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
You guys make it sounds as if wildlife protection closures/restrictions/mitigations aren't [or shouldn't be] SOP in NPS units.
There's a paddling closure right now for Drakes Estero in Point Reyes NS during the seal pupping season. There's an off-leash dog restriction at Golden Gate NRA for the protection of the western snowy plover. Just recently a popular rock climbing route at Pinnacles NM was closed off because a couple of California condors have chosen the top of the cliff as their nesting site. Even for lake-based national recreation areas where powerboats, water-skiing, and houseboats dominate, the NPS takes steps to mitigate the effects on protected species.
And did anyone read the following:
/2010/02/return-peregrine-prompts-viewing-opportunities-and-seasonal-closures-several-parks5387
/2010/03/temporary-climbing-closures-place-rocky-mountain-national-park-protect-nesting-raptors5490
I think alot of people have lost sight of the underlying issue here. The DOW, SELC, and others have effectively said they would like to see ORV's banned from the Seashore and pedestrian access limited. Everyone agree? Banning ORV's effectively reduces access to the beach by 80-90% due to the remoteness of the site as well as lack of facilities (parking, restrooms, etc.). So the real question is at what point does it make sense to go to these extreme measures to protect wildlife?
The Seashore is at the edge of the PIPL range and has shown year after year that it is not very hospitable to these birds due to predators and weather. PIPL have been recovering recently and should be concidered for removal from the ESL within the next few yrs. It is not like there are only a few breeding pairs left. So the bottom line is, is it worth shutting down (or severly limiting) access to OUR Seashore to gain three extra breeding pairs a year? 5 more a year? 10 more a year? Scientific studies conclude that removal of ORV/pedistrians will have little to no effect on improving PIPL fledge rates at the Seashore. So what is the goal? Is it worth severely harming the island economy for a handful more plover? A species that is already improving in numbers? Is it worth telling my children they can never experience fishing at Cape Point while watching some of the most beautiful sunsets ever? All because of literally a few birds? Is there no middle ground that can be met? Just another example of how common sense has left our society.
Y P W
I think you just made everyone's point. No one is saying that there should not be some protection for the birds and turtles (some buffers, small seasonal closure here and there when birds show etc), they are just saying that in CH they do not follow typical protocol. And are far to aggressive with full beach closures and the like.
All of the examples you gave above result in minor changes. Off-leash dog restriction? In CH that would be a full beach closure with a 1000m buffer. We would kill to have an off leash dog restriction as the least of our worries.
No paddle during pup season? we will call that turtle season, and no lights at night, and full beach closure dunes to the tide. no access to points beyond. For months.
Rock climbing route closed?--well for starters the condor is highly endangered (none endangered here), and scientist already removed the egg and will replace it with a captive egg. so thus viewing and monitoring is being done around the clock--But for jollys we will call that the route to cape point. There are still plenty of ways to climb that rock wall with one route closed. When you close the route to cape point you cant get there anymore!
Ken,
Perhaps Bias was premature, as you can point to many instances you have allowed public input from both sides. But I don't need to know anything about that other park, because someone told me since I am a taxpayer and it is a national park I can voice my value about it not being carried out there (You). haha no worries.
Seriously though.
Yet everyone keeps hiding behind "Gov. mandated this" "the act of organic that" blah blah blah.
I really meant whats your opinion, not if they can follow this and that then its ok by you.
I am asking common sense approach. Not what is mandated. Throw all of that out the window. When is it time to really say ok this is pretty darn ridiculous? From a typical normal straightforward approach the costs of all of this nonsense, has not produced any tangible measurable solid success (except for the lawyers). Only stats that can be twisted and contested by both sides. (Turtle numbers, fledged birds etc).
On another note.
insisting the amendment to add "recreational area" was only implemented to allow hunting, is about like saying the second amendment was only put in the constitution for militia purposes. And because it does not specifically mention target shooting, personal defense, and collector items, they do not apply. We all know how that ended in court.
Persons previous stance has been that since Sec. 459a-2 does not specifically say ORV, than the term recreational area has no bearing. I disagree as noted above.
---
I just think there should be a more common sense approach, promoting both recreational ACCESS, and nature CONSERVATION SIDE BY SIDE, not one before the other.
It sounds to me as if the discussion is about changes to the status quo. I don't see anyone saying there can't be compromises regardless of what side one is on.
And yeah - I have heard of complete closure of some areas as a wildlife protection area. Haleakala NP has maybe a quarter of its area defined as the Kipahulu Valley Biological Reserve, which is off limits to the public.
http://www.nps.gov/hale/naturescience/forest-kipahulu.htm
As for the seal pupping issue, I think there has been talk to restrict trail access. There are also some pretty nice beaches which I wouldn't mind checking out one of these days, but it's a no-go if there are seals lounging around. The vast majority of seal disturbances seem to be attributed to kayakers and loud hikers, but so far the hikers haven't been restricted.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-01-17/bay-area/17151695_1_elephant-seals...
YPW,
You guys make it sounds as if wildlife protection closures/restrictions/mitigations aren't [or shouldn't be] SOP in NPS units.
That about sums it up.
They were against the closures before they were for them. They bad-mouthed everyone and their dog because of the interim plan, but once the consent decree was signed, the interim plan is the greatest thing since sliced bread. If you pay attention, it appears to them a "reasonable" closure is one which doesn't close any shoreline and pins the chicks back into the 140 degree dunes (thanks dap) and blocks access to the intertidal zone which the chicks prefer and allows ORVs, except for the villages (and that doesn't sit well with some) unfettered access from one end of the island to the other.
They make an effort to complain about the 1000 meter chick buffer, but in the two years of the consent decree (if I recall correctly) it's been other species with just a 150 meter buffer that have closed the majority of access, including to the Point. The history at Cape Hatteras shows us, any closure to protect the nesting species, no matter how small, is going to be met with resistance. (as we can see in WharfRat's comment)
Personally, I think there could be some reductions and exceptions added to the current buffers, but that still wouldn't make some folks happy.
And, if they were the great stewards of the environment they claim to be, why didn't they notice the precipitous decline of the species which nest on Hatteras' beaches and voice their concern?
WharfRat,
The seashore IS NOT at the edge of the plover's range. One might be able to say Cape Lookout is, but they have more than 40 pair.
ANON,
Just a few clarifications... If the Sand is 140 degrees at the dune what temp is it ten feet away? Let me help by saying the SAME 140 degrees... (Even if these temps were taken outside of the breeding season, Yes I can actually read the facts stated by Dapster and not only the parts I choose.)
The reason why the 150 meter buffers close the beach is because so few plovers choose to nest on these great beaches.
We will continue to challenge the sizes of the closures as long as they are as silly as 1000 meters for a bird the size of a mouse.
What happens when you clear the beaches of humans? Does the NPS then poison, trap, and exterminate the predators like foxes, raccoons, and Ghostcrabs? Once this is complete and the plovers have free rein of the beaches and yet still do not prosper, What is next?
For those who keep putting thier 2 cents in Why don't we try some constructive posting for once.
Answer this question:
What is you IDEA of what a national park is for and whom should be allowed to enjoy it?
Tirecatcher
The original name is Body Island not Bodie Island! Don't believe it? After the lighthouse has been restored take a tour, learn some history.
The CHNSRA was designated as such by Congress for the people to enjoy the beaches in a recreational manner. People was driving on the beaches there before it was CHNSRA and have done so since. It is wrong to have a special place like this and close it. It is not about saving birds, turtles or animals. Audubon Society immediately after helping close this Recreational Area excepted a 25 million dollar offer for their sanctuary. This sanctuary is 30 miles north of the most northern closure. This sanctuary is ocean front and the the same plovers, turtles that they say need protecting at the CHNSRA also nest and feed on the sanctuary! The sanctuary is set for a high density development. This sanctuary turned resort will always have access for those who can afford it!
So how is it fair that an area where anyone could visit be closed? Is the beaches supposed to be for only those that can afford the high price of condos , hotels and houses! The CHNSRA is for everyone not just the rich or well to do!
So you decide what this is really about, animals, birds and turtles or Money!
Matt retorts:
Just a few clarifications... If the Sand is 140 degrees at the dune what temp is it ten feet away? Let me help by saying the SAME 140 degrees... (Even if these temps were taken outside of the breeding season, Yes I can actually read the facts stated by Dapster and not only the parts I choose.)
Which is why the chicks prefer wrack and the intertidal zone and not "ten feet away". And daps pic was July 4. The breeding (chick) season is at it's peak during this time.
The reason why the 150 meter buffers close the beach is because so few plovers choose to nest on these great beaches.
That doesn't make a lick of sense. 150 meter buffers closes the beaches, because on average, the beach is less than 50 meters wide.
We will continue to challenge the sizes of the closures as long as they are as silly as 1000 meters for a bird the size of a mouse.
Well, when you become and animal psychic and can let everyone know when and where those chicks are headed on a minute by minute basis, they won't need to be that large. Chicks can easily travel that distance within a day of hatching.
What happens when you clear the beaches of humans? Does the NPS then poison, trap, and exterminate the predators like foxes, raccoons, and Ghostcrabs? Once this is complete and the plovers have free rein of the beaches and yet still do not prosper, What is next?
The beaches haven't been cleared of humans. Strawman. European red fox and feral cats are exotic predators (DUH)! Grey fox, coyotes, opossum, mink and raccoons are invasives that have no business on a barrier island and wouldn't be on them in any numbers (ie populations) if humans had not facilitated the invasion (bridges and altered habitat). And, if thousands of ORVs on the beaches every year can't have an impact on ghost crab numbers, I doubt that there's anything the Park can do.... As for poison, I've not heard anything about the park using poison.
For those who keep putting thier 2 cents in Why don't we try some constructive posting for once.
You first......
Answer this question:
What is you IDEA of what a national park is for and whom should be allowed to enjoy it?
Well, obviously a park is created to preserve wild places for humans to enjoy and for the species which call a park their home to enjoy, and for future generations of humans to be allowed to enjoy the abiotic, as well as observing those species enjoying their home.
Cro