As the issue of off-road vehicle access to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore has become more contentious, the people who favor free and open access have increasingly pushed for the seashore to return to the name that Congress gave it in 1940 ? the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area.
Returning to that moniker for the seashore is important to many as the environmental and ORV access groups square off on a beach driving regulation for the seashore.
At the core of this issue is the Park Service?s dual mission on the seashore to both protect the resources and accommodate the visiting public.
The 1937 legislation that enabled the Cape Hatteras National Seashore said:
Except for certain portions of the area, deemed to be especially
adaptable for recreational uses, particularly swimming, boating,
sailing, fishing, and other recreational activities of similar nature,
which shall be developed for such uses as needed, the said area
shall be permanently reserved as a primitive wilderness and no development
of the project or plan for the convenience of visitors shall be
undertaken which would be incompatible with the preservation of the unique
flora and fauna or the physiographic conditions now prevailing
in this area.
People on each side of the access issue read this legislation differently. And it would be interesting to know what exactly was on the minds of the members of Congress who wrote this legislation more than 70 years ago.
The access groups believe that the legislation puts the emphasis on recreational uses, and the environmental groups highlight the ?primitive wildness? language.
In 1940, Congress passed legislation changing the name of the seashore from the Cape Hatteras National Seashore to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area.
Yet that name has not been used in many years by the National Park Service.
The ?recreational area? name was an issue in the negotiated rulemaking committee meetings. It was discussed, though little explanation for the fact it was dropped was offered by the Park Service.
Journalists have also been pushed to use the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area.
I haven?t changed how we refer to the park in The Island Free Press because Cape Hatteras National Seashore is the ?official? name, according to the Park Service.
If writers of comments or letters to the editor refer to the Cape Hatteras Recreational Area or if that name is used in direct quotes, reports, or the like, that stands.
On this issue, I thought you would be interested in a recent exchange between Frank Folb of Frank and Fran?s tackle shop in Avon and a member of the failed negotiated rulemaking committee, and Mike Murray, superintendent of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.
The exchange is posted on Frank and Fran?s Web site forum (http://reelbuzz.com/fishreports/frankandfrans/)
One of Frank?s correspondents on his site asked this question:
Frank
Do you or anyone know what the “official” name is for the park?
Frank Folb sent this question to Mike Murray.
Mike,
Sorry to keep pestering you, but when good questions need answers, I do not want to be wrong in answering the question so I am going to the horse?s mouth.
This is what Mike Murray responded:
This is another issue with a convoluted history. Here it is:
The 1937 legislation authorized the “conditional establishment” of “Cape
Hatteras National Seashore” (CHNS). It provided that when title to at
least 10,000 acres of land within the designated boundaries had been
vested in the U.S., then the seashore could be “established.” The
original 1937 legislation also identified ALL the recreation and
preservation mandates for the Seashore in Section 4 of the act (now
found in 16 USC 459a-2), except for hunting, which was added in the 1940
amendment. The 1937 act included:
Except for certain portions of the area, deemed to be especially
adaptable for recreational uses, particularly swimming, boating,
sailing, fishing, and other recreational activities of similar nature,
which shall be developed for such uses as needed, the said area
shall be permanently reserved as a primitive wilderness and no development
of the project or plan for the convenience of visitors shall be
undertaken which would be incompatible with the preservation of the unique
flora and fauna or the physiographic conditions now prevailing
in this area
The 1940 amendment was brief. It modified the name to “national seashore
recreational area” (CHNSRA) and authorized hunting. The reason for the
name change was that NPS was concerned about the precedent of allowing
hunting in a unit of the national park system.
The park itself was not officially established (i.e., formally
administered and operated) until January 1953 after the U.S. had
received title to sufficient land to meet the 10,000 acres threshold.
In May 1954, NPS Assistant Director Hillary Tolson issued a memo stating
that the shorter title of “Cape Hatteras National Seashore” may be used,
except in formal memoranda and documents requiring the full title of
“Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area Project.” “CHNSRA”
was used as the name in official documents (deeds, legislation, etc.)
during the 1940’s and 1950’s.
In 1961, Congress authorized Cape Cod as the second “national seashore”
and subsequently created eight more “national seashores” between 1962
and 1975 for a total of ten. All such park units that followed Cape
Hatteras were officially named “national seashores.” All related
national seashore legislation was listed in the U.S. Code as subsections
under the Cape Hatteras act (Cape Hatteras = 16 USC 459.a; Cape Cod = 16
USC 459.b, etc.).
Since 1962 Congress has used “Cape Hatteras National Seashore” as the
official title in all Cape Hatteras related legislation, NPS/DOI has
used that title in all official planning documents, the General
Management Plan, federal regulations, agreements, contracts, etc. In
other words, as soon as other “national seashores” started to be
created, Cape Hatteras was once again referred to as a “national
seashore” by Congress and “national seashore” became the standard
nomenclature for this type of park.
Congress did NOT change the 1940 amendment or re-amend the name,
although it has consistently used “national seashore” since 1962.
As a result, there is ambiguity in legislation about the official name. The
1940 amendment clearly changed the name to “CHNSRA,” but “National
Seashore” is the name officially used by Congress and the NPS for the past
40+ years. As a result, either name has validity. In my judgment and the
judgment of the Solicitors, the name per se is irrelevant to the issues at
hand. The recreational part of the park purpose was established in the
original “national seashore” legislation; that purpose was not changed or
enhanced by the 1940 amendment, except that the amendment allowed hunting.
Furthermore, section 3 of the 1937 legislation (preceding section 4, which
contained the recreation and preservation mandates) included the following
statement:
The administration, protection and development of the aforesaid national
seashore shall be exercised under the direction of the Secretary of the
Interior by the National Park Service, subject to the provisions of the Act
of August 25, 1916 (i.e., the Organic Act)
In other words, a fundamental premise under which the Cape Hatteras
National Seashore was established was that it would be managed in
accordance with the Organic Act. The 1940 amendment did nothing to change
that requirement.
So there you have it. The answer is, as Murray said, ?ambiguous.?
Is it the Cape Hatteras National Seashore or the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area?
What do you think?
FOR MORE INFORMATION
To read more about the history of the establishment of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore:
http://islandfreepress.org/2008Archives/05.12.2008-SeashoreEstablis.pdf
http://islandfreepress.org/2008Archives/09.03.2008-CreationAndEstablishmentOfCHNS.pdf
Lately the park could be re-monikered as Cape Hatteras Bird Refuge. Especially considering I?ve noticed this morning that they?ve closed even more beach off east of ramp49 so there is now less than 3 miles access there. welcome to cape hatteras bird refuge, if you are the right kind of bird then you can stay but if you are a predator bird or other perceived potential predator, WATCH OUT! they?ll try to trap u & kill u.
What is so hard to understand about;
The 1940 amendment was brief. It modified the name to “national seashore
recreational area” (CHNSRA) and authorized hunting. The reason for the
name change was that NPS was concerned about the precedent of allowing
hunting in a unit of the national park system.
Is hunting still allowed?
Way back in 1937, words meant things. Words were considered very diligently before they were put on paper. Back then, the order words were written meant something. The first words were more important than what followed. Consider; “Except for certain portions of the area, deemed to be especially
adaptable for recreational uses, particularly swimming, boating,
sailing, fishing, and other recreational activities of similar nature,
which shall be developed for such uses as needed, the said area
shall be permanently reserved as a primitive wilderness “
“Except for certain portions of the area, deemed to be especially
adaptable for recreational uses” comes before “shall be permanently reserved as a primitive wilderness”
That was not a mistake, it was founded & developed as a recreation area. The parts not suitable for recreation, like mud flats, swamp, or dunes needed for protection could be saved as wilderness and not developed for recreation.
Congress named it?”Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area” Only Congress can change the name. So the legal name is “Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area” and no amount of NPS babble can change it.
Since NPS feels it can name anything they want, I suggest they use a more descriptive name?”Cape Hatteras National Maternity Ward for Birds and Turtles.”
I have other suggestions, but I don?t want children to read that.
In 1916 there was no Cape Hatteras National Seashore.In 1940 it became the C.H.N.S. RECREATIONAL AREA per congress.NOT bird procreational area per audubon.What is so damned hard to understand about that???This is ambiguous because someone is making it so.It?s crystal clear to us!
There is room in the Seashore (sorry, but the attempts at legal hairsplitting just don?t cut it) for all activities. ORVs for the last few years have absolutely taken over almost all the beach, leaving pedestrians huddled for safety in little clusters near the beach access. Drivers have gotten more and more aggressive, and have been driving faster and more carelessly, so that it is dangerous at times for pedestrians to be on the beach.
When we first came to the Outer Banks 15+ years ago, yes, there were ORVs, but there were also large ORV-free stretches. Instead of noise and exhaust, we could spread out, and enjoy the peace and quiet and solitude.
Believe it or not, birdwatchers are not the only ones who love the quieter Outer Banks, and who want some of it back.
sorry jeff b. for your experience with inconsiderate drivers, not all drivers are irresponsible, blame a few and all are punished??? Sounds familiar, like Boyle & his sign rules..please bear in mind that these beach closures keep the public from observing what wildlife there may be at the beach. That means YOU!
How about calling it the National Monument to the Uncompromising
In a reasonable , mature, rational world the entire Reg-Neg process should have taken about ten minutes and gone something like this:
Everyone who likes turtles and birds raise their hands. Okay, that is everyone. Everyone who wants to protect our beaches, turtles and birds, raise their hands. Okay that is everyone. Okay, how about enclosing a few spots along the beaches so we can protect, view at a distance and appreciate our wildlife while at the same time ensuring that locals, visitors, children and the handicapped still have full access to enjoy our beaches for recreation. If that sounds good, raise your hands. Okay, that is everyone. Okay, how about a program to educate drivers as to proper beach driving etiquette and beach driving safety. Raise you hand if that sounds good. Okay, that is everyone. How about we just leave it all to the skills and authority of the NPS to devise a plan to still give the public full and safe access to our beautiful beaches while at the same time protecting our resources and wildlife, you know, kinda like they have already been doing for the past 20 or more years. If that sounds good, raise your hands. Okay, that is everyone. Okay, meeting adjourned, let’s all go get a cold one, I’m buying.
I don?t mean to be contrary, but the argument that we should have free and unlimited access to drive wherever we want is absurd. No one expects to be able to ride dirt bikes or quad runners at Shenandoah, or Smoky Mountains, or Yosemite NP. The noise and destruction would quickly degrade the quality of the landscape to the point that it would be trashed. Try that quad runner at Antietam or Gettysburg and see what happens!
The same issue is at stake here. Yes, by all means, require drivers to be responsible- maybe even require passing an ORV test before being allowed on the beach. But this doesn?t address the fact that there are very few places for non-ORV users to go under the current lack-of-plan. The Point and the Inlet are pretty much off limits to walkers and have been for a number of years? and even if you do brave the traffic, you still have to squeeze through the hundred-plus vehicles parked hubcap to hubcap.
The other issue is that there are so many more visitors to the Outer Banks now, and everyone with an SUV or pickup has to drive. There need to be limits on the numbers permitted on the beach at any one time. I certainly am not calling for a total ban on vehicles, but there have to be some common sense limits.
Jeff B
From your posts I assume you yourself are not driving to these beach locations you are talking about?
Do you walk to these locations? If you fish, do you carry your cooler, rods, tackle and all your other gear with you? If so, how do you manage that?
Do you have any small children to take with you on long walks on the beach to remote locations in the heat of the day? If so, how do you manage these longs walks with them?
Are any members of your family handicapped? If so, how do you mange them on these long walks through the sand?
Do you carry any type of shelter with you? If not, how do you prepare for severe wind and lightening storms that may arise on the beach?
Do you carry some type of porta-potty with you? If not, how do you mange calls of nature?
There has been unlimited driving on the OBX beaches practically since there have been cars. Its part of the heritage and history of the Outer Banks. Mainly because the OBX is so large it is not easily accessible by all types of visitors- young, old, infirm- unless by vehicle. While there are exceptions, I have found most beach drivers to be most courteous and very respectful of the beach resources and wildlife as well as other beach visitors, both in vehicles and on foot. I myself consider it absurd for outsiders, many of whom have probably never ever set foot on the Outer Banks and are not familiar with its heritage and history, to just arbitrarily decide that beach driving is wrong.
OBX Traveler
First, don?t make assumptions about someone you don?t know.
We pack everything we take to the beach on our backs. You do not need a ton of supplies, looking like a turn of the century British expedition to the heart of Africa. Read the weather, take one (1) cooler for lunch, a large thermos, maybe a camp chair or two, and some shade. Enjoy the breeze, the sigh of the waves.
It?s work, but perhaps we?ve grown too accustomed to our climate-controlled, comfortable lives to the point that even walking a couple hundred yards is too difficult.
And yes, we pushed a jogging stroller, and carried a toddler. And we?ve gone on miles-long walks.
Second, I never said ban all drivers, or from the entire beach. Set aside no-drive zones, and limit total numbers of ORVs on the beach at any one time. Give preference or even free passes to year-round residents. Issue special permits for handicapped or other special needs visitors.
Third, Hatteras is a National seashore, not a local park. It is in trust for all citizens of all states and territories, not just for local residents- today and tomorrow and for those yet unborn. It must be safeguarded for all users, not just ORVers. Just because the Park Service never tried as required in its mandate to implement rules to do this caretaking until recently doesn?t mean that it shouldn?t.
No one would question bans on climbing the Statue of Liberty, or trawl-netting through Biscayne Bay. Or dirt-biking through Gettysburg. Sensible limitations on all maximizes the experience for all.
LOL, now come on,Jeff B, you know the average visitor to OBX is not going to pack in everything on a mile long trek in soft sand with kids in hand and old grandma collapsing in the hot summer sun for a down the beach. It?s just unrealistic and to think that most visitor would be able to do this is also unrealistic. In fact it would probably be very dangerous for most. Most visitors are going to drive to their destination on the beach. That is what they expect. That is the way it has always been. Even if they get ‘hubcap to hubcap’. (never actually have even seen that)
Yeah, I know, no one would question a ban on skateboarding down MT. Rushmore. Just thought I would beat you to the over-the-top analogy.
One other thing to consider? the entire ORV debate largely stems because the Outer Banks have become a victim of their own popularity. The huge increase in the numbers of visitors is truly a double-edged sword. Yes, bring your money, enhance the local economy?
But how much of that money stays in the Outer Banks? How many of those born and bred can no longer afford to live there because of artificially inflated housing prices and cost of living? The villages have, or will soon have, serious issues with water, and power, and waste disposal, because no one ever intended for tens of thousands of people to be living at one time in a chain of narrow barrier islands.
Beach driving is seeing the spillover of these other immense changes- it?s another of those cherished traditions that sad to say has ?already? been forever changed by hundreds of visitors a week eager to try out their wheels every day on the sand, where a few decades ago maybe a dozen or two tried.
Once the tourism genie is out of the bottle, you can?t get it back in- but maybe you can limit the damage.
Both of you have not solved anything, just wanting to protect your own little Turf. and this is just what the other side wants , fighting among ourselves. Grow up both of you and realize the other side wants to ban beach access period. Thus both of you get along and like I said grow up.
Fen and Reel,
Sorry you did not find anything of value in the debate between Jeff B and myself. While we did not agree on everything, I do think Jeff B made some good points and gave us some food for thought, and my hope is that I did also. At the very least we both took the time and effort to make our positions known and to try to defend them, which is what I wish more would do.
There are less ORVs now, than the late ?70?s & early ?80?s. It might seem more crowded now, because ORVs have less beach to access now, than then. Right now the majority of the Points east & south beaches are off-limits to both pedestrians and ORV use.
For ORV free beaches, visit Pea Island.
While I cannot agree with much of what Jeff B. has said he has been very articulate in what he says. The problem here is that we are not face to face where the differences can be feted out and a plan could be worked to more nearly satisfy both sides. The access side did that very thing in Negotiated Rule Making, but there were those that as one of the previous posts stated ? This is not about birds or turtles, they want the vehicles off the beach period!?
When someone says there has never been an off road plan I would only ask that they stop by the tackle shop and I will show them a copy of the 1978 plan that was never signed off on in DC or put in the Federal Register, but has been used and updated by NPS.
And the 1978 Plan F&F cites basically implemented the no driving on Pea Island, the seasonal village closures, narrow beach safety closures along with wildlife and plant protections. It went thru a public vetting process with public input. Note: just like the Interim Plan did. Neither side was totally happy with it, as was true with the Interim Plan, but it was finally approved at the local level and district NPS and sent forward.
Unfortunately, as said, it was never officially approved/signed at the DC level; not because the plan was considered flawed at that level but because it just got lost in the admin mess.
Thus this lack of signature ?technicality? opened the door for the environ lawsuits, even though a plan was actually in place and in use.
My Dad was involved as a citizen submitting comments on that plan. Years later he said it was unfortunate that folks like him never thought to followup after the plan was submitted. They just thought it was a ?done deal? once approved at the local level and sent forward.
Ted A. Hamilton
(aka Salvo Jimmy)
I very clearly remember times in the 80?s when we first started coming to Hatteras in a 4-wheel drive. There were definitely as many vehicles on the beach then as there are now.
Jeff, I agree that there are places that need to be ORV free. Those places do exist. They are called seasonal village closures. You can spend all day and night on the beaches in front of the villages from April to September and not be bothered by vehicles. You can also spend the day at Pea Island year round and not be bothered by vehicles.
As I?m sure you are aware, the places where we drive (or used to drive) are much more remote and away from the houses for the most part. It isn?t a simple little walk out to the point or to the inlet with all of the neccesary fishing gear. And most of the families who are in those locations are there to fish. My children grew up playing in the sand and swimming in those locations, surrounded by the vehicles and the fishermen and I was never afraid for their safety. There were times when I didn?t want to get up as early as the men in the family did to start their fishing day. When that happened, the kids and I went to one of the village walk-over locations and accessed the beach (sans vehicles) carrying our cooler and towels and boogie boards, like you mentioned.
There is a place and a time for everything and no reason that all interests can not be allowed access to enjoy the park as it was intended to be.
In my opinion i believe that it should be up to the permanent residence of the island if driving on the beach should be allowed. They should take a vote of residence of people that have live there and then from there have visitors and residence under 5 years to sign a petition and take the appropriate actions
There are plenty of ?ORV Free? areas within the CHNSRA and Pea Island NWR to satisfy anyone who wishes to enjoy the beach away from ORV?s. Jeff makes a good point or two, but as a whole, CHNSRA was established for the PUBLIC TO RECREATE, NOT AS A BIRD REFUGE!!! The proper name is, as Congress established, Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area! 🙂
Jeff, you honestly sound like someone who has never been to some of these places. You mention quad runners, they aren?t allowed. You keep referring to ?unlimited driving?. There have been limitations pretty much since the park became a park, primarily no driving on the dunes, which it might surprise you, are almost all man made.
You may also wish to update your comment: ?No one would question bans on climbing the Statue of Liberty?. Someone must have, they re-opened it.
Back to the point of the article, If find Murray?s point that basically since we don?t use the full name anymore, it?s not really the name anymore. I?d like to ask him if he has a full legal name on his birth certificate. Does he use that full name very often? Since he doesn?t (as almost nobody does), does that mean it?s no longer his name?
And sometimes a name does have a purpose, If I want to have a place to land planes I might call it an ?airport?, just as if I want to have a place for people to recreate, I might call it a ?recreation area?.
Maybe it seems like there are more vehicles on the beach because there is far less beach available to drive on. Yankee Stadium would be awfully crowded too if you sold all the tickets and closed 2/3?s of the stadium to seating. Right whales are endangered too so why not close all east coast ports during the spring migration?
To JeffB: Please note that the closures will prevent you from hiking out to the beach anyway. These closures are not meant for anything but to take away ACCESS. This means it does not matter if you drive, walk or crawl you cannot go there. Notice also that there are no closures in front of the villages (pedestrian area only)? Is this because birds do not like this beach? I really doubt that. Do birds only nest on ORV accessed beaches? I doubt that. Does the removal of ORV?s guarantee any success of a few birds on our island? I really doubt that also. Do ORV?s attract these few birds? I do not think so. I think that we really are on the same team and that is the Access Team. the only people who are not on this team are the people who will only be satisfied with total people removal from the beaches.