If the Fish and Wildlife Service had a reputation of reasonableness in the implementation of the Endangered Species Act, my letter would feature an entirely different tone and text. Unfortunately, like this Revised Recovery Plan, your agency has a reputation of indifference to the human and economic impacts of your regulator programs. I want you to know that I too love nature, birds, fish, plants, and animals. If we lived in the Garden of Eden, none of this would be a problem. But, we do not live in the Garden of Eden, and the Piping Plover does not pay taxes, rent rooms, create jobs, or even buy t-shirts. And so it is that people too must be part of the environment, and their activities must not be displaced by the birds, no matter how much we love them.”
Bobby Owens is a politician who is known for telling it like it is – not mincing his words. And that’s what he did when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released its Revised Recovery Plan for the Atlantic Coast population of piping plovers in January of 1995.
I don’t think Owens meant to be flippant about the situation. It’s just his way of talking, getting down to the facts.
In 1995, the National Park Service was already using “symbolic fencing” to close off areas of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore beach, especially the points and spits, for nesting birds.
However, in the 15 years since Owens wrote his letter, the closed areas have grown larger and larger, culminating with the consent decree in April, 2008, that settled a lawsuit against the Park Service over ORV use on the beaches.
The consent decree dictates buffer distances for nesting birds and fledged chicks. The buffers were set by the environmental groups that sued the Park Service and were agreed to by the Park Service and by Dare and Hyde counties and the Cape Hatteras Preservation Alliance – because the latter groups were fearful that if they did not agree to the terms of the settlement a federal judge would shut down the entire beach. (And he probably would have.)
None of those buffer distances is more contentious than the 1,000 meters required for unfledged piping plover chicks. That is for ORVs. The buffer for pedestrians, according to the consent decree, is 300 meters.
The 1,000 meters is measured in each direction from the nest and from the ocean shoreline to the bay shoreline – in our case from the ocean to the dunes.
Now, 1,000 meters is about 3,280 feet or almost 12 football fields. The buffer is 1,000 meters each way from the nest for a total of 2,000 meters of beach. That is about equal to 24 football fields.
And that is 24 football fields of beach closure, even if there is only one chick.
And even if that chick doesn’t forage more than 100 meters or so from its nest, the closure stays at 1,000 feet.
Seashore managers have no discretion to alter the buffers if the chicks are staying in a smaller area to forage – discretion that other park managers have.
And the most confounding thing about this 1,000 meter buffer is trying to figure out where it came from.
Environmental groups insist that it is the best-available science, that it is peer-reviewed, and that there is good reason for the 1,000 meter buffer.
But I sure can’t find it, nor can others who have searched.
The 1,000 meters is mentioned in a study that the National Park Service asked the U.S. Geological Survey to undertake on seashore resource management.
“Synthesis of Managing, Monitoring, and Protection Protocols for Threatened Species and Endangered Species and Species of Special Concern at Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina,” was released to the public in 2005. The document is also referred to as the “Patuxent Protocols.”
Dr. Jonathan Cohen, author of the section on piping plovers, calls for the 1,000-meter buffer for unfledged plover chicks, but does not anywhere in the document explain how he reached that distance.
The first mention of the1,000-meter buffer may have been in the 1995 Revised Recovery Plan, but there was no explanation in that plan either for how the buffer was formulated or on what research it was based.
However, even that document gives some leeway to park managers, noting that, as an alternative to the 1,000 meter closure, the minimum size of “vehicle-free” areas can be based on “the mobility of broods observed on the site in past years and on the frequency of monitoring.”
That document goes on to say that “unless substantial data from past years show that broods on a site stay very close to their nest location, vehicle free areas should extend at least 200 meters on each side of the nest site during the first week after hatching.” After that the size and location of the protected area “should be adjusted in response to the observed mobility of the brood, but in no case should it be reduced to less than 100 meters on each side of the nest.”
Now that’s a whole lot less than 1,000 meters and it’s sensible.
The fact that the DEIS on ORV rulemaking retains the 1,000 foot buffer – and other buffers — will shape up as a major battleground in the months to come during public comment and at public hearings as the Park Service moves toward a Final Environmental Impact Statement and a record of decision, expected later this year.
I just received my hard copy of the DEIS yesterday – 810 pages with executive summaries and other add-ons.
No doubt we will all be combing through the document for weeks to come before making public comment. (The public comment period opened today and runs until May 11.)
As we do look over the document and consider the buffer issues, I want to direct you to read (or read again), what Dr. Michael Berry of Chapel Hill has written on this Web site and on his own blog (www.drmikeberry.com).
Berry describes himself as a “user” of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore for more than 40 years. He was a senior manager and scientist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), serving as the Deputy Director of the National Center for Environmental Assessment at Research Triangle Park, N.C. He has taught at the University of North Carolina. Currently he is retired but still active as a writer and science advisor.
Berry has written four blogs on the science – or lack thereof – of ORV regulation. His blogs are based in fact, not emotion.
I read them again yesterday when I was trying to figure out – again — the science behind the 1,000-foot buffer.
I think you will find them interesting.
And, by the way, I called Bobby Owens today to see what he thinks about all the water than has gone under the bridge in the 15 years since he wrote his comments to U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
Did he ever envision restrictions such as those under the consent decree or as proposed in the DEIS?
“I never did in my wildest dreams,” Owens said.
“It’s all a far reach,” he added. “Where is the true and real documentation for all of this?”
Owens always reminds folks that he has two grandchildren who live on Hatteras Island and that he fears “what is coming is really dangerous.”
About the environmental groups, he says, “They won’t be satisfied until all the asphalt is plowed up on Hatteras Island.”
When he retired from Dare County politics in the late ‘90s, he was named a member of the North Carolina Utilities Commission. His most recent term did not expire until 2013, but Owens said he stepped down on March 1.
Is he now finally retired?
“I didn’t say that,” he says with a chuckle.
He says he intends to attend some meetings on the beach access issue – though he may just sit in the back of the room.
Meanwhile, I think Owens would agree with Mike Berry on his statement about the science of the ORV issue:
“Until the public feels confident that the federal government is managing the seashore in an equitable manner based on sound, unbiased science, it will not trust the government or buy into a final plan.”
For now, keep on reading the DEIS and think about your public comments.
And remember that “ORV management plan” is a very misleading title for the DEIS. It’s also a pedestrian management plan and a plan to manage all of our activities on the beach from fishing to shelling, to cooking out and building sandcastles, to surfing and kiteboarding – and more.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Mike Berry’s blog can be found at www.drmikeberry.com. You will find many of his topics interesting. However, here are four that directly relate to science and the ORV management plan. (Click on the topic to see the blog.)
Review and Use of Science
Science and the USGS Protocols
The Importance of Formal Peer Review
Overview of USGS Peer Review Policy
1000 meters ?..
is a PRECEDENT setting federal management rule that was made outside the NEPA process (No Public Comment /Review was availabale) that was adjudicated by a Federal Judge in a Consent Agreemnet in which Federal Administrative Procedures Act (CFR? states the following:
5CFR Sec. 572. General authority (Consent Agreements) in part
(b) An agency shall consider not using a dispute resolution proceeding if:
(1) a definitive or authoritative resolution of the matter is required for PRECEDENTIAL value, and such a proceeding is not likely to be accepted generally as an authoritative precedent;
(2) the matter involves or may bear upon significant questions of Government policy that require additional procedures before a final resolution (REG NEG & DEIS) may be made, and such a proceeding would not likely serve to develop a recommended policy for the agency;
(3) maintaining established policies is of special importance, so that variations among individual decisions are not increased and such a proceeding would not likely reach consistent results among individual decisions;
(4) the matter significantly affects persons or organizations who are not parties to the proceeding;
(5) a full public record of the proceeding is important, and a dispute resolution proceeding cannot provide such a record; and
(6) the agency must maintain continuing jurisdiction over the matter with authority to alter the disposition of the matter in the light of changed circumstances, and a dispute resolution proceeding would interfere with the agency?s fulfilling that requirement.
I would say the Gubment is batting 0 for 6 in this case, not only violating NEPA, but Violating FAPA
I guess the piping plover chick on South Ocracoke last year that moved from its nest 1200 meters had failed to read the report that it should only move 1000 meters (see the National Park Service annual report). Someone should inform these little chicks there is no scientific justification for them moving 1000 meters. I wonder based on this site specific information for Cape Hatteras Seashore if the chick buffer should be increased to 1200 meters so these chicks don?t do the scientifically impossible?
As posted in a previous blog:
As to Plover Brood 6 at Ocracoke last year that had to travel 1200-1300 meters to forage, there was an obvious reason shown on the maps. Those poor little balls of fluff had to go that far on their little toothpick legs because vegetation was blocking the way between the nest and forage areas!
If the powers that be want to introduce a non-native species here, the vegetation must be removed from the favored nesting and foraging areas. All plover broods last year and most that I can find in the records do not forage at the ocean front. They seek the ponds, ethemeral ponds, and the calmer waters of the sound. In order to get to the preferred location they often have to go around or through the vegetated areas. This action must be very strenuous and debilatating for these small, young creatures. If the powers that be and those who call themselves environmentalists would look at the results of their actions, they would recognize these facts and clear the vegtation here if they want to encourage this foreign species.
Plovers do not need these large buffers to keep them from being disturbed by people using the beach area. If they choose to nest on the beach because of the large undestrubed area there, when they move to forage the buffers should be moved also. They don’t return to the nest site but stay where they can feed.
Frequently Plover chicks have disappeared in the vegetated areas because of the abundance of natural, native predators.
Is this the way to run a National Park?
Thanks for taking time to post your thought provoking comments, Barbara. I think you made a lot of great points.
Irene,
But I sure can’t find it, nor can others who have searched.
You?ll never find that which you do not want to find.
See:
Patterson (1988: 40)
Cross (1989: 23)
Coutu et al. (1990: 12)
Strauss (1990: 33)
Loegering (1992: 72)
Melvin et al. (1994)
as are referenced in the recovery plan. The park?s annual reports are helpful as well.
Barbara,
More nonsense.
Who is trying to introduce a non-native species?
The 1,000 meter ORV buffer isn?t a disturbance buffer. It?s to protect the chicks from being ran over from ORVs. The “disturbance buffer” is the 300 meter pedestrian buffer.
Unless you observed a chick being taken by a predator in the vegetation, whether it was a natural predator (ghost crab, gull, crow, grackle) or not, is pure speculation.
Looking back over the annual reports, I can only find a case where one chick was “lost” in the vegetation. “Frequently” isn?t supported by the data. Neither is your claim vegetation determines by what route the plovers take the chicks or that it?s “strenuous and debilatating [sic]”. Obviously, if it was, so many broods through-out the plovers range, wouldn?t be traveling that far. And, if I recall the topography of Ocracoke correctly, there were also large dunes between the chicks and the forage area.
I reiterate, Barbara, thanks for your enlightening and thoughtful post. Your post is not nonsense, it is common sense??something that seems to be in very short supply in this entire process.
Crotalus
Please give more specific sites. I can?t find these.
Patterson (1988: 40)
Cross (1989: 23)
Coutu et al. (1990: 12)
Strauss (1990: 33)
Loegering (1992: 72)
Melvin et al. (1994)
Perhaps they are not available to the general public.
Barbara,
Go to the source then ? USFWS and their biologist Ann Hecht
The observed travel distances from these sources are published in their chick mobility table which accompanies the recovery plan.
Ok. I took up the challenge. I still could not find the info you refer to. Obviously it is old info, which I agree may be true today, but unavailable. The only Piping Plover Recovery Plan that I could access was published in 1994.
The mobility chart you mentioned (with many of the same names and dates) didn?t provide enough information to establish a factual basis for conclusions. We don?t know the habitat of these birds, bay/sound waters, interior ponds ,ephemeral ponds, and mosh, open beach, for instance. There was only one study in North Carolina of 11 broods in 1990, beach unknown, where the chicks moved an average of 212 meters. This is not sufficient scientific study upon which to base a decision 20 years later.
The best information from the 1994 Recovery Plan is copied below. This would require the best science for Cape Hatteras. It would be site and date specific. This appropriate management would be more likely to protect the species and make common sense.
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pipingplove.. April 15, 1994
“If data from several years of plover monitoring suggests that significantly more habitat is available than the local plover population can occupy, some suitable habitat may be left unposted if the following conditions are met:
1. The Service OR a State wildlife agency that is party to an agreement under Section 6 of the ESA provides written concurrence with a plan that:
A. Estimates the number of pairs likely to nest on the site based on the past monitoring and regional population trends.
AND
B. Delineates the habitat that will be posted or fenced prior to April 1 to assure a high probability that territorial plovers will select protected areas in which to court and nest. Sites where nesting or courting plovers were observed during the last three seasons as well as other habitat deemed most likely to be pioneered by plovers should be included in the posted and/or fenced area.
AND
C. Provides for monitoring of piping plovers on the beach by a qualified biologist(s). Generally, the frequency of monitoring should be not less than twice per week prior to May 1 and not less than three times per week thereafter. Monitoring should occur daily whenever moderate to large numbers of vehicles are on the beach. Monitors should document locations of territorial or courting plovers, nest locations, and observations of any reactions of incubating birds to pedestrian or vehicular disturbance.
AND
2. All unposted sites are posted immediately upon detection of territorial plovers.”
Protection of Chicks
“The Service OR a State wildlife agency that is party to an agreement under Section 6 of the ESA provides written concurrence with a plan that:
A. Provides for monitoring of all broods during the chick-rearing phase of the breeding season and specifies the frequency of monitoring.
AND
B. Specifies the minimum size of vehicle-free areas to be established in the vicinity of unfledged broods based on the mobility of broods observed on the site in past years and on the frequency of monitoring. Unless substantial data from past years show that broods on a site stay very close to their nest locations, vehicle-free areas should extend at least 200 meters on each side of the nest site during the first week following hatching. The size and location of the protected area should be adjusted in response to the observed mobility of the brood, but in no case should it be reduced to less than 100 meters on each side of the brood. “
” Protected areas should extend from the ocean-side low water line to the bay-side low water line or to the farthest extent of dune habitat if no bay-side intertidal habitat exists. However, vehicles may be allowed to pass through portions of the protected area that are considered inaccessible to plover chicks because of steep topography, dense vegetation, or other naturally-occurring obstacles. In a few cases, where several years of data documents that piping plovers on a particular site feed in only certain habitat types, the Service or the State wildlife management agency may provide written concurrence that vehicles pose no danger to plovers in other specified habitats on that site.”
This is the role of the management of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. This is what can be done according to the Recovery Plan for the Piping Plover. We have the records to back it up in our Resource Reports and Field Notes.
Let?s end the travesty of justice that is going on here! Lets use our best abilities and the experience of visitors to our beach over the years to do what is best for the resource.
I realize you may have only been here a short time and have a lot of theory, but practice proves the point.
Barbara,
The mobility chart you mentioned (with many of the same names and dates) didn’t provide enough information to establish a factual basis for conclusions.
Really? I?m pretty sure it gave distances plover chicks are capable of traveling. You don?t need anything more than that. And you for sure wouldn?t use the average distance, as 50 percent of the chicks would travel farther than that.
But I went through the last few years reports and plover on the seashore have traveled from 500-1500 meters. On Cape Point the farthest distance of travel I could find, is 800 meters.
Do you really think the state or the FWS would sign off on smaller buffers?
Crotalus says:
“The 1,000 meter ORV buffer isn’t a disturbance buffer. It’s to protect the chicks from being ran over from ORVs. The ?disturbance buffer? is the 300 meter pedestrian buffer.”
Where is your science that supports Plover Chicks being disturbed by an ORV at 1,000 meters but at only 300 meters for pedestrians? If the disturbance zone is 300 meters then does it matter how the public arrived at the boundary?
Crot
Please read carefully the section I quoted from the recovery plan. It is possible for the employees of the NPS at CAHA to study the recent reports and observe the chicks on the ground and modify the buffers as needed. Once the chicks have established a foraging area the buffers can be adjusted to conform to the actual chicks on the ground not to a very limited study of 1 broods 20 years ago somewhere on the North Carolina Coast or even 11 broods at the same time or a small sampling of broods in other states over 20 years ago.
Methinks you just want to argue and not do what is best for the species AND THE OTHER USERS OF OUR NATIONAL SEASHORE RECREATIONAL AREA.
Barbara,
No it?s not possible. You should read all of what you posted. The state and/or FWS must submit a written concurrence to reduced buffers. The park cannot act unilaterally. (note that I have no philosophical objections to potential reductions, just to the flawed reasoning and the erroneous claims)
Chicks at Cape Point have moved 800 meters and chicks on Ocracoke, up to 1500 meters within the last three years, not 20 years (and is no different than and supports the 20-year-old observations).
It is clear that the Park cannot act unilaterally. But the Park can submit the data that would justify moving the boundaries. The Ocracoke brood of last year, for instance, moved to the sound side where a vegetated area separated it from the ocean side. If the chicks continued to forage at the sound there would be no need for a 1000 meter buffer . Section B noted above explains just such a situation.
This has become a personal discussion and I feel others should continue this discussion.
Barbara,
If the Park had a minimum of five years of data, that showed the same uses by broods as the previous few years, I think it would be a very good idea to ask the state/FWS for a concurrence for the reduction of the 1,000 meter buffer at Cape Point and South Point.
John,
Again, the 1,000 meters is not a disturbance buffer.
Crotalus says.
“Again, the 1,000 meters is not a disturbance buffer.”
Isn’t the idea to not disturb the birds? If you are comfortable with 300 meters not disturbing the birds why do we need a 1000 meter buffer for ORV’s, which when parked, put pedestrians on the beach.
What body of science has proved that the birds are disturbed by ORV’s at a thousand meters?
John,
No, the idea is to not run over the birds which can, and do, travel distances as great as 1,000 meters from the nest.
Chicks at Cape Point have moved 800 meters and chicks on Ocracoke, up to 1500 meters within the last three years, not 20 years (and is no different than and supports the 20-year-old observations).
Crotalus (Email) ? 15 03 10 ? 00:02
Crot, have these well traveled plover chicks taken the walk-about and headed straight for, say, ramp 44 and freedom, or, do they head straight or (in their little minds) directly to the dinner table?
Let?s say, (since we can) you, Crot has the power to judge and make a pronouncement on the available data, away from the rhetoric. Could the distances like 1K meter be lessened because the birds don?t use east beaches as snack bars?
Crotalus says:
?Really? I’m pretty sure it gave distances plover chicks are capable of traveling. You don’t need anything more than that. And you for sure wouldn’t use the average distance, as 50 percent of the chicks would travel farther than that.?
Okay, the academic in me can?t let this go. Statistically, this is a false statement although it probably was not intended to be. If you have 10 broods and 9 broods forage 200 meters but the 10th brood travels 1200 meters. The mean or average distance traveled by each brood is 300 meters (3000 meters divided by 10 broods). In this example only 10% of the broods traveled farther than the average distance and 90% of the broods traveled no more than 67% of the average distance. Statistics may be skewed by outlying samples. Sample sizes need to be large and should compare data from the same areas from year to year
Should buffers be set at the distance that the occasional outlier (the exception) travels or at the distance that the typical brood (the rule) travels?
Longcaster,
I would want a few (2-3) more years data prior to saying they “never” use the “east side”. And if so, yes, I think the park should attempt to get the state and/or FWS to sign off on reduced buffers.
Eric,
What?s the goal? Answer: To protect a threatened species and increase the population. So you protect the outliers, not the just the average. If one was just trying to maintain a stable, non-T&E population, you could of course, just protect the average behavior.
You also set up your example to get the results you wanted. Statistically, a random sample should be closer to 50:50.
I just looked at the 2007-2009 data and it was 55:45.
A lot of good discussion here but some of it going around in circles and heading nowhere.
So…… where?s the beef?
The original question in Irene’s article was where is the science for the 1000 meter buffer.
Most here do not seen shy about defending their positions, and everyone her seems skilled at cutting and pasting information.
So let’s make this simple.
If, as some say, 1000 meters is the best-available science, and that science has been peer-reviewed and published, will someone please:
1. Give a reference to the author and date of that peer-reviewed and published scientific article and point to where it can be found.
AND
2. Since you must be able to read it to agree with it, post a short paragraph or two from that same peer-reviewed and published scientific article that specifically addresses and supports the 1000 meter buffer.
Thanks in advance
Croatalus says:
?You also set up your example to get the results you wanted.?
That was the point I was trying to make. What?s the saying? ?Lies, damned lies, and statistics.? Biased studies can be set up and the statistics made to support a desired result. This is why so many are calling for scientific studies that have held up under the scrutiny of peer review. Maybe they?re out there and maybe not. Until they are made accessible the arguments will continue.
OBXTraveler,
“Show me the science” is good rhetoric for the uninformed, as they?ll assume nothing?s known but either plover chicks can travel 1000 meters or they can?t. Observations show us they can. There?s your science.
Do you deny the fact that they?ve been observed moving that far?
Eric,
You really want to spend another ~75K-$100K on a three-year study on how far a plover chick can travel when there are decades of those observations??
OK, so let?s say for sake of argument that the 1000 meters isn?t a nice round arbitrary number (you?re still not answering the quesion, Crot.), then why 300 meters for pedestrians? It is still illogical and unconscionable that an ORV plan reference, much less restrict, pedestrians based on supposed ORV observations.
Yes I answered the question. 1000 meters isn?t arbitrary and is based on observed chick movement.
Seems logical to me that pedestrians move slower than an ORV and if chicks move out of the 300 meter buffer, there is no danger of them being ran over before the buffer can be expanded.
Can any one remember the last time a chick was run over by a beach user and not NPS or other official vehicle
Can anyone tell us the fate of every chick (for all species) that disappeared over the last 50 years?
Can anyone tell us who, if anyone, was searching tire-tracks every day for them?
So you dont have the answer. Thanks for showing your true agenda crot. I can tell you the fate of every chick over last 50 years is not related to the OBX, beach users or humans. As a foot note the birds nesting beside NC12 seem to forage just fine and the nesting areas set aside years ago are overgrown and the birds dont find that suitable, so crot what is the real end game for you and your buddies.
Crot, I understand your passion for this issue and in it?s own right is admirable, but typing something on a message board ?based on observated chick movement? does not answer the question: the question posed was where is the documented results of this study besides in your head? If they exist, then that is terrific for your argument. If not, then it furthers the pro-access argument. Simple as that.
And again, you haven?t answered the question on the 300 meter buffer, either. I don?t want to see any more facts and figures on pedestrian impact/restrictions in a relative manner to ORV?s, because they are mutually exclusive.
I?ll admit, I don?t have an answer. That is why I am asking the question. But from my ?observations?, these threatened species, as well as the non-threatened species, seem to be getting more protection from pedestrians than the bald eagles were given when they were endangered.
? and before you call me out, yes, I said ?observated? 😀
Still no beef??
I am surprised to find that that my request, posted here 2 days ago, for information about the science behind the 1000 meter buffer distance has gone unanswered.
Since this goes to the very heart of the issue of sound scientific management of ORVs and pedestrians in the CHNSP , I would have expected that it would be easy for someone to come forward with references to the solid scientific studies supporting 1000 meters as the appropriate buffer distance.
With the tremendous impact current decision making will have on both ORV and pedestrian access and use of the park, someone must surely have this information, so I will ask again:
If, as some say, 1000 meters is the best-available science, and that science has been peer-reviewed and published, will someone please:
1. Give a reference to the author and date of that peer-reviewed and published scientific article and point to where it can be found.
AND
2. Since you must be able to read it to agree with it, post a short paragraph or two from that same peer-reviewed and published scientific article that specifically addresses and supports the 1000 meter buffer.
Thanks in advance
Woody,
Look at: http://www.shilohandshevaun.com/2007_NC_..
From 1995 to 2007, 18 chicks were found killed by vehicles (9 on Cape Hatteras and 9 on Cape Lookout. (oystercatchers) The study also shows breeding birds in areas where the shoreline is closed to traffic were almost twice (47%-27%) as successful as in areas where ORV traffic was allowed between the shoreline and the broods.
The only way your comparison to the chicks by NC12 would be applicable, is if they had to cross NC12 to get to food, just like the chicks on the beach have had to cross the ORV corridor to get to food. But they don?t. And in 2008 one of the chicks by NC12 was killed by a car strike as it was learning to fly.
Sandy,
Documentation of what study? The observations are from the efforts of monitoring plover broods for decades. If you have to have a “study” (which seems ridiculous to me), see Melvin et al, cited above. A plover chick was ran over by ORV traffic 900 meters from the nest.
OBXTraveler,
This is so easy even a caveman should understand it (shamelessly ripped off from Geico). Piping plovers have been monitored for decades, and the results of that monitoring has been reported by the entity responsible for that monitoring. Included in those reports are distances plover chicks have been observed traveling, including one peer-reviewed study based on the monitoring that reports a plover chick being killed by an ORV 900 meters from its nest (See Melvin).
So the best science (decades of observations) is that plover chicks can travel 1000 meters and are at rick of being ran over by ORVs within that distance.
Really a simple concept and I don?t know if you?re really having that much of a problem understanding it or are just being deliberately obtuse.
Crot? I check your website out and it does state that some AMOY?s were killed by ORV?s? BUT it also lists out that Predators account for 54% of ?failures?, Drifting Sand and overwash account for 29%, while humans account for only 3%. How can these people say that the survival rate would double without humans when we only account for 3%? Why not go for the low hanging fruit and drain the ocean to prevent overwash, remove the sand to prevent drifting, and kill off all animals that you dont think need to eat. No you instead proudly stick your chest out and say kick the peopleoff the beach. Oh and by the way there is a nice picture of this gentleman Shiloh next to an ATV holding several AMOY?s. Could his ATV be the perp in this crime against the dead AMOY birds? You also fail too mention that a turtle patrol atv killed one of them and you also provide no proof that the NPS was not the violators or even is these were dead from some other cause before being hit? This report also thumps its chest by stating 2004 was the greatest year ever and yet people were driving on the beaches then even without the consent decree. I really think these birds can read as they have moved off the beaches and ont the roof of Food lion. Thanks Crot for helping me with this site as it helps me prepare my comments for the DEIS.
samsdad1,
You?re misreading it. They could not attribute a cause to the loss of 52 percent (unknown). Of the remaining 48 percent, 54 percent of that was predators?.etc (try reading for comprehension)
Last I heard the turtle patrol death was disputed as being ran over by an ATV, as the chick wasn?t even in a tire track. As I understand it, your position is that recreational ORVs on Hatteras have a magical force-field around them that prevents them from running over chicks ? which makes it different from 100 percent of the other beaches around the world where vehicles and breeding birds share space?
Feel free to correct me if I?m wrong.
2004 was “great” because of the hurricane and new inlets on CAPE LOOKOUT.
Oystercatchers do not nest of roofs, least terns do (about 20 percent of the state population last I heard).
Ode to the Outer Banks
by OBXTraveler
The brave tall ships that plied these Banks have long since drifted on,
Some wrecked upon the sands of time, some victims of the storms.
And the privateers and buccaneers who ‘round these bars did roam,
Have long since met their maker, God save their blackened bones!
And men long-gone did brave these seas, high with wind and foam,
Risking life for common good, they brought their bounty home.
On windswept dunes two bothers soared, a triumph for all time,
And Virginia Dare, born to this world; brave footnote to our kind.
Many a soul has come and gone and shaped this changing strand,
Hard work, family, integrity; the measure of the Man.
And all along this weathered coast arose a heavenly vision,
Sun, Wind, Sea, and Man, in balance; with tradition.
Oh eternal earth-bound beacon, silent witness to it all,
Turn away thy tired old eyes to what is to befall!
While neither wind nor sea nor plundering could destroy this land so fair,
There now are dark clouds swirling, a sadness in the air.
You see, in the modern scheme of things our traditions are no concern,
And for our families and livelihoods; they just don’t give a durn.
And they refuse to look at history, and what was promised then,
As they cast away our heritage like dust into the wind.
And insist our wrecked economy is something to just get over,
As the stranger smiles and smugly says,
Step aside for the piping plover.
2010 OBXTRaveler
Only YOU can make a difference, let your voice be heard!
.
Crot., thanks for the documentation supporting the AMOY impact, however the AMOY does not concern me in the slightest as they are not a threatened species. I kill about 5,000,000 mosquitos on my windshield everytime I drive to the beach; nobody is protecting them.
There are more dead gulls (yes, I know, that?s a generalization of several species) on the beach than any of your other concerned specied put together, which is why it all seems so arbitrary. If they start protecting gulls (non threatened, just like AMOY), then I won?t be able to access my own back yard.
In other words, I hope you understand and fully accept this dangerous precedent that you and your friends are setting with these actions. Your own restrictions will come back to bite you as well; one day when the only beaches any of us can access are Myrtle or Virginia (yippie!). Good luck bird watching up there. Yes, I know, it?s an extreme point of view, but the point is made.
Sorry, if I?ve wasted your time on this board Crot., you?re obviously not the person we need to be talking to.
Sandy,
The data wrt the AMOYs wasn?t addressed to you, but you?re welcome?
AMOYs are a state-listed species of concern and not only are gulls not listed, but since as generalists they?re so well adapted and able to take advantage of scavenging on human waste, (which also enables them to be very prolific), I really doubt the majority of gull species ever will be.
You can quit with the “your friends” crap, you might enjoy arguing with imaginary caricatures of people, but it?s not particularly interesting.
There?s only one issue I?ve argued here, whether or not a 1000 meter buffer for plover chicks is supported by the observations. It obviously is.
The other part of the equation is whether or not that buffer is required and/or should be applied 100 percent of the time across all regions and habitats. The answer to that is obviously, no.
It?s apparent here that it is agreed that the 1000 meter buffer can be modified so long as it?s not codified. Hopefully, the resource managers this year, Tyler Bogardus, Doug Magee, and Michelle Bogardus, will be able to seek permission and apply the more realistic recommendations of the piping plover recovery plan: 100-200 meters around the nest during the first week and then moved to the area where the foraging occurs.
Crot, my caricature visions will cease when I am given a different picture.
On a side note, if you really are receiving such threats and stalkings, I?d like to say that I am sorry to hear that. Unfortunately there are always extremists on either side of an issue like this, and besides just being morally reprehensible, they also do more damage to one?s cause than prove any point.
Internet debate can be a wonder medium of expression, but you?re right, the anonimity inherent in the system comes with it?s own set of challenges.
Crot,
Thanks for sharing the quote from the 2007 NC AMOY report, but why didn’t you post the very next sentence?
“This number is only a fraction of the total number of chicks killed by vehicles during this time, as dead chicks were located by chance in most cases and many chicks died and were never found.”
My belief is that since the above statement is clearly opinion being presented as “Science”, you’ve wisely decided against it.
Had he simply substituted the phrase “Could Be” for the operative word “Is”, it would be far closer to believable reality than hyperbole. The word “Is” denotes fact, where this is patently theory, since no carcass + no evidence + no proof of anything = SPECULATION. Let’s all be very thankful that our court systems do not operate in this fashion, IE: “Considered Guilty until Proven Innocent”.
The exact same statement could be applied to all the dead and missing Leprechauns, Pixies, Yetis and Moonbeams that were obviously killed by ORV’s and “never found” as well.
Sandy,
The threats and stalking were from a “former life” on another board (was related to evolution debates with creationists) and had nothing to do with the access issue. Sorry, I didn?t mean for you to take it as related to the access issue.
As far as caricatures go, one can accept the science behind the protocols as I do and not believe they should be required in every and all situations.
The USGS protocols are little more than a lit survey and all peer-review would do is examine the lit and see if it?s accurately represented. All of the papers I?ve read suggests it is. Read the papers cited in the protocols.
Dapster,
Actually there have been studies done, with tower kills etc, that shows dead birds are scavenged quickly and what one finds in random searches is only a small portion of what has been killed. I believe Shiloh, the researcher, is operating under safe assumption base upon that research.
I have no doubt birds and chicks have been ran over and killed by ORVs and never recovered, especially when no one was looking for them. But if you can?t put a number to it, it really doesn?t really mean much.
Crot, how many 1K meter walks do a brood of plovers go on.
I will give you the first one, because parents these days are not very bright, when it comes to building their nest next to the super market. I guess it?s for the view.
Anyway, the whole family has taken the long march to the cantina, and since the buffet is open all night as well as all day, they stay and pig out.
Does this family go for other walk-abouts, say back and forth to the nest site.
Or is all the documented long (anything over 500meters) walks done by plovers a single or one time event, once the birds reach a good food source?
Longcaster,
It appears the broods travel these distances initially, at least on Hatteras, and then do not travel much there after.
BINGO!!!
“Actually there have been studies done, with tower kills etc, that shows dead birds are scavenged quickly and what one finds in random searches is only a small portion of what has been killed. I believe Shiloh, the researcher, is operating under safe assumption base upon that research.”
I have no problem at all believing what you/he describe as being a reality, but “Safe Assumption Base” sounds like a buzz-phrase for speculation to me. In the vernacular of my chosen vocation, we?d call that a “WAG“, or “Wild Arsed Guess”.
“I have no doubt birds and chicks have been ran over and killed by ORVs and never recovered, especially when no one was looking for them. But if you can’t put a number to it, it really doesn’t really mean much.”
I don?t doubt that either, but such theories should not be touted as “Sound Science”, and if “you can?t put a number on it”, then it should have been stricken from the report, as otherwise it is purely hyperbolic.
Longcaster,
It appears the broods travel these distances initially, at least on Hatteras, and then do not travel much there after.
Crotalus (Email) ? 23 03 10 ? 07:45
Crot, it would be a Bataan death type march for the adults to walk their brood 1K meters away from food, only to lead them back. They (chicks) don?t have that much energy reserve or capacity to endure heat to long marches.
The bonus question;
Plovers can and do move their brood from the nest location to the feeding location after all chicks are hatched. At the Point, this means a walk to the pond-ed water of the interior, not to the beaches on the ocean (east) shoreline. With the understanding, that later on (like 2 weeks after hatching) a brood or two sometimes take a stroll to the south shore in the area where salt pond road empties onto the beach. Yes? No?
The east prenesting fence was pushed out to the high water line where the bypass exited back onto the beach. There was a plover nest in that area last year. I seem to remember that the nest was up on a dune, and not on flat beach. (I remember seeing the cage) Has that dune washed away, and the exact location of the nest a spot in mid-air 5 to 10 feet above the beach out there now. Yes? No? Other?
Dapster,
It was stating the bleeding obvious. A lot of reports do that.
Longcaster,
You?re assuming there?s no forage along the 1000 meter route.
No. No. (I saw the nest too. It was on the shell beds between small dunes, not on top of a dune. As of Friday, that area looked no different from last year, that I could tell.)
FYI:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1262/
The U.S. Geological Survey’s Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (PWRC) conducted a study for the National Park Service (NPS) Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA, and Cape Hatteras National Seashore (CAHA) in North Carolina to review, evaluate, and summarize the available scientific information for selected species of concern at CAHA (piping plovers, sea turtles, seabeach amaranth, American oystercatchers, and colonial waterbirds). This work consisted of reviewing the scientific literature and evaluating the results of studies that examined critical life history stages of each species, and focused on the scientific findings reported that are relevant to the management of these species and their habitats at CAHA. The chapters that follow provide the results of that review separately for each species and present scientifically based options for resource management at CAHA.
Although no new original research or experimental work was conducted, this synthesis of the existing information was peer reviewed by over 15 experts with familiarity with these species. This report does not establish NPS management protocols but does highlight scientific information on the biology of these species to be considered by NPS managers who make resource management decisions at CAHA.
To ensure that the best available information is considered when assessing each species of interest at CAHA, this review included published research as well as practical experience of scientists and wildlife managers who were consulted in 2005. PWRC scientists evaluated the literature, consulted wildlife managers, and produced an initial draft that was sent to experts for scientific review. Revisions based on those comments were incorporated into the document. The final draft of the document was reviewed by NPS personnel to ensure that the description of the recent status and management of these species at CAHA was accurately represented and that the report was consistent with our work agreement. The following section summarizes the biological information relevant to resource management for the species of concern at CAHA.
all I can say is this?that the so called best available “science”, 1000M buffers etc?why is it that none of the other national parks or beaches use anything remotely similiar?and oh by the way, 80-90% of the species that are listed breed, live there?plovers and turtles alike?and all of those areas are showing success?.forget all that and no matter what buffers you use, continue to kill all the preditation?mother nature will always rule in the Outer Banks?
Jersey Dave.
What are the exact buffers these “other” places use?
(And if mother nature ruled the Outer Banks, Isabel Inlet would still exist ? taking pressure off of the Point for recreation I might add).
If Isabel inlet did still exist, NPS, enviro terrorist and crot would have it closed also, so much for mother nature.
If Isabel inlet weren?t closed the people in Little Hatteras would still be commuting to a mainland by long distance ferry. The children would still be going to school via private charter. There would be little or no economy except what the ferrys had capacity to carry. Face it the bridge would not be built yet across the inlet because of environmental concerns.
And whats to be assured that the birds and turtles would choose it? The birds still aren?t using the Isabel fans below ramp 55. The turtles only false crawl to inlets because it is unsuitable for nest laying.
For goodness sake, get out of your ivory tower and look at the beach and study the reports before you strategise to cause harm to the human species!
“What are the exact buffers these “other” places use?”
I doubt you don?t already know the answers to this question?.but in terms of this arguement it has no bearing, beacuase what is used in Hatteras is not based on any of them?.otherwise you would be siting them for basis of the 1000M buffer in CHNSRA..
If you like questions try this?.answer me this statistaclly (%), what do the populations of plovers and turtles of Cape Hatteras represent as the whole for these species on the east coast of the US?
My reference about mother nature and the buffers for that matter is strickly focused on? no matter what protections you put in place, based on whatever “science” you believe, the populations for these species will never thrive and never be significant in terms of their survival.
?And if mother nature ruled the Outer Banks, Isabel Inlet would still exist?
That?s an assumption. The only predictability of the inlets is their unpredictability (pardon the cliche, but it fits).
To further define the “Bleeding Obvious”, the only two “Facts” presented in the referenced statement were these:
“?many chicks died(1) and were never found(2).”
And even this is somewhat dubious due to the fact that “…many…” is undefined. How many more than the 9 documented? 1, 10, 200? Percentages of those MIA? “Many” is intended to imply “lots and lots”, without being at all specific. Once again, hyperbole.
The fact of the matter is, the same ratios/percentages that exist for known chick mortalities MUST be applied to those who met an unknown demise, since the ONLY provable fact is that the chicks are gone.
Even you admitted that without numbers to back it up, it really means nothing. If so, then why was obvious conjecture included in a scientific document that is intended for use in setting public access policy in the first place?!?!?!?
I’ll tell you why, for the desired effect that it creates.
Pure and simple, it is propaganda aimed at swaying public/scientific opinion toward the pre-biased views of the author. (IE: Humans + ORV’s + Shorebirds = Certain Death for Shorebirds)
**************************************************************
I already knew you were a Stanley Riggs fan, but I didn’t know the extent of it.
Now I do.
http://www.ecu.edu/renci/news/Archive200..
“The key solution that Dr. Riggs envisions is allowing the Outer Banks to become “a string of pearls.” NC Highway 12 which connects the current barrier islands is unsustainable due to erosion. Instead, Dr. Riggs suggests deconstructing the road and allowing the larger segments of the Outer Banks to develop into separate “Ocracoke-style destination villages” accessible by a quality ferry system. This alternative plan would allow new inlet openings to rebuild the shrinking barrier islands, improve water exchange and quality in the Pamlico Sound, create new tourist destinations, and preserve the environment by limiting large automobile usage on the islands.”
Et tu, Crotus?
Dapster,
Detectability of killed birds is dependent on scavenger density (think ghost crabs and gulls). And no, I do not think it logically follows that known causes must equal unknown causes.
I know I?ve told you I think a causeway, not a ferry system, connecting villages would be the best potential solution.
Jersey Dave,
You said the buffers everywhere else were different. So, do you know what those buffers are, or not? If you do, what are they?
Sandy Reel,
Good point ? the inlet could have indeed closed on its own by now.
…the below are a few examples of other parks etc use less restrictive, flexible programs that are being used ?areas which there are many…many more birds…as for the Turtles…no need to list anything…just say Florida where 80% of them nest anyway….the nest are not even marked…sunbathers put their towels over them and picnic in the summer…
Assteague
“ASIS uses a 200 meter buffer for all phases of the breeding season: courtship, nesting and brood rearing. We do, however, occasionally modify (increase or decrease) the 200 meter buffer in individual cases. Based on the cumulative observations of my staff over the intervening 18 years, they have found the 200 meter buffer to be adequate in preventing disturbance to breeding adults and their offspring…”
In Cape May NJ the Cats are allowed closer….
DEP and Fish and Wildlife are requiring cat colonies be 1,000 feet away from the ocean side of the promenade and one-half mile from the designated nesting areas on beaches.
Cape Cod
Has the flexibility to maintain a ½-mile ORV corridor open while still fulfilling the mission of protecting piping plovers and terns…..