A New Rule Balances Wildlife and Off-Road-Vehicle Use on a North Carolina Beach

A New Rule Balances Wildlife and Off-Road-Vehicle Use on a North Carolina Beach

Page 1

Five years ago tire tracks carved by recreational off-road vehicles traced a path of destruction over dead birds and demolished eggs. Today least tern chicks, nesting loggerhead sea turtles, and piping plovers are flourishing at North Carolina’s Cape Hatteras National Seashore. After a legal battle waged by Audubon North Carolina and Defenders of Wildlife, represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center, the National Park Service issued a new rule put into effect this past February that allows ORV access in certain areas within the seashore while also protecting sea turtles and birds. Yet despite this initial compromise, pending congressional legislation and civil litigation could negate the park service’s ruling, threatening bird species, other wildlife, and plants on the shore.

“Historically, Cape Hatteras National Seashore has been very important for birds that depend on the barrier islands for nesting, migratory stopovers, and wintering areas,” explains Walker Golder, Audubon North Carolina’s deputy director.

How to manage Cape Hatteras has been a conservation issue for decades. In 1972 President Richard Nixon issued an executive order requiring the Interior Department and the National Park Service to develop rules regulating ORV use on public lands for the purpose of protecting public safety, minimizing conflicts among land users, and protecting natural resources. President Jimmy Carter clarified the order five years later, saying federal agencies must close areas to ORV use whenever such use was adversely affecting natural resources.

In spite of the two executive orders, the National Park Service never finalized an ORV management plan for Cape Hatteras, relying instead on a draft interim plan developed in 1978.

But from what the Park Service has experienced in recent years, it is possible the draft was never finalized because of controversy and political pressure,explains Mike Murray, superintendent of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore. “ORV management at the seashore is a longstanding, emotionally charged, and highly polarized issue,” he says. “There was resistance to portions of the 1978 draft plan, such as a proposed ORV permit requirement, just as there’s resistance to the new plan and regulation. I can fully understand why it has been so difficult for the Park Service to complete an ORV management plan and special regulation at the seashore.”

As the years passed, growing numbers of people drove on the fragile shores. And more ORVs meant more people in remote areas. Protection for birds decreased, as did breeding productivity, while disturbance increased. The seashore’s bird populations began to decline. In 1992, 14 years after the NPS began managing the area based on the draft interim plan, only 12 piping plover breeding pairs made use of the shore. By 2003 that number dropped to two. Only one chick fledged that year (none fledged in 2002 and 2004). From 1995 to 2004 the number of common tern nests on the shore decreased 76 percent, from 739 to 180. By 2007 the number of terns and skimmers nesting on the seashore’s beaches had reached historic lows. Indeed, black skimmers and gull-billed terns were absent as a nesting species that year.

“When we began to see problems, we began to work with the seashore to raise awareness of the issues and the need to protect birds on the beach,” Golder says.

Because of this effort and to address a continuing decline in nesting bird populations, in 2006 the Park Service, after a yearlong feasibility assessment, issued an Interim Protected Species Management Strategy to provide resource protection guidance until a long-term ORV management plan and regulation could be developed.

“We commented repeatedly that the Interim Protected Species Management Strategy was inadequate,” says Golder. “They did focus on piping plovers in 2007 but ignored other birds, sea turtles, science, and the recommendations of the U.S. Geological Survey.”

“Unfortunately, the Interim Strategy did not even incorporate the measures that the government’s own scientists identified as necessary to protect wildlife at the seashore,” says Julie Youngman, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center. “The natural resources of Cape Hatteras were not being protected for future generations.” Jason Rylander, senior attorney for Defenders of Wildlife, adds, “It was not a legally valid ORV management plan by any means."

On October 18, 2007, Audubon and Defenders of Wildlife, represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center, sued the National Park Service, arguing that its governance of ORVs was inadequate. The Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance, a pro-ORV lobbying group, and Dare and Hyde counties, where the seashore is located, intervened in the suit. After several months the parties agreed to implement another temporary but stricter science-based plan regulating ORV use on Cape Hatteras until the National Park Service finalized a formal ORV management regulation. Under these stricter protections, rare wildlife began to rebound, with several species breeding in record-setting numbers.  In 2010, for instance, the seashore had 15 fledged piping plover chicks, 26 fledged American oystercatcher chicks, and 153 sea turtle nests. The court agreement also set a deadline for the final rule to be adopted.

After several years of study, research, and public participation, the National Park Service put its final regulation into effect this past February. The rule allows for year-round ORV beach access on 28 of the shore’s 67 miles while simultaneously protecting birds and other wildlife. 

Magazine Category

Author Profile

Anna Sanders

Type: Author | From: Audubon Magazine

Comments

AGENDA 21

This entire deal sounds like and looks like AGENDA 21. View the Agenda 21 Maps on the internet and you will see that humans are to be removed from most of this country permanently. Go to UTUBE and view AGENDA 21 for Dummies.
Know that all of the former conservationists organizations are now run by animal rights radicals and AGENDA 21 deep ecologists. They don't care about humans they see all humans as evil doers. READ IT and WEAP as these people intend to take over this world by using our court system to sue you into submission.

Propoganda vs Truth

An Open Letter to the National Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife, National Parks Conservation Association, and the Southern Environmental Law Center

If I didn’t know better I would believe you. I love our national parks and favor conservation. Politically I am an independent who leans left on the environment. If I didn’t know better I would probably believe every word written by Ms. Sanders in Audubon Magazine and in a press release on the Audubon Society of NC website and in an editorial piece on the Defenders of Wildlife website. But, I do know better and I find your use of propaganda on this issue to be offensive and morally repugnant. I found each of these pieces lacking in objectivity and to have purposefully omitted important facts and in several cases used language that seemed designed to distort the truth or at best showed a clear lack of understanding for the situation. I know better because I know the Outer Banks of North Carolina quite well.

In none of these articles do you address the ORV permit fee. The beaches of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore on Bodie Island, Hatteras Island and Ocracoke Island have been free to all whether on foot or in a 4 wheel drive vehicle since their creation. The implementation of an arbitrary and substantial fee is completely ignored by you. Who does the fee benefit? What programs are being funded with this revenue? Is there the potential for a conflict of interest? I can tell you who it hurts; those who can least afford another bill in their life. If your argument is that the fee structure will reduce ORV use on the beach then my response is, "yes, low income families will no longer be able to drive on the beach, while the rich ones will". If the goal of the fee is not to limit traffic then why is there a fee?

I also find that all of these articles refer to ORV enthusiasts as if they were some motorcycle gang tearing up the beach in dune buggies. The vast majority of people who drive on the OBX beaches are families and fishermen who drive down the beach at 10-15mph and are just looking for bit of solitude and sand to call their own for the day. In a similar vein I found comments on your website and others referring to the "National Parking Lot" to be outright fabrication and a means of manipulating public opinion. In the 30 years that I've been visiting Hatteras Island I've never seen anything resembling a parking lot and the only really high density area that I've seen is the Cape Point in mid-summer or during a fishing tournament. By shrinking the area open to ORVs you are actually creating a scenario by which more people will be crammed into a smaller space. You've completely ignored the fact that for decades huge areas of the OBX beaches have been closed to ORVs in the summer: most of Bodie Island, Pea Island Wildlife Refuge and in front of all the villages on Hatteras Island. The tenor of your articles makes it seem like that before this new set of rules it was chaos. That is not true. The only thing these new rules have really accomplished is to shrink the area of beach that can be driven on, particularly around Cape Hatteras Point, thereby increasing the likelihood that the so-called parking lot will actually appear someday as the space is squeezed tighter and tighter by more and more restrictions; and to charge a fee for something that was one of the last great free things that you could do east of the Mississippi.

I found your comments about the safety of children to be utterly ridiculous. You make it sound like vehicles are just driving into areas dominated by pedestrian beach goers. The children who were playing on the beach in areas where ORVs were allowed, most likely got there in their parents SUV. I always felt that my own son was completely safe playing on those beaches provided I actually acted like his parent and supervised him. The new pedestrian only area south of Cape Hatters Point is also a joke. People are not going to be lugging their kids through a mile of sand dunes for a day at the beach. I've hiked to the Cape Hatteras Point and it's not easy. I've also driven on the section of beach now reserved for pedestrians and the ORV traffic was sparse. The pedestrian traffic was non-existent. Now the vehicles that used to park there will most likely end up at the Cape Point. I have to wonder if this part of your larger strategy to shut the Cape Hatteras Point down to all human traffic. I know those new pedestrian only areas will be deserted, which I’m guessing is your ultimate goal. While I’m writing this, the fact is that the entire Cape Hatteras Point is closed to all traffic including pedestrians and from Haul Over to Frisco is essentially closed to ORV traffic for a total distance of over 10 miles. Is it really necessary to shut down that much of the beach for nesting?

I began this by stating that I was a left of center independent who is pro-conservation. I have to tell you that you’ve alienated me and now I understand all of the vitriol that I’ve seen expressed toward environmental groups and “liberals”. You’ve shown almost no understanding of the long term fallout from activities such as these. You may say that you’ve made efforts to work with the locals who’ve built their lives on sliver sand but your articles reflect that you haven’t. You’ve managed to alienate the people who should be your biggest supporters, the citizens who love what you love. Rather than training and educating the locals to carry your flag, you’ve created enemies. You didn’t pick a fight with big oil or a logging or mining company. You picked a fight with families. We all want to preserve the Outer Banks of NC and all the other special beautiful places in our country but you’re not going to be able to sustain that by going to court. How long do you think your rules will last if we have a republican senate and president? You chose to sue rather than educate. You’ve made it more difficult for people like me and our political leaders to embrace conservation. For now on I will read your propaganda with my eyes open and hope that someday when these rules are repealed via legislation that your methods will change.

No compromise from ORV side

As far as compromise the ORV side is like the guy who starts a fight then files a complaint with the police when the person he is beating up cries for help.
Their idea of compromise is to dictate a solution and then to scream,  intimidate  and coerce others to agree to what they want. The Interim Plan was decided as to what they (ORVers) wanted because they had a powerful ally in the dept of Interior, David Smith who directed NP director Fran Mannila to get r done. That's  the reason Audubon and others had to go to court. The ORV groups are the reason the negotiations failed.  The ORV side lies and misrepresents facts.  It is how  they got the a bill in congress  and another lawsuit started. They could care less about birds, turtles, safety of others or  anything that stands in the way of their ORV driving privileges. They have  their own local  radio station that spews out a one sided misrepresentation of facts on a continual loop, most likely paid by and from their local county official's  budget. It is disgusting something like this could happen in the United States. 1000's of decent people have been fooled by their propaganda.

ORV ruts, etc.

I do live on Hatteras Island. I have lived here for more than 30 years. The reason there are fewer ruts now is because FINALLY there are restrictions on the previous policy of 'drive wherever you want' ! Thank you Audubon for fighting for keeping our national park an area where animals can still live without humans tromping them.
I, am just one of the many locals, that is quiet on this issue because of how the loud-mouth and nasty ORV leaders try to run thisplace like it is their kingdom.
and, by the way, this island has been packed with tourists this year- so I wish the ORV group would stop lying about loss of business. If the few tackle shops have lost business-it is their OWN fault for crying that the 'sky is falling' so their own clientele stopped visiting. The handful of loud mouth bullies need to get a life and move on, and stop whining on the boards.
and oh- I love how they claim Audubon is lying about the facts, when it is they who are making up numbers that are not science based!

Orv ruts are not all over the

Orv ruts are not all over the place... many places without them..if you want to walk.. the villages are closed.. all summer..right now most areas are closed even to walkers..do you live Here??? I do try and walk...most all ramps and walkways are now closed..when they said they would be open....people who do not live here year round have not any idea how hard access is..come stay at my house.. and take a walk to the beach..with the bugs and hot sand its very long...its not like other beaches,,,,,

ORV ruts are all over ORV Beaches

Yes Pat I live here. The ocean beach has few bugs compared to everywhere else. Bugs are worse in the village.
Plenty of great beaches for pedestrians to get to and walk, for now. If the interim plan is put into place those beaches will become ORV beaches. This is what really erks me about you guys. You cry about the loss of pedestrian access but have an agenda of doing away with all the year round pedestrian access beaches. This is why you want the interim plan reinstated. if you were just concerned about pedestrians you would have had Congremen Jones write a proposal to deal just with resource closures.
Show me an ORV beach that doesn't have ruts criscrossing and meandering from dune to the timeline.

I guess you have not been out

I guess you have not been out of your house much..and yes there are few bugs on the beach,, but you have to get there..I have trouble walking so its hard..this area was not planned for walkers.. we could always get to the beach by driving..there is no parking at the beach fronts..show me??? I not saying there should not be some control, but whats is in place is to much.. How about more working together, then the special interest groups leaving the table...lets get together and make our beach, have more access For everyone............

Beach access

Pat I get out of the house a lot.
Here are a list of nice beaches you can walk on without ruts unless S. 2372 is passed.
1. Beach in front of Hallover (Canadian Hole)
2 Beach N of ramp 43 the old loran road all the way to the Hallover with a 2 huge parking lots and easy access at the old lighthouse site.
3. The bath house in Frisco, showers and bathroom easy wooden boardwalk to beach.
4. Sandy Bay parking lot on the soundside just outside Hatteras, easy walk across street to a boardwalk

That is not counting the 1000's of visitors that everyday walk out of their rental cottage over the subdivision boardwalk to the beach, some subdivision are less restrictive than others as far as parking access, none of them will say a word if you are walking there.

There are lots of places to park on the side of highway 12 and easy, no more than a big city mall walk  for you to get to the beach if you ask around.

That would be dune to the

That would be dune to the tideline (darn iPhone)

Pedestrian Access

" A Bad  Bill for Pedestrian Access"

What  the ORV groups don't want you to know is the Interim plan is short for the Interim  Protected Species Management Plan (IPSMP). The Interim plan was designed to deal just with protecting and managing protected species and ORVs until  a comprehensive  ORV  plan could be  developed.  The Interim Plan did not manage where ORV routes would be, the safety of pedestrians, recreational  conflicts with ORV  use, or safe operation of ORVs. Those things were decided in an exhaustive development plan where extensive public comments were used  to decide the final rule.

If the bill passes the Senate and the Interim plan is reinstated it will all but eliminate  the established pedestrian access only areas in CHNS. This is because the management of pedestrians and ORVs under the Interim Plan defers  to a 1978 draft interim ORV plan that was never approved. This draft plan has been interpreted  by different superintendents using the CFR (code of federal regulations) and Superintendent Orders. There was no written plan with public input to manage ORVs. There is little administrative history as to what beaches allowed ORV use and what beaches did and most importantly why some beaches did not allow ORV access for over 30 years.  

Management of ORVs will be directed by this morphed 1978 never approved draft interim plan. It is hard to say how ORVs will be managed under the  "Interim Plan". There will be no  guarantee  of year round pedestrian access only beaches. Visitors seeking beaches without tire ruts , parked vehicles and an ORV route  that extends from the base of the dune to the tide line will soon be out of luck. 

If the Interim plan is used to manage  ORVs for CHNS then CHNS will be without an ORV plan. This will be  in defiance of a Federal Judge's orders. It is possible all  ORV use could be banned in CHNS if this bill is passed.

The constant complaint about the economic consequence of the NEPA approved ORV Management plan  is a red herring. Dare county has just released the economy indicators for the County which include Hatteras Island. It appears the only correlation that can be made is that visitors are adjusting to the Park's new management plan and the economic news is very favourable for Hatteras Island. 

If you support multiple recreation opportunities, see value in desolate beach seascapes and value resource conservation please consider calling or writing your senator and the members of the energy committee and ask them to vote no on, S. 2372, the Preserving Public Access to Cape Hatteras Beaches Act. Don't be mislead this  issue is about ORV access not local economics or pedestrian access.

Link to energy committee:
http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form

Link to senate contact:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?State=WA

Add comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.