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
As background, From the NPS Draft Enviromental Impact Statement pp 83 (for Bill S)
Prohibition of ORV use at the Seashore would not meet the purpose, need, and objectives of this
plan/EIS. The purpose of this plan is to “develop regulations and procedures that carefully manage ORV
use/access in the Seashore to protect and preserve natural and cultural resources and natural processes,
provide a variety of visitor use experiences while minimizing minimize conflicts among various users,
and promote the safety of all visitors…” ORV use, if effectively managed, provides convenient access for
many appropriate visitor activities at some popular beach sites including, for example, activities that use
vehicles to transport substantial amounts of gear for the activity. Prohibition, rather than management, of
ORV use could substantially diminish such visitor experience opportunities. Therefore prohibition of all
ORV use would not meet the plan need.
In addition to not meeting the purpose, need, and objectives of this plan/EIS, ORV use is a historical use
at the Seashore that has been accounted for in Seashore planning documents. Management goals related to
ORV use are included in the Seashore’s General Management Plan, which states, “Selected beaches will
continue to be open for ORV recreational driving and in conjunction with surf fishing in accordance with
the existing use restrictions” (NPS 1984). Providing for this use would occur in the context of the overall
planning objective of preserving the cultural resources and the flora, fauna, and natural physiographic
conditions, while providing for appropriate recreational use and public access to the oceanside and
soundside shores in a manner that will minimize visitor use conflict, enhance visitor safety, and preserve
Seashore resources. ORV use preceded the establishment of the Seashore and management of this use,
rather than prohibition, continues to be the intent of the NPS. Because a complete prohibition of ORV use
does not meet the purpose, need, and objectives of this plan/EIS and because ORV use is a use that is
accounted for in Seashore plans and policies, elimination of all ORV use at the Seashore was not carried
forward for further analysis.
Bernie and sea mullet,
I can read and have.
Where does it say that the Seashore should not be managed as a primitive wilderness if there is or is not an ORV route in the Park?
Did I suggest the 2 things (Primitive Wilderness, ORV routes) were incompatible in the Park? I just think they are incompatible at the same time in the same place, particular so at the suggested carrying capacity of one vehicle every twenty feet. If you think I implied that ORV use should not be allowed in the Park you are wrong. I can only assume that you think framing your answer in this way will distort what I said or change the argument into something I’m not addressing.
Of course they didn’t think ORV use was detrimental in 1953. Even with locals using the beach for access before highway 12 today’s ORV use far exceeds the amount of traffic back then. In addition there was much insulation from the little beach traffic then. The ocean beaches were wide; the village beaches were not developed. To suggest that the beach be managed today in the same way it was when the Park was opened does not make sense to me.
The “primitive wilderness” wording was put into the enabling legislation for a specific reason where as you can only assume ORV use was intended. The establishment of Highway 12 certainly changed the context of locals getting from point A to Point B. Why would the enabling legislation have to guarantee something it had not previously identified (ORV access)? In any case I would not argue that ORV use be prohibited in CHNS so I don’t see the relevance in your quoting pp 83 from EIS.
The Park (most likely Mike Murray) has put the ORV side into historical perspective but failed to address the other side (primitive wilderness and NPS aesthetics) into perspective. The Park did not explain the logic or give any suitable criteria for where non-ORV access will be permitted or addressed primitive wilderness. If there are suitable sites for ORV use (“at some popular beach sites”) then there must be suitable sites for a different experience and that experience should provide a primitive wilderness experience to the greatest degree possible.
Please quote the "proven" facts and "volumes of scientific literature" that allegedly support yor statements. In fact, the recreation area was established as just that, area to be used for recreational means. Also, the enabling legislation, has allowed for the preservation of natural resources for posterity. Your problem is that you fail to recognize what is fact or scientific fiction. Please, cite specific examples of peer-reviewed science that was properly conducted and reviewed. Until you do so your allegations are useless and provocative and only serve the purpose of misleading the public.
"The Park (most likely Mike Murray) has put the ORV side into historical perspective but failed to address the other side (primitive wilderness and NPS aesthetics) into perspective. The Park did not explain the logic or give any suitable criteria for where non-ORV access will be permitted or addressed primitive wilderness. If there are suitable sites for ORV use (“at some popular beach sites”) then there must be suitable sites for a different experience and that experience should provide a primitive wilderness experience to the greatest degree possible."
ahhhh?? How exactly would you define Pea Island then???...isn't that the very definition of primitive wilderness experience?
If we really wanted to address the primitive wilderness issue or status we should consider that a considerable amount of said land is now under water and NPS boundary ends at the low tide line on the ocean side.Which low tide line should be considered 1937 or 2010 as the enabling legislation did not address this either.My point is that there are areas set aside without the interim plan or consent decree mandates that satisfy the needs of all recreation and primitive wilderness needs.Should Pea Island be Developed?Of course not!Should the beaches that are used mostly used by vacationers in the villages be shut down for primitive wilderness needs?No again!(although i have seen
plovers on these beaches but never a closure).Should the most popular fishing beaches be shut down during the peak runs of game fish for primitive wilderness needs?No.If you are one that believes the entire seashore should remain untouched to remain in its wilderness state with no flexibility then lets all give up and stay away and let the wrath of mother nature take its course!!!Should sections of land be closed of to all people for the sake of hoping a threatened bird will land there and nest.This is happening in places where no nest have ever been.I use to be a very understanding and compromising person but following this issue over the last seven years I have seen how opponents of orv access have compromised.That would be a big NONE for them.So my stance has become fight back with every legal means possible and not give a inch.This DEIS is not the last word by any means.
to pipe in here for a moment. All the posts have been an education so I thank ya for that. Only if ya don't come to some consensus on the priorities, re-read the other Kurts post on Yellowstone, 10+ million and an ever changing plan will come to a park near you.
Bill S. I simply posted a section from the DEIS.
Guess for some it boils down to what constitutes "primitive wilderness". To me it means a limit on man-made structures. Certainly hard to be miles away from the trappings of modern life in CHNSRA.
So as you drive between the villages on Hwy 12, what do you see? Essentially nothing man-made other than the occasional ramp, a grown over camp ground and a few small parking lots. Is this not "primitive wilderness?" Or does Hwy 12 spoil it for you. Or the appearance of a vehicle on the beach?
If it's more of a primitive wilderness beach experience you want, Cape Lookout has it in spades. And Shackleford Banks prohibits all vehicles. Tho with CALO difficult to get back to AC, cable TV, restaurants and Internet access at the end of the day of experiencing "primitive wilderness'. :-D
Odd thing is Pea Island Wildlife Refuge is the most altered section of Hatteras Island (other than the villages) with the buildings, berms and ponds.
Kurt G I agree that untold millions of dollars have been wasted and consensus would be the right approach.BUT!!! We have to look a little deeper for the truth.I have been coming to CHNSRA for 36 years and have had only one peaceful encounter with an orv opponent.The real CULPRITS are the large environmental groups and their lawyers that have an agenda to exploit the system while in the public eye do some good things(Yes I said it).Its a WIN WIN for them until all these acts are cleared up by Congress.If negotiations had taken place between common folks I feel everyone could have walked away smiling.Unfortunately you can guess who was setting at the table and zero, none, nada consensus was reached after a year of meetings.To compromise for them is to give away an opportunity to sue.This is a national problem and if it is not stopped millions more will be spent.We have been called beach bums by(environmental groups)and nature haters and rednecks through their press releases but again face to face only one peaceful discussion on the beach for me.Actually i have had more encounters with my fellow beach loving fisherman but it always resulted in meeting a new friend for me.