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

Matt

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

Do you believe that vehicles in CAHA have never crushed shorebird chicks because there is no “physical documentation”? Is there any reason to protect chicks from vehicles?
(With that logic one could assume that Martians planting crops were just likely to have caused craters on the planet as an asteroid impacting the Martian surface, because no one documented the event.)

“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.”

It is not the “intention of the 99% of the people” I am worried about. It is the documented evidence of what the ocean beach becomes when 100’s of cars go cruising in a few miles of beach to claim their piece of paradise for the day.

Many of us who enjoy driving on the beach have come to the conclusion that any beach driving today is an activity that is unacceptable with current management. Yet all (environmental groups) have been willing to compromise and agreed to continue to support beach driving in CHNS. The continued mudsling by ORV groups that the “environmentalist” won’t compromise is incorrect.


There actually has been physical documentation of recreational vehicles running over other species of bird chicks at Cape Hatteras, there's just not documentation of plover chicks being ran over. Unless the laws of physics are magically suspended at Cape Hatteras for plover chicks, I have no doubts based on evidence from other beaches where they were actually looking, that at some point in the past, both chicks and nests have been ran over.


MAN. You did it again Kurt. Did you have to put in that " Vehicles can, and do, run over ..........." Look at what that started. Reminds me of Neg Reg all over again. Can you tell why it wasn't successful. There is only one distinct difference between the two sides. One just wants to be a part of nature and enjoy the experience of CAHA as it was intended and the other wants to take that privilege away from them. Plain and simple. Just Read Between The Lines.
As always,
Ron (obxguys)


One just wants to be a part of nature and enjoy the experience of CAHA oblivious to the consequences of their actions and the other side wants to preserve the historical flora and fauna of the Park for present and future visitors to experience.
Yes, I can tell why the reg/neg was not successful.


I can see this plan doing more harm than good. The island does not contain enough habitat for a sustanable population that will reduce the threat. It will create congested areas of vehicles. This will be another problem to be solved which will create another. The natural state of the island needs to be defined when attempting to save. How far back in time does natural become. Anyway as I see it this plan does not solve a problem it only creates a demand in funding. And sorry to say funding is going to be dern hard to get 1.3 trillion deficit. Good luck to all.
From South Nags Head.


Kurt in SNH

You bring up an excellent point about the funding. With a 1.3 trillion deficit everything in this country needs to take a funding hit. All the money in the world would not solve CHNS problems.

The Park already had a serious problem with congestion of vehicles at key resource areas.

Mike Murray is literally "cutting the baby in two". It is an awful plan for all concerned. The proposed plan just exacerbates all the problems this Park already has. Just because both sides are unhappy doesn't make it a compromise or good for the Park. I hope someone above him can do something better before this is done but it is probably to late.


I don't believe the park will get the funds needed to implement the plan. Congress will maintain and thats all. The park may find itself dependent on those evil ORVs for the needed revenue stream. I love irony.


Anonymous
How many of you guys are there ? And who the heck are they. You make it personal when you respond specifically to my post but, you are not at all personal, you are anonymous.
I don't recall disturbing any flora or fauna. So get off my case !

Ron (obxguys)


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.