We made our last trip by vehicle from Ramp 49 in Frisco to Cape Point.

It’s a favorite beach “tour” for many islanders and visitors.  It’s about 5 miles from Ramp 49 to Ramp 44 north of Cape Point.  As usual, we stopped along the way to get out and walk, do some shelling, watch the dolphins frolicking in the breakers and the birds that were everywhere.

We got to the Point just about sunset and watched the sun sink into the western horizon and the sky turn bright colors of pink and orange.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve made that drive, and it was difficult to think that this would be the last one.  Soon, 1.7 miles of beach between Ramp 49 and the Point, will become a vehicle-free area year round.  That is basically in the popular area known as the Hook.

When the National Park Service final rule for off-road vehicles for the Cape Hatteras National Seashore becomes effective on Feb. 15, we will have to learn some new habits about beach driving on the beach and say goodbye to some old ones – like driving on the beach for free.

There are some places, such as the Hook, we’re used to driving that we will not drive again.

Some of them are places near and dear to our hearts, favorite places for surf fishing, shelling, surfing, and for families to bring a day’s worth of gear and hang out, fish, swim, cook dinner, and have a bonfire on the beach.

Our access to our favorite places, such as the points and spits, will be much more limited, with portions of all reserved as vehicle-free areas.

Some of the favorite places have been off limits during nesting season, but we’re talking about year-round under the final rule.

The environmentalists and their supporters who drove the agenda for the new rule don’t see a thing wrong with any of this.  They think we are a bunch of cry babies who care more about fun than “baby” birds and turtles.

This is not so.  What we are gearing up for is a major change in our traditional, historical, and cultural uses of the Hatteras and Ocracoke beaches – the ways folks who have lived here have always accessed the beach.

We want to be stewards of the environment, but we also want to use the beach as we always have and feel we always should.  We don’t think the two are mutually exclusive, but that battle has been fought and lost.

So here’s a bit of a guide to the new ORV routes and areas and where we can drive, not drive, or walk.

Just remember that you won’t be able to drive on these routes all the time – even the routes that are called “year-round.” Nor will you be able to walk in vehicle-free areas if birds and turtles are nesting there.

At the end of this blog, you can click on a mile-by-mile chart of the seashore that spells out the year-round ORV routes, seasonal ORV routes, and the vehicle-free areas (VFAs).

Here is a brief summary of the 26.4 miles of year-round VFAs from Bodie Island through Ocracoke:

• Ramp 1 to half a mile south of Coquina Beach. 1.7 miles.
• Southeast corner of Bodie Island spit along the inlet shoreline to the southwest edge of the Bait Pond. Eight-tenths of a mile.
• Rodanthe boundary to one-tenth of a miles south of Rodanthe Pier – 1.6 miles.
• Ramp 23 south of Salvo to 1.5 miles south of Ramp 23.  1.5 miles.
• Ramp 27 to Ramp 30 between Salvo and Avon. 2.2 miles.
• New Ramp 32.5 to Ramp 34. Between Salvo and Avon. 2 miles.
• 1.5 miles south of Ramp 38, which is south of Avon, to four-tenths of a mile north of Ramp 43, which is south of Buxton.  4.1 miles.
• Three-tenths of a mile west of Cape Point to 1.7 miles west of Ramp 45.  This is the area called the Hook. 2.8 miles.
• Sandy Bay/Frisco Day Use Area (west of Frisco boundary) to east Hatteras village boundary. 1.4 miles.
• Bone Road off the Pole Road to Hatteras Inlet and along the inlet shoreline to Spur Road. 1 mile. This includes the area at the tip of the Hatteras Inlet shoreline sometimes known as False Point.
• Hatteras Inlet to new Ramp 59.5 on Ocracoke.  This includes the North Point of that island. 1.6 miles.
• New Ramp 63 on Ocracoke to 1 mile northeast of Ramp 67. 2.5 miles.
• Ramp 68 to four-tenths of a mile northeast of Ramp 70. 2.2 miles.
• The inlet shoreline at Ocracoke’s South Point. 1 mile.

You can see the current and planned new ramps on the seven maps that detail the year-round and seasonal ORV routes.

There are 28 miles of year-round ORV routes in the seashore, but they are subject to nesting closures.

The 13 miles of seasonal ORV closures are basically in front of the villages and a few other areas, such as Bodie Island spit and the Ocracoke campground.

The areas we will be able to drive, subject to resource closures, are clearly outlined in the seven maps of the seashore that are in the Final Environmental Impact statement.

There were no changes in the basic ORV routes in the final rule.  There were a few adjustments, including more clearly delineating routes at Hatteras spit as a result of changes caused by Hurricane Irene and declaring that Ramp 59 on Ocracoke will be an ORV ramp until the new 59.5 is built.

When you look at the maps, remember that the green broken line indicates a year-round ORV route and the red broken line indicates a seasonal route.  Where you see shoreline with no red or green lines, it’s closed year-round as a vehicle-free area.

We will all learn to live by the new regulations, and we must keep reminding ourselves that it could have been worse. 

There are still 28 miles of year-round ORV routes.  During the spring and summer nesting season, ORV access will be pretty much what is has been in recent years.

There will continue to be beaches we can drive to – just maybe not the ones we’d prefer to drive to.

And stay tuned for more information on permits that the Park Service has said it will release before Feb. 15.  We presume that will include information on the cost of the permits and when they will go on sale.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Click here for a chart of year-round and seasonal ORV routes and areas and vehicle-free areas.

Click here for seven seashore maps of year-round and seasonal ORV routes.

Updated maps of the seashore with ORV routes and vehicle-free areas and frequently asked questions about the rules should be available soon on the Cape Hatteras National seashore website, www.nps.gov/caha.

In a release from the seashore, officials said that they would release more information on obtaining the permit – presumably including the cost – before Feb. 15.

The Park Service says it received more than 21,000 public comments, but made only a few changes. A table of the changes takes up only one page in the 82 pages of material released today.

“It is definitely a disappointment,” said David Scarborough, a member of the board of directors of the Outer Banks Preservation Association, which has advocated for free and open access to the seashore’s beaches. “I can’t see that there were many changes.”

“It is what it is” was the attitude of many advocates for more reasonable ORV access, who have opposed most of the Park Service’s plan for ORV management.

On the other hand, the environmental groups that sued the Park Service in 2007 over its lack of ORV regulation on the seashore issued a media release praising the regulations and declaring victory in the effort to protect “baby” birds and sea turtles on the seashore.

“The Park Service’s rules are a compromise that provides protections for both pedestrians and wildlife while still allowing responsible beach driving,” said Julie Youngman, senior attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center. SELC represented Defenders of Wildlife and the National Audubon Society, the groups that brought the lawsuit.

“With both the number of hatchlings and visitors to the beach climbing, the success of responsible beach management is clear,” said Jason Rylander, senior attorney for Defenders of Wildlife. “The new rules will ensure that Cape Hatteras continues to provide enjoyment to beach users while protecting the unique wildlife that call the seashore home.”

More than 50 pages of the document released today are devoted to comments on the proposed rule and Park Service response to the comments.  

One page is a table of the changes the Park Service made in the proposed rules after receiving the comments.  You can find that table on Page 58 of the document.

A few changes are worth noting.

First, officials have removed the phrase “in person” from the language on obtaining a permit. Currently, the plan calls for ORV users to apply in person for the permit and to watch a seven-minute video on beach driving. Many expect the crush of visitors on summer weekends showing up at trailers at just three locations on the seashore to get their permits will be a disaster and will discourage visitation.

Removing the “in person” language opens to door to selling permits on the Internet at some point or at least to not having to renew in person every year.

Second, the changes allow transporting a mobility-impaired person to the beach in an ORV and allowing the ORV to remain on the beach while the person is there.  In the proposed rules, the ORV could drop a person off but would then have to leave the beach.  Many thought this was a safety issue.

Special use permits will be available to transport mobility impaired persons in only one area where the beach is closed to vehicles during the summer – in front of the villages. Mobility impaired people cannot be transported to beaches that are vehicle-free.

The rules for night driving were clarified to include language that portions of those beaches that are designated ORV routes may be opened for night driving from Sept. 15-Nov. 15 if no turtle nests remain in the area.

One change that access advocates had hoped for did not happen.

The superintendent has latitude to use adaptive management of resource closures, which is good and access advocates want.  That means that he or she could change such things as buffer distances in the future if the situation on the ground or the science changes.

Many hoped for adaptive management of designated ORV routes – giving the superintendent latitude to change the routes if conditions on the beach or usage of the beach changed.

In its response to comments, the Park Service said any change in designated routes will require additional environmental impact statements and a new proposed and final rule.

In its responses, the Park Service basically wrote off comments that the science behind resource management, such as buffer distances for nests, and the economic study are flawed. Once again, officials defended both.

Public comments on the rule and comments in this and other media have concerned the perception that the Park Service’s preferred alternative in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Alternative F, was biased toward environmental concerns, rather than recreation.

In fact, many residents and visitors feel the Park Service has failed in its mission to provide recreation and public access to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area, the name give the seashore by Congress in 1950.  It was never changed by Congress, but the “Recreational” phrase was just eliminated over time by the Park Service.

Here is the response to these comments:

“As stated in NPS Management Policies 2006, Section 1.4.3, Congress recognizes that the enjoyment by future generations of the national parks can be ensured only if the superb quality of park resources and values is left unimpaired. Congress has therefore provided that when there is a conflict between conserving resources and values and providing for enjoyment of them, conservation is to predominate. This is how courts have consistently interpreted the Organic Act.”

Beginning on Page 59, the Park Service explains some of the principal elements of the rule in a question-and-answer format.  There are answers to many frequently asked questions in here, but nothing we haven’t known before.

The actual regulation begins on Page 73 and is fairly brief.

The chart of designated ORV routes is on Pages 77-78.

There are a few things to note here:

• It is true, as the environmental groups note in their press release and have emphasized before, that 28 miles of the seashore’s 67 or so miles are set aside for ORV routes, “only” 26 miles are set aside as “vehicle-free” areas, and 13 miles are seasonally open to ORVs. However, remember that many of the 28 miles of designated ORV routes will be closed to vehicles – and pedestrians – during nesting season, which is basically from March through August.
• If you want to come to the seashore, get a permit, and drive to the beach in your ORV during the nesting season, you will be able to get to the beach, but not necessarily the area of the beach you want to get to.  That may be closed for nesting birds and turtles.
• And we note again that while environmental groups are very pleased to have these vehicle-free areas set aside for pedestrians only, even pedestrians can expect to be prohibited in many areas during nesting season.
• Night driving will be prohibited from May 1-Sept. 14 during the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m.  Under the consent decree, driving is prohibited from 10 p.m. until 6 a.m.
• Vehicles can park on the beach in the ORV areas in single file – not double parking or “circling the wagons” for a wind block.
• There will be no limit on the number of permits sold, but there will be a carrying capacity on the beach. The maximum number of vehicles allowed on any ORV route at one time is the length of the route – or portion of the route that is open divided by 6 meters, which is 20 feet.  This is the equivalent of 260 vehicles per mile.
• The ORV permit goes with the vehicle, not the driver.  So if you have more than one vehicle you drive to the beach, you will need a permit for each one.

In a little less than a month, island residents and visitors will see a major change in the way we have traditionally and historically used our beaches.

It’s now a final plan with little hope of changing or amending it.


FOR MORE INFORMATION

To read the entire final rule document released today, click here.
To read a previous blog on ORV permits, “Come the new year, we will pay to drive on the beach," click here.
To read more about the November, 2010, Final Environmental Impact Statement, click here.  The EIS will largely provide the framework for the plan and access to the beaches.
To read more about the draft ORV regulation, published last summer, click here.

“Who thought the snowmobile issue in Yellowstone National Park would still be slogging on, a decade and more than $10 million since it first arose back in 2000? And would anyone think that some birds and turtles would be such a hot-button topic at Cape Hatteras National Seashore.”

Repanshek went on to write that he figured writing about national parks would be “relatively safe, a continuing series of feel-good stories about some of the most gorgeous and interesting (culturally and historically) places in America.”

“But instead it seems there is controversy (not to mention firebrand politics!) lurking in every nook and cranny of the park system,” he says and asks readers why they think that is the case.

Controversy and politics are issues we’ve become increasingly familiar with here at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore as the effort to formulate an off-road vehicle management plan has dragged on and on for decades.

And the longer it continues, the more contentious the relationship between the Park Service and the people who live here or visit the seashore gets.

The animosity extends to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which manages the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge on northern Hatteras Island.

Case in point is The Island Free Press survey on Hurricane Irene response.  The National Park Service was one of the agencies readers were asked to evaluate on the preparation for the storm and the response to its aftermath.

The National Park Service response was rated as poor or unacceptable by the majority of residents, non-resident property owners, and visitors.

In their comments on the Park Service, most of the respondents admitted that they didn’t know that much about what park officials did after the storm so they didn’t have a specific criticism of their performance.

They just said they plain don’t like the Park Service – having nothing to do with the hurricane.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service got even worse rankings.

However, as Repanshek wrote, there is controversy lurking in every nook and cranny of the Park Service.

We are not the only community that is increasingly taking issue with the Park Service’s sometimes heavy-handed tactics, seemingly uncaring attitude about the people, reliance on pseudo-science, and the perceived inclination to cave to the demands of the very litigious and well-funded environmental lobby.

It’s happening at parks across the country.

Mike Metzgar, a member of the board of directors of the North Carolina Beach Buggy Association, spends a good deal of time keeping us informed of Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service controversies elsewhere.  

During November and December, especially, we got link after link to stories in other publications.

I think it’s worth sharing them with you, so I’m providing links to a good sampling of controversies that say something about our struggle for more reasonable access to the seashore beaches.

There are links at the end of this blog, if you want to read some of these articles, but here’s a brief summary.

• Of special interest is the situation at Point Reyes National Seashore in northern California. An oyster farm that has leased Park Service land in an estuary for more than 70 years is in danger of not having its lease renewed because of the possible disturbance to seals in the area. A Park Service Draft Environmental Statement released last year favored closure of the oyster farm and several environmental groups also oppose renewing the lease. Residents near the seashore support renewing the lease.

This situation is interesting because front and center in the controversy is a fierce argument over the science that the Park Service used to justify not renewing the lease and whether it was tweaked to make the owners of the farms appear less than environmentally friendly.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because there are questions about the science that the Park Service is using at Cape Hatteras to justify huge beach closures, especially for piping plover chicks.

• Folks at Chincoteague in Virginia are fearful of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposal to move a parking area and beach access near the town and shuttle beachgoers and all of their belongs to another beach.  The service cites erosion and sea-level rise as the reason.  The residents see this as a measure that will kill their economy.
• The Park Service is trying to block a power line project that would go through the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. The Park Service has the backing of environmental groups, and its preferred alternative is not to build the line at all.
• The Park Service has released a General Management Plan that would close a good deal of the Biscayne National Park near Miami to fishing.  The plan is opposed by some stakeholder groups and The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
• In Alaska, members of the Congressional delegation inserted language in an appropriations bill that would block the Park Service from conducting boat checks in the Yukon Charley National Preserve.  The lawmakers and some others believe that the NPS went too far in trying to control Alaska waters.
• Bicycling enthusiasts are alarmed that the National Park Service is about to ban bicycles on the Blue Ridge Parkway.
• Hikers and campers have rallied to oppose new fees the Park Service wants to impose on backcountry camping in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
• A columnist for The Examiner in Washington writes that the Park Service could expand its “ever expanding land-grabs” with a report from the Wildlife Conservation Society that promotes wildlife migration corridors.  The group conducted a workshop for the Park Service recently on “conserving migrations” in or near national parks.
• Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., held a meeting to oppose a proposal by the National Park Service to double most of the parking fees at the Sandy Hook Unit of Gateway National Recreational Area.

One of the controversies that the Park Service was involved in last year actually went against the wishes of environmental groups – and the public, for that matter.  That was a proposal to ban plastic, disposable water bottles in Grand Canyon National Park.

Just two weeks before the ban was to go into effect, Jonathan Jarvis, director of the NPS, put it on hold.  Some charged that Jarvis did so to appease the Coca-Cola Co., which makes large donations to benefit the parks.  

Jarvis eventually allowed park superintendents to ban the bottles, but only after extensive studies.

However, some still charge that Jarvis tried to cave to Coca-Cola, which I guess means the company has more money than environmental groups.

Thanks to Mike Metzgar for reminding us that we are not alone.

Enjoy the articles. Peruse them as you have time.

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Links to various articles on the Internet about the National Park Service and its conflicts with stakeholders and communities.

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2011/12/reader-participation-day-why-are-national-parks-so-controversial9111

http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/responsible-living/blogs/90000-petition-for-bottle-ban-in-grand-canyon

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2011/12/nps-director-jarvis-allows-parks-ban-disposable-plastic-bottles9180

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/chincoteague-fears-plan-to-move-beach-will-drive-away-tourists-hurt-economy/2011/11/18/gIQAZTGt2N_print.html

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/a-park-an-oyster-farm-and-science-part-2/

http://blog.georgetownvoice.com/2011/12/12/national-park-service-announces-new-feasibility-study-for-potomac-boathouse/

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/dec/04/avid-smokies-hiker-seeks-access-to-comments-over/

http://www.bicycleretailer.com/news/newsDetail/6263.html

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/11/1122/1950/

http://thetimes-tribune.com/nps-opposes-putting-ppl-s-susquehanna-roseland-power-line-through-dwg-recreation-area-1.1235953#axzz1eWw3Y7Cx

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/11/editorial_building_new_transmi.html

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/11/1130/0058/

http://www.keepamericafishing.org/news/view/national_park_service_plans_to_shut_anglers_out_of_biscayne_national_park

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2011/12/03/mall-advocates-ask-federal-inspector-general-to-investigate-the-park-service/

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/young-leads-effort-cut-park-service-funding-after-incidents-alaska-boaters

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/12/national-park-service-has-new-land-grabbing-tool/2044626

 This was one of my mother’s favorite Christmas sayings, and it was printed on several of our family Christmas cards when I was growing up.

It came back to me as I was contemplating the topic for my blog this week.

The blog I posted last week, “Come the new year, we will pay to drive on the beach,” has certainly gotten attention and many comments from readers.

Frankly, I am surprised by the number of folks out there who didn’t see paying for a permit to drive on the beach in our immediate future. I – and other local reporters – have been writing about it for quite a long time.

I was planning another blog on the National Park Service – this one about its conflicts with communities across the county.

I will do that blog next month, because the more I thought about it, the subject seemed just kind of “Grinchy” for Christmas week.

And then I got an e-mail from a former friend and employee who worked at my newspaper in Louisville, Ky., when I left there 20 years ago.

So my Christmas blog is about old friends, the power of the Internet to connect and reconnect us, and recipes.

This is the email I got from Kevin Baker Morrice:

Hi Irene,
 
I was going through my recipe box and, for some reason, I can't find my recipe for "Irene Nolan's Crab Dip." I have searched high and low around the house, and then I took my search to the Internet. After a few fruitless searches for hot crab dip, I typed in "Irene Nolan's Crab Dip" and found someone's blog, in which you were mentioned and a link to Island Free Press was given! When I saw it was in the Hatteras, I knew I had the right gal! I'm so glad I've found you -- can you PLEEEEEASE send me your recipe? I have been making it for years at Christmas and always think of you at the holidays. I think of Maureen and Sue often too, especially at this time of year. I really miss Mo -- she was a good friend to me. Anyway, I hope you are well and I hope you remember me and don't mind sharing again. I'm on Facebook and I'm still in contact with Dave Creed in New York and a few other C-J-ers of old, even though I have been living in Oxfordshire, England, for the past 10 years. I have a 10-year-old son named Charlie too.
 
Take care and thanks in advance!

Kevin – an unusual name for a woman – worked at The Courier-Journal in Louisville when I was deputy managing editor and then managing editor before I moved to Hatteras in 1991.

Sue and Maureen were good friends of ours there.  

Sue Kunz, administrative assistant to the editor, died in 1995 at age 49 of breast cancer.

Maureen McNerney Nichols, features editor at the newspaper, died in 2000 of an apparent heart attack.

I, too, think of them often, especially at this time of year.

And I was astounded to hear from Kevin after all these years.

The power of the Internet to connect us all continues to amaze me.

I think of that often, especially after Island Free Press coverage of and response to Hurricane Irene last August.

Anyway, after the surprising e-mail from Kevin, I really couldn’t see another depressing Park Service blog for this week.

So I am sharing with you two favorite Island Free Press recipes.

My crab dip, which originally came from my mother, Jean Rodriguez Clare, is something that I served at holiday parties for The Courier-Journal staff in Louisville and here on Hatteras for the annual Christmas gathering of The Island Free Press writers.

Donna Barnett, Island Free Press webmaster and graphic designer, shares her recipe for egg rolls, which has also become something we look forward to at our annual holiday party.

IRENE'S CRAB DIP

1  8 ounce package of cream cheese, softened
1  6 ounce can of good quality crabmeat -- or if you have it, fresh or frozen crabmeat
1/4 cup of finely diced onion
1 tablespoon (or more) of horseradish
Paprika or slivered toasted almonds for topping

 
Mix cream cheese, crabmeat, onions, and horseradish together and put in a pie plate or small baking dish.  Sprinkle with the paprika or toasted almonds and heat in a 350-degree oven or microwave until hot and bubbly.

DONNA’S EGG ROLLS
 
1 14 ounce package egg roll wrappers
1 1/2 pounds of fresh shrimp
1 pound bag of cole slaw mix
1 small onion chopped
1 tablespoon of fresh ginger
1 large clove of fresh garlic
3 tablespoons of soy sauce
2 teaspoons of sugar
2 teaspoons of cornstarch
2 tablespoons cooking oil
1 beaten egg
 
 Mix soy sauce, sugar, and cornstarch together in a small bowl and set aside. Heat oil in a wok or large skillet over medium heat.  Peel and chop fresh shrimp.  Stir fry in oil with onion, ginger, and garlic until shrimp are slightly pink.  Stir in cole slaw mix. When cole slaw mix starts to wilt, add soy sauce mixture and cook until mixture starts to thicken.  Set aside until cool. 

Once the mixture is cool, assemble the egg rolls by placing a wrapper onto your work surface with one corner pointing towards you. Place about 3 tablespoons of cooled filling in a heap onto the bottom third of the wrapper. Brush a little beaten egg around the edges of the wrapper to bind, then fold the bottom corner over the filling and roll firmly to the halfway point. Fold the left and right sides snugly over the egg roll, then continue rolling until the top corners seal the egg roll with the egg. Repeat with remaining egg roll wrappers.

Deep fry immediately until browned. Serve with prepared S & B Oriental Hot Mustard and bottled sweet and sour sauce. Makes approximately 20 egg rolls.

We at the Island Free Press wish for peace on earth this Christmas season.

Not too long after the start of the new year, we will have to buy the permit if we want to drive on the beach.  All who want to drive on the beach will have to buy one – whether you have lived here all your life, are visiting for a week, or just passing through for a day.

When local reporters met with seashore superintendent Mike Murray last week, the ORV rule was the first topic up for discussion.

Murray reiterated that the Park Service will publish the final ORV rule in the Federal Register in January, and that it will become effective by Feb. 15.

We had plenty of questions for Murray, not all of which he could answer. The final rule is still under review in Washington by NPS and the Office of Management and Budget, and the superintendent cannot discuss the details until the final rule is just that – final.

But he did talk in generalities about what’s about to happen here as the park prepares to implement the new plan.

First, Murray said that procedurally, the rule is usually not effective until 30 days after publication, but, he said, there are ways to get it done in fewer than 30 days if necessary to meet the court-agreed-to Feb. 15 deadline.

He said that there were 21,000 comments submitted on the draft ORV rule and that he would characterize them as “polarized.”

“People generally thought there was either too much or too little ORV access,” he said.

The published final rule, he said, will have a long preamble in which the Park Service will describe and answer the comments and identify what has been changed from the draft rule because of the comments.

Permits, Murray said, will go on sale when – or right after – the rule becomes effective in February.

The park has already placed trailers at Coquina Beach, the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse and Visitor Center, and the Ocracoke Visitor Center at which the permits will be sold.

“We are not satisfied with the appearance,” Murray said.  And indeed the trailer parked in the shadow of the Hatteras lighthouse is pretty much an eyesore.

He said the park will eventually build new structures for permit sales, but was not prepared to do so at the start.  Among other things, he said, officials may decide that those three locations are not the best or most convenient.

We will have to apply for the permits in person at one of these sights.  We will watch a seven-minute educational video about beach driving and regulations and sign an agreement that we understand and will abide by the rules.

Then we will receive either a sticker for the windshield or a permit that will hang on the vehicle’s rear view mirror, depending on whether we have purchased an annual or seven-day permit.

Annual or seven-day permits will be the only choices.  There will be no daily permits for anyone coming to the seashore just for the day.  And visitors whose vacation lasts more than one week will probably choose an annual permit, since it will probably be more cost effective.

Permits will go with the vehicle, “like a license plate,” Murray said.  

If you buy a permit for your vehicle, you can let friends or family drive it, but you are responsible for making sure they know the rules. If you have more than one vehicle that you drive to the beach, you will need a permit for each one.

Murray said that park officials are trying “to figure out the Saturday-Sunday rush” for permits as new visitors arrive.

There is certainly a good possibility that the weekend rush will be a nightmare scenario.

Also, he said that after the permits go on sale this winter, there will be a grace period since the park understands that not everyone who wants an annual permit can get it immediately.  The first few days or weeks of permit sales, even just to locals, could be pretty hectic.

The park has not decided yet if you will have to appear in person and view the video each year to renew your permit.

Many had hoped to see the permits sold online.  Certainly, the technology is available to make sure an applicant has watched the educational video before receiving the permit.

However, Murray said that traditionally the Park Service prefers face-to-face interaction for the educational segment of permitting activities.

Online sales, he said, could be considered at some point in the future.

Now what everyone wants to know about the permits is: How much will they cost.

If the park knows what the permits will cost, no one is saying so now, with maybe only two months to go before they are required.

Murray said a decision still had not been made. He referred reporters to the pages in Appendix C of the Final Environmental Impact statement, issued in November, 2010.

In its answers to public comments on permit fees, the Park Service said the cost would be similar to what is charged at Cape Cod or Assateague national seashores and mentions the range of $90 to $150 for an annual permit.

“We’ll probably start out somewhere in the middle of the range,” Murray said.

Weekly permits will cost a third or a half of the annual permits, depending on whether the annual permit fee is on the lower end or higher end of the range.

There is no limit on the number of permits that can be sold, but the Park Service has set carrying capacity for the beaches. When beaches reach the carrying capacity, no more vehicles will be allowed until some leave.

The carrying capacity is described in the park’s preferred alternative for the ORV plan as the linear distance of the open beach route divided by six meters (20 feet) per vehicle.  This is the equivalent of 260 vehicles per mile.

In addition, vehicles will be allowed to park only one deep on the beach – stacking of vehicles behind each other or circling vehicles as a wind block will not be allowed.

Currently night-driving permits, which are available online, are required for driving at night from Sept. 16-Nov. 15.  Under the permit system, night driving times and restrictions will be part of the permit, so you won’t need another one to drive at night in the fall.

Also, permits can be revoked if the person who is permitted violates the rules, especially for serious offenses, such as drunk driving or driving in a closed resource area.

One complication with setting the fee is that the permits are a cost recovery program. NPS will determine all of the costs – staffing, supplies, equipment, and other non-personnel services coast – that will be necessary to run the program. This number will be divided by the estimated number of permits by type (annual and seven-day) that will be sold to reach the cost of the permit.

Murray notes that the initial cost will be subjective, based on an estimate of the number of permits the park will sell in the first year. That estimate has apparently not yet been determined.

The ORV plan also calls for infrastructure improvements on the seashore to address the new access areas, such as pedestrian-only beaches.  Most of the improvements include additional ramps and parking areas.

The Park Service will begin the process of developing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the improvements in January.

However, all the aspects of the plan, including beaches for pedestrians only, will be implemented when the final plan is effective.

Murray sees no problem with that, since he says most of the improvements are “redundant” – such as extra ramps that would help provide access to beaches when a nearby ramp is closed because of nesting birds.

The EA will be subject to public scoping and the Park Service will issue a draft before there is a final plan for the improvements.

Murray says he has discussed the issue of funding the improvements with park officials at the regional and national level.

“They all agree,” he said, “that if it’s in the plan, we need to have the money to follow through.”

However, he added that there is a good chance that all of the improvements will not be funded in the first year of the plan.

It seems to be a given that the improvements won’t be in place the first year if the park has to do an environmental Assessment and find funding for them.

All in all, it’s fair to say that the rules about to become final, especially the permits, are going to be difficult for some folks to adjust to.

For many, the changes will be a shock.

And there are many – perhaps more islanders than visitors – who have not kept up with the rulemaking process and don’t know there are permits in their very near future.

Friends have been asking me just this week about the “rumor” that we will have to pay to drive on the beach.

Well, trust me, it’s not a rumor.


FOR MORE INFORMATION

To read more about the November, 2010, Final Environmental Impact Statement, click here.  The EIS will largely provide the framework for the plan and access to the beaches.

To read more about the draft ORV regulation, published last summer, click here.

Eric Kaplan of Charlottesville, Va., who also has a home in Frisco, is the man with the vision for the Hatteras Island Ocean Center.

Kaplan’s idea is that the Ocean Center will be an island-wide attraction, a place where locals and visitors can go not only for the fishing but also for other forms of recreation, education, dining, and shopping.

In his description of the project, Kaplan says the Hatteras Island Ocean Center would be “much more than a replacement for the Frisco Pier,” which is in poor condition and has not been open for several years.

It will be, he says, “a place for everybody to enjoy the ocean, play, learn, and have fun.”

The facilities would include a world-class fishing pier, huge oceanview deck  for weddings and parties, a food court with indoor and oceanview dining and a coffee shop, a covered playground, an arcade, plentiful parking, a public bathhouse, tackle shop, surf shop, equipment rental, indoor and outdoor exhibits, classrooms, research areas, and wildlife rehabilitation area.

The concept has the backing of many islanders, including Tim Midgett of Midgett Realty and Lou Browning of Frisco, who is a wildlife rehabilitator and businessman. Both have agreed to serve on the board of directors of the non-profit Hatteras Island Ocean Center, Inc.

The project also has the support of Dare County and Mike Murray, superintendent of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.

These folks think that the Ocean Center would be a terrific addition to southern Hatteras Island.  And so do I.

Therefore, I was surprised when Island Free Press started receiving comments from readers who did not embrace the Ocean Center concept.

Some were full of praise for the project, but others, not so much.

“There is a pier in Frisco that has been damaged in recent storms and could be the site for the proposed pier,” wrote one non-resident property owner.  “Before we go and destroy the views and the appeal of Hatteras village, I suggest we consider rebuilding in Frisco. The pier in Frisco will not change the landscape, and property owners have accepted the pros and cons of investing in property in that area. I am a property owner, and the businesses on Hatteras Island have been struggling for the past several years. I doubt they want to see more erosion of their business to a new venture.  If we need a pier, rebuild the one in Frisco.”

“Quite frankly, this concept of the Ocean Center does not fit in with the laid-back, family atmosphere and lack of commercialization that characterizes the village,” wrote another non-resident owner.  “Let this non-resident from out of state spend his dollars ‘up the beach.’ Do not ruin what draws people to Hatteras village.

“A fishing pier is one thing, but the food court and restaurants aren't consistent with the spirit of Hatteras,” wrote a visitor from Virginia.  “You should build the pier in Kitty Hawk.”

“The village is a quiet place, a quiet beach, and the serenity of the village is its treasure,” wrote a resident. “I don’t want to imagine looking down the beach and seeing crowds of people where now it’s so peaceful.  The view from the southern part of the village looking towards the lighthouse will certainly change too.”

Yes, Hatteras village is all of those things – laid-back, quiet, serene, and scenic.

But those who have been quick to criticize the Ocean Center might not have taken the time to think about their opposition.

I don’t think any of the readers who wrote us meant to sound selfish  -- as in “It’s my vacation spot and don’t change a thing.”

I don’t think they realize that quiet, serene, and scenic doesn’t pay the bills.

Hatteras village – and indeed the whole southern part of the island – needs this project that would not only be fun and educational but will bring the business and jobs that are so desperately needed.

Hatteras village is suffering economically since Hurricane Isabel in 2003 cut an inlet that isolated the village from the rest of the island.

The inlet was filled and the highway repaired in two months, but many say business never came back. 

And they are not sure why.  Tim Midgett thinks that maybe it’s because Isabel destroyed many motels, some of which did not come back.  There are many fewer motel rooms in the village today compared to a decade ago.

Hatteras village has lots of traffic in season, but too much of it is heading straight to the Ocracoke ferry without stopping.  And to add insult to injury, some GPS devices are now routing folks headed to the ferry onto the back road so they bypass the heart of the village with its shops and marinas.

We can answer a few of the objections and proposals made by the letter writers.

There is not space at the pier in Frisco for anything except the fishing pier.  The Ocean Center will be much more with its exhibits, classrooms, and research areas.

The non-profit Hatteras Island Ocean Center does not envision competing with any local businesses and does not intend to run restaurants or shops at the pier.  These would be leased to local business people, some of whom might operate a “satellite” operation for their current shops or restaurants.

But over and above all that, Hatteras needs this economic boost.  The village needs it really badly. For whatever reason, too many businesses are just barely making ends meet.

Without some kind of economic revitalization, folks in the village just won’t be able to make a go of it. 

The village took it on the chin after Hurricane Irene, which did very little damage to lower Hatteras.  But the highway was closed for six weeks, and visitors were few and far between.

And even those who enjoy the serene, laid-back atmosphere and the breathtaking scenic views in the village do like to eat out occasionally, purchase local seafood, or shop for souvenirs and local art and crafts.

I think the best thing about the Hatteras Island Ocean Center is that it would be an economic engine, but would also offer islanders and visitors a place to fish, swim, surf, and dine with ocean views – and teach us all about our barrier island environment.

The Ocean Center board members are invested in seeing this project through without ruining the scenery and the environment, but enhancing it.

It will give the community a hub, a gathering place.  And it will bring in tourists.

The Ocean Center continues to make progress. 

Eric Kaplan says that a loan to buy the property has been approved by Virginia National Bank in Charlottesville.

A site plan has been drawn up by Gary Price of Avon and is in the process of being tweaked.

Chip Hemmingway of Bowman Murray Hemmingway Architects in Wilmington, who designed the new Jennette’s Pier in Nags Head, wants to be involved with the Hatteras Island Ocean Center. He calls it an “important and exciting project.”

In fact, he is making a site visit on Thursday, Dec. 8, to talk with local folks about their vision for the project.

And, finally, I think that as this project progresses, Eric Kaplan and others on the ocean center board will listen to the community and work with islanders to integrate this project into the coastal village atmosphere that we very much want to preserve.

The hardest part – raising the funds to build the Ocean Center – is still ahead.

But if it becomes a reality, it will be good for islanders and good for visitors.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

To read the Nov. 14 article on the Hatteras Island Ocean Center, go to http://islandfreepress.org/2011Archives/11.14.2011-HatterasIslandOceanCenterIsANewProjectThatWouldBeAFishingPierAndMuchMore.html

Kaplan welcomes questions and ideas from locals and visitors.  You can reach him at ekaplan@hioceancenter.org.

There is one thing, however, that we are very sure of -- on this particular Thanksgiving, we have much more to be grateful for than usual.

Yes, the storm caused a great deal or grief and loss on the islands – both physical and economic damage -- and we will be a long time in recovery.

However, we are grateful that despite the record-breaking storm surge from the Pamlico Sound in the northern Hatteras villages, there were no injuries or loss of life.

We are grateful that our communities came together and friends and neighbors helped each other in the aftermath.

We are also grateful for:

• Our local, state, and federal government agencies that – despite the criticism came through for us.
• The volunteer firefighters, paramedics, law enforcement personnel, and other first responders who provided the glue to hold our villages together.
• All of the workers in the state Department of Transportation who repaired our broken highway so quickly.
• The emergency ferries and the Ferry Division workers – even though the ride and the wait got a bit long at times.
• Our public utilities, especially to the crews from Cape Hatteras Electric Cooperative who restored our power.
• Our political leaders, who made tough decisions that were heavily criticized by some but who were there for us and got us going again.
• The Really, Really Free Market, a remarkable effort to help islanders replace what they lost – for free – and to all of the volunteers who made it possible.
• All of the groups and individual volunteers who provided meals in the storm’s aftermath.
• The devoted and loyal visitors to Hatteras who made donations of goods and money, and even showed up in person to volunteer in the aftermath.
• All of the island and off-island businesses that contributed to the recovery with donations and fundraisers.
• The visitors who have come back to the islands and made it a point to shop and eat out to help our businesses.
• All of those off and on the islands who are working hard to make it a better Christmas for families hard hit by the storm.
• For the beautiful islands on which we live – the most glorious place on earth, even with wind and tide and hurricanes and northeasters.

And we at The Island Free Press are grateful for our loyal readers and advertisers and all of you who completed our survey on Hurricane Irene response.

Finally, I, personally, will be grateful if the name “Irene” is retired by the powers-that-be who name storms!

The list of what we are grateful for this year doesn’t have to end here.

We welcome your comments on whom or what you are grateful for this Thanksgiving.

The island villages in which our visitors stay or identify with are:

• Rodanthe, Waves, and Salvo – 21 percent
• Avon – 28 percent
• Buxton – 15 percent
• Frisco – 12 percent
• Hatteras – 16 percent
• Ocracoke – 8 percent

Thirty-nine of the 623 visitors were on the island and had to evacuate.  One visitor said he or she was on the island and did not evacuate.

The answers to evacuation questions more or less mirror those of residents and non-resident property owners who responded to the survey.

They support staged re-entry, by a large margin of 93 percent.

Ten percent think that re-entry should occur immediately by any means, but more supported allowing folks to come back, depending on ferries, supplies, and electric power. Thirty-one percent said there should be no re-entry until food supplies, water, gas, and main line full power are restored.

Like resident and non-resident property owners, they stayed informed mostly on the Internet.

Their reasons for evacuation are overwhelmingly fear of injury or loss of life, closely followed by moving children out of harm’s way.

Seventy-two percent said that Hurricane Irene had not changed their attitude about evacuating, but 27 percent said it had.

Interestingly, 88 percent said they would leave in a future mandatory evacuation, but 12 percent said they would not.

Twenty-eight percent of the visitors who responded had to cancel vacation plans because of the storm, and 54 percent had a vacation planned this fall.  Our visitor respondents are obviously people with a stake in the re-entry process.
Fifty-eight percent said they had received enough information about whether or not they would be able to take their fall vacations, but 37 percent said that they did not.

Fifty-five percent of the visitors had rental insurance.

We have included their evaluations of the storm response by public agencies and utilities, and you can see those in the complete survey responses from visitors link at the end of the article.

However, so many visitors said they “don’t know” because they were not here that the percentages are much less informative than they are with residents and non-resident property owners.

Instead, focus on the comments that our visitors to Hatteras and Ocracoke made about the recovery and re-entry.

Their utter frustration and sense of helplessness is reflected in comment after comment about the uncertainty of the vacations for which most of them had already paid and, in some cases, would not be reimbursed for by trip insurers.

And these comments focus on one of the most contentious and controversial decisions that Dare County officials made after the hurricane.

After having said for more than a week that visitor re-entry would not happen before Sept. 17, the county’s emergency managers and officials announced suddenly on Monday, Sept. 12, that re-entry to the southern villages would begin on Thursday, Sept. 15 – by ferry from the mainland through Ocracoke.

These officials knew, we knew, and the visitors knew that there were not enough ferries to get all of the folks who had reservations in Avon, Buxton, Frisco, and Hatteras to the island.

That’s exactly what happened, except that many of these visitors could not collect on their trip insurance, even though they could not get ferry reservations to get to Hatteras for their vacations. Some lost upwards of $2,000 in the process.

Here are just a few of the comments from visitors:

“My reason for the poor performance (for the commissioners) is mainly because of the latest decision to change the re-entry date. I also know many residents were not happy they were not allowed to return even in their own boats, etc. As for the re-entry, I was told to book up north, and I did. Now that they changed the re-entry date my insurance will not cover my vacation. Had re-entry been the 18th or after it would have. I don't think anyone thought arriving via ferry would be viable, and it is not. Many will not be able to come or miss many days of their vacation. I am now without funds to spend while on vacation since I won't be getting my $2,400 in insurance money and have already paid for a place up north. I know this was a tough decision, and I want to support local businesses but they should not have changed the game plan after people used that date of "after" the 17th to make their plans.”

“The decisions made by Dare County have upset many visitors to Hatteras Island. Even though we purchased the insurance, we may still lose our money. I do not think that this is the time the residents should have to worry about vacationers. There are a lot of upset people, and they may choose not to visit again. The rental companies have been excellent about providing information to us, though.”

“As a visitor from Vermont with our annual vacation to Avon in jeopardy, I don't know much about the emergency management office. We are extremely frustrated not knowing whether we will have to cancel as we are supposed to start Sept. 24 for two weeks and aren't sure if we can get on or off Hatteras. Some of our party have ferry reservations, others don't. We are 800 miles away so can't drop by and see whether we get on or not. It does seem that (coming and going) we would have to try and get at least three more days off work and pay for additional hotels nearby to make the ferry in any case. The closest ferry reservations we could get coming down were the 23rd or the 26th. Either a day early or two days late. And not a clue when we could get off. It also looks like we can't cancel with any assurance that our trip insurance will refund the $2,000 we paid.

You will find many more of these stories in the visitors’ comments at the end of this article.

Many visitors seem to understand the difficult decisions that county officials had to make after the hurricane cut off access via highway to Hatteras.

Only time will tell if the precipitous decision to throw open the southern villages to visitors was the right one or if it will affect the island’s economy in the future.

This is the last of four articles about the general hurricane response survey results, but we will be mining information for more stories down the road from what you told us.

Each hurricane is different and each presents its unique re-entry problems.  

There isn’t a one-size-fits-all plan for re-entry and recovery, but we can all learn how to make the process go more smoothly for visitors, non-resident property owners, and residents.

Many folks have taken the time to make comments after their experiences.  A few are ranting, but most are thoughtful.

We hope the officials in charge of making decisions and managing the re-entry and recovery will take the time to read them.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Complete Hurricane Irene survey results from visitors
Visitors’ comment on Hurricane Irene aftermath