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

Matt, you are a future generation, but there was not 2 million people visiting the areas 50 years ago. Also, I made a point of saying impacts from any activity because in terms of wildlife, pedestrians can have, in some case, more impacts on wildlife than any form of motorized recreation (flushing birds off nests, walking on/over dunes, etc).


Matt,

Sadly, visitation numbers across the entire park system are often little more than guesstimates. While the NPS needs some numbers to manage their operations (ie. staffing, visitor services, facilities, budgets, etc), there are just too many variables in terms of no entrance stations, not enough staff, parks that don't charge entrance fees and so don't have collection stations where visitors can be counted, malfunctioning counters, etc., to come up with hard, reliable numbers on an annual basis.

As a result, procedures for developing estimates are employed. If you go to this site:

http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/

...click on the park of your choice, and one of the items you'll be able to pull up is "How We Count." It's really quite interesting the methodology they use for vehicles, boats, and even private planes coming in.

Another item you can pull up is "Visitation Comments By Park Staff," which can provide insights to problems with counts.


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

Before the consent decree or even before the Interim plan, these two poorly implemented actions changed the way the park's resources were available to the users. The traditional recreational activities my family and friends have enjoyed in the park over the past 20 years is not possible with the current and proposed plans. We being denied our historic recreational uses of the park and I don't see any evidence that these changes are required.

Most negative impacts to the "protected" wildlife are clearly documented as predation and weather related. I've seen nothing that says recreational use was considered a significant negative impact to any wildlife.

I'll change that statement and it still works.

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 "recreational" use.

"So impacts to wildlife, regardless of activity is not an impact?"

NO ONE that promotes reasonable access is promoting not protecting wildlife. These current and proposed plans, have new restrictions that are unusually large and treat wildlife differently than other agencies. For example, using "Endangered" type buffers and closures around species for what everyone else calls only "Species of Concern", which everyone else thinks they really don't require anything but simple monitoring and not the vast closures we are seeing now and even more restrictive in the proposed plan.

If recreational use causes a bird to not nest here but does over there, that doesn't mean it negatively impacted species. We have and can successfully interact with the wildlife resources of park.


"Matt, you are a future generation, but there was not 2 million people visiting the areas 50 years ago. Also, I made a point of saying impacts from any activity because in terms of wildlife, pedestrians can have, in some case, more impacts on wildlife than any form of motorized recreation (flushing birds off nests, walking on/over dunes, etc)."

So Anon you are saying because this is a popular destination I cannot be a future generation allowed to have access to the park?

" but there was not 2 million people visiting the areas 50 years ago."

Lets do some math...

1960 world population (I use world because this destination is that popular) 3,039,451,023

2010 World population 6,848,932,929

1964 park visitation 1,070,500

2010 approx. double that...estimated (but who are we kidding aren't they all) [in fact visitation has been up over two million for more than twenty years]

Amount of 4x4 public vehicles in 1960 (The first factory (assembly line) built 1/2 ton trucks sold to the public would have to go GMC in 1956, Chevrolet in 1957, and Ford in 1959) assuming this not too many I would guess.

2006 data shows the following for only two catagories of two companies for one year (In the year 2006, the best selling models were the Ford F-Series with 796,039 units sold and the Chevrolet Silverado with 636,069 units sold.)

Maybe the park system was a little short sited on this little thing known as population growth and the new population getting access to vehicles allowing better access. I guess if they had not brought down the cost of spotting scopes then even the birdwatchers would be on our side to look at these plovers. Besides if the NPS did not want us to have access they would not be called a park and placed it on a beach.


>>if the NPS did not want us to have access they would not be called a park and placed it on a beach.<<

Channeling George Carlin, Matt? Great word play!


"Sadly, visitation numbers across the entire park system are often little more than guesstimates."

So why is it so hard for everyone to believe that the "boots on the ground" view of the visitation numbers are down since the changes.

We say visitation is down, but NPS stands by their guesstimates and the SELC skewed the tax statistics to show that visitation is possibly up. But we, residents,businesses, and visitors, can all see that it ain't like it used to be. I firmly believe the national economic down turn actually increased visitation numbers over what they would normally be, due to the lower cost involving a visitation of Hatteras Island versus other longer distance visitation destinations. I personally talked to couple people last year, that this was their first vacation in the OBX and they would normally would vacation in the Gulf region(and we all know why they didn't want to go there last year).


Speaking of "future generations". My wife and I have a picture on the wall at our cottage. It is a favorite of everyone. It is very simple. It was taken at the north point at Oregon Inlet. It is a group picture of four generations of our family. Very young to eighty plus. The day was one that will be remembered lovingly by many. The spot is one of our favorite for fishing and playing in the surf, collecting shells, as well as other activities (including watching the birds). I guess there are those that would tell Grandmother Chisholm and her children, grandchildren and great grandchildren that none of them are included in the Future Generations addressed in the Enabling Legislation of which so many make reference. They would be told how they are destroying the seashore because they were brought to this favorite spot in two four wheel drive vehicles and a canopy set up between them to shade Grandma and the youngsters. The Grandchildren are now learning to surfcast and have caught their first fish. A great moment for each. Oh how I wish some of those finding this activity so offensive could experience these moments of joy. Maybe they would have a better understanding of how, many of us, feel about CAHA. So, I ask you, please be careful when referrencing "Future Generations" when talking about the Seashore, We love it and want to preserve it just as much as anyone, maybe more. We just wish some of the Science could be used to seek ways to accomodate rather than simply justify excluding those mentioned above. No one has mentioned the fact that Birds have a remarkable ability to adapt as do all creatures and there are probably things that can be done to the benefit of the birds and turtles without the extreme restrictions proposed. Lets look for better ways to share and assist with limited initial restriction. We would love the opportunity to work together to this end. Can you imagine that, The environmentalist folks and the orv folks working together. Throw in some Science and a little Common Sense. Wow, gets you excited just thinking about it. Might have to be one of those deals though, where you throw out the highest and lowest score and work with what you have left. You know, get rid of the extremes. Everyone knows what They are, thats they common sense part. The science part needs to be based on inginuity and experimentation, not a bunch of numbers. We have all had enough of the numbers game.
There will be those that say, we've been all through this, done this already, tried neg/reg. True, but, if you had it to do over and could do it in a cooperative manner, bringing sides together, friend and neighbors working hand in hand now that they have a greater appreciation for each others point of view, Is it just possible that it could be done better. I know I have a greater appreciation for some points brought out by AS & DOW. That would be hard to deny. I would find it hard to believe if there are not many in those organizations that feel the same way toward ORV group. There was too much deceit in the beginning and thru the Neg/reg process. All due respect to the NPS but, trust in them was lost somewhere along the line and never recovered. Won't point any fingers here, it would serve no purpose. I do think the Lawyers and Court participation will always hinder PEOPLE from ever solving a delimma in any manner that will result in a future relationship benefitial to all. The Seashore being unique, you need to ask, do any of us really want a future of sharing the Seashore, with this cloud that is building, forever hanging over it. A sobering thought.
I know I have rambled a little. But if any of what I have said, makes any sense and helps bring people together at all, I'll be pleased. We all have things we would rather write about. I look forward to the day I am not so monopolized with this situation and I'm sure you are too.

Ron (obxguys)


Wow Kurt I guess we are both old and like the classics. I was going to channel Seinfeld but thought better of it...


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.