You are here

Record of Decision on Cape Hatteras National Seashore ORV Plan OKed, But Implementation Months Away

Share

Although an off-road vehicle plan has been approved for Cape Hatteras National Seashore, it will be months before it actually is implemented. NPS photo.

While the final paperwork has been signed concerning an off-road management plan at Cape Hatteras National Seashore, the arduous task of formalizing a rule means the seashore will continue to operate next summer under a consent decree.

The National Park Service's Southeast Region office signed off Monday on the seashore's preferred alternative for managing ORV traffic in a way to protect bird and sea turtle species that receive protection under the Endangered Species Act. To mark the occasion, Tom Strickland, the assistant Interior secretary who oversees fish and wildlife and parks, congratulated the Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for developing a plan that blends recreation and species protection.

"The work of these two agencies shows that the conservation of fish and wildlife and its habitat on the Outer Banks can be consistent with the transportation, recreation, and economic needs of local communities,” said Mr. Strickland in a statement. “I applaud the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service for their commitment to engaging the local communities, gathering ideas, and applying the best science to guide wise management decisions.”

An ORV management plan has been long in coming for Cape Hatteras, though it remains to be seen whether this plan will survive intact. In 2007 two conservation groups -- the Audubon Society and Defenders of Wildlife -- sued the National Park Service for lacking an ORV management plan at Cape Hatteras, which offers nesting and breeding habitat for piping plovers (a threatened species) and five species of sea turtles (Kemp’s ridley, leatherback and hawksbill are all listed as endangered species, while the loggerhead and green are listed as threatened in North Carolina).

Under a consent decree issued as a result of the lawsuit, and intended to guide ORV use on Cape Hatteras until a formal ORV plan could be adopted, tight regulations have governed ORV travel -- overnight driving was banned and temporary closures at times were enacted during breeding seasons.

The ORV plan that the seashore arrived at has been criticized as overkill by ORV and surf caster groups -- they argue 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 -- and termed lacking by conservationists, who say it fails to provide adequate year-round protections for wildlife.

Under the Record of Decision signed Monday, the one both sides have criticized, new parking areas will be built along Highway 12 as well as new access ramps to the beach, and a new trail will allow pedestrians to walk down through the dunes to the beach. It also provides for a "seasonal night-driving restriction ... established from 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. during turtle nesting season, although areas with no turtle nests could open to night driving from September 16 through November 15." Additionally, it calls for an "alternative transportation study and would encourage the establishment of a beach shuttle or water taxi."

Overall, the approved plan will allow for 27.9 miles of year-round designated ORV routes on the seashore, 12.7 miles of seasonal routes, and 26.4 miles of vehicle-free miles.

Whether this option will be challenged in court remains to be seen.

While the Record of Decision has been approved, much work remains before the ORV plan will actually be implemented at Cape Hatteras, according to seashore Superintendent Mike Murray.

The Record of Decision was needed before the seashore staff could draft a proposed rule, which in turn must be approved by both the Interior Department and Office of Management and Budget, the superintendent said Monday. Then draft rule then must be published in the Federal Register and go through a 60-day public comment period, he continued.

After the comment period closes, seashore staff must review the comments and, if necessary, tweak the draft proposed rule.

“The likelihood is that the proposed rule will be published in the first quarter of the new year," said Superintendent Murray. "The final rule is likely to be published sometime in the summer.”

Rather than change the management direction in mid-summer, seashore officials will wait until the fall before implementing the new ORV management plan.

"It would be challenging for everybody. It's kind of hard to switch horses in the middle of a busy season like that," Superintendent Murray said. “We’ll operate under the consent decree until then.”

Comments

From Kurt

"July's vacation rentals along Cape Hatteras were at a record high; the motels, hotels, B&Bs, and campgrounds took in $101.7 million in July, a 16 percent increase over July 2009 revenues."

With all due respect, looking at one year let alone one month makes no sense. So let's look at the big picture. 2003 marked the year that Critical Habitat was designated. 2003 marked the year that NPS closed the inlet year round--they even reposted the closure after Isabel and tried to keep the dredge crews out. 2004 and 2005 marked the years (under Belli) when bird closures were first expanded to the water on a regular basis resulting in effective closures that limited ORV access to 12.6 miles--remember the map from Frank and Fran's. Oh and 2005 was the first ever closure of the point--remember the protest and the armed guards. Ok, with that in mind let's look at the trend in visitation.

From 1997 to 2003 visitation averaged 2.7 million with a peak at 2.9 million in 2002. 2003 was not down but rather at 2.66 million was right in line with the 7 year average of 2.7 million.

In 2004, after the park started treating recreational users like leppers and closing the beaches, visitation fell to 2.2 million. The past 7 years has averaged 2.2 million--a 17.5% decline from the previous 7 years. Now while one can attribute the new, lower visitation level for any single year to this or that, the fact that visitation has stayed at this new lower level for 7 years indicates that there is some underlying reason common to all years. Given our fantastic weather pattern for the last 6 years, the only other common factor is beach access and park treatment of recreational users.

As for the impact on real estate values and businesses, consider the fact that any such impact will not show itself immediately as both real estate and business investments are long term in nature. Think about it, it took time to gear up to servicing the 2.7 million visitation level. Similarly contraction does not happen overnight. That said, after 7 years the new 17.5% lower visitation is taking its toll and since we have not been in a recession for the entire period of 2004 until now, one must conclude that the number of foreclosures, business closures, and the overall decline in property values reflects the reduced level of demand for rentals and services.

Now with a new even more restrictive resource protection, permits, capacity limits, and new parking areas and trails that will likely not be funded, what do you think will happen to visitation and the demand for supplies and services? I guess we will have to suffer through another 7 years to prove the point--if anyone remains after the latest assault.


I have also heard that a large amount of visitation lately is due to the economy with people attempting to recreate in Cape Hatteras versus flying somewhere. This of coarse is only temporary as the economy should improve and the beaches will only close more and more areas for breeding.

Hey who wants to go to a National park with no access to the main events and pay extra for a permit you cannot possibly use?


Just because an areas managed by the NPS has "recreation" in its title does not allow for the degradation of the particular site. All NPS units are still required to adhere to the 1916 Organic act, not arguing here, just stating facts.

From the 1916 Organic act that created the NPS (which, just as a reminder, CAHA is a part of):

"The service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

The whole act:
http://www.nps.gov/legacy/organic-act.htm


Visitation statistics are interesting creatures, but they can be incredibly soft and lead to more questions than answers.

For instance, what was so intriguing about Cape Hatteras in 2002 to spur an increase of more than 330,000 visitors to 2.9 million from the year before? And was the decline in 2003 to 2.6 million due entirely to the critical habitat designations, or was there a mix of bad weather over traditionally peak weekends, ferry problems, other vacation options, economic slumps, or problems with how Cape Hatteras guesstimates visitors?

Why in the past five years has the seashore's annual visitation fluctuated by more than 100,000 on average -- down 135,623 from 2005 (2.26 million) to 2006 (2.12 million), up 112,373 from 2006 to 2007 (2.23 million), back down 90,986 from 2007 to 2008 (2.14 million), and back up 136,151 from 2008 to 2009 (2.28 million)?

According to park notes, March 2009 visitation was down compared to March 2008 as Easter in 2008 fell in March, rather than April, leading to a boost for that month that wasn't matched in 2009.

Those notes also point out that April 2008 counts were erroneous, throwing off the comparison with 2009, and that there were campground flooding problems that delayed the opening of the Cape Point Campground in May 2008. Indeed, the notes reflect a number of visitation counting problems in 2008 that possibly skew the increase reflected by the 2009 numbers.

It's impossible to say what happened in 2007 to affect the counts, as the park notes offer only one entry -- "Park was closed January 2nd due to President Gerald Ford's Funeral."

2006 counts were impacted by a number of factors, from campground and lighthouse closures due to storms to the Whalebone Junction counter being out of service all of June.

Why did neighboring Cape Lookout National Seashore, which is much more difficult to access than Cape Hatteras, shoot up nearly 100,000 from 2002 to 2003, the same year Cape Hatteras took a fall?

Why did Cape Lookout visitation fall nearly 400,000 from 2007 to 2008, a year-to-year decline approaching 50 percent? Park officials cite bad weather, counter problems, and mosquitoes. And then rebound 115,055 in 2009 in spite of bad March weather that closed the ferries for most of February and March?

All that said, there's no doubting that Cape Hatteras visitation has slumped from the 2.9 million counted in 2002. But was that year an anomaly? It would appear so in light of the 300,000+ climb from 2001 and the 263,000+ drop to 2003.

This is not to disparage Ginny's comment. She raises some good points. There no doubt are many causes and effects that drive visitation, and closures are one of those.

Part of the discussion going forward should also touch on carrying capacity of Cape Hatteras, as well as that of other parks. How many visitors are enough, too much, or too few? Look at the situation at Yosemite, where officials have been ordered to look at the carrying capacity for Yosemite Valley in connection with the Merced River Plan.

As for what the new ORV/pedestrian regulations, if instituted, will result in at Cape Hatteras, that's tough to say. Even Park Service forecasters are having a tough time. They predicted 1.97 million Cape Hatteras visitors for 2008, and the count registered 2.14 million; they predicted 2.15 million for 2009, and the count was 2.28 million.

Later this week we'll report on a survey of how businesses predict the new management plan will impact them. It's not encouraging.


"Just because an areas managed by the NPS has "recreation" in its title does not allow for the degradation of the particular site. All NPS units are still required to adhere to the 1916 Organic act, not arguing here, just stating facts."

Your right and in this case, there is no factual or scientific evidence presented that there has been any "degradation" of any site on Hatteras Island that can be attributed to historic traditional "recreational" use.


Well, that is certainly arguable...but beside the point. So impacts to wildlife, regardless of activity is not an impact?

How do you define "historical" and "traditional"?


Show us the degradation with proof it was and is caused by ORV's... And if you can please explain why pedestrians are being punished the same way?

And by the way no one has stepped to the plate to say who they were talking about 50+ years ago when they said "Future Generations"?

I am a future generation by every definition of the word. Now give me back the park that I once loved and now cannot set foot on my favorite parts.

Kurt can we really rely on any of those numbers as the NPS has stated too many times that their counts are flawed or skewed?

I look forward to your next article.


"Later this week we'll report on a survey of how businesses predict the new management plan will impact them. It's not encouraging."

Well, that report ought to be a big "duh"...

The mere implementation of the proposed plan is going negatively affect visitation. Then after all the "requirements" are in place, you really think closing the popular areas with permits, VFA's and overly large "protection area"'s are going to be appealing to the traditional "recreational" user of the park??? Please tell me how these changes could in any way could even remotely attract more tourism, increase visitation, or economic prosperity to businesses located within the park. The NPS needs to remember that there are villages containing real live human beings trying to make a living within the boundaries of the park and they supposed to support them. The local businesses feel so jaded by the NPS some are even denying NPS employee's service. And this denial of service has been going for a couple years now. Its pretty easy to see that these changes are going to negatively affect businesses.


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.