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
IF I WERE A PLOVER
I happen to be a human being. Male, average type, bout 66 years old, Family man.
I have a home with an average yard. I have Kids, Grandkids and a dog named Bobby.
We share the yard with Birds, Turtles, Rabbits, Squrrils, Muskrats(Nutria), some fish in the creek and an occassional snake, mouse and frogs. Many of these prey on each other as you can well imagine.
I sit on the deck and talk to the birds when they land on the railing three feet away, be it a dove or chick-a-dee. They move out of the way when I cut the grass or do some other activity that they don't want to be involved in and promptly return. There have been some years when we don't see one or the other but, they seem to come back sooner or later. Never figured out why. Nature, I guess. I think they like us. Kinda feel safer when we're around. We do have some stray cats and crows that come by once in a while, even though we try to discourage their hanging around.
Anyway, I was thinking. If I was a Plover, I think it would be kind of interesting to have some of those humans around. They are actually seem kinda likable. They do some interesting things, though they don't all have a pretty song. Then again, neither do some of us birds. They sometimes drive those big machines down the beach. But that might be helping keep some of those guys away that would like to eat us or our eggs. They kinda stay to themselves and as long as they keep Fido close to um they'll be OK. We just have to keep an eye on our Younguns a little bit, But need to do that anyway. They might even be an asset to the youngun's training. Lord knows what they are going to be faced with when they get on their own. I don't think it's asking too much if they want to share our beach with us. Come on and have a good time. Just appreciate us and give us a little respect and we will get along fine. Oh, and I hope they will let you keep getting to your favorite fishing hole, we all know how important that is. See ya round, guys. And one other thing, We'll talk to the Turtles for ya, They pretty much feel same as us.
I know this is probably silly but I think like this at times ever since I read 'Jonathon Livingston Seagull' many moons ago. Helps communicate with grandkids. Love to fly.Would have been a happy bird I think. What more can I say.
Ron (obxguys)
Ron, it is known that the recreational activities have actually helped the Plovers and other birds. But the NPS/AS/DOW don't want you to know that. Some biologists believe that the recreational activities, including ORVs traveling by, help reduce predation. But they'll never admit that...
Anon 3:13
Thanks for the backup. A little common sense still goes a long way in my book. It's kinda funny in a way, some will make a statement and have to spend forever trying to convince you that it is so. Truth is generally self evident, not in need of convincing. I think I heard something like that somewhere. You know it when you hear it, even if you don't like it.
Ron
Matt makes the point that the NPS was short sighted, and had not anticipated the impact of population growth on the Seashore (among other areas.
Sometimes government agencies do have internal reports and evaluations of issues and trends, but the political leaders of the agency never permit the agency to act on the obvious conclusions.
For example, in the early 1970's, the NPS had in Washington a group called the Division of Plans and Objectives. This group analyzed emerging trends so park leaders would not be caught off guard, and the agency could act before becoming overwhelmed.
Population growth, both global and park specific, were among the things raised. Concerns were raised on the impact on the experience of visitors to parks. I remember the group raising the option in the early 1970's that development be removed from, for example Yosemite, because with most other rural and wild places outside of parks being impacted, the value of low development and retaining a sense of remoteness and non-technological experience would be much more valued as dune buggies and motorcycles moved into more and more previously remote areas outside of parks. Once, development in parks, it was said, was needed because beyond their borders visitors could not get basic visitor services. All this would change, it was suggested.
The group also did papers on the expected growing impact of crime on parks; the impact of federal highway officials trying to force the NPS to convert park lanes and parkways to have the same "safety" features as interstate highways including soft and hard shoulders and median barriers; the impact of more and more people who lacked basic outdoor skills or outdoor perceptions and who should be expected to bring to parks more urbanized and even alienated assumptions; a related assumption that some will advocate that park user days be restricted in favor of a media-driven "experience" of parks; the increasing impact on parks of air and water polution and issues of clean water quantity and quality; the impact of global warming, loss ob biodiversity and non-renewable resource exhaustion (one member of the Division actually predicted the Arab Oil Embargo, arguing that there would be a nationalist reaction to European oil executives and countries making all the money from Arab oil, and the Arabs could be expected to retailiate, with a big impact on the cost of travel to parks, and a future pressure on resource extraction from parks). They called, as did others, the impact of the global interrelated issues the "world macroproblem." They got a state of the parks report published (as I remember by a former environmental group called the Conservation Foundation) and included in the contract that the NPS management would not be permitted to edit the findings prior to pbulication. These are just some of the issues I can bring to mind that they raised.
Needless to say, this group was abolished in less than two years, before the end of the Nixon administration. However, park leadership until the 1980s did routinely reflect on similar issues. But in the 1980's even though warned about issues like global warming and parks overimpacted by development, it became the mantra of Department of Interior officials, and politically-appointed NPS officials, that there was a 'conflict' between the "use" vs. the "preserve" mandates of the NPS organic act, with the understanding that the NPS should not unduly restrict park uses to preserve what made parks unique.
Sorry about the history lesson, but park officials were long-ago alerted to likely impacts of visitors and new access technology on sensitive habitats and previously remote areas.
d-2
Don't ever apologize for a history lesson. Everyone should be interested in what drives the wagon. The more we learn, the better we are able to understand. And the better we understand, the better we can contend with results. Some of your information was difficult for me to follow but, the recurring theme left the impression that there were issues that should have been addressed and weren't. Studies performed, policies inacted but little or no follow through. Am I correct ? This,if the case, actually may have caused problems in itself. Case in point, orv management plan for the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. Where we now have a big delimma and no "practical" solution (proposed solutions being arguable). So here we paid all these politicians, funded studies, spent on reporting and recording and what did we get ? History is wonderful. But, sometimes, you learn more than you want. You're not really sure if it's the actions of Government or the lack thereof thats going to get ya. Thanks for your input.
Ron
I would not worry about things at the seashore changing all that much, as the NPS has zero money to actually enforce any of their proposals.
Not to mention all of the studies it will take to implement any of the areas they call access improvements = decades down the road. See Bridge replacement
Hi Ron
Yes you are right studies were performed (actually, I would call them either White Papers, or in some cases just presentations or briefings to senior NPS officials, like Director Hartzog), but no, policies were not inacted. At least, not then. Political figures did not want to be required to respond to mechanical mandates, and preferred to pretend things like population growth and Global Warming were not happening. The last thing they wanted were official reports telling them they had to act. When James Watt came in in 1981, he exerted tremendous pressure on the Dept of Interior to just deny any thing like Climate Change or ozone layer changes were even happening. In the Reagan Administration, all visitor use restrictions were emphatically opposed; they just decided to accept the impacts as OK. For me the lesson was that managers did have an early take on emerging trends, and could have acted, but what was missing was to develop that into organized management policies and budget priorities.
Hartzog, however, was pushed out right around the same time this think tank was shut down, and the new Director, a Haldemann dependent and previous White House advance man, seemed to be there to eliminate Hartzogian expansiveness. This guy had no relationships or contacts among the advocates of parks or preservation. The only large internal initiative in the NPS from that point on was led by the Department of the Interior, and that was the Alaska Planning Group making the new park and refuge proposals for Alaska, and driven by a mandate in law with a due date.
I don't necessarily agree with the point by Ryan and others about the money; it is always possible to get money if you fight for it and have local support. Or a court order.
But with a hostile local congressional delegation now in the Majority in Congress, it would take clever NPS leadership to make it the best interest of the congressional delegation to make sure the park is well funded. The drag on this could be the unfortunate tendency of washington office leadership to avoid fighting for specific revenues over and above the President's Budget, in the fear the money will just come out of some other crucial priority. But the result is the Congress as a Whole does not hear enough often enough about specific charismatic NPS needs, the kind of things Congress needs to hear to agree to expand the overall budget caps.
But, despite the restraints, again I emphasize that motivated people with a compelling need for new funds for parks can always get them, if they are smart and willing to fight, and have brought either strong local congressional and park support, or, a strong national constituency (which this issue does not seem to have and would need to get).
PS: back to the beginning, eventually important policy clarifications WERE issued. At the end of the 1990's new Management Policies required there be no impairment to park resources, citing the 1916 Act establishing the NPS -- this had the effect of eliminating the so-called conflict between Park Use and Park Conservation. Park science was also strengthened under Presidents Clinton and Bush (George the Second) that emphasized monitoring of resource impacts, exactly what has been going on. Also, the Fish and Wildlife Service became more aggressive in pushing agencies such as the NPS to do its duty, based on what FWS considered the best science.