The House was in recess for a month, but that ended September 8. Now there’ll be a flurry of hearings, including many of great interest to national park users and managers.
Among the items on today’s agenda is a House subcommittee hearing on a bill proposing to reinstate older, more lenient rules for ORV beach driving at Cape Hatteras National Seashore.
The current rules, imposed to protect shorebird and sea turtle nesting sites, seasonally and intermittently restrict beach driving access to popular fishing areas. Environmentalists defend the currently 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.
Today the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands will consider a bill, H.R. 6233 (Jones), that would reinstate the Interim Management Strategy governing off-road vehicle use at Cape Hatteras. The Interim Management Strategy, is an older, more lenient set of rules that was in force until this past April when environmentalists won an out-of-court settlement (the 2008 Consent Decree) compelling the National Park Service to adopt stricter regulations for beach ORV use at Cape Hatteras. The bill’s sponsor, Representative Walter Jones (R-N.C.), essentially wants Congress to negate the out-of-court settlement.
The environmental NGOs that won the out-of-court settlement -- Defenders of Wildlife and the National Audubon Society -- believe that the stricter rules that the settlement brought about are appropriate and should remain in effect. At today’s hearing, a lawyer representing the NGOs will testify that the current strict rules for protecting the nesting habitat of piping plovers and sea turtles have played a key role in the recently improved nesting success of these species.
While we await the outcome of this debate, the National Park Service continues to work on its ORV Management Plan for Cape Hatteras. The project uses the negotiated rulemaking approach, a consensual planning strategy that relies on a federal advisory committee of local community and national interest groups.
When finally implemented, will this negotiated set of rules bring an end to decades of conflict over ORV use and protected species management at Cape Hatteras National Seashore? Nobody really believes that, but at least it will remove some of the uncertainties.
Comments
Something that is being missed here is that during bird closures these areas in question are off limits to all human activity. Not just ORV's but anyone that takes a notion to stroll along the seashore risks arrest and heavy fines just for walking on the beach in a protected area. What an incredible shame that this is allowed to happen in a National Seashore that our tax dollars pay for.
As several on this page have stated both sides are adament in thier beliefs. I have been visiting and driving on the beaches of NC for more than 40 years . Before the advent of the SUV and when there were no restrictions. Each year there are more and more restrictions and less area to enjoy. This summer our family made it's yearly visit and it was a down right shame to look and see literally miles of beach that was not accessable to anyone except the " authorities" that seem to be on it every evening. This island depends upon the tourist trade for it's livelyhood and with out access to the beaches it will be economically devestated. In fact this year has been a bad one already. There needs to be some type of solution that involves comprimise that will protect both sides. The facts show that vehicle use is not the culprit but more the weather. This strip of sand has constant winds and many storms that present more of a threat than the few off road vehicles that use it. The areas that we use are not user friendly without vehicle access. Let's try and get this opportunity solved soon so we can all enjoy the island again.
As several on this page have stated both sides are adament in thier beliefs. I have been visiting and driving on the beaches of NC for more than 40 years . Before the advent of the SUV and when there were no restrictions. Each year there are more and more restrictions and less area to enjoy. This summer our family made it's yearly visit and it was a down right shame to look and see literally miles of beach that was not accessable to anyone except the " authorities" that seem to be on it every evening. This island depends upon the tourist trade for it's livelyhood and with out access to the beaches it will be economically devestated. In fact this year has been a bad one already. There needs to be some type of solution that involves comprimise that will protect both sides. The facts show that vehicle use is not the culprit but more the weather. This strip of sand has constant winds and many storms that present more of a threat than the few off road vehicles that use it. The areas that we use are not user friendly without vehicle access. Let's try and get this opportunity solved soon so we can all enjoy the island again.
Mr. Finegan,
JTH supplied the document I was about to bring up myself. This designation is indeed not listed on the NPS website for the area, and has curiously disappeared and reappeared over the years for reasons unknown.
To those of us on the ground down here, it is very much not a triviality. It may be the keystone to our argument when this issue returns to court. Notice I didn’t say “If”…
*************************************************************************
In other news:
Eddie’s comment is spot-on.
Here’s a look at another look at the “slight of hand” moves that SELC uses in their favor. Look at the below “Google Earth” based map put out by the CHNSRA NPS. The area we are looking at is Hatteras inlet, with the South end of Hatteras Island visible on the right, and the North end of Ocracoke Island visible on the left.
Please pay particular attention to the area marked “Ramp 59”. Notice that an area marked in orange color, which denotes “Pedestrian Access Only” is bracketed by areas marked in red on both sides, which denotes “Closed for Resource Protection”. This means no human/canine entry at all, period. Once you reach one of these areas, you will see one of these this blocking your way, depending on whether it’s bird or turtle season:
Also, please note the immense buffer zone that surrounds this now-drowned turtle nest. You can see a family standing at the other side of the closure. A bit excessive, perhaps?
The only way you can access this seemingly “Open” area is by boat, and the inlet is not a place to be taken lightly due to ocean swells that enter it, and an approximately 3 knot current that runs through the inlet at all times except slack tides. You don’t want to take your canoe there, trust me.
The SELC talking heads would include this area in their touting of percentages of beach open, but it cannot be accessed! There have been many instances of this throughout this summer under the Consent Decree.
Alas, it would seem that the bill may have died in committee yesterday. Voting was divided strictly along party lines. Go figure. The vote was close, though.
From the "Island Free Press":
Even as the witnesses were testifying in the House, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources dealt the legislation what may be a fatal blow. The Senate committee voted 12-11 not to report the bill, S3113, out of committee. The vote split along party lines, with Republicans, including North Carolina’s Sen. Richard Burr, voting to report the bill out of committee and Democrats voting against it. Since this Congress will probably recess at the end of the month for the year, it seems increasingly unlikely that the legislation to set aside the consent decree will be passed.
A big thanks to all who fought for this bill. Special thanks the the NC and mostly VA representatives who co-sponsored the bill and fought for the rights of their respective constituents.
Also a big thanks to everyone who has posted on either side of this issue. I have learned much from you all, and I hope you feel similarly. Spirited debate is always informative as long as one keeps an open mind.
The bill may be reintroduced next year. Otherwise, I see no other alternative than a return to the Judicial Branch of our government to resolve this issue. This time, however, it hopefully will involve more than just a single biased federal judge. The Eco groups have much to fear from sworn testimony and cross-examination.
Their "science" and spin will not withstand the truth in that setting.
dapster said:
I daresay 'Eco groups' have become environmentalism's own greatest liability. The laws they use to tie the United States in administrative knots weren't meant for these kinds of purposes. Congress has been grappling with the problem for years, and at some point they will undertake a package of reforms that will put an end to this 'subversion & perversion' of public law.
Oh, come on Ted Clayton. The endangered species law was EXACTLY written to do this because it was the last gasp of the effort to stop America from destroying its diversity of species. Real laws of nationwide land use, habitat destruction or releasing chemicals into the environment were too little too late. The endangered species act was a desperation move, to absolutely stop extinctions by forcing changes in human activities that threatened those species. Don't you remember the number of times it would be said that the destruction to the environment was an "unintended consequence" or an "unexpected side effect?"
To the extent possible the law was intended to interject the Fish and Wildlife Service into this "unintended" ambiguity with explicit science and actions and strategies to FORCE a change in destructive activities.
The only widespread public disapproval of the law has come when species without any charisma were ridiculed in well-funded attacks to trivialize the value of the species and undermine the respect for the public servants involved. (accompanied by constant interference by political appointees resulting in over-long administrative procedures, and critically underfunded budgets, to try the public patience.)
The public certainly does not feel this way about shore birds. And remember, threats to birds was one of the very largest original reasons for the passage of the endangered species act.
Oh, come on Lepanto!
If certain human activities are causing species extinction, then they indeed must be curtailed. We are agreed on that point. However, it is not the responsibility of humanity to preserve the “snapshot in time” of species present in 2008. Natural selection must be allowed to rule, not NEPA protocols. Predator species have been “relocated” via trapping our outright killing in the name of threatened species. That to me is playing God.
Consider how many species became extinct on this planet before humans arrived on the scene. Some species just can’t cut it in the world, and they slowly slip away. While truly sad, it is what nature intended.
Can you expand on the non-charismatic animals you cite? I have no recollection of any ad campaigns as you describe.
I agree with Mr. Clayton completely in that simple environmentalism and caring for the welfare of species has grown into a more “Extremist” movement of late. This country finds itself mired in lawsuit upon lawsuit over circumstances that could be resolved by other means.
The case in point with CHNSRA is that a few radical groups believe that mere human presence on the beaches is a detriment to either shorebird fledglings or sea turtle nests. This has not been proven, even under the Consent Decree. Literally millions of dollars have been spent, and resulted in 3 more fledged birds than 2007. One or two storms in the spring would have made the numbers less than last years.
Turtle nests have seen an increase this year, but most likely due to the 3-year nesting cycle of the loggerhead. Recent storms will have an impact on those numbers as well, especially since nests are not moved for any reason on CHNSRA. However, they are moved <50 miles to the North in the Pea Island NWR if they are found to be in an area that would be detrimental to their survival. Reasons given for moving/not moving have been described as CHNSRA is under DOI/NPS. PINWR is under USFWS/DOA. I still don’t see where that makes any logical sense. But then, when have politics ever been logical or rational?
We want to Protect and Preserve, not Prohibit. Humans have a place in this world also, and should not be excluded.