The Virginian-Pilot
©
When it comes to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, there's at least one thing environmental groups and recreation advocates have in common: They don't have many nice things to say about how the National Park Service is proposing to manage off-road vehicles on the 67-mile seashore.
Where pro-access folks believe the park has gone too far in restricting access, environmentalists are saying the park has not gone far enough to protect endangered species and natural resources.
That's not to say the reaction to the park's final environmental impact statement - which was released Monday - is surprising.
Of the 15,000 comments submitted in response to the park's draft proposal in March, a majority of commenters favored more ORV restrictions.
But a "solid minority" wanted just the opposite, Park Superintendent Mike Murray said Thursday.
"Clearly, we were not going to make everybody happy," Murray said.
Now, just a few weeks before the park is expected to make its final decision, the issue is as divisive as ever.
On the surface, the NPS' preferred plan - known as Alternative F in the official documents - is the epitome of compromise.
Of the seashore's total mileage, nearly 28 miles would be designated year-round ORV routes. About 13 miles would be open to vehicles from Nov. 1 to March 31. The rest, about 26 miles, would be designated "vehicle-free areas."
That plans "falls short," according to a statement released jointly last week by the Southern Environmental Law Center, Defenders of Wildlife and Aud ubon North Carolina. The statement points out that a majority of the seashore will be open to ORVs at least part of the year.
Biologists with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, however, issued an opinion last week endorsing Alternative F as a plan that would not jeopardize the survival of endangered species - including piping plovers and three species of sea turtles.
The environmental groups - which sued the NPS in 2007 for failing to comply with an executive order issued by President Richard M. Nixon requiring an ORV management plan - wanted to see 40 miles of seashore closed to ORVs year round.
Because of that lawsuit, the seashore has been operating since April 2008 under a consent decree that expanded beach closures around protected species and restricted night driving.
The NPS' preferred plan extends many of those measures, which Dare County Board of Commissioners Chairman Warren Judge said will essentially deny beach access to elderly and disabled people - those who depend on vehicles to reach isolated areas of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.
Dare County has officially advocated free and open access, while supporting some resource management.
"We want the species protected. We also stand for sharing of the beach," Judge said.
Surf anglers - whose hobby is made much easier by off-road vehicles transporting heavy equipment to isolated spots - are among those with the most to lose when it comes to beach closures.
By Wednesday afternoon, Southern Shores angler Jim Harris said he hadn't yet read the FEIS thoroughly. But he was familiar enough to know he didn't like it.
"They didn't listen to our side at all," Harris said.
Some of the most popular fishing spots - places where fish tend to gather, like the Bodie Island Spit and South Point on Ocracoke Island - are among those 26 miles closed to ORVs year round, Harris said.
"Give us those," he said. "You can have the rest."
Superintendent Murray said he understands each side's frustrations. But the park has developed a plan that will protect resources and keep most of the seashore open to recreational use, he said.
"If people want to make the worst of it, then that will make the severity of the impacts worse than necessary," Murray said. "Hopefully, people will make the best of it."
The NPS is expected to issue its final decision - called the Record of Decision - by the end of the year, followed by a proposed ORV management rule in early January. The public will have 60 days to comment on the document.
The NPS is expected to issue its final rule by April 1 - the court-mandated deadline for implementation of a plan.
Erin James, (252) 441-1711, erin.james@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Here is a solution
Many more are feeling the sting of over reaching envrionmental regulations--CA for example where farming communities were reduced to using soup kitchens to protect a smelt.
Form a national organization called NORESA. The National Organization for the Repeal of the Endangered Species Act.
Lets face reality. Nobody in Alaska really cares about what happens in Cape Hatteras. Nobody in Buxton is passionate about what might happen in Yellowstone. However, we are all united by one thing--we are being victimized, harrassed, and punished by the ESA.
You will not get millions of people to wave the protect and preserve banner but, you can get 10's of millions of people who will stand in opposition to the ESA.
beach cleanups
What do organized beach cleanups have to do with protecting nesting shorebirds and turtles in a National Park that was chartered to protect the unique wildlife in that Park? Raccoons and feral cats are not unique. Beach trash doesn't crush chicks or sea turtles, vehicles do.
Cape Hatteras Enabling Legislation
"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"
Turtle "take"
CHNSRA records 1 turtle hit by vehicle last year as first ever recorded in history of park. (this is under the consent decree, mind you)
The vast majority of birds killed are by predators or ocean overewash. Many of these kills were by gulls, crows and ghost crabs. Guess we will need to exterminate them too.
Actually at Cape Cod they are using imitation plover eggs laced with poison to kill the crows.
Beach cleanups are a public service provided by volunteers. I never said it was to protect the birds or turtles. You are welcome to show your concern for the environment and roll up your sleeves and join us.
Nice Try
Here is the unedited enabling clause for "Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area"... 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 . . .
Thank you for posting the
Thank you for posting the unedited clause. It seems disingenuous for someone to only quote a part of that phrase in an attempt to make a point. I suppose quoting the whole phrase would actually weaken their argument. Thanks again for pointing that out!
CHNSRA
They may be liberals but I for one am solidly conservative. I am a director and edit the newletter for the North Carolina Beach Buggy Association and am intimately familiar with this issue.
We have more members in Virginia than in North Carolina. We also do at least 3 beach cleanups each year, all volunteer. We financially support the Junior Ranger Program run by NPS. Now however NPS has become tainted organization in the eyes of many. These closures are not just Cape Hatteras but extend nationwide to most National Parks. Limiting access to a select few when they were set aside for the enjoyment of "We The People".
Dare Democrats
All of the people that I see crying about this are the same people that I see with the democratic candidates bumper stickers on their cars. Last time I checked Dare and NC was a liberal state by 30+ % points. You reap what you sow. The beach closures were liberalism to the max.
not a liberal vs conservative issue....
See, there you go, trying to sound like Glenn Beck or Rush...this is not an issue of liberal vs conservative or Democrats vs Republicans, the issue is simply one of how to best balance competing needs in the use and utilization of what is now public land. If your problem is that this is public land, well that goes all the way back to the aquisition and that is old history which won't be rewritten. Stick to the issues and quit trying to divide people who really need to come together on a solution. You lot get your kicks out of this controversey and if it ever dies down, I'm sure you'll find another sore to fester.
Sir you miss the point
The final negotiations were free and open access for recreationand a road. The naturalists fought the road, the dunes, and free and open beaches tooth and nail. From the day the park was established the naturalists have fought tooth and nail to reverse all the things they didn't like in the beginning.
Read the park's own account of the creation of the park.
Cape Hatteras
First of all the actual name of the park is the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area as per the enabling legislation. Somewhere over time the Recreational Area got dropped but no one can find any documents about a name change, it "just happened".
Secondly, the year round ORV route designation is misleading. These "year round" ORV routes are still subject to closure if a bird or turtle nests near them. The standard buffer for a single plover nest is 1000 meters or about 7.6 square miles for a single bird.
Third, there are no endangered species at Cape Hatteras, all of the protected species are "theatened" or below.
Fourth, many of these areas are not closed to ORVs only but also pedestrians, so you can go to miles of beautiful oceanfront and recreate by standing on a platform somewhere and looking, just don't touch the beach.