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
It is amazing to still see that only the Pro ORV people provide logic and proof.
For all the people against me driving my 4x4 on the beach I challenge you to find a sign I was ever there.
Now for the environmentalist... I see businesses closed everywhere and a bill from them getting the pleasure of suing the NPS.
I believe there is a statement popular with the environmentalist "Leave only footprints"
Lets try that. Leave only footprints, not closed for business signs.
Sea Mullet claims:
Should the beaches that are used mostly used by vacationers in the villages be shut down for primitive wilderness needs?No again!(although i have seen plovers on these beaches but never a closure)
Show me the documented case of a plover nesting on a village beach. The majority of the visitors to the seashore don't know the difference between a sanderling, a killdeer, a semi-palmated plover or a piping plover. A couple fishing near me one day asked "why do they need to protect all of these plover", as they pointed to sanderlings. The same thing's happened repeatedly with killdeer and semi-palmated plover.
Sea Mullet claims:
Should the beaches that are used mostly used by vacationers in the villages be shut down for primitive wilderness needs?No again!(although i have seen plovers on these beaches but never a closure)
Show me the documented case of a plover nesting on a village beach. The majority of the visitors to the seashore don't know the difference between a sanderling, a killdeer, a semi-palmated plover or a piping plover. A couple fishing near me one day asked "why do they need to protect all of these plover", as they pointed to sanderlings. The same thing's happened repeatedly with killdeer and semi-palmated plover.
Anon do you doubt that I dont know my birds and that I didnt see them on Avon beach doing breeding season? I did not say they were nesting either.I know the area well enough to know where NPS monitors birds and where the local Audobon members set up to observe possible bird romance to report their sightings to NPS.Do you think I would report my sightings to them?And your statement that the majority of visitors dont know their birds based on your question from two people people sounds like some of the sceince being used to justify this calamity we now have.As i have suggested in other post Im not giving an inch until NPS resolves this issue using real science and or and act by Congress.
Sea mullet,
I'm inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and think you just made a poor field ID, rather than just believe you're making stuff up. And I didn't say it was just two people. I said repeatedly - enough so that I'm convinced people who don't have a clue as to what a piping plover looks like, and don't care, believe sanderlings are piping plover and people who may have seen a few pictures believe anything with a neck ring is a piping plover.
But, even if you did see a (migrant) piping plover on Avon beach during the breeding season (you don't say what month), unless it was exhibiting specific breeding behavior, according to the interim plan and the consent decree, there is no trigger for a closure. Not that any bird, plover or otherwise is going to nest in the middle of a village beach.
Thanks for your trust anon and it was a positive ID. OK if you are inclined to believe that most people cannot identify a Piping Plover why should the govt.continue to spend millions of dollars for plans(DEIS),lawsuits,putting up barriers,and enforcement cost of these plans.You can say because the ESA requires it and that may be true but there seems to be no set national standard or guide line for the size of closures and how long they remain,etc.,etc. Did Congress pass the ESA yes but the actual policy making is left to the Dept. of Interior which NPS is part of.I am not against the ESA as much as I am against the non standard and non scientific policy making by NPS. One more bit of concern is why does NPS want to ban pets during breeding season when they already have a leash law.Better yet why would this be included in a ORV plan.The deeper I get into this DEIS the sicker I get.I will however make my constructive comments and they will be sent to DOI,NPS,Senators,Representative and to as many media outlets as possible.The 60 day comment period has started and public hearing times and places will be announced soon.
OK if you are inclined to believe that most people cannot identify a Piping Plover why should the govt.continue to spend millions of dollars for plans(DEIS),lawsuits,putting up barriers,and enforcement cost of these plans..
That you don't see the obvious answer to your question ... Sad, really.
I haven't read it all yet, but from what I've heard, pets are prohibited in the designated species management areas, not from the entire seashore.
Actually Anon I believe my views on this issue provide fairness to most all visitors to CAHA and not a select few. The money spent so far by NPS, Pro access,and the Environmental groups could have provided or improved favorable habitat for the birds and new access points around this new or improved habitat, and money for research to provide creditable science. Instead it has become a never ending legal battle against a select few who wish CAHA and all National Parks to be their CASH COW! Now that is sad sad sad. That is why most people (my opinion poll) have chosen sides now with no middle ground. Its now a battle over RIGHT and WRONG.
[This comment was edited for format with content intact.]