| Beach Access Issues | |
| November 10, 2008
Negotiators and the public get a look at
Park Service alternatives for ORV management By IRENE NOLAN  When the negotiated rulemaking committee returns to the table on Friday and Saturday, Nov. 14 and 15, their meetings will be videotaped for the first time, so that people who can’t get to the meetings in Kill Devil Hills can view the process. Also, for the first time, the 29 members of the committee and their alternates, who are negotiating a long-range, off-road vehicle driving plan for the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, will have in their hands the National Park Service’s proposed alternatives for ORV use. The Park Service’s management alternatives will eventually be included in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on ORVs on the seashore. The seashore’s superintendent, Mike Murray, hopes that the negotiators will add another alternative, which would be the result of their committee work. The Park Service’s management alternatives would normally not be released to the public until next fall when the DEIS will be ready for public review. However, Murray said last week at a media roundtable meeting with reporters, that he thinks releasing the alternatives almost a year early will benefit the negotiators. “The primary idea is to give the committee something to work with,” Murray said last week. The committee has been meeting since January. The 29 members, representing stakeholders in ORV use, are trying to reach consensus on the management of beach driving. In an unusual approach to devising an ORV rule, the Park Service has negotiated rulemaking running concurrent with its obligation under NEPA to provide an Environmental Impact Statement on ORV use, which it is required to do under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In the best of all worlds, the NEPA process may have come first and the negotiators would have worked with those alternatives. Now, both processes are underway at the same time, so Murray decided to release the management alternatives that will be part of the DEIS early. Murray said the management alternatives were developed through public comments from meetings in early 2007, workbooks that were completed by members of the public earlier this year, negotiated rulemaking discussions, scientific literature, and Park Service staff input. The document on management alternatives lists five alternatives. Two of them, Alternatives A and B, are so-called “no action” alternatives, required by federal regulations. They are continuations of existing park management policies. One is based on the Park Service’s interim plan, which was the object of a lawsuit by environmental groups, and the other is based on the consent decree that settled that lawsuit. There are three action alternatives. They are:
“In general,” Murray said, “the alternatives includes such things as more parking, additional ramps at the right places, and more interdunal roads, especially during the breeding season.” The three “action alternatives” include issues that will be difficult to negotiate. Some highlights include:
In last week’s meeting, Murray noted that carrying capacity was based on “practical analysis,” or how much room was needed to park an ORV and open the doors. “We aren’t going to put parking spaces on the beach,” he said. “The reality is,” he said, “that people expect the beach to be crowded on a holiday weekend. But it can get to a point that it is too crowded.” Murray also said that some parks have a limit on how many permits can be issued for beach driving. “We decided from the get-go not to do that,” he said. The current alternatives are not open for public comment and won’t be until a Draft Environmental Impact Statement is issued next fall. And Murray hopes that by then, there will be a fourth action alternative, negotiated by the committee, to add to the mix. Also, the current alternatives are not to be negotiated, Murray said. Instead he hopes the committee will use the alternatives as a reference for creating its own alternative. “It can incorporate bits and pieces,” Murray said. “It doesn’t have to be all or nothing.” However, an alternative put forth by the committee must be reached by consensus, which the members have defined as unanimous concurrence. Members may abstain from voting and “stand aside” and not block an agreement. But a single dissenting vote will mean there is no consensus. “It doesn’t mean everybody has to be happy and satisfied, but that they can accept the decision,” Murray said. Thus far, the committee has reached consensus on little or nothing. However, Murray said the facilitators hired by the Park Service to conduct the process have assured him that could change. “The best description I’ve heard from the facilitators,” he said, “is that the process is like a bucket of crabs. Each crab is a different issue. You pick up one crab and two or three others are clinging to it.” Therefore, committee members have been hesitant to reach consensus on one issue when there are two or three more involved with it – and dependent on it. “We can’t quite finish off an issue because no one is willing to commit until they know what the related issues are,” Murray said. Murray said that, based on subcommittee discussions that have been ongoing, he is encouraged that the full committee will “reach agreement on a number of issues.” Some of the members are not that optimistic. The negotiated rulemaking committee is under pressure to finish up in the next few months. There will be a meeting in December and two in January, and Murray says there is an option of one more meeting in early February. If the committee cannot reach a consensus on issues, the task will revert to park officials to craft the ORV rule. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement is scheduled to be released next fall and will be open to public comment. The DEIS will identify the park’s preferred alternative for ORV management. A final ORV management plan must be completed by Dec. 31, 2010. A final rule must be issued by April 1, 2011. FOR MORE INFORMATION You can read the National Park Service’s ORV management alternatives on this Web site. The document is long and divided into subject areas. Anyone with an interest in ORV driving should look at it. The most interesting documents are the narrative, management alternatives matrix, routes and areas table, and the maps. Click here for Park Service's ORV alternatives Other information: Members of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee: Updated List Of Negotiated rulemaking committee members and the organizations they represent Information about Nov. 14-15 meeting: http://islandfreepress.org/2008Archives/11.07.2008-NegotiatedRulemakingCommitteeWillMeetNov14And15.html Workbook Comments on alternatives: http://islandfreepress.org/2008Archives/11.04.2008-WorkbookCommentsOnORVManagemenNowAvailableToPublic.html Videotaping: http://islandfreepress.org/2008Archives/11.03.2008-ParkServiceWillAllowVideotapingOfNovemberNegotiatedRulemakingMeeting.html |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|