You are here

ORV Group Loses Latest Challenge To Cape Hatteras National Seashore's Management Plan

Share
Alternate Text
A federal judge has refused to toss out the National Park Service's off-road management plan at Cape Hatteras National Seashore/Kurt Repanshek

In a conclusion that has been reached in many other court cases across the country, a federal court, ruling on a case involving Cape Hatteras National Seashore in North Carolina, has found that resource protection trumps recreational interests. U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle also found that the National Park Service did not rely on shoddy science when it developed an off-road management plan.

The lawsuit was brought by the Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance, which long has argued that the ORV management plan is too restrictive, a detriment to the local economy on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, and, quite frankly, that the Park Service acted arbitrarily and capraciously. Too, the group charged, the plan runs counter to the national seashore's enabling legislation.

In tackling that last argument first, U.S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle, ruling last Thursday, wrote that, "While the Seashore's Enabling Act does specifically mention recreational activities, Congress' intent as to the priority of natural resource protection over recreational use on the Seashore is quite plain: no plan for the convenience of visitors should be implemented if it is incompatible with the preservation of the flora and fauna of the Seashore. As CHAPA concedes, the Seashore's Enabling Act and the Organic Act are not in conflict on this issue, and indeed 'over twenty years of federal court decisions confirm that conservation is the predominant facet of the Organic Act.'"

More so, the judge pointed out that, "While CHAPA contends that NPS should have further considered ORV management in areas deemed to be especially adaptable for recreational use, CHAPA has not pointed to nor can the Court identify any basis for such claim. ORV use is not a recreational activity explicitly mentioned in the Seashore's Enabling Act, and the final rule exhibits that the NPS did extensively consider ORV use on the Seashore, as it designates more than twenty-eight miles to year-round ORV driving routes as well as forty-one miles to partial-year ORV use."

Throughout his 23-page ruling Judge Boyle again and again turned back the group's charges, finding that the Park Service did not act capriciously or arbitrarily, did use best available science, and did consider the economic consequences of the various alternatives considered in coming up with the ORV plan.

A holistic analysis of the process reveals that NPS engaged in a careful and detailed study of the Seashore, its wildlife and vegetation, and the visitors and residents who utilize the beaches to arrive at a plan which is based on the factors that Congress intended be considered and was not preordained or afait accompli. CHAPA itself was a party to the consent decree, which was a step toward compliance with Executive Order 11644 and 36 C.F.R. § 4.10 requiring that all ORV use on the Seashore be pursuant to a final rule or special regulation. CHAPA and its members participated fully in the rulemaking process, as is evidenced by the number of comments submitted to and considered by NPS in its formulation of an FEIS and final rule. It is clear from the record in this matter that NPS sufficiently considered all viewpoints when determining how to regulate ORV use on the Seashore, bearing in mind that NEPA evinces a "national policy ... to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment."

Under the seashore's ORV management plan, areas along the 70-odd miles of beach are either closed, seasonally open, or open year-round to ORV use; the Park Service has been working on developing new parking areas and beach access points along Highway 12, and; a new trail is to be built to allow pedestrians to walk down through the dunes to the beach.

The plan also provides for a "seasonal night-driving restriction ... established from 9 p.m. to 7 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 allows 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. The rules also outline vehicle requirements, permit requirements, nightly ORV restrictions, speed limits and more.

Outside of court, an effort has been under way in the Senate to order the National Park Service to reconsider the ORV plan. The measure, S. 486, was sponsored in 2013 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 the 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, though, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, 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. It has not been considered by the full Senate.

Similar legislation (H.R. 2954), though, has passed the House of Representatives.

Comments

For what it's worth, the Cape Lookout NS is taking public comments on ORV useage.  I already submitted my own decree in which I stated that i'd like to see the entire seashore made off limites to ORVs, and that a true wilderness experience be crafted.  I reference the Olympic Wilderness Coast as an example of what could be on the Atlantic. I google earthed over this entire area, and it looks like there is very limited development on Cape Lookout, and it's a much better place than Hatteras in those regards. Peaks my interest actually, after reading about it. The potential is greater for a great wilderness experience  than what can be found on Cape Hatteras.  So much of our coastlines are ruined by over development, and it's sad to hear that heavy handed industrial tourism is reaking havoc on Hatteras.  This court ruling, actually is another win in reigning in the industrial tourism era that has really affected many National Parks around our country.  Let it die a slow painful death, arrow by arrow.

Here is where you can comment:

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/parkHome.cfm?parkID=359&CFID=7115185&CFTOKEN...


Beachdumb,

You would help your case greatly if you could provide a link to where the USFW deemed the management plan ineffective.  If the plan IS effective, the argument is preservation vs recreation which will probably never be settled due to differing visions.  On the other hand, if the plan IS NOT effective then the "preservation" folks have little to stand on. 


Driving down island...

Driving on the beach is a great way to explore the island and get away from every day life.

extremecoast.com

Many people come to the National Seashore to escape the pressures of urban life and to experience the beauty of nature in isolation. The best way to do this is to travel down-island into the park's most remote areas, which are usually only accessible with a 4-wheel drive vehicle. Before you explore the island in search of its wonderful mysteries and the awesome solitude it provides...

Some parks have a different view and management strategy, but CHNSRA has a very different view. Why is that?


Beach,

Without something specific brought to him by the plaintiffs, which they apparently didn't do, it's not the judge's job to do their job for them.  But as he noted, the NPS has the scientific expertise to deal with the issue, he does not.

And he also pointed out that the NPS had the data to support its conclusions. Indeed, Judge Boyle specifically wrote that, "the Court concludes that the NPS's decisions were based on sound scientific data..."

Interestingly, he also took the time to write:

In its comments on the DEIS and specifically regarding buffer distances, the United States Fish & Wildlife Service stated that the buffer distances described "reflect our current understanding of the biological needs of these species." As noted by the federal defendants and intervenors, CHAPA's challenge to the underlying science ofthe FEIS appears to be a veiled attempt to argue that recreational interests, specifically ORV interests, should have been assigned more weight in NPS's analysis. (emphasis added)

 

 


This FONSI was based on a much less restrictive management plan. 

http://www.nps.gov/caha/parkmgmt/upload/CAHA_IPSMS_FONSI_Final071307.pdf

As indicated at page 30 in the Finding of No Significant Impact Interim Management Strategy “There are no significant adverse impacts on public health, public safety, threatened or endangered species, sites or districts listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or other unique characteristics of the region. 


Most of the literature as published in the new management plan are significantly out of date. Many citations are over 20 years old and most are not related to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. The public does not have access to the literature reviewed in this essential report and most of the citations are so insignificant they cannot even be found in major university libraries that have extensive environmental and natural resource publications such as the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

Nowhere is a specific science basis, study or data, ever presented, or published for a given bird management option, established solely for the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area.  Closure boundaries are overly restrictive at CHNSRA and are not used at other NPS properties. There has been no administrative or science based explanation given to the public for these uniquely restrictive closures.


Beach,

You said " USFWS found no significant impact based on previous resource management practices, so these new excessive restrictions are not nessecary."

Can you docuement where USFWS made this finding?


Long document that I have only scanned but can't find that conclusion.  Perhaps you could point me to it. 


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.