Environmental "Extremism" and Cape Hatteras National Seashore
I decided to do this post on a topic near and dear to my heart, environmentalism. And when I talk of "extremism" I talk not of true extremism like the type advanced by the Earth Liberation Front. I talk of the perception, particularly in the southern United States, that being an advocate for environmental causes is somewhat deviant. The more I have spoken with people in the course of my travels, the greater I get this sense that there is a perception that any sort of environmental advocacy is "extremism". I endured regular hammerings in my position as a county planner by development interests who viewed open space or vegetation ordinances as "extreme" (who then proceeded to bulldoze the piece of land until it looked like the surface of the moon, which is not extreme in itself?). I have endured similar, though more respectful criticism in my efforts to help push renewable energy incentives.
I have been following the developments in regards to off-road vehicle management of Cape Hatteras National Seashore and have come across the same vein of rhetoric, where anyone who is against (what I view as reasonable) restrictions on off-road vehicles use are labeled "environmental extremists". I recently spent a week on Ocracoke Island, where I talked to several people in different capacities about the recent natural resource closures to beach driving and found that there is generally a common theme, people's resentment to the curtailment of previously held liberties. And despite all the outcry about the effect on local businesses, the economic impacts seem to have been somewhat overblown. Perhaps its difficult to discern the effects of the closures on tourism when coupled with the impact of $4+ gasoline, but this perhaps won't been seen as clearly until the onset of the fall fishing season.
What perhaps drives this post the much is the particular language that I encountered from the people I spoke to on Ocracoke. Environmentalists were called "the dark side" and a host of other names that belied some sense of supremacy by those who spoke it. A few environmentally minded people I met had similar words for the recreational community. Both sides lie on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum, but both are as adamantly absolutist in their certainty as the other. Both have cast themselves as the forces of good, sent to vanquish their respective foes.
The people who are engaged in this struggle need to realize it is not a fight of good versus evil. If anything, it is a fight of good versus good. Both sides believe they are acting in the best interest of the public and have standing to be the guarantors of the public good. I doubt that regardless of the science involved that economic interests will agree to any voluntary restriction of access that would reduce tourism. Environmental groups will not accept the permanent loss of biological diversity in the name of economic gain. Thus both sides have claimed the rigidly inflexible high ground based on their own definitive value structures.
Both sides are attempting to control the outcomes by moving them to different forums. The negotiated rulemaking groups are stacked with a number of local interests who seek to push the least restrictive possible outcome and perhaps have not been bargaining with any real concern towards environmental interests. The environmental groups filed suit in the court system and won a settlement to force the National Park Service to institute a system of resource protection closures, which have resulted in a lot of acrimony from local interests. Both are positioning themselves for an extended battle to control access at the seashore.
I feel they both have valid arguments; I am a fan of liberty but also of responsibility. I would hope that environmental groups would not needlessly seek to push coercive government measures unless they are of clear importance and sound scientific basis. I would hope that economic interests would recognize that long term ecological stability is more beneficial to them than they realize and that there are other values then simply economics. I doubt either will occur anytime soon.
I have been following the developments in regards to off-road vehicle management of Cape Hatteras National Seashore and have come across the same vein of rhetoric, where anyone who is against (what I view as reasonable) restrictions on off-road vehicles use are labeled "environmental extremists". I recently spent a week on Ocracoke Island, where I talked to several people in different capacities about the recent natural resource closures to beach driving and found that there is generally a common theme, people's resentment to the curtailment of previously held liberties. And despite all the outcry about the effect on local businesses, the economic impacts seem to have been somewhat overblown. Perhaps its difficult to discern the effects of the closures on tourism when coupled with the impact of $4+ gasoline, but this perhaps won't been seen as clearly until the onset of the fall fishing season.
What perhaps drives this post the much is the particular language that I encountered from the people I spoke to on Ocracoke. Environmentalists were called "the dark side" and a host of other names that belied some sense of supremacy by those who spoke it. A few environmentally minded people I met had similar words for the recreational community. Both sides lie on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum, but both are as adamantly absolutist in their certainty as the other. Both have cast themselves as the forces of good, sent to vanquish their respective foes.
The people who are engaged in this struggle need to realize it is not a fight of good versus evil. If anything, it is a fight of good versus good. Both sides believe they are acting in the best interest of the public and have standing to be the guarantors of the public good. I doubt that regardless of the science involved that economic interests will agree to any voluntary restriction of access that would reduce tourism. Environmental groups will not accept the permanent loss of biological diversity in the name of economic gain. Thus both sides have claimed the rigidly inflexible high ground based on their own definitive value structures.
Both sides are attempting to control the outcomes by moving them to different forums. The negotiated rulemaking groups are stacked with a number of local interests who seek to push the least restrictive possible outcome and perhaps have not been bargaining with any real concern towards environmental interests. The environmental groups filed suit in the court system and won a settlement to force the National Park Service to institute a system of resource protection closures, which have resulted in a lot of acrimony from local interests. Both are positioning themselves for an extended battle to control access at the seashore.
I feel they both have valid arguments; I am a fan of liberty but also of responsibility. I would hope that environmental groups would not needlessly seek to push coercive government measures unless they are of clear importance and sound scientific basis. I would hope that economic interests would recognize that long term ecological stability is more beneficial to them than they realize and that there are other values then simply economics. I doubt either will occur anytime soon.
Great post and I feel that you captured my point of view in an excellent manner. I'm an ATV fan, but I acknowledge that they have a destructive side and we need to manage this. But it seems that the eco folks just want to shut us down completely. Isn't it everyone's lands and as such, shouldn't our interests be met, at least somewhat?
Posted by ATV Fan on July 14, 2008 at 11:32 AM EDT #
I would love to be able to answer that, as that remains the $64,000 question. Being a (former) SUV driver, I really enjoyed some of the adventure aspects of it all. I wish there was a better way to manage things so that there wasn't such a conflict. I'm sure there are appropriate places for SUV's and ATV's. The conflict lies in determining where those places are.
I have been to Uwharrie tons of times and seen people leaking gallons of motor oil, gear oil and antifreeze on Daniel. People have flipped their rides, gotten seriously injured and I think there have even been a few deaths. We need to ask ourselves if the function of National Park is to be a motorsports facility or a true park. Its difficult to hike or mountain bike when you have all these vehicles in the way. And I'm sure Badin Lake would be much better of without all those gallons of Valvoline and Prestone.
As for the Outer Banks, I love spending time out there and think there should be some sort of balance between the two. I think a permit type of system is probably inevitable and is probably for the best. This would help ensure that ORV use remained responsible and that the environmental conflicts were minimal. I will say that the surf fisherman are generally the most conscious of keeping the beach clean. Its generally the tourons and teenagers that cause all the problems.
Posted by Stephen Kleinschmit on July 15, 2008 at 07:57 PM EDT #
When Congress established Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area in 1937 its intent was to permanently provide for all Americans a unique area for their enjoyment and use.
For years now, those of us who utilize this unique resource have been under assault by a variety of environmental special interest groups who would deny us access, but not themselves. They have tried compaction studies attempting to show that ORVs? were damaging the beach. Only to find their data lost when it rained or a storm occurred. They have filed lawsuit after lawsuit in federal court claiming harm and inadequate protection for the birds and turtles that nest here. And in each case where evidence was heard from both sides in the court, they were sent packing. Quite simply, their claims were refuted by sound science and law. All of this, again, at the expense of the American taxpayer. What occurred April 30th, 2008, in Judge Terrence Boyle?s court changed everything.
It?s the Piping Plover that has become the ?poster child? for these groups.
The plover is a relative newcomer to CHNSRA. Every bird study conducted between 1900 and 1959 show that it was not until 1960 that the first birds arrived in the Park. Plovers nest independently of one another and not in colonies. They neither feed nor care for their young from the moment they hatch. They nest in areas that are subject to frequent overwash and frequently lose nests as a result. This has already occurred at CHNSRA in the 2008 breeding season, and not just with plovers. Predation has also taken its toll this year.
The Piping Plovers that nest at CHNSRA are part of the Atlantic breeding population which is considered ?threatened?, not endangered. It is very important to understand that CHNSRA is on the extreme Southern edge of the Plovers breeding range which accounts for the historically low numbers within the Park. Most Plovers nest well north of the Park, from Virginias? Eastern Shore to Newfoundland, Canada; with the majority of nesting occurring mid-range.
I am an individual who has utilized this resource, this National Seashore Recreation Area, for almost three decades. And like many, am so familiar with this beach system that predicting structure changes, overwash, and the like comes as second nature. Collectively, we possess more first hand knowledge of the workings of the beaches and the wildlife at CHNSRA than any environmental group in existence. It is, therefore, no surprise that an Alberta, Canada Plover study contains the following statement: ?human presence in an area can be a very effective form of predator deterrence.? (USFW 2000) Interesting as well is a statement by Tim Gallagher editor-in-chief of Living Bird magazine, published in the spring 2000 edition; ?But the large number of people always present at beaches does have a remarkable taming effect on birds.? This reflects what we see daily as we visit our cherished beaches.
There are 21 documented ORV related plover deaths in the entire United States. Twenty of these were committed by federal vehicles. In the 47 years prior to the Consent Decree, not one single plover death can be attributed to an ORV user in this Park. One hundred percent of plover mortality at CHNSRA has been a result of either storms or predation. A far cry from the 24 Piping Plover nests the Army Corps of Engineers destroyed recently in the name of floating two barges of alfalfa pellets down a tributary of the Missouri River.
The Defenders of Wildlife, Audubon and the Southern Environmental Law Center would have one believe that none of which I write in these pages is true though it?s all in the public record.
The Consent Decree deals also with other birds such as Black Skimmers, Common Terns, Least Terns, Gull-billed Terns, Wilson?s Plover, and American Oystercatchers. None of whom are threatened or endangered. The Consent Decree treats them as though they are and at additional taxpayer expense. It also deals with the variety of sea turtles that occasionally nest on the Parks beaches though now requiring full beach closures, unlike the Interim Strategy.
Some ?Inconvenient Truths? for DOW, Audubon and SELC include: Under the Interim Strategy (IMS) the 2007 nesting season was the most successful Plover breeding season in over 20 years. Currently, under the Consent Decree, a single Plover chick is given enough beach area to cover the decks of three U.S. Navy Super Carriers, the largest warships on earth. As such, in most American communities, a convicted child molester can live closer to a public school than a fisherman and his family can get to a plover.
On a positive note, The Atlantic Piping Plover population is fast approaching the 2000 nesting pair?s figure that makes them eligible for de-listing as threatened. The most recent counts show 1700 nesting pair. Just four years ago, the most accurate estimate was 1400 pair. This represents a rather dramatic increase in breeding pairs in a very short period. Unfortunately, at the cost of even more taxpayer dollars, de-listing the Atlantic Plover population is probably going to be challenged in court.
The environmental groups also claim a substantial drop in Black Skimmer and Gull-billed Tern numbers. What they don?t want you to know is that the bird count for the 2007 season shows a better than 20% increase in numbers. They know very well that the birds chose to nest on a newly recreated dredge spoil island within sight of the Park. A study that Walker Golder, attorney for Audubon, plaintiff, and member of Negotiated Rulemaking participated in. In reference to this habitat, named Cora June Island, N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission writes:
"An outstanding success story can be found on Cora June Island, located near Hatteras Inlet. This island disappeared during Hurricane Isabel in 2003 but was rebuilt in spring 2007 during a dredging project by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Only months after rising from the sea, the island was home to one of the largest mixed tern/black skimmer colonies in the state with good numbers of nesting adults that successfully fledged hundreds of chicks.
The recent survey, which was conducted in spring 2007, is one of 10 complete coast-wide surveys conducted since the late 1970s to monitor population trends, distribution of colony sites and nesting habitat conditions. Data gleaned from the surveys help biologists make management and conservation decisions and prioritize research. The next water bird survey is scheduled for 2010. "
Never mind that these environmental groups have sued to stop the creation of additional spoil islands which would provide substantial new habitat for the very birds they profess the need and desire to protect.
They would prefer you to believe that night time driving on the Beaches at CHNSRA disorients sea turtles. Hence the ban imposed by the Consent Decree. But they would have you ignore Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, the northern 22 miles of beach on Hatteras Island. At Pea Island NWR, there is no beach driving and less than a dozen lights visible from the sea. Very few pedestrians frequent these beaches due to the difficulty in accessing them. And yet Pea Island has no greater turtle nesting success than ORV accessible beaches but does have more false crawls, aborted nesting attempts, than the open beaches. They would also have you ignore the fact that Plovers don?t nest there in spite of the excellent conditions.
Under the Consent Decree, if a turtle nests within the relatively minute portion of beach that?s still accessible by ORV, the Park Service is required to establish virtually the same nest enclosure as established within the Interim Strategy. Beach users may drive by, park by and fish by this clearly marked 10? by 10? revetment cloth enclosure at will. Until, that is, September 15th. On that date, the Consent Decree imposes full beach closures in addition to the procedures outlined in the IMS, making those areas impassable by vehicle or pedestrian. This is absurd and arbitrary. The Consent Decree clearly states that if a nest is approaching its anticipated hatch date (pre September 15) NPS is to follow the same procedures outlined in the IMS, not including full beach closures. Which means that in spite of the additional ?path? NPS constructs to funnel the hatchlings to the sea, the beach immediately outside this small closure is still accessible to both pedestrian and ORV use. So why is September 15th , the ?magic? day? Because this is an arbitrary date by which perhaps some of the bird closures will have been reduced and the Consent Decree finally allows for ?permitted? night driving. This is a thinly veiled maneuver to continue to prevent ORV access to the beach. If it was ok for me to drive by or park and fish right next the closure on the 14th, it should be just fine on the 15th.
They don?t want you to know that at the best of times ORV users can only access less than 30% of the beaches at CHNSRA and that their ?12% of the beaches affected? figure assumes 100% ORV access. This has not been true for many, many years. The truth is that well over 90% of the beach is currently closed either directly or by default. Areas bounded on both sides by closures are inaccessible even though they are technically open. They prefer to focus on ORV?s but the current closures prohibit pedestrian use as well. No entry means just that.
It is, I think, ironic that as I labor over this communication, The Defenders of Wildlife have just sent their members an e-mail dated June 15th, 2008 that describes success as a result of the Consent Decree. ?Since some of the most sensitive areas were closed to vehicles, birds like the piping plover and the American oystercatcher have been bouncing back.?
Plover numbers are the same as they were last year under the IMS. I don?t know about the American Oystercatchers (AMOY) yet except for the nest on the Pamlico Sound side of HWY 12 between Frisco and Hatteras villages. There, less than 150? from the 55 MPH traffic, in plain sight, an AMOY pair feeds their young and raises them to fledge quite happily.
They also write:
?The emergency plan was developed to be flexible, with temporary closures that can be lifted and reopened to vehicles once wildlife is no longer using certain areas. Already, some areas have been reopened this season.?
This ignores the rash of immediate closures that followed the April 30th signing of the Consent Decree. Because of the Consent Decree, anyone with a cell phone can call NPS, report bird activity and the Park Service is required to close the area for weeks at a time. All of the areas that have been reopened as of 6/26/08 were initially closed due to inaccurate and perhaps false observation.
They would rather you didn?t think of them as parties to the lawsuit that has prevented the replacement of the Bonner Bridge, Cape Hatteras? lifeline and only over ground hurricane evacuation route; a bridge with a safety rating of 4 out of 100. The bridge in Minnesota that collapsed in 2007, killing many, was rated at 27. Since when do we so blatantly condone risking the loss of human life? The environmental groups have already announced that if the new bridge is attempted they will sue.
The Consent Decree is an obvious attempt at changing a National Seashore Recreation Area into a private wildlife refuge. Which has so far, been successful at the cost of untold taxpayer dollars. Remember that the plaintiffs are consistently reimbursed their legal fees and expenses by the already strapped Park Service and DOI. You must also consider the cost of constant monitoring, flying in and housing of un-needed special event teams, additional, extensive new signage, additional vehicles, law enforcement and infrastructure.
The impact of the Consent Decree on the economies of the villages bounded by the Park has been astounding. I know this first hand as it cost me my job. Conditions under the Consent Decree continue to fester as more Americans and foreign visitors discover that the experience they expected when they arrived at CHNSRA has been almost entirely compromised. Thousands have already cancelled their reservations or vowed not to return. And yet both the environmental groups and United States Fish and Wildlife Service continue to utilize the arguably inept Voglesong study as the foundation of their economic and visitor usage statements in spite of a government funded peer review that deems the study essentially worthless. The esteemed panel also regarded the data and its collection methods so flawed that further review of that data would be a waste of time.
?Dr. Michael A. Berry served as any Army officer in Vietnam in the 1960s. After returning to civilian life, he earned a doctorate in public health and worked in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, where as a senior manager and scientist, he served as the deputy director of National Center for Environmental Assessment at Research Triangle Park in North Carolina. During his 28-year career with EPA, he had extensive interactions with environmental organizations, local governments, the federal courts, U.S. Congress, universities world-wide, and institutions, such as the National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. For more than 20 years, Berry, who lives in Chapel Hill, taught public health, environmental science, and business and environment courses at the University of North Carolina. He is currently a writer and part-time consultant, specializing in the evaluation of environmental quality and human health effects, environmental management strategies, and policy?. (www.islandfreepress.org)
He writes:
?There has been no opportunity for public participation, comment, and input with regard to this new ORV regulation. For any environmental regulation issued by the federal government, citizens have the right of public review and comment as provided by the Federal Administrative Procedures Act. Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, citizens also have a right to know about and attend federal government meetings, especially when those meeting involve special-interest organizations trying to influence the government. Under the Freedom of Information Act, citizens have a right to obtain all unclassified information, such as scientific information and correspondence with special-interest parties, that is held by the federal government?
The Consent Decree has changed the very nature of the Park. Though the environmental groups claim to want to preserve CHNSRA for future generations, I fail to see the value of a National Park that remains inaccessible during the spring, summer and fall, when the majority of Americans that visit the Park take their vacations at this time. And if USFWS gets their way by declaring CHNSRA critical wintering habitat for Great Lakes and Great Plains plover populations, though they openly admit they have no idea where the wintering birds originate, this will include the late fall and winter months as well.
Preservation has been, so far, successful without court intervention and a draconian Consent Decree. What choice did Dare and Hyde counties and the various beach access groups have other than to consent? It came down to either accepting an agreement that they had no voice in and hoping for the best or face certain closure and the enormous economic impact that it would spawn.
A Federal Judge is bound by law to render a fair decision based upon the merits of the evidence presented before the Court. But Judge Boyle declared his intention to provide the environmental groups exactly what they sought without hearing any evidence from either point of view and precluded the intervening parties, Dare, Hyde, OBPA, CHAPA and others from entering any evidence at all. This occurred within the first few minuets of the February 2008 scheduling conference. During a later hearing, in spite of being charged by law to consider the economic impact of the proposed closures within the Consent Decree Judge Boyle repeatedly declared his lack of knowledge and understanding of CHNSRA, the villages contained therein, and signed the decree anyway. His obsession with closing Ramp 4 (Bodie Island Spit) as related in the transcripts of the April hearing is baffling.
What the negotiations between the environmental groups and DOI promulgated can only honestly be referred to as a Decree of Forced Consent.
CHNSRA was established first and foremost as a National Seashore Recreational Area.
This is blatantly obvious when one reads the enabling legislation formulating and forever establishing the Park.
Dated August 17, 1937 (50 Stat. 669), provides in part:
Sec. 4. 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?
On June 11th, 2008, Senators Elizabeth Dole, Richard Burr and Representative Walter B. Jones introduced bills S3113 and HR6233. These bills, if enacted, would put aside the Consent Decree and return CHNSRA to policy and operation governed by the IMS. This would effectively take management decisions out of the hands of a few special interest groups and return it to the professional scientists and staff of NPS at the savings of millions of taxpayer dollars over the life of the Consent Decree.
Already these groups assail the media and their members with tales of doom were these bills signed into law. Some claim that Congress has no business even dealing with this matter. I beg to differ. Congress established this Park for the American People as a whole and provided us with a place we have fought hard to preserve as the unique and dynamic place that Hatteras is; or was. For years, most of us have lived by OBPA?s motto, ?Preserve, Protect, Not Prohibit.? For example, to this day NPS does not employ ?beach clean up crews?. We do this at our own time and expense. This hardly represents a user group with a penchant for environmental abuse.
Congress reserved the right to change the nature of an established National Park for itself. And so there is no question as to whether these bills should be co-sponsored and enacted.
16 U.S.C. Section 1a-1 states, "The authorization of activities shall be conducted in the light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress."
Surely this applies to forced closures as that constitutes an activity as well. Non government organizations have taken over scientific management of a National Park, an activity (Consent Decree) not sanctioned by Congress in spite of the obvious ?derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established?.
Furthermore, the Federal Executive Branch Policy governing the selection, establishment and administration of National Recreation Areas by the Recreation Advisory Council circular, dated March 26, 1963 states:
Within National Recreation Areas, outdoor recreation shall be recognized as the dominant or primary resource management purpose. If additional natural resource utilization is carried on, such additional use shall be compatible with fulfilling the recreation mission, and none will be carried on that is significantly detrimental to it.
I therefore urge every member of the Senate and House of Representatives to co-sponsor and foster these bills into law. Sound science and the weight of law should never be substituted for supposition and misleading statements.
Please help return our National Seashore Recreation Area to the true stewards of this resource.
With great respect,
Jeffrey ?Wheat? Golding
Authors Note: 2/28/2008
I stated earlier that I was unaware of the current American Oystercatcher numbers at present. According to the most recent available NPS resource management field report, at this point in time last year the AMOY American Oystercatcher had attempted 41 nests and had 17 active or hatched nests. At this point in 2008, they have attempted 33 nests but have only 16 active or hatched nests. With the extensive closures, this can in no way be blamed on ORV drivers. This completely refutes the claims of the aforementioned environmental groups? press releases that the AMOY is some how miraculously ?bouncing back? as a result of no ORV traffic
Posted by Jeffrey Golding on July 20, 2008 at 09:28 AM EDT #