A bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives last February by Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., was passed yesterday as part of a package of bills, HR 2954, known as the Public Access and Lands Improvement Act.
The Jones part of the package would overturn both the National Park Service?s 2012 final rule for off-road vehicles on the Cape Hatteras National Seashore and a 2008 court-approved consent decree that settled a lawsuit filed against the Park Service by environmental groups.
The Preserving Access to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area Act would return management of seashore resources to the Interim Protected Species Management Strategy and Environmental Assessment, issued by the Park Service on June 13, 2007.
Jones is like a junkyard dog when it comes to access to the seashore. He?s introduced this bill in every Congress since the 2008 consent decree.
And this is the second time it has been passed by the full House. The first was in 2012.
The problem is that it?s way easier to get Republicans to support this legislation than Democrats.
The Senate is controlled by Democrats, thus when the bill has been introduced in the upper chamber by North Carolina senators, it really hasn?t gone anywhere.
Last year was the first time it was voted favorably out of Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. That was after some behind-the-scenes negotiation by Democrats and Republicans ? and it was passed by unanimous voice vote by committee members from both parties.
Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat and committee member, has been a passionate supporter of the bill. And it appears that the bill may also have the support of another Democrat on the committee, Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.
That?s progress.
S 486, as amended, is a watered down version of the Jones bill. But it is something, and it takes some steps to try to fix the very restrictive Park Service ORV plan and final rule with its extreme buffer distances for piping plover nests and chicks, which are federally protected, and for other birds that are not federally listed as endangered or threatened but are only state ?species of concern.?
Furthermore, the science upon which these buffers have been based is in no way peer-reviewed. The National Park Service and the U.S. Geological Survey, which developed the Patuxent Protocols ? the ?so-called? best available science on the issue?insist the document was peer-reviewed. But no way.
However, back to S 486.
As amended by the Senate, the bill would:
- Order the Interior Secretary to review and modify wildlife buffers.
- Designate pedestrian and vehicle corridors around areas of the national seashore closed because of wildlife buffers to allow access to areas that are open.
- Order the Interior Secretary to coordinate with the state about appropriate buffers of state species of special concern.
- Order the Interior Secretary to undertake a public process to consider some changes ?consistent with management requirements? at the seashore. One would be more flexibility on how early beaches are opened in the morning ? it?s now 7 a.m., long after daylight. It also would include extended seasonal ORV routes, and modifying the size and location of vehicle-free areas.
- Order the secretary to provide new vehicle access points and roads ?as expeditiously as possible.?
- And, finally, the secretary would report to Congress within one-year on measures taken to implement the act.
There are a lot of words and phrases in the bill that give the Interior Secretary wiggle room on all of these demands. But it?s still an improvement over what we have.
And it might even work to allow more reasonable public access.
Without passing this legislation, the 2012 ORV plan and final rule are not open for modification for five years, which would be in 2017.
It?s going to be very difficult to get this legislation passed in the Senate.
And, if it is passed, there are several obstacles. As amended, it differs from the House version and the Obama administration ?strongly opposes? it.
There are a few scenarios to consider on the outside chance that the Senate does pass S 486.
One is the possibility that Jones could take the compromise, amended bill to the House leadership and ask for a vote on it. The amended version, blessed by Senate committee Democrats, might be more palatable to the administration.
It might also be more palatable to the Democrats and the administration if 10 or 12 of these bills are not repackaged into one omnibus bill. Some are even more controversial than the Cape Hatteras legislation.
It might be a pipe dream, but stranger things have happened.
Also figuring into all the political maneuvering and lobbying behind the scenes on this issue is the fact that U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan, a Democrat, is up for re-election this year and the race looks as if it will be a tight one for her.
If Hagan thinks that the seashore legislation will help her among North Carolinians, she might be more proactive in urging the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, to bring the bill to the floor for a vote.
Now is the time for all who favor more reasonable access to be in touch with their U.S. senators, urging action on S 486.
You will find information on how to contact your senators at http://www.senate.gov/.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
If you are interested in blogs I have written in the past on the issue of peer-reviewed science and the buffers, you can go to the opening page of the blog and scroll down on the left until you find the ?search? function. Enter ?Patuxent Protocols? or ?peer review.?
Here are links for two of the most recent:
Click here to read a March 2010 blog, ?They are showing us the science??
Click here to read an April 2010 blog, ?They are showing us the science? Part Two.?
