This exchange of letters speaks for itself.
The exchange is between Bob Eakes, owner of The Red Drum Tackle Shop in Buxton and a member of the federally appointed negotiated rulemaking committee that failed in its mission to formulate an off-road vehicle rule for the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, and the National Park Service?s Director, Jonathan Jarvis.
March 15, 2011
Director Jonathan B. Jarvis
National Park Service
1849 C Street NW (Room 3112)
Washington, DC 20240
Dear Director Jarvis,
I doubt you would remember me and those of us from Dare County who paid you a visit last year. My concerns remain unchanged. I would remind you of a guarantee you made to us.
You would personally oversee the CHNS plan process and so on. I am not sure whether there was more to it than that but I would have hoped for some fairness in your guarantee.
All of this brings forth a question. How could both NPS and USFWS through a NEPA process come up with an Interim Plan which was approved by both? Both NPS and USFWS signed off on this plan with no significant harm to the resource occurring under the Interim Plan being assured by again both NPS and USFWS. I might also add that this Interim Plan was done through and with community participation.
Today the future plan is vastly over restrictive to a point where even the thousands of pages of minutia cannot substantiate same. I was told by Superintendent Mike Murray that the reason for the restrictions on Cape Point were because of my criticisms of the DEIS. Each of the members of Reg Neg (federally appointed negotiating rulemaking committee) who participated has been penalized for their participation unless they were asking for closure. For example, the tackle shops like mine and Frank & Fran?s and Teach’s Lair have seen closures put into effect for no other reason than insult.
Well, there you have it. Is there no one in NPS or DOI who can step up and do what they promised? Never will conservation be achieved without community support. How about your promise to me? Is it as worthless as Mike Murray’s promise to all of us?
Sincerely yours,
Bob Eakes, President
Red Drum Tackle Shop, Inc.
PO Box 1354
Buxton, NC 27920
May 9, 2011
Mr. Bob Eakes
Red Drum Tackle Shop
P.O. Box 1354
Buxton, North Carolina 27920
Dear Mr. Eakes:
Thank you for your emailed letter of March 15, 2011, expressing your dissatisfaction with the Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) Plan for Cape Hatteras National Seashore. I do recall our discussion and have closely followed the planning process associated with this plan. I am fully aware of the range of management alternatives proposed. I concurred with Southeast Regional Director David Vela’s approval of the Selected Action in the Record of Decision for the ORV Management Plan/Environment Impact Statement (plan/EIS).
The Interim Protected Species Management Strategy/Environmental Assessment (interim strategy/EA) was intended as short-term resource management guidance until a long-term ORV management plan and special regulation could be completed. The National Park Service (NPS) Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion of no jeopardy for the interim strategy/EA were based, in part, on the short-duration of the action.
The interim strategy/EA did not, however, meet the requirements of the executive order or NPS regulations for authorizing ORV use at the Seashore. The analysis of the interim strategy/EA (alternative A) in the plan/EIS confirmed this. It determined that if the interim strategy were implemented for the long-term, it would result in long-term moderate to major adverse impacts to piping plover, major adverse impacts to and potential impairment of sea turtles (plan/EIS, pp. 401-402) and long-term moderate to major adverse impacts to and potential impairment of black skimmers, common terns, and gull-billed terns (plan/EIS, pp. 448-450). In contrast, Alternative F, the Selected Action, will result in more benefits and significantly lower levels of adverse impacts to protected species. The NPS chose the Selected Action because it will best accomplish the purpose and need for taking action while fulfilling the NPS statutory mission and its responsibilities for managing park resources and ORVs, giving consideration to environmental, economic, and park operational factors.
We realize that the Selected Action is disappointing for many ORV users, who have enjoyed relatively unrestricted vehicular access on Seashore beaches for many years, as well as for conservation groups who would have preferred that ORVs be completely excluded from all sensitive wildlife habitats at the inlets and Cape Point. We are also aware that Superintendent Murray respects your opinion and seriously considers your suggestions on these issues. He and others in the NPS must fully consider other points of view and interests, including those that differ significantly from yours, and make difficult decisions that will withstand intense scrutiny from all sides.
We would appreciate your understanding and support of the NPS mission as it works to conserve the Seashore’s resources unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations while providing for a diverse range of visitor experience opportunities. We encourage your continued participation in this issue to make implementation of the Selected Action and special regulation as successful as possible for all parties involved.
Thank you for this opportunity to address your concerns regarding Cape Hatteras National Seashore. If you have further questions, please contact Superintendent Michael Murray, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, at 252-473-2111, extension 148.
Sincerely,
Jonathan B. Jarvis
Director
May 23, 2011
Dear Director Jarvis,
While I understand your support of everything which NPS has done, please do not ask me to support that which has caused my neighbors and I so much needless hardship. The promises made of balancing the needs of resource management and access by the American public are simply false.
To ignore traditions, history, Hatteras Island economy, enabling legislation, for no other reason than to placate the chosen special few is ridiculous. Three years of the consent decree and nothing positive to be shown is what this is about. While you insult me with ORV language, the reality is pedestrians and all are being thrown off this beach to give special interest groups what they want.
Finally, Mike Murray’s extension is 150 and Cyndy Holda’s is 148. Thanks for the insult.
Sincerely yours,
Bob Eakes
I am publishing this exchange of letters with only a few comments because I think that Director Jarvis has certainly explained the attitude of the National Park Service on an ORV rule that will affect the culture, lifestyle, and economy of Hatteras and Ocracoke ?no matter how much they say it won?t in the 1,000-plus pages of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Selected Alternative.
Jarvis writes, ?I would appreciate your understanding and support of the NPS mission as it works to conserve the Seashore’s resources unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations while providing for a diverse range of visitor experience opportunities.?
Currently, the visitor ?experience? on Hatteras and Ocracoke is a travesty of the intent of Congress when Cape Hatteras became the first national seashore.
In fact, Congress later amended its enabling legislation to clarify that the name of the park would be the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. That fact has been conveniently ignored by the Park Service for decades.
The proposed regulation with its excessive restrictions and denial of public access, both for pedestrians and ORVs, is incompatible with the legislative purpose and intent of why the national seashore was established (16USC459 CHNSRA Enabling Legislation):
?said area shall be, and is, established, dedicated, and set apart as a national seashore recreational area for the benefit and enjoyment of the people and shall be known as the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area.?
The birds and sea turtles and residents and visitors have co-existed for years now without the environmental advocacy groups telling us how to manage the seashore.
That should continue ? but obviously that concept of public access to the national seashore is not shared by the Director of the National Park Service.
