You are here

Fish And Wildlife Service Says ORV Plan for Cape Hatteras National Seashore Could Be Helpful to Plovers, Sea Turtles

Share

The National Park Service's preferred plan for dealing with off-road vehicles at Cape Hatteras could potentially adversely impact sea turtles, piping plovers, and seabeach amaranth, but U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials don't think that will happen. NPS photo.

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

Ryan first you state this...

"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?"

And then this....

"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. "

I am guessing your experience was impacted by you?

I too will concede to the NPS when needed, but the NPS did not make the 1000 meter buffer (instead of the normal 200 meter) that closes down large amounts of this pristine area it was the Enviro law suit that did so. It was not the visitors fault or even the ORV users fault it was simply another example of someone using legal action to get their agenda into law.

BTW I use my ORV to access the beach and not to recreate on it. It is simply a tool to get to the spots where I can relax on a beach without a thousand towels around me. It is simply a way for my kids to actually get to experience this wonderful place without having to cross hundered of yards on extremely hot sand and havine the means to transport what a beachgoer would call needed items like an umbrella or easy up, chairs, and a cooler with cold drinks and sandwiches so we can stay more than a few minutes. I wish people would realize that 99% of people who do drive on the beach do so to get to the place they call their paradise and not to just drive on the beach to tear it up. If indeed you do drive on these beaches then you know these statements are true.


I guess I was not clear...having too many vehicles on the beach impacts the visitor experience...and no, I do not know how many that is, which is why it is difficult to manage.


"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."

If my argument that plovers have not been documented being crushed at CHNS by ORVs is lame and disingenuous, then conversely the argument that they have (without offering proof) is also.

Just like applying Fire Island studies to CAHA while ignoring the Cora June birds just outside the boundary, Audbon/DOW/SELC only want to allow information when it benefits them. Any thing that does not benefit the ultimate goal to deny ORV access is dismissed.

As far as FWS and NPS employees using junk science, they have and will continue to do so as Alternative F, 1st Draft was written by DOW/SELC/Audubon and presented as the Consent Decree. 1000-meter PIPL buffers, buffers for State 'species of concern' AMOY and other restrictions not seen at any other NPS 'park' came directly from the Consent Decree. The ORV Plan is based heavily on the Consent Decree.

It is apparent that nesting areas in the Seashore have grown up with vegetation, forcing the birds to the water's edge and to the spoil islands to avoid predators. If a scientist is truly interested in why birds numbers have dropped, why would this factor not be explored or even recognized?

How does asking for proof of a statement provided as 'best-available science' make us look 'foolish, belligerent and uncompromising'? I think that continuing to assert that claim, refusing to provide that proof while resorting to name-calling is none too glamorous.


We agree on that Too Many Vehicles does impact the experience, but I have rarely experienced this, in my 20 years coming down, as we do not tend to stop at those locations. We did go to the point this year in late august and it was not bad at first but then became increasingly crowded, so we moved...


"I guess I was not clear...having too many vehicles on the beach impacts the visitor experience...and no, I do not know how many that is, which is why it is difficult to manage." - Ryan

Not being able to use my vehicle to access parts of the Seashore impacts my visitor experience.

What is being presented as an ORV plan is a disregard for the people that use their vehicles to access their recreation site. As a regular user to CAHA, 'ORV-ing' is not my recreation. We are not driving up and down the beach for recreation. We use our vehicles to transport supplies and equipment for sun-bathing, swimming, fishing, kayaking, etc. to the water's edge and then we park for the rest of the time.

All vehicles are street-legal and on average more modern than what you see on paved streets. I would argue that most are better maintained that the average street vehicle. The beach is no place to have a breakdown. Wreckers are very expensive at about $300.

Unfortunately, many people that wish to weigh in on this argument have never actually been to CAHA. Instead they believe what is written in a press release or an article in a travel magazine written by an employee of one of the groups with an interest in denying ORV access. They picture a bunch of rednecks in jacked-up, oil-leaking pickup trucks speeding down the beach while drinking beer and throwing cans out the window.

I have two college degrees, all my teeth, and my vehicle is a 3-year-old pickup truck with all stock equipment with the exception of add-ons like a cooler/rod rack and a rack for kayaks. I follow the rules of the beach and I expect others to do so also. I always have a trash bag and walk around and collect any trash that may have washed up.

In my circle of friends, I'm pretty average. We all care deeply for the beach and its inhabitants. We think we are part of the ecosystem and want to help protect it from harm. We disagree with the anti-vehicle crowd about the best way to do that.

We think the interior areas should be cleared to their former state so that the birds can once again nest and breed in those areas with less predation. We think that turtle nests that are in danger of being washed away by the ocean should be relocated to insure their survival. We think that people being on the beach at night is an preferred way to reduce predator activity instead of having NPS kill hundreds of predators each year.

Unfortunately, DOW/SELC/Audobon disagree with all of these thoughts. They declare that we are the real cause of the damage.

Imagine how incensed you would be if someone showed up out of the blue one day and accused you of injuring something you love. Then they started a process that attempted to take that thing from you, declaring that you were unfit to have it.

That is the feeling that we have and may explain the hostility and resentment that we show to the people that have done this to us and continue to do this to us. As NPS announces the ORV plan, these same groups are still not content with how much access we have left and are already pressing to take more.

It appears they will not be content until there is none. That is our reality.


Get this straight. 8 Villages with a total population exist WITHIN the park's boundaries. The DOI promised us a road, support of our tourist based economy, and continued traditional access to our beaches for fishing and recreation. In return we gave them almost all our land.

Now we are left with a road that washes out at the drop of a hat as opposed to a road that was to be moved as necessary and no outlet for recreation.

There are at least 100 miles of unihabitated barrier islands and many opportunities for spoil islands for the birds. Let us be and let us live our lives in peace.


Anonymous said:

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on November 18, 2010 - 2:45pm.

"Without documentation you have no real science, just the 'maybe', 'probably', and 'possibly' junk science that is passed off as 'best-available science'.

Again, without documentation you have NO science."

This has been the ORV special interest group's problem from the very beginning. Little if anything they say about science has any documentation, i.e., it is not anywhere close to real science. The ORV special interest group's constant refrain is based on "maybe," "probably," and "possibly" -- that is: opinion and I-want-it-to-be-so passed off as authoritative science. And a basis to denegrate, reject, and dismiss what actually is the best available science.

But. . . trade it back and forth, and say it enough times, and it becomes fact. That the ORV special interest group has repeated the "environmental junk science" mantra enough times for them to believe it and try to spread it.

Prove that the environmental science behind what is going on is, in fact, junk science. Or at least provide some basis to "refudiate" it.

Ginny says:

". . .continued traditional access to our beaches for fishing and recreation. In return we gave them almost all our land.

Now we are left with a road that washes out at the drop of a hat as opposed to a road that was to be moved as necessary and no outlet for recreation.

There are at least 100 miles of unihabitated barrier islands and many opportunities for spoil islands for the birds. Let us be and let us live our lives in peace."

Question: Move the road to where?

Question: Traditional access to beaches?

Tearing up the beach with ORVs laden with giant coolers and barbecue outfits is traditional? Parking four deep on the beach is traditional? Traditional access exceeds one vehicle per 20 linear feet?

"Let us be and let us live our lives in peace" might have worked in 1953. But this is the real world, and even Ginny must realize that those days are gone. With tourism providing the overwhelming portion of the Hatteras economy, and construction of vacation homes being another major employer, it simply is silly to continue to claim that Hatteras should be protected as a traditional cultural property area. McMansion vacation real estate rentals and t-shirt shops are not particularly traditional. Neither are the tricked-out ORVs that now dominate many areas of the beach.

Get real.

Oh. And the birds were there first. They are traditional.
.


Submitted by Redford (not verified) on November 19, 2010 - 6:05pm.

Anonymous says:

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on November 18, 2010 - 2:45pm.

"Without documentation you have no real science, just the 'maybe', 'probably', and 'possibly' junk science that is passed off as 'best-available science'.

Again, without documentation you have NO science."

This has been the ORV special interest group's problem from the very beginning. Little if anything they say about science has any documentation, i.e., it is not anywhere close to real science. The ORV special interest group's constant refrain is based on "maybe," "probably," and "possibly" -- that is: opinion and I-want-it-to-be-so passed off as authoritative science. And a basis to denegrate, reject, and dismiss what actually is the best available science.

But. . . trade it back and forth, and say it enough times, and it becomes fact. That the ORV special interest group has repeated the "environmental junk science" mantra enough times for them to believe it and try to spread it.

Prove that the environmental science behind what is going on is, in fact, junk science. Or at least provide some basis to "refudiate" it.

Annymous writes:

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on November 19, 2010 - 1:09pm.

"Unfortunately, many people that wish to weigh in on this argument have never actually been to CAHA. Instead they believe what is written in a press release or an article in a travel magazine written by an employee of one of the groups with an interest in denying ORV access. They picture a bunch of rednecks in jacked-up, oil-leaking pickup trucks speeding down the beach while drinking beer and throwing cans out the window."

The ORV special interest group continues to chant this mantra, as well. Another say-it-enough-times-and-it-will-be-true excuse to denegrate, reject, and dismiss the interests and concerns of others. And to denegrate, reject, and dismiss the facts that others have just as many rights to express opinions about beach access, and to work to preserve Outer Banks resources as they belive appropriate.

Unfortunately, the ORV special interest group refuses to acknowledge that others also have legitimate interests and rights, based in law, as relate to Outer Banks beaches. And love those beaches just as much as the ORV special interest group.

Ginny says:

". . .continued traditional access to our beaches for fishing and recreation. In return we gave them almost all our land.

Now we are left with a road that washes out at the drop of a hat as opposed to a road that was to be moved as necessary and no outlet for recreation.

There are at least 100 miles of unihabitated barrier islands and many opportunities for spoil islands for the birds. Let us be and let us live our lives in peace."

Question: Move the road to where?

Question: Traditional access to beaches?

Tearing up the beach with ORVs laden with giant coolers and barbecue outfits is traditional? Parking four deep on the beach is traditional? Traditional access exceeds one vehicle per 20 linear feet?

"Let us be and let us live our lives in peace" might have worked in 1953. But this is the real world, and even Ginny must realize that those days are gone. With tourism providing the overwhelming portion of the Hatteras economy, and construction of vacation homes being another major employer, it simply is silly to continue to make claims such as Hatteras deserving special status, and being protected as a traditional cultural property area. McMansion vacation real estate rentals and t-shirt shops are not particularly traditional. Neither are the tricked-out ORVs that now dominate many areas of the beach.

Oh. And the birds were there first. They are traditional.
.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.