A strong majority of businesses along Cape Hatteras National Seashore believe rules that restrict access of off-road vehicles and pedestrians for the benefit of nesting shorebirds and sea turtles will harm their operations.
But at the same time, uncertainties and outside factors that swirl around visitation to the national seashore make it hard to reach definitive conclusions on the severity of impacts to businesses there, note the authors of a survey conducted for seashore officials.
The survey (attached below) was conducted from June-September 2009, and dated August 2010, and so couldn't specifically ask businesses about the seashore's preferred alternative for managing ORV traffic that was released last fall.
The plan, expected to take effect late this year, calls for new parking areas along Highway 12 as well as new access ramps to the beach; a new trail for pedestrians to walk down through the dunes to the beach; 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,' and;" an "alternative transportation study and would encourage the establishment of a beach shuttle or water taxi."
Overall, the approved plan calls 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.
Without knowing of that specific plan, what the survey consultant, RTI International, of Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, tried to do was select "the two action alternatives that represented opposite ends of the management spectrum for the alternatives under consideration at the time to serve as the basis for questions about the possible impact of the alternatives on revenue in the future relative to revenue in 2008. The descriptions of the alternatives captured the major features of the alternatives expected to have the biggest impact on visitation."
When asked to compare their business in 2008 vs. 2007, some respondents attributed declines in 2008 to the recession, high gas prices, changes in ferry schedules, beach closures to protect wildlife, and uncertainties over beach access. At the same time, some pointed to an increase in business due to the economy (some visitors stayed closer to home for vacations), and higher prices or management changes.
But the general theme was that restricted seashore access would be bad for business.
Some business owners reported that they do not believe the recent decrease in revenue was caused by an economic downturn, because they normally do quite well during a recession by attracting beachgoers who would normally elect for a more expensive vacation. Others said that beach driving restrictions have resulted in a loss of business mainly by driving away daytrippers. Some Ocracoke businesses noted that the current compromise on Ocracoke Island is necessary for wildlife protection and acceptable for maintaining their business, but that any additional closures would cause problems.
Without the specifics that became known last fall with the seashore's selection of its preferred alternative, and with the country's ongoing economic malaise, it was difficult for those businesses surveyed to make hard predictions about their future. Still, among the conclusions reached by the survey:
* "The majority of businesses thought that all three alternatives described in the survey would result in decreased revenue compared to 2008. A smaller number expected no change or an increase."
* "The first alternative, under which all the spits and points were closed to ORV use year-round, was expected to have the biggest negative increase."
* "Fewer businesses felt comfortable providing a quantitative forecast of the expected impact of the alternatives on revenue given the uncertainties surrounding the cause of changes in revenue between 2007 and 2008, the impact of the alternative on visitation, and the year-to-year variation in weather and nesting patterns."
* "From the businesses providing quantitative forecasts: Businesses forecast median decreases of 0% to 25% in annual revenue compared to 2008 for the first alternative described (which closed the most miles of beach to ORVs year-round). For the second alternative (which involved no year-round closures), the median change in revenue compared to 2008 ranged from a decrease of 12% to no change. Closing the soundside
ramps generated median estimates of revenue loss ranging from no change to -4%."
But uncertainty stemming from changes in travel patterns and outside economic influences also was mentioned by the survey's authors in their conclusion.
In some cases, businesses said that visitors came in 2008 not knowing about the beach closures and did not return in 2009. However, some businesses reported that although business in the spring of 2009 was down, they were seeing increased bookings for the fall or expected business in the fall to increase. Some visitors may reschedule trips from the spring to the fall to visit areas likely to be closed in the spring and early summer. Because the business survey was conducted during the summer, businesses did not have information about revenue in the fall and winter of 2009.
Forecasting future revenue in response to management changes is necessarily uncertain. Some businesses worried that 2008 would not be typical of future years for reasons discussed above. Visitation in 2008 is also confounded by the economic recession and gas prices. Businesses that want to influence the debate over the alternatives have an incentive to exaggerate the expected impacts of more restrictive alternatives on their revenue. This possibility was recognized, and the survey included questions to probe for the reasoning behind answers to some questions. In addition, the economic analysis will use other data sources in addition to the business survey to create a range of possible future outcomes.
Some respondents were hesitant to give specific numbers on possible changes in revenue that could be attributed to ORV management actions because of the many other factors affecting the economy in the last few years, uncertainty about shorebird and turtle nesting patterns, and uncertainty about the long-term reactions of visitors to changes in visitor access to the Seashore. The ranges of possible impacts, which are large in some cases, reflect the uncertainty expressed by businesses and variation present in the survey data.
Comments
My wife and I vacationed in another area with many miles of beautiful beaches last summer, where the hotels and motels and campgrounds were full to capacity, and so were the restaurants. (We had reserved 5 months ahead.) There were plenty of families on the beaches, but not a single vehicle. I believe Cape Hatteras has far greater potential for tourism with the limitations recently adopted by the National Park Service.
Hey George you cannot access the closed areas because of birds and turtles. Besides the closures I would like to see you take the wifey out for the 3 mile round trip to the point from the ramp entrance in your birkenstocks and a bottle of water. That will do wonders for your relationship. I for one will not attend a park if there is a chance it will be closed to humans when I arrive. Simple math will tell you that all it takes is 30 or so pairs of plovers breeding 1,000 meters apart and there is no more beach for anyone.
Ranger Bill is correct in that the park wasn't established to help the locals and their businesses. However, these locals did not show up looking to exploit the park.
The park was taken from the locals, unwillingly, and the locals were left living in the middle of the park with nothing but a written promise from the park service that they would never be denied access to the land which they once owned.
This promise has been honored up until now. So, when you hear promises from the park service about future access not being denied, be careful, they do not honor their word even if you have it in writing.
First off, many you don't get it. This is not just preventing ORV access, it PREVENTS HUMAN access as well. Yes, that means most of the areas closed to ORVs are also CLOSED TO HUMAN ACCESS. Read that again and again. Then ask yourself why a bird the size of baseball needs a 1000 meter buffer around it.
Some other NPS personnel feel differently. Here's a quote from Superintendent Pedro Ramos of Big Cypress National Preserve and the same can be said for CHNSRA:
"So it was a place that was created and founded on this concept and promise of compromise, where everybody has a place, where conservation is important. But having access is also important. If we forget that, and if we are not true to the intention of Congress and the mandate that they gave us to the act, we would not only be breaking promises made that resulted in the creation of the place, but we would be violating law, the law that created the preserve, which ultimately is what it all boils down to.”
This change of management in CHNSRA is in violation of the Congressional mandate.
The NPS needs to think about more than just conservation. If the economy of the island dies, they will be losing jobs too.
Thanks Kurt for the big "duh" report and we can gather that if the survey was done after the proposed FEIS it would be even greater uncertainty.
"For the benefit of nesting shorebirds and sea turtles"?
Its not about the birds or the turtles. There I said it.
Let's not forget it is a RECREATIONAL AREA.
Let's not forget there are quite a few things that would enhance access and benefit the resource, but that would be too easy. Instead the NPS just wants to lock people out.
Let's not forget about Pea Island NWR, within the confines of CAHA, and the management of said NWR.
Look at the money the park service is going to spend just to impliment the new plan just to shut people out. If it was used for real management the birds and turtles would be doing great and there would be access. But it is not about the birds or the turtles.
CAHA is not Atlantic City or Virginia Beach with a boardwalk and the like. Hasn't there been enough building within CAHA? I sure hope CAHA doesnt look like that because of this plan.
Look at the science these people claim to be using. Not saying its all a joke. But if someone tells you to study something, I'm pretty sure they can tell you where your study is supposed to lead.
People? The NPS does not care at all about the people. Just their bosses and most of NPS. Look at who's running the show.
Well said Jim. Ranger Bill, your understanding of the history and enabling legislation of CHNSRA must be different than mine. I guess I better go back and read it again.
Upon reading the data provided in the survey and manner in which some of the information was attained as well as the time frame, I contend that limited conclusion can be obtained from it. Yet this will again be "best available science". I say again, where is the "best available common sense". And guess what, Common sense is free. Imagine that. I guess that is why it is not considered worthy because you don't have to pay for it.
Sorry to repeat but , It's Not About The Birds And Turtles. That's common sense. If there was 1,000 of each bird and turtle on CHNSRA the NPS would still be shutting it down and we all know why.
There is probably a creature that someone is concerned about on 99% of NPS acrage. If that doesn't work, they will come up with something new. Lets just shut it all down and be done with it. Close it to everybody. Maybe that will make the AB and DOW and all the other Anti-People groups happy. Lord knows they need something to, because they must be miserable right now. That is, except for those proffiting from all this stuff and we know who they are.
Sorry for the rant but just getting tired of some of this stuff.
Ron (obxguys)
I suggest that everyone that claims that the NPS folks are bringers of doom and gloom and are people haters, try talking to a couple. They are hard working folks just like you and me and have no desire to eliminate your use of any park (not to mention they can't anyway). Stop demonizing these people and be more constructive about the issues. Personal attacks are useless and accomplish nothing. I have said this many times on here, be I thankful that NPS folks are here to protect these areas the best they can. Without them you would have zero access, because it would be private land (plenty of examples up and down the east coast of this happening). Are there bad eggs, of course, but most have studied hard and worked harder to be good park interpreters, park biologist, maintenance folks, etc. It is easy to hate a giant conglomerate like the NPS, but it is made up of people, not a bunch of evil minions from the underworld.
When the NPS is rattled around in these criticisms it is at the upper organization level rather than the people at the park steward level as they are only following direction given to them. An example is the arming of the NPS in Cape Hatteras at the beginning of the consent decree. I am sure the person standing there in full military garb with an automatic weapon did not come up with this on his or her own.
I would add that this organization (the NPS) is more reactionary to events than proactive due to the fact that if they sneeze then there are several outside influences ready to pounce on where the tissue is disposed. Having that hanging over your head tend to make one look at the basics and simply follow that as a rule and ignore the peripheral benefits offered by recreating in a National Park. That is how Cape Hatteras is being run now. Where once was an enjoyable place to find solice now is a bunch of different types of signage strung throughout the park.
Take what you want from that situation because I will not play russian roulette with my ability to actually access an area on vacation.