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
Beachdumb really needs to compare other national parks and tourist destinations over the course of 5 or 10 years with non-bias independent visitor surveys to get a gist of the impact (or lack of) NPS final ORV rule on Park visitation. Just like there are many variables that determine the success or failure of bird and turtle nesting in the park there are many variables that affect local business and commerce. In any case if the only road to Hatteras Island had not been out for 6 weeks because of Hurricane Sandy last fall during the prime fishing season Hatteras 2012 visitation would have been stellar. The entire ORV lobby continues to ignore or dispute any data that they can not spin their way and cherry picks the data that they can to support their cause.
This bill is not about the local economy or visitation to the park. It is about providing as much ORV access as possible to a very organised highly vocal local special interest group.
Kay Hagan the democratic NC senator will never again get my vote. I doubt she get many from the very conservative special interest group that scammed her support for S.486.
Interesting post. I hope the park can hold on to its decision based on their extensive NEPA compliance effort. I do think its important that our Federal and State Agencies follow the Federal and State compliance laws. It not just more paper work, its protects the public's right to have input into the decision process and hopefully, the agencies are gathering the best information for the alternatives they present. It appears that Cape Hatteras National Seashore has done that in this case.
The overriding mandate of the National Park Service was spelled out in 1916. We all know it -- or should.
". . . . to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."
There are many who read that in a very selective manner and simply ignore one of its most important phrases: ". . . and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."
I submit that those who ignore that part of the Enabling Act are guilty of pure greed. Another display of the Great American Entitlement Mentality which says, "Give it to me, NOW because I WANT it!" We can only hope that the Park Service continues to stand strong and firm in the face of greed, and that our courts will have the wisdom to uphold that stand despite the idiocy of a few Congresscritters whose grubby paws are deep in the pockets of well moneyed special interest gangs.
In addition to the Organic Act the enabling legislation for CHNS was pretty clear(at least to me) that recreating in the park was expected as long as specific criteria and management were maintained. One of the ORVers arguments for more ORV area ( half of the Park is a designated ORV route) is that if they find a area closed to ORVs but open to pedestrians with only light visitation that that is reason enough to open that beach to ORV use. It is as if there was something wrong with a section of beach in a desolate state.
(link to NPS MAP)
http://www.nps.gov/caha/planyourvisit/upload/02-10-12-ORV-Route-Map-FINAL-8-5x11.pdf
CHNS enabling legislation
Except for certain portions of the area, deemed to be especially adaptable for recreational uses, particularly swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, and other recreational activities of similar nature, which shall be developed for such uses as needed, the said area shall be permanently reserved as a primitive wilderness and no development of the project or plan for the convenience of visitors shall be undertaken which would be incompatible with the preservation of the unique flora and fauna or the physiographic conditions now prevailing in this area . . .
(Aug. 17, 1937, ch. 687, Sec. 4, 50 Stat. 670; June 29, 1940, ch. 459, Sec. 1, 54 Stat. 702; Mar. 6, 1946, ch. 50, 60 Stat. 32.)
Pgg
.
Thank you Buxton for the informative post. The efforts of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Defenders of Wildlife, North Carolina Audubon, citizens groups from the Cape Hatteras area, well the list was quite lengthly, it appears the efforts made here by the the NPS are quite creditable.
This is the way I see it, their extensive NEPA compliance effort was flawed, went way to far, did not fairly account for economic impact, has turned out to be very visitor unfriendly and they know it. That is why it appears they have agreed to reassess the new plan and not have to start completely over.
I've not seen how pedestrian and/or ORV access impairs anything for future generations. People and vehicles have been accessing the remote beaches for generations with no describable impact.
Its prime time to be on the beach. So Buxton, the hypocrisy is unreal, how many miles of pedestrian access is there currently at the beaches of the village Buxton, NC (surrounded by CHNSRA)?
When initially ordered, the NPS spent money crafting a plan with public input and then they lost it, never made it to the federal register, and just buried their head in the sand. Then years later when they got called on it, the spent a bunch of money crafting another plan, with public comment and a USFWS FONSI. Then a couple years later, they threw all that out, spent A LOT more money, created another "dream" plan, with public comment* and orchestrated and crafted by our favorite environmental special interest groups, lawyers, and a near delirious judge. And you really think they've done a fine job?
(* robo-call to action-campaign "Don't hurt the baby birdies!")
Can you really compare the coin jar grass roots volunteer based orgs efforts to the multimillion dollar orgs like Audubon? Really? Those local orgs only have actual visitors and residents voices on their side...
[size= 14px; line-height: 18px]"The efforts of the Southern Poverty Law Center" - now that is funny. Are they helping the people who lost their jobs and the struggling businesses from the tyranical NPS? [/size]
How much pedestrian or ORV access could change daily depending on resource protection protocols and set seasonal dates where some areas of beach change from ORV access to pedestrian access or pedestrian access to ORV access.
Beachdumb is referring to a 1978 draft interim ORV plan that was sent to congress and never approved (lost?) CAHA's final and only ORV ruled was constructed under strict NEPA guidelines with lots of public comments and applicable law considered. This plan takes into consideration fundamental physical and demographic changes to CHNS that have occured since the Parks inception. It is incredulous that anyone could think that manging this park now by 35 year old pre NEPA plan would work or worked in the past.