While the final paperwork has been signed concerning an off-road management plan at Cape Hatteras National Seashore, the arduous task of formalizing a rule means the seashore will continue to operate next summer under a consent decree.
The National Park Service's Southeast Region office signed off Monday on the seashore's preferred alternative for managing ORV traffic in a way to protect bird and sea turtle species that receive protection under the Endangered Species Act. To mark the occasion, Tom Strickland, the assistant Interior secretary who oversees fish and wildlife and parks, congratulated the Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for developing a plan that blends recreation and species protection.
"The work of these two agencies shows that the conservation of fish and wildlife and its habitat on the Outer Banks can be consistent with the transportation, recreation, and economic needs of local communities,” said Mr. Strickland in a statement. “I applaud the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service for their commitment to engaging the local communities, gathering ideas, and applying the best science to guide wise management decisions.”
An ORV management plan has been long in coming for Cape Hatteras, though it remains to be seen whether this plan will survive intact. In 2007 two conservation groups -- the Audubon Society and Defenders of Wildlife -- sued the National Park Service for lacking an ORV management plan at Cape Hatteras, which offers nesting and breeding habitat for piping plovers (a threatened species) and five species of sea turtles (Kemp’s ridley, leatherback and hawksbill are all listed as endangered species, while the loggerhead and green are listed as threatened in North Carolina).
Under a consent decree issued as a result of the lawsuit, and intended to guide ORV use on Cape Hatteras until a formal ORV plan could be adopted, tight regulations have governed ORV travel -- overnight driving was banned and temporary closures at times were enacted during breeding seasons.
The ORV plan that the seashore arrived at has been criticized as overkill by ORV and surf caster groups -- they argue 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 -- and termed lacking by conservationists, who say it fails to provide adequate year-round protections for wildlife.
Under the Record of Decision signed Monday, the one both sides have criticized, new parking areas will be built along Highway 12 as well as new access ramps to the beach, and a new trail will allow pedestrians to walk down through the dunes to the beach. It also provides for a "seasonal night-driving restriction ... established from 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. during turtle nesting season, although areas with no turtle nests could open to night driving from September 16 through November 15." Additionally, it calls for an "alternative transportation study and would encourage the establishment of a beach shuttle or water taxi."
Overall, the approved plan will allow for 27.9 miles of year-round designated ORV routes on the seashore, 12.7 miles of seasonal routes, and 26.4 miles of vehicle-free miles.
Whether this option will be challenged in court remains to be seen.
While the Record of Decision has been approved, much work remains before the ORV plan will actually be implemented at Cape Hatteras, according to seashore Superintendent Mike Murray.
The Record of Decision was needed before the seashore staff could draft a proposed rule, which in turn must be approved by both the Interior Department and Office of Management and Budget, the superintendent said Monday. Then draft rule then must be published in the Federal Register and go through a 60-day public comment period, he continued.
After the comment period closes, seashore staff must review the comments and, if necessary, tweak the draft proposed rule.
“The likelihood is that the proposed rule will be published in the first quarter of the new year," said Superintendent Murray. "The final rule is likely to be published sometime in the summer.”
Rather than change the management direction in mid-summer, seashore officials will wait until the fall before implementing the new ORV management plan.
"It would be challenging for everybody. It's kind of hard to switch horses in the middle of a busy season like that," Superintendent Murray said. “We’ll operate under the consent decree until then.”
Comments
Ron, well put. Until the us against them mentality goes away, there will never be consensus.
Environmentalism has its extremist like any other group (e.g. politics, religion, etc.), but I 100% disagree with the statement that this movement will be looked down upon in the future. Jeff, do you enjoy clean air? Do you enjoy clean water? Do you enjoy endless outdoor opportunities on public lands? If you answered yes to any of these questions, thanks an environmentalist. Remember when the Cuyahoga River caught fire because it was so dirty? Have there been some less that stellar moments for the movement as a whole, sure, but overall, it has made out environment, locally, nationally and even globally a little bit better (at the very least not worse).
I, for one, am thankful for the NPS, USFS and the FWS for working very hard (often for little pay) to protect our resources around the country so that I may have the PRIVILEGE of recreating in these areas (not to mention preserving habit for wildlife that often has no where else to go). Remember, public land is a relatively new idea, I am fairly confident that without the public lands managed by the feds (as imperfect as they may be), much of our beloved outdoor recreation areas would be privately owned and we would not be able to use them at all.
Matt, I know at least some other parks -- Cape Cod National Seashore comes immediately to mind -- already require permits for ORVs, and it's not that big of a deal. Frankly, more of a hassle is the lack of parking at many beaches at Cape Cod. In some you park your rig in a lot away from the beach and ride a shuttle to the beach...hauling all your gear with you. It can be a pain, but it's the only way to deal with huge crowds and limited parking.
Counting each and every visitor, while it would be helpful in terms of head counts, likely would be more difficult with multiple entrances. But it'd be interesting to explore.
Kurt,
Would it be too much to ask you to reply to Mr. Johnston's comments about the tourism numbers and not just the "yahoos" comments? I've always respected and admired your even handed approach to this issue, but, when you come back with nothing substantive (nothing at all, actually) when challenged on the tourism issue, it appears you are now being spoon fed by the NGO's that have worked so hard to circumvent the law in closing beaches to orvs.
Thank you, and I'll understand if you don't publish my comments.
Dave,
Regarding tourism numbers, true, it's difficult to gauge from afar, but here are some stats from the NPS:
* Overall, tourism year-to-date at Cape Hatteras is at a little more than 2.1 million, vs. 2.2 million a year ago, so down just under 4 percent;
* Bodie Island visitation is down 4.3 percent, to just more than 2 million;
* Both Ocracoke and Whalebone Junction visitor centers are up (2.3% and 10.6%), while Bodie Island VC and Hatteras Island VC are both down (33.9% and 3.7%). Any idea why Whalebone Junction would be up double digits, and Hatteras Island VC down more than one-third? A 40 percent swing in just a few miles? Seems like an anomaly.
* Cape Hatteras Lighthouse visitation is also down (5.2%), but that's likely do to the restoration work, no?
* RV campers are up 1.1 percent, tent campers down 4.3 percent.
So overall visitation is down, with some positive pockets. In light of the big increases at parks such as Yellowstone, Glacier, Yosemite, etc, this is a bit surprising.
All that said Dave, I haven't had time to break out all the economics of Frisco, and Buxton, etc, and while I don't summarily dismiss Jeff's comments re businesses and the effects the closures have had, I also haven't seen an entirely unbiased report from either side -- NGOs or ORV, surf casters, etc, etc. That's why I hope to visit Cape Hatteras next year.
If indeed you do visit next year please let me and Mr. Pitt know as we can give you a nickel tour of why we say what we say. We can also show you why so many are passionate about this place.
PS Whalebone Junction is located nearest to the northern beaches than the Island. Simple knowledge of the make up of the island along with common sense will tell anyone (I think)
that when the beaches start closing on a barrier island preventing access to those beaches what else is left???????? Someone please answer that!
"Counting each and every visitor, while it would be helpful in terms of head counts, likely would be more difficult with multiple entrances"
That is not true if we used the 7 day permit issued by most national parks.
"Frankly, more of a hassle is the lack of parking at many beaches at Cape Cod."
Well it is only worse in Cape Hatteras as far as parking. Though what is the point in having parking near places where birds are nesting as there is no access at all? The new plan calls for more parking lots and walkovers. That will not happen for years as there will need to be several years worth of studies, and lawsuits first.
Oh well what happens when they charge an extra 100.00 to access the beaches for a week?
Matt,
I would also add that, as with fishing license, I would hope that beach access permits would be available " on line " and since there is only two ways to get to Hatteras and Ocrocoke Islands, being Bonner Bridge from the north and Ferry from the south, all of which could be easily documented, accurate documentation would be simple. As we have been saying all along, there is so much that is unique about Hatteras. Everyone should come there at least once and see what that place is all about. Most of the supporters of Audubon and Defenders of Wildlife ( Maybe even Southern Environmental Law Center) have little idea what that place is really like. Much less what the people are like. And especially what the beaches are like.
Ron (obxguys)
Kurt,
A final plan is most likely years away. The ORV lobby has been accumulating a war chest of money. They will go to court. The issue has become larger than just an ORV plan at Cape Hatteras National Seashore. The very organized ORV/fishing users have expertly morphed this into an anti-government and anti environmental issue of intrusion of their rights (the right to drive an ORV on the ocean beach of CAHA) and a local economic hardship. They have gained support from the far right. Fox news just interviewed the president of one of the major pro ORV access to the Seashore.
I see 3 major factors for the degradation of CAHA. They are: 1. The building of the CC dunes and permanent placement of highway 12 (this has disrupted coastal process resulting in less ocean beach. 2. The complete development of all the villages on Hatteras Island that border the ocean beach. 3. The uncontrolled number of ORVs that come and use the increasingly narrow Park beach as a highway, parking lot, and staging area for their considerable amount of recreational gear.
The ORV lobby likes to portray themselves as pro-access. Their motto of “free and open access” only extends to ORV use. They have thwarted every other chance at compromising by dismissing other alternatives to ORV access. Some of the reason that beaches are closed to pedestrians has as much to do with them as it does with the conservation group.
The majority of ORV users try to be good stewards and enjoy wildlife resources on their own terms, even though most couldn’t tell you the difference between a tern and a gull or a plover or sanderling henceforth the lack of understanding of the critical nature of the resource issues at CAHA. None of the other groups who oppose the ORV management recommendations has suggested or attempted to eliminate ORV use at CAHA.
Kurt I wish you would take Matt up on his offer as after reading many of your articles I think you would be appalled at the situation in CAHA, though for a reason different than Matt’s and Ron’s.