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
There was another new plan finalized in July 2007 and USFWS issued a “no jeopardy” opinion and the Atlanta office of the NPS issued a “finding of no significant impact”. While not everyone was completely happy with, it was accepted by locals and visitors. But under pressure from SELC, they threw that out and developed a completely new excessively restrictive plan. While NPS played the NEPA game, again, they had already predetermined the outcome, summarily ignored public input/comment, and here we are today.
I'll ask again, Buxton, how many of miles of beach access does the village of Buxton have right now?
Under this new plan, the NPS is using a 1000 meter closure for piping plover chicks. Using this ridiculous closure size, accessing Cape Hatteras Lighthouse and Cape Point campground are currently a violation of the closure. This has got to change.
Yes, this has got to be changed. 1000 meters is not enough. It really should be 2000 meters. ;-)
Beachdumb for whatever ah ha moment you are trying to achieve go to CAHA's website and seek the answer to your question. The amount of beach open to pedestrians only changes on a day to day basis depending on set seasonal dates and resource closures. Here is a link that might help you:
http://www.nps.gov/caha/planyourvisit/googleearthmap.htm
Or you could contact CAHA and ask park officials.
The no significant impact referred to the Interim Protected Species Management Plan. As the title says this was a temporary plan that only addressed ORVs and resources until the comprehensive final ORV rule could be established. It was basically devised by a new CAHA superintendent and deviated significantly from what USGS scientists had recommended. It was immediately challenged by a conservation group. When that ruling went before a federal judge it was basically thrown out for being inadequate. So in my book the no sigficant impact doesn't hunt anymore.
The campground and the lighthouse are not closed because of plover chicks. There are some ORV propents that would be delighted if that were the case.
I have lived on Hatteras Island for 40 years. Fished and enjoyed about ever recreational aspect this island it has to offer. I loved the old locals who can trace their families trees back generations. There are not many of them left, they viewed "beach birds" as food and lumped most of the shorebirds as sea chickens.
I can say for certain that the great majority the newly moved to second homers , new business owners and frequent visitors were ambivalent to anything other than fishing. They couldn't tell a tern from a gull or care or understand the plight of beach nesting birds. No one started to profess their nurturing and care of the other resources until biologist and scientist started pointing out to them how bad some of these animals were doing. The bigger concern was how a national seashore that didn't have an ORV driving plan was being turned literally into a national beach parking lot.
There isn't some secret plan to rid the Park of people ( just look at CAHAs website). The park has all kinds of free programs run by park staff to educate people on all kinds of fun things to do in the park. They run the gamut: history talks, fishing programs, bird watching walks etc. This park is continually promoting itself to visitors.
The predictor control program is targeting feral cats, raccoons, opossums and introduced red foxes. Sport fishermen here kill thousands and thousands of baitfish for catch and release fishing for top predator fish maybe they have a secret agenda to wipe out jumping mullet.
All this brew ha ha is about driving vehicles on the beach.
I was born in California in 1940, the state had a population of 6 million. Now, in 2013, we have a population of 37 million and counting. Restrictions on the uses of public lands were minimal when I was a young boy, but the pressure of use from increased population has resulted in restrictions many of us our having trouble getting use to. I want to thank you Buxton, I have little knowledge of Cape Hatteras, having been there only once about 15 years ago. I must agree with you however. We have a like issue here in California with perhaps the last beach/dunes area on the North/Central coast, that allows driving and camping and, at times, general mayhem, on the beach, ie Pismo Beach State Recreation Area. Great place to visit, but be careful of weekends, your tent will be surrounded by ORVs all night. circling like our great old western movies showing the wagon trains being attacked. Much drinking and general heck raising to say the least. Same issues, same outcry every time some restraints are suggested on the use of the beach, know its difficult to do, but at some point the birds, etc, need some space also.
Gentlemen,
It is apparent that you believe regulation of the seashore is necessary. Guess what, the vast majority of the free and open beach access advocacy groups do, also. That is why a two year Neg-Reg took place. At least until SELC went to court after agreeing not to. Then came the over-reach with unreasonable regulations dictated totally by the environmental groups, thru their Lawyers, to Judge Boyle. And yes, the terms of Judge Boyle's 'consent decree' were agreed to by All. I assume everyone is familiar with Dare County Commissioner Warren Judge's response to that item, which went something like, "We had the choice of being shot in the foot or shot in the head".
Now, please be aware that SB 486, as ammended, was just marked up in committee, and by unanimous vote, will be sent to the full Senate floor. This was done by the BY-Partison committee on Energy and Natural resources. Could it be that the NPS plan is not as balanced as some may claim. A similar measure has already gone to the floor of the House. I do not know what the outcome will be. What ever it is, everyone will have to live with it. Hopefully it will truly be fair and balanced, that is all the free and open beach access folks are looking for. I really believe that our Senators and Representatives will do what is right for all the people, wildlife and resources.
Let me start by saying that I am not going to try and convince any of you that I know more than you do about anything. I do believe some of the content of the article itself, and some of the comments that follow it, are exactly the reason that the issues concerning access to the beaches at Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area are now to be addressed by Our U. S. Senate and House of Reprsentatives. Anyone that doesn't understand why this is happening, please read the history, the complete history, including the promises made. If you have not done that, I recommend you not believe anything anyone says at this point, not even statistics. Then take a trip to Hatteras and talk to the people, all of the people. Then tell these people that they don't have a good reason to be fighting for what they believe in and that they are wasting our Senators and Representatives time and money. Tell them that. While you are at it, tell these people that they don't know how to take care of God's creatures and Natural Resources. Tell them that you have to be a Scientist, Judge, Lawyer, or Member of Audubon or Defenders of wildlife to be capable of understanding about birds and turtles and caring for our beaches. That is basically what they have already been told.
Then, think back to a time when small groups of people, while greatly out numbered and financially over powered, fought for something they believed in because they had been made a promise. Think of those that had their way of life altered by someone that had never stood among them. Then say you can't understand why Our Senators and Representatives are now involved. Maybe you should ask them, they were not forced to look into this situation. The people of Hatteras are few in number compared to the environmental groups involved in these issues. They are not nearly in the same league financially as these groups. Many segments of our great society would possibly say they are actually rather insignificant in the overall scheme of things. Why are these Senators and Representatives even bothering with them? Could it be because they believe these people have received less than a fair shake. Wouldn't that be something.
I still question whether it is really about the birds and turtles. Look beyond the questionable statistics and the skewed science. Remember the 1200 plus animals trapped and killed during the same period that the statistics say survival rates increased. But all that you heard is it must have resulted from the increased restriction of orv and pedestrian access. Let common sense be your guide and see where it takes you. It's not just Hatteras, it's happening all over the country. I would be the first to say that all the above mentioned groups consist of some truly great people doing great things. However, that does not mean they are all right or right all the time. Please don't take for granted that they are.
Thanks for the opportunity to address this issue.
Kurt, hope you are doing well.
re: "I really believe that our Senators and Representatives will do what is right for all the people, wildlife and resources."
If this issue comes to a "political settlement," I hope the above sentiment is the outcome.
With the crush of bills competing for time in both the House and Senate, I fear I've become a bit cynical that very few bills receive much thought and review by the majority of the members of either chamber, and the best chance for analysis of the merits of a bill comes at the committee level. The tendency (tradition) on such issues is go along with the sentiments of the elected rep. for the area, and his or her opinions (and thus the wording of the bill) will reflect the views of whichever group has managed to capture his or her ear.
For better or worse, that's our system.