Section 3057, Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area was passed in December, 2014 as part of The 2015 National Defense Authorization Act. Now law, this bill requires the National Park Service (NPS) to review and adjust Wildlife Protection Buffers by June 19, 2015. Specifically, this section of the law requires that “…buffers are of the shortest duration and cover the smallest area necessary to protect a species, as determined in accordance with peer-reviewed scientific data; and… designate pedestrian and vehicle corridors around areas of the Nations Seashore closed because of wildlife buffers, to allow access to areas that are open.”
NPS is currently developing their plan to implement this legislation and intends to release it to the public before the end of April.
CHAPA’s recommendations were sent to the Superintendent for his consideration on April 10, 2015. We believe the recommendations offered can be implemented with minimal disruption to the NPS resource management processes already in place at the Seashore. We also believe our recommendations will balance resource protection and pedestrian / ORV access at the Seashore in a way that is consistent with the intent of the law. We encourage you to read this document.
Representatives from the Outer Banks Preservation Association (OBPA), North Carolina Beach Buggies Association (NCBBA), Cape Hatteras Anglers Club (CHAC), Dare County Commissioners, and Hatteras Island businesses have been engaged in the effort to develop the CHAPA recommendations since the law was passed. Over the past two months, this group has met with Superintendent Dave Hallac and members of his staff on several occasions to discuss and share ideas about what steps should be taken to meet the intent of the law. In addition to meeting with the Superintendent and members of his staff, we have also met with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC).
Another section of the law titled “Construction of New Vehicle Access Points” states that new vehicle access points and roads should be constructed “…as expeditiously as practicable; and…in accordance with applicable management plans for the National Seashore.” CHAPA priorities were sent to the Superintendent on March 5. Following distribution, we met with the Superintendent and members of his staff to discuss. We are awaiting priority decisions to be announced by the NPS.
NPS has developed a website to track their actions to implement the law as they are announced. The website is titled “2015 National Defense Authorization Act Actions Update” . We recommend that you visit this website to be aware of announcements as they occur.
NPS intends to schedule approximately five public meetings to present the changes they intend to make and to gather input immediately after their release of their plan in April. We will advise you of the dates and locations for those meetings when they become available.
We ask you all to keep informed, to participate in the public meetings, and to make the Park Service aware of your reaction to their actions over the coming weeks and months as the law is implemented. Public participation and input remain critical to the success of achieving our goals of more reasonable pedestrian and ORV access within the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area.

www.obpa-nc.org/NPS_Legis...

Like +2QuoteFlag

Posturing to try to squeeze out more than they know they are going to get from the new legislation, bargaining verbiage.The new legislation wasn't written as vague as it was by accident and the ORV groups know it. I still hope for some positive improvements though.

LikeQuoteFlag

I suppose ymmv, Oat.
But statements from the legislation like: "designate pedestrian and vehicle corridors around areas of the National Seashore
closed because of wildlife buffers, to allow access to areas that are open.” don't seem vague to me.

We'll look forward to your comments at one of the public meetings!

LikeQuoteFlag

BTW, thanks for the link geek!

from my point of view, the suggestions are well thought out, and propose ways to establish reasonable access, while protecting wildlife based on peer reviewed science and accepted recovery plans. This is a win/win for all. Thanks to congress for the bi-partisan support!

Like +6QuoteFlag

I suppose ymmv, Oat.
But statements from the legislation like: "designate pedestrian and vehicle corridors around areas of the National Seashore
closed because of wildlife buffers, to allow access to areas that are open.” don't seem vague to me.

We'll look forward to your comments at one of the public meetings!

Some key phrases cherry picked from the legislation.

" in accordance with applicable laws"

"in accordance with peer-reviewed scientific data"

"Where possible"

"Coordinate and consult with State of North Carolina wildlife officials"

"in accordance with management plans"

"Undertake a process to consider"


"Review and modify wildlife protection buffers in Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Seashore) in accordance with applicable laws,
Using adaptive management practices, modify wildlife buffers to ensure that the protection buffers are of the shortest duration and cover the smallest area necessary, as determined in accordance with peer-reviewed scientific data,
Where possible, designate pedestrian and vehicle corridors around protection areas of the National Seashore closed for breeding wildlife, to allow access to areas that are open,
Coordinate and consult with State of North Carolina wildlife officials to determine appropriate buffer protections for species that are not listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 but that are identified for protection under State law,
Construct new vehicle access points as expeditiously as practical and in accordance with management plans, and
Undertake a process to consider, consistent with management requirements at the Seashore, the following changes to the Final Rule:

Opening beaches closed to night driving on a rolling basis every morning,
Extending seasonal off-road vehicle routes in the fall and spring if the use would not create resource management problems, and
Modifying the size and location of vehicle free areas."



Click to follow link...

LikeQuoteFlag

Scientific and logical basis to enable NPS to comply with the new legislation. Concise and straightforward nothing cherry-picked or subjective.

Like +6QuoteFlag

My point is the NPS isn't required to make any changes that are not accordance with applicable laws, peer-reviewed scientific data, and management plans. They can make changes "where possible" and can hold a process "to consider" some other changes.
"To consider" and "where possible" don't compel  the kind of substantive changes the ORVes think have been promised  in the bill. You are not going to accept the peer-reviewed science that must  be considered if changes you want are not instituted. In addition I believe ORVers have a narrow minded interpretation of applicable laws and management plans. This science orientated superintendent has made it clear to all sides that science will drive his decision. I am fine with that. Some of the potential changes to the rule are not science related but will require compliance with management plans.

Get ready to be disappointed if your leaders are not willing to give something to get something. Do you truly want to improve access for all recreational sport fishermen (I do) and other non fishing visitors or just visitors who want ORV access.

LikeQuoteFlag

Oat, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. I believe you need to prepare for disappointment.

From geek's link:
"The basic requirements of the new law regarding resource management are to “ensure that the buffers
are of the shortest duration and cover the smallest area necessary to protect a species…” and to
“designate pedestrian and vehicle corridors around areas of the National Seashore closed because of
wildlife buffers, to allow access to areas that are open.” Compliance with these requirements will
provide necessary and appropriate resource protection while allowing more reasonable pedestrian and
ORV access than that available under the current management plan. "

So yes, the ORVers do "truly want to improve access for all recreational sport fishermen (I do) and other non fishing visitors" Access for all, baby!

Thanks for pointing that out!

Like +1QuoteFlag

Simply the facts! Working for improved access for all!

CHAPA outlines a "multi-step decision-making process" for resource management that allows for flexibility.

The documents also include a grid which CHAPA calls a "buffer and corridors decision matrix" that outlines current buffers, proposed new standard buffers, procedures for bypasses and corridors around closures, and the duration of the buffers.

Here are some of the highlights of the CHAPA proposals:

•Standard buffers for American oystercatchers would not change. They are 150 meters for courtship, nesting, and abandoned and lost nests and 200 meters for unfledged chicks and post fledging.
•Standard buffers for colonial waterbirds would be reduced from 75 meters to 50 meters for courtship, nesting, and abandoned nests, and from 200 meters to 150 meters for unfledged chicks.
•Standard buffers for piping plovers would be reduced from 75 meters to 50 meters for courtship nesting, and abandoned nests and from 1,000 meters to 200 meters on each side of the brood for the first week and 100 meters after that. These buffers, CHAPA said, are based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 1996 Piping Plover Recovery Plan.
•Additional NPS staff members should be used if required to monitor the movement of unfledged piping plover chicks to enable the smaller buffers.
•Pedestrians and vehicles should not be prohibited in pre-nesting closures for oystercatchers and colonial waterbirds.
•All pre-nesting closures should be removed no later than July 31.
•In all cases, if buffers close pedestrian or vehicle access, the park should look first to a bypass, separated from the resource by natural or manmade barriers, such as dunes. If a bypass is not available, the park should consider a corridor around or through the closure.
•If neither a bypass or corridor is possible, the park should consider modified, lesser buffer distances. If the buffer cannot be modified, the superintendent should have the discretion to reduce the buffer to a minimum on a case-by-case basis.
•The duration of resource closures would be reduced from two weeks to one week if a nest is abandoned.
•All buffers are to be removed immediately after chicks fledge.
•Sea turtle nest buffers would be about the same as they currently are under park resource policies. Hatch-window buffers would be reduced and more emphasis would be placed on bypasses and corridors around nests in the hatch window.
•If no temporary bypass or alternate route is available during the hatch window, the nest would be relocated.
•The recommendations also call for solid light-impermeable fencing extending to the high tide line during the period of Sept. 15-Nov. 15 when night driving is permitted on ORV routes with no turtle nests. The purpose of the fencing would be to protect hatchlings from disturbance from headlights of vehicles in ORV routes. This would stop situations such as the one that arose last fall when the ORV route from Ramp 44 to Cape Point was closed from Oct. 6 until Nov. 25 because of possible light disturbance to a nest that was adjacent to but not in the ORV route.

Like +1QuoteFlag

Those recommendations sound way too reasonable.
Someone will hate them.

Like +3QuoteFlag

Some of those suggestions sound very reasonable, others not so much. I'm not a biologist so I really can't say.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Those modifications will have to pass applicable laws, peer-reviewed scientific data, and management plans to be enacted, a big hurdle. I am guessing the peer revied data for some of this hasn't even been conducted, which means 3-5 years of data then a paper which is then peer reviewed.   Would think the way the  bill is written that lawsuits are envitivable  unless both sides are willing to give something to get something.

LikeQuoteFlag

Seems to me it's always the access groups giving in the compromise.
That does not meet the definition of compromise.

Like +6QuoteFlag

Seems to me it's always the access groups giving in the compromise.
That does not meet the definition of compromise.

They are not the access groups they are the ORV groups. Anything other than ORV use is lip service.

LikeQuoteFlag

And there is still no compromise, in the defintion of the word, extended to ORV users. Just more giving.

Like +1QuoteFlag

Seems to me it's always the access groups giving in the compromise.
That does not meet the definition of compromise.

There not the access groups they are the ORV groups. Anything other than ORV use is lip service.

Oat - I strongly disagree with your opinion. The proposed reasonable implementation measures benefit ALL users of CHNSRA. That is and has been the fair and equal, singular goal of "Access Groups." [They're] not judgmental, discretionary nor discriminatory in [their] intentions and actions.

Like +3QuoteFlag

Seems to me it's always the access groups giving in the compromise.
That does not meet the definition of compromise.

There not the access groups they are the ORV groups. Anything other than ORV use is lip service.

Sea Oat,

EXACTLY ... CHAPA = ORV use at CHNS.

Reading these posts crack me up.

If the NPS provides best science available it is called junk science by the ORV crowd. If CHAPA provides "science" it is called reasonable and their recommendations should be implemented.

Anyone who says that there was no compromise obviously did not attend any of the regneg meetings or read the FEIS.

If the public meetings go anything like the negreg meetings public comment period it should be a real dog and pony show.

LikeQuoteFlag

^^^^yawnnn...talk about dog and pony shows...

Like +1QuoteFlag

Too bad the NPS and the USGS had to be deceitful about their "best available science". We probably wouldn't be having to force them into reviewing it again.

islandfreepress.org/Pivot...

Like +6QuoteFlag

^^^^yawnnn...talk about dog and pony shows...

Talk about yawnnnnnnnnnnnnn ... send your donations to CHAPA soooooooooooo they can sue again .... let's see I think their track record is 0 for 2 or is it 0 for 3 or more!

LikeQuoteFlag

Too bad the NPS and the USGS had to be deceitful about their "best available science". We probably wouldn't be having to force them into reviewing it again.

One of the reasons I do not bother to read the IFP is because they do not report on the news they want to make up the news.

LikeQuoteFlag

Too bad the NPS and the USGS had to be deceitful about their "best available science". We probably wouldn't be having to force them into reviewing it again.

One of the reasons I do not bother to read the IFP is because they do not report on the news they want to make up the news.

You don't read the IFP because you can't handle the truth.

Like +1QuoteFlag

Here you go Dennis, same story, different news source. Or did they both make it up?

www.obsentinel.com/archiv...

LikeQuoteFlag

Here you go Dennis, same story, different news source. Or did they both make it up?

Matthew,

Where ya been? That is old stuff ...

BY SANDY SEMANS | SENTINEL STAFF | Posted Apr 7, 2010


Perhaps ya are better off sticking with the Fredericksburg Free Lance Star for your current news.

LikeQuoteFlag

Too bad the NPS and the USGS had to be deceitful about their "best available science". We probably wouldn't be having to force them into reviewing it again.

One of the reasons I do not bother to read the IFP is because they do not report on the news they want to make up the news.

You don't read the IFP because you can't handle the truth.

Matthew,

Ya ain't no Jack Nicholson and when the only perspective you have of the Outer Banks is through ORV/fishing tourneys you have little chance of knowing the truth!

Are posts from butterball in our near future?

LikeQuoteFlag

Dennis your so predictable, you can't debate the topic, because you know you will lose, so divert, deflect and attack.

Like +5QuoteFlag