Beach Access Issues
September 29, 2008
Guest Column: A citizens’ beachwatch
would help stop vandalism of resource closures

By JEFFREY GOLDING

As the residents and visitors of Hatteras and Ocracoke islands struggle to deal with the impacts of the consent decree and its draconian terms, yet another evil has arisen in the form of vandalism within Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. The most recent incident was in the form of arson -- seven bathroom facilities were either destroyed or severely damaged in the course of a single three-hour period which may, or may not, be linked to the beginning of an annual surfing tournament in Buxton.

As heinous as those acts clearly are, it is the subject of bird and turtle enclosure violations that spurs this writing; as well as the effort proposed by the user community to curb any future infractions.

The root of the problem is the consent decree and its verbiage. Much the same way human presence on our beaches deters predation of the threatened species that sometimes nest here, human presence can also act as a deterrent to wanton, cowardly acts of destruction, particularly if that human presence is of an “official” nature.

Enter the terms set forth within the consent decree -- more accurately referred to as the “decree of forced consent” as the defendant interveners, Dare and Hyde counties, Outer Banks Preservation Association, Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance, the North Carolina Beach Buggy Association, et al. faced certain and devastating beach closure or a hope for the best option. They wisely chose the latter.

Within the consent decree, night driving is banned for the lawfully authorized public from May 1 through Sept. 15. Driving at night is allowed only with a permit through Nov. 15. This effectively eliminates human presence on our beaches through the many hours during which the vandals have made their strikes against clearly marked closures erected by the National Park Service.

The second and most devastating part of the consent decree is the expansion of buffers because of closure violations. It can be argued that this provision favors anyone with an anti-access point of view in that damaging the buffer fencing or breaching the closures will result in a further loss of beach access for residents and visitors alike by creating yet larger areas of closed beach. This sort of behavior by anti-access personalities has been previously documented in the few years preceding the decree.

What’s been proposed by members of the pro-access community is a program wherein volunteers work with NPS and station vehicles at or near the ramps at the Cape Hatteras Seashore Recreation Area. This would provide eyes and ears on the ground to discourage or prevent further violations of the decree during the non-driving hours of 10 p.m. through 6 a.m. while that requirement is in effect.

This is not a new idea, and, according to John Alley, OBPA board member, it has been pursued in previous years up to and including a pledge to pay for radios to facilitate quick, easy, and cost-effective communication with NPS law enforcement personnel.

The concept is that stationary vehicles and their occupants keep a “beachwatch” and report any violations to NPS, which would respond accordingly. The beachwatch vehicles would remain stationary, without lighting, during the hours of prohibition.

This concept was presented to Mike Murray, park superintendent, through a series of e-mail communications. Murray must follow the law and its interpretation, as you and I must do, and replied: “The current situation is simply that, as negotiated and written, the federal attorneys advise that stationary vehicles between 10 p.m. and 6
a.m. are not authorized under the consent decree.”

  Apparently, this violates the “intent” of the decree.  However, the consent decree states only “that to increase the chances of successful turtle nesting,” night driving is prohibited. It does not mention parking. Also, this only applies to “non-official” vehicles. I would argue that any vehicle providing protection to the resource and its values, even by a volunteer corps, could be considered undertaking an “official” function if that vehicle and its occupants were authorized to do so, be they civilian volunteers or law enforcement personnel.

Were it not for the consent decree, I would ask that Murray refer to NPS Management Policies 2006 Handbook, in the introduction section under Hierarchy of Authorities, where it states in part: “It is especially important that superintendents and other park staff review their park’s enabling legislation to determine whether it contains explicit guidance that would prevail over Service-wide policy.”

Unfortunately, the consent decree stipulates that in points of conflict, the decree prevails; effectively placing management of our recreational area in the hands of  Defenders of Wildlife, The National Audubon Society, and the Southern Environmental Law Center.  This is a travesty at best.

I encourage Dare, Hyde, OBPA, CHAPA, and the rest of the intervenor/defendants to work with Murray in an effort to make this proposed volunteer program a reality. I believe it will go a long way in assisting the preservation of both species and access in the future.

(Jeffrey “Wheat” Golding of Buxton is an advocate for open beach access.  He works at Red Drum Tackle shop.)


 Comments are always welcomed!
     Subject :

     Name :  (required)

     Email :  (required, will not be published)

     City :   (required)    State :   (required)

     Your Comments:

May be posted on the Letters to the Editor page at the discretion of the editor.