A good-size crowd of residents and regular visitors came to the Cape Hatteras Secondary School auditorium on Tuesday evening, May 5, to hear about and comment on the National Park Service’s plan to adjust wildlife protection buffers in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore in response to legislation passed in December by the U.S. Congress.
And, for the first time in a long time, the meeting was cordial. It was polite and respectful, and by the end, it bordered on downright friendly — with some folks even cracking a joke or two and getting a few laughs.
According to the National Park Service, 86 people attended. Seashore Superintendent David Hallac opened the meeting with a PowerPoint presentation on the Environmental Assessment document that details the proposed new buffers for nesting birds and turtles.
Hallac noted that the meeting was scheduled from 6 until 8 p.m., but added that he and seashore staff members would “stick around as long as you want to talk.”
He also had an informal “question-and-answer” period before members of the audience came to the microphone to make their formal comments, which also contributed to the more positive and relaxed tone of the evening.
When the meeting ended after almost two hours, some residents and regular visitors hung around to talk with seashore Superintendent Dave Hallac and members of his staff. Some huddled around maps and had serious conversations about various access issues, and others just engaged in a little small talk and exchanged pleasantries.
The evening was certainly a far cry from other meetings in the past decade about off-road vehicle planning and public access to the seashore’s beaches — meetings at which the tone ranged from contentious to downright hostile.
I don’t mean to imply that everyone was pleased and satisfied with the recommendations from seashore officials. They were not. Many people objected to parts of the plan and made suggestions for improving it, but most, if not all, couched their criticisms with encouraging and conciliatory words.
“Your document show that there has begun a dialogue to correct some of the poor decisions of the plan in place,” said Frank Folb, owner of Frank and Fran’s tackle shop in Avon and an outspoken critic of both the process of ORV planning and the final regulation.
David Scarborough, treasurer of the Outer Banks Preservation Association who was speaking for the Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance, called the fast-tracking of five ORV construction projects and the proposed changes to the buffers an “important first step.”
Both Scarborough and Folb went on to outline parts of the plan that they did not think complied with the requirements of the legislation.
Wayne Mathis of Buxton said he was an advocate for adaptive management and called the proposals “a step in the right direction.”
“I commend you for responding to the legislation,” Mathis said. “I hope you will continue the process of reviewing what works and what doesn’t work….Use your authority to determine what’s working and what’s not.”
“You’ve listened, and you’ve done the things that we’ve asked you to do,” said county Commissioner Warren Judge, who also mentioned some areas for improvement.
John Mortensen of Buxton called the Park Service plan a “step in the correct direction” before ripping it up and asking seashore officials to reconsider everything.
“This meeting is a good start,” said Kevin McCabe of Buxton, who harkened back to days when park staff invited members of the community to an annual oyster roast.
The meeting in Buxton was the second of five that the Park Service scheduled on the proposed buffer changes. According to the Park Service, about a dozen people attended Monday night’s meeting in Ocracoke, 37 went to the Raleigh gathering on Wednesday, and 12 attended in Hampton, Va., last night. The final meeting is scheduled for tonight in Kitty Hawk.
Many of the comments on the proposed buffer adjustments were on the proposals for changes for colonial waterbirds and American oystercatchers — or, more precisely, the lack of changes in buffers for those birds.
It is ironic that the largest buffer reductions proposals are for sea turtles and piping plovers, both federally listed species, while little or no reduction is proposed for oystercatchers and colonial waterbirds, which are not federally listed and listed by the state not as endangered or threatened but as “species of special concern.”
The legislation passed by Congress instructs the Park Service to consult with the state on the buffers, and the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission made recommendations on buffers and was also a member of the seashore’s working group to design the proposals.
However, the recommendations of the WRC biologists on oystercatchers and colonial waterbirds were largely ignored by the Park Service.
This issue came up in Buxton as a question before the comment period, and Hallac replied that the Park Service is mandated to protect all species and that federal protection is mandated by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
He also said that the Park Service identified 1,845 scientific references in its research on peer-reviewed science to back up buffer adjustments. Of those, 286 were considered relevant.
Hallac said that the peer-reviewed science does not support buffer reductions — but apparently the state biologists think it does.
The Park is proposing no reduction in buffers for American oystercatcher nesting or unfledged chicks.
The one positive in the oystercatcher buffer proposal is the provision for a corridor along the waterline when a nest is at least 25 meters from the corridor. This proposal would have kept Cape Point from being closed last month for nesting oystercatchers.
The Park Service is proposing no buffer reduction for least terns for nesting or unfledged chicks. These are the birds whose nest closed a portion of the oceanfront in Avon village in front of cottages last summer. For other colonial waterbirds, the proposed reduction is merely from 200 meters to 180 meters.
On the positive side is the park’s proposal for reductions in buffers for nesting piping plovers and their unfledged chicks.
The Park Service has proposed a reduction from 75 to 50 meters for nesting and from 1,000 meters to 500 meters for unfledged chicks with a provision for an ORV corridor at 200 meters.
As Scarborough of CHAPA noted the reduction has the “potential” to improve ORV and pedestrian access at Cape Point, where most of the nests are located, but improved access, he noted, will be “dependent” on closures for oystercatchers and colonial waterbirds.
For instance, last year’s prolonged closure of Cape Point was due more to oystercatchers and colonial waterbirds than piping plovers. Even with reduced plover buffers, colonial waterbirds could close down access.
“Proposed reduction to buffers for colonial waterbirds are inconsequential,” he said. “The proposed changes do not provide ORV or pedestrian corridors. The nesting and pre-fledged buffers for these species will likely continue to completely close pedestrian and ORV access to areas such as Cape Point and South Point.”
Scarborough praised some of the proposals for turtle nest buffers. He called them “the ones most likely to result in smaller closures for shorter durations and, therefore, have a positive impact on visitor experience.”
However, he and others said other changes must be made to fully comply with the law. He asked for light penetration barriers for nests that enter the hatch window after Sept. 15 and, as an “option of last resort,” the relocation of nests that prevent ORV or pedestrian access.
The Park Service proposals made no mention of relocation of turtle nests, although the state WRC suggested relocating them according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines to prevent some conflicts.
“To summarize,” Scarborough said, “the implementation of the changes proposed by NPS combined with the implementation of additional changes proposed in these comments are necessary to insure compliance with the new law.”
Others at the meeting, especially regular visitors, commented on the impacts on visitation and the economy of the large resource closures in the spring and summer.
And, finally, Hallac told the audience at the meeting that the Park Service has “identified a funding source” to pay for the increased, intensive monitoring of nests and chicks to implement the buffer changes.
Representatives of the environmental groups that were instrumental in designing the seashore’s ORV law with its vast buffers showed up in Raleigh and Hampton to comment.
They, of course, see no need for any changes to the buffers since more birds and turtles than ever are nesting at the seashore, visitation is up, and tourist dollars are flowing in.
As usual, there is a kernel of truth in what they say — but that’s all.
Turtle nesting numbers are up on the seashore in recent years as they have been at many locations on the southeast coast. There is no scientific data that connects increased nesting to the ORV plan — at least not yet.
A news release from the Southern Environmental Law Center refers to “as many as 15” piping plovers fledging since the new buffers were introduced. That was the case for the 2013 nesting season. However, for most of the years from 2008 through 2014, the numbers have not been so spectacular. Last year, only five plover chicks fledged.
More years under the ORV plan are needed before anyone can declare that it is wildly successful for the seashore’s wildlife.
Just one final comment about the environmentalists claims of a flourishing economy. Economic indicators are up for Dare County as a whole in recent years, but Hatteras Island numbers, especially in Buxton, suffer by comparison to the northern beaches. And economic growth in the county as a whole has not matched that of some other coastal counties.
The Park Service will be accepting public comment on the Environmental Assessment for adjusting the buffers until Thursday, May 14.
I would urge you to submit your comments — however brief.
If you need help composing your comments, I’ve included links at the end of this blog to CHAPA’s assessment of the proposals and to the Defenders of Wildlife’s “call to action” to its members.
The Park Service must choose its alternative for the buffer adjustments by June 16.
However this exercise turns out, no one can say that the legislation was inconsequential. It will make a difference.
And perhaps with new leadership, the island communities can move forward with a more positive partnership with the Park Service.
For sure it’s a first step.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Click here to read an article on the Park Service’s Environmental Assessment and proposed buffer adjustments.
Click here to read an article on the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission recommendations to the Park Service.
Click here to read an article on the Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance’s recommendations to the Park Service.
Click here to read CHAPA’s assessment of the Park Service’s proposal and its newsletter to members on responding.
Click here to read Defenders of Wildlife’s “Take Action” e-mail to supporters.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Comments on the Environmental Assessment must be delivered or postmarked no later than May 14, 2015. The Park Service says it prefers electronic comments, which can be made on the park’s planning, environment, and public comment (PEPC) website, http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=358&projectID=56762&documentID=65752. Comments can also be mailed to: Superintendent, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, 1401 National Park Drive, Manteo, NC 27954. Comments will not be accepted by fax, e-mail, social media or in any other manner than those specified above. Bulk comments in hard copy or electronic formats submitted on behalf of others will not be accepted.
