You are here

Draft Environmental Impact Statement on ORV Use at Cape Hatteras National Seashore Released

Share

Cape Hatteras National Seashore has released a hefty draft environmental impact statement that addressed ORV management on the seashore.

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

I will argue that the loss of historic access by ORVs to recreational opportunities in the Seashore as proposed by some NGO's does , in fact, impair the CHNSRA for "the enjoyment of future generations."

"Unnatural" predation? Interesting and perhaps convenient concept. Do you think think ghost crabs and raccoons and 'possums have only recently added shorebird eggs and chicks to their diet? The same predation at about the same rate takes place on sparely populated CALO where Camps are concentrated miles from most of the plover nesting sites.

Shouldn't you add "unatural" weather events as well?

And if you track the trend of human-caused mortality during the bast 15 years, I think that line has been at or essential zero in the past 6 or 7 years.


"In the last few years that we lived there we watched beaches that had been accessible by pedestrian access only for 20 or more years opened to ORVs. These beaches had good parking facilities off the highway for 2 wheel drive vehicles."

First trip to CHNSRA was 1958 and have been accessing the beaches with an ORV since 1974. Minimum of 3 weeks per year.

Other than the seasonal closures in front of the villages and safely closures due to narrow beaches, I'm at a loss to think of any "pedestrian only" areas with good parking facilities that were closed that are now opened.

But I'm getting old, so my memory may be fuzzy. Could you let us know where these area(s) are/were. I'm one that doesn't have an issue with a reasonable number of year-round pedestrian-only areas (not the spits or Cape Point) for predicatability so it would be helpful to know where these areas were.

Thanks.


“I always get a good laugh when the minority ORV special interest supporters change the name of the seashore. It makes no difference what the seashore is called, the legal mandates to protect natural resources remain the same: in conflicts with natural resource protection and recreation, resource protection must be predominant. ORVs on the beach jeopardize natural resources on Cape Hatteras National Seashore. It is a plain and simple fact proven by many volumes of scientific literature and recommendations by the world's leading scientists. ORVs jeopardize birds, jeopardize sea turtles, jeopardize federally listed plants, jeopardize native plant communities of the outer banks. Not a single scientific study or conservation plan recommends 'free and open' ORV 'access' to beaches as a means of natural resource protection.”

In turn, I “always get a good laugh” when people willfully ignore simple facts. The official name of the seashore is, and always has been, “Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area”. Read the Enabling Legislation and get used to seeing that term, as it is quite important to this issue, and it’s not going anywhere. WEATHER EVENTS jeopardize all that you listed far more than ORV’s ever can, which is a well-documented fact. One good Nor’Easter blow and you can’t tell an ORV was ever there.

“The National Park Service was all too generous in giving away the seashore to the minority special interest ORV groups that seek to rid the seashore of those pesky birds and sea turtles that nest on the beach, and those silly little birds that spend much of their lives on the Seashore when away from northern breeding sites. Be gone from our seashore, go somewhere else, we don't care if you die, the ORV special interests say, we want to drive on the beach. It's our "way of life." It's all we know how to do, say the ORV special interests; it's the only way to recreate on the seashore, they scream louder. Our world will end if we can't drive on the beach...

That’s a mighty broad brush you paint with, Spottail, and a totally untruthful one at that. We wish the death of all species except our own? Get real. Environmental NGO’s are “Special Interests” themselves, no? They themselves scream to the sky that “Our World” will come to an end if PIPL fail to recover in this fringe area of their range. Propaganda firmly exists on both sides of this fence, lest you forget.

“The National Park Service has consistently ignored the advice of leading experts and they failed to recognize good faith compromise by the resource protection advocates who did not ask for a ban on beach driving. They ignored their own policy and the law by which they must abide by, and they turned their back on the birds, turtles, and the Seashore itself. In doing so, they have now opened themselves up to a host of legal challenges of the preferred alternative is adopted.”

Might I ask just where you get your information? With so much of it being blatantly false, I’ve just gotta know. The NPS has acted in good faith reaching as far back as 1978, when the original ORV Plan, in response to the 1972 EO, was submitted and summarily LOST by the NPS Atlanta office. Why did the NPS allow it to languish for 30 years? I can’t tell you that, but I can tell you that their problem became our problem, and folks like yourself continue to cast blame on the beach users, rather than where it actually belongs.

Ignored law? Ignored scientists? Don’t think so, mate. By your assertion, the NPS has violated the NEPA process in reaching their preferred alternative? Can you show the class how you arrived at this particular delusion?

The CHNSRA NPS has actually done a pretty fair job of balancing access AND resource protection with their preferred alternative, which was surprising to most of us in the know. Lawsuits? That’s just a matter of course any more on these strips of sand. We’ve been trying to get a stinking bridge built over Oregon Inlet for 20+ years now, and you can just guess who’s been standing in the way of that NEPA approved process.

That’s right, “Majority” Special Interest Groups…

**************************************************************

Crot,

What Bernie said….


The propaganda and rhetoric that environmental groups have used for their public outreach press releases is just that;PROPAGANDA!!!The history and reason for establishing Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area can be found on the NPS website.Its all there in black and white.Read it, ask questions and please defend your rights as a tax paying citizen.Please read the summary of this DEIS.Remember this is only a draft and public comment has to be considered before a final plan can be submitted.I support free and open access to all public land for all citizens wither they be young or old or handicapped.Millions of dollars have already been spent to keep you off the beach and many more will be spent to enforce it unless you read the truth and act by responding during the public comment period.


Va Beach, Virginia
10 Times a year.

From now on, anyone who wants to comment on this article must;

As a header in their response indicate, their place of residence, and how often they visit the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.

This way everyone has a clear picture of who is in the know and whos keeps drinking the Kool-Aid.


Hunter, not sure your idea will fly. As it says in its name, Cape Hatteras is a "national" seashore. As such, how it's managed is of interest to all Americans, whether they've been there or not.

That said, certainly folks who visit the seashore on a regular basis *should* have a better perspective. But that doesn't mean folks who live in California or Alaska can't speak up for values at the seashore they believe should be protected.


Point is people in CA WA etc etc have no idea to the background of what is truly and has gone on here. They have an opinion yes, but unfortunately most often it is not an educated opinion specific to this case. Thus they paint with broad strokes, and no clear reasoning, other than moral opinion. They simply are misinformed, and it would be easier to educate those that are misinformed, than those that live near by and have their own educated opinion.

Speaking up for values, is fine. But to be so far detached from this issue, some have no idea even if their values are truly being compromised here.

"I read it on the internet, therefore it must be true."


Goochland Virginia
at least once per year for a week of relaxation and enjoyment with my children

Hunter has it correct these people that criticize from thier armchairs on the other side of the country really do not see the whole picture. This area was set aside by the federal government "For the enjoyment of the people" See the sign leading you into the first ever national park. For all those who criticize people using 4x4 street legal 4X4's to access Cape Hatteras, you need to think it out more because eliminating the access to this park using these is like eliminating all the paved roads in the remainder of the park system. If you had to park at the outskirts of Yellowstone and walk to any and all areas would you attend? Does the pictures and film showing the general public stopped on the sides of the road and feeding or taking pictures of the animals and flora differ any than the people driving on the beach. I SAY NO. So before you beat down the people who drive and walk out onto the beaches please understand that is the only access provided to them to some of the areas of this wonderful park system.


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.