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
sea mullet
I can sympathize with you about lost fishing opportunities because of resource protection in this Park. I’m sure there are adequate ways to increase resource production/protection that provide better access. From my experience the great majority of ORV users love all aspects of the Park including the resource and are good stewards by their standards.
The ORV advocates like to play hardball but the first time they’re thrown a curve they cry foul. Environmentalists were largely left out of the equation at CAHA. Your ORV friends had powerful allies in the DOI a few years ago. Litigation is and was one way for environmental groups (or ORV access groups) to gain influence .
99.9% of the bad behavior here comes from your side. I have only seen one article by one author that used the term Beach Bums. Your allies are doing the name-calling. Drive around Buxton and count the many bumper sticker with the, “Identify This Bird Audubon” which portrays a picture of a bird giving the F*@! you finger sign. If you want to see some really hateful stuff go back through the archives of the local chat boards. If you don’t know about this most likely you don’t spend much time here.
The ORV side has probably spent more money on lawyers and received more money from the government (Dare County and Feds via the critical habitat case) than the environmental groups. When the ORV advocates go to court their lawyers will quietly bill them for a considerable pot of money if they win the government will pay, no difference than the environmental lawyers.
In any case what does you or your friends personal opinion about environmentalist lawyers have to do with anything were talking about or my argument that [CAHA] by lack of an ORV management plan has been allowed to decay into something it was not intended. Considers what this place looked like in the 50’s and what was one of the reasons this area was selected to be a National Park, “permanently reserved as a primitive wilderness”.
Do a historical study of the intensity use of ORVs in the early history of this park and the square footage of beach available to visitors then. Study what type of recreational activities can be done and what the requirements are needed to pursue them. Do this by unbiased qualified academics and professionals. Make sure all the reports are peer reviewed.
Name calling, hidden agenda and left wing conspiratorial theories, anecdotal information from ORV users about having to have an ORV to recreate in this Park, suggestions for visitors to recreate in [Pea Island National wildlife Refuge] or Cape Lookout National Seashore are just “junk”. They are not even “junk science” to me.
Bill S., why do you get to define "bad behavior"? I am working on my tax returns this morning so you can guess at my frame of mind. MY definition of bad behavior is whatever costs me in higher taxes and hyperbolic arguments by the so-called enviro side. The only "decay" I see at CHNSRA is at the NPS campgrounds because nobody's using them due to such limited beach access.
The only ones making any money at all off this issue are the lawyers and they're laughing all the way to the bank.
Sea Mullet,
I know. It's a shame it's been a cash cow for decades with no concerns as to sustainability or the effects on the park. You can't kill the golden goose and have it too. Good on you for wanting that to end.
For some folks, the only "credible science" is that which conforms to their biases (and is usually the exact opposite of credible) and they consistently reject the truly credible science.
And just think, had the ORV groups not spent decades fighting closures that were 1/5th the size of the current closures, perhaps we wouldn't be where we're at today spending funds that could go to the resource, rather than lining attorney's pockets.
Make up your own mind. Follow the links below.
The comment period deadline is May 11, 2010. For links to specific requirements for commenting and to the DEIS, go to. This site includes a link to the DEIS and commentary from many on the front lines.
http://www.preservebeachaccess.org/
The OBPA position statement clearly articulates the rationale for less restrictive options. Rather than just say no, read it then make up your mind.
http://www.obpa.org/obpa_newsBlog.asp
"So-called" enviromental side?
Not the sort of nasty slur I expect on a site that highlights the NPS. Got a "eat spotted owl" bumper sticker on your gas guzzler?
"The only "decay" I see at CHNSRA is at the NPS campgrounds because nobody's using them due to such limited beach access"
Show me the peer reviewed study to back that up.
The campground use started to decline years before that if you dig you can probably find those statistics from the NPS.
I was told that people stopped using the campgrounds because they felt unsafe in the middle of an ORV trail while they were trying to recreate in the National Park, but you will have to take my word for it.
Bill, according to here:
http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/viewReport.cfm?selectedReport=SystemCamp...
There were more than 10,000 more tent campers in 2009 (55,317), then there were in 2008 (45,082) at Hatteras' campgrounds, in a worse economy.
Ginny,
30 meter buffers for oystercatcher and tern chicks?? They'll need to staff all of the closures 24/7 (times more than 20 AMOY pair and a dozen or so tern colonies) w/staff to move them in 15 meter increments. That would put the annual permit at what? $2000 ea? What year was it they increased the buffers 2 or 3 times in a few days north of Buxton and on South Beach (?) for AMOY chicks? I remember reading about it in the weeklies and was amazed at the reactive futility. And that was in 200 meter increments ... 30 meters amounts to no chick buffers at all.
The state or FWS has to sign off on the 200 meter buffer for plover chicks and from what I heard at RegNeg, that's not going to happen. (ie no take permit)
After reading part of the DEIS I was disappointed the park will not re-create habitat. Attempting to increase a population on dwindling habitat is illogical. Even the Enviros or dark side (as they are called) have to admit with climate change and beach erosion the habitat is dwindling. So, if we WANT to raise the population of plovers, eventually re-establishing habitat is going to happen. Yes/no? I will say I am on the side of the ORVs. but I would prefer the money go to the resource not lawyers.