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
Spottail,
One can't attribute the nest totals for the species on Hatteras to a management action that is only a couple of years old. Especially in the case of sea turtles that only nest every 2-3 years. Any increase in nesting females would be the result of recruitment, on which the consent decree can have no effect, since that is dependent on hatching conditions as long as 40 years ago and those individuals surviving to adulthood.
Dap,
The point is, there could be 100 plover or whatever on Cora June, but if there are none on Hatteras, the Park Service has failed in its obligations. I'm also in favor of recognizing and making special arrangements to honor Culture and Tradition. But that would require they be direct descendants of the original families.
Cro
I love that one would consider if no plovers nested on Cape hatteras a failure on the part of the NPS. The fact that no more than 20 nests has ever been reported on an island with 60 plus miles of beach should be proof enough that conditions are not right for them to thrive. That cannot be blamed on the NPS, ORV's, or even humans. The fact that the fledge rate of chicks is realy small is that the natural and unatural predators seem to like the taste of baby plover (read the Plover reports from the NPS and if you do you will notice not one incident with a Plover was caused by humans).
PS. to all who argue the point in favor of these Plovers.... Why do you not make the same efforts at Virginia beach, miami beach, daytona beach, etc...
This comment was edited to remove gratuitous language. -- Ed.
Anon,
"Moral to the story: Let's not focus on 'intent' behind the name of Cape Hatteras, whatever you believe it to rightly be. Let's focus on the laws that are actually on the books and the impact(s) that ORV have on the park and its resources."
With all due respect, you bring up valid points, but I don't believe the two can be seperated. Plus, how can we NOT look at something as important as the enabling legislation that created the very park itself? Do you deem it null and void? If so, why does it even exist in the first place? I can't believe that any court in the land would see it in such a light, but that remains to be seen.
************************************************************************
Crot,
Good stuff on both points. Thanks for chiming in, and lending your expertise where mine falls short.
"The point is, there could be 100 plover or whatever on Cora June, but if there are none on Hatteras, the Park Service has failed in its obligations. I'm also in favor of recognizing and making special arrangements to honor Culture and Tradition. But that would require they be direct descendants of the original families."
You and I have discussed this ad nauseum, and while I fully comprehend your position, (and even partially agree), I think the NPS has failed PIPL in more ways than one. Their reluctance/refusal/whatever to clear the vegetation from around the salt pond has denied them of their prime habitat, increased the areas where predators can hide/live, and forced the plovers into the same areas as humans. I just can't fathom why this is allowed to continue. Can you shed any light on this?
Glad to hear you agree on the C&T aspect, but are you certain about the direct descendant part? So a "Non-Native" wife of a netboat operator could not participate due to bloodline? I dunno....
Matt,
"I love that one would consider if no plovers nested on Cape hatteras a failure on the part of the NPS. The fact that no more than 20 nests has ever been reported on an island with 60 plus miles of beach should be proof enough that conditions are not right for them to thrive. That cannot be blamed on the NPS, ORV's, or even humans. The fact that the fledge rate of chicks is realy small is that the natural and unatural predators seem to like the taste of baby plover (read the Plover reports from the NPS and if you do you will notice not one incident with a Plover was caused by humans)."
Correct. Under the Consent Decree, and the previous interim plan, there were no documented interactions with humans. What about the period prior to that? And, let's see, they've only been looking for plovers on Hatteras (that I can find) for the last 30-40 years. What about the period prior to that? They didn't exist because no one was looking for them? Finally, there are 5-6 areas with the preferred habitat for plover, so your claim that they don't nest on the all of the island somehow reflects on the suitability of the those parts (preferred habitat) of Hatteras for nesting is disingenuous. Anywhere they nest, it's on points or spits, not on the long stretches of beach away from an inlet.
"PS. to all who argue the point in favor of these Plovers.... Why do you not make the same efforts at Virginia beach, miami beach, daytona beach, etc..." First, plovers don't nest to the south of northern South Carolina. Second, they do nest in Virginia ... to the tune of more than 200 pairs.
"I can answer for you.... because you do not understand enough about these animals to make a educated statement. You simply sit in your chair miles from the action and spew uneducated statements you read somewhere in an advertisment for birkenstocks." After your previous ill-informed statements, perhaps you should refrain from making comments about the education of others?
Cro
Dap,
I could only venture a guess, but would assume any such habitat restoration would be as convoluted as the DEIS and require wetlands mitigation, CAMA approval, etc, etc and take 30 years.
Spouses would be okay.
Dap,
I'm not saying don't look at the enabling legislation (indeed, I meant the exact opposite by saying "Let's focus on the laws that are actually on the books...")
Instead, I mean to say that the Supreme Court has said time and time again that focusing on things like "well, what exactly did the legislative body mean by calling it CHNSRA" or "what was their intent here?" isn't a particularly fruitful effort. Following that line of reasoning, I'd submit that it's similarly fruitless to fuss over what Congress did or didn't mean with the park's name. Instead, we ought to look at what the laws actually, physically say in black and white.
Clear as mud?
I didn't see any call that the enabling legislation be ignored. I thought that the contention was that "legislative intent" can be very difficult to determine because there are diverse reasons for why a law was written the way it was or voted on by Congress. Even what you quoted says "Let's focus on the laws...."
Introductions are in order!
Cro, Matt. Matt, Cro. (I'm Godfadda to Matt's firstborn, but beyond that I have absolutely no control...) Cro I know under a pseudonym on another forum or two.
"Finally, there are 5-6 areas with the preferred habitat for plover, so your claim that they don't nest on the all of the island somehow reflects on the suitability of the those parts (preferred habitat) of Hatteras for nesting is disingenuous. Anywhere they nest, it's on points or spits, not on the long stretches of beach away from an inlet."
Granted, and the true INLET points are the more preferred-of-the-preferred, due to the more overwash fan geography, better protection from the elements, and transitional mud flats, correct?
I've often wondered if the salt pond, the Buxton sedge/maritime swamp and the surrounding flats did not exist, would PIPL even frequent Cape Point?
Still waiting on your response to the salt pond vegetation removal question....
***********************************************
Kurt/Ed:
Isn't there a way to italicize, etc. our responses? Seems like there used to be!
dap