You are here

ORV Group Files Lawsuit Over Cape Hatteras National Seashore ORV Management Plan

Share

 

In a move not totally unexpected, the National Park Service has been sued over its plan for managing off-road vehicles at Cape Hatteras National Seashore.

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in Washington, D.C., by the Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance, an arm of the Outer Banks Preservation Association, claims the seashore staff failed to fully consider proposals offered by the alliance that would meet their desires for ORV access to Cape Hatteras beaches while also protecting threatened and endangered species.

“The Park Service’s new ORV management plan and rules, if implemented, will have a devastating effect on our unique, local shore-oriented culture and economy,” said John Couch, the association's president.  “The OBPA and CHAPA have fought to keep the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area beaches free and open to residents and visitors since 1977. 

"OBPA and CHAPA continuously have maintained that reasonable ORV access and bird and turtle species protection are not mutually exclusive," he said in a prepared statement. "Unfortunately, the Park Service overlooked reasonable recommendations and information that OBPA and CHAPA put forth during the planning process that would have resulted in an ORV management plan and rules that both protect wildlife resources and ensure reasonable ORV access to and over the area’s beaches.”

One of the recommendations Mr. Couch's group has made was to have the seashore use a bulldozer to create new habitat for plovers away from Cape Point, a highly popular and productive fishing area near Buxton.

"What we're saying is why can't we have a partnership with the environmentalists? We can improve this habitat," he said last summer. "They (the Park Service) have yet to do anything to improve the habitat for the birds.”

But the suggestion didn't seem prudent to the Park Service.

"Should we go out and bulldoze ponds in different locations? You've got to recognize that it'd be adverse modification of piping plover habitat," Cape Hatteras Superintendent Mike Murray said last summer. "If the habitat is naturally occurring there, you can't go mess it up in order to ensure access and then try to spend millions to create habitat further west. It is where it is."

The management plan, rules for which are scheduled to take effect next Wednesday, February 15, was developed after years of acrimonious debate over how to protect species such as the piping plover and five species of sea turtles from disturbance during their nesting seasons on Cape Hatteras. The plan was designed to meet both the Park Service's legal requirement to adopt an ORV management plan at the seashore, and its mandates under the Endangered Species Act to protect endangered and threatened species.

It was another lawsuit, brought in 2007 by the Southern Environmental Law Center on behalf of the National Audubon Society and Defenders of Wildlife over the lack of an ORV management plan, that forced the Park Service's hand to develop one.

Since 2008 the seashore has governed ORV use on the beaches under an interim plan approved as part of a consent decree reached in the wake of the lawsuit. Part of the interim plan allowed the Park Service to establish ORV buffers 1,000 meters wide to protect piping plover chicks; the buffer for pedestrians is 300 meters. Both buffers were retained in the management plan the Park Service wants to implement.

While Cape Hatteras Superintendent Murray tried to work with both sides in the matter to come up with a satisfactory ORV plan, one that would provide access and protect wildlife, that didn't go very well. For 18 months committees worked to find common ground, but couldn't.

“The committee worked really hard,” the superintendent said back in May 2010. “We had 11 formal meetings, which was 20 total meeting days. Every couple months there would be a two-day meeting. But we had seven subcommittees that worked on different parts of the plan. They had conference calls and subcommittee meetings and on and on and on.

“They made progress on stuff,” he went on, “but it kind of boiled down to, after all this effort, the parties on the committee were able to agree to the easy things, like speed limits, or vehicle requirements. They couldn’t agree to the hard things, like how are we going to manage ORV use in the real sensitive bird nesting areas?

“So, towards the end of the process, we created a special subcommittee, called the integration group - sort of three from each side and three sort of neutral parties - to try to work out the final recommendation for the committee to consider. And they couldn’t do it. They couldn’t agree to anything.”

In their lawsuit, the ORV interests contend that they have "advocated the protection and preservation of seashore beaches within a framework of responsible and meaningful access to the ocean beaches and sound for all users, including pedestrians and properly licensed drivers and their vehicles."

But the plan scheduled to take effect next week, they claim in their lawsuit, was “foreordained from the time that NPS began its planning process."  More so, the Park Service’s planning and environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act was plagued by a series of failures, the filing maintains.

Those failures, the group's press release states, include: a failure to give meaningful consideration to views, data, or information that were contrary to NPS’s desire to impose more severe restrictions on ORV access and use; a failure to look at reasonable alternatives, including smaller and more flexible buffer and closure areas; and a failure to properly assess impacts on the local economy. 

The complaint asks the court to determine that NPS acted improperly and to prevent NPS from implementing its final ORV management plan and rules.

Comments

Above I meant to say, "quality of visitation" -- i.e. the visitor experience for non-ORVers -- why I wrote "quality of vegetation" I have no idea!


SS1,
When I mention pedestrians it is purely because they are the environmentalists decoy to throw out there when trying to justify removing ORV's from the beach...You prove my point here

The trick and the difficulty was/is finding a way to protect the resources and to manage CHNS like a National Park, not like it was Dare county ORV/fishing Park. Not all of us want to recreate in the middle of an ORV/fishing tailgate party on the beach.

 
After 13 years coming down to Cape Hatteras I have yet to see a person (who was not forced by the consent decree) walk to the point to recreate!!! Never happens and now with the new rules there will be miles and miles of beaches that will be inaccessable that are set aside for pedestrians. These will remain inaccessable until the NPS builds all the promised facilities to allow access to those areas.

This comment also is blind to the facts: "The proposed plan gives you the best parts of the Park and the largest share. Why can't you all accept this?

Please review the maps of the previous years resource closures and then tell me how much beach is open. Not much considering all the facts like one vehicle every twenty feet and VFA's (vehicle free areas). do the research on this and let me know what average you come up with for areas open and who wins or loses.

The last comment I see is this: ""I don't want you not to be able to have that experience if you choose but please give us an equal opportunity to enjoy CHNS in a manner that we have legitimate rights to."

If this indeed is the case understand my only wish was to be able to get to an area with my family that will allow us to enjoy a natural beach area without being in a crowd beachtowels or having to go hiking for a half mile over extremely hot sand to get there. I save my hiking for the mountains near my home or the woods bordering my property. Being forced to march my family over hot sand to have peace and quiet is not an option. I will in fact continue as I have for the past two years and enjoy an area they cannot take away YET. Using my boat to find a sandbar and get away from this beautiful island covered in SIGNS saying stay away.


"These birds nest in the dunes, not in the freakin tire tracks!! Im still waiting for someone to tell me what keeping PEDESTRIANS off the beach has to do with "protecting resources". Anyone? "
 
Maybe I can help answer that Jimmy. Yes the birds nest in the dunes, but they come down to the water in order to feed. The chicks run around and begin feeding on their own soon after birth. Often, they have great difficulty in navigating through the deep tired tracks to reach their food. And since they rely on camoflage to keep safe, when a vehicle is coming they hunker down in the sand and don't move and often get smushed (I have seen this many times first hand). Pedestrians walking in the nesting area scare the parents off the nest and the chicks (or eggs) are then vulnerable to predators and to the heat of the sand. If left exposed for too long, the chicks (or eggs) can actually cook to death on the hot sand.


I will say that I'm not completely against ORV use, but a management plan is needed. Oftentimes the fishermen (or women) need a vehicle to be able to reach a fishing area. This helps then get away from the main swimming areas where swimmers can get tangled in their lines and get injured by hooks. Since I have done some shore fishing, I know that it is very difficult to walk with all that gear, especially in sand, so a vehicle does come in handy. That being said, the ecosystem and the welfare of any species should come first. Barrier islands are so very important and need to be protected.


To RangerLady: Let me start by saying that I find you to be a very unusual person and would find you to be even more unusual, I'm sure, if I knew where you were coming from. You are different. I am not in agreement with you but, I am not sure I would argue with you. I think I would rather ask you, if that makes sense.
I am a fisherman and husband, father and grandfather. My wife andI live in Virginia Beach and have a cottage in Kill Devil Hills which was built by my wife and her late husband 25 years ago. We have been involved in the Outer Banks to varying degrees for twice that many years. I can show you a picture of four generations of our family on the beach at Oregon Inlet Spit. We drove there as was necessary. I don't think we will be able to go there any more (even if the new inlet fills back in). We never hurt a bird or turtle. We never tore up the beach. We always leave with more trash and debris than we create. I believe that our entire family is very conservation minded and are proud of our efforts to care for Gods creatures and protect the environment, especially on the OBX as we definately have a stake there and hope to spend our later years there, God willing.
Now I ask you, why does anyone believe that it was proper procedure to institute such extreme measures, far exceeding all logic, in the name of protecting the Plover and Turtles. Yes, we all agree that an orv policy with regulations is necessary and long over do. We all agree that the Wildlife needs protecting, In fact they need help in ways that were not even given due consideration. We asked this question and never recieved a satisfactory answer. We were expected to refer to a document with so many pages of redundant information that even a judge would have to have a lawyer explain it to him. This is not a complicated issue, it is just being intentionally made into one.
So I ask you my question, why does anyone believe that it was proper procedure to institute such extreme measures, far exceeding all logic, in the name of protecting the Plover and Turtles.Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Ron (obxguys)


something doesnt add up when the first spots to close each year are the most popular orv spots (cape point, ocracoke south and north ends). i dont live there but its a way of life for people that do and i truly feel for them. first it was pea island that was reserved for wildlife. then apparently that wasnt enough. Its frustrating when parts that are inaccesable by foot, are open to pedestrian access. Whats the point then? How do you tell handicapped people or disabled people that they cant go to the beaches they grew up on anymore? Sure there could be improvements to management of the seashore, but at some point enough is enough. And no one has mentioned it yet, but what about the many raccoons and foxes that the park service has SHOT AND KILLED to try to kill the plovers predators. You would think that would be cause of an uproar by the public, but its just swept under the rug and kept quiet. Everyone love to come to the defense of their beloved birds but what about the dang foxes and coons? are they not cute enough? just trying to do the math but i must still be missing something, NO?


Ron I am not trying to have an argument with
you, others view these comments beside you and I.  I am explaining that there is a different view, history and
interpretation than your comments suggest.

 

I agree the NPS beaches adjacent to the county
villages at times are, "a crowd of beachtowels" and not the kind of
beach I want to recreate on either. There is no guaranteed you will find a
secluded beach on ORV accessible beaches. ORV visitors can and do park as close
as they choose to anyone else.  Many of the NPS beaches that should be the
most secluded become the most crowded because literally hundreds of vehicles
drive and park there. These heavily traversed beaches become gigantic parking
lots and the beach in these locations stays in a semi permanent state of deep
criss-crossing meandering ruts.   I have read the "Worth
Letter" and the Enabling Legislation (the voice of the people) dozens of
times and there is no reference to a promised privilege of driving on the
beach.  Access to the beach is directly implied, as are regulations to
protect the resource and other properties. Like many I am disappointed when I
am temporarily deigned access to my favorite beaches. I just don't think the
Park or special interest groups (like Audubon) are advocating anything that is
out of the scope of the law or intent for the management of the Park.

 

Basically when I read the comments and
suggested talking points to their members from the ORV organizations web pages it
is apparent they want ORV access to the beaches that are secluded and dramatic.
In addition they want the beaches adjacent to the villages open to ORV use (8
months of the year) and the beach in front of the NPS campgrounds. In simple
terms ORV groups like NCBBA (North Carolina Beach Buggy Association) want the
great majority of the Park open to ORV access the majority of the time.

 

I understand the ORV organizations’ POV but
disagree with it.  Just because
beach drivers share the Beach with pedestrians does not address my point or satisfy
my needs.   The reason we need lines in the sand is because not all of us
want to recreate in the middle of a parking lot on the beach.  The beach
is too small and there are too many vehicles (and visitors) to do it any other
fair way.

 

I don't think anyone got what they wanted from the rule. I feel pedestrian access isues came in third in line. When the superintendent presented his plan to his higher
ups they most likely only took the time to add up miles and saw an inequity of
area set aside for pedestrians access. I'm guessing they told the superintendent
to re-figure it. This is where ORV organization's input and political
maneuvering took place. The areas set aside for pedestrians for the most part
are areas that had been closed to vehicle access for logistical reasons (the
beach was too eroded to drive on) for years and are areas where birds
historically nest and would likely have temporary resource closures anyway.
  ORV advocates would not trade the current ORV areas for the VFA any day.
 The ORV users should be thanking the superintendent instead of condemning
him. He has done everything in his power to give them as much ORV access as he
could. Much of VFA selected in the plan could not have been available to ORV
use anyway. In reality not much new beach has been set aside for pedestrian
use.

 

A big part of this problem is that the park’s
superintendent  (Mike Murray) did a poor job with the interim ORV plan
(IPSMP). When Mike arrived he did everything in his power to give the ORV
organizations everything they asked. It was obvious as in nearly every public
meeting where ORV users stood up and publicly voiced their thanks, support and
approval of his management of the Park. The interim plan was a compromise but
only for the local ORV groups, as it appears they had the park mangers’ ears
and the deciding input as to what compromises they could live with. So keen was
Mike on getting along with the local ORV community that he even gave a
historical artifact (the original base for the Cape Hatteras lighthouse lens)
to the local museum in Hatteras who’s director happened to be a board member of
OBPA at the time.

 

I know the ORV and fishing clubs organization
do beach cleanups, which are commendable, but for me the environmental
organizations time and effort in promoting management policies that actually
keep the park in a natural and historic state are of more significance. I don’t
consider ORV groups anything but another special interest group advocating for
their special interest (nothing wrong with that).  The Park has not
addressed "primitive wilderness" as described in the enabling
legislation and has not adequately addressed pedestrian access issues. Visitors
like myself will still be disappointed when they visit this park.  No one
I know who had input in the attempt to form an ORV plan has said beach driving
should be banned or that thmost beach drivers were bad stewards of the
resource. ORV users are not the only ones who feel a special interest
lobby has taken away their rights. For me ORV/fishing organizations are
responsible for that, not Audubon and friends.


 I find this humorous?  You've got to recognize that it'd be adverse modification of piping plover habitat," Cape Hatteras Superintendent Mike Murray said last summer. "If the habitat is naturally occurring there, you can't go mess it up in order to ensure access and then try to spend millions to create habitat further west. It is where it is."  If the habitat is "naturally occuring", seems as if all the racoons, opposum, fox, and feral cats would'nt have had to be slaughtered?  I guess it's not their habitat?  I guess this habitat is prime ground and very condusive to successful breeding for the plovers?  Just where I'd want to make my home, a point or spit of land that gets flooded over numerous times each year.  Plovers can snorkel......it's a miracle!!!!!!!!!!  Mike Murray's talking out of both sides of his mouth!  Common sense has taken a backseat in this country.  Why would you want to take away a man (or womans) ability to make a living and provide for their families.....for a non-evolving bird?  There is no industry on the island.  Tourism is its industry.....or was?  $120 to drive on the beach?  Yeah, I'd pay as long as I can go where I want, not where the NPS wants me to go. This whole things a joke!  Should I list the jokers names?  


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.