OBX LandUse (1 Viewer)

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

GarnerFJ40

GarnerFJ40

Joined
Mar 10, 2007
Threads
197
Messages
4,492
Location
Garner, NC
I'm posting this from an email I received as a North Carolina Beach Buggy Association member from the president of NCBBA. I'm passing it on to all on IH8Mud because OBX is well used by residents in multiple states. The National Park Service is taking reccomendations of future ORV regulations inside the Seashore.

Are you interested in the future of Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area?

The NPS has released a workbook to be completed by the public as a means to be heard during these critical times. You must obtain this workbook either on-line at

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=358&projectId=10641&documentID=21567

or …by attending a scheduled public meeting. This workbook has 84 pages----don’t let it intimidate you! (I guarantee the environmentalists will fill them out by the hundreds.) The questions are multiple choice with space to enter your personal comments. You don’t have to write letters or give speeches. Work on it as your time allows but be sure it is returned via US mail or internet by January 31, 2008.

The swords are drawn, the fight is on and you must decide to join us or walk away. Please help us maintain our rights of access to our National Seashore.

Sincerely,
Jim Keene, President
NCBBA
JKEENE@franklineq.com
 
For all of that use the Cape Hatteras National Seashore ORV routes, a ruling will be handed out by a federal court judge on Friday April 4th whether or not to halt all ORV driving in certain areas of the Seashore.

Check out the following videos (each about 12 minutes):

http://media.putfile.com/Bobby-Outten-Dare-Co-attorney-on-ORV-suit-pending
http://media.putfile.com/John-Couch-on-Cape-Hatteras-National-Seashore-history
http://media.putfile.com/Frank-Folb-with-maps-of-beach-closures

Last one has the proposed banned ORV areas.....
 
I am too late now, I just read this ... I hope to God this does not happen!
 
Last edited:
NCBBA President Jim Keene, along with the other attendees at the hearing, were contacted this evening by the attorneys for CHAPA asked that a clarification be sent to all interested parties in this injunction…..Judge Boyle did not set a new hearing date and has charged the attorneys “to continue their negotiations”.

The AP newswire which some of you have read is incorrect . Expect to see a correction in tomorrow’s paper and on the internet websites very soon…..

Keep sending the pleas...
 
This is one that just smacks of SELC and the "special interest groups" blackmailing the National Park Service. Granted, NPS dug their own grave here by not abiding by the law and not developing a long term ORV policy.

The scary similarity here with other ORV Land Use issues is that the AGENCY screwed the pooch on this one, but we are the ones that will pay the price. When I say we, it's not just the ORV folks, but every tax payer. Do you know how much it will cost our government to continuously monitor the unfledged chicks of the Piping Plover? And then to have a dynamic buffer zone that moves with them after they fledge? Well, a biologist costs about $30 and hour, times 24 hours a day, times maybe a month? My calculations put that at over $20,000 per NEST!

Sad that the public won't have any say into the policy on the use of the beach over the next 3 years. I value the preservation of a species that is threatened or endangered, but we need to look at what is reasonable to preserve and what is unreasonable. People in some parts of NC are living below the poverty line while we are spending $20K on bird's nests? Priorities people, please.

OK, sorry. Rant off.
 
The problem with a situation like this, and statements like that, is that there are separate issues. Meaning, poverty has nothing to do with OBX land usage and ORV vehicles. We should stop focusing on all the problems of every issue, and point blank, offer the solution that needs to happen, and make it happen. There is plenty of everything (money) to go around, it's just a matter of what situations are getting the attention. If you catch my drift, I believe the right thing will happen. Stop complaining, or you'll continue to have things to complain about. Change the direction of your argument, and be pro- whatever you want, instead of anti- what you hate.

So far I have not found any updates on the compromise. If you know of a link, please post it. I am interested in what is happening immediately, as I want to visit ASAP :D
 
I am not complaining, just stating some frustration over the spending of our government on things that I personally think go from meaningful to ridiculous very fast. In fact, I am one of those biologists that they would pay to monitor the nests. I did work like that for years before selling out to the man and going to consulting. Now I spend a lot of time working with land use and access issues and trying to look at ways to do exactly as you suggest, coming up with solutions that will work and will satsify all the stakeholders. That being said, there are still times where the process is broken and I think that this is one of them. I am not anti-piping plover, not by a long shot. In fact, I think that we, as the cause for most of the listed species in N. America, have a responsibility to preserve what we can. But let's be reasonable in what we do. That's all I am saying.

And yes, I know there is no direct relationship between the money they will use for the Plover protection and the poverty in the area, but it's worth making a comparison IMHO, just for perspective.
 
Jim,
Please keep us up to date with this. I too am a NCBBA member and past President of V4WDA. I am heading down there in a few weeks and would like to know what beaches are still open. I have heard Oregon Inlet has most of the point closed off. Do you know if this is true?

I have seen you many times on the beach, glad to see you are a fellow cruiser head as well.

Rob Matzell
 
Not much beach left, keep us updated, thanks again.
 
I hope they keep the beaches open, I've driving there for years and I hope that I can continue to. N.C. Beach Buggy Assoc. #12893
 
Toyota Donation???

I've been taking my vehicles out on the beachs on the OBX for 16 years now and I hate that this is happening... I fish quite a bit and am a member on another message board where this has gotten the attention of many fishermen and surf fishermen... Many people on this other site have bashed Toyota for donating $20 million to the group that is trying to shut down the beaches... see link below

National Audubon Society - News

I love my landcruiser and take it out on the beach everytime I'm on the OBX.... Is anyone else aware of this Toyota donation and is there any way to get Toyota involved in possibly donating money to help keep the ORV access open to the beaches???
 
OBX Beach Closure Update

See link or article below...

Shooting The Breeze by Irene Nolan

U.S. District Court Judge Terrence W. Boyle today signed a consent decree that will settle a lawsuit by environmental groups over off-road vehicle use on The Cape Hatteras National Seashore.

The seashore’s beaches will remain open to ORVs, though with more restrictions than islanders and visitors are used to.

And it won’t take long for beach drivers to notice the changes.

The settlement is effective tomorrow, May 1, and seashore superintendent Mike Murray says that Park Service personnel will be posting signs at all seashore ramps that the beaches are closed to ORVs from 10 p.m. until 6 a.m.

The night-driving closures are one of the differences between the interim plan that the Park Service had been operating under and the terms of the settlement.

Another difference that beach drivers – and even pedestrians – will notice is an increased buffer around piping plover nests once the chicks have hatched.

The settlement resolves all issues in the case that began last October when Defenders of Wildlife and the National Audubon Society, represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center, filed suit against the National Park Service over its Interim Protected Species Management Plan that is to regulate ORV use and species management until a long-term rule is developed through negotiated rulemaking and an Environmental Impact Statement.

The plaintiffs claim that ORV use on the seashore is illegal, since the Park Service does not have a special rule to regulate it, as has been required since 1972. Also, they claim that the interim plan does not go far enough to protect wildlife in the park, especially shorebirds and sea turtles. In addition, the plaintiffs asked Boyle in February for a temporary injunction to prohibit ORV use until the suit is settled on six popular areas of the seashore – Bodie Island spit, Cape Point and parts of the South Beach, Hatteras Inlet, and the north and south points of Ocracoke.

The defendants are the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and others, including the director of the National Park Service and the superintendent of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.

In December, Boyle allowed Dare and Hyde counties and the Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance to become defendant/intervenors in the lawsuit to represent the interests of the public.

In a filing with the court on the eve of today’s hearing, Murray noted that the consent decree will mean a “significant reduction in ORV access during the peak summer season.”

Murray noted in his declaration to the court that in 2007, piping plovers nested at three locations – Bodie Island spit, Cape Point, and the South Point of Ocracoke. If the threatened shorebirds nest in the same areas this summer, the three areas will be closed to ORVs for at least two weeks and perhaps longer. The length of closures will depend on where the birds nest and how the foraging birds and their chicks move along the beach.

``I am not happy with the outcome,” said Allen Burrus of Hatteras village, vice chairman of the Dare County Board of Commissioners. “To further restrict access to some of the most enjoyable beach and fishing spots on the Cape Hatteras National Seashore is disappointing. Being happy that the consent decree only restricts access instead of banning it is like saying you’re glad you only have one headache – not two.’’

Boyle’s courtroom at the federal courthouse in Raleigh was filled with supporters of open beach access for today’s 2 p.m. hearing. And most of them would agree with Burrus – that they don’t like the consent decree but can live with it and find it better than the alternative of shutting down popular areas of the beach – or even shutting down the seashores beaches altogether.

In fact, when the hearing got underway with Murray answering questions and showing Boyle maps, some of the spectators thought from the judge’s questions to the superintendent that he was about to shut down the beaches.

“The judge did quiz Mike Murray for quite a while about his plan,” said Warren Judge, chairman of the Dare County Board of Commissioners. “The overtone of his questions would lead you to believe that he might prefer to close down the beaches.”

“He gave every indication several times that he was going to close it down,” said Frank Folb of Avon, owner of Frank and Fran’s tackle shop and a member of the negotiated rulemaking committee that is working on a long-term plan for regulating ORV use on the seashore.

Rob Alderman, who owns the Hatteras Island Fishing Militia Web site and is active in access issues, said that Boyle seemed particularly bothered that the amount of beach being restricted to ORVs was reduced but that the number of ORVs on the beach was not being restricted – resulting in the same number of vehicles on a smaller section of beach.

John Couch, president of the Outer Banks Preservation Association and an alternate on the negotiated rulemaking committee, said he thought Boyle “reluctantly” signed the consent order after questioning Murray about carrying capacity of the beaches, permits, whether the ramps could just be chained off, how drivers would be educated and other issues.

“He asked a lot of questions about why the decree didn’t cover certain issues,” said Lawrence Liebesman of Holland and Knight in Washington, D.C., an attorney for the intervenors in the lawsuit.

Liebesman said Boyle seemed “troubled” by the fact that many of his concerns were not covered by the decree, but the judge eventually said he wasn’t going to overrule the parties to the settlement.

Jason Rylander, attorney for Defenders of Wildlife, said that it was obvious that Boyle believes ORV use on the seashore is illegal and that the management is not adequate.

Liebesman said that Murray’s performance at the hearing answering numerous questions by Boyle was “poised” and “methodical.”

“It appears that he turned the judge around,” the intervenors’ attorney said. “It was a tremendous effort on the part of Mike Murray.”

Rylander agreed that Murray did a “commendable job” and said that Boyle acknowledged Murray’s work as a public servant.

The ORV access advocates feel that they had no choice but to agree with a settlement that isn’t in their best interests. Rylander, on the other hand, said that he thinks the consent decree is a “good outcome for everyone” and said that the fact all the parties could come together is a “win-win situation.”

The resources are better protected, Rylander said, and there is still “significant ORV access.”

“It’s the end of an inning, but the game isn’t over yet,” Murray said after his day in court, noting that he has his eye on the “long-term” solution – a special rule on ORV use on the seashore. Now he hopes he can spend more time on that long-term solution.

That, however, will be Mike Murray’s next challenge.

A negotiated rulemaking committee of 30 stakeholders and their alternatives just started officially meeting in January to formulate long-term ORV regulations.

And the lawsuit by the environmental groups, which have a seat at the negotiating table, has been the elephant in the room since the first day of meetings.

Today, Carla Boucher, an attorney and member of the committee representing United Four Wheel Drive Associations, asked Murray, as the designated federal official in charge, to remove the Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Southern Environmental Law Center from the committee.

Everyone on the committee has been hanging in there, but there are now indications that other committee members may join Boucher’s call for dismissal of the environmental groups that sued.

Boucher suggests other local, regional, and national groups to replace the three groups she wants removed from the committee. Other committee members say they favor dismissing the three members that sued and reducing the committee by three of the ORV access advocates. That would reduce the committee to 24 members, which some think would make it easy to reach consensus.

The request to Murray to dismiss the environmental groups, said Rylander, is an “unnecessary and divisive delay tactic that will impede work of the committee.”

According to the consent decree, the National Park Service must finish work on the long-term plan by Dec. 31, 2010, and publish a final rule by April 1, 2011.

The negotiated rulemaking committee will meet again next week, on May 8 and 9, at the Comfort Inn Oceanfront South in Nags Head. The day-long meetings begin at 8:30 a.m. and are open to the public. There are usually public comment periods at noon.

Murray said today he isn’t sure yet how he will address Boucher’s request to boot the environmental groups. He had not even had time to read the request.

However, negotiated rulemaking is once again at a crossroads on the eve of the committee’s next meeting.

Will the process be able to continue to survive the challenges?



Details of the Consent Decree

The consent decree signed today my U.S. District Court Judge Terrence Boyle is a compromise among the parties that settles both the lawsuit and the request for an injunction and that the parties have been working on for at least several weeks.

The Interim Protected Species Management Plan will remain in effect at the seashore, though, in cases of conflict, the settlement will prevail.

The headlines in the settlement are that buffers for nests and unfledged chicks are more precisely spelled out and larger in the case of unfledged piping plovers and that there will be a prohibition on night driving from May 1 until Nov. 15.

Some of the details of the settlement include:

• A deadline for a final ORV management plan and special rule. NPS must complete the long-term plan by Dec. 31, 2010, and publish the final rule by April 1, 2011.

• Buffers for breeding and nesting shorebirds and for unfledged chicks will be spelled out in more detail and, in the case of unfledged plover chicks, will be more restrictive.

• In the case of piping plovers, a threatened species, buffers for pre-nesting and nesting will remain the same in the settlement as in the interim plan – 164 feet. Once the chicks hatch, the buffer zone for ORVs will be 1,000 meters or 3,281 feet – about the length of 11 football fields – in each direction from the nest. The pedestrian buffer zone will be 984 feet – or a little more than three football fields. When the 1,000 meter buffer zone is in effect, pedestrians will have limited access during daylight hours to a narrow strip above the mean high tide line for walking, swimming, and sunning.

• After the nest hatches, the buffer will move with the chicks. Two weeks after the chicks hatch, the Park Service may modify the buffer and allow ORV access within the 3,281-foot buffer on each side of the nest if a 984-foot buffer is maintained between the chicks and ORVs. Whether the buffer can be modified to 984 feet will depend on the movement of the foraging adults and chicks from the nest. Access to areas, such as Cape Point, will depend on the movement of the chicks and the physical topography of the beach -- whether there will be room for an ORV corridor above the high-tide line and at least 984 feet from foraging chicks.

• Unfledged piping plover chicks will be monitored from dawn until dusk, and any modification of the 3,281-foot buffer on each side of the chicks will not be open to ORVs until the location of the chicks is determined by a Park Service monitor each morning and an adequate buffer is assured.

• The provision for modifying the buffer will be eliminated if any plover chick is killed or injured by an ORV within the 3,281-foot buffer.

• ORV use at night will be prohibited from 10 p.m. until 6 a.m. from May 1 until Nov. 15 to increase turtle nesting success. This closure is for potential turtle nesting habitat, and it is not clear if that includes all of the seashore. There also is a provision for permits for night driving between Sept. 16 and Nov. 15. No details are available yet on permits.


• There will be penalties for violations of pre-nesting areas and buffers. If the Park Service can show that a deliberate act has harassed wildlife or caused damage to fencing or nests, the buffers will be expanded with each violation.

• Various reports on nesting success will be provided by the Park Service to the courts, the plaintiffs, and the intervenors, who will allowed to comment each year on proposed pre-nesting areas.

• The Park Service will provide education about protected species at access points and in the beach driving brochure and will provide a 24-hour phone line for citizens to report violations.

• The court can modify the settlement for good cause shown by any party, and the court retains jurisdiction to settle disputes.

• The settlement does not preclude any party from filing future legal action.

• The settlement is not a precedent and should not be considered binding or establish any requirements that will influence the negotiated rulemaking process. However, the terms of the agreement can be discussed by any party in the negotiation process.

• The environmental groups are entitled to “reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs” to be paid by the federal defendants.

Click Here To Read The Consent Decree

Click Here To View The Maps
 
Last edited:
thanks for the updates, I will be down there next week.
 
k9crazy said:
I am not complaining, just stating some frustration over the spending of our government on things that I personally think go from meaningful to ridiculous very fast. In fact, I am one of those biologists that they would pay to monitor the nests. I did work like that for years before selling out to the man and going to consulting. Now I spend a lot of time working with land use and access issues and trying to look at ways to do exactly as you suggest, coming up with solutions that will work and will satsify all the stakeholders. That being said, there are still times where the process is broken and I think that this is one of them. I am not anti-piping plover, not by a long shot. In fact, I think that we, as the cause for most of the listed species in N. America, have a responsibility to preserve what we can. But let's be reasonable in what we do. That's all I am saying.

And yes, I know there is no direct relationship between the money they will use for the Plover protection and the poverty in the area, but it's worth making a comparison IMHO, just for perspective.
Click to expand...

I understand, at first your argument seemed different. I just try and be as positive with issues as I can. Agreed! Who do you work for now? My wife and I are starting a Foundation and are currently working with the National Wildlife Refuge, and Back Bay. I'm curious. Thank you
 
Sorry for the delayed update. Through last week closures were slowly taking effect.

A new article from yesterday has new closures noted and as you can see / read / likely know if you fish, these are some of the primo spots for surf fishing when the season is really getting under way...

Island Free Press ...Local News
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom