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
"those evil ORVs for the needed revenue stream" This is so typical.
Other than taxes paid by all (or at least those without good accountants) Orv users and beach goers are the only people providing funding to this National Park.
I Know the NPS will not be given any money to impliment this plan, but this is no concern to the Enviros closing the beaches is cheap costs only some signage and string to decorate our national park with. I assure you they will find the money to make permanently closed signs and distribute about 5 miles of string and stakes to close the rest come April. Unlike my Kurt I know this again only affects the ORV groups and those who want access to the beaches. The prefered plan leaves open roughly half the shore to ORV's, until April when they will close more than half of that for prenesting closures. The Enviros will have you believe otherwise with science based on theory and odds are statements.
Everyone blurts out save this park for future generations as a lump it all together statement... Well people have been driving on these beaches for 50+ years and yet the beaches are still there and except for natural changes due to tides and storms still looks more the same than not. go back to the turn of the previous century and this island was covered in trees and even less inviting to the Plovers before man cut them all down (just another example of pick and chose when it comes to Enviro's facts). I do not see anyone saying bring back those good old days? Which future generation are we saving this for? Is not this generation the future one from 20 years ago? What are we saving? A bird that requires you to have a spotting scope with a range of 1,000 yards to see, a turtle that rarely frequents these beaches as compared to those south of here, and what is any Environmentalist doing to assist in saving these creatures besides suing the Government and fencing them inside string and signage. 15 plovers fledged and 16 plover chicks died but nobody knows why because we could not see them so we have to take the word of the very people who want beach lovers gone.
And Crot... unless you have proof then this did not happen. No chicks have been run over in CAHA. Prove it otherwise and I will concede, but until then leave the laws of physics to the professionals.
Ron (obxguys) sez:
I don't recall disturbing any flora or fauna.
And there lies the problem.
Matt,
"unless you have proof then this did not happen. No chicks have been run over in CAHA. Prove it otherwise and I will concede, but until then leave the laws of physics to the professionals."
You are guilty of speaking in broad generalizations as much as those you are criticizing. There are no absolutes, and your statement is absurd. Do we have proof, I have no idea, but your statement about the difficulty in seeing these chicks kinda disproves your statement above.
Saving a bird you have to "have a spotting scope with a range of 1,000 yards to see" or protecting a " turtle that rarely frequents these beaches as compared to those south of here" is not a rational argument. What qualifies you to make this determination of what is important and what is not. Are there other sites these birds and turtles live and breed, sure, but why do we as humans have the right to extinguish their existence on CAHA so we can drive on a beach to recreate? And thats the argument right? Driving on the beach trumps all other users and all other forms of life?
I understand your desire to drive on the beaches of CAHA to get to areas you see as important, really, I do get that, and have done it myself. However, what I feel you are failing to grasp is that the NPS, like it or not, has to protect the wildlife of the park, it is plain and simple the law. If they were to ignore the birds and turtles and let people do whatever they want, then they would not be upholding their mission as a park and as an agency. They need to take reasonable actions to protect the wildlife and the "natural" ecosystem, and doing nothing is not reasonable. Is this plan the best way to deal with issues, maybe not, is/was it an exercise in futility, maybe. But they had to do it and trying to please two disparate groups such as the Audubon Society and the Pro-ORV folks is damn near impossible.
I wish I had the answer, I would be a famous and rich man, but I cannot stress the importances of trying to look at everything critical and not through a pro-bird lens or a pro-use lens. It is just not that simple.
Ryan evidentally IRONY escapes you. I indeed was speaking in broad generalizations, but did so to prove a point (that they are stupid) and I see at least one gets it.
As far as the birds being hard to see it is because of 1,000 meter buffers, not the camoflage!! Reading comprehension is next on my agenda.
My desires is simply to have access to my National Park. How I chose to do it or how someone else chooses to do it is irrelevant as the NPS alternative closes several beaches permanently and the remainder will close on 4/2011.
"but why do we as humans have the right to extinguish their existence on CAHA so we can drive on a beach to recreate?"
Anytime I have mentioned driving on the beach, I have always stated it is to get to the recreation and not to recreate, but how could I possibly expect anyone such as you to remember a factual statement as that.
"And thats the argument right? Driving on the beach trumps all other users and all other forms of life?"
Just as the NPS killing off hundreds of what they deem predators to protect what 15 birds? Or putting up cages to prevent other creatures from eating is overriding nature to protect nature? Who or what deems what creatures shall survive? According to the LAW as you call it the NPS does on Cape Hatteras. It seems funny how that works. What is left of the National Park when the beaches are closed to humans if these birds do succeed in flourishing? I guess future generations will get to enjoy it, but who knows how far into the future that is?
Show me a picture of a little bird and tell me it is in danger and that it habitat is shared by big oil dripping ORV's who are driven by drunk rednecks and the donations of the blind sheep will roll in. We then gather these funds and hire a lawfirm who specializes in these sort of things, find a sympathetic Judge and SUE the government because the government failed to do its job in the first place.
I can appreciate your argument Matt, but attacking me personally just makes your argument that much less palatable.
I guess in this instance I will be the fool and you the professor.
Ryan
Attacking people with different opinions by mind reading the inner working of enviros minds is the part and parcel of the radical ORV recreationalists, go to one of the 4 local ORV active web sites and read their comments.
It is interesting; to Matt driving to his fishing spot on the National Park beach is not of any recreational interest to him. I disagree, when you are driving a vehicle on the NPS beach that is a recreational activity.
Matt
"Well people have been driving on these beaches for 50+ years and yet the beaches are still there and except for natural changes due to tides and storms still looks more the same than not. Go back to the turn of the previous century and this island was covered in trees and even less inviting to the Plovers before man cut them all down."
If you look at the historical photos there has been a considerable loss of ocean beach. The beach has changed since the 1930's probably due to the building and stabilizing of dunes (according to Dr. Orrin Pilkey and Dr. Stanley Riggs coastal geologist)
The amount of ORV use on the beach has increased to the point where to some that activity has impacted the fundamental reason why this Park was established. It has nothing to do (for me or any of the enviromentalist I know) of removing people from the Park. It is about regulating recreational activities that are impairing the Park. Plovers are merely the canary in the coalmine.
matt Stubbs said:
“My desires is simply to have access to my National Park. . . .
Anytime I have mentioned driving on the beach, I have always stated it is to get to the recreation and not to recreate, but how could I possibly expect anyone such as you to remember a factual statement as that.”
It seems that the ORV special interest lobby wants all of the beach – “my National Park.” Drive anywhere, anytime to get where they want to go -- never mind what it does to the beach or flora and fauna, and never mind how it affects other people who also wish to enjoy the natural environment and its resources, without some tricked-out ORV making noise, making pollution, and creating transient hazards.
And once that tricked-out ORV gets to its recreation, it completely dominates and expropriates the location. One need only look at photos from the Point and Oregon Inlet to see ORVs parked door-to-door and two- and three-deep.
Here is what one member of the ORV special interest lobby members posted on another CAHA-related board as the necessities for recreation on the beach, once at the selected recreation spot:
"typical needs of my family for beach day....
2 surfboards
coupla' boogie boards
minimum 2 rods pp
tackle box
pyramid weights
rod spikes
beach towels
beach chairs (not everybody gets one)
cooler to hold (hopefully) fish caught
cooler for food & drink
bait cooler
2-5 gallon buckets
shelling bags
garbage bags
i've probably forgotten something"
Redford,
A little reality for you is that is "MY NATIONAL PARK" As I pay taxes and I will recreate in it as I please within the law. I do not own a "tricked out ORV" but I do own a 2007 stock Silverado pickup that does not leak oil. I can attest that I personally have never destroyed any flora and fauna as the areas I have driven on are SAND. To drive elsewhere would be illegal like the dunes.
In the years I have spent coming to Cape Hatteras I have never seen someone walk out onto the beach near the point. So who's vacation are we messing up if we drive out there to fish? I have also only seen the point as crowded as you speak of a few times in those 15+ years of coming down, but that is what your kind does. Find the extreme and say it is the norm to stir the enviro pot.
I guess when you take your trips to the point in Cape Hatteras you walk out their with your children and wife and sit in the sand with your Birkenstocks and humm tree hugging tunes all day without needing water, food, sunscreen, or even a beach towel, just like the National Park (in your mind) was intending.