You are here

Draft Environmental Impact Statement on ORV Use at Cape Hatteras National Seashore Released

Share

Cape Hatteras National Seashore has released a hefty draft environmental impact statement that addressed ORV management on the seashore.

Improved access for vehicles and pedestrians, better parking, and vehicle capacity limits are among the items contained in the draft off-road-vehicle management plan released Friday by Cape Hatteras National Seashore officials.

The voluminous draft environmental impact statement, spanning more than 800 pages, seeks to find a suitable middle ground between the access ORVers want and protection for threatened or endangered shorebirds and sea turtles sought by environmental and conservation groups. It will be open for public review for 60 days before a final decision is made on an official ORV management plan for the seashore.

The spit of sand that buffers the North Carolina coast from the worst the Atlantic Ocean can toss at it carries an array of contentious issues that seemingly have no easy answers. Foremost among the issues at the national seashore is the use of off-road vehicles to negotiate beaches that are either far from parking lots or which are just far enough from those lots to make it difficult to carry all your gear for a weekend fishing trip.

Cape Hatteras, authorized as America's first national seashore in 1937 but not actually established until 1953, is a beach lover's jewel. The heart of North Carolina's Outer Banks, the cape offers some of the best beaches in the country, is renowned for its surf fishing, has some of the East Coast's best waves for surfing, and has a decided tinge of wildness that is a welcome respite from the Mid-Atlantic's metropolitan areas.

But the seashore's lack of an official ORV management plan led conservation groups a few years back to sue the National Park Service to protect bird and turtle nesting from ORV traffic.

That lack of a formal management plan has "led over time to inconsistent management of ORV use, user conflicts, and safety concerns," as the DEIS notes, and nearly prompted a federal judge to ban ORV traffic entirely. He acquiesced when a management team representing both the Park Service and the opposing groups agreed to work toward a long-term plan while temporary rules were instituted to protect shorebird and sea turtle nesting sites by seasonally and intermittently restricting beach driving access to popular fishing areas.

Environmentalists defended the strict controls on beach driving, arguing that protecting wildlife resources should trump recreationists’ demands for convenient ORV access to the beach. Beach driving fishermen have strongly protested the strict rules. They argue that 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. Area businesses detest the restrictions too, citing reduced spending by ORV users.

With that as a backdrop, seashore officials have produced a DEIS that looks at five options, two of which essentially are "no action" proposals. Among the provisions of the seashore's preferred alternative are:

* A permit system for ORV access, although no permit limit would be instituted;

* Annual and short-term permits would be available;

* There would be a "carrying-capacity requirement (peak use limit) for all areas based on a physical space requirement of one vehicle per 20 linear feet for Bodie Island, Hatteras Island, and Ocracoke Island Districts, except that 400 vehicles would be allowed within a 1-mile area centered on Cape Point";

* There would be a variety of access points for "both ORV and pedestrian users, including access to the spits and points, but often with controls or restrictions in place to limit impacts on sensitive resources. This means that some areas may be kept open to ORV users for longer periods of time by reopening some ORV corridors at the spits and points sooner
after shorebird breeding activity is completed" than would be allowed in other alternatives, "or by improving interdunal road and ORV ramp access";

* Increasing parking at pedestrian-access points leading to vehicle-free areas of the seashore, and;

* Seasonal and year-round ORV routes would be designated, although they still could be impacted by temporary closures "when protected-species breeding behavior warrants and/or if new habitat is created."

It's worth noting that while the number of sea turtle nests observed on Cape Hatteras in 2009 slightly declined from 2008, the 104 verified nests were far above the 43 counted just five years ago. Those 2009 nests also produced roughly 5,000 turtle hatchlings, according to the seashore's annual sea turtle report.

Comments

I visited Cape Hatteras once, but I have never recommended it to anybody else, because the ORVs were driving up and down the beaches, and only a few tiny sections were closed to vehicles. If you want a wild beach where you can enjoy the wind and the waves and the wildlife, Hatteras is not it. I'm going to read the EIS and support alternatives that would limit ORVs to a smaller proportion of the beach, with appropriate regulation to protect wildlife habitat areas.


If folks are self-evidently misinformed, why would it be necessary for them to announce where they are from? Besides, if "they are misinformed, and it would be easier to educate those that are misinformed," it seems like National Parks Traveler would be an ideal forum to have that conversation.


I got curious and found this picture from one of the Cape Hatteras banners on their website:


ORV users do not kill birds nor do we think birds should not have protection. We are not red neck idiots, playing "Dukes of Hazard" on the beach, running down plover or crushing sea turtles. The majority of us are fishermen, respectful of the resources. Conservationists. We have never asked for nor sought complete, unbridled access. Never have had it all. What we do oppose is stupid science with political aims, such as declaring every single bird endangered or protected as an means to an end, which to us looks like no access. Ghost crabs, storm overwash and predators do much more damage than any ORV. In 20 years of driving, I have never killed a bird. Besides, I enjoy watching them, identifying the species. Sound like a red neck?


First we will answer george

If the environmentalist have there way on this you could not even walk out on the beach if the birds ever become plentiful enough. By the way what area were you in and how did you get there? Ramp number?, Town nearest? When?

Justinh

I agree we have a wonderful forum here and all you have to do is ask the question and it will be answered

YPH

Your point is?


Back a few years ago, I think it was the spring of 2007 maybe 2006 a large freighter lost its cargo of ceiling fans in a storm. Literally millions of chunks of styrofoam packaging for the fans was scattered on the beaches the entire length of CHNSRA and Pea Island NWR. It was an unsightly mess.

Immediately the ORV groups and ORV users, most of whom were fisherman mobilized to clean up the beaches. Trash bags were distributed at every ramp by the North Carolina Beach Buggy Association to every ORV accessing the beach. I personally filled over 20 bags with the trash and carried them out in my "gas-guzzling, oil-leaking, vehicle of destruction". In a matter of days within the ORV areas the styrofoam was gone. Fishermen and other ORV users picked it all up.

Interestingly, the Audoban Society, the Defenders of Wildlife and other anti-ORV groups were nowhere to be found. They did absolutely nothing to return the beaches to a "natural state" when the situation dictated real action with "boots on the ground". When I left at the end of my fishing vacation the ORV beaches were clean. Pedestrian only areas like Pea Island NWR were still littered with the styrofoam. So apparently along with the above mentioned anti-ORV organizations those who accessed the beaches by foot did little to clean up as well.

This begs the question. Who really does care about the welfare of the park?


Richmond, Virginia
40-60 days annually.

y_p_w:

I'll ask of you the same that Mr. Stubbs did, what does your picture prove? Do you think posting it in some ways bolsters your point, or that we have something to be ashamed of? Think again.

Either way, you messed with the wrong guy with regards to pictures of the area. I've got literally thousands, and here's two that I'd like to share with the group, as they tell our side of the story far better than mere words:

Frisco, NC, Ramp 49, looking South, late June 2009. Note that this is the extreme southern boundary of the ORV beaches, and the white SUV marks the approximate end where pedestrian beaches begin. (Just out of frame is a row of houses where all the ped users originate)

Care to tell me which part of the pictured beach is carrying the most human load?

*************************************************************************

From the same vantage, same day, looking Northward towards Cape Point. Note as the beach arcs to the right, you can see where the ORV's come to an abrupt stop, where Resource Closures for birds begin. As you can see the vast majority of this stretch of beach is ORV free, from this area all the way to Cape Point proper. During turtle nesting season, the ares where ORV's can travel is even more severely limited.

If you can't find an ORV-Free beach on Hatteras and/or Ocracoke Islands even in peak season, then you're just not looking hard enough, or in the right places.

Pea Island is a really good place to start...


My only point is that it doesn't exactly scream "National Park Service" with trucks parked less than 10 ft away from the shore. I can certainly understand why one of the proposals is to set up a maximum carrying capacity since it looks like a crowded parking lot on the beach.

I'm also looking at a Cape Hatteras map right now. It seems pretty narrow - less than 1 mile wide most of the way. So if you couldn't drive on the beach in places, but could still access NC-12, what's to stop one from parking on the side of the road and walking to the beach? I found a nice little parking lot at Olympic NP and took a path down to the beach. It doesn't seem to be very far, although I suppose it makes it harder to take the 72 quart cooler with you. Building trails isn't exactly something that the NPS frowns upon. The argument seems very much like the winter snowmobile access controversies in Yellowstone, which is also in effect for part of the year. I've actually seen people fishing in Yellowstone where they had to do so by hiking in 5 miles with their equipment.


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.