You are here

Cape Lookout National Seashore ORV Plan Open For Comment Through Early September

Share
Alternate Text
Public comment is being taken through September 4 on an ORV management plan for Cape Lookout National Seashore/Kurt Repanshek

Off-road vehicles would be able to travel most of Cape Lookout National Seashore under a draft management plan, which also would create three "pedestrian only" areas on the seashore.

Though not nearly as controversial as the off-road management plan at Cape Hatteras National Seashore just to the north on the North Carolina coast, the proposed Cape Lookout National Seashore Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement aims to put specific numbers to ORV traffic, specify where they can travel, formally set speed limits, and set seasons for when they can travel on the seashore.

Efforts to provide pedestrian only access during the summer months would cause the mileage open to ORVs to seesaw just a bit: 

Under the seashore's preferred alternative in the draft plan, 44 of the seashore's 56 miles would be open to ORVs from March 16 "through the Thursday preceding Memorial Day and from the day after Labor Day through December 15." Forty-one of those miles "would be available for ORV use from the Friday proceeding Memorial Day through Labor Day. Routes within the Cape Lookout Village Historic District would be open to through vehicle traffic."

The pedestrian-only areas would include the entire length of the seashore from December 16 through March 15. From March 16 through December 15, pedestrian-only areas would include "Portsmouth Village, an expanded lighthouse beach, and Power Squadron Spit from approximately mile marker 46 to the end of the spit, and all of Shackleford Banks."

Pedestrian-only areas would be expanded during the summer (defined as from the Friday preceeding Memorial Day through Labor Day) would include the following:

* Long Point: On the ocean beach at the Long Point Cabin Camp for a day-use beach and a separate tent camping area for a total pedestrian-only area of about 0.50 miles, to be determined by beach profile.

* Great Island: On the ocean beach at the Great Island Cabin Camp for a day-use beach and a separate tent camping area for a total pedestrian-only area of 1.9 miles, to be determined by beach profile.

* Codds Creek: On the ocean beach near Codds Creek for a total closure of 0.8 miles between ramps 35a and 35b for pedestrians only. Camping would be allowed in this area, except for the north end turtle relocation site.

* Light Station: The pedestrian-only area at the lighthouse would be expanded approximately 0.7 miles to the south and would run from ramp 41a to ramp 42a (at the NOAA weather buoy) for a total closure of about 1.4 miles year-round, to provide visitors at the ferry hub a bigger stretch of vehicle-free beach.

Under the plan, which is open for public comment through September 4, ORV speed limits would be set at 25 mph along the beach and other designated routes, or as posted, and at 15 mph when within 100 feet of any "person, vehicle, campsite, other structure..." There also would be restrictions on night driving from May 1 through September 14 each year "to reduce potential impacts to turtles and bird chicks."

The plan also would allow up to four additional "ramps" that would provide access to the ocean-side of the national seashore from the "back route" on the sound side. And it would continue a prohibition "of all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs (after a five-year grace period) and seasonal restrictions on all other ATVs and UTVs" due to their impacts on shorebirds. According to the draft plan, these vehicles likely flush birds more than other ORVs because of the noise they generate.

Proposed fees for ORV permits range from $80 for a ten-day permit to $150 for an annual permit.

The initial limit on the number of vehicle permits issued would be 2,500 permits annually for the North Core Banks and 3,000 permits annually for the South Core Banks, which is based on the average number of ORVs delivered to each island from 2005 through 2012. A limit on the number of vehicle permits issued per year would be established in year 4 of this ORV management plan/EIS, based on the average number of permits issued per island in years 1'“3. Permits would be issued on a first-come, first-served basis. An annual lottery may be established to equitably allocate permits.

As with Cape Hatteras National Seashore, ORV use at Cape Lookout existed long before the national seashore was established. It also was not addressed in the seashore's enabling legislation.

"Beginning in the 1930s, vehicles were transported to the banks by shallow draft ferries and were used to provide access to productive commercial and recreation fishing spots, as well as for other recreational pursuits such as sightseeing and camping. Today, ORVs provide vehicular access to the Seashore beaches for recreational purposes, including activities such as surf-fishing, surfing, sunbathing, swimming, bird-watching, camping, visiting historic structures and site seeing, among other activities," the draft plan notes.

As with Cape Hatteras, sensitive species at Cape Look are driving the ORV guidelines. While some comments collected by the seashore during the planning stages suggested that the park staff move bird or turtle nests and eggs away from ORV corridors, staff said that wouldn't work as piping plovers and American oystercatchers more than likely would abandon their nests under such circumstances.

While turtle nests could be moved without concern for abandonment, "studies indicate that the determination of the hatchling sex ratio depends on the temperature at which the eggs incubate. Changes in these temperatures due to moving the eggs may result in changes to the sex ratio, having implications for the species as a whole. Handling eggs can result in increased hatch failure. When relocating nests, there is a risk of disrupting the membranes inside the egg, which can kill the embryo," the draft EIS notes.

Seashore staff also declined requests to allow for an off-leash area for dogs. While there were requests during the planning stages to include more restrooms, dump stations, and water pumps on the national seashore, park staff said those elements were not central to the off-road vehicle management plan, and so would not be considered at this time. 

You can read the entire plan, and comment on it, at this site.

Comments

Beachdumb,

I live here (Hatteras Island, Buxton). I go to the grocery stores, pass the NPS beach parking access and go to the beach everyday. The parking lots are full everywhere and I see as many or more people on the beach as I ever had. Going out to lunch at my favorite resturaunt in Buxton in a minute, I'll be lucky to find a seat.

National Parks were not established for the whim of the current  local  generation to change  management to suit their immediate desires.  Most state parks are designated recreational parks, not so with National Parks.


beachdumb is right, of course, about the evil NPS folks really being NSA agents deployed by black helicopters and funded by the Trilateralists. Once you accept that, everything else makes sense.


"Don't State's control and successfully manage parks and recreation areas already?"

Yes, they control and successfully (some better than others) manage state parks and recreation areas. And that's great. But Hatteras National Seashore and Lookout National Seashore are not state parks or state recreation areas. They are national. They are on land owned by all Americans, supported by facilities built by all Americans, and staffed by personnel employed by all Americans. So I reiterate that it would make no sense for them to be controlled by local residents who are only concerned about parochial interests, particularly when that means they will be managed to the detriment of all the other people who are inheritors of these parks despite not living right next to them.

"You can't deny that more and more States are considering this action"

They can consider whatever they want, but states don't trump federal authority and they don't get to usurp federal land.


I've seen very few well managed state parks in my time.  The whole idea that states can manage the parks better than the NPS is a bunch of hogwash, mostly put out there by tea party types that never spend time in either state or national parks. This is all just a big scheme to decentralize the federal government, and put this land back into local control so that they can wear down the standards placed on these areas.

There is also a lot of that parochial attitude in the Smokies region. Many think that the park should only be ran by a bunch of good ol' boys with the accent. Southern Forest Watch, and a few other petty organizations think if you ain't local, you ain't meant for "their park". Regardless, National Parks follow a set guideline of standards, whereas state parks are a hodgepodge of management, and almost always you will find few state parks that are ran better than a National Park. In fact, state parks are usually vastly undefunded, and in many cases teeter on being cut out all together during times of recession. The entire "states will do better at managing these lands" is all a big fantasy mindset that doesn't fit with reality.  The national standards, and criteria used to create and maintain National Parks are very important.  If anything, states should attempt to mimic the national level, or exceed it, but you rarely if ever see that occur.


Gary,

I know what you mean. State parks just don't do it for me. There is a totaly different mindset there. I feel like I'm in a KOA in the ones I've been in. I'm sure there are some excellent state parks somewhere.

The problem with CHNS was that the NPS was very late in dealing with ORV issues.  The retirees that moved here to drive and fish and the visitors that came with ORVs on regular visits had ample time to organize themselves and decided that it was their park and should be run by their standards and interest. National Park management goals, the Organic Act and the Park's EL conflict with their recreational interest. They established themselves through several special interest local organizations and formed important political ties. They came close to getting exactly what they wanted.

Beachdumb would probably be happier if CHNS were a state park without the pesky constraints of a national park. 


Some just don't have high standards, or just have low standards that think they should apply to all places.  The psuedo-non-profit ambulance chasers, that use a blind-owl as their logo, called Southern Forest Whine does the same thing here in the Smokies.  They want the Smokies watered down to their acceptable level where they can basically get to do whatever they want in the backcountry without any RULES or rangers out there to protect the valuable resources from the likes of them.  Anarchists tend to be like that. Even with all the National Forest Land around them, they focus strictly on the much higher standards in a National Park and try to erode those standards and take it to a lesser tier, like what you find in a USFS, state park, or gah..local city park.  I think they'd be happier if it was more a local county park that no one paid attention to, but that's not going to happen in a place as protected and as internationally recognized as the Smokies. Too many people want to see it protected and because it is protected like it is, that's why people want to immerse themselves in it.

So, expect nothing but this sort of thing from these parochial deadbeat types, and trust me just about every park has that small contingencey of "local screamers".  All we can do, is place a comment when they ask. I did place a comment and I stated, i'd like to see this entire seashore turned into a wilderness similar to what you find in Olympic National Park.  They have the opportunity to do that at Cape Lookout, so there is still hope, regardless of what the beachdumps, or pseudo organizations like that want.


Gary, you made your point well, I am in agreement with your position. California state parks a most recent example. In any case thank you. 


I am hearing more and more about this Southern Forest Watch on this site from folks like Gary they are obviously making some impact judging by comments like these. Good to see outside groups at least trying to keep an eye on their government we could use more groups like that. The NPS definitely could use some better oversight IMO.


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.