Permits, new ramps among beach access options

Annual and weekly permits and new ramps, parking areas and interdunal roads are included in the National Park Service’s preferred alternative for access to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.

In an environmental study made available today, the Park Service examined six options for managing off-road-vehicle access that weighed the impact on wildlife against recreational and economic considerations.

Designated alternative F, the park service’s preference “is designed to provide visitors to the Seashore with a wide variety of access opportunities for both ORV and pedestrian users,” the draft environmental impact statement said.

That option used information from the negotiated rulemaking committee, a group of stakeholders that was created to recommend a management plan but disbanded after it was unable to come to any consensus.

In a statement on their Web sites, Audubon North Carolina, the Southern Environmental Law Center and Defenders of Wildlife were skeptical.

“The preferred alternative announced today falls short of the U.S. Department of Interior’s own scientists’ recommendations regarding the measures needed to protect wildlife within the national park,” the statement said.

Overall, the park service said, its preferred alternative would keep 29 miles of seashore open year-round, with 23 miles seasonally designated from Aug. 1 to March 14. Sixteen miles would not be accessible.

It would bar ORVs year-round on the shorelines of the North Ocracoke Spit and Hatteras Inlet Spit.

The study said that assessments, closures and buffers would protect a variety of species, most notably piping plovers, under the park service’s preference.

The environmentally preferred alternative, or D, would provide the least access of the six. “Restrictions would be applied to larger areas over longer periods of time to minimize changes in designated ORV and non-ORV areas over the course of the year,” the study said.

That option would require fewer personnel for enforcement, the study said, but it would more severely limit access to spits and points.

“Vehicle-free areas would also be established year-round at Cape Point and the spits to provide a simplified approach to sensitive species management for Seashore operations, maximizing contiguous protected areas and eliminating seasonal changes in designated ORV routes and the demands associated with enforcing those changes,” the study said.

Both preferences would require permits for all ORV use, adding an educational and enforcement component, the study said. It did not specify how much permits would cost.

“Violations may result in permit revocation, which is expected to increase compliance,” the study said.

Under the six scenarios, the study details where and when closures would take place and how access would be provided by ramps, pedestrian paths, parking areas and interdunal roadways.

Small business could see “long-term moderate to major adverse impacts” under the environmentally preferred option and “negligible to moderate” effects under the park service’s preference, the study said.

Eight new ORV access ramps would be created and one relocated, nine new parking areas would be built and three expanded and two new interdunal roads would be added and one extended, under the park service’s preferred alternative. There would also be two new pedestrian trails.

A 60-day comment period will begin soon as part of the process of preparing a final study and recommendation.

A beach driving plan was mandated during the Nixon administration, but none was ever formally put in place. After environmental groups filed a lawsuit demanding one, a negotiated settlement calling for restrictions during pre-nesting and nesting seasons resulted in numerous closures of some of the most popular areas of the seashore.

The plan has been the subject of intense debate and fears that it could result in permanent closures that would devastate businesses on Hatteras Island. Many businesses say they have already suffered losses as a result of the closures under the consent agreement.

link here for the full study »

link here for the statement from environmental groups »

GO TO HOME PAGE »

 

---