A proposed plan governing off-road vehicle access to Cape Hatteras National Seashore while also offering wildlife protection has drawn initial opposition from the groups that forced the National Park Service to develop the strategy.
The preferred alternative -- Alternative F, one of six alternatives in the seashore's much-anticipated Final Environmental Impact Statement on off-road travel -- falls short of adequately protecting Cape Hatteras' wildlife, according to representatives for the National Audubon Society and Defenders of Wildlife.
The plan, intended to guide ORV management on the 67-mile-long seashore for the coming 10-15 years, is the result of a lawsuit the two conservation groups brought against the Park Service in 2007 because there were no formal ORV guidelines in place and threatened species of sea turtles and shorebirds allegedly were endangered by the vehicles.
Tight regulations have governed ORV travel in recent years -- overnight driving was banned and temporary closures at times were enacted during breeding seasons, for example -- while seashore officials worked on an EIS outlining the management plan. Last year was a particularly successful year in terms of both sea turtle and piping plover reproduction, and the conservation groups cited the ORV restrictions when applauding the growing wildlife numbers.
Park Service planners came up short in translating that success to management guidelines in the EIS, the groups maintained.
“Numbers since 2008 demonstrate that under science-based wildlife management, nesting birds and turtles can rebound, tourism can thrive, and wildlife and people can share the beach at Cape Hatteras,” Walker Golder, acting executive director of Audubon North Carolina, said in a prepared statement in response to the seashore's preferred alternative, which was released Monday. “The Park Service’s plan currently falls short of providing adequate science-based, year-round protections for the seashore’s natural resources.”
Reaction to the proposal from ORV groups such as the Outer Banks Preservation Association and the Cape Hatteras Anglers Club was not immediately available.
But the debate over this plan, which is set to be finalized 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register, likely is far from over, as the issue has been polarizing. Environmentalists have defended their call for strict controls on beach driving by arguing that protecting wildlife resources should trump recreationists’ demands for convenient ORV access to the beach. Beach-driving surf 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.
Under Alternative F, new parking areas along Highway 12 would be built, as would new access ramps to the beach. Pedestrians also would see a new trail through the dunes down to the beach. Overall, the alternative would 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.
Under Alternative D, the "environmentally preferred alternative," there would be 27.2 miles of ORV routes open year-round, no miles of seasonal routes, and 40.1 miles closed to vehicles year-round.
At the Southern Environmental Law Center, which handled the lawsuit for Defenders of Wildlife and the National Audubon Society, representatives questioned the amount of access ORV drivers would have under the preferred alternative.
Reached at her office Tuesday evening, Julie Youngman, a senior attorney at the law center, said Alternative F's provisions failed to meet all of the recommendations made by United States Geological Survey researchers who examined the seashore's sea turtle and shorebird populations. For instance, she said, the preferred alternative does not block ORV access to the cape's spits and points, something the USGS recommended in its "moderate" recommendation and which her clients support.
"That’s just an example of how the current version of the preferred plan, while it does lots of things those (USGS) protocols recommended, it doesn’t do everything," she said.
The 108-page USGS study that contained the recommendations, published this past March, offered three levels of protection seashore officials might consider in drafting the ORV management plan.
• Under Option A, no recreation is permitted in any habitat used in the previous 10 years by the species in question. This eliminates the threat of direct mortality or disturbance due to recreation and greatly reduces indirect impacts, such as attraction of wild predators to the habitat of protected species and alteration of the beach profile by ORV traffic.
• Under Option B, for birds and plants, pedestrian recreation, but not ORV traffic, is permitted within a corridor in historically used habitat. For sea turtles, Option B closes all historically used habitats to night use by ORVs and optionally pedestrians, and closes segments of the habitat to all recreation. Option B reduces the risk of direct mortality and disturbance over current management practices but does not reduce indirect effects of recreation to the same extent as Option A.
• Under Option C, for birds and plants, ORV and pedestrian use is permitted in a corridor in historically used habitat. For sea turtles, night use of the habitat for recreation is permitted only in conjunction with user educational programs, and as in Option B, certain segments of beach remain closed. The risk of mortality, disturbance, and indirect effects of recreation are higher than under Option A or B, but still less than under current management practices.
Ms. Youngman said her clients did not favor shutting down all ORV travel along the national seashore, but believed more restrictions were required than what were proposed in Alternative F.
“If they’re going to ignore their own scientists' recommendations and allow driving there, they’re going to have to be very careful in managing that driving," the lawyer said. "We’re not necessarily saying (points and spits) must be closed, but if they’re going to be open to driving then that driving has to be very carefully managed. That’s one of the things that we’ll be looking very carefully to see.”
Since the Federal Register's listing of the Park Service's final selection is yet to come, Ms. Youngman said it would be premature to speculate whether her clients would want to legally challenge it. However, she said the successes noticed on the seashore this past summer indicate that a reasonable balance can be achieved in managing ORV use on Cape Hatteras.
"2010 was a record-setting year for sea turtles and piping plovers," she said. "The tourist industry had a record-setting year. We see that as a success. ... That shows that wildlife and tourism industry can thrive at the same time."
Comments
Karen if you Park at the fish cleaning station and walk over ramp 44 I’m guessing that a straight line shot to the tip of Cape Point is no more than a 1 1/2 miles at most. It is a flat beach and if there are no vehicles using the beach the sand is surprisingly firm. As far as National Parks hikes go it is an easy hike. Hiking is a very popular recreational activity. It would be difficult for the old and young and that is why the suggestion has been made that there could be a shuttle bus route there. Of course ORV users don’t see this as a compromise it is always all or nothing with them.
At the end of bird nesting season there is usually about a week where pedestrian are allowed to walk the beach but vehicles are not allowed. Visitors actually call the Park looking for that opportunity as it is a beautifully hike for some.
I live on the NC coast, I am an avid fisherman, I fish at Cape Hatteras an average of 40-50 days per year, and I support MORE restrictions on vehicles than presented in the NPS preferred plan. MORE areas should be closed to vehicles year round.
While B McCants is entitled to his opinion, he's not entitled to make up his own facts, but that has never stopped him or any of the ORV proponents. He presents the same tired and fictional line from the ORV proponents who care little about the seashore and only want to drive every where and any time, no matter what the impact. They feel the only way to enjoy the seashore is through the windshield of their trucks and want to make sure they never have to walk more that 50 feet to get to the ocean. And then they make up the wild conspiracy theories about birds and turtles, such as his comment about sea turtle populations. Balance? Are you kidding? More areas should be closed to vehicles year round. Already most of the seashore is open for driving, but of course the ORV proponents want it all...same ole line from those who seek to destroy the integrity of the seashore.
Historically, human interactions and vehicles have caused a significant problems with birds and sea turtles on the beach. It's been documented at Cape Hatteras and at other seashores. Research conducted on the seashore dating back to the early 1990s has clearly outlined the impact of vehicles and disturbances on Cape Hatteras National Seashore. All of the recommendations from the experts, many of which have been presented on the web site, clearly have documented (supported with peer-reviewed literature) the impacts of vehicles and human interactions on bird, turtles, and the beach environment.
All of the documents and comments that I've ready from Audubon and Defenders have stuck to the facts and they have backed up those facts with the supporting documents. Their comments presented to the NPS are consistent with the recommendations from the leading experts and the conservation plans for sea turtles and plovers. They are the only ones in this battle to protect Cape Hatteras NS that have been willing to compromise. They are the only organizations who have sought to restore the Seashore to a unit that is worthy of affiliation with the great National Park Service who we entrust with America's great natural treasures--the icons of this great country.
I am glad to see Audubon, Defenders, and the Southern Environmental Law Center standing up for the integrity of Cape Hatteras National Seashore. I only wish the National Park Service would do the same.
Spottail,
You've probably heard the phrase, when you point the finger there are usually a few pointing back at you. To accuse Mr McCants of making up facts, and then present your prose as facts is quite comical! I'm sure we'll see it in a press release soon.
Audubon, Defenders, and the Southern Environmental Law Center have sued their way into making rules and regulations at Cape Hatteras because they didn't have the science on their side to impose the rules and restrictions they wanted.
A NEPA vetted Interim Plan was developed and a Rulemaking body created for formation of a Final Plan. Then your big 3 nullified all that with a court ordered consent decree. The public had no say in the new rules, as required. The science used to get these rules and restrictions imposed is far from peer-reviewed literature. Nice try on that spin too!
But alas, I'm only stating what everyone here knows anyway............
The big 3 sued and won because they did have science on their side.
The 2006 NEPA vetted Interim Plan was a sham. The ORV side used political connections to get what they wanted. They found a strong ally in David Smith, deputy assistant secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks at the Department of Interior, who was in close contact with the local ORV leaders and interceded on their behalf.
Spottail as background I have a 37+ year career in clinical research, have been active in fisheries management at the state level for a number of years and I rely on data and the examination and interpretation of data.
I don't make up numbers, e.g.,the association of the Consent Decree with increased Loggerhead nesting.
SC: http://www.islandpacket.com/2010/07/27/1319774/a-good-year-to-be-a-turtl...
GA: http://www.cbsatlanta.com/news/25668956/detail.html
FL: http://myfwc.com/NEWSROOM/10/statewide/News_10_X_SeaTurtlesNest2.htm
30% higher than 10 year average.
Loggerhead nesting is cyclic (they know this) and the timing was such 2010 was an up cycle (and perhaps fishing/trawl restriction put in place beginning 20+ years ago is starting to bear fruit)
As for predator control:
Trapped at Cape Hatteras 07-09 **2010 not included**
feral dog...............1 (not killed to my knowledge)
feral cats..............181 (? not sure of the euthanasia rate)
raccoons...............463
mink.....................33
opossum................265
opossun kits...........105
muskrat.................2
otter.....................7
gray fox.................40
red fox...................110
nutrea....................82
coyote...................3
Audubon et al continue to use gamed bird count numbers that don't include spoil islands and Pea Island and this is far from scientific and is clearly (to me) agenda driven.
So it is easy to pick apart the grandiose claims by DOW et al with just a little searching.
And your characterization of me couldn't be further from the truth. I'm all for setting aside areas free of ORV's and I'm adamant that closures need to be expanded when nest are in hatch windows as I understand the risk of ORV to the chicks.
Two week ago found me walking over several mornings to fish~ 1 mile beach area near the old Lighthouse location. I'm set up for it and am reasonable fit but I don't apply my particular circumstances and desires on other people. And I picked up trash as I left, something not often found in areas frequented by ORVs.
I could parse your comments further but I won't. Not about me or you, but a balanced management of CAHA to accommodate decades-old forms of reasonable and responsible recreation in the Seashore while incorporating science-based strategies to protect the wildlife resources, e.g., relocation of turtle nest in high risk areas.
That great Bernie that you picked up trash. I wish more of your fishing buddies that walked and fished on that beach did the same.
Too bad you all can't smooth out the knee deep ruts in the beach made by the hundreds of vehicles accessing the beach just south of there.
Write Senator Hagan if you believe protection is important. She continues to think these protections have hurt the economy in Dare County which is disproven by a banner year of tourism during 2010. Fact.
Save your breath. Kagan has heard from almost every hurting business owner on Hatteras already. That's why she believe it's true.