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
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this and you're misunderstanding me. I personally don't have a problem with beaches where off-road vehicles are allowed. This is allowed in some public beaches near where I live. I don't necessarily get the appeal of it, but to each his own. However - if there are protected species, then all bets are off. This goes regardless of whether or not it's a county park, NPS land, or even private land. Look up the "San Francisco garter snake". The City and County of San Francisco has had issues with building around their airport and use of a public golf course they own because this garter snake. Some have even proposed transferring the golf course to the NPS because they feel the NPS might take a more proactive approach to wildlife management.
Whether or not a unit is called a "recreation area", "national park", "national seashore", etc doesn't really change the NPS mandate to protect wildlife. I mentioned the protected species at Golden Gate National Recreation Area. This is an NPS unit with various diverse uses, including dozens of commercial businesses, historic army barracks/weapons sites, and natural areas. That's it's a "recreation area" hasn't changed this mandate.
Right now there's an annual closure of certain waters within Point Reyes National Seashore to recreational paddlers because the seal pupping season has started. That certainly seems reasonable to me.
I have however seen some interesting positions taken by those who aren't happy with restrictions in place in order to protect threatened species. Some have even attempted to get a certain species off the threatened species list so as to remove the restrictions.
Hunter,
I don't think I've been biased in this discussion at all. The story that started this thread is straight vanilla.
Was the bias in pointing out that Cape Hatteras regulars *should* have a better perspective on what impacts the seashore than those in California or Washington who have never been to the seashore?
Or did the bias arise in a story I wrote a few weeks ago about sea turtle numbers on Hatteras and noted that "Few of the violations involved off-road vehicles.."
/2010/02/cape-hatteras-national-seashore-rangers-counted-104-sea-turtle-nests-20095372
I'll admit I've also pointed out vandalism:
/2009/09/more-nesting-site-vandalism-cape-hatteras-national-seashore4509
But I've also interviewed an ORV proponent, Alan Pitt, aka the Dapster, and used his photographs on more than a few occasions, including the one currently on our home page as Park Photo of the Week. Heck, if you know him he'll likely vouch that I'm a pretty reasonable guy.
/2008/08/whats-solution-cape-hatteras-national-seashore
And then there was a story back in 2008 when I invited ORV proponents to provide their thoughts on the issue:
Have you read the Audubon article you cite? Have you been to White Wash? Are you aware of the unique resources there and the damage that's been inflicted by uncontrolled ORV use? Do you know that the BLM through its Resource Management Plan was making it the one place in the entire district where ORV's could travel cross-country?
Here's my opinion Hunter: The Park Service is mandated by the National Park Service Organic Act to, foremost, preserve resources unimpaired for future generations, and, secondly, to provide for the public's enjoyment. It's also obligated by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act to carefully review its policies and ensure that species covered by the ESA are protected as much as possible so their populations might recover. Presidential directives long ago also required the NPS to develop a management plan for ORV use on Cape Hatteras. It didn't, and that's what's brought us to this DEIS. If the Park Service and the interested stakeholders can develop an ORV management plan that meets all the requirements, that works for me. Will it be warmly embraced by one and all? I doubt it.
Kurt/Hunter I do personally know Mr Alan Pitt (Dapster) and he has stated many times that you (Kurt) are a guy who looks at both sides of the issue. I would also like to point out that the NPS did in fact develop an ORV system and sent it to Washington only to have them lose it. I would also like to state that we instituted the interim plan which provided protections to the VERY FEW birds (albeit not the size of an aircraft carrier) but having personally driven on these beaches I can tell you there was loads of space for them to thrive (not scientifically derived). If one is to really look at the populations spread of the piping plover along the east coast you will see they tend to do better in areas that are less prone to weather related issues. One also has to understand why everyone (or 99%) of people use their 4x4 vehicles on the beaches of Cape Hatteras. We only use these to get us from point A to point B. We do not ride for the sake as riding. The Majority of people use their 4x4s in Cape Hatteras as any other person would use them to get to the store from their home, to get to their job from their home, to get to their national park parking lot. I mention this because I have personally experienced both walking onto the beaches (at Frisco Pier) and driving out on either Ramp 49 or to the point. If I had my choice it would be driving. This is not because I am lazy, handicapped, etc... It is because I have a 5 and 2 year old and we like to spend on average of 6 to 8 hours on the beach each day (1 week a year). Yes even the tire tracks are gone as soon as the wind blows or the surf rises. My vehicle I drive is a 2007 chevy truck and it does not leak OIL and the same can be said for Alan Pitts, and the majority of the people who frequent the beach. I know this because these are our daily driving vehicles and not some ATV or Dune buggy. I do know that we will not win the hearts of those who do not get to experience this wonderful place personally, but they must understand Cape Hatteras has no better stewards than the ones who know it best. Belive me it is not the Lawyers sitting in Charlottesville or anywhere else.
Spotsylvania, VA
6 trips per year (used to be more for all this ridiculousness!!!)
The NPS should be ashamed of the mess THEY created. They also should be ashamed of the lack of stewardship of the park, not picking up trash, not draining pond, not fixing ramps, not providing enough parking, not maintaining the campgrounds, not providing corridors, not providing nesting areas, not realizing they are killing animals for nothing, not following NEPA, and finally not standing up to the junk science backed lawyers. I think they proven they can NOT manage the park in any way. I think we should allow the state to mange this area, since its painfully obvious that the NPS can not handle it.
The mess the NPS created? Who pulled political strings to get the previous plans "disappeared" in DC? Who pulled political strings to send Belli packing after he said he was initiating more protections for the wildlife? Audubon?
@Matt: Thanks for bringing sanity and civility back into this discussion. As someone who has never been to Cape Hatteras I can build my opinion only on data and none the least this discussion here. And I'd like to add an aspect that was hinted on before but never spoken out directly:
This might be an issue of aesthetics and portrayed image as well. National Parks are for most of their supporters very much about wilderness, self restraint, self propelled activity, low impact recreation and the like. Parking a 4x4 truck at the water line and thus bringing with you everything including the kitchen sink to me is a violation of my mental image of a National Park.
If I am right, this issue is not just one of scientific data but mostly one of perception. And never underestimate this motivation.
MRC you are welcome. Even though your sarcasm is typical. You are correct in stating that Cape Hatteras does not scream your typical National Park as it is not. It is a National Seashore operated by the National Park system. Please look again at Mr Alan Pitts (Dapster) Picture showing the two areas both Driving and Walking and even one who is full of sarcastic beliefs can see the difference. There is no way to compare a National Park versus a National Seashore for access. But you can compare how they are managed. Yellowstone for example has many miles of paved roads for access, many bridges and man-made walkways for access, Hiking trails for access, convienance centers for access, handicapped access and all of this is directly through the heart of the actual National Park without as much as a whine from environmentalists on how the affects of humans being in direct contact with NATURE is affecting NATURE. We in Cape Hatteras are fighting for ACCESS for us our families and future generations, becuase if the environmentalists have thier way Humans cannot even set foot on the beach (see environmentalists recommended alternative in the DEIS)
P.S. I do not carry a kitchen sink, but I do carry an easy-up, medium cooler, towels, chairs, sunblock, food, drink, diapers for my youngest, and even my kayak to surf a few waves.
The temperature reading by Dapster only demonstrates why vehicles should be excluded from beaches where birds nest. Studies of nesting American oystercatchers clearly show that 50% fewer chicks survive on beaches where vehicles are allowed. Why? Because the chicks spend their entire day hiding in the hot sand and dunes where they die from overheating, starvation because they can't get to the intertidal zone to forage, or they get eaten by predators. When vehicles are excluded, the chicks spend most of their time in the interttidal zone on the beach. Studies of piping plovers show the same. You made the point quite well Dapster...
The NPS proposes to give away one of our nation's great treasures to appease a minority special interest group who think the only way to enjoy the beach is to drive on it, no matter what they have to kill in the process. And minority indeed: the only objective study of visitors concluded that only 7-11% of the visitors to Cape Hatteras National Seashore drive on the beach--MINORITY. NPS should indeed be ashamed for allowing the abuse of the seashore to go on so long and for proposing that it continue with the DEIS.
Driving on the beach harms wildlife and is not compatible with the our National Seashores (you can change the name if you want but it does not change the mandates).