A Senate committee on Tuesday approved legislation that would require the National Park Service to reassess how to manage off-road vehicles at Cape Hatteras National Seashore, a measure that conservation groups said was unnecessary and would lead to a waste of taxpayer dollars.
The measure, S.B. 486, was sponsored by U.S. Sens. Kay Hagan, a Democrat, and Richard Burr, a Republican, both of North Carolina. As initially introduced, the bill would have eliminated current Park Service safeguards for beach-nesting wildlife and pedestrian beachgoers to favor instead trucks on park beaches, according to the National Parks Conservation Association.
In committee action Tuesday, Sen. Ron Wyden tweaked the measure to require the Park Service to study how wildlife protection measures might be modified to provide more vehicle access while still protecting wildlife and pedestrians.
“The existing wildlife protection measures are already based on the best available scientific information," said Julie Youngman, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center. “We will work to make sure the plan remains scientifically sound. By requiring the National Park Service to redo what it’s already done, the bill wastes taxpayer time and resources.”
According to nesting numbers from the National Park Service, 222 sea turtle nests were recorded in 2012, by far the most nests ever documented at Cape Hatteras National Seashore. At the same time, visitor gross occupancy on Hatteras Island during the bird and turtle nesting season months of April, June, July, and September 2012 was the highest on record, according to the Outer Banks Visitors Bureau.
In February 2011, when the senators sponsored the legislation, Sen. Hagan said she did so to help the economy.
"Beach access is critical to the Dare County economy, and that is why I am working with Representative (Walter) Jones and Senator Burr to make sure federal regulations are not overly restrictive for the local community," Sen. Hagan said at the time. "The Hatteras community has experienced three summers with many beaches closed, and some local businesses may not survive another. I will continue working with the administration, my colleagues in Congress and all relevant stakeholders to balance appropriate beach access with important environmental protections."
But the conservation groups maintain things are fine without changes.
“The existing National Park Service plan is a win-win for the seashore,” said Jason Rylander, senior attorney at Defenders of Wildlife. “The plan restored wildlife to the seashore while increasing visitation and tourism. The vast majority of seashore visitors do not come to drive on the beaches. This bill seeks to fix something that isn’t broken."
Based on a public input and peer-reviewed science, the current National Park Service plan is the result of a public process agreed to by all parties—including Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance and local counties—concerned about beach driving on the national seashore.
“The National Park Service’s current regulation offers a balanced use of the seashore,” said Walker Golder of Audubon North Carolina. “The current safeguards--put in place after much stakeholder input, public discussion, and more than 21,000 public comments—allow for responsible off-road vehicle use, provide areas for people who want to safely enjoy the beach without the danger of trucks, and provide basic protection for birds, sea turtles and other wildlife. The bill sets a horrible precedent for the National Park Service.”
Eleven threatened piping plover chicks survived to fledge (able to fly) from nests laid on the seashore’s beaches during 2012. Before off-road vehicle management practices were implemented in April 2008, piping plover numbers within Cape Hatteras National Seashore declined to an all-time low of no chicks surviving to fledge in 2002 and 2004, the groups noted.
The National Park Service rule designates 61 percent of the seashore’s miles of beaches as year-round or seasonal ORV routes with only 39 percent designated as year-round vehicle-free areas for pedestrians, families, and wildlife. Some areas may be temporarily closed during nesting season to provide the essential protection necessary for birds and sea turtles to nest and raise their young.
Since President Nixon’s 1972 executive order, Cape Hatteras National Seashore has been required by federal law to establish guidelines that manage off-road vehicles to minimize harm to the wildlife and other natural resources of the seashore. The order called for protocols in accordance with the best available science to minimize conflicts with other, non-vehicle-based uses of the seashore and to preserve the seashore for present and future generations. Forty-one years later, NPS’ rule is finally addressing these requirements, but bills like this one hinder the National Park Service’s work at Cape Hatteras.
Comments
The ORVers might have caught a lucky break on S. 486 with democric Senator Manchin from West Virginia who happens to fish in ORV fishing tournaments in CHNS and sits on the committee. He has some ORV fishing buddies friends that have bent his ear. It is unlikely S. 486 would have left the subcommittee if it wasn't for him. Of course the amended version might bite them in the blank with resource buffers there is still a big potential problem for them there. I hope some environmentally sound ORV and Pedestrian alternate routes can be salvaged from S. 486 to get to around closed resource areas to areas that are still open. I would love to see some changes to the final plan that would improve access for all users but I doubt ORV side will agree to that because they all are consumed about ORV access and little else.
OBXguys is incorrect about the environmental groups being dishonest about the regneg. They issued their intent to sue long before the regneg started and filed their suit before the regneg convened the first meeting. They were just doing what they told everyone was their intention from the beginning.
They should have had better people to represent them at the consent decree you won't get much sympathy from me because Commissioner Judge and friends don't negotiate well, they signed it, man up.
Jim,
I find your comment to have profound merit. Especially in this case due to bipartisan sponsors, bipartisan negotiators, bipartisan unanimous vote, in favor of, as ammended. Look at the senators involved, amazing. Look at how they worked together with one goal, to come up with a solution that hopefully everyone can live with, even if they do not believe it to be perfect. As written, it does leave the door open for everyone to be involved in trying to find that perfection as we move ahead. No one had a door slammed in their face. Quite a contrast compared to Judge Boyle's courtroom
Is everyone satisfied, I think not. Is anyone completely satisfied, probably not. Will everyone be able to live with the outcome, if it ultimately passes ? I hope so.
I am just impressed with everyone involved, that's all. "For better or worse".
Buxton,
Sorry that I appear to have disregarded your post. I write slow and intermittently and was un aware your post fell betweem Jim's and my response to him.
I agree the orv group may have caught a lucky break with Senator Manchin. I heard him admit that he has visited the seashore. I admit it is possible his association with the fishing community may have some influence on his viewpoint of the issues at hand. On the other hand, it possibly gives him a better insight into the issues than is had by most. Are you insinuating that this has swayed what he believes to be right or wrong on these issues? I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.
As to the orv group being consumed about orv access, besides the inclusion of pedestrian access being limited, just what is it that you think this is all about. ORV and Pedestrian access are THE ISSUES. They are the only thing being taken away. The $120.00 permit fee on ORVs are the only thing being added when you get down to it.
As to being incorrect about the environmental groups and NEG-REG, the record speaks for itself. The timing and order of events is relatively insignificant. I may be wrong but, it is my understanding that by joining neg-reg it was with the understanding that no one would initiate litigation as long as it was in progress.
As to the consent decree, I doubt it would have made any difference who the orv group had in attendance. I would be very interested in hearing your account of what took place in that courtroom. Initially and subsequent to the initiar hearing. I was unable to be there. The information I recieved from those that were in attendance may not have been factual.
I do not know you, Buxton, however I have the feeling we are not that far apart in our feelings for the outer banks and all things associated. Though you may think I am taking jabs at you, it is actually just my way of making my point about things not always being as they appear. Please forgive me and I will try and 'man up'.
I've been a frequent visitor of CHNSRA for over 30 years and have gotten know several oldtimers. One who has raised generations of family on the island, told me a few weeks ago is so completely disgusted with the NPS, that he is planning to sell his property and leaving. His father gave miles of beach to the NPS and feels that they have broken their original promise. He said cringes everytime he sees an NPS representative.
Technically it is 2000 meters wide, an amazing 1.2 mile wide buffer for a couple of chicks. As usual the NPS lied about their "best available science" that provided the recommendations for these excessive buffers.
The NPS has created "user conflict" which they claimed their plan would eliminate. We now have swimmers, surfers, and fishermen all trying to share the same small stretch of beach that is left open. Its the first time I can remember that there is no ORV access in Buxton on the first day of summer.
The REG NEG used the interim plan as foundation to start with. Those involved in the REG NEG had to agree not to sue, but the environmental groups claimed their lawsuit did not break the rules because it targeted the interim plan only. The lawsuit outraged access folks because it broke the rules and they knew it, but the NPS looked the other way.
Senator Machin gets it, he's actually visited the seashore. He unlike most Senators did more than just read the SELC press release and try to defend their perversions of the truth.
Its shame the OBX Group NPS has done such a poor job of educating the visitors about the natural resources of the CHNSRA. Its also a shame that NPS stopped maintaining the habitat, the salt pond, these birds preferred, instead the broods are scrambling all over to find suitable habitat. I am not aware of any unbiased scientists or biologists that pointed how out bad the animals were doing. Those NPS biologists used the pedestrians and vehicles as culprit of they are own resource mismanagement.
Beachdumb you misspoke it outraged the ORV access proponents, of course they are in a constant state of outrage about something.
I can only surmise Senator Manchin's motivation but from what I read he was invited to stay at an establishment in Ocracoke ( part of CHNS) in a fishing tournament where everyone used an ORV to access the beach, went to the tournament dinners and meetings and hung out with people who were 100% united in their vision of a national seashore that allows one of the most liberal ORV policies on any developed coastline on the EastCoast. I am thinking his recreational use of the beach is pretty much what theirs is. I am sure he was wined and dined.
I believe the senate compromise is much more complicated. Hagan is going to suffer politically over this. I am quite sure she wishes this whole thing would have gone away, her political base doesn't like this and the locals who she supported will never support her. The rest of the democrats in the subcommittee watered down the bill so much the house might balk at the whole thing. If the house doesn't agree to the bill it will be dead in the Senate. The rest of the senate democrats went out on a limb with the compromise for a number of political reasons none of which included the NPS's ORV rule, they were fine with it and didn't like the idea of overturning a NPS NEPA formulated rule. If the bill is passed the conservation groups will lobby for fundamentally the same rules as the current rule if anything deviates signficantly from the original rule the courts will get involved. This bill will have unintended consequence and cause more uncertainty in management for CHNS.
Also if you read the bill carefully ( I am sure you have) the bill takes square aim at increasing ORV access into the vehicle free areas that were formally established in the current rule. This is why I come to the conclusion that this bill is about a special interest group ( ORV access users) that have established a strong historical use with established local and regional organisations . The Cape Hatteras Anglers Club and the North Carolina Beach Buggy Orgainizations are powerful local and regional special interest Organisations. Their former president camped out in Washington with the local county commissioner to get this bill done.
OBX guys I am certain we love and agree about many things concerning the Seashore and I appreciate your kind words. But I think we have a fundamental difference and a different historical context of the Seashore. I remember clearly when walking was the established, expected and normal way to access the Seashore for the many recreational activities visitors came to enjoy. I remember large sections of beach that were open to driving but used so little that you couldn't find a tire track. I witnessed the same beaches turned into (how I can only describe) as giant tail getting fishing party where the beach was churned up with ruts and and tire tracks from dune to the high tide line and littered with all the things one could only haul to the beach using a vehicle. I am not saying that is bad I just don't think it appropriate in a NP. I feel half of the beach dedicated to ORV use should be a comprise anyone can live with that appreciates and wants to maintain the wild natural beauty this Seashore was established for.
And to be absolutely clear I am for environmentally sound access and adaptive management practices that improves access for all users (that was the biggest flaw with the current rule IMO). Having met with and talked to conversation/environmental leaders directly involved in CHNS management I am 100% certain they feel the same way.
No need to apologise about your writing, I think you express yourself and interests well.
Well Beachdumb overcrowded beaches overrun with ORVs and all the junk they drag out there is a recreational conflict to me and a bunch of other visitors. I get that you don't get it.
We might have some agreement on the salt pond as the NPS never should have dregged out that pond for a beach nourishment project back in the 70's. It is not a natural process. I am glad they don't do stuff like that now. Everything would have been better if they had left it alone. I'm not sure how but I wish they could put it back the it way it was, then leave it alone, natural processes will provide the correct habitat.
I also get you think the enviromentalist (who are concerned with something other than ORV access) lied about the regneg. Their lawyers, the NPS lawyers, and the regneg facilatators didn't think so or they wouldn't have been at the table.
There is an easy way to tell if ORV access affects wildlife. We just have to close beaches and monitor them, guess what some of that is happening as we speak. The ORVers are scared to death because they know what the results will be. I bet you would find any scientist's work that doesn't fit into your world view biased.
Uh oh, those "groups" better find some new revenue streams. The wheels are coming off those group's abuse of the ESA... The SELC is not going to like this:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1493
H.R. 1493: Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2013