Yesterday afternoon on the government regulations website, regulations.gov, there were 238 public comments on the National Park Service?s proposed off-road rule for the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.
They are apparently all from individuals. There were no organizations listed as having submitted comments, but the environmental groups that sued the Park Service in 2007 ? Defenders of Wildlife and National Audubon Society, and their lawyers at the Southern Environmental Law Center ? are sure to weigh in.
I?m sure that they?re just keeping us in suspense about their views on the proposed rule, which will completely alter public access to the seashore for decades to come. And, that, of course, is their goal.
There are still three weeks and four days to comment on the rule. Information on how to comment is at the end of this blog.
You can also go to the government regulations website and read the comments posted thus far.
This week?s blog touches on a handful of topics in the news that will interest you as you craft your comments.
A PUBLIC COMMENT YOU SHOULD READ
Several readers have sent me their comments on the proposed rule or have posted them on message boards.
They have all been good and interesting comments, but one caught my eye.
It is from Ken Smith of Stafford, Va., who owns a house in Salvo.
Smith’s comments are long ? eight pages, single-spaced.
But they are ever so well crafted by someone who understands something about commenting on government regulations.
So I e-mailed Smith to ask him who he was and we eventually talked on the phone.
And it turns out that he does know something about this business of making government rules.
Smith retired from the U.S. Coast Guard as a lieutenant commander in 2004 after 22 years of service. It was on a Friday. On the next Monday, he went to work for the Coast Guard as a civilian in the Office of Vessel and Facility Operating Standards in Washington, D.C.
The function of that office is to write regulations and policy for commercial vessels and facilities handling oil and gas.
?I know how agencies are supposed to do things when it comes to rulemakings and that’s why this whole fiasco is unbelievable to me,? he said, adding that he was been ?frustrated and aggravated? at every step in the rulemaking process.
After an impassioned introduction to his comments, Smith calmly lists the many problems that he sees with the proposed regulation.
Here?s his introductory salvo:
This proposed rule and the information in this Federal Register (FR) is a good example of the poor management and unethical behaviors that are common throughout the National Park Service. In the past, these practices have been pretty much limited to the general public. However, now the National Park Service (NPS) is being so bold as to use them in a federal rulemaking project. After reading the proposed rule and understanding that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) (henceforth simply OMB) reviewed it and determined it was significant, I have come to the conclusion that the new motto of the National Park Service should be “What They Don’t Know, Wont’ Hurt Them”. And there is a lot about this rule from the Failed Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, environmental law suits, Court ordered Consent Decree, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Final EIS, Superintendent award, etc. that many people in the rulemaking review chain and senior leaders of government do not know about.
He goes on to say:
Rather than resolve a long standing problem of creating a simple rule for ORV management, the National Park Service is successful only in making matters worse. Rather than draft the rule based on existing infrastructure and long established ORV corridors and routes, the National Park Service proposes to create something out of nothing by using ramps that are not even built. To compound matters, they are proposing to close currently accessible ORV access areas without justifiable proof that it must be done for a justifiable reason. This is the most irresponsible action the agency can take, especially when they are up against a timeline and trying to meet deadlines imposed by a federal judge. The court mandate was to create regulations addressing ORV use; it did not include a mandate for closing down currently accessible areas of the recreational area.
I especially like the last sentence in that paragraph.
I think many of you will enjoy reading Smith?s comments. And if you stick with it through eight pages, you might even be cheering when you get to the end.
It?s a compelling and damning examination of the rulemaking process.
Also, notice all of the agencies and officials that Smith copied on his comments.
He especially thinks commenters should copy the Office of Management and Budget.
?I would encourage anyone who is sending a hard copy to include OMB/OIRA in the copy block as they will be reviewing this again,? Smith said. ?Normally, they would not get direct submissions. However, the more letters they get on this issue, the more they will realize how much controversy surrounds it and they will push the NPS to settle the dust, so to speak.?
Smith withheld his name on his online submission, but also sent the comments in hard copy and included his personal information.
Granted, we can?t all analyze and critique this government regulation as deftly as someone who writes them for a living.
However, you might pick up some ideas for your own comments.
Remember that you can comment early and comment often.
CLICK HERE to read Ken Smith?s comments.
ANOTHER VIEW OF SEASHORE CONTROVERSY
National Parks Traveler, the online site dedicated to coverage of the national parks, weighed in this week with a two part-series on the controversy over ORV rulemaking at the seashore.
It is written by the site?s founder and editor-in-chief, Kurt Repanshek, who obviously spent time researching and interviewing and came to the seashore, apparently in late June, to see for himself.
The articles were published on Monday and Tuesday, Aug. 8 and 9.
The headline is, ?At Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Birds, Turtles, And Humans Have Created An Air of Controversy.?
In an editor?s note, Repanshek says:
Cape Hatteras National Seashore is one of the jewels not only of the Atlantic Seaboard, but also of the National Park System. Its wide, sparkling beaches are popular with visitors of all kinds — humans, birds, and reptiles included — and that creates problems at times when some of the wildlife are protected by the Endangered Species Act. In a two-part series, the Traveler looks at the differing viewpoints, the resulting friction, and the tough spot the National Park Service has found itself in in trying to manage the seashore for both humans and wildlife. To help gain an understanding of how the conflict arose, in part one we lay out the landscape, both geologically and as wildlife habitat.
There is also lively discussion in the comments at the end of each of the two parts.
Some of the comments indicate that folks who favor more reasonable access to the seashore take issue with parts of the article, but I think they have to admit that Repanshek has let all the parties ? access advocates, environmentalists, and the Park Service ? have their say.
I?ll just note that he has fallen down on his reporting on the economic situation on Hatteras Island. The environmentalists are fond of noting the record high occupancy tax collections in the past few summers in Dare County.
Yes, that?s true, but a closer examination of the statistics indicates that Hatteras Island has not shared in this bonanza nearly as much as folks north of Oregon Inlet have.
The Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce just released occupancy tax numbers for the second quarter of 2011 ? April, May, and June. The tax is paid on accommodations, including campgrounds, motels, cottage, rentals, and time shares.
Yes, they show occupancy tax revenues are up over last year, but they also again show that Hatteras villages haven?t reaped the benefits that their neighbors to the north have.
Occupancy revenues increased for the whole county by 17.89 percent in April, 10.53 percent in May, and just 1.44 percent in June.
Numbers are up in six Hatteras villages for April because Easter fell in March last year and in April this year, and April also had five weekends. Collections were down by 11.67 percent in Buxton, perhaps because Cape Point closed in March this year.
They are also up for all villages except Salvo and Waves for May.
However, the revenues fell in all seven of the Hatteras villages in June.
Any analysis of beach closures on the Dare economy and visitation must look at Hatteras Island separately from the rest of the county.
CLICK HERE to read Part I of the National Parks Traveler series.
CLICK HERE to read Part II of the series
CLICK HERE to see a charter from the Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce comparing quarterly occupancy revenues by district.
WE ARE NOT ALONE — PLOVERS AT CAPE COD
If you think we have problems with nesting piping plovers, check out this article.
Reader Harold Markham of Buxton sent us a link to the article that was published this week in the Cape Cod Times. It was sent to him by some recent guests he had from that area.
The article was part of a four-part series on the 50th anniversary of the Cape Cod National Seashore.
It?s an interesting article about that seashore, which has some of the best habitat on the Atlantic coast for piping plovers, which nest from Newfoundland to North Carolina, the southernmost part of the range.
According to the reporter who wrote the article, Park Service personnel were monitoring 82 chicks on the beach on July 20.
That compares to Cape Hatteras, where 21 piping plover chicks hatched from seven nests this summer. Eleven of the chicks were lost, presumably to predation, and 10 fledged.
That number, by the way, is down by a third from last year?s record number of 15 piping plover chicks that fledged.
I was also interested that the article said people pay $375 for seasonal permits for their campers and four-wheel-drive vehicles.
Visitors to Race Point near Provincetown had not been able to take their campers on the beach all summer but had been able to take their ORVs to some areas. They were apparently camping in a visitor center parking lot.
The National Park Service is advertising six new positions at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore on the USA Jobs website.
They are positions for ?visitor use assistants.?
Three are GS-4 level jobs with a salary range of $27,990 to $36,384. Three are GS-5 jobs with a salary range of $31,315 to $40,706.
The job description for the GS-4 jobs is:
The incumbent is responsible for collecting and accounting for fees at an Off-road Vehicle Permit Office, campground, lighthouse, or other visitor contact station, and completion of appropriate paperwork. Provides information on permit requirements, operating an electronic cash register, operating audio visual equipment, conducting fee compliance checks, and providing the public with information about area regulations, services, and attractions. Advises visitors of potential safety hazards; provide answers to recurring visitor questions concerning site orientation, NPS interpretive services, and recreational opportunities in the surrounding areas. Other duties may include visitor management-related services such as traffic control, communicating over a park radio, or gathering information from reporting parties concerning accidents/incidents occurring within the park.
The GS-5 job adds this:
Assists with the remittance/deposit function, providing on the job training and guiding small groups of employees in daily activities.
The Park Service describes the jobs as career-seasonal, subject-to-furlough positions, located in Cape Hatteras National Seashore at Nags Head, Buxton, and Ocracoke Island. A permanent career-seasonal position includes all benefits of permanent employment, but does not provide for employment on a full year-round basis.
The persons who fill these jobs ?will work or be in pay and duty status at least 13 pay periods and not more than 25 pay periods in any service year. The employee will work full time (at least 40 hours per week) when in pay and duty status.?
It is true that the federal hiring process is lengthy, but there is something slightly unseemly about advertising for jobs to sell ORV permits before the public comment periods ends on the proposed ORV rule.
Also, the ad states that the park is filling six positions at this time, but the posting may be used to fill ?additional similar vacancies.?
Remember that the price of the ORV permit will be based on ?recovery costs? ? how much it costs the park to implement, sell, and enforce the permit.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Click here to read the regulation.
Click here to read the Record of Decision on the selected alternative which was published last December.
Public Comments:
The public comment period will be open from today until Sept. 6. Comments must be received on or before midnight (Eastern Daylight Time) on Tuesday, Sept. 6. The NPS says that it does not anticipate extending the public comment period beyond Sept. 6 because of the court deadline for completing the final rule.
You may submit comments on the Proposed Rule, identified by the Regulation Identifier Number: (RIN) 1024-AD85, by any of the following methods:
- Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments
- Mail or hand deliver to: Superintendent, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, 1401 National Park Drive, Manteo, North Carolina 27954.
Comments submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov or submitted by mail must be entered or postmarked before midnight (Eastern Daylight Time) Sept. 6. Comments submitted by hand delivery must be received by the close of business hours (5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time) September 6, 2011. Comments will not be accepted by fax, e-mail, or in any way other than those specified above, and bulk comments in any format (hard copy or electronic) submitted on behalf of others will not be accepted.
All submissions received must include the agency name and RIN for this rulemaking: 1024-AD85. All comments received through the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov will be available without charge. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment including your personal identifying information may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
To view comments received through the Federal eRulemaking portal, go to http://www.regulations.gov and enter ?1024-AD85″ in the ?Keyword or ID? search box.
