While the potential exists for the National Park Service's preferred off-road vehicle plan for Cape Hatteras National Seashore to be detrimental to piping plovers, sea turtles, and seabeach amaranth, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials believe the plan will be at least minimally helpful to all three in the long-run.
In a lengthy "biological opinion" assessing preferred Alternative F in the seashore's Final Environmental Impact Statement on an ORV management plan, FWS officials conclude that management tools should provide sufficient protection of those three species to endure continued ORV driving on the 67-mile-long seashore.
But that conclusion comes near the end of the 157-page document, one that notes high up that "potential" exists for piping plovers, a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, to be adversely affected during nesting, wintering, and migration seasons; for three species of sea turtles that come ashore to nest at Cape Hatteras, and their resulting offspring, to be adversely affected, and; for seabeach amaranth, a threatened beach plant with distinctive fleshy, reddish stems, to also be adversely affected by allowances for ORVs and pedestrians under the preferred alternative.
The bulk of the document is spent on biological backgrounds on the species, information that addresses their range, population numbers, habitats, population dynamics, existing threats such as predation and coastal development, even how climate change might impact them. It also examines how beach driving and pedestrians could affect the species, and examines baseline conditions for the species.
When it comes to human presence on the seashore, the FWS researchers noted that all of the concerned species are at a disadvantage. Vehicles can, and do, run over piping plovers and their fledglings as well as sea turtle hatchlings and buried nests in these settings, pets can scatter plover fledglings, and beach goers can harass sea turtles and their hatchlings, and crush plover nests as well as amaranth plants and scatter their seeds.
At the same time, the document notes, management actions seashore officials can take under Alternative F can be beneficial to all three species.
"These beneficial effects can be categorized as measures to limit the interaction of vehicles, pedestrians, and their pets with nesting, migrating, and wintering piping plovers and their nests, hatchling and juvenile piping plovers, germinating seabeach amaranth and nesting sea turtles and their nests, eggs, and hatchlings," reads one section of the report.
After analyzing all the potential impacts and the off-setting beneficial effects of Alternative F, the biological opinion concludes that:
* (i)t is reasonable to conclude that implementation of the proposed ORV management plan will allow the breeding population of piping plovers to continue to grow at CAHA, barring events such as major changes in habitat conditions due to storms. Under the proposed management plan breeding piping plovers will continue to be exposed to potential human disturbance that may cause the population to grow at a slower rate than would occur in the complete absence of disturbance, and may cause the breeding population size to stabilize at a level below that which the available habitat could support in the absence of disturbance. Because we do not have a means of estimating the population growth rate at a particular locale (without or without disturbance), or the actual carrying capacity of the habitat within CAHA, the magnitude of these effects is unknown.
* Despite the continued potential for some adverse effects, the USFWS expects implementation of Alternative F should afford a reasonable opportunity for successful nesting of sea turtles annually. The proposed management activities would contribute to achieving the desired future conditions for nesting sea turtles...
* The USFWS expects implementation of Alternative F to afford a reasonable opportunity for at least a minimal amount of successful germination annually at CAHA’s most significant sites (Bodie Island, Cape Point, Cape Hatteras spit and Ocracoke spit). This is expected to potentially produce a slight population increase of seabeach amaranth over the near term.
Comments
I am sure that USFW and NPS employees are interested in passing "junk science" off to the public to put forth their anti-orv agenda...give me a break. ORV's are destructive, in general, and have the potential to be destructive, in general. If you can show me or convince me that ORV's tred lightly on the land, then ORV plans would not be needed at CAHA or anywhere else they are used across the country. ORV use is one form of recreation amongst many and has a place at the table...but the folks who put these documents together are presenting the information as objectively as they can (in the context of an ORV plan), with the information and science they have available. Keep in mind, 9 times out of ten, extensive scientific studies are not feasible because the parks to do not have the money, and of course we all know how woefully underfunded our public lands are. Because of this, it is absolutely acceptable to look at other studies with similar circumstances, it's done all the time and is not outside the realm of good science.
These issues are not black and white and not easily resolvable...lets keep our minds open to the realities of the situation.
Jack says I've never even come close to hitting a bird, why? Because God gave them wings to escape danger.
The issue is not with adult birds. It is with young birds that cannot yet fly.
Same situation, besides they don't nest near the water where the ORV's travel.
Ryan - are you aware that ORVs are simply 4WD vehicles? ORV is a misnomer - the Tahoes, 4Runners, and CRVs you see patrolling the urban playgrounds each day are all ORVs, according to the NPS. Each plan should be catered or built around evidence found in a particular area. That's like saying California's state budget should be the same as Delaware's. So far at CAHA, peer reviewed science does not exist, hence the general disdain for any prohibitive measures. Both sides agree that some level of conservation is needed. However, the level proposed by Audubon and generally adopted by the NPS is extreme - there has been no compromise. Pro access interest groups have been willing to compromise from the beginning, but their wishes have fallen on deaf ears.
The side that won’t compromise is the ORV side. They believe they are the deciders on what science is junk and what is not. The deciding factor usually being that if it restricts ORV access it is “junk Science”. Yet they decide a dredge spoil site (Cora June) outside of the Park boundary is the cause for the lack of nesting shorebirds in the Park. They fail to mention that there have been spoil site (dredge islands) adjacent to the Park Boundaries for years. Some of those spoil islands had nesting birds on them have completely eroded away like the one that was next to Cora June. In the last 30 years there has probably been a net loss of square footage of spoil sites adjacent to the park. The dredge spoil hypothesis isn’t even “Junk Science”, just made up nonsense to justify ORV use on the beach.
As far as nesting plovers (along with terns, skimmers, and Oyster Catchers chicks) never having been run over on the beach they don’t know that they haven’t. All the scientific evidence suggests it was a very high probability that it has occurred. Adult birds do get run over by vehicles on the beach I have witness gulls being hit by vehicles.
Hey Matt I got a science experiment for you. Lets make a dozen plover chick decoys (ping pong ball size and sand colored) and hide them on the beach at Cape Point. Do you want to bet me that some of them won’t get crushed? I’ll give you pretty good odds but I get to hide them.
That is not really the point for me. The point being that a lame disingenuous argument that plovers have not been documented being crushed in CHNS by ORVs is “Junk Science” makes your side look just foolish, belligerent and uncompromising to many of us that believe there is a time and place for ORV use in CHNS.
Anonymous ,
yes I am aware that ORV's are a general term and that 4-runners, Jeeps, etc. fall under that umbrella. But that does not detract from my point that ORV's tend to be destructive. I would actually make the case that someone driving a 4-runner on the beach would have the potential to do more damage because of their lack of experience driving off road...just a hypothesis.
On a personal note...my family has strong ties to CAHA and my wife's family has been going there for 40 years. I was there a month ago (part of my bi-annual trip to CAHA) and I had never seen so many cars on the beach. My father in-law (who has 40 years of experience to draw upon) said he has never seen the beach so crowded and tore up. Now this is just what he said, I am not old enough to verify that, but I believe him. My point is the balance between uses seems out of whack and now the physical resource as well as the visitor experience is suffering. Just how I see things.
Close the beaches to all or let the park system sell it off for a profit like the audubon does. I have little patience for (people) who claim one thing and state another.
"As far as nesting plovers (along with terns, skimmers, and Oyster Catchers chicks) never having been run over on the beach they don’t know that they haven’t."
I can state that they have not and you cannot prove me wrong....Now that is your science at work
"All the scientific evidence suggests it was a very high probability that it has occurred."
Please educate us all, because I have yet to see it and if it existed the Enviro's would have made a shirt with pictures printed on it.
"Adult birds do get run over by vehicles on the beach I have witness gulls being hit by vehicles."
They also die in dumps also lets outlaw these as well or better yet if you want to save gulls please attend a landfill and clean up all of the items you deem dangerous to gulls.
"I am aware that ORV's are a general term and that 4-runners, Jeeps, etc. fall under that umbrella. But that does not detract from my point that ORV's tend to be destructive."
Show me the damages left behind in the sand? A whole summers worth of ORV's have driven on the beaches and after the storms last week not one track remains!
"If you can show me or convince me that ORV's tred lightly on the land, then ORV plans would not be needed at CAHA or anywhere else they are used across the country."
there we go Ryan lumping it all together...This is not the same all around and if it was plovers would only require up to 1000 meters (as stated by the FWS) and not a minimum of the same with 200 meters being the norm everywhere else but CAHA.
"but the folks who put these documents together are presenting the information as objectively as they can (in the context of an ORV plan), with the information and science they have available. Keep in mind, 9 times out of ten, extensive scientific studies are not feasible because the parks to do not have the money, and of course we all know how woefully underfunded our public lands are. Because of this, it is absolutely acceptable to look at other studies with similar circumstances, it's done all the time and is not outside the realm of good science."
Well lets now change it from junk science to extremely frugal science, cheap science, dollar general science, or even governmental science. Either way this statement alone proves that if it is spoken by the master you will listen...
"Both Alternative F and the biological opinion address pedestrians, as well as predation. Neither single out ORVs. The rub, no doubt, stems from the fact that this is an "ORV" plan, not an "ORV and Pedestrian" plan or a "Wildlife Protection" plan."
Correct Kurt if it were about the birds then why dont we build them a habitat on pea island where they would be in a vehicle free zone? Lets not start up with that would not be natural or that is changing an environment by humans and not nature. If we can justify killing predators, caging eggs, putting up miles of signage and string (which according to the science used by others can and does kill birds when they run into these signs and strings even though we cannot prove it)
This comment has been edited to delete gratuitous language -- Ed.
Matt,
If frugal science is a problem with you, please, please get some people together and lobby congress to better fund the parks. The parks have to follow the law just like everyone else, and by law, the parks are mandated to protect the resource while providing opportunities for recreation. And the NPS can only do within the resources they have available.
Selling the land off or giving it back to the state, sure...I am willing to bet that much of the beaches now used by the public would be private and no-one would be allow to do anything if it was not afforded the current level of protection. There are plenty of examples of prime shoreline, or prime mountain real estate, whatever, that were not protected and are now lined with million dollar mansions with private ownership of the beach or land in front of it. (see Cape Cod for one example)
As for showing you damage caused by ORV use, it impacted my visitor experience, and I am visitor just like anyone else, and this is a recreation area, right? So why should my experience be of less value than those of an ORV user?
BTW, I partake in the ORV experience on the beach and have spent plenty of time on barrier island type environments. I enjoy driving on the beach, but I am also willing to concede to the NPS when they say a closure is necessary, we can't have it all.