape Point Pond but that might not impact the park users so I guess that’s why it wasn’t in the plan.
And I thought I had signed off over here….
Anon/Spottail:
They were against the closures before they were for them. They bad-mouthed everyone and their dog because of the interim plan, but once the consent decree was signed, the interim plan is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
I never even knew the interim plan existed in print, or any of the other NPS details, until the contrary will of certain NGO’s were forced down my throat after the fact. I always just accepted the closures for what they were, and obeyed them without question or complaint.
. If you pay attention, it appears to them a "reasonable" closure is one which doesn't close any shoreline and pins the chicks back into the 140 degree dunes (thanks dap) and blocks access to the intertidal zone which the chicks prefer and allows ORVs, except for the villages (and that doesn't sit well with some) unfettered access from one end of the island to the other. .
“…unfettered access from one end of the island to the other.”
Outright propaganda, bound to not sit well with “others” in the know.
Talk about cherry-picking. Since you have found some odd reason to gloat over my once-mentioned, otherwise descriptive sand temp data, here’s the entire “study” I did that day. You’ll find it complete with several controls and some other science-like stuff thrown in just for fun: (You're lucky I'm Nerd enough to take the time to do so...)
Rt. 12 Roadside (As Control)
Start time of study:
Rt. 12 Roadbed Temp (As Control):
Rt. 12 Roadside Temp (As Control):
******************************
+
+
+
Sample Beach Topography: Ramp 49, Frisco, NC, 07/04/2009.
Observed Temp., Current Tide Line. (Wet Sand):
Observed Temp., < Visible Wrack Line:
Observed Temp: “Red Sand” Line/Swale:
Observed Temp: Toe of Dune:
Observed Temp: Mid-Dune:
****************************************************
Fairly constant temperature across the entire dry sand beach cross section. Unless nests exist below the wrack line, (NOT!), they must then thrive in the 115-120DF areas.
At the end of the day, I must say I was amazed that the windswept white sand dune crest temp. exceded that of a much more protected stretch of Rt. 12 darker tarmac, < 1 NM away.
********************************************************
. They make an effort to complain about the 1000 meter chick buffer, but in the two years of the consent decree (if I recall correctly) it's been other species with just a 150 meter buffer that have closed the majority of access, including to the Point. The history at Cape Hatteras shows us, any closure to protect the nesting species, no matter how small, is going to be met with resistance. (as we can see in WharfRat's comment.)
Many of the species you reference are not even listed nationally, and most are NC “Species of Special Concern” at best. Almost every buffer is an overreach.
. Personally, I think there could be some reductions and exceptions added to the current buffers, but that still wouldn't make some folks happy.
Glad we at least can agree on one thing! Such would make my year.
And, if they were the great stewards of the environment they claim to be, why didn't they notice the precipitous decline of the species which nest on Hatteras' beaches and voice their concern?
Most of us can’t get close enough to said species to offer an opinion either way.
Come on dap, quit with the bait and switch. The topic was chicks (which aren't immediately adept at thermo-regulation) moving into the wrack and intertidal (or into washed-up beach hats for shade) away from the heat of the dunes, not nests. The adults control the temperature of incubation.
Many of the species you reference are not even listed nationally, and most are NC “Species of Special Concern” at best. Almost every buffer is an overreach.
Why does, in your opinion, a species have to be federally listed to deserve protections so that it may reproduce successfully without human disturbance? The Organic Act mandates such protections in a National Park, whether they are listed or not. All the buffers are supported by observations published in the scientific lit.
Most of us can’t get close enough to said species to offer an opinion either way.
That's a disingenuous response. You know that's only been the case since about 2005/2006.
Cro
Of course it is about money. Cape Hatteras National Seashore is not your and your friends’ private SUV Park nor was it created to be a cash cow for the local business at the expenses of resources or the intended purpose of this Park.
You need to put things in perspectives. There are more vehicles driving on the beach in one weekend on HI in November today than in the entire year in 1959. The amount of ORV use today was not what was intended and way exceeds what is prudent, aesthetic, or right. This park was designed to be a primitive wilderness, for people to recreate in. Just because the NPS let that get away from them is not a reason to not manage this Park as it was intended. You want to manage ORV like it was 1953? Manage it that way, tear out the bridge (it is going to fail soon any way) and limit 25 vehicles on the beach at a time.
Oh by the way I read the ORV collation’s recommended bunk of 2 miles of year round pedestrian beach and how they can’t have fun on the beach unless they have an ORV to carry them there. What a joke. The Native Americans and then the Lifesavings service got along just fine on Shank’s mare.
Show me in the enabling legislation where it says ORV access is guaranteed to visitors so they can recreate in the Seashore.
Bill S
Bill, cash cows? look at the lawyer fees. Money wasted. Hey I'm just a simple fisherman, fish mostly at night for two reasons. Fishing is better at night and yep I can avoid crowds This plan will take that away. If this whole mess were about the birds we would be debating the identification and amount of habitat we need to create to reach a population goal. This plan is the usual Gov. reaction, a compromise, a sacrifice from both sides. This compromise will do nothing but add fuel to the current war. Each year both side will submit, sue, or protest for changes and the park service will be the refs. Unfortunatly people will choose sides (many already have), identifiing the enemy, that may not have been the intent, but it is reality.
Kurt, unfortunately, I think you pretty much nailed the scenario re lawsuit vs. lawsuit. Look at what's happened at Yellowstone with the snowmobile issue. It's dragged on for a decade, through four full-blown EISes.
You'd hope/think there'd be a cleaner, more amicable, less costly process. The money spent on lawyers and developing these plans time after time could be better spent on the ground in the parks. Last time I checked, the Park Service had spent $10+ million on trying to develop a sound winter-use plan for Yellowstone.
Lets consider the fact that when the enabling legislation was written highway 12 did not exist and the beach was the means of connecting the dots.Im sure that the proponents of the park used the beach to DRIVE ON in their visits and did not consider it detrimental to the primitive wilderness mandate they themselves incorporated into the enabling legislation.So I am not persuaded that ORV access is not guaranteed just because it was not mentioned.Another note of fact to consider is that when highway 12 was constructed no amendment was introduced to deny,prohibit,exclude orv usage on the beach.NPS failed years ago(1978) to follow thru with a plan for orv use that would have satisfied the executive order requirement.No one said the plan had to prohibit orv or not guarantee it.So thats why we now have a 800 page bureaucratic calamity to review and comment on!