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
Yes try pea island it is truly a wonderful ORV free Wildlife refuge where not even the birds like to nest....
Y P W it is a recreational area seashore not a wilderness area or bird sanctuary.It screams recreation the purpose it was set aside for!!!!!!The environmental groups have stated publicly in a letter they want the most popular recreational areas shut down in the park year round to not only vehicle traffic but also to pedestrian traffic!!!!!That says it all as to their intention of the future of CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE RECREATION AREA.They will not negotiate its all or nothing.Oh and you just cant stop on the side of the road and cross the dunes to access the beach because its not permitted.May I suggest you go to the Cape Hatteras website and read.Oh and until the consent decree I was at Hatteras 30 days in May and 30 days in Oct.First visit was April 1974.
y_p_w,
It's a good point. There are ways of using a park that end up turning it into something else. In this case, the use of ORVs transform the national "seashore" into a "parking lot." Of course, there also seem to be designated areas at Cape Hatteras where that isn't the case. But for some, it seems the parking lot would mar the view of, and thereby change one's relationship to, the seashore.
In any case, this seems to be another historical example of folks having different ideas of what a park should be. In the end, these are probably pretty good arguments to have.
A few points of clarification, from the NPS history, as contained in the DEIS:
As Sea Mullett, points out, recreation was key in the minds of those who wanted the national seashore created:
As for the name of the place, though, the original, 1937-enacted name was indeed Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Three years later, though, an amendment was passed through Congress to rename it Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area, but it seems that renaming was "derived clearly from the Secretary’s justification to allow hunting..."
Finally, from the DEIS, "While certain sites were targeted for development of recreational facilities, certain sections were identified to remain undeveloped and preserved as the 'primitive wilderness' that existed at that time."
y.p.w. You're all wet. There are protective dunes most of the way between the road and the ocean. The NPS does indeed frown upon buidling trails through the dunes.
Editor's note: You're all wet. Boy, haven't heard that expression in quite some time. At least it's more civil than some condemnations we've seen over the years. Just a reminder/request to be gentle in your proddings folks
y_p_w:
Thanks for the clarification. Good to see you're doing research on the area as well!
"My only point is that it doesn't exactly scream "National Park Service" with trucks parked less than 10 ft away from the shore. I can certainly understand why one of the proposals is to set up a maximum carrying capacity since it looks like a crowded parking lot on the beach."
What exactly does scream "NPS", then? It is truly the most unspoiled Atlantic Coast beachfront area I've ever been to, ORV's or no. Did you actually look at my photo contrasting human density Ped and ORV areas?
"I'm also looking at a Cape Hatteras map right now. It seems pretty narrow - less than 1 mile wide most of the way. So if you couldn't drive on the beach in places, but could still access NC-12, what's to stop one from parking on the side of the road and walking to the beach?"
1. No shoulder, all but 4WD's will get stuck.
2. Prohibited in many places.
3. Walking over/on dunes IS frowned upon.
4. Very nasty cacti with 2" long spines.
"I found a nice little parking lot at Olympic NP and took a path down to the beach. It doesn't seem to be very far, although I suppose it makes it harder to take the 72 quart cooler with you."
Exactly. When your fishing for 30+ pound fish, you're not exactly using light tackle. Plus, how will the very young, very old, the infirm, or the handicapped access these areas on foot?
"Building trails isn't exactly something that the NPS frowns upon."
See item #3 above.
"The argument seems very much like the winter snowmobile access controversies in Yellowstone, which is also in effect for part of the year. I've actually seen people fishing in Yellowstone where they had to do so by hiking in 5 miles with their equipment."
There are some similarities in the two issues, but they begin and end there. CHNSRA is not YELL by a long shot. The only thing that makes CHNSRA different from any desert is an ocean nearby. Summer sand temp's reach 140 Degrees F easily. See below, taken 4th of July weekend:
Try slogging your young child, grandparents, and all the gear necessary for a day at the beach through that and all the other things that I have described that lie between. It would not make for a fun day...
Kurt,
With all do respect, aren't you a little biased in these discussions? It seems you have had a vendetta for ORV use across the nation(and on previous articles about CHS).
Not to mention a vested interest from those against the CHS orv use, Audobon.
National Park Traveler seems to bill itself as a tool to get the latest news and information on National parks, not a tool to promote one activity over another, or publish personal opinions. There is a fine line between "educate, inform, and entertain readers, as well as to stimulate discussion and debate about how the National Park System is managed," and propaganda.
I would like to hear if you believe ORV have a place in any of our national parks, and if so how would their use satisfy you?
What terms would make you happy, in the process of allowing ORV use to access these other wise inaccessible areas?
In your response, please keep in mind, that many of the closures suggested for CHS are for humans, animals (pets & native predators), and ORV. This includes "Kite flying, Frisbee throwing, and sunbathing." As it has been proven that none of these activities will impair the park and they all allow the enjoyment by future generations.
Mr. Repanshek where do you personally draw the line for allowing the citizens of this country the right to enjoy the parks they are paying to maintain?
Cape Hatteras goes beyond ORV use, it is about pedestrian use in general. It just so happens the ORV users are willing to fight for both.
At what point would you say ok enough is enough, humans have rights too.
Please do not start withholding your opinion now.
Thanks
Not your first rodeo against ORV.
http://audubonmagazine.org/currents/currents0805.html
Nice temperature shot there dap, but you want to push all the chicks up into that heat, so no shoreline is closed to ORVs like it was pre-2005? Nice.
Bernie,
Yes unnatural predation. Both in numbers of predators and type of predators. Both of which have been facilitated by the human alteration of the ecosystem.
Cro