National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

Spring - Summer 2014

'UDIW2IIURDG9HKLFOH0DQDJHPHQW3ODQ

(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW6WDWHPHQW

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

DRAFT CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN / 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina 

Lead Agency: National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Department of the Interior 

This draft Cape Lookout National Seashore Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement (ORV

management plan/EIS) evaluates the impacts of a range of alternatives for regulations and procedures that would carefully 

manage off-road vehicle (ORV) use and access in Cape Lookout National Seashore (the Seashore) to protect and preserve natural 

and cultural resources and natural processes, to provide a variety of visitor use experiences while minimizing conflicts between

and among various users, and to promote the safety of all visitors. Executive Order 11644 of 1972, amended by Executive Order 

11989 of 1977, requires certain federal agencies permitting ORV use on agency lands to publish regulations designating specific

trails and areas for this use. Title 36, section 4.10 of the Code of Federal Regulations implements the executive orders by 

providing that routes and areas designated for ORV use shall be promulgated as special regulations. Upon conclusion of this plan

and decision-making process, the alternative selected for implementation will become the ORV management plan and will form 

the basis for a special regulation, guiding the management of ORV use at the Seashore for the next 15 to 20 years. 

This ORV management plan/EIS evaluates the impacts of the no-action alternative (alternative A) and four action alternatives 

(alternatives B, C, D, and E). Alternative A represents a continuation of existing conditions and management policies under the

Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan / Environmental Assessment, Biological Opinion 

and Amended Biological Opinion, and Finding of No Significant Impact. Under alternative B, existing opportunities for ORV 

experiences on the North and South Core Banks would continue; however, there would be a permit system, and there would be 

no limit on the number of ORV permits issued or a limit on ORV numbers, so ORV use and density could increase. Existing 

species management practices would continue, as well as new management measures, such as seasonal restrictions on night 

driving and the prohibition of all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke all-terrain vehicle (ATV) and utility-type 

vehicles (UTVs) (after a five-year grace period). Alternative C would create new seasonal pedestrian-only areas, expand an 

existing pedestrian-only area, and implement a permit system for ORVs with limits on the number of permits issued. The number 

of ORV permits would be limited to keep ORV density at historic levels. Alternative C would continue existing species 

management practices and implement seasonal restrictions on night driving, as well as a prohibition of all high-performance 

sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs (after a five-year grace period) and seasonal restrictions on all other ATVs and 

UTVs. Under alternative D, seasonal pedestrian areas would be created, year-round pedestrian-only areas would be increased, 

and ORV permits would be required. The number of permits would be limited to keep ORV density at historic levels. Existing 

species management practices at the Seashore would continue and additional species management practices, such as seasonal 

restrictions on UTV use and night driving, and the year-round prohibition of ATVs and high-performance sport-model and twostroke UTVs (after a five-year grace period), would be implemented. Alternative E would not provide or designate any ORV 

routes for recreational use, and therefore, would not allow public ORV use at the Seashore. Administrative use for law 

enforcement and species protection would continue. No special regulation would be promulgated. Alternative C is the NPS 

preferred alternative. The ORV management plan/EIS analyzes impacts of these alternatives in detail for federally listed 

endangered, threatened, or candidate species; state-listed and special-status species; other wildlife and wildlife habitat; 

soundscapes/acoustic environment; visitor use and experience; socioeconomic resources; and Seashore management and 

operations.

The review period for this document will end 60 days after publication of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Notice of 

Availability in the Federal Register. Comments will be accepted during the 60-day comment period electronically via the NPS 

Planning, Environment and Public Comment (PEPC) website, or hard copy delivery by a postal carrier, or hand delivery to the 

address below. Oral statements and written comments will be accepted during public meetings on the ORV management 

plan/EIS. Comments will not be accepted by fax, email, or in any other way than those specified above. Bulk comments in any 

format (hard copy or electronic) submitted on behalf of others will not be accepted. 

For further information, visit http://parkplanning.nps.gov/calo or contact: 

Patrick Kenney, Superintendent 

Cape Lookout National Seashore 

131 Charles Street 

Harkers Island, NC 28531 

252-728-2250 x 3014 

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Cape Lookout National Seashore 

North Carolina 

CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE 

DRAFT OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN / 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Spring/Summer 2014 

Draft Off-road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This draft Cape Lookout National Seashore Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement (ORV management plan/EIS) presents five alternatives for managing off-road vehicle (ORV) 

use: the no-action alternative, three action alternatives allowing ORV use, and one action alternative 

prohibiting ORV use. It assesses the impacts that could result from continuing current management (the 

no-action alternative) or implementation of any of the action alternatives at Cape Lookout National 

Seashore (the Seashore). 

At the conclusion of this plan and decision-making process, the alternative selected for implementation 

will become the ORV management plan, which will guide the management and control of ORVs at the 

Seashore for the next 15 to 20 years. It will form the basis for a special regulation to manage ORV use at 

the Seashore, if permitted. 

BACKGROUND 

In 1966, Congress authorized the establishment of Cape Lookout National Seashore as a unit of the 

National Park Service (NPS) “to preserve for public use and enjoyment an area in the State of North 

Carolina possessing outstanding natural and recreational values.” In 1976, the federal government gained 

ownership of the land and the Seashore was established. 

Located approximately 3 miles off the mainland coast in the central coastal area of North Carolina, the 

Seashore occupies more than 29,000 acres of land and water from Ocracoke Inlet to Beaufort Inlet. The 

56 miles of barrier islands consist mostly of wide, bare beaches with low dunes covered by scattered 

grasses, flat grasslands bordered by dense vegetation, maritime forest on Shackleford Banks, and large 

expanses of salt marsh alongside the sound. All of the islands of Cape Lookout National Seashore are 

subject to constant and dramatic change by the actions of wind and waves, and therefore the study area of 

this plan addresses the creation of new islands or the re-combination of existing islands. 

Sensitive habitat and species at the Seashore are managed within the context of a variety of visitor-use 

patterns, which include the use of ORVs. The number of recreational visitors to the Seashore fell from 

approximately 625,400 in 2001 to approximately 480,290 in 2012 with visitation fluctuating between this 

period. During this time, visitation was highest in 2007 with approximately 860,600 visitors. Visitors to 

the Seashore participate in a variety of recreational activities, including beach recreation (swimming, 

windsurfing, sunbathing, etc.), fishing (surf and boat), motorized boating, camping, shell collecting, 

historical tourism, nature/eco-studies (birding, horse watching), harvesting of shellfish, nonmotorized 

boating (sailing, kayaking, canoeing), hunting, hiking, and photography (NPS 2004a). For many visitors, 

ORV use and beach driving provide access to these activities. 

ORV use at Cape Lookout National Seashore predates authorization of the Seashore in 1966. ORV use is 

not addressed in the Seashore’s enabling legislation (16 USC 459 g-3). Beginning in the 1930s, vehicles 

were transported to the banks by shallow draft ferries and were used to provide access to productive 

commercial and recreation fishing spots, as well as for other recreational pursuits such as sightseeing and 

camping. Today, ORVs provide vehicular access to the Seashore beaches for recreational purposes, 

including activities such as surf-fishing, surfing, sunbathing, swimming, bird-watching, camping, visiting 

historic structures and site seeing, among other activities. 

ORV routes are designated and ORV use is currently managed through the Superintendent’s 

Compendium, which allows for ORV use from March 16 to December 31 (with a closure of the Seashore 

to ORVs from January 1 through March 15). The Cape Lookout National Seashore General Management 
ii Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Plan (NPS 1980) identified 47 of the 56 miles of the Seashore as appropriate for controlled ORV use; the 

remaining 9 miles on Shackleford Banks is a proposed wilderness area under the Wilderness Act (Public 

Law 88–577) and is managed as wilderness and closed to vehicle use. Currently, of the 47 miles 

identified as appropriate for ORV use, 2.2 miles are closed to ORV use year-round. Additional areas may 

be periodically closed to ORV use for resource protection during the nesting and fledgling season 

(summer and fall). Resource protection closures are temporary, lasting only during the nesting and 

fledgling or hatching (turtles) stages of the species. With the exception of turtle relocation areas, resource 

protection closure areas vary from year to year depending on the location of breeding activity. 

Use of ORVs to access the Seashore is one component of the experience of many Seashore visitors, and 

current visitation trends are an integral component for any ORV management planning. Currently, the 

NPS manages ORVs at the Seashore through the Interim Off-road Vehicle Management Report and 

Evaluation of Existing ORV Use at Cape Lookout National Seashore (NPS 2007a) which implements the 

Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan / Environmental 

Assessment (NPS 2006a) and the associated Biological Opinion (USFWS 2006a) and Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) (NPS 2007r) as well as the Superintendent’s Compendium (NPS 2013d). 

These documents guide ORV use at the Seashore until this long-term ORV management plan/EIS is 

implemented. 

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 

The purpose of this ORV management plan/EIS is to evaluate whether to allow ORV use at the Seashore. 

If ORV use is permitted, this ORV management plan/EIS will address how to manage that use in 

compliance with the Seashore’s enabling legislation, executive orders, NPS management policies, and 

other laws and regulations to ensure protection of the natural, cultural, and recreational values of the 

Seashore’s dynamic coastal barrier island environment for present and future generations. 

NEED FOR ACTION 

Cape Lookout National Seashore provides a variety of visitor experiences, including the use of ORVs. In 

addition to recreational opportunities, the Seashore is home to important habitats created by the 

Seashore’s dynamic environmental processes. This includes marshes, tidal flats, and riparian areas 

(ecosystems that occur along watercourses or water bodies), all of which support a variety of wildlife 

species (NPS 2004a). Several habitats support federally listed species, those protected under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and others listed as species of special concern by the state of North 

Carolina.

This long-term ORV management planning effort is based on recognition by the NPS that if allowed, 

ORVs must be regulated in a manner that is consistent with applicable law, and in a manner that 

appropriately addresses resource protection (including protected, threatened, and endangered species), 

potential conflicts among the various Seashore users, and visitor safety. 

Executive Order 11644, issued in 1972, and amended by Executive Order 11989 in 1977, states that 

federal agencies allowing ORV use must designate specific areas and trails on public lands where the use 

of ORVs may be permitted and those where it is not. Agency regulations that authorize ORV use provide 

that designation of such areas and trails will be based on the protection of the resources of public lands, 

promotion of the safety of all users of those lands, and minimization of conflicts among the various uses 

on those lands. 
Draft Off-road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS iii 

At this time, given current regulatory requirements and issues surrounding species protection as well as 

visitor use and safety, an ORV management plan for Cape Lookout National Seashore is needed to 

x Comply with Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 regarding ORV use, and with NPS laws and 

regulations (36 CFR 4.10) and policies to minimize impacts on Seashore resources and values; 

x Establish an approved plan incorporating public input that evaluates whether to allow ORV use, 

and reduces the potential for inconsistent management of ORV use, user conflicts, and safety 

concerns where ORVs may be allowed; 

x Provide for sustainable recreational use; 

x Protect natural and cultural resources from potential effects of ORV use; and 

x Provide for protected species management in relation to ORV and other uses and replace the 

Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan / Environmental 

Assessment (NPS 2006a) and associated Biological Opinion (USFWS 2006a) in compliance with 

all associated laws and regulations such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and MBTA. 

OBJECTIVES IN TAKING ACTION 

The following are objectives identified during public scoping and by Seashore staff for developing this 

ORV management plan/EIS. Some objectives are only applicable to those alternatives allowing ORV use. 

MANAGEMENT METHODOLOGY

x Establish ORV management practices and procedures that have the ability to adapt in response to 

changes in the Seashore’s dynamic physical and biological environment. 

x Continue an ongoing and meaningful dialogue with the multiple public groups interested in 

and/or affected by ORV management. 

x Establish procedures for prompt and efficient public notification of management actions (for 

example, beach access status) including any temporary ORV use restrictions for reasons such as 

resource and public safety closures or storm events. 

x Build stewardship through public awareness and understanding of NPS resource management and 

visitor use policies and responsibilities as they pertain to the Seashore and ORV management. 

NATURAL PHYSICAL RESOURCES

x Minimize impacts from ORV use to soils and topographic features; for example, dunes, ocean 

beach, wetlands, tidal flats, and other features. 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND OTHER PROTECTED SPECIES

x Provide protection for threatened, endangered, and other protected species (e.g., state-listed 

species) and their habitats, and minimize impacts related to ORV and other uses as required by 

laws and policies, such as the ESA, the MBTA, and NPS laws and management policies. 

VEGETATION

x Minimize impacts on native plant species related to ORV use. 
iv Cape Lookout National Seashore 

OTHER WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT

x Minimize impacts on other wildlife species and their habitats related to ORV use. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

x Protect cultural resources, such as shipwrecks, archeological sites, and cultural landscapes, from 

impacts related to ORV use. 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

x Manage ORV use to allow for a variety of appropriate visitor use experiences. 

x Minimize conflicts between ORV use and other users. Retain an experience where typically a 

family or individual traveling by ORV can experience the Seashore by finding a remote and 

otherwise unused stretch of beach. 

x Retain a non-ORV experience that allows access to a beach that is undisturbed by motorized uses. 

VISITOR SAFETY

x Ensure that ORV management promotes the safety of all visitors. 

SEASHORE OPERATIONS

x Ensure that core operational needs and associated costs required to fully implement an ORV 

management plan and to monitor species and ORV use are identified. 

PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL 

SEASHORE 

All units of the national park system were formed for a specific purpose (the reason they are significant) 

and to preserve significant resources or values for the enjoyment of future generations through their 

enabling legislation. The purpose and significance of the park provides the basis for identifying uses and 

values that individual NPS plans will support. The following provides background on the purpose and 

significance of the Seashore. 

As stated in the Seashore’s enabling legislation (16 USC 459g), Congress established the Seashore in 

1966 as a Seashore “to preserve for public use and enjoyment an area in the State of North Carolina 

possessing outstanding natural and recreational values.” The enabling legislation includes provisions for 

hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation and enjoyment opportunities. Subsequently, the purpose of Cape 

Lookout National Seashore is to preserve the outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational resources and 

values of a dynamic, intact, natural barrier island system, where ecological processes dominate (NPS 

2012s). 
Draft Off-road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS v

Park significance statements capture the essence of the park’s importance to the nation’s natural and 

cultural heritage. Understanding park significance helps managers make decisions that preserve the 

resources and values necessary to the park’s purpose. The following significance statements have been 

identified for Cape Lookout National Seashore as stated in the Seashore’s Foundation Document (NPS 

2012s) (please note that the statements are in no particular order). 

x Cape Lookout National Seashore, 56 miles of barrier islands off the North Carolina coast, is an 

outstanding example of a dynamic, intact, natural barrier island system, where ecological 

processes dominate. 

x Cape Lookout National Seashore is one of the few remaining locations on the Atlantic coast 

where visitors can experience and recreate in a primarily undeveloped, remote barrier island 

environment, which can be reached only by boat. 

x Cape Lookout National Seashore preserves a diversity of coastal habitats, which support aquatic 

and terrestrial plant and animal life, including several protected species, such as piping plovers, 

American oystercatchers, sea turtles, black skimmers, terns, and seabeach amaranth. 

x The free-roaming Shackleford Banks wild horse herd is legislatively protected within Cape 

Lookout National Seashore. 

x Cape Lookout National Seashore has a rich concentration of cultural resources that tell the history 

of people living at the edge of the sea, dating from approximately 3000 BC to the present. 

x The Cape Lookout Lighthouse protected the nation’s maritime commerce from one of the most 

significant hazards of the North Carolina coast—the Cape Lookout shoals. 

x Cape Lookout National Seashore preserves Portsmouth Village, a National Register Historic 

District and unique, intact coastal Carolina community that played a critical role in the conduct of 

maritime commerce in North Carolina from the colonial period until the outbreak of the 

American Civil War. 

x Cape Lookout National Seashore preserves the Cape Lookout Village, a National Register 

Historic District that was an important community for local families beginning with establishment 

of a life-saving station at the Cape in 1886. 

x Cape Lookout National Seashore provides an outstanding natural laboratory for studying 

ecological and geological processes, as well as the effects of climate change and sea level rise on 

the Atlantic coast. 

x Cape Lookout National Seashore provides a remote setting for visitors to experience unobstructed 

ocean views and one of the darkest publicly accessible areas along the East Coast for nighttime 

vantages.

ISSUES AND IMPACT TOPICS 

Issues associated with implementing an ORV management plan at Cape Lookout National Seashore were 

initially identified by Seashore staff during internal scoping and were further refined through the public 

scoping process. Table ES-1 details the issues that are discussed and analyzed in the ORV management 

plan/EIS. 
vi Cape Lookout National Seashore 

TABLE ES-1: ISSUES AND IMPACT TOPICS

Issue Reason for Analysis 

Federally Listed 

Endangered, 

Threatened, or 

Candidate Species 

Conflicts between ORVs, other recreational users, and listed species could create direct 

or indirect losses to the species. Both the northern and southern ends of the Seashore 

include habitat range for a variety of federally threatened and endangered species yearround, including piping plover, seabeach amaranth, red knot (candidate), and nesting sea 

turtles, which includes the loggerhead, green, and leatherback turtles, with Kemp’s ridley 

turtles being occasional visitors. Current and possible future management alternatives for 

ORV and other recreational uses would take into consideration the needs of federally 

listed threatened and endangered species in determining management measures. 

State-Listed and 

Special-status Species 

Habitat for locally sensitive species, such as the American oystercatcher, Wilson’s 

plover, and other colonial beach nesters, may be vulnerable to disturbances caused by 

recreational uses, including ORV use. These species require large undisturbed areas for 

successful breeding. Frequent human disturbance can cause the abandonment of nest 

sites as well as direct loss of eggs and chicks. 

Other Wildlife and 

Wildlife Habitat 

Natural processes including hurricanes and other storm events may alter, create, or 

remove areas of the Seashore used by both ORVs and sensitive species, requiring 

adaptive management of both recreational uses and natural resources to avoid conflicts. 

The significance of the Seashore as both a Globally Important Bird Area and coastal 

barrier ecosystem requires that management policies related to recreational use are 

considerate of and sensitive to changing landscape. During low tide, ORV use in the 

intertidal zone by users seeking firm sand may result in mortality of individual 

invertebrate species or loss of food and habitat resulting from compaction under vehicle 

tires.

Soundscapes/Acoustic 

Environment 

The use of ORVs at the Seashore could create noise emissions that could impact 

visitors, wildlife, and wildlife habitats by altering the natural quiet and soundscapes of the 

Seashore. Vehicular noise and recreational uses associated with vehicles are a 

component of the soundscape at the Seashore. These uses could impact Seashore 

soundscapes by introducing an element to the soundscape that is incompatible with 

other recreational uses, such as bird-watching or enjoying the solitude and natural 

soundscape of the Seashore. Engine and recreational noise may also disturb wildlife. 

Visitor Use and 

Experience 

ORV use at the Seashore is an integral component of the experience for some visitors 

and may be impacted by management activities focused on protecting species and visitor 

safety. However, some Seashore visitors do not use ORVs and may be impacted by the 

presence of ORVs. Currently, there is a mix of recreational uses at the Seashore that can 

be accessed by vehicle and passenger ferry, or personal boat. Although many visitors 

use an ORV to access specific areas of the Seashore, other visitors wish to engage in 

recreational activities on foot and away from the presence of motorized vehicles. If 

management requires restricting areas of the Seashore to ORVs, it could enhance the 

recreational experience for some and diminish the experience for others. Further, visitor 

experience could be impacted by conflicts between motorized and nonmotorized 

recreational users. Other issues related to visitor use and experience includes 

viewsheds, aesthetics, and night skies. 

Socioeconomic 

Resources 

Businesses within the vicinity of the Seashore, including the communities of Davis and 

Atlantic, receive some level of economic benefit from the purchasing of goods and 

services by ORV users. Potential restrictions on ORV use have the potential to reduce 

visitation to the Seashore and, subsequently result in a loss of spending in the local 

market by these visitors. 
Draft Off-road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS vii

Issue Reason for Analysis 

Seashore 

Management and 

Operations 

Accommodating recreational uses while protecting sensitive species requires sufficient 

park personnel and adequate funding. Seashore operations (staffing and funding) may 

both affect and be affected by ORV management strategies. Lack of funding may reduce 

management flexibility. Effective management of ORV use requires funding for activities 

such as resource monitoring, law enforcement, education and interpretation, and 

maintenance/administrative support. The current level of staffing to protect natural 

resources was funded, in part, by a temporary funding source that became unavailable 

after fiscal year 2010. Staffing levels would be evaluated under the alternatives evaluated 

in this ORV management plan/EIS. 

ALTERNATIVES 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires federal agencies to explore a range of 

reasonable alternatives that address the purpose of and need for the action. The alternatives under 

consideration must include the “no-action” alternative as prescribed by 40 CFR 1502.14. Action 

alternatives may originate from the proponent agency, local government officials, or members of the 

public at public meetings or during the early stages of project development. Alternatives may also be 

developed in response to comments from coordinating or cooperating agencies. 

The alternatives analyzed in this document, in accordance with NEPA, are the result of internal and public 

scoping. These alternatives meet the management objectives of the Seashore, while also meeting the 

overall purpose of and need for the proposed action. Alternative elements that were considered but were 

not technically or economically feasible, did not meet the purpose of and need for the project, created 

unnecessary or excessive adverse impacts on resources, and/or conflicted with the overall management of 

the Seashore or its resources were dismissed from further analysis. 

The NPS explored and objectively evaluated five alternatives in this ORV management plan/EIS. The 

elements of the five alternatives are detailed in chapter 2, table 3. How each of these alternatives meets 

the objectives of the ORV management plan/EIS is detailed in table ES-2. 

ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

The following describes elements of the alternatives common to all alternatives. Alternative E would not 

allow for ORV use at the Seashore, therefore, elements related to vehicle use would not be applicable to 

alternative E, as noted where appropriate. 

x Closures for Public Safety (not applicable under alternative E)—ORV safety closures would 

be implemented in the event of a threat of significant bodily injury or death, and/or damage to 

personal property, including vehicles and their contents. ORV safety closures would preclude 

ORV access; pedestrian access would be maintained through most safety closures where feasible. 

NPS staff would monitor ORV safety closures on a regular basis and a sufficient reduction or 

elimination of the conditions prompting the closure so there is no longer an imminent hazard 

would constitute the condition for reopening a closure. This plan does not limit or supersede 

existing authorities under NPS regulations contained at 36 CFR Part 1 et seq. 

x Vehicle and Pedestrian Safety (not applicable to alternative E)—Provisions related to vehicle 

and pedestrian safety currently exist under 36 CFR 4.20 (Right of way) and 36 CFR 4.22 (Unsafe 

operation). Provisions identified in the Superintendent’s Compendium (NPS 2013) for the 

Seashore apply to vehicle and pedestrian safety. This includes creating needless ruts, failing to fill 

to the original level any hole caused by excavating a vehicle from the sand, and reducing speeds 
viii Cape Lookout National Seashore 

when within 100 feet of any person, vehicle, campsite, other structure or while traveling in a 

towed conveyance. 

x Shade Shelters—Shade shelters provide emergency protection from sudden storms and are 

currently located at various locations including Shackleford Banks, Cape Lookout Light Station, 

Great Island Cabin Area, and Long Point Cabin Area. 

x Speed Limits—The 2013 Superintendent’s Compendium, which annually designates speed limits 

in accordance with 36 CFR 4.21, states that the maximum speed limit on the beach and other 

designated routes is 25 miles per hour or as otherwise posted. This decreases to 15 miles per hour 

when within 100 feet of any person, vehicle, campsite, other structure or while traveling in a 

towed conveyance. The maximum speed limit while carrying passengers in a trailer or other 

mode of conveyance towed behind the motor vehicle specifically designed for carrying 

passengers while being towed is 15 miles per hour. 

x Exemptions for Essential Vehicles—Essential vehicles are allowed in pedestrian-only areas and 

within resource closures as required for general park management, law enforcement, and safety. 

x Alternative Transportation—The NPS would consider authorization of commercial beach 

shuttle services departing from developed nodes (NPS 2007m). Currently, a beach shuttle service 

operates from the lighthouse area on South Core Banks. All-terrain vehicle (ATV) and utilitytype vehicle (UTV) tours operate on North Core Banks from mile marker 0.0. The Seashore’s 

Commercial Services Plan / Environmental Assessment / Assessment of Effect provides for 

additional commercial activities within the Seashore; the implementation of additional alternative 

transportation options would be evaluated as funding become available. 

x General Species Management—Species measures are generally consistent across the 

alternatives (see chapter 2, table 4). Additionally, species management measures under alternative 

E are generally the same as alternative A but without ORV specific closures. Although ORVs 

would not be permitted under alternative E, areas may still be closed to pedestrians for resource 

protection. For bird species, the alternatives and alternative elements were developed to reflect 

the biological needs and, subsequently, the management needs of each species change as a 

function of life stage (see chapter 2, table 4). The timing of each life stage varies according to the 

species in question; however, there is much overlap among species. Preferred habitat is also 

similar between and among similar species. Therefore, some closures would likely occur at the 

same time and in the same place for multiple species. 

x Closures for Species Management—ORV closures are created when they are necessary for 

species protection (see chapter 2, table 4 and table 5). Under all alternatives, pedestrians would be 

permitted in these ORV closures. Pets would be required to be leashed or otherwise physically 

confined at all times in all areas of the Seashore (36 CFR 2.15). All pedestrians and pets would be 

prohibited, even if on leash, from all full recreational closures. 

Closures for bird species would vary by alternative. For sea turtles, ORVs would be prohibited 

from entering sea turtle closures from 50 days after the nest is laid until after the nest has hatched. 

ORV access would be maintained through a variety of measures, including rerouting and ramps. 

Camping and beach fires would be prohibited in turtle nest closures and visitors staying in cabins 

would be encouraged to minimize use of outside lights to prevent disturbance of hatchlings from 

artificial light. 

x Species Surveying and Management—The Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected 

Species Management Plan / Environmental Assessment, Biological Opinion, Amended Biological 

Opinion, and FONSI are the most recent Seashore planning guidance documents for species 

management. During ESA Section 7 consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 
Draft Off-road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS ix

for that planning process, conservation and performance measures for protected species were 

identified. Consultation with the USFWS regarding ESA compliance measures would continue 

under all alternatives. Additional species surveying measures from the Cape Lookout National 

Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan / Environmental Assessment are presented 

in chapter 2, table 4, and additional elements that would be implemented under each alternative 

are included in chapter 2, table 5. 

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The no-action alternative is developed for two purposes: a no-action alternative may represent the 

agency’s past and current actions or inaction on an issue continued into the future and may also describe 

existing impacts continued into the future. The no-action alternative presented here meets both of these 

purposes and represents “no change” from the current level of management direction and level of 

management intensity. 

In compliance with the settlement agreement reached in Friends of the Earth v. Department of Interior

(478 F. Supp 2d 11, D.C. Dist. Ct. (2007)), the Seashore implemented interim ORV management 

planning pursuant to the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan / 

Environmental Assessment, Biological Opinion, Amended Biological Opinion, and FONSI, which serve 

in part as the no-action alternative for this ORV management plan/EIS and will be in effect until its 

completion. The no-action alternative reflects long-standing ORV use at the Seashore and is consistent 

with park planning documents over previous decades, including the Seashore’s general management plan 

(NPS 1982) and general management plan amendment (NPS 2001e), which permit ORV use. 

As stated in “Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action,” in order to allow ORV use, NPS must 

promulgate a special regulation authorizing use at the Seashore. Without a special regulation, continued 

off-road use would conflict with NPS regulations (36 CFR 4. 10). Therefore, in order to implement the 

no-action alternative, NPS would need to promulgate a special regulation. 

NPS believes that the best representation of the no-action alternative is the current condition, as described 

in previous planning documents, the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species 

Management Plan / Environmental Assessment, and on-the-ground current management. It demonstrates 

current actions as they may be carried into the future and serves to set a baseline of existing impacts 

continued into the future. The NPS does not believe that a “no off-road vehicle use” alternative would 

fully serve the function of a no-action alternative. Given the history of continuous ORV use since the 

1930s, almost a half-century before the Seashore was established, as well as its allowance in park 

planning documents and a settlement agreement, a complete off-road use prohibition cannot be 

considered as the “current management direction or level of management intensity” and would not serve 

as a proper environmental baseline of existing impacts continued into the future against which to compare 

the impacts of action alternatives. NPS notes that if a “no off-road vehicle use” alternative had been 

chosen as the no-action alternative, a regulation terminating ORV use, pursuant to 36 CFR 1.5(b), may 

have also been required in order to implement that alternative. Therefore, without action, ORV use would 

likely continue. 

For this ORV management plan/EIS, alternative A is a continuation of existing conditions and 

management policies under the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management 

Plan / Environmental Assessment, Biological Opinion, Amended Biological Opinion, and FONSI. 

Specifically under the no-action alternative, ORV use, including ATV and UTV use, would be allowed 

under the special regulation. Approximately 81 percent (45 of 56 miles) of the entire length of the 

Seashore would be designated as available for ORV use from March 16 through December 31 (as is 

currently identified in the 2013 Superintendent’s Compendium). Approximately 19 percent of the entire 
x Cape Lookout National Seashore 

length of the Seashore (11 of 56 miles) would be available to pedestrian-only use year-round; all 56 miles 

of shoreline would be available to pedestrian-only use from January 1 through March 15. The back route 

would be retained in its condition as of 2010, and would receive no regular maintenance. 

For ORV use, no vehicle permit or operator education certificate would be required nor would vehicle 

limits be established. Visitors would be allowed to deliver ATV or UTVs in their personal vessels to the 

Seashore for personal use at designated and marked soundside access points and long-term vehicle 

storage and parking would be available at four lots at the Seashore. A parking permit would be required 

for long-term vehicle storage. The fee for the parking permit would be established to ensure the recovery 

of the cost of managing the parking permit program and would be subject to change. A variety of methods 

would be used to communicate to visitors about species, resource information, and ORV program 

information; the appropriate mechanism to communicate with visitors would be determined on an 

individual basis. 

Species management measures would be the same as those outlined above under “Elements Common to 

All Alternatives.” In addition, for protected bird species, ORVs would be allowed in a corridor along the 

shoreline where 150-foot buffers can be maintained for colonial nesting species and 600-foot buffers can 

be maintained for foraging piping plover chicks. If a piping plover chick is found using the ocean beach, 

the 600-foot buffer would be put in place immediately and ORVs would be routed to the back route, if 

necessary. If no back route is available the beach would be closed to vehicles. If staff are available, a 

vehicle escort program could be used on a very limited case-by-case basis around bird closures to 

maintain access to Portsmouth Village, the interior of Cape Point, or areas with no back route access. 

Escorts would be led by trained resource management staff and would be limited to 25 vehicles or less. A 

minimum 300-foot buffer and full beach ramp to ramp ORV closure would be provided for mobile 

American oystercatcher chicks and would be adjusted to follow chick movement. Access would be 

allowed through American oystercatcher closures if no back route access is available. ORVs would be 

routed around colonial shorebird closures where a 150-foot buffer cannot be maintained. Management 

measures for all protected species are detailed in chapter 2, table 4 and table 5. 

ACTION ALTERNATIVES

The action alternatives (except alternative E) would establish designated ORV routes and areas, with 

some alternatives integrating additional designated areas that would provide visitors with a pedestrianonly visitor experience. Elements common to all action alternatives are discussed below, followed by a 

discussion of each alternative. 

ELEMENTS COMMON TO ACTION ALTERNATIVES B, C, AND D

The following describes elements of the alternatives common to all alternatives. Alternative E would not 

allow for ORV use at the Seashore, therefore, elements related to vehicle use would not be applicable to 

alternative E. This is noted where applicable. 

x Back Route—Pull-outs along the back route to allow vehicles to pass other oncoming vehicles 

would be established. The back route on South Core Banks from approximately mile marker 44 to 

approximately mile marker 45 would only be open when full beach closures at the Cape would 

otherwise prevent vehicles from driving past the Cape. The back route would be re-established 

when impacted by a storm event, for resource protection and safety. 

x Operator Education Certificates—A free operator education certificate would be required in 

order for a licensed driver to operate a vehicle at the Seashore. The purpose of the operator 

education certificate would be to educate licensed drivers on the rules and regulations at the 
Draft Off-road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS xi

Seashore, and the species protection measures. This should help ensure safe operation of ORVs, 

and help protect sensitive species at the Seashore. The education certificate, which would be free 

and valid for the calendar year, would be issued in a manner and at locations to be determined. 

Drivers would be required to carry this certificate with them at all times when operating a vehicle 

on the Seashore. 

x Vehicle Permits and Vehicle Permit Fees—A vehicle permit would be required, issued under 

Special Use Permit authority. This permit would be nontransferable, attached to an individual 

vehicle, and valid on a long-term (annual) or short-term (10-day) basis. The long- and short-term 

vehicle fee would be established and would be based on guidance in NPS Director’s Order and 

Reference Manual # 53, which focuses on cost recovery (including route maintenance, law 

enforcement, species protection, permit issuance, and other associated program costs). It is the 

Seashore’s goal to make the vehicle permit convenient to obtain. However, the NPS reserves the 

right to change the permit system over time, such as to implement a lottery or partial lottery 

system. The goal is to ensure the permit system is simple, straightforward, fair, accessible, and 

cost efficient to manage. 

x Miscellaneous Vehicle and Operator Requirements—The following vehicles would be 

prohibited anywhere within the Seashore: high performance, sport model, and two-stroke ATVs 

and UTVs (after a five-year grace period); vehicles with three wheels or less; tracked or farm 

vehicles; vehicles with two-stroke engines; and combination vehicles (i.e., amphibious ATVs, 

amphibious aircraft, aircraft).

x Shade Shelters—NPS would construct up to six additional shelters located along the islands, 

generally near the back route (two new shelters would be constructed on North Core Banks, and 

four new shelters would be constructed on South Core Banks). Shade shelters are intended to 

provide visitors and staff emergency shelter for sudden storms. 

x Adaptive Management Strategy—An adaptive management strategy would be implemented 

that evaluates species disturbance. Disturbance to the American oystercatcher (an indicator 

species) would be monitored, primarily related to impacts from ORVs. American oystercatchers 

are used as an indicator species because they are solitary nesters and are among the most sensitive 

of the bird species at the Seashore to disturbance. If species indicators are triggered (described 

below), the following actions would take place: 

Step 1: Where two of the four species indicators have reached moderate impacts, more intensive 

management actions could be implemented. The following are management actions the Seashore 

may conduct at any time; however, under the adaptive management strategy additional resources 

would be focused on these actions: 

௅ Additional, focused trash management and fish scrap disposal 

௅ Additional predator control 

௅ Additional education with testing 

௅ Additional, focused enforcement 

௅ ORV route restrictions 

௅ Increased species buffers 

௅ Reduction in the number of long-term (annual) and/or short-term (10-day) vehicle 

permits issued, and manage the size of parking (vehicle storage lots). 

Step 2: If species indicators are triggered for two consecutive years after implementing Step 1, 

then the following management actions shall be taken. These management actions would not 
xii Cape Lookout National Seashore 

occur where the Seashore is able to show that species indicators were triggered due to hurricanes 

or other strong storms, predators, or other natural conditions not tied to impacts from visitor use. 

௅ Reduction in the number of long-term (annual) and/or short-term (10-day) vehicle 

permits issued 

௅ Increased species protection buffers. 

Species indicators will be reevaluated after a five-year grace period, and possibly changed, based 

on new information. The following indicators are as follows: 

௅ Breeding population size. Target 60 breeding pairs. Minor impact: <55 breeding pairs. 

Moderate impact: <50 breeding pairs. 

௅ Nest survival. Target >30% of nests initiated hatch one or more chicks. Minor impact: 

25%–30%. Moderate impact: <25%. 

௅ Chicks fledged per breeding pair per year. Target > 0.40. Minor impact: 0.40–0.30. 

Moderate impact: < 0.30. 

௅ Mammal predation. Target <20% of nests lost to mammals per year. Minor impact: 

20%–25%. Moderate impact: >25%. 

x Education and Outreach—A variety of methods would be used to communicate to visitors 

about species, resource information, wise use, and ORV program information. In addition, 

educational materials would be actively provided to Seashore users through the educational 

certificate requirement. This information would be updated annually based on issues identified in 

the previous season, and other adaptive management needs. 

ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

ALTERNATIVE B

Alternative B would maintain existing opportunities for ORV experiences on Core Banks; vehicle permits 

would be required to operate a vehicle at the Seashore, but there would be no limit on the number of 

permits the Seashore would release; ORV use and density could increase; existing management practices 

at the Seashore would continue; an annual operator education certificate would be required, plus 

additional education and outreach and species management measures would be implemented. In addition, 

there would be a phase-out of high-performance sport model and two-stroke ATV and UTVs after a fiveyear grace period. 

Species management measures would be the same as those outlined above under “Elements Common to 

All Alternatives” and the no-action alternative. Additional measures would include seasonal night driving 

restrictions from May 1 through August 31 to reduce potential impacts to turtles and bird chicks and the 

limited removal of mammalian predators, when predation is observed that impacts federally listed species 

or species of special concern. Additional management measures for all protected species are identified in 

chapter 2, table 4 and table 5. 

ALTERNATIVE C

Alternative C would create three new seasonal pedestrian-only areas and expand one existing pedestrianonly area; ORV permits would be required that would keep use at historic levels, but could allow an 

increase in ORV density (the use levels would be monitored and management actions could be triggered 

if density increases); existing management practices at the Seashore would continue; an annual operator 
Draft Off-road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS xiii 

education certificate would be required, plus additional education and outreach and species management 

measures, such as seasonal restrictions on night driving, would be implemented. Alternative C would 

implement a seasonal prohibition of ATVs and UTVs; would prohibit high-performance sport-model and 

two-stroke ATVs and UTVs (after a five-year grace period), and would implement restrictions on trailers 

(after a five-year grace period). 

Species management measures would be the same as those under alternative B except night driving 

restrictions would be in place from May 1 through September 14 to reduce potential impacts to turtles and 

bird chicks, and the winter Seashore closure would be extended to a total of 90 days from December 16 

through March 15. Additional management measures for all protected species are identified in tables 

chapter 2, table 4 and table 5. 

ALTERNATIVE D

Alternative D would provide increased opportunities for year-round pedestrian experiences; ORV permits 

would be required and would be limited to keep the number of permits issued at 8 percent below current 

ORV use levels; existing management practices at the Seashore would continue, plus a requirement for an 

annual operator education certificate, increased education and outreach and additional species 

management measures, such as night driving, and a year-round prohibition of ATVs, high-performance 

sport-model and two-stroke UTVs and of trailers, would be implemented after a five-year grace period 

(with non-sport UTVs allowed only seasonally). 

Species management measures would be the same as those under alternative B except additional measures 

would be implemented for bird species including increasing buffers to ensure species protection, 

monitoring unfledged piping plovers, and establishing pedestrian-only areas in the vicinity of unfledged 

broods based on the mobility of observed broods, among others. In order to reduce potential impacts to 

turtles and bird chicks, night driving restrictions would be in place from May 1 through September 14. 

The winter Seashore closure would last from December 16 through March 15. Additional management 

measures for all protected species are identified in chapter 2, table 4 and table 5. 

ALTERNATIVE E

Under alternative E, the entire area of Core Banks would be closed to public ORV use and no back route 

access would be provided. Entry by public vehicles into these areas would be prohibited, and only use by 

NPS essential vehicles, and other vehicle use authorized by the NPS, would be allowed (concession 

vehicles included). Year-round pedestrian-only areas would extend to the entire area of Core Banks and 

Shackleford Banks. Species management measures under alternative E would be the same as alternative 

A except there would be no ORV specific closures. Management measures for all protected species are 

fully detailed in chapter 2, tables 3, 4, and 5. All education efforts would be directed toward pedestrian 

use as ORVs would not be permitted at the Seashore.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Impacts of the alternatives were assessed in accordance with Director’s Order 12 and Handbook: 

Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis and Decision-Making. This handbook requires 

that impacts on park resources be analyzed in terms of their context, duration, and intensity. The analysis 

provides the public and decision-makers with an understanding of the implications of ORV management 

actions in the short and long term, cumulatively, and within context, based on an understanding and 

interpretation by resource professionals and specialists. 
xiv Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Each management alternative was evaluated for overall impacts and compared to the baseline to 

determine the context, duration, and intensity of resource impacts. The baseline is the condition that has 

resulted from management of ORVs under the management frameworks in place during the planning 

process for this ORV management plan/EIS. 

TABLE ES-2: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY

Impact Topic Summary 

Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species

Piping Plover Under alternative B, impacts on piping plovers from resource management activities would be 

slightly less than impacts under alternatives A (the no-action alternative) and E (the no-ORV 

alternative). This is because there would be more consistent training and supervision of 

resource staff conducting the surveys, the limited predator removal under alternative B, 

establishing pre-nesting closures by March 16 (15 days earlier than under alternative A, not 

applicable to alternative E), and the increased education and research programs. Impacts on 

piping plovers from ORV use and other recreational uses under alternative B would be less 

than the impacts incurred under alternative A. This is due to the closing of ORV routes where 

no ferry access is available, the prohibition on all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke 

ATVs and UTVs at the Seashore, the night driving restriction from May 1 through August 31, 

the likely increased compliance with resource closures due to increased law enforcement and 

interpretative staffing positions, the ORV permitting system, and the more intensive 

management actions that could be implemented under the adaptive management strategy. 

However, the impacts on piping plovers from recreational uses under alternative B would be 

greater than those incurred under alternative E because no public ORV access at the Seashore 

is allowed under alternative E. 

Impacts on piping plovers from resource management activities under alternative C would be 

slightly less than from alternatives A (the no action alternative) and E (the no ORV alternative). 

This is due to more consistent training and supervision of resource staff conducting the 

surveys, the limited predator removal under alternative C, increased educational and research 

efforts, and the winter vehicle closure from December 16 through March 15 (not applicable to 

alternative E). Impacts of ORV use and other recreational uses under alternative C would be 

less than those incurred under alternative A. This is due to a seasonal restriction on night 

driving from May 1 through September 14, the increase in the amount of pedestrian-only use 

areas by 4 miles, the closing of ORV routes where no ferry access is available, the prohibition 

on all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs at the Seashore, 

shortening the timeframe that utility-model ATVs and UTVs would be permitted within the 

Seashore each year (reducing the March 16 through December 31 time under alternative A to 

September 15 through December 15), the reduction in the amount of Seashore open for ORV 

use, the fee-based ORV permitting system that would also limit the number of vehicles on the 

Seashore, the likely increased compliance with resource closures due to increased law 

enforcement and interpretative staffing positions, and the more intensive management actions 

that could be implemented under the adaptive management strategy. Compared to alternative 

E, the amount of impacts on piping plovers under alternative C would be greater due to public 

ORV use being allowed under alternative C whereas it would be prohibited under alternative E. 

Under alternative D, impacts on piping plovers from resource management activities would be 

less than those under alternatives A (the no-action alternative) and E (the no ORV alternative). 

This is due to more consistent training and supervision of resource staff conducting the 

surveys, the limited predator removal, slightly expanded buffers around chicks on the beach 

(650 feet under alternative D compared to 600 feet under alternatives A and E), the expansion 

of brood buffers based on the mobility of the brood, and the increased education and 

monitoring efforts. Impacts from ORV use and other recreational uses would be reduced when 

compared to alternative A. This is due to the expansion of pedestrian-use only areas by 10 

miles, night time driving restrictions from May 1 through September 14, the closing of ORV 

routes where no ferry access is available, the prohibition on all ATVs as well as all highperformance sport-model and two-stroke UTVs at the Seashore, shortening the timeframe that 

utility-model UTVs would be permitted within the Seashore each year (reducing the March 16 

through December 31 time under alternative A to September 15 through December 15), the 

reduction in the amount of Seashore open for ORV use, the fee-based ORV permitting system 

with a limit on the number of vehicles allowed (which would be 8 percent less than current use), 
Draft Off-road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS xv

Impact Topic Summary 

the likely increased compliance with resource closures due to increased law enforcement and 

interpretative staffing positions, and the more intensive management actions that could be 

implemented under the adaptive management strategy. Compared to alternative E, the amount 

of impacts on piping plovers under alternative D would be greater due to public ORV use being 

allowed under alternative C whereas it would be prohibited under alternative E. 

The resource management activities proposed for alternative E (the no ORV alternative) are 

essentially the same activities proposed for alternative A (the no action alternative) except that 

with no public ORV use allowed on the Seashore under alternative E, there would be no 

recreational ORV-specific closures established and surveying and monitoring protocols would 

be reviewed and may change due to the elimination of impacts from recreational ORV use and 

a reduction in the amount of impacts from pedestrians. Under alternative A, the North and 

South Core Banks of the Seashore would remain open to ORV use in designated routes and 

areas (as documented in the Superintendent’s Compendium), except where resource or safety 

closures are present. There would be no night driving restrictions under alternative A and no 

restrictions on the number of vehicles allowed on the Seashore either. Therefore, when 

compared to alternative A, alternative E would provide more protection to piping plovers 

because there would be no impacts related to public ORV use, and impacts related to other 

recreational uses would be reduced due to limited access to the ocean front beaches due to no 

public ORV use. 

Red Knot Impacts of ORV and other recreational use would result in long-term adverse impacts on red 

knots under alternative B. Allowing continued ORV access along 81 percent (45 miles)of the 

Seashore would contribute to these long-term impacts, including noise disturbance, temporary 

displacement, and possibly injury/mortality of individuals. However, impacts would be reduced 

when compared to alternative A (the no-action alternative) due to increased education and 

outreach; the use of additional species management measures, such as focused predator 

management, and the prohibition of all high-performance sport-model and two stroke ATVs and 

UTVs, and the more intensive management actions that could be implemented under the 

adaptive management strategy. Red knots are active at night, so additional benefits would also 

result from a seasonal restriction on night driving from May 1 through August 3; however, 

benefits from this restriction would be limited since it does not cover the red knot’s spring 

migration period when it is most numerous at the Seashore. Compared to alternative E, 

impacts on red knots would be greater under alternative B would provide less protection for red 

knots, because while alternative B allows public ORV use which can adversely impact red 

knots, under alternative E public ORV use on the Seashore would be prohibited, eliminating 

this source of adverse impact and reducing the impact from pedestrians, who without 

transportation opportunities to more remote areas of the Seashore would likely be limited to 

areas in general proximity to the ferry landing areas. 

Under alternative C, the impacts of ORV and other recreational use would result in long-term 

adverse impacts on red knots from noise disturbance, temporary displacement, and possibly 

injury/mortality of individuals. However, impacts would be reduced when compared to 

alternative A (the no-action alternative), due to increased education and outreach; the use of 

additional species management measures, such as expanded species closures (for other 

protected birds); the increase in the amount of pedestrian-only use areas by 4 miles; the 

expansion of the winter vehicle closure timeframe (changing it to December 16 through March 

15 compared to January 1 through March 15 under alternative A); the closing of ORV routes 

where no ferry access is available; the prohibition on all high-performance sport-model and 

two-stroke ATVs and UTVs at the Seashore; shortening the timeframe that non-sport ATVs and 

UTVs would be permitted within the Seashore each year (reducing the March 16 through 

December time under alternative A to September 15 through December 15); the reduction in 

the amount of Seashore open to public ORV use; and the fee-based ORV permitting system 

that would also limit the number of vehicles on the Seashore, and the more intensive 

management actions that could be implemented under the adaptive management strategy. Red 

knots are active at night, so additional benefits would also result from a seasonal restriction on 

night driving from May 1 through September 14; however, benefits from this restriction would 

be limited since it does not cover the red knot’s spring migration period when it is most 

numerous at the Seashore, and most birds have already left the Seashore prior to the latter 

portion of the period. Compared to alternative E, the amount of impacts on red knots under 

alternative C would be greater due to public ORV use being allowed under alternative C, 

whereas it would be prohibited under alternative E. The prohibition of public ORV use under 
xvi Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Impact Topic Summary 

alternative E would also reduce the amount of impacts from pedestrians, because without 

ORVs to access the more remote areas of the Seashore pedestrians would likely be limited to 

areas in general proximity to the ferry landing areas. 

Alternative D would also result in long-term adverse impacts on red knots from disturbance, 

temporary displacement, and possibly injury/mortality of individuals. However, impacts would 

be reduced when compared to alternative A (the no-action alternative), due to increased 

education and outreach; the use of additional species management measures, such as 

expanded buffers/closures (for other protected birds); the closing of ORV routes where no ferry 

access is available; the reduction in the amount of Seashore open to public ORV use; the 

implementation of a vehicle permit program and the reduction in the number of public ORVs 

allowed on the Seashore by 8 percent; the prohibition of all ATVs, as well as all highperformance sport-model and two-stroke UTVs at the Seashore; and the shortening of the 

timeframe that non-sport UTVs would be permitted within the Seashore each year (reducing the 

March 16 through December 31 timeframe under alternative A to September 15 through 

December 15), and the more intensive management actions that could be implemented under 

the adaptive management strategy. Red knots are active at night, so additional benefits would 

also result from a seasonal restriction on night driving from May 1 through September 14; 

however, benefits from this restriction would be limited since it does not cover the red knot’s 

spring migration period when it is most numerous at the Seashore, and most birds have already 

left the Seashore prior to the latter portion of the period. Compared to alternative E (the no 

ORV alternative), impacts on red knots under alternative D would be greater due to public ORV 

use being allowed under alternative D, whereas it would be prohibited under alternative, 

eliminating because ORV access would continue to be permitted under alternative D. The 

prohibition of public ORV use under alternative E would also reduce the amount of impacts 

from pedestrians, because without ORVs to access the more remote areas of the Seashore 

pedestrians would likely be limited to areas in general proximity to the ferry landing areas. 

Under alternative E, prohibiting public ORV use at the Seashore would provide long-term 

beneficial impacts compared to alternative A where public ORV use would be allowed along 81 

percent of the Seashore. While continued pedestrian access under alternative E would result in 

some short- and long-term disturbance (e.g., noise, temporary displacement, etc.) of red knots, 

these impacts would be reduced compared to alternative A because without the use of ORVs to 

access more remote areas of the Seashore, pedestrian use under alternative E would likely be 

limited to areas in the general proximity to the ferry landing areas. As a result, overall, 

alternative E would provide more protection and result in fewer adverse impacts to red knots 

compared to alternative A. 

Sea Turtles Resource management activities proposed under alternative B would provide slightly more 

beneficial impacts to sea turtles than those proposed under alternative A (the no-action 

alternative) because there would be more consistent training and supervision of resource staff 

conducting the surveys, the limited removal of native and nonnative mammalian predators, and 

the increased education and public outreach measures that would be implemented under 

alternative B. In comparison to alternative E (the no ORV alternative), the limited removal of 

native and nonnative mammalian predators under alternative B would provide slightly more 

beneficial impacts to sea turtles than alternative E. Adverse impacts from ORV use and other 

recreational uses under alternative B would be less than those incurred under alternative A. 

This is due to the night driving restrictions that would be put into place under alternative B from 

9 p.m. to 6 a.m. from May 1 through August 31, the additional management measures that 

could be implemented under the adaptive management strategy if species indicators are 

triggered, the vehicle permit system, the ORV operator education certificate requirement, and 

the likely increased compliance with resource closures due to increased law enforcement and 

interpretative staffing positions. However, adverse impacts from ORV use and other 

recreational uses under alternative B would be greater than those under alternative E. This is 

because no ORV use would be allowed on the Seashore under alternative E, eliminating all 

impacts on sea turtles from ORV use and reducing impacts from other recreational uses due to 

the reduced access to the beaches without ORVs. 

Resource management activities under alternative C would provide slightly more beneficial 

impacts on sea turtles than they would under alternative A (the no-action alternative). This is 

because there would be more consistent training and supervision of resource staff conducting 

the surveys, the limited removal of native and nonnative mammalian predators, and the 

increased education and public outreach measures that would be implemented under 
Draft Off-road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS xvii

Impact Topic Summary 

alternative C. In comparison to alternative E (the no ORV alternative), the limited removal of 

native and nonnative mammalian predators under alternative C would provide slightly more 

beneficial impacts to sea turtles than alternative E. Adverse impacts from ORV use and other 

recreational uses under alternative C would be less than those incurred under alternative A. 

This is due to the expansion of pedestrian-only use areas by 4 miles, night time driving 

restrictions from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. from May 1 through September 14, the additional 

management measures that could be implemented under the adaptive management strategy if 

species indicators are triggered, the likely increased compliance with resource closures due to 

increased law enforcement and interpretative staffing positions, the vehicle permit system, the 

ORV operator education certificate requirement, and the limit on the number of vehicle permits 

that would be issued. However, adverse impacts from ORV use and other recreational uses 

under alternative C would be greater than those under alternative E. This is because no ORV 

use would be allowed on the Seashore under alternative E eliminating all impacts on sea turtles 

from ORV use and reducing impacts from other recreational uses due to the reduced access to 

the beaches without ORVs. 

Resource management activities under alternative D would provide slightly more beneficial 

impacts on sea turtles than they would under alternative A (the no-action alternative). This is 

because there would be more consistent training and supervision of resource staff conducting 

the surveys, the limited removal of native and nonnative mammalian predators, and the 

increased education and public outreach measures that would be implemented under 

alternative D. In comparison to alternative E (the no ORV alternative), the limited removal of 

native and nonnative mammalian predators under alternative C would provide slightly more 

beneficial impacts to sea turtles than alternative E. Adverse impacts from ORV use and other 

recreational uses under alternative D would be less than those incurred under alternative A. 

This is due to the expansion of pedestrian-only use areas by 10 miles, night time driving 

restrictions from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. from May 1 through September 14, the additional 

management measures that could be implemented under the adaptive management strategy if 

species indicators are triggered, the likely increased compliance with resource closures due to 

increased law enforcement and interpretative staffing positions, the vehicle permit system, the 

ORV operator education certificate requirement, and the limit on the number of vehicle permits 

that would be issued. Compared to alternative E, adverse impacts from ORV use and other 

recreational uses under alternative D would be greater. This is because no ORV use would be 

allowed on the Seashore under alternative E eliminating all impacts on sea turtles from ORV 

use and reducing impacts from other recreational uses due to the reduced access to the 

beaches without ORVs. 

The resource management activities proposed for alternative E (the no ORV alternative) are 

the same activities proposed for alternative A (the no-action alternative) and their impacts 

would be the same. However, unlike alternative A, under alternative E there would be no public 

ORV use on the Seashore and surveying and monitoring protocols would be reviewed and may 

change due to the elimination of impacts from recreational ORV use and a reduction in the 

amount of impacts from pedestrians. Under alternative A, the North and South Core Banks of 

the Seashore would remain open to ORV use in designated routes and areas (as documented 

in the Superintendent’s Compendium), except where resource or safety closures are present. 

There would be no night driving restrictions under alternative A and no permitting system for 

ORV use at the Seashore. Therefore, when compared to alternative A, alternative E would 

provide more protection to sea turtles because there would be no impacts related to ORV use 

and impacts related to other recreational uses would be reduced due to limited access to the 

ocean front beaches with no ORV use. 

Seabeach 

Amaranth 

Resource management activities proposed under alternative B would provide slightly more 

beneficial impacts to seabeach amaranth than those proposed under alternative A (the noaction alternative) and alternative E (the no ORV alternative) because there would be more 

consistent training and supervision of resource staff conducting the surveys, closures for 

historical bird nesting areas would be erected by March 16 (rather than April 1), providing 

earlier protection of potential seabeach amaranth habitat and possibly seeds that could 

germinate if the habitat overlaps that of seabeach amaranth. Additional benefits would also 

result from increased education and public outreach measures that would be implemented 

under alternative B. Adverse impacts from ORV use and other recreational uses under 

alternative B would be less than those incurred under alternative A. This is due to regular 

maintenance of the back route which would encourage its use rather than the ocean beach, the 
xviii Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Impact Topic Summary 

additional management measures that could be implemented under the adaptive management 

strategy if species indicators are triggered, the vehicle permit system, the ORV operator 

education certificate requirement, and the likely increased compliance with resource closures 

due to increased law enforcement and interpretative staffing positions. Some adverse impacts 

that would occur under alternative B that would not occur under alternative A would result from 

the loss of habitat if construction of new ramps or the re-establishment of existing ramps after 

storms occur in areas of suitable habitat for the plant. Adverse impacts from ORV use and 

other recreational uses under alternative B would be greater than those under alternative E 

because no public ORV use would be allowed on the Seashore under alternative E, eliminating 

all impacts on seabeach amaranth from public ORV use and reducing impacts from other 

recreational uses, especially camping near the toe of the primary dunes, due to the reduced 

access to the beaches without ORVs. 

Resource management activities proposed under alternative C would provide slightly more 

beneficial impacts to seabeach amaranth than those proposed under alternative A (the noaction alternative) and alternative E (the no ORV alternative) because there would be more 

consistent training and supervision of resource staff conducting the surveys, closures for 

historical bird nesting areas would be erected by March 16 (rather than April 1), providing 

earlier protection of potential seabeach amaranth habitat and possibly seeds that could 

germinate if the habitat overlaps that of seabeach amaranth. Additional benefits would also 

result from increased education and public outreach measures that would be implemented 

under alternative C. Adverse impacts from ORV use and other recreational uses under 

alternative C would be less than those incurred under alternative A. This is due to the 

expansion of pedestrian-only use areas by 4 miles, the additional management measures that 

could be implemented under the adaptive management strategy if species indicators are 

triggered, the vehicle permit system, the ORV operator education certificate requirement, the 

limit on the number of vehicle permits that would be issued, and the likely increased 

compliance with resource closures due to increased law enforcement and interpretative staffing 

positions. Some adverse impacts that would occur under alternative C that would not occur 

under alternative A would result from the loss of habitat if construction of new ramps or the reestablishment of existing ramps after storms occurs in areas of suitable habitat for the plant. 

Compared to alternative E, alternative C would provide less protection for seabeach amaranth 

because ORV access would be permitted under alternative C whereas no impacts from 

recreational ORVs would occur under alternative E and potential impacts from other 

recreational uses, especially camping near the toe of the primary dunes, would be lessened 

due to reduced access to the beaches without ORVs. 

Resource management activities proposed under alternative D would provide slightly more 

beneficial impacts to seabeach amaranth than those proposed under alternative A (the noaction alternative) and alternative E (the no ORV alternative) because there would be more 

consistent training and supervision of resource staff conducting the surveys, closures for 

historical bird nesting areas would be erected by March 16 (rather than April 1), providing 

earlier protection of potential seabeach amaranth habitat and possibly seeds that could 

germinate if the habitat overlaps that of seabeach amaranth. Additional benefits would also 

result from increased education and public outreach measures that would be implemented 

under alternative D. Impacts from ORV use and other recreational uses under alternative D 

would be reduced when compared to alternative A. This is due to the expansion of pedestrianuse only areas by 10 miles. Additional benefits would occur from additional management 

measures that could be implemented under the adaptive management strategy if species 

indicators are triggered, the vehicle permit system, the ORV operator education certificate 

requirement, the limit on the number of vehicle permits that would be issued, and the likely 

increased compliance with resource closures due to increased law enforcement and 

interpretative staffing positions. Some adverse impacts that would occur under alternative D 

that would not occur under alternative A would result from the loss of habitat if the reestablishment of existing ramps after storms occurs in areas of suitable habitat for the plant. 

Compared to alternative E, alternative D would provide less protection for seabeach amaranth 

because ORV access would be permitted under alternative D whereas no impacts from ORVs 

would occur under alternative E and potential impacts from other recreational uses, especially 

camping near the toe of the primary dunes, would be lessened due to reduced access to the 

beaches without ORVs. 

The resource management activities proposed for alternative E (the no ORV alternative) are 

the same activities proposed for alternative A (the no-action alternative) and their impacts 
Draft Off-road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS xix

Impact Topic Summary 

would be the same. However, under alternative E there would be no public use of ORVs on the 

Seashore and surveying and monitoring protocols would be reviewed and may change due to 

the elimination of impacts from recreational ORV use and a reduction in the amount of impacts 

from pedestrians. Under alternative A, the North and South Core Banks of the Seashore would 

remain open to ORV use in designated routes and areas (as documented in the 

Superintendent’s Compendium), except where resource or safety closures are present. When 

compared to alternative A, alternative E would provide more protection to seabeach amaranth 

because there would be no impacts related to ORV use and impacts related to other 

recreational uses would be reduced due to limited access to the ocean front beaches with no 

ORV use. 

State-listed and 

Special-status

Species 

Under alternative B, impacts on state-listed and special-status bird species from resource 

management activities would be slightly less than impacts under alternatives A (the no-action 

alternative) and E (the no-ORV alternative) because there would be more consistent training 

and supervision of resource staff conducting the surveys, the limited predator removal in 

alternative B, establishing pre-nesting closures by March 16 (15 days earlier than under 

alternative A, not applicable to alternative E), and the increased education and research 

programs. ORV and other recreational use would result in long-term adverse impacts on statelisted and special-status bird species under alternative B. Allowing continued ORV access on 

approximately 81 percent (45 miles) of the Seashore would contribute to these long-term 

impacts, including noise disturbance, temporary displacement, and possibly injury/mortality of 

individuals. However, impacts under alternative B would be less than impacts incurred under 

alternative A (the no-action alternative) due to increased education and outreach, the closing of 

ORV routes where no ferry access is available, the prohibition on all high-performance sportmodel and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs at the Seashore, prohibiting night driving from May 1 

through August 31, the ORV permitting system, the likely increased compliance with resource 

closures due to increased law enforcement and interpretative staffing positions, and the more 

intensive management actions that could be implemented under the adaptive management 

strategy. However, the impacts on state-listed and special-status bird species from ORV and 

other recreational uses under alternative B would be greater than those incurred under 

alternative E because no public ORV access would be allowed at the Seashore under 

alternative E. 

Impacts on state-listed and special-status bird species from resource management activities 

under alternative C would be slightly less than for alternatives A (the no action alternative) and 

E (the no ORV alternative). This is due to more consistent training and supervision of resource 

staff conducting the surveys, the limited predator removal under alternative C, increased 

educational and research efforts, and the winter vehicle closure from December 16 through 

March 15 (not applicable to alternative E). Under alternative C, ORV and other recreational use 

would result in long-term adverse impacts on state-listed birds from noise disturbance, 

temporary displacement, and possibly injury/mortality of individuals. However, these impacts 

would be less than those incurred under alternative A, due to a seasonal prohibition on night 

driving from May 1 through September 14, the increase in the amount of pedestrian-only use 

areas by 4 miles, the closing of ORV routes where no ferry access is available, the prohibition 

on all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs at the Seashore, 

shortening the timeframe that non-sport ATVs and UTVs would be permitted within the 

Seashore each year (reducing the March 16 through December 31 time under alternative A to 

September 15 through December 15), the reduction in the amount of Seashore open for ORV 

use, the fee-based ORV permitting system that would also limit the number of vehicles on the 

Seashore, the likely increased compliance with resource closures due to increased law 

enforcement and interpretative staffing positions, and the more intensive management actions 

that could be implemented under the adaptive management strategy. Compared to alternative 

E, the amount of impacts on state-listed and special-status bird species under alternative C 

would be greater due to public ORV use being allowed under alternative C whereas it would be 

prohibited under alternative E. 

Under alternative D, impacts on state-listed and special-status bird species from resource 

management activities would be less than those under alternatives A (the no-action alternative) 

and E (the no ORV alternative). This is due to more consistent training and supervision of 

resource staff conducting the surveys, the limited predator removal, expanded buffers around 

American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and least terns, the expansion of brood buffers 

based on the mobility of the brood, and the increased education and monitoring efforts. ORV 
xx Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Impact Topic Summary 

and other recreational use would result in long-term adverse impacts on state-listed birds under 

alternative D from noise disturbance, temporary displacement, and possibly injury/mortality of 

individuals. However, these impacts would be less than those incurred under alternative A. This 

is due to the expansion of pedestrian-use only areas by 10 miles; the prohibition on night time 

driving from May 1 through September 14, the closing of ORV routes where no ferry access is 

available, the prohibition of all ATVs, as well as all high-performance sport-model and twostroke UTVs at the Seashore, shortening the time frame that utility-model UTVs would be 

permitted within the Seashore each year (reducing the March 16 through December 31 time 

under alternative A to September 15 through December 15), the reduction in the amount of 

Seashore open for ORV use, the fee-based ORV permitting system with a limit on the number 

of vehicles allowed which would reduce the number of public ORVs allowed on the Seashore 

by 8 percent in order to keep the average vehicle density similar to historical use, the likely 

increased compliance with resource closures due to increased law enforcement and 

interpretative staffing positions, and the more intensive management actions that could be 

implemented under the adaptive management strategy. Compared to alternative E, the amount 

of impacts on state-listed and special-status bird species under alternative D would be greater 

due to public ORV use being allowed under alternative D whereas it would be prohibited under 

alternative E. 

The resource management activities proposed for alternative E (the no ORV alternative) are 

essentially the same activities proposed for alternative A (the no action alternative) except that 

no recreational ORV-specific closures would be established, and surveying and monitoring 

protocols would be reviewed and may change given the prohibition of ORVs on the Seashore, 

the likely lower pedestrian presence resulting from this, and the fact that with no ORV access, 

pedestrian use would likely be centered around the ferry landing areas, the cabins, and Power 

Squadron Spit where visitors can easily access the beach by their own boats. Under alternative 

A, the North and South Core Banks of the Seashore would remain open to ORV use in 

designated routes and areas (as documented in the Superintendent’s Compendium), except 

where resource or safety closures are present. There would be no night driving restrictions 

under alternative A and no restrictions on the number of vehicles allowed on the Seashore 

either. Therefore, when compared to alternative A, alternative E would provide more protection 

to state-listed and special-status bird species because there would be no impacts related to 

public ORV use, and impacts related to other recreational uses would be reduced due to limited 

access to the ocean front beaches due to no public ORV use. 

Other Wildlife and 

Wildlife Habitat 

Alternative E would provide the highest level of protection and result in fewer adverse impacts 

compared to alternatives A, B, C, or D. Under alternative E, although continued pedestrian 

access would likely result in short-term disturbance (e.g., noise, temporary disturbance) of 

wildlife and wildlife habitat, long-term beneficial impacts would result from prohibiting ORV 

access at the Seashore as native habitat would have the opportunity to recover from heavy 

vehicle use and a considerable source of disturbance would be removed. 

Impacts of ORV and other recreational use would result in long-term adverse impacts on 

wildlife and wildlife habitat under alternative B. Allowing continued ORV access along 

approximately 81 percent (45 miles) of the Seashore would contribute to these long-term 

impacts, including noise disturbance, temporary displacement, and potentially injury/mortality of 

individuals. However, impacts would be reduced when compared to alternative A (the no-action 

alternative) due to increased education and outreach; the use of additional species 

management measures, such as a seasonal restriction on night driving from May 1 through 

August 31; and the prohibition on all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and 

UTVs. Compared to alternative E, impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat would be greater 

under alternative B, because alternative E prohibits public ORV use on the Seashore, 

eliminating this source of adverse impact to wildlife and wildlife habitat. Further, alternative E 

reduces the impact from pedestrians, who without transportation opportunities to more remote 

areas of the Seashore would likely be limited to areas in general proximity to the ferry landing 

areas. 

Under alternative C, the impacts of ORV and other recreational use would result in long-term 

adverse impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat from noise disturbance, temporary 

displacement, and potentially injury/mortality of individuals. However, impacts would be 

reduced when compared to alternative A (the no-action alternative), due to increased education 

and outreach; the use of additional species management measures, such as a seasonal 

restriction on night driving from May 1 through September 14; the increase in the amount of 
Draft Off-road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS xxi

Impact Topic Summary 

pedestrian-only use areas by 4 miles; the closing of ORV routes where no ferry access is 

available; the prohibition of all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs at 

the Seashore; shorting the timeframe that non-sport ATVs and UTVs would be permitted within 

the Seashore each year (reducing the March 16 through December time under alternative A to 

September 15 through December 15); the reduction in the amount of Seashore open to public 

ORV use; and the fee-based ORV permitting system that would also limit the number of 

vehicles on the Seashore. Compared to alternative E, the severity of impacts on wildlife and 

wildlife habitat under alternative C would be greater due to public ORV use being allowed under 

alternative C, whereas it would be prohibited under alternative E. The prohibition of public ORV 

use under alternative E would also reduce the amount of impacts from pedestrians, because 

without ORVs to access remote areas of the Seashore, pedestrians would likely be limited to 

areas in general proximity to the ferry landing areas. 

Alternative D would also result in long-term adverse impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat from 

disturbance, temporary displacement, and potentially injury/mortality of individuals. However, 

impacts would be reduced when compared to alternative A (the no-action alternative), due to 

increased education and outreach; the use of additional species management measures, such 

as a seasonal restriction on night driving from May 1 through September 14; the closing of ORV 

routes where no ferry access is available; the reduction in the amount of Seashore open to 

public ORV use; the implementation of a vehicle permit program and the reduction in the 

number of public ORVs allowed on the Seashore by 8 percent; the prohibition of all ATVs, as 

well as all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke UTVs at the Seashore; and the 

shortening of the timeframe that non-sport UTVs would be permitted within the Seashore each 

year (reducing the March 16 through December 31 timeframe under alternative A to September 

15 through December 15). Compared to alternative E, impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat 

under alternative D would be greater due to public ORV use being allowed under alternative D, 

whereas it would be prohibited under alternative E. The prohibition of public ORV use under 

alternative E would also reduce the amount of impacts from pedestrians, because without 

ORVs to access remote areas of the Seashore, pedestrians would likely be limited to areas in 

general proximity to the ferry landing areas. 

Under alternative E, prohibiting public ORV use at the Seashore would provide long-term 

beneficial impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat compared to alternative A, under which public 

ORV use would be allowed along approximately 81 percent of the Seashore. While continued 

pedestrian access under alternative E could result in some short- and long-term disturbance 

(e.g., noise, temporary displacement, etc.) of wildlife, these impacts would be reduced 

compared to alternative A because without the use of ORVs, pedestrian use under alternative 

E would likely be limited to areas in the general proximity to the ferry landing areas. As a result, 

alternative E would provide more protection and result in fewer adverse impacts to wildlife and 

wildlife habitat compared to alternative A. 

Soundscapes/

Acoustic 

Environment

Alternative B would result in fewer impacts than alternative A through various management 

measures, including prohibition of high-performance sport-model ATVs and limits on night 

driving. Alternative B would result in greater impacts to soundscapes than alternative E 

because ORV use would be permitted. 

Alternative C would result in fewer impacts than alternative A through various management 

measures, including reduced area of beach available for ORV use (74 percent of Seashore 

beach would be available for ORV use from the Friday preceding Memorial Day through Labor 

Day (compared to 81 percent under alternative A), a limit on vehicle permits, and limiting ATV 

use to the period between September 15 and December 15. Alternative C would result in 

greater impacts to soundscapes than alternative E because ORV use would be permitted. 

Alternative D would result in fewer impacts than alternative A through various management 

measures, including reduced area of beach available for ORV use (63 percent of Seashore 

beach would be available for ORV use from the Friday preceding Memorial Day through Labor 

Day (compared to 81 percent under alternatives A), a limits on vehicle permits, and prohibition 

of ATV use. Alternative D would result in greater impacts to soundscapes than alternative E 

because visitor auto/truck use would be permitted. 

Alternative E would result in fewer impacts to soundscapes than alternative A because all ORV 

use would be eliminated (low levels of NPS administrative ORV use would continue under 

alternative E). 
xxii Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Impact Topic Summary 

Visitor Use and 

Experience 

Compared to alternative A, impacts on ORV users under alternative B would be slightly more 

adverse, due to the expanded rules and regulations that would be implemented under 

alternative B, such as night driving, vehicle requirements, and vehicle permits. Compared to 

alternative A, impacts on non-ORV users would not be noticeable. Compared to alternative E, 

impacts on ORV users under alternative B would be beneficial, as ORV use would be 

prohibited under alternative E. Compared to alternative E, impacts on non-ORV users would be 

noticeably adverse, due to the presence of ORVs under alternative B. 

Compared to alternative A, impacts on ORV users under alternative C would be slightly more 

adverse, due to the expanded rules and regulations that would be implemented under 

alternative C, such as night driving, vehicle requirements, vehicle permits, and vehicle 

restrictions. Compared to alternative A, impacts on non-ORV users would be beneficial. 

Compared to alternative E, impacts on ORV users under alternative C would be considerably 

beneficial, due to the prohibition of ORVs under alternative E. Compared to alternative E, 

impacts on non-ORV users would be noticeably adverse, due to the continued presence of 

ORVs under alternative C. 

Compared to alternative A, impacts on ORV users under alternative D would be more adverse, 

due to the expanded rules and regulations that would be implemented under alternative D, 

such as night driving, vehicle requirements, an 8 percent reduction in the number of vehicle 

permits, and vehicle restrictions. Compared to alternative A, impacts on non-ORV users would 

be slightly beneficial, due to the increase in pedestrian-only areas. Compared to alternative E, 

impacts on ORV users under alternative D would be considerably beneficial, due to the 

prohibition of ORVs under alternative E. Compared to alternative E, impacts on non-ORV users 

would be noticeably adverse, due to the presence of ORVs under alternative D. 

Compared to alternative A, impacts on ORV users under alternative E would be substantially 

adverse, as ORVs would be prohibited throughout the entire Seashore. Impacts on non-ORV 

users would be long-term and beneficial, as ORVs would be prohibited throughout the entire 

Seashore. However, the benefits of alternative E to non-ORV users would be primarily limited 

to the areas of the Seashore that are within reasonable walking distance of a ferry landing, and 

further limited if those areas become over-crowded with pedestrians.

Socioeconomic 

Resources 

Alternative A would result in long-term, beneficial impacts relative to alternative E for 

businesses that serve current ORV visitors. Alternative A would result in continued revenue 

from ORV visitors, which would provide support for businesses that serve these visitors and the 

economy of the ROI. 

Alternatives B, C, and D may result in long-term adverse impacts resulting from a loss of visitor 

spending relative to alternative A for businesses that serve visitors using ORVs if the 

restrictions on ORVs such as the prohibition of night driving in the summer, loss of long-term 

parking, restrictions on ATVs and UTVs and the permit fee and education requirements result 

in fewer visitors and lower visitor spending. Adverse impacts relative to alternative A would be 

greater under alternatives C and D, than B, because additional use restrictions are added such 

as more pedestrian-only areas, no long-term parking available (under alternative D), additional 

limitations on ATV and UTV use, and a limit on the number of vehicle permits available. The 

smaller percentage of beach open to ORVs under alternative C compared to alternative A 

might result in increased crowding, which could result in a reduction in visitation and greater 

impacts to those businesses that rely on Seashore visitation. Under alternative D, additional 

adverse impacts would be realized from prohibitions on all ATVs and sport-model UTVs, 

seasonal restrictions on non-sport UTVs, and lower limits on vehicle permits, all of which would 

result in fewer visitors and less visitor spending. The loss of long-term parking under alternative 

D could have positive or negative impacts on the number of ferry trips visitors make relative to 

alternative A. 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D offer long-term, beneficial impacts for businesses serving ORV 

visitors and the economy of the ROI when compared to alternative E because these 

alternatives allow ORVs on the islands, which would result in more visitors and spending by 

visitors in the ROI. The benefits to the ROI from alternatives A, B, C, and D relative to 

alternative E are not expected to be noticeable because the revenue from ORV visitors is small 

compared to the size of the economy of the ROI. However, the specific businesses that serve 

ORV visitors would experience noticeable beneficial impacts under all the other alternatives 

relative to alternative E because they would continue to profit from ORV visitor traffic. 
Draft Off-road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS xxiii 

Impact Topic Summary 

Seashore 

Management and 

Operations

Compared to alternative A, implementation of alternatives B and C (which have the same 

impacts to Seashore management and operations) would result in long-term noticeable 

adverse impacts on Seashore management and operations due to the increase in staffing and 

personnel costs in order to enforce visitor compliance with ORV regulations and resource 

closures, enforce nighttime driving restrictions, work with vehicle ferry operators, provide 

visitors with ORV closure information, manage a vehicle permit system, develop, update and 

manage the education certificate, manage the ORV parking lots, record the number of vehicles 

operating or stored at the Seashore each day, attend meetings of local organizations and 

present information regarding ORV use and species protection, construct additional ramps 

along the back route, and designate emergency overnight parking areas. Total approximate 

annual cost to implement alternative B, as well as alternative C, would be $941,000 (plus onetime, first-year cost of $190,000), compared to an approximate annual cost of $486,500 to 

implement alternative A, resulting in an increase of $454,500 annually that would need to be 

covered with additional permit fees or new funding sources (including the one-time cost of 

$190,000, the first-year cost would be $1,131,000). 

Compared to alternative A, implementation of alternative D would result in long-term noticeable 

adverse impacts on Seashore management and operations. This is due to the considerable 

increase in staffing and funding needs in order to enforce visitor compliance with ORV 

regulations and resource closures over a 9-month visitor season, enforce nighttime driving 

restrictions, work with vehicle ferry operators, provide visitors with ORV closure information, 

manage a vehicle permit system, develop, update and manage the education certificate, 

manage the ORV parking lots, record number of vehicles operating or stored at the Seashore 

each day, attend meetings of local organizations and presenting information regarding ORV 

use and species protection, construct additional ramps along the back route, and designate 

emergency overnight parking areas. Total approximate annual cost to implement alternative D 

would be $941,000, compared to an approximate annual cost of $486,500 to implement 

alternative A, resulting in an increase of $454,500 annually that would need to be covered with 

additional permit fees or new funding sources. 

Compared to alternative A, the implementation of alternative E would have long-term beneficial 

effects on Seashore management and operations. For alternative E, implementation would 

allow a decrease staffing, and a decrease in annual spending across all Seashore operations. 

Total approximate annual cost to implement alternative E would be $398,500. 
xxiv Cape Lookout National Seashore 
Draft Off-road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS xxv

Table of Contents 

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action ............................................................................................. 1

Purpose of the Plan / Environmental Impact Statement ......................................................................... 1

Need for Action ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Objectives in Taking Action ................................................................................................................... 2

Management Methodology .............................................................................................................. 2

Natural Physical Resources .............................................................................................................. 3

Threatened, Endangered, and Other Protected Species ................................................................... 3

Vegetation ........................................................................................................................................ 3

Other Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ................................................................................................ 3

Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................... 3

Visitor Use and Experience ............................................................................................................. 3

Visitor Safety ................................................................................................................................... 3

Park Operations ................................................................................................................................ 3

Project Study Area and Scope ................................................................................................................ 4

Park Background .................................................................................................................................... 4

History of Cape Lookout National Seashore ................................................................................... 4

Summary of Current Off-road Vehicle Use and Management at Cape Lookout National 

Seashore ........................................................................................................................................... 4

Purpose and Significance of Cape Lookout National Seashore ..................................................... 11

Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan / 

Environmental Assessment (2006) and Finding of No Significant Impact (2007) ........................ 13

Legal Framework and History of Litigation .................................................................................. 13

Scoping Process and Public Participation ............................................................................................ 13

Public Scoping Meetings ............................................................................................................... 14

Issues and Impact Topics...................................................................................................................... 15

Issues Considered but Dismissed from Further Consideration ...................................................... 18

Federal Laws, Policies, Regulations, and Plans Directly Related to Off-road Vehicle 

Management ......................................................................................................................................... 25

Executive Order 11644: Use of Off-road Vehicles on the Public Lands ....................................... 25

Executive Order 11989: Off-road Vehicles on Public Lands ........................................................ 25

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Section 4.10, Travel on Park Roads and 

Designated Routes ......................................................................................................................... 26

Other Applicable Federal Laws, Regulations, Executive Orders, Policies, and Plans ......................... 26

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Section 2.15, Pets ............................................................. 30

NPS Management Policies 2006 .................................................................................................... 31

Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and 

Decision-Making and Handbook ................................................................................................... 32

Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource Management ................................................................... 32

Director’s Order 77: Natural Resource Protection ......................................................................... 32

Relationship to Other Cape Lookout National Seashore Planning Documents, Policies, 

and Actions .................................................................................................................................... 32

Relationship to Other Federal Planning Documents, Policies, and Actions .................................. 41

Relationship to Other State and Local Planning Documents, Policies, and Actions ..................... 42
xxvi Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Chapter 2: Alternatives ............................................................................................................................ 45

Elements Common to All Alternatives ................................................................................................. 47

Alternative A: No Action ..................................................................................................................... 52

Action Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 55

Elements Common to Action Alternatives B, C, and D ................................................................ 55

Discussion of Action Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 58

Alternative B .................................................................................................................................. 58

Alternative C .................................................................................................................................. 61

Alternative D .................................................................................................................................. 64

Alternative E .................................................................................................................................. 67

Alternative Elements Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis ............................................. 68

Use Areas, ORV Management, and Visitor Use ............................................................................ 68

Allow ORV Use on Shackleford Banks ......................................................................................... 70

Additional Species Protection Measures that were Dismissed ...................................................... 70

Other Issues .................................................................................................................................... 73

How Alternatives Meet Objectives ...................................................................................................... 73

Consistency with the Purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act .......................................... 75

Environmentally Preferable Alternative ............................................................................................... 78

National Park Service Preferred Alternative ........................................................................................ 78

Chapter 2: Maps of the Alternatives .................................................................................................... 111 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 169

Effects of Climate Change on Cape Lookout National Seashore ....................................................... 169

Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species ...................................................... 169

Piping Plover ................................................................................................................................ 170

Red Knot ...................................................................................................................................... 199

Sea Turtles ................................................................................................................................... 202

Loggerhead Turtle ........................................................................................................................ 205

Seabeach Amaranth ..................................................................................................................... 213

State-listed and Special-status Species ............................................................................................... 215

American Oystercatcher ............................................................................................................... 215

Colonial Waterbirds ..................................................................................................................... 220

Wilson’s Plover ............................................................................................................................ 226

Other Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ................................................................................................... 228

Invertebrates ................................................................................................................................. 228

Other Bird Species ....................................................................................................................... 230

Mammals ..................................................................................................................................... 231

Reptiles and Amphibians ............................................................................................................. 232

Soundscapes/Acoustic Environment .................................................................................................. 232

Noise Fundamentals ..................................................................................................................... 232

Human and Wildlife Response to Changes in Noise Levels ........................................................ 233

Noise Levels at Cape Lookout National Seashore ....................................................................... 234

Visitor Use and Experience ................................................................................................................ 235

Socioeconomic Resources .................................................................................................................. 249

Demographics .............................................................................................................................. 249

Employment ................................................................................................................................. 252

Unemployment ............................................................................................................................. 254
Draft Off-road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS xxvii

Tourism Contributions to the Economy ....................................................................................... 255

Quality of Life ............................................................................................................................. 256

Preservation and Nonuse Values ................................................................................................. 259

Businesses Serving Visitors to the Seashore ................................................................................ 259

Seashore Management and Operations .............................................................................................. 261

Visitor and Resource Protection .................................................................................................. 261

Resource Management ................................................................................................................. 261

Administration ............................................................................................................................. 261

Facility Management ................................................................................................................... 262

Interpretation and Education ........................................................................................................ 262

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................ 263

Impact Assessment Methodology and Assumptions .......................................................................... 263

General Analysis Method ............................................................................................................ 263

Assumptions ................................................................................................................................. 264

Assessing Impacts Using CEQ Criteria ....................................................................................... 264

Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 265

Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species ...................................................... 271

Guiding Regulations and Policies ................................................................................................ 271

Methodology and Assumptions ................................................................................................... 271

Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 272

Piping Plover ...................................................................................................................................... 273

Species-specific Methodology and Assumptions ........................................................................ 273

Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 273

Alternative A ................................................................................................................................ 273

Alternative B ................................................................................................................................ 286

Alternative C ................................................................................................................................ 291

Alternative D ................................................................................................................................ 295

Alternative E ................................................................................................................................ 299

Determination of Effect ............................................................................................................... 302

Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 308

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 309

Red Knot............................................................................................................................................. 311

Species-specific Methodology and Assumptions ........................................................................ 311

Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 311

Alternative A ................................................................................................................................ 311

Alternative B ................................................................................................................................ 321

Alternative C ................................................................................................................................ 327

Alternative D ................................................................................................................................ 331

Alternative E ................................................................................................................................ 337

Determination of Effect ............................................................................................................... 340

Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 343

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 344

Sea Turtles .......................................................................................................................................... 346

Species-specific Methodology and Assumptions ........................................................................ 346

Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 347

Alternative A ................................................................................................................................ 347

Alternative B ................................................................................................................................ 355

Alternative C ................................................................................................................................ 358

Alternative D ................................................................................................................................ 360

Alternative E ................................................................................................................................ 363
xxviii Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Determination of Effect ............................................................................................................... 365

Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 368

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 369

Seabeach Amaranth ............................................................................................................................ 372

Species-specific Methodology and Assumptions ........................................................................ 372

Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 373

Alternative A ................................................................................................................................ 373

Alternative B ................................................................................................................................ 378

Alternative C ................................................................................................................................ 380

Alternative D ................................................................................................................................ 382

Alternative E ................................................................................................................................ 384

Determination of Effect ............................................................................................................... 385

Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 388

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 390

State-listed and Special-status Species ............................................................................................... 393

Guiding Regulations and Policies ................................................................................................ 393

Methodology and Assumptions ................................................................................................... 393

Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 394

Alternative A ................................................................................................................................ 394

Alternative B ................................................................................................................................ 407

Alternative C ................................................................................................................................ 413

Alternative D ................................................................................................................................ 418

Alternative E ................................................................................................................................ 423

Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 426

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 427

Other Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ................................................................................................... 429

Guiding Regulations and Policies ................................................................................................ 429

Methodology and Assumptions ................................................................................................... 430

Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 431

Alternative A ................................................................................................................................ 431

Alternative B ................................................................................................................................ 439

Alternative C ................................................................................................................................ 443

Alternative D ................................................................................................................................ 446

Alternative E ................................................................................................................................ 449

Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 451

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 452

Soundscapes/Acoustic Environment .................................................................................................. 454

Guiding Regulations and Policies ................................................................................................ 454

Methodology and Assumptions ................................................................................................... 454

Alternative A ................................................................................................................................ 462

Alternative B ................................................................................................................................ 468

Alternative C ................................................................................................................................ 473

Alternative D ................................................................................................................................ 475

Alternative E ................................................................................................................................ 476

Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 476

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 476

Visitor Use and Experience ................................................................................................................ 478

Guiding Regulations and Policies ................................................................................................ 478

Methodology and Assumptions ................................................................................................... 479

Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 480

Alternative A ................................................................................................................................ 480
Draft Off-road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS xxix

Alternative B ................................................................................................................................ 486

Alternative C ................................................................................................................................ 490

Alternative D ................................................................................................................................ 494

Alternative E ................................................................................................................................ 498

Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 500

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 500

Socioeconomic Resources .................................................................................................................. 503

Guiding Regulations and Policies ................................................................................................ 503

Methodology and Assumptions ................................................................................................... 503

Alternative A ................................................................................................................................ 509

Alternative B ................................................................................................................................ 512

Alternative C ................................................................................................................................ 513

Alternative D ................................................................................................................................ 514

Alternative E ................................................................................................................................ 516

Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 516

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 517

Seashore Management and Operations .............................................................................................. 519

Methodology and Assumptions ................................................................................................... 519

Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 519

Alternative A ................................................................................................................................ 520

Alternative B ................................................................................................................................ 522

Alternative C ................................................................................................................................ 525

Alternative D ................................................................................................................................ 528

Alternative E ................................................................................................................................ 530

Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 531

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 532

Relationship between Local Short-term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and 

Enhancement of Long-term Productivity ........................................................................................... 534

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ................................................................... 535

Alternative A: No Action ............................................................................................................. 535

Alternative B ................................................................................................................................ 535

Alternative C ................................................................................................................................ 535

Alternative D ................................................................................................................................ 536

Alternative E ................................................................................................................................ 536

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................................................ 536

Alternative A: No Action ............................................................................................................. 536

Alternative B ................................................................................................................................ 537

Alternative C ................................................................................................................................ 537

Alternative D ................................................................................................................................ 538

Alternative E ................................................................................................................................ 538

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination .......................................................................................... 539

History of Public Involvement ........................................................................................................... 539

The Scoping Process .......................................................................................................................... 539

Internal Scoping ................................................................................................................................. 539

Public Scoping .................................................................................................................................... 539

Public Notification ....................................................................................................................... 540

Public Scoping Meetings ............................................................................................................. 540

Public Scoping Comments ........................................................................................................... 540

The Comment Analysis Process .................................................................................................. 540

Public Alternative Development Workshops ............................................................................... 541
xxx Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Alternatives Newsletter Public Scoping ...................................................................................... 542

Other Consultation ....................................................................................................................... 542

List of Recipients of the Off-road Vehicle Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement ............................................................................................................................................ 543

Congressional Delegates .............................................................................................................. 543

Federal Agencies .......................................................................................................................... 543

State and Local Governments ...................................................................................................... 543

List of Preparers and Consultants ....................................................................................................... 544

References ................................................................................................................................................ 547

Glossary ................................................................................................................................................... 583

Index ......................................................................................................................................................... 585

Appendices

Appendix A: Cape Lookout Interim Protected Species Management Plan / Environmental 

Assessment Modified Preferred Alternative ......................................................................................... A-1 
Draft Off-road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS xxxi

List of Tables 

Table 1: Species Conservation and Performance Measures from the Cape Lookout National 

Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan / Environmental Assessment,

Biological Opinion, Amended Biological Opinion, and FONSI .............................................. 51

Table 2: Overnight Emergency Parking Areas and Number of Vehicles Allowed .................................... 61

Table 3: Alternative Element Summary—Vehicles .................................................................................... 79

Table 4: Alternative Element Summary—Species (Applicable to all Alternatives) ................................... 93

Table 5: Additional Species Management Measures not in the Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Interim Protected Species Management Plan / Environmental Assessment, Biological 

Opinion, Amended Biological Opinion, or FONSI .................................................................. 97

Table 6: Environmental Impact Summary ................................................................................................ 101

Table 7: Southern Region (Including North Carolina) Piping Plover Population Trends, Number 

of Breeding Pairs, 1986–2012 ................................................................................................ 171

Table 8: Number of Piping Plover Breeding Pairs by Site, Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

1989–2012 .............................................................................................................................. 180

Table 9: Hatching and Fledging Success at Cape Lookout National Seashore, 1989–2012..................... 181

Table 10: Piping Plover Hatching and Fledging Success at Ocracoke Inlet, 1997–2012 ......................... 183

Table 11: Piping Plover Hatching and Fledging Success at Portsmouth Flats, 1997–2012 ..................... 184

Table 12: Piping Plover Hatching and Fledging Success at Kathryn-Jane Flats, 1997–2012 .................. 185

Table 13: Piping Plover Hatching and Fledging Success at Old Drum Inlet, 1997–2012 ........................ 186

Table 14: Piping Plover Hatching and Fledging Success at New Drum Inlet (North Core Banks), 

1997–2012 .............................................................................................................................. 187

Table 15: Piping Plover Hatching and Fledging Success at Ophelia Island, 1997–2012 ......................... 188

Table 16: Piping Plover Hatching and Fledging Success at Plover Inlet, 1997–2012 .............................. 189

Table 17: Piping Plover Hatching and Fledging Success at The Point of Cape Lookout, 1999–

2012 ........................................................................................................................................ 190

Table 18: Piping Plover Hatching and Fledging Success at Power Squadron Spit, 1997–2012 ............... 191

Table 19: Piping Plover Hatching and Fledging Success at Shackleford Banks, 2005–2012 .................. 191

Table 20: Select Monthly Mean and Maximum Nonbreeding Birds Seen During Daily Survey 

During Fall, Winter, and Spring, Selected Sites at Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

2000–2012 .............................................................................................................................. 193

Table 21: Counts of Piping Plover Near Ocracoke Inlet During Fall Migration, 2007 ............................ 194

Table 22: Piping Plover Predation, 2005–2012 ........................................................................................ 196

Table 23: Red Knot Relative Abundance on North Core Banks, 1992–2012 ........................................... 200

Table 24: Annual Counts of Naturally Occurring Plants of Seabeach Amaranth at Cape Lookout 

National Seashore ................................................................................................................... 215

Table 25: Summary of Oystercatcher Reproductive Success Data at Cape Lookout National 

Seashore .................................................................................................................................. 218
xxxii Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Table 26: Buffer Distances Recommended for Foraging and Nesting American Oystercatchers in 

Florida, Georgia, and Maine ................................................................................................... 219

Table 27: Numbers of Colonial Waterbird Nests in North Carolina, 1977–2007 ..................................... 221

Table 28a: Estimates of Colonial Waterbird Nesting (Nesting Pairs) at Cape Lookout National 

Seashore from Selected Years, 1992–2004 ............................................................................ 224

Table 28b: Estimates of Colonial Waterbird Pairs at Cape Lookout National Seashore from 

Selected Sites and Selected Years, 2007–2012 ...................................................................... 224

Table 29: Number of Wilson’s Plover at the Seashore, 2009–2012 ......................................................... 227

Table 30: Shorebirds on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, 1992–1993 ................................................ 231

Table 31: Examples of Common Sounds .................................................................................................. 233

Table 32: Sound Pressure Levels Measured in National Parks ................................................................. 233

Table 33: Sound Levels at Cape Lookout National Seashore ................................................................... 234

Table 34: Long Point and Great Island Vehicle/Passenger Ferries and Vehicle Days, 2000–2012 ......... 238

Table 35: Monthly Recreational Visits, Concessioner Lodging, and Backcountry Camping, 2012 ........ 244

Table 36: Lodging, 1995–2012 ................................................................................................................. 245

Table 37: Lighthouse Area Passenger Ferry Arrivals (1999–2012) ......................................................... 246

Table 38: Backcountry Campers, 1995–2012 ........................................................................................... 248

Table 39: Population Statistics .................................................................................................................. 250

Table 40: Environmental Justice Statistics, 2011 ..................................................................................... 251

Table 41: Employment by Sector, 2011 .................................................................................................... 253

Table 42: Self-Employment by Industry, 2010 ......................................................................................... 254

Table 43: Employment Characteristics, 2011 ........................................................................................... 255

Table 44: Estimated Domestic Travel Expenditures ($2011 Millions) .................................................... 256

Table 45: Housing Unit Statistics, 2010 ................................................................................................... 256

Table 46: Recreational Fishing in North Carolina, by Residents and Nonresidents ................................. 257

Table 47: Number of Coastal Recreational Fishing Licenses Sold by North Carolina County of 

Sale (location where License Sales Agent Resides), Excluding Blanket Coastal 

Recreational Fishing Licenses, 2010 and 2011 ...................................................................... 258

Table 48: Away-from-Home Wildlife Watching in North Carolina, by Residents and 

Nonresidents ........................................................................................................................... 258

Table 49: National Park Service-Authorized Ferry Service Providers ..................................................... 260

Table 50: Amounts Charged for Ferry Services ....................................................................................... 260

Table 51: Cumulative Impact Scenario ..................................................................................................... 266

Table 52: Reduction in Listening Area and Alerting Distance Due to Increases in Ambient Levels ....... 455

Table 53: Estimated Natural Ambient at Various Distances from Surf .................................................... 457

Table 54: Noise Modeling Receptors ........................................................................................................ 459
Draft Off-road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS xxxiii 

Table 55: ORV Use Levels for Noise Modeling (Leq) .............................................................................. 460

Table 56: Alternative A Leq Modeling Results—Impact of Beach ORV Use .......................................... 463

Table 57: Alternative a Lmax Results—Impact of Beach ORV Use .......................................................... 464

Table 58: Alternative A Leq Modeling Results—Impact of Back Route ORV Use .................................. 465

Table 59: Alternative A Lmax Results—Impact of Back Route ORV Use ................................................ 466

Table 60: Alternative B Leq Modeling Results—Impact of Beach ORV Use ........................................... 470

Table 61: Comparison of Impact of Beach ORV Use, Alternative A versus Alternative B ..................... 471

Table 62: Alternative B Leq Modeling Results—Impact of Back Route ORV Use .................................. 472

Table 63: Alternative C Lmax Results—Impact of Eliminating ATVs ...................................................... 473

Table 64: Alternative C Leq Modeling Results—Impact of Eliminating ATVs ........................................ 474

Table 65: Assumptions to Calculate Visitation under Alternative A: No Action ..................................... 506

Table 66: Spending by Category (per Party per Day/Night) ..................................................................... 506

Table 67: Range of Projected Annual Impacts by Scenario and as a Percent of Carteret County 

Totals ...................................................................................................................................... 509

Table 68: Staffing and Funding—Alternative A: No Action .................................................................... 520

Table 69: Staffing and Funding—Alternative B ....................................................................................... 523

Table 70: Staffing and Funding—Alternative C ....................................................................................... 526

Table 71: Staffing and Funding—Alternative D ....................................................................................... 528

Table 72: Staffing and Funding—Alternative E ....................................................................................... 530
xxxiv Cape Lookout National Seashore 

List of Figures 

Figure 1: Cape Lookout National Seashore Regional Map .......................................................................... 5

Figure 2: Cape Lookout National Seashore Map .......................................................................................... 7

Figure 3: Vehicle and Passenger Ferries at Cape Lookout National Seashore ............................................. 9

Figure 4: Rental Cabins on South Core Banks ........................................................................................... 10

Figure 5: Off-road Vehicle Parking Lot on South Core Banks ................................................................... 10

Figure 6: Critical Habitat Designations in the North Portion of Cape Lookout National Seashore ........... 38

Figure 7: Critical Habitat Designations in the Southern Areas of Cape Lookout National Seashore ......... 39

Figure 8: Southern Region States Piping Plover Population Trends, Number of Breeding Pairs, 

1986–2012 .............................................................................................................................. 172

Figure 9: Number of Piping Plover Breeding Pairs, Cape Lookout National Seashore, 1989–2012 ....... 173

Figure 10: Number of Piping Plover Breeding Pairs in North Carolina, 1986–2012 Habitat 

Description .............................................................................................................................. 174

Figure 11: Critical Habitat Designations for Piping Plover in the North Portion of Cape Lookout 

National Seashore ................................................................................................................... 176

Figure 12: Critical Habitat Designations for Piping Plover in the South Portion of Cape Lookout 

National Seashore ................................................................................................................... 177

Figure 13: Number of Breeding Pairs and Fledged Chicks at Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

1989–2012 .............................................................................................................................. 182

Figure 14: Piping Plover Nest Lost / Abandonment at Cape Lookout National Seashore, 1997–

2012 ........................................................................................................................................ 192

Figure 15: Number of Sea Turtle Nests at Cape Lookout National Seashore, 1990–2012 ....................... 203

Figure 16: Average Number of Sea Turtle Nests between Mile Markers ................................................. 204

Figure 17: Number of Loggerhead Turtle Nests in North Carolina, 1995–2012 ...................................... 205

Figure 18: Number of Loggerhead Turtle Nests at The Seashore, 1990–2012 ......................................... 206

Figure 19: Visitation by Year, 1976–2012 ................................................................................................ 236

Figure 20: Visitation by Month for the Year 2012 ................................................................................... 236

Figure 21: Average Active Vehicles on North Core and South Core Banks (2008–2011) ....................... 240

Figure 22: ORV Route Map ...................................................................................................................... 241

Figure 23: 2010 Population Density by Census Tract .............................................................................. 250

Figure 24: 1999 Per Capita Income by Census Tract ............................................................................... 251

Figure 25: Percentage of Population below the Poverty Line by Census Tract ........................................ 252

Figure 26: Unemployment Rate, 2002–2011 ............................................................................................ 255

Figure 27: Reduction in Listening Area .................................................................................................... 455

Figure 28: ORV Noise Modeling Location and Receptors ....................................................................... 458

Figure 29: Feedback Process that Generates a Program’s Total Economic Impact .................................. 507
Draft Off-road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS xxxv

Acronyms 

ATV all-terrain vehicle

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CUA commercial use authorization 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

CZMP coastal zone management program 

dB decibel 

dBA A-weighted decibel

DPS distinct population segments 

EA environmental assessment 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

FTE full-time equivalent

GIS Geographical Information System 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MLLW mean lower low water 

NCWRC North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

National Register National Register of Historic Places 

NPS National Park Service 

ORV off-road vehicle

PCE primary constituent element 

PEPC Planning, Environment and Public Comment 

plan/EIS Off-road Vehicle Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROI region of influence 

RV recreational vehicle

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

TNM Traffic Noise Model 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

UTV utility-type vehicle
xxxvi Cape Lookout National Seashore 
Chapter 1: 

Purpose of and Need for Action 

Draft Off-road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 1

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 

This “Purpose of and Need for Action” chapter explains what this 

plan intends to accomplish and why the National Park Service 

(NPS) is evaluating a range of alternatives and management 

actions for off-road vehicle (ORV) use at Cape Lookout National 

Seashore (the Seashore). This Off-road Vehicle Management Plan 

and Environmental Impact Statement (ORV management 

plan/EIS) presents four action alternatives for managing ORV use, 

and one action alternative prohibiting ORV use. It assesses the 

impacts that could result from continuing current management 

(the no-action alternative) or implementation of any of the action 

alternatives. At the conclusion of this plan and decision-making process, the alternative selected for 

implementation will become the ORV management plan, which will guide the management and control of 

ORVs at the Seashore for the next 15 to 20 years. It will form the basis for a special regulation to manage 

ORV use at the Seashore, if allowed. This plan covers private, recreational ORV use only. As stated in 

Executive Order 11644, vehicles that are authorized under a contract or used for official Seashore use are 

excluded from this plan. Brief summaries of the purpose and need are presented here; however, more 

information is available in the “Park Background” section in this chapter. 

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

The purpose of this ORV management plan/EIS is to evaluate whether or not to allow ORV use. If ORV 

use is allowed, this ORV management plan/EIS will address how to manage that use in compliance with 

the Seashore’s enabling legislation, executive orders, NPS management policies, and other laws and 

regulations to ensure protection of the natural, cultural, and recreational values of the Seashore’s dynamic 

coastal barrier island environment for present and future generations. 

NEED FOR ACTION 

Cape Lookout National Seashore provides a variety of visitor experiences, including the use of ORVs. In 

addition to recreational opportunities, the Seashore is home to important habitats created by the 

Seashore’s dynamic environmental processes. Several habitats support federally listed species, including 

the piping plover (Charadrius melodus); four species of sea turtles (loggerhead (Caretta caretta), green 

(Chelonia mydas), Kemp’s Ridley (Lepidochelys kempi), and leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea)); and 

one plant species, the seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus). In addition to these listed species, the 

Seashore hosts colonial waterbirds, protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA); the 

American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliates), protected under the MBTA and listed as a species of 

special concern by the state of North Carolina; and other North Carolina species of special concern, such 

as the Wilson’s plover (Charadrius wilsonia), the least tern (Sterna antillarum), and the red knot 

(Calidris canutus). The Seashore is home to many other unique habitats such as marshes, tidal flats, and 

riparian areas (ecosystems that occur along watercourses or water bodies), all of which support a variety 

of wildlife species (NPS 2004a). This long-term ORV management planning effort is based on 

recognition by the NPS that if allowed, ORVs must be regulated in a manner that is consistent with 

applicable law, and in a manner that appropriately addresses resource protection (including protected, 

threatened, and endangered species), potential conflicts among the various Seashore users, and visitor 

safety. 

Off-road vehicle (ORV)—Any 

motorized vehicle designed for or 

capable of cross-country travel on 

or immediately over land, water, 

sand, snow, ice, marsh, 

swampland, or other natural 

terrain.
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 

2 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Executive Order 11644, issued in 1972 and amended by Executive Order 11989 in 1977, states that 

federal agencies allowing ORV use must designate specific areas and trails on public lands where the use 

of ORVs may be permitted and areas where use is not permitted. Agency regulations that authorize ORV 

use provide that designation of such areas and trails will be based on the protection of the resources of 

public lands, promotion of the safety of all users of those lands, and minimization of conflicts among the 

various uses on those lands. Executive Order 11644, Use of Off-road Vehicles on the Public Lands, was 

issued in response to the widespread and rapidly increasing use of ORVs on public lands “often for 

legitimate purposes but also in frequent conflict with wise land and resource management practices, 

environmental values, and other types of recreational activity.” Title 36 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), section 4.10(b) requires that “routes and areas designated for off-road motor vehicle 

use shall be promulgated as special regulations.” In addition, such routes and areas may only be 

designated in national recreation areas, national seashores, national lakeshores, and national preserves. 

An ORV management plan for Cape Lookout National Seashore is needed at this time to 

x Comply with Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 regarding ORV use, and with NPS laws and 

regulations (36 CFR 4.10) and policies to minimize impacts on Seashore resources and values; 

x Establish an approved plan incorporating public input that evaluates whether or not to allow ORV 

use, and reduces the potential for inconsistent management of ORV use, user conflicts, and safety 

concerns where ORV use may be allowed; 

x Provide for sustainable recreational use; 

x Protect natural and cultural resources from potential effects of ORV use; and 

x Provide for protected species management in relation to ORV and other uses and replace the 

Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan / Environmental 

Assessment (NPS 2006a) and associated Biological Opinion (USFWS 2007a) in compliance with 

all associated laws and regulations such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and MBTA. 

OBJECTIVES IN TAKING ACTION 

Objectives are “what must be achieved to a large degree for the action to be considered a success” (NPS 

2001a). All alternatives selected for detailed analysis must meet project objectives to a large degree and 

resolve the purpose of and need for action. Objectives must be grounded in the Seashore’s enabling 

legislation, purpose, significance, and mission goals, and must be compatible with direction and guidance 

provided by the Seashore’s planning and management guidance. The following are objectives identified 

during public scoping and by NPS staff for developing this ORV management plan/EIS. Some objectives 

are only applicable to those alternatives allowing ORV use. 

MANAGEMENT METHODOLOGY

x Establish ORV management practices and procedures that have the ability to adapt in response to 

changes in the Seashore’s dynamic physical and biological environment. 

x Continue an ongoing and meaningful dialogue with the multiple public groups interested in 

and/or affected by ORV management. 

x Establish procedures for prompt and efficient public notification of management actions (for 

example, beach access status) including any temporary ORV use restrictions for reasons such as 

resource and public safety closures or storm events. 
Objectives in Taking Action 

Draft Off-road Vehicle Management Plan / EIS 3

x Build stewardship through public awareness and understanding of NPS resource management and 

visitor use policies and responsibilities as they pertain to the Seashore and ORV management. 

NATURAL PHYSICAL RESOURCES

x Minimize impacts from ORV use to soils and topographic features; for example, dunes, ocean 

beach, wetlands, tidal flats, and other features. 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND OTHER PROTECTED SPECIES

x Provide protection for threatened, endangered, and other protected species (e.g., state-listed 

species) and their habitats, and minimize impacts related to ORV and other uses as required by 

laws and policies, such as the ESA, the MBTA, and NPS laws and management policies. 

VEGETATION

x Minimize impacts on native plant species related to ORV use. 

OTHER WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT

x Minimize impacts on other wildlife species and their habitats related to ORV use. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

x Protect cultural resources, such as shipwrecks, archeological sites, and cultural landscapes, from 

impacts related to ORV use. 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

x Manage ORV use to allow for a variety of appropriate visitor use experiences. 

x Minimize conflicts between ORV use and other users. Retain an experience where typically a 

family or individual traveling by ORV can experience the Seashore by finding a remote and 

otherwise unused stretch of beach. 

x Retain a non-ORV experience that allows access to a beach that is undisturbed by motorized uses. 

VISITOR SAFETY

x Ensure that ORV management promotes the safety of all visitors. 

PARK OPERATIONS

x Ensure that core operational needs and associated costs required to fully implement an ORV 

management plan and to monitor species and ORV use are identified.
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 

4 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

PROJECT STUDY AREA AND SCOPE 

The geographic study area for this ORV management plan/EIS is Cape Lookout National Seashore in 

North Carolina (figure 1), including all barrier islands within the Seashore from Ocracoke Inlet to 

Beaufort Inlet. As of December 2012, these islands included the North Core Banks, South Core Banks 

(collectively known together as the Core Banks), and Shackleford Banks. Should any inlets or new 

islands form due to natural processes within the study area during this decision-making process, those 

areas would be addressed with this plan. This plan addresses private recreational ORV use only. 

Commercial uses are addressed in the Cape Lookout National Seashore Commercial Services 

Plan / Environmental Assessment, and both commercial and administrative uses are by definition 

excluded as “off-road vehicles” by Executive Order 11644, section 2, subsection 3.

PARK BACKGROUND 

HISTORY OF CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE

Cape Lookout National Seashore was authorized as a unit of the NPS on March 10, 1966. Congress 

authorized the establishment of Cape Lookout National Seashore as a unit of the NPS “to preserve for 

public use and enjoyment an area in the State of North Carolina possessing outstanding natural and 

recreational values.” In 1976, the NPS gained ownership of the land and the Seashore was established. 

Located approximately 3 miles off the mainland coast in the central coastal area of North Carolina, the 

Seashore occupies more than 29,000 acres of land and water from Ocracoke Inlet to Beaufort Inlet 

(figure 2). The 56 miles of barrier islands consist mostly of wide, bare beaches with low dunes covered by 

scattered grasses, flat grasslands bordered by dense vegetation, maritime forest on Shackleford Banks, 

and large expanses of salt marsh alongside the sound. Natural processes continually change the shape of 

the barrier islands; currently, Cape Lookout National Seashore is a string of barrier islands consisting of 

North Core Banks, South Core Banks, Middle Core Banks, and Shackleford Banks (figure 2). However, 

due to storm events, Middle Core Banks may connect or disconnect from North Core Banks or South 

Core Banks during the life of this plan. 

The northernmost island, North Core Banks, is now approximately 22 miles long, extending from 

Ocracoke Inlet to “Ophelia Inlet,” a new inlet opened by Hurricane Ophelia in 2005. South Core Banks 

extends southward from the newly created inlet for 25 miles. These two islands, collectively known as the 

Core Banks, have a northeast to southwest orientation and exhibit a low profile landscape. The third 

island, Shackleford Banks, is 9 miles long and has an east-west orientation with a higher dune system and 

larger areas of vegetation. All of the islands of Cape Lookout National Seashore are subject to constant 

and dramatic change by the actions of wind and waves, and therefore the study area of this plan addresses 

the creation of new islands or the re-combination of existing islands. 

SUMMARY OF CURRENT OFF-ROAD VEHICLE USE AND MANAGEMENT AT CAPE 

LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE

On-the-ground management currently allows ORVs to drive on the beach in front of the primary dune line 

and on designated routes. On North Core Banks, a designated ORV route, locally referred to as the back 

route, runs behind the primary dune line from mile marker 4 to mile marker 19. Due to the reopening of 

Old Drum Inlet the back route from mile marker 19 to Ophelia Inlet at mile marker 22 is currently closed. 

On South Core Banks, the back route runs from just south of Ophelia Inlet at mile marker 24 to the point 

of Cape Lookout at mile marker 44. This back route is critical for management of protected species and 

for allowing a safe route for ORV travel, allowing access around full beach closures or areas where the 

high tide line limits driving on the ocean beach. 
Park Background 

Draft Off-road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 5

FIGURE 1: CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE REGIONAL MAP
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 

6 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

In areas where the back route is available, ramps to the beach exist every mile or so. Starting at mile 

marker 4 and continuing to the point of Cape Lookout at mile marker 44, the ramps allow vehicles to 

cross between the beach and the back route. Vehicles can only cross from the beach to the back route 

using ramps. 

Sensitive habitat and species at the Seashore are managed within the context of a variety of visitor-use 

patterns, which include the use of ORVs. The number of recreational visitors to the Seashore fell from 

approximately 625,400 in 2001 to approximately 480,290 in 2012, a decline of approximately 23 percent. 

During these years, visitation fluctuated from year to year with a low of 480,290 in 2012, when the ferry 

service to the Seashore closed earlier than usual due to Hurricane Sandy, and a high of 860,602 in 2007. 

Visitors to the Seashore participate in a variety of recreational activities, including beach recreation 

(swimming, windsurfing, sunbathing, etc.), fishing (surf and boat), motorized boating, camping, shell 

collecting, historical tourism, nature/eco-studies (birding, horse watching), harvesting of shellfish, 

nonmotorized boating (sailing, kayaking, canoeing), hunting, hiking, and photography (NPS 2004a). For 

many visitors ORV use and beach driving provide access to these activities. The main user groups at the 

Seashore are campers, anglers, and day-use beach-goers. 

ORV use at Cape Lookout National Seashore predates authorization of the Seashore in 1966. ORV use is 

not addressed in the Seashore’s enabling legislation (16 USC 459 g-3); however, fishing is specifically 

authorized. Beginning in the 1930s, vehicles were transported to the banks by shallow draft ferries and 

were used to provide access to productive commercial and recreation fishing spots, as well as for other 

recreational pursuits such as sightseeing and camping. Today, ORVs provide vehicular access to the 

Seashore beaches for recreational purposes, including activities such as surf-fishing, surfing, sunbathing, 

swimming, bird-watching, and camping, visiting historic structures and site seeing, among other 

activities. 

ORV routes are designated and ORV use is currently managed through the Superintendent’s 

Compendium, which allows for ORV use from March 16 through December 31 (with a closure of the 

Seashore to ORVs from January 1 through March 15). Where authorized in the compendium, ORV routes 

are generally designated at the following locations: 

x The ocean beach from the toe of the dune line forward to the water’s edge. 

x A designated and marked ORV back route running behind the primary dune line parallel to the 

ocean beach on about 85 percent of North Core Banks and South Core Banks. This sand route, 

referred to locally as the back route, provides an alternative ORV route allowing vehicles to get 

around high tide conditions and areas closed to vehicles for protection of resources. 

x Designated/marked crossover routes (ramps) connecting the ocean beach to the back route, 

occurring at about every mile marker. 

x Designated routes to provide limited soundside access, access to ferry locations and cabin camps, 

and NPS official access (referred to as administrative access). 
Park Background 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 7

FIGURE 2: CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE MAP
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 

8 Cape Lookout National Seashore 
Park Background 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 9

The General Management Plan (NPS 1980) identified 47 of the 56 miles of the Seashore as appropriate 

for controlled ORV use; the remaining 9 miles on Shackleford Banks is a proposed wilderness area under 

the Wilderness Act (P.L. 88–577) and is managed as wilderness and closed to vehicle use. Currently, of 

the 47 miles identified as appropriate for ORV use, 2 miles are closed to ORVs permanently on South 

Core Banks: approximately 0.7 mile in the vicinity of the lighthouse (mile marker 41–42) is closed as a 

pedestrian-only area for visitor safety, and 1.3 miles are closed at the end of Power Squadron Spit (mile 

marker 46–47) to provide visitors to this area with a nonmotorized recreational experience. Based on data 

collected by NPS staff from 2008 through 2013 (NPS pers. comm. 2013e), approximately 10 miles along 

the ocean beach are closed to ORV use periodically for resource protection during the nesting season 

(summer). Resource protection closures are temporary, lasting only during the nesting and fledgling or 

hatching (turtles) stages of the species. With the exception of turtle relocation areas, resource protection 

closure areas vary from year to year depending on the location of breeding activity. With these closures, 

approximately 35 miles of the Seashore are available for ORV use in the summer. Based on the same 

data, an average of 5.4 miles along the ocean beach are closed to ORV use periodically for resource 

protection during the fall (September through November). In December, the resource closures are not in 

place and approximately 45 miles of the Seashore are available for ORV use. ORV use is prohibited 

January 1 through March 15 by the Superintendent’s Compendium. Except for seasonal species closures, 

established in a manner consistent with the 2006 Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected 

Species Management Plan / Environmental Assessment, and the 2 miles permanently closed on South 

Core Banks, 45 miles between North Core Banks and South Core Banks are authorized for ORV use. 

Cape Lookout can only be accessed by boat. Visitors access the Seashore by passenger ferry (figure 3), 

vehicle ferry, or private vessels. Passenger ferries currently access the Seashore from Ocracoke, 

Morehead City, Harkers Island, and Beaufort. From these departure points, visitors access the Seashore at 

designated ferry landings at Portsmouth Village (North Core Banks), Cape Lookout Lighthouse (South 

Core Banks), and the east and west end of Shackleford Banks. 

FIGURE 3: VEHICLE AND PASSENGER FERRIES AT CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE

Vehicle ferries depart from Atlantic (North Core Banks) and Davis (South Core Banks), and access the 

Seashore at designated ferry landings at Long Point and Great Island (figure 2). Pedestrians without 

ORVs may also use these ferries to access the Seashore. Long Point and Great Island are the locations of 

rustic cabins that visitors can rent (figure 4). Visitors can store vehicles in NPS-operated parking lots (one 

on North Core Banks and three on South Core Banks) for a current fee of $15 per week during the period 
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 

10 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

that the islands are open to vehicles (currently March 16 through December 31) (figure 5). Vehicle 

storage at the Seashore is not permitted from January 1 through March 15. 

FIGURE 4: RENTAL CABINS ON SOUTH CORE BANKS

FIGURE 5: OFF-ROAD VEHICLE PARKING LOT ON SOUTH CORE BANKS
Park Background 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 11

The Seashore recommends ORV owners remove their vehicles from the Seashore when hurricanes or 

tropical storms are threatening the area. There is rarely enough lead-time to remove all the vehicles in the 

storage lots. The Seashore maintains records, from ferry operator data, about the number of vehicles 

transported to and from the Seashore by ferry. Obtaining exact counts of the number of ORVs actively 

being used on ORV routes at the Seashore at any given time is difficult because, once these vehicles reach 

the Seashore, they may stay for a day, a week, or the entire season, and because many of the vehicles are 

stationary within the parking lot. However, based on data collected from 2005 through 2010, it is 

estimated that approximately 2,500 ORVs are transported by ferry to North Core Banks (Long Point ferry 

landing), and approximately 3,000 ORVs are transported by ferry to South Core Banks (Great Island ferry 

landing) each year (NPS pers. comm. 2013f). Based on counts conducted by the Seashore from 2011 

through 2013, as many as 124 vehicles are operated on North Core Banks at one time, and as many as 218 

vehicles are operated on South Core Banks at one time (NPS pers. comm. 2013g). 

Currently, the NPS manages ORVs at the Seashore through the Interim Off-road Vehicle Management 

Report and Evaluation of Existing ORV Use at Cape Lookout National Seashore (NPS 2007a) which 

implements the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan / 

Environmental Assessment (NPS 2006a) and the associated Biological Opinion (USFWS 2007a) and 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) (NPS 2007b) as well as the Superintendent’s Compendium 

(NPS 2013d). These documents will guide ORV use at the Seashore until this long-term ORV 

management plan/EIS is implemented. 

PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE

All units of the national park system were formed for a specific purpose (its reason for being) and to 

preserve significant resources or values for the enjoyment of future generations through their enabling 

legislation. The Seashore’s 1966 enabling legislation (16 USC 459g) provides the key purpose and 

significance for creating the Seashore as a national park unit. It states: 

In order to preserve for public use and enjoyment an area in the State of North Carolina 

possessing outstanding natural and recreational values, there is hereby authorized to be 

established the Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

The Seashore’s 1966 enabling legislation also includes provisions for hunting and fishing and outdoor 

recreation and enjoyment. These provisions follow: 

Section 459g-3: Hunting and fishing provisions: The Secretary shall permit hunting and 

fishing, including shellfishing, on lands, marshlands, and waters under his jurisdiction 

within the Cape Lookout National Seashore in accordance with the laws of the State of 

North Carolina and the United States, to the extent applicable, except that the Secretary 

may designate zones where, and establish periods when, no hunting or fishing shall be 

permitted for the reasons of public safety, administration, fish or wildlife management, or 

public use and enjoyment. Except in emergencies, any rules and regulations of the 

Secretary pursuant to this section shall be put into effect only after consultation with the 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and the North Carolina 

Department of Conservation and Development. 

Section 459g-4: Administration; public outdoor recreation and enjoyment; utilization of 

authorities for conservation and development of natural resources: (a) The Secretary shall 

administer the Cape Lookout National Seashore for the general purposes of public 

outdoor recreation, including conservation of natural features contributing to public 

enjoyment. In the administration of the seashore and the administrative site, the Secretary 
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 

12 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

may utilize such statutory authorities relating to areas administered and supervised by the 

Secretary through the National Park Service and such statutory authorities otherwise 

available to him for the conservation and management of natural resources as he deems 

appropriate to carry out the purposes [of this Act]. 

The purpose and significance identify uses and values that individual NPS plans should support. 

The following provides background on the purpose and significance of Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

as stated in the Seashore’s Foundation Document (NPS 2012s). 

Purpose—The purpose of Cape Lookout National Seashore is to preserve the outstanding natural, 

cultural, and recreational resources and values of a dynamic, intact, natural barrier island system, where 

ecological processes dominate. 

Significance—The following significance statements have been identified for Cape Lookout National 

Seashore (please note that the statements are in no particular order). 

x Cape Lookout National Seashore, 56 miles of barrier islands off the North Carolina coast, is an 

outstanding example of a dynamic, intact, natural barrier island system, where ecological 

processes dominate. 

x Cape Lookout National Seashore is one of the few remaining locations on the Atlantic coast 

where visitors can experience and recreate in a primarily undeveloped, remote barrier island 

environment, which can be reached only by boat. 

x Cape Lookout National Seashore preserves a diversity of coastal habitats, which support aquatic 

and terrestrial plant and animal life, including several protected species, such as piping plovers, 

American oystercatchers, sea turtles, black skimmers, terns, and seabeach amaranth. 

x The free-roaming Shackleford Banks wild horse herd is legislatively protected within Cape 

Lookout National Seashore. 

x Cape Lookout National Seashore has a rich concentration of cultural resources that tell the history 

of people living at the edge of the sea, dating from approximately 3000 BC to the present. 

x The Cape Lookout Lighthouse protected the nation’s maritime commerce from one of the most 

significant hazards of the North Carolina coast—the Cape Lookout shoals. 

x Cape Lookout National Seashore preserves Portsmouth Village, a National Register Historic 

District and unique, intact coastal Carolina community that played a critical role in the conduct of 

maritime commerce in North Carolina from the colonial period until the outbreak of the 

American Civil War. 

x Cape Lookout National Seashore preserves the Cape Lookout Village, a National Register 

Historic District that was an important community for local families beginning with establishment 

of a life-saving station at the Cape in 1886. 

x Cape Lookout National Seashore provides an outstanding natural laboratory for studying 

ecological and geological processes, as well as the effects of climate change and sea level rise on 

the Atlantic coast. 
Scoping Process and Public Participation 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 13

x Cape Lookout National Seashore provides a remote setting for visitors to experience unobstructed 

ocean views and one of the darkest publicly accessible areas along the East Coast for nighttime 

vantages.

CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE INTERIM PROTECTED SPECIES MANAGEMENT 

PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (2006) AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT

IMPACT (2007) 

The implementation of the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management 

Plan / Environmental Assessment (NPS 2006a) is considered the baseline or existing condition for this 

ORV management plan/EIS. The Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species 

Management Plan / Environmental Assessment was developed to ensure the proper management of 

protected species and to comply with the ESA, while providing for appropriate use of the Seashore’s 

recreational resources until this long-term ORV management plan/EIS for the Seashore could be 

implemented. The species addressed in the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species 

Management Plan / Environmental Assessment include species potentially affected by recreational use 

within the Seashore that are either federally or state-listed as threatened, endangered, or species of special 

concern and/or are of special concern to the Seashore. 

To implement the interim plan, the NPS completed an environmental assessment in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and evaluated several alternatives. The actions described 

under the selected alternative in the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species 

Management Plan / Environmental Assessment are a component of the no-action alternative for this longterm ORV management plan/EIS. Although some elements of the Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Interim Protected Species Management Plan / Environmental Assessment may be incorporated into the 

action alternatives for this ORV management plan/EIS, the current Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Interim Protected Species Management Plan / Environmental Assessment is an interim document, and 

will be superseded by the ORV management plan/EIS and record of decision (ROD). 

LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND HISTORY OF LITIGATION

One petition for rulemaking has been submitted to the NPS for consideration related to ORV use at the 

Seashore. This petition, submitted on December 9, 1999, on behalf of the Bluewater Network and 70 

environmental organizations, requested rulemaking for all affected parks in the system, and Cape Lookout 

National Seashore was specifically listed. On November 29, 2005, Friends of the Earth (of which 

Bluewater Network is a part), with the National Parks Conservation Association, and Wildlands CPR 

took legal action, filing a lawsuit that claimed the NPS was not protecting park units against the damage 

caused by ORVs. In May 2008, a settlement was reached between these three groups and the NPS. In this 

settlement, the NPS was required to implement a pilot public education and deterrence program to curb 

the illegal use of ORVs in 10 park units, and develop an environmental impact statement (EIS) and a 

special regulation for ORV use at Cape Lookout National Seashore and Glen Canyon National Recreation 

Area. 

A Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on August 7, 2007, announcing the beginning of 

the ORV planning process for Cape Lookout National Seashore (FR 2007). 

SCOPING PROCESS AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 

NEPA regulations require an “early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed 

and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action.” To determine the scope of issues to 
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 

14 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

be analyzed in depth in this ORV management plan/EIS, meetings were conducted with NPS staff and 

other parties associated with preparing this document, including the public. 

PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS

Three public scoping meetings were held in mid-September 2007. All three meetings were open-house 

style sessions with short presentations, which allowed the public to ask NPS staff questions and provide 

input to the Seashore in a casual atmosphere. These sessions were held September 11 at the Duke Marine 

Lab in Beaufort, NC; September 12 at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, NC; and September 13 

at The Hut in Charlotte, NC. NPS representatives recorded comments from the public. A total of 38 

people attended the meeting at the Duke Marine Lab, 26 at North Carolina State University, and 31 in 

Charlotte, NC. 

To keep the public involved and informed following the public scoping meetings, individuals were given 

the option to receive notification of the availability of this document by either e-mail or mail, and the 

option to download a copy or have a hardcopy mailed. 

The NPS provided the public with a 45-day opportunity to participate in public scoping through mail or 

online on the Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) website. The NPS posted information 

on the public scoping meetings and additional opportunities to comment before the October 26, 2007, 

comment deadline. 

Though comments varied greatly, most comments focused on the level of access ORVs should have at the 

Seashore, and on potential elements for managing ORVs. Commenters provided anecdotal information on 

the types of visitor use and experiences the Seashore provides. 

In early April 2008, three additional public meetings were held to solicit public input, focusing on issues 

and potential alternative elements. The meetings were held on April 7 from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the 

Duke Marine Lab in Beaufort, NC; April 8 from 7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the McKimmon Center in 

Raleigh, NC; and April 9 from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the Bass Pro Shop Outdoor World in Charlotte, 

NC. The primary goal of these meetings was to obtain public comment on a wide range of alternative 

elements developed by the interdisciplinary team and based on previous scoping. The public could 

provide additional alternative elements. Alternatives options workbooks were created to help facilitate 

and organize the public comments received. The workbooks were divided into six sections: ORV 

Management, Education and Outreach, Law Enforcement, ORV Permits, Other ORV Management Issues, 

and Species Protection. A range of preliminary alternative elements was provided in the workbooks and 

the public voiced their opinions and concerns related to those preliminary alternative options. Whereas 

some commenters simply agreed or disagreed with the alternative elements provided, others provided 

more substantive comments by including new alternative elements or by referencing research that helped 

shape their opinions regarding the elements. In all, a total of 91 completed workbooks were received. 

Public comments from the alternatives options workbooks were 

used to develop distinct action alternatives for ORV management. 

In June 2012, the NPS published a newsletter with a draft range of 

alternatives for public comment. These alternatives were 

developed with input from comments received as a result of public 

scoping meetings and from public comments received on the 

alternatives options workbooks. Comments received on the 

newsletter included those in support or opposition of the various alternatives, with support provided for 

alternative A (no action) and alternative B. Other comments included suggestions on the extent and 

Public comments from the 

alternatives options workbooks 

were used to develop distinct 

action alternatives for ORV 

management.
Issues and Impact Topics 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 15

location of pedestrian-only areas, suggestions for additional education and the permit system, providing 

new alternative elements to consider, and concerns about night driving, among others. 

As a result of scoping efforts, several issues and impact topics were identified as requiring further 

consideration (refer to chapter 5 for additional information about scoping). 

ISSUES AND IMPACT TOPICS 

Issues associated with implementing an ORV management plan at the Seashore were identified by NPS 

staff during the internal scoping meeting using the Environmental Screening Form, and during public 

scoping. The issues identified are discussed below and formed the basis for the impact topics discussed in 

chapters 3 and 4 of this ORV management plan/EIS.

Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

ORV use at the Seashore could impact federally threatened or 

endangered species and their habitats on the ocean beach of the 

Seashore. Conflicts between ORVs, other recreational users, and 

listed species could create direct or indirect losses to the species. 

Cape Lookout National Seashore is home to federally threatened 

and endangered species year-round. It is the southern end of the 

habitat range for some species, while being the northern end for 

others, including the piping plover and other shorebirds. In addition to these species being at the Seashore 

year-round, visitor use can occur year-round, increasing the possibility for conflicts between visitors and 

listed species. The Seashore is used by the Great Lakes population of piping plover (for wintering) and 

the Atlantic Coast population (for breeding and wintering). Piping plovers are known to exhibit site 

fidelity, making consistent protection of breeding sites important. The seabeach amaranth is another 

federally listed species found at the Seashore. Nesting sea turtles at the Seashore include the loggerhead, 

green, and leatherback turtles, with Kemp’s ridley turtles being occasional visitors. As of September 

2013, the red knot is proposed for federal ESA listing and is included in this analysis. Current and 

possible future management alternatives for ORV and other recreational uses would take into 

consideration the needs of federally listed threatened and endangered species in determining management 

measures. 

State-listed and Special-status Species 

Habitat for locally sensitive species, such as the American oystercatcher, Wilson’s plover, and other 

colonial beach nesters, may be vulnerable to disturbances caused by recreational uses, including ORV 

use. In 2004, the American oystercatcher was listed by the NCWRC as significantly rare. In October 

2004, meetings held to discuss the status of some species in the state, including the American 

oystercatcher, resulted in adding the American oystercatcher and Wilson’s plover to North Carolina’s 

state list of species of special concern (effective May 1, 2008). Contributing to these low rates is the need 

for large undisturbed areas required for successful breeding. Frequent human disturbance can cause the 

abandonment of nest sites as well as direct loss of eggs and chicks. From 2004 through 2012 the number 

of American oystercatchers at the Seashore ranged from 52 to 62 pairs and the number of chicks fledged 

ranged from 15 to 45 (NPS 2004b, 2005c, 2006c, 2007n, 2008h, 2009e, 2010e, 2011e, 2012p). 

Other Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 

Cape Lookout National Seashore is a dynamic coastal barrier ecosystem, resulting in frequent changes in 

the nature and extent of habitats on the Seashore that impact the management of recreational uses 

Cape Lookout National Seashore 

is home to federally threatened 

and endangered species 

year-round.
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 

16 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

(including ORVs) and natural resources. Natural processes including hurricanes and other storm events 

may alter, create, or remove areas of the Seashore used by both ORVs and sensitive species, requiring 

adaptive management of both recreational uses and natural resources to avoid conflicts. The USFWS 

describes coastal barrier systems as unique landforms that provide protection for diverse aquatic habitats 

and serve as the mainland’s first line of defense against the impacts of severe coastal storms and erosion 

(USFWS n.d.a). Habitats at Cape Lookout National Seashore are constantly changing and adjusting to 

coastal barrier processes. Ongoing processes, such as rising sea level, have caused a landward migration 

of the islands. In addition to ongoing processes, storm events can change habitats on the island in a matter 

of hours, during which overwash occurs by the sea pushing sand to the mainland side in large quantities. 

As a result, habitats are transformed as dunes intrude into marine forests, areas once vegetated become

open sandy beaches, and inlets are created or closed. 

Cape Lookout National Seashore provides important habitats and plays a vital role in the survival of many 

wildlife species. Whether for nesting, resting, foraging, or feeding, the Seashore provides for a diverse 

assemblage of birds. Rich, varied habitats and the Seashore’s location along the Atlantic Flyway attract 

birds. The American Bird Conservancy designated Cape Lookout National Seashore as a Globally 

Important Bird Area in recognition of the Seashore’s value in bird migration, breeding, and wintering 

(NPS 2012s). This diverse ecosystem includes prey species that sensitive species rely on for survival, and 

predators of sensitive species. ORV use along the Seashore can disrupt habitat or cause a loss of habitat in 

high-use areas. Habitat loss due to ORV use could also occur indirectly as a result of the noise and 

disturbance from this activity. 

Invertebrates are impacted by ORV use. Invertebrate species typically inhabit the intertidal sand flats, 

wrack line, and moist substrate habitat at the Seashore. Although ORVs are generally driven above the 

high tide line on the upper beach (especially at high tides), ORVs are driven into the intertidal zone when 

users seek firm sand when the tide is out. Driving on the sands of the intertidal zone would likely impact 

invertebrates due to the mortality of individual species caused by compaction under vehicle tires. Access 

to the intertidal zone often requires vehicles to cross over the wrack line, an area of high concentrations of 

invertebrates. Driving over the wrack line could crush and scatter seaweed, shells, and 

macroinvertebrates, causing damage to and dispersal of an important source of food and habitat for many 

beach invertebrates (Kluft and Ginsberg 2009; Stephenson 1999. 

Mammalian species at the Seashore include red fox (Vulpes vulpes), gray fox (Urocyon

cinereoargenteus), coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis 

virginiana), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), deer mice (Peromyscus spp.), white-tailed deer 

(Odocoileus virginianus), muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), nutria (Myocastor coypus), otter (Lutra spp.), 

mink (Neovison vison), and others. The alternatives discussed in this ORV management plan propose the 

removal of certain mammalian predators and therefore these species will be addressed in the EIS analysis. 

Soundscapes/Acoustic Environment 

The use of ORVs at the Seashore creates noise emissions that could impact the acoustic environment and 

the soundscape for visitors, wildlife, and wildlife habitats by adding noise to the ambient natural sound 

levels of the Seashore. Vehicular noise and the recreational uses associated with vehicles are a component 

of the acoustical environment at the Seashore. These uses could impact the Seashore acoustic 

environment by introducing an element that is incompatible with other recreational uses, such as birdwatching, camping, or enjoying the solitude and natural soundscape of the Seashore. The primary source 

of noise related to ORV use is engine noise. In addition to impacting soundscapes in relation to visitor 

enjoyment, engine and recreational noise could disturb wildlife and the acoustical environment itself. 
Issues and Impact Topics 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 17

Because of the nature of the Seashore environment, the wind and surf create a higher level of ambient 

noise than other park environments. This ambient noise may reduce the impact of noise at beach locations 

from vehicles, generators, and other sources. Motorized sources of noise not within the control of the 

Seashore that impact soundscapes include private boats, U.S. Marine Corps search and rescue helicopters, 

military aircraft crossing the Seashore from the oceanside headed to the U.S. Navy Cherry Point Range 

Complex inland from the Seashore, and private aircraft flying over the Seashore. 

The U.S. Marine Corps conducts training flights in the Core Military Operations Area, which covers the 

North Core Banks and all but the southernmost portion of the South Core Banks. In 2013, the NPS and 

U.S. Marine Corps completed an environmental assessment that lowered the minimum altitude for tactical 

speed of the Core Military Operations Area from 10,000 feet to 3,000 feet above ground level. Results of 

soundscapes monitoring conducted in conjunction with a study of potential impacts on special-status bird 

species found that for 29 flights below 10,000 feet, the maximum sound level experienced at the Seashore 

was 67.7 A-weighted decibels (dBA). For eight flights near 3,000 feet above ground level, the monitoring 

showed a substantially higher maximum sound level on the ground at the Seashore—79.7 dBA (DeRoseWilson et al. n.d.). The NPS and U.S. Marine Corps studies also provide an abundance of information on 

other types of sounds caused by humans at the Seashore, including ORVs. ORV passbys were more 

frequent than military aircraft flyovers, but had a lower sound level on average than aircraft flyovers 

(NCSU 2012). 

Visitor Use and Experience 

The Seashore’s enabling legislation provides for the public use and enjoyment of natural and recreational 

values. ORV use at the Seashore is an integral component of the experience for some visitors and may be 

impacted by management activities, which intend to provide for continued visitor use while protecting 

and conserving natural resources and values. Some Seashore visitors do not use ORVs and may be 

impacted by ORV use. Currently, there is a mix of recreational uses at the Seashore including camping, 

fishing, day-use, swimming, bird-watching, and other uses. These recreational uses at the Seashore can be 

accessed by vehicle and passenger ferry, or personal boat. Although many visitors use an ORV to access 

specific areas of the Seashore, other visitors wish to engage in recreational activities on foot and away 

from the presence of motorized vehicles. If management requires restricting areas of the Seashore to 

ORVs, it could enhance the recreational experience for some and diminish the experience for others. 

Further, visitor experience could be impacted by conflicts between motorized and nonmotorized 

recreational users. A further component of visitor experience is providing for the safety of all visitors at 

the Seashore. 

Other issues related to visitor use and experience includes viewsheds, aesthetics, and night skies. ORV 

use at the Seashore influences the aesthetics of the area. Visual signs of ORV use are present along the 

shoreline and may impact the viewshed and aesthetics at the Seashore. Some of these signs include 

numerous tire ruts and markings on the beach and on the vehicle routes behind the dune line. These signs 

may have negative impacts on the viewshed and aesthetics of the area for those who want a natural and 

un-impacted view. While just the sight of ORVs can destroy the viewshed and aesthetics for some 

visitors, they also change the viewshed by altering the natural landscape. ORV use impedes or destroys 

coastal features like wave or wind ripples in the sand, tide wrack lines, overwash deposits, wind sorted 

sediments, dune formation, etc. Installing posts around closure areas to protect species from ORVs could 

also impact the views and aesthetics of the area for those who want a natural view without evidence of 

manmade materials. However, some posted signs are to notify visitors of pedestrian closures. 

Headlights and other artificial lights associated with nighttime ORV use may affect visitors’ opportunities 

to enjoy night skies at the Seashore. Issues related to night skies include night driving, headlights, 

campfires, and all other light uses associated with human activity after dusk. Cape Lookout National 
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 

18 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Seashore is one of the few places on the Atlantic Coast where visitors can experience the magnificence of 

a dark night sky, particularly when the only artificial light source is the periodic sweep of the Lighthouse 

beam. Cape Lookout National Seashore is ranked, along with Cape Hatteras National Seashore, as the 9th

best national park system unit to view the night sky by the NPS Night Sky Program. The stars, planets, 

and moon are visible during clear nights and influence humans and many other species of animals, such 

as birds that navigate by the stars or prey animals that reduce their activities during moonlit nights. 

Additionally, the phosphorescence of waves on dark nights helps sea turtle hatchlings orient to the ocean. 

Pursuant to NPS Management Policies 2006, section 4.10 (NPS 2006d), to prevent the loss of natural 

night skies, the NPS should minimize light that emanates from park facilities, and seek the cooperation of 

park visitors, neighbors, and local government agencies to prevent or minimize the intrusion of artificial 

light into the night scene of the ecosystems of parks. Furthermore, the NPS will not use artificial lighting 

in areas such as sea turtle nesting locations where the presence of the artificial lighting could disrupt a 

park’s dark-dependent natural resource components (NPS 2006d). 

Socioeconomic Resources 

Management or regulation of ORV use at the Seashore could impact the local economy by potentially 

changing the demand for goods and services from ORV users in these communities. Businesses around 

and on the way to the Seashore, including the communities of Davis and Atlantic, receive some level of 

economic benefit from this use as the ORV users take advantage of goods and services these communities 

offer. Community concerns could include any potential restrictions on ORV use reducing the level of 

visitation to the Seashore and, therefore, impacting local businesses. 

Seashore Management and Operations 

Accommodating recreational uses while protecting sensitive species requires sufficient NPS staffing and 

adequate funding. Park operations (staffing and funding) may both affect and be affected by ORV 

management strategies. Lack of funding may reduce management flexibility. Effective management of 

ORV use requires funding for activities such as resource monitoring, law enforcement, education and 

interpretation, and maintenance/administrative support. The current level of staffing to protect natural 

resources was funded, in part, by a temporary funding source that became unavailable after fiscal year 

2010. This ORV management plan/EIS examines if, under each alternative, there would be enough 

personnel for ORV management and, if not, the level of staffing needed to effectively implement the 

alternatives. 

ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION

The following impact topics and issues were dismissed from further analysis, as explained below. 

Geologic Resources—ORV use may impact the ocean beach at Cape Lookout National Seashore by 

disturbing sand, compacting sand, creating ruts, and changing local topography. The paths made by, and 

maintained for, ORVs can channelize and direct the storm generated overwash flow, causing damage, or 

even island breaches. Maintenance of ORV routes is important to minimize such erosion. At Cape 

Lookout, soils at oceanside areas and behind the primary dune line—which consist of sand strand soils 

such as Newhan, Corolla and Duckston type soils—would continue to be subject to disturbances from 

ORV use, resulting in sand compaction and the net seaward displacement of sand, but under current levels 

of use these impacts would be minimal. Incremental contributions to the overall erosion rate would likely 

occur through the delivery of large quantities of sand to the swash zone, the alternately wet and dry area 

of the upper part of the beach where intense erosion occurs during storms. The loss of sand from the dune 

area to the swash zone would result in effects on dune topography and changes to the natural topography 

of the shoreline. Naturally occurring beach sand replenishment would reduce the impacts of ORV use 
Issues and Impact Topics 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 19

near the strand side of barrier islands. Effects from continued ORV use would be more intense and longer 

lasting further from the source of new sand, such as near dune edges and foredune areas. Impacts from 

vehicle-related soil disturbances would occur more readily at these locations. Although ORVs have the 

potential to create these impacts, under current levels of use at the Seashore, these impacts would be 

minimal, and would not result in noticeable changes to the geology or soils of the Seashore. As all 

alternatives evaluated would consider use levels generally at or below current levels, no increase in 

impacts is expected. 

Other impacts would be related to where use would or would not be allowed. Currently, ORV use occurs 

along existing back routes and ramp locations. This includes a marked route from the beach to the 

Portsmouth Village parking area through the marked area of Portsmouth Flats and the marked back route 

on North Core and South Core banks, which is the route parallel to the ocean beach behind the primary 

dune. Soundside back routes are located in grassland and shrub/thicket areas of the barrier islands. These 

areas consist of Newhan, Corolla, and/or Duckston type soils (USDA 1992) which would continue to be 

subject to disturbances from ORV use. However, due to the low level of use at the Seashore, these 

impacts are not expected to result in modification of soil characteristics under any of the alternatives 

evaluated.

Although these potential impacts on the geology of the Seashore are present, the Seashore is part of a 

dynamic coastal barrier ecosystem, and visual effects of ORVs on ocean beaches may no longer be visible 

in a day due to daily tidal action, winds, rain, hurricanes, and other storm events. Although ORV use 

could impact geologic resources if ORVs are driven through dunes where there is no designated entrance, 

the use of ramps from the back route is strictly enforced and ORVs illegally cutting through dunes are 

infrequent occurrences at the Seashore. Therefore, this issue was dismissed from further analysis.

Geohazards—There are no known geohazards in the Seashore that would be affected by the 

implementation of an ORV management plan; therefore, this issue was dismissed from further analysis. 

Floodplains and Wetlands—Although the entire ocean shoreline of the Seashore is classified as a 

marine or intertidal wetland (Cowardin et al. 1979), these areas are not measurably impacted by vehicle 

use due to the dynamic nature of the beach environment and the ability of the intertidal areas to “restore” 

themselves, since ruts from vehicle tires are filled in by wave action and moving sands. A study by 

Leatherman and Godfrey (1979) indicated that the intertidal ocean beach (sand beach area) is the most 

resistant to long-term vehicle impacts. Although no definite conclusions were drawn from the study, 

Leatherman and Godfrey indicated that natural changes to the beach appeared to overwhelm vehicle 

effects in this particular study. Given these studies, impacts to wetlands under all alternatives would not 

result in changes to the wetland system or function; therefore, these types of wetlands were dismissed 

from further analysis. 

Executive Order 11988 and NPS Management Policies 2006 require the NPS to consider impacts on 

floodplains in NPS undertakings. The intent of the order and guidelines is to provide for human safety 

and protect floodplain functions by preventing development in 100-year floodplains. Although actions in 

this plan/EIS are proposed within the floodplain, these actions do not have the potential to noticeably alter 

the natural values of the floodplain nor increase the exposure of humans to flood risk. Therefore, the 

impact topic of floodplains was considered but dismissed from further analysis. 

Marine and Estuarine Resources—Marine and estuarine resources at Cape Lookout National Seashore 

that could be affected by ORV management-related activates include shallow benthic (bottom) habitats 

found in Pamlico, Core, and Back Sounds. These habitats include marine sediments and several species of 

submerged aquatic vegetation known as seagrasses. Seagrasses help to stabilize bottom sediments and 

improve water clarity by trapping fine particles that could otherwise remain suspended by wave and 
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 

20 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

current action. They bind shallow water sediments with their roots and rhizomes and help reduce wave 

and current energy with their leafy canopy. The physical stability, reduced mixing, and shelter provided 

by seagrasses make it a highly productive system. Mapping completed by the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration identified 980 acres of seagrass beds at Shackleford Banks, 1,100 acres at 

South Core Banks, and 130 acres at North Core Banks (NPS 2007e). 

A variety of activities that take place at the Seashore could affect submerged aquatic vegetation by 

sediment disturbance (propeller scarring) and increased turbidity. These activities include commercial 

ferry travel across the sounds, the use of private boats, and the use of personal watercraft. Of these 

activities, vehicle ferry service, in particular, is related to ORV use at the Seashore. Ferry services 

transport vehicles (and pedestrians) to the Seashore from March 16 through December 31 each year. 

During operating season, ferries have the potential to affect benthic habitats and aquatic resources by 

propeller scarring (also called “prop dredging”) that maintains the channels through daily use. Off-season 

(January 1 through March 15), the scars and channels created by the ferry service have been known to fill 

in as a result of the dynamic processes of the barrier island environment. Thus, in March of each year, 

ferry propellers may disturb and relocate marine sediments from shallow areas in long-established routes. 

This would result in localized and intermittent, long-term minor adverse impacts on benthic habitats and 

aquatic vegetation. In addition, there would be short-term increases in turbidity and adverse effects on 

water quality. Because ferry service is not managed under this ORV management plan/EIS, it is outside 

the scope of analysis for this plan. 

When storm events cause the ferry channels to fill in or when routine vessel use fails to maintain the 

channels, operators have requested that the channels be dredged. The channel into Long Point at North 

Core Banks (outside of the park boundary) has been dredged twice since 1992, and the channel into Great 

Island (outside of the park boundary) has never been dredged. Dredging efforts were state-funded and the 

dredged material was pumped onto the beach. The Seashore had performed maintenance dredging (less 

than 1000 cubic yards) of the boat/ferry basins (inside of the park boundary) at both Long Point (twice in 

20 years) and Great Island (three times in 20 years), and both basins were dredged again in calendar year 

2010 as a result of hurricane impacts. If additional dredging occurs, there could be impacts on the 

Seashore’s marine and estuarine resources, particularly submerged aquatic vegetation beds. 

Ferry services are managed under the Cape Lookout National Seashore Commercial Services Plan 

Environmental Assessment / Assessment of Effect (NPS 2007m). As stated in the plan, “The commercial 

ferry operations that transport visitors to Cape Lookout National Seashore comprise a very small fraction 

of the total boat traffic in the area. Implementation of the plan would not change the increment of boat 

traffic associated with the commercial ferry operations to the seashore.” During transit, ferry operations 

are managed under a variety of federal and state requirements and regulations. The Cape Lookout 

National Seashore Commercial Services Plan Environmental Assessment / Assessment of Effect dismissed 

submerged aquatic resources from full analysis, citing that proposed ferry management options would not 

result in new or changed impacts on these resources. Furthermore, this ORV management plan/EIS does 

not direct the management of ferry operations, channel maintenance, or the use of private boats and 

personal watercraft at the Seashore. None of the actions proposed in this plan would have new impacts on 

benthic habitats and submerged aquatic vegetation at the Seashore that are not explored under the Cape

Lookout National Seashore Commercial Services Plan Environmental Assessment / Assessment of Effect.

Therefore, this issue was dismissed from further analysis. 

Water Quality—ORV use, human activities associated with ORV use, and operations associated with 

transporting ORVs may contribute to impacts on water quality at Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

Potential impacts on water quality could result from oil and other fluids dripping from vehicles and 

entering water bodies at the Seashore. Another potential impact on water quality at Cape Lookout 
Issues and Impact Topics 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 21

National Seashore is the introduction of human waste and dog waste into Seashore waters from ORV 

users on the beach. In addition to these direct impacts, indirect impacts include ferries transporting ORVs 

to the island, expelling oil and exhaust and increasing turbidity into sound waters. Vehicles submerged by 

hurricane or human error (e.g., getting stuck on the beach and submerged by the tide) could impact water 

quality, because oil, gas, and other materials in the vehicle could escape into the water. However, water 

quality impacts from these issues, including submerged vehicles, would not change the overall water 

quality characteristics at the Seashore, as long as the vehicle was removed from the water in a timely 

fashion. Therefore, this issue was dismissed from further analysis. 

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat – Fish and Marine Mammals—There is essential fish habitat at the 

Seashore on the soundside in areas of submerged vegetation. As previously discussed, water quality 

impacts from ORV use would not change the overall water quality characteristics at the Seashore and 

would be associated primarily with vehicle use on the oceanside. Therefore, there would be no impacts on 

essential fish habitat and it is not addressed as an impact topic in this ORV management plan/EIS. 

Although harassment of resting or stranded marine mammals on the beach could occur from various park 

users, including those using ORVs, the plan will include measures to educate all visitors about marine 

mammal protection to address and lessen these potential impacts. Therefore, this issue was dismissed 

from further analysis. 

Air Quality—Currently, Cape Lookout National Seashore is located in an area classified by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as being in attainment for all six criteria air pollutants. 

Activities associated with ORV use (such as driving or idling engines) result in the emission of criteria air 

pollutants; the pollutants of most concern for this project include nitrogen oxides, volatile organic 

compounds, and particulate matter. For ORV planning efforts at adjacent Cape Hatteras, where air quality 

conditions are similar, the NPS completed a modeling analysis to quantify the magnitude of annual 

emissions associated with ORV activities, and used these results to determine whether additional air 

quality modeling was necessary to estimate downwind pollutant concentrations and associated impacts. 

Emission factor estimates were computed for Cape Hatteras National Seashore using the current EPA 

recommended model for mobile source emissions, the EPA-developed Mobile Source Emissions Model 

(MOBILE6), and ORV data specific to the Seashore. The results of this analysis show that for the current 

average vehicle use patterns on Cape Hatteras, emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, 

and particulate matter are all individually below 5 tons per year. Emissions for these pollutants associated 

with the upper bound estimates for ORV use patterns (i.e., the highest estimates of observed ORV use 

anticipated to occur park-wide on an annual basis under any of the alternatives) are just above 5 tons per 

year, but all below 7 tons per year. Given these low annual emission levels, which would be expected to 

be similar or lower (due to a lower level of use) at the Seashore, daily pollutant concentrations resulting 

from ORV use are anticipated to be extremely low at Cape Lookout National Seashore and there would 

not be a noticeable change in overall air quality. Therefore, this issue was dismissed from further analysis. 

The MOBILE6 modeling results and report used to reach these conclusions can be found at the Cape 

Hatteras ORV management plan/EIS website at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/CAHA. 

Land Use—Currently there are two or three private inholdings on North Core Banks, all with contested 

ownership. These areas could exclude access to NPS, or they could allow access to areas that are denied 

by the NPS. Bird closures may preclude access to those properties; this has occurred in the past when 

there was a closure near one of these properties. Because the inholdings are few and cover a very small 

area of the Seashore, the potential impacts on land use of these areas would not change the current land 

use or have impacts that prevent current uses from occurring. Since the Seashore is an island, there are no 

adjacent land uses that would be impacted by management of ORVs. Therefore, this issue was dismissed 

from further analysis. 
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 

22 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Prime Farmlands—There are no designated prime farmland soils in the park; therefore, this issue was 

dismissed from further analysis. 

Rare or Unusual Vegetation—Seabeach amaranth (covered under the impact topic “Federally Listed 

Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species”) and maritime forests are documented at the Seashore. A 

small area of forest exists on South Core Banks south of the Great Island concession lodging area 

(Guthrie’s Hammock) and on Shackleford Banks. Although these forests exist, they are not impacted by 

ORVs because ORV use is prohibited in these areas; therefore, there would be no effect on rare or 

unusual vegetation. Since there would be no impacts on these resources or the resources are already 

discussed under another topic, this issue was dismissed from further analysis. 

Unique, Essential, or Important Fish Habitat—There are no threatened or endangered fish at the 

Seashore. ORV use occurs on the beach, and not in essential fish habitat. Therefore, this issue was 

dismissed from further analysis. 

Streamflow Characteristics—Actions related to ORV management would not have an effect on 

streamflow characteristics. The proposed action would not occur in any area that would impact 

streamflow. Therefore, this issue was dismissed from further analysis. 

Introduce or Promote Nonnative Species—Although there is the potential for vehicles to bring 

nonnative species to the Seashore, only a small number of nonnative species can live in the salt and wind 

of the seashore environment. Phragmites (common reed), a nonnative vegetative species, is present but is 

not likely to be transported by ORVs. Nutria (Myocaster coypus), a nonnative species present at the 

Seashore, is not likely to be influenced by the presence of ORVs. A small population of sand spurs 

(Cenchrus echinatus), a nonnative species, is present on Shackleford Banks, but would not be influenced 

by ORVs since ORV use is not permitted on that island. Therefore, this issue was dismissed from further 

analysis. 

Cultural Resources 

Archeological Resources—Artifacts indicate that the Seashore has been inhabited at least 5,000 years, 

when the Outer Banks is thought to have been occupied by small groups of people who subsisted by 

hunting, gathering, and fishing (NPS 1976, 2007o). The inhabitants of the Carolina coast first 

encountered by European settlers were the Neusiok, an Iroquois-speaking group considered part of the 

Tuscarora Nation (Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. and John Milner Associates, Inc. 2007). Little is 

known about the early inhabitants of the Seashore, and the dynamic nature of the barrier islands has 

destroyed or disturbed much of the archaeological evidence of their occupation (NPS 1976, 2007o). The 

NPS Southeast Archeological Center assessed archaeological and historic resources at the Seashore in the 

mid-1970s and found 10 prehistoric sites consisting of shell middens, ceramics, and tools eroding from 

dunes, beach wash, and along the edges of the salt marsh (NPS 1976). None of the prehistoric sites were 

considered scientifically or culturally significant enough for inclusion in the National Register of Historic 

Places (National Register) (NPS 1976). 

Several historic archaeological resources have been identified at the Seashore. In addition to Portsmouth 

Village and the Cape Lookout Lighthouse—now listed in the National Register as a historic district and 

structure, respectively—the 1970s Southeast Archeological Center assessment of archaeological and 

historic resource identified a World War II gun emplacement, the Diamond City cemetery, and the 

remnants of Diamond City, a small community on Shackleford Banks. Only Portsmouth Village was 

considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register (NPS 1976). An archaeological reconnaissance 

of Portsmouth Island and a portion of Sheep Island conducted in 2007 resulted in the identification of 14 

historic features, including two road traces, a schoolhouse, a dipping vat, seven house sites, a single 
Issues and Impact Topics 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 23

gravesite, and two cemeteries (Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. and John Milner Associates, Inc. 

2007). 

Although additional historic archaeological resources are suspected to exist within and near Cape 

Lookout Village and Portsmouth Village (Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. and John Milner 

Associates, Inc. 2005, 2007), there are no known historic archeological resources considered eligible for 

the National Register identified within the Seashore (NPS 2007o). The Archeological Sites Management 

Information System, the NPS database of archeological resources, includes shipwrecks along the beach 

and in the dunes at the Seashore which are periodically exposed and reburied by storms. These resources 

are protected by federal and state law; however, they are generally lacking in integrity. Some of the 

alternatives discussed in this ORV management plan/EIS involve the construction of new roadside pullouts and ramps along the back route. If one of these alternatives is selected for implementation, known 

archaeological sites would be avoided during ground disturbing activities (NPS pers. comm. 2013h). 

Because there would be no impacts on significant or National Register eligible resources, the topic of 

archeological resources was dismissed from further analysis. 

Historic Districts, Structures, and Cultural Landscapes—The Seashore features five architectural 

resources listed on the National Register. These five resources consist of two historic districts, the Cape 

Lookout Village Historic District and the Portsmouth Village Historic District, as well as the Cape 

Lookout Coast Guard Station, the Cape Lookout Light Station, and the Salter-Battle Hunting and Fishing 

Lodge. The Cape Lookout Village Historic District, listed on the National Register in 2000, consists of 27 

contributing elements including the Cape Lookout Light Station and the Cape Lookout Coast Guard 

Station. The Portsmouth Village Historic District, listed on the National Register in 1978, consists of 30 

contributing elements. 

Cultural landscapes are defined as “a geographic area, including both cultural and natural resources and 

the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting 

other cultural or aesthetic values” (NPS 2006d). There are two designated cultural landscapes at the 

Seashore: Cape Lookout Village and Portsmouth Village. The cultural landscapes at Cape Lookout 

Village and Portsmouth Village are documented in the following cultural landscape reports: Cape

Lookout Village Cultural Landscape Report (Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. and John Milner 

Associates, Inc. 2005) and Portsmouth Village Cultural Landscape Report Cape Lookout National 

Seashore, Carteret County, North Carolina (Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. and John Milner 

Associates, Inc. 2007). The design, materials, and spatial organization of the historic buildings, structures, 

and features reflect cultural adaptations to the dynamic environment of the Seashore. Although only a few 

buildings and structures survive from the 19th century, and none exist from the 18th century, the 

remaining aspects of cultural landscapes have been identified as contributing elements to the Seashore’s 

historic districts (Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. and John Milner Associates, Inc. 2005, 2007). 

The road network in Cape Lookout Village is considered a contributing element of the district, and 

vehicles are allowed to drive through the village. Private vehicles are not allowed to drive through or in 

the vicinity of Portsmouth Village, or in the vicinity of the Salter-Battle Hunting and Fishing Lodge. 

Some of the alternatives discussed in this ORV management plan/EIS allow for the continued use of 

ORVs within and in the vicinity of Cape Lookout Village, potentially impacting the setting, feeling, and 

association of the buildings and cultural landscape in the historic district. Although there may be impacts, 

under current levels of use these impacts would be minimal and would likely not result in noticeable 

changes to the integrity or character of the resources. One of the alternatives discussed in this ORV 

management plan/EIS would eliminate all private vehicles from the Seashore. If this alternative is 

selected for implementation, the cultural landscape and historic views would likely be enhanced, resulting 

in a long-term beneficial impact on the Cape Lookout Village Historic District. Because impacts on 
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 

24 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

National Register eligible resources would not occur or would be beneficial, the topic of architectural 

resources and cultural landscapes was dismissed from further analysis. 

Ethnographic Resources—No ethnographic populations are documented at the Seashore; therefore, no 

ethnographic populations would be impacted by the implementation of an ORV management plan. 

Therefore, this issue was dismissed from further analysis. 

Museum Collections—A portion of the Seashore’s collection is exhibited at the lighthouse; however, 

these collections would not be impacted by implementation of an ORV management plan. Therefore, this 

issue was dismissed from further analysis. 

Minority and Low Income Populations, including Environmental Justice—These populations are 

present in the communities surrounding the Seashore, but the management of ORVs would not have any 

impact on these populations. Where ferries depart from the mainland (Davis, NC and Atlantic, NC), no 

minority or low-income populations exist (U.S. Census Bureau 2012a, 2012b); therefore, changes to ferry 

operations as a result of this plan would not impact these populations. Any issues related to minority or 

low-income populations are discussed under the socioeconomics impact topic, and were not carried 

forward for further analysis under this impact topic. 

Energy Resources—This topic involves assessing energy requirements and the potential for energy 

conservation associated with the various alternatives, but is most relevant to facility construction projects. 

The majority of ORV use at the Seashore involves gaining access to fishing areas, where vehicles are then 

turned off once the desired fishing spot is reached. Vehicular access to the beach at current or reduced 

levels would be maintained under all but one alternative considered in this ORV management plan/EIS. 

As a result, no impacts to energy resources are expected because public fuel consumption would not be 

considerably affected. However, the application of a ban on ORV use at the Seashore under one of the 

alternatives considered in this plan would result in a measurable, albeit relatively small, reduction in the 

amount of fuel consumed and, thus, beneficial impacts on energy resources. Moreover, due to differences 

in management intensity among the alternatives, there could be additional differences in energy (fuel) 

consumption from implementation of the ORV management plan. The Seashore would continue to 

operate under the wise energy use guidelines and requirements stated in the NPS Management Policies 

2006 (NPS 2006d); Executive Order 13123, Greening the Government Through Effective Energy 

Management; Executive Order 13031, Federal Alternative Fueled Vehicle Leadership; Executive Order 

13149, Greening the Government Through Federal Fleet and Transportation Efficiency; and the 1993

NPS Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design (NPS 1993a). The application of these guidelines and 

requirements would also result in incremental benefits to energy resources from reductions in fuel 

consumption over time. Therefore, this issue was dismissed from further analysis. 

Green House Gas Emissions and Climate Change—There is strong evidence linking global climate 

change to human activities, especially greenhouse gas emissions associated with the burning of fossil 

fuels (IPCC 2007). Some of the activities associated with ORV management and use would result in 

fossil fuel consumption, for example, vehicular trips by Seashore personnel conducting monitoring and 

management activities such as erecting, moving, or removing species closures; marking ORV corridors; 

and law enforcement patrol and response in ORV areas would consume fossil fuels. Equipment used to 

construct and maintain ramps, interdunal roads, and parking areas would also consume fossil fuels. 

Additionally, visitors driving ORVs on the Seashore beaches would result in fossil fuel consumption and 

release of greenhouse gas emissions. However, greenhouse gas emissions associated with the plan would 

be small in comparison to local, regional, and national greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, this issue 

was dismissed from further analysis. However, climate change in general does have the potential to 

impact resources at the Seashore. Please refer to “Effects of Climate Change on Cape Lookout National 
Federal Laws, Policies, Regulations, and Plans Directly Related to Off-road Vehicle Management 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 25

Seashore” in chapter 3, for a brief description on how climate change has impacted and may continue to 

impact resources at the Seashore. 

Urban Quality, Gateway Communities—A gateway community is defined by the NPS Management 

Policies 2006 as a community that exists in close proximity to a unit of the national park system whose 

residents and elected officials are often affected by the decisions made in the course of managing the park 

(NPS 2006d). Because of this, there are shared interests and concerns regarding decisions. Gateway 

communities usually offer food, lodging, and other services to park visitors. They also provide 

opportunities for employee housing and a convenient location to purchase goods and services essential to 

park administration. The communities adjacent to the Seashore (where vehicle and passenger ferries 

originate) are included in this definition and the issues and interests that would be impacted by this plan 

are addressed under the socioeconomics impact topic. 

FEDERAL LAWS, POLICIES, REGULATIONS, AND PLANS DIRECTLY 

RELATED TO OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11644: USE OF OFF-ROAD VEHICLES ON THE PUBLIC LANDS

On February 8, 1972, President Richard Nixon issued Executive Order 11644 to “establish policies and 

provide for procedures that will ensure the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and 

directed so as to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands, and 

to minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands.” 

The executive order directs agencies to develop and issue regulations and administrative instructions to 

provide for administrative designation of the specific areas and trails on public lands on which the use of 

ORVs may be permitted, and areas in which the use of ORVs may not be permitted. According to the 

executive order, the designation of ORV areas and trails must meet the following requirements: 

x Minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or other resources of the public lands; 

x Minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats; 

x Minimize conflicts between ORV use and other existing or proposed recreational uses of the 

same on neighboring public lands, and ensure the compatibility of such uses with existing 

conditions in populated areas, taking into account noise and other factors; and 

x Areas and trails shall not be located in officially designated wilderness areas or primitive areas 

and shall be located in areas of the national park system, natural areas, or national wildlife refuges 

and game ranges only if the respective agency head determines that ORV use in such locations 

will not adversely affect their natural, aesthetic, or scenic values. 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11989: OFF-ROAD VEHICLES ON PUBLIC LANDS

This executive order, issued on May 24, 1977, by President Jimmy Carter, directs agencies to 

immediately close off-road areas or trails when it is determined that the use of ORVs will cause, or is 

causing, considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or cultural or 

historic resources to the type of ORV causing such effects, until such time as determined that such 

adverse effects have been eliminated and measures have been implemented to prevent future recurrence. 

Also included in the executive order is the authority to adopt the policy that portions of the public lands 

under an agency’s jurisdiction shall be closed to use by ORVs except those areas or trails that are suitable 

and specifically designated as open to such use. 
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 

26 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, TITLE 36, SECTION 4.10, TRAVEL ON PARK ROADS

AND DESIGNATED ROUTES

The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, section 4.10 states that “operating a motor vehicle is 

prohibited except on park roads, in parking areas and on routes and areas designated for off-road motor 

vehicle use.” Additionally, routes and areas designated for ORV use shall be promulgated as special 

regulations, with designations complying with Executive Order 11644. As a result of this long-term ORV 

management plan/EIS and special regulation, Cape Lookout National Seashore will be in compliance with 

this regulation. 

OTHER APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, EXECUTIVE 

ORDERS, POLICIES, AND PLANS 

Coastal Zone Management Act, 1966 

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16 USC 1451 et seq.) 

seeks to preserve and protect coastal resources. Through the 

CZMA, states are encouraged to develop coastal zone management 

programs (CZMPs) to allow economic growth that is compatible 

with the protection of natural resources, the reduction of coastal 

hazards, the improvement of water quality, and sensible coastal development. The CZMA provides 

financial and technical incentives for coastal states to manage their coastal zones in a manner consistent 

with CZMA standards and goals. CZMA section 307 requires that federal agency activities that affect any 

land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone must be consistent to the maximum extent 

practicable with the enforceable policies of the state CZMP. Federal agencies and applicants for federal 

approvals must consult with state CZMPs and must provide the CZMP with a determination or 

certification that the activity is consistent with CZMP enforceable policies, where those policies will have 

a possible effect on state coastal resources, as defined by the CZMP and local land use plans. 

The North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act establishes a cooperative program of coastal area 

management between local and state governments through comprehensive planning for the protection, 

preservation, orderly development, and management of the coastal area of North Carolina. The Coastal 

Area Management Act program was federally approved in 1978 and is the state’s CZMP under the 

CZMA. Localities are responsible for planning while the state establishes areas of environmental concern. 

A project must obtain a Coastal Area Management Act permit if it 

x Is in one of the 20 counties covered by the act 

x Is considered “development” under the act 

x Is in or affects an area of environmental concern 

x Does not qualify for an exemption. 

As a part of this program, the Coastal Resources Commission designated “areas of environmental 

concern” in the 20 coastal counties and set rules for managing development in these areas. An area of 

environmental concern is an area of natural importance that may be easily destroyed by erosion or 

flooding or that may have environmental, social, economic, or aesthetic values that make it valuable to 

North Carolina. A determination would be made as to whether a long-term ORV management plan/EIS 

would have effects on state coastal zone management resources. If there is an effect, a consistency 

determination would be needed to identify the extent to which the long-term ORV management plan/EIS 

The Coastal Zone Management 

Act (CZMA) seeks to preserve 

and protect coastal resources.
Other Applicable Federal Laws, Regulations, Executive Orders, Policies, and Plans 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 27

must comply with Coastal Area Management Act permitting procedures, policies, and the Carteret 

County land use plan. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended 

This act requires all federal agencies to consult with the Secretary of the Interior on all projects and 

proposals that have the potential to impact federally endangered or threatened plants and animals. It also 

requires federal agencies to use their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA by carrying out 

programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. Federal agencies are also responsible 

for ensuring that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical habitat. 

Historic Sites Act of 1935 

This act declares as national policy the preservation for public use of historic sites, buildings, objects, and 

properties of national significance. It authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and the NPS to restore, 

reconstruct, rehabilitate, preserve, and maintain historic or prehistoric sites, buildings, objects, and 

properties of national historical or archaeological significance. 

Marine Mammal Protection Act, 1972 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act prohibits, with certain exceptions, the taking of marine mammals in 

U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas, and the importation of marine mammals and marine 

mammal products into the United States. The act defines “take” as “to harass, capture, kill, or attempt to 

harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.” It defines harassment as “any act or pursuits, torment 

or annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild; or 

has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering.” This act recognizes that some marine mammal species or stocks may be in danger of 

extinction or depletion as a result of human activities, and that these species or stocks must not be 

permitted to be depleted. The act, as amended in 1994, provides for certain exceptions to the take 

prohibitions, such as for Alaska Native subsistence and permits and authorizations for scientific research; 

a program to authorize and control the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing 

operations; preparation of stock assessments for all marine mammal stocks in waters under U.S. 

jurisdiction; and studies of pinniped-fishery interactions. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1819 

The MBTA implements various treaties and conventions between the United States and Canada, Japan, 

Mexico, and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Under this act, it is prohibited, 

unless permitted by regulations, to “pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, 

possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, 

deliver for transportation, transport, cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means 

whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any 

migratory bird, included in the terms of this Convention...for the protection of migratory birds...or any 

part, nest, or egg of any such bird” (16 USC 703). Subject to limitations in the act, the Secretary of the 

Interior may adopt regulations determining the extent to which, if at all, hunting, taking, capturing, 

killing, possessing, selling, purchasing, shipping, transporting, or exporting of any migratory bird, part, 

nest or egg will be allowed, having regard for temperature zones, distribution, abundance, economic 

value, breeding habits, and migratory flight patterns. 
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 

28 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

National Environmental Policy Act, 1969, as Amended 

Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA requires the preparation of an EIS for proposed major federal actions that may 

significantly affect the quality of the human environment. NEPA is implemented through regulations of 

the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 1500-1508). The NPS has in turn adopted 

procedures to comply with the act and the CEQ regulations, as found in Director’s Order 12: 

Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision Making (NPS 2011h), and its 

accompanying handbook (NPS 2001a). 

National Parks Concession Management Improvement Act of 1988 

The National Parks Concession Management Improvement Act was enacted to ensure that public 

accommodations, facilities, and services are provided within national park system units, under carefully 

controlled safeguards against unregulated and indiscriminate use, so that 

1. Visitation will not unduly impair park resources and values; and 

2. Development of public accommodations, facilities, and services within national park system units 

can best be limited to locations that are consistent to the highest practicable degree with the 

preservation and conservation of the resources and values of such units. 

Specific sections of this legislation that would relate to ORV planning at the Seashore include section 

403, which sets out new policies and procedures requiring, in most circumstances, the competitive award 

of NPS concession contracts. This is a change from the 1965 Act and previous law, which does not 

require a fully competitive process in the award of concession contracts. Section 404 establishes 

concession contracts for a term of 10 years or less, although the Secretary may award a contract for a term 

of up to 20 years if the Secretary determines that the contract terms and conditions, including the required 

construction of capital improvements, warrant a longer term. Section 406 addresses the rates and charges 

concessioners require in providing facilities, goods, and services to the public. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as Amended 

Section 106 of this act requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on properties 

listed or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register. All actions affecting the Seashore’s 

cultural resources must comply with this legislation. 

National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 

The National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (16 USC 5901 et seq.) underscores NEPA in that 

both are fundamental to NPS park management decisions. Both acts provide direction for articulating and 

connecting the ultimate resource management decision to the analysis of impacts, using appropriate 

technical and scientific information. Both also recognize that such data may not be readily available and 

provide options for resource impact analysis in this case. 

NPS Organic Act and General Authorities Act 

By enacting the NPS Organic Act of 1916, Congress directed the U.S. Department of the Interior and the 

NPS to manage units of the national park system “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic 

objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such 

means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations” (16 USC 1). 
Other Applicable Federal Laws, Regulations, Executive Orders, Policies, and Plans 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 29

The NPS General Authorities Act of 1970 supplemented the Organic Act, providing (as codified at 

16 USC 1a-1): 

Congress declares that the National Park Service, which began with establishment of 

Yellowstone National Park in 1872, has since grown to include superlative natural, 

historic, and recreation areas in every major region of the United States, its territories and 

island possessions; that these areas, though distinct in character, are united through their 

inter-related purposes and resources into one national park system as cumulative 

expressions of a single national heritage; that, individually and collectively, these areas 

derive increased national dignity and recognition of their superb environmental quality 

through their inclusion jointly with each other in one national park system preserved and 

managed for the benefit and inspiration of all the people of the United States; and that it 

is the purpose of this Act to include all such areas in the System and to clarify the 

authorities applicable to the system. 

Congress thus required the entire national park system to be managed as a whole, and not as constituent 

parts.

The 1978 Redwood Amendment reiterates these mandates by stating 

that the NPS must conduct its actions in a manner that will ensure no 

“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” (16 USC 1a-1). Congress 

intended the language of the 1978 Amendment (which was included 

in language expanding Redwood National Park) to reiterate the 

provisions of the Organic Act, not to create a substantively different 

management standard. The House committee report described the 

1978 Amendment as a “declaration by Congress” that the promotion and regulation of the national park 

system is to be consistent with the Organic Act (NPS 2006d). The Senate committee report stated that 

under the 1978 Amendment, “The Secretary has an absolute duty, which is not to be compromised, to 

fulfill the mandate of the 1916 Organic Act to take whatever actions and seek whatever relief as will 

safeguard the units of the national park system” (NPS 2006d). Although the Organic Act and the 1978 

Amendment use different wording (“unimpaired” and “derogation”) to describe what the NPS must avoid, 

both acts define a single standard for the management of the national park system—not two different 

standards. For simplicity, NPS Management Policies 2006 uses “impairment,” not both statutory phrases, 

to refer to that single standard. 

Despite these mandates, the Organic Act and its amendments afford the NPS latitude when making 

resource decisions to allow appropriate visitor use while preserving resources. Because conservation 

remains predominant, the NPS seeks to avoid or to minimize adverse impacts on park resources and 

values. The NPS does, however, have discretion to allow negative impacts when necessary (NPS 2006d, 

section 1.4.3, 10). Although some actions and activities cause impacts, the NPS cannot allow an adverse 

impact that impairs resources or values (NPS 2006d, section 1.4.3, 10). In the administration of 

authorized uses, park managers have the discretionary authority to allow and manage uses, if the uses will 

not cause impairment or unacceptable impacts. The Organic Act and 1978 Amendment prohibit actions 

that impair park resources unless a law directly and specifically allows for the action (16 USC 1a-1) (NPS 

2006d, section 1.4.3.1). 

Pursuant to the NPS Guidance for Non-Impairment Determinations and the NPS NEPA Process, a 

nonimpairment determination for the selected alternative will be appended to the ROD. 

In the administration of 

authorized uses, park managers 

have the discretionary authority 

to allow and manage the use, if 

the use will not cause impairment 

or unacceptable impacts.
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 

30 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 

The National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (16 USC 5931 et seq.) provides direction for 

considering and using appropriate technical and scientific information in park management decisions. 

CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, TITLE 36, SECTION 2.15, PETS

The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, section 2.15, provides regulations for visitors wishing to bring 

pets into national park units. Under this regulation, the following activities are prohibited in regards to 

pets at the Seashore (36 CFR 2.15): 

1. Possessing a pet in a public building, public transportation vehicle, or location designated as a 

swimming beach, or any structure or area closed to the possession of pets by the superintendent. 

This subparagraph does not apply to guide dogs accompanying visually impaired persons or 

hearing ear dogs accompanying hearing-impaired persons. 

2. Failing to crate, cage, restrain on a leash which shall not exceed six feet in length, or otherwise 

physically confine a pet at all times 

3. Leaving a pet unattended and tied to an object, except in designated areas or under conditions 

which may be established by the superintendent 

4. Allowing a pet to make noise that is unreasonable considering location, time of day or night, 

impact on park users, and other relevant factors, or that frightens wildlife by barking, howling, or 

making other noise. 

5. Failing to comply with pet excrement disposal conditions that may be established by the 

superintendent. 

Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds 

Migratory birds are of great ecological and economic value to this country and to other countries. They 

contribute to biological diversity and bring tremendous enjoyment to millions of people who study, 

watch, feed, or hunt these birds throughout the United States and other countries. The United States has 

recognized the critical importance of this shared resource by ratifying international, bilateral conventions 

for the conservation of migratory birds. Such conventions include the Convention for the Protection of 

Migratory Birds with Great Britain on behalf of Canada 1916, the Convention for the Protection of 

Migratory Birds and Game Mammals—Mexico 1936, the Convention for the Protection of Birds and 

Their Environment—Japan 1972, and the Convention for the Conservation of Migratory Birds and Their 

Environment—Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 1978. These migratory bird conventions impose 

substantive obligations on the United States for the conservation of migratory birds and their habitats, and 

through the MBTA, the United States has implemented these migratory bird conventions with respect to 

the United States. This executive order directs executive departments and agencies to take certain actions 

to further implement the MBTA. 

Executive Order 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment 

This executive order directs federal agencies to support the preservation of cultural properties, to identify 

and nominate to the National Register cultural properties in the park, and to “exercise caution... to assure 

that any NPS-owned property that might qualify for nomination is not inadvertently transferred, sold, 

demolished, or substantially altered.” 
Other Applicable Federal Laws, Regulations, Executive Orders, Policies, and Plans 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 31

Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands 

This executive order directs federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term 

adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands, and to avoid direct or 

indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. 

Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management 

This executive order directs federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term 

adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains, and to avoid direct or 

indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. 

NPS MANAGEMENT POLICIES 2006

Several NPS management policies were considered in developing this ORV management plan/EIS. For 

example, NPS Management Policies 2006 address management of ORVs in section 8.2.3.1, Off-road 

Vehicle Use. This section states (NPS 2006d): 

Off-road motor vehicle use in national park units is governed by Executive Order 11644 

(Use of Off-road Vehicles on Public Lands, as amended by Executive Order 11989), 

which defines off-road vehicles as “any motorized vehicle designed for or capable of 

cross-country travel on or immediately over, land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, 

swampland, or other natural terrain” (except any registered motorboat or any vehicle used 

for emergency purposes). Unless otherwise provided by statute, any time there is a 

proposal to allow a motor vehicle meeting this description to be used in a park, the 

provisions of the executive order must be applied. 

In accordance with 36 CFR 4.10(b), routes and areas may be designated only in national 

recreation areas, national seashores, national lakeshores, and national preserves, and only 

by special regulation. In accordance with the executive order, they may be allowed only 

in locations where there will be no adverse impacts on the area’s natural, cultural, scenic, 

and esthetic values, and in consideration of other existing or proposed recreational uses. 

The criteria for new uses, appropriate uses, and unacceptable impacts listed in sections 

8.1 and 8.2 must also be applied to determine whether off-road vehicle use may be 

allowed. As required by the executive order and the Organic Act, superintendents must 

immediately close a designated off-road vehicle route whenever the use is causing, or 

will cause, unacceptable impacts on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or 

cultural and historic resources. 

NPS administrative off-road motor vehicle use will be limited to what is necessary to 

manage the public use of designated off-road vehicle routes and areas; to conduct 

emergency operations; and to accomplish essential maintenance, construction, and 

resource protection activities that cannot be accomplished reasonably by other means. 

Section 4.4.1 of NPS Management Policies 2006 addresses resource protection. It instructs park units to 

maintain, as parts of the natural ecosystems of parks, all plants and animals native to the park ecosystems, 

in part by “minimizing human impacts on native plants, animals, populations, communities, and 

ecosystems, and the processes that sustain them” (NPS 2006d, section 4.4.1). 
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 

32 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

DIRECTOR’S ORDER 12: CONSERVATION PLANNING, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

ANALYSIS, AND DECISION-MAKING AND HANDBOOK

NPS Director’s Order 12 (NPS 2011h) and its accompanying handbook (NPS 2001a) lay the groundwork 

for how the NPS complies with NEPA. 

NPS Director’s Order 12 requires the analysis of impacts on park resources in terms of their context, 

duration, and intensity. It is important for the public and decision makers to understand the implications 

of those impacts in the short and long term, cumulatively, and within context, based on an understanding 

and interpretation by resource professionals and specialists. Director’s Order 12 also requires the analysis 

of impairment to park resources and values as part of the NEPA document. 

DIRECTOR’S ORDER 28: CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

This director’s order sets forth the guidelines for management of cultural resources, including cultural 

landscapes, archeological resources, historic and prehistoric structures, museum objects, and ethnographic 

resources (NPS 1998a). This order calls for the NPS to protect and manage cultural resources in its 

custody through effective research, planning, and stewardship in accordance with the policies and 

principals contained in the NPS Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006d). 

DIRECTOR’S ORDER 77: NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION

Director’s Order 77 (NPS 2002a) addresses natural resource protection, with specific guidance provided 

in the Natural Resource Management Reference Manual 77 (NPS 2004f). 

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE PLANNING

DOCUMENTS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS

The following state and local documents, policies, actions, laws, and regulations are directly or indirectly 

related to ORV use, and were therefore considered during the development of this ORV management 

plan/EIS. 

Cape Lookout National Seashore Foundation Document

The Foundation Document provides a formal statement of the core mission of Cape Lookout National 

Seashore in order to provide basic guidance for planning and management decisions. It serves as the 

underlying guidance for management and planning decisions for a national park unit and describes the 

core mission of the park unit by identifying the purpose, significance, fundamental and important 

resources and values, five interpretive themes, assessment of planning and data needs, special mandates 

and administrative commitments, and the unit’s setting in the regional context. The Foundation Document

identifies the following key parkwide issues: implementing strategies to protect fundamental resources 

during storm events; stabilizing and rehabilitating priority historic structures; managing visitor use and 

encouraging responsible recreation; and developing partnerships to improve stewardship of the 

Seashore’s fundamental resources and values (NPS 2012s). 

1983 General Management Plan 

The 1983 General Management Plan for Cape Lookout National Seashore provides Seashore-wide 

guidance for long range planning, addressing all aspects of park operations and management. In it, the 

NPS designates the barrier islands of the Seashore to be managed mostly as a natural area and, to meet 
Other Applicable Federal Laws, Regulations, Executive Orders, Policies, and Plans 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 33

visitor needs, identifies the provision of administrative headquarters at the east end of Harkers Island and 

ferryboat landings and overland public transportation at the point of Cape Lookout. Notably, the plan 

allows the use of private motorized vehicles on Core Banks / Portsmouth Island. It also identifies 

measures to protect the threatened Atlantic loggerhead turtle and other endangered species and 

suggestions meant to avoid or minimize environmental harm during plan implementation, including close 

monitoring during construction. 

The 1983 General Management Plan Amendment anticipated that dredging the ferry channels would be 

required, and further asserted that this would be the concessioner’s responsibility (NPS 1983). Propeller 

wash from the ferries will generally keep these channels deep enough for ferry operation (NPS 1982), but 

during the winter months when the ferries are not running, the ferry channels may fill with sand and may 

become too shallow to navigate. Consequently, ferry operators have requested dredging. In 2010, 

maintenance dredging was conducted at the turning basins at the Long Point and Great Island ferry 

landings. 

Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan / 

Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (2006) 

Until the long-term ORV management plan/EIS is implemented, the NPS developed the Cape Lookout 

National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan / Environmental Assessment and FONSI 

(NPS 2006a, 2007b) for Cape Lookout National Seashore to ensure for the proper management of 

protected species and to comply with the ESA, while also providing for appropriate use of the Seashore’s 

recreation resources. The species addressed in the plan are those specifically affected by recreation on the 

Seashore, and that are listed federally or by the state as threatened, endangered, or species of special 

concern. The plan was completed in March 2006 and released to the public for comment. The FONSI was 

signed on July 13, 2007. The species protection measures in the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim 

Protected Species Management Plan / Environmental Assessment are considered as part of the current 

condition, or no-action alternative, in this long-term ORV management plan/EIS. 

Biological Opinion for Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species 

Management Plan / Environmental Assessment (2006) 

The Biological Opinion (USFWS 2006a) and Amended Biological Opinion (USFWS 2007a) associated 

with the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan / Environmental 

Assessment were prepared by the USFWS Raleigh Field Office in response to their review of the Cape 

Lookout National Seashore 2006 Biological Assessment (NPS 2006e) and the Cape Lookout National 

Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan / Environmental Assessment (NPS 2006a). The 

USFWS Biological Opinion (USFWS 2006a) and amendment to the Biological Opinion (USFWS 2007a) 

evaluated the proposed action and its potential impact on protected species at the Seashore to determine if 

there would be a take under the ESA. The USFWS concluded that incidental taking of protected species 

would occur, but that these species were not in jeopardy of extinction. In 2007, the USFWS issued an 

amended Biological Opinion that added performance measures to determine the success of management 

actions at the Seashore in relation to the Incidental Take Permit (USFWS 2007a). The USFWS 

recommendations in the 2006 Biological Opinion and the 2007 Amended Biological Opinion were 

incorporated into the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan / 

Environmental Assessment and made part of the selected alternative detailed in the FONSI (NPS 2007b). 

Interim Off-road Vehicle Management Report (2007) 

An ORV management report was prepared for Cape Lookout National Seashore (NPS 2007a). This report 

is, in part, based on the actions outlined in the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species 
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 

34 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Management Plan / Environmental Assessment (NPS 2006a) and the Superintendent’s Compendium 

(NPS 2013d), and details how ORV closures are established. The report addresses ranger patrols at 

current levels and discusses funding for NPS staff to be stationed at the vehicle landings at Long Point 

and Great Island from approximately April 15 through the end of September to inform Seashore users 

about the resources at the Seashore and the management measures in place to protect those resources. 

This report also discusses additional funding for monitoring and staff resource protection activities. 

Commercial Services Plan (2007) 

The Cape Lookout National Seashore Commercial Services Plan Environmental Assessment / Assessment 

of Effect (NPS 2007m) addresses the need for and desirability of a variety of visitor services provided by 

commercial enterprises, including such items as ferry operations, cabin rental, land transportation 

services, rentals, concession food, and supplies. The plan does not discuss economic viability of 

concessioners directly related to ORVs. Under the plan, Cape Lookout National Seashore would improve 

the management and operation of commercial visitor services such as land and ferry transportation, while 

providing both self-directed and facilitated visitor opportunities. This process began with an informational 

newsletter distributed in March 2007 (NPS 2007f), and the draft Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Commercial Services Plan Environmental Assessment / Assessment of Effect was released in November 

2007 (NPS 2007m). The public comment period on this document closed on December 14, 2007, and the 

comments have been reviewed. The FONSI for the Commercial Services Plan for Cape Lookout National 

Seashore was signed by the Southeast Regional Director on October 17, 2008. 

Passenger Ferry Departure Site Environmental Assessment (2011) 

In the southern portion of the Seashore, ferry service to Shackleford Banks and the Cape Lookout 

Lighthouse is provided by six to eight individually permitted small-boat ferry operators. There is no 

assurance that these individual operators will continue to provide services in the long term. These 

operators do not provide a single, easily recognized gateway experience to introduce visitors to the park 

and its resources. These operators do not comply with the NPS Concession Management Improvement 

Act of 1998. The NPS proposes to come into compliance with the Concession Management Improvement 

Act by establishing and managing a concessions contract for a passenger ferry system that would provide 

access to the park from public lands while providing a unified message and interpretation of the park and 

its resources. Actions needed to achieve this goal include the development of landside locations for ferry 

arrivals and departures, identification of appropriate ferry routes, and the enhancement of the park’s 

existing messaging and identification. Of the Morehead City and Town of Beaufort sites evaluated, the 

Seashore identified the Front Street site in Beaufort, NC, as the preferred location. In addition, the 

Harkers Island Visitor Center and boat basin was identified as the second departure site. 

Harkers Island Passenger Ferry Departure Facility Environmental Assessment (ongoing) 

After completing the Passenger Ferry Departure Site Environmental Assessment (NPS 2011j) described 

above, the Seashore initiated the process to improve the existing gateway facilities at the Harkers Island 

Visitor Center for passenger ferry service. The project is needed to improve the capacity of the existing 

NPS facilities on Harkers Island to accommodate passenger ferry service requirements and associated 

visitation. Under the only action alternative, improvements would include items such as a ticketing office, 

a queuing shelter, additional restrooms, expanded parking, and new docks. These improvements would be 

implemented in phases. The first phase is anticipated to be operational in 2014. Future items would be 

operational once funding becomes available. 
Other Applicable Federal Laws, Regulations, Executive Orders, Policies, and Plans 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 35

Vehicle and Passenger Ferry Operations 

Historically, three concessions have operated at the Seashore. One previously operated the 

vehicle/passenger ferry from Atlantic, North Carolina, to Long Point and the cabin lodging at Long Point. 

Until a new concession contract can be developed for these services, the ferry to Long Point is operated 

under an annual commercial use authorization (CUA), and the Long Point cabins are operated by the 

NPS.

The concession contract for the second operation, the vehicle/passenger ferry from Davis, North Carolina, 

to Great Island, lapsed in 2005. The ferry service is now provided by two operators on an interim basis 

under CUAs and the cabins at Great Island are operated by the NPS until a long-term concessions 

contract is completed and issued. It is the goal of the NPS to operate vehicle ferries under an NPS 

concession contract. Once these contracts are reestablished, the NPS will need to address issues related to 

ORVs if additional actions of the operations are required under this ORV management plan/EIS, such as 

providing vehicle counts, issuing permits, collecting fees, or distributing Seashore information. 

Cabins are located at Long Point on North Core Banks and Great Island on South Core Banks; 

reservations are required. The cabins all have running water; generator power is provided at Long Point 

and at Great Island each cabin provides a shelter for visitors bring their own generators and provide 

electricity. Limited supplies, such as ice and gasoline, are available at each lodging area, but no food 

services are available on the Seashore. 

At the lighthouse area on South Core Banks, shuttle services operating under a CUA run from the 

lighthouse area to the point of Cape Lookout; this shuttle includes a historical tour on request. 

From the late 1980s until about 1993, a concession passenger ferry service operated from the Shell Point 

area on Harkers Island to the Cape Lookout lighthouse area. The Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Commercial Services Plan / Environmental Assessment / Assessment of Effect (2007m) and the Passenger 

Ferry Departure Site Environmental Assessment / Assessment of Effect (NPS 2011j) both conclude that 

passenger ferry service from the Morehead City, Beaufort, and Harkers Island areas should be operated 

under an NPS concessions contract. Public access to the Seashore is by private boat, vehicle/passenger 

ferry, or passenger-only ferry. Passenger-only ferries operate from Ocracoke to Portsmouth Village 

(North Core Banks); from Harkers Island and Beaufort to Shackleford Banks and the Cape Lookout 

lighthouse area (South Core Banks); and from Morehead City to Shackleford Banks. Three ferries with 

CUAs enable the public to transport their vehicles to the Cape Lookout National Seashore. One ferry 

service runs between Atlantic and Long Point on North Core Banks and currently two operators link 

Davis with Great Island on South Core Banks. These ferries operate on a regular basis from mid-March 

through November, on a more limited schedule through December, and are generally closed from January 

1 through March 15, but are not prohibited from operating during this time. On an interim basis until a 

special regulation gets promulgated, regulations have been reinstated, prohibiting ORV use from January 

1 through March 15. 

Alternative Transportation Study 

An alternative transportation study request was completed in 2012. As part of this effort, an inventory of 

existing conditions was conducted and a data collection plan developed to address any gaps in the data. 

The plan also included comprehensive surveys of parking and traffic counts around the visitor center. 
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 

36 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Cape Lookout Village Historic Structure Reuse Implementation Plan (2007) 

This planning and environmental assessment was required as a result of litigation, and addresses future 

reuse of structures within the Cape Lookout Village Historic District. Planning for reuse began in spring 

2004, with a range of alternatives being presented to the public in January 2005. The Cape Lookout 

National Seashore Village Historic Structures Reuse Implementation Plan Environmental Assessment / 

Assessment of Effect was released to the public in February 2007, with public meetings on the draft held 

in March 2007. Under the selected alternative of this plan, the Seashore would stabilize several historic 

structures in the village area. This plan also accounts for associated utilities, including construction of a 

new central wastewater treatment system. Selected vegetation clearing would be undertaken to provide 

wildland fire protection and to provide more open views, such as those that existed during the district’s 

period of significance. The FONSI for the Cape Lookout National Seashore Village Historic Structure 

Reuse Implementation Plan was signed by the Southeast Regional Director on July 27, 2007 (NPS 

2007d). 

Cultural Landscape Reports for Cape Lookout Village (2005) and Portsmouth Village 

(2007)

There are two designated cultural landscapes within Cape Lookout National Seashore: Portsmouth 

Village Historic District and the Cape Lookout Village Historic District. The reports provide important 

information on the history and evolution of landscape features at these locations. This information is 

necessary to inform future management of these areas. The Cape Lookout Village Cultural Landscape 

Report was completed May 9, 2005 (Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. and John Milner Associates, 

Inc. 2005); the Portsmouth Village Cultural Landscape Report was completed in 2007 (Wiss, Janney, 

Elstner Associates, Inc. and John Milner Associates, Inc. 2007). 

Protection of Historic Structures Project at the Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Lighthouse Area (2007) 

The Seashore recently completed historic structure protection activities at the Cape Lookout Lighthouse 

area. This project included adding sand to the shoreline for protection of historic structures at the Cape 

Lookout Lighthouse. Although this project has been completed, due to the dynamic environment and 

constant changes in the shoreline of the Seashore, similar projects may be required in the future for the 

protection of historic structures (NPS 2007g). 

Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 

The Ethnohistorical Overview and Assessment Study of Cape Lookout National Seashore Including a 

Case Study of Harkers Island (NPS 2007p) is a study of Harkers Island, Portsmouth Island, Cape 

Lookout, Diamond City, and Wades Shore; the areas that comprise the remaining portion of a broad 

cultural overview of Outer Banks communities adjoining Cape Lookout National Seashore. The primary 

goal of this research was to inventory, review, and synthesize disparate collections of primary and 

secondary source data, and collect new data when needed, in order to develop an ethnohistoric description 

of the past and present communities associated with Cape Lookout National Seashore. Phase I of this 

project (completed December 2007) focused on Harkers Island, whereas Phase II (completed in 2009) 

entailed archival research on the now extinct communities. The ethnohistorical study detailed the history 

of the Seashore communities from early European settlement to present day. While providing a relatively 

thorough cultural history of the area, it does not identify any present-day ethnographic resources within 

the Seashore, including Portsmouth Village. Portsmouth Village became part of Cape Lookout National 

Seashore a few years after the residents left the island in 1971. Portsmouth Village is listed on the 

National Register. 
Other Applicable Federal Laws, Regulations, Executive Orders, Policies, and Plans 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 37

Long-Range Interpretive Plan (2011) 

The Long-Range Interpretive Plan, completed in June, 2011, articulates the park’s purpose, significance, 

and themes and is necessary to inform and guide the park’s interpretive and education programs into the 

next decade. This plan also provides an overall framework for the park’s efforts to improve and expand 

upon visitor services including ranger-led programs, exhibits, and facilities (NPS 2007g). 

Exhibit Plan at Harkers Island and Cape Lookout National Seashore Keepers’ Quarters 

(2007)

This project involved exhibit planning and design for new exhibits. The Harkers Island exhibits orient 

visitors to the breadth of resources and recreational opportunities within the park. The Keepers’ Quarters 

exhibits orient visitors to the Seashore and interpret the history of the lighthouse’s complex and 

associated historic resources. The planning and installation for these exhibits is complete (NPS 2007g). 

Opening of the Lighthouse to the Public and Increased Visitor Amenities (2010) 

In 2006–2007, Cape Lookout National Seashore increased visitor amenities, including a new visitor 

center / bookstore, shelter, and restrooms at the passenger ferry landing by the lighthouse on South Core 

Banks. These improvements also include a new boardwalk and new exhibits at the lighthouse Keepers’ 

Quarters. The Cape Lookout lighthouse opened to the public in 2010. These improvements have the 

possibility of bringing more visitors to the lighthouse area on South Core Banks (NPS 2007g). 

Horse Management Plan 

The Seashore plans to update the Horse Management Plan (NPS 2007h). This plan defines how the 

culturally significant feral horse population on Shackleford Banks is cooperatively managed by both the 

NPS and the Foundation of Shackleford Horses. This congressionally mandated cooperative partnership 

began in 1999 and operates under a memorandum of understanding that states that the herd size will be 

maintained at 110–130 animals (NPS 2000b). 

Critical Habitat Designation 

Critical wintering habitat for piping plovers is identified by the USFWS in six geographic locations of 

Cape Lookout National Seashore. These areas are located within the NC-6, NC-7, and NC-8 designation 

areas. Figures 6 and 7 show these designated critical habitat areas within the Outer Banks of North 

Carolina (USFWS 2001). 
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 

38 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Note: Only NC-6 is located within Cape Lookout National Seashore 

FIGURE 6: CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATIONS IN THE NORTH PORTION OF CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE
Other Applicable Federal Laws, Regulations, Executive Orders, Policies, and Plans 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 39

Note: Only NC-7 and NC-8 are located within Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

FIGURE 7: CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATIONS IN THE SOUTHERN AREAS OF CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL 

SEASHORE
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 

40 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Predator Study (2008) 

The Seashore conducted a predator study to evaluate ways to alleviate threats to threatened and 

endangered species at the Seashore. A three-year research study evaluated the response of both predator 

(raccoon) and prey populations to raccoon removal. The study examined the ecology of raccoons on 

South Core Banks in 2007 and 2008, estimated the population size, and evaluated the response of 

raccoon, shorebird, and turtle populations to an experimental removal of raccoons in late 2008. The 

ecological information gathered on raccoons and their prey helped NPS managers determine if raccoon 

removal is an effective tool for maintaining viable raccoon, shorebird, and sea turtle populations at Cape 

Lookout National Seashore. The study provided the NPS with long-term monitoring protocols for the 

raccoons on Cape Lookout National Seashore and guidelines for future management. The NPS 

implemented the preferred alternative (experimental reduction of raccoon population to evaluate removal 

as an option for protected species management) to address the disproportionate effect of raccoons on 

nesting shorebirds and sea turtles at the Seashore. The FONSI was signed by the acting Superintendent on 

November 20, 2008 and by the NPS Southwest Regional Director on November 25, 2008 (NPS 2008a). 

Interim Protected Species Management Strategy / Environmental Assessment and Longterm Off-road Vehicle Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement for Cape 

Hatteras National Seashore 

ORV management at Cape Lookout National Seashore is influenced by ORV management at the adjacent 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore, which developed a short-term interim protected species management 

strategy, similar to the effort at Cape Lookout National Seashore (NPS 2006b). 

The FONSI for the strategy / environmental assessment at Cape Hatteras National Seashore (NPS 2007b) 

was signed on July 13, 2007, and provided the interim guidance for protected species at Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore while a long-term ORV management plan/EIS and special regulation were developed 

(NPS 2012i). The long-term ORV management plan/EIS and regulation were developed concurrently 

with a stakeholder committee under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act that provided input into the process, 

but did not agree on any formal recommendations. On December 28, 2012, the Notice of Availability for 

the final plan/EIS at Cape Hatteras was published (NPS 2012j), followed by the publication of the final 

rule on January 23, 2012 (NPS 2012k). 

Weather Events, Hurricane and Storm Recovery Plans 

Storms and other weather events, part of the dynamic Cape Lookout National Seashore ecosystem, must 

be factored into any planning efforts at the Seashore. A single storm event can dramatically change the 

face of the landscape at the Seashore, and any management measures for ORVs or other recreational uses 

should be adaptive to the changing environment. The storm recovery plan uses geographic information 

system (GIS) data to determine priorities for recovery after a storm hits the islands (ramps and historical 

structures are generally first priority). As needed for post-storm replacement and configuration of ramps, 

the Seashore will evaluate new designs or reconfiguration of ramps and ORV routes that are more 

sustainable in a dynamic environment and better accommodate ongoing sea level rise and storm events. 

This data were considered in the development of this ORV management plan/EIS. 
Other Applicable Federal Laws, Regulations, Executive Orders, Policies, and Plans 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 41

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER FEDERAL PLANNING DOCUMENTS, POLICIES, AND 

ACTIONS

Piping Plover Atlantic Coast Population Recovery Plan (1996) 

ORV management activities at Cape Lookout National Seashore need to account for the USFWS Piping 

Plover Atlantic Coast Population Recovery Plan (USFWS 1996a). This population of piping plovers was 

listed as threatened in 1986 and has increased from approximately 800 pairs to almost 1,350 pairs in 

1995. However, pressure on Atlantic Coast beach habitat from development and human disturbance is 

pervasive and unrelenting, and the species is sparsely distributed. Increased visitation to Atlantic Coast 

parks, which includes increased ORV use, is cited as one of the many reasons the piping plover was listed 

(USFWS 1996a). 

Piping Plover Great Lakes Populations Recovery Plan (2003) 

An ORV management plan at Cape Lookout National Seashore must consider the USFWS Recovery Plan 

for the Great Lakes Piping Plover. The Great Lakes population, which winters at the Seashore, was listed 

as endangered under provisions of the ESA on January 10, 1986. Critical habitat was designated on the 

Great Lakes breeding grounds on May 7, 2001, and for all populations of piping plovers on the wintering 

grounds on July 10, 2001. The Great Lakes population had declined from a historic size of several 

hundred breeding pairs to 17 at the time of listing. From 1986 through 2002, the population fluctuated 

between 12 and 51 breeding pairs, with breeding areas remaining largely confined to Michigan. The 

restricted breeding range of this population creates a gap in the distribution of piping plovers across North 

America, with the Great Lakes population isolated from the two other breeding populations (Atlantic and 

Northern Great Plains) (USFWS 2003a). 

Atlantic Green, Hawksbill, Leatherback, Kemp’s Ridley, and Loggerhead Turtle Recovery 

Plans

The USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service recovery plans for the U.S. population of Atlantic 

green, hawksbill, leatherback, Kemp’s ridley, and loggerhead sea turtles must be considered when 

drafting an ORV management plan. Each of these species is federally listed and the Seashore must 

consider the individual recovery plans (NMFS and USFWS 1991, 1992, 2008; NMFS, USFWS, and 

SEMARNAT 2011). 

Marine Mammal Recovery Efforts by the National Marine Fisheries Service 

Implementation of an ORV management plan would need to take into consideration the Marine Mammal 

Recovery Efforts of the National Marine Fisheries Service. The National Marine Fisheries Service Office 

of Protected Resources is charged with implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the ESA 

with respect to marine mammal species under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Fisheries jurisdiction: whales (Order: Cetacea, Suborder: Mysticeti, Odontoceti), dolphins (Order: 

Cetacea, Family Delphinidae), porpoises (Order: Cetacea, Family: Phocoenidae), seals (Order: 

Pinnipedia, Family: Phocidae), and sea lions (Order: Pinnipedia, Family: Otariidae). As part of the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act mandate, the Office of Protected Resources works in collaboration with 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Regions and Fisheries Science Centers to 

develop and implement a variety of programs for the protection, conservation, and recovery of marine 

mammals. The Office of Protected Resources also establishes cooperative agreements with states 

regarding marine mammal resources, identifies important research needs to collect appropriate 
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 

42 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

information for management decisions, and administers the activities of the Marine Mammal Health and 

Stranding Response Program (NOAA n.d.). 

Area U.S. Navy Operations 

U.S. Navy (Navy) operations in the area of Cape Lookout National Seashore were considered in the 

development of this long-term ORV management plan/EIS. The Seashore recently received a request 

from the Navy to allow increased capabilities for offshore training. This request was received with a 

notification of the Navy Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing EIS / Overseas EIS. Under this action, which 

focuses on exercises and other actions in the ocean environment, the Navy will evaluate the potential 

environmental effects associated with maintaining military readiness training and research, development, 

test, and evaluation activities (referred to as “training and testing”) conducted in the Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Study Area. The Study Area consists of the seaspace and airspace within at-sea 

portions of the range complexes and testing and training ranges, select Navy pierside locations, and transit 

areas between the range complexes (U.S. Navy 2007, 2012). The Navy Atlantic Fleet Training and 

Testing EIS / Overseas EIS study area is the U.S. Navy Cherry Point Range Complex, which consists of 

surface and subsurface operating areas, special use airspace, and instrumented ranges. The need for the 

proposed action is to maintain current levels of military readiness; accommodate future increases in 

operational training tempo and support the rapid deployment of naval units; achieve and sustain readiness 

in ships and squadrons so that the Navy can quickly surge significant combat power in the event of a 

national emergency; support the testing and training needed for new aircraft, vessels, weapons systems, 

and missions; and maintain the long-term viability of the U.S. Navy Cherry Point Range Complex while 

protecting human health and the environment (FR 2007). 

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER STATE AND LOCAL PLANNING DOCUMENTS, POLICIES, AND 

ACTIONS

North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries Regulations (2011) 

Recreational fishing at the Seashore is guided by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries 

regulations. This agency is responsible for the management of all marine and estuarine resources in the 

state. As part of this function, a twice a year recreational fishing guide is published that sets minimum 

lengths and bag limits for various species. As of January 1, 2007, the state of North Carolina requires 

recreational anglers to have a license for saltwater fishing. 

North Carolina State Motor Vehicle Regulations 

Title 36 section 4.2(a) of the Code of Federal Regulations states: 

(a) Unless specifically addressed by regulations in this chapter, traffic and the use of 

vehicles within a park area are governed by State law. 

Accordingly, North Carolina State motor vehicle codes that do not conflict with Title 36 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations are assimilated by the NPS and enforced within Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

The Seashore has concurrent jurisdiction with the state and enforces state motor vehicle codes on 

Seashore beaches, ramps, and the back route. 

One exception to the assimilation of nonconflicting North Carolina motor vehicle codes is in the North 

Carolina provision that defines Cape Lookout National Seashore beaches as public vehicular areas, which 

is the same designation and management that parking lots in the state receive. Because only a very limited 

number of state motor vehicle codes apply to public vehicular areas, the Superintendent’s Compendium 
Other Applicable Federal Laws, Regulations, Executive Orders, Policies, and Plans 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 43

(NPS 2013d) clarifies the public vehicular area designation by requiring drivers and vehicles to comply 

with all applicable North Carolina motor vehicle codes “as if the vehicle or driver were operating on 

North Carolina highways.” Regulations on beach driving at the Seashore are a combination of 36 CFR, 

the Superintendent’s Compendium and the North Carolina motor vehicle codes. An additional provision 

within 2013 Superintendent’s Compendium requires all-terrain vehicle (ATV) operators and riders to 

wear helmets and eye protection while operating or riding on an ATV anywhere in the Seashore. Should 

the selected alternative allow for ORV use, requirements in the Superintendent’s Compendium related to 

ORV management would become part of the special regulation. 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Nongame and Endangered Wildlife 

Program

The Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, established in North Carolina in 1983, aims to prevent 

species from becoming endangered through maintaining viable, self-sustaining populations of all native 

wildlife, with an emphasis on species in decline. The NCWRC has a Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy to 

protect state-listed species. This strategy includes securing funding for state fish and wildlife agencies to 

take preventative actions that help keep rare species from becoming endangered and keep common 

species common (NCWRC n.d.). Species listed through this program as state threatened, endangered, or 

of special concern were taken into consideration during the development of this long-term ORV 

management plan/EIS. Endangered and threatened wildlife and wildlife species of special concern are 

protected under Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the North Carolina General Statutes. 

North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission Handbook for Sea Turtle Volunteers in 

North Carolina (2006) 

The NCWRC is responsible for publishing the Handbook for Sea Turtle Volunteers in North Carolina 

(NCWRC 2006). The handbook provides guidance to volunteers in conducting biologically sound 

management projects to benefit sea turtles and to help ensure compliance with laws pertaining to rare and 

endangered species at all levels of government. This guidance includes descriptions to aid volunteers. An 

annual permit is issued to the Seashore by the NCWRC under the authority of the USFWS and USFWS 

recovery plans referenced. 

Outer Banks National Scenic Byway (2009) 

The North Carolina Department of Transportation, in coordination with the local Economic Development 

Council, was successful in establishing the Outer Banks National Scenic Byway which runs from the 

North River bridge north of Beaufort to Cedar Island and on to Ocracoke and Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore. The 138-mile corridor along North Carolina Route 12 and North Carolina Route 70 has been 

designated a National Scenic Byway (America’s Byways 2012). 

Carteret County Comprehensive Plan (2004) 

The development and implementation of this long-term ORV management plan/EIS takes into account 

the planning efforts of Carteret County, in part through a Coastal Area Management Act Consistency 

Determination. The Carteret County Comprehensive Plan provides policies and programs to promote 

continued quality of life and a sustainable development pattern over a 20-year period. Goals and 

objectives are set out for economic development, education, the environment, health care, quality of life, 

recreation, cultural and natural resources, regional relations, and transportation. 
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 

44 Cape Lookout National Seashore 
Chapter 2: 

Alternatives

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 45

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires 

federal agencies to explore a range of reasonable alternatives 

that address the purpose of and need for the action. The 

alternatives under consideration must include the “no-action” 

alternative as prescribed by 40 CFR 1502.14. Action 

alternatives may originate from the proponent agency, local 

government officials, or members of the public at public 

meetings or during the early stages of project development. 

Alternatives may also be developed in response to comments 

from coordinating or cooperating agencies. 

The alternatives analyzed in this document, in accordance 

with NEPA, are the result of internal scoping and public 

scoping. These alternatives meet the management objectives 

of the Seashore, while also meeting the overall purpose of 

and need for the proposed action. Alternative elements that 

were considered but were not technically or economically 

feasible, did not meet the purpose of and need for the project, 

created unnecessary or excessive adverse impacts on 

resources, and/or conflicted with the overall management of 

the Seashore or its resources were dismissed from further 

analysis. 

The National Park Service (NPS) explored and objectively 

evaluated five alternatives in this environmental impact 

statement (EIS). Tables 3 and 4 at the end of this chapter 

summarize elements of the alternatives and maps illustrating 

these alternatives are included at the end of this chapter. The 

following is a brief overview of each of the proposed 

alternatives with each alternative discussed in more detail 

below. For all alternatives, the percentages listed are simply a 

starting point, and do not account for any other safety or 

resource closures that may be implemented, as needed, that 

may adjust the percentages. 

x Alternative A is a continuation of existing conditions 

and management policies under the Cape Lookout 

National Seashore Interim Protected Species 

Management Plan / Environmental Assessment, the 

Biological Opinion, the Amended Biological 

Opinion, and the Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI). All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and/or utilitytype vehicles (UTVs) use would continue to be 

managed in the same manner as off-road vehicle 

(ORV) use. Approximately 81 percent of the entire length of the Seashore would be potentially 

available for ORV use from March 16 through December 31. 

How the Alternatives are Organized

This chapter provides an overview of 

the alternatives considered in the EIS 

planning process. A brief summary of 

the alternatives is provided, followed by 

a more detailed discussion of each 

alternative. The alternatives are 

discussed as follows:

x Elements common to all 

alternatives (A – E) 

x Discussion of alternative A 

x Elements common to action 

alternatives (B, C, and D (not 

E))

x Discussion of alternative B 

x Discussion of alternative C 

x Discussion of alternative D 

x Discussion of alternative E 

x Alternatives considered but 

dismissed from further 

analysis 

At the end of this chapter is a table that 

summarizes all of the alternatives and 

allows the reader to compare the 

differences between alternatives.

All-terrain Vehicle (ATV)—

A motorized off-highway vehicle 

designed to travel on four low-pressure 

tires, having a seat designed to be 

straddled by the operator and 

handlebars for steering control.
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

46 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

x Alternative B would maintain existing opportunities 

for ORV experiences on the Core Banks; vehicle 

permits would be required, but there would be no 

limits on the number of vehicle permits issued; 

ORV use and density could increase; existing 

management practices at the Seashore would 

continue; an annual operator education certificate 

would be required; plus additional education and 

outreach and species management measures, such as 

seasonal restrictions on night driving, would be 

implemented. Non-sport ATVs and UTVs would be 

allowed at the Seashore from March 16 through 

December 31, and all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATV and UTVs would be 

prohibited year-round. High-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATV and UTVs would be 

phased out after a five-year grace period. Approximately 81 percent of the entire length of the 

Seashore would be potentially available for ORV use from March 16 through December 31. 

x Alternative C would create three new seasonal 

pedestrian-only areas, and expand one existing 

pedestrian-only area; vehicle permits would be 

required that would keep use at historic levels, but 

which could allow an increase in ORV density 

(use levels would be monitored and management 

actions could be triggered if density increases); 

existing management practices at the Seashore 

would continue; an annual operator education 

certificate would be required; plus additional 

education and outreach and species management 

measures, such as seasonal restrictions on night 

driving would be implemented. Alternative C 

would implement a seasonal prohibition of ATVs 

and UTVs; would prohibit high-performance 

sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs, and 

would implement restrictions on trailers, all with a 

five-year grace period. Approximately 79 percent 

of the entire length of the Seashore would be 

potentially available for ORV use from March 16 

through the Thursday preceding Memorial Day 

and from the day after Labor Day through 

December 15. Approximately 74 percent of 

Seashore beach would be available for ORV use 

from the Friday preceding Memorial Day through 

Labor Day. 

x Alternative D would provide increased 

opportunities for year-round pedestrian 

experiences; vehicle permits would be required 

and would be limited to keep the number of 

permits issued at 8 percent below current ORV use 

levels; existing management practices at the 

Seashore would continue; plus a requirement for 

Utility-type Vehicle (UTV)—

A motorized vehicle designed and 

manufactured for general maintenance, 

security, recreational, and landscaping 

purposes, but does not include vehicles 

designed and used primarily for the 

transportation of persons or property on 

a street or highway.

High-performance ATVs and UTVs are

designed for high performance, such as 

racing, jumping, and/or sliding around 

corners, with high acceleration motors, 

long traveling shocks, low center of 

gravity, light weight features, and for 

speeds over 50 mph. They are not 

equipped for utility work and typically lack 

the following: front and rear racks (ATVs),

utility bed (UTVs), tow bar/hitch, and low 

geared motors. They generally lack lights, 

(headlights and tail lights), full protective 

fenders, and running boards, and are 

lighter than utility models.

Utility-model ATVs are designed to be 

used in utilitarian ways, such as towing, 

hauling, and transporting equipment, and 

generally utility models have a maximum 

speed of approximately 45 mph, although 

some models are capable of higher 

speeds. Utility ATVs generally have 

headlights and tail lights, both front and 

back racks for hauling items, a bracket to 

hook up a trailer, large diameter shocks to 

support loads, and lower end gearing for 

pulling and towing.
Elements Common to All Alternatives 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 47

an annual operator education certificate, increased education and outreach and additional species 

management measures, such as seasonal restrictions on UTV use, night driving and a year-round 

prohibition of ATVs, high-performance sport-model and two-stroke UTVs, implemented after a 

five-year grace period. ORV trailers (anything that is pulled behind another vehicle) would be 

prohibited; UTV trailers 5 feet or less would be allowed. Approximately 73 percent of the entire 

length of the Seashore would potentially be available for ORV use from March 16 through 

December 15, with the exception that during the period from the Friday preceding Memorial Day 

through Labor Day, 63 percent of Seashore beach would be available for ORV use. 

x Alternative E would not provide or designate any public ORV routes, therefore alternative E 

would not allow for ORV use at the Seashore. No special regulation would be promulgated. 

Essential vehicles would continue to use routes as designated in alternative A and all existing 

species management measures would continue. 

ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

The following describes elements of the alternatives common to all alternatives. Alternative E would not 

allow for ORV use at the Seashore, therefore, elements related to vehicle use would not be applicable to 

alternative E. This is noted where applicable. 

About ORV Routes and Designated Areas 

x Cape Lookout National Seashore encompasses 56 miles of beach along the North Carolina coast 

including three main islands, North Core Banks, South Core Banks and Shackleford Banks. Other 

islands, such as Middle Core Banks, are smaller and have been created as a result of storm 

activity and other natural processes. 

x ORV use under the no-action alternative has historically been allowed only on the Core Banks. 

The 9 mile Shackleford Banks was designated as a “Proposed Wilderness” area under the 

Wilderness Act in 1984 and accordingly, ORV use on Shackleford Banks cannot be considered in 

this Off-road Vehicle Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (ORV management 

plan/EIS) under any alternative. However, when calculating the percentage of Seashore as 

available for ORV use (or as pedestrian-only areas), the 56 miles of the Seashore will be used as a 

baseline and Shackleford Banks will be counted as a pedestrian-only area. For all alternatives, the 

percentages listed are simply a starting point, and do not account for any other safety or resource 

closures that may be implemented, as needed, that may adjust the percentages. 

x In the event that an island is severed from another island (due to storms, flooding, etc.), the island 

would allow ORV use only if there is a ferry landing location on that island. If the island does not 

contain a ferry landing, then ORV use would be prohibited. For example, as of January 2013, 

Middle Core Banks is severed from ferry service and is closed to ORV use; the island and it’s 

portion of the back route would become accessible to ORV use if Old Drum Inlet closes and 

Middle Core Banks becomes accessible to vehicles (i.e., if Middle Core Banks reconnects to an 

island that has ferry service). 

Closures for Public Safety (Not Applicable under Alternative E) 

x This ORV management plan/EIS does not limit, or supersede existing authorities under NPS 

regulations contained at 36 CFR Part 1 et seq., which details the general provisions applicable to 

all national park system units. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

48 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

x ORV safety closures would be implemented in the event of a threat of significant bodily injury or 

death, and/or damage to personal property, including vehicles and their contents. ORV safety 

closures would preclude ORV access, while pedestrian access could be maintained through most 

safety closures. Conditions that could justify an ORV closure include, but are not limited to the 

following: 

 Deep beach cuts that block the beach from dune to surf with no obvious way around. 

 Obstacles, such as exposed stumps, shipwrecks, or debris, that cannot be safely bypassed or 

that block the entire width of the beach and cannot be easily removed. 

 Severe beach slope that puts vehicles in an unsafe position (slanted) and increases the 

chances of the loss of vehicular control. 

 A high concentration of pedestrian users coupled with a narrow beach. 

x NPS staff would monitor ORV safety closures on a regular basis. Sufficient reduction or 

elimination of the conditions prompting the closure, so there is no longer an imminent hazard, 

would constitute the condition for reopening a closure. 

Vehicle and Pedestrian Safety (Not Applicable under Alternative E) 

x Provisions related to vehicle and pedestrian safety currently exist under 36 CFR 4.20 (Right of 

way) and 36 CFR 4.22 (Unsafe operation). These provisions state that motor vehicle operators 

shall

 Yield the right of way to pedestrians (failure to yield the right of way is prohibited) 

 Maintain that degree of control of a motor vehicle necessary to avoid danger to persons, 

property, or wildlife. 

x As noted in the Superintendent’s Compendium (NPS 2013d) for the Seashore, the following 

provisions apply to vehicle and pedestrian safety: 

 Driving a vehicle in a manner that needlessly ruts the sand is prohibited. 

 Failing to fill to the original level any hole caused by excavating a vehicle from the sand is 

prohibited. 

 Upon approaching within 100 feet of any person, vehicle, campsite, other structure or while 

traveling within a lease area, the speed limit is reduced to 15 miles per hour. 

Shade Shelters 

x Shelters provide emergency protection from sudden storms. The existing shelters are at the 

following locations: 

 Shackleford Banks – near the horse pens 

 Cape Lookout Light Station – on the beach, at the pavilion and near the dock, and at the 

transportation hub 

 Great Island Cabin Area – near the dock 

 Long Point Cabin Area – near the dock and near the beach. 
Elements Common to All Alternatives 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 49

Speed Limits 

x According to 36 CFR 4.21, speed limits are designated annually in the Superintendent’s 

Compendium. The Superintendent’s Compendium is reviewed annually and is subject to change. 

The 2013 Superintendent’s Compendium states, 

 The maximum speed limit on the beach is 25 miles per hour or as otherwise posted. 

 The maximum speed limit on designated routes is 25 miles per hour or as otherwise posted. 

 Upon approaching within 100 feet of any person, vehicle, campsite, other structure or while 

traveling within a lease area, the speed limit is reduced to 15 miles per hour. 

 The maximum speed limit while carrying passengers in a trailer or other mode of conveyance 

towed behind the motor vehicle specifically designed for carrying passengers while being 

towed is 15 miles per hour. 

Exemptions for Essential Vehicles 

x Essential vehicles are only allowed in pedestrian-only areas for law enforcement, emergencies, or 

safety concerns. 

Alternative Transportation 

x According to the Commercial Services Plan / Environmental Assessment / Assessment of Effects

(NPS 2007m) for Cape Lookout National Seashore, the NPS would consider authorization of 

commercial beach shuttle services departing from each of the following developed nodes: 

Portsmouth Village / mile marker 1, Long Point, Great Island, the Cape Lookout Light Station, 

and the Cape Village Historic District.1

x Currently, a concession contract authorizes through 2024 a beach shuttle service on South Core 

Banks departing from the lighthouse area. An ATV and UTV tour has historically been permitted 

under an annual commercial use authorization (CUA) on North Core Banks from mile 

marker 0.0. CUAs are reviewed and issued annually based on applicable laws and policies. 

General Species Management 

The following description of elements common to all alternatives relates specifically to species 

management requirements. These species management measures are consistent across the alternatives 

unless otherwise noted below (refer to table 5 at the end of this chapter). Also, note that species 

management measures under alternative E are generally the same as alternative A but without ORV 

specific closures. Although ORVs would not be allowed under alternative E, areas may still be closed to 

pedestrians for resource protection. 

x For bird species, the description of alternatives and the alternative element summary table (refer 

to table 4 at the end of this chapter) describe how actions change with the specific life stages of 

 

1 Executive Order 11644, Use of ORVs on public lands, Section 3(C), defines ORVs, and excludes “any vehicle 

whose use is expressly authorized by the respective agency head under a permit, lease, license, or contract.” This 

definition is incorporated by reference into 36 CFR 4.10 governing ORVs in park units. Therefore, commercial 

vehicle uses, including CUAs, do not require routes designated by special regulation. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

50 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

each species. The alternatives were organized in this way to reflect that the biological needs and, 

hence, the management needs of each species change as a function of life stage. These life stages 

are explained in the following sections in chapter 3: “Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, 

or Candidate Species,” “State-listed and Special-status Species,” and “Other Wildlife and 

Wildlife Habitat.” 

x The timing of each life stage varies according to the species in question; however, there is much 

overlap among species. For example, surveying for piping plover is conducted at the same time as 

surveying for colonial waterbirds (e.g., least terns, common terns, and black skimmers). There 

would likely be overlap among the established closures, because the preferred habitat is similar 

between similar species (e.g., piping plover and Wilson’s plover). Therefore, some closures 

would likely occur at the same time and in the same place for multiple species. Specific survey 

requirements are provided in appendix A. 

Closures for Species Management 

x Closures for bird species would vary by alternative and 

are discussed under each alternative below. 

x For sea turtles, ORVs would be prohibited from entering 

sea turtle closures from 50 days after the nest is laid until 

after the nest has hatched. ORV access would be provided 

around the nest by either routing ORVs around the 

closure, where possible, or creating a ramp-to-ramp 

closure and routing ORVs to the back route where the 

buffer does not allow an ORV to be routed around the 

nest on the beach. 

x ORV closures are created when they are necessary for 

species protection, and are detailed in tables 4 and 5 at the 

end of this chapter. Under all alternatives, pedestrians would be allowed in these ORV closures. 

ORV closures would not occur under alternative E. Pedestrians would not be allowed in full 

recreational closures under any alternative. 

x In accordance with existing regulations (36 CFR 2.15) pets would be required to be leashed or 

otherwise physically confined at all times in all areas of the Seashore. 

x Camping and beach fires would be prohibited in turtle nest closures. 

x Visitors staying in Seashore cabins would be encouraged to minimize use of outside lights to 

prevent disturbance of hatchlings from artificial light. 

Species Surveying and Management 

x The Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan / 

Environmental Assessment, the Biological Opinion, the Amended Biological Opinion, and the 

FONSI, are the most recent Seashore planning guidance documents for species management. 

x Table 1 presents an overview of the conservation and performance measures for species identified 

during Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 7 consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) for the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan / 

Environmental Assessment, the Biological Opinion, the Amended Biological Opinion, and the 

FONSI. These species conservation and performance measures are subject to change based on ongoing section 7 consultation. 

ORV Closures—in these areas, 

ORV use is prohibited, but other 

recreational users such as 

pedestrians and leashed pets are 

allowed.

Full Recreational Closures—in

these areas, all recreational users 

are prohibited, including 

pedestrians, their pets, and ORVs.
Elements Common to All Alternatives 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 51

TABLE 1: SPECIES CONSERVATION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES FROM THE CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL 

SEASHORE INTERIM PROTECTED SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, BIOLOGICAL 

OPINION, AMENDED BIOLOGICAL OPINION, AND FONSI

[Note: These species conservation and performance measures are subject to change based on ongoing section 7 

consultation.]

Species Conservation Measures Performance Measures 

Piping 

Plover 

x Monitor abundance and distribution of 

wintering plovers through specific winter 

surveys. Provide monitoring data to the 

USFWS so the information may be 

combined with data from other monitoring 

efforts to determine the significance of 

Seashore breeding or wintering population 

segments to the state, region (middle 

Atlantic coast), or Atlantic coast population 

changes and trends. Document violations of 

closures by ORVs, pedestrians, and 

leashed and unleashed pets. 

x Monitor plover breeding activities at nesting 

sites to identify factors that may be limiting 

abundance of nesting plovers and 

productivity. 

x Monitor the impact of mammalian and bird 

predators on piping plover breeding 

productivity. 

x The NPS would seek funds for intensive 

research studies and surveys to address the 

following issues relative to the piping plover 

and other shorebirds: 

1. Study the role of habitat in fledging 

success of piping plover chicks; 

2. Partner with the Navy overflight study to 

measure the impact of overflights on 

shorebirds (this study was completed in 

June 2012). 

x Study the response of migrating and 

wintering piping plovers to disturbance by 

ORVs, pedestrians and pets. Determine the 

flushing distance for each of these 

disturbances. 

Measure 1, Number of Breeding Pairs—The goal is 

25 or more breeding pairs of piping plovers at the 

Seashore per year. Since 1989, the number of 

breeding pairs of piping plovers has ranged from 13 to 

39 pairs with an average of 25 pairs of breeding 

plovers. 

Measure 2, Number of Piping Plover Nests—The 

goal is at least one nest per breeding pair of piping 

plovers at the Seashore per year. Since 1989, the 

number of nests per breeding pair has ranged from 

1.0 to 1.7. Having a greater number of nests per 

breeding pair would indicate a greater loss of nests, 

and having fewer nests than breeding pairs could 

indicate disturbance of breeding pairs. 

Measure 3, Number of Chicks Fledged—The goal is 

at least 0.75 chicks fledged per breeding pair at the 

Seashore per year. Since 1989, the number of chicks 

fledged per breeding pair has ranged from 0.09 to 

0.92 with an average fledging rate of 0.48 chicks 

fledged per breeding pair. 

Measure 4, Monitoring Procedures—Cape Lookout 

National Seashore would consult with the USFWS to 

develop monitoring procedures and goals for wintering 

piping plovers. Until standard monitoring procedures 

are developed, the Seashore would monitor migrating 

piping plovers at least once per month around the 

15th of the month from August through March. 

Surveys would not include Middle Core Banks or 

Ophelia Banks unless one of these inlets closes. To 

investigate the movement of birds through the area 

around Ocracoke Inlet, counts would be made every 

two weeks from Ocracoke Inlet south 4 miles, from the 

end of July through mid-October. 

Re-initiation of Consultation if Performance 

Measure Goals Not Met—If one or more 

performance measures are not met, the Seashore 

would reinitiate consultation with USFWS as part of 

the annual review process identified in the USFWS 

Amended Biological Opinion (USFWS 2007a), unless 

the Seashore and the USFWS mutually agree that the 

failure to meet the goal was caused by factors beyond 

management control or influence of the Seashore. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

52 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Species Conservation Measures Performance Measures 

Sea Turtle x Monitor the number of nesting females and 

their reproductive success so that the 

current contribution of the Seashore to 

regional population dynamics can be better 

understood. 

x Monitor the impacts of predators on sea 

turtle nests. 

x Document violations of sea turtle closures 

by ORVs. 

x The NPS would seek funds for intensive 

research studies and surveys to determine 

the effects of night driving on nesting sea 

turtles at the Seashore. 

Measure 5, False Crawl Ratio—The goal is that the 

sea turtle false crawl to nest ratio (all species) is less 

than or equal to 1:1 (annually). Since 1990, the false 

crawl to nest ratio at the Seashore has ranged from 

0.56:1 to 1.58:1 with an average ratio of 0.96:1. If the 

Seashore finds a body pit of sea turtle activity but 

does not find the eggs and the activity is washed 

away, or if eggs do not hatch, then the activity is 

considered a false crawl. This definition of a false 

crawl potentially makes the ratio of false crawls to 

nests higher. 

Measure 6, Percentage of Sea Turtle Nests in the 

State—The goal is that the percentage of the state’s 

total sea turtle nests (all species) would be greater 

than or equal to 20 percent annually of the statewide 

average for the previous five years. Since 1996, the 

percentage of sea turtle nests in the state that occur 

at the Seashore has ranged from 12 to 25 percent 

with an average of 20 percent. 

Re-initiation of Consultation if Performance 

Measure Goals Not Met—If one or more 

performance measures are not met, the Seashore 

would reinitiate consultation with USFWS as part of 

the annual review process identified in the USFWS 

Amended Biological Opinion (USFWS 2007a), unless 

the Seashore and the USFWS mutually agree that the 

failure to meet the goal was caused by factors beyond 

management control or influence of the Seashore.

Seabeach 

Amaranth 

x Monitor the effects of nutria grazing on 

seabeach amaranth at the Seashore. 

x NPS would seek funds for intensive 

research studies and surveys to address the 

following issues relative to seabeach 

amaranth: 

1. Determine and assess effects of both 

natural and human disturbances, including 

ORV use, to the species at the Seashore. 

2. Determine the effect of webworm 

herbivory on seabeach amaranth at the 

Seashore. 

Performance measures are not applicable to 

seabeach amaranth. 

x Consultation with the USFWS regarding ESA compliance measures would continue under all 

alternatives. 

x Additional species surveying measures from the Cape Lookout National Park Interim Protected 

Species Management Plan / Environmental Assessment are included in table 4 at the end of this 

chapter. Additional elements that would be implemented under each alternative are included in 

table 5 at the end of this chapter. 

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION 

The Department of the Interior regulations implementing NEPA state that there are two interpretations of 

the term “no-action.” First, ‘‘no-action’’ may mean ‘‘no change’’ from a current management direction or 

level of management intensity (e.g., if no ground disturbance is currently underway, no action means no 

ground disturbance). Second, ‘‘no-action’’ may mean ‘‘no project’’ in cases where a new project is 
Alternative A: No Action 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 53

proposed for implementation (43 CFR 46.30). The no-action alternative is developed for two purposes: a 

no-action alternative may represent the agency’s past and current actions or inaction on an issue 

continued into the future and may also describe existing impacts continued into the future. The no-action 

alternative presented in this ORV management plan/EIS meets both of these purposes and represents no 

change from the current level of management direction and level of management intensity. 

In compliance with the settlement agreement reached in Friends of the Earth v. Department of Interior

(478 F. Supp 2d 11, D.C. Dist. Ct. (2007)), Cape Lookout National Seashore (Seashore) implemented 

interim ORV management planning pursuant to the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected 

Species Management Plan / Environmental Assessment, Biological Opinion and Amended Biological 

Opinion, and FONSI, which serve in part as the no-action alternative for this ORV management plan/EIS 

and will be in effect until its completion. The no-action alternative reflects long-standing ORV use at the 

Seashore and is consistent with park planning documents over previous decades, including the Seashore’s 

General Management Plan (NPS 1982), and General Management Plan Amendment (NPS 2001d), which 

allow ORV use. 

As stated in chapter 1, in order to allow off-road use, NPS must promulgate a special regulation 

authorizing use at the Seashore. Without a special regulation, continued off-road use would conflict with 

NPS regulations (36 CFR 4.10). Therefore, to implement the no-action alternative, NPS would need to 

promulgate a special regulation. 

NPS recognizes that because there is currently no regulation in place allowing ORV use, a number of 

commenters on this process have advocated that a “no off-road vehicle use” alternative should be the noaction alternative. However, NPS does not believe that a “no off-road vehicle use” alternative would fully 

serve the function of a no-action alternative. Given the history of continuous ORV use since the 1930s, 

almost 50 years before the Seashore was established, as well as the allowance of ORV use since the 

Seashore’s establishment, and its allowance in park planning documents and a settlement agreement, a 

complete off-road use prohibition cannot be considered as the “current management direction or level of 

management intensity.” NPS notes that if a “no off-road vehicle use” alternative had been chosen as the 

no-action alternative, a regulation terminating ORV use, pursuant to 36 CFR 1.5(b), may have also been 

required to implement that alternative. Thus, without action, ORV use would likely continue. 

The anticipated benefits and other impacts of a complete prohibition of ORV use are fully discussed in 

the environmental impact analysis for alternative E and compared to the impacts of other alternatives and 

the existing condition in the discussion section, but cannot substitute as the baseline of existing impacts. 

Therefore, NPS believes that the best representation of the no-action alternative is the current condition, 

as described in previous planning documents (including the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim 

Protected Species Management Plan / Environmental Assessment) and on-the-ground current 

management.

The elements proposed under alternative A are summarized below and fully detailed in tables 3, 4, and 5 

at the end of this chapter. 

Designated Vehicle Routes and Pedestrian-Only Areas—Eighty one percent (45 of 56 miles) of the 

entire length of the Seashore would be available for ORV use from March 16 through December 31. 

Areas and routes open to ORV use, unless closed for safety or resource protection, would be identical to 

those areas and routes currently marked and designated in the 2013 Superintendent’s Compendium. 

Pedestrian-only areas (constituting 19 percent of the entire length of the Seashore year-round and 100 

percent of the entire length of the Seashore from January 1 through March 15) would include all 

soundside beaches (except for the one designated vehicle soundside access area on each island), 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

54 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Portsmouth Village; the lighthouse beach; Power Squadron Spit from about mile marker 46 to the end of 

the spit; and all of Shackleford Banks. 

For all alternatives, these percentages are simply a starting point, and do not account for any other safety 

or resource closures that may be implemented, as needed, that may adjust the percentages. 

Back Route Access and Configuration—At North Core Banks, the back route would parallel the beach 

behind the primary dune line from approximately 0.5 miles south of Portsmouth Flats at mile marker 4 to 

0.5 mile north of Old Drum Inlet at mile marker 18 with the exception there is no back route at KathrynJane Flats from mile 6 to mile 7. 

At Middle Core Banks, the back route would parallel the beach behind the primary dune line from south 

of Old Drum Inlet at ramp 19 to north of New Drum Inlet at ramp 21. 

At the South Core Banks, the back route would parallel the beach behind the primary dune line 

approximately 1 mile south of Ophelia Inlet at mile marker 24 to the point of Cape Lookout at mile 

marker 44. A section of back route from mile marker 44 to mile marker 45 would be opened when 

temporary resource closures at the point of Cape Lookout prevent vehicles from driving past the point. 

Use of ATV and UTVs at the Seashore—ATV and UTVs would be allowed from March 16 through 

December 31 at the Seashore with no limitations on type. 

Vehicle Permits and Fees and Education Requirements—No vehicle permit would be required. No 

vehicle limits would be established and no operator education certificate would be required. 

Vehicle Delivery, Storage and Fees—Visitors would be allowed to deliver ATV and UTVs in their 

personal vessels to the Seashore for personal use at designated and marked soundside access points. Other 

ORVs may only be delivered via NPS authorized vehicle ferries. 

Long-term vehicle storage and parking would be available at four lots at the Seashore: Long Point (North 

Core Banks), Great Island main lot (South Core Banks), Great Island Carly Dock lot (South Core Banks), 

and the lighthouse complex (South Core Banks). A parking permit would be required for long-term 

vehicle storage. The fee for the parking permit would be established to ensure the recovery of the cost of 

managing the parking permit program and is subject to change. Fees would be nonrefundable and 

nontransferable. There would be no limits on the number of long-term parking permits issued. 

Miscellaneous Vehicle and Operator Requirements—Vehicle and operator requirements would be 

established by the following authorities: 

x 36 CFR, including a Cape Lookout National Seashore Special ORV Regulation 

x North Carolina Motor Vehicle Codes (as adopted by 36 CFR 4.2) 

x Superintendent’s Compendium and 36 CFR 4.2 (updated each year). 

Species Management Measures—Species management measures would be the same as those outlined in 

“Elements Common to All Alternatives” previously in this chapter. In addition, for protected bird species, 

ORVs would be allowed in a corridor along the shoreline where 150-foot buffers can be maintained for 

colonial nesting species and 600-foot buffers can be maintained for foraging piping plover chicks. If a 

piping plover chick is found using the ocean beach, the 600-foot buffer would be put in place immediately 

and ORVs would be routed to the back route, if necessary. If no back route is available the beach would 

be closed to vehicles. If NPS staff are available, a vehicle escort program could be used on a very limited 
Action Alternatives 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 55

case-by-case basis around bird closures to maintain access to Portsmouth Village, the interior of the point 

of Cape Lookout, or areas with no back route access. Escorts would be led by trained NPS staff and 

would be limited to 25 vehicles or less. A minimum 300-foot buffer and full beach ramp-to-ramp ORV 

closure would be provided for mobile American oystercatcher chicks and would be adjusted to follow 

chick movement. Access would be allowed through American oystercatcher closures if no back route 

access is available. ORVs would be routed around colonial waterbird closures where a 150-foot buffer 

cannot be maintained. Management measures for all protected species are detailed in tables 3, 4, and 5 at 

the end of this chapter. 

Education and Outreach—A variety of methods would be used to communicate to visitors about 

species, resource information, and ORV program information, such as the following: 

x Post signage at the Seashore to make information on beach closures and Seashore resources 

readily available. Present information in a clear manner to the public. 

x Notify the public of species management closures and beach access status through press releases, 

email updates, and postings at the Seashore visitor center and on the Seashore website. 

x At the Seashore visitor center and on the Seashore website, provide education and outreach 

materials regarding protected species and actions to protect nesting birds and sea turtles. These 

materials would include regulations regarding trash disposal, wildlife feeding, and pets, and the 

impacts of such activities on sensitive Seashore species, as well as information on dynamic 

coastal processes, climate change (e.g., sea level rise, storms) and the important role that ORV 

drivers play in protecting habitat, and preventing erosion and corridors that can channel 

overwash.

x Provide education and outreach materials regarding visitor safety at the Seashore visitor center 

and on the Seashore website. 

x Provide education and outreach materials regarding ORV driving requirements at the Seashore 

visitor center and on the Seashore website. 

x Solicit input from interested parties regarding how to convey information about the species 

management program. 

x Publish annual protected species reports on the Seashore website regarding the previous breeding 

season. 

ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

The action alternatives (except alternative E) would establish designated ORV routes and areas, with 

some alternatives integrating additional designated areas that would provide visitors with a pedestrianonly visitor experience. Elements common to action alternatives B, C, and D are discussed below, 

followed by a discussion of each alternative. 

ELEMENTS COMMON TO ACTION ALTERNATIVES B, C, AND D

The following describes elements of the management actions common to the action alternatives B, C, and 

D. These alternative elements are not common to alternative E because alternative E would eliminate 

ORV use throughout the Seashore. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

56 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

The Back Route 

x All action alternatives would include establishment of pull-outs along the back route, to allow 

vehicles to pass other oncoming vehicles. 

x The back route on South Core Banks from mile marker 44 to about mile marker 45 section would 

only be open when full beach closures at the Cape would otherwise prevent vehicles from driving 

past the Cape. 

x The back route would be re-established when it is impacted by a storm event, for resource 

protection and safety 

Operator Education Certificates 

x A free operator education certificate would be required for a licensed driver to operate a vehicle 

at the Seashore. 

x The education certificate would be issued in a manner to be determined. The following options 

would be considered: at the Seashore headquarters on Harkers Island, on-line, or on special 

request for groups. 

x The free certificate would be valid for the calendar year. 

x Drivers would be required to carry this certificate with them at all times when operating a vehicle 

on the Seashore. 

Vehicle Permits and Vehicle Permit Fees 

x A vehicle permit would be required, issued under Special Use Permit authority. This permit 

would be nontransferable, and attached to an individual vehicle. The permit would be valid on a 

long-term (annual) or short-term (10-day) basis. 

x It is the Seashore’s goal to make the vehicle permit convenient to obtain. NPS reserves the right 

to change the permit system over time, such as to implement a lottery or partial lottery system. 

The goal is to ensure the permit system is simple, straightforward, fair, accessible, and cost 

efficient to manage. 

x A long-term (annual) and short-term (10-day) vehicle fee would be established; the amount of the 

fee would be based on guidance in NPS Director’s Order and Reference Manual 53, which 

focuses on cost recovery (including route maintenance, law enforcement, species protection, 

permit issuance, and other associated program costs). The fee is estimated to be $150 for longterm (annual) permits or $80 for short-term (10-day) permits. The long-term (annual) permit fee 

would not be prorated for partial years. 

Miscellaneous Vehicle and Operator Requirements 

The following vehicles would be prohibited anywhere within the Seashore: 

x High-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATV and UTVs (after a five-year grace period) 

x Vehicles with three wheels or less 

x Tracked vehicles 

x Farm vehicles 
Action Alternatives 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 57

x Vehicles with two-stroke engines 

x Combination vehicles (i.e., amphibious ATVs, amphibious aircraft, aircraft). 

Shade Shelters 

NPS would construct up to six additional shelters located along the islands, generally near the back route 

(two new shelters would be constructed on North Core Banks, and four new shelters would be constructed 

on South Core Banks). Shade shelters are intended to provide visitors and staff emergency shelter for 

sudden storms. 

Adaptive Management Strategy 

An adaptive management strategy would be implemented that evaluates species disturbance. Disturbance 

to American oystercatcher (an indicator species) would be monitored, primarily related to impacts from 

ORVs. American oystercatchers are used as an indicator species because they are solitary nesters and are 

among the bird species at the Seashore, they are the most sensitive to disturbance. If species indicators are 

triggered (described below), the following actions would take place: 

x Step 1: Where two of the four species indicators have reached moderate impacts, more intensive 

management actions could be implemented. The following are management actions the Seashore 

may conduct at any time; however, under the adaptive management strategy additional resources 

would be focused on these actions: 

 Additional, focused trash management and fish scrap disposal 

 Additional predator control 

 Additional education with testing 

 Additional, focused enforcement 

 ORV route restrictions 

 Increased species buffers 

 Reduction in the number of long-term (annual) and/or short-term (10-day) vehicle permits 

issued, and manage the size of parking (vehicle storage lots). 

x Step 2: If species indicators are triggered for two consecutive years after implementing Step 1, 

then the following management actions shall be taken. These management actions would not 

occur where the Seashore is able to show that species indicators were triggered due to hurricanes 

or other strong storms, predators, or other natural conditions not tied to impacts from visitor use. 

 Reduction in the number of long-term (annual) and/or short-term (10-day) vehicle permits 

issued

 Increased species protection buffers. 

Species indicators will be reevaluated after a five-year grace period, and possibly changed, based on new 

information. The following indicators are as follows: 

x Breeding population size. Target 60 breeding pairs. Minor impact: <55 breeding pairs. Moderate 

impact: <50 breeding pairs. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

58 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

x Nest survival. Target >30% of nests initiated hatch one or more chicks. Minor impact: 25%–

30%. Moderate impact: <25%. 

x Chicks fledged per breeding pair per year. Target > 0.40. Minor impact: 0.40–0.30. Moderate 

impact: < 0.30. 

x Mammal predation. Target <20% of nests lost to mammals per year. Minor impact: 20%–25%. 

Moderate impact: >25%. 

Education and Outreach 

A variety of methods would be used to communicate to visitors about species, resource information, wise 

use, and ORV program information. In addition, educational materials would be actively provided to 

Seashore users through the educational certificate requirement (discussed above). This information would 

be updated annually based on issues identified from the previous season and other adaptive management 

needs.

Additional ORV specific education could include the following: 

x On-the-ground interpretive programs related to ORV use 

x Work with vehicle ferry operators to have them distribute educational materials on ORV rules 

and regulations 

x Provision of a regularly updated map of closures—online and posted within the Seashore where 

possible.

DISCUSSION OF ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

ALTERNATIVE B

Alternative B would maintain existing opportunities for ORV experiences on the Core Banks; vehicle 

permits would be required, but there would be no limits on the number of vehicle permits issued; ORV 

use and density could increase; existing management practices at the Seashore would continue; an annual 

operator education certificate would be required, plus additional education and outreach and species 

management measures, such as seasonal restrictions on night driving would be implemented. In addition 

there would be a phase out of high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATV and UTVs after a fiveyear grace period. The elements proposed under alternative B, are described below. 

Designated Vehicle Routes and Pedestrian-Only Areas—Eighty one percent (45 of 56 miles) of the 

entire length of the Seashore would be potentially available for ORV use from March 16 through 

December 31. Routes within the Cape Lookout Village Historic District would be open to through vehicle 

traffic. 

Pedestrian-only areas (constituting 19 percent of the entire length of the Seashore year-round and 100 

percent of the entire length of the Seashore from January 1 through March 15) would include the 

following: Portsmouth Village, the lighthouse beach (ramp 41a to 41b), and Power Squadron Spit from 

about mile marker 46 to the end of the spit, and all of Shackleford Banks. 

Back Route Access and Configuration—At North Core Banks, the back route would parallel the beach 

behind the primary dune line from approximately 0.5 miles south of Portsmouth Flats at mile marker 4 to 
Discussion of Action Alternatives 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 59

0.5 mile north of Old Drum Inlet at mile marker 18 with the exception there is no back route at KathrynJane Flats from mile 6 to mile 7. 

At Middle Core Banks, the back route would parallel the beach behind the primary dune line from south 

of Old Drum Inlet at ramp 19 to north of New Drum Inlet at ramp 21. (Note: As of January 2013, Middle 

Core Banks is severed from ferry service and is closed to ORV use; the island and its portion of the back 

route will again become accessible to ORV use if Middle Core Banks becomes accessible to vehicles (i.e., 

if Middle Core Banks reconnects to an island that has ferry service)). 

At South Core Banks, the back route would parallel the beach behind the primary dune line 

approximately 1 mile south of Ophelia Inlet at mile marker 24 to the point of Cape Lookout at mile 

marker 44. Additionally, the back route on South Core Banks would be extended from mile marker 44 to 

about mile marker 45 to allow vehicles to bypass bird closures at the Cape without going through the 

Cape Village Historic District. 

Up to four additional ramps may be created on North Core Banks and five on South Core Banks. Pullouts would be established along the back route that allows northbound and southbound vehicles to more 

easily pass one another along the route. Ramps would be sited to minimize impacts to the dunes, 

generally maintaining a spacing of a mile between ramps; locations of ramps may change after storm 

events.

Use of ATV and UTVs at the Seashore—Non-sport ATVs and UTVs would be allowed from March 16 

through December 31 within the Seashore provided the vehicles have not been modified and still meet the 

manufacturer’s original specifications for a utility model. All high-performance sport-model and twostroke ATV and UTVs (as defined by the manufacturer) would be prohibited after a five-year grace 

period. 

Rationale for limiting high-performance ATVs/UTVs—Although the Seashore allows ATV and UTV use 

for transportation within its boundaries, the use of the vehicles for performance riding is generally not 

consistent with the Seashore’s purpose or NPS Management Policies 2006. These high performance 

vehicles are generally faster, noisier, and less safe than utility models. The two-stroke models generally 

produce more pollutants then the four-stroke models. They are by design made for racing, jumping, and 

moving at high speeds, instead of used as a tool for access to the Seashore. 

Vehicle Permits and Fees and Education Requirements—A nontransferable short–term (10-day) or 

long-term (annual) vehicle permit would be required. The fee is estimated to be $150 for long-term 

(annual) permits or $80 for short-term (10-day) permits. 

There would be no limit on the number of permits issued, except as recommended to implement adaptive 

management.

An operator education certificate would be required for a licensed driver to operate a vehicle at the 

Seashore as described in “Elements Common to Action Alternatives B, C, and D.” 

The superintendent may revoke a vehicle permit and/or an operator education certificate for violation of 

applicable park regulations or terms and conditions of the permit. 

Vehicle Delivery, Storage and Fees—Visitors would be allowed to deliver via their personal vessel 

ATVs and/or UTVs to the Seashore for personal use at designated soundside access points. Other ORVs 

may only be delivered via NPS authorized vehicle ferries. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

60 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Long-term vehicle storage and parking would be provided at four lots at the Seashore: Long Point (North 

Core Banks), Great Island main lot (South Core banks), Great Island Carly Dock lot (South Core Banks), 

and the lighthouse complex (South Core Banks). 

A parking permit would be required for long-term vehicle storage. The fee for the parking permit would 

be valid on a monthly basis, based on guidance in NPS Director’s Order and Reference Manual 53 (NPS 

2000e). A parking permit would be expected to cost between $60 and $80 per month. Fees would be 

nonrefundable and nontransferable. 

The number of parking permits issued monthly would be limited, based on the vehicle capacity of the lot; 

permits would be issued on a first-come, first-served basis. The parking lots would have the following 

vehicle capacity, though this capacity may be reduced for adaptive management strategies: 

x Spring/Summer Season (from March 15 through September 14) 

 Long Point = 20 vehicles 

 Great Island = 90 vehicles (Includes Great Island main lot and Great Island Carly Dock lot) 

 Lighthouse Complex = 20 vehicles 

x Fall Season (from September 15 through December 15) 

 Long Point = 50 vehicles 

 Great Island = 150 vehicles (Includes Great Island main lot and Great Island Carly Dock lot) 

 Lighthouse Complex = 35 vehicles. 

Long-term vehicle lots would be closed from December 16 through March 15. 

Under alternative B, emergency (storm refuge) parking could be provided, on a case–by-case basis, in 

designated areas along the back route. This would allow for overnight vehicle parking during times of 

adverse weather or unusually high tide events. Table 2 shows the approximate location for each overnight 

emergency parking area, and the approximate number of vehicles they would allow. 

Miscellaneous Vehicle and Operator Requirements—Miscellaneous vehicle and operator requirements 

would be the same as those outlined above under “Elements Common to Action Alternatives B, C, and 

D.” In addition, there would be further requirements under alternative B. 

Number of axles and wheels—There would be a two-axle maximum for vehicles (UTVs are allowed three 

axles), and vehicles with a maximum of six wheels would be allowed (dual wheels allowed)—this is the 

axle maximum for the powered vehicle and does not include additional number of axles on towed trailers. 

Vehicle Length—The maximum vehicle length is 30 feet (this is the maximum length for the powered 

vehicle, including all attachments, and does not include the additional length of a towed trailer). 

Trailers—Trailers would be limited to no more than two axles (and except for ATV and UTV trailers), 

must be street legal, and can be no longer than 30 feet including all attachments. 

x ATV and UTV trailers can be no longer than 5 feet, including all attachments. 

x Passengers would not be allowed to ride in or on a trailer, unless authorized by a commercial use 

or other written NPS authorization. 
Discussion of Action Alternatives 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 61

TABLE 2: OVERNIGHT EMERGENCY PARKING AREAS AND NUMBER OF VEHICLES ALLOWED

North Core Banks Approximate Number of Vehicles Allowed 

Mile marker 1.5 1–3 

Mile marker 9 3–4 

Mile marker 11 4–6

Mile marker 14 2–3

Mile marker 16–17 4–6 

Mile marker 18 2

Mile marker 18b 2–3

Mile marker 21–22 2–4 

South Core Banks Approximate Number of Vehicles Allowed 

Mile marker 26–27 4–6 

Mile marker 29–31 4–6 

Mile marker 33 2–3

Mile marker 35–36 3–4 

Mile marker 38–39 4–6 

Mile marker 42–43 6–8 

Mile marker 42–43 2–4 

Mile marker 42–43 4–6 

Mile marker 43–44 2–3 

Species Management Measures—Species management measures would be the same as those outlined 

above under “Elements Common to All Alternatives.” In addition, for protected bird species ORVs would 

be allowed in a corridor along the shoreline where 150-foot buffers can be maintained for colonial nesting 

species and 600-foot buffers can be maintained for foraging piping plover chicks. If a piping plover chick 

is found using the ocean beach, the 600-foot buffer would be put in place immediately and ORVs would 

be routed to the back route if necessary. If no back route is available the beach would be closed to 

vehicles. Vehicle escorts could be implemented as described under alternative A. A minimum 300-foot 

buffer and ramp-to-ramp full beach ORV closure would be established for mobile American oystercatcher 

chicks and would be adjusted to follow chick movement. Access would be allowed through American 

oystercatcher closures if no back route access is available. ORVs would be routed around colonial 

waterbird closures where a 150-foot buffer cannot be maintained. 

Night driving restrictions would also be implemented from May 1 through August 31 to reduce potential 

impacts to turtles and bird chicks. 

Under alternative B, the Seashore would perform limited removal of mammalian predators, when 

predation is observed that impacts federally listed species or species of special concern. 

Management measures for all protected species are fully detailed in tables 3, 4, and 5 at the end of this 

chapter.

ALTERNATIVE C

Alternative C would create three new seasonal pedestrian-only areas, and expand one existing pedestrianonly area; vehicle permits would be required that would keep growth at historic levels, but could allow an 

increase in ORV density (use levels would be monitored and management actions could be triggered if 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

62 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

density increases); existing management practices at the Seashore would continue; an annual operator 

education certificate would be required, plus additional education and outreach and species management 

measures, such as seasonal restrictions on night driving would be implemented. Alternative C would 

implement a seasonal prohibition of ATVs and UTVs; would prohibit high-performance sport-model and 

two-stroke ATVs and UTVs, and would implement restrictions on trailers, all with a five-year grace 

period. 

The elements proposed under alternative C, are described below. 

Designated Vehicle Routes and Pedestrian-Only Areas—Seventy nine percent of the entire length of 

the Seashore (44 of 56 miles) would be potentially available for ORV use from March 16 through the 

Thursday preceding Memorial Day and from the day after Labor Day through December 15. Seventy four 

percent of the entire length of the Seashore (41 of 56 miles) would be available for ORV use from the 

Friday proceeding Memorial Day through Labor Day. Routes within the Cape Lookout Village Historic 

District would be open to through vehicle traffic. 

Pedestrian-only areas (constituting 21 percent of the entire length of the Seashore from March 16 through 

the Thursday preceding Memorial Day and from the day after Labor Day through December 15, 

26 percent of the entire length of the Seashore from the Friday preceding Memorial Day through Labor 

Day, and 100 percent of the entire length of the Seashore from December 16 through March 15) would 

include the following: Portsmouth Village, an expanded lighthouse beach, and Power Squadron Spit from 

approximately mile marker 46 to the end of the spit, and all of Shackleford Banks. 

Pedestrian-only areas would be expanded during the summer (defined as from the Friday proceeding 

Memorial Day through Labor Day) would include the following: 

x Long Point: On the ocean beach at the Long Point Cabin Camp for a day-use beach and a separate 

tent camping area for a total pedestrian-only area of about 0.50 miles, to be determined by beach 

profile. 

x Great Island: On the ocean beach at the Great Island Cabin Camp for a day-use beach and a 

separate tent camping area for a total pedestrian-only area of 1.9 miles, to be determined by beach 

profile. 

x Codds Creek: On the ocean beach near Codds Creek for a total closure of 0.8 miles between mile 

marker / ramps 35a and 35b for pedestrians only. Camping would be allowed in this area, except 

for the north end turtle relocation site. 

x Light Station: The pedestrian-only area at the lighthouse would be expanded approximately 0.7 

miles to the south and would run from ramp 41a to ramp 42a (at the NOAA weather buoy) for a 

total closure of about 1.4 miles year-round, to provide visitors at the ferry hub a bigger stretch of 

vehicle-free beach. 

Back Route Access and Configuration—At the North Core Banks, the back route would parallel the 

beach behind the primary dune line from approximately 0.5 miles south of Portsmouth Flats at mile 

marker 4 to 0.5 mile north of Old Drum Inlet at mile marker 18 with the exception there is no back route 

at Kathryn-Jane Flats from mile 6 to mile 7. 

At the South Core Banks, the back route would parallel the beach behind the primary dune line 

approximately 1 mile south of Ophelia Inlet at mile marker 24 to the point of Cape Lookout at mile 

marker 44. Additionally, the back route on South Core Banks would be extended from mile marker 44 to 
Discussion of Action Alternatives 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 63

mile marker 45; this section of back route would only be open when the area of the Cape closes to 

through traffic. 

Up to four additional ramps may be created on North Core Banks and five on South Core Banks. Pullouts would be established along the back route that allows northbound and southbound vehicles to more 

easily pass one another along the route. Ramps would be sited to minimize impacts to the dunes, 

generally maintaining a spacing of a mile between ramps; locations of ramps may change after storm 

events.

Use of ATV and UTVs at the Seashore—Non-sport ATVs and UTVs would be allowed from 

September 15 through December 15 within the Seashore, provided they have not been modified and still 

meet the manufacturer’s original specifications for a utility model. All high-performance sport-model and 

two-stroke ATVs and UTVs would be prohibited after a five-year grace period, for the same reasons as 

discussed under alternative B. 

Vehicle Permits and Fees and Education Requirements—A nontransferable short-term (10-day) or 

long-term (annual) vehicle permit would be required. The fee is estimated to be $150 for long-term 

(annual) permits or $80 for short-term (10-day) permits. 

The initial limit on the number of vehicle permits issued would be 2,500 permits annually for the North 

Core Banks and 3,000 permits annually for the South Core Banks, which is based on the average number 

of ORVs delivered to each island from 2005 through 2012. A limit on the number of vehicle permits 

issued per year would be established in year 4 of this ORV management plan/EIS, based on the average 

number of permits issued per island in years 1–3. Permits would be issued on a first-come, first-served 

basis. An annual lottery may be established to equitably allocate permits. The NPS would be required to 

maintain ORV use data such as, (1) the number of annual and weekly permits sold including the date sold, 

and daily vehicle use data; and (2) the total number of vehicles operating and stored on the islands each 

day. Adaptive management could apply, if necessary, to reduce use from the limit established in year 4 

(refer to the “Adaptive Management Strategy” section earlier in this chapter). 

An operator education certificate would be required for a licensed driver to operate a vehicle at the 

Seashore, as described above under “Elements Common to Action Alternatives B, D, and D.” The free 

certificate would be valid for one calendar year. 

The Superintendent may revoke a vehicle permit and/or an operator education certificate for violation of 

applicable park regulations or terms and conditions of the permit. 

Vehicle Delivery, Storage and Fees—Vehicles may only be transported to the Seashore via NPS 

authorized ferries. Transport of any ORV, including ATVs and UTVs, by personal vessel would be 

prohibited. 

Long-term vehicle storage and parking would continue to operate with the same limits discussed in 

alternative B, except there would be three lots instead of four. The parking lots at the Great Island area 

would be consolidated at the north end of Great Island, near Great Island Carly Dock, while still 

accommodating the number of vehicles described under alternative B. 

Under alternative C, emergency (storm refuge) parking could be provided, on a case-by-case basis, in 

designated areas along the back route. This would allow for overnight vehicle parking during times of 

adverse weather or unusually high tide events. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

64 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Miscellaneous Vehicle and Operator Requirements—Miscellaneous vehicle and operator requirements 

would be the same as described under alternative B, except restrictions on trailers would be implemented 

after a five-year grace period, and non-sport ATVs and UTVs would only be allowed from September 15 

through December 15 at the Seashore. 

Species Management Measures—Species management measures under alternative C would be the same 

as under alternative B with the following exceptions: 

x Night driving restriction would be in place from May 1 through September 14 to reduce potential 

impacts to turtles and bird chicks. 

x The winter Seashore closure would be extended to a total of 90 days: from December 16 through 

March 15. 

Management measures for all protected species are fully detailed in tables 3, 4, and 5 at the end of this 

chapter.

ALTERNATIVE D

Alternative D would provide increased opportunities for year-round pedestrian experiences; vehicle 

permits would be required and would be limited to keep the number of permits issued at 8 percent below 

current ORV use levels; existing management practices at the Seashore would continue, plus a 

requirement for an annual operator education certificate, increased education and outreach and additional 

species management measures, such as, night driving, and a year-round prohibition of ATVs, highperformance sport-model and two-stroke UTVs, implemented after a five-year grace period (with nonsport UTVs allowed only seasonally). 

The elements proposed under alternative D are described below. 

Designated Vehicle Routes and Pedestrian-Only Areas—Approximately 73 percent (41 of 56 miles) of 

the entire length of the Seashore would be potentially available for ORV use from March 16 through the 

Thursday preceding Memorial Day and from the day after Labor Day through December 15. Sixty-three 

percent (35 of 56 miles) of the entire length of the Seashore would be available for ORV use from the 

Friday preceding Memorial Day through Labor Day. Routes within the Cape Lookout Village Historic 

District would be closed to through vehicle traffic. A short-term parking area would be designated for 

those people driving to the village to visit and there would be a 0.2-mile bypass route around the district. 

Pedestrian-only areas would include Portsmouth Village, an expanded lighthouse beach, Power Squadron 

Spit from approximately mile marker 46 to the end of the spit, and all of Shackleford Banks. This 

constitutes 27 percent of the entire length of the Seashore from March 16 through the Thursday preceding 

Memorial Day and from the day after Labor Day through December 31, 37 percent of the entire length of 

the Seashore from the Friday preceding Memorial Day through Labor Day, and 100 percent of the entire 

length of the Seashore from December 16 through March 15. 

Additional year-round pedestrian-only areas would include the following: 

x Long Point: On the ocean beach at the Long Point Cabin Camp for a day-use beach and a separate 

tent camping area for a total pedestrian-only area of about 0.50 miles, to be determined by beach 

profile. 
Discussion of Action Alternatives 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 65

x Great Island: On the ocean beach at the Great Island Cabin Camp for a day-use beach and a 

separate tent camping area for a total pedestrian-only area of 1.9 miles, to be determined by beach 

profile. 

x Codds Creek: On the ocean beach near Codds Creek for a total closure of 0.8 miles between mile 

marker / ramps 35a and 35b for pedestrians only. Camping would be allowed in this area, except 

for the north end turtle relocation site. 

x Light Station: The pedestrian-only area at the lighthouse would be expanded approximately 0.7 

miles to the south and would run from ramp 41a to ramp 42a (at the NOAA weather buoy) for a 

total closure of about 1.4 miles, to provide visitors at the ferry hub a bigger stretch of vehicle-free 

beach.

Additional seasonal pedestrian-only areas from the Friday preceding Memorial Day through Labor Day 

would include the following: 

x Johnson’s Creek: area closed is from a new ramp at approximately mile marker 31 (near Guthries 

Hammock) opposite the sound access to the next ramp south for approximately 0.5 miles. This is 

a popular kayak area. A new ramp would be constructed 1/2 mile in front of Johnson’s Creek. 

x Middle Core Banks: closed to ORVs whether or not unified with North Core Banks for 3.6 miles 

(currently is a separate island). 

x Portsmouth Beach: from the Portsmouth Village 

access route north to demarcation line. 

Back Route Access and Configuration—At the North Core 

Banks, the back route would parallel the beach behind the 

primary dune line from approximately 0.5 miles south of 

Portsmouth Flats at mile marker 4 to 0.5 mile north of Old 

Drum Inlet at mile marker 18 with the exception that there is 

no back route at Kathryn-Jane Flats from mile 6 to mile 7. 

At Middle Core Banks, the back route would parallel the 

beach behind the primary dune line from south of Old Drum 

Inlet at ramp 19 to north of New Drum Inlet at ramp 21. (Note: 

as of January 2013, Middle Core Banks is severed from ferry 

service and is closed to ORV use; the island and it’s portion of 

the back route will again become accessible to ORV use if 

Middle Core Banks becomes accessible to vehicles (i.e., if 

Middle Core Banks reconnects to an island that has ferry 

service)). 

At the South Core Banks, the back route would parallel the 

beach behind the primary dune line approximately 2.5 miles 

south of New Drum Inlet at mile marker 24 to the point of 

Cape Lookout at mile marker 44. Additionally, the back route 

on South Core Banks from mile marker 44 to mile marker 45 would be open from March 16 through 

December 15 through construction of bridges over low-lying areas. This bypass route would facilitate 

access around the point when resource closures are in effect, and also facilitate the closure of Cape 

Lookout Village Historic District roads to through traffic. 

Demarcation Line—The North 

Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries 

uses as the boundary between the 

Atlantic Ocean and the inside sounds 

a federally designated line. This line 

delineates "International Regulations 

for Preventing Collisions at Sea" 

(COLREGS Lines of Demarcation) 

which were established by the Coast 

Guard to designate where 

"International Rules of the Road" 

separate from "U.S. Inland Rules." 

Individual lines were established 

where practical, by physical objects 

like fixed aids to navigation or 

prominent points of land, because 

they are readily discernible by the eye 

rather than by instruments.
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

66 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Up to four additional ramps may be created on North Core Banks and five on South Core Banks. Pullouts would be established along the back route to allow northbound and southbound vehicles to more 

easily pass one another along the route. Ramps would be sited to minimize impacts to the dunes, 

generally maintaining a spacing of a mile between ramps; locations of ramps may change after storm 

events.

Use of ATV and UTVs at the Seashore—Non-sport UTVs would be allowed from September 15 

through December 15 after the bird nesting season has concluded, provided they have not been modified 

and still meet the manufacturer’s original specifications for a utility model. All ATVs and highperformance sport-model and two stroke UTVs would be prohibited after a five-year grace period, for the 

same reasons as described under alternative B. 

Vehicle Permits and Fees and Education Requirements—As under alternative C, a nontransferable 10-

day or annual vehicle permit would be required. The fee is estimated to be $150 for long-term (annual) 

permits or $80 for short-term (10-day) permits. 

The limit on the number of permits issued would be determined in year 4 of the ORV plan from the 

average number of permits issued per island in years 1–3 of the ORV plan, minus 8 percent. which is 

intended to keep ORV density roughly the same due to the 8 percent increase in pedestrian-only areas 

over the no action alternative. The average number of permits issued under alternative D is likely to be 

lower than the average number of vehicles delivered to the islands because the number of vehicles 

delivered to the islands does not account for repeat visitors, thus allowing for some growth in the number 

of ORVs. 

An operator education certificate would be required for a licensed driver to operate a vehicle at the 

Seashore, as described above under “Elements Common to Action Alternatives B, C, and D.” The free 

certificate would be valid for one calendar year. 

The Superintendent may revoke a vehicle permit, and/or an operator education certificate for violation of 

applicable park regulations or terms and conditions of the permit. 

Vehicle Delivery, Storage and Fees—Vehicles may only be transported to the Seashore via NPS 

authorized ferries. 

No long-term vehicle storage and parking would be provided at the Seashore. The areas of the long-term 

parking / vehicle storage lots would be designated as overnight emergency (storm refuge) parking areas 

on a case-by-case basis, to allow for overnight vehicle parking during times of adverse weather or 

unusually high tide events. 

Miscellaneous Vehicle and Operator Requirements—Miscellaneous vehicle and operator requirements 

would be the same as described under alternative B, except ATVs and trailers would be prohibited after a 

5-year grace period; UTV trailers (5 feet or less) would continue to be allowed. 

Species Management Measures—Species management measures under alternative D would be the same 

as under alternative B with the following exceptions: 

x Additional species management measures would be implemented for bird species, including the 

following: 
Discussion of Action Alternatives 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 67

 Increasing the buffers during courtship/mating including increasing the colonial water bird 

buffers to 600 feet; increasing the least tern buffers to 300 feet; and increasing the American 

oystercatcher buffers to 450 feet. 

 Increase buffers during nesting including increasing the colonial water bird buffers to 600 

feet; increasing the least tern buffers to 300 feet; and increasing the American oystercatcher 

buffers to 450 feet. Where American oystercatcher nests are present, vehicles would be 

routed around American oystercatcher nests or chicks where the back route is available (no 

pass-though zone in American oystercatcher buffers) during the nesting season, typically 

from mid-May through the end of July. If no back route is available, a pass-through zone 

would be allowed (refer to alternative A). 

x The following management measures would be implemented for unfledged piping plovers: 

 Monitor all broods during the chick-rearing phase of the breeding season, with frequency of 

monitoring same as alternative A, and; 

 Pedestrian-only areas would be established in the vicinity of unfledged broods based on the 

mobility of broods observed on the site in past years and on the frequency of monitoring as 

follows: unless substantial data from past years show that broods on a site stay close to their 

nest locations, pedestrian-only areas should extend at least 650 feet on each side of the nest 

site during the first week following hatching. The size and location of the protected area 

should be adjusted in response to the observed mobility of the brood, but in no case should be 

reduced to less than 650 feet on each side. In some cases, highly mobile broods may require 

protected areas up to 3,250 feet, even when intensively monitored. Protected areas should 

extend from the oceanside low water line to the bayside low water line or the farthest extent 

of dune habitat. Vehicles may be allowed to pass through portions of protected area that are 

considered inaccessible (as above). This is a seasonal closure from May through August. 

x A night driving restriction would be in place from May 1 through September 14 to reduce 

potential impacts to turtles and bird chicks (same as alternative C). 

x The Seashore would be closed to ORV use from December 16 (same as alternative C) through 

March 15. 

Management measures for all protected species are fully detailed in tables 3, 4, and 5 at the end of this 

chapter.

ALTERNATIVE E

Under alternative E, the entire area of the Core Banks would be closed to public ORV use. Entry by 

public vehicles into these areas would be prohibited. Use by NPS essential vehicles, and other vehicle use 

authorized by the NPS would continue. 

The elements proposed under alternative E are described below. 

Designated Vehicle Routes and Pedestrian-Only Areas—The entire Seashore would be closed to 

public recreational ORV use. Entry by public vehicles into these areas would be prohibited, and only use 

by NPS essential vehicles, and other vehicle use authorized by the NPS, would be allowed (concession 

vehicles included). 

Year-round pedestrian-only areas would extend to the entire area of the Core Banks and Shackleford 

Banks.
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

68 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Back Route Access and Configuration—No back route access would be provided. The entire area of the 

Core Banks and Shackleford Banks would be closed to public ORV use. However, the back route would 

be maintained to allow for official NPS use and other vehicle use authorized by the NPS, (concession 

vehicles included). 

Use of ATV and UTVs at the Seashore—No public ORV use of any kind would be allowed at the 

Seashore. 

Vehicle Permits and Fees and Education Requirements—No public ORV use of any kind would be 

allowed at the Seashore. 

Vehicle Delivery, Storage and Fees—No public ORV use of any kind would be allowed at the Seashore. 

Miscellaneous Vehicle and Operator Requirements—No public ORV use of any kind would be 

allowed at the Seashore. 

Species Management Measures—Species management measures under alternative E would be the same 

as alternative A except there would be no ORV specific closures. Management measures for all protected 

species are fully detailed in tables 3, 4, and 5 at the end of this chapter. 

Education and Outreach—All education efforts would be directed toward pedestrian use as ORVs 

would not be allowed at the Seashore. 

ALTERNATIVE ELEMENTS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM 

FURTHER ANALYSIS 

USE AREAS, ORV MANAGEMENT, AND VISITOR USE

Open the Seashore Year-round and Encourage Winter Use 

During public scoping, some commenters asked that the Seashore be open year-round to ORV use. Other 

commenters suggested that the Seashore encourage winter use. As described in chapter 1, critical 

wintering habitat for piping plovers has been identified by the USFWS in six geographic locations of 

Cape Lookout National Seashore. These areas are located in the NC-6, NC-7, and NC-8 designation 

areas. Maintaining the closure of the Seashore in the winter months would further protect this area of 

wintering habitat for the piping plover, which is in compliance with the Seashore’s enabling legislation, 

executive orders, NPS Management Policies 2006, and other regulations to ensure the protection of 

threatened and endangered species. Opening the Seashore year-round to ORV use would not meet the 

objectives of the ORV management plan/EIS to minimize impacts on natural physical resources, wildlife, 

and wildlife habitat and vegetation. Under alternatives A and B, the Seashore is open to ORV use through 

December 31, and under alternatives C and D the Seashore is open to ORV use through December 15. 

This leaves a maximum of three months of the year when ORV use is not allowed (from December 16 

through March 15). The Seashore also did not include an alternative that would include year-round ORV 

use because the winter closure allows for the mandatory removal of all vehicles from the Seashore once a 

year. By making sure all of these vehicles are removed at least once a year, the Seashore can ensure 

vehicles are in running order and maintained, reducing the possibility for derelict vehicles on the island. 

There can be a substantial cost involved in removing stranded vehicles. The maximum three-month ORVfree time would also allow the island time for natural recovery from the impacts of ORV use. Because 

natural resource and law enforcement staff duties are at their lowest level during this time, it would 

reduce the cost and time burden on the Seashore for enforcement in this area when visitation would be the 
Alternative Elements Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 69

lowest. For these reasons, the Seashore believes opening the Seashore year-round would not be consistent 

with the purposes of this ORV management plan/EIS. Because it does not meet the purpose and 

objectives of this ORV management plan/EIS, this element was not carried forward for further analysis. 

Close the Back Route to ORV Access 

Commenters suggested closing the back route to regular ORV access. Some suggested this route should 

be used only as a way to get around resource closures, not on a regular basis. This element was not carried 

forward in any of the alternatives because the Seashore believes this route is necessary not only for 

driving around resource closures, but for safety to provide access around high tide areas. Since the 

Seashore is not able to predict where these areas would occur, it is necessary to keep the entire length of 

the back route available. Closing the back route to regular ORV use would not be consistent with the 

objective of this ORV management plan/EIS to ensure the safety of all visitors. Further, allowing ORV 

use on the back route gives the park the ability to allow visitor use in times of extensive or full-beach 

resource protection closures. This is consistent with the objective of this ORV management plan/EIS to 

establish ORV management practices and procedures that have the ability to adapt in response to changes 

in the Seashore’s dynamic physical and biological environment. Because closing the back route to regular 

ORV access does not meet the objectives of this ORV management plan/EIS, this element was not carried 

forward for further analysis. 

Require Vehicle Inspections by NPS Staff as a Permit Requirement 

Commenters suggested that the management of ORVs include a required vehicle inspection, possibly as 

part of a permitting system. The Seashore believes the expense of such an inspection regime would 

outweigh its utility. This ORV management plan/EIS proposes a limited number of specific equipment 

requirements that are specific to ORV use, and monitoring for such requirements could be done 

coincidental with enforcement. More comprehensive safety and environmental inspections are required 

under the various state motor vehicle laws and the Seashore would continue to require all vehicles to 

comply with state law. Because this element is already addressed in the alternatives to a degree, and 

because the proposed education elements would help ensure visitors are aware of the required and 

recommended equipment, a separate inspection of vehicles by NPS was not carried forward as an 

alternative element in this ORV management plan/EIS because it would not help further meet objectives 

related to resource protection. 

Provide Round-the-Clock Enforcement 

Commenters suggested that round-the-clock enforcement would ensure resource protection. The Seashore 

has no source of funding for continuous enforcement in all areas at all times, even with the increased 

funding envisioned in this ORV management plan/EIS. The level of funding available, combined with the 

large geographic area covered by the park, does not allow for staffing levels to provide this type of 

enforcement. This suggested level of enforcement is not the norm for any national seashore. The action 

alternatives provide for increased outreach and education to help improve voluntary compliance, but 

round-the-clock enforcement would not be feasible and was not included in any alternatives. 

Give Preferred Status to Human Visitors 

Commenters suggested that the NPS should give preferred status to human visitors, and should not 

include restrictions on human use to benefit various natural resources. Other commenters suggested that 

some types of human uses should be given precedence over other types. The NPS has a primary mandate 

to preserve the Seashore’s natural and cultural resources unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations. Furthermore, the courts have held that in the case of conflict, resource conservation must 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

70 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

predominate (refer to “Other Applicable Federal Laws, Regulations, Executive Orders, Policies, and 

Plans” in chapter 1). This ORV management plan/EIS makes every effort to provide for a wide variety of 

visitor uses while maintaining fidelity to its primary mandates to protect natural and cultural resources. 

However, giving preferred status to human visitors implies that natural and cultural resource protection is 

a secondary concern. This would violate the NPS primary mandate to preserve the Seashore’s natural and 

cultural resources unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations, and therefore was not carried 

forward for detailed analysis. 

ALLOW ORV USE ON SHACKLEFORD BANKS

The General Management Plan (NPS 1980) identified 47 of the 56 miles of the Seashore as appropriate 

for controlled ORV use; the remaining 9 miles on Shackleford Banks is a proposed wilderness area under 

the Wilderness Act (P.L. 88–577), and pursuant to NPS Management Policies 2006 is managed as 

wilderness and closed to vehicle use. Therefore, ORV use on Shackleford Banks was not carried forward 

for further analysis. 

ADDITIONAL SPECIES PROTECTION MEASURES THAT WERE DISMISSED

Although all of the alternatives include extensive species protection measures, additional or alternative 

measures were suggested by the public during scoping. All elements related to species protection must 

take into consideration all applicable laws and policies. As a federal agency, the NPS has responsibilities 

under the ESA to protect the ecosystem as well as the species that depend on it. The purpose of the ESA 

is to “provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species 

depend may be conserved” (section 2[b]). Protecting the ecosystem is also necessary to meet the 

requirements of the NPS Organic Act, which mandates the NPS to conserve Seashore wildlife (refer to 

“Guiding Laws, Regulations, and Policies” in chapter 1). Further, a number of laws, regulations, and 

policies, in addition to the ESA and NPS Organic Act, guide species management at the Seashore, 

including the NPS Organic Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), NPS regulations and policies, 

Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, and others 

(refer to chapter 1). Several approaches for species protection beyond those included in the alternatives 

were considered by NPS staff. Many of the elements identified below do not assist the NPS in meeting 

these mandates. 

Minimize Closures for Birds and Turtles 

Public comments were received suggesting different buffer sizes, or minimizing buffers and their 

associated closures, or reducing buffer sizes to smaller than known best practices established by a study 

of peer reviewed literature. Buffers smaller than those analyzed in the alternatives would result in 

subjecting the Seashore population’s listed species under the ESA and protected species under the MBTA 

to increased rates of disturbance and mortality. Breeding and the buffers required for successful breeding 

are essential for a species to perpetuate itself. Failure to adequately protect breeding individuals, nests, 

and young using measures such as closures would result in further species decline. In addition, any 

unauthorized harm, injury, or mortality of protected species under the ESA would result in a violation of 

federal law, potential fines, and other criminal charges. The combination of laws, regulations, and policies 

included in this section of the ORV management plan/EIS create the framework in which the alternatives 

are developed, which includes proposed buffer sizes. Because minimizing closures for birds and turtles 

would not meet NPS responsibilities under these acts, this element was considered but eliminated from 

further analysis. 
Alternative Elements Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 71

Open Turtle Closures after Hatchlings Have Gone Out to Sea 

Current management practices at the Seashore implement this action. Once a nest has hatched and has 

been excavated by NPS staff to determine hatching success the closure is reopened. 

Relocate Bird and Turtle Nests 

Commenters suggested that the Seashore relocate bird or turtle nests to areas of the beach already closed 

to ORV use or relocate nests to smaller, more compact areas to facilitate management. These alternatives 

have been considered but are not carried forward for reasons discussed below. 

Birds

Nest abandonment by piping plovers and American oystercatchers are documented sources of nest failure 

on Cape Lookout National Seashore. Relocating nests would likely result in increased nest abandonment 

and failure. Moving nests into one compact area would not be feasible. Plovers and oystercatchers are 

solitary rather than colonial nesters (i.e., they nest away from others of their species). Plovers sometimes 

nest near tern colonies to benefit from the aggressive behavior of terns protecting their colonies; however, 

they typically do not nest with other plovers. Since moving nests would reduce the species’ ability to 

reproduce, it would not be consistent with the objectives of this ORV management plan/EIS, including 

providing protection for threatened, endangered, and other protect species, and minimizing impacts to 

these species, as required by the ESA, the MBTA, and NPS laws and management policies. Because it is 

not consistent with the purpose of this plan, moving nests was eliminated from further analysis. 

Turtles

Individual Nest Relocation—Turtles do not face the same nest abandonment issues as those described 

for birds. Parental investment in the young ends with the laying and burying of eggs. However, studies 

indicate that the determination of the hatchling sex ratio depends on the temperature at which the eggs 

incubate. Changes in these temperatures due to moving the eggs may result in changes to the sex ratio, 

having implications for the species as a whole. Handling eggs can result in increased hatch failure. When 

relocating nests, there is a risk of disrupting the membranes inside the egg, which can kill the embryo. 

Although nests in some states may be moved to avoid damage from beach nourishment or in highly 

developed urban areas (e.g., along some urban areas of Florida’s Atlantic coast), typically, nest relocation 

is seen as part of an attempt to keep the species from going extinct, whereas allowing for natural breeding 

and nesting is the ideal option whenever available. Currently, in North Carolina, the state permits sea 

turtle nest relocations for research or when there is an imminent threat and potential loss of the nest due to 

erosion or frequent flooding, but not to accommodate recreational uses. Consequently, routine relocation 

of all nests to allow for recreational access is not considered in this ORV management plan/EIS. The NPS 

would continue its current practice of coordinating with the State of North Carolina to consider relocating 

a nest facing inundation or other adverse factors. 

Turtle Hatcheries—Moving all nests or all relocated nests into one hatchery area is not fully analyzed as 

part of any alternative. Sea turtle nests may be moved to a guarded hatchery to provide needed protection 

from poaching in developing countries where participation in hatchery operations may be used as an ecotourism opportunity. Some county or privately owned beaches in Florida or Georgia may use hatcheries 

for sea turtle eggs in some circumstances, such as to allow beach nourishment. However, county 

responsibilities for endangered or threatened species differ from federal, and particularly from NPS, 

responsibilities for these protected species. As a federal agency, the NPS has responsibilities under the 

ESA to protect the ecosystem as well as the species that depend on it. The purpose of the ESA is to 

“provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

72 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

may be conserved” (sec. 2(b)). Protecting the ecosystem, rather than relocating the nests to allow the 

preferred use, is also necessary to meet the requirements of the Organic Act, which mandates the NPS to 

conserve Seashore wildlife (refer to “Other Applicable Federal Laws, Regulations, Executive Orders, 

Policies, and Plans” in chapter 1). 

Loggerhead, leatherback and green sea turtles are all currently listed pursuant to the ESA. Any actions 

that would likely reduce productivity and cause a decline in the species would not be consistent with the 

purpose of the Act, or the objective under this ORV management plan/EIS to provide protection to 

threatened or endangered species and their habitats. The revised Loggerhead Sea Turtle Recovery Plan

(NMFS and USFWS 2008) recommends the discontinuance of the use of hatcheries as a nest management 

technique and states that relocating nets into hatcheries concentrates eggs in an area and makes them more 

susceptible to catastrophic events and predation from both land and marine predators. Therefore, use of 

hatcheries was not considered in this ORV management plan/EIS. 

Open Closed Areas after Breeding Season is Over 

Commenters suggested that any closed areas should be reopened after the breeding season ends. Closed 

areas would likely be reopened after the breeding season. Resource staff survey most closures on a daily 

basis and would reopen areas that are no longer needed. Areas may not reopen immediately at the end of 

the breeding season if unfledged chicks or turtle eggs are still present. Therefore, some areas may be 

reopened, but automatically opening all closed areas after the breeding season would be inconsistent with 

the Seashore’s responsibility under various statutes, including its enabling legislation, the NPS Organic 

Act, and the NPS Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006d, section 4.4.2.3). The alternatives in this ORV 

management plan/EIS do consider various ways to address resource-based closures, but the alternatives 

do not allow for automatic opening after the breeding season is over if species are still present. 

Give Special Consideration Only to Flora and Fauna Listed as Threatened and 

Endangered and/or Only Enact Closures When a Certain Minimum Number of Breeding 

Pairs is Met 

Commenters suggested that only those species listed as threatened or endangered under the federal ESA 

should be considered in this ORV management plan/EIS or that certain benchmarks should be hit before 

protection is enacted. As stated above, the NPS has legal responsibilities under the ESA and its own 

policies to protect threatened and endangered species. Further, in addition to the ESA, a number of laws, 

regulations, and policies, guide species management at the Seashore, including section 4 of the NPS 

Management Policies 2006, NPS Organic Act, the MBTA, NPS regulations and policies, Executive Order 

13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, and others (refer to chapter 1). 

The combination of laws, regulations, and policies included in this section of this ORV management 

plan/EIS create the framework in which the alternatives are developed, which includes the need to 

manage species of special concern, such as state-listed species, or those addressed by the MBTA. Along 

these same lines, this protection extends to all individuals, and does not require meeting a certain 

threshold before enacting management measures. This element also does not meet the objectives of this 

ORV management plan/EIS, such as providing protection for threatened, endangered, and other protect 

species, and minimizing impacts to these species, as required by the ESA, the MBTA, and NPS laws and 

management policies. Because of the NPS responsibilities explained above, this element was not included 

in the alternatives for this ORV management plan/EIS. 
How Alternatives Meet Objectives 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 73

OTHER ISSUES

Provide an Area for Off-leash Dogs 

Commenters suggested that dogs be allowed off leash at the Seashore, either seasonally, in certain areas 

of the Seashore under voice control, or through the creation of a dog training area. Currently, pets at the 

Seashore are regulated under 36 CFR 2.15, which prohibits pet owners from “failing to crate, cage, 

restrain on a leash which shall not exceed six feet in length, or otherwise physically confine a pet at all 

times.” Creation of off-leash areas would not be consistent with 36 CFR 2.15 and would require 

promulgation of a special regulation allowing off-leash dog use, which is outside the scope of this ORV 

management plan/EIS. Therefore, this element was not carried forward in any alternative. 

Increase Fines for People Breaking Rules 

This element was suggested during the NEPA process for the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim 

Protected Species Management Plan / Environmental Assessment (NPS 2006a), and again during public 

scoping on this ORV management plan/EIS. The amount of a fine is determined by the federal courts and 

not the Seashore, though the Seashore will continue to work with the federal courts to recommend fines 

that are appropriate. 

Provide Additional Amenities and Concessioner-operated Shuttles as an Alternative to 

Personal Vehicle Use 

Many commenters requested that the Seashore provide additional amenities such as restrooms, water 

pumps, and dumpsters. The Seashore determined that since these elements were not directly related to 

ORV use, but a larger visitor use issue, they are outside the scope of this ORV management plan/EIS. 

Other commenters suggested that the Seashore provide an alternative transportation system. The 

consideration of future alternative transportation projects would be dependent on available funding. The 

Sarbanes TRIP Program (a federal funding source for alternative transportation projects) was eliminated 

in 2012 by Congress under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP 21). 

Consequently, this important funding source is no longer available for NPS sponsored/funded 

transportation plans. These issues will be revisited and reconsidered in future Seashore planning efforts. 

HOW ALTERNATIVES MEET OBJECTIVES 

As stated in chapter 1 in this document, all action alternatives selected for analysis must meet all 

objectives to a large degree. The action alternatives must also address the stated purpose of taking action 

and resolve the need for action. Therefore, the alternatives were individually assessed in light of how well 

they would meet the objectives for this ORV management plan/EIS, which are stated in chapter 1 in this 

document. Alternatives that did not meet the objectives were not analyzed further (refer to “Alternative 

Elements Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis” earlier in this chapter). 

All action alternatives fully meet the objectives related to management methodology, except the objective 

to “establish ORV management practices and procedures that have the ability to adapt in response to the 

changes in the Seashore’s dynamic physical environment.” This objective is not fully met by alternative 

A, which does not provide for adaptive management that adjusts to changing resource conditions. 

Generally, alternative A, the no-action alternative, meets objectives related to natural resource protection 

(natural physical resources, threatened and endangered species, vegetation, and other wildlife) partially, 

but no more than to a moderate degree. Although routes are informally designated, there is no permitting 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

74 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

system or other way to keep use numbers at a sustainable level, and no additional education would be 

required though the permit system. Current species management measures would continue to be 

implemented, but there would not be additional measures, such as restrictions on night driving. 

Alternatives B and C would meet these same objectives to a greater degree than alternative A, but less so 

than alternatives D or E. Under alternatives B and C, a permit system would be implemented. Alternative 

B would not limit the number of permits, whereas alternative C would limit the number of permits to 

current conditions. Placing no limits on growth (under alternative B), or limiting the number of permits to 

current conditions (under alternative C) would result in more impacts on resources than alternatives D or 

E, but less than alternative A, which has no permit system and no limits. Additional species measures 

under alternative C would be established, including night driving restrictions. The back route would be 

regularly maintained, which would reduce impacts on soils at the Seashore. Adaptive management would 

be implemented that would allow for additional management measures for species protection, if 

warranted. In terms of impacts to vegetation, the additional pedestrian-only areas under alternative C 

would provide for additional resource protection when compared to alternative B. 

Alternative D would meet more objectives fully or to a large degree. Many elements of alternative D are 

the same as alternatives B and C, including the use of permits, limits, and restrictions on night driving. 

However, under alternative D, the limitation on the number of permits would be increased, limiting future 

growth; more pedestrian-only areas would be added; and additional species buffers would be provided. 

These aspects of alternative D all lead to greater protection of the Seashore’s natural resources. 

Alternative E would fully meet all objectives related to resource protection because recreational ORV use 

would not be allowed and Seashore resources would remain free from disturbance. 

Objectives related to visitor use aim to allow for a variety of appropriate visitor use experiences and 

reduce conflicts between ORV users and other users. All alternatives would allow for a variety of 

experiences, except for alternative E, which would not allow for recreational ORV use and does not meet 

the objective of allowing for a variety of visitor use experiences. The remaining alternatives meet this to 

varying degrees. Alternatives A and B would moderately meet the objective because these alternatives 

would allow for multiple uses, but would place limited restrictions on motorized uses, such as ATVs and 

UTVs. Alternative C would allow for a variety of uses to a large degree, but the requirement for an 

educational permit may create a perception of limitation to some users, and there would be limitations on 

the type and times of ATV use. Alternative C would limit ORV growth, but these limits would be 

expected to accommodate all visitor experience. Alternative D would provide a variety of experiences to a 

large degree, even though the limitations on permit numbers would be increased, parking lots would be 

eliminated, and ATVs would be further restricted. The objective to reduce visitor conflict would be met to 

some degree under alternatives A, B, and E, but the lack of use limits under alternatives A and B, and the 

inability of users to access remote areas of the Seashore under alternative E, may impact some visitors 

more than others and result in perceived conflicts. Alternatives C and D would meet this objective to a 

large degree because additional pedestrian-only areas would be established. Under all alternatives, the 

objective to ensure that ORV management promotes the safety of all visitors would be fully met. 

For park operations, it is the objective of the Seashore to ensure that core operational needs and associated 

costs are available to fully implement this ORV management plan/EIS. All action alternatives would meet 

this objective to a moderate degree. Under alternative A, most funding would be in place to implement 

this alternative, with additional funding needs possible. Alternatives B, C, and D would require additional 

staff and funding from new education and permitting programs, as well as additional law enforcement 

needs for night driving restrictions. These funds would, in part, be addressed with permit fees, but 

additional funds may be needed. Alternative E would fully meet this objective because it would be 

implemented with existing and expected funding, with no additional costs beyond current operations. 
Consistency with the Purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 75

CONSISTENCY WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE NATIONAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT 

The NPS requirements for implementing NEPA include an analysis of how each alternative meets or 

achieves the purposes of NEPA, as stated in sections 101(b) and 102(1). The Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) has promulgated regulations for federal agencies’ implementation of NEPA (40 CFR 

1500–1508). CEQ Regulation 1500.2 establishes policy for the implementation of NEPA by federal 

agencies. Federal agencies shall, to the fullest extent possible, interpret and administer the policies, 

regulations, and public laws of the United States in accordance with the policies set forth in NEPA 

(sections 101(b) and 102(1)); therefore, other acts and NPS policies are referenced as applicable in the 

following discussion. Each alternative analyzed in a NEPA document must be assessed as to how it meets 

the following purposes: 

1. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding 

generations.

All of the alternatives proposed would manage ORV use in a manner to protect the resources, but 

the degree to which each alternative accomplishes this goal would vary. Alternative A would 

meet the five resource-related objectives (natural physical resources; threatened, endangered, and 

other protected species; other wildlife and wildlife habitat; vegetation; and cultural resources) to a 

minor degree because ORV use would be permitted at the Seashore under this alternative, but 

with varying restrictions. The use of ORVs would result in slight disturbances to threatened, 

endangered, and other protected species, as well as other wildlife and wildlife habitat. The 

analysis conducted for this plan/EIS has shown that although impacts to these resources would 

occur, they would be well below any regulatory standard and within the provisions in NPS 

Management Policies 2006. The analysis has also shown that although ORV use would occur, the 

resources would be preserved for succeeding generations. Alternative A would include ORV 

management measures such as designated ORV routes/areas, back route access and configuration, 

winter closures, miscellaneous vehicle and operator requirements, education and outreach, 

pedestrian-only areas, and research and monitoring, which would further act to preserve Seashore 

resources. 

Alternatives B, C, and D would also allow ORV use at the Seashore. Alternatives B, C, and D 

would meet the five resource-related objectives (natural physical resources; threatened, 

endangered, and other protected species; other wildlife and wildlife habitat; vegetation; and 

cultural resources) to a moderate degree because ORV use would be permitted at the Seashore 

under these alternatives, but with varying restrictions. The use of ORVs under alternatives B, C, 

and D would result in slight disturbances to threatened, endangered, and other protected species, 

as well as other wildlife and wildlife habitat. The analysis conducted for this plan/EIS has shown 

that although impacts to these resources would occur, they would be well below any regulatory 

standard and within the provisions of NPS Management Policies 2006. The analysis has also 

shown that although ORV use would occur, the resources would be preserved for succeeding 

generations. Alternatives B, C, and D would include ORV management measures such as 

designated ORV routes/areas, back route access and configuration, winter closures, restrictions on 

ATV/UTVs, miscellaneous vehicle and operator requirements, pedestrian-only areas, vehicle 

permits, ORV operator education requirements, night driving restrictions, and research and 

monitoring, which would further act to preserve Seashore resources. Further, alternatives B, C, D, 

and E would implement an adaptive management strategy, if research and monitoring indicate 

that the American oystercatcher (an indicator species) is being disturbed by ORV use. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

76 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Alternative E would meet the five resource-related objectives (natural physical resources; 

threatened, endangered, and other protected species; other wildlife and wildlife habitat; 

vegetation; and cultural resources) to a large degree because ORV use would no longer be 

permitted at the Seashore. The absence of ORV use would result in an absence of disturbances to 

threatened, endangered and other protected species, as well as other wildlife and wildlife habitat, 

from this source. Alternative E would most fully meet the purpose of fulfilling the responsibilities 

of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations, by providing the 

Seashore free of impacts to natural and cultural resources from ORV use. 

2. Ensure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing 

surroundings. 

All alternatives meet this purpose to some degree because the Seashore is a safe visitor 

destination that is both esthetically and culturally pleasing. Alternative A would maintain existing 

safety measures at the Seashore by actively communicating species, resource, wise use, and ORV 

program information to visitors. Further, under alternative A educational materials would be 

provided on a variety of topics related to resources and ORV use, such as ORV management, 

night driving, trash disposal, wildlife feeding, impact of fish carcasses, ORV safety and general 

safety, and information about ORV closures and the removal of those closures. As a result, 

alternative A would meet this purpose to a moderate degree. 

Alternatives B, C, and D would increase safety to a degree by maintaining the existing safety and 

educational measures currently in place at the Seashore, and would augment education and 

outreach related to ORV use, including requiring an ORV operator education certificate for all 

ORV users at the Seashore. The ORV operator education certificate would be required for a 

licensed driver to operate a vehicle at the Seashore. The education certificate would be issued in a 

manner to be determined, but it would include the options of obtaining the certificate at the 

Seashore headquarters on Harkers Island, online, or at special request for groups. The free 

certificate would be valid for one calendar year. Drivers would be required to carry this certificate 

with them at all times when operating a vehicle on the Seashore. As a result, alternatives B, C, 

and D would meet this purpose to a large degree. 

Alternative E would prohibit ORV use at the Seashore. However, the ability for visitors to access 

remote areas of the Seashore under alternative E would be limited, due to the prohibition of ORV 

use. Further, in times of severe weather events, visitors may not be able to seek shelter as quickly 

as they would be able to with an ORV. As a result, alternative E would meet this purpose to a 

moderate degree. 

3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk of health 

or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences. 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D offer a wide range of visitor use opportunities, including ORV use. 

Alternatives A and B would allow for ORV use levels that are similar to recent years, which 

would provide for a variety of uses and resource protection. Based on monitoring results of recent 

use, visitors would have various opportunities for use and resources would still be offered 

protection. As a result, alternatives A and B would meet this purpose to a large degree. 

Alternative C would limit overall ORV use to 2,500 ORVs on North Core Banks, and 3,000 

ORVs on South Core Banks. However, these numbers represent the average ORV use numbers 

based on 2005–2012 user data, therefore these limits would not be expected to impact ORV use. 

The limit on ORVs allowed at the Seashore could result in less disturbance to resources than 
Consistency with the Purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 77

allowed under alternatives A and B, therefore alternative C would meet this purpose to a 

moderate degree. Alternative D would further limit ORV use by 8 percent, based on the average 

number of ORV permits issued per island in years 1–3 of this ORV management plan/EIS. The 8 

percent reduction is based on the percentage increase of year-round pedestrian-only areas under 

alternative D, and is intended to keep average vehicle density similar to current use. Therefore, 

alternative D would meet this purpose to a moderate degree. 

Alternative E would allow for non-motorized use at the Seashore, but would not allow for ORV 

use. Due to the length of the Seashore and the difficulty in accessing remote areas of the Seashore 

without the use of an ORV, many visitors would not be able to reach desirable areas of the 

Seashore; therefore, alternative E would meet this purpose to a minor degree. 

4. Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage and maintain, 

wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and variety of individual choice. 

Because none of the alternatives would result in impacts to cultural or historic resources that 

would exceed minor, these topics were dismissed from further analysis in this ORV management 

plan/EIS. Overall, because any impacts to cultural or historic resources would not exceed minor, 

all alternatives would preserve important historic and cultural aspects of our national heritage in 

the long term and would meet this purpose to a large degree. For natural resources, all alternatives 

would meet objectives to a moderate degree. However, alternative E would more fully meet this 

objective because ORV use would be prohibited at the Seashore, which would reduce the impacts 

on natural resources that are caused by ORV use. As discussed under criterion 3, alternatives A 

and B would best support diversity and variety of individual choice (to a large degree) because of 

the lack of limits on ORV permits available. Alternatives C and D would provide for ORV 

access, but there would be limitations on the number of ORV permits available. Alternative E 

(meeting the criteria to some degree) would limit the variety of choice by discontinuing ORV use 

at the Seashore. 

5. Achieve a balance between population and resource use that will permit high standards of living 

and a wide sharing of life’s amenities. 

Balancing population and resource use under this ORV management plan/EIS would include 

protecting the resources unimpaired for the enjoyment of present and future generations and 

providing access for visitors to experience the natural resources of the Seashore. NPS 

Management Policies 2006 states that the enjoyment contemplated by the Organic Act is broad; it 

is the enjoyment of all the people of the United States and includes enjoyment both by people 

who visit parks and by those who appreciate them from afar. It also includes deriving benefit 

(including scientific knowledge) and inspiration from parks, as well as other forms of enjoyment 

and inspiration. For all alternatives, visitors would continue to have opportunities to enjoy the 

Seashore from afar through programs such as information and literature posted online. As 

described in this chapter, alternatives A, B, C, and D would provide for ORV use at the Seashore, 

with various management measures, and use levels (there are limits on the number of ORV 

permits that would be allowed under alternatives C and D) that would provide a level of 

protection to park resources to allow for their future enjoyment. Likewise, alternative E, which 

would not allow for ORV use, would protect park resources. All of the alternatives evaluated 

would meet this purpose. 

6. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of 

depletable resources. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

78 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Each of the alternatives would require the park to continue to operate under the energy use 

guidelines and requirements stated in the NPS Management Policies 2006; Executive Order 

13123, Greening the Government through Effective Energy Management; Executive Order 

13031, Federal Alternative Fueled Vehicle Leadership; Executive Order 13149, Greening the 

Government Through Federal Fleet and Transportation Efficiency; and the 1993 NPS Guiding 

Principles of Sustainable Design. Therefore each alternative would fully meet this purpose. 

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 

The NPS is required to identify the environmentally preferable alternative in its NEPA documents for 

public review and comment. The NPS, in accordance with the Department of the Interior NEPA 

Regulations (43 CFR Part 46) and CEQ’s Forty Questions, defines the environmentally preferable 

alternative (or alternatives) as the alternative that best promotes the national environmental policy 

expressed in NEPA (section 101(b)) (516 DM 4.10). The CEQ’s Forty Questions (46 FR 18026) (Q6a) 

further clarifies the identification of the environmentally preferable alternative stating, “this means the 

alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment; it also means the 

alternative which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources.” 

Alternative E was identified as the environmentally preferable alternative because public ORV use would 

no longer be allowed within the Seashore. With ORV use limited to minimal administrative use for 

species management and law enforcement, there would be the least amount of impact on the biological 

and physical environment within the park. As noted previously, alternative E would meet the objectives 

related to resources (federally listed endangered, threatened, or candidate species; state-listed and specialstatus species; other wildlife and wildlife habitat; soundscapes) to the greatest degree due to the lack of 

recreational ORV use. By best meeting these objectives, alternative E would cause the least amount of 

damage to the biological and physical environment. Although administrative ORV use and nonmotorized 

use would be allowed, the use levels would be low and impacts on resources would be minimal. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The “agency's preferred alternative” is the alternative that the agency believes would fulfill its statutory 

mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental, technical, and other 

factors. NPS identified the preferred alternative as alternative C, as described above. 
Table 3: Alternative Element Summary—Vehicles 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 79

TABLE 3: ALTERNATIVE ELEMENT SUMMARY—VEHICLES

Management Activity Alternative A: No-Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

ORV Routes and Areas/Regulations 

Designated Vehicle Routes/Areas and Seasons/Times Open to ORV use

Area of Seashore Open to ORV Use 

[How to interpret the percentages for 

ORV access— For all alternatives, the 

percentages listed do not account for 

any other safety or resource closures 

that may be implemented, as needed, 

which may adjust the percentages at 

right. The amount of beach available to 

ORVs on the Core Banks may be 

reduced by temporary species and 

safety related closures. Based on data 

from NPS staff from 2008 through 

2013, safety and resource ORV 

closures average approximately 10 

miles in the summer months, and 5.4 

miles in the fall. In the fall, an average 

of 5.4 miles is closed to ORV use. 

Resource closures occur primarily in 

the nesting seasons for birds and sea 

turtles (from March 16 through 

September 14).] 

81% of the entire length of the Seashore would 

be potentially available for ORV use from March 

16 through December 31. 

81% of the entire length of the Seashore 

would be potentially available for ORV use 

from March 16 through December 31. 

Same as alternative B, except 

x 79% of the entire length of the 

Seashore would be potentially 

available for ORV use from March 16 

through the Thursday preceding 

Memorial Day and from the day after 

Labor Day through December 15. 

x 74% of the entire length of the 

Seashore would be potentially 

available for ORV use from the Friday 

preceding Memorial Day through Labor 

Day. 

Same as alternative B, except 

x 73% of the entire length of the Seashore 

would be potentially available for ORV use 

from March 16 through the Thursday 

preceding Memorial Day and from the day 

after Labor Day through December 15. 

x 63% of the entire length of the Seashore 

would be potentially available for ORV use 

from the Friday preceding Memorial Day 

through Labor Day. 

The entire area of the Core Banks and 

Shackleford Banks would be closed to 

public ORV use. 

Entry by public vehicles into these 

areas would be prohibited. 

Use by NPS essential vehicles, and 

other vehicle use authorized by the 

NPS (such as concession vehicles) 

for official business would continue as 

required for general park 

management, law enforcement, and 

safety. 

Designated ORV Routes Areas and routes open to ORV use, unless 

closed for safety or resource protection, would 

be designated; the designated areas would be 

identical to those areas and routes currently 

marked and designated under the 

Superintendent’s Compendium (NPS 2013d), 

these areas include 

x The oceanside beach of North and South 

Core Banks from the primary dune line to the 

water. 

x A marked route from the beach to the 

Portsmouth Village parking area through the 

marked area of Portsmouth Flats. 

x The marked back route on North Core and 

South Core Banks, which is the route parallel 

to the ocean beach behind the primary dune. 

x Marked crossover routes or “ramps” between 

the ocean beach and back route. 

x Designated routes within the Long Point and 

Great Island Cabin Camp areas including 

vehicle ferry landings. 

x Designated long-term and short term parking 

areas at Long Point, Great Island, and the 

lighthouse area, and the marked routes to 

these areas. 

x Routes within the Cape Lookout Village 

Historic District. 

Same as alternative A, except 

x ORV use would be discontinued (i.e., 

designated routes would be closed) on 

sections of the Core Banks where no ferry 

landing access is available (i.e., such as 

the case of Middle Core Banks and 

Ophelia Banks that were cut off from North 

and South Core Banks). This applies to 

new land areas created and cut off from 

existing ferry access areas by storm 

events. In the event that a previously cut 

off area rejoins an area with ferry access 

(i.e., when an inlet fills in naturally), ORV 

use would resume in the area previously 

closed to ORV use on the designated 

routes and areas in that area. 

x Routes within the Cape Lookout Village 

Historic District would be open to through 

vehicle traffic. 

x The Seashore would provide users a map 

showing where designated routes, areas, 

and ramps exist. 

Same as alternative B. Routes within the Cape Lookout Village 

Historic District would be closed to throughvehicle traffic. A short-term parking area would 

be designated for those people driving to the 

village to visit. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

80 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Management Activity Alternative A: No-Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Designated ORV Routes (continued) Marked soundside access routes, as follows: 

x North Core Banks—mile marker 9 

x North Core Banks—mile marker 12: Former 

Wilbers/Nelson Camp also called the “Web” 

x North Core Banks—mile marker 19: 

0.5 miles north of the location of Old Drum 

Inlet (Honey Hole) 

x South Core Banks—mile marker 26.5: 

Gun Club 

x South Core Banks—mile marker 31.5: 

0.5 miles south of Great Island Cabin Camp 

x South Core Banks—mile marker 41: 

Lookout Bight-“Barden Beach” near the 1907 

Keepers’ Quarters 

x South Core Banks—mile marker 45: 

from ramp 45 to the U.S. Coast Guard Dock. 

No ORV use would be allowed on Portsmouth 

Flats (except the designated route from the 

ocean beach to the village), on the beach 

between mile marker 41a and 41b, the interior 

of the point of Cape Lookout (at mile marker 

44), and at Power Squadron Spit (from mile 

marker 46.2 to the end of the spit). 

No soundside driving would be allowed except 

designated access points. 

No ORV use would be allowed at Shackleford 

Banks; this area is a designated Proposed 

Wilderness Zone. 

The superintendent may temporarily limit, 

restrict, or terminate access to the areas 

designated for motorized vehicles off-road after 

taking into consideration public health and 

safety, natural and cultural resource protection, 

and other management activities and 

objectives, such as those described in this ORV 

management plan/EIS. The public would be 

notified of such closures through one or more 

methods listed in 36 CFR 1.7(a). Violation of 

any closure is prohibited. 

 
Table 3: Alternative Element Summary—Vehicles 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 81

Management Activity Alternative A: No-Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Back Route Access and 

Configuration 

[Note: The “back route” is a term used 

locally and by the visiting public. 

Divisions between North Core, Middle 

Core, and South Core Banks reflects 

the division of the islands in 2012. Such 

divisions may change as the locations 

of inlets change. Locations of the back 

route and ramps are more consistently 

identified by the approximate mile 

marker that is noted for each.] 

North Core Banks: 

x The back route would parallel the beach 

behind the primary dune line from 

approximately 0.5 miles south of KathrynJane Flats at mile marker 4 to 0.5 mile north 

of Old Drum Inlet at mile marker 18. 

x Ramps: 4a, 4b, 5a, 5b, 6, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, 9, 

10a, 10b, 11a, 11b, 12, 13a, 13b, 14, 15a, 

15b, 16, 17a, 17b, 18a, 18b. 

Middle Core Banks: 

x The back route would parallel the beach 

behind the primary dune line when Middle 

Core Banks becomes accessible to vehicles 

(i.e., when Middle Core Banks reconnects to 

an island that has ferry service.) 

x Ramps: 19, 20, 21. 

South Core Banks: 

x The back route would parallel the beach 

behind the primary dune line approximately 

2.5 miles south of New Drum Inlet at mile 

marker 24 to the point of Cape Lookout at 

mile marker 44. 

x A section of back route from mile marker 44 

to mile marker 45 would be opened when 

temporary resource closures at the point of 

Cape Lookout prevent vehicles from driving 

past the point of Cape Lookout. 

x Cape Lookout Village Historic District routes 

would remain open to through traffic. 

x Ramps: 24, 25, 26a, 26b, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 

32, 33, 34, 35a, 35b, 36, 37a, 37b, 38, 39, 

40, 41a, 41b, 44, 44a, 44b, 45. 

General:

x The back route and other routes would be 

reestablished to the same or equivalent 

locations when they are impacted by a storm 

event for resource protection and safety. 

x The number of ramps and location of ramps 

may be adjusted, when they are impacted by 

a storm event, for resource protection and 

safety. Ramps would be located or reestablished on flat sand, between dunes 

where there would be fewer impacts. 

x Occasional maintenance of the back route 

would be performed as needed but only to 

correct serious deficiencies and safety 

hazards. 

x The back routes are important to 

management of ORV access and species 

protection since they provide an alternative 

for vehicle traffic when the entire beach must 

be closed. They are also important for visitor 

safety, as alternative routes when beaches 

are impassible due to tides.) 

Same as alternative A + 

x The back route on South Core Banks 

would be extended from mile marker 44 to 

mile marker 45; this section of back route 

would only be open when the area of the 

Cape closes to through traffic. 

x Up to four additional ramps may be 

created on North Core Banks and five on 

South Core Banks. Ramps would be sited 

to minimize impacts to the dunes, 

generally maintaining a spacing of a mile 

between ramps; locations of ramps may 

change after storm events. Maintenance of 

the back route would occur as necessary; 

sensitive areas would be avoided. 

x Pull-outs would be established along the 

back route that allow northbound and 

southbound vehicles to more easily pass 

one another along the route. These pullouts would be located between ramps, 

with one to two pull-outs between each 

ramp, depending on back route 

topography and configuration (i.e., may 

need more than one pull-out for passing if 

there is a bend in the back route that limits 

visibility). 

x Designated overnight emergency (storm 

refuge) parking areas would be 

established on each island along the back 

route, authorized on a case-by-case basis, 

to allow for overnight vehicle parking 

during times of adverse weather or 

unusually high tide events. (These 

emergency refuge parking areas would be 

established in areas that are not sensitive 

habitat for birds, turtles, or seabeach 

amaranth. Locations would also take into 

account topography, wetlands, and other 

potential limitations.) 

x Designated campsites may be established 

on each island accessible from the back 

route pursuant to the Superintendent’s 

Compendium authority in 36 CFR. 

x NPS would construct up to six additional 

shelters generally along the back route 

distributed throughout the park in 

convenient access locations. 

Same as alternative B. Same as alternative A + 

x Ramp locations may change after storm 

events. They would be sited to minimize 

impacts to the dunes, generally maintaining 

a spacing of a mile between ramps. 

x In the case of extreme high tides or other 

emergencies, the area of the former longterm vehicle storage / parking lots would be 

open to temporary overnight use, for the 

duration of time that extreme conditions 

last.

Except: 

x The back route on South Core Banks from 

ramp 44a to ramp 44b would be open from 

March 16 through December 15 (through 

construction of bridges over low-lying 

areas; this bypass route would allow access 

around the Cape when resource closures 

are in effect). 

x This bypass route would facilitate closure of 

Cape Lookout Village Historic District 

routes to through traffic.

The entire area of the Core Banks and 

Shackleford Banks is closed to public 

ORV use. 

Entry by public vehicles into these 

areas is prohibited. 

Use by NPS essential vehicles, and 

other vehicle use authorized by the 

NPS for official business would 

continue as required for general park 

management, law enforcement, and 

safety. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

82 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Management Activity Alternative A: No-Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Shade Shelters Shelters provide emergency protection from 

sudden storms. Over time, a number of shelters 

located throughout the Seashore have been 

destroyed by successive storms (Wallace Dock, 

North Core Banks mid-Island, Codds Creek, the 

point of Cape Lookout, and on the spit. 

Shelters that remain are located at 

x Shackleford Banks—near the horse pens 

x Cape Lookout Light Station—on the beach, 

at the pavilion and near the dock, and at the 

transportation hub 

x Great Island Concession Cabin Area—near 

the dock 

x Long Point Concession Cabin Area—near 

the dock and near the beach. 

Same as alternative A + 

x The NPS would construct up to six 

additional shelters on the back route 

distributed throughout the park in 

convenient access locations (two new 

shelters would be constructed on North 

Core Banks and four new shelters would 

be constructed on South Core Banks). 

Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. 

Operator and Vehicle Requirements 

Vehicle Equipment Requirements 

All equipment requirements defined in 

Title 36 CFR, North Carolina Motor 

Vehicle Code and the Superintendent’s 

Compendium apply while operating 

within the Seashore. 

All North Carolina Motor Vehicle Codes 

apply to motor vehicles (but not ATVs 

or UTVs), all vehicles must operate on 

Seashore beaches as if they were 

operating on North Carolina highways. 

There would be no additional equipment 

requirements, except: 

x ATV operators and riders would be required 

to wear helmets and eye protection while 

operating ATVs within the Seashore. 

The following equipment would be required: 

x All vehicles (except ATVs and UTVs) shall 

contain a tire gauge (capable of registering 

15–20 psi), shovel, jack, and jack support 

board (if wood, size requirement = 

10×12×1.5 inches, if plywood, size 

requirement = 10×12×0.75 inches). 

x All ATV users must wear a Department of 

Transportation-approved helmet and eye 

protection. 

The following would be recommended: 

x A full sized spare tire, first aid kit, fire 

extinguisher, trash bag or container, 

flashlight (if night driving), and tow strap 

are recommended. 

x When driving on designated routes, tire 

pressure must be lowered sufficiently (to 

15–20 psi) to maintain adequate traction in 

order to float on the sand. 

x Four-wheel drive passenger vehicles are 

recommended; full-time all-wheel-drive 

passenger vehicles are not recommended.

Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. Not applicable—public ORV use 

would not be allowed at the Seashore.
Table 3: Alternative Element Summary—Vehicles 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 83

Management Activity Alternative A: No-Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Use of ATV and UTVs at the 

Seashore 

ATV and UTVs would be allowed from March 16 

through December 31 at the Seashore. 

Non-sport ATVs and UTVs would be allowed 

from March 16 through December 31 within 

the Seashore, provided they have not been 

modified and still meet the manufacturer’s 

original specifications for a utility model. 

All high-performance sport-model and twostroke ATV and UTVs (as defined below*), 

would be prohibited after a five-year grace 

period. 

Non-sport ATVs and UTVs would be 

allowed from September 15 through 

December 15 within the Seashore, 

provided the non-sport ATVs and UTVs 

have not been modified and still meet the 

manufacturer’s original specifications for a 

non-sport or utility model. 

All high-performance sport-model and 

two-stroke ATV and UTVs (as defined 

below*) would be prohibited. 

Closure of the Seashore to highperformance sport-model ATV and UTVs 

would begin after a five-year grace period. 

Non-sport UTVs would be allowed from 

September 15 through December 15 within the 

Seashore, provided the UTVs have not been 

modified and still meet the manufacturer’s 

original specifications for a non-sport or utility 

model. 

All ATVs are prohibited. All high-performance 

sport-model and two-stroke UTVs (as defined 

below*) would be prohibited. 

Closure of the Seashore to ATVs and highperformance sport-model UTVs would begin 

after a five-year grace period. 

Not applicable—public ORV use 

would not be allowed at the Seashore.

*Note: The definition of a high-performance or sport model ATV/UTV for this document is as follows: 

An ATV/UTV designed for high performance, such as racing, jumping, and/or sliding around corners, with high acceleration motors, long traveling shocks, low center of gravity, light-weight features, and for speeds over 50 mph. They are not equipped for utility work and 

typically lack the following: front and rear racks (ATVs), utility bed (UTVs), tow bar/hitch, and low geared motors. They generally lack lights, (both headlights and tail lights), full protective fenders, and running boards, and are lighter than utility models. 

In contrast, a utility-model ATV is designed by the manufacturer to be used in a utilitarian way, such as towing, hauling, and transporting equipment, and generally has a maximum speed of approximately 45 mph, although some models are capable of higher speeds. 

Utility ATVs generally have headlights and tail lights, both front and back racks for hauling items, a bracket to hook up a trailer, large diameter shocks to support loads, and lower end gearing for pulling and towing. 

Vehicle Delivery Visitors would be allowed to deliver ATVs or 

UTVs to the Seashore non-commercially for 

personal use at designated and marked 

soundside access points. 

Other ORVs may only be delivered via NPS 

authorized vehicle ferries. 

Same as alternative A. Vehicles may only be transported to the 

Seashore via NPS authorized ferries. 

Same as alternative C. Not applicable—public ORV use 

would not be allowed at the Seashore.
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

84 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Management Activity Alternative A: No-Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Miscellaneous Vehicle and Operator 

Requirements 

Vehicle and operator requirements would be 

established by the following authorities: 

x Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (36 

CFR), including a Cape Lookout National 

Seashore Special ORV Regulation 

x North Carolina Motor Vehicle Codes (as 

outlined in 36 CFR 4.2) 

x Superintendent’s Compendium (updated 

each year). 

The following highlight some of the rules 

contained in the above authorities: 

x All vehicles (except ATV and UTVs) must be 

registered, licensed, inspected, and insured 

for highway use and comply with state 

inspection regulations within the state, 

county, or province where the vehicle is 

registered. 

x Notwithstanding the definition of public 

vehicular area in North Carolina State law, 

the operator of any motor vehicle at the 

Seashore, whether in motion or parked, must 

at all times comply with all North Carolina 

traffic laws that would apply as if operating 

on a North Carolina highway. 

x To operate a vehicle at the Seashore 

(including ATVs and UTVs), operators must 

possess a valid state driver’s license. 

x To operate a vehicle at the Seashore 

(including ATVs and UTVs), operators must 

be at least 16 years of age. 

x Motor vehicles with less than three wheels 

are prohibited (i.e., motorcycles and all 

tracked motor vehicles). 

x All ATV users must wear a Department of 

Transportation-approved helmet and eye 

protection. 

x Open containers of any type of alcoholic 

beverage are prohibited in the portion of a 

vehicle accessible to the driver. 

x ORV drivers and/or passengers are 

prohibited from sitting on the tailgate or roof 

or hanging outside of moving vehicles. 

Those in truck beds must be seated on the 

floor, and children under 16 years of age in 

truck beds must be accompanied by an 

adult. 

Same as alternative A + 

x The following vehicles would be prohibited 

on the barrier islands of the Seashore after 

a one-year grace period: 

௅ Vehicles with three wheels or less 

௅ Tracked vehicles 

௅ Farm vehicles 

௅ Vehicles with two-stroke engines 

௅ Combination vehicles (i.e., amphibious 

ATVs, amphibious aircraft, aircraft) 

௅ Sport or high-performance ATVs and 

UTVs. 

(The above types of vehicles are generally 

less stable, not fully regulated by states, 

are unsuitable, may potentially create 

greater impact, are more polluting, or are 

generally prohibited in NPS areas.) 

x Number of axles and wheels—There 

would be a two axle maximum for vehicles 

(UTVs are allowed three axles), and 

vehicles with a maximum of six wheels 

would be allowed (dual wheels allowed)—

this is the axle maximum for the powered 

vehicle and does not include additional 

number of axles on towed trailers. 

x Vehicle Length—The maximum vehicle 

length is thirty feet (this is the maximum 

length for the powered vehicle, including 

all attachments, and does not include the 

additional length of a towed trailer). 

x Trailers—Trailers would be limited to no 

more than two axles (and except for ATV 

and UTV trailers) must be street legal and 

can be no longer than 30 feet including all 

attachments. 

௅ ATV and UTV trailers can be no longer 

than 5 feet, including all attachments. 

௅ Passengers would not be allowed to 

ride in or on a trailer, unless authorized 

by a commercial use or other written 

NPS authorization. 

(Note: Vehicle and trailer length limits are 

helpful to limit impact on ferry, on parking 

spaces in the long-term lots and on vehicle 

turning radius while traveling on the back 

route and ramps). 

Same as alternative B, except 

x Restrictions on trailers would be 

implemented (after a five-year grace 

period). 

x Non-sport ATVs and UTVs would only 

be allowed from September 15 through 

December 15 at the Seashore. 

Same as alternative B, except 

x ATVs would be prohibited after a five-year 

grace period. 

x No trailers would be allowed after a fiveyear grace period; UTV trailers (5 feet or 

less) would continue to be allowed. 

(Trailers are difficult to move in a storm 

event as they require another vehicle to 

come onto the island to remove it, are 

difficult to tow on the beach, and increase 

the chance that the towing vehicle would 

get stuck on the beach.) 

Not applicable—public ORV use 

would not be allowed at the Seashore.
Table 3: Alternative Element Summary—Vehicles 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 85

Management Activity Alternative A: No-Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Pedestrian-only Areas 

Summary of Pedestrian-only Areas 19% of Seashore beaches (11 of 56 miles) 

would be available as a pedestrian-only beach 

year-round. 

100% of the Seashore (56 of 56 miles) would be 

available as a pedestrian-only beach from 

January 1 through March 15 each year. 

Same as alternative A. Alternative C would add about 4 miles of 

pedestrian-only areas (0.7 miles yearround and 3.1 miles in the summer). 

The increase in year-round closures for 

pedestrians from 2 miles to 2.7 miles 

increases the amount of pedestrian-only 

areas by 2%. 

21% of Seashore beach (12 of 56 miles) 

will be available as pedestrian-only from 

March 16 through the Thursday preceding 

Memorial Day and from the day after 

Labor Day through December 15. 

26% of Seashore beach (15 of 56 miles) 

will be available as pedestrian-only from 

the Friday preceding Memorial Day 

through Labor Day. 

100% of the Seashore (56 of 56 miles) will 

be available as a pedestrian-only beach 

from December 16 through March 15 each 

year. 

Alternative D would add about 10 miles of 

pedestrian-only areas (4.2 miles year-round 

and 5.7 miles in the summer). 

The increase in year-round pedestrian 

closures from 2 miles to 6.2 miles increases 

the amount of pedestrian areas by 8%. 

27% of Seashore beach (15 of 56 miles) would 

be available as pedestrian-only beach from 

March 16 through the Thursday preceding 

Memorial Day and from the day after Labor 

Day through December 15. 

37% of Seashore beach (21 of 56 miles) would 

be available as pedestrian-only beach from the 

Friday preceding Memorial Day through Labor 

Day. 

100% of the Seashore (56 of 56 miles) would 

be available as pedestrian-only beach from 

December 16 through March 15 each year. 

The entire Seashore would be closed 

to public ORV use. 

Entry by public vehicles into these 

areas would be prohibited. 

Use by NPS essential vehicles and 

other vehicle use authorized by the 

NPS for official business would 

continue. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

86 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Management Activity Alternative A: No-Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Pedestrian-only Areas Pedestrian-only areas would include 

x All soundside beaches, except designated 

vehicle soundside access areas (soundside 

beach is delineated as all beach inland from 

the U.S. Coast Guard demarcation line as 

shown on charts) 

x Portsmouth Village 

x The lighthouse beach (ramp 41a to ramp 

41b) 

x Power Squadron Spit from mile marker 46.2 

west to the end of the spit 

x All of Shackleford Banks. 

Entry by vehicles into these areas would be 

prohibited, except for essential vehicles, as 

authorized by the NPS and described below. 

x Routes within the Cape Lookout Village 

Historic District would remain open to vehicle 

through-traffic.

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A, except 

x Additional pedestrian-only areas as 

follows: 

௅ Seasonal closure from the Friday 

preceding Memorial Day through 

Labor Day: 

௅ Long Point—on the ocean beach at 

the Long Point Cabin Camp for a 

day-use beach and a separate tent 

camping area for a total closure of 

0.50 miles, to be determined by 

beach profile. 

௅ Great Island—on the ocean beach 

at the Great Island Cabin Camp for 

a day-use beach and a separate 

tent camping area for a total closure 

of 1.9 miles, to be determined by 

beach profile. 

௅ Codds Creek—on the ocean beach 

near Codds Creek for a total closure 

of 0.8 miles between mile marker / 

ramps 35a and 35b for pedestrians 

only. Camping would be allowed in 

this area, except for the north end 

turtle relocation site. 

x Year-round closure: 

௅ Light Station—the pedestrian-only 

area at the lighthouse would be 

expanded approximately 0.7 miles 

to the south and would run from 

ramp 41a to ramp 42a (at the NOAA 

weather buoy) for a total closure of 

about 1.4 miles, to provide visitors 

at the ferry hub a larger stretch of 

vehicle-free beach. 

x Routes within the Cape Lookout Village 

Historic District would remain open to 

vehicle through-traffic. 

Same as alternative A, except 

x Additional pedestrian-only areas as follows: 

௅ Seasonal closure from the Friday 

preceding Memorial Day through Labor 

Day: 

௅ Johnson’s Creek—area closed from a 

new ramp opposite the sound access to 

the next ramp south for approximately 

0.5 miles. This is a popular kayak area. 

A new ramp would be constructed 1⁄2 

mile in front of Johnson’s Creek (one of 

five possible new ramps on South Core 

Banks). 

௅ Middle Core Banks—closed to ORVs 

whether or not unified with North Core 

Banks for 3.6 miles (this is currently is a 

separate island). 

௅ Portsmouth Beach—from the 

Portsmouth Village access route north to 

demarcation line for 1.6 miles. 

x Year-round closure: 

௅ Long Point—on the ocean beach at the 

Long Point Cabin Camp for a day-use 

beach and a separate tent camping area 

for a total closure of 0.50 miles, to be 

determined by beach profile. 

௅ Great Island—on the ocean beach at 

the Great Island Cabin Camp for a dayuse beach and a separate tent camping 

area for a total closure of 1.9 miles, to be 

determined by beach profile. 

௅ Codds Creek—on the ocean beach 

near Codds Creek for 0.8 mile, between 

mile marker / ramps 35a and 35b for 

pedestrians only. Camping would be 

allowed in this area, except for the north 

end turtle relocation site. 

௅ Light Station—the pedestrian-only area 

at the lighthouse would be expanded 

approximately 0.9 miles to the south and 

would run from ramp 41a to ramp 42b 

(the village road) for a total closure of 

about 1.6 miles, to provide visitors at the 

ferry hub a bigger stretch of vehicle-free 

beach, as well as provide a complete 

closure in front of Les and Sally’s 

complex. Area north of lighthouse is not 

closed, but south of lighthouse is, which 

is a more heavily used pedestrian-only 

area. 

x Routes within the Cape Lookout Village 

Historic District would be closed to through 

vehicle traffic. Soundside access from the 

bridge to Barden Inlet and from ramp 45 to 

the U.S. Coast Guard dock would remain 

open to vehicles. 

The entire area of the Core Banks and 

Shackleford Banks would be closed to 

public ORV use. 

Entry by public vehicles into these 

areas would be prohibited. 

Use by NPS essential vehicles, and 

other vehicle use authorized by the 

NPS for official business would 

continue. 
Table 3: Alternative Element Summary—Vehicles 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 87

Management Activity Alternative A: No-Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Vehicle Permits, Education Certificates, and Fees 

Vehicle Permits and Vehicle Permit 

Fees 

Not applicable—no vehicle permit would be 

required. 

A vehicle permit would be required, issued 

under Special Use Permit authority. This 

permit will be nontransferable, and would be 

attached to an individual vehicle. The permit 

would be valid on a long-term (annual) or 

short-term (10-day) basis. 

An NPS goal is to make the vehicle permit 

convenient to obtain. The NPS reserves the 

right to change the reservation system over 

time, such as to a lottery or partial lottery 

system. An NPS goal is to ensure the permit 

system is simple, straightforward, fair, 

accessible, and cost efficient to manage. 

A long-term (annual) and short-term (10-day) 

vehicle fee would be established; the amount 

of the fee would be based on guidance in 

NPS Director’s Order and Reference Manual 

53, which focuses on cost recovery (including 

route maintenance, law enforcement species 

protection, permit issuance, and other 

associated program costs). The fee is 

estimated to be $150 for long-term (annual) 

permits or $80 for short-term (10-day) 

permits.

The long-term (annual) permit fee would not 

be prorated for partial years. 

Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. Not applicable—public ORV use 

would not be allowed at the Seashore.
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

88 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Management Activity Alternative A: No-Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Number of Vehicle Permits Available 

(annual and weekly) 

Not applicable—no vehicle limits would be 

established. 

There would be no limit on the number of 

long-term (annual) and short-term (10-day) 

vehicle permits issued, except as 

recommended to implement adaptive 

management (refer to the “Adaptive 

Management Strategy” section in this 

chapter). 

The NPS would be required to maintain ORV 

use data such as: 

x The number of annual and weekly vehicle 

permits sold including the date sold, and 

daily vehicle use data. 

x The total number of vehicles operating and 

stored on the islands each day. 

A limit on the number of long-term 

(annual) and short-term (10-day) vehicle 

permits issued per year would be 

established. Each island would have an 

individual permit. 

The limit on the number of long- and 

short-term vehicle permits issued would 

be determined in year 4 of this ORV 

management plan/EIS and will be based 

on the average number of permits issued 

per island in years 1–3 of this ORV 

management plan/EIS. 

(The average number of permits issued in 

years 1–3 of this ORV management 

plan/EIS is likely to be lower than the 

average number of vehicles delivered to 

the islands because number of vehicles 

delivered to the islands includes multiple 

repeat visitors.) 

The initial limit on the number of vehicle 

permits issued is based on 2005–2012 

user data for the average number of 

vehicles delivered to each island; 2008 

data was not available. The initial limit 

would be as follows: 

x North Core Banks: 2,500 permits 

annually 

x South Core Banks: 3,000 permits 

annually. 

Permits would be issued on a first-come, 

first-served basis. An annual lottery may 

be established to equitably allocate 

permits.

The NPS would be required to maintain 

ORV use data such as 

x The number of annual and 10-day 

permits sold including the date sold, 

and daily vehicle use data. 

x The total number of vehicles operating 

and stored on the islands each day. 

Adaptive management could apply, if 

necessary, to reduce use from the limit 

established in year 4 (refer to “Adaptive 

Management Strategy” in this chapter). 

(Keeping the number of vehicle permits 

issued at the level of historical use while 

increasing the number of pedestrian-only 

areas by 2% could increase average 

vehicle density in the remainder of the 

ORV use areas by up to 2%.) 

Same as alternative C, except: 

The limit on the number of long-term (annual) 

and short-term (10-day) vehicle permits issued 

would be determined in year 4 of this ORV 

management plan/EIS and would be based on 

the average number of permits per island 

issued in years 1–3 of this ORV management 

plan/EIS. (This three-year average may be 

adjusted to exclude events deemed to reduce 

visitation numbers, such as hurricanes.) 

(The reduction of 8% is based on percentage 

increase of year-round pedestrian-only areas; 

this reduction is intended to keep average 

vehicle density similar to current use.) 

Not applicable—public ORV use 

would not be allowed at the Seashore.
Table 3: Alternative Element Summary—Vehicles 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 89

Management Activity Alternative A: No-Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Operator Education Certificates Not applicable—no operator education 

certificate would be required. 

An operator education certificate would be 

required for a licensed driver to operate a 

vehicle at the Seashore. 

The education certificate would be issued in a 

manner to be determined; alternatives 

include: at the Seashore headquarters on 

Harkers Island, on-line or at special request 

for groups. 

The free certificate would be valid for one 

calendar year. Drivers would be required to 

carry this certificate with them at all times 

when operating a vehicle on the Seashore. 

Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. Not applicable—public ORV use 

would not be allowed at the Seashore.

Revocation of Vehicle Permits and 

Operator Education Certificates 

Not applicable—there would be no vehicle 

permits under alternative A. 

The superintendent may revoke a vehicle 

permit, and/or an operator education 

certificate for violation of applicable park 

regulations or terms and conditions of the 

permit.

The revocation period could range from the 

balance of the current calendar year to the 

current calendar year plus the entire next 

calendar year, or as specified by the court. 

The permit fee would not be refunded if a 

vehicle permit is revoked. 

Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. Not applicable—public ORV use 

would not be allowed at the Seashore.
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

90 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Management Activity Alternative A: No-Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Parking/Camping 

Long-Term Vehicle Storage and 

Parking 

Number of Lots 

Parking Permits and Fees 

Lot Sizes and Capacities 

Parking and Permits—long-term vehicle 

storage and parking would be provided at four 

lots at the Seashore. 

A parking permit would be required for longterm vehicle storage. The fee for the parking 

permit, as of 2010, was $15 per week. Fees are 

nonrefundable and nontransferable. 

Permit Limits—there would be no limits on the 

number of long-term parking permits issued. 

Lot Capacity—in 2010, the parking lots 

accommodated approximately the following 

number of vehicles: 

March 16 through December 31 

x North Core Banks Long Point = 32 vehicles 

x South Core Banks Great Island = 

150 vehicles (Includes South Core Banks 

Great Island main lot and Great Island Carly 

Dock lot) 

x South Core Banks Light Station = 

34 vehicles. 

Parking lots are for vehicle storage only. Day 

use and camping within storage lots is not 

allowed. 

Long-term vehicle storage and parking lots 

would be closed from January 1 through March 

15. 

(Annual closure of the lots and required removal 

of all vehicles from the island helps ensure that 

vehicles are properly inspected and that they 

remain operational.) 

Parking and Permits—long-term vehicle 

storage and parking would be provided at four 

lots at the Seashore. 

A parking permit would be required for longterm vehicle storage. The fee for the parking 

permit would be valid on a monthly basis, and 

be based on guidance in NPS Director’s 

Order and Reference Manual 53. Fees would 

be nonrefundable and nontransferable. 

Permit Limits—the number of permits issued 

monthly would be limited, based on the 

average vehicle capacity of the lot and the 

season; permits would be issued on a firstcome, first-served basis. 

Lot Capacity—the parking lots would have 

the following vehicle capacity: 

Spring/Summer Season (from March 15 

through September 14). 

x North Core Banks Long Point = 

20 vehicles 

x South Core Banks Great Island = 

90 vehicles (Includes South Core Banks 

Great Island main lot and Great Island 

Carly Dock lot) 

x South Core Banks Light Station = 

20 vehicles. 

Fall Season (September 15 through 

December 15) 

x North Core Banks Long Point = 

50 vehicles 

x South Core Banks Great Island = 

150 vehicles (Includes South Core Banks 

Great Island main lot and Great Island 

Carly Dock lot) 

x South Core Banks Light Station = 

35 vehicles. 

Long-term vehicle lots would be closed from 

December 16 through March 15. 

The capacity of lots may be lowered as an 

adaptive management strategy. 

Parking lots are for vehicle storage only. Day 

use and camping within storage lots would 

not be allowed. However, designated vehicle 

campsites along the back route proposed for 

both islands would serve as emergency 

parking during storms. 

Same as alternative B, except 

x Long-term vehicle storage and parking 

would be provided at three lots at the 

Seashore. The parking lots at Great 

Island would be consolidated by 

moving the current large lot next to the 

smaller lot to the north, near Great 

Island Carly Dock, while still 

accommodating the number of vehicles 

shown. 

No long-term vehicle storage and parking 

would be provided at the Seashore. 

Parking lots would be retained as emergency 

overnight parking areas. 

(Parking areas, located mostly within the cabin 

areas are by some accounts obtrusive.) 

Not applicable—public ORV use 

would not be allowed at the Seashore.
Table 3: Alternative Element Summary—Vehicles 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 91

Management Activity Alternative A: No-Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Camping 

[Note: Camping is defined in 36 CFR 

1.4 as the erecting of a tent or shelter of 

natural or synthetic material, preparing 

a sleeping bag or other bedding 

material for use, parking of a motor 

vehicle, motor home, or trailer, or 

mooring of a vessel for the apparent 

purpose of overnight occupancy.]

Per 36 CFR 2.10—camping in NPS areas is 

prohibited, except in designated areas. 

Camping would be allowed on all beaches of 

the Seashore that are not otherwise closed by 

the Superintendent’s Compendium, closed for 

species protection or closed for safety. 

The following areas are closed to camping (to 

reduce potential impacts to species): 

x Areas within the 300-foot buffer (100-yard) 

around American oystercatcher nests (also 

no stopping of vehicles within this buffer) 

x Turtle closures (turtle relocation areas). 

Camping would not be allowed in areas closed 

for the protection of chicks.

Same as alternative A + 

x Emergency (storm refuge) parking could 

be provided, on a case-by-case basis, in 

designated areas along the back route. 

This would allow for overnight vehicle 

parking during times of adverse weather or 

unusually high tide events. 

Same as alternative B. Same as alternative A + 

x Long-term parking lots would be retained as 

emergency overnight parking areas. 

Same as alternative A. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

92 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Management Activity Alternative A: No-Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Education and Outreach 

Education and Outreach Component A variety of methods would be used to 

communicate to visitors about species, resource 

information, wise use, and ORV program 

information, such as the following: 

x Park website, bulletins and newspaper press 

releases 

x Bulletin boards at each camp, at each 

parking lot, at the Lighthouse and Harkers 

Island Visitor Centers 

x Interpretive exhibits 

x Signs 

x Personnel—law enforcement, roving 

interpretation, resource management staff, 

and Cabin Camp Office staff at ferry landings 

x News releases on significant, full beach 

closures 

x Outreach to organizations. 

Educational materials would be provided on a 

variety of topics related to resources and ORV 

use, such as 

x ORV Management, night driving 

x Trash disposal, impact of fish carcasses, 

wildlife feeding, fireworks, pets, and 

predators 

x ORV safety, general safety 

x Regulations and violations 

x Camping and sanitation 

x Endangered species and species reports 

x Visitor use. 

The Seashore would provide visitors with timely 

notification of closures and removal of closures 

as follows: 

x At the camps (on bulletin boards) 

x On the web (via notices) and using selected 

social media via news releases for 

significant, full beach closures 

x A telephone number for visitors to report law 

enforcement violations is provided. 

Same as alternative A + 

Educational materials would be actively 

provided to Seashore users through the 

educational certificate requirement; to obtain 

the vehicle permit, ORV operators would be 

required to attend or watch an educational 

program. This information would be updated 

annually based on violations and other 

adaptive management needs. The 

educational certificate would be required for 

each and every driver (not each vehicle). 

Additional ORV specific education would 

include 

x On the ground interpretive programs 

related to ORV use 

x Work with vehicle ferry operators to have 

them distribute educational materials on 

ORV rules and regulations 

x Provision of a regularly updated map of 

closures—online and post within the 

Seashore where possible 

x Provision of a uniform system of resource 

closure signage, possibly color coded (for 

example, a white sign could represent 

areas closed to all users, a yellow sign 

could represent areas where ORVs must 

slow down, and a red sign could represent 

those areas closed to ORVs, but open to 

pedestrian use) 

x Provision of information on the “state of 

the species” throughout the Seashore to 

show visitors the results of species 

management measures 

x Provision of an information packet about 

ORV rules and species protection in the 

cabins; look to work with existing materials 

provided and reduce waste 

x Establishment of a telephone number for 

visitors to report law enforcement 

violations 

x A key NPS goal is to make the education 

certificate convenient to obtain. NPS may 

make this a web-based system, and will 

strive to make it geographically 

convenient. NPS staff may give 

presentations to meetings of local 

organizations regarding ORV use and 

species protection. (If a certain attendance 

level is met, and if requested, the 

Seashore could present the operator 

education information required for the 

educational certificate, allowing users to 

comply with this requirement by attending 

a meeting.) 

Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. Same as alternative A. 

However, all efforts would be directed 

toward pedestrian use because ORVs 

would not be allowed at the Seashore.
Table 4: Alternative Element Summary—Species (Applicable to all Alternatives) 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 93

TABLE 4: ALTERNATIVE ELEMENT SUMMARY—SPECIES (APPLICABLE TO ALL ALTERNATIVES)

Species Survey Species Management 

Birds – Pre-nesting Piping plover—Survey active nesting areas for piping plover arrival and pre-nesting behavior beginning March 16, at least 

once per week on North Core Banks and South Core Banks. Beginning April 1, surveying in these areas will increase to three 

times a week (or every other day). The survey will include potential new habitat and historic nesting areas as determined 

appropriate by a qualified staff biologist. Monitoring reports will include descriptions of management measures in place and 

document piping plover behavior sufficient to evaluate the effects of management actions at the site. 

American oystercatcher—Survey all North Core Banks and South Core Banks beaches for American oystercatcher activity 

two days per week beginning mid-April. Surveys cease when all chicks have fledged or are lost. 

Colonial waterbird—Survey active nesting areas for colonial waterbird at least three days per week when piping plover 

monitoring occurs. Survey potential new habitat and historic nesting areas as time permits. Surveys cease when all chicks 

have fledged or are lost. 

Every three years during the statewide census, map colonies using GPS. 

Wilson’s plover—No survey. 

Piping plover—April 1, establish full recreational closure in active, historic, and potential new habitat as 

determined by a qualified staff biologist. 

Enlarge protected areas where piping plover observed prospecting for territories outside of full recreational 

closure area (same as alternative A). 

If birds do not use site, open by July 15. 

Colonial waterbird—April 1, establish full recreational closure in active colonial waterbird nesting areas. 

Establish ORV closures in historic least tern and black skimmer nesting areas and any potential new habitat 

where, from site inspection, a qualified staff biologist determines that nesting may be likely to occur. 

Expand closures as necessary when nests or nest scrapes are found in new areas. 

Birds – 

Courtship/Mating 

Piping plover—Survey, seven days per week North Core Banks and South Core Banks and other areas at least one day per 

week, locations where territorial, courtship, or mating behavior observed. Monitoring will include descriptions of the 

management measures in place and human activity observed in the areas where courting behavior occurred. 

American oystercatcher—Survey number (pair/single), behavior, courtship, and evidence of scrapes. 

Colonial waterbird— Record territorial/mating behavior if observed during piping plover surveys. 

Wilson’s plover—No monitoring. 

Piping plover—Expand full recreational closures to provide for a 150-foot buffer in areas of territorial, courtship, 

or mating (scrapes) behavior occurring outside existing closures. 

American oystercatcher—No closures. 

Wilson’s plover—Post Wilson’s plover nests or scrapes found outside existing closures on North Core Banks 

and South Core Banks. 

Birds – Nesting Piping plover—Survey nests seven days per week on North Core Banks and South Core Banks. Survey nests at least one 

day per week if they occur elsewhere. Record (1) date and time; (2) nest number; (3) nest location with a GPS unit (one time) 

[nest markers should not be placed in the sand]; (4) number of eggs (if bird is not flushed, record that the bird was incubating

and number of eggs was not observed); (5) habitat; (6) status of nest (laying, incubating, lost, abandoned, hatching, hatched);

(7) presence and behavior of the adults [incubating eggs, shading eggs, resting, foraging, disturbed (record source), territorial

flight, territorial encounter, distraction display or other defensive behavior toward predator or pedestrian, courtship, other 

behavior (describe)]; (8) presence of potential predators, humans, pets, or ORVs within 300 feet and locations relative to the 

nest; (9) evidence (i.e., trails) and number of potential predators, humans, pets, or ORVs within posted areas, including 

distance to the nest; and (10) suspected cause of nest loss, if apparent. Include other specific data such as the number of 

observations of plovers performing territorial defense or courtship displays outside symbolic fencing and making nest scrapes 

outside the symbolic fencing. Data will include a description of the management measures in place where the above 

behaviors are observed. 

After incubation starts, observe incubating bird with optical equipment from appropriate distance that does not disturb the 

birds. 

American oystercatcher—Survey nests every two days on North Core Banks and South Core Banks, other areas one day per 

week. Record (1) nest locations with GPS and mile marker locations; (2) number of eggs present and hatch date; (3) 

presence or evidence of predators, including trails within 90 feet of the nest; and (4) human or ORV tracks within 90 feet of a

nest.

Colonial waterbird—Survey nests at least once every two days on North Core Banks and South Core Banks and one day per 

week elsewhere when piping plover monitoring occurs. Record center of colony using GPS. Record same information as 

piping plover except regular counts of colonial waterbird are not performed and productivity information is not recorded. 

Wilson’s plover—Census Wilson’s plover during annual piping plover window census (first week of June). 

Piping plover—Expand full recreational closures to provide for a 150-foot buffer around nests. Place predator 

exclosures over nest as allowed by the USFWS. Areas remain closed until chicks fledge or are lost. When 

possible, report from the field any nest that appears to be at risk to the Seashore biologist. Piping plovers at the 

north end of South Core Banks should have ORV closure in place before chicks hatch, three days before 

expected hatch 

American oystercatcher—Mark nest in an unobtrusive manner and establish a 10-square-foot full recreational 

closure around the nest if nest in area subject to ORV or pedestrian traffic. Generally, nests found in the dunes 

are not posted because there is concern that predators might learn to associate posts with nests. American 

oystercatcher nests should have ORV ramp-to-ramp closures in place before chicks hatch, three days before 

expected hatch date. 

Colonial waterbird—Expand full recreational closure to provide for a 150-foot buffer from all nests. 

Wilson’s plover—Post Wilson’s plover nests or scrapes found outside existing closures on North Core Banks 

and South Core Banks.
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

94 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Species Survey Species Management 

Birds – Unfledged 

Chicks 

Piping plover—Survey brood seven days per week on North Core Banks and South Core Banks; at least once per week 

elsewhere. Record (1) date and time; (2) nest/brood number; (3) location of brood; (4) number of chicks; (5) brood age (this is

known from other data on hatch date); (6) brood behavior [foraging, resting/brooding, disturbed (record source), other]; (7) 

presence and behavior of adults [foraging, brooding, resting, disturbed (record source), territorial flight, territorial encounter,

distraction display or other defensive behavior toward predator or pedestrian, courtship, other behavior (describe)]; (8) 

presence or evidence of potential predators, humans, or ORVs within 300 feet and location relative to the brood including 

tracks within closures; (9) cause of chick loss, if carcass is found, and source of mortality apparent. Include data on the 

interaction between people and plovers, including instances where vehicles, pedestrians, or pets are observed within the 

symbolic fencing and the type of response exhibited by the plovers. Seashore will ensure park users, concessioners, and 

contractors are aware of the piping plover protection measures implemented within the Seashore boundaries, including any 

measures related to lighting. 

American oystercatcher—Survey brood at least once every two days on North Core Banks and South Core Banks. Surveys 

cease when all chicks have fledged or are lost. 

Colonial waterbird—Survey brood at least once every two days when piping plover monitoring occurs. Surveys cease when all 

chicks have fledged or are lost. 

Wilson’s plover—No survey. 

Piping plover—After nest hatches, when a chick is found using the ocean beach, expand buffer to include a 600-

foot ORV closure around each brood. Route ORVs to a back route or, if there is no route, the Seashore will 

consider an escort. An escort program may be used on a case-by-case basis to maintain access to Portsmouth 

Village or areas with no back route access if staffing allows. Establish a 2-mile ORV closure (now 1.25 miles due 

to Hurricane Ophelia) at the north end of South Core Banks from the first nest hatch until last chick has fledged 

or is lost. Increase enforcement of public compliance with closures. Remove closures when the last chick is 

fledged or is lost. 

American oystercatcher—Establish ramp-to-ramp ORV closures if are chicks present on the beach (route ORV 

traffic to back route via designated ramps) unless no back route is present, then ORVs will be allowed at 15 

mph, with signs warning operators of flightless chicks in the area. Adjust ORV closures based on chick 

movement, providing a minimum 300-foot buffer around brood. Move closures with chicks. Reopen closed areas 

to ORVs after the last chick has fledged or is lost. 

Colonial waterbird—Establish ORV closures that provide at least a 150-foot buffer around broods when chicks 

present at the point of Cape Lookout beach. In other areas, route traffic around ORV closures if chicks are in 

danger of being run over. 

Wilson’s plover—Post areas where Wilson’s plover chicks are found outside existing closures on North Core 

Banks and South Core Banks. 

Birds – Nonbreeding 

(migrating / wintering) 

Piping plover—Survey entire Seashore nonbreeding population once per month from August 1 through March 31. Coordinate 

with Cape Hatteras National Seashore to conduct simultaneous surveys or receive survey data from Portsmouth Island during 

winter, since, based on past banding data, wintering birds move across Ocracoke Inlet. Send data on winter birds to North 

Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). Record: (1) date; (2) weather variables [air temperature, wind speed and 

direction, visibility, percent cloud cover (estimate by eye), precipitation; (3) tidal stage (hours after high tide); (4) number of 

birds; (5) habitat; (6) behavior of majority of birds in flock [foraging, resting, disturbed (record source), other]; and (7) check for 

band combination of any banded birds, using reporting protocols developed by staff for band color and location. Keep a log 

that records the date, time, and purpose of each official trip through areas where unfledged chicks are present. Monitors, law 

enforcement personnel, and other NPS staff will record all observations of violations of dog leashing requirements in plover 

breeding areas, both inside and outside posted habitat. 

American oystercatcher—No survey of nonbreeding individuals. 

Red knot—Survey in spring and fall on North Core Banks and South Core Banks following International shorebird survey 

protocols on frequency and timing. 

Closures not specifically implemented for wintering/ migrating shorebird protection. Permanent ORV closures at 

Shackleford Banks, Portsmouth Flats, the interior of point of Cape Lookout, beach between mile markers 41a 

and 41b, Power Squadron Spit, and soundside beaches on North and South Core Banks are maintained. 
Table 4: Alternative Element Summary—Species (Applicable to all Alternatives) 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 95

Species Survey Species Management 

Sea Turtles From May 1 through September 15, survey for crawls/nests before 12 p.m. daily on South Core Banks and North Core Banks;

Shackleford Banks two or three days per week; Middle Core Banks monitored irregularly (difficult access). Monitoring 

procedures and data collection follow the monitoring and reporting guidelines in the Handbook for Sea Turtle Volunteers in 

North Carolina (NCWRC 2006) and the USFWS Index Nesting Beach Survey Protocol. Periodically monitor (e.g., every two or 

three days) for unknown nesting and emerging hatchlings will continue, especially in areas that are not surveyed regularly or 

that receive high visitor use, through November 15. Monitoring for post-hatchling washbacks during periods where there are 

large quantities of seaweed washed ashore or following severe storm events. 

Before May 1, NPS staff conduct piping plover monitoring and, if possible, note any turtle crawls/nests. 

Record (1) date and time; (2) species, if known; (3) whether it is a false or nesting crawl; (4) sequential nest number; (5) 

whether nest was relocated, original and relocation site names, and coordinates of original and relocation sites in 

latitude/longitude; (6) distance from nest to tideline, in meters; (7) date when nest excavation conducted; (8) date(s) of nest

overwash; (9) sources of egg or whole nest loss, if apparent; and (9) geographic coordinates of false crawls when first found. 

Monitor the effects of management actions on nesting, hatching, and stranded sea turtles on specified beaches within 

Seashore boundaries. 

Conduct a nest excavation inventory to determine nest success after hatching. 

Nest Protection 

Immediately mark each located nest with stakes. 

Fifty days after nest laid, establish a funnel-shaped ORV closure from the nest to 15 feet below high tide line. 

The ORV closure is 30 feet wide at the nest and 60 feet wide below high tide line, with a minimum 10-foot buffer 

duneward of the nest. If 10-foot minimum buffer is not possible, establish a ramp-to-ramp ORV closure (route 

vehicles around nest via back route). Remove ORV closure after the nest hatches. 

Nest Relocation 

Relocate nests laid at or below high tide line or in areas where they are likely to be washed away or are in 

danger of erosion, according to USFWS recommendations. 

Three nest relocation areas (up to 1 mile in length) are designated on South Core Banks and North Core Banks 

where ORV traffic is prohibited beginning 50 days after first nest relocated to area. Relocate nests to the nearest 

designated area. No ORVs are allowed on Shackleford Banks, so relocate nests to the nearest suitable habitat. 

Relocate nests within 12 hours after eggs are laid or 14 days after the nest was laid. 

Nest Excavations 

Excavate the nest the 5th day after a major hatch (indicated by distinctive hatchling tracks), 10 days after 

depression forms, or 75 days after nest was laid if no sign of hatching. Excavations may take longer than 75 

days if environmental conditions or species warrant as allowed by the North Carolina Wildlife Commission Sea 

Turtle Handbook. 

If the nest is outside of a designated relocation area, remove the ORV closure after excavation. 

Predator Management 

Use screens or cages used to protect nests and prevent egg loss to raccoons. 

Light Management 

Prohibit camping and campfires in nest relocation areas to prevent disturbance of hatchlings from artificial lights. 

Encourage concessioners and people staying in cabins to minimize use of outdoor lights. Seashore will also 

ensure park users, concessioners, and contractors are aware of the sea turtle protection measures implemented 

within the Seashore boundaries. 

For nests in locations deemed vulnerable to light pollution, install 2-foot high plywood barriers behind and to the 

sides of the nest 10 days before estimated hatch date. 

Fireworks are prohibited within the Seashore. The Seashore will coordinate with USFWS to develop and 

implement measures to further minimize beach lighting threats. 

Seabeach Amaranth June 1, begin monitoring habitat outside existing bird closures one to two days per week for seedlings/juvenile plants. 

Conduct annual survey in late-July or early-August. Survey habitat but concentrate on where plants have been found before. 

Conducted surveys in all areas of suitable habitat and results mapped using a geographic information system (GIS). Data 

collected will include number of plants; general distribution of plants; general proportions of seedlings, medium and large 

plants at the time of the survey; and overall health (signs of stress, damage, disease or herbivory, etc.). 

Surveys will be used to identify potential closures. 

Establish ORV closure around all emergent plants. Base the closure size on best professional judgment but with 

a minimum 30-foot buffer around the plant. 

Survey bird/turtle closures prior to reopening to ORV traffic. Do not allow tent camping in ORV closure areas. 

Open closed area at the end of the growing season. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

96 Cape Lookout National Seashore 
Table 5: Additional Species Management Measures not in the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan / Environmental Assessment, Biological Opinion, Amended Biological Opinion, or FONSI 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 97

TABLE 5: ADDITIONAL SPECIES MANAGEMENT MEASURES NOT IN THE CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE INTERIM PROTECTED SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, BIOLOGICAL OPINION, AMENDED BIOLOGICAL OPINION, OR 

FONSI 

Management Activity Alternative A: No-Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Birds—Prenesting Historical shorebird nesting areas will 

be posted prior to opening the beach 

to vehicles (March 16). 

Same as alternative B Same as alternative B Same as alternative A, but no ORV 

specific closures (may still be closed to 

pedestrians). 

Birds—Courtship/Mating Species Management per the Cape 

Lookout National Seashore Interim 

Protected Species Management Plan / 

Environmental Assessment

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. Species Management 

Colonial waterbirds—Increase buffers to 600 feet. 

Least tern—Increase buffers to 300 feet. 

American oystercatcher—Increase buffers to 450 feet 

Same as alternative A, but no ORV 

specific closures (may still be closed to 

pedestrians). 

Birds—Nesting Species Management per the Cape 

Lookout National Seashore Interim 

Protected Species Management Plan / 

Environmental Assessment

American oystercatcher—Where nests 

are present on the beach, establish 

pass-through only areas for American 

oystercatcher nests providing a 

minimum 300-foot buffer around nest. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. Species Management 

Colonial waterbirds—Increase buffers to 600 feet. 

Least Tern—Increase buffers to 300 feet. 

American oystercatcher: Increase buffers to 450 feet 

Where American oystercatcher nests are present, vehicles 

would be routed around American oystercatcher nests or chicks 

where the back route is available (no pass-through zone in 

American oystercatcher buffers) during the nesting season, 

typically from mid-May through the end of July. If no back route 

is available, a pass-through zone would be allowed (refer to 

alternative A). 

Same as alternative A, but no ORV 

specific closures (may still be closed to 

pedestrians). 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

98 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Management Activity Alternative A: No-Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Birds—Unfledged Chicks Species Management per the Cape 

Lookout National Seashore Interim 

Protected Species Management Plan / 

Environmental Assessment

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. Species Management 

Piping plover— 

1. Monitor all broods during the chick-rearing phase of the 

breeding season, with frequency of monitoring same as 

alternative A, 

AND

2. Minimum size of pedestrian-only areas to be established in 

the vicinity of unfledged broods based on the mobility of 

broods observed on the site in past years and on the 

frequency of monitoring as follows: Unless substantial data 

from past years show that broods on a site stay close to 

their nest locations, pedestrian-only areas should extend at 

least 650 feet on each side of the nest site during the first 

week following hatching. The size and location of the 

protected area should be adjusted in response to the 

observed mobility of the brood, but in no case should be 

reduced to less than 650 feet on each side. In some cases, 

highly mobile broods may require protected areas up to 

3250 feet, even when intensively monitored. Protected 

areas should extend from the oceanside low water line to 

the bayside low water line or the farthest extent of dune 

habitat. Vehicles may be allowed to pass through portions 

of protected area that are considered inaccessible (as 

above). This would be a seasonal closure from May through 

August. 

In a few cases, where several years of data document that 

piping plovers on a particular site feed in only certain habitat 

types, the USFWS or the state wildlife management agency 

may provide written concurrence that vehicles pose no danger 

to plovers and other specified habitats on that site. 

Colonial waterbirds—Increase buffers to 600 feet. 

Least Tern—Increase buffer to 600 feet. 

American oystercatcher—Increase buffers to 600 feet 

Same as alternative A, but no ORV 

specific closures (may still be closed to 

pedestrians). 

Sea Turtles Nest Protection—Increase width of 

funnel shaped closure from 60 feet at 

the high tide line to 150 feet plus 30 feet 

on either side of the nest and fifteen 

feet behind the nest 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A, but no ORV 

specific closures (may still be closed to 

pedestrians). Also, no camping in turtle 

closures. 
Table 5: Additional Species Management Measures not in the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan / Environmental Assessment, Biological Opinion, Amended Biological Opinion, or FONSI 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 99

Management Activity Alternative A: No-Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Adaptive Management Not applicable—No adaptive 

management strategy used. 

The adaptive management strategy evaluates species disturbance. 

Species Indicators—American oystercatcher (determined to be an indicator species) disturbance would be monitored specifically related to impacts from ORV. American oystercatchers are used 

as an indicator species because they are solitary nesters and are among the most sensitive of the bird species at Cape Lookout National Seashore to disturbance. If species indicators are 

triggered (described below), the following actions would take place: 

x Step 1: Where 2 of the 4 species indicators have reached moderate impacts more intensive management actions could be implemented. The following are management actions the Seashore 

may conduct at any time, however, under adaptive management strategy additional resources would be focused on these actions: 

௅ Additional, focused trash management and fish scrap disposal 

௅ Additional predator control 

௅ Additional education with testing 

௅ Additional, focused enforcement 

௅ ORV route restrictions 

௅ Increased species buffers 

௅ Reduction in the number of long-term (annual) and/or short-term (10-day) vehicle permits issued, and manage the size of parking (vehicle storage lots). 

x Step 2: If species indicators are triggered for two consecutive years after implementing Step 1, then the following management actions shall be taken. These management actions would not 

occur where the Seashore is able to show that species indicators were triggered due to hurricanes or other strong storms, predators, or other natural conditions not tied to impacts from visitor 

use. 

௅ Reduction in the number of long-term (annual) and/or short-term (10-day) vehicle permits issued 

௅ Increased species protection buffers. 

Species indicators will be reevaluated after a five-year period, and possibly changed, based on new information. The following indicators are as follows: 

x Breeding population size. Target 60 breeding pairs. Minor impact: <55 breeding pairs. Moderate impact: <50 breeding pairs. 

x Nest survival. Target >30% of nests initiated hatch one or more chicks. Minor impact: 25%–30%. Moderate impact: <25%. 

x Chicks fledged per breeding pair per year. Target > 0.40. Minor impact: 0.40–0.30. Moderate impact: < 0.30. 

x Mammal predation. Target <20% of nests lost to mammals per year. Minor impact: 20%–25%. Moderate impact: >25%. 

Predator Management Exclosures would be placed on piping 

plover nests and sea turtle nests to help 

protect the nests from predators. 

Same as alternative A + 

The Seashore would perform limited 

removal of mammalian predators, 

when predation is observed that 

impacts federally listed species or 

species of special concern. 

(Removal of predator species reduces 

cumulative impacts to sensitive 

species; removal of nonnative predator 

species is consistent with NPS policy; 

removal of native predator species is 

based on research that shows that the 

populations of certain predator 

species, such as raccoons, increase 

unnaturally due to human interaction, 

from trash and fish remains left by 

anglers.) 

Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. Same as alternative A, but no ORV 

specific closures (may still be closed to 

pedestrians). 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

100 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Management Activity Alternative A: No-Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Night Driving Restrictions There would be no restrictions on night 

driving. 

The night driving restriction would be 

in place from May 1 through August 31 

to reduce potential impacts to turtles 

and bird chicks 

Restrictions would be in place from 9 

pm to 6 am. The longer range of dates 

would account for late nesters and 

would bring this date into alignment 

with the break between the 

spring/summer and fall seasons. 

Night driving would be allowed in the 

Great Island and Long Point cabin 

areas. 

A night driving restriction would be in 

place from May 1 through September 14 

to reduce potential impacts to turtles and 

bird chicks. 

Restrictions would be in place from 9 pm 

to 6 am. The longer range of dates would 

account for late nesters and would bring 

this date into alignment with the break 

between the spring/summer and fall 

seasons.

Same as alternative C. Not applicable—ORVs would not be 

allowed at the Seashore. 

Winter and Wintering 

Closures 

The Seashore would be closed to 

vehicles from January 1 through March 

15 of each year. 

(This would provide habitat for wintering 

species, allows the beach profile to 

recover from heavy fall fishing use, and 

would ensure that all vehicles are 

removed from the Seashore at least 

once a year so that state vehicle safety 

inspections could be updated and 

maintenance completed.) 

Same as alternative A. The Seashore would be closed to 

vehicles from December 16 through 

March 15 of each year. 

(The December 16 annual vehicle 

closure would coincide better with the 

time that cabin camps close, and routine 

ferry operations stop.) 

Same as alternative C. Not applicable—ORVs would not be 

allowed at the Seashore. 

Research and Monitoring Examples of ongoing research at the 

Seashore would include: 

x Monitoring and Management of 

American oystercatcher on Cape 

Lookout National Seashore” 

conducted by Dr. Ted Simons, 

Cooperative Research Group, North 

Carolina State University. The study 

will monitor American oystercatcher 

nesting and chick success/survival 

and document causes of chick 

mortality. 

Same as alternative A + 

Monitoring of visitor compliance with 

regulations to determine success with 

or the need to re-focus enforcement 

and education efforts. 

Through the issuance of a research 

permit, the NPS may authorize 

qualified researchers associated with 

recognized academic or research 

institutions to conduct additional 

scientific research on the respective 

species that will add to the existing 

knowledge of shorebird and waterbird 

species, sea turtles, and seabeach 

amaranth, or improve resource 

protection within the Seashore. 

Establishment of Research Areas may 

be authorized under such a permit. 

Support research efforts looking at the 

sex ratio of turtles. 

Conduct or authorize a new visitor use 

and experience study. 

Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. Same as alternative A. 
Table 6: Environmental Impact Summary 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 101

TABLE 6: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY

Impact Topic Summary 

Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species

Piping Plover Under alternative B, impacts on piping plovers from resource management activities would be 

slightly less than impacts under alternatives A (the no-action alternative) and E (the no-ORV 

alternative). This is because there would be more consistent training and supervision of 

resource staff conducting the surveys, the limited predator removal under alternative B, 

establishing pre-nesting closures by March 16 (15 days earlier than under alternative A, not 

applicable to alternative E), and the increased education and research programs. Impacts on 

piping plovers from ORV use and other recreational uses under alternative B would be less 

than the impacts incurred under alternative A. This is due to the closing of ORV routes where 

no ferry access is available, the prohibition on all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke 

ATVs and UTVs at the Seashore, the night driving restriction from May 1 through August 31, 

the likely increased compliance with resource closures due to increased law enforcement and 

interpretative staffing positions, the ORV permitting system, and the more intensive 

management actions that could be implemented under the adaptive management strategy. 

However, the impacts on piping plovers from recreational uses under alternative B would be 

greater than those incurred under alternative E because no public ORV access at the Seashore 

is allowed under alternative E. 

Impacts on piping plovers from resource management activities under alternative C would be 

slightly less than from alternatives A (the no action alternative) and E (the no ORV alternative). 

This is due to more consistent training and supervision of resource staff conducting the 

surveys, the limited predator removal under alternative C, increased educational and research 

efforts, and the winter vehicle closure from December 16 through March 15 (not applicable to 

alternative E). Impacts of ORV use and other recreational uses under alternative C would be 

less than those incurred under alternative A. This is due to a seasonal restriction on night 

driving from May 1 through September 14, the increase in the amount of pedestrian-only use 

areas by 4 miles, the closing of ORV routes where no ferry access is available, the prohibition 

on all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs at the Seashore, 

shortening the timeframe that utility-model ATVs and UTVs would be permitted within the 

Seashore each year (reducing the March 16 through December 31 time under alternative A to 

September 15 through December 15), the reduction in the amount of Seashore open for ORV 

use, the fee-based ORV permitting system that would also limit the number of vehicles on the 

Seashore, the likely increased compliance with resource closures due to increased law 

enforcement and interpretative staffing positions, and the more intensive management actions 

that could be implemented under the adaptive management strategy. Compared to alternative 

E, the amount of impacts on piping plovers under alternative C would be greater due to public 

ORV use being allowed under alternative C whereas it would be prohibited under alternative E. 

Under alternative D, impacts on piping plovers from resource management activities would be 

less than those under alternatives A (the no-action alternative) and E (the no ORV alternative). 

This is due to more consistent training and supervision of resource staff conducting the 

surveys, the limited predator removal, slightly expanded buffers around chicks on the beach 

(650 feet under alternative D compared to 600 feet under alternatives A and E), the expansion 

of brood buffers based on the mobility of the brood, and the increased education and 

monitoring efforts. Impacts from ORV use and other recreational uses would be reduced when 

compared to alternative A. This is due to the expansion of pedestrian-use only areas by 10 

miles, night time driving restrictions from May 1 through September 14, the closing of ORV 

routes where no ferry access is available, the prohibition on all ATVs as well as all highperformance sport-model and two-stroke UTVs at the Seashore, shortening the timeframe that 

utility-model UTVs would be permitted within the Seashore each year (reducing the March 16 

through December 31 time under alternative A to September 15 through December 15), the 

reduction in the amount of Seashore open for ORV use, the fee-based ORV permitting system 

with a limit on the number of vehicles allowed (which would be 8 percent less than current use), 

the likely increased compliance with resource closures due to increased law enforcement and 

interpretative staffing positions, and the more intensive management actions that could be 

implemented under the adaptive management strategy. Compared to alternative E, the amount 

of impacts on piping plovers under alternative D would be greater due to public ORV use being 

allowed under alternative C whereas it would be prohibited under alternative E. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

102 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Impact Topic Summary 

The resource management activities proposed for alternative E (the no ORV alternative) are 

essentially the same activities proposed for alternative A (the no action alternative) except that 

with no public ORV use allowed on the Seashore under alternative E, there would be no 

recreational ORV-specific closures established and surveying and monitoring protocols would 

be reviewed and may change due to the elimination of impacts from recreational ORV use and 

a reduction in the amount of impacts from pedestrians. Under alternative A, the North and 

South Core Banks of the Seashore would remain open to ORV use in designated routes and 

areas (as documented in the Superintendent’s Compendium), except where resource or safety 

closures are present. There would be no night driving restrictions under alternative A and no 

restrictions on the number of vehicles allowed on the Seashore either. Therefore, when 

compared to alternative A, alternative E would provide more protection to piping plovers 

because there would be no impacts related to public ORV use, and impacts related to other 

recreational uses would be reduced due to limited access to the ocean front beaches due to no 

public ORV use. 

Red Knot Impacts of ORV and other recreational use would result in long-term adverse impacts on red 

knots under alternative B. Allowing continued ORV access along 81 percent (45 miles)of the 

Seashore would contribute to these long-term impacts, including noise disturbance, temporary 

displacement, and possibly injury/mortality of individuals. However, impacts would be reduced 

when compared to alternative A (the no-action alternative) due to increased education and 

outreach; the use of additional species management measures, such as focused predator 

management, and the prohibition of all high-performance sport-model and two stroke ATVs and 

UTVs, and the more intensive management actions that could be implemented under the 

adaptive management strategy. Red knots are active at night, so additional benefits would also 

result from a seasonal restriction on night driving from May 1 through August 3; however, 

benefits from this restriction would be limited since it does not cover the red knot’s spring 

migration period when it is most numerous at the Seashore. Compared to alternative E, 

impacts on red knots would be greater under alternative B would provide less protection for red 

knots, because while alternative B allows public ORV use which can adversely impact red 

knots, under alternative E public ORV use on the Seashore would be prohibited, eliminating 

this source of adverse impact and reducing the impact from pedestrians, who without 

transportation opportunities to more remote areas of the Seashore would likely be limited to 

areas in general proximity to the ferry landing areas. 

Under alternative C, the impacts of ORV and other recreational use would result in long-term 

adverse impacts on red knots from noise disturbance, temporary displacement, and possibly 

injury/mortality of individuals. However, impacts would be reduced when compared to 

alternative A (the no-action alternative), due to increased education and outreach; the use of 

additional species management measures, such as expanded species closures (for other 

protected birds); the increase in the amount of pedestrian-only use areas by 4 miles; the 

expansion of the winter vehicle closure timeframe (changing it to December 16 through March 

15 compared to January 1 through March 15 under alternative A); the closing of ORV routes 

where no ferry access is available; the prohibition on all high-performance sport-model and 

two-stroke ATVs and UTVs at the Seashore; shortening the timeframe that non-sport ATVs and 

UTVs would be permitted within the Seashore each year (reducing the March 16 through 

December time under alternative A to September 15 through December 15); the reduction in 

the amount of Seashore open to public ORV use; and the fee-based ORV permitting system 

that would also limit the number of vehicles on the Seashore, and the more intensive 

management actions that could be implemented under the adaptive management strategy. Red 

knots are active at night, so additional benefits would also result from a seasonal restriction on 

night driving from May 1 through September 14; however, benefits from this restriction would 

be limited since it does not cover the red knot’s spring migration period when it is most 

numerous at the Seashore, and most birds have already left the Seashore prior to the latter 

portion of the period. Compared to alternative E, the amount of impacts on red knots under 

alternative C would be greater due to public ORV use being allowed under alternative C, 

whereas it would be prohibited under alternative E. The prohibition of public ORV use under 

alternative E would also reduce the amount of impacts from pedestrians, because without 

ORVs to access the more remote areas of the Seashore pedestrians would likely be limited to 

areas in general proximity to the ferry landing areas. 

Alternative D would also result in long-term adverse impacts on red knots from disturbance, 

temporary displacement, and possibly injury/mortality of individuals. However, impacts would 
Table 6: Environmental Impact Summary 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 103

Impact Topic Summary 

be reduced when compared to alternative A (the no-action alternative), due to increased 

education and outreach; the use of additional species management measures, such as 

expanded buffers/closures (for other protected birds); the closing of ORV routes where no ferry 

access is available; the reduction in the amount of Seashore open to public ORV use; the 

implementation of a vehicle permit program and the reduction in the number of public ORVs 

allowed on the Seashore by 8 percent; the prohibition of all ATVs, as well as all highperformance sport-model and two-stroke UTVs at the Seashore; and the shortening of the 

timeframe that non-sport UTVs would be permitted within the Seashore each year (reducing the 

March 16 through December 31 timeframe under alternative A to September 15 through 

December 15), and the more intensive management actions that could be implemented under 

the adaptive management strategy. Red knots are active at night, so additional benefits would 

also result from a seasonal restriction on night driving from May 1 through September 14; 

however, benefits from this restriction would be limited since it does not cover the red knot’s 

spring migration period when it is most numerous at the Seashore, and most birds have already 

left the Seashore prior to the latter portion of the period. Compared to alternative E (the no 

ORV alternative), impacts on red knots under alternative D would be greater due to public ORV 

use being allowed under alternative D, whereas it would be prohibited under alternative, 

eliminating because ORV access would continue to be permitted under alternative D. The 

prohibition of public ORV use under alternative E would also reduce the amount of impacts 

from pedestrians, because without ORVs to access the more remote areas of the Seashore 

pedestrians would likely be limited to areas in general proximity to the ferry landing areas. 

Under alternative E, prohibiting public ORV use at the Seashore would provide long-term 

beneficial impacts compared to alternative A where public ORV use would be allowed along 81 

percent of the Seashore. While continued pedestrian access under alternative E would result in 

some short- and long-term disturbance (e.g., noise, temporary displacement, etc.) of red knots, 

these impacts would be reduced compared to alternative A because without the use of ORVs to 

access more remote areas of the Seashore, pedestrian use under alternative E would likely be 

limited to areas in the general proximity to the ferry landing areas. As a result, overall, 

alternative E would provide more protection and result in fewer adverse impacts to red knots 

compared to alternative A. 

Sea Turtles Resource management activities proposed under alternative B would provide slightly more 

beneficial impacts to sea turtles than those proposed under alternative A (the no-action 

alternative) because there would be more consistent training and supervision of resource staff 

conducting the surveys, the limited removal of native and nonnative mammalian predators, and 

the increased education and public outreach measures that would be implemented under 

alternative B. In comparison to alternative E (the no ORV alternative), the limited removal of 

native and nonnative mammalian predators under alternative B would provide slightly more 

beneficial impacts to sea turtles than alternative E. Adverse impacts from ORV use and other 

recreational uses under alternative B would be less than those incurred under alternative A. 

This is due to the night driving restrictions that would be put into place under alternative B from 

9 p.m. to 6 a.m. from May 1 through August 31, the additional management measures that 

could be implemented under the adaptive management strategy if species indicators are 

triggered, the vehicle permit system, the ORV operator education certificate requirement, and 

the likely increased compliance with resource closures due to increased law enforcement and 

interpretative staffing positions. However, adverse impacts from ORV use and other 

recreational uses under alternative B would be greater than those under alternative E. This is 

because no ORV use would be allowed on the Seashore under alternative E, eliminating all 

impacts on sea turtles from ORV use and reducing impacts from other recreational uses due to 

the reduced access to the beaches without ORVs. 

Resource management activities under alternative C would provide slightly more beneficial 

impacts on sea turtles than they would under alternative A (the no-action alternative). This is 

because there would be more consistent training and supervision of resource staff conducting 

the surveys, the limited removal of native and nonnative mammalian predators, and the 

increased education and public outreach measures that would be implemented under 

alternative C. In comparison to alternative E (the no ORV alternative), the limited removal of 

native and nonnative mammalian predators under alternative C would provide slightly more 

beneficial impacts to sea turtles than alternative E. Adverse impacts from ORV use and other 

recreational uses under alternative C would be less than those incurred under alternative A. 

This is due to the expansion of pedestrian-only use areas by 4 miles, night time driving 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

104 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Impact Topic Summary 

restrictions from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. from May 1 through September 14, the additional 

management measures that could be implemented under the adaptive management strategy if 

species indicators are triggered, the likely increased compliance with resource closures due to 

increased law enforcement and interpretative staffing positions, the vehicle permit system, the 

ORV operator education certificate requirement, and the limit on the number of vehicle permits 

that would be issued. However, adverse impacts from ORV use and other recreational uses 

under alternative C would be greater than those under alternative E. This is because no ORV 

use would be allowed on the Seashore under alternative E eliminating all impacts on sea turtles 

from ORV use and reducing impacts from other recreational uses due to the reduced access to 

the beaches without ORVs. 

Resource management activities under alternative D would provide slightly more beneficial 

impacts on sea turtles than they would under alternative A (the no-action alternative). This is 

because there would be more consistent training and supervision of resource staff conducting 

the surveys, the limited removal of native and nonnative mammalian predators, and the 

increased education and public outreach measures that would be implemented under 

alternative D. In comparison to alternative E (the no ORV alternative), the limited removal of 

native and nonnative mammalian predators under alternative C would provide slightly more 

beneficial impacts to sea turtles than alternative E. Adverse impacts from ORV use and other 

recreational uses under alternative D would be less than those incurred under alternative A. 

This is due to the expansion of pedestrian-only use areas by 10 miles, night time driving 

restrictions from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. from May 1 through September 14, the additional 

management measures that could be implemented under the adaptive management strategy if 

species indicators are triggered, the likely increased compliance with resource closures due to 

increased law enforcement and interpretative staffing positions, the vehicle permit system, the 

ORV operator education certificate requirement, and the limit on the number of vehicle permits 

that would be issued. Compared to alternative E, adverse impacts from ORV use and other 

recreational uses under alternative D would be greater. This is because no ORV use would be 

allowed on the Seashore under alternative E eliminating all impacts on sea turtles from ORV 

use and reducing impacts from other recreational uses due to the reduced access to the 

beaches without ORVs. 

The resource management activities proposed for alternative E (the no ORV alternative) are 

the same activities proposed for alternative A (the no-action alternative) and their impacts 

would be the same. However, unlike alternative A, under alternative E there would be no public 

ORV use on the Seashore and surveying and monitoring protocols would be reviewed and may 

change due to the elimination of impacts from recreational ORV use and a reduction in the 

amount of impacts from pedestrians. Under alternative A, the North and South Core Banks of 

the Seashore would remain open to ORV use in designated routes and areas (as documented 

in the Superintendent’s Compendium), except where resource or safety closures are present. 

There would be no night driving restrictions under alternative A and no permitting system for 

ORV use at the Seashore. Therefore, when compared to alternative A, alternative E would 

provide more protection to sea turtles because there would be no impacts related to ORV use 

and impacts related to other recreational uses would be reduced due to limited access to the 

ocean front beaches with no ORV use. 

Seabeach 

Amaranth 

Resource management activities proposed under alternative B would provide slightly more 

beneficial impacts to seabeach amaranth than those proposed under alternative A (the noaction alternative) and alternative E (the no ORV alternative) because there would be more 

consistent training and supervision of resource staff conducting the surveys, closures for 

historical bird nesting areas would be erected by March 16 (rather than April 1), providing 

earlier protection of potential seabeach amaranth habitat and possibly seeds that could 

germinate if the habitat overlaps that of seabeach amaranth. Additional benefits would also 

result from increased education and public outreach measures that would be implemented 

under alternative B. Adverse impacts from ORV use and other recreational uses under 

alternative B would be less than those incurred under alternative A. This is due to regular 

maintenance of the back route which would encourage its use rather than the ocean beach, the 

additional management measures that could be implemented under the adaptive management 

strategy if species indicators are triggered, the vehicle permit system, the ORV operator 

education certificate requirement, and the likely increased compliance with resource closures 

due to increased law enforcement and interpretative staffing positions. Some adverse impacts 

that would occur under alternative B that would not occur under alternative A would result from 
Table 6: Environmental Impact Summary 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 105

Impact Topic Summary 

the loss of habitat if construction of new ramps or the re-establishment of existing ramps after 

storms occur in areas of suitable habitat for the plant. Adverse impacts from ORV use and 

other recreational uses under alternative B would be greater than those under alternative E 

because no public ORV use would be allowed on the Seashore under alternative E, eliminating 

all impacts on seabeach amaranth from public ORV use and reducing impacts from other 

recreational uses, especially camping near the toe of the primary dunes, due to the reduced 

access to the beaches without ORVs. 

Resource management activities proposed under alternative C would provide slightly more 

beneficial impacts to seabeach amaranth than those proposed under alternative A (the noaction alternative) and alternative E (the no ORV alternative) because there would be more 

consistent training and supervision of resource staff conducting the surveys, closures for 

historical bird nesting areas would be erected by March 16 (rather than April 1), providing 

earlier protection of potential seabeach amaranth habitat and possibly seeds that could 

germinate if the habitat overlaps that of seabeach amaranth. Additional benefits would also 

result from increased education and public outreach measures that would be implemented 

under alternative C. Adverse impacts from ORV use and other recreational uses under 

alternative C would be less than those incurred under alternative A. This is due to the 

expansion of pedestrian-only use areas by 4 miles, the additional management measures that 

could be implemented under the adaptive management strategy if species indicators are 

triggered, the vehicle permit system, the ORV operator education certificate requirement, the 

limit on the number of vehicle permits that would be issued, and the likely increased 

compliance with resource closures due to increased law enforcement and interpretative staffing 

positions. Some adverse impacts that would occur under alternative C that would not occur 

under alternative A would result from the loss of habitat if construction of new ramps or the reestablishment of existing ramps after storms occurs in areas of suitable habitat for the plant. 

Compared to alternative E, alternative C would provide less protection for seabeach amaranth 

because ORV access would be permitted under alternative C whereas no impacts from 

recreational ORVs would occur under alternative E and potential impacts from other 

recreational uses, especially camping near the toe of the primary dunes, would be lessened 

due to reduced access to the beaches without ORVs. 

Resource management activities proposed under alternative D would provide slightly more 

beneficial impacts to seabeach amaranth than those proposed under alternative A (the noaction alternative) and alternative E (the no ORV alternative) because there would be more 

consistent training and supervision of resource staff conducting the surveys, closures for 

historical bird nesting areas would be erected by March 16 (rather than April 1), providing 

earlier protection of potential seabeach amaranth habitat and possibly seeds that could 

germinate if the habitat overlaps that of seabeach amaranth. Additional benefits would also 

result from increased education and public outreach measures that would be implemented 

under alternative D. Impacts from ORV use and other recreational uses under alternative D 

would be reduced when compared to alternative A. This is due to the expansion of pedestrianuse only areas by 10 miles. Additional benefits would occur from additional management 

measures that could be implemented under the adaptive management strategy if species 

indicators are triggered, the vehicle permit system, the ORV operator education certificate 

requirement, the limit on the number of vehicle permits that would be issued, and the likely 

increased compliance with resource closures due to increased law enforcement and 

interpretative staffing positions. Some adverse impacts that would occur under alternative D 

that would not occur under alternative A would result from the loss of habitat if the reestablishment of existing ramps after storms occurs in areas of suitable habitat for the plant. 

Compared to alternative E, alternative D would provide less protection for seabeach amaranth 

because ORV access would be permitted under alternative D whereas no impacts from ORVs 

would occur under alternative E and potential impacts from other recreational uses, especially 

camping near the toe of the primary dunes, would be lessened due to reduced access to the 

beaches without ORVs. 

The resource management activities proposed for alternative E (the no ORV alternative) are 

the same activities proposed for alternative A (the no-action alternative) and their impacts 

would be the same. However, under alternative E there would be no public use of ORVs on the 

Seashore and surveying and monitoring protocols would be reviewed and may change due to 

the elimination of impacts from recreational ORV use and a reduction in the amount of impacts 

from pedestrians. Under alternative A, the North and South Core Banks of the Seashore would 

remain open to ORV use in designated routes and areas (as documented in the 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

106 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Impact Topic Summary 

Superintendent’s Compendium), except where resource or safety closures are present. When 

compared to alternative A, alternative E would provide more protection to seabeach amaranth 

because there would be no impacts related to ORV use and impacts related to other 

recreational uses would be reduced due to limited access to the ocean front beaches with no 

ORV use. 

State-listed and 

Special-status

Species 

Under alternative B, impacts on state-listed and special-status bird species from resource 

management activities would be slightly less than impacts under alternatives A (the no-action 

alternative) and E (the no-ORV alternative) because there would be more consistent training 

and supervision of resource staff conducting the surveys, the limited predator removal in 

alternative B, establishing pre-nesting closures by March 16 (15 days earlier than under 

alternative A, not applicable to alternative E), and the increased education and research 

programs. ORV and other recreational use would result in long-term adverse impacts on statelisted and special-status bird species under alternative B. Allowing continued ORV access on 

approximately 81 percent (45 miles) of the Seashore would contribute to these long-term 

impacts, including noise disturbance, temporary displacement, and possibly injury/mortality of 

individuals. However, impacts under alternative B would be less than impacts incurred under 

alternative A (the no-action alternative) due to increased education and outreach, the closing of 

ORV routes where no ferry access is available, the prohibition on all high-performance sportmodel and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs at the Seashore, prohibiting night driving from May 1 

through August 31, the ORV permitting system, the likely increased compliance with resource 

closures due to increased law enforcement and interpretative staffing positions, and the more 

intensive management actions that could be implemented under the adaptive management 

strategy. However, the impacts on state-listed and special-status bird species from ORV and 

other recreational uses under alternative B would be greater than those incurred under 

alternative E because no public ORV access would be allowed at the Seashore under 

alternative E. 

Impacts on state-listed and special-status bird species from resource management activities 

under alternative C would be slightly less than for alternatives A (the no action alternative) and 

E (the no ORV alternative). This is due to more consistent training and supervision of resource 

staff conducting the surveys, the limited predator removal under alternative C, increased 

educational and research efforts, and the winter vehicle closure from December 16 through 

March 15 (not applicable to alternative E). Under alternative C, ORV and other recreational use 

would result in long-term adverse impacts on state-listed birds from noise disturbance, 

temporary displacement, and possibly injury/mortality of individuals. However, these impacts 

would be less than those incurred under alternative A, due to a seasonal prohibition on night 

driving from May 1 through September 14, the increase in the amount of pedestrian-only use 

areas by 4 miles, the closing of ORV routes where no ferry access is available, the prohibition 

on all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs at the Seashore, 

shortening the timeframe that non-sport ATVs and UTVs would be permitted within the 

Seashore each year (reducing the March 16 through December 31 time under alternative A to 

September 15 through December 15), the reduction in the amount of Seashore open for ORV 

use, the fee-based ORV permitting system that would also limit the number of vehicles on the 

Seashore, the likely increased compliance with resource closures due to increased law 

enforcement and interpretative staffing positions, and the more intensive management actions 

that could be implemented under the adaptive management strategy. Compared to alternative 

E, the amount of impacts on state-listed and special-status bird species under alternative C 

would be greater due to public ORV use being allowed under alternative C whereas it would be 

prohibited under alternative E. 

Under alternative D, impacts on state-listed and special-status bird species from resource 

management activities would be less than those under alternatives A (the no-action alternative) 

and E (the no ORV alternative). This is due to more consistent training and supervision of 

resource staff conducting the surveys, the limited predator removal, expanded buffers around 

American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and least terns, the expansion of brood buffers 

based on the mobility of the brood, and the increased education and monitoring efforts. ORV 

and other recreational use would result in long-term adverse impacts on state-listed birds under 

alternative D from noise disturbance, temporary displacement, and possibly injury/mortality of 

individuals. However, these impacts would be less than those incurred under alternative A. This 

is due to the expansion of pedestrian-use only areas by 10 miles; the prohibition on night time 

driving from May 1 through September 14, the closing of ORV routes where no ferry access is 
Table 6: Environmental Impact Summary 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 107

Impact Topic Summary 

available, the prohibition of all ATVs, as well as all high-performance sport-model and twostroke UTVs at the Seashore, shortening the time frame that utility-model UTVs would be 

permitted within the Seashore each year (reducing the March 16 through December 31 time 

under alternative A to September 15 through December 15), the reduction in the amount of 

Seashore open for ORV use, the fee-based ORV permitting system with a limit on the number 

of vehicles allowed which would reduce the number of public ORVs allowed on the Seashore 

by 8 percent in order to keep the average vehicle density similar to historical use, the likely 

increased compliance with resource closures due to increased law enforcement and 

interpretative staffing positions, and the more intensive management actions that could be 

implemented under the adaptive management strategy. Compared to alternative E, the amount 

of impacts on state-listed and special-status bird species under alternative D would be greater 

due to public ORV use being allowed under alternative D whereas it would be prohibited under 

alternative E. 

The resource management activities proposed for alternative E (the no ORV alternative) are 

essentially the same activities proposed for alternative A (the no action alternative) except that 

no recreational ORV-specific closures would be established, and surveying and monitoring 

protocols would be reviewed and may change given the prohibition of ORVs on the Seashore, 

the likely lower pedestrian presence resulting from this, and the fact that with no ORV access, 

pedestrian use would likely be centered around the ferry landing areas, the cabins, and Power 

Squadron Spit where visitors can easily access the beach by their own boats. Under alternative 

A, the North and South Core Banks of the Seashore would remain open to ORV use in 

designated routes and areas (as documented in the Superintendent’s Compendium), except 

where resource or safety closures are present. There would be no night driving restrictions 

under alternative A and no restrictions on the number of vehicles allowed on the Seashore 

either. Therefore, when compared to alternative A, alternative E would provide more protection 

to state-listed and special-status bird species because there would be no impacts related to 

public ORV use, and impacts related to other recreational uses would be reduced due to limited 

access to the ocean front beaches due to no public ORV use. 

Other Wildlife and 

Wildlife Habitat 

Alternative E would provide the highest level of protection and result in fewer adverse impacts 

compared to alternatives A, B, C, or D. Under alternative E, although continued pedestrian 

access would likely result in short-term disturbance (e.g., noise, temporary disturbance) of 

wildlife and wildlife habitat, long-term beneficial impacts would result from prohibiting ORV 

access at the Seashore as native habitat would have the opportunity to recover from heavy 

vehicle use and a considerable source of disturbance would be removed. 

Impacts of ORV and other recreational use would result in long-term adverse impacts on 

wildlife and wildlife habitat under alternative B. Allowing continued ORV access along 

approximately 81 percent (45 miles) of the Seashore would contribute to these long-term 

impacts, including noise disturbance, temporary displacement, and potentially injury/mortality of 

individuals. However, impacts would be reduced when compared to alternative A (the no-action 

alternative) due to increased education and outreach; the use of additional species 

management measures, such as a seasonal restriction on night driving from May 1 through 

August 31; and the prohibition on all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and 

UTVs. Compared to alternative E, impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat would be greater 

under alternative B, because alternative E prohibits public ORV use on the Seashore, 

eliminating this source of adverse impact to wildlife and wildlife habitat. Further, alternative E 

reduces the impact from pedestrians, who without transportation opportunities to more remote 

areas of the Seashore would likely be limited to areas in general proximity to the ferry landing 

areas. 

Under alternative C, the impacts of ORV and other recreational use would result in long-term 

adverse impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat from noise disturbance, temporary 

displacement, and potentially injury/mortality of individuals. However, impacts would be 

reduced when compared to alternative A (the no-action alternative), due to increased education 

and outreach; the use of additional species management measures, such as a seasonal 

restriction on night driving from May 1 through September 14; the increase in the amount of 

pedestrian-only use areas by 4 miles; the closing of ORV routes where no ferry access is 

available; the prohibition of all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs at 

the Seashore; shorting the timeframe that non-sport ATVs and UTVs would be permitted within 

the Seashore each year (reducing the March 16 through December time under alternative A to 

September 15 through December 15); the reduction in the amount of Seashore open to public 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

108 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Impact Topic Summary 

ORV use; and the fee-based ORV permitting system that would also limit the number of 

vehicles on the Seashore. Compared to alternative E, the severity of impacts on wildlife and 

wildlife habitat under alternative C would be greater due to public ORV use being allowed under 

alternative C, whereas it would be prohibited under alternative E. The prohibition of public ORV 

use under alternative E would also reduce the amount of impacts from pedestrians, because 

without ORVs to access remote areas of the Seashore, pedestrians would likely be limited to 

areas in general proximity to the ferry landing areas. 

Alternative D would also result in long-term adverse impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat from 

disturbance, temporary displacement, and potentially injury/mortality of individuals. However, 

impacts would be reduced when compared to alternative A (the no-action alternative), due to 

increased education and outreach; the use of additional species management measures, such 

as a seasonal restriction on night driving from May 1 through September 14; the closing of ORV 

routes where no ferry access is available; the reduction in the amount of Seashore open to 

public ORV use; the implementation of a vehicle permit program and the reduction in the 

number of public ORVs allowed on the Seashore by 8 percent; the prohibition of all ATVs, as 

well as all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke UTVs at the Seashore; and the 

shortening of the timeframe that non-sport UTVs would be permitted within the Seashore each 

year (reducing the March 16 through December 31 timeframe under alternative A to September 

15 through December 15). Compared to alternative E, impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat 

under alternative D would be greater due to public ORV use being allowed under alternative D, 

whereas it would be prohibited under alternative E. The prohibition of public ORV use under 

alternative E would also reduce the amount of impacts from pedestrians, because without 

ORVs to access remote areas of the Seashore, pedestrians would likely be limited to areas in 

general proximity to the ferry landing areas. 

Under alternative E, prohibiting public ORV use at the Seashore would provide long-term 

beneficial impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat compared to alternative A, under which public 

ORV use would be allowed along approximately 81 percent of the Seashore. While continued 

pedestrian access under alternative E could result in some short- and long-term disturbance 

(e.g., noise, temporary displacement, etc.) of wildlife, these impacts would be reduced 

compared to alternative A because without the use of ORVs, pedestrian use under alternative 

E would likely be limited to areas in the general proximity to the ferry landing areas. As a result, 

alternative E would provide more protection and result in fewer adverse impacts to wildlife and 

wildlife habitat compared to alternative A. 

Soundscapes/

Acoustic 

Environment

Alternative B would result in fewer impacts than alternative A through various management 

measures, including prohibition of high-performance sport-model ATVs and limits on night 

driving. Alternative B would result in greater impacts to soundscapes than alternative E 

because ORV use would be permitted. 

Alternative C would result in fewer impacts than alternative A through various management 

measures, including reduced area of beach available for ORV use (74 percent of Seashore 

beach would be available for ORV use from the Friday preceding Memorial Day through Labor 

Day (compared to 81 percent under alternative A), a limit on vehicle permits, and limiting ATV 

use to the period between September 15 and December 15. Alternative C would result in 

greater impacts to soundscapes than alternative E because ORV use would be permitted. 

Alternative D would result in fewer impacts than alternative A through various management 

measures, including reduced area of beach available for ORV use (63 percent of Seashore 

beach would be available for ORV use from the Friday preceding Memorial Day through Labor 

Day (compared to 81 percent under alternatives A), a limits on vehicle permits, and prohibition 

of ATV use. Alternative D would result in greater impacts to soundscapes than alternative E 

because visitor auto/truck use would be permitted. 

Alternative E would result in fewer impacts to soundscapes than alternative A because all ORV 

use would be eliminated (low levels of NPS administrative ORV use would continue under 

alternative E). 
Table 6: Environmental Impact Summary 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 109

Impact Topic Summary 

Visitor Use and 

Experience 

Compared to alternative A, impacts on ORV users under alternative B would be slightly more 

adverse, due to the expanded rules and regulations that would be implemented under 

alternative B, such as night driving, vehicle requirements, and vehicle permits. Compared to 

alternative A, impacts on non-ORV users would not be noticeable. Compared to alternative E, 

impacts on ORV users under alternative B would be beneficial, as ORV use would be 

prohibited under alternative E. Compared to alternative E, impacts on non-ORV users would be 

noticeably adverse, due to the presence of ORVs under alternative B. 

Compared to alternative A, impacts on ORV users under alternative C would be slightly more 

adverse, due to the expanded rules and regulations that would be implemented under 

alternative C, such as night driving, vehicle requirements, vehicle permits, and vehicle 

restrictions. Compared to alternative A, impacts on non-ORV users would be beneficial. 

Compared to alternative E, impacts on ORV users under alternative C would be considerably 

beneficial, due to the prohibition of ORVs under alternative E. Compared to alternative E, 

impacts on non-ORV users would be noticeably adverse, due to the continued presence of 

ORVs under alternative C. 

Compared to alternative A, impacts on ORV users under alternative D would be more adverse, 

due to the expanded rules and regulations that would be implemented under alternative D, 

such as night driving, vehicle requirements, an 8 percent reduction in the number of vehicle 

permits, and vehicle restrictions. Compared to alternative A, impacts on non-ORV users would 

be slightly beneficial, due to the increase in pedestrian-only areas. Compared to alternative E, 

impacts on ORV users under alternative D would be considerably beneficial, due to the 

prohibition of ORVs under alternative E. Compared to alternative E, impacts on non-ORV users 

would be noticeably adverse, due to the presence of ORVs under alternative D. 

Compared to alternative A, impacts on ORV users under alternative E would be substantially 

adverse, as ORVs would be prohibited throughout the entire Seashore. Impacts on non-ORV 

users would be long-term and beneficial, as ORVs would be prohibited throughout the entire 

Seashore. However, the benefits of alternative E to non-ORV users would be primarily limited 

to the areas of the Seashore that are within reasonable walking distance of a ferry landing, and 

further limited if those areas become over-crowded with pedestrians.

Socioeconomic 

Resources 

Alternative A would result in long-term, beneficial impacts relative to alternative E for 

businesses that serve current ORV visitors. Alternative A would result in continued revenue 

from ORV visitors, which would provide support for businesses that serve these visitors and the 

economy of the ROI. 

Alternatives B, C, and D may result in long-term adverse impacts resulting from a loss of visitor 

spending relative to alternative A for businesses that serve visitors using ORVs if the 

restrictions on ORVs such as the prohibition of night driving in the summer, loss of long-term 

parking, restrictions on ATVs and UTVs and the permit fee and education requirements result 

in fewer visitors and lower visitor spending. Adverse impacts relative to alternative A would be 

greater under alternatives C and D, than B, because additional use restrictions are added such 

as more pedestrian-only areas, no long-term parking available (under alternative D), additional 

limitations on ATV and UTV use, and a limit on the number of vehicle permits available. The 

smaller percentage of beach open to ORVs under alternative C compared to alternative A 

might result in increased crowding, which could result in a reduction in visitation and greater 

impacts to those businesses that rely on Seashore visitation. Under alternative D, additional 

adverse impacts would be realized from prohibitions on all ATVs and sport-model UTVs, 

seasonal restrictions on non-sport UTVs, and lower limits on vehicle permits, all of which would 

result in fewer visitors and less visitor spending. The loss of long-term parking under alternative 

D could have positive or negative impacts on the number of ferry trips visitors make relative to 

alternative A. 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D offer long-term, beneficial impacts for businesses serving ORV 

visitors and the economy of the ROI when compared to alternative E because these 

alternatives allow ORVs on the islands, which would result in more visitors and spending by 

visitors in the ROI. The benefits to the ROI from alternatives A, B, C, and D relative to 

alternative E are not expected to be noticeable because the revenue from ORV visitors is small 

compared to the size of the economy of the ROI. However, the specific businesses that serve 

ORV visitors would experience noticeable beneficial impacts under all the other alternatives 

relative to alternative E because they would continue to profit from ORV visitor traffic. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives 

110 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Impact Topic Summary 

Seashore 

Management and 

Operations

Compared to alternative A, implementation of alternatives B and C (which have the same 

impacts to Seashore management and operations) would result in long-term noticeable 

adverse impacts on Seashore management and operations due to the increase in staffing and 

personnel costs in order to enforce visitor compliance with ORV regulations and resource 

closures, enforce nighttime driving restrictions, work with vehicle ferry operators, provide 

visitors with ORV closure information, manage a vehicle permit system, develop, update and 

manage the education certificate, manage the ORV parking lots, record the number of vehicles 

operating or stored at the Seashore each day, attend meetings of local organizations and 

present information regarding ORV use and species protection, construct additional ramps 

along the back route, and designate emergency overnight parking areas. Total approximate 

annual cost to implement alternative B, as well as alternative C, would be $941,000 (plus onetime, first-year cost of $190,000), compared to an approximate annual cost of $486,500 to 

implement alternative A, resulting in an increase of $454,500 annually that would need to be 

covered with additional permit fees or new funding sources (including the one-time cost of 

$190,000, the first-year cost would be $1,131,000). 

Compared to alternative A, implementation of alternative D would result in long-term noticeable 

adverse impacts on Seashore management and operations. This is due to the considerable 

increase in staffing and funding needs in order to enforce visitor compliance with ORV 

regulations and resource closures over a 9-month visitor season, enforce nighttime driving 

restrictions, work with vehicle ferry operators, provide visitors with ORV closure information, 

manage a vehicle permit system, develop, update and manage the education certificate, 

manage the ORV parking lots, record number of vehicles operating or stored at the Seashore 

each day, attend meetings of local organizations and presenting information regarding ORV 

use and species protection, construct additional ramps along the back route, and designate 

emergency overnight parking areas. Total approximate annual cost to implement alternative D 

would be $941,000, compared to an approximate annual cost of $486,500 to implement 

alternative A, resulting in an increase of $454,500 annually that would need to be covered with 

additional permit fees or new funding sources. 

Compared to alternative A, the implementation of alternative E would have long-term beneficial 

effects on Seashore management and operations. For alternative E, implementation would 

allow a decrease staffing, and a decrease in annual spending across all Seashore operations. 

Total approximate annual cost to implement alternative E would be $398,500. 
Maps of the Alternatives 

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

Portsmouth Flats

"

"

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

CALO

"

"

6

5

4

5b

5a

4b

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

CALO

ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Pedestrian Only Areas

ORV Route - Seasonal

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

Park Road

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry

!

!

Mile Marker

Vehicle Ramp Location

! Parking Area

North Core Banks Map 1 of 3 Alternative A

* Areas open to ORV use are always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

North

Parking Kayak Access

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route - Open during ORV Season Only

Pedestrian-only Areas

7

7a

6

5b

5a

4b

4a

6

5

4

3

2

1

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

Atlantic Ocean

Restrooms Sanitary Disposal Station

Ranger Station

Cape Lookout

National Seashore

Ocracoke Inlet

Year-Round Pedestrian Area

Portsmouth Village

Ocean beach from the

demarcation line at Ocracoke Inlet, 

west to Portsmouth Village

2

Vehicle Route

Designated

Portsmouth Flats

No ORV use 

permitted except the 

designated route 

from the ocean beach 

to the village. 

Tidal Flat

113
114
Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

CALO

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

"

"

"

9

8

7

11

10

9

12

7b

8a

8b

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles *Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative_maps\Alternative C_Plate1.mxd

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

North Core Banks Map 2 of 3 Alternative A

"

"

"

9

8

"

"

11

1"

9

12

7b

8a

8b

The Web 

* Areas open to ORV use are always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

North

Parking

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route - Open during ORV Season Only

Pedestrian-only Areas

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

12

12

11b

11

11a

10b

10

9

8

7

10a

9

8b

8a

7a

7b

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

CALO

Atlantic Ocean

Swash Inlet

Cape Lookout

National Seashore

Soundside Access

Soundside Access

115
116
Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

"

"

"

"

18

16

15

19

20

0 0.511.5

Miles

±

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

North Core Banks

Map 3 of 3

*Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

Alternative C

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative_maps\Alternative C_Plate1.mxd

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

* Areas open to ORV use are always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

North

Parking

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route - Open during ORV Season Only

Pedestrian-only Areas

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

North Core Banks Map 3 of 3 Alternative A

"

"

"

1"

1"

16

15

14

 16

 15b

 14

 13b

 13a

 12

13

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

Ranger Station

Showers

Restrooms

Gas Station

Lodging

Sanitary Disposal Station

Drinking Water

Atlantic Ocean

Core Sound

8

19

20

Cape Lookout

National Seashore

Honey Hole

17

16

7 Long Point 

Permit Limits: There would be no limits on 

the number of long-term parking permits issued.

Parking lots are only for vehicle storage only. 

Day use and camping within storage lots is 

not permitted. Long-term vehicle storage/parking 

lots would be closed from January 1 to March 15.

Lot Capacity: 32 vehicles

Shade Shelter

Soundside

Access

17a

17b

18

18b

19

 19

20

 20

21

 21

117
118
Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

"

"

27

0 0.511.5

Miles *Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative_maps\Alternative C_Plate1.mxd

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

South Core Banks Map 1 of 3 Alternative A

"

7

* Areas open to ORV use are always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

North

Parking

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry

ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Park Road

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route - Open during ORV Season Only

Pedestrian Only Areas

Mile Marker

Vehicle Ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2012

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

30

28

27

26b

26a

25

24

29

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

* See ORV Plan for open/closed dates; areas open to ORV use are 

always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

North

Parking

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route 

Pedestrian-only Areas

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

Ranger Station

Showers

Restrooms

Gas Station

Lodging

Shade Shelter

Sanitary Disposal Station

Drinking Water

Shelter

Core Sound

Atlantic Ocean

Kayak

Access

Cape Lookout

National Seashore

Gun Club

Horse

Island

Fortin Island

Sheep

Island

Great Island 

Carly Dock

Ophelia Inlet

Soundside Access

30

29

28

29

Great Island 

Carly Dock

Great Island 

Permit Limits: There would be no limits on 

the number of long-term parking permits issued.

Parking lots are only for vehicle storage only. 

Day use and camping within storage lots is 

not permitted. Long-term vehicle storage/parking 

lots would be closed from January 1 to March 15.

Lot Capacity: 150 vehicles

119
120
Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

39

0 0.511.5

Miles *Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative_maps\Alternative C_Plate1.mxd

South Core Banks Map 2 of 3 Alternative A

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

North

Parking

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route 

Pedestrian-only Areas

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

Codds Creek 

39

38

37

36

35

34

32

31

33

38

37b

36

37a

35b

35a

34

33

32

31

30

Core Sound

Atlantic Ocean

Kayak Access

Shelter

* See ORV Plan for open/closed dates; areas open to ORV use are 

always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

Soundside

Access

Cape Lookout

National Seashore

Johnsons

Creek

Goose

Island

Cowpen

Island

Codds

Creek Dock

Guthries

Hammock

Soundside Access

Mullet Cove

Hogpen Bay

Gunning

Hammock

Island

121
122
National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

South Core Banks Map 2 of 3 Alternative C

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles *Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative maps\Alternative C Plate1 mxd

South Core Banks Map 3 of 3 Alternative A

North

Parking

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route 

Pedestrian-only Areas

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Beaufort Hyde

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

45

46

47

48

49

45

42b

44a

44b

42a

41b

48

41a

40

39

38

41

b

41a Light Station 

No ORV use permitted at 

Power Squadron Spit from MM 

46.2 west to the end of the spit

37b

37a

36

Atlantic Ocean

Shelter

Ranger Station

Restrooms

Barden

Inlet

Sanitary Disposal Station

Drinking Water

Kayak Access

Soundside

Access

Soundside

Access

44

Permit Limits: There would be no limits on 

the number of long-term parking permits issued.

Parking lots are only for vehicle storage only. 

Day use and camping within storage lots is 

not permitted. Long-term vehicle storage/parking 

lots would be closed from January 1 to March 15.

* See ORV Plan for open/closed dates; areas open to ORV use are 

always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

Year-Round Pedestrian Area

Lot Capacity: 34 vehicles

Permit Limits: Th

the number of long e number of long

Parking lots are on

Day use and camp

not permitted. Lon

lots would be close

Lot Capaci

Year-Round Pedestrian Area

The lighthouse beach (MM 

ramp 41A to MM ramp 41B)

Cape Lookout

National Seashore

USCG

Dock

Point of 

Cape Lookout

Morgan Island

Gunning

Hammock

Island

Lookout

Bight

Johnsons

Bay

 123
124
Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

±

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2012

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

Shackleford Banks

Map 1 of 1

*Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

Alternative C

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative_maps\Alternative C_Plate1.mxd

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

0 0.511.5

Miles *Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative_maps\Alternative C_Plate1.mxd

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

Shackleford Banks Map 1 of 1 Alternative C Shackleford Banks Map 1 of 1 Alternative A, B, C, D & E

* Areas open to ORV use are always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

North

Parking Kayak Access

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route - Open during ORV Season Only

Pedestrian-only Areas

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

Proposed Wilderness

Zone

No ORV use permitted at 

Shackleford Banks.

Cape Lookout

National Seashore

Shade Shelter

125
126
Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

Portsmouth Flats

"

"

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

Cape Lookout

National Seashore

"

"

6

5b

5a

4b

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

CALO

ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Pedestrian Only Areas

ORV Route - Seasonal

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

Park Road

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry

!

!

Mile Marker

Vehicle Ramp Location

! Parking Area

North Core Banks Map 1 of 3 Alternative B

* Areas open to ORV use are always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

North

Parking Kayak Access

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route - Open during ORV Season Only

Pedestrian-only Areas

7

7a

6

5b

5a

4b

4a

6

5

4

3

2

1

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

Atlantic Ocean

Restrooms Sanitary Disposal Station

Ranger Station

Tidal Flat

Ocracoke Inlet

Year-Round Pedestrian Area

Portsmouth Village

Ocean beach from the

demarcation line at Ocracoke Inlet, 

west to Portsmouth Village

2

Vehicle Route

Designated

Portsmouth Flats

No ORV use 

permitted except the 

designated route 

from the ocean beach 

to the village. 

127
128
Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

CALO

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

"

"

9

12

7b

8a

8b

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles *Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative_maps\Alternative C_Plate1.mxd

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

North Core Banks Map 2 of 3 Alternative B

"

"

9

12

7b

8a

8b

The Web 

* Areas open to ORV use are always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

North

Parking

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route - Open during ORV Season Only

Pedestrian-only Areas

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

12

12

11b

11

11a

10b

10

9

8

7

10a

9

8b

8a

7a

7b

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

Atlantic Ocean

Swash Inlet

Cape Lookout

National Seashore

Soundside Access

Soundside Access

129
130
Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

18

16

15

19

20

0 0.511.5

Miles

±

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

North Core Banks

Map 3 of 3

*Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

Alternative C

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative_maps\Alternative C_Plate1.mxd

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

* Areas open to ORV use are always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

North

Parking

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route - Open during ORV Season Only

Pedestrian-only Areas

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

North Core Banks Map 3 of 3 Alternative B

16

15

16

15

14

 16

 15b

 14

 13b

 13a

 12

13

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

Ranger Station

Showers

Restrooms

Gas Station

Lodging

Sanitary Disposal Station

Drinking Water

Atlantic Ocean

Core Sound

8

19

20

Cape Lookout

National Seashore

Honey Hole

17

16

7 Long Point 

Shade Shelter

Soundside

Access

17a

17b

18

18b

19

 19

20

 20

21

 21

Permit Limits: The number of permits issued 

weekly would be limited, based on the average 

vehicle capacity of the lot; permits would be issued 

on a first come, first serve basis.

Long-term vehicle lots would be closed from 

December 16 to March 15.

Spring/Summer Season - 20 vehicles

Fall Season - 50 vehicles

131
132
Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

"

"

27

0 0.511.5

Miles *Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative_maps\Alternative C_Plate1.mxd

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

South Core Banks Map 1 of 3 Alternative B

"

7

* Areas open to ORV use are always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

North

Parking

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry

ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Park Road

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route - Open during ORV Season Only

Pedestrian Only Areas

Mile Marker

Vehicle Ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2012

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

30

28

27

26b

26a

25

24

29

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

* See ORV Plan for open/closed dates; areas open to ORV use are 

always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

North

Parking

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route 

Pedestrian-only Areas

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

Ranger Station

Showers

Restrooms

Gas Station

Lodging

Shade Shelter

Sanitary Disposal Station

Drinking Water

Shelter

Core Sound

Atlantic Ocean

Kayak

Access

Cape Lookout

National Seashore

Gun Club

Horse

Island

Fortin Island

Sheep

Island

Great Island 

Carly Dock

Ophelia Inlet

Sound Side Access

30

29

28

29

Great Island 

Carly Dock

Great Island 

Permit Limits: The number of permits issued 

weekly would be limited, based on the average 

vehicle capacity of the lot; permits would be issued 

on a first come, first serve basis.

Long-term vehicle lots would be closed from 

December 16 to March 15.

Spring/Summer Season - 90 vehicles

Fall Season - 150 vehicles

133
134
Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

39

0 0.511.5

Miles *Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative_maps\Alternative C_Plate1.mxd

South Core Banks Map 2 of 3 Alternative B

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

North

Parking

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route 

Pedestrian-only Areas

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

Codds Creek 

39

38

37

36

35

34

32

31

33

38

37b

36

37a

35b

35a

34

33

32

31

30

Core Sound

Atlantic Ocean

Kayak Access

Shelter

* See ORV Plan for open/closed dates; areas open to ORV use are 

always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

Soundside

Access

Johnsons

Creek

Soundside Access

Goose

Island

Cowpen

Island

Codds

Creek Dock

Guthries

Hammock

Mullet Cove

Hogpen Bay

Gunning

Hammock

Island

Cape Lookout

National Seashore

135
136
National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

South Core Banks Map 2 of 3 Alternative C

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles *Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative maps\Alternative C Plate1 mxd

South Core Banks Map 3 of 3 Alternative B

North

Parking

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route 

Pedestrian-only Areas

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Beaufort Hyde

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

45

46

47

48

49

45

42b

44a

44b

42a

41b

48

41a

40

39

38

41

b

41a Light Station 

No ORV use permitted at 

Power Squadron Spit from MM 

46.2 west to the end of the spit

37b

37a

36

Atlantic Ocean

Shelter

Ranger Station

Restrooms

Barden

Inlet

Sanitary Disposal Station

Drinking Water

Kayak Access

Soundside

Access

Soundside

Access

44

Permit Limits: The number of permits issued 

weekly would be limited, based on the average 

vehicle capacity of the lot; permits would be issued 

on a first come, first serve basis.

Long-term vehicle lots would be closed from 

December 16 to March 15.

* See ORV Plan for open/closed dates; areas open to ORV use are 

always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

Year-Round Pedestrian Area

Spring/Summer Season - 20 vehicles

Fall Season - 35 vehicles

Permit Limits: Th

weekly would be li

vehicle capacity of

on a first come, firs

Long-term vehicle 

December 16 to M

p g

Fall Seaso

Year-Round Pedestrian Area

The lighthouse beach (MM 

ramp 41A to MM ramp 41B)

Cape Lookout

National Seashore

Point of 

Cape Lookout

USCG

Dock

Morgan Island

Gunning

Hammock

Island

Lookout

Bight

Johnsons

Bay

The backroad on South

Core Banks would be

extended from ramp 44a 

to ramp 44b; this section 

of backroad would only 

be open when the area 

of the Cape closes to 

through traffic.

 157 137
138
Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

±

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2012

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

Shackleford Banks

Map 1 of 1

*Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

Alternative C

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative_maps\Alternative C_Plate1.mxd

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

0 0.511.5

Miles *Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative_maps\Alternative C_Plate1.mxd

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

Shackleford Banks Map 1 of 1 Alternative C Shackleford Banks Map 1 of 1 Alternative A, B, C, D & E

* Areas open to ORV use are always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

North

Parking Kayak Access

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route - Open during ORV Season Only

Pedestrian-only Areas

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

Proposed Wilderness

Zone

No ORV use permitted at 

Shackleford Banks.

Cape Lookout

National Seashore

Shade Shelter

139
140
Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

Portsmouth Flats

"

"

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

CALO

"

"

6

5

4

5b

5a

4b

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

CALO

ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Pedestrian Only Areas

ORV Route - Seasonal

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

Park Road

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry

!

!

Mile Marker

Vehicle Ramp Location

! Parking Area

North Core Banks Map 1 of 3 Alternative C

* Areas open to ORV use are always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

North

Parking Kayak Access

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route - Open during ORV Season Only

Pedestrian-only Areas

7

7a

6

5b

5a

4b

4a

6

5

4

3

2

1

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

Atlantic Ocean

Restrooms Sanitary Disposal Station

Ranger Station

Cape

Lookout NS

Ocracoke Inlet

Year-Round Pedestrian Area

Portsmouth Village

Ocean beach from the

demarcation line at Ocracoke Inlet, 

west to Portsmouth Village

2

Vehicle Route

Designated

Portsmouth Flats

No ORV use 

permitted except the 

designated route 

from the ocean beach 

to the village. 

Cape Lookout

National Seashore

Tidal Flat

141
142
Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

CALO

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

"

"

"

9

8

7

11

10

9

12

7b

8a

8b

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles *Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative_maps\Alternative C_Plate1.mxd

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

North Core Banks Map 2 of 3 Alternative C

"

"

"

9

"

"

11

"

9

12

7b

8a

8b

The Web 

* Areas open to ORV use are always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

North

Parking

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route - Open during ORV Season Only

Pedestrian-only Areas

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

12

12

11b

11

11a

10b

10

9

8

7

10a

9

8b

8a

7a

7b

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

Cape Lookout

National Seashore

Atlantic Ocean

Swash Inlet

Soundside Access

Soundside Access

143
144
Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

"

"

"

"

18

16

15

19

20

0 0.511.5

Miles

±

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

North Core Banks

Map 3 of 3

*Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

Alternative C

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative_maps\Alternative C_Plate1.mxd

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

* Areas open to ORV use are always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

North

Parking

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route - Open during ORV Season Only

Pedestria-only Areas

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

North Core Banks Map 3 of 3 Alternative C

"

"

"

"

"

16

15

14

 16

 15b

 14

 13b

 13a

 12

13

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

Ranger Station

Showers

Restrooms

Gas Station

Lodging

Sanitary Disposal Station

Drinking Water

Atlantic Ocean

Core Sound

8

19

20

Honey Hole

17

16

7 Seasonal Closure Friday before

Memorial Day to Labor Day

Spring/Summer Season - 20 vehicles

Fall Season - 50 vehicles

Shade Shelter

Soundside

Access

17a

17b

18

18b

19

 19

20

 20

21

 21

Cape Lookout

National Seashore

Long-term vehicle lots would be closed from 

December 16 to March 15.

Long Point - On the ocean

beach at the Long Point Cabin

Camp for a day use beach and a

separate tent camping area for a

total closure of 0.50 miles, to be

determined by beach profile.

145
146
Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

"

"

27

0 0.511.5

Miles *Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative_maps\Alternative C_Plate1.mxd

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

South Core Banks Map 1 of 3 Alternative C

"

7

* Areas open to ORV use are always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

North

Parking

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry

ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Park Road

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route - Open during ORV Season Only

Pedestrian Only Areas

Mile Marker

Vehicle Ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2012

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

30

28

27

26b

26a

25

24

29

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

29

28

28

29

Seasonal Closure Friday before Memorial 

Day to Labor Day

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

* See ORV Plan for open/closed dates; areas open to ORV use are 

always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

North

Parking

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route 

Pedestrian-only Areas

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

Ranger Station

Showers

Restrooms

Gas Station

Lodging

Shade Shelter

Sanitary Disposal Station

Drinking Water

Shelter

Core Sound

Atlantic Ocean

Kayak

Access

Great Island - On the ocean beach at the Great 

Island Cabin Camp for a day use beach and a 

separate tent camping area for a total closure of 

1.9 miles, to be determined by beach profile.

Parking - The parking lots at Great Island would

be consolidated by moving the current large lot

next to the smaller lot to the north, near Carly

Dock.

Cape Lookout

National Seashore

Long-term vehicle lots would be closed from 

December 16 to March 15.

Gun Club

Horse

Island

Fortin Island

Sheep

Island

Great Island 

Carly Dock

Ophelia Inlet

Soundside Access

Spring/Summer Season - 90 vehicles

Fall Season - 150 vehicles 30

147
148
Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

39

0 0.511.5

Miles *Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative_maps\Alternative C_Plate1.mxd

South Core Banks Map 2 of 3 Alternative C

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

North

Parking

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route 

Pedestrian-only Areas

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

39

38

37

36

35

34

32

31

33

38

37b

36

37a

35b

35a

34

33

32

31

30

Core Sound

Atlantic Ocean

Kayak Access

Shelter

* See ORV Plan for open/closed dates; areas open to ORV use are 

always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

Soundside

Access

Seasonal Closure Friday before 

Memorial Day to Labor Day

Codds Creek - On the ocean beach 

near Codds Creek for a total closure 

of 0.8 miles between MM/ramp 35A 

and 35B for pedestrians only. 

Camping would be permitted in this 

area, except for at the north end turtle 

relocation site.

Cape Lookout

National Seashore

Johnsons

Creek

Goose

Island

Cowpen

Island

Codds

Creek Dock

Guthries

Hammock

Soundside Access

Mullet Cove

Hogpen Bay

Gunning

Hammock

Island

149
150
National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

South Core Banks Map 2 of 3 Alternative C

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles *Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative maps\Alternative C Plate1 mxd

South Core Banks Map 3 of 3 Alternative C

North

Parking

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route 

Pedestrian-only Areas

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

45

46

47

48

49

45

42b

44a

44b

42a

41b

41a

40

39

38

41

b

41a

40

Year-Round Closure

No ORV use permitted 

at Power Squadron Spit. 

37b

37a

36

Atlantic Ocean

Shelter

Ranger Station

Restrooms

Barden

Inlet

 Sanitary Disposal Station

Drinking Water

Kayak Access

Soundide

Access

Soundside

Access

44

* See ORV Plan for open/closed dates; areas open to ORV use are 

always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

Year-Round Closure

Spring/Summer Season - 20 vehicles

Fall Season - 35 vehicles

Light Station - The pedestrian only 

area at the lighthouse would be 

expanded approximately 0.7 miles 

to the south and would run from 

ramp 41a to ramp 42a (at the NOAA 

weather buoy) for a total closure of 

about 1.4 miles, to provide visitors 

at the ferry hub a bigger stretch of 

vehicle-free beach.

The backroad on South

Core Banks would be

extended from ramp 44a 

to ramp 44b; this section 

of backroad would only 

be open when the area 

of the Cape closes to 

through traffic. Cape Lookout

National Seashore

Long-term vehicle lots would be closed from 

December 16 to March 15.

USCG

Dock

Point of 

Cape Lookout

Morgan Island

Gunning

Hammock

Island

Lookout

Bight

Johnsons

Bay

 171 151
152
Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

±

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2012

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

Shackleford Banks

Map 1 of 1

*Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

Alternative C

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative_maps\Alternative C_Plate1.mxd

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

0 0.511.5

Miles *Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative_maps\Alternative C_Plate1.mxd

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

Shackleford Banks Map 1 of 1 Alternative C Shackleford Banks Map 1 of 1 Alternative A, B, C, D & E

* Areas open to ORV use are always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

North

Parking Kayak Access

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route - Open during ORV Season Only

Pedestrian-only Areas

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

Proposed Wilderness

Zone

No ORV use permitted at 

Shackleford Banks.

Cape Lookout

National Seashore

Shade Shelter

153
154
Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

Portsmouth Flats

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

6

5

4

5b

5a

4b

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

CALO

ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Pedestrian Only Areas

ORV Route - Seasonal

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

Park Road

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry

!

!

Mile Marker

Vehicle Ramp Location

! Parking Area

North Core Banks Map 1 of 3 Alternative D

* Areas open to ORV use are always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

North

Parking Kayak Access

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route - Open during ORV Season Only

Pedestrian-only Areas

7

7a

6

5b

5a

4b

4a

6

5

4

3

2

1

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

Atlantic Ocean

Restrooms Sanitary Disposal Station

Ranger Station

Ocracoke Inlet

Year-Round Pedestrian Area

Portsmouth Village

Ocean beach from the

demarcation line at Ocracoke Inlet, 

west to Portsmouth Village

2

Vehicle Route

Designated

Portsmouth Flats

No ORV use 

permitted except the 

designated route 

from the ocean beach 

to the village. 

Cape Lookout

National Seashore

Tidal Flat

155
156
Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

CALO

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

9

8

7

11

10

9

12

7b

8a

8b

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles *Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative_maps\Alternative C_Plate1.mxd

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

North Core Banks Map 2 of 3 Alternative D

9

8

7

11

10

9

12

7b

8a

8b

The Web 

* Areas open to ORV use are always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

North

Parking

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route - Open during ORV Season Only

Pedestrian-only Areas

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

12

12

11b

11

11a

10b

10

9

8

7

10a

9

8b

8a

7a

7b

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

Atlantic Ocean

Swash Inlet

Soundside Access

Soundside Access

Cape Lookout

National Seashore

157
158
Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

18

16

15

19

20

0 0.511.5

Miles

±

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

North Core Banks

Map 3 of 3

*Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

Alternative C

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative_maps\Alternative C_Plate1.mxd

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

* Areas open to ORV use are always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

North

Parking

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route - Open during ORV Season Only

Pedestrian-only Areas

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

North Core Banks Map 3 of 3 Alternative D

16

15

16

15

14

 16

 15b

 14

 13b

 13a

 12

13

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

Ranger Station

Showers

Restrooms

Gas Station

Lodging

Sanitary Disposal Station

Drinking Water

Atlantic Ocean

Core Sound

8

19

20

Honey Hole

17

16

7

Year-Round Closure

Shade Shelter

Soundside

Access

17a

17b

18

18b

19

 19

20

 20

21

 21

Cape Lookout

National Seashore

Long Point - On the ocean beach 

at the Long Point Cabin Camp for

a day use beach and a separate 

tent camping area for a total 

closure of 0.35 miles, to be 

determined by beach profile

No long-term vehicle storage/parking 

would be provided at the Seashore.

Parking lots would be retained as 

emergency overnight parking areas.

159
160
Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

"

"

27

0 0.511.5

Miles *Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative_maps\Alternative C_Plate1.mxd

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

South Core Banks Map 1 of 3 Alternative D

"

7

* Areas open to ORV use are always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

North

Parking

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry

ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Park Road

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route - Open during ORV Season Only

Pedestrian Only Areas

Mile Marker

Vehicle Ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2012

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

30

28

27

26b

26a

25

24

29

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

29

29

Year-Round Closure

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

* See ORV Plan for open/closed dates; areas open to ORV use are 

always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

North

Parking

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route 

Pedestrian-only Areas

mile marker

Vehicleramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

Ranger Station

Showers

Restrooms

Gas Station

Lodging

Shade Shelter

Sanitary Disposal Station

Drinking Water

Shelter

Core Sound

Atlantic Ocean

Kayak

Access

Great Island - On the ocean beach at the Great 

Island Cabin Camp for a day use beach and a 

separate tent camping area for a total closure of 

1.9 miles, to be determined by beach profile.

No long-term vehicle storage/parking would 

be provided at the Seashore. Parking lots would be 

retained as emergency overnight parking areas.

Gun Club

Horse

Island

Fortin Island

Sheep

Island

Great Island 

Carly Dock

Ophelia Inlet

Soundside Access

30 Cape Lookout

National Seashore

161
162
Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

39

0 0.511.5

Miles *Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative_maps\Alternative C_Plate1.mxd

South Core Banks Map 2 of 3 Alternative D

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

North

Parking

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route 

Pedestrian-only Areas

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

39

38

37

36

35

34

32

31

33

38

37b

36

37a

35b

35a

34

33

32

31

30

Core Sound

Atlantic Ocean

Kayak Access

Shelter

* See ORV Plan for open/closed dates; areas open to ORV use are 

always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

Soundside

Access

Year-Round Closure

Seasonal Closure Friday before 

Memorial Day to Labor Day

Codds Creek - On the ocean beach 

near Codds Creek for a total closure 

of 0.8 miles between MM/Ramp 35A 

and 35B for pedestrians only. 

Camping would be permitted in this 

area, except for at the north end turtle 

relocation site.

Johnson’s Creek – area closed is 

from a new ramp opposite the 

sound access to the next ramp 

south for approximately 0.5 miles.

This is a popular kayak area. A 

new ramp would be constructed 1⁄2 

mile in front of Johnson’s Creek 

(one of five possible new ramps on 

South Core Banks).

Goose

Island

Cowpen

Island

Codds

Creek Dock

Guthries

Hammock

Soundside Access

Mullet Cove

Hogpen Bay

Gunning

Hammock

Island

Cape Lookout

National Seashore

163
164
National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

South Core Banks Map 2 of 3 Alternative C

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles *Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative maps\Alternative C Plate1 mxd

South Core Banks Map 3 of 3 Alternative D

North

Parking

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route 

Pedestrian-only Areas

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2013

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

45

46

47

48

49

45

42b

44a

44b

42a

41b

41a

40

39

38

41

b

41a

40

Year-Round Closure No ORV use permitted 

at Power Squadron Spit. 

The backroad on 

South Core Banks 

from ramp 44a to 

ramp 44b would 

be open 

year-round.

37b

37a

36

Atlantic Ocean

Shelter

Ranger Station

Restrooms

Barden

Inlet

Sanitary Disposal Station

Drinking Water

Kayak Access

Soundside

Access

Soundside

Access

44

* See ORV Plan for open/closed dates; areas open to ORV use are 

always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

Year-Round Closure

No long-term vehicle storage/parking would 

be provided at the Seashore. Parking lots would be 

retained as emergency overnight parking areas.

Light Station - The pedestrian-only area 

at the lighthouse would be expanded 

approximately 0.9 miles to the south and 

would run from ramp 41a to ramp 42b (the 

village road) for a total closure of about 1.6 

miles, to provide visitors at the ferry hub a 

bigger stretch of vehicle free beach, as well 

as provide a complete closure in front of 

Les and Sally’s complex. Area north of 

lighthouse is not closed, but south of 

lighthouse is, which is a more heavily used 

pedestrian-only area.

USCG

Dock

Point of 

Cape Lookout

Morgan Island

Gunning

Hammock

Island

Lookout

Bight

Johnsons

Bay

Cape Lookout

National Seashore

 1 5 165
166
Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

±

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2012

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

Shackleford Banks

Map 1 of 1

*Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

Alternative C

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative_maps\Alternative C_Plate1.mxd

Craven

Jones

Onslow Carteret

Pamlico

Pitt Beaufort Hyde

0 0.511.5

Miles *Areas open to ORV use are always subject to 

temporary closures for species management or safety concerns.

CALO

L:\gis\calo\alternative_maps\Alternative C_Plate1.mxd

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cape Lookout National Seashore

North Carolina

Shackleford Banks Map 1 of 1 Alternative C Shackleford Banks Map 1 of 1 Alternative A, B, C, D & E

* Areas open to ORV use are always subject to temporary closures for species management or safety concerns. 

North

Parking Kayak Access

Passenger Ferry

Vehicle Ferry ORV Route - Locally Known as the Backroad

Cape Lookout National Seashore Boundary

ORV Route - Open during ORV Season Only

Pedestrian-only Areas

mile marker

Vehicle ramp Location

7

7a

Produced By: NPS and The Louis Berger Group, Inc., December 2012

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

Proposed Wilderness

Zone

No ORV use permitted at 

Shackleford Banks.

Shade Shelter

Cape Lookout

National Seashore

167
168
Chapter 3: 

Affected Environment 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 169

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

The “Affected Environment” describes existing conditions for those elements of the natural and cultural 

environments that are affected by the current management of ORVs and park resources, and which would 

be affected by the implementation of the actions considered in this Off-road Vehicle Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement (ORV management plan/EIS). The components addressed in this 

chapter include federally listed endangered, threatened, or candidate species; state-listed and specialstatus species; other wildlife and wildlife habitat (with a focus on birds and invertebrate species that could 

be affected by off-road vehicle (ORV) use or management); soundscapes/acoustic environment; visitor 

use and experience (including night skies); cultural and historical resources; socioeconomic resources; 

and Seashore management and operations. Impacts for each of these topics are analyzed in chapter 4. 

EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL 

SEASHORE 

Climate change poses a direct threat to many of the coastal lands managed by the NPS including Cape 

Lookout National Seashore, a 56-mile stretch of pristine barrier islands located at the southern end of the 

North Carolina Outer Banks. Climate change associated impacts that threaten barrier islands include sea 

level rise and increased frequency and intensity of storm events along the Atlantic Coast of the United 

States (IPCC 2013). Sea level rise may drastically decrease the area of the Seashore in this low-lying 

region (Inman and Dolan 1989). As beaches along the coastline erode and are lost, the coastal habitats 

will become even more important to species. Habitat potentially lost due to sea level rise includes sandy 

beaches on the eastern side of the Seashore and salt marsh habitat that surrounds the landward boundaries 

of the islands. Storm events also have the potential to cause substantial land and habitat loss by 

exacerbating erosion rates and changing hydrologic and sediment dynamics in this inherently unstable 

region (Burkholder et al. 2004). The paths made by and maintained for ORVs can channelize and direct 

the storm generated overwash flow, causing damage, or even island breaches. Maintenance of ORV 

routes is important to minimize such erosion. Furthermore, increased surface water temperatures 

associated with climate change may increase the frequency and severity of hypoxic events because 

warmer water has a lower holding capacity for dissolved oxygen than colder water (Diaz and Rosenberg 

2008). This may be of particular concern in the calm shallow waters to the landward side of the islands 

and may compound other environmental risks in the area since hypoxia is currently a well-documented 

problem in Pamlico Sound (Stanley and Nixon 1992; Paerl et al. 2001; Lin et al. 2007). Changes to 

groundwater could also occur, and could include salt water intrusion, higher water tables, and changes in 

soil moisture. According to the Coastal Vulnerability Index established by the USGS, the Seashore meets 

several criteria which place it toward the more vulnerable end of the climate change risk spectrum 

including low coastal slope and a high rate of shoreline change (Inman and Dolan 1989; USGS 2001). 

FEDERALLY LISTED ENDANGERED, THREATENED, OR CANDIDATE 

SPECIES

This section addresses species present at the Seashore that are listed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) as endangered, threatened, or candidate. In some cases, the species may also be listed by the 

state of North Carolina. Federally listed species at the Seashore include two birds: piping plover 

(threatened) and red knot (candidate); five sea turtles: loggerhead (threatened – Northwest Atlantic Ocean 

distinct population segments (DPS), leatherback (endangered), Kemp’s Ridely (endangered), hawksbill 

(endangered), and green (threatened); and one plant: seabeach amaranth (threatened). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

170 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Species listed only by the state, and which are not federally listed, are discussed in the “State-listed and 

Special-status Species” section. 

PIPING PLOVER

The piping plover (Charadrius melodus) is a small, highly camouflaged, sand-colored shorebird endemic 

to North America. The piping plover is 6 to 7 inches long and weighs 1.5 to 2.2 ounces. The USFWS 

recognizes three distinct piping plover population segments: (1) the Atlantic Coast (from the Maritime 

Provinces of Canada to the Outer Banks of North Carolina); (2) the Great Lakes (along Lake Superior and 

Lake Michigan); and (3) the Great Plains (from southern, prairie Canada to Nebraska). Wintering 

populations are found on the Atlantic Coast, from North Carolina to Florida, on the Gulf Coast from 

Florida to Mexico, and in the Caribbean with the greatest number of wintering birds found in Texas. 

Fewer than 3,000 breeding pairs of piping plovers were detected in the United States and Canada in 2001, 

although the most recent breeding census estimated breeding pairs in excess of 3,500 (Elliott-Smith, Haig, 

and Powers 2009). Piping plovers were common along the Atlantic Coast during much of the 19th 

century, but nearly disappeared due to excessive hunting for decorative feathers. Following passage of the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) in 1918, plover numbers recovered to a 20th century peak during the 

1940s. Increased development and beach recreation after World War II caused a population decline that 

led to federal protection for the plover (USFWS 2007b). Habitat loss caused by human development and 

recreation, and low reproductive rates caused by disturbance and predation, were considered to be the 

primary causes of the decline (Elliott-Smith and Haig 2004). The Atlantic Coast population was federally 

listed in 1986 as threatened (50 FR 50726-50734). At the time of listing, there were approximately 790 

Atlantic Coast pairs, and the species was in decline. Therefore, a recovery target of 2,000 pairs was 

established in the 1996 Revised Recovery Plan for the Atlantic Coast population (USFWS 1996a). 

Disturbance and predation were intensively managed after the listing, and the Atlantic Coast population 

rose to 1,890 pairs by 2007 (USFWS 2007c), but was still short of the recovery goal of 2,000 pairs 

(USFWS 1996a; Hecht pers. comm. 2008). 

The population for the Atlantic Coast Southern Region (or Recovery Unit), which comprises the states of 

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, was estimated at 333 pairs in 2007, which was the 

highest since 1986, but still short of the regional goal of 400 pairs (table 7 and figure 8). North Carolina 

experienced more than a 50 percent decline in breeding pairs from 1989 (55 pairs) to 2004 (20 pairs) 

(USFWS 2004a) for reasons discussed in the “Risk Factors” section later in this chapter. However, the 

number of breeding pairs was estimated at 64 pairs in 2008, which represents the highest number 

recorded in North Carolina in the years that complete surveys have been conducted (1989–2008) 

(NCWRC 2008a). Preliminary estimates for the 2012 season indicated a total of 70 pairs in the state 

(USFWS 2013a). 

Piping Plover in North Carolina 

North Carolina is currently the only state on the Atlantic Coast that hosts piping plovers during all phases 

of their annual cycle, including the establishment and holding of territories, courtship and copulation, nest 

scraping and nest building, egg laying and incubation, chick rearing and fledging, and migration and 

wintering (Cohen 2005a). The first published account of breeding piping plovers in North Carolina is 

from 1901 on Pearl Island (Golder 1985). The piping plover continue to breed at the extreme northern 

(Newfoundland’s southern coast) and southern ends (South Carolina) of their range and the extent of the 

current range does not appear to differ drastically from the historic range. However, piping plovers appear 

to be absent or greatly reduced in numbers at some beaches where they were historically found. The 

sparsity of nesting pairs on some beaches in the southern portion of the piping plover’s Atlantic Coast 

range is of concern. The Seashore is at the southern end of the Atlantic Coast range of piping plover 

(USFWS 2000). 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 171

TABLE 7: SOUTHERN REGION (INCLUDING NORTH CAROLINA) PIPING PLOVER POPULATION TRENDS, NUMBER

OF BREEDING PAIRS, 1986–2012

Year Delaware Maryland Virginia 

North

Carolina

South

Carolina Southern Region 

1986 8 17 100 30a 3 158 

1987 7 23 100 30b – 160 

1988 3 25 103 40 – 171 

1989 3 20 121 55a – 199 

1990 6 14 125 55 1 201 

1991 5 17 131 40 1 194 

1992 2 24 97 49 – 172 

1993 2 19 106 53 1 181 

1994 4 32 96 54 – 186 

1995 5 44 118 50 – 217 

1996 6 61 87 35 0 189 

1997 4 60 88 52 – 204 

1998 6 56 95 46 – 203 

1999 4 58 89 31 – 182 

2000 3 60 96 24 – 183 

2001 6 60 119 23 0 208 

2002 6 60 120 23 – 209 

2003 6 59 114 24 – 203 

2004c 7 66 152 20 – 245 

2005d 8 63 192 37 – 300 

2006e 9 64 202 46 – 321 

2007f 9 64 199 61 – 333 

2008g 10 49 208 64 – 331 

2009h 10 45 193 54 – 302 

2010i 9 44 192 61 – 306 

2011j 8 36 188 62 – 294 

2012k 7 41 259 70 – 377 

Source of 1986–2001 data is USFWS 2002. Source of 2002–2003 data is USFWS 2004b. a The recovery team believes that the apparent 1986–1989 increase in the North Carolina population was because 

of an intensified survey effort. 

b No actual surveys were made in 1987; estimate is that from 1986. 

c USFWS 2004c. Figures are preliminary estimates. 

d USFWS 2005a. 

e USFWS 2006b. 

f

USFWS 2007c. 

g

 USFWS 2008a. 

h USFWS 2009a. 

I

USFWS 2011. 

J

 USFWS 2012a. 

K

 USFWS 2013 

— = No data available. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

172 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Source: References are the same as the references show in table 7, plus NPS 2013l. 

Note: Data is missing for Cape Lookout National Seashore for the years 1986–1988, 1990, 1991, and 1996. 

FIGURE 8: SOUTHERN REGION STATES PIPING PLOVER POPULATION TRENDS, NUMBER OF BREEDING PAIRS,

1986–2012 

Cape Lookout National Seashore is a significant nesting area, containing 70 percent of the nesting pairs in 

the state of North Carolina. The Seashore is also an important wintering and migratory site (NPS 2009a). 

Plovers from the endangered Great Lakes population have been observed in fall and spring migration and 

during the wintering period (Cohen 2005a). In 2008, the greatest concentration of piping plover nests at 

Cape Lookout National Seashore was found around New Drum Inlet, which is now considered the most 

important site in North Carolina for the survival of this species (NPS 2009a). At the Seashore, a baseline 

study for monitoring piping plovers began in 1989. In that year, 34 nesting pairs were observed and 25 

chicks were confirmed to have fledged. Thirty-three pairs were counted in 1992, and 35 pairs in 1993. 

The piping plover population increased to 39 pairs at the Seashore in 1994, and subsequently varied 

between 32 and 36 pairs through 1998, after which a steady decline began (figure 9). The population at 

the Seashore reached a low of 13 breeding pairs in 2004, with only 14 breeding pairs reported the 

previous year (NPS 2005a). The population increased to 27 pairs in 2005, 33 pairs in 2006, 45 pairs in 

2007, and 46 pairs by 2008 before dropping to 36 pairs in 2009 (NPS 2012t). There were 43 pairs 

reported in 2010, 41 pairs in 2011, and 51 pairs in 2012 (NPS 2012t). 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

19861988199019921994199619982000200220042006200820102012

Delaware

Maryland

Virginia

North Carolina

South Carolina

Cape Lookout
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 173

Source: 2012 Piping Plover Monitoring Report (NPS 2012t).

Note: Data missing for 1990, 1991, and 1996. 

FIGURE 9: NUMBER OF PIPING PLOVER BREEDING PAIRS, CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE, 1989–2012 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) staff conducted a piping plover breeding 

census along the coast of North Carolina during the June 1 through June 9, 2012 census window. The 

census included all suitable habitat on ocean and inlet beaches with the exception of Browns Island, 

which lies within a military live-fire training range. Sixty-four pairs and three individual birds were 

counted during the census (Schweitzer and Abraham 2012)). The end-of-season best estimate for 2012, 

which includes pairs discovered after the census, was 70 pairs in the State of North Carolina (Schweitzer 

and Abraham 2012). The highest number previously recorded in North Carolina in the years that complete 

surveys have been conducted (1989–2012) was in 2008, when 64 breeding pairs were estimated (figure 

10). Forty chicks were fledged in 2012 and the estimated productivity was 0.58 chicks per pair, which is 

well below the Recovery Plan goal of 1.5 chicks per pair per year (Schweitzer and Abraham 2012). 

Statewide, the distribution of piping plovers was similar to previous years, with the majority of nesting 

pairs found at Cape Lookout National Seashore (NCWRC 2008a). 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

198919921993199419951997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012

Number of Breeding Pairs

Year

Total Pairs
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

174 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Source: Schweitzer and Abraham 2012. 

Note: Data reflect total season estimates, which includes birds found after the census window had closed. 

FIGURE 10: NUMBER OF PIPING PLOVER BREEDING PAIRS IN NORTH CAROLINA, 1986–2012 HABITAT 

DESCRIPTION

On the Atlantic Coast, piping plovers nest in sand, gravel, or cobble substrates in backshore, dune, 

interdune blowout, overwash fan, and barrier flat zones of open or sparsely vegetated beaches. Nest sites 

may have little or no slope (Cairns 1982; Burger 1987) although nesting does occur on lower elevation 

dunes (Cairns 1982). On wide beaches, piping plovers nest in the open to maintain a wide field of view, 

but on narrower beaches nests can be established under clumps of vegetation (Cairns 1982; USFWS 

1996a). Where beaches are wide, piping plovers tend to nest far from the tide line to reduce risk of nest 

overwash, but this can place nests closer to vegetated dunes where risk of predation is high (Burger 

1987). Piping plovers have also been observed nesting within least tern colonies, which could provide an 

added defense against predators due to antipredator behavior of least terns (Burger 1987). 

In the winter and during migration, piping plovers tend to be found in areas with wide beaches and inlet 

habitats, foraging in moist, substrate habitat that includes both low- and high-wave-energy intertidal 

zones, mud flats, moist sand flats, ephemeral pools, shores, and brackish ponds (Cohen 2005a; ElliottSmith and Haig 2004; Nicholls and Baldassarre 1990b; Wilkinson and Spinks 1994). During winter 

distribution surveys on the Atlantic Coast from 1986 to 1987, piping plovers were almost always found 

associated with other species of shorebirds, such as sanderlings (Calidris alba), least sandpipers 

(C. minutilla), or western sandpipers (C. mauri), in addition to other piping plovers (Nicholls and 

Baldassarre 1990a). 

Critical Habitat Designation 

Critical habitat identifies specific areas that are essential to the conservation of a listed species or that 

contain physical and biological features that are essential to the species and that may require special 

management considerations or protection. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires 

federal agencies to ensure that actions they authorize or carry out are not likely to destroy or adversely 

modify designated critical habitat. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat include 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012

Number of Breeding Pairs

Year

Total Pairs
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 175

those that alter the primary constituent elements (PCEs) to an extent that the value of critical habitat for 

both the survival and recovery of the species is appreciably reduced (65 FR 41793). 

The USFWS first designated critical habitat for the wintering population of the piping plover in 2001 

along the coasts of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, 

and Texas (66 FR 36038). A total of 142 areas along these coasts were designated as critical habitat for 

wintering birds, as defined by the ESA. The original designation of critical habitat included three coastal 

areas (named Units NC-6, NC-7, and NC-8), totaling approximately 11,006 acres (4,455 hectares), 

entirely within the Seashore (66 FR 36067). A rule to revise designated critical habitat for the wintering 

population of the piping plover in North Carolina was proposed in 2006 (71 FR 33703). The final rule for 

the revised critical habitat designation became effective on November 20, 2008 (73 FR 62816), which 

described four coastal areas (named Units NC–1, NC–2, NC–4, and NC–5), totaling approximately 1,827 

acres (739.4 hectares), as critical habitat for the wintering population of the piping plover. The Units (NC6, NC-7, and NC-8) within the Seashore were not affected by the 2008 final rule for the revised critical 

habitat designation. Critical habitat designations are shown in figures 11 and 12. 

The PCEs for the wintering population of the piping plover are the habitat components that support 

foraging, roosting, and sheltering and the physical features necessary for maintaining the natural 

processes that support these habitat components. Specifically, the PCEs that are most relevant to the 

Seashore are as follows: 

1. Intertidal sand beaches (including sand flats) or mud flats (between the mean lower low water 

(MLLW) line and annual high tide) with no or very sparse emergent vegetation for feeding. In 

some cases, these flats may be covered or partially covered by a mat of blue-green algae. 

2. Unvegetated or sparsely vegetated sand, mud, or algal flats above annual high tide for roosting. 

Such sites may have debris or detritus and may have micro-topographic relief (less than 20 inches 

(50 centimeters) above substrate surface) offering refuge from high winds and cold weather. 

3. Spits, especially sand, running into water for foraging and roosting. 

4. Unvegetated washover areas with little or no topographic relief for feeding and roosting. 

Washover areas are formed and maintained by the action of hurricanes, storm surges, or other 

extreme wave actions. 

Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and 

other paved areas) and the land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries as of 

November 20, 2008 (50 CR 17.95 b (1)(2)). 

The three units of designated critical habitat that include acreage within the Seashore are described below 

(66 FR 36067): 

NC-6: This unit includes all land MLLW on Atlantic Ocean to MLLW on Pamlico Sound, from 

Ocracoke Inlet extending west to the western end of Pilontary Islands. This unit includes the islands 

of Casey, Sheep, Evergreen, Portsmouth, Whalebone, Kathryn-Jane Flats, and Merkle Hammock. 

This unit also extends west from the eastern side of Old Drum Inlet to 1.6 kilometers (1.0 miles) west 

to New Drum Inlet and includes all lands from the MLLW on Atlantic Ocean to MLLW on Core 

Sound. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

176 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Source: USFWS 2001.

Note: Only NC-6 is located within Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

FIGURE 11: CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATIONS FOR PIPING PLOVER IN THE NORTH PORTION OF CAPE LOOKOUT

NATIONAL SEASHORE
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 177

Source: USFWS 2001. 

Note: Only NC-7 and NC-8 are located within Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

FIGURE 12: CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATIONS FOR PIPING PLOVER IN THE SOUTH PORTION OF CAPE LOOKOUT

NATIONAL SEASHORE
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

178 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

NC-7: This unit extends south from Cape Lookout Lighthouse, along Cape Lookout, to the point of 

Cape Lookout and northwest to the northwestern peninsula. All lands from MLLW on the Atlantic 

Ocean, Onslow Bay, and Lookout Bight up to where densely vegetated habitat, not used by the piping 

plover, begins and the constituent elements no longer occur are included. 

NC-8: This unit is in two parts: (1) the eastern end of Shackleford Banks from MLLW of Barden 

Inlet extending west 1.4 miles (2.4 kilometers), including Diamond City Hills, Great Marsh Island, 

and Blinds Hammock; and (2) the western end of Shackleford Banks from MLLW extending east 2.0 

miles (3.2 kilometers) from Beaufort Inlet. The unit includes all land from MLLW to where densely 

vegetated habitat, not used by the piping plover, begins and where the constituent elements no longer 

occur and any emergent sandbars within Beaufort Inlet. This unit is bordered by Onslow Bay, 

Shackleford Slue, and Back Sound. 

Diet

Piping plovers feed primarily on freshwater, marine, terrestrial, and benthic invertebrates (Elliott-Smith 

and Haig 2004) such as marine worms, fly larvae, beetles, crustaceans or mollusks (USFWS 1996a). 

Adults forage both day and night (Staine and Burger 1994), but young chicks are brooded during the 

night and therefore feed by day (Wolcott and Wolcott 1999). During territory establishment, foraging 

adults exhibit a preference for a moist substrate habitat that particularly includes mud flats, sand flats, 

ephemeral pools, and shores of brackish ponds and excludes the high-wave-energy intertidal zone (Cohen 

2005a). Broods forage primarily on damp sand flats or moist substrate habitat, where their prey 

abundance is much higher than in other habitats (Kuklinski, Houghton, and Fraser 1996). 

Chicks with access to moist substrate habitat survived better than chicks without such access in Virginia 

(Loegering and Fraser 1995) and Rhode Island (Goldin and Regosin 1998). A study in New York in 1992 

and 1993 found that piping plover broods had higher foraging rates in areas with ephemeral pools and 

tidal flats, which suggested that these habitats were superior. This study also documented higher 

incidences of arthropods in the moist substrate habitat, which could explain the increased plovers 

numbers and survival rates in these habitat types. Management implications of this study include 

conserving a variety of foraging habitat (Elias, Fraser, and Buckley 2000). Burger (1994) found that when 

broods had access to a diversity of foraging habitat zones, the impact of human disturbance was reduced 

because chicks had opportunities to escape disturbances and still forage. 

Breeding Biology 

On the Atlantic Coast, breeding territory establishment and courtship generally begin in late March, the 

first nests are initiated in late April, and the brood-rearing period extends from late May through midAugust (Cohen 2005b). On beaches with more birds in the northern end of the Atlantic Coast breeding 

range, most pairs establish breeding territory within a day or two of their arrival in early spring, whereas 

pairs on sites with fewer birds can take several days or weeks longer to become established (Elliott-Smith 

and Haig 2004). 

Piping plovers are primarily monogamous during the breeding season but often change mates between 

seasons. The nest is built by the male and consists of a shallow scrape in sandy substrate that may or may 

not be lined with pebbles and shell fragments. 

The normal clutch size is four (USFWS 2007b), and the average duration for egg laying is six days 

(Elliott-Smith and Haig 2004). Replacement of lost or destroyed eggs has not been reported. If one or 

more eggs are lost, the pair continues to incubate the remaining eggs. Incubation is shared by males and 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 179

females and typically commences the day of clutch completion, but sometimes occurs when the next-tolast egg is laid (Elliott-Smith and Haig 2004). 

The length of incubation ranges from 25 to 29 days, and a pair will re-nest multiple times if successive 

clutches are destroyed, but re-nesting after the chicks hatch is rare (Elliott-Smith and Haig 2004). Chicks 

leave the nest scrape within a few hours of hatching, except when a nest hatches at night, and they never 

return (Wolcott and Wolcott 1999). Broods may move hundreds of meters away from the nest site during 

the first week after hatching (USFWS 1996a). Chicks are vulnerable soon after hatching and survival 

rates are lower if the brood is forced to move. Members of a breeding pair share brood-rearing duties, 

though some females desert broods within 5 to 17 days (Elliott-Smith and Haig 2004). Although chicks 

follow adults to a foraging habitat, chicks forage for themselves. Fledging time ranges from 25 to 35 days 

(USFWS 1996a), and most adults and young depart the breeding grounds between mid-July and early 

September (Cohen 2005a). 

Breeding Chronology and Performance at Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Locally breeding piping plovers arrive at the Seashore in mid-March, begin courting and pairing in April, 

and begin to scrape or build nests by the third week of April (USFWS 1994; Patterson, Fraser, and 

Roggenbuck 1990). Ocracoke Inlet, Portsmouth Flats, Kathryn-Jane Flats, Old Drum Inlet, New Drum 

Inlet (mile marker 21 to 22), Ophelia Island (mile marker 22 to 23), Plover Inlet (mile marker 23 to 24), 

the point of Cape Lookout, Power Squadron Spit, and Shackleford Banks all contain potential nesting 

habitat. The Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan / 

Environmental Assessment, March 2006, developed for the Seashore provides guidance for monitoring 

and management (NPS 2006a). Seashore personnel generally begin monitoring for piping plover arrival 

and pre-nesting behavior by early April. In 2012, bird sanctuary signs were used to close all known piping 

plover nesting habitat to pedestrian and vehicular entry by April 1. Nesting areas were surveyed daily for 

territorial pairs and nests. Potential habitat outside posted areas was monitored and posted as necessary 

with a minimum 150-foot buffer distance from scrapes and nests. Once a nest was located, nests were 

monitored daily until they hatched or were lost. All known nests were protected by predator exclosures if 

the topography of the location was suitable and monitoring was sufficient. After hatching, broods were 

monitored daily until the chicks fledged or were lost. Ocean beach foraging areas were closed to vehicle 

traffic while the chicks were present (NPS 2009a, 2012t). Monitoring staff typically document brood 

status, behavior, individual bird and/or brood movements, human disturbance, predator interactions, or 

other significant environmental events (NPS 2005a). 

In 2012, Portsmouth Flats had the highest concentration of piping plover nests (25) at the Seashore, 

followed by New Drum Inlet with 14 nests (NPS 2012t). The natural inlet closing process at Old Drum 

and New Drum Inlets in March 2009 has created good nesting habitat at those sites, which is reflected in 

the high number of nests (9 and 14 nests, respectively) observed at those locations in 2012 (NPS 2011a, 

2012t). The closing of Old Drum Inlet allowed for increased monitoring, from once weekly to daily, of 

the New Drum Flats and Ophelia Island sites (NPS 2009a). 

Table 8 shows the number of breeding pairs of piping plovers at the ten known nesting sites from 1989 to 

2012. Table 9 provides data on piping plover nesting, and hatching and fledging success at the Seashore 

from 1989 through 2012. The highest number of breeding pairs between 1989 and 2012 was identified in 

2012 (51 nesting pairs) (NPS 2012t). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

180 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

TABLE 8: NUMBER OF PIPING PLOVER BREEDING PAIRS BY SITE, CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE, 1989–2012 

Location 

1989 1992 1993 1994 1995 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Ocracoke Inlet 

0 2 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Portsmouth

Flats 14 8 9 7 8 17 15 9 11 9 8 6 4 6 8 14 14 12 13 12 19 

Kathryn-Jane 

Flats 7 11 9 12 11 10 8 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 

Old Drum Inlet 

3 2 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 6 8 8 

New Drum Inlet 

(North Core 

Banks/ Middle 

Core Banks) 4 5 9 10 6 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 5 6 5 8 8 10 

New Drum Inlet 

(South Core 

Banks)/ Ophelia 

Island 3 3 4 5 4 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 

Plover Inlet 

(Mile 23 to 24) 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 8 15 17 18 11 11 8 8 

The point of 

Cape Lookout 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 3 2 2 1 0 

Power 

Squadron Spit 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 

Shackleford 

Banks – – – – – – – – – – – – – 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 

34 33 35 39 35 36 32 21 16 16 15 14 13 27 33 45 46 37 43 41 51 

Source: Piping Plover Monitoring at Cape Lookout National Seashore 2012 Summary Report (NPS 2012t). 

Note: Data not available for all locations in 1990, 1991, and 1996. 

–= No data available. 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 181

TABLE 9: HATCHING AND FLEDGING SUCCESS AT CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE, 1989–2012 

Year # Nests 

#

Nesting 

Pairs # Eggs 

Nests 

Hatched Eggs Hatched Chicks Fledged Fledge Rate 

# % # % (chicks/pair) a # %

1989 34 34 – – – – – 25 – 0.74 

1992 33 33 – – – – – 

7

(North

Core

Banks

only) 

– 0.21 

1993 35 35 – – – – – 26 – 0.74 

1994 39 39 – – – – – 9 – 0.23 

1995 35 35 – – – – – 15 – 0.43 

1997 41 36 – 21 51.2 – – 7 – 0.19 

1998 39 32 – – – – – 11 – 0.34 

1999 22 21 66 9 40.9 23 34.8 2 8.7 0.10 

2000 18 16 65 13d 72.2 43a 66.2 8a 18.6 0.50 

2001 19 16 64 8e 42.1 24e 37.5 5a 20.8 0.31 

2002 20 15 65 13 65.0 43 66.2 4 9.3 0.27 

2003 15 14 55 7a 46.7 23a 41.8 6 26.0 0.43 

2004 13c 13 44 11c 84.6 37e 84.1 12g 32.4 0.92 

2005 31 27 105 24 77.4 69 65.7 23 33.3 0.85 

2006 37 33 128b 29d 78.4 90b 70.3 29h 32.2 0.88 

2007 58 45 115ai 29d 50.0 80i 70.0 11g 13.8 0.24 

2008 57 46 177a 29 50.9 87a 49.2 9 10.3 0.20 

2009 45 37 145 24 53.3 83 57.2 30 36.1 0.81 

2010 58 43 204 34 58.6 98 48.0 31 31.6 0.72 

2011 48 41 155 35 72.9 102 65.8 37 36.3 0.90 

2012 66 51 202 36 54.5 87 43.0 29 33.3j 0.57 

Sources: 1997–2012 Piping Plover Monitoring Reports (NPS 1997a, 1998b, 1999a, 2000c, 2001b, 2002b, 2003a, 

2004c, 2005a, 2006f, 2007i, 2008c, 2009a, 2010b, 2011a, 2012t). a

 Of all known. 

b

 Assumes 3 eggs from a brood whose nest were not found. 

c

 Includes 1 nest not found. 

d

 Includes those presumed hatched. 

e

 Assumes 1 egg from a nest with hatch date unknown. 

f

 Includes 2 fledged chicks from a brood whose nest was not found. 

g

 Includes 1 fledged chick from a brood whose nest was not found. 

h

 Includes 4 fledged chicks from broods whose nests were not found. 

i

 Assumes 1 egg from a brood whose nest was not found. 

j

Includes 12 fledged chicks whose nests were not found. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

182 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Fledge rate (or reproductive rate) is defined as the number of chicks that survive until fledging age per 

breeding pair. Since 1989, fledge rates at the Seashore have ranged from 0.10 to 0.92 chicks per pair, with 

an average rate from 1989 to 2012 of 0.50 chicks per breeding pair. During 2012, a total of 51 pairs 

fledged 29 chicks (a rate of 0.57 chicks per pair) (NPS 2012t). However, a rate of 1.25 fledged chicks per 

breeding pair annually would be needed to sustain the population (USFWS 1996a). The recovery goal set 

by the USFWS for the Atlantic Coast population of piping plover is 1.50 fledged chicks per breeding pair. 

Hence, the actual fledge rate at the Seashore has averaged less than half the recovery goal since 1989. 

There is a noticeable decline in the local breeding population (figure 13) from 1998 to 2004. The cause of 

high chick mortality continues to be unknown, but is likely caused by predation, habitat disturbance, and 

starvation due to poor foraging habitat (NPS 2003a; Patterson, Fraser, and Roggenbuck 1990). However, 

the general increase in the number of breeding pairs since 2004 is encouraging. Although the fledge rate 

in 2009 was slightly lower than in 2004, the fledge rate for piping plovers at the Seashore increased 350 

percent from 2008 to 2011, but declined in 2012. Also of note is the substantial increase in the number of 

chicks fledged from 2008 to 2009 compared to 2007 and 2008. 

Source: Piping Plover Monitoring at Cape Lookout National Seashore 2012 Summary Report (NPS 2012t). 

NOTE: Data not available for 1990, 1991, and 1996. 

FIGURE 13: NUMBER OF BREEDING PAIRS AND FLEDGED CHICKS AT CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE,

1989–2012 

Hatching and Fledging Success at Primary Nesting Sites 

Tables 10 through table 19 summarize hatching and fledging success at each of the individual primary 

breeding sites from the late 1990s (with the exception of Shackleford Banks) through 2011. Average 

fledge rates across the ten breeding sites ranged from zero at Ocracoke Inlet and Shackleford Banks to 

0.77 at Plover Inlet, and each site has a fledge rate below the 1.50 goal set by the 1996 revised recovery 

plan. However, there were ten instances of years when one or more sites did meet or exceed this goal, 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

198919921993199419951997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012

Number of Breeding Pairs

Year

Nesting Pairs

Chicks Fledged
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 183

indicating that despite low Seashore-wide recruitment, some primary nesting sites performed at or above 

this expectation in some years. 

TABLE 10: PIPING PLOVER HATCHING AND FLEDGING SUCCESS AT OCRACOKE INLET, 1997–2012 

Year # Nests # Eggs 

Nests Hatched Eggs Hatched Chicks Fledged 

Fledge Rate 

# % # % # % (chicks/pair) 

1997 1 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

1998 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

1999 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2000 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2001 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2002 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2003 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2004 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2005 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2006 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2007 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2008 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2009 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2010 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2011 1 4 1 100.0 1 25.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2012 2 6 1 100.0 1 50.0 0 0 0.00 

Source: NPS 1997a, 1998b, 1999a, 2000c, 2001b, 2002b, 2003a, 2004c, 2005a, 2006f, 2007i, 2008c, 2009a, 

2010b, 2011a; 2012t; Altman pers. comm. 2013a. 

Average Fledge Rate at Ocracoke Inlet = 0.00. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

184 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

TABLE 11: PIPING PLOVER HATCHING AND FLEDGING SUCCESS AT PORTSMOUTH FLATS, 1997–2012 

Year # Nests # Eggs 

Nests Hatched Eggs Hatched Chicks Fledged Fledge Rate 

# % # % # % (Chicks/pair) 

1997 19 59 8 42.1 22 37.3 2 10.0 0.12 

1998 16 33 7 44.0 18 55.0 7 39.0 0.47 

1999 10 31 5 50.0 14 45.2 1 7.1 0.11 

2000 13 47 8 62.0 25 53.2 1 4.0 0.09 

2001 11 35 3 27.3 11 31.4 0 0.0 0.00 

2002 12 36 7 58.3 21 58.3 0 0.0 0.00 

2003 8 27 2 25.0 4 15.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2004 4 13 2 50.0 8 62.0 1 13.0 0.25 

2005 7 27 4 57.1 13 48.1 4 31.0 0.67 

2006 8 25a 6 75.0 17 68.0 5 29.4 0.63 

2007 20 54 7 35.0 17 31.5 4 23.5 0.30 

2008 16 51 7 43.8 21 41.2 1 4.8 0.07 

2009 15 42 7 46.7 21 50.0 14 66.7 1.17 

2010 15 55 12 80.0 39 71.0 10 25.6 0.77 

2011 14 50b 12 86.0 36 72.0 13 36.1 1.08 

2012 25 77 10 40 33 43 2 6.1 0.11 

Sources: NPS 1997a, 1998b, 1999a, 2000c, 2001b, 2002b, 2003a, 2004c, 2005a, 2006f, 2007i, 2008c, 2009a, 

2010b, 2011a; 2012t; Altman pers. comm. 2013a. 

Average Fledge Rate at Portsmouth Flats = 0.37. 

a

 Assumes 1 egg from brood whose nest was not found. 

b

 Assumes 2 eggs from a two nests with unknown clutch sizes. 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 185

TABLE 12: PIPING PLOVER HATCHING AND FLEDGING SUCCESS AT KATHRYN-JANE FLATS, 1997–2012 

Year # Nests # Eggs 

Nests Hatched Eggs Hatched Chicks Fledged Fledge Rate 

# % # % # % (chicks/pair) 

1997 9 34 8 80.0 23 68.0 3 13.0 0.30 

1998 12 21 5 42.0 9 43.0 3 33.3 0.40 

1999 1 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2000 1 4 1 100.0 3 75.0 3 100.0 3.00 

2001 2 6 1 50.0 2 33.3 2 100.0 2.00 

2002 2 7 2 100.0 7 100.0 2 29.0 1.00 

2003 2 8 1 50.0 4 50.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2004 1 4 1 100.0 4 100.0 2 50.0 2.00 

2005 3 7 2 66.7 6 85.7 1 16.7 0.50 

2006 1 3 1 100.0 3 100.0 1 33.3 1.00 

2007 4 10* 2 50.0 7 70.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2008 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2009 1 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2010 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2011 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 

Sources: NPS 1997a, 1998b, 1999a, 2000c, 2001b, 2002b, 2003a, 2004c, 2005a, 2006f, 2007i, 2008c, 2009a, 

2010b, 2011a, 2012t; Altman pers.comm. 2013a. 

Average Fledge Rate at Kathryn-Jane Flats = 0.64. 

*Clutch size unknown for one nest. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

186 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

TABLE 13: PIPING PLOVER HATCHING AND FLEDGING SUCCESS AT OLD DRUM INLET, 1997–2012 

Year # Nests # Eggs 

Nests Hatched Eggs Hatched Chicks Fledged Fledge Rate 

# % # % # % (chicks/pair) 

1997 2 7 1 50.0 4 57.1 1 25.0 1.00 

1998 1 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

1999 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2000 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2001 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2002 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2003 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2004 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2005 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2006 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2007 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2008 1 4 1 100.0 3 75.0 1 33.3 0.50 

2009 5 18 3 60.0 9 50.0 1 11.1 0.33 

2010 10 33 5 50.0 9 27.3 1 11.1 0.17 

2011 9 32 7 77.8 23 72.0 11 47.8 1.38 

2012 9 30 3 33.3 8 44.0 6 75.0 0.75 

Sources: NPS 1997a, 1998b, 1999a, 2000c, 2001b, 2002b, 2003a, 2004c, 2005a, 2006f, 2007i, 2008c, 2009a, 

2010b, 2011a, 2012t; Altman pers. comm. 2013a. 

Average Fledge Rate at Old Drum Inlet = 0.26. 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 187

TABLE 14: PIPING PLOVER HATCHING AND FLEDGING SUCCESS AT NEW DRUM INLET (NORTH CORE BANKS),

1997–2012 

Year # Nests # Eggs 

Nests Hatched Eggs Hatched Chicks Fledged Fledge Rate 

# % # % # % (chicks/pair) 

1997 4 10 2 50.0 6 60.0 0 0.0 0.00 

1998 3 at least 7 2 67.0 at least 3 43.0 0 0.0 0.00 

1999 2 8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2000 1 3 1 100.0 – – – – – 

2001 2 8 1 50.0 1a 12.5 – – – 

2002 2 7 1 50.0 3 43.0 1 3.33 0.50 

2003 2 8 1 50.0 4 50.0 1 25.0 0.50 

2004 2 5b 2 100.0 5b 100.0 2 40.0 1.00 

2005 3 10 3 100.0 7 70.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2006 4 13 3 75.0 8 61.5 1 12.5 0.33 

2007 5 17 3 60.0 8 47.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2008 8 20 4 50.0 13 65.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2009 5 19 4 80.0 15 79.0 5 33.3 1.00 

2010 9 36 7 77.8 21 58.3 13 62.0 1.63 

2011 9 30 7 77.8 24 80.0 9 37.5 1.13 

2012 14 39 10 71.4 21 53.8 10 71 1.0 

Sources: NPS 1997a, 1998b, 1999a, 2000c, 2001b, 2002b, 2003a, 2004c, 2005a, 2006f, 2007i, 2008c, 2009a, 

2010b, 2011a; 2012t; Altman pers. comm. 2013a. 

Average Fledge Rate at New Drum Inlet = 0.50. This excludes 2 years with unknown fledge rates. a

 Assumes 1 egg hatched. 

b

 Assumes 1 egg from brood whose nest was not found. 

– = Data not available.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

188 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

TABLE 15: PIPING PLOVER HATCHING AND FLEDGING SUCCESS AT OPHELIA ISLAND, 1997–2012 

Year # Nests # Eggs 

Nests Hatched Eggs Hatched Chicks Fledged Fledge Rate 

# % # % # % (chicks/pair) 

1997 4 – 3 – – – 1 – 0.50 

1998 4 15 3 75.0 12 80.0 0 0.0 0.00 

1999 5 12 1 20.0 2 17.0 1 50.0 0.33 

2000 2 7 2 100.0 7 100.0 1 14.3 0.50 

2001 3 11 3 100.0 10 91.0 3 30.0 1.00 

2002 3 12 3 100.0 12 100.0 1 8.3 0.50 

2003 2 8 2 100.0 7 88.0 3 43.0 1.50 

2004 2 8 2 100.0 8 100.0 1 12.5 0.50 

2005 2 5 1 50.0 2 40.0 1 50.0 0.50 

2006 3 12 2 66.7 7 58.3 4 57.1 2.00 

2007 2 5a 2 100.0 3 60.0a 1 33.3 0.50 

2008 3 6b 1 33.3 1b 16.7 0 0.0 0.00 

2009 1 3c 1 100.0 3 100.0c 1 33.3 0.50 

2010 3 7 3 100.0 4 57.1 3 75.0 1.50 

2011 2 6 2 100.0 3 50.0 2 66.7 1.00 

2012 6 19 3 50.0 8 50.0 4 50.0 0.80 

Sources: NPS 1997a, 1998b, 1999a, 2000c, 2001b, 2002b, 2003a, 2004c, 2005a, 2006f, 2007i, 2008c, 2009a, 

2010b, 2011a: 2012t; Altman pers. comm. 2013a. 

Average Fledge Rate at Ophelia Island = 0.73. 

a

 Assumes 2 eggs for clutch size from brood whose nest was not found. 

b

 Clutch size unknown for one nest, but one chick was found. 

c

 Assumes 3 eggs for clutch size from brood whose nest was missed. 

– = Data not available. 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 189

TABLE 16: PIPING PLOVER HATCHING AND FLEDGING SUCCESS AT PLOVER INLET, 1997–2012 

Year # Nests # Eggs 

Nests Hatched Eggs Hatched Chicks Fledged Fledge Rate 

# % # % # % (chicks/pair) 

1997 1 – 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

1998 1 3 1 100.0 3 100.0 1 33.3 1.00 

1999 1 3 1 100.0 3 100.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2000 1 4 1 100.0 4 100.0 3 75.0 3.00 

2001 1 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2002 1 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2003 1 4 1 100.0 4 100.0 1 25.0 1.00 

2004 4 15 4 100.0 12 80.0 6 50.0 1.50 

2005 10 37 8 80.0 24 65.0 15 62.5 1.88 

2006 17 65a 14 82.4 48a 74.0 17 35.4 1.13 

2007 24 79 13 54.2 41 52.0 5 12.2 0.30 

2008 23 76b, c 14 61.0 39 51.3 7 18.0 0.40 

2009 14 49 7 50.0 35 71.4 9 25.7 0.82 

2010 17 58 4 23.5 15 26.0 3 20.0 0.27 

2011 10 31 5 50.0 13 42.0 2 15.4 0.25 

2012 10 35 8 80.0 25 80.0 7 28.0 0.88 

Sources: NPS 1997a, 1998b, 1999a, 2000c, 2001b, 2002b, 2003a, 2004c, 2005a, 2006f, 2007i, 2008c, 2009a, 

2010b, 2011a; 2012t; Altman pers. comm. 2013a. 

Average Fledge Rate at Plover Inlet = 0.78 

a

 Assumes 4 eggs from brood whose nest was not found. 

b

 Assumes 1 egg from a nest with unknown clutch size. 

c

 Assumes 2 eggs from a nest with unknown clutch size. 

– = Data not available. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

190 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

TABLE 17: PIPING PLOVER HATCHING AND FLEDGING SUCCESS AT THE POINT OF CAPE LOOKOUT, 1999–2012 

Year # Nests # Eggs 

Nests Hatched Eggs Hatched Chicks Fledged Fledge Rate 

# % # % # % (chicks/pair) 

1999 1 3 1 100.0 1 33.3 0 0.0 0.00 

2000 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2001 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2002 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2003 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2004 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2005 4 13 4 100.0 11 85.0 2 18.2 0.50 

2006 3 9 2 67.0 6 67.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2007 2 7 2 100.0 4 57.1 1 25.0 0.50 

2008 5 17 3 60.0 9 53.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2009 2 8 2 100.0 8 100.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2010 3 12 2 67.0 8 66.7 1 12.5 0.50 

2011 1 4 1 100.0 2 50.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sources: NPS 1999a, 2000c, 2001b, 2002b, 2003a, 2004c, 2005a, 2006f, 2007i, 2008c, 2009a, 2010b, 2011a; 

2012t. 

Average Fledge Rate at the point of Cape Lookout = 0.11. 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 191

TABLE 18: PIPING PLOVER HATCHING AND FLEDGING SUCCESS AT POWER SQUADRON SPIT, 1997–2012 

Year # Nests # Eggs 

Nests Hatched Eggs Hatched Chicks Fledged Fledge Rate 

# % # % # % (chicks/pair) 

1997 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

1998 2 7 2 100.0 3 43.0 0 0.0 0.00 

1999 2 6 1 50.0 3 50.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2000 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2001 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2002 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2003 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2004 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2005 1 3 1 100.0 3 100.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2006 1 3 1 100.0 3 100.0 1 33.3 1.00 

2007 1 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2008 1 3 1 100.0 2 66.7 0 0.0 0.00 

2009 2 7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2010 1 3 1 100.0 2 66.7 0 0.0 0.00 

2011 2 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sources: NPS 1997a, 1998b, 1999a, 2000c, 2001b, 2002b, 2003a, 2004c, 2005a, 2006f, 2007i, 2008c, 2009a, 

2010b, 2011a; 2012t. 

Average Fledge Rate at Power Squadron Spit = 0.06. 

TABLE 19: PIPING PLOVER HATCHING AND FLEDGING SUCCESS AT SHACKLEFORD BANKS, 2005–2012 

Year # Nests # Eggs 

Nests Hatched Eggs Hatched Chicks Fledged Fledge Rate 

# % # % # % (chicks/pair) 

2005 1 3 1 100.0 3 100.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2006 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2007 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2008 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2009 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2010 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2011 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 

2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 

Sources: NPS 2005a, 2006f, 2007i, 2008c, 2009a, 2010f, 2011a, 2012t. 

Average Fledge Rate at Shackleford Banks = 0.00. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

192 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Nest Loss/Abandonment 

Nest loss and abandonment has had a severe impact on piping plover reproduction at the Seashore. In the 

14 seasons from 1997 to 2012, 41.4 percent of nests (of 587 discovered) were lost or abandoned (figure 

14). Factors contributing to nest loss and abandonment include weather, predation, and human 

disturbance, which are discussed in detail under the “Risk Factors” section later on in this chapter. 

Sources: NPS 1997a, 1998b, 1999a, 2000c, 2001b, 2002b, 2003a, 2004c, 2005a, 2006f, 2007i, 2008c, 2009a 2010b, 

2011a; 2012t. 

FIGURE 14: PIPING PLOVER NEST LOST / ABANDONMENT AT CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE, 1997–2012 

Nonbreeding Population 

In addition to supporting a local breeding population, the Seashore also hosts migrating and overwintering 

piping plovers from all three of the North American breeding populations (the threatened Atlantic Coast 

and Great Plains populations and the endangered Great Lakes population). The Seashore is an important 

migration stopover and wintering area for the piping plover along the Atlantic Coast (NPS 2007i; NPCA 

2003). In past years, the area from south of Old Drum Inlet to the north side of Ophelia Inlet was an 

important migratory stop for piping plovers (NPS 2006f). The 3 mile by 1.5-mile expanse of sand and 

mud at Portsmouth Flats also provides an ideal migratory stop for this species (National Audubon Society 

2009). Fall migrants begin arriving at the Seashore in July, peak in August and September, and most 

leave wintering grounds by November with some departing as late as February (table 20) (USFWS 

2008b; Dinsmore, Collazo, and Walters 1998). The distribution and abundance of nonbreeding 

populations at the Seashore are not documented as well as the local breeding population. Documenting 

and protecting nonbreeding piping plovers and their habitats are priorities articulated in the recovery plans 

for all three North American breeding populations (USFWS 1988, 1996a, 2003a). As previously stated, 

critical habitat for the wintering piping plover population is designated within the Seashore on the south 

and north ends of both South Core Banks and North Core Banks, and on the east and west ends of 

Shackleford Banks (NPS 2006d). 

Wintering piping plovers on the Atlantic Coast select wide beaches in the vicinity of inlets that are 

associated with a high percentage of moist substrate habitat (Nicholls and Baldassarre 1990a; Wilkinson 

and Spinks 1994). Because tidal regimes and fall and winter storm patterns often cause piping plovers to 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012

Nests

Nests Lost or

Abandoned
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 193

move among habitat patches, a diversity of habitat patches may be important to wintering populations 

(Burger 1994; Nicholls and Baldassarre 1990b). 

From 2000 to 2012, the greatest number of nonbreeding piping plovers at the Seashore occurred during 

the fall migration, which begins in July and peaks between August and September. The fall migration 

counts were highest overall at North Core Banks, followed by South Core Banks, and then Shackleford 

Banks (table 20). In 2009, on North Core Banks 83 nonnesting piping plovers were counted in August, 

and 144 in September. These counts represent the highest numbers recorded in the Seashore since counts 

began in 2000. In addition, 16 banded piping plovers from the endangered Great Lakes population were 

seen again in 2009 (NPS 2009a). In 2012, on North Core Banks 82 nonnesting piping plovers were 

counted in August, and 112 in September (NPS 2012t). 

TABLE 20: SELECT MONTHLY MEAN AND MAXIMUM NONBREEDING BIRDS SEEN DURING DAILY SURVEY DURING 

FALL, WINTER, AND SPRING, SELECTED SITES AT CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE, 2000–2012 

Month 

North Core 

Banks 

South Core 

Banks 

Shackleford 

Banks All Sites 

Mean* August 56 24 6 86 

September 56 17 9 80 

October 24 10 13 47 

November 13 7 12 32 

Decemberb 9 8 12 29 

Januaryc 9 6 12 27 

Februaryd 4c 5 11 20 

Marchd 16e 8 15f 37 

Maximum August 125 46 17 152 

September 144 33a 20a 187 

October 40 26 22 63 

November 27 19 22 47 

Decemberb 18 20 29 63 

Januaryc 26 18 27 45 

Februaryd 15c 15 24 46 

Marchd 43e 21 29 69 

Sources: NPS 2000c, 2001b, 2002b, 2003a, 2004c, 2005a, 2006f, 2007i, 2008c, 2009a, 2010b, 2011a, 2012t. 

*Value rounded to nearest whole number. 

a 2003 estimate is unknown. 

b

 Limited to 2005, 2007, 2008, and 2009 data. 

c Excluding data from 2000 and 2007. 

d Excluding data from 2007. 

e 2001 estimate is unknown. 

f

 2012 estimate is unknown. 

The first banded winter residents usually appear in August; however, other wintering birds may arrive in 

July. The size of the resident wintering population on the Atlantic Coast is not precisely known, but as of 

2005 was estimated to be on the order of 20–35 birds (Cohen 2005a). Between 2002 and 2004, the 

highest counts of wintering birds in the park were on the northern end of North Core Banks, with a 

regularly high number of piping plovers from Ocracoke Inlet to Mile 3 (NPS 2002b, 2003a, 2004c). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

194 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

NPS staff documented piping plover use of the Seashore throughout 2007. Migratory birds peaked in 

August with a high count of 55 on August 21, 2007, at Ocracoke Inlet (table 21). To investigate the 

movement of birds through this area, counts were made twice a week with a total of ten surveys 

conducted from August through September. On average, 37 birds were counted in the area south of 

Ocracoke Inlet. During high tide, the number of birds found on the North Core Banks side was lowest 

(table 21) (NPS 2007i). 

TABLE 21: COUNTS OF PIPING PLOVER NEAR OCRACOKE INLET DURING FALL MIGRATION, 2007

Date Number of Piping Plovers Tide 

August 15, 2007 43 Mid+ 

August 19, 2007 22 Mid+ 

August 21, 2007 55 Low 

August 28, 2007 51 Low+ 

September 4, 2007 40 Low+ 

September 7, 2007 29 Low 

September 11, 2007 49 Low 

September 15, 2007 25 High 

September 21, 2007 27 Low 

September 25, 2007 15 Low 

Source: NPS 2007i. 

The importance of protecting nonbreeding piping plovers was demonstrated in a research program by the 

Canadian Wildlife Service between 1998 and 2003, which primarily tracked migration patterns and 

survival rates of the Eastern Canada population of piping plovers. Individuals from this population were 

identified migrating and wintering at points along the east coast of the United States, including North 

Carolina (Amirault et al. 2006). The analysis of this research identified adult survival as the single most 

important factor influencing the population trends of this piping plover population and that expanding 

protection of nonbreeding habitat was an important factor in the recovery of the species (Amirault et al. 

2006). 

Risk Factors 

Small populations such as the Atlantic Coast piping plover populations face a heightened risk of 

extinction compared to large populations because they are more vulnerable to the following: (1) random 

environmental variations, such as storms; (2) reduction in genetic variations that limit a species’ ability to 

adapt to local conditions; (3) sudden, random drops in birth and death rates; and (4) an impaired ability to 

find suitable mates (Lande 1988). 

Given the vulnerability of the small piping plover populations in North America to random events, the 

persistence of the populations will depend increasingly on controlling sources of mortality to adults, eggs, 

and chicks throughout their range. Predators, human disturbance, and limited or blocked access to 

foraging habitat have been identified in past research as contributing to impaired reproductive success for 

plovers using the Seashore (Coutu et al. 1990; Kuklinski, Houghton, and Fraser 1996). Thus, providing a 

disturbance-free environment early in the season may help piping plovers to establish territories and 

attract mates (Cohen 2005b). 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 195

The greatest concerns related to wintering and migrating birds are habitat loss and degradation from 

development and beach stabilization and chronic human disturbance. In the past, surveys for migrating 

and wintering piping plovers along North Carolina’s coast were conducted sporadically and numbers 

were not well documented. Since then the state has made great strides with respect to nonbreeding piping 

plover monitoring, but there is still much unknown regarding the nonbreeding birds in the state and the 

threats that they face (Cameron et al. 2005). It is known, however, that piping plover foraging and 

roosting habitats at the Seashore are used by pedestrians and ORVs outside of the breeding season. Where 

such activity is allowed, studies conducted at several beaches in Massachusetts and New York have 

shown that there is the potential for piping plovers to be run over by ORVs and killed (Melvin et al. 1994) 

or taken by domestic pets. Studies along the Atlantic and gulf coasts have shown that the density of 

wintering plovers is higher in areas with limited human presence or disturbance (Cohen et al. 2008; 

Nicholls and Baldassarre 1990b). Furthermore, disturbance to roosting and foraging birds by ORVs, 

unleashed pets, and pedestrians may reduce foraging efficiency or alter habitat use, thereby increasing the 

risk of nutritional or thermal stress (Zonick 2000). 

Weather and Tides—Eleven named hurricanes affected the Seashore between 1993 and 2012 (NOAA 

2012). Hurricane Isabel, which hit the coast in September 2003, resulted in renewed piping plover habitat 

on portions of the Seashore and may have resulted in a reduction in predator populations (NCWRC 

2008a). In the years immediately following the storm, piping plover numbers and productivity increased. 

However, there have been no significant storms since that time, and much of the created habitat is now 

deteriorating due to revegetation (NCWRC 2008a). In May of 2005 a Nor’easter flooded nesting areas 

causing ephemeral pools at the point of Cape Lookout and Power Squadron Spit on South Core Banks, 

and Mile 49.8 on Shackleford Banks. The storm created sites attractive to nesting plovers, and for the first 

time in many years piping plovers nested at these areas. Piping plover numbers more than doubled and 

productivity increased in response to the changes (NPS 2005a). There were no significant weather events 

such as hurricanes or tropical storms during the 2006 breeding season. In 2007, the New Drum Inlet area 

yielded poor habitat quality due to revegetation after Hurricane Isabel in 2003. A total of 28 nests at Cape 

Lookout were either lost to weather, predation, or abandonment during the 2007 breeding season. Nests 1 

and 2 at North Core Banks and five nests at South Core Banks were lost to a storm at the beginning of 

May. Tropical Storm Barry caused the loss of Nest 4 at Middle Core Banks on June 7. Two other nests 

(Nests 23 and 26) were lost at South Core Banks due to a swell and tide on June 16 (NPS 2007i). In 2008, 

no nesting occurred at Kathryn-Jane Flats due to heavy revegetation. Up to that year, this area supported 

piping plover nesting pairs since monitoring began in 1989. A total of 20 nests were either lost to 

weather, predation, or abandonment during the 2008 breeding season (NPS 2008c). In 2009, the heavily 

revegetated Kathryn-Jane Flats attracted one nesting pair. There were ten weather related nest losses, 

which accounted for 48 percent of total losses in the Seashore. These weather losses were primarily 

related to strong winds in May that buried nests in sand or flooded nests (NPS 2009a). In late August 

2011, after the breeding season had finished, Hurricane Irene reopened Old Drum and New Drum Inlets, 

cutting channels and causing severe erosion at piping plover nesting sites. After that event, much of the 

2011 nesting sites were currently exposed only at low tides. On the north end of South Core Banks, 

erosion from Hurricane Irene removed 0.3 mile of island off the north tip making Ophelia Inlet much 

wider. That section supported 4 pairs in the breeding season before the storm. The remaining nesting 

habitat is much improved after the storm. The storm surge and overwash removed most of the vegetation, 

created big sand flats, created ponds and mudflats. This high quality nesting habitat from Old Drum to 

Plover Inlet contained 63 percent (26 pairs) of the nesting pairs in 2011 and 61 percent (31 pairs) of the 

nesting pairs in 2012 (NPS 2011a, NPS 2012t). Hurricane Sandy in late 2012 also scoured the habitat and 

maintained good conditions for nesting. This high quality nesting habitat from Old Drum to Plover Inlet 

contained 71 percent (32 pairs) of the nesting pairs in 2013 (NPS 2013l).Hurricanes and other ocean 

storms can lead to unusually high tides, and subsequent flooding can overwash piping plover nests 

(Cohen 2005a). In May 2008, Nests 7, 10, and 12 were lost to storm tides at South Core Banks (NPS 

2008c). In 2009, five nests were flooded by high tides in North Core and South Core Banks (NPS 2009a). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

196 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Some piping plovers that nest too close to mean high tide may lose their nests on normal high tides 

(Cohen 2005a). Storms can also result in widespread mortality of chicks (Houghton 2005). Besides these 

direct effects of storms on piping plover nests, flooding from extreme high tides or storm surges may alter 

habitat enough to render it unsuitable for nesting. This may lead to the abandonment of habitat within or 

between breeding seasons (Haig and Oring 1988). In 2012, 10 nest losses were attributed to storms (NPS 

2012t). 

Predation—Predation, especially by mammalian predators, continues to be a major factor affecting the 

reproductive success of the piping plover (Elliott-Smith and Haig 2004). Predators of eggs, chicks, and/or 

adults include such predators as mink (Mustela vison), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), red fox 

(Vulpes vulpes), coyote (Canus latrans), opossum (Didelphus virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor),

domestic dogs (Canis lupus familaris), feral and domestic cats (Felis catus), crows (Corvus

brachyrhynchos), gulls (Larus spp.), and birds of prey (Murphy et al. 2003; Patterson, Fraser, and 

Roggenbuck 1990; NPS 2007i). The impact of predation has been postulated to be greater on beaches 

with high human use, because the presence of pets and trash (which may attract wild predators) is 

correlated with the presence of humans (USFWS 1996a). In addition to causing direct mortality, predators 

in piping plover habitat can also lead to piping plovers’ abandoning territories within and between 

breeding seasons (Cohen 2005b). Table 22 details recorded predation since 2005. 

TABLE 22: PIPING PLOVER PREDATION, 2005–2012 

Year Noted Signs of Predation 

2005 

One chick was killed by a gull-billed tern (Gelochelidon nilotica) at Kathryn-Jane Flats. 

One nest site at Portsmouth Flats was abandoned with cat tracks found around the nest exclosure 

(NPS 2005a). 

2006 

Predator closures were relatively effective. 

Four nests lost to ghost crab (Ocypode quadrata) predation and two others thought to have been 

lost to predation (predator unknown) (NPS 2006f). 

2007 

Mink was documented on South Core Banks, a new predator in this area. 

Red fox was documented on North Core Banks, a new predator in this area. 

Feral cat tracks were also observed at North Core Banks, and the presence of a bobcat (Lynx

rufus) and coyote were also reported in that area (NPS 2007i). 

2008 

Two plover nests lost at Ophelia Island and one nest at Middle Core Banks by raccoon predation. 

Another two nests at South Core Banks were lost with raccoon tracks located nearby (NPS 2008c). 

Ghost crabs, mink, grackles (Quiscalus spp.), and feral cats also documented within many of the 

piping plover breeding territories (NPS 2008c). 

2009 80% of the nests in the Seashore were protected by exclosures. 

Of the nine nests that were not protected, two were lost to raccoon predation (NPS 2009a). 

2010 

Evidence of mink predation observed on eight nests at Plover Inlet (mile marker 23 to 24) on South 

Core Banks. 

Raccoon took one nest on North Core Banks (NPS 2010b). 

2011 

71% of the nests in the Seashore were protected by exclosures. 

Of the 14 nests that were not protected by exclosures in 2011, two were lost to raccoon predation 

and one was lost to mink predation (NPS 2011a). 

2012 

40% of the nests in the Seashore were protected by exclosures. 

Of the 39 nests that were not protected by exclosures in 2012, four were lost to raccoon predation 

and three were lost to ghost crab predation, with 11 lost for unknown reasons (NPS 2012t). 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 197

In an effort to reduce depredation of piping plover eggs and chicks, 44 raccoons and two feral cats were 

relocated from Portsmouth Flats, Kathryn-Jane Flats, and New Drum Inlet in 2002 (NPS 2002b). In the 

spring of 2007, a study began at South Core Banks regarding predator/raccoon population (NPS 2007i). 

In December 2008, 83 raccoons were removed from South Core Banks as an experimental removal effort. 

In an attempt to remove 50 percent of the raccoon population by April, another removal effort took place 

in the spring of 2009 (NPS 2008a; NPS 2009a). 

Ghost crabs have occasionally been implicated in the loss of nests (Watts and Bradshaw 1995) and chicks 

(Loegering, Fraser, and Loegering 1995). Research on ghost crabs conducted in the lab and at a breeding 

site at Assateage Island in Virginia suggests that crab predation is generally uncommon. However, this 

study indicated that the presence of ghost crabs could have more of an indirect effect on plover survival. 

For example, adult plovers may shepherd their broods away from the foreshore, where the best forage 

normally exists, due to the abundance of ghost crabs at that location (Wolcott and Wolcott 1999). Poor 

forage was found to be a more likely contributor to chick mortality than predation by ghost crabs 

(Wolcott and Wolcott 1999). However, anecdotal records indicate that ghost crabs may be more of a 

problem in North Carolina than at sites farther north (Cohen 2005a). Between 1997 and 2005, at least 20 

protected nests lost eggs to ghost crabs (NPS 2005a). During the 2008 season, approximately eight nests 

were lost to ghost crab predation, six of which were protected by predator exclosures (NPS 2008c). In 

2009, one of the 36 nests that were protected by exclosures was lost to ghost crab predation. Of the nine 

that were not protected, two were lost to ghost crab predation (NPS 2009a). In 2010, a total of three nests 

were lost to ghost crab predation; one of the three nests lost was protected by a predator exclosure (NPS 

2010b). In 2011, predator exclosures were not used on 14 nests; of these 3 were lost to ghost crabs (NPS 

2011a). In 2012, predator exclosures were not used on 39 of the 66 nests; four nests were lost to raccoons, 

three were lost to ghost crabs, and 11 were lost for unknown reasons (NPS 2012t). 

Human Activity—Human disturbance, both direct and indirect, can adversely affect piping plovers at the 

Seashore. Research has shown that plover behavior is altered by the presence of humans, which 

ultimately results in chicks exhibiting less time feeding, brooding, and conserving energy; adults also 

spend less time foraging and conserving energy (Burger 1991, 1994). Plovers that are subject to 

disturbance from human presence spend less than 50 percent of their foraging time searching for prey and 

feeding, where undisturbed plovers can spend up to 90 percent of that time feeding (Burger 1994). These 

human-caused behavioral changes resulted in depleted energy reserves, which could leave chicks more 

susceptible to predation or other stresses (Flemming et al. 1988; Loegering and Fraser 1995). At other 

sites, it was documented that fledging success did not differ between areas with and without recreational 

ORV use (Patterson, Fraser, and Roggenbuck 1991) although pedestrians caused a decrease in broodforaging behavior in New Jersey (Burger 1994). 

Studies in areas outside of the Seashore have shown that pedestrian and nonmotorized recreational 

activities can be a source of both direct mortality and harassment of piping plovers. Potential pedestrians 

on the beach include those individuals driving and subsequently parking on the beach, those originating 

from off-beach parking areas (hotels, motels, commercial facilities, beachside parks, etc.), and those from 

beachfront and nearby residences. Vehicle impacts can extend to remote stretches of beach where human 

disturbance would be very slight if access were limited to pedestrians only (USFWS 1996a). 

Even with resource closures in place, protected species are still at risk. Park visitors do not always adhere 

to posted closures for bird nesting, and many violations occur every year at the Seashore. Law 

enforcement rangers issued eight citations for pedestrian in bird areas and nine citations for vehicles in 

bird areas in 2012. In addition, 35 dog off leash citations, 12 written warnings, and 118 verbal warnings 

were issued in 2012 (NPS 2012t). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

198 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Research in areas outside of the Seashore show that disturbance from vehicles, pedestrians, and pets can 

cause incubating birds to be flushed from their nests. Flushing can affect plover behavior and viability in 

a number of ways. Flushing of incubating plovers from nests can expose eggs to avian predators or 

excessive temperatures. Repeated exposure of eggs to direct sunlight on hot days can cause overheating, 

which could kill avian embryos (Bergstrom 1989). In Texas, piping plovers avoided foraging on sand 

flats close to areas of high human use (Drake et al. 2001). Zonick (2000) found that the number of piping 

plovers was lower on disturbed bayside flats than on undisturbed flats, and piping plovers experienced 

lower foraging efficiency when disturbed. Other unpublished data support the assertion that winter habitat 

selection is negatively correlated with human activities and development (Houghton 2005). In New York, 

the response of incubating adults to the presence of humans near the nest was found to be highly variable, 

and average nest success was unrelated to the number of disturbance sources observed within 328 feet 

(100 meters) of nests (Houghton 2005). Other studies in other areas on the effect of human disturbance on 

incubating piping plovers documented highly variable flushing distances ranging anywhere between 66 to 

656 feet (20 and 200 meters) (USFWS 1996a). However, piping plovers may be more sensitive to 

disturbance in the Atlantic Coast southern recovery unit, as evidenced by longer flush distances in 

response to disturbance sources at Assateague Island National Seashore (Loegering 1992). The study on 

Assateague Island found that on average, incubating plovers flushed from their nests at a distance of 256 

feet (78 meters), although some birds flushed when researchers were as far away as 571 feet (174 meters), 

indicating a much larger flushing distance than was documented by other studies. 

Unleashed pets have the potential to flush piping plovers, and these flushing events may be more 

prolonged than those associated with pedestrians or pedestrians with dogs on leash. For example, a study 

conducted on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, found that the average distance at which piping plovers were 

disturbed by pets was 151 feet (46 meters), compared with 75 feet (23 meters) for pedestrians. Birds 

flushed by pets moved farther (average of 187 feet [57 meters]) than plovers reacting to pedestrians 

(average of 82 feet [25 meters]). Duration of observed disturbance behaviors stimulated by pets was 

significantly greater than that caused by pedestrians (USFWS 1996a). 

Although there have been no records of piping plovers being run over by vehicles at the Seashore, 

vehicles have been documented running over nests and chicks on Assateague Island in Virginia and 

Maryland (Patterson, Fraser, and Roggenbuck 1991). In Massachusetts and New York, biologists found 

that 18 chicks and 2 adults were killed by vehicles between 1989 and 1993, even on beaches with only 

five to ten vehicle passes per day (Melvin et al. 1994). Piping plover chicks often move from the foredune 

area to forage along the wrack line and intertidal zone, which places them in the paths of vehicles. Chicks 

can end up in or near tire ruts, and sometimes have difficulty crossing or climbing out of them. The 

normal response of plover chicks to disturbance could increase their vulnerability to vehicles. Chicks 

sometimes stand motionless or crouch as vehicles approach, and their lack of rapid movement could lead 

to mortality (USFWS 1996a). 

ORV use may also affect the beach through sand displacement and compaction, which may lead to 

steeper dune profiles (Anders and Leatherman 1987). This, in turn, may prove less suitable for piping 

plover nesting. Degradation of the wrack line is possible from as little as one vehicle pass (Leatherman 

and Godfrey 1979), which may negatively impact reproductive success because of loss of important 

habitat used for foraging plovers. Also, the wrack line is habitat for many beach invertebrates, which are a 

staple of the plover diet. 

Beach and dune renourishment projects can alter the profile of beaches, causing increased erosion and 

habitat loss (Patterson, Fraser, and Roggenbuck 1990). Following a devastating storm in 1962 that caused 

severe damage to the east coast, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers undertook the first congressionally 

authorized beach nourishment project from Florida to New England. By the late 1980s over 400 miles of 

U.S. coast had undergone beach nourishment projects. As sea level rises and beaches along the east coast 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 199

continue to erode, the frequency of beach nourishment projects is expected to increase in the future 

(ASMFC 2002). A recent study theorized that beach nourishment projects may negatively impact plover 

habitat because the resulting dredge spoil is often fine-grained, reducing the availability of pebbles and 

cobbles, which are a preferred substrate for nesting plovers (Cohen, Wunker, and Fraser 2008). 

Furthermore, beach stabilization prevents normal storm processes, such as overwash fan formation, 

thereby leading to long-term loss of moist substrate habitat and to accelerated vegetative succession in 

potential nesting habitat (Dolan, Godfrey, and Odum 1973). Construction of artificial structures on 

beaches eliminates breeding territories and may result in an increased level of human disturbance of and 

predation on remaining pairs (Houghton 2005). 

Research, surveying, and even protective management activities can sometimes expose piping plovers to 

a risk of disturbance at breeding sites. For example, adult birds may be more vulnerable to predation 

within exclosures (Murphy et al. 2003) depending on the local predator pool and the type of exclosure 

used. Adults may also abandon exclosed nests more frequently (Elliott-Smith and Haig 2004). 

RED KNOT

The red knot is a shorebird that breeds in the Canadian Arctic and is known to visit the eastern seaboard 

of the United States as a migrant and an occasional winter resident (Harrington 2001). Five subspecies are 

currently recognized (Calidris canutus canutus, C.c. rufa, C.c. islandica, C.c. rogersi, and C.c. roselaari)

(Harrington 2001). Two of these (C.c. rufa and C.c. roselaari) are found in the United States but only 

during migration and in the winter. Southward migration of C.c. rufa and C.c. roselaari begins in midJuly, with staging occurring along the U.S. Atlantic coasts (Harrington 2001). Only those aspects of the 

red knot’s life pertinent to its management and conservation in North Carolina, the Outer Banks, and the 

Seashore, are addressed in this section. The red knot is not listed as threatened or endangered by the 

USFWS, but is a federal candidate species. The red knot does not have special-status in North Carolina. 

Emergency Endangered Listing and Taxonomy 

On August 1, 2005, in response to the 80 percent decline in red knot population over the past 10 years, 

leading conservation groups filed an emergency petition asking the USFWS to list the red knot as an 

endangered species under the ESA. The listing request came from an alliance of wildlife groups, 

including Defenders of Wildlife, New Jersey Audubon Society, American Bird Conservancy, the National 

Audubon Society, Delaware Audubon Society, Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Audubon New 

York, Audubon Maryland-DC, and the Virginia Audubon Council. On September 12, 2006, the USFWS 

announced that it had designated the red knot as a candidate for ESA protection. On February 27, 2008, 

conservation groups again petitioned the Department of the Interior to list as endangered the rufa

subspecies of the red knot, and a broader taxon comprising both the rufa subspecies and the roselaari

subspecies (Calidris canutus roselaari). As of September 2013, the red knot was proposed for listing 

under the ESA (USFWS 2013b). 

Another indication of conservation concern for the red knot is the fact that in August of 2004, the U.S. 

Shorebird Conservation Plan (USFWS 2004a) published its list of United States and Canadian shorebird 

populations that are considered highly imperiled or of high conservation concern. The Canadian ArcticAtlantic Coast Population of the red knot was one of eight taxus classified as “highly imperiled.” In 2008, 

the USFWS determined that the ranking for the red knot should be raised from 6 to 3. The species’ listing 

priority dictates the relative order in which proposed listing rules are prepared, with the species at greatest 

risk (listing priority 1 through 3) being proposed first (USFWS 2007d). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

200 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Red Knot in North Carolina and Cape Lookout National Seashore 

At Cape Lookout National Seashore in 2012, the majority of birds were located on North Core Banks 

with an average of 276 birds per count. South Core Banks averaged 130. The Seashore is an important 

stopover site for the red knot, particularly during springtime. Historically red knot abundance has been 

higher on North Core Banks (table 23) (NPS 2009b). 

TABLE 23: RED KNOT RELATIVE ABUNDANCE ON NORTH CORE BANKS, 1992–2012 

Year Date Peak Count Abundance 

1992–1993 – – 34 

2006 May 5 618 20 

2007 May 15 718 23 

2008 April 15 1287 42 

2009 May 25 525 14 

2010 May 15 927 26 

2011 May 15 1012 28 

2012 April 25 1370 46 

Source: NPS 2012u. 

– = Data not available. 

Note: The length of North Core Banks varies every year, based on inlets opening and closing. 

Description 

The red knot is characteristically found along the east coast of the United States, with its greatest 

population staging on Delaware Bay (Tsipoura and Burger 1999) during migration from the breeding 

ground in the Canadian Arctic to the Tierra del Fuego region of Chile and Argentina in South America. 

This subspecies is the subject of the emergency petition described previously. 

Males in breeding plumage have a dark red or salmon breast, throat, and flanks, with a white belly. Their 

crowns and backs are flecked with gray and salmon (Harrington 1996, 2001; Paulson 1993). Female 

coloration is similar to that of males, but is typically less intense. Nonbreeding plumage is plain gray on 

the head and back, with light fringes of gray and white along the wings, giving an appearance of a white 

line running the length of the wing when in flight. The breast is white, mottled with gray, and the belly is 

dull white. For both male and female, the bill is black (year-round), and the legs are dark gray to black 

(Harrington 1996, 2001). The average weight of the red knot is 5 ounces (which varies considerably 

through the year), with a body length between 9 to 10 inches. 

Range and Migration 

Red knots are found in the Arctic regions of Canada during the breeding season, which is mid-June 

through mid-August. They winter from November through mid-February primarily in two separate areas 

in South America – the Tierra del Fuego in Chile and Argentina and in Maranhao, northern Brazil 

(American Bird Conservancy 2005). Additionally, smaller numbers of red knots winter further northwest 

in French Guiana and in the coastal, southeastern United States, including North Carolina, the Outer 

Banks, and the Seashore. 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 201

Red knots have one of the longest migration routes of any shorebird. Those individuals that overwinter in 

southern South America embark on their northern migration in February, with peak numbers leaving 

Argentina and southern Chile in mid-March through mid-April (Harrington 1996, 2001). The first 

stopover is along the coast of southern Brazil (Vooren and Chiaradia 1990). Their final stopover is the 

Delaware Bay. Their southward migration from the Canadian Arctic begins in mid-July. They arrive in 

South America along the coast of the Guianas in mid to late August (Spaans 1978). From the Guianas, red 

knots continue to move southward along the Atlantic coastline of South America, and the greater part of 

the population will continue on to Tierra del Fuego to overwinter (Morrison, Ross, and Niles 2004). 

These long-distance migrations can only occur when the birds have access to productive refueling stops, 

particularly on their northern migrations, which involve fewer stops than the southern migrations. For red 

knots on the eastern seaboard of the United States, Delaware Bay is the most crucial spring stopover 

because it is the primary final stop at which the birds can refuel in preparation for their nonstop leg to the 

Arctic. When they arrive at their final destination, weather conditions can be harsh, and food is scarce. 

Their fat reserves from the Delaware Bay must sustain them not only during their 1,488-mile (2,400-

kilometer) final flight, but also upon arrival in the Arctic until food resources become more plentiful 

(Baker et al. 2004). 

Nonbreeding and Migratory Habitat 

Harrington (1996, 2001) describes how, during the winter, the red knot frequents intertidal habitats, 

notable along ocean coasts and large bays. Both areas usually display high waves or strong currents while 

supplying a sandy habitat. These areas are selectively chosen in South America, with the most abundant 

population on the island of Tierra del Fuego in Argentina and Chile (Morrison and Ross 1989). 

During migration, the red knot principally uses marine habitats in both North and South America. Coastal 

habitats along the mouths of bays and estuaries are preferred, providing sandy beaches to forage 

(Harrington 1996, 2001). High wave energy is associated with these areas (Harrington 2001; Vooren and 

Chiaradia 1990; Blanco, Goi, and Pugnali 1992). Red knots are also known to use tidal flats in more 

sheltered bays or lagoons in search of benthic invertebrates or horseshoe crab eggs (Harrington 1996, 

2001; Tsipoura and Burger 1999). Delaware Bay hosts the largest number of spawning horseshoe crabs in 

the United States, a primary food source for the red knot. At Delaware Bay, red knots feed and gain 

weight needed for winter migration. The increasing human harvest of the horseshoe crab has reduced this 

food source for red knots, and this dearth is believed to be contributing to the red knot’s failure to reach 

its needed threshold departure weight of 6.3 to 7.0 ounces. Hence, there has been a systematic reduction 

in the body weight of red knots leaving Delaware Bay for the Arctic, which negatively impacts their 

ability to survive and breed (Baker et al. 2004). 

Risk Factors 

Red knots are highly vulnerable to degradation of the resources on which they depend to accomplish their 

migrations. Morrison, Ross, and Niles (2004) has identified four factors that cause this vulnerability: (1) a 

tendency to concentrate in a limited number of locations during migration and on the wintering grounds 

so that deleterious changes can affect a large proportion of the population at once; (2) a limited 

reproductive output, subject to vagaries of weather and predator cycles in the Arctic, which, in 

conjunction with a long lifespan, suggests slow recovery from population declines; (3) a migration 

schedule closely timed to seasonally abundant food resources, such as horseshoe crab eggs during spring 

migration in Delaware Bay (Tsipoura and Burger 1999), suggesting that there may be limited flexibility in 

migration routes of schedules; and (4) occupation and use of coastal wetland habitats that are affected by 

a wide variety of human activities and developments (Bildstein et al. 1991). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

202 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Research by Baker et al. (2004) indicated that if red knot populations continued at the 2004 rate of decline 

populations would approach extremely low numbers by 2010, and the probability of near-term extinction 

would be correspondingly higher than it was in 2004. Research by Niles et al. (2005) supports this 

extinction trajectory. The evidence strongly suggests that the decline of the red knot closely corresponded 

to the massive increase in the harvesting of the horseshoe crab on the Delaware Bay during the decade 

preceding 2004. 

SEA TURTLES

Sea turtles are large marine reptiles found in subtropical, tropical, and temperate oceans as well as 

subarctic areas. They spend the majority of their time in ocean waters, with females only coming ashore 

to nest on sandy beaches. Five of the seven sea turtle species existing in the world today occur in the 

coastal waters of North Carolina and Cape Lookout National Seashore, and all are listed as either 

federally threatened or endangered. The species are the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), the green 

sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), the leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), the hawksbill sea turtle 

(Eretmochelys imbricata), and the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). All but the hawksbill 

and Kemp’s ridley are known to regularly nest at the Seashore. The only occurrences of hawksbill sea 

turtles at the Seashore were a single dead stranding in 2003 and two dead strandings in 2005 (NPS 2004d, 

2006g). Occurrences of Kemp’s ridley turtles at the Seashore are mostly from strandings; however, in 

2003 and 2012 a single nest was documented each year (NPS 2004d, 2012n). 

In 1978, the loggerhead turtle was federally listed as threatened throughout its range (FR 2011). In 2010 

the National Marine Fisheries Service and the USFWS determined that the loggerhead sea turtle is 

composed of nine DPS: North Pacific Ocean DPS, South Pacific Ocean DPS, North Indian Ocean DPS, 

Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS, Southwest Indian Ocean DPS, Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS, 

Northeast Atlantic Ocean DPS, Mediterranean Sea DPS, and the South Atlantic Ocean DPS, and 

proposed to list them under the Endangered Species Act (FR 2011). In September 2011, the National 

Marine Fisheries Service and the USFWS listed the North Pacific DPS, South Pacific Ocean DPS, North 

Indian Ocean DPS, Northeast Atlantic Ocean DPS, and the Mediterranean Sea DPS as endangered, and 

listed the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS, Southwest Indian Ocean, Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS, 

and South Atlantic Ocean DPS as threatened (FR 2011). The population of loggerhead sea turtles nesting 

at Cape Lookout National Seashore is a part of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS, and therefore is listed 

as threatened. Additionally, in March 2013, the USFWS proposed designating 739.3 miles of loggerhead 

sea turtle nesting beaches located in the coastal counties of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, 

Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi as critical habitat; however, the beaches of Cape Lookout National 

Seashore are not included in this proposed designation (FR 2013a). In 1978, the green turtle was federally 

listed as threatened, except for the breeding populations in Florida and on the Pacific coast of Mexico, 

which were listed as endangered (NMFS and USFWS 1991). The leatherback was listed as federally 

endangered in 1970 (NMFS and USFWS 1992). The green sea turtle and the loggerhead sea turtle are 

listed as threatened, and the leatherback sea turtle is listed as endangered by the State of North Carolina 

(NCWRC 2014). 

The Seashore began monitoring sea turtles in 1976, and since 1984 the Seashore has conducted daytime 

monitoring to document strandings, protect nest sites, relocate nests in danger of being flooded, and 

protect hatchlings. Monitoring procedures changed significantly in 1990 when the Seashore began 

following the USFWS Index Nesting Beach Program monitoring procedures (NPS 2012n); therefore, only 

nesting data from 1990 to 2012 is presented in this plan/EIS. 

Since 1990, the number of sea turtle nests at the Seashore has averaged 135 nests, ranging from a low of 

77 in 2004 to a peak of 242 in 1999 (figure 15). Within the Seashore, the greatest annual number of sea 

turtle nests are at South Core Banks, approximately 53 percent of the total nests (figure 15), with the 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 203

greatest concentration south of the lighthouse between mile markers 42 and 44 (figure 16). 

Approximately 34 percent of the sea turtle nests are at North Core Banks. Approximately 13 percent of 

the sea turtle nests are at Shackleford Banks. Mile markers 19 to 22 on North Core Banks were not 

monitored from 2000 to 2008; however, with the natural closing of Old Drum Inlet in March 2009, these 

areas were once again monitored in 2009 and 2010 (NPS 2010c, 2010h). Although Hurricane Irene reopened Old Drum Inlet in 2011, isolating Middle Core Banks again, monitoring between mile markers 19 

and 22 continued in 2011 and 2012 (NPS 2011c, 2012n). 

Source: NPS 2012n. 

FIGURE 15: NUMBER OF SEA TURTLE NESTS AT CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE, 1990–2012 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Number of Nests

Year

Shackleford Banks

South Core Banks

North Core Banks

99 89 90 99

124 119

95

198

124

242

190

119 123

161

77

142

131

85

107

141 157 157

228
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

204 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Sources: Altman pers. comm. 2010a; NPS 1991, 1992, 1993b, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997b, 1998c, 1999b, 2000d, 

2001c, 2002c, 2003b, 2004d, 2005b, 2006g, 2007j, 2008d, 2009c, 2010c, 2010h, 2011c, 2012n. 

Note: Nest data by mile marker is from 1990 through 2012. North Core Banks mile sections 19–22 were not 

monitored between 2000 and 2008. 

FIGURE 16: AVERAGE NUMBER OF SEA TURTLE NESTS BETWEEN MILE MARKERS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

45 44

46

47

50 4849 51 52

53 54

55

Beaufort Inlet 

Long Point

Great Island

Shackleford Banks

Mile Marker

Average # of nests per year

New Drum Inlet

Portsmouth 

Village

2.3

1.1

2.0

1.2

1.1

2.0

3.6

2.1

2.1

2.7

2.7

2.7

2.0

2.0

3.1

2.4

3.1

2.7

1.5

4.6 10.6

2.6

5.0

1.9

1.3

2.0

1.4

2.1

2.6

1.9

2.0

2.3

3.9

2.5

4.0

7.9

2.1 2.6

2.9

1.3 2.4

2.5

0.4

1.8

2.0

1.7

1.5

1.0

1.9

2.0 2.0

2.3

South Core Banks

0.6

Ocracoke Inlet 

19

56

1.4*

1.5*

0.6*

0.1

Nest Relocation Areas 

Areas Closed to Vehicles 

North Core Banks
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 205

Of the four species known to have nested at the Seashore, the loggerhead is by far the most numerous, 

comprising approximately 98 percent of the known nests between 1990 and 2012 (Cordes pers. comm. 

2005a; NPS 2006g, 2007j, 2008d, 2009c, 2010c, 2010h, 2011c, 2012n). Green and leatherback sea turtles 

breed primarily in the tropics and are rare nesters at higher latitudes, only nesting sporadically at Cape 

Lookout National Seashore. For the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, nesting is essentially restricted to beaches 

along the western Gulf of Mexico (NMFS, USFWS, and SEMARNAT 2011). 

LOGGERHEAD TURTLE

The loggerhead sea turtle occurs throughout the temperate and tropical regions of the Atlantic, Pacific, 

and Indian oceans. However, the two largest nesting rookeries are along the western rims of the Atlantic 

and Indian oceans. Within the United States, the loggerhead turtle nests from Texas to Virginia, with the 

primary nesting concentrations found on the coastal islands of North Carolina, South Carolina, and 

Georgia, and on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of Florida (NMFS and USFWS 2008). Over the last two 

decades, the total estimated nesting in the United States has fluctuated between 47,000 and 90,000 nests 

per year, with about 80 percent of the loggerhead nesting activity in the southeast United States occurring 

in six counties in the state of Florida (USFWS 2012b). Within the northern recovery unit (Florida/Georgia 

border to southern Virginia) of the North Atlantic Ocean DPS, as defined in the loggerhead recovery plan, 

studies of annual nest totals indicate an apparent decline in the loggerhead sea turtle population (Ehrhart, 

Bagley, and Redfoot 2003). Since standardized surveying began in North Carolina in the mid-1990s, the 

number of loggerhead nests per season has averaged 756 nests from 1995 through 2012 (figure 17) 

(Godfrey pers. comm. 2005a, 2008, 2010; Muiznieks pers. comm. 2009; Seaturtle.org 2011, 2012). 

Sources: Godfrey pers. comm. 2005a, 2008, 2010; Muiznieks pers. comm. 2009; Seaturtle.org 2011, 2012. 

FIGURE 17: NUMBER OF LOGGERHEAD TURTLE NESTS IN NORTH CAROLINA, 1995–2012 

662

776

568

847

1140

757

659 694

863

344

634

794

535

866

608

846

948

1074

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Number of Nests

Year
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

206 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

At Cape Lookout National Seashore, the average number of loggerhead nests between 1990 and 2012 was 

132, with the lowest number of nests in 2007 and the highest number of nests in 1999 (figure 18). 

Sources: Cordes pers. comm. 2005a; NPS 2007j, 2008d, 2009c, 2010c, 2010h, 2011c, 2012n. 

FIGURE 18: NUMBER OF LOGGERHEAD TURTLE NESTS AT THE SEASHORE, 1990–2012 

Loggerhead turtles spend the majority of their life history at sea. Only mature females come ashore to nest 

every 2 to 3 years, on average (Schroeder, Foley, and Bagley 2003). The first turtle nests generally begin 

to appear at the Seashore in mid-May, and the last nests are deposited in late August. Typical nesting 

areas for loggerheads tend to be sandy, wide, open beaches, backed by low dunes (Miller, Limpus, and 

Godfrey 2003). Some factors that determine nest selection include beach slope, temperature, distance to 

the ocean, sand type, and moisture, though results were occasionally contradictory (Miller, Limpus, and 

Godfrey 2003). The beaches at Cape Lookout National Seashore are typical of the preferred nesting 

habitat for sea turtles, consisting of a moderate dune system, wide gently sloped beaches with little or no 

vegetation, beaches that are not re-nourished, and sand that is the appropriate size and texture for nesting 

habitat.

Although the process of nest-site selection is not well understood, a successful nest must be laid in a low 

salinity, high humidity, well-ventilated substrate that is not prone to flooding or burying because of tides 

and storms, and where temperatures are optimal for development (Miller, Limpus, and Godfrey 2003). At 

the Seashore, between 1990 and 2012, on average 47 percent of the nests found (all turtle species 

included) were relocated from their original location by NPS staff, though in recent years those numbers 

have decreased (NPS 2012n). Since 2005, on average 27 percent of the nests annually were relocated. 

Most nests that were relocated would have been lost to flooding had they not been moved. The emergence 

success rate of relocated versus nonrelocated nests during that same period (1990–2012) was the same; 

averaging 65 percent emergence success (NPS 2012n). 

Loggerheads are nocturnal nesters. Females emerge from the ocean and crawl toward the dune line until 

they encounter a suitable nest site. The female clears away surface debris with her front flippers, creating 

99 89 90 99

123 119

94

124

194

242

188

119 120

160

74

136

128

70

100

140 153 157

213

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Number of Nests

Year
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 207

a “body pit,” and then excavates a flask-shaped nest cavity with her hind flippers. Loggerheads 

throughout the southeastern United States lay an average of 100 to 126 eggs per nest (NMFS and USFWS 

2008). After laying her eggs, the female covers the nest with sand, using all four flippers. Once the nestcovering phase is complete, the female crawls back to the sea. 

Individual females may nest one to seven times per nesting season, at an average interval of 14 days 

(NMFS and USFWS 2008). The nest incubation period (from laying to hatching) depends on temperature, 

and ranges on average from 49 to 68 days in North Carolina with an average of about 55 days (USFWS 

n.d.b). The sex ratio of hatchlings also depends on temperature during incubation. An incubation 

temperature of approximately 84.2°F (29.0°C) produces an equal number of male and female hatchlings, 

while cooler incubation temperatures produce more males, and warmer incubation temperatures produce 

more females (Carthy, Foley, and Matsuzawa 2003). For this reason, the northern part of the U.S. Atlantic 

population, which includes North Carolina, apparently provides a disproportionate number of males to the 

larger population (Mrosovsky 1988; Hanson, Wibbels, and Martin 1998). 

Hatchling emergence occurs almost exclusively at night (Mrosovsky 1968; Witherington, Bjorndal, and 

McCabe 1990) and may occur over several nights. Upon emerging from the nest, hatchlings primarily use 

light cues to find and move towards the sea (Witherington and Martin 1996). Once in the water, they 

swim incessantly out to sea to offshore habitats where they will spend the next phase of their life history. 

Green Turtle 

The green turtle is a circum-global species in tropical and subtropical waters. The major green turtle 

nesting colonies in the Atlantic Ocean occur on Ascension Island, Aves Island, Costa Rica, and Surinam 

(NMFS and USFWS 1991). Nesting in the United States occurs in small numbers in the U.S. Virgin 

Islands and on Puerto Rico, and in larger numbers along the east coast of Florida, particularly in Brevard, 

Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, and Broward Counties. North Carolina is near the northern 

limits of its nesting area. 

Nesting habits for the green turtle are similar to the loggerhead turtle, with slight differences. Average 

clutch sizes range from 110 to 115 eggs, though this varies by population, and only occasionally do 

females produce clutches in successive years. Usually 2, 3, 4, or more years pass between breeding 

seasons (NMFS and USFWS 1991). 

Green turtles nest sporadically at Cape Lookout National Seashore with a total of 44 nests since 1990. A 

peak of 10 nests was documented in 2012 with the nesting intervals suggesting at least two nesting 

females (NPS 2012n). 

Leatherback Turtle 

Leatherback nesting grounds are distributed circum-globally, with the largest known nesting area 

occurring on the Pacific Coast of southern Mexico. Nesting in the United States occurs primarily in 

Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and southeastern Florida. Until 2009, Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore was the northernmost nesting location on record for this species (Rabon et al. 2003). However, 

in 2009 a leatherback nested in Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina, which currently represents the 

northernmost nest ever found from this species (Godfrey pers. comm. 2012). 

Leatherback nesting habits are similar to the loggerhead turtle, though they tend to begin and end nesting 

earlier in the year than the loggerhead turtle (NMFS and USFWS 1992). Leatherbacks are thought to 

migrate to their nesting beach about every 2 to 3 years (NMFS and USFWS 1992; Miller 1997). Clutch 

sizes average 116 eggs, and the incubation period averages 55 to 75 days. It is also reported that 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

208 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

leatherback turtles nest an average of five to seven times per year, with an average interval of nine to ten 

days between nesting (NMFS and USFWS 1992). 

Leatherback nesting at Cape Lookout National Seashore is rare, documented in only 5 years since 1990 

with a total of 20 nests recorded. In 2000, the first nest since 1966 was found at the Seashore (NPS 

2001c). Three confirmed nests in 2004, five nests in 2005, seven nests in 2007, and four nests in 2012 

have also been documented, but given the nesting intervals (ranging from 6 to 13 days), it is likely that 

during each year nests were laid by only one female (NPS 2005b, 2006g, 2008d, 2012n). However, it is 

known that more than one individual leatherback has nested in North Carolina. In 2004 a leatherback 

turtle nest was found at Cape Hatteras National Seashore the same night that one was found at Cape 

Lookout National Seashore (NPS 2005b). 

Potential Threats 

Threats to the loggerhead turtle on nesting grounds, as outlined in the recovery plan (NMFS and USFWS 

2008), are representative of those also faced by green and leatherback turtles. The following general 

discussion about threats to sea turtles on their nesting grounds is taken from the 2008 revised recovery 

plan for loggerhead turtles, which has been updated with more recent research on potential threats to these 

species that, in some cases, was not available at the time of the 1991 recovery plan. A more detailed 

discussion about the specific threats that occur at Cape Lookout National Seashore follows after the 

general discussion of threats. 

Human Presence—The greatest threat posed by humans on the beach at night is disturbance of female 

turtles before they have finished nesting. From the time a female exits the surf until she has begun 

covering her nest, she is highly vulnerable to disturbance, especially prior to and during the early stages 

of egg laying. Females that abort a nesting attempt may attempt to nest again at or near the same location 

or select a new site later that night or the following night. However, repeated interruption of nesting 

attempts may cause a turtle to construct her nest in a sub-optimum incubation environment, postpone 

nesting for several days, prompt movement many kilometers from the original chosen nesting site, or 

result in the shedding of eggs at sea. Direct harassment (which involves harassing or watching turtles 

nest) may also cause adult turtles to reduce the time spent covering the nest. Visitors using flashlights or 

lanterns or lighting campfires on the beach at night during the nesting season may deter nesting females 

from coming ashore and may disorient hatchlings. In addition, heavy pedestrian traffic may compact sand 

over unmarked nests, although the effect of this compaction has not been determined and may be 

negligible. Depending on the nesting substrate, pedestrian traffic over nests near the time of emergence 

can cause nests to collapse and result in hatchling mortality. A study in Japan found loggerhead nests laid 

in beach areas with pedestrian access had higher rates of dead pipped hatchlings than nests laid in 

restricted beach zones (NMFS and USFWS 2008). 

Recreational Beach Equipment—Generally, the use and storage of lounge chairs, cabanas, umbrellas, 

catamarans, and other types of recreational equipment on the beach can hamper or deter nesting by adult 

females and trap or impede hatchlings during their nest to sea migration, although this potential threat is 

not prevalent at the Seashore. The documentation of nonnesting emergences (also referred to as false 

crawls) at these obstacles is becoming increasingly common as more recreational beach equipment is left 

on beaches at night. Nesting turtles have been documented being deterred by wooden lounge chairs that 

prevented access to the upper beach. Additionally, there are documented reports of nesting females being 

trapped under heavy wooden lounge chairs and cabanas, eggs being destroyed by equipment (e.g., beach 

umbrellas penetrating the egg chamber), and hatchlings being hampered during emergence by equipment 

inadvertently placed on top of the nest (NMFS and USFWS 2008). 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 209

Beach Vehicular Driving—Operating privately owned vehicles on nesting beaches for recreational 

purposes or beach access is allowed on certain beaches in northeast Florida, northwest Florida, Georgia, 

North Carolina, Virginia, and Texas. Operating vehicles to conduct scientific research and management is 

generally allowed throughout the loggerhead’s nesting range. The presence of vehicles on the beach has 

the potential to negatively impact sea turtles by running over nesting females, hatchlings, stranded turtles 

that have washed ashore, and nests. In addition, the ruts left by vehicles in the sand may prevent or 

impede hatchlings from reaching the ocean following emergence from the nest. Hatchlings impeded by 

vehicle ruts are at greater risk of death from predation, fatigue, desiccation, and being crushed by 

additional vehicle traffic. Vehicle lights and vehicle movement on the beach after dark can deter females 

from nesting and disorient hatchlings. Sand compaction due to vehicles on the beach may hinder nest 

construction and hatchling emergence from nests. Driving directly above incubating egg clutches can 

cause sand compaction, which may decrease hatching success and directly kill pre-emergent hatchlings. 

Additionally, vehicle traffic on nesting beaches may contribute to erosion, especially during high tides or 

on narrow beaches where driving is concentrated on the high beach and foredune (NMFS and USFWS 

2008). 

Research and Conservation Management Activities—Research and conservation management 

activities (e.g., nesting surveys, tagging of nesting females, nest manipulation) are tools to advance the 

recovery of the loggerhead; however, they have the potential to adversely affect nesting females, 

hatchlings, and developing embryos if not properly conducted. Research and conservation management 

activities should be carefully evaluated to determine their potential risks and conservation benefits. The 

states, in cooperation with the USFWS, have established permitting programs to ensure that proposed 

research and conservation activities are necessary for recovery, carried out by appropriately trained 

persons, nonduplicative, the least manipulative possible, and carried out in such a way to minimize 

chances of mortality. A low level of lethal take is authorized annually for research and conservation 

purposes. Under conditions where the conservation benefits (e.g., embryo survivorship, hatchling 

survivorship, conservation knowledge gained) are forecast to substantially outweigh the potential 

conservation risks, certain activities can be considered beneficial to loggerhead recovery. Most research 

and conservation management activities are likely to have minimal effects on nesting turtles, hatchlings, 

and developing embryos when conducted in accordance with established protocols designed to minimize 

disturbance and risk. On many beaches, surveyors use small 4-wheeled all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) with 

low-pressure (<5 pounds per square inch (psi)) tires that minimally impact nesting habitat. In addition, 

almost all surveys to count nests are conducted after sunrise when encounters with nesting turtles and 

emergent hatchlings are unlikely. Research activities, such as flipper and passive integrated transponder 

tagging, blood sampling, skin sampling, satellite and radio transmitter attachment, and hatchling 

orientation surveys, have a minimal affect on individual turtles when conducted according to established 

guidelines (e.g., Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Marine Turtle Conservation 

Guidelines). Potential benefits from this research include important insight into population structure, 

species health, habitat use, and other important aspects of loggerhead biology and ecology. Nest 

relocation is a management technique for protecting nests predicted to be destroyed by environmental 

factors, such as erosion or repeated tidal inundation, or permitted human activities, such as beach 

nourishment during the nesting season. However, the unnecessary relocation of nests may result in 

negative impacts to eggs and hatchlings. Historically, the relocation of sea turtle nests to higher beach 

elevations or into hatcheries was a regularly recommended conservation management activity throughout 

the southeast United States. However, advances in our knowledge of the incubation environment have 

provided important information to guide nest management practices. Nests located where there are threats 

from beachfront lighting, foot traffic, and mammalian predators can be effectively managed by addressing 

the threat directly or by protecting the nest in situ rather than by moving the nest. In situ protection, which 

addresses the root causes of egg and hatchling mortality, is in keeping with Frazer’s (1992) (as cited in 

NMFS and USFWS 2008) call to move away from “halfway technology.” Increased understanding of the 

potential adverse effects associated with nest relocation, restraint of hatchlings, and concentrated 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

210 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

hatchling releases has resulted in less manipulative management strategies to protect nests and hatchlings. 

In Florida, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s sea turtle conservation guidelines 

consider nest relocation to be a management technique of last resort. At training workshops, nest monitors 

are advised to relocate nests only if they are certain that the nest will otherwise be lost, and if this 

certainty is based on extensive experience at the specific beach. Recovery action 6111 describes 

development of protocols by which managers could identify threatened nests with greater precision, 

thereby minimizing the number of nests that are relocated (NMFS and USFWS 2008). 

Beach Erosion and Accretion—Natural beach erosion events may influence the quality of nesting 

habitat. Nesting females may deposit eggs at the base of an escarpment formed during an erosion event 

where they are more susceptible to repeated tidal inundation. Erosion, frequent or prolonged tidal 

inundation, and accretion can negatively affect incubating egg clutches. Short-term erosion events (e.g., 

atmospheric fronts, nor’easters, tropical storms, and hurricanes) are common phenomena throughout the 

loggerhead nesting range and may vary considerably from year to year. Sea turtles have evolved a 

strategy to offset these natural events by laying large numbers of eggs and by distributing their nests both 

spatially and temporally. Thus, the total annual hatchling production is never fully affected by stormgenerated beach erosion and inundation, although local effects may be high. For example, storm-induced 

mortality in the Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit has been high during years of high tropical storm activity 

and may limit recovery. However, in general, human activities along coastlines can accelerate erosion 

rates, interrupt natural shoreline migration, and reduce both the quantity and quality of available nesting 

habitat. During erosion events, some nests may be uncovered or completely washed away. Nests that are 

not washed away may suffer reduced reproductive success as the result of frequent or prolonged tidal 

inundation. Eggs saturated with seawater are susceptible to embryonic mortality. However, in spite of the 

potential for reduced hatching success, loggerhead eggs can successfully survive periodic tidal 

inundation. Studies have shown that although frequent or prolonged tidal inundation resulted in fewer 

emergent hatchlings, occasional overwash of nests appeared to have minimal effect on reproductive 

success. Accretion of sand above incubating nests may also result in egg and hatchling mortality (NMFS 

and USFWS 2008). 

Light Pollution—Nesting and hatchling sea turtles are adversely affected by the presence of artificial 

lighting on or near the beach. Experimental studies have shown that artificial lighting deters adult female 

turtles from emerging from the ocean to nest. A 1986 study noted that loggerheads aborted nesting 

attempts at a greater frequency in lighted areas. Because adult females rely on visual brightness cues to 

find their way back to the ocean after nesting, those turtles that nest on lighted beaches may become 

disoriented (unable to maintain constant directional movement) or misoriented (able to maintain constant 

directional movement but in the wrong direction) by artificial lighting and have difficulty finding their 

way back to the ocean. In some cases, misdirected nesting females have crawled onto coastal highways 

and have been struck and killed by vehicles. Hatchlings exhibit a robust sea-finding behavior guided by 

visual cues, and direct and timely migration from the nest to sea is critical to their survivorship. Although 

the mechanism involved in sea-finding is complex, involving cues from both brightness and shape, it is 

clear that strong brightness stimuli can override other competing cues. Hatchlings have a tendency to 

orient toward the brightest direction as integrated over a broad horizontal area. On natural undeveloped 

beaches, the brightest direction is commonly away from elevated shapes (e.g., dune, vegetation, etc.) and 

their silhouettes and toward the broad open horizon of the sea. On developed beaches, the brightest 

direction is often away from the ocean and toward lighted structures. Hatchlings unable to find the ocean, 

or delayed in reaching it, are likely to incur high mortality from dehydration, exhaustion, or predation. 

Hatchlings lured into lighted parking lots or toward streetlights are often crushed by passing vehicles. 

Uncommonly intense artificial lighting can draw hatchlings back out of the surf. Although the attributes 

that can make a light source harmful to sea turtles are complex, a simple rule has proven useful in 

identifying lights that pose potential problems for sea turtles. Researchers propose that artificial light 

sources are “likely to cause problems for sea turtles if light from the source can be seen by an observer 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 211

standing anywhere on the beach.” This visible light can come directly from any glowing portion of a 

luminaire, including the lamp, globe, or reflector, or indirectly by reflection from buildings or trees that 

are visible from the beach. Bright or numerous light sources, especially those directed upward, will 

illuminate sea mist and low clouds, creating a distinct sky glow visible from the beach. Field research 

suggests hatchling orientation can be disrupted by the sky glow from heavily lighted coastal areas even 

when no direct lighting is visible. The ephemeral nature of evidence from hatchling disorientation and 

mortality makes it difficult to accurately assess how many hatchlings are misdirected and killed by 

artificial lighting. Reports of hatchling disorientation events in Florida describe several hundred nests 

each year and are likely to involve tens of thousands of hatchlings. However, this number calculated from 

disorientation reports is likely a vast underestimate. Independent of these reports, researchers surveyed 

hatchling orientation at nests located at 23 representative beaches in six counties around Florida in 1993 

and 1994 and found that, by county, approximately 10 to 30 percent of nests showed evidence of 

hatchlings disoriented by lighting. From this survey and from measures of hatchling production, the 

number of hatchlings disoriented by lighting in Florida is calculated in the range of hundreds of thousands 

per year (NMFS and USFWS 2008). 

Cape Lookout National Seashore is ranked, along with Cape Hatteras National Seashore, as the 9th best 

national park system unit to view the night sky by the NPS Night Sky Program. The lack of artificial light 

at the Seashore makes the stars, planets, and moon particularly more visible during clear nights, which 

influences humans and many other species of animals. Additionally, the phosphorescence of waves on 

dark nights helps sea turtle hatchlings orient to the ocean. The NPS does not use artificial lighting in areas 

such as sea turtle nesting locations where the presence of the artificial lighting could disrupt a park’s 

dark-dependent natural resource components (NPS 2006d). 

Beach Debris—Hatchlings often must navigate through a variety of obstacles before reaching the ocean. 

These include natural and human-made debris. Debris on the beach may interfere with a hatchling’s 

progress toward the ocean. Research has shown that travel times of hatchlings from the nest to the water 

may be extended when traversing areas of heavy foot traffic or vehicular ruts; the same is true of debris 

on the beach. Hatchlings may be upended and spend both time and energy in righting themselves. Some 

beach debris may have the potential to trap hatchlings and prevent them from successfully reaching the 

ocean. In addition, debris over the tops of nests may impede or prevent hatchling emergence (NMFS and 

USFWS 2008). 

Natural Catastrophes—Periodic, short-term weather-related erosion events (e.g., atmospheric fronts, 

nor’easters, tropical storms, and hurricanes) are common phenomena throughout the loggerhead nesting 

range and may vary considerably from year to year. It was reported that 24.5 percent of all loggerhead 

nests laid on Deerfield Beach, Florida, in 1992 were lost or destroyed by Hurricane Andrew as a result of 

storm surge (NMFS and USFWS 2008). Similarly, Martin (1996) reported a 22.7 percent loss of total 

loggerhead nest production on the southern portion of Hutchinson Island, Florida, during the passage of 

Hurricane Erin in 1995. Ehrhart and Witherington (1987) reported a 19 percent loss of loggerhead nests at 

Melbourne Beach, Florida, after a 5-day nor’easter in 1985. In Georgia, 16 percent of loggerhead nests 

were lost to tropical storm systems in 2001; nest loss was particularly high on Sapelo (54 percent) and 

Little Cumberland Islands (28 percent). On Fisher Island in Florida, it was reported that hatchling 

emerging success decreased significantly following Hurricane Andrew in 1992 (NMFS and USFWS 

2008). They found that hatchlings were unable to emerge from nests where sand had accreted in large 

quantities and that these hatchlings probably died from asphyxiation or exhaustion while struggling to 

emerge from the nests. Sea turtles have evolved a strategy to offset these natural events by laying large 

numbers of eggs and by distributing their nests both spatially and temporally. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

212 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Threat Occurrences at Cape Lookout National Seashore 

The following data and discussions are from the Seashore’s annual sea turtle reports, 1990 to 2011, and 

include all turtle species (Altman pers. comm. 2012b; NPS 1991, 1992, 1993b, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997b, 

1998c, 1999b, 2000d, 2001c, 2002c, 2003b, 2004d, 2005b, 2006g, 2007j, 2008d, 2009c, 2010c, 2010h, 

2011c, 2012n). 

The majority of turtle nest losses at Cape Lookout National Seashore from 1990 to 2012 were weatherrelated, particularly from hurricanes and other storms. During this timeframe, an average of 27 nests were 

lost annually due to flooding from storms (either washed away or failed to hatch due to flooding), ranging 

from a low of 1 nest lost in 1990 to a peak of 90 nests in 1999. In general, the years that experienced the 

greatest nest loss corresponded with the years that the Seashore experienced impacts from tropical storms. 

For example, Hurricane Ophelia and several other storms had a great impact on the 2005 nesting season. 

A total of 81 nests were flooded in 2005 with 54 of those nests either washing away or failing to hatch 

due to flooding. In 2009 and 2010 Hurricanes Bill and Earl both made landfall near Cape Lookout. 

During these two years the number of nests washed away or flooded was also high, with 42 and 65 nests 

lost respectively. In 2011, a total of 66 nests were lost to erosion or flooding with Hurricane Irene alone 

responsible for destroying 58 of those nests (NPS 2011c). However, in 2007 when the Seashore 

experienced no major storms during the sea turtle nesting season, only 19 nests were flooded with 9 either 

washing away or failing to hatch. 

Other natural threats to sea turtle nests at the Seashore include predation by ghost crabs and raccoons. 

From 1990 to 2012, raccoons depredated an average of eight nests, ranging from zero nests in 2004, 2009, 

and 2010 to 28 nests in 2000. Protecting nests with wire cages has minimized the amount of egg loss to 

raccoons; however, on rare occasion a hatchling can get caught in the screening. Ghost crabs depredated 

an average of seven nests annually from 1990 to 2012, though the total number of eggs lost is not known. 

Roots from plants have also destroyed eggs or trapped hatchings. On average four nests are impacted by 

root invasion each year. 

Many, but not all ORV users respect sea turtle nest protection areas. ORV violations of nest protection 

areas threaten the survival of hatchlings by leaving ruts that impede hatchlings on their way to the ocean 

or by resulting in vehicles driving over hatchlings. At night, vehicle lights can also disorient hatchlings. 

Between 2000 and 2012, an average of 29 documented violations occurred each year, ranging from a peak 

of 84 in 2007 to a low of 2 in 2011. Most, but not all of these ORV violations occurred when ORVs drove 

in front of nests between posts and the ocean at low tides. Other violations include pulling up posts and 

rope and driving through the closure. In 2006, an ORV closure violation resulted in the ORV running 

over a sea turtle hatchling. 

Light pollution is occasionally a problem at the Seashore as well. Since 1990, hatchlings from 32 different 

nests have been documented as being disoriented by artificial light and crawling inland away from the 

ocean, though in a few of these instances confusion by the local topography could not be ruled out. Some 

instances of disorientation were in the vicinity of the lighthouse and Great Island cabins while others were 

in areas that may have been influenced by the glow of lights from the mainland. Camp lights can also 

pose a problem, and in 2012, visitors camping outside of a closure reported three hatchlings crawling 

toward their camp light, which they promptly turned off and helped the hatchlings to the ocean. 

Hatchlings from another seven nests also crawled inland away from the ocean; however, the nests were 

located in areas relatively free from artificial light and may have been confused by the local topography 

instead of lights. In 2011 there were several other incidences where hatchlings appeared to be disoriented 

while crawling outside of the closure areas, but no causes were attributed to this by NPS staff. In 2005, a 

light barricade successfully protected a nest directly in front of the Long Point cabin area from being 

impacted by the cabin lights. 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 213

False crawls can be detrimental to sea turtles and can be caused by, among other things, suboptimal sand 

conditions; encounters with roots, debris, or rocks while digging a nest; encounters with obstacles while 

crawling up a beach; disturbance from lights, noise, or other unusual activities; or other reasons that are 

not known. Under normal, undisturbed conditions, there is generally a one to one ratio between the 

number of false crawls and the number of nests in a given area (i.e., 50 percent of all nesting activity is 

false crawls) (Godfrey pers. comm. 2005b). From 1990 through 2012 the ratio of false crawls to nests at 

the Seashore was 0.97 to 1 (i.e., on average 49 percent of all turtle activity at the Seashore each year were 

false crawls) with individual years ranging from 0.56 to 1 (36 percent) in 1997 to as high as 1.60 to 1 (62 

percent) in 1991 and 1.58 to 1 (61 percent) in 2004. 

SEABEACH AMARANTH

Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) is an annual plant, native to barrier island beaches along the 

U.S. Atlantic Coast, including those within the Cape Lookout National Seashore. Historically, seabeach 

amaranth was found in nine states, from Massachusetts to South Carolina. It was federally listed as 

threatened by the USFWS in 1993 because of its vulnerability to human and natural impacts and the fact 

that it had been eliminated from two-thirds of its historic range (USFWS 1996b). Since its listing, 

seabeach amaranth has reappeared in several states and is currently found in New York, New Jersey, 

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Despite its reappearance in several 

states, the plant remains highly vulnerable to the threats that caused its listing, and in some states, 

populations continue to decline (USFWS 2003b). This species is also listed as threatened by the state of 

North Carolina (NCNHP 2008). 

Seabeach amaranth is a low-growing annual, with stems that trail along the ground but do not root. The 

stems are reddish in color, fleshy, grow to 4 to 24 inches in length, and have round, fleshy, dark-green 

leaves (0.4 to 0.6 inches long) clustered near the tips. Plants must recruit annually from seed banks, either 

in place or from other source populations dispersed by wind, water, or from sediments distributed by 

anthropogenic (human) factors, for example, beach re-nourishment (Jolls, Sellars, and Wigent 2004). 

Seeds must be scarified (the seed coat broken by nicking or abrasion) or cold stratified (chilling for 

weeks) before germination can occur (Marion n.d.). Germination takes place from April through July, 

initially forming a small sprig that soon begins to branch into a clump. Seedlings are usually visibly 

detectable beginning in June (Lyons pers. comm. 2005). Plants are typically 10 to 12 inches in diameter, 

consisting of 5 to 20 branches, though occasionally a clump may get as large 3 feet or more across, with 

over one hundred branches (FR 1993). 

Flowering begins when plants are of sufficient size, often beginning in June, but more typically beginning 

in July, and continuing until the plants die in late fall or early winter. The species is a prolific seed 

producer, with seed production beginning in July or August and reaching a peak usually in September. 

Seed production continues until the plant dies. The seeds are relatively large (0.1 inch), believed to be 

viable for long periods of time (decades), and are contained in indehiscent utricles (a fruit pouch that does 

not split open spontaneously at maturity to release its seed). Though the utricles are normally indehiscent, 

it is not unusual to see them splitting open, either before or after their detachment from the plant. Splitting 

or fragmentation of the utricle occurs under conditions of agitation (by wind), abrasion (by sand), or 

simple loss of integrity over time (USFWS 1996b). 

Seed dispersal may occur by wind or water, though naked seeds do not disperse nearly as far from the 

parent plants as seeds retained in utricles. Seeds may also be dispersed by human activities, such as beach 

replenishment programs. Many utricles remain attached to the plant and are never dispersed, allowing 

seeds and fruit to pile up around the bases of the parent plants. This primarily occurs at the end of the 

growing season, when the plant dies (USFWS 1996b). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

214 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Seabeach amaranth occupies a fairly narrow and precarious habitat niche based on elevation, bounded by 

its relative intolerance of flooding in lower beach settings and competition with other plants in upper 

beach and dune settings. It is found on sandy ocean beaches, where its primary habitat consists of 

overwash flats at accreting ends of islands and the sparsely vegetated zone between the high-tide line and 

the toe of the primary dune on noneroding beaches. It is intolerant of competition and does not occur on 

well-vegetated sites. It is also intolerant of even occasional flooding or overwash. Its placement within 

upper beach and overwash area habitats is severely limiting because these areas are often absent on 

barrier islands that are experiencing beach erosion. Historically, in both Cape Lookout National Seashore 

and Cape Hatteras National Seashore, surveys have found very few seabeach amaranth plants on east- and 

northeast- facing beaches, which experience the greatest erosion rates. South-facing beaches have lower 

erosion rates and likely provide better habitat for seabeach amaranth. Populations are occasionally found 

in other habitats, including back dunes, soundside beaches, blowouts in foredunes, and beachreplenishment areas, but these populations tend to be small and temporary (USFWS 1996b). In general, to 

survive, this species needs extensive areas of barrier island beaches and inlets, functioning in a relatively 

natural and dynamic manner, to allow it to move around in the landscape as a fugitive species, occupying 

suitable habitat as it becomes available (FR 1993). 

According to survey data compiled by USFWS, the number of plants in North Carolina between 2000 and 

2005 ranged from 202 to 21,966 (Suiter pers. comm. 2005), only a fraction of the approximately 40,000 

plants reported in the late 1980s and 1995. The number of plants at Cape Lookout National Seashore has 

also been extremely variable since 1993 (table 24). This variability is indicative of its fugitive nature, and 

is likely due in a large part to habitat changes and the impact of hurricanes, for often in years following 

major storms (1996, 1999, 2000, 2004, and 2006) few plants were found within the Seashore. 

Presumably, plants were either killed before they set seed, or the seeds were buried or washed away. For 

example, on August 27, 2011, Hurricane Irene destroyed the 19 plants documented that year and scoured 

the beaches (NPS 2011d). However, following a growing season without major storm impacts, seven 

plants were found on Shackleford Banks. 

At the Seashore most of the plants are found on the south facing beaches of Shackleford Banks and the 

area between the point of Cape Lookout and Power Squadron Spit where there is little beach erosion. In 

the early 1990s there was a large population on the south side of New Drum Inlet; however, the seed bank 

in that area was lost in Hurricane Gordon in 1994 and the plant has yet to recover there. 2008 was the first 

year since 1999 that no plants were found on South Core Banks. Although plants are not necessarily 

evident every year, they do survive in the seed bank; therefore, populations of seabeach amaranth may 

still be present even though plants are not visible for several years (USFWS 2007e). 

The predominant threat to seabeach amaranth is the destruction or alteration of suitable habitat, primarily 

because of beach stabilization efforts and storm-related erosion (FR 1993). Other important threats to the 

plant include some forms of “soft” beach stabilization, such as sand fencing; vehicular traffic, which can 

easily break or crush the fleshy plant and bury seeds below depths from which they can germinate; and 

predation by webworms (caterpillars of small moths) (FR 1993). Webworms feed on the leaves of the 

plant and can defoliate the plants to the point of either killing them or at least reducing their seed 

production. Some webworm predation of seabeach amaranth was observed in the Seashore in 2008, 2009, 

and 2010 (NPS 2008e, 2009d, 2010d). Beach vitex (Vitex rotundifolia) is another threat to seabeach 

amaranth because it is an aggressive, invasive, woody plant that can occupy habitat similar to seabeach 

amaranth and outcompete it (ISSG 2009). To date, no beach vitex has been found at the Seashore (Altman 

pers. comm. 2010b, 2012a). 
State-listed and Special-status Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 215

TABLE 24: ANNUAL COUNTS OF NATURALLY OCCURRING PLANTS OF SEABEACH AMARANTH AT 

CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE

Year North Core Banks 

South Core 

Banks 

Shackleford 

Banks 

Cape Lookout National 

Seashore Total 

1993 82 1,208 975 2,265 

1994 63 641 948 1,652 

1995 30 45 1,155 1,230 

1996 1 0 3 4

1997 2 0 51 53 

1998 121 4 369 494 

1999 2 0 9 11 

2000 0 4 13 17 

2001 8 43 126 177 

2002 2 69 261 332 

2003 1 205 1,354 1,560 

2004 1 78 58 137 

2005 0 284 669 953 

2006 0 33 30 63 

2007 0 2 125 127 

2008 0 0 76 76 

2009 0 1 100 101 

2010 0 6 28 34 

2011 0 1 18 19 

2012 0 0 7 7

Source: NPS 2012o. 

STATE-LISTED AND SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES 

This section addresses the habitat, diet, reproduction, population trends, and impacts of several species of 

shorebirds that are listed or recognized as special-status species by the state of North Carolina but are not 

federally listed as endangered or threatened. These species breed on Cape Lookout as well as in other 

areas of North Carolina. Species described include the American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus),

Wilson’s plover (Charadrius wilsonia), and colonial waterbirds which include gull-billed tern 

(Gelochelidon nilotica), common tern (Sterna hirundo), least tern (Sternula antillarum), and black 

skimmer (Rynchops niger).

AMERICAN OYSTERCATCHER

The American oystercatcher is a large (16–18 inches long, 14–24 ounces) and conspicuous shorebird with 

long pink legs and a long, bright reddish-orange bill. The upper body is covered with black feathers that 

contrast with white feathers on the breast and sides. The sexes are similar in appearance although females 

are slightly larger than males. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

216 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Oystercatchers are restricted to marine environments, where they inhabit coastal salt marshes and sandy 

beaches along the Atlantic seaboard. Here they primarily feed on bivalve mollusks (Nol and Humphrey 

1994; Meyers 2005). They form pair bonds in February and early March. Courtship takes place in salt 

marshes and on dunes, beaches, dredge spoils, and oyster bars. They breed from March through August 

along the Atlantic coast, from Massachusetts to Florida, in relatively high, open sandy areas with sparse 

to no vegetation (Nol and Humphrey 1994; Meyers 2005). 

American Oystercatchers in North Carolina 

In 2011, the North Carolina coast supported 192 breeding pairs of American oystercatchers, of which 

33 percent lived within Cape Lookout (Simons and Stocking 2011). Reproductive success in the North 

Carolina coast has been low: out of 311 nests, less than half (40.8 percent) produced a successfully 

hatched egg in 2011 (Simons and Stocking 2011). Oystercatcher breeding success overall in North 

Carolina has been extremely low over the past decade. Davis et al. (2001) found that on average only one 

egg in 32 hatches. In response to low reproductive rates, the NCWRC and the Southeastern Shorebird 

Conservation Plan proposed the American oystercatcher for listing as a state-listed species of special 

concern in 2005 (Meyers 2005). On May 1, 2008, the American oystercatcher was designated as a species 

of special concern in North Carolina (Pipkin pers. comm. 2009). 

Habitat Description 

In North Carolina, American oystercatcher nesting habitat is comprised of sand sites characterized by 

more open substrate with less vegetation, away from water (70–159 feet [21–48.5 meters]), and slightly 

elevated to achieve at least an 180 ̊ view (Lauro and Burger 1989; Zarudsky 1985; Shields and Parnell 

1990). Vegetation, which can include smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), salt meadow cordgrass 

(S. patens), marsh elder (Iva fructescens), and salt marsh elder (Baccharis halimifolia), is variable, with 

vegetation cover on average from 23 to 50 percent around nest sites (Lauro and Burger 1989). 

Oystercatcher foraging habitats include oyster and mussel bars, intertidal sand and mud flats. Winter and 

summer foraging habitats are similar (Nol and Humphrey 1994). 

Diet

The elongated and laterally compressed bill of the oystercatcher is well-suited to allow the opening and 

preying upon marine bivalves (class Bivalvia), including oysters (family Ostreidae), soft-shell clams 

(Mya arenaria), razor clams (Ensis directus), stout razor clams (Tagelus plebeius), and ribbed mussels 

(Modiolis demissus). Oystercatchers also consume marine worms (phylum Platyhelminthes), mole crabs 

(Emerita talpoida), sandworms (Nereis virens), limpets (order Patellogastropoda), jellyfish (phylum 

Cnidaria), sea urchins and starfish (phylum Echinoderma), and crabs (order Decapoda) (Bent 1929; 

Johnsgard 1981; Nol 1989; Nol and Humphrey 1994). 

Breeding Biology 

The major stages of the oystercatcher nesting cycle includes: establishment and holding of nesting 

territories, courtship and copulation, nest scraping and nest building, egg laying and incubation, chick 

rearing and fledging. Breeding pairs of oystercatchers begins in late February and early March by 

establishing and holding a nesting territory and then scraping multiple shallow depressions into the sand. 

Eventually they choose one scrape and build a nest (Nol and Humphrey 1994; McGowan et al. 2005). 

Nests are 1.5 to 2.5 inches (3.8 to 6.4 centimeters) deep and 7.0 to 8.0 inches (17.8 to 20 centimeters) 

across and can contain shell fragments, dead plants, small stones, and beach debris (Baicich and Harrison 

1997). In North Carolina, nests are rarely more than 70 to 105 feet (21 to 32 meters) from the water 

(Lauro and Berger 1989) and are often on an elevated mound, which serves as a lookout for the bird 
State-listed and Special-status Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 217

(Baicich and Harrison 1997). Oystercatchers are monogamous and may mate for life (Palmer 1967 in Nol 

and Humphrey 1994). They can nest in proximity to colonial waterbirds, including, but not limited to, 

common tern, least tern, and black skimmer. 

Both sexes incubate three eggs for 24 to 28 days, and incubation may begin after the second egg is laid 

(Nol and Humphrey 1994) or after the last egg is laid (Baicich and Harrison 1997). Oystercatchers will renest if eggs or nestlings are lost early in the season. Both adults brood nestlings less than seven days old. 

Nestlings will crouch motionless when alarmed, making them difficult to see. Nestlings remain in the nest 

for one to two days and then move with adults within their nesting territory or into nearby foraging areas, 

which can be 150 to 600 feet (46 to 183 meters) away, depending on the habitat. Chicks fledge in about 

35 days, but fledglings rely on adults almost entirely until 60 days old (Palmer 1967 in Nol and 

Humphrey 1994). 

Breeding Performance at Cape Lookout National Seashore 

American oystercatchers are common nesters throughout Cape Lookout National Seashore, primarily on 

the ocean beach of the North Core, Middle Core, South Core, and Shackleford Banks. However, they 

have experienced very low reproductive success in each year (with the exception of 1996) since surveying 

began in 1995 with an average of only 24 percent of all nests producing hatchlings and very low numbers 

of chicks fledging (table 25). In 2004, just over 50 percent of nests hatched for the first time since 

surveying began. Fledging success was also the highest ever recorded at the Seashore in 2004; at least 88 

chicks hatched with 45 (51 percent) surviving to fledge (NPS 2006e). In 2012, 31 percent of nests hatched 

with 42 chicks surviving to fledge (table 25). 

Nonbreeding and Wintering 

In September, oystercatchers in the northeastern United States migrate to their wintering grounds, which 

are located from Virginia south along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Oystercatchers in North Carolina and 

in other southern states appear to be nonmigratory (Meyers 2005). Hence, in the winter, these southern 

coastal beaches can support large, mixed flocks of migrant and resident oystercatchers (Post and 

Gauthreaux 1989). 

Winter and migratory habitat appear to be similar to breeding habitat though there is inadequate data in 

North Carolina regarding what constitutes preferred habitat in the winter, especially for birds in 

migration. Limited observation indicate that winter birds roost in open ground without vegetation in areas 

near foraging habitat (Nol and Humphrey 1994). 

Risk Factors 

Threats to nesting American oystercatchers are numerous and interrelated, but more than 47 percent of 

nest losses are from undetermined causes, which does not allow managers to correct the problem (NPS 

2011e). Due to their choice of nesting habitat, oystercatchers are particularly vulnerable to disturbance by 

Seashore visitors and ORVs. Major causes of nest failures during 2012 were from unknown causes 

(47.8 percent), predation (37.7 percent), nest abandonment (8.7 percent), and weather (4.3 percent). 

Human disturbance accounted for only 1.4 percent of nest losses. The American Oystercatcher 

(Haematopus palliatus) Monitoring at Cape Lookout National Seashore, 2012 Summary Report (NPS

2012p) identified mammalian predators, particularly raccoons, as the primary cause of known nest loss. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

218 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

TABLE 25: SUMMARY OF OYSTERCATCHER REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS DATA AT CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL 

SEASHORE

Year Island 

Number of 

Nests 

Nests 

Hatched Number of

# % Chicks Fledged 

1995 South Core Banks 36 10 28 7

1997 South Core Banks 34 4 12 2

1998 North and South Core Banks 98 12 12 6

1999 North and South Core Banks 114 16 14 6

2000 North and South Core Banks 75 25 33 9

2001 North and South Core Banks 109 19 17 1

2002 North and South Core Banks 90 10 11 6

2003 North and South Core Banks 106 17 16 8

2004 Cape Lookout National Seashore 68 37 54 45 

2005 Cape Lookout National Seashore 65 26 40 18 

2006 Cape Lookout National Seashore 69 23 33 25 

2007 Cape Lookout National Seashore 99 21 21 31 

2008 Cape Lookout National Seashore 91 17 19 15 

2009 Cape Lookout National Seashore 83 20 24 21 

2010 Cape Lookout National Seashore 113 27 24 33 

2011 Cape Lookout National Seashore 114 29 25 37 

2012 Cape Lookout National Seashore 99 31 31 42 

All 1,463 344 24 312 

Sources: NPS 2006e, 2009e, 2010e, 2011e. 

Note: Data from 1996 is not available. 

Human Activity—Current threats to the American oystercatcher throughout its breeding in wintering 

range are human disturbance, increasing predators (thought to be largely linked to human activity), and 

development of coastal areas (Bent 1929; Tomkins 1954; Nol and Humphrey 1994). Oystercatchers need 

large, undisturbed beach areas for successful nesting. Research has shown that disturbance by pedestrians, 

kayakers, vehicles, and unleashed pets can cause the abandonment of nest habitat as well as direct loss of 

eggs and chicks (Cohen et al. 2010; Sabine, Schweitzer, and Meyers 2006; Sabine et al. 2008; Toland 

1999; Hodgson, Paul, and Rachal 2008; Meyers 2005). Studies of the effects of humans and vehicles on 

American oystercatchers have indicated lower nest survival and higher chick mortality in places with 

higher levels of disturbance (McGowan 2004; Sabine 2005; Simons and Schulte 2008). 

Studies in Europe on the European oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus), in the same genus as the 

American oystercatcher and closely related, have shown reduced foraging efficiency and lower rates of 

chick feeding in disturbed versus undisturbed habitats (Verhulst, Oosterbeek, and Ens 2001). In the 

winter, disturbance caused European oystercatchers to reduce foraging, although the behavioral response 

of avoidance lessened as the winter progressed (Stillman and Goss-Custard 2002). A study at Cape 

Lookout National Seashore documented lower nesting success for oystercatchers in areas where human 

disturbance was higher and also noted that oystercatchers avoided nesting in areas with high levels of 
State-listed and Special-status Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 219

human activity (Davis et al. 1999). Another study in North Carolina found evidence that oystercatcher 

nests that were frequently disturbed by beach vehicles (causing the adults to leave the nest more than 

three times per hour) had a lower survivability rate, which the authors attributed to nest predation 

(McGowan and Simons 2006). 

In addition to direct impacts or mortality, reasons for lower reproductive success in areas of high 

disturbance may include reduced time spent foraging (Sabine et al. 2008; Verhulst, Oosterbeek, and Ens 

2001; Stillman and Goss-Custard 2002), thermal stress to eggs caused by a lack of incubation when 

reacting to disturbance (Sabine, Schweitzer, and Meyers 2006; Verhulst, Oosterbeek, and Ens 2001), and 

expenditure of energy reserves during flushing or defensive displays (Toland 1999; Nudds and Bryant 

2000; Stillman and Goss-Custard 2002). Studies at Cumberland Island National Seashore in Georgia 

found that foraging behavior was lower in the presence of vehicular activity, which could alter chick 

provisioning and ultimately affect chick survival. Researchers recommended prohibiting beach driving in 

oystercatcher territories when chicks are present (Sabine 2005). Research on flush responses of 

oystercatchers to human disturbance indicates that protection of this species requires a buffer distance of 

up to 656 feet from nesting areas (Cohen et al. 2010). 

Recreational activities such as kayaking, camping, and fishing have been known to directly impact 

productivity of the black oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani) through trampling of nests and eggs or 

indirectly by interfering with foraging and parental care or by causing abandonment (Tessler et al. 2007). 

Because of similarities in life history of the black and American oystercatcher, it is likely that these 

recreational activities can have similar impacts on the American oystercatcher as well and similar impacts 

have been observed at the Seashore (NPS 2011e). Research on flush responses of oystercatchers to human 

disturbance indicates that protection of this species requires a buffer distance of 600 feet (183 meters) 

from nesting areas (Meyers 2005; table 26). A 2012 report on the effects of military overflights on 

American oystercatchers at the Seashore (Simmons and Borneman 2012) concluded that at their peak 

sound level, military overflights contributed to a 72.5 dBA (A-weighted decibel) sound level, which is 

comparable to walking along the oceanside of the point of Cape Lookout (see “Soundscapes/Acoustic 

Environment” in this chapter). Thus, the report concluded that there is no noteworthy evidence that 

military overflights affect the behavioral responses of American oystercatchers, including low-altitude 

flyovers (Simmons and Borneman 2012). Furthermore, the same study noted that ORVs, ATVs, and 

pedestrian traffic disturbed American oystercatchers, and that American oystercatchers moved off of their 

nests more readily with the passing of an ATV than an ORV. The study found that nests with adults 

making more trips off the nest had a lower hatch rate. Therefore, this report demonstrates that American 

oystercatchers display behavioral responses as a result of ORVs and pedestrians (Simmons and Borneman 

2012). 

TABLE 26: BUFFER DISTANCES RECOMMENDED FOR FORAGING AND NESTING AMERICAN OYSTERCATCHERS IN 

FLORIDA, GEORGIA, AND MAINE

Buffer Disturbance Types Behavior Region 

590–656 feet 

(180–200 meters) 

Pedestrians, ATVs, vehicles, 

boats, pets 

Nesting Cumberland Island National 

Seashore, Georgia 

100 feet 

(30 meters) 

Development, vegetation 

removal

Foraging Maine 

250 feet 

(76 meters) 

Development, vegetation 

removal

Roosting Maine 

338 feet 

(103 meters) 

Personal watercraft Foraging and loafing West and east coasts of Florida 

Source: Meyers 2005. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

220 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Also, in 2012 there were two American oystercatcher chick deaths attributed to ORV collisions at the 

Seashore (NPS 2011e). 

Weather and Tides—Since 1996, 11 hurricanes and tropical storms have come within 65 nautical miles 

of Cape Lookout (NOAA 2012). Storms and high tides can reduce nesting success. Overwash and other 

weather related causes accounted for 29 percent of all identified nest failures in a study of 1,172 

American oystercatcher nests on six islands at Cape Lookout from 1998 through 2008 (Schulte 2012). 

However, periodic hurricanes can also benefit oystercatcher nesting success in the long term through 

habitat generation and predator reduction (Simons and Schulte 2008). 

Predation—Predators to American oystercatchers on Cape Lookout National Seashore include feral cats, 

muskrat, raccoons, gray fox, red fox, striped skunk, opossum, domestic dogs, crows, gulls, birds of prey, 

and ghost crabs. Oystercatchers may lay another clutch if predators depredate their nests early in the 

season (Nol and Humphrey 1994). 

Predation of oystercatchers is thought to be associated with human activities such as ORV use and 

pedestrian traffic (McGowan and Simons 2006; Simons and Schulte 2008), McGowan and Simons (2006) 

hypothesized that human recreation might increase the activity of incubating oystercatchers, thereby 

leading to increased predation rates. Their research found a clear association between recreation and 

incubation behavior at Cape Hatteras and Cape Lookout during the 2002 and 2003 breeding seasons 

(McGowan and Simons 2006). ATV traffic was associated with increased rates of trips parents made back 

and forth to nests and a decrease in duration of incubation. Recreation types such as truck use and 

pedestrian traffic showed a weaker association with nesting behaviors. Evidence points to a reduction of 

nest success, the result of an alternation of incubation behavior due to recreational disturbance. McGowan 

and Simons (2006) hypothesized that mammalian nest predators, which were the main nest predators 

during this research (Davis et al. 2001), can better locate disturbed nests because adults leave a scent trail 

when going back and forth to nests. Humans may also support higher mammalian predator populations. 

For example, raccoon sightings and signs were greater in areas of increased human activity at Cape 

Lookout (Davis et al. 2001), and raccoon and bobcat signs appeared to be more abundant around areas of 

frequent human activity at Cumberland Island National Seashore, Georgia (Sabine, Schweitzer, and 

Meyers 2006). 

COLONIAL WATERBIRDS

Colonial waterbirds at the Seashore include gull-billed terns, common terns, least terns, and black 

skimmers. Gull-billed terns are considered to be “threatened” in North Carolina by the NCWRC and the 

National Park Service (NPS) (Erwin 2005). None of these species is federally listed. 

Colonial Waterbirds—Descriptions 

Gull-billed Tern—The gull-billed tern is a medium-sized (13–15 inches long, weight about 5.6–7.0 

ounces) waterbird found widely in Eurasia, the Mediterranean, northern Europe, and the United States. In 

the United States, it occurs as two subspecies. The Atlantic and Gulf subspecies has been designated 

Sterna nilotica aranea and the Salton Sea in California and south to western Mexico subspecies is known 

as Sterna nilotica van rossemi (Parnell, Erwin, and Molina 1995). 

Common Tern—The common tern is a widespread species that can be found across the temperate region 

of the northern hemisphere. It also occurs in Bermuda and the southern Caribbean region (Nisbet 2002). It 

is a medium-sized, black-capped tern (12–14 inches long, weight 3.8–5.1 ounces) (Nisbet 2002). In North 

America, it is distributed along the Atlantic Coast, the St. Lawrence River, and in most of the Great Lakes 

(Nisbet 2002). 
State-listed and Special-status Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 221

Least Tern—The least tern is the smallest of the black-capped terns in North America. Five types are 

known in North America, although there are few differences genetically or morphologically among them 

(Thompson et al. 1997). The least tern weighs, on average, about 1.7 ounces and is 8 to 9 inches long. 

Black Skimmer—The black skimmer is the only waterbird on the Atlantic Coast that feeds by skimming 

the surface of the water with its lower jaw. Males, on average, are larger than females by 35–40 percent. 

The average weight of females is about 9.3 ounces; males average around 13 ounces. The length of 

females ranges from 16 to 24 inches; males range from 19 to 24 inches. Both sexes exhibit a high degree 

of nocturnal behaviors (Gochfeld and Burger 1994). 

Colonial Waterbirds in North Carolina—The Outer Banks region of North Carolina supports a large 

number of colonial waterbirds species that depend upon its extensive sounds and the nearshore waters for 

feeding and its relatively undisturbed islands for nesting. Most species of colonial waterbirds are in 

jeopardy in North Carolina (Parnell and Committee 1977) because of a decline in numbers over the past 

20 to 30 years (Erwin 2005). Between 1977 and 2007, the number of gull-billed tern nests declined from 

approximately 268 to only 90, common tern nests from 2,761 to 498, and black skimmer nests from 976 

to 555. The number of least tern nests, however, increased from 1,925 to 2,827 (NCWRC 2008b). 

Numbers of most breeding, colonially nesting shorebirds within North Carolina have declined over the 

past 20 to 30 years (Cohen et al. 2010; table 27). For example, from 1977 to 2007, colonial waterbird 

nesting declined 30 percent, from 7,068 to 5,004 nests (table 27). Barrier island beaches provide 

important habitat for gull-billed terns, common terns, least terns, and black skimmers. Many of these 

beaches are severely degraded due to coastal development and associated increases in human disturbance 

and in predation by overabundant species. These factors have most likely contributed to the decline in 

colonial waterbird numbers in North Carolina (Cameron and Allen 2008). 

TABLE 27: NUMBERS OF COLONIAL WATERBIRD NESTS IN NORTH CAROLINA, 1977–2007 

Species 1977 1983 1988 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2004 2007 Average 

Least tern 1,925 1,653 1528 2,188 1,993 882 1,271 1,742 2,408 2,827 1,842 

Common tern 2,761 2,247 2,618 2,122 1,699 952 888 1,131 570 498 1,549 

Gull-billed tern 268 233 161 155 249 137 154 258 99 90 180 

Black skimmer 976 797 743 1,084 819 570 681 594 623 555 744 

Total 7,068 5,866 5,983 7,159 5,877 3,408 3,806 4,811 4,528 5,004 N/A 

Source: NCWRC 2008b. 

N/A = Not applicable. 

The reasons for the decline in North Carolina’s colonial waterbirds include at least the following: 

predation from mammals and birds; competition from large gulls, especially herring gulls (Larus

argentatus); human disturbance; and recreational disturbances (Parnell and Committee 1977, Parnell, 

Erwin, and Molina 1995; Erwin, Truitt, and Jimenez 2001; Erwin 2005). 

Descriptions of Breeding, Foraging, and Migration/Winter Roost Habitats 

Gull-billed Tern 

Breeding Habitat—Gull-billed terns typically nest among other tern species on open, sandy-shell 

beaches, on large barrier islands, on dredge-spoil islands, or on overwash fans that are mostly devoid of 

vegetation. They also nest on elevated-shell ridges (rakes) along the edges of marsh islands that they 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

222 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

share with American oystercatchers and common terns (Erwin et al. 1998; Erwin 2005; Parnell, Erwin, 

and Molina 1995). 

Foraging Habitat—In contrast to other terns, gull-billed terns do not feed primarily on fish but are 

opportunistic, taking insects on the wing, feeding on a variety of invertebrates, including fiddler crabs 

(Uca pugnax), decapods, marine worms, and clams, as well as small marsh fish (Erwin 2005; Parnell, 

Erwin, and Molina 1995). Consequently, gull-billed terns can be seen feeding over marshes, creeks, and 

along ocean and bay beaches, as well as over agricultural fields many miles from their nesting sites 

(Erwin 2005; Parnell, Erwin, and Molina 1995). 

Migration/Winter Roost Habitat—There is little known about the habitat used by migrating gull-billed 

terns, except that it is generally considered similar to the nesting habitats (i.e., open beach, sand spits) 

(Erwin 2005). Winter range includes Costa Rica, coastal ponds, lagoons, and Louisiana mud flats, and 

mainly flooded rise fields (Parnell, Erwin, and Molina 1995). 

Common Tern 

Breeding Habitat—Common terns typically nest on open, sandy-shell beaches on ocean coastal islands, 

as well as on inland island sites in freshwater lakes (Nisbet 2002). However, they also nest in salt 

marshes, either on shell or on wrack, especially where human disturbance along the beaches are 

significant. They also nest on human-made structures, such as old piers or channel markers (Erwin 1980). 

Foraging Habitat—Common terns prey on small fish and shrimp in inlets and along the coast, often 

within a few miles of their breeding colonies (Nisbet 2002). 

Migration/Winter Roost Habitat—There is little information on habitats used by migrating common 

terns, however, most continue to feed close to the shore. Migration staging areas are known at large sandy 

spits and bars at a number of North Atlantic sites, with concentrations numbering in the thousands at 

some places (Nisbet 2002). In the winter, common terns migrate to the Caribbean and South America, 

both coasts of Africa, coasts and islands of the Indian Ocean, the western Pacific from Japan to the 

Solomon Islands, New Guinea, and Australia (Nisbet 2002) where they often concentrate in large 

numbers in coastal lagoons (Nisbet 2002). 

Least Tern 

Breeding Habitat—Least terns typically select the barest sand-shell covered substrates available on 

coastal, riverine, or dredge-spoil islands (Thompson et al. 1997). They also nest on rooftops in a number 

of coastal areas, where pea gravel is used as part of the roofing material (Thompson et al. 1997). On 

coastal barrier islands, they often select colony sites either adjacent to inlets or in overwash areas that are 

often interspersed among piping plover nests. Unlike common terns, least terns are typically found in 

small single species colonies, where their nests are often widely spaces (Thompson et al. 1997). In New 

Jersey, inter-nest distance ranged from 6 to 216 feet (1.8 to 65.8 meters) at the time of egg-laying, and 3 

to 197 feet (1 to 60 meters) at the end of incubation (Burger and Gochfeld 1990). 

Foraging Habitat—Least tern foraging habitat is similar to that of common terns, except that least terns 

seldom feed in large flocks. 

Migration/Winter Roost Habitat—Least terns migrate from the Outer Banks in August and September, 

with migration flocks staging at certain sandy island sites (Thompson et al. 1997). In late July or August, 

remote sandbars or sandy spits serve as roost sites. Least terns winter in Florida through the Caribbean 

and into Central and South America (Thompson et al. 1997). 
State-listed and Special-status Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 223

Black Skimmer 

Breeding Habitat—Black skimmers prefer to nest on open, sandy substrates on barrier and dredge-spoil 

islands or at the tips of barrier islands (Gochfeld and Burger 1994). They invariably nest with other tern 

species along the Atlantic Coast (Erwin 1977, 2005). Black skimmers occasionally nest on wrack or on 

shell ridges, in salt marshes, and even on rooftops with least terns (Gochfeld and Burger 1994). 

Foraging Habitat—Black skimmers feed on small fish, shrimp, and other invertebrates that they capture 

by skimming the surface with their lower jaws just below the surface of the water. They typically feed 

very close to their nesting colonies and prefer quiet waters in salt march creeks, lagoons, or protected 

coves and inlets near barrier islands (Erwin 1977; Gochfeld and Burger 1994). 

Migration/Winter Roost Habitat—Black skimmers migrate from the Outer Banks region from 

September through November, forming very large concentrations on sand spits and sandbars (Gochfeld 

and Burger 1994). They winter in Florida through the Caribbean and South America (Erwin 2005; 

Gochfeld and Burger 1994).

Breeding Biology 

Gull-billed Tern—The gull-billed tern arrives in North Carolina by mid-May. The mating system is 

monogamous, and like many other waterbirds, gull-bills probably have long-lasting pair bonds. Nest-site 

establishment and egg-laying usually occur in mid to late May. The nest consists of a shell-lined scrape in 

the sand or sometimes on wrack in salt marshes. Clutch sizes vary; two to three brownish-blotched eggs 

are incubated for 22 to 23 days. Members of a pair share incubation duties, while females take the 

dominant role. Both parents share brooding duties, and both feed the young, often for an extended period 

after fledging occurs (birds generally fledge at 26 to 30 days of age). The chicks are highly camouflaged 

and more mobile (precocial) than either common tern or black skimmer chicks, with which it coexists. 

The young may leave the immediate area of the nest within a few days if disturbance is high. Pairs may 

re-nest if a nest is lost early in the season (Erwin 2005). 

Common Tern—The common tern arrives in North Carolina in late April through early May and begins 

nesting most years from mid-May through early June (Nisbet 2002). The mating system is monogamous, 

and like many other waterbirds, common terns probably have long-lasting pair bonds. Clutch sizes vary, 

but three, medium-dark brown mottles eggs are normal. The eggs are incubated for 22 to 33 days. Both 

sexes incubate and feed the brood. As in other terns, feeding of the young occurs post-fledging and can 

continue into the fall migration. Upon hatching, the young remain near the nest (unless disturbed) for the 

entire prefledging period. Renesting may occur if early nests fail. Fledging ranges from about 25 to 30 

days. Common terns appear to serve as a social locus for mixed-species colony formation, possibly 

because of their aggressively protective nature (Erwin 1979, 2005; Nisbet 2002). Thus, gull-billed terns 

and black skimmers often nest among common terns (Erwin 2005). 

Least Tern—Birds arrive in North Carolina from late March through mid-April. Least terns usually nest 

in single-species colonies, with nests often spread out. Courtships lasts for two to three weeks in April 

and May, and egg-laying occurs from late May through June. Clutch sizes range from one to three eggs, 

with the average of two in North Carolina. Eggs are highly camouflaged, with the background color beige 

to light olive brown. Members of a pair share incubation duties, but females take the dominant role. 

Incubation lasts for 21 to 22 days, and the highly mobile young move from the nest within a few days. 

They are able to fly at about 20 days of age. Post-fledging parental feeding can occur for several weeks 

away from the colony (Erwin 2005; Thompson et al. 1997). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

224 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Black Skimmer—Birds arrive in North Carolina from late April through mid-May, and nest building and 

egg-laying usually occurs from late May through mid-June (Erwin 1977, 2005; Gochfeld and Burger 

1994). Clutch sizes range from two to four eggs (Erwin 1977). Eggs are light buff with black blotches, 

and are laid and hatch at different times. Both sexes incubate the eggs, brood, and feed the young. 

Incubation ranges from 22 to 25 days. The young remain near the nest (unless disturbed) for most of the 

prefledging period of 28 to 30 days (Erwin 1977). As with other waterbirds, if nests fail early in the 

season, skimmers will re-nest (sometimes several times). Skimmers are sometimes seen incubating eggs 

as late as August in the mid-Atlantic region (Burger and Gochfeld 1990). Fledged young are fed by their 

parents, often right up until migration (Erwin 1977, 2005). 

Breeding Performance at Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Colonial waterbird breeding at the Seashore occurs between May and August. In many cases, colonial 

waterbirds use areas already closed to the public for breeding (NPS 2006h). 

At Cape Lookout National Seashore, all colonial waterbirds have declined since 1992 and for gull-billed 

and common terns the decline has been dramatic (tables 28a and 28b) (NPS 2006h). 

TABLE 28A: ESTIMATES OF COLONIAL WATERBIRD NESTING (NESTING PAIRS) AT CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL 

SEASHORE FROM SELECTED YEARS, 1992–2004 

Species 1992 1993 1995 1997 1998 1999 2001 2004 

Gull-billed Tern 59 57 35 2 – 0 0 0 

Common Tern 242 582 258 9 41 – 5 28 

Least Tern 363 583 236 179 236 131 96 218 

Black Skimmer 111 307 185 28 10 – 33 72 

TABLE 28B: ESTIMATES OF COLONIAL WATERBIRD PAIRS AT CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE FROM 

SELECTED SITES AND SELECTED YEARS, 2007–2012 

Species 

2007 2008 2009* 2010 2011 2012 

NDI ODF ODF NDI OPH CLP ODF OPH CLP BLO* CLP NDI OPH CLP

Least tern 191 296 101 63 50 143 230-250 40 209 153 127 346 117 18 

Black

skimmer 

169 30 37 83 10 94 3 133 70 3 155 0 49 72 

Common

tern

71 1 3 11 0 11 1 12 2 1 96 0 17 38 

Gull-billed 

tern

59 3 1 2 0 2 0 10 1 2 7 0 24 0 

Royal tern 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 

Sources: NPS 2007k, 2008f, 2009f, 2010f, 2011f. 2012q; Altman 2013b. 

NDI = New Drum Inlet, ODF = Old Drum Flats, OPH = Ophelia Inlet, CP -= the point of Cape Lookout, BLO = 

Blowfish Island. 

*Reported as individuals in NPS monitoring report. Divided by 2 per NPS instruction to get pair counts. 
State-listed and Special-status Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 225

A summary of trends for colonial waterbirds at Cape Lookout National Seashore follow. 

Least Tern 

Apparently Stable—The number of nesting pairs fluctuates (583 nesting pairs in 1994 to 218 pairs in 

2004) but the long-term population at Cape Lookout National Seashore seems to be stable. Accurate 

counts of nesting least terns can be difficult because of the high rates of nest losses. The least tern is a 

species of “high conservation concern” on the North Carolina Bird Watchlist. 

Common Tern 

Declining—The number of nesting pairs at the Seashore fell from 582 in 1993 to only 28 in 2004. The 

common tern is a species of “high conservation concern” on the North Carolina Bird Watchlist. 

Gull-billed Tern 

Declining—The gull-billed tern is rare at Cape Lookout National Seashore as a nester. The number of 

nesting pairs in the Seashore fell from more than 50 in 1992 and 1993 to none in 2004. This species is 

listed as “threatened” by the state of North Carolina. 

Black Skimmer 

Declining—The number of nesting pairs fell from over 300 in 1993 to 72 in 2004. This species is listed 

as a state species of concern. 

Nonbreeding and Wintering 

Gull-billed Tern—Fledged young and adults usually leave North Carolina’s colonies by August, moving 

north for a short period before turning south for the fall and winter. Little is known of concentration areas 

during migration or winter, although wintering birds are known in Florida and the Gulf coastal region, 

from western Florida all the way south to Honduras and to Panama on the west coast. The gull-billed tern 

occasionally winters along the Atlantic Coast of North America as far north as North Carolina (Parnell, 

Erwin, and Molina 1995; Erwin 2005). 

Common Tern—Fledged young and adults usually leave North Carolina’s colonies in late-July through 

August. They often move north before staging at sandbars near inlets in September and then heading 

south. Little information is known about winter range, but they are known from Florida south through the 

Caribbean to Peru and southern Brazil, where tens of thousands have been recorded in late winter (Nisbet 

2002, 21). 

Least Tern—Fledged young and adults usually leave North Carolina’s colonies in late July through 

August after breeding and also move northward into the New York to New England before turning to 

South America and the Caribbean; however, data is very limited on winter ranges (Thompson et al. 1997). 

Like other terns, least terns tend to congregate at staging areas along the Gulf Coast in August before 

departing for the winter (Thompson et at. 1997; Erwin 2005). 

Black Skimmer—Fledged young and adults usually leave North Carolina’s colonies by early August and 

disperse northward before heading south. Large flocks congregate at staging areas, often with terns. 

Adults may remain with their young during fall migration. Most birds from the mid-Atlantic region 

winter from southern North Carolina to Florida, the Caribbean, and into Central and South America 

(Gochfeld and Burger 1994; Erwin 2005). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

226 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Risk Factors

Human Activity—Ground-nesting colonial waterbirds are particularly vulnerable to impacts from human 

activities undertaken by ORVs, pedestrians, photographers, wildlife managers, scientists, and even 

poachers because of the birds’ usually high colony density and co-occurrence with human recreation 

(Erwin 1980, 2005; Rodgers and Smith 1995; Rodgers and Schwikert 2002). Disturbances affect the 

animals’ ability to feed, rest, and breed by evoking a flush response (Rodgers and Smith 1995; Rodgers 

and Schwikert 2002). Human activities which have indirect effects include: sonic booms from military 

operations, aircraft disturbances, the presence of both domestic and feral animals, and the leaving of 

garbage that subsequently attracts both bird and mammal predators. Even modest disturbances early in the 

spring, when the birds are first arriving and prospecting for breeding sites, can be highly disruptive to 

colonial species (Buckley and Buckley 1976). These studies indicate that buffer distances from human 

disturbances should be approximately 600 feet (183 meters) from nesting areas (Erwin 1989, 2005; 

Rodgers and Smith 1995). 

Weather and Tides—Since 1996, 11 hurricanes and tropical storms have come within 65 nautical miles 

of Cape Lookout (NOAA 2012). The effects of major hurricanes caused major declines in water quality 

conditions, as well as in marine life, throughout Pamlico Sound in North Carolina for an extended period 

(Mallin 2000). Winter storms are known to impact shorebirds. High mortality of many coastal bird 

species was noticed after a snowstorm swept the entire North Carolina coast in 1989 (USFWS 1996a). 

Predation—Predators to colonial waterbirds at the Seashore include: muskrat, gray fox, red fox, striped 

skunk, opossum, domestic dogs, crows, gulls, birds of prey, and ghost crabs. Raccoons and feral cats have 

increased in recent years as human populations have grown in coastal regions (Buckley and Buckley 

1976; Erwin, Truitt, and Jimenez 2001; Erwin 2005). The result of this predation has been poor 

reproduction or major redistributions of species (Erwin, Truitt, and Jimenez 2001; Erwin 2005). In 

addition, gulls are often predators of terns as well as competitors for nesting space (Nisbet 2002). These 

include: great black-backed gulls (Larus marinus), herring gulls (Larus argentatus), and the smaller 

laughing gulls (Leucophaeus atricilla). In addition, in certain areas, other bird species may prey on terns 

and skimmers (or their eggs), such as peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus), great-horned owls (Bubo

virginianus), fish crows (Corvus ossifragus), and others (Erwin 2005). 

Environmental Pollutants—A number of chemicals in the environment may be detrimental to the 

survival and/or reproduction of colonial waterbirds. Environmental contaminants are believed to cause 

reproductive failure in common terns, one of the more sensitive seabirds to organochlorine chemicals. 

Problem areas that have been researched in North America are mostly in the U.S. and Canadian Great 

Lakes region (Nisbet 2002). No evidence of any population-wide wildlife effects of agricultural 

contaminants has been documented for the Outer Banks region (NPS 2006e). 

Foraging Habitat Availability—Unlike foraging habitats of plovers and oystercatchers, the habitats of 

feeding colonial waterbirds are not contiguous with their breeding areas. Least terns, common terns, and 

black skimmers usually feed from 0.6 to 6 miles (1 to 10 kilometers) from their nesting colonies in 

shallow waters (Erwin 1980; Burger and Gochfeld 1990), while gull-billed terns feed on invertebrates 

primarily in marshes and over upland habitats (Parnell, Erwin, and Molina 1995). Few data are available 

on trends on either forage fish populations in coastal waters, or on invertebrates to indicate whether there 

are current threats to foraging habitats (NPS 2006e). 

WILSON’S PLOVER

Wilson’s plover is a medium-sized, ringed plover of coastal habitats. Its overall length is 6.5 to 7.5 

inches, and its weight ranges between 2 to 2.5 ounces. At all times of the year and in all plumages, its bill 
State-listed and Special-status Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 227

is entirely black, large, and heavy; its upperparts are generally grayish to grayish brown, and its 

underparts are white, with a black-to-brownish breast band; its legs and feet are flesh-colored to pinkish. 

It is readily distinguished from other, similar, ringed plovers by its larger size; large, heavy, all-black bill; 

and flesh colored legs (Corbat and Bergstrom 2000; Hayman, Marchant, and Prater 1986). Wilson’s 

plover has no federal protection status in the United States; however, it was classified as a species of 

conservation concern by the USFWS in 2008. Birds that appear on this list are those that, without 

additional conservation actions are likely to become candidates for listing under the ESA (USFWS 

2008b). Brown et al. (2001) list Wilson’s plover as a “species of high concern” in their prioritization of 

shorebird species according to relative conservation status risk (Brown et al. 2001). Wilson’s plover is 

listed as endangered in Virginia and Maryland, threatened in South Carolina, rare in Georgia, stateprotected in Alabama (National Audubon Society 2005), and as a species of special concern in North 

Carolina (NCAC 10I.0105, Subchapter 101 15A). 

Distribution

Breeding—Wilson’s plover is distributed locally along the Atlantic Coast, from Virginia south to 

southern Florida, including the Florida Keys, and from southern Florida west along the Gulf Coast to 

Veracruz, Mexico, the Yucatán, and Belize (Stevenson and Anderson 1994). Breeding locations are 

uncertain farther south along the Caribbean coast of Central America. 

In South America, Wilson’s plover breeds locally along the Atlantic coast, from Colombia south to 

Brazil, including the islands of Trinidad, Aruba, Bonaire, Margarita, and Curaçao, located off the coast of 

Venezuela (Meyer de Schauensee and Phelps 1978). In the West Indies, it breeds throughout the 

Bahamas, the Greater Antilles, the Virgin Islands, the Lesser Antilles, and in the Grenadines (Raffaele et 

al. 1998). 

Along the Pacific Coast, Wilson’s plover breeds locally along the west coast of Baja California, and from 

the Gulf of California south to Nayarit, Mexico (Howell and Webb 1995). Farther south along the Pacific 

Coast, it breeds from Mexico to Ecuador and Peru (Hilty and Brown 1986). 

Wintering—Wintering occurs mainly in northeast and central Florida (Corbat and Bergstrom 2000) as 

well as in west Louisiana and south Texas throughout the remainder of the breeding range (see above), to 

northern South America (Hayman, Marchant, and Prater 1986). There is no data pertaining to Wilson’s 

plover nonbreeding or wintering at the Seashore. 

Wilson’s Plover in North Carolina and Cape Lookout National Seashore 

A 2004 survey of the entire coast of North Carolina yielded 232 pairs of Wilson’s plover. In 2004, Cape 

Lookout National Seashore supported 61 nesting pairs and two individuals, which represented 26 percent 

of North Carolina’s population of Wilson’s plover (Cameron 2004). The birds were distributed 

throughout the Seashore, with the greatest concentration at the Power Squadron Spit. Piping plovers and 

American oystercatchers also use many of their nesting sites (NPS 2006e). In 2012, a total of 85 nesting 

pairs and 11 individuals were counted throughout the Seashore (NPS 2012r). Table 29 shows the rise and 

fall of Wilson’s plovers at Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

TABLE 29: NUMBER OF WILSON’S PLOVER AT THE SEASHORE, 2009–2012 

Totals for the 

Seashore 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Total for the 

Seashore 

76 pairs; 

3 individuals 

90 pairs; 

6 individuals 

72 pairs; 

1 individual 

76 pairs; 

9 individuals 

76 pairs; 

3 individuals 

85 pairs; 

11 individuals 

Sources: NPS 2009g, 2010g, 2011g, 2012r. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

228 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Population trends and nesting productivity of Wilson’s plovers at Cape Lookout National Seashore are 

unknown. It is likely they face the same threats as other ground nesting species, including flooding and 

predation. In 1994, 22 of the 29 surveyed nests on North Core Banks were lost to predators (NPS 2006e). 

Habitat Description—Wilson’s plovers are typically associated with coastal areas of high salinity and 

sparse vegetation including salt flats, coastal lagoons, sand dunes, foredunes, and overwash areas above 

the high-tide line (Tomkins 1944; Hayman, Marchant, and Prater 1986; Corbat and Bergstrom 2000). At 

the Seashore, Wilson’s plover breeding sights have only been known to occur within piping plover 

closures. Hence, all closures, and much of the management of piping plovers, also apply indirectly to 

Wilson’s plover. 

Diet—Wilson’s plover is a visual feeder of crustaceans, particularly fiddler crabs and some insects 

(Strauch and Abele 1979; Morrier and McNeil 1991; Thibault and McNeil 1994), which they prey upon at 

intertidal mud flats, sand flats, ephemeral pools, and shore of brackish ponds. They usually forage at low 

tide on intertidal mud flats (Strauch and Abele 1979; Thibault and McNeil 1994; Corbat and Bergstrom 

2000). 

Breeding Biology—Before territories are established from mid-March through early April (Tomkins 

1944; Bergstrom 1988), Wilson’s plover form pairs, and most breeding territories are established by midApril. The nest is a scrape in sand that requires little construction (Bergstrom 1982). Egg-laying peaks 

from late April through late May (Bergstrom 1982). Re-nesting after failure of the first nest continues 

through the end of June. The estimated time required to complete a clutch of three eggs is four to six days 

(Bergstrom 1988; Corbat and Bergstrom 2000). 

Reproductive Success at Cape Lookout National Seashore—There is no data pertaining to Wilson’s 

plover reproductive success at Cape Lookout National Seashore (NPS 2006e). 

Risk Factors—Because Wilson’s plovers commonly nest on beaches with wide berms, they are subject 

to disturbances at their nests and roosts factors including beachgoers, pets, and ORV traffic on beaches. 

Wilson’s plovers leave their nests when disturbed and are extremely reluctant to return when intruders are 

anywhere near, a practice that exposes eggs to predation and overheating (Corbat and Bergstrom 2000). 

OTHER WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT 

In addition to the federally and state-listed threatened and endangered species detailed in preceding 

sections of this chapter, a variety of birds as well as terrestrial and marine animals depend on the barrier 

island habitats within the Seashore. This section describes those species that inhabit the beach, berm, tidal 

flats, salt marsh, and sound water ecological zones within the study area, and which are sensitive to 

human activity and could therefore be affected by ORV management actions. 

INVERTEBRATES

The Seashore beach ecosystem is home to a vast quantity of invertebrates, which form a valuable link in 

the coastal food chain. Many of the protected bird species found within the Seashore, including the piping 

plover, Wilson’s plover, red knot, American oystercatcher, and gull-billed tern, feed on invertebrates in 

areas that are open to ORV use, such as the intertidal zone and the wrack line. High-energy, intertidal 

beaches in the southeastern United States generally support approximately 20 to 30 types of invertebrate 

species (Ruppert and Fox 1988), with the most identifiable being mole crabs, ghost crabs, and coquina 

clams (Donax variabilis). Both mole crabs and coquina clams are a primary prey base for fish, crabs, and 

shorebirds, and the population density of some predators may actually be dependent on the availability 

these invertebrate species (Green 2002). Other invertebrates within the Seashore beach ecosystem include 
Other Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 229

clamworms (Nereis succinea), limpets (Patella vulgata), which can be found in the intertidal zone, and 

varieties of jellyfish, sea urchins, and sea stars (class Asteroidea), all of which spend their entire lives in 

the water. 

Ghost crabs are sand-colored, terrestrial animals with 

square-shaped bodies, which are generally no more than 2 

to 3 inches (5 to 7.6 centimeters) wide (Lippson and 

Lippson 1997). Ghost crabs are a top predator of the beach 

ecosystem and can be used as an indicator species to 

analyze the health of the beach ecosystem, due to their 

prominence and high susceptibility to anthropogenic 

disturbances (Hobbs, Landry, and Perry 2008). They are 

primarily nocturnal and create burrows for shelter from 

heat and desiccation (drying) stress during the warmer 

afternoon periods. Burrows are usually 2 to 4 feet (0.6 to 

1.2 meters) in length and are generally located in an area 

from the high-tide line landward up to 1,312 feet (400 

meters). Ghost crabs emerge from their burrows at night to feed in the intertidal zone, and travel up to 984 

feet (300 meters) while foraging (Hobbs, Landry, and Perry 2008). Ghost crabs retreat deep into their 

burrows during the winter months (Lippson and Lippson 1997). 

Like ghost crabs, mole crabs are a common inhabitant of the high-energy, exposed beach environment. In 

contrast to other species of crabs, they do not have claws or pincers. Mole crabs are generally less than 

2 inches (5 centimeters) in length and have egg-shaped bodies that allow for rapid digging in wet sand 

(Ruppert and Fox 1988). Mole crabs are filter feeders that burrow and anchor themselves into the sands 

within the swash zone, collecting organic matter that they trap within their feeding antennae when water 

recedes over the buried crabs. Unlike ghost crabs, mole crabs move off the beach to deeper offshore 

waters during the winter (Lippson and Lippson 1997). 

Marine bivalves such as oysters (Crassostrea virginica), razor clams, coquina clams, and ribbed mussels 

(Geukensia demissa) also inhabit the Seashore, forming the diet for many birds. Clams characteristically 

lie buried just beneath the surface of the sand, although they can burrow to greater depths as necessary. 

Much like the mole crab, coquina clams are filter feeders and migrate up and down the ocean beach in the 

intertidal area during the spring and summer (Ruppert and Fox 1988). Due to its importance in food webs, 

the coquina clam is considered an indicator species for the sandy beach oceanfront habitat. It feeds on 

small particles such as unicellular algae and detritus and in turn, is consumed by fish and birds (SCDNR 

2009). 

In addition to the intertidal zone, another important habitat for 

invertebrates is the wrack line. A wrack line is a line of stranded 

debris along a beach face marking the point of maximum run-up 

during a previous high tide. The wrack line is often composed of 

drying seaweed, tidal marsh plant debris, decaying marine 

animals, shells, and miscellaneous debris washed up and 

deposited on the beach. The wrack line provides a habitat suitable 

for many invertebrates such as amphipods, beetles, mites, flies, 

and spiders. Studies have demonstrated that ORV use in and 

around the wrack line reduces the density of invertebrates in 

beach environments. 

Credit: George Harrison/USFWS 

Ghost Crab 

Intertidal Zone 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

230 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

A three-year study on Cape Cod and Fire Island, New York (Kluft and Ginsberg 2009), found that the 

shrimp-like crustaceans called amphipods are particularly vulnerable to drying out in immature stages, 

and use the wrack line as cover. Several species of flies also use the site to lay their eggs, and wolf spiders 

(family Lycosidae) migrate back and forth from the beach grass to the wrack line to feed on these 

amphipods. The study observed that higher ORV traffic resulted in dispersal and desiccation of the wrack 

line, thereby reducing the populations of invertebrates in these areas. 

OTHER BIRD SPECIES

Birds are the most visible of all vertebrates within the Seashore because of its location on the Atlantic 

Flyway, varied habitats, strong winds which drive oceanic birds onto land, and lack of development and 

human disturbance. The Outer Banks of North Carolina, including the Seashore, provide a critical link in 

the migratory path of several shorebird species. The barrier island ecosystems at the Seashore provide 

habitat for large numbers of migratory and nesting bird species, and coastal marshes are critical to 

overwintering populations of many waterbirds. 

Studies have recorded 21 species of shorebirds (table 30) on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, such as 

whimbrels (Numenius phaeopus), willets (Catoptrophotus semipalmatus), and sanderlings (Calidris

alba). These shorebirds are most abundant in May and August. Least terns, common terns, gull-billed 

terns, black skimmers, piping plovers, Wilson’s plovers, willets, and American oystercatchers can all be 

found nesting on North Carolina beaches (North Carolina Audubon 2008). Several of these species are 

designated as state-listed and/or federally listed threatened or endangered species and are discussed 

previously in this chapter. However, nonlisted shorebirds such as willets have similar nesting and 

foraging habitats as federally and state-listed species. The eastern willet, for instance, breeds in coastal 

salt marshes and nests on the ground, often in colonies, usually in well-hidden locations in short grass. 

These birds forage on mud flats or in shallow water, probing or picking up food by sight. Their diet 

consists of insects, crustaceans, and marine worms, as well as some plant material. Killdeer (Charadrius

vociferus), whose breeding range also includes North Carolina, often nest in unlined gravel depressions. 

However, although killdeer are technically in the family of shorebirds, they are unusual in that they often 

nest and live far from water (Porter 1997). 

The American Bird Conservancy recognized Cape Lookout National Seashore as a Globally Important 

Bird Area in 2001 for its wide variety of birds and the value this barrier island park has for protection of 

these birds (NPS 2012s). Within the boundaries of the Seashore, approximately 269 bird species have 

been identified (NPS 2012a). Migratory birds are often found throughout the year on the way to and from 

their destinations. During the winter months, the common loon (Gavia immer), pied-billed grebe 

(Podilymbus podiceps), northern gannet (Morus bassanus), tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus), as well as 

Canada geese (Branta canadensis), are common sights along the Seashore. During the summer migratory 

season, several varieties of herons (Ardea herodias), Audubon’s shearwater (Puffinus lherminieri), and 

the barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) populate the Cape Lookout shores. While less frequently sighted, 

grebes (Podiceps auritus), mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos), hawks (genus Accipiter), bald eagles 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus), and various species of sandpipers also 

inhabit the island at one point or another throughout the year. Rarely, birds like the tropical masked booby 

(Sula dactylatra) and the magnificent frigate bird (Fregata magnificens) have been seen (NPS 2006b). 

Common crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and gulls (Larus canus) are present within the Seashore, and 

the ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) is also present in shrub thickets on Core Banks (NPS 

2001d). 
Other Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 231

TABLE 30: SHOREBIRDS ON THE OUTER BANKS OF NORTH CAROLINA, 1992–1993 

Species Common Name 

Actitis macularia Spotted sandpiper 

Arenaria interpres Ruddy turnstone 

Calidris alba Sanderling 

Calidris alpine Dunlin 

Calidris canutus Red knot 

Calidris fuscicollis White-rumped sandpiper 

Calidris mauri Western sandpiper 

Calidris minutilla Least sandpiper 

Calidris pusilla Semipalmated sandpiper 

Catoptrophotus semipalmatus Willet 

Charadrius melodus Piping plover 

Charadrius semipalmatus Semipalmated plover 

Charadrius vociferous Killdeer 

Charadrius wilsonia Wilson's plover 

Haematopus palliates American oystercatcher 

Limnodromus griseus Short-billed dowitcher 

Limosa fedoa Marbled godwit 

Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel 

Pluvialis squatarola Black-bellied plover 

Tringa flavipes Lesser yellowlegs 

Tringa melanoleuca Greater yellowlegs 

Source: Dinsmore, Collazo, and Walters 1998. 

MAMMALS

Upland mammal species are somewhat limited in number on barrier islands because of the lack of 

diversity in vegetation and difficulty of access from mainland areas. The only large animals present in the 

Seashore are the wild horses on Shackleford Banks, and deer and coyotes, which are found throughout the 

Seashore (NPS 2007h). There are an estimated 107 wild horses on Shackleford Banks. The horse 

population is generally managed at between 110 and 130 horses, but the birth rate was lower and 

mortality higher than anticipated in 2011 (NPS 2012b). Federal legislation protects the horses within the 

Seashore and requires an annual report on the status of the herd. The horses are cooperatively managed by 

the NPS and the Foundation for Shackleford Horses, Inc., pursuant to the legislation, and a Memorandum 

of Understanding updated in 2007 (NPS 2008g). 

North and South Core Banks support smaller native mammals, including eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus 

floridanus), nutria (Myocastor coypus), northern raccoon (Procyon lotor), and shrews (Blarina

brevicauda, Cryptotis parva) (NPS 2007h, 2012c). The primary mammalian predators at the Seashore are 

raccoons and feral cats (NPS 2006a), although sightings of red fox and mink were confirmed in 2007 

(NPS 2007j) and coyotes were observed in 2013. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

232 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS

Sea turtles are the more common reptile species found in Cape Lookout National Seashore, lizards, 

snakes, and land turtles can also be found. The most common reptiles (other than sea turtles) in the area 

include black racer snake (Coluber constrictor), six-lined racerunner lizard (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus),

eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), Carolina anole (Anolis

carolinensis), eastern kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula), and copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix) (NPS 

2012d). With the exception of the copperhead, all of the species listed above are most active during 

daylight hours. Reptiles can be found in a variety of habitats at the Seashore, including the sand dunes, 

grassland, maritime forest, and salt marsh (NPS 2012e). The grasslands are the preferred habitat for sixlined racerunner lizards and black racer snakes (NPS 2012d), while the copperhead is likely common in 

forested areas (Davidson College n.d.). Similarly, the eastern box turtle typically prefers moist forested 

areas, but can be found in a wide variety of habitat types (e.g., grasslands) (Davidson College n.d.). 

Although salt and brackish water environments dominate the islands, a few fresh water habitats support 

tree frogs (Hyla cinerea) and Fowler's toads (Bufo fowleri) (NPS 2012f). 

SOUNDSCAPES/ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 

According to the NPS, the acoustical environment is comprised of a combination of acoustic resources, 

including natural, cultural, and historical sounds. A soundscape is defined as the way in which humans 

perceive this acoustic environment (NPS 2009h). Specifically, the natural soundscape encompasses all of 

the natural sounds that occur in parks, including the physical capacity for transmitting those natural 

sounds and the interrelationships among park natural sounds of different frequencies and volumes (NPS 

2006d, section 4.9]). Natural sounds may range from bird and bat calls and insect chirps, to sounds 

produced by physical processes like wind rushing through leaves on trees, thunder, and rushing and 

falling water through rivers, creeks and streams within a park. According to the NPS, 72 percent of 

visitors indicate that a crucial reason for the need to preserve national parks is that parks provide 

opportunities to experience natural peace and the sound of nature (NPS 2009h). Therefore, the NPS works 

to preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the acoustic environment and natural soundscapes of parks. 

NOISE FUNDAMENTALS

According to the NPS, “although noise has been used as a synonym for sound, it is essentially the 

negative evaluation of sound by people, is extraneous, or undesired. Humans perceive sound as an 

auditory sensation created by pressure variations that move through a medium such as water or air and is 

measured in terms of amplitude and frequency” (NPS 2009h). Sources of noise within national parks are 

dependent upon the particular park and may include vehicular sources (cars, buses, or other vehicles) used 

for tours and access to trails and campgrounds, aircraft overflights from planes, helicopters and military 

jets along with airport development, snowmobiles and watercraft, park operations and energy 

development (NPS 2009h). 

The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure. Since the range of sound pressure 

varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some common reference level, 

usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in dBs are called sound pressure levels and are often 

defined in terms of frequency-weighted scales (A, B, C, or D). 

The dBA is commonly used to describe noise levels because it emphasizes the frequency range to which 

the human ear is most sensitive (1,000–5,000 Hertz) (Caltrans 1998). Sound levels measured using a dBA 

scale are generally expressed as dBA. Throughout this section, all noise levels are expressed in dBA. 
Soundscapes/Acoustic Environment 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 233

Several examples of sound pressure levels in the dBA scale are listed in table 31, while table 32 presents 

examples of sound pressure levels measured in national parks. 

TABLE 31: EXAMPLES OF COMMON SOUNDS

A-weighted Sound 

Level (dBA) Overall Level Noise Environment 

120 Uncomfortably loud 

(32 times as loud as 70 dBA) Military jet airplane takeoff at 50 feet 

100 Very loud 

(8 times as loud as 70 dBA) 

Jet flyover at 1,000 feet 

Locomotive pass-by at 100 feet 

80 Loud 

(2 times as loud as 70 dBA) 

Propeller plane flyover at 1,000 feet. Diesel truck 

40 mph at 50 feet 

70 Moderately loud Freeway at 50 feet from pavement edge at 10:00 a.m. 

Vacuum cleaner (indoor) 

60 Relatively quiet 

(one-half as loud as 70 dBA) 

Air condition unit at 100 feet. Dishwasher at 10 feet 

(indoor) 

50 Quiet 

(1/4 as loud as 70 dBA) 

Large transformers 

Small private office (indoor) 

40 Very quiet 

(1/8 as loud as 70 dBA) Birds calls. Lowest limit of urban ambient sound 

10 Extremely quiet Just audible (1/64 as loud as 70 dBA) 

0 Threshold of hearing Quietest sound detectible by a healthy human ear 

Source: FICN 1992. 

Modified by: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., October 1998. 

TABLE 32: SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS MEASURED IN NATIONAL PARKS

Sound dBA 

Threshold of human hearing 0

Haleakala National Park: Volcano crater 10 

Canyonlands National Park: Leaves rustling 20 

Zion National Park: Crickets (5 meters) 40

Whitman Mission: Conversational speech (5 meters) 60 

Yellowstone National Park: Snowcoach (30 meters) 80 

Arches National Park: Thunder 100 

Yukon-Charley Rivers National Park: Military jet (100 meters above ground level) 120 

Source: NPS 2013c. 

HUMAN AND WILDLIFE RESPONSE TO CHANGES IN NOISE LEVELS

Noise may have adverse effects on the human population in a variety of ways. Noise may interfere with 

human activities, such as sleep, speech communication, and tasks requiring concentration or coordination. 

At a physiological level, noise may also cause annoyance, hearing damage, and other health-related 

problems. The degree of disturbance on humans from unwanted sound depends essentially on (1) the 

amount and nature of the intruding noise; and (2) the type of activity occurring where the noise is heard. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

234 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

In considering the first of these factors, it is important to note that individuals have different sensitivity to 

noise. Loud noises bother some people more than others, and some patterns of noise also affect a person’s 

perception of whether or not a noise is offensive. With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to 

judge the annoyance of noise relative to the natural sounds and perceived quiet (i.e., without the intruding 

noise source) and activities occurring where the noise is heard. For example, if regions of a park are 

dedicated to enjoying the tranquility and serenity of the natural environment, sounds from motor boating 

and hunting would be distracting to the visitor experience. However, if these activities are consistent with 

the purpose of a particular region of the park, these sounds would be considered appropriate. Therefore, 

noise can be a subjective term, and it is important to characterize the activities essential to the park’s 

purpose (NPS 2000a). 

In addition to its effect on humans, studies have shown that intrusive and other human-induced noises can 

result in adverse physiological and behavioral changes in wildlife communities; however, the severity of 

impacts is dependent upon the particular species. For example, some sound sources have been associated 

with increased stress levels (Slabbekoorn 2008), as well as suppression of the immune system in wildlife 

(Blickley 2012; Jankowski et al. 2010). Additionally, increases in ambient noise levels may interrupt 

important communication networks for survival and reproduction between insects, birds, and mammals 

(Barber, Crooks, and Fristrup 2010; Berber at al. 2011). Specifically, wildlife communications may 

signify mating calls, danger from predators, and territorial claims (NPS 2009h). An increase in ambient 

noise levels from the presence of intrusive noise sources may also reduce the listening area over which 

predators can hear their prey, as well as reduce the distance at which prey can begin to hear their 

predators (California State Lands Commission 2005). 

NOISE LEVELS AT CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE

Vehicular noise and the recreational uses associated with vehicles are a component of the soundscape at 

the Seashore. Some potential sources of noise related to ORV use include engine noise, truck noise, and 

the possibility of loud noise from music/stationary generators which can create a longer duration of noise 

than other sources. Other sources of noise at the Seashore which contribute to soundscapes include 

military overflights, personal watercraft and Marine Corps search and rescue helicopters and jets. Table 

33 illustrates common sounds at Cape Lookout National Seashore and their associated sound levels. 

TABLE 33: SOUND LEVELS AT CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE

Decibels Sound Levels at Various Locations in Cape Lookout National Seashore 

130–140 Gun blasts from permitted hunting on designated islands 

100 Planes flying overhead near the west end of the Seashore; boat congestion in Barden Inlet on 

Memorial weekend 

90 Standing near a passing ORV on the oceanside of South Core Banks 

80 Standing on the beach on a windy day; touring Cape Lookout lighthouse on a busy day 

70 Walking along the oceanside of the point of Cape Lookout 

60 Sitting on Whale Creek on Shackleford Banks during a weekday 

50 Walking along the soundside of the islands at the Seashore 

40 Viewing a soundside marsh 

30 In a tent on the soundside of North Core Banks after sundown 

Source: NPS 2004e. 

Note: Decibel levels vary at different distances from the sound source. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 235

Noise levels vary throughout the Seashore, with most noise concentrated on the west end of Shackleford 

Banks. Noise levels at this location are affected by visitors coming to the island from the nearby 

population centers of Beaufort, Atlantic Beach, and Morehead City, North Carolina. Human-made noise 

sources at the Beaufort Inlet area include powerboats, personal watercraft, commercial vessels, 

background noise from the town of Beaufort, and small aircraft and military aircraft. A 2012 report on the 

effects of military overflights on American oystercatchers (Simmons and Borneman 2012), concluded 

that at their peak sound level, military overflights contributed to a 72.5 dBA sound level, which is 

comparable to walking along the oceanside of the point of Cape Lookout (table 33). Thus, the report 

concluded that there is no noteworthy evidence that military overflights affect the behavioral responses of 

American oystercatchers, including low-altitude flyovers (Simmons and Borneman 2012). 

Cape Lookout, another popular visitor area, is accessed via Barden Inlet, which provides the majority of 

boat access. Noise associated with visitor activities in this area is most notable during weekends. Humanmade noise subsides farther north of Cape Lookout and is quietest along North Core Banks, which is the 

Seashore’s farthest point from the mainland. 

The Core Sound mainland also exhibits comparably lower noise levels, although Highway 70 parallels the 

coastline and contributes to noise. The Great Island Ferry Landing and the Cape Lookout Lighthouse 

passenger ferry landing, both located on South Core Banks, provide several visitor services, and both sites 

likely exhibit the highest noise levels along the eastern area of Core Sound. The Long Point vehicle ferry 

landing likely exhibits the highest noise levels on North Core Banks. 

Because of the nature of the Seashore environment, the constant, dynamic sounds of wind and surf create 

a high level of ambient noise. This effect is especially prevalent on the oceanside of all the Seashore’s 

islands. Since few motorboats anchor on the oceanside due to difficulty of anchoring in rough surf, the 

predominant sound along the oceanside of Shackleford Banks is that of the surf. The Cape Lookout 

National Seashore: Superintendent’s Compendium (NPS 2013d) limits operation of vehicles on the Core 

Banks to designated routes along the oceanside beach below the primary dune line, marked routes within 

cabin camp areas (including vehicle ferry camps), marked crossover routes (“ramps”) between the ocean 

beach and the interior back routes, the designated long-term vehicle parking areas, the temporary village 

bypass open and authorized when the point of Cape Lookout is closed to vehicle traffic, and both South 

and North Core Banks include a designated vehicle route (back route) that approximately parallels the 

center of the island and is connected to several other designated routes. Since ORV use is allowed along 

the oceanside of South and North Core Banks, ORVs contribute to existing noise levels in this area. 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

As seen in figure 19, visitation at Cape Lookout National Seashore has grown over the years, increasing 

from roughly 21,000 visitors in 1976 to roughly 860,000 visitors in 2007 (NPS 2013c). As can be seen in 

figure 18, visitation has shown a relatively steady increase, with occasional dips, particularly in the mid 

1990s. There was a significant decline in visitation in 2008, with approximately 487,000 visitors visiting 

the Seashore, which was due to a busy parking lot at Harkers Island being closed to visitor use for 5 

months. Figure 20 illustrates visitor use reports for 2012 which indicate that through December 

approximately 480,000 visitors had journeyed to the Seashore. Based on 2012 data, the summer (June 

through August) and fall (September through November) seasons experience the highest visitor numbers, 

with each season accounting for approximately 35 percent of annual visitation (70 percent combined 

visitation for summer and fall) (NPS 2013c). Another 22 percent of annual visitation occurs during the 

spring (March through May), and the remaining 8 percent in the winter (December through February) 

(NPS 2013c). Though overall visitation is relatively high in the summer, ORV use in the summer is 

relatively low compared to the fall. Non-ORV visitor use in the summer months is generally concentrated 

in the lighthouse area at the southern end of South Core Banks. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

236 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Source: NPS 2013c. 

FIGURE 19: VISITATION BY YEAR, 1976–2012 

Source: NPS 2013c. 

FIGURE 20: VISITATION BY MONTH FOR THE YEAR 2012 

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

Number of Visitors

Year

Cape Lookout Annual Visitation 1976Ͳ2012

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Number of Visitors

Month

Monthly Visitation (2012)
Visitor Use and Experience 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 237

Off-Road Vehicle Driving at Cape Lookout National Seashore 

ORVs are currently used to provide vehicular access onto Cape Lookout National Seashore beaches for 

recreational purposes, including surf-fishing, camping, surfboarding, sunbathing, swimming, birdwatching, scenic driving, etc. ORV use at the Seashore is seasonal. Vehicle ferries generally have ceased 

operation from mid-December through mid-March. Island vehicle parking/storage lots close from 

January 1 through mid-March when ferry services resume. The heaviest ORV use is concentrated during 

September, October, and November. Highway vehicles are brought to the islands via vehicle ferries 

whereas ATVs may be brought via ferries or by private boat. Some private boats (very few) carry ATVs 

that boaters use on the islands once the boat is moored. Probably the primary use of ORVs at the Seashore 

is for transport to desired fishing and camping locations along the long stretches of beaches. Fishermen 

use ORVs to find ever changing fishing “holes,” to pursue migrating schools of fish, and to reach more 

productive areas such as the point of Cape Lookout or the inlets. Since these areas, as well as the entire 

beach, are habitat for the protected shorebird and sea turtle species that are the subject of this plan/EIS, 

there is a potential for conflict between necessary closures and ORV use. Because productive fishing 

areas may change daily with the tides, the impact of closures may be greater than simply the number of 

fishermen or area affected; if the fishermen cannot get to what they perceive as the right spot, they may be 

unsuccessful.

Off-Road Vehicle Use Data 

Table 34 provides numbers of ORVs transported to the islands by the ferry services at Long Point and 

Great Island from 2000 to 2009. At Long Point, the number of ORVs transported to the island annually 

has ranged from a low of 997 (during 2003, when Hurricane Isabel hit) to 2,664 with an average 2,073 

vehicles for all 10 years. At Great Island, annual ORVs transported to the island ranged from 1,480 in 

2003 to 3,363 in 2009, with an annual average of 2,697 vehicles. 

Table 34 also provides the total vehicle days for each location. This is an annual cumulative total of the 

vehicles on the island each day. This number is much larger than the number of vehicles that are 

transported to the islands because each vehicle that arrives may spend multiple days on the island. For 

example, 15 vehicle days may represent 1 ORV that is on the island for 15 days, or it may represent 15 

different ORVs on the island for 1 day each, or any other combination of vehicles and days. Numerous 

ORVs remain on the islands for more than one day and are either in use or parked in a long-term parking 

lot. Some visitors transport their vehicles to the islands and park them for the entire season for a current 

fee of $15 per week from approximately mid-March through mid-December when vehicle ferries are in 

operation. Approximately 2 to 3 times more annual vehicle days occur at South Core Banks than at North 

Core Banks. 

The NPS uses vehicle days to estimate the number of vehicles on South Core and North Core Banks 

daily. The number of vehicles that arrive each day on the ferry at Great Island and Long Point is added to 

the vehicles that are currently on each island. Likewise, the number of vehicles that depart each day is 

subtracted from the daily vehicle total. For example, if 8 ORVs arrive on Great Island via the ferry in 

early-March, 8 is added to the 0 that are currently on the island resulting in 8 vehicle days. The next day 

when 19 ORVs arrive, 19 is added to the previous 8 resulting in 27 total vehicle days. The following day 

when 10 vehicles arrive and 4 depart, 33 total vehicle days result (10 – 4 = 6 net vehicles). At the end of 

each month and for the year, a cumulative number of vehicle days is available by adding and subtracting 

the daily arrival and departure of vehicles. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

238 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

TABLE 34: LONG POINT AND GREAT ISLAND VEHICLE/PASSENGER FERRIES AND VEHICLE DAYS, 2000–2012 

Year 

Long 

Point

Vehiclesa

Total 

Vehicle 

Daysb Comments 

Great

Island

Vehiclesa

Total 

Vehicle 

Daysb Comments 

2000 2,174 9,207 2,722 38,007 Missing May, June, and July 

data 

2001 2,000 18,003 2,883 41,384 

2002 1,992 15,308 Missing June data 2,622 28,539 Possible late start date 

March or April 

2003 997 6,392 Isabel closure 

September 15 through 

October 30; missing data 

from November after 

Hurricane Isabel 

1,480 23,325 Isabel closure September 15 

through October 30; missing 

data from November after 

Hurricane Isabel 

2004 1,794 5,648 Missing July data; end 

date may be in error 

2,566 36,472 Missing June and July data 

2005 2,557 17,283 2,753 38,207 

2006 2,460 13,088 Estimates were used for 

June, July, August, 

September, and October 

data 

2,895 46,480 

2007 2,664 21,004 Relied on estimates for 

most of this data 

3,045 52,952 Relied on estimates for most 

of this data 

2008 1,749 31,343 Relied on estimates for 

June and August data 

2,638 37,923 Relied on estimates for 

November data 

2009 2,340 11,888 3,363 33,633 Relied on estimates for 

November data 

2010 2,317 13,820 3,784 33,782 

2011 826 Data 

unavailable 

Hurricane Irene – the 

Seashore was closed for 

2.5 months 

3,186 Data 

unavailable

Hurricane Irene – the 

Seashore was closed for 2.5 

months 

2012 1,358 Data 

unavailable 

 2,799 Data 

unavailable

Average 1,944 11,642 Total vehicle days data is 

unavailable for 2011 and 

2012, which skews this 

average 

2,826 29,336 Total vehicle days data is 

unavailable for 2011 and 

2012, which skews this 

average 

Sources: NPS 2006a, pers. comm. 2010i, pers. comm. 2013g. 

a

 The total number of vehicles that arrived by ferry during the year at Long Point and Great Island. 

b

 The number of vehicles operating (not stationary, in lots) on the island each day totaled for the 10-month visitor 

use season. The Seashore is closed in January and February; there is no ferry access to the islands from midDecember through mid-March. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 239

Based on this data, approximately 14,960 vehicle days occurred annually on North Core Banks, and 

approximately 34,786 vehicle days occurred annually on South Core Banks between 2000 and 2011. 

Vehicle days are generally much higher during the fall fishing season on South Core Banks at Great 

Island. Vehicle days on North Core Banks at Long Point during the fall are also higher than in summer 

months, but not as high as on South Core Banks (NPS 2013g). 

NPS staff compiled data on active ORV use (ORVs operating at the Seashore, as opposed to ORVs 

parked in the parking lots) for North Core and South Core Banks, to better understand seasonal ORV use 

trends at the Seashore. NPS staff compiled vehicle data from ferries (both concessioner ferries and NPS 

ferries), and visual counts by law enforcement and resource management staff. After compiling these data 

sets for the years 2008–2011, the NPS was able to illustrate active ORV use trends at the Seashore. As 

figure 21 illustrates, the average number of active ORVs at the Seashore is highest in the fall season. 

An ORV tour is available at Ocracoke Inlet and a shuttle service is available at the lighthouse complex on 

South Core Banks (both operated by a NPS permitted vendors). The tour travels via ATV and utility-type 

vehicle (UTV) from Ocracoke Inlet south to approximately mile marker 5. The shuttle service transports 

visitors on South Core Banks, typically passengers are taken to and from the point of Cape Lookout and 

the historic village. The tour and the shuttle service must adhere to the same rules as recreational ORV 

users. 

Off-Road Vehicle Use Areas 

ORVs can be used only on the oceanside beach (below the primary dune line) and on designated marked 

routes, including the interior back route, crossover ramps, vehicle parking/storage areas, cabin camp 

areas, and marked sound access routes, on both North Core Banks and South Core Banks. Public vehicle 

use is not permitted on Shackleford Banks because it is a proposed wilderness area. The interior back 

route generally parallels the center of the islands and is connected to several other designated routes. 

ORVs access the beach through a system of ramps that connect the back route with the beach. Mile signs 

mark the beach in 1-mile increments along the ocean dune line, starting at Ocracoke Inlet, and the ramps 

are numbered as possible to coincide with these mile markers. Figure 22 depicts the approved public 

ORV routes on the islands, including the beach ramps. 

Off-Road Vehicle Closures 

ORVs are allowed to drive along the ocean shoreline throughout Cape Lookout National Seashore, except 

in areas that are closed permanently, temporarily, or seasonally for safety reasons or to protect sea turtles 

and shorebirds such as piping plovers, American oystercatchers, and colonial waterbirds during critical 

nesting and breeding periods. Closures to protect bird nesting areas, or full recreation closures, are 

marked with posts and signs and prohibit any unauthorized vehicles, pedestrians, or pets. When sections 

of beach are closed to ORVs only because of turtle nesting, referred to as ORV closures, unauthorized 

vehicle entry is prohibited. Areas that are permanently closed within the Seashore because of sensitive 

bird habitat include Portsmouth Flats on North Core Banks and Power Squadron Spit on South Core 

Banks. The interior of the point of Cape Lookout is closed due to bird nesting activities. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

240 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Source: NPS 2014. 

FIGURE 21: AVERAGE ACTIVE VEHICLES ON NORTH CORE AND SOUTH CORE BANKS (2008–2011) 
Visitor Use and Experience 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 241

FIGURE 22: ORV ROUTE MAP
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

242 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

The areas subject to closures that have the most potential for conflict with ORV users are areas near the 

inlets, and the area around the point of Cape Lookout. These are prime fishing areas and popular spots for 

boat access and hikers, photographers, etc., but also provide important or critical habitat for nesting 

plovers and other protected species. Recent closures are described below. 

American Oystercatchers—American oystercatcher nests are not concentrated in small areas like 

colonial waterbird nests but are scattered along the entire 56-mile length of ocean beach within the 

Seashore. Beginning in 2005, the beach between the ocean water line and the dune line was closed to 

ORVs in the vicinity of successfully hatched American oystercatcher nests throughout the Seashore. 

ORVs operating near these nests were routed to the back route via designated ramps. In areas without a 

back route system, ORV traffic was allowed on the beach at 15 mph and signs were posted warning 

operators about flightless chicks in the area. These areas were reopened to ORV traffic after the chicks 

fledged (i.e., the chicks were capable of sustained fight) or were lost (NPS 2005c). 

Piping Plover—Nesting areas are closed to entry by pedestrians, ORVs, and pets, using the Seashore’s 

standard “Bird Sanctuary” signs mounted on wood posts. ORV traffic and pedestrians are allowed outside 

the buffer along the shoreline on the ocean beach, as long as at least a 50-meter or 150-foot buffer from 

active nests is maintained. If a piping plover chick is found using the ocean beach, that area will 

immediately be closed to ORVs. “No vehicle” signs and educational signs explaining the purpose of the 

closure will be posted in the area. The closure remains in effect until the chicks move to a different 

location or are fledged. 

Following the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan / 

Environmental Assessment (NPS 2006a), the ocean beach from ramp 24 north to Ophelia Inlet (1 mile in 

length) has been closed to vehicles (except for NPS monitors) when the first plover nest hatches until the 

last chick fledges. A second ocean beach closure to all vehicles was established on the west side of the 

point of Cape Lookout (0.45 mile in length) from May 28 through June 9 and from July 18 through 

August 11. The third ocean beach closure to vehicles was established from ramp 18 to Old Drum Inlet 

(0.6 mile in length) from July 1 through August 5. The closures began the day of expected hatch of the 

first nest in that area and remained in place until the last chick was confirmed lost or fledged. A seasonal 

vehicle closure for Middle Core Banks and Ophelia Island (approximately 3 miles in length) was in effect 

from April 1 through August 31 (NPS 2008c). 

Sea Turtles—Temporary closures to ORVs are implemented prior to hatching activities for all sea turtle 

species that are known to nest at the Seashore. Generally, ORVs can negotiate around these posted 

closures. However, when turtle eggs are ready to hatch, the NPS implements a beach closure from the 

nest to the water’s edge. If sufficient room exists, ORVs can go around the landward side of the fence. In 

some cases, the beach must be closed from the dune line to the ocean because the location of a nest 

relative to a dune or vegetation prevents ORV access through the area. 

Three nest relocation areas, up to 1 mile in length, are designated on each of North Core Banks and South 

Core Banks, for a total of six relocation areas. These are located in between mile markers 5 and 6; 11 and 

12; 16 and 17; 26 and 27; 35 and 36; and 42.5 and 43.5. These nest relocation areas are closed to ORV 

traffic beginning 50 days after the first nest is relocated to the area. The nest relocation area is reopened to 

ORV traffic after the last nest within it has hatched and has been excavated. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 243

Nests laid in locations likely exposed to repeated flooding were relocated to a higher elevation on the 

primary dune in one of the relocation areas. Relocated nests were moved into one of three designated 

turtle nest relocation areas on each island and vehicles were detoured to the back route around these areas 

when nests neared hatching. Smaller vehicle detours were established around nests that had not been 

relocated. Vehicle closures provide a rut-free corridor from the nest site to the ocean, preventing 

hatchlings from being run over or becoming entrapped in tire ruts and dying from predation or 

desiccation. Camping and campfires were not permitted in the closures to prevent disturbance of 

hatchlings by artificial lights (NPS 2008d). 

Other Recreational Opportunities at Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Recreational fishing is often accompanied by overnight camping stays. Many fishermen use four-wheeldrive vehicles or ATVs to increase accessibility to productive fishing beaches. Seasonal waterfowl 

hunting is permitted in conformity with state and federal laws and NPS policies. Limited hunting and 

fishing guided services are available to visitors. The state of North Carolina is in the process of 

developing a recreational trail between the Tennessee boundary and Jockey’s Ridge State Park, known as 

the Mountains to Sea Trail. A spur of the trail would pass through the Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

providing visitors with another recreational opportunity (NPS 2007f). 

Based on ranger patrol records and NPS staff observations, the most active recreation occurs on or in the 

waters surrounding Shackleford Banks and South Core Banks, with North Core Banks and Middle Core 

Banks receiving fewer visitors. However, those using ORVs to access fishing or camping areas tend to 

distribute themselves relatively evenly over the island beaches of the Core Banks, with no particular areas 

of high use (Ketel 2005). The majority of non-ORV visitors are day visitors, although many visitors take 

advantage of the on-island cabin accommodations at Great Island and Long Point, or camp along the 

beach for several days. Although general Seashore visitation is highest in the summer months, lodging 

data shows that use of the cabin facilities is actually higher in the fall months of October and/or 

November, during the peak fishing season. Backcountry camping experiences the highest numbers of 

overnight visits in the summer and the fall fishing months. Hurricanes can greatly affect visitor use 

patterns. Table 35 provides monthly recreational visitor use statistics for the entire Seashore, lodging, and 

backcountry camping for the year 2012, which is relatively representative of other recent years (NPS 

2013c). 

Seashore Facilities 

The major facilities at Cape Lookout National Seashore include the visitor center and Seashore 

headquarters (located across from the main portion of the Seashore on the east end of Harkers Island); the 

Cape Lookout Lighthouse and Keepers’ Quarters (on the south end of South Core Banks, near Cape 

Lookout Lighthouse); Portsmouth Village (a historic village at the very north end of the Seashore); Cape 

Village (at the very south end of the Seashore) and the Long Point and Great Island cabins. 

Much of the day-use visitation on Core Banks focuses around the lighthouse complex, which includes a 

seasonal visitor contact station and museum in the Keepers’ Quarters, picnic shelter, restrooms, a parking 

area, and the lighthouse itself. With the exception of the cabin camp areas, the remainder of the Seashore 

is undeveloped, with only a few scattered picnic areas and composting toilets. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

244 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

TABLE 35: MONTHLY RECREATIONAL VISITS, CONCESSIONER LODGING, AND BACKCOUNTRY CAMPING, 2012

Month Recreational Visits Cabin Lodging Backcountry Camping 

January 14,718 0 1

February 5,671 0 5

March 16,568 364 347 

April 46,927 2,442 1,101 

May 41,780 2,899 1,730 

June 50,492 3,437 1,286 

July 50,492 2,962 881 

August 54,461 2,116 939 

September 72,589 251 813 

October 72,785 0 1,279 

November 24,768 516 1,324 

December 17,079 0 97 

TOTAL 468,330 14,987 9,803 

Source: NPS 2013c. 

Cabins

The Seashore-run cabins at Long Point and Great Island are the only accommodations on the islands; 

there are no developed campgrounds. Guests at the cabins generally bring their vehicles for island access. 

The Long Point cabins are on the southern end of North Core Banks, near the Long Point ferry landing. 

They consist of 6 duplexes containing 12 units, built in 1995 by the NPS, plus 4 duplex octagonal 

buildings constructed in the mid-1980s. Additional facilities constructed over the years include comfort 

stations, picnic shelters, a public shower/restroom facility, a dump station, and a gas pump. One parking 

area that accommodates approximately 60 vehicles is located adjacent to the cabin area. Fishermen often 

leave their vehicles or campers on the island from April through December. 

The Great Island cabins are located on the northern third of South Core Banks adjacent to the Great Island 

ferry landing. The camp consists of 25 cabins most of which have been rebuilt after Hurricane Isabel in 

2003. Similar to Long Point, the cabin area includes a picnic shelter, a public restroom/shower facility, a 

dump station, and a gas pump. One parking area accommodating approximately 100 vehicles is located 

adjacent to the cabin area and is sometimes full, particularly in the fall. 

Summer occupancy of cabins rose nearly 25 percent from 1998 to 2001 at the Long Point location, while 

the numbers at Great Island were more constant during that period (NPS 2001d). The increase in 

occupancy at Long Point may be attributed to the upgraded facilities, which may appeal to a wider variety 

of Seashore visitors. Table 36 summarizes the numbers of visitors staying at both cabin locations between 

1995 and 2012. Overall, cabin occupancy has been relatively steady over this period, generally in the 

range of 20,000 to 25,000 visitor use days per year. The lower figure for 2003 is due to the effects of 

Hurricane Isabel; the cabins were closed from the mid-September through mid-November of that year 

(NPS 2006b, Winstead 2009). 
Visitor Use and Experience 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 245

TABLE 36: LODGING, 1995–2012 

Year Overnight Lodging Visits 

1995 16,579 

1996 21,983 

1997 24,395 

1998 25,994 

1999 22,586 

2000 26,108 

2001 15,502 

2002 24,671 

2003 12,015 

2004 20,819 

2005 20,725 

2006 26,047 

2007 26,506 

2008 29,290 

2009 27,972 

2010 17,922 

2011 14,821 

2012 14,987 

Source: NPS 2013c. 

Island Access (Boats and Ferry Service) 

Private Boats—Many visitors use private motorboats to reach the Seashore. There are no public boat 

launches or boat slips within the Seashore; however, several public launches on the mainland provide 

access to the islands. The soundside sandy beaches and inlet areas, provide the predominant access for 

private boat owners, who anchor their boats offshore. Cape Lookout National Seashore patrol logs 

maintained in 2000 and 2001 show that 6,140 to 6,880 boats were observed accessing the islands on the 

soundside and up to 523 boats were counted in one day (NPS 2004e). 

Access is also possible using nonmotorized boats such as kayaks, sailboats, and canoes. Not all of these 

trips result in island access; many visitors remain in the shallow waters surrounding the islands, taking 

advantage of various paddling opportunities. 

Passenger Ferries—Passenger ferries operated by permittees have been the predominant method of 

island access for visitors without vehicles or private boats. Authorized ferry services have been provided 

from Ocracoke to Portsmouth Village; and from Harkers Island and Beaufort to the Cape Lookout 

Lighthouse area and Shackleford Banks. Passengers debark on the beaches or at the public docks, and are 

then picked up at a later, pre-arranged time. Some ferry operators allow the transport of pets. In 2014, 

passenger ferries for the southern portion of the park will be operated under a concession contract. 

Concession ferries with depart from Harkers Island and Beaufort and transport visitors to the Lighthouse 

area and Shackleford Banks. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

246 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

One of the most popular passenger ferry routes is to the lighthouse complex at the Seashore. Statistics 

maintained on annual ferry arrivals at the lighthouse area between 1999 and 2004 are shown in table 37. 

TABLE 37: LIGHTHOUSE AREA PASSENGER FERRY ARRIVALS (1999–2012) 

Year Number of Arriving Passengers 

1999 26,416 

2000 39,095 

2001 44,718 

2002 45,058 

2003 43,551 

2004 40,476 

2005 24,673 

2006 29,411 

2007 38,288 

2008 33,681 

2009 32,956 

2010 26,768 

2011 21,381 

2012 32,239 

Vehicle/Passenger Ferries—Vehicle/passenger ferries travel from the mainland to the Great Island ferry 

landing on South Core Banks and the Long Point ferry landing on North Core Banks. Most of the ferry 

passengers are overnight visitors who occupy cabins, camp in their own recreational vehicle (RV), or 

camp in tents. 

Fishing

Spring and fall at the Seashore offer what many consider to be some of the best fishing on the Atlantic 

coast. There are no fishing piers or boat slips, but surf-fishing along the beaches is extremely popular. 

Hundreds of fishing enthusiasts return each year, and fishing tournaments are held in the spring and fall, 

drawing 50 to 250 participants at one time (Ketel 2005). 

Fishermen are one of the predominant users of ORVs on the islands, especially during the fall months. 

They rely on ORVs to access their favorite fishing spots, locate ever changing fishing “holes,” and follow 

migrating fish along the length of the Core Banks in their own vehicles, camping overnight in their 

vehicles and tents or staying in cabins at Great Island and Long Point. Areas near the inlets and the point 

of Cape Lookout are popular fishing spots, but are also areas of high concentrations of protected 

shorebirds.

Others fish from boats moored along the soundside of the Seashore, and areas near the inlets are known to 

be popular fishing spots. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 247

Camping

Backcountry camping is also popular at the Seashore. There are no designated campgrounds in the 

Seashore; however, camping is allowed anywhere on Shackleford Banks and Core Banks, with the 

following exceptions: 

x Within 100 yards of a well, shade shelter, bulletin board, dock, or other structure 

x Within 100 yards of any cabin, house, or the lighthouse 

x In concession cabin areas 

x Portsmouth Village Historic District 

x Cape Lookout Light Station Complex 

x Cape Lookout Village 

x Areas of private rights (leases and life estates) 

x Harkers Island Administrative Site 

x Turtle and bird closure areas 

x Designated long-term parking areas 

x Directly on top of dunes, so as to disturb vegetation 

x Trailers must camp only seaward of the primary dune line or in an area marked with camping 

signs

Camping is limited to 14 consecutive days. Camping visitation is generally concentrated at the west end 

of Shackleford Banks, but is dispersed along the Core Banks. 

Table 38 summarizes the number of backcountry campers (overnight visits) by year from 1995 through 

2011. Over this 17-year period, annual backcountry camping has ranged from a low of 6,386 in 1996 to a 

high of 13,200 in 2004, with effects from Hurricane Isabel apparent in 2003. Since 1995, the Seashore has 

had an annual average of 9,592 overnight backcountry stays. 

Campers must also be responsible for carrying out all trash, as Cape Lookout National Seashore is a trashfree Seashore and does not provide trash cans or garbage pickup on the islands. On the North Core Banks 

and South Core Banks, most camping is vehicle based, although boat-based camping does occur on 

beaches near the spits, near the lighthouse, and particularly on the west end of Shackleford Banks. Most 

campers transport ORVs or vehicle campers to the island via the ferry services and stay on the islands for 

periods ranging from a few days to two weeks. Campers that stay next to or hike near bird closure areas 

can be an issue because of the noise and physical presence of humans and dogs near those areas. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

248 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

TABLE 38: BACKCOUNTRY CAMPERS, 1995–2012 

Year Number of Backcountry Campers 

1995 8,395 

1996 6,386 

1997 6,753 

1998 7,598 

1999 8,989 

2000 8,988 

2001 11,190 

2002 9,007 

2003 6,799 

2004 13,200 

2005 8,906 

2006 8,626 

2007 11,849 

2008 12,162 

2009 8,841 

2010 11,346 

2011 14,033 

2012 9,803 

Source: NPS 2013c. 

Night Skies 

The NPS defines a natural lightscape as “a place or environment characterized by the natural rhythm of 

the sun and moon cycles, clean air, and of dark nights unperturbed by artificial light. Natural lightscapes, 

including dark night skies, are not only a resource unto themselves, but are an integral component of 

countless park experiences” (NPS 2007d). The NPS created the Night Sky Team in 1999 to address 

increasing alarm over the loss of night sky quality throughout the network of national parks. The Night 

Sky Team functions as a center of expertise that provides advice, guidance, and technical support in 

characterizing and preserving park lightscapes (NPS 2007d). 

The NPS Night Sky Team has performed night sky measurements and examinations at the Seashore in 

2012, but at the time of this writing (winter 2014), their findings have not been published. However, in 

November 2007, the NPS Night Sky Team performed a preliminary night sky analysis for Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore. The results of that analysis concluded that the Seashore has better night sky quality as 

compared to most other national park system units east of the Mississippi River. Furthermore, 

measurements showed that light pollution sources beyond the Seashore boundary illustrated the need to 

be aware of the easily impacted night skies (NPS 2008d). Because Cape Hatteras National Seashore is 

closer to light sources (buildings and street lamps), it is generally expected that Cape Lookout National 

Seashore experiences better night sky conditions. 
Socioeconomic Resources 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 249

SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES 

The Seashore contributes to the local economy directly through local purchases of goods and services and 

indirectly by attracting visitors to the area and contributing to the overall quality of life in the region. The 

impact of management changes in the Seashore on the local community depends in part on the size and 

diversity of the economy in the area surrounding the Seashore. The social and economic environment of a 

region is characterized by its demographic composition, the structure and size of its economy, and the 

types and levels of public services available to its citizens. These characteristics influence the ability of 

the community to adapt to management changes in the Seashore that result in changes in spending by the 

Seashore or changes in visitation to the Seashore. This section describes the social and economic 

environment that potentially would be affected by the proposed alternatives. At the end of the section, 

information about businesses that directly serve visitors to the Seashore is presented. 

Carteret County forms the economic region of influence (ROI) and defines the geographic area in which 

the predominant social and economic impacts from the proposed alternatives are likely to take place. 

Eastern Carteret County includes Beaufort and the area east of it, including Harkers Island and all of Cape 

Lookout National Seashore. Western Carteret County includes Morehead City, Atlantic Beach, Emerald 

Isle, and other towns. 

DEMOGRAPHICS

The economic ROI is primarily rural in character, with only 67 percent of the population living in small 

urban areas in Carteret County. The total population of Carteret County was 66, 469 in 2010. Much of 

Carteret County’s permanent population resides near Morehead City, Atlantic Beach, and Beaufort (figure 

23). Table 39 provides population statistics for the state of North Carolina and Carteret County. Between 

2000 and 2010, Carteret County’s population grew 12 percent, from 59,383 to 66,469. Carteret County 

grew more slowly than the rest of North Carolina. The change in population in Carteret County is six 

points less than the percentage change in population of the state of North Carolina as a whole. According 

to population projections published by the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management’s 

State Demographics unit, the state and Carteret County populations will both continue to grow into the 

foreseeable future. By 2030, population in Carteret County is projected to increase to 85,906, a 45 percent 

increase relative to 2000 (Office of State Budget and Management North Carolina 2012, 1). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

250 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Data in figure 23 is from the U.S. Census Bureau, which counts people according to “usual residence” where the 

person lives most of the year. 

FIGURE 23: 2010 POPULATION DENSITY BY CENSUS TRACT

TABLE 39: POPULATION STATISTICS

Geographic 

Area 2000a 2010b 2020c 2030c Percent Change, 2000–2010 

Percent Change, 

2000–2030 

North Carolina 8,049,313 9,535,483 10,614,862 11,629,556 18% 44% 

Carteret County 59,383 66,469 76,317 85,906 12% 45% 

Sources: 

a

 U.S. Census Bureau 2000. 

b

 U.S. Census Bureau 2012c. 

c

 Office of State Budget and Management, North Carolina 2012. 

Demographic and economic trends during the last three decades have contributed to growing differences 

in the population characteristics and income levels in different parts of Carteret County. Table 40 reports 

figures on per capita income. Carteret County had a somewhat higher per capita income than the rest of 

North Carolina in 2011. However, the distribution of per capita income varies across the ROI. The highest 

per capita incomes in Western Carteret County occur along the strip of beaches including Emerald Isle, 
Socioeconomic Resources 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 251

Atlantic Beach, and Indian Beach while the lower income block groups are the furthest inland (figure 24). 

In 2011, the minority population of Carteret County was 13 percent of the population. This is less than in 

North Carolina and the U.S. as a whole, which had 37 percent and 35 percent minority populations 

respectively. Carteret County had 3 percent fewer people under the poverty level compared to the state 

average. Carteret County also has a lower percentage of the population without a high school diploma 

compared to the national and state averages. The distribution of poverty rates by block groups is shown in 

figure 25. The areas near Morehead City and the beaches in the western part of Carteret County have 

lower poverty rates than the areas closer to the Seashore. 

TABLE 40: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE STATISTICS, 2011

Geographic Area 

Per Capita 

Income

Percent of Population 

Minority 

Below the Poverty 

Level 

Without High School 

Diploma 

United States $27,915 37% 14% 15% 

North Carolina $25,256 35% 16% 16% 

Carteret County $27,707 13% 13% 13% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2012c. 

FIGURE 24: 1999 PER CAPITA INCOME BY CENSUS TRACT
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

252 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

FIGURE 25: PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION BELOW THE POVERTY LINE BY CENSUS TRACT

EMPLOYMENT

As noted above, the majority of the ROI is rural. Within the ROI, the employment centers around coastal 

activities, including tourism, fishing, and coastal research and management. As shown in table 41, 

Carteret County has a high percentage of employment in the public administration sector, primarily due to 

the location of North Carolina’s Division of Marine Fisheries as well as the Division of Coastal 

Management in Morehead City. The sectors of accommodation and food services; real estate, rental and 

leasing; arts, entertainment, and recreation; and the retail trade account for 37 percent of the total 

employment within the ROI. These sectors only account for 23 percent of employment in the state of 

North Carolina and in the U.S. as a whole. In addition to these employees, Carteret County had 5,909 

self-employed individuals in 2010. Table 42 shows the breakdown of industry for self-employed 

individuals. Compared to the rest of the state and the United States as a whole, a greater percent of selfemployed individuals in Carteret County are engaged in construction; real estate, rental and leasing; and 

agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting (of which, 93 percent are commercial fishermen). 
Socioeconomic Resources 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 253

TABLE 41: EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR, 2011

Industry 

Number of 

Employees 

Carteret County 

Percentage

Carteret 

County 

North

Carolina

United

States 

Public administration 5,304 15% 16% 14% 

Construction 2,662 8% 6% 5% 

Accommodation and food services 3,786 11% 7% 7% 

Agriculture; forestry; fishing and hunting 767 2% 2% 2% 

Real estate, rental and leasing 3,041 9% 4% 4% 

Arts; entertainment; and recreation 1,075 3% 2% 2% 

Retail trade 4,709 14% 10% 10% 

Administrative and support and waste 

management services 2,092 6% 7% 6% 

Mining 15 0% 0% 1% 

Other services (except public administration) 2,593 8% 5% 6% 

Management of companies and enterprises 25 0% 2% 1% 

Information 370 1% 2% 2% 

Utilities 120 0% 0% 0% 

Educational services 328 1% 2% 2% 

Wholesale trade 676 2% 4% 3% 

Health care and social assistance 2,445 7% 10% 11% 

Transportation and warehousing 393 1% 3% 3% 

Finance and insurance 1,213 4% 4% 5% 

Professional; scientific; and technical services 1,578 5% 6% 7% 

Manufacturing 1,192 3% 9% 7% 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2012. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

254 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

TABLE 42: SELF-EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY, 2010 

Industry 

Number of 

Nonemployers* 

Carteret County 

Percentage

Carteret 

County 

North

Carolina

United

States 

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 429 7% 1% 1% 

Construction 988 17% 13% 11% 

Real estate, rental and leasing 877 15% 11% 11% 

Accommodation and food services 81 1% 1% 1% 

Information 47 1% 1% 1% 

Utilities 7 0% 0% 0% 

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction 5 0% 0% 0% 

Manufacturing 82 1% 1% 1% 

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 211 4% 5% 5% 

Educational services 102 2% 3% 3% 

Administrative and Support and Waste 

Management and Remediation Services 

585 10% 10% 9% 

Retail trade 477 8% 8% 8% 

Wholesale trade 60 1% 2% 2% 

Transportation and warehousing 177 3% 4% 5% 

Finance and insurance 124 2% 3% 3% 

Other services (except public administration) 877 15% 17% 15% 

Health care and social assistance 236 4% 7% 9% 

Professional, scientific, and technical services 544 9% 12% 14% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2012d. 

*From http://www.census.gov/econ/nonemployer/intro.htm: “Nonemployers are typically self-employed individuals 

operating very small businesses, which may or may not be the owner’s principal source of income...Data are 

primarily comprised of sole proprietorship businesses filing IRS Form 1040, Schedule C, although some of the 

data is derived from filers of partnership and corporation tax returns that report no paid employees.” 

UNEMPLOYMENT

In 2011, an average of 9.4 percent of the civilian labor force in Carteret County was unemployed (3,082 

individuals) (table 43). The unemployment rate for Carteret County was lower than the unemployment 

rate in North Carolina as a whole (10.5 percent) in 2011. In September 2012, the unemployment rate 

(seasonally unadjusted) had fallen to 7.7 percent in Carteret County and 9.0 percent in North Carolina 

(BLS 2012). As figure 26 shows, Carteret County has fared better than the state following the recession of 

2008 in terms of unemployment and has been consistently lower than the state average since 2002. 
Socioeconomic Resources 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 255

TABLE 43: EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS, 2011 

North Carolina Carteret County 

Labor Force 4,653,911 32,734 

Employment 4,164,814 29,652 

Unemployment 489,097 3,082 

Unemployment Rate 10.5% 9.4% 

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012. 

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012. “Local Area Unemployment Statistics.” <http://www.bls.gov/lau>; 

(December 10, 2012). 

FIGURE 26: UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, 2002–2011 

TOURISM CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ECONOMY

The economy of the ROI is largely driven by the region’s tourist draw, mainly during the summer 

months. As estimated by the U.S. Travel Association, Carteret County ranked 14th out of 100 North 

Carolina counties in impact of tourism expenditures (U.S. Travel Association 2012). Table 44 shows 

estimated domestic travel expenditures for Carteret County compared with expenditures in North 

Carolina. Looking at table 45, 32 percent of homes in Carteret County are for seasonal, recreational, or 

occasional use, compared to 4 percent in North Carolina and the United States as a whole. The large 

percentage of vacation homes compared to the state and national averages is further evidence of the 

importance of tourism to the region’s economy. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Unemployment Rate

Carteret County

North Carolina
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

256 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

TABLE 44: ESTIMATED DOMESTIC TRAVEL EXPENDITURES ($2011 MILLIONS)

Geographic Area 1991 2000 2011 

2000 to 2011 

CAGR 

North Carolina $7,017.13 $12,068.94 $18,421.06 6.23% 

Carteret County $138.43 $210.09 $278.74 4.12% 

Source: North Carolina Department of Commerce 2012. 

TABLE 45: HOUSING UNIT STATISTICS, 2010 

United States North Carolina Carteret County 

Total 131,704,730 4,327,528 48,179 

Urban 104,019,731 2,787,646 35,096 

% of Total 79% 64% 73% 

Occupied 116,716,292 3,745,155 28,870 

Vacant 14,988,438 582,373 19,309 

For seasonal, recreational, or 

occasional use 4,649,298 191,508 15,402 

% of Total for seasonal, recreational, or 

occasional use 4% 4% 32% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2012e. 

QUALITY OF LIFE

Quality of life encompasses those attributes of resources (human-made or naturally occurring) of a region 

that contribute to the well-being of its residents. The relative importance of these attributes to a person’s 

well-being is subjective (e.g., some individuals consider outdoor recreational opportunities essential to 

their well-being, others require access to cultural institutions essential to their quality of life, and still 

others may hold public safety as their primary quality of life concern). Quality of life analyses typically 

address issues relating to potential impacts of the proposed action on the availability of public services 

and leisure activities that contribute to the quality of life of an affected ROI’s inhabitants. 

The natural environment, including beaches and wildlife, provide the primary basis for quality of life in 

Carteret County. As discussed above, beach-related tourism is an important component of the economy, 

whereas fishing and research represent another. Local residents also receive significant recreational 

benefits from the area’s natural assets. In addition to the Seashore, the ROI includes Fort Macon State 

Park, Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge, and part of Croatan National Forest. There are also public 

and private beaches, marinas, piers and other recreational outlets. Two categories of outdoor recreation 

pertinent to the assessment of alternative management plans, recreational fishing and bird-watching, are 

discussed further below using data from the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and WildlifeAssociated Recreation. 

North Carolina is the sixth most popular state for fishing, with an estimated 1,263,000 residents and 

nonresidents participating in 2006 (U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau 2008). Recreational fishing is a significant part of North 

Carolina’s economy, attracting spending from both local and out-of-state anglers. Approximately 519,000 

anglers in North Carolina engaged in saltwater fishing in 2006 (table 46). Expenditures from fishing trips 

totaled an estimated $692,977,000 in 2006, with $450,313,000 coming from saltwater anglers. Although 
Socioeconomic Resources 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 257

only 40 percent of anglers report participating in saltwater fishing, nearly 65 percent of all trip-related 

expenditures go toward this activity. 

TABLE 46: RECREATIONAL FISHING IN NORTH CAROLINA, BY RESIDENTS AND NONRESIDENTS

Resident Nonresident Total 

Total participants 868,000 395,000 1,263,000 

% Total participants 69% 31% 100% 

Number of saltwater anglers 253,000 266,000 519,000 

% Saltwater anglers 49% 51% 100% 

Total trip-related expenditures $395,296,000 $297,681,000 $692,977,000 

Average trip-related 

expenditures per participant 

$456 $753 $549 

Source: USFWS, and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau 2006. 

Nonresident angler expenditures are important to regional economic impacts, as they represent an 

addition to area wealth rather than a change in the mix of spending by residents. Nonresidents make up 

only 31 percent of all anglers in North Carolina but comprise 51 percent of saltwater anglers. 

Nonresidents, who often must pay greater lodging and transportation fees, spend an average of 65 percent 

more than residents for trip-related expenditures over all types of fishing. 

Separate expenditure data for residents and nonresidents on saltwater fishing was not available. However, 

trip-related expenditures (including food, lodging, transportation, ice, bait, guide and usage fees, rental 

equipment, and other items, but excluding the cost of purchased equipment) are much higher for saltwater 

anglers than for all anglers combined, averaging $754 per person for both residents and nonresidents, 

compared to $549 per person for all fishing. Saltwater fishermen spend more per angler on food and 

lodging, transportation, and other trip costs. 

Carteret County sold 18 percent of coastal recreational fishing licenses sold within the eight coastal 

counties in North Carolina and 9 percent of all coastal recreational fishing licenses sold in 2011. Carteret 

County ranks third behind Dare and Wake Counties among all North Carolina counties in coastal 

recreational fishing license sales (table 47). 

Among all states, North Carolina ranks nineteenth for number of wildlife watchers, with 2,641,000 

participants in 2006. Wildlife watching is classified as activities for which wildlife watching is the 

primary purpose, and does not include trips to zoos or museums or accidental observation of wildlife. 

Wildlife watchers may be feeding, photographing, or observing wildlife. Approximately 15 percent of 

wildlife watchers in North Carolina were nonresidents in 2006. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

258 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

TABLE 47: NUMBER OF COASTAL RECREATIONAL FISHING LICENSES SOLD BY NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF 

SALE (LOCATION WHERE LICENSE SALES AGENT RESIDES), EXCLUDING BLANKET COASTAL RECREATIONAL 

FISHING LICENSES, 2010 AND 2011 

County 2010 2011 

Dare 87,850 76,943 

Hyde 5,479 5,193 

Brunswick 36,074 34,975 

Carteret 41,210 38,706 

Currituck 2,516 2,105 

New Hanover 31,256 29,566 

Onslow 17,228 16,377 

Pender 16,361 15,462 

Total 453,519 439,260 

Source: NCWRC 2011. 

Away-from-home wildlife watching is defined as wildlife observation occurring at least 1 mile away from 

home. Table 48 presents information about away-from-home wildlife watching in North Carolina. Among 

away-from-home wildlife watchers in North Carolina, approximately 56 percent are nonresidents. Awayfrom-home bird-watchers made up 620,000 or 90 percent of all away-from-home wildlife watchers. Of 

these, 50 percent reported watching “other water birds.” This category includes shorebirds, cranes, 

herons, and all other water birds not classified as waterfowl and serves as the best representation of birds 

on Cape Lookout. Among wildlife watchers observing “other water birds,” nonresidents made up 69 

percent of participants. Thus, nonresidents are more likely to participate in wildlife watching for birds 

other wildlife watching. 

TABLE 48: AWAY-FROM-HOME WILDLIFE WATCHING IN NORTH CAROLINA, BY RESIDENTS AND NONRESIDENTS

Resident Nonresident Total 

Total away-from- home participants 300,000 386,000 686,000 

Percent of total participants 44% 56% 100% 

Total away-from-home birders 284,000 336,000 620,000 

Total birders 46% 54% 100% 

Away-from-home “other water bird” 

observers 

95,000 215,000 310,000 

Percent of “other water bird” observers 31% 69% 100% 

Total trip-related expenditures $84,245,000 $162,662,000 $246,906,000 

Average trip-related expenditure per 

participant 

$281 $421 $360 

Source: USFWS, U.S. Department of Commerce, and U.S. Census Bureau 2006. 

Wildlife watchers in North Carolina spent a total of $246,906,000 in trip-related costs in 2006. This 

number includes food, lodging, transportation, rented equipment, and guide or permit fees, but not 

expenditures on purchased equipment. Away-from-home resident wildlife watchers spent an average of 
Socioeconomic Resources 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 259

$281 per person per trip, whereas nonresident participants spent $421. Although separate expenditure data 

for other water bird-watchers was not available, other water birds such as shorebirds are more likely to 

attract out-of-state wildlife watchers, who then spend on average 50 percent more than resident wildlife 

watchers. 

PRESERVATION AND NONUSE VALUES

Preservation or nonuse impacts represent a category of values held by people independent of their use of 

the resources that also includes existence value and bequest value. The main assumption underlying the 

concept of nonuse values is that individuals’ welfare can be enhanced simply by the knowledge that 

specific ecosystems are being protected or improved. As the name implies, individuals receive these types 

of services without any specific use of or interaction with the ecosystems. For example, nonuse values 

from preserving a natural area may come from the knowledge that future generations are more likely to 

experience and enjoy the area (i.e., “bequest values”). Evidence of nonuse values comes from donations 

to national and international organizations that protect habitat, species and the environment worldwide by 

individuals who will never visit or use the environmental goods and services they are paying to help 

protect. Economic theory recognizes that individuals can hold value for the Seashore and the ecosystems 

contained within its boundaries because they want future generations to enjoy the area, because they value 

the protected species supported by the area, or because they feel the natural communities contained within 

the National Seashore have intrinsic value separate from the value they provide to visitors. 

Measuring values for these “nonuse” services is more difficult and involves more uncertainty than 

measuring values for recreational and aesthetic services. Nevertheless, a variety of studies demonstrate 

that nonuse values exist and may be quite large depending on the resource in question. Loomis and White 

(1996) synthesized key results from 20 threatened and endangered species valuation studies using metaanalysis methods. They were able to identify variables that explain the observed variation in estimated 

willingness-to-pay values for threatened and endangered species and examine how per-household benefit 

estimates compare with cost estimates for protection. In their meta-analysis, Loomis and White reviewed 

20 contingent value studies coming from both the published and gray literature. They found that annual 

willingness-to-pay estimates range from a low of $8 for the Striped Shiner fish to a high of $124 for the 

Northern Spotted Owl. Although the study does not include species found at the Seashore, it demonstrates 

that the public may hold nonuse values for the species protected within the Seashore. 

BUSINESSES SERVING VISITORS TO THE SEASHORE

Visitors to the Seashore are served by a variety of local businesses including those that provide lodging, 

food, transportation, gas, recreation services and equipment, and other goods such as souvenirs. 

According to the Chamber of Commerce of Carteret County online business directory, there are 15 hotels 

and motels in the county, as well as 68 restaurants (Carteret County Chamber of Commerce 2012). Most 

of these businesses are located in more populated areas of Beaufort and Morehead City. The majority of 

the ORV users are ferried to the Seashore using ferry services provided in the towns of Davis and 

Atlantic. In Davis there are a few businesses including a gas station, provisions shop, hair salon, and a 

fishing net and twine company, in addition to the two ferry operators. Further north in Atlantic there is a 

landing field operated by the Marine Corps, three restaurants, a gas station, grocery store, and an RV 

park, in addition to the services provided at the Morris Marina ferry operation. 

The ferry businesses that transport visitors and their vehicles over to the islands may be most directly 

affected by any change in ORV management. A total of five ferry operators transport visitors and their 

vehicles to the Seashore from locations on Harkers Island and Ocracoke Island, including the towns of 

Beaufort, Davis, and Atlantic. Table 49 lists the ferry operators along with their departures, destinations, 

and the types of ferries they operate (NPS 2012l). Based on the information collected in 2011 for a new 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

260 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

transportation management plan (NPS 2012l), the operators have been in business for between 3 years 

and 50 years. Vehicle ferries serve only locations on the Seashore, whereas some of the passenger ferries 

go to other islands or offer tours. Vehicle ferry operators reported that business was highest during the fall 

fishing season, particularly in October, whereas passenger ferries are busier in the summer. Table 50 

provides information about the fares for passengers and vehicles. 

TABLE 49: NATIONAL PARK SERVICE-AUTHORIZED FERRY SERVICE PROVIDERS

Departure 

Locations Operator Destination Locations Ferry Type 

Ocracoke Austin Boat Tours North Core Banks, Portsmouth 

Village 

Passenger 

Atlantic Morris Marina Ferry Service North Core Banks, Long Point Vehicle/passenger 

Davis Davis Shore Ferry Service 

Cape Lookout Cabins & 

Camps Ferry Service 

South Core Banks, Great Island Vehicle/passenger 

Harkers Island Island Express Ferry Service South Core Banks, Cape Lookout 

Lighthouse and Shackleford 

Banks

Passenger 

Beaufort Island Express Ferry Service Cape Lookout Lighthouse and 

Shackleford Banks 

Shackleford Banks 

Passenger 

Source: NPS 2012m. 

TABLE 50: AMOUNTS CHARGED FOR FERRY SERVICES

Passenger Fares Amount Charged, Peak Season 

Passengers $15 to $20 (median $17.50) 

Children Free to $10, averaging 50% of standard fare 

Age for children <1 year old to <12 years old 

Group fare (10 to 16 people required for group rate) $8 to $14 

Vehicle Fares Amount Charged 

Standard Vehicle $75 to $80 

Larger vehicle $90 to $100 

Vehicle with trailer $130 to $150 

ATV (4 wheel, with or without small trailer) $35 to $75 

Kayak/canoe $35 

Additional Charges Amount Charged 

Additional fees for bulky items 

(camping or fishing gear) $5 to $10 

Source: NPS 2011j.
Seashore Management and Operations 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 261

SEASHORE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS 

Seashore management and operations activities related to ORV management fall within the various 

operational divisions of the Seashore that include Protection, Resource Management, Administration, 

Facility Management, and Interpretation. The baseline for park operations and management is discussed 

in terms of existing conditions under the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species 

Management Plan / Environmental Assessment.

VISITOR AND RESOURCE PROTECTION

Visitor and resource protection staff at the Seashore are responsible for assuring compliance with all 

closures erected by the resources management staff, and monitoring; ORV use, pets, visitor use, camping, 

hunting, and all other visitor activities occurring on the Seashore. Protection staff provide for safety 

through enforcement of the laws, emergency medical services, search and rescue operations, and fire 

protection. Visitor and resource protection efforts at the Seashore focused on ORV management require 

approximately $259,600 in personnel costs (NPS pers. comm. 2013i). Current funding levels limits 

staffing primarily to temporary employees that can only work 6 months of the total 9-month ORV season. 

Reliance on temporary employees fails to cover the full ORV season, increases training costs and 

equipment costs, and is generally less efficient. 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Resource management staff at the Seashore are responsible for all monitoring and surveying of species at 

the Seashore, as well as establishing and changing the required resource closures once state- or federally 

listed species are found at the Seashore. Resource management staff is responsible for training and 

monitoring equipment, preparation of all required annual species reports, compiling and sending out 

weekly access and resource updates, and coordination of regulatory and scientific activities with other 

entities such as the USFWS and NCWRC. This staff includes supervisory roles as well as full- and parttime field staff to implement species management measures. Support and material costs for these NPS 

staff members include vehicles and vehicle rentals (such as ATVs and UTVs), watercraft vessels, fuel, 

training, field supplies (such as signs, string, flagging, and rope), monitoring supplies, and travel. 

Resource management efforts related to ORV use at the Seashore require approximately $191,700 in 

personnel costs, and $10,000 in support costs (total cost approximately $201,700) (NPS pers. comm. 

2013i). Current funding relies primarily on temporary field staff, and there is only one professional-level 

biologist on staff to provide training, field training, and supervision for a 7-day per week monitoring 

program that spans 56 miles across three or more separate islands. Furthermore, current funding does not 

allocate sufficient funds for geographic information systems (GIS) and information management, nor 

long-term supervision of field staff. 

ADMINISTRATION

Management and administrative staff members at the Seashore have a variety of responsibilities related to 

ORV management, including procurement, managing payroll for the Seashore, fielding questions from 

visitors regarding ORV management, fulfilling human resources functions and supervisory roles, and 

providing information technology and other technical support, in addition to the superintendent’s role in 

ORV management. The administrative staff is responsible for all fiscal matters at the Seashore, including 

the receipt and accounting of current fee program and special use permit revenue. Administrative support 

related to ORV management requires approximately $12,500 in personnel costs (NPS pers. comm. 

2013i). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

262 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

FACILITY MANAGEMENT

Facility management staff at the Seashore are responsible for providing maintenance and repairs for the 

ferry landings, docks, and parking lots, supplies for maintenance of ranger stations and garages, 

maintenance of cabin camps, provision of utilities, as well as installation of informational signs along the 

beach. This division is also responsible for maintaining and repairing the vehicles, vessels and other 

equipment used by all other divisions of the Seashore, including those used for law enforcement and 

resource management patrols. Support and material costs for these NPS staff members include fuel, 

vehicle parts, and maintenance supplies. Facility management efforts requires approximately $12,700 in 

personnel costs (NPS pers. comm. 2013i). The maintenance division is not sufficiently funded to provide 

routine maintenance of the back route, ramps and routes. 

INTERPRETATION AND EDUCATION

There is currently insufficient funding for focused ORV education activities at the Seashore. There are no 

personnel costs allocated to ORV use in the interpretation and education division at the Seashore (NPS 

pers. comm. 2013i). 
Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 263

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

This “Environmental Consequences” chapter analyzes both beneficial and adverse impacts that would 

result from implementing any of the alternatives considered in this long-term Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement (ORV management plan/EIS). This chapter also 

includes a summary of laws and policies relevant to each impact topic, methods used to analyze impacts, 

and the analysis methods used for determining cumulative impacts. As required by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

a summary of the environmental consequences for each alternative is provided in table 6, which can be 

found at the end of “Chapter 2: Alternatives.” The resource topics presented in this chapter, and the 

organization of the topics, correspond to the resource discussions in “Chapter 3: Affected Environment.” 

For a complete discussion of guiding authorities, refer to the sections titled “Federal Laws, Policies, 

Regulations, and Plans Directly Related to Off-road Vehicle Management” and “Other Applicable 

Federal Laws, Policies, Regulations, and Plans” in “Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action.” 

Collectively, these guiding laws and corresponding regulations provide a framework and process for 

evaluating the impacts of the alternatives considered in this ORV management plan/EIS. 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 

This impact analysis evaluates proposed changes in off-road vehicle (ORV) management at Cape 

Lookout National Seashore through the evaluation of four action alternatives and the no-action 

alternative. For natural resource topics addressed in this ORV management plan/EIS, the impact of the 

actual physical changes to natural resources indirectly resulting from each of the alternative regulatory 

rule scenarios is analyzed. The approach to this analysis includes the following elements: 

x Focusing the analysis on those management changes in the alternatives that have measurable 

impacts on the resources or values being evaluated. 

x Using general analysis methods that follow CEQ and U.S. Department of the Interior NEPA 

regulations and National Park Service (NPS) Director’s Order 12 policy and its implementing 

Handbook. 

x Following basic assumptions used in NEPA analysis relating to area of analysis, timeframe, and 

types of impacts. 

x Evaluating cumulative impacts for each impact topic that address impacts from each alternative in 

combination with other actions that can affect the same resource or value. 

x Determining significance of the impacts resulting from each alternative. 

GENERAL ANALYSIS METHOD

The analysis of impacts follows CEQ guidelines and Director’s Order 12 procedures (NPS 2011h). 

A substantial body of scientific literature has described the effects of off-road vehicle (ORV) use on the 

environment. The NPS interdisciplinary planning team reviewed literature and studies applicable to the 

region and setting and the resources being evaluated. This information was used to augment the on-site 

observations and documentation gathered by NPS personnel at the Seashore and the advice of internal and 

external resource management experts to support the qualitative and quantitative statements presented in 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

264 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

this impact analysis section. When resource-specific data, observations, studies, or other evidence are 

available, these resources are noted in the methodology section for each impact topic. 

ASSUMPTIONS

Several guiding assumptions, as defined below, were made to provide context for this analysis. 

Analysis Period—This ORV management plan/EIS establishes goals, objectives, and specific 

implementation actions needed to manage ORV use for the next 15 to 20 years. 

Analysis Area—The geographic study area for this ORV management plan/EIS is Cape Lookout 

National Seashore, including all barrier islands within the Seashore from Ocracoke Inlet to Beaufort Inlet. 

As of December 2012, these islands included North Core Banks, South Core Banks (collectively known 

together as the Core Banks), and Shackleford Banks. Should any inlets or new islands form due to natural 

processes within the study area during this decision-making process, those areas would be addressed with 

this ORV management plan/EIS. 

Duration and Type of Impacts—For the purpose of the analysis provided in this ORV management 

plan/EIS, the following assumptions are used for all impact topics. 

Duration describes the length of time an effect will occur, either short term or long term: 

x Short-term impacts are those that last up to one year. 

x Long-term impacts are those occurring from off-road vehicle management actions over several 

seasons through the next 15 to 20 years and beyond. 

Type describes the classification of the impact as beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect: 

x Beneficial: A change in the condition or appearance of the resource that moves the resource 

toward a desired condition. 

x Adverse: A change that moves the resource away from a desired condition or detracts from its 

appearance or condition. 

x Direct: An effect that is caused by an action and occurs in the same time and place. 

x Indirect: An effect that is caused by an action but is later in time or farther removed in distance, 

but is still reasonably foreseeable. 

ASSESSING IMPACTS USING CEQ CRITERIA

According to the NEPA regulations adopted by the President’s CEQ (40 CFR 1500–1508), the term 

“significantly” is based on the criteria of context and intensity (40 CFR 1508.27). 

Context—This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as 

society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. 

Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. For instance, in the case of a site-specific 

action, significance would usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a 

whole. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant. 
Impact Assessment Methodology and Assumptions 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 265

Intensity—This refers to the severity of impact. Responsible officials must bear in mind that more than 

one agency may make decisions about partial aspects of a major action. The following should be 

considered in evaluating intensity: 

x Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the federal 

agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. 

x The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly 

controversial.

x The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or 

involve unique or unknown risks. 

x The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant 

effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. 

x Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively 

significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant 

impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by 

breaking it down into small component parts. 

x The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or 

objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National 

Register) or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical 

resources. 

x The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its 

habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. 

x Whether the action threatens a violation of federal, state, or local law or requirements imposed for 

the protection of the environment. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA require the assessment of cumulative impacts in the 

decision-making process for federal projects. Cumulative impacts are defined as “the impact on the 

environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person 

undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative impacts are considered for all alternatives, 

including the no-action alternative. 

Cumulative impacts were determined by combining the impacts of the alternative being considered with 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Therefore, it was necessary to identify other 

ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future projects and plans at the park and, if applicable, the surrounding 

region. Past actions are those that have been occurring since the establishment of the Seashore and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects are those that would occur within the life of the plan. Following 

CEQ guidance, past actions were included, “to the extent that they are relevant and useful in analyzing 

whether the reasonably foreseeable effects of the agency proposal for the actions and its alternatives may 

have a continuing, additive, and significant relationship to those effects” (CEQ 2005). 

Table 51 lists the actions that could affect the various resources at the park. These actions are described in 

more detail in the “Other Applicable Federal Laws, Policies, Regulations, and Plans” section in chapter 1. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

266 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

TABLE 51: CUMULATIVE IMPACT SCENARIO

Impact Topic Study Area Past Actions Current Actions 

Future Actions 

(20 years) 

Federally 

Listed

Endangered, 

Threatened, or 

Candidate 

Species 

Specific to 

species as 

identified in 

their

Recovery 

Plans, along 

the North 

Carolina 

coast 

Concessioners and 

ferry operations 

Dredging Beaufort Inlet 

Commercial fishing 

Military overflights 

Stabilization of Historic 

Structures Project 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) 

Critical Habitat 

Designation 

Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore Interim 

Protected Species 

Management Strategy / 

Environmental 

Assessment

Same as past + 

Cape Lookout National 

Seashore Interim Protected 

Species Management 

Plan/Environmental 

Assessment 

Horse Management Plan 

Dredging Oregon Inlet 

Interim Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan and 

Evaluation of Existing ORV 

Use at Cape Lookout 

National Seashore

Predator Study 

Special Use Permits 

USFWS Species Recovery 

Plans 

Final Long-term ORV 

Management Plan/EIS for 

Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore

Commercial Services Plan / 

Environmental Assessment / 

Assessment of Effect 

Beaufort and Harkers Island 

Development for Ferry 

Facilities 

Planning for Off-shore 

Commercial Wind Leasing 

(Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM) Task 

Force activities) 

Foundation Document (NPS 

2012s) 

Cape Lookout National 

Seashore Long-Range 

Interpretive Plan (NPS 

2011k) 

Same as current + 

Harkers Island Master 

Plan

Great Island and Long 

Point Master Plan 

Resource stewardship 

strategy

Comprehensive Sign 

Plan

Nonnative species and 

predator management 

plan 

Sustainability plan/green 

plan 

State-listed

and Specialstatus Species 

North

Carolina 

populations 

Same as Federally 

Listed Endangered, 

Threatened, or 

Candidate Species 

Same as Federally Listed 

Endangered, Threatened, or 

Candidate Species 

Same as Federally 

Listed Endangered, 

Threatened, or 

Candidate Species 

Other Wildlife 

and Wildlife 

Habitat 

North

Carolina 

populations 

Same as Federally 

Listed Endangered, 

Threatened, or 

Candidate Species 

Same as Federally Listed 

Endangered, Threatened, or 

Candidate Species 

Same as Federally 

Listed Endangered, 

Threatened, or 

Candidate Species 
Impact Assessment Methodology and Assumptions 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 267

Impact Topic Study Area Past Actions Current Actions 

Future Actions 

(20 years) 

Soundscapes / 

Acoustic

Environment 

Park

Boundary 

Marine engines, 

including ferries, private 

motorboats and 

commercial fisheries 

traveling to or near the 

island (including ferry 

operators) 

Personal watercraft use 

Hunting 

Diesel Generators 

Dredging Beaufort Inlet 

Military overflights 

Same as past + 

Cape Lookout National 

Seashore Interim Protected 

Species Management 

Plan/Environmental 

Assessment 

Special Use Permits 

Beaufort and Harkers Island 

Development for Ferry 

Facilities 

Foundation Document (NPS 

2012s) 

Same as current + 

Strategy for 

management of Cape 

Lookout lighthouse and 

associated historic 

structures

Portsmouth Village 

Master Plan 

Harkers Island Master 

Plan

Great Island and Long 

Point Master Plan 

Resource stewardship 

strategy

Comprehensive Sign 

Plan

Nonnative species and 

predator management 

plan 

Sustainability plan/green 

plan 

Dredge Material 

Management Plan 

Morehead City Harbor 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

268 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Impact Topic Study Area Past Actions Current Actions 

Future Actions 

(20 years) 

Visitor Use and 

Experience 

Park

Boundary 

Concessioners and 

ferry operations 

Harkers Island and 

Cape Lookout National 

Seashore Keepers’ 

Quarters Exhibit Plan 

Portsmouth Village 

Exhibit Plan 

Wayside Exhibit Plan 

Stabilization of Historic 

Structures Project 

Visitor Use Study 

Reopening of the 

Lighthouse and 

Increased Visitor 

Amenities 

Same as past + 

Horse Management Plan

Cape Lookout Historic 

District Management Plan 

Cape Lookout National 

Seashore Interim Protected 

Species Management 

Plan/Environmental 

Assessment

Special Use Permits 

Interim Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan and 

Evaluation of Existing ORV 

Use at Cape Lookout 

National Seashore

Military overflights 

Final Long-term ORV 

Management Plan/EIS for 

Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore

Beaufort and Harkers Island 

Development for Ferry 

Facilities 

Planning for Off-shore 

Commercial Wind Leasing 

(BOEM Task Force 

activities)

Foundation Document (NPS 

2012s) 

Cape Lookout National 

Seashore Long-Range 

Interpretive Plan (NPS 

2011k) 

Same as current + 

Comprehensive 

Interpretation Plan 

Strategy for 

management of Cape 

Lookout lighthouse and 

associated historic 

structures

Portsmouth Village 

Master Plan 

Harkers Island Master 

Plan

Great Island and Long 

Point Master Plan 

Resource stewardship 

strategy

Comprehensive Sign 

Plan

Nonnative species and 

predator management 

plan 

Sustainability plan/green 

plan 
Impact Assessment Methodology and Assumptions 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 269

Impact Topic Study Area Past Actions Current Actions 

Future Actions 

(20 years) 

Socioeconomic 

Resources 

Regional Concessioners and 

ferry operations 

Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore Interim 

Protected Species 

Management Strategy / 

Environmental 

Assessment

Reopening of the 

Lighthouse and 

Increased Visitor 

Amenities 

Same as past + 

Special Use Permits 

Cape Lookout National 

Seashore Interim Protected 

Species Management 

Plan/Environmental 

Assessment

Final Long-term ORV 

Management Plan/EIS for 

Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore

Beaufort and Harkers Island 

Development for Ferry 

Facilities 

Planning for Off-shore 

Commercial Wind Leasing 

(BOEM Task Force 

activities)

Foundation Document (NPS 

2012s) 

Same as current + 

Commercial Services 

Plan / Environmental 

Assessment / 

Assessment of Effect 

Cape Lookout Historic 

District Management 

Plan

Carteret County 

Comprehensive Plan 

Strategy for 

management of Cape 

Lookout lighthouse and 

associated historic 

structures

Portsmouth Village 

Master Plan 

Harkers Island Master 

Plan

Great Island and Long 

Point Master Plan 

Resource stewardship 

strategy

Comprehensive Sign 

Plan

Nonnative species and 

predator management 

plan 

Sustainability plan/green 

plan 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

270 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Impact Topic Study Area Past Actions Current Actions 

Future Actions 

(20 years) 

Seashore 

Management 

and Operations 

Park

Boundary 

Concessioners and 

ferry operations 

Species management 

activities

Harkers Island and 

Cape Lookout National 

Seashore Keepers’ 

Quarters Exhibit Plan 

Wayside Exhibit Plan 

Stabilization of Historic 

Structures Project 

Visitor Use Study 

Same as past+ 

Reopening of the Lighthouse 

and Increased Visitor 

Amenities 

Cape Lookout National 

Seashore Interim Protected 

Species Management 

Plan/Environmental 

Assessment

Special Use Permits 

Interim Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan and 

Evaluation of Existing ORV 

Use at Cape Lookout 

National Seashore

Predator Study 

Beaufort and Harkers Island 

Development for Ferry 

Facilities 

Foundation Document (NPS 

2012s) 

Cape Lookout National 

Seashore Long-Range 

Interpretive Plan (NPS 

2011k) 

Same as current+ 

Commercial Services 

Plan / Environmental 

Assessment / 

Assessment of Effect 

Strategy for 

management of Cape 

Lookout lighthouse and 

associated historic 

structures

Portsmouth Village 

Master Plan 

Harkers Island Master 

Plan

Great Island and Long 

Point Master Plan 

Resource stewardship 

strategy

Comprehensive Sign 

Plan

Nonnative species and 

predator management 

plan 

Sustainability plan/green 

plan 

The analysis of cumulative impacts was accomplished using four steps: 

Step 1 — Identify Resources Affected 

Fully identify resources affected by any of the alternatives. These include the resources addressed as 

impact topics in chapters 3 and 4 (this chapter) of this document. 

Step 2 — Set Boundaries 

Identify an appropriate spatial and temporal boundary for each resource. The temporal boundaries are 

from the establishment of the Seashore through the life of the plan (15 to 20 years) and the spatial 

boundary for each resource topic is listed under each topic. 

Step 3 — Identify Cumulative Action Scenario 

Determine which past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions to include with each 

resource. Reasonably foreseeable future actions include those federal and nonfederal activities not yet 

undertaken, but sufficiently likely to occur, that a reasonable official of ordinary prudence would take 

such activities into account in reaching a decision. These activities include, but are not limited to, 

activities for which there are existing decisions, funding, or proposals identified. Reasonably 

foreseeable future actions do not include those actions that are highly speculative or indefinite (43 

CFR 46.30). 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 271

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are listed in table 51 and described in 

chapter 1. 

Step 4 — Cumulative Impact Analysis 

Summarize impacts of these other actions plus impacts of the proposed action (the alternative being 

evaluated, to arrive at the total cumulative impact. This analysis is included for each resource in 

chapter 4 (this chapter). 

FEDERALLY LISTED ENDANGERED, THREATENED, OR CANDIDATE 

SPECIES

GUIDING REGULATIONS AND POLICIES

The ESA (16 USC 1531 et seq.) mandates all federal agencies to consider the potential effects of their 

actions on species listed as threatened or endangered. If the NPS determines that an action may affect a 

federally listed species, consultation with the USFWS is required to ensure that the action would not 

jeopardize the species’ continued existence or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 

habitat. NPS Management Policies 2006 state that the NPS will survey for, protect, and strive to recover 

all species native to national park system units that are listed under the ESA, and proactively conserve 

listed species and prevent detrimental effects on these species (NPS 2006d, section 4.4.2.3). NPS 

Management Policies 2006 also state that “[the NPS will] manage state and locally listed species in a 

manner similar to its treatment of federally listed species to the greatest extent possible” (NPS 2006d, 

section 4.4.2.3). 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS

The following information was used to assess impacts on all listed species from ORV management 

actions:

x Species found in areas likely to be affected by actions described in the alternatives. 

x Habitat loss or alteration caused by the alternatives. 

x Displacement and disturbance potential of the actions and the species’ potential to be affected by 

the activities. 

According to the ESA, the term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 

capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. 

Specific methodologies and assumptions pertaining to the piping plover, red knot, sea turtles, or seabeach 

amaranth are described under the relevant descriptions in the following text; however, for all species the 

following assumption is made. Under all of the alternatives, the Seashore establishes resource closures 

and buffers that are designed to protect piping plovers, sea turtles, and seabeach amaranth, as well as 

other sensitive species. No species specific closures or buffers are put into place for red knots, though 

they do benefit from closures for other species. The Seashore also conducts routine law enforcement 

patrols of the beach areas to enforce the closures, respond to violations, conduct investigations, and assist 

in public education. Although most public users of the Seashore respect the closures and buffers, 

noncompliance does occur (NPS 2012t, 2011a, 2010b, 2009a, 2008c, 2007i) and can adversely impact 

piping plovers. Studies have shown that increasing enforcement of regulations increases future 

compliance by not only the violator, but also of people other than the violator (Shimshack 2010; 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

272 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Shimshack and Ward 2005; Van Houten et al. 2013). Thus, under the alternatives that increase law 

enforcement and resource management staffing levels, it is assumed that increased enforcement would 

result in increased compliance with the closures and other rules and regulations of the Seashore. 

The term “insignificant” as used in the ESA determinations is not the same as the significance 

determination made in the conclusion sections for NEPA purposes. 

The ESA defines the terminology used to assess impacts on the piping plover, sea turtles, and seabeach 

amaranth as follows. 

No effect: When a proposed action would not affect a listed species or designated critical 

habitat.

May affect / not 

likely to adversely 

affect:

When effects on listed species are expected to be discountable, insignificant, or 

completely beneficial. Beneficial effects are contemporaneous positive effects 

without any adverse effects on the species. Insignificant effects relate to the size of 

the impact and should never reach the scale where “take” occurs. Discountable 

effects are those extremely unlikely to occur. Based on best judgment, a person 

would not (1) be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant 

effects; or (2) expect discountable effects to occur. 

May affect / likely 

to adversely 

affect:

When any adverse effect on listed species may occur as a direct or indirect result of 

the proposed action or its interrelated or interdependent actions, and the effect is not 

discountable, insignificant, or beneficial. If the overall effect of the proposed action 

is beneficial to the listed species, but is also likely to cause some adverse effects, the 

proposed action “is likely to adversely affect” the listed species. If incidental take is 

anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed action, then it “is likely to adversely 

affect” the species. Incidental take is the take of a listed species that results from, 

but is not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. 

Is likely to 

jeopardize

species / 

adversely modify 

critical habitat: 

The appropriate conclusion when the NPS or the USFWS identifies an adverse 

effect that could jeopardize the continued existence of a species or destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat of a species within or outside Seashore boundaries. 

The plan/EIS will serve as the biological assessment in compliance with section 7 consultation 

requirements and analyzes impacts using the above terminology. Each alternative includes an ESA 

determination of effect to facilitate this compliance. 

STUDY AREA

The study area for assessment of the various species is described separately for each listed species. 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 273

PIPING PLOVER 

SPECIES-SPECIFIC METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS

Potential impacts on the federally threatened piping plover populations and habitat were evaluated based 

on available data on past and present occurrence of the species at the Seashore; scientific literature on the 

species, life history, and the impacts of human disturbance on piping plovers and other bird species; and 

documentation of the species association with humans, pets, predators, and ORVs. Information on habitat 

and other existing data were acquired from NPS staff, the USFWS, and available literature. 

Although the action alternatives involve minimal construction of ramps, parking areas, and interdunal 

roads, construction activities would occur outside of the bird breeding season, during daylight hours, and 

outside of any key breeding or foraging habitat. Therefore, impacts from construction are assumed to be 

negligible.

STUDY AREA

The geographic study area for assessment of the various alternatives is Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

The geographic study area for the cumulative impacts analysis is the Seashore and the region, including 

the North and South Carolina area in the recovery plan for the piping plover (USFWS 1996a). 

ALTERNATIVE A

Impacts of Alternative A: No Action 

Resource Management Activities 

Surveying and Monitoring—Under alternative A, NPS staff would perform surveys of recent breeding 

areas for piping plovers and would continue to monitor breeding, nesting, and fledging activities 

throughout the breeding season. Surveying for the arrival of piping plovers and pre-nesting behavior 

would begin on March 16 at least one time per week and would increase to three times per week (or every 

other day) on April 1. Surveying locations where piping plover territorial, courtship, or mating behavior is 

observed would increase to seven days per week on North Core Banks and South Core Banks and one day 

per week in other areas. During nesting and hatching, piping plover nests and broods would be checked 

every day on North Core Banks and South Core Banks and at least once per week elsewhere. 

Additionally, the Seashore would monitor plover breeding activities at nesting sites to identify factors that 

may be limiting the abundance of nesting plovers and productivity. The Seashore would also monitor the 

impact of predators on piping plover breeding productivity. Surveying and monitoring piping plovers and 

their habitat provides long-term beneficial impacts to the species because it allows the Seashore to better 

manage piping plovers, which may lead to increased reproductive success of the species at the Seashore. 

While overall surveying activities would provide beneficial impacts to piping plovers, they could also 

cause some short-term adverse impacts by negatively impacting feeding, reproduction, resting, or other 

actions of piping plovers. Piping plovers are highly vulnerable to disturbance and are known to abandon 

habitat when they are disturbed in or near their nesting habitat (refer to “Risk Factors” in chapter 3 under 

the “Piping Plover” section), and surveying activities for piping plover by NPS staff would bring people 

and/or essential vehicles into direct short-term contact with individuals and their habitat. 

Piping plovers respond to intruders in their habitat (avian, human, and other mammals) by squatting, false 

brooding, high-tailed running, crouch run, feigning injury, and emitting “whirring” vocalizations (Cairns 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

274 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

1982). Human disturbance of any kind, even that presented by pedestrians, has a negative effect on piping 

plovers. Burger (1991 and 1994) found that the presence of people (sunbathers, walkers, joggers, etc.) on 

plover beaches caused shifts in habitat use to create distance from humans, a decrease in time spent 

foraging, and an increase in time spent in vigilance (time devoted to being alert), and had a differential 

effect on foraging time in broods of different sizes. Also, the increased time and energy spent in vigilance 

due to the presence of humans may make piping plovers more susceptible to predation. Likewise, Zonick 

(2000) found that human activity on beaches reduced the net foraging success of piping plovers on beach 

habitat by increasing the amount of energy plovers had to expend while foraging due to moving away 

from humans. Zonick (2000) also found that human disturbance was the most important factor in 

affecting piping plover abundance at the study sites. 

In addition to human disturbance, using ORVs during surveys would have a slight risk of crushing an 

undetected nest or chick. However, to minimize any potential short-term adverse impacts, NPS staff 

would use best professional judgment and take precautions to minimize disturbance during surveying, 

such as observing incubating birds with optical equipment from appropriate distances and maintaining 

slow speeds while using ORVs in or near piping plover habitat. In addition, to evaluate the effects of 

Seashore management activities on piping plovers, during all monitoring for the various life cycle stages 

of piping plovers, monitoring reports would include descriptions of the management measures/actions 

currently in place and document piping plover behavior. 

Establishment of Prenesting Closures—As noted in chapter 3, piping plovers generally arrive at the 

Seashore in mid-March, begin courting and pairing in April and begin to scrape or build nests by the third 

week of April (Cohen et al. 2010; USFWS 1994; Patterson, Fraser, and Roggenbuck 1990). To protect 

piping plovers and their habitat, full recreational closures (no pedestrian or vehicle access) would be 

established by April 1. The closures would be established in all active (where birds are presently nesting 

or nested the previous breeding season), historical (areas where the birds have nested in the past 5 years), 

and potential new piping plover habitat as determined appropriate by a qualified staff biologist. Bird 

sanctuary signage would be posted around all closure areas as is the current practice at the Seashore (NPS 

2012t). Establishing prenesting closures would provide long-term beneficial impacts for piping plovers at 

the Seashore through the increased likelihood of reproductive success resulting from the reduction in 

disturbance of the birds by pedestrians, pets, and ORVs during critical periods of reproduction (Parnell et 

al. 1988; Elliot-Smith and Haig 2004; Cohen, Houghton, and Fraser 2009; Burger 1987; Boettcher et al. 

2007; Lauro and Tanacredi 2002; Patterson, Fraser, and Roggenbuck 1990). 

While prenesting closures would not afford protection to piping plovers arriving at the Seashore prior to 

April 1, no piping plover nests have been documented prior to April 1 at the Seashore (Rikard pers. 

comm. 2013a). Additionally, any potential adverse impacts to the birds during this time would also be 

minimized because NPS staff begin surveying and monitoring for piping plovers once per week on March 

15 when the Seashore becomes open to ORV use, and would erect closures to protect any birds exhibiting 

territorial, courtship, or mating behavior. Prenesting closures would also not protect habitat used by 

piping plovers prior to the last 5 years. If this habitat is still suitable for piping plovers, human 

disturbance (e.g., vehicles, pedestrians, kites) may cause any birds to abandon their attempts to use these 

unprotected areas in the early spring or increase the amount of time they spend in vigilant behavior 

(Anderson and Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; Tremblay and Ellison 1979; Burger et al. 2004; 

Burger 1991; Flemming et al. 1988). However, again, any potential adverse impacts would be minimized 

by NPS staff surveying and monitoring for piping plovers beginning on March 15 when the Seashore 

becomes open to ORV use, and full recreational closures would be expanded to protect any birds 

exhibiting territorial, courtship, or mating behavior outside of existing closures (see below). 

Buffer/Closure Establishment—Alternative A provides protection for piping plover nests through the 

use of buffer distances recommended in the Piping Plover Recovery Plan (USFWS 1996a). Appendix G 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 275

of the recovery plan indicates that a 50-meter (approximately 164 feet) buffer should be adequate to 

prevent the disturbance of a majority of piping plovers. Therefore, under alternative A, if nesting behavior 

such as courtship or mating (scrapes) are observed outside of full recreational closures during prenesting, 

a buffer would be established or expanded to ensure a 150-foot buffer for the observed birds. When 

nesting occurs, a 150-foot buffer/closure would be established around piping plover nests outside existing 

closures. These closures would be expanded, if necessary, to prevent disturbance, using flexible 

increments dependent on observed bird behavior. This may be necessary since birds are known to exhibit 

disturbance behavior in response to pedestrians at distances of over 100 feet (Lafferty 2001a), dogs at 

distances of over 130 feet (Lafferty 2001a), personal watercraft at over 400 feet (Rodgers and Schwikert 

2002), and outboard-powered boats at approximately 300 feet (Rodgers and Schwikert 2002). The 

USFWS (1996a) found that the mean flushing distance for nesting piping plovers was at distances of 78 

to 225 feet. Further, additional information would be collected during nesting from daily observations via 

use of optical equipment outside symbolic fencing and from close approaches to nests weekly to observe 

and record data. 

For unfledged chicks, alternative A would establish a minimum 600-foot ORV buffer on either side of the 

brood based on observation of bird behavior and terrain conditions at the site. If chicks come onto the 

beach to forage, the beach would be closed to ORV traffic. ORVs would be routed around these areas 

using the back route. If there is no back route available, the Seashore would consider an escort program 

on a case-by-case basis if sufficient staff is available to maintain access to areas of the Seashore beyond 

the closure. Escorts would be led by trained resource management staff and would be limited to 25 

vehicles or less. If implemented, a limited escort program would benefit piping plovers by likely 

increasing compliance with the closure by helping to decrease visitor frustration with not being able to 

access areas beyond the closure. However, benefits would likely be limited because an escort program 

would only be used on a case-by-case basis. 

Piping plovers would experience long-term benefits from the full recreational closures and frequency of 

observations that adjust in response to chick behavior, which would allow NPS staff to change buffer 

sizes and locations in response to highly mobile broods. Basing buffer size on chick behavior and 

adjusting these buffers in response to brood movements may result in some long-term adverse impacts 

since frequent adjustment of the buffers could result in additional disturbance to piping plovers by NPS 

staff (Anderson and Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; Tremblay and Ellison 1979; Hand 1980). 

However, the potential adverse impacts resulting from disturbance by NPS staff while adjusting the 

buffers would be outweighed by the beneficial impacts provided to the plovers by protecting them from 

ORV and pedestrian impacts through the timely adjustment of the buffers during the critical reproductive 

stage as discussed above and in chapter 3. 

Management of Wintering Habitat for Nonbreeding Plovers—As provided in the USFWS Amended 

Biological Opinion (USFWS 2007a), the NPS would monitor the presence, abundance, and behavior of 

migrating and wintering piping plovers between August 1 and March 31 of each year. During surveys, 

specific observations would be made regarding vehicle, pedestrian, and pet tracks in posted habitat; signs 

of predators, including species types; specific management measures in place at the time of the 

observation; observed behaviors; and reactions to disturbance by pedestrians, pets, or vehicles. The 

Seashore would coordinate with Cape Hatteras National Seashore to conduct simultaneous surveys or 

receive survey data from Portsmouth Island during winter, because, based on past banding data, wintering 

birds move across Ocracoke Inlet. Limited noise disturbance and short-term displacement of individual 

birds could result from the presence of resource staff in foraging/resting habitat. However, data collected 

would result in long-term beneficial impacts on plovers by providing Seashore managers with information 

on the types and locations of habitats used, seasonality of plover use of the Seashore, tidal influence on 

habitat use, and potential threats the habitat may contain. Survey data would increase knowledge on how 

and when piping plovers use the Seashore and allow for management to adjust based on this knowledge. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

276 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Fall migrating piping plovers generally begin arriving at the Seashore during July, peak in August and 

September, and leave by November; though some depart as late as February (Dinsmore, Callazo, and 

Walters 1998; USFWS 2008b). The closure of the Seashore to vehicles from January 1 through March 15 

would result in long-term benefits for migrating and wintering plovers by providing protected habitat 

during the winter and allowing the beach profile to recover from heavy fall fishing use. Outside of the 

January 1 through March 15 timeframe, no closures would be specifically implemented for migrating and 

wintering shorebird protection which could result in disturbance of individuals, leading to displacement 

and altered foraging behavior (Burger 1991; Zonick 2000; McAtee and Drawe 1981). However, impacts 

would be minimized by the fact that much of the habitat where migrating and wintering piping plovers are 

found is protected through permanent ORV closures which include Shackleford Banks, Portsmouth Flats, 

the interior of the point of Cape Lookout, the ocean beach between mile markers 41a and 41b, and Power 

Squadron Spit. Additionally, during the timeframe of March 16 through April 1 and October 1 through 

December 31 when other full recreational closures for bird protection are generally not in place, the 

number of nonbreeding plovers is at its lowest. During the years 2008 through 2012, there was an average 

of only 8 birds each on North Core Banks and South Core Banks in March, 22 birds on North Core Banks 

and 12 birds on South Core Banks in October, 9 birds each on North Core Banks and South Core Banks 

in November, and 7 birds each at North Core Banks and South Core Banks in December. This is 

compared to 82 nonbreeding birds on North Core Banks and 27 nonbreeding birds on South Core Banks 

in the month of August and 22 nonbreeding birds on North Core Banks and 13 nonbreeding birds on 

South Core Banks in September during the same years of 2008 through 2012 (NPS 2012t). 

While the closure of the Seashore to vehicles from January 1 through March 15 would help protect 

wintering plovers, no closures would be established for pedestrians, which could result in disturbance of 

individuals and habitat from pedestrian use, leading to displacement and altered foraging behavior. 

However, adverse impacts of pedestrians on wintering plovers would be largely imperceptible because 

many passenger ferries stop operating in the winter, the amount of pedestrian use during the winter 

months is very low, and without a means of transportation on the beach, most visitor use would be 

confined to areas in the immediate vicinity of the ferry landings. 

Predator Management—Predation continues to be a major factor affecting the reproductive success of 

piping plovers throughout its range (Boettcher et al. 2007; Burger 1987; Cohen, Houghton, and Fraser 

2009; Doherty and Heath 2011; Elliot-Smith and Haig 2004; Lauro and Tanacredi 2002; Patterson, 

Fraser, and Roggenbuck 1990). Mink, short-tailed weasels, red fox, skunks, raccoons, opossum, lined 

ground squirrels, coyotes, dogs, and cats are known or suspected mammalian predators of piping plovers 

(Elliot-Smith and Haig 2004), and Boettcher et al. (2007) summarized the results of several studies 

showing significant predation on piping plover nests by mammals, birds, and ghost crabs. At the 

Seashore, predation of piping plover nests by raccoons, mink, ghost crabs, and a gull-billed tern has been 

documented, while other predators such as feral cats, grackles, coyotes, bobcats, and red fox have also 

been documented in piping plover breeding territories (NPS 2012t, 2011a, 2010b, 2009a, 2008c, 2007i, 

2006f, 2005a, 2004c, 2003a, 2002b, 2001b, 2000c, 1999a, 1998b, 1997a). 

Under alternative A, where topography is suitable and monitoring is sufficient, piping plover nests would 

continue to be protected from predation by placing circular predator exclosures around nests. The 

exclosures are 10 feet in diameter, made of 4-inch × 2-inch mesh wire fence, anchored with steel rebar, 

and topped with 3/4-inch mesh bird netting. Predator exclosures do not always prevent predators from 

accessing nests, especially ghost crabs. The exclosures may also have the unintended consequence of 

causing nest abandonment, loss of young, or adult mortality, by serving as an attractant for predators that 

have learned to associate exclosures with a prey source (Boettcher et al. 2007; Doherty and Heath 2011; 

Isaackson, Wallander, and Larsson 2007; Lauro and Tanacredi 2002). However, from 1997 to 2012, 69 

percent of the nests protected with exclosures hatched, while unprotected nests had only a 42 percent 

hatch rate (NPS 2012t). Additionally, for those nests protected by exclosures that were lost to predation, 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 277

the predation was generally attributed to ghost crabs and not mammalian or bird predators (NPS 2012t, 

2011a, 2010b, 2009a, 2008c, 2007i, 2006f, 2005a, 2004c, 2003a, 2002b, 2001b, 2000c, 1999a, 1998b, 

1997a). Therefore, the use of predator exclosures at the Seashore has generally been effective at 

increasing hatch success. While predators would not be removed under alternative A, resulting in 

continued predation pressure for piping plovers, placing predator exclosures over nests where possible 

would help protect piping plovers from predators and provide short- and long-term beneficial impacts. 

Similar to impacts described above under “Surveying and Monitoring,” predator management activities 

such as placement and checking of predator exclosures would have some short-term adverse impacts on 

piping plovers by bringing people and/or essential vehicles into direct short-term contact with individual 

birds and their habitat. These impacts; however, would be far outweighed by the overall beneficial 

impacts of protecting the nests from predators. 

An indirect impact from recreational use at the Seashore is the attraction of predators to trash associated 

with recreational use (NPS 2006e; USFWS 1996a; Anderson 1995). Under alternative A, the Seashore 

would manage trash disposal, and enforce proper trash disposal and anti-wildlife feeding regulations to 

reduce the attraction of predators to the area, providing short- and long-term beneficial impacts to piping 

plovers.

Education/Public Outreach—Under alternative A, the public would continue to receive information at 

the visitor centers as well as information boards and from NPS staff about piping plovers, their ecology, 

and the measures the Seashore is taking to protect the species. Annual protected species reports would 

continue to be published on the Seashore’s website regarding the previous breeding season. The public 

would continue to be notified about closures that would limit ORV or pedestrian traffic, as well as when 

these closures reopen. Education and outreach materials would be provided regarding the impacts of trash 

disposal, wildlife feeding, fireworks, and pets on sensitive species at the Seashore. Such public outreach 

is beneficial to piping plovers. Public outreach educates the public about the specific needs of the species 

and alerts the public about closures due to potential impacts on the species. Public education has long 

been recommended as a way to reduce disturbance to sensitive species and habitats and garner support for 

conservation programs (Boettcher et al. 2007; Carlson and Godfrey 1989; Klein, Humphrey, and Franklin 

1995) Therefore, public outreach as part of species management would result in long-term beneficial 

impacts. 

Research/Monitoring—Ongoing research at the Seashore under alternative A would include monitoring 

American oystercatcher nesting and chick survival and success and document causes of chick mortality. 

Research efforts have the potential to negatively impact feeding, reproduction, resting, or other piping 

plover behavior over the long-term due to the increased human presence and use of ORVs (Anderson and 

Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; Hand 1980; Tremblay and Ellison 1979). However, research efforts 

would continue to result in long-term beneficial impacts for piping plovers, because it is likely that results 

from ongoing research would lead to increased resource protection and management at the Seashore. 

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

ORVs and Pedestrian Access—Under alternative A, 81 percent (45 miles) of the Seashore beaches 

would be available for public ORV use in designated routes and areas (as documented in the 

Superintendent’s Compendium) from March 16 through December 31. In addition, ATV and utility-type 

vehicle (UTV) use would continue to be permitted. As described above under “Buffer/Closure 

Establishment,” the Seashore establishes resource closures to protect piping plovers as well as other 

species. The Seashore also establishes safety closures when certain areas of the beach become too 

hazardous for safe public use. Based on data from 2008 to 2013, the total amount of ORV resource and 

safety closures at the Seashore averages approximately 10 miles during the summer months and 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

278 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

approximately 5.4 miles during the fall. These closures protect approximately 22 percent more of the 

Seashore that would otherwise be open to ORV impacts during the summer months, and approximately 

12 percent more of the Seashore during the fall months. Although these closures are not exclusively put in 

place for the protection of piping plovers, and all closures may not encompass piping plover habitat, they 

do provide beneficial impacts by protecting habitat and birds from the adverse impacts caused by ORV 

use.

Without buffers or other full recreational closures, ORV use and other recreational activities during the 

months when piping plovers are in residence on Seashore beaches have the potential to disrupt nesting 

and foraging birds from the noise associated with vehicle use and the presence of pedestrians. Impacts on 

plovers from human disturbance are well documented in scientific literature and could result in direct 

mortality and behavioral changes (Melvin et al. 1994; Patterson et al. 1991; Flemming et al. 1988; 

Patterson, Fraser, and Roggenbuck 1990; Burger 1991), ultimately resulting in lower reproductive success 

because of lower survival rates of eggs and chicks (Zonick 2000; Burger 1991). Melvin et al. (1994) 

found daytime mortality of adult piping plovers and chicks due to daytime ORV use on eastern beaches, 

even in cases where monitors and signage were present and vehicle use was light (less than or equal to 20 

passes per day). Chicks often move between the upper berm or foredune and the wrack line or intertidal 

zone while feeding, which places them in the path of vehicles (USFWS 1996a). Vehicles leave ruts in the 

sand and pedestrians leave footprints, which can trap chicks, making them more susceptible to collisions 

with vehicles. In a study of Australian beaches, Schlacher and Thompson (2008) found mean tire rut 

depths from 1.5 to more than 3 inches. Chicks walk in tire ruts, which they often have difficulty getting 

out of and may respond slowly to a moving vehicle, sometimes even remaining motionless or appearing 

indifferent to the approaching vehicle (Flemming et al. 1988; Melvin et al. 1994; USFWS 1996a). While 

no occurrences have been documented at the Seashore, deaths of piping plover chicks from collisions 

with ORVs in beach areas have been reported at other locations (Culbert 2004; Melvin et al. 1994; 

USFWS 2010). 

ORV use can modify coastal habitat by affecting the beach profile and substrate characteristics. Vehicle 

traffic on beaches displaces large amounts of sand (Schlacher and Thompson 2008) and can contribute to 

erosion, especially during high tides or on narrow beaches where driving is concentrated higher on the 

beach. Anders and Leatherman (1987) found that ORV traffic displaces sand seaward and changes the 

compaction of the sand in the vicinity of the track. They found that it compacts the sand at depth while 

loosening the sand at the surface making it more susceptible to erosion, which may lead to steeper dune 

profiles. These changes in beach profile and substrate characteristics may reduce the suitability of the 

habitat for piping plover nesting (Cohen et al. 2010). 

ORV traffic can also adversely impact beach invertebrates, which are a food source for piping plovers and 

other shorebirds. In Australia, Schlacher and others (2008) found ORV impacted beaches had 

significantly fewer species at reduced densities than non-ORV beaches, and while these impacts were 

detectable throughout the year, they increased during the summer when ORV traffic was greater. At Cape 

Cod National Seashore, Leatherman and Godfrey (1979) found that in the soft sands of intertidal sand 

flats amphipods (Talorshestia) numbered fewer where ORV driving occurred than where it did not occur. 

They also found that polychaete worm (clam worm) populations and soft-shell clam (Mya arenaria)

populations were totally decimated when applying 50 vehicle passes per day over 20 days to experimental 

plots. Not all invertebrates are susceptible to impacts from ORVs though, especially those species that 

burrow into the sand in the intertidal zone when the tide is out, as ORVs only sink into the firm sand one 

tenth of an inch or so (Wolcott and Wolcott 1984). Wolcott and Wolcott (1984) found that in the intertidal 

zone coquina clams and mole crabs, both of which reside below the sand surface when the tide is out, are 

immune to ORV damage, while Vande Merwe and Vander Merwe (1991) found in a study in South 

Africa that the gastropod (Bullia rhodostoma), the clams (Donax serra and Donax sordidus), and the 

benthic mysid (Gastrosaccus psammodytes) showed a high tolerance for ORV traffic. 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 279

In addition to impacting some invertebrates living in the sand, access to the intertidal zone often requires 

vehicles to cross over the wrack line, an area of high concentrations of invertebrates. Driving over the 

wrack line would crush and scatter seaweed, shells, and macroinvertebrates, causing damage and 

dispersal to an important source of food and habitat for many beach invertebrates (Kluft and Ginsberg 

2009; Stephenson 1999). When piping plover chicks are on the ocean beach to forage, the Seashore would 

close the beach to ORV traffic with a 600-foot buffer around the brood of chicks, eliminating the 

continued damage and impacts to the wrack line caused by ORVs. Although no information could be 

found in the literature regarding the recovery or recolonization of macroinvertebrates in a disturbed wrack 

line once the disturbance is removed, the closing of the ocean beach around the foraging chicks would 

allow new a new wrack line to develop undisturbed with subsequent tidal cycles, providing new forage 

habitat for piping plovers, both adults and chicks, reducing the overall impact on piping plovers from 

ORVs disturbing the wrack line. 

Although all ORV use has the potential to disturb bird nesting behavior (refer to appendix B), ATV use, 

and to some extent UTV use, may impact these behaviors differently than other types of ORVs (e.g., 

passenger vehicles and trucks). At Cape Lookout and Cape Hatteras National Seashores, McGowan and 

Simons (2006) found that while increases in ATV traffic increased the rate of trips to and away from the 

nest and reduced the percent of time spent incubating in American oystercatchers, other ORVs (i.e., fourwheel drive passenger vehicles) and pedestrian traffic had little measured effect on incubation. ATVs are 

louder and faster than other ORVs and pedestrians, which may be why birds are affected more by ATV 

traffic (McGowan and Simons 2006). Non-ATV ORVs and pedestrians also tend to stay closer to the 

water’s edge where the sand is packed firm, thus generally traveling farther away from nesting areas than 

ATVs (McGowan and Simons 2006). 

In another study, Simons and Borneman (2012) found that American oystercatchers were on their nests 

significantly less during all types of ORV (passenger vehicles, ATVs – single passenger, and UTVs – allterrain vehicles with side-by-side passengers) and pedestrian events than before those events occurred, 

with the most significant decline in percentage of observations on the nest attributable to ATVs followed 

by UTVs. Based on the authors’ graphical display of the data, American oystercatchers were on their 

nests approximately 85 percent of the time 20 minutes prior to all observances of human activities (e.g., 

passing of ORVs, ATVs, or UTVs). During the passing of an ORV (i.e., passenger vehicle) American 

oystercatchers were on their nests approximately 80 percent of the time, whereas during the passing of 

UTVs and ATVs they were observed on their nests approximately 62 percent and 33 percent of the time, 

respectively. However, in the same study Simons and Borneman (2012) found that the average heart rate 

of 36 incubating oystercatchers during all types of human activity (pedestrians, ORVs, ATVs, and UTVs) 

was not significantly higher than the heart rate from birds 20 minutes before a human activity event 

occurred. Therefore, while the physiological response of American oystercatchers seems to indicate 

habituation to disturbance, their behavioral response does not indicate a habituation to disturbance. 

Although these studies did not investigate impacts on piping plovers, it is reasonable to assume that 

piping plovers may react to vehicle disturbances in a manner similar to the American oystercatcher. 

Therefore, even with buffers and other ORV or full recreational closures, ATV and UTV use as allowed 

in this alternative could adversely affect piping plovers at the Seashore more than other types of ORVs 

because of the disturbance and noise associated with their use. 

Human disturbance of any kind, even that presented by pedestrians, has a negative effect on piping 

plovers. Burger (1991) found that the presence of people (sunbathers, walkers, joggers, etc.) on plover 

beaches caused shifts in habitat use to create distance from humans, a decrease in time spent foraging, and 

an increase in time spent in vigilance (time devoted to being alert), and had a differential effect on 

foraging time in broods of different sizes. Burger (1991) found that chicks in broods of three or four spent 

more time being alert and running than chicks in broods of one or two. Habitat shifts could be critical if 

foraging is shifted to suboptimal areas to avoid people. Also, the increased time and energy spent in 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

280 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

vigilance due to the presence of humans may make piping plovers more susceptible to predation. In a 

separate study of shorebirds on Delaware Bay beaches in New Jersey, Berger et al. (2004) found that 

wintering shorebirds flew away and did not return to forage in response to 58 percent or more of the 

human disruptions and showed no indications of habituating to disturbance. Likewise, Zonick (2000) 

found that human activity on beaches reduced the net foraging success of piping plovers on beach habitat 

by increasing the amount of energy plovers had to expend while foraging due to moving away from 

humans. Zonick (2000) also found that human disturbance was the most important factor in affecting 

piping plover abundance at the study sites. Flemming at al. (1988) found that humans elicited a 

significantly higher level of response from piping plovers than either potential predators or nonpredatory 

species, with adults flushing at distances of less than 132 feet. However, Flemming et al. (1988) found 

that chick behavior in response to pedestrians did not appear to change until the humans were 

approximately 525 feet away. Pedestrians within 525 feet of chicks reduced the incidents of chick 

brooding or feeding; significantly increased vigilant behavior and time spent sitting; and, significantly 

lowered the pecking rate while feeding (Flemming et al. 1988). 

As described above for wintering/nonbreeding management, the closure of the Seashore to vehicles from 

January 1 through March 15 every year would protect wintering plovers from the impacts of ORV use 

and would allow the beach profile to recover from heavy fall fishing use. Passenger ferries would 

continue to enable pedestrians to access the Seashore during this time. Any potential adverse impacts to 

wintering plovers such as temporary displacement, reduced foraging success, and increased susceptibility 

to predators would be minimal. This would be due to reduced use of the Seashore by pedestrians during 

the winter months and the fact that without a means of transportation on the beach, most visitor use would 

be confined to areas in the immediate vicinity of the ferry landings. 

Under alternative A, pedestrian-only areas would include the following: 

x Shackleford Banks; 

x The lighthouse beach; as defined between mile markers 41a and 41b; 

x Power Squadron Spit from mile marker 46.2 west to the end of the spit. 

ORVs would not be permitted in these areas, which would reduce the threat of motorized vehicle use on 

piping plovers in those areas. However, the presence of pedestrians and continued occurrence of nonORV recreational activities could result in short-term adverse impacts (as described above and in chapter 

3) that are detectable, depending on the time of year and life stage of the bird. One such non-ORV 

recreation activity that could adversely impact piping plovers is kite flying. Piping plovers are highly 

disturbed by kites; it is believed this may be because plovers perceive kites as potential avian predators 

(USFWS 1996a). Because of the potential impact from kite flying, the Piping Plover Recovery Plan 

recommends a 200-meter buffer (approximately 656 feet) around nesting or territorial adults and 

unfledged juvenile piping plovers between April 1 and August 31 (USFWS 1996a). While kite flying is 

allowed at the Seashore, a 600-foot pedestrian buffer is not provided around adult and unfledged piping 

plovers. As a result, some adverse impacts from kite flying could occur. However, kite flying at the 

Seashore is rare (Rikard 2013b), so the potential for adverse impacts due to kite flying would be minimal. 

Buffers established under alternative A are designed to protect piping plovers. However, noncompliance 

with buffers and closures does occur (NPS 2012t, 2011a, 2010b, 2009a, 2008c, 2007i). From 2010 to 

2012 an average of six citations for pedestrians in bird nesting areas and five citations for vehicles in bird 

nesting areas were issued by Seashore law enforcement, while an average of 195 citations or warnings 

were given for dogs off of leash (NPS 2012t, 2011a, 2010b). These numbers, however, do not reflect all 

of the violations that occur; just ones where law enforcement was present when they did. For example, in 

2009, 53 pedestrian violations and 20 vehicle violations were documented (foot prints or vehicle tracks 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 281

found within closures), but only one pedestrian and 6 vehicle citations were issued, while in 2008 42 

pedestrian and 55 vehicle violations were documented, but only 1 pedestrian and 7 vehicle citations were 

issued (NPS 2009a and 2008c). 

Noncompliance with buffers and closures results in vehicles, people, and/or pets entering plover habitat 

and coming in close proximity to plovers. This can lead to flushing responses or other behavioral changes 

in birds, which in turn could have the potential to negatively impact feeding, reproduction, resting, or 

other activities (Burger 1991; Flemming et al. 1988; Melvin et al. 1994; Patterson et al. 1991; Patterson, 

Fraser, and Roggenbuck 1990; Zonick 2000). In 2007, one pedestrian violation of the bird nesting area at 

Ophelia Inlet may have caused abandonment of the nest due a pedestrian walking right over a nest with 

two eggs (NPS 2007i). Footprints led right over the nest and only missed stepping on the nest by a few 

inches. While regular patrols of areas by law enforcement rangers, trained observers, and field biologists 

help to deter closure and leash violations, with continued ORV and pedestrian access at the Seashore and 

no planned increases in law enforcement or resource protection staffing under alternative A it is 

anticipated that noncompliance (either intentional or unintentional) with regulations and closures would 

continue to occur. These violations would adversely impact piping plover habitat and bring vehicles, 

pedestrians, and possibly pets in close proximity to birds. This would cause short-term adverse impacts at 

the location of the violation and could result in long-term adverse impacts from decreased reproductive 

output if there is a chronic lack of compliance (Burger 1991; Culbert 2004; Flemming et al. 1988; Melvin 

et al. 1994; Patterson et al. 1991; Patterson, Fraser, and Roggenbuck 1990; USFWS 2010; Zonick 2000). 

The back route from mile marker 44 to mile marker 45, which is normally closed to ORV traffic, would 

be opened to ORV traffic when the point of Cape Lookout is closed to ORV through-traffic for resource 

protection or safety reasons. As discussed above, most ORV users respect closures, however, some 

noncompliance has occurred in the past (NPS 2012t, 2011a, 2010b, 2009a, 2008c, 2007i) and would be 

expected to continue in the future. The point of Cape Lookout is a popular visitor destination and when it 

is closed it prevents easy access on the beach to the west without driving through Cape Village. Allowing 

use of the back route from mile marker 44 to 45 when the point of Cape Lookout is closed would allow 

ORV users to continue to easily access the beach area to the west of the point of Cape Lookout. This 

would likely help reduce visitor frustration with the closure of the point of Cape Lookout and may help 

prevent potential noncompliance with the closure, thus providing some short-term beneficial impacts to 

piping plovers and their habitat. 

Night-Driving—Under alternative A, night driving would continue to be allowed. Plovers are known to 

be active at night (Staine and Burger 1994; Majka and Shaffer 2008), and plover chick response to 

vehicles can increase their vulnerability to ORVs (USFWS 1996a). Chicks often move between the upper 

berm or foredune and the wrack line or intertidal zone while feeding, which places them in the path of 

vehicles (USFWS 1996a). Chicks walk in tire ruts, which they often have difficulty getting out of and 

they may respond slowly to a moving vehicle, sometimes even remaining motionless or appearing 

indifferent to the approaching vehicle (Flemming et al. 1988; Melvin et al. 1994; USFWS 1996a;). When 

chicks are found to be using the ocean beach, buffers would be expanded under alternative A to include a 

600-foot ORV closure around each brood which would help protect them from ORV traffic, including at 

night. However, piping plovers can be highly mobile at all life stages and can range outside of a bird 

closure before surveying and management can respond. If plovers move outside of buffers at night they 

would be susceptible to impacts from night driving especially since they are even more difficult to see at 

night. Allowing night driving under alternative A would result in observable, long-term adverse impacts 

because the impacts listed above might occur during critical periods of reproduction and result in 

harassment, injury, or mortality to one or more individuals if chicks are not observed and avoided. 

Permit Requirements—Under alternative A, there would be no permitting requirements (except for 

long-term parking) for ORV use at the Seashore. It is anticipated that visitation to the Seashore will 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

282 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

slowly grow in the future, with an estimated annual increase of approximately 1.5 percent (NPS 2010j). 

With increased visitation, it is assumed that the number of ORVs on the beach at the Seashore would also 

slowly grow in the future. As described under the alternatives where a permit system would be 

implemented, such a system would provide the Seashore with a means for providing additional education 

to ORV users regarding the importance of piping plover habitat at the Seashore, as well as additional 

methods (i.e., revoking permits) for dealing with noncompliance of Seashore regulations. Although ORV 

use would continue to be prohibited in ORV or full recreational closures, the lack of a permit system 

could result in limited adverse impacts on piping plovers because without a permit program, there would 

be less user education regarding these closures. Also, without a permit program, the number of ORVs on 

the Seashore would be allowed to grow unencumbered, and as the number of vehicles at the Seashore 

continues to increase, the potential for vehicle disturbance to piping plovers would also likely increase 

from current levels. This disturbance could include direct mortality, flushing response, nest abandonment, 

and other behavioral changes. The continued increase in vehicles on the Seashore could also result in 

corresponding increase the amount of noncompliance (intentional or unintentional) with closures and 

other Seashore regulations that are in place to protect piping plovers. 

Camping—Camping activities have been observed to cause adult piping plovers to flush from nests, 

resulting in loss of eggs or chicks, complete abandonment of the nest, and increased susceptibility to 

predation (Elliot-Smith and Haig 2004; Cohen, Houghton, and Fraser 2009; Burger 1987; Boettcher et al. 

2007; Lauro and Tanacredi 2002; Patterson, Fraser, and Roggenbuck 1990). Under alternative A, 

camping and campfires would be permitted on all beaches of the Seashore that are not otherwise closed 

by the Superintendent’s Compendium, closed for safety, or closed for species protection. For species 

protection, because public entry is prohibited in full recreational closures, camping and campfires would 

not be allowed within these areas. In addition, although turtle nesting closures are just ORV closures, 

camping and campfires would also be prohibited in the six sea turtle nest relocation areas on North Core 

and South Core Banks. For piping plovers, full recreational closures are established April 1 in active, 

historic, and potential new habitat; expanded to provide a 150-foot buffer round all areas of territorial, 

courtship, or mating behavior; and expanded to provide a 150-foot buffer around all nests. Prohibiting 

camping and campfires in these full recreational closures would remove the potential impacts camping 

and campfires could have on nesting piping plovers, providing short-and long-term beneficial impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative A 

Other past, present, and future planned actions within the Seashore have the potential to impact piping 

plovers at the Seashore. Various dredging activities have been conducted and would continue to be 

conducted in the vicinity of the Seashore. After Hurricane Irene, the Long Point ferry basin was dredged 

in 2011 (NPS 2011i). In addition, the Beaufort Inlet has been dredged and would continue to be dredged 

on an annual basis as long as funding is available. In the past, dredge material from the dredging of 

Beaufort Inlet has not been placed on any Seashore beaches. However, moving forward, as part of the EIS 

for the Morehead City Harbor Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP), NPS has agreed to allow 

consideration for the deposition of restricted amounts of dredged material on Shackleford Banks during 

the 20-year period beginning in 2015 and extending through 2034 (USACE 2013). As it relates to 

Shackelford Banks, if the NPS allows dredged material to be deposited on the beach, placement of 

material would potentially occur every 3 to 4 years along a 3.65-mile-long stretch of the beach, dredged 

material would be compatible with the existing beach (>90 percent sand), and in any year that the NPS 

allows beach disposal to occur, the NPS would only permit it to occur from November 16 through March 

30, which is outside of the piping plover nesting season. Piping plovers rarely nest on Shackleford Banks, 

with only one breeding pair (in 2005) recorded since 1989 (NPS 2012t). With any potential beach 

disposal only occurring outside of the piping plover’s nesting season, there would be no effect on 

breeding piping plovers. If it occurs, disposal of material on the beach would occur from the base of the 

existing frontal dune to the -24 foot depth. This would potentially add up to 33 acres of new ocean beach 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 283

as often as every 3 years about 1 mile east of the Shackleford Spit off Beaufort Inlet (USACE 2013). 

Although disposal activities could temporarily displace wintering plovers from the immediate vicinity, 

long-term beneficial impacts would result from the increase in acres of designated critical habitat for the 

wintering piping plover on Shackleford Banks. 

Oregon Inlet has been dredged in the past and would continue to be dredged in the future. Due to the 

presence of nesting sea turtles, dredging activities do not take place during the spring or summer, which is 

also when piping plovers are breeding; so there would be no direct impacts to breeding plovers. The 

dredging of inlets can affect spit formation adjacent to inlets, which over time could result in the loss of 

potential plover habitat, resulting in long-term adverse impacts (USFWS 1996a). However, dredging 

operations can also result in long-term beneficial impacts to plovers as well. Sand from dredging 

operations is often used for onshore beach nourishment which can help to curtail erosion and expand 

plover nesting habitat. Because dredging and beach nourishment projects require permits, stipulations in 

the permits generally do not allow these activities to occur when plovers are present. The locations of 

sand disposal associated with future dredging activities of Oregon Inlet are not known. However, through 

informal consultation between the USFWS and the Army Corps of Engineers regarding impacts of 

appropriately conditioned beach nourishment proposals (not necessarily related to Oregon Inlet) it has 

been determined that the proposed projects would not adversely affect piping plovers (USFWS 1996a). 

Therefore, the Oregon Inlet dredging operations would also not adversely affect piping plovers. 

Several past, current, and future plans and actions at the Seashore address visitation and improvement of 

visitor amenities and, therefore, could impact piping plovers at the Seashore. The Commercial Services 

Plan / Environmental Assessment / Assessment of Effect (NPS 2007m) guides the Seashore in improving 

the management and operation of commercial visitor services, while providing self-directed and 

facilitated visitor opportunities. Visitor services that are offered and could continue to be offered at the 

Seashore include land transportation services, sale of limited food and sundry supplies, and ferry 

transportation. Very little new facility construction to support projected visitor demands for 

transportation, rental services, and sales of supplies is proposed as part of the Commercial Services Plan, 

and what little construction is proposed would occur at the current arrival locations on the islands. Since 

these areas are already developed and do not provide habitat for piping plovers, there would be no impact 

from any of the limited construction activities. 

Land transportation services include a beach shuttle service originating in the lighthouse area and 

traveling to points on South Core Banks, limited UTV tours at the northern end of North Core Banks, and 

limited vehicle transportation service from the Long Point and Great Island concession areas. These 

transportation services could have adverse impacts on piping plovers and their habitat similar to those 

previously described for public ORV use. However, any adverse impacts would be relatively small given 

the size of the operations and because their vehicles would continue to use established transportation 

routes including the back route and would adhere to all buffers/closures and other Seashore regulations. 

While the sale of food could increase trash at the Seashore and attract predators, sales are limited and 

confined to developed areas of the Seashore, so impacts would be negligible. Ferry operations occur on 

the soundside of South Core and North Core Banks where there is no piping plover habitat, so there 

would be no impacts from the continued operation of these services. Therefore, the overall impact of 

commercial services and improved visitor amenities is expected to be adverse but limited. 

The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps conduct flight operations in the area of the Seashore. These operations 

include recent actions taken by the military to lower the ceiling (or altitude) above which planes may fly 

up to the speed of sound from 10,000 feet to 3,000 feet, and increased capabilities of offshore training. In 

addition, Marine Corps Cherry Point Air Station is located approximately 30 miles northwest of the 

Seashore. The air station and its associated support locations occupy more than 29,000 acres, which 

served as an alternate emergency landing site for the space shuttle launches out of Cape Canaveral, 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

284 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Florida (U.S. Marine Corps n.d.). Two studies assessed the impacts of the lowered ceiling on nesting 

shorebirds at the Seashore: one studied American oystercatchers (Simmons and Borneman 2006), and the 

other studied Wilson’s plover and colonial waterbirds (least terns, common terns, gull-billed terns, and 

black skimmers) (Derose-Wilson et al. n.d.). These studies were conducted during the 2010 and 2011 

nesting seasons. Simmons and Borneman (2012) concluded that at their peak sound level, military 

overflights contributed to a 72.5 dBA (A-weighted decibel) sound level, which is comparable to walking 

along the oceanside of the point of Cape Lookout (see “Soundscapes/Acoustic Environment”). Thus, the 

report concluded that there is no noteworthy evidence that military overflights affect the behavioral 

responses of American oystercatchers, including low-altitude flyovers (Simmons and Borneman 2012). 

Derose-Wilson et al. (n.d.) found that Wilson’s plovers did not exhibit any behavior changes to the 

military overflights while least terns incubated their nests more after an overflight, but only during 

overflights in sound exposure levels greater than 90 dBA, which was the top 10 percent of sound 

exposure levels for all military overflights. Though sample sizes were small for other nesting colonial 

waterbirds, the authors found no indication that their responses would be different than those of the least 

tern. Although neither study specifically assessed the impacts to piping plovers, the authors of both 

studies concluded that the lower altitude flights did not have an appreciable effect on the behavior of any 

of the birds in question. Given the similarity in nesting and habitat use between all of the birds and piping 

plovers, it is reasonable to assume that the military overflights would also not have an appreciable adverse 

effect on piping plovers. 

Currently, the BOEM is analyzing the issuance of leases for developing offshore commercial wind 

energy. BOEM in cooperation with the State of North Carolina has established a task force, comprised of 

relevant federal agencies, state government officials, and local and Tribal elected government officials, in 

the planning and decision-making process in identifying a wind energy area off the coast of North 

Carolina. Although the planning process includes a thorough analysis of reasonable alternatives and 

cumulative impacts on sensitive resources, including birds, it is likely that the development of offshore 

wind stations would adversely impact piping plovers (including those that may use the Seashore). 

Adverse impacts associated with wind turbines include direct mortality from collisions with turbine 

blades and turbine avoidance, which can reduce fitness by exclusion from key foraging habitat or by 

energetic costs of inducing longer flight paths (especially for migrating shorebirds and ducks) (BOEM 

n.d.). 

Many past, present, and future actions, plans, and programs at the Seashore provide benefits for piping 

plovers. The Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management 

Plan/Environmental Assessment states that the NPS will meet its obligations under the NPS Organic Act 

and the ESA to both proactively conserve listed species and prevent detrimental effects on these species. 

To meet these obligations, the NPS will “manage designated critical habitat, essential habitat, and 

recovery areas to maintain and enhance their value for the recovery of threatened and endangered 

species.” In addition, the NPS will take on active management programs to inventory, monitor, restore, 

and maintain listed species’ habitats, control detrimental nonnative species, control detrimental visitor 

access, and re-establish extirpated populations as necessary to conserve listed species and prevent 

detrimental effects on these species (NPS 2006a). Although the plan permits continued ORV access, 

which has the potential to impact piping plovers at the Seashore, the plan is beneficial for piping plovers, 

because it includes measures to educate visitors about resources at the Seashore and management 

measures, including buffers, to protect those resources. In addition, the plan includes future ongoing 

monitoring and staff resource protection activities, which have the potential to benefit the species by 

providing additional information to drive future management decisions. The education aspect of the plan 

provides long-term benefits to piping plovers because it helps to educate visitors about the conservation 

needs of the species at the Seashore and the protection measures that are put in place to help protect it. 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore also previously implemented the Cape Hatteras National Seashore 

Interim Protected Species Management Strategy / Environmental Assessment and more recently 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 285

implemented a long-term ORV management plan/EIS; both of which include protection measures for 

piping plovers to minimize potential adverse impacts from ORVs, pedestrians, and pets. Because Cape 

Hatteras National Seashore is in such close proximity to Cape Lookout National Seashore the benefits to 

piping plovers at Cape Hatteras from these two plans also provides benefits to piping plovers at Cape 

Lookout through the long term protection of the entire regional population. 

The USFWS recovery plan and designation of critical habitat for the piping plover provides protection for 

species at the Seashore. Critical habitat designation for the piping plover includes all of the inlets in the 

Seashore, Portsmouth Flats, Kathryn-Jane Flats, and the point of Cape Lookout. The habitat includes 

ocean beach, mud flats, sand flats, and soundside beach used as foraging areas and sparsely vegetated low 

dunes. All piping plover breeding sites at the Seashore were designated as critical habitat for wintering 

birds. Critical habitat designation at the Seashore would continue to result in long-term beneficial impacts 

on piping plovers as breeding and foraging habitat would be protected and disturbance to these areas 

would be limited. 

A population of culturally important wild horses exists on Shackleford Banks. The population of 

approximately 109 wild horses is legislatively protected (NPS 2012b) and is maintained through a horse 

management plan that defines how the population is cooperatively managed by both the NPS and the 

foundation of Shackleford Horses (NPS 2007h). The horses are generally found on the dunes, in the 

swales between the dunes, on the marsh or in the forest. Part of the management of horses calls for the 

population to be maintained at a prescribed level so that it does not get too large. To the extent that they 

roam on the beaches in habitat where piping plovers are found, there is potential for piping plover eggs 

and chicks to be trampled. However, since only one pair of breeding piping plovers has been documented 

on Shackleford Banks since 1989 (NPS 2012t), the potential for adverse impacts from the presence of the 

wild horses is minimal. When roaming the beaches during the winter months, the horses could also 

disturb wintering plovers, though impacts would be temporary and likely minimal. 

The Seashore is implementing a long-range interpretive plan (NPS 2011k) that further articulates the 

purpose, significance, and themes of the Seashore. The long-range interpretive plan informs and guides 

the Seashore’s interpretive and education program, and includes goals to provide education programs to 

the public about threatened and endangered species within the Seashore. Such education programs, if 

implemented, would provide long-term benefits to piping plovers because it helps to educate visitors 

about the conservation needs of the species at the Seashore and the protection measures that are put in 

place to help protect it. 

The Foundation Document (NPS 2012s) for the Seashore identifies the following projects that may 

impact piping plovers at the Seashore: Harkers Island Master Plan, Great Island and Long Point Master 

Plan, Resource stewardship strategy, Comprehensive Sign Plan, nonnative species and predator 

management plan, and the sustainability plan/green plan. These planning efforts would establish 

development patterns at the Seashore, taking in to consideration the location of piping plover and other 

sensitive species breeding and plan to avoid or minimize impacts to these habitats. A comprehensive sign 

plan would allow the NPS to more effectively communicate messages to visitors, including those 

regarding the importance of species management at the Seashore and a nonnative species and predator 

management plan would provide for additional protection of piping plover and their habitat. All of these 

planned efforts would have beneficial impacts on piping plover at the Seashore. 

Finally, the Seashore conducted a predator study to evaluate if predator removal is an effective means to 

alleviate predator threats to threatened and endangered species at the Seashore. A three-year research 

study (2007-2009) evaluated the response of predator (raccoon) and prey populations to raccoon removal. 

The NPS implemented the preferred alternative (experimental reduction of raccoon population to evaluate 

removal as an option for protected species management) outlined in the predator study / environmental 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

286 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

assessment (EA). During the study approximately half of the raccoon population on the South Core Banks 

was removed and euthanized. In the year after removal, there was a decrease in piping plover nest 

predation from 27.6 percent of the nests in 2008 to 5.6 percent of the nests in 2009 (Waldstein 2010). 

Piping plover productivity also increased from 0.23 fledglings per pair in 2008 to 0.64 fledglings per pair 

in 2009, although the increase was not statistically significant (Waldstein 2010). Predator trapping might 

result in short-term disturbance to nests and young, or in loss of nests or hatchlings if trappers are not 

cognizant of nest locations. However, overall predator management actions, including predator removal, 

would likely provide long-term benefits to piping plovers by reducing the predation pressure on the 

piping plover population at the Seashore. 

The overall combined impacts of these past, current, and future actions on piping plover would be shortand long-term, limited, and adverse from disturbance to foraging and nesting birds from visitor/ORV use, 

dredging activities, shoreline stabilization, visitor amenity improvements, and military overflights. There 

would also be long-term beneficial impacts from the protection afforded to piping plovers and their 

habitat by species monitoring, species buffers, habitat protection, visitor protection patrols, visitor 

education programs, control of the wild horse population, predator management, and future planning 

efforts under the Foundation Plan. While adverse effects on piping plover from other actions occurring in 

the region would still exist, actions under alternative A would provide additional protection that would be 

beneficial to the regional population of this species and would offset some of the adverse effects. 

ALTERNATIVE B

Impacts of Alternative B 

Resource Management Activities 

Surveying and Monitoring—Surveying and monitoring for piping plovers and their habitat under 

alternative B and the impacts from these actions would be the same as described under alternative A. As 

described under alternative A, surveying and monitoring piping plovers and their habitat provides longterm beneficial impacts to the species because it allows the Seashore to better manage piping plovers, 

which may lead to increased reproductive success of the species at the Seashore. While overall surveying 

activities would provide beneficial impacts, they could also cause some short-term adverse impacts by 

negatively impacting feeding, reproduction, resting, or other piping plover behavior (Burger 1991, 1994). 

However, NPS staff would use best professional judgment and take precautions to minimize disturbance 

during surveying, such as observing incubating birds with optical equipment from appropriate distances 

and maintaining slow speeds while using ORVs in or near piping plover habitat. Additionally, there 

would be more consistent training and supervision of resource staff who conduct the surveys. This would 

result in a higher quality of monitoring for the species, resulting in beneficial impacts. 

Establishment of Prenesting Closures—Under alternative B, establishing prenesting closures would be 

the same as alternative A (full recreational closure), except that historical shorebird nesting areas would 

be posted by March 16, prior to opening the beach to vehicles. This action would result in short- and 

long-term benefits for piping plovers by protecting their habitat as well as any birds when they first arrive 

at the Seashore, which is typically in mid-March (Cohen et al. 2010; Patterson, Fraser, and Roggenbuck 

1990), from ORV and pedestrian impacts during the early season when territories are being established 

and mating behavior begins. 

Buffer/Closure Establishment—Establishing buffers/closures under alternative B would occur the same 

as under alternative A. This includes establishing a minimum 600-foot ORV buffer on either side of a 

brood for unfledged chicks based on observation of bird behavior and terrain conditions at the site. This 

also includes the possibility of implementing an escort program on a case-by-case basis to allow access to 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 287

the Seashore beyond the closure if ORVs could not be routed around the closure and there is sufficient 

staff available to implement the escort program. Establishing a full recreational closure for resource 

protection around birds and adjusting them based on chick behavior would result in short- and long-term 

benefits by reducing the potential for contact between Seashore visitors and birds. While frequent 

adjustment of buffers by NPS staff may result in additional disturbance to piping plovers, (Anderson and 

Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; Hand 1980; Tremblay and Ellison 1979), any potential adverse 

effects would be outweighed by the benefits to the chicks from adjusting the buffers to protect them from 

disturbance due to pedestrians and ORVs. 

Management of Wintering Habitat for Nonbreeding Plovers—Surveying nonbreeding populations of 

piping plover under alternative B would be the same as under alternative A and would occur once per 

month from August 1 through March 31. Surveying activities could potentially result in some noise 

disturbance and short-term displacement of birds from the presence of resource staff in foraging/resting 

habitat. However, any small amount of adverse impacts would only occur once per month and as 

described for alternative A, surveying would increase knowledge on how and when piping plovers use the 

Seashore, providing long-term benefits by better informing management decisions. Like alternative A, 

under alternative B the Seashore would be closed to vehicles from January 1 through March 15. This 

would result in long-term benefits for wintering plovers by providing protected habitat during the winter 

and allowing the beach profile to recover from heavy fall fishing use. While the closure of the Seashore to 

vehicles from January 1 through March 15 would help protect wintering plovers, no full recreational 

closures would be established that would include pedestrians, which could result in disturbance of 

individuals and habitat from pedestrian use, leading to displacement and altered foraging behavior. 

However, impacts of pedestrians on wintering plovers would be largely imperceptible because many 

passenger ferries stop operating in the winter, the amount of pedestrian use during the winter months is 

very low, and such use is predominantly concentrated at ferry arrival nodes. 

Predator Management—Similar to alternative A, under alternative B the Seashore would continue to 

use predator exclosures to protect piping plover nests resulting in short-and long-term beneficial impacts. 

However, under alternative B, the Seashore would also perform limited removal of mammalian predators 

when predation is observed that impacts sensitive species. Predator removal is considered more effective 

than nest exclosures in increasing reproductive output, likely due to increased chick survival (Cohen, 

Houghton, and Fraser 2009). A predator removal study conducted on South Core Banks found a decrease 

in piping plover nest predation (down from 27.6 percent in 2008 to 5.6 percent in 2009) one year after 

removal and euthanasia of half of the raccoon population (Waldstein 2010). The study also found 

increased piping plover productivity one year after the raccoon removal (up to 0.64 fledglings per pair in 

2009 from 0.23 fledglings per pair in 2008), but the increase was not statistically significant (Waldstein 

2010). By helping to reduce predation pressure and potentially increasing nesting and fledging success for 

piping plovers, the limited removal of mammalian predators under alternative B would result in short- and 

long-term beneficial impacts for piping plovers. 

Education/Public Outreach—In addition to the outreach and education measures that would be 

implemented under alternative A, under alternative B staffing levels would increase for interpretation 

positions (to provide formal outreach and on-site ORV education on the subject of protected species 

management) and law enforcement (among other duties, law enforcement assists with public education). 

Also, educational materials would be provided to Seashore users through an operator education 

certificate, which would be required for all ORV operators and would be valid for one year. Under 

alternative B, the Seashore would work with vehicle ferry operators to coordinate distribution of 

educational materials regarding ORV rules and regulations. In addition, a uniform system of ORV and 

full recreational closure signage would be provided, as well as regularly updated maps of closures, which 

would also be available online. Such public outreach is beneficial to piping plovers because it further 

educates the public about the specific needs of the species and alerts the public about closures due to 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

288 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

potential impacts on the species. Public education has long been recommended as a way to reduce 

disturbance to sensitive species and habitats and garner support for conservation programs (Klein, 

Humphrey, and Franklin 1995; Boettcher et al. 2007; Carlson and Godfrey 1989). Therefore, public 

outreach under alternative B as part of species management would have long-term beneficial impacts on 

piping plovers. 

Research/Monitoring—Research and monitoring under alternative B would be the same as alternative 

A, except that ORV use on beaches and visitor compliance would be closely monitored to determine the 

success of specific regulations or the need to re-focus enforcement and education efforts. Research efforts 

have the potential to negatively impact feeding, reproduction, resting, or other piping plover behavior 

over the long term due to the increased human presence and use of ORVs (Anderson and Keith 1980; 

Ellison and Cleary 1978; Tremblay and Ellison 1979; Hand 1980). However the research, including the 

additional elements under alternative B, would contribute to the long-term beneficial impacts of research 

and monitoring on piping plovers by focusing efforts on visitor compliance and species sensitivity, so that 

management actions could be adjusted accordingly. 

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

ORVs and Pedestrian Access—The same amount of beach area (approximately 81 percent or 45 miles) 

would be open to ORV use from March 16 through December 31 under alternative B as it would be under 

alternative A. Therefore, management of ORV and other recreational use under alternative B would be 

similar to alternative A with a few exceptions that would result in additional protection of piping plovers 

and their habitat. 

On sections of Core Banks where no ferry landing access is available (e.g., Middle Core Banks or future 

areas that may become cut off during storm events) designated ORV routes would be closed. These areas 

would reopen to ORV use if they become rejoined to an area with ferry access. During times when areas 

are cut off from ferry access, impacts from ORVs would be eliminated in those areas, providing shortand potentially long-term beneficial impacts. 

The back route from mile marker 44 to mile marker 45 which is normally closed to ORV traffic, would be 

opened to ORV traffic when the point of Cape Lookout is closed to ORV through-traffic for resource 

protection or safety reasons. As discussed under alternative A, most ORV users respect closures, 

however, some noncompliance has occurred in the past (NPS 2012t, 2011a, 2010b, 2009a, 2008c, 2007i) 

and would be expected to continue to occur in the future. The point of Cape Lookout is a popular visitor 

destination and when it is closed it also prevents easy access on the beach to the west without driving 

through Cape Village. Allowing use of the back route from mile marker 44 to 45 when the point of Cape 

Lookout is closed would allow ORV users to continue to easily access the beach area to the west of the 

point of Cape Lookout. This would likely help reduce visitor frustration with the closure of the point of 

Cape Lookout and may help prevent any potential noncompliance with the closure, thus providing some 

short-term beneficial impacts to piping plovers and their habitat. 

Under alternative B, the back route would be regularly maintained by the Seashore and re-established if 

impacted by a storm event. This would continue to allow the back route to be used by ORVs as a bypass 

when full beach closures occur for species protection or safety reasons. Additionally, if driving conditions 

on the back route deteriorate significantly vehicles are less likely to use it on a routine basis to traverse 

long distances along the Seashore and are more likely to drive on the beach. Regularly maintaining the 

back route and re-establishing it after impacts from storms would help encourage vehicles to use it instead 

of the beach, lessening potential vehicle impacts on piping plovers and their habitat. Also under 

alternative B, there is the potential for small changes to the number and location of ramps as needed, and 

ramps may be moved or re-established after major storm events to restore access. While no maintenance 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 289

or construction of ramps would be conducted near piping plover habitat during the nesting season, to the 

extent that new ramps are constructed or existing ramps are re-established in areas that might provide 

suitable habitat for piping plovers, these activities would remove potential habitat for the species. 

However, the area impacted by any new or re-established ramps would be small compared to the overall 

habitat available to piping plovers, minimizing any adverse impacts. 

Although all ORV use has the potential to disturb bird nesting behavior, as discussed under alternative A, 

based on studies by McGowan and Simons (2006) and Simons and Borneman (2012), it appears that ATV 

use, and to some extent UTV use, impacts shorebirds to a greater extent than other types of ORVs (e.g., 

four-wheel drive passenger vehicles) likely due to the fact that they are louder and faster. The studies do 

not differentiate between different types of ATVs and/or UTVs because high-performance sport-model 

ATVs and UTVs, as well as two-stroke models, are designed for racing, jumping, and moving at high 

rates of speed; however, these models likely could cause more impacts to shorebirds than utility-model 

ATVs and UTVs that are designed to be used in a utilitarian way. The speed and noise of highperformance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs may be perceived by shorebirds as a greater 

threat, causing shorebirds to alter their behavior. Because of this, all high-performance sport-model and 

two-stroke ATVs and UTVs would be prohibited at the Seashore under alternative B after a five-year 

grace period. Eliminating these vehicles and their potential impacts from the Seashore would provide 

short- and long-term benefits to piping plovers. 

Pedestrian access on the Seashore would be the same as described for alternative A, potentially resulting 

in disturbance and potential displacement of piping plovers, depending on visitor density and the timing 

of disturbance (e.g., during critical periods of reproduction). Disturbance as a result of pedestrian and 

ORV access during the most critical periods of reproduction and within key habitats could occur. Such 

disturbance could result in abandonment of nests, loss of habitat, or potentially direct mortality if closure 

compliance is lacking or if the breach of the closure occurs during the earlier life stages (Melvin et al. 

1994; Patterson et al. 1991; Flemming et al. 1988; Patterson, Fraser, and Roggenbuck 1990; Zonick 2000; 

Burger 1991; Culbert 2004; USFWS 2010). Overall impacts would be reduced, however, through higher 

quality of monitoring due to more consistent training and supervision of resource staff and increased 

compliance through increased staffing levels in law enforcement and interpretation positions. 

Night-Driving—Under alternative B, regulations would be established that would prohibit driving 

between the hours of 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. from May 1 through August 31, except in the Great Island and 

Long Point cabin areas. The May 1 through August 31 timeframe covers the majority of the 

nesting/fledging season at the Seashore as the first piping plover nests are initiated in late April, and the 

brood-rearing period extends from late May through mid-August (Cohen 2005b). Most adults and young 

then depart the breeding grounds between mid-July and early September (Cohen 2005a). Because plovers 

are known to be active at night (Staine and Burger 1994; Majka and Shaffer 2008), and plover chick and 

fledgling responses to vehicles can increase their vulnerability to ORVs (USFWS 1996a; Melvin et al. 

1994), prohibiting night driving from May 1 through August 31 under alternative B would provide longterm beneficial impacts to piping plovers. However, some short- and long-term adverse impacts to 

nonnesting piping plovers could still result outside of the May 1 through August 31 timeframe when night

driving is permitted. Impacts could include interrupting foraging behavior, injury, or mortality from 

collisions with vehicles. 

Permit Requirements—Under alternative B, long-term (annual) and short-term (10-day) vehicle permits 

would be instituted to better manage vehicles at the Seashore, though it would not limit the number of 

vehicles that could operate on the Seashore at any one time. Additionally, each licensed driver would be 

required to obtain an operator education certificate to operate a vehicle at the Seashore. Both the permit 

and operator education certificate could be revoked for violation of applicable Seashore regulations or 

terms and conditions of the permit. The permit would be fee-based and fees collected from the permitting 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

290 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

system could be used by the Seashore to put towards among other things species management and 

protection, as well as education measures which would benefit piping plovers. Educational information 

provided with the permit and operator education certificate would benefit piping plovers by making ORV 

users more aware of the need for and benefit of ORV and full recreational closures for resource protection 

and of the regulations in place to protect this species. This, along with the deterrent of potentially losing 

driving privileges would likely result in a higher level of compliance with buffers, closures, and other 

Seashore regulations, resulting in short- and long-term beneficial impacts to piping plovers. While most 

ORV users respect closures, closure violations do occur (NPS 2012t, 2011a, 2010b, 2009a, 2008c). Such 

violations bring vehicles, people, and pets in close proximity to piping plovers which can result in adverse 

impacts on feeding, reproduction, resting, or other behaviors (Burger 1991; Flemming et al. 1988; Melvin 

et al. 1994; Patterson et al. 1991; Patterson, Fraser, and Roggenbuck 1990; Zonick 2000). 

Camping—Under alternative B, camping and campfire activities along the ocean beach would be 

permitted in areas similar to alternative A (i.e., on all beaches of the Seashore that are not otherwise 

closed by the Superintendent’s Compendium, closed for safety, or closed for species protection). As 

described under alternative A, species protection areas where camping and campfires would be prohibited 

include full recreational closures established in active, historic, and potential new piping plover habitat; 

areas where territorial, courtship, or mating behavior is observed; and around piping plover nests. 

Prohibiting camping and campfires in these areas would provide short-and long-term beneficial impacts 

to piping plovers by removing the impacts from these activities which could otherwise cause adult piping 

plovers to flush from nests and potentially result in the loss of eggs or chicks, complete abandonment of 

the nest, or increased susceptibility to predation (Elliot-Smith and Haig 2004; Cohen, Houghton, and 

Fraser 2009; Burger 1987; Boettcher et al. 2007; Lauro and Tanacredi 2002; Patterson, Fraser, and 

Roggenbuck 1990). 

Additionally, under alternative B campsites for emergency camping would be designated in areas along 

the back route. However, they would not be designated in areas suitable for piping plover nesting so there 

would be no impact to the species. 

Adaptive Management Strategy—Under alternative B, an adaptive management strategy would be 

implemented to ensure that the goals of species protection are being met. Although the adaptive 

management strategy depends on the American oystercatcher as the indicator species, it would provide 

both short- and long-term beneficial impacts to piping plovers. If levels of disturbance to the American 

oystercatcher from ORVs are triggered (see chapter 2 for the trigger thresholds) more intensive 

management actions could be implemented. These management actions would potentially include 

increased education and focused enforcement, which would help reduce closure violations that could 

impact piping plovers; additional trash management and fish scrap disposal, which would likely reduce 

the number of predators attracted to the beach that could prey upon piping plovers; additional predator 

control, which would help protect piping plovers, their nests, and fledglings from raccoons and other 

mammalian predators; ORV route restrictions and increased buffer sizes, both of which would protect 

piping plover habitat, as well as the plovers themselves and their nests; and a reduction in the number of 

long-term (annual) and/or short-term (10-day) vehicle permits along with managing the size of the vehicle 

storage lots, both of which would help to reduce the number of vehicles on the Seashore at any one time, 

and thus likely reducing the potential impacts from ORVs. If species indicators continue to be triggered 

due to visitor use impacts for two consecutive years after implementing the previously mentioned actions, 

then reducing the number of long-term (annual) and/or short-term (10-day) vehicle permits issued and 

increasing the size of species protection buffer could be implemented. These actions would reduce the 

number of vehicles driving on the beach and increase the distance the vehicles could approach birds and 

nests, thereby reducing the amount of potential impacts caused by ORVs, providing short- and long-term 

beneficial impacts to piping plovers. 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 291

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative B 

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions that have the potential to impact piping plover under 

alternative B would be the same as those described under alternative A. The overall combined impacts of 

these past, present, and future actions on piping plover would be short- and long-term, limited, and 

adverse from disturbance to foraging and nesting birds from visitor/ORV use, dredging activities, 

shoreline stabilization, visitor amenity improvements, and military overflights. The overall combined 

impacts would also have long-term beneficial impacts from the protection afforded to piping plovers and 

their habitat by species monitoring, species buffers, habitat protection, visitor protection patrols, visitor 

education programs, control of the wild horse population, predator management, and future efforts under 

the Foundation Plan. While adverse effects on piping plover from other actions occurring in the region 

would still exist, actions under alternative B would provide additional protection that would be beneficial 

to the regional population of this species and would offset some of the adverse effects. 

ALTERNATIVE C

Impacts of Alternative C 

Resource Management Activities 

Surveying and Monitoring—Surveying and monitoring for piping plovers and their habitat, and the 

impacts from the actions under alternative C would be the same as described for alternative A. As 

described under alternative A, surveying and monitoring piping plovers and their habitat provides longterm beneficial impacts to the species because it allows the Seashore to better manage piping plovers, 

which may lead to increased reproductive success of the species at the Seashore. While overall surveying 

activities would provide beneficial impacts, they could also cause some short-term adverse impacts by 

negatively impacting feeding, reproduction, resting, or other piping plover behavior (Burger 1991, 1994). 

However, NPS staff would use best professional judgment and take precautions to minimize disturbance 

during surveying, such as observing incubating birds with optical equipment from appropriate distances 

and maintaining slow speeds while using ORVs in or near piping plover habitat. Additionally, there 

would be more consistent training and supervision of resource staff who conduct the surveys. This would 

result in a higher quality of monitoring for the species, resulting in beneficial impacts. 

Establishment of Prenesting Closures—Under alternative C, establishing full recreational closures for 

prenesting and the impacts from these actions would be the same as under alternative B. Short- and longterm benefits to piping plovers would result from establishing full recreational closures in historical 

shorebird nesting areas prior to opening the beach to vehicles on March 16 by protecting their habitat. 

These benefits would also apply to other birds when they first arrive at the Seashore, which is typically in 

mid-March (Cohen et al. 2010; Patterson, Fraser, and Roggenbuck 1990), from ORV and pedestrian 

impacts during the early season when territories are being established and mating behavior begins. 

Buffer/Closure Establishment—Under alternative C, the establishment of resource buffers/closures 

would be the same as described for alternative A. This includes establishing a minimum 600-foot ORV 

buffer on either side of a brood for unfledged chicks on the beach. This also includes the possibility of 

implementing an escort program on a case-by-case basis to allow access to the Seashore beyond the 

closure if ORVs could not be routed around the closure and there is sufficient staff available to implement 

the escort program. As described under alternative A, an escort program would likely reduce 

noncompliance with the closure by helping to decrease visitor frustration with not being able to access 

areas beyond the closure, and thus help protect piping plovers. Establishing full recreational closures 

around birds and adjusting them based on chick behavior would result in short- and long-term benefits by 

reducing the potential for contact between Seashore visitors and birds. While frequent adjustment of 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

292 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

buffers by NPS staff may result in additional disturbance to piping plovers, (Anderson and Keith 1980; 

Ellison and Cleary 1978; Hand 1980; Tremblay and Ellison 1979), any potential adverse effects would be 

outweighed by, the benefits to the chicks from adjusting the buffers to protect them from disturbance due 

to pedestrians and ORVs. 

Management of Wintering Habitat for Nonbreeding Plovers—Under alternative C, management of 

wintering habitat for nonbreeding plovers and the resulting impacts would be the same as described for 

alternative A. Some limited noise disturbance and short-term displacement could result from the presence 

of resource staff in foraging/resting habitat during surveying activities. However, these impacts would 

only occur once per month and would be outweighed by the fact that surveying would increase 

knowledge on how and when piping plovers use the Seashore which would help better inform future 

management for the species; resulting in long-term beneficial impacts. 

Additionally, under alternative C the Seashore would extend the beginning date it closes the Seashore to 

vehicles from January 1 to December 16, meaning the Seashore would be closed to vehicles from 

December 16 through March 15 each year. Though not specifically implemented to protect nonbreeding 

plovers, the December 16 closure date would provide an additional 15 days of protection for wintering 

plovers compared to alternative A and would allow the beach profile a greater opportunity to recover 

from heavy fall fishing use. 

Similar to alternative A, no full recreational closures for resource protection would be established for 

pedestrians during the winter months. However, any adverse impacts from pedestrians on wintering 

plovers would be largely imperceptible because the amount of pedestrian use during the winter months is 

very low, and without a means of transportation on the beach, most visitor use would be confined to areas 

in the immediate vicinity of the ferry landings. 

Predator Management—Under alternative C, predator management activities, including the use of 

predator exclosures and the limited removal of mammalian predators, would be the same as under 

alternative B. Protecting piping plover nests with predator exclosures and reducing predation pressure 

through the limited removal of mammalian predators would likely increase nesting and fledging success 

for piping plovers, resulting in short- and long-term beneficial impacts. 

Education/Public Outreach—Education and public outreach measures under alternative C would be the 

same as for alternative B, including increase in staffing levels for interpretation positions and law 

enforcement positions, and would provide short- and long term benefits. Benefits would occur because 

the public would receive education about the specific needs of the species and alerts ahead of time about 

closures due to the potential for species or habitat disturbance and injury. 

Research/Monitoring—Research and monitoring under alternative C would be the same as alternative B. 

Research efforts have the potential to negatively impact feeding, reproduction, resting, or other piping 

plover behavior over the long term due to the increased human presence and use of ORVs (Anderson and 

Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; Tremblay and Ellison 1979; Hand 1980). However, the research to 

be conducted would provide long-term beneficial impacts by increasing knowledge about the species that 

would help inform future management actions. 

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

ORVs and Pedestrian Access—ORV routes under alternative C would be the same as under B, with the 

exception that approximately 4 miles of pedestrian-only use areas would be added to the Seashore. During 

the summer season 3.1 miles of additional pedestrian-use only area would be added (0.35 miles at Long 

Point Cabin Camp, 1.9 miles at Great Island Cabin Camp, and 0.8 miles at Codds Creek), while the year-
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 293

round pedestrian-use only area at the lighthouse would be expanded by 0.7 miles. While impacts to piping 

plovers from ORV use would be eliminated in these new pedestrian-only use areas, the new areas are not 

in key nesting habitat for piping plover, so the benefits to the species may be limited (Rikard pers. comm. 

2013a). 

Adding 4 miles of pedestrian-only use areas means that the amount of ocean beach available for ORV 

use, prior to other possible temporary ORV or full recreational closures for species protection and safety, 

would be approximately 74 percent (41 miles) from the Friday preceding Memorial Day through Labor 

Day and approximately 79 percent (44 miles) during the rest of the year (from March 16 through the 

Thursday preceding Memorial Day and from Labor Day through December 15) (as compared to 

81 percent [45 miles] under alternatives A and B) when ORVs are allowed on the beach (ORVs are 

prohibited from December 16 through March 15). As described under alternative A, ORV resource and 

safety closures have historically averaged approximately 10 miles during the summer and approximately 

5.4 miles during the fall. Reducing the amount of beach available for ORV use increases the amount of 

area where piping plovers would be free from potential impacts of ORVs. Under alternative C, ORV use 

would be kept at historical levels. Keeping ORV use at historical levels and slightly reducing the areas 

where ORVs are allowed may slightly increase the potential for impacts in areas where ORVs are allowed 

due to higher density use in those areas. However, any increase in density, and resultant impacts from 

that, would be extremely slight given the relatively small increase in the amount of pedestrian-only use 

areas compared to the overall amount of Seashore available to ORVs and where the increases are 

occurring. 

Under alternative C all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs would be 

prohibited after a five-year grace period. Utility-model ATVs and UTVs would be permitted at the 

Seashore only between September 15 and December 15. As discussed under alternative A, based on 

studies by McGowan and Simons (2006) and Simons and Borneman (2012), it appears that ATV use, and 

to some extent UTV use, impacts shorebirds to a greater extent than other types of ORVs (e.g., fourwheel drive passenger vehicles) likely due to the fact that they are louder and faster. The studies do not 

differentiate between different types of ATVs and/or UTVs because high-performance sport-model ATVs 

and UTVs, as well as two-stroke models are designed for racing, jumping, and moving at high rates of 

speed; however, these models likely could cause more impacts to shorebirds than utility-model ATVs and 

UTVs that are designed to be used in a utilitarian way. The speed and noise of high-performance sportmodel and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs may be perceived by shorebirds as a greater threat, causing 

shorebirds to alter their behavior. Eliminating these vehicles and their potential impacts from the Seashore 

after a five-year grace period would provide short- and long-term benefits to piping plovers. Additionally, 

limiting utility-model ATV and UTV use during the majority of the nesting season and removing their 

adverse impacts on piping plovers would provide both short- and long-term beneficial impacts. 

Similar to alternative B, ORV use would be discontinued in areas on Core Banks that are cut off from 

ferry access; though it would be restored if/when the areas rejoin an area with ferry access. During the 

time that ORV use is discontinued there would be no potential adverse impacts from vehicles which 

would result in both short- and long-term beneficial impacts on piping plovers. Also similar to alternative 

B, the back route between mile marker 44 and mile marker 45 would be open to ORV use when the point 

of Cape Lookout is closed to through-traffic. This would provide easy access to the beach area to the west 

of the point of Cape Lookout that would otherwise require ORVs to traverse the Cape Village and 

potentially help prevent closure violations on the point of Cape Lookout by likely reducing visitor 

frustration due to the closure. 

Like alternative B, there is the potential for small changes to the number and location of ramps as needed, 

and ramps may be moved or re-established after major storm events to restore access to the beach. While 

ramps would not be constructed near piping plover habitat during the nesting season, to the extent that 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

294 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

new ramps are constructed or existing ramps are re-established in areas that might provide suitable habitat 

for piping plovers, these activities would remove potential habitat for the species. However, the area 

impacted by any new or re-established ramps would be small compared to the overall habitat available to 

piping plovers, minimizing any potential adverse impacts. 

Night-Driving—Under alternative C, all recreational ORV use on the ocean beach and back route would 

be prohibited from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. from May 1 through September 14, extending the end date beyond 

August 31, which is the end date under alternative B. Restrictions on night driving under alternative C 

would reduce potential impacts on chicks and foraging adults at night, which include disturbance of 

nesting and foraging behaviors and injury or mortality from collisions with a vehicle. Since most adults 

and young piping plovers depart the breeding grounds on the Seashore between mid-July and early 

September (Cohen 2005a), the longer range of dates provides night time protection for essentially the 

entire breeding season, resulting in long-term beneficial impacts. 

Permit Requirements—Under alternative C, and similar to alternative B, a fee-based, long-term (annual) 

and short-term (10-day) vehicle permit, and an ORV operator education certificate would be required to 

operate an ORV on the Seashore. This would result in short- and long-term benefits through increased 

education about protected species, as well as likely greater compliance with buffers, closures, and other 

Seashore regulations through the threat of being able to revoke an operator’s driving privileges or a 

vehicle permit on the Seashore. 

In addition, to manage the number of vehicles operating on the Seashore at any one time a limit would be 

established on the number of annual and 10-day permits issued each year. The limit would be based on 

the historical average use on each island. Placing a limit on the number of permits issued for ORV use on 

the beach would prevent the level of ORV use from increasing, thus preventing likely increased amounts 

of adverse impacts, compared to historical levels, on piping plovers and their habitat. This would result in 

short- and long-term beneficial impacts. 

Camping—Under alternative C, camping and campfire activities along the ocean beach would be 

permitted in areas similar to alternative B (on all beaches of the Seashore that are not otherwise closed by 

the Superintendent’s Compendium, closed for safety, or closed for species protection to include full 

recreational closures and the six sea turtle nest relocation areas). Because full recreational closures are 

established in active, historic, and potential piping plover habitat; in areas where territorial, courtship, and 

mating behavior is observed; and around nests; prohibiting camping and campfires in these areas would 

remove the potential impacts from these activities on nesting piping plovers as described under 

alternatives A and B. 

Similar to alternative B, under alternative C campsites for emergency camping would be designated in 

areas along portions of the back route. However, campsites would be not be established in suitable piping 

plover nesting habitat, so there would be no impact to the species. 

Adaptive Management Strategy—Under alternative C, an adaptive management strategy would be 

implemented the same as under alternative B, to ensure that the goals of species protection are being met. 

The additional management actions that could be implemented would provide short- and long-term 

beneficial impacts to piping plovers and their habitat. Benefits would result from reducing closure 

violations through increased education and focused enforcement; reducing predation through trash 

management and fish scrap disposal; and reducing ORV impacts through route restrictions, increased 

buffer sizes, and limits on the number of vehicle permits issued as well as managing the size of vehicle 

storage lots. 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 295

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative C 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions under alternative C would be the same as those 

described under alternative A. The overall combined impacts of these past, present, and future actions on 

piping plover would be short- and long-term, limited, and adverse from disturbance to foraging and 

nesting birds from visitor/ORV use, dredging activities, shoreline stabilization, visitor amenity 

improvements, and military overflights. These combined actions would also result in long-term beneficial 

impacts from the protection afforded to piping plover and their habitat by species monitoring, species 

buffers, habitat protection, visitor protection patrols, visitor education programs, control of the wild horse 

population, predator management, and planning efforts under the Foundation Plan. While adverse effects 

on piping plover from other actions occurring in the region would still exist, actions under alternative C 

would provide additional protection that would be beneficial to the regional population of this species and 

would offset and/or prevent some of the adverse effects. 

ALTERNATIVE D

Impacts of Alternative D 

Resource Management Activities 

Surveying and Monitoring—Surveying and monitoring for piping plovers and their habitat, and the 

impacts from the actions under alternative D would be the same as described for alternative A. As 

described under alternative A, surveying and monitoring piping plovers and their habitat provides longterm beneficial impacts to the species because it allows the Seashore to better manage piping plovers, 

which may lead to increased reproductive success of the species at the Seashore. While overall surveying 

activities would provide beneficial impacts, they could also cause some short-term adverse impacts by 

negatively impacting feeding, reproduction, resting, or other piping plover behavior (Burger 1991, 1994). 

However, NPS staff would use best professional judgment and take precautions to minimize disturbance 

during surveying, such as observing incubating birds with optical equipment from appropriate distances 

and maintaining slow speeds while using ORVs in or near piping plover habitat. Additionally, there 

would be more consistent training and supervision of resource staff who conduct the surveys. This would 

result in a higher quality of monitoring for the species, resulting in beneficial impacts. 

Establishment of Prenesting Closures—Under alternative D, establishing prenesting closures and the 

impacts from these actions would be the same as under alternative B. Short- and long-term benefits to 

piping plovers would result from establishing full recreational closures in historical shorebird nesting 

areas prior to opening the beach to vehicles on March 16 by protecting their habitat. These closures would 

also benefit any birds when they first arrive at the Seashore, which is typically in mid-March (Cohen et al. 

2010; Patterson, Fraser, and Roggenbuck 1990), from ORV and pedestrian impacts during the early 

season when territories are being established and mating behavior begins.

Buffer/Closure Establishment—Under alternative D, establishing resource buffers and closures would 

be the same as described for alternative A, except that for unfledged chicks the minimum size of buffers 

for pedestrian-only areas (within ORV closures) would be based on the mobility of broods observed on 

the site in previous years. Based on one set of recommendations in the Piping Plover Recovery Plan 

(USFWS 1996a), unless data from previous years show that broods at a site forage close to their nests, 

buffers would extend at least 650 feet on each side of the nest site during the first week following 

hatching; this is an increase of 50 feet compared to alternatives A, B, and C, and would result in some 

small additional beneficial impacts from keeping ORVs further away from the chicks. The size and 

location of the buffer would be adjusted in response to the observed mobility of the brood, but in no case 

would it be reduced to less than 650 feet on each side. While frequent adjustment of buffers by NPS staff 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

296 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

may result in additional disturbance to piping plovers, (Anderson and Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 

1978; Hand 1980; Tremblay and Ellison 1979), any potential adverse effects would be outweighed by, the 

benefits to the chicks from adjusting the buffers to protect them from disturbance due to pedestrians and 

ORVs. 

In some cases, highly mobile broods may require buffers up to 3,250 feet, even when intensively 

monitored. Because of the narrow width of most of Core Banks, such buffers would likely extend from 

the oceanside low water line to the soundside low water line or the farthest extent of dune habitat. In 

accordance with recommendations in the Piping Plover Recovery Plan, vehicles may be allowed to pass 

through portions of the protected area that are considered inaccessible to plover chicks because of steep 

topography (USFWS 1996a). A buffer of this size (i.e., 3,250 feet), depending on where it needed to be 

established, could close approximately 3 miles of Portsmouth Flats, 7 miles of Kathryn-Jane Flats (if 

chicks are present), or the tip (approximately 2.5 miles) of Old Drum Inlet (unless the inlet fills in). If 

such a large buffer were established, piping plovers would likely experience observable long-term 

benefits, such as higher fledgling rates, from the size of the buffer due the amount of area closed to and 

protected from ORV impacts. 

Management of Wintering Habitat for Nonbreeding Plovers—Management of wintering habitat for 

nonbreeding piping plover populations under alternative D would be the same as those under alternative 

A. Some limited noise disturbance and short-term displacement could result from the presence of resource 

staff in foraging and resting habitat during surveying activities. However, these small impacts would only 

occur once per month and would be outweighed by the fact that surveying would increase knowledge on 

how and when piping plovers use the Seashore which would help better inform future management for the 

species; resulting in long-term beneficial impacts. Additionally, and similar to alternative C, under 

alternative D the Seashore would extend the beginning date it closes the Seashore to vehicles from 

January 1 back to December 16, meaning the Seashore would be closed to vehicles from December 16 

through March 15 each year. Though not specifically implemented to protect nonbreeding plovers, the 

December 16 closure date would provide an additional 15 days of protection for wintering plovers 

compared to alternative A and would allow the beach profile a greater opportunity to recover from heavy 

fall fishing use. 

While no ORV or full recreational closures for resource protection would be established for pedestrians 

during the winter months, any adverse impacts from pedestrians on wintering plovers would be largely 

imperceptible. The amount of pedestrian use during the winter months is very low, and without a means 

of transportation on the beach, most visitor use would be confined to areas in the immediate vicinity of 

the ferry landings. 

Predator Management—Under alternative D, predator management activities, including the use of 

predator exclosures and the limited removal of mammalian predators, would be the same as under 

alternative B. Protecting piping plover nests with predator exclosures and reducing predation pressure 

through the limited removal of mammalian predators would likely increase nesting and fledging success 

for piping plovers, resulting in short- and long-term beneficial impacts. 

Education/Public Outreach—Education and public outreach measures under alternative D would be the 

same as for alternative B, including increase in staffing levels for interpretation positions and law 

enforcement positions, and would provide short- and long term benefits. Benefits would occur because 

the public would receive education about the specific needs of the species and alerts ahead of time about 

closures due to the potential for species or habitat disturbance and injury. 

Research/Monitoring—Research and monitoring under alternative D would be the same as alternative 

B. Research efforts have the potential to negatively impact feeding, reproduction, resting, or other piping 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 297

plover behavior over the long term due to the increased human presence and use of ORVs (Anderson and 

Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; Tremblay and Ellison 1979; Hand 1980). However, the research to 

be conducted would provide long-term beneficial impacts by increasing knowledge about the species that 

would help inform future management actions. 

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

ORVs and Pedestrian Access—Under alternative D, ORV routes and pedestrian-only use areas would 

include those areas under alternative C. However, the closures at Long Point, Great Island, and Codds 

Creek would be pedestrian-only use areas year-round instead of just during the summer, as under 

alternative C. The total amount of pedestrian-only use areas would increase in comparison with 

alternative A by approximately 8 percent (from 2 to 10 miles). 

Under alternative D about 0.5 miles of summertime pedestrian-only use area would be created at 

Johnsons Creek, and the 3.6 miles of Middle Core Banks would be a pedestrian-only use area during the 

summer whether or not it is contiguous with North Core Banks (currently it is a separate island). The 

ocean beach from the Portsmouth Access Road north to the demarcation line at Ocracoke Inlet would also 

become a summer pedestrian-only use area. In addition, the year-round pedestrian-only use area in front 

of the lighthouse would be expanded approximately 0.9 miles to the south, for a total closure of 

approximately 1.6 miles, or 0.9 miles larger than under alternative A and 0.2 miles larger than under 

alternative C. Adding these pedestrian-only use areas would reduce the amount of Seashore beaches open 

to ORV use. About 63 percent (35 miles) of the beach would be open to ORV use from the Friday 

preceding Memorial Day through Labor Day, not considering any temporary ORV resource or safety 

closures, which as described under alternative A have historically averaged approximately 10 miles 

during the summer months. About 73 percent (41 miles) of the beach would be open to ORV use during 

the rest of the year (from March 16 through the Thursday preceding Memorial Day and from Labor Day 

through December 15) when ORVs are allowed on the beach (ORVs are prohibited from December 16 

through March 15), not considering any temporary ORV resource or safety closures, which as described 

under alternative A have historically averaged approximately 5.4 miles during the fall months. While 

impacts to piping plovers from ORV use would be eliminated in these new pedestrian-only use areas, the 

new areas are not in key nesting habitat for piping plover, so the benefits to the species may be limited 

(Rikard pers. comm. 2013a). Reducing the amount of area open to ORV use could have the potential to 

increase the density of ORVs in areas that remain open to ORVs, potentially resulting in some increased 

impacts to piping plovers and their habitat in those areas. However, to offset this potential, the Seashore 

would reduce the number of permits issued by 8 percent (see “Permit Requirements”). 

ORV access (related to species closures) under alternative D would be similar to alternative B. On 

sections of Core Banks where no ferry landing access is available (i.e., Middle Core Banks), designated 

ORV routes would be closed, which could provide further protection for piping plovers at the Seashore by 

reducing the amount of Seashore available to ORV access. This would limit the potential for species 

contact with vehicles and vehicle operators/passengers. 

Under alternative D, all ATVs and high-performance sport-model and two-stroke UTVs would be 

prohibited year-round after a five-year grace period. Additionally, utility-model UTVs would be 

permitted only between September 15 and December 15. As discussed under alternative A, based on 

studies by McGowan and Simons (2006) and Simons and Borneman (2012), it appears that ATV use, and 

to some extent UTV use, impacts American oystercatchers to a greater extent than other types of ORVs 

(e.g., four-wheel drive passenger vehicles) likely due to the fact that they are louder and faster. (As noted 

under alternative B, given that neither piping plovers nor American oystercatchers are solitary species and 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

298 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

colonial in nature, it is reasonable to assume that piping plovers would react in a similar manner to ATVs 

and UTVs as American oystercatchers do.) The studies do not differentiate between different types of 

ATVs and/or UTVs because high-performance sport-model ATVs and UTVs, as well as two-stroke 

models are designed for racing, jumping, and moving at high rates of speed; however, these models likely 

could cause more impacts to shorebirds than utility-model ATVs and UTVs that are designed to be used 

in a utilitarian way. The speed and noise of high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and 

UTVs may be perceived by shorebirds as a greater threat, causing shorebirds to alter their behavior. 

Eliminating all ATVs (which Simons and Borneman (2012) showed has a greater impact on birds than 

UTVs) as well as their potential impacts from the Seashore after a five-year grace period would provide 

short- and long-term benefits to piping plovers. Additionally, limiting utility-model UTV use to only the 

non-nesting season and removing the adverse impacts of UTV use on piping plovers would provide shortand long-term beneficial impacts. 

Unlike alternatives B and C, regular maintenance of the back route would not occur under alternative D. 

With no maintenance, the condition of the back route is likely to deteriorate. As it does ORV users may 

opt to use the beach more often which could increase ORV impacts on piping plovers and their habitat 

slightly. However, the back route would be re-established when impacted by a storm event, which would 

encourage use of the back route instead of the beach, which would benefit piping plovers by removing 

some vehicle travel from the beach. Although ramps would be re-established to restore access after storm 

events, no new ramps would be added to the Seashore beach. While construction of ramps would not be 

conducted near piping plover habitat during the nesting season, to the extent that ramps are re-established 

in areas that might provide suitable habitat for piping plovers, these activities would remove potential 

habitat for the species. However, the area impacted by any re-established ramps would be small compared 

to the overall habitat available to piping plovers, minimizing any adverse impacts. 

Night-Driving—Under alternative D, night driving restrictions would be the same as described for 

alternative C, resulting in long-term beneficial impacts on piping plovers because it would further reduce 

the potential for disturbance to night-foraging birds and late nesters. 

Permit Requirements—Under alternative D, vehicle permit and ORV operator education certificate 

requirements would be similar to alternative C, except that the number of vehicle permits would be 

reduced by 8 percent. The reduction of permits by 8 percent compared to alternative C is based on the 

percentage increase of pedestrian-only use areas under alternative D and is intended to keep average 

vehicle density similar to current average use to help prevent increases in ORV impacts due to higher 

densities of vehicles in areas where ORV use is allowed. Although ORV use would not be allowed in 

resource protection areas, placing a limit on the number of permits issued for ORV use would prevent 

future unlimited growth of ORV use, thus preventing likely increased amounts of adverse impacts, 

compared to historical levels, on piping plovers and their habitat. This would result in short- and longterm beneficial impacts. 

As described for alternative B, fees collected from a permitting program would be used toward species 

management and protection, which would benefit piping plovers. Educational information provided by 

the permit and education requirement would benefit piping plovers because ORV users would be more 

aware of the regulations in place to protect this species. ORV users would also be more likely to comply 

with buffers, closures, and other Seashore regulations due to the potential threat of losing their individual 

driving privileges through the revocation of their operator education certificate or their vehicle permit if 

violations occur. 

Camping—Under alternative D, camping and campfire activities along the ocean beach would be 

permitted in areas similar to alternative B (on all beaches of the Seashore that are not otherwise closed by 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 299

the Superintendent’s Compendium, closed for safety, or closed for species protection, that is, full 

recreational closures and the six sea turtle nest relocation areas). This would result in short- and long-term 

beneficial impacts by removing the impacts from these activities which could otherwise cause adult 

piping plovers to flush from nests and potentially result in loss of eggs or chicks, complete abandonment 

of the nest, or increased susceptibility to predation (Elliot-Smith and Haig 2004; Cohen, Houghton, and 

Fraser 2009; Burger 1987; Boettcher et al. 2007; Lauro and Tanacredi 2002; Patterson, Fraser, and 

Roggenbuck 1990). Also under alternative D, campsites for emergency camping would be designated in 

portions of the existing long-term parking lots. These areas, however, do not provide piping plover 

habitat, so there would be no impacts on the species from designating these areas as emergency camping 

sites. 

Adaptive Management Strategy—Under alternative D, an adaptive management strategy would be 

implemented, the same as under alternative B, to ensure that the goals of species protection are being met. 

The additional management actions that could be implemented would provide short- and long-term 

beneficial impacts to piping plovers and their habitat. Benefits would result from reducing closure 

violations through increased education and focused enforcement; reducing predation through trash 

management and fish scrap disposal; and reducing ORV impacts through route restrictions, increased 

buffer sizes, and limits on the number of vehicle permits issued as well as managing the size of vehicle 

storage lots. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative D 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions under alternative D would be the same as those 

described under alternative A. The overall combined impacts of these past, present, and future actions on 

piping plover would be short- and long-term, limited, and adverse from disturbance to foraging and 

nesting birds from visitor/ORV use, dredging activities, shoreline stabilization, visitor amenity 

improvements, and military overflights. There would also be long-term beneficial impacts from the 

protection afforded to piping plovers and their habitat by species monitoring, species buffers, habitat 

protection, visitor protection patrols, visitor education programs, control of the wild horse population and 

predator management. While adverse effects on piping plover from other actions occurring in the region 

would still exist, actions under alternative D would provide additional protection that would be beneficial 

to the regional population of this species and would offset and /or prevent some of the adverse effects. 

ALTERNATIVE E

Impacts of Alternative E 

Resource Management Activities 

Surveying and Monitoring—Though public use of ORVs on the Seashore would be prohibited under 

alternative E, the NPS would still use ORVs to conduct resource management and resource and visitor 

protection activities. Surveying for and protecting piping plovers and their habitat under alternative E 

would occur in the same manner as under alternative A. However, given the prohibition of ORVs at the 

Seashore, the likely lower pedestrian presence resulting from this, and the fact that with no public ORV 

access, pedestrian use would likely be greatest around the ferry landing areas, the cabins, and Power 

Squadron Spit where visitors can easily access the beach using their own boats, surveying and monitoring 

protocols would be reviewed and may change. Overall, surveying activities would provide long-term 

beneficial impacts to piping plovers by allowing the Seashore to better manage species, which may lead 

to increased reproductive success of the species at the Seashore, though they could also cause some shortterm adverse impacts by negatively impacting feeding, reproduction, resting, or other piping plover 

behavior (Burger 1991, 1994). However, NPS staff would use best professional judgment and take 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

300 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

precautions to minimize disturbance during surveying, such as observing incubating birds with optical 

equipment from appropriate distances and maintaining slow speeds while using ORVs near piping plover 

habitat.

Establishment of Prenesting Closures—To protect piping plovers and their habitat, full recreational 

closures for prenesting piping plover habitat would be established, similar to alternative A. These closures 

would be established by April 1 in all active habitat (where birds are presently nesting or nested the 

previous breeding season), historical habitat (areas where the birds have nested in the past 5 years), and 

potential new piping plover habitat as determined appropriate by a qualified staff biologist. However, 

since public use of ORVs would be prohibited on the Seashore under alternative E, the closures would be 

applicable to pedestrians only. As described for alternative A, establishing prenesting closures would 

provide long-term beneficial impacts for piping plovers at the Seashore through the increased likelihood 

of reproductive success resulting from the reduction in disturbance of the birds by pedestrians and pets 

during critical periods of reproduction (Parnell et al. 1988; Elliot-Smith and Haig 2004; Cohen, 

Houghton, and Fraser 2009; Burger 1987; Boettcher et al. 2007; Lauro and Tanacredi 2002; Patterson, 

Fraser, and Roggenbuck 1990). While prenesting closures would not afford protection to piping plovers 

arriving at the Seashore prior to April 1, no piping plover nests have been documented prior to April 1 at 

the Seashore (Rikard pers. comm. 2013a). Additionally, with no ORV use on the beach, pedestrian use 

would likely occur mostly around the ferry landings, limiting the amount of piping plover habitat 

potentially impacted by pedestrians. 

Buffer Closure/Establishment—Under alternative E, establishing buffers and closures would be the 

same as described for alternative A, except that no recreational ORV-specific closures would be 

established because public use of ORVs would not be permitted on the Seashore under this alternative. 

Any disturbance to piping plovers would be limited to that by monitoring, and emergency response 

vehicles, and concession operated vehicles. Establishing buffers and full recreation closures outside of 

prenesting closures would result in short- and long-term benefits for piping plovers by protecting adults, 

nests, and unfledged chicks from potential impacts caused by pedestrians and pets. 

Management of Wintering Habitat for Nonbreeding Plovers—Under alternative E, nonbreeding 

surveying activities would be the same as described for alternative A even though public recreational 

ORV use at the Seashore would be prohibited year-round. While surveying activities would likely result 

in some limited noise and habitat disturbance (potentially causing temporary displacement) of piping 

plovers from the presence of resource staff, surveying would only occur once per month, minimizing any 

adverse impacts. Additionally, the data collected during the surveys would result in long-term beneficial 

impacts on plovers by providing Seashore managers with information on the types and locations of 

habitats used, seasonality of plover use of the Seashore, tidal influence on habitat use, and potential 

threats the habitat may contain. 

Under alternative E, a seasonal closure of the Seashore would not be established because public ORVs 

would not be permitted at the Seashore; thereby removing any potential habitat or behavioral alterations 

that could be caused by the presence of vehicles, resulting in long-term beneficial impacts on piping 

plovers at the Seashore. Pedestrians would still access the Seashore during the winter months. However, 

adverse impacts from them on wintering plovers would be largely imperceptible because the amount of 

pedestrian use during the winter months is very low, and without a means of transportation on the beach, 

most visitor use would be confined to areas in the immediate vicinity of the ferry landings. 

Predator Management—Under alternative E, predator management would be the same as alternative A. 

While predators would not be removed, resulting in continued predation pressure for piping plovers, 

placing predator exclosures over nests where possible would help protect piping plovers from predators 

and provide short- and long-term beneficial impacts. Prohibiting public ORV use on the Seashore under 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 301

alternative E may also help to indirectly protect piping plovers from predators. With no public ORV use 

the amount of trash at the Seashore is likely to be reduced, especially in areas more remote from 

pedestrian ferry landing areas. Trash often attracts predators, so a reduction of trash may correlate to a 

reduction in the number of predators and predation of piping plovers, resulting in long-term beneficial 

impacts. 

Education/Public Outreach—Under alternative E, education and outreach would be the same as 

described under alternative A; however, all efforts would be directed toward pedestrian use as public use 

of ORVs would not be permitted at the Seashore. Such public outreach is beneficial to piping plovers as it 

educates the public to the specific needs of the species. 

Research/Monitoring—Research and monitoring under alternative E would be the same as alternative A. 

Research efforts have the potential to negatively impact feeding, reproduction, resting, or other piping 

plover behavior over the long term due to the increased human presence and use of ORVs (Anderson and 

Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; Tremblay and Ellison 1979; Hand 1980). However, the research to 

be conducted would provide long-term beneficial impacts by increasing knowledge about the species that 

would help inform future management actions. 

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

ORVs and Pedestrian Access—Under alternative E, the public use of ORVs would be prohibited along 

the entire Core Banks and Shackleford Banks. However, other recreation use on the ocean beach such as 

swimming, camping, beach fires, fishing, and the use of the cabins would still occur, though likely at a 

reduced rate and in general proximity to the ferry landing sites. With no public use of ORVs on the beach, 

impacts on piping plovers and their habitat from public ORV use as described under alternative A would 

not occur, resulting in short- and long-term beneficial impacts. In addition, the use of vehicles by NPS 

staff for law enforcement purposes would likely be reduced from current levels because staff would only 

be dealing with pedestrians, and management of recreational use would be simplified compared with the 

other alternatives. 

Under alternative E, full recreational closures for pre-nesting would continue to be established by April 1 

for all active, historical, and potential piping plover nesting habitat, as determined by a qualified staff 

biologist. These closures would be expanded to ensure a 150-foot buffer around mating pairs and nests, 

and 600 feet around each brood that is found on the beach. Establishing full recreational closures under 

alternative E would result in long-term beneficial impacts on nesting plovers and broods, as pedestrian 

access would be prohibited within these closures. It is likely that some adverse impacts (disturbance, 

displacement, increased predation, etc.) on piping plovers would continue from the presence of 

pedestrians and pets at the Seashore due to potential closure violations. However, with limited access to 

areas outside of the arrival points on the Core Banks due to no public use of ORVs, potential impacts 

from pedestrians and pets would be greatly reduced. 

Night-Driving—Under alternative E, there would be no night driving on the Seashore because public 

ORV use would be prohibited year-round. This would eliminate all potential adverse impacts from night 

driving on piping plover adults and unfledged chicks, resulting in short- and long-term beneficial impacts. 

Permit Requirements—Under alternative E, there would be no vehicle permit requirements because 

public ORV use would not be permitted at the Seashore; therefore, there would be no additional adverse 

or beneficial impacts on piping plovers from a permit system to manage ORV use. 

Camping—Under alternative E, camping and campfire activities along the ocean beach would be 

permitted in areas similar to alternative A (on all beaches of the Seashore that are not otherwise closed by 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

302 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

the Superintendent’s Compendium, closed for safety, or closed for species protection, that is, full 

recreation closures and the six sea turtle nest relocation areas). As described under alternative A, 

prohibiting camping and campfires within these areas would result in short- and long-term beneficial 

impacts by removing the impacts from these activities which could otherwise cause adult piping plovers 

to flush from nests and potentially result in loss of eggs or chicks, complete abandonment of the nest, and 

increased susceptibility to predation (Elliot-Smith and Haig 2004; Cohen, Houghton, and Fraser 2009; 

Burger 1987; Boettcher et al. 2007; Lauro and Tanacredi 2002; Patterson, Fraser, and Roggenbuck 1990). 

Additionally, with no public ORV use allowed on the Seashore under this alternative, camping and 

campfires would likely be limited to those areas readily accessible by foot such as in front of the cabins, 

by the lighthouse, or possibly Power Squadron Spit which is accessible by private boat, reducing the 

amount of area where impacts from these activities could occur. 

Adaptive Management Strategy— Under alternative E, an adaptive management strategy would be 

adopted similar to that under alternative B, to ensure that the goals of species protection are being met, 

providing short- and long-term beneficial impacts to piping plovers. With no public ORV use allowed on 

the Seashore under alternative E, American oystercatcher disturbance would be monitored as it relates to 

impacts from pedestrians and other recreational use and not from ORVs, and only those non-ORV 

management actions indicated in chapter 2 would be implemented. The management actions could 

include increased education and focused enforcement, which would help reduce closure violations that 

could impact piping plovers; additional focused trash management and fish scrap disposal, which would 

likely reduce the number of predators attracted to the beach that could prey upon piping plovers; 

additional predator control, which would help protect piping plovers, their nests, and fledglings from 

raccoons and other mammalian predators; and increased buffer sizes, which would protect piping plover 

habitat, as well as the plovers themselves and their nests. If species indicators continue to be triggered due 

to visitor use impacts for two consecutive years after implementing the previously mentioned actions, 

increasing the size of species protection buffers could be implemented. This action would increase the 

distance visitors could approach birds and nests, providing short- and long-term beneficial impacts to 

piping plovers. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative E 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions under alternative E would be the same as those 

described under alternative A. The overall combined impacts of these past, present, and future actions on 

piping plover would be short- and long-term, limited, and adverse from disturbance to foraging and 

nesting birds from visitor use, ORV use by NPS staff, contractors, commercial providers, dredging 

activities, shoreline stabilization, visitor amenity improvements, and military overflights. There would 

also be long-term beneficial impacts from the protection afforded to piping plovers and their habitat by 

species monitoring, species buffers, visitor protection patrols, visitor education programs, habitat 

protection, control of the wild horse population, predator management, and planning efforts under the 

Foundation Document. While adverse effects on piping plover from other actions occurring in the region 

would still exist, actions under alternative E would provide additional protection that would be beneficial 

to the regional population of this species and would offset and/or prevent some of the adverse effects. 

DETERMINATION OF EFFECT

Under the ESA implementing regulations (50 CFR 402), federal agencies must review their actions and 

determine whether the action may affect federally listed and proposed species or proposed or designated 

critical habitat. Federal agencies need to determine whether their actions may affect any of those species 

or their critical habitat. According to 50 CFR 402.02, “Effects of the action refers to the direct and 

indirect effects of an action on the species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities 

that are interrelated or interdependent with that action, that will be added to the environmental baseline.” 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 303

The environmental baseline includes “the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions 

and other human activities in the action area....” “Effects of the action” is defined to include “the direct 

and indirect effects of an action on the species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other 

activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that action.” (50 CFR 402.02). However, the ESA 

only requires the consideration of effects that are “reasonably certain to occur.” 

Alternative A 

The management of piping plovers (buffer/closure establishment, education/outreach, and monitoring) 

would provide a certain level of benefit, although the manner in which buffers would be established, 

along with the need to adjust buffers frequently, would have some adverse impact on the species from the 

presence of resource staff in piping plover habitat. However, the beneficial impacts of reducing 

disturbance to piping plovers from pedestrians and ORVs are anticipated to outweigh any adverse impacts 

from monitoring activities (Rikard pers. comm. 2013a). Additionally, protecting piping plover nests with 

predator exclosures would help reduce predation on adults and their nests, resulting in beneficial impacts. 

Overall, impacts on piping plovers from ORV use and other recreational uses would be long-term adverse 

because much of the Seashore would be open to recreational use with the potential for piping plovers to 

be directly impacted by disturbance from recreational activities (including injury and mortality of 

individuals). Lack of a permit system for education, management of ORV numbers, and law enforcement 

purposes; no night-driving restrictions; and a lack of compliance with species closures and pet leash 

requirements would contribute to these adverse impacts. The overall impacts of alternative A on piping 

plovers would be long-term adverse due to the likelihood of piping plovers failing to nest or flushing from 

nests due to human disturbance from recreational activities such as ORV use, walking, and fishing; 

noncompliance with closure/buffer restrictions and leash regulations; research; or surveying and 

monitoring activities. Failure to nest can result in loss of reproductive output for that season if a nesting 

attempt is not made at a later date. Flushing of birds from a nest can result in loss of eggs or chicks, 

complete abandonment of the nest, and increased susceptibility to predation. Habitat alteration from 

recreational uses can also modify foraging and nesting habitat and piping plovers can suffer direct 

mortality from ORV collisions. Resource management activities would provide long-term beneficial 

impacts by helping to protect piping plovers, their nests, and their habitat. However, because of the 

potential adverse impacts related to resource management activities and recreational use, actions under 

alternative A would result in a finding of may affect / are likely to adversely affect under the ESA because 

the action would result in direct or indirect impacts to piping plover that are not discountable, 

insignificant (under the ESA), or beneficial. Although alternative A does provide some additional 

protection, the adverse effects on piping plover from other actions occurring in the region would still 

exist. Therefore, the effects of these other actions, added to the effects of actions under alternative A, may

affect/are likely to adversely affect piping plover on a regional basis. 

Under alternative A, critical wintering habitat for piping plovers is protected for the most part through 

permanent ORV closures, and the entire Seashore is closed to ORV use from January 1 through 

March 15. Though surveying for birds during the winter months brings NPS staff into proximity to the 

birds and may result in some disturbance, surveys only occur once per month from August through 

March, so impacts would be minimal. During the winter months there would be no pedestrian-related 

closures at the Seashore. However, impacts from pedestrians on wintering plovers and their critical 

habitat would be largely imperceptible because many passenger ferries stop operating during the winter, 

the amount of pedestrian use is very low during the winter, and without a means of transportation on the 

beach, most visitor use would be confined to areas in the immediate vicinity of ferry landings, and this is 

not where the critical habitat is located. Therefore, actions under alternative A would result in a finding of 

may affect /not likely to adversely affect for designated critical wintering habitat for the piping plover. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

304 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Alternative B 

Overall impacts under alternative B from resource management activities (buffer/closure establishment, 

education/outreach, and monitoring) would be long-term beneficial, with limited long-term adverse 

impacts. Closing historical shorebird nesting areas by March 16 would provide 15 additional days of 

protection for early arriving birds. There would be limited direct and indirect adverse impacts from 

resource staff presence during monitoring activities, but more consistent training and supervision of 

resource staff who conduct the surveys would help reduce those impacts. Additionally, the whole the 

establishment of prenesting closures early in the breeding season, monitoring activities, education and 

outreach efforts (including the institution of a permit system), night-driving restrictions, and the 

establishment of prescribed buffers would provide long-term beneficial impacts on the species. However, 

compliance with closures may not be absolute, resulting in continued disturbance of breeding habitat and 

potential mortality of individual species if noncompliance occurs. However, increased staffing levels of 

law enforcement and interpretation positions would help reduce noncompliance through increased 

enforcement and education. Being able to revoke an ORV operator’s education certificate or vehicle 

permit would also help reduce closure violations and other violations. Additionally, protecting piping 

plover nests with predator exclosures and conducting limited removal of mammalian predators would 

help reduce predation on adults, their nests, and unfledged chicks, resulting in beneficial impacts. Overall, 

under alternative B impacts on piping plovers from ORV use and other recreational uses would be longterm adverse because much of the Seashore would continue to be open to recreational use, resulting in the 

potential for disturbance leading to displacement and direct mortality of plover adults and chicks. The 

overall impacts of alternative B on piping plovers would be long-term adverse due to likelihood of piping 

plovers failing to nest or flushing from nests due to human disturbance from monitoring and research 

activities; recreational activities such as walking, fishing, and ORV use; or noncompliance with 

closure/buffer restrictions and leash regulations. Failure to nest can result in loss of reproductive output 

for that season if a nesting attempt is not made at a later date. Flushing of birds from a nest can result in 

loss of eggs or chicks, complete abandonment of the nest, and increased susceptibility to predation. 

Habitat alteration from recreational uses can also modify foraging and nesting habitat for piping plovers 

and piping plovers can suffer direct mortality from ORV collisions. However, increased education and 

outreach; the use of additional species management measures, such as a seasonal restriction on night 

driving; closing ORV routes where no ferry landing access is available; and restricting high-performance 

sport-model and two stroke model ATV and UTV use could reduce vehicular contact with individual 

species and educate visitors on the importance of resource protection. Additionally, if species protection 

goals are not being met, the Seashore would implement intensive management actions under an adaptive 

management strategy, such as increased education and focused enforcement, additional trash management 

and fish scrap disposal, additional predator control, ORV route restrictions and increased buffer sizes, and 

limits on the number of vehicle permits issued (would also help reduce ORV and recreational impacts on 

piping plovers and their habitat). All of these measures would help mitigate/reduce the potential for longterm adverse impacts of ORV use on piping plovers. The resource management, ORV use, and other 

recreational uses under alternative B would result in a finding of may affect / are likely to adversely affect 

under the ESA because the action would result in direct or indirect impacts to piping plover that are not 

discountable, insignificant, or beneficial. Although alternative B does provide additional protection, the 

adverse effects on piping plover from other actions occurring in the region would still exist. Therefore, 

the effects of these other actions, added to the effects of actions under alternative B, may affect/are likely 

to adversely affect piping plover on a regional basis. 

Under alternative B, critical wintering habitat for piping plovers is protected for the most part through 

permanent ORV closures, and the entire Seashore is closed to ORV use from January 1 through 

March 15. Though surveying for birds during the winter months brings NPS staff into proximity to the 

birds and may result in some disturbance, surveys only occur once per month from August through 

March, so impacts would be minimal. During the winter months there are no pedestrian related closures at 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 305

the Seashore. However, impacts from pedestrians on wintering plovers and their critical habitat would be 

largely imperceptible because during the winter months many passenger ferries stop operating and the 

amount of pedestrian use is very low, and without a means of transportation on the beach, most visitor use 

would be confined to areas in the immediate vicinity of ferry landings, and this is not where the critical 

habitat is located. Therefore, actions under alternative B would result in a finding of may affect /not likely 

to adversely affect for designated critical wintering habitat for the piping plover. 

Alternative C 

Overall impacts under alternative C from resource management activities (buffer/closure establishment, 

education/outreach, and monitoring) would be long-term beneficial. Direct and indirect short-term 

adverse impacts would likely occur from resource staff presence during monitoring activities, but more 

consistent training and supervision of resource staff who conduct the surveys would help reduce those 

impacts. Additionally, the establishment of prenesting closures earlier in the season, expanded nightdriving restrictions, monitoring activities, education and outreach efforts, the extended closure of the 

Seashore during winter, and expanded closures for unfledged chicks would provide long-term beneficial 

impacts on the species. Additionally, protecting piping plover nests with predator exclosures and 

conducting limited removal of mammalian predators would help reduce predation on adults, their nests, 

and unfledged chicks, resulting in beneficial impacts. Overall, impacts on piping plovers from ORV use 

and other recreational uses would be long-term adverse because there would be recreational use in the 

vicinity of this species. Limiting ORV access, prohibiting high-performance sport-model ATV and UTV 

use and limiting utility-model ATV and UTV use along the Seashore, limiting the number of permits 

issued, and establishing night-driving restrictions under alternative C would likely reduce some of the 

adverse impacts of ORV and pedestrian access by decreasing the potential for species disturbance 

(flushing, displacement, etc.) and species-vehicle collisions. However, adverse impacts would continue 

due to pedestrian and ORV access and the potential for noncompliance with species closures, though 

increased staffing levels of both law enforcement and interpretation positions would help reduce 

noncompliance through increased enforcement and education, as would the ability to revoke a ORV 

operator’s education certificate or vehicle permit. Additionally, if species protection goals are not being 

met, the Seashore would implement intensive management actions under an adaptive management 

strategy, such as increased education and focused enforcement, additional trash management and fish 

scrap disposal, additional predator control, ORV route restrictions and increased buffer sizes, and limits 

on the number of vehicle permits issued would also help reduce ORV and recreational impacts on piping 

plovers and their habitat. All of these measures would help mitigate/reduce the potential for long-term 

adverse impacts of ORV use on piping plovers. Resource management actions and ORV use and other 

recreational uses under alternative C would result in a finding of may affect / are likely to adversely affect 

under the ESA because the action would result in direct or indirect impacts to piping plover that are not 

discountable, insignificant, or beneficial. Although alternative C does provide additional protection, the 

adverse effects on piping plover from other actions occurring in the region would still exist. Therefore, 

the effects of these other actions, added to the effects of actions under alternative C, may affect/are likely 

to adversely affect piping plover on a regional basis. 

Under alternative C, critical wintering habitat for piping plovers is protected for the most part through 

permanent ORV closures, and the entire Seashore is closed to ORV use from December 16 through 

March 15. Though surveying for birds during the winter months brings NPS staff into proximity to the 

birds and may result in some disturbance, surveys only occur once per month from August through 

March, so impacts would be minimal. During the winter months there are no pedestrian related closures at 

the Seashore. However, impacts from pedestrians on wintering plovers and their critical habitat would be 

largely imperceptible because many passenger ferries stop operating during the winter, the amount of 

pedestrian use is very low during the winter, and without a means of transportation on the beach, most 

visitor use would be confined to areas in the immediate vicinity of ferry landings, and this is not where 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

306 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

the critical habitat is located. Therefore, actions under alternative C would result in a finding of may affect 

/not likely to adversely affect for designated critical wintering habitat for the piping plover. 

Alternative D 

Overall resource management activities (buffer/closure establishment, education/outreach, and 

monitoring) would have long-term beneficial impacts on piping plovers, with limited long-term adverse 

impacts. The expanded closures for unfledged chicks would provide additional protection and would 

likely result in increased fledging success. As with all species management activities, there could be 

limited short-term adverse impacts from resource staff presence during monitoring activities, but more 

consistent training and supervision of resource staff who conduct the surveys would help reduce those 

impacts. Additionally, the establishment of prenesting closures early in the breeding season, monitoring 

activities, expanded night-driving restrictions, education and outreach efforts, and expanding buffers for 

unfledged chicks would provide long-term beneficial impacts on the species by reducing vehicular 

contact with individual birds and educating visitors on the importance of resource protection. 

Additionally, protecting piping plover nests with predator exclosures and conducting limited removal of 

mammalian predators would help reduce predation on adults, their nests, and unfledged chicks, resulting 

in beneficial impacts. Overall impacts under alternative D from ORV use and other recreational uses 

would be long-term adverse from noise disturbance, temporary displacement, and possibly 

injury/mortality of individual species. The establishment of a permitting system and limiting the number 

of vehicles on the Seashore, night-driving restrictions, prohibiting all ATVs and high-performance sportmodel UTVs and limiting utility-model UTV use, and reducing the percentage of Seashore available for 

ORV use would provide benefits in terms of species protection, which would likely help mitigate/reduce 

some of the adverse impacts of ORV and recreational use on piping plovers. Additional benefits would 

result under alternative D because species buffers/closures could increase considerably to account for 

highly mobile unfledged chicks and nests that may occur near or outside of current closure boundaries. 

However, as described for alternatives A, B, and C, compliance with closures may not be absolute, 

potentially resulting in continued disturbance of breeding habitat and mortality of individual species if 

noncompliance occurs, and disturbance from frequent adjustment of the buffers would occur. Increased 

staffing levels of both law enforcement and interpretation positions would help reduce noncompliance 

through increased enforcement and education, as would the ability to revoke a ORV operator’s education 

certificate or vehicle permit. Additionally, if species protection goals are not being met, the Seashore 

would implement intensive management actions under an adaptive management strategy, such as 

increased education and focused enforcement, additional trash management and fish scrap disposal, 

additional predator control, ORV route restrictions and increased buffer sizes, and limits on the number of 

vehicle permits issued would also help reduce ORV and recreational impacts on piping plovers and their 

habitat. All of these measures would help mitigate/reduce the potential for long-term adverse impacts of 

ORV use on piping plovers. Although alternative D does provide additional protection, resource 

management actions and ORV use and other recreational uses under alternative D would result in a 

finding of may affect / are likely to adversely affect under the ESA because the action would result in 

direct or indirect impacts to piping plover that are not discountable, insignificant, or beneficial. Although 

alternative D does provide additional protection, the adverse effects on piping plover from other actions 

occurring in the region would still exist. Therefore, the effects of these other actions, added to the effects 

of actions under alternative D, may affect/are likely to adversely affect piping plover on a regional basis. 

Under alternative D, critical wintering habitat for piping plovers is protected for the most part through 

permanent ORV closures, and the entire Seashore is closed to ORV use from December 16 through 

March 15. Though surveying for birds during the winter months brings NPS staff into proximity to the 

birds and may result in some disturbance, surveys only occur once per month from August through 

March, so impacts would be minimal. During the winter months there are no pedestrian related closures at 

the Seashore. However, impacts from pedestrians on wintering plovers and their critical habitat would be 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 307

largely imperceptible because many passenger ferries stop operating during the winter, the amount of 

pedestrian use is very low during the winter, and without a means of transportation on the beach, most 

visitor use would be confined to areas in the immediate vicinity of ferry landings, and this is not where 

the critical habitat is located. Therefore, actions under alternative D would result in a finding of may

affect /not likely to adversely affect for designated critical wintering habitat for the piping plover. 

Alternative E 

Overall impacts under alternative E from resource management activities (buffer/closure establishment, 

education/outreach, and monitoring) would be long-term beneficial. As with all species management 

activities, limited adverse impacts could result from resource staff presence during monitoring activities, 

but on the whole the establishment of prenesting and nesting closures, monitoring activities, and 

education and outreach efforts would have a beneficial effect on the species. Additionally, protecting 

piping plover nests with predator exclosures would help reduce predation on adults and their nests 

resulting in beneficial impacts. Overall impacts from not allowing public ORV use would be long-term 

beneficial, with some direct and indirect, short-term adverse impacts from continued pedestrian access. 

Prohibiting public ORV access to the Seashore under alternative E would benefit piping plovers over the 

short- and long-term because species disturbance and the potential for injury or mortality would be 

eliminated and nesting/foraging habitat would have the opportunity to recover from historical vehicle use. 

It would also likely reduce the amount of trash left on the Seashore which would help to not attract 

predators that could adversely impact plovers. Some adverse impacts could still result from continued 

pedestrian access (e.g., disturbance leading to displacement, etc.) to the Seashore; however, with the 

limited ability to get to more remote areas of the Seashore due to no public ORV use, impacts would be 

reduced. If species protection goals are not being met, the Seashore would implement additional intensive 

management actions under an adaptive management strategy, such as increased education and focused 

enforcement, additional trash management and fish scrap disposal, additional predator control, and 

increased buffer sizes. All of these measures would help mitigate/reduce the potential for long-term 

adverse impacts due to pedestrian use of the Seashore. Resource management activities and other 

recreational uses under alternative E would result in a finding of may affect / not likely to adversely affect 

under the ESA because the action would result in direct or indirect impacts to piping plover that are 

discountable, insignificant, or beneficial. 

Although alternative E provides additional protection and would offset some of the adverse effects from 

regional impacts, the adverse effects on piping plover from other actions occurring in the region would 

still exist. Therefore, the effects of these other actions, added to the effects of actions under alternative E, 

may affect/are likely to adversely affect piping plover on a regional basis. 

Under alternative E, there would be no public ORV use allowed at the Seashore, therefore any potential 

impacts from ORV use to critical wintering habitat for piping plovers would be eliminated. Though 

surveying for birds by NPS staff would still occur during the winter months and would bring NPS staff 

into proximity to the birds, the surveys only occur once per month from August through March, so any 

potential disturbance from staff would be minimal. During the winter months there are no pedestrian 

related closures at the Seashore. However, impacts from pedestrians on wintering plovers and their 

critical habitat would be largely imperceptible because many passenger ferries stop operating during the 

winter, the amount of pedestrian use is very low during the winter, and without a means of transportation 

on the beach, most visitor use would be confined to areas in the immediate vicinity of ferry landings, and 

this is not where the critical habitat is located. Therefore, actions under alternative E would result in a 

finding of may affect /not likely to adversely affect for designated critical wintering habitat for the piping 

plover. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

308 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Under alternative B, impacts on piping plovers from resource management activities would be slightly 

less than impacts under alternatives A (the no-action alternative) and E (the no-ORV alternative). This is 

because there would be more consistent training and supervision of resource staff who conduct the 

surveys, limited predator removal, pre-nesting closures established by March 16 (15 days earlier than 

under alternative A, not applicable to alternative E), and increased education and research programs. 

Impacts on piping plovers from ORV use and other recreational uses under alternative B would be less 

than the impacts incurred under alternative A. This is due to the closing of ORV routes where no ferry 

access is available, the prohibition on all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs 

at the Seashore, the night driving restriction from May 1 through August 31, the likely increased 

compliance with resource closures due to increased law enforcement and interpretative staffing positions, 

the ORV permitting system, and the more intensive management actions that could be implemented under 

the adaptive management strategy. However, the impacts on piping plovers from recreational uses under 

alternative B would be greater than those incurred under alternative E because no public ORV access at 

the Seashore is allowed under alternative E. 

Impacts on piping plovers from resource management activities under alternative C would be slightly less 

than from alternatives A (the no-action alternative) and E (the no ORV alternative). This is due to more 

consistent training and supervision of resource staff who conduct the surveys, the limited predator 

removal under alternative C, increased educational and research efforts, and the winter vehicle closure 

from December 16 through March 15 (not applicable to alternative E). Impacts of ORV use and other 

recreational uses under alternative C would be less than those incurred under alternative A. This is due to 

a seasonal restriction on night driving from May 1 through September 14, the increase in the amount of 

pedestrian-only use areas by 4 miles, the closing of ORV routes where no ferry access is available, the 

prohibition on all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs at the Seashore, 

shortening the timeframe that utility-model ATVs and UTVs would be permitted within the Seashore 

each year (reducing the March 16 through December 31 time under alternative A to September 15 

through December 15), the reduction in the amount of Seashore open for ORV use, the fee-based ORV 

permitting system that would also limit the number of vehicles on the Seashore, the likely increased 

compliance with resource closures due to increased law enforcement and interpretative staffing positions, 

and the more intensive management actions that could be implemented under the adaptive management 

strategy. Compared to alternative E, the amount of impacts on piping plovers under alternative C would 

be greater due to public ORV use being allowed under alternative C whereas it would be prohibited under 

alternative E. 

Under alternative D, impacts on piping plovers from resource management activities would be less than 

those under alternatives A (the no-action alternative) and E (the no ORV alternative). This is due to more 

consistent training and supervision of resource staff who conduct the surveys, limited predator removal, 

slightly expanded buffers around chicks on the beach (650 feet under alternative D compared to 600 feet 

under alternatives A and E), the expansion of brood buffers based on the mobility of the brood, and the 

increased education and monitoring efforts. Impacts from ORV use and other recreational uses would be 

reduced when compared to alternative A. This is due to the expansion of pedestrian-use only areas by 10 

miles, night time driving restrictions from May 1 through September 14, the closing of ORV routes where

no ferry access is available, the prohibition on all ATVs as well as all high-performance sport-model and 

two-stroke UTVs at the Seashore, shortening the timeframe that utility-model UTVs would be permitted 

within the Seashore each year (reducing the March 16 through December 31 time under alternative A to 

September 15 through December 15), the reduction in the amount of Seashore open for ORV use, the feebased ORV permitting system with a limit on the number of vehicles allowed (which would be 8 percent 

less than current use), the likely increased compliance with resource closures due to increased law 

enforcement and interpretative staffing positions, and the more intensive management actions that could 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 309

be implemented under the adaptive management strategy. Compared to alternative E, the amount of 

impacts on piping plovers under alternative D would be greater due to public ORV use being allowed 

under alternative C whereas it would be prohibited under alternative E. 

The resource management activities proposed for alternative E (the no ORV alternative) are essentially 

the same activities proposed for alternative A (the no-action alternative) except that with no public ORV 

use allowed on the Seashore under alternative E, there would be no recreational ORV-specific closures 

established and surveying and monitoring protocols would be reviewed and may change due to the 

elimination of impacts from recreational ORV use and a reduction in the amount of impacts from 

pedestrians. Under alternative A, the North and South Core Banks of the Seashore would remain open to 

ORV use in designated routes and areas (as documented in the Superintendent’s Compendium), except 

where resource or safety closures are present. There would be no night driving restrictions under 

alternative A and no restrictions on the number of vehicles allowed on the Seashore either. Therefore, 

when compared to alternative A, alternative E would provide more protection to piping plovers because 

there would be no impacts related to public ORV use, and impacts related to other recreational uses would 

be reduced due to limited access to the ocean front beaches due to no public ORV use. 

CONCLUSION

Overall, impacts on piping plover from ORVs and other recreational uses under alternatives A, B, C, and 

D are expected to be long-term and adverse, although compared to the existing condition, the proposed 

changes under each action alternative are beneficial. Allowing ORVs access to North and South Core 

Banks under alternative B would contribute to these adverse impacts, including noise disturbance, 

temporary displacement, and increased frequent escape flights. However, increased education and 

outreach, the use of additional species management measures, such as seasonal restriction on night 

driving, focused predator management, and restricting ATV and UTV use under alternatives B, C, and D 

would likely help mitigate the long-term adverse impacts of ORV use on piping plover by reducing 

mortality due to predators, reducing vehicular contact with individual birds, and educating visitors about 

the importance of resource protection. Additional benefits would result under alternative B, as posting of 

nesting areas for piping plover would occur 15 days earlier in the season (potentially catching early 

nesters). Benefits may also result under alternative D because pedestrian-only closures for 

nesting/fledging piping plover would be a minimum of 650 feet and based on brood mobility. However, 

compliance with closures may not be absolute, resulting in continued disturbance of breeding habitat and 

potential mortality of individuals if noncompliance occurs. Impacts on piping plover from pedestrian 

access under alternative E would likely be slight, short-term and adverse due to limited noise disturbance 

and temporary species displacement. Prohibiting ORV access at the Seashore under alternative E would 

remove a source of disturbance for piping plover, resulting in long-term beneficial impacts, which could 

eventually reduce the need for special management of and mitigation for piping plover at the Seashore. 

Significance Discussion 

The purpose of Cape Lookout National Seashore (the Seashore) is to preserve the outstanding natural, 

cultural, and recreational resources and values of a dynamic, intact, natural barrier island system where 

ecological processes dominate. The Seashore is one of the few remaining locations on the Atlantic coast 

where visitors can experience and recreate in an undeveloped, remote barrier island environment that can 

be reached only by boat or ferry. North Carolina is currently the only state on the Atlantic Coast that hosts 

piping plovers during all phases of their annual cycle. The Seashore is a significant nesting area, 

containing 70 percent of the nesting pairs in the state of North Carolina. The Seashore is used by the 

Great Lakes and Great Plains populations of piping plover for wintering, and the Atlantic Coast 

population for breeding and wintering. Piping plovers were common along the Atlantic Coast during 

much of the 19th century, but nearly disappeared due to excessive hunting for decorative feathers. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

310 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Following passage of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) in 1918, plover numbers recovered to a 

20th century peak during the 1940s. However, an increase in development and beach recreation after 

World War II caused a population decline that led to federal protection for the plover. Habitat loss caused 

by human development and recreation, and low reproductive rates caused by disturbance and predation, 

were considered to be the primary causes of the decline. The Atlantic Coast piping plover population was 

federally listed in 1986 as threatened. The USFWS first designated critical habitat for the wintering 

population of the piping plover in 2001 along the coasts of North Carolina through Texas. Critical 

wintering habitat for piping plovers is identified by the USFWS in six geographic locations of Cape 

Lookout National Seashore. In 2008, the greatest concentration of piping plover nests at Cape Lookout 

National Seashore was found around New Drum Inlet, which is now considered the most important site in 

North Carolina for the survival of this species. Monitoring of piping plovers began in 1989. In 2012 the 

number of piping plovers was at its highest with 51 breeding pairs, and in 2004 the number of piping 

plovers was at its lowest with 13 breeding pairs. Predators, human disturbance, and limited or blocked 

access to foraging habitat have been identified in past research as contributing to impacted reproductive 

success for plovers using the Seashore. The greatest concerns related to wintering and migrating birds are 

habitat loss and degradation from development and beach stabilization and chronic human disturbance. 

Piping plovers at the Seashore currently receive substantial protections, which would increase in varying 

degrees under alternatives A, B, C, and D. These protections would increase under alternatives C and D, 

which limit ORVs to historical limits, and would dramatically increase under alternative E, since the 

elimination of ORVs may cause an increase in plover fledgling success. Adverse impacts to piping 

plovers across all alternatives would be small, as described in the impacts analysis above. While there 

may be occasional adverse impacts to individual plovers, under all alternatives the Seashore would 

continue to conduct monitoring, installation of buffers and closures to increase nest success. Piping plover 

nests would be marked to improve visibility and prevent impacts from ORVs, which can negatively 

impact nest success. A decrease in recreational uses during seasonal closures, as discussed in the 

alternatives, help protect wintering populations of piping plover along the Seashore. The alternatives 

would also have full recreational prenesting closures at all active and historical nest locations. Daily 

monitoring and subsequent buffers and closures would occur at active nesting locations for the duration of 

the brooding period. Under alternatives B, C, and D, additional protections for piping plovers (above and 

beyond the no-action alternative and existing condition) are added, including light pollution mitigation 

measures, a ban on night driving, predator management, a permit system which limits ORV numbers in 

alternatives C and D, ORV route restrictions and reductions, creation of additional pedestrian-only areas, 

ATV and UTV restrictions, and an adaptive management strategy. These additional measures under 

alternatives B, C, and D would primarily result in increased protections and beneficial impacts to piping 

plovers, as described in detail in the impacts analysis above. This is a beneficial change for piping plovers 

compared to the existing condition, (greatly reducing, and in some cases eliminating, impacts from 

ORVs), and does not result in significant adverse impacts. 

Under alternatives A, B, C, and D, designating legal routes for ORV use does not establish a precedent for 

future actions with significant effects, as ORV use has occurred at the Seashore since the 1930s and 

continued since the establishment of the Seashore as a park unit in 1976, and the current and proposed 

species protection measures are substantial, resulting in a low overall level of impacts to piping plovers. 

ORV use is also currently legally permitted in several other national seashores and recreation areas, and 

in this regard is not precedent-setting within the national park system. As described above, ORV use does 

not cause significant impacts to piping plovers, in part because of the substantial resource protection and 

mitigation measures taken by the Seashore, as well as the adaptive management strategy in alternatives B, 

C, and D, which would further strengthen mitigation measures and even limit use if certain indicators are 

met. Alternative E, which prohibits ORV use, would not establish a precedent for future actions with 

significant effects to piping plovers, as many other national park units do not allow ORV use. 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 311

There are a number of cumulative impacts to piping plovers, described in the impacts analysis above, 

which may be short- and long-term, limited, and adverse, as well as long-term beneficial. However, while 

adverse effects on piping plover from other actions occurring in the region would still exist, actions under 

alternatives A, B, C, D, and E would provide additional protections that would be beneficial to the 

regional population of this species and would mitigate any adverse cumulative impacts already occurring. 

In conclusion, compared to the existing condition, additional impacts to piping plovers under alternatives 

A, B, C, D, and E would be small. The Seashore has in place substantial resource protection and 

mitigation measures that would continue and would be strengthened in the action alternatives. When 

compared to the existing condition, in light of the significance criteria at 40 CFR 1508.27, there would be 

no significant adverse impacts to piping plovers from alternatives A, B, C, D, or E. 

RED KNOT 

SPECIES-SPECIFIC METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS

Potential impacts on the red knot populations (proposed for federal listing as a threatened species as of 

September 2013) and habitat were evaluated based on available data on the species’ past and present 

occurrences at the Seashore, scientific literature on the species, life history, scientific studies on the 

impacts of human disturbance on red knots and other species, as well as documentation of the species’ 

association with humans, pets, predators, and ORVs. Information on habitat and other existing data were 

acquired from NPS staff, the USFWS, and available literature. 

STUDY AREA

The geographic study area for assessment of the various alternatives is Cape Lookout National Seashore 

in its entirety. The geographic study area for the cumulative impacts analysis is the Seashore and the state 

of North Carolina. 

ALTERNATIVE A

Impacts of Alternative A: No Action 

Resource Management Activities 

Surveying and Monitoring—Other than surveying for migrating and wintering red knots (see 

“Management of Wintering and Nonbreeding Birds”) the Seashore would not conduct any surveying or 

monitoring activities targeted specifically for red knots, as they do not breed at the Seashore. Instead, red 

knots use the Seashore as a stopover during their spring and fall migrations. Some birds also winter at the 

Seashore. However, under alternative A, NPS staff would perform surveys of recent breeding areas for 

protected bird species (i.e., piping plover, American oystercatcher, and colonial waterbirds) other than red 

knots, and would also continue to monitor breeding, nesting, and fledging activities throughout the 

breeding season. They would also conduct daily surveying and monitoring activities for sea turtle nesting. 

Surveying and monitoring activities bring NPS staff and/or vehicles in proximity to shorebird species, 

including red knots. These activities have the potential to lead to flushing responses or other behavioral 

changes that have been known to occur in other types of birds, and could have the potential to negatively 

impact feeding, resting, or other actions of red knots as well (Anderson and Keith 1980; Ellison and 

Cleary 1978; Hand 1980; Tremblay and Ellison 1979). This would be especially true during the spring 

and fall migrations when red knots are most abundant at the Seashore. Breeding bird related surveys start 

in April and extend into the summer until the end of the nesting season, while red knot numbers at the 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

312 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Seashore typically peak in April and May for the spring migration with a smaller peak in August for the 

fall migration (NPS 2012u, 2011b, 2010k, 2009b, 2008b, 2007q, 2006i). Red knots are likely to react to 

disturbance from research and monitoring activities similarly to the way they react to nonresearch and 

monitoring related disturbance. Harrington (unpublished data reported in Niles et al. 2009) found that the 

proportion of red knots that flew out of site during research activities was similar to the proportion of red 

knots that flew out of site in reaction to disturbances not related to research and monitoring. Likewise, 

Harrington (unpublished data reported in Niles et al. 2009) found no statistically significant difference in 

the mean number of calories used by red knots when reacting to the activities of researchers and red knots 

reacting to nonresearch related disturbances. 

Establishment of Prenesting Closures—Red knots do not breed at the Seashore so there would be no 

prenesting closures established targeting them. However, under alternative A, full recreational prenesting 

closures would be established by April 1 in all active, historical, and potential new piping plover habitat, 

recent piping plover breeding areas, as well as in active colonial waterbird nesting areas. ORV closures 

would also be established by April 1 in historical tern and black skimmer nesting areas and any potential 

new habitat where, from site inspection, a qualified staff biologist determines that nesting may be likely to 

occur. The symbolic fencing would deter the entry of people, pets, and ORVs into these habitats and 

minimize potential disturbances. While these areas could provide protection from disturbance to red knots 

if they use this habitat, red knots are generally found in the intertidal area of the beach where they forage 

in the wet sand. Thus, any potential beneficial impacts to red knots from prenesting closures for other 

species would be minimal. 

Buffer/Closure Establishment—Under alternative A, no ORV or full recreational closures would be 

implemented that specifically target the red knot, putting individual birds at risk of disturbance from 

ORVs, pedestrians, and pets causing short- and long-term adverse impacts. Disturbance can lead to 

flushing (or escape) responses, which in turn could disrupt foraging and resting behavior (Anderson and 

Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; Hand 1980; Tremblay and Ellison 1979). However, red knots would 

benefit from the establishment of ORV and full recreational closures under alternative A for other 

protected species, including sea turtles, to the extent that the buffers and closures encompass the red 

knot’s prime foraging habitat; the ocean shoreline. 

For sea turtles, six nest relocation areas (three each on North Core and South Core Banks) would be 

designated and would be closed to ORV traffic beginning 50 days after the first nest is relocated to the 

area. The nest relocation areas would reopen to ORV traffic when the last nest in the area has been 

excavated. These ORV closures would be ramp to ramp closures, and would generally be 0.5 to 1.0 mile 

long. Additionally, camping and campfires would be prohibited in these areas. Red knots using the ocean 

shoreline for foraging or resting in the relocation areas would be free from disturbance by ORVs, 

providing beneficial impacts. However, because of the timing of the closures, the beneficial impacts 

would be minimized. The timeframe that the nest relocation areas would be closed to ORVs does not 

cover the red knot’s spring migration (April/May) which is when the species is most abundant at the 

Seashore, with peak numbers typically in excess of 1,000 birds (NPS 2012u, 2011b, 2010k, 2009b, 

2008b, 2007q, 2006i). From June through October, red knots generally number less than 200 birds at the 

Seashore, though in 2012 the fall migration peaked at close to 800 birds in early August (NPS 2012u). 

For protected bird species, under alternative A, after a piping plover nest hatches and chicks are found on 

the ocean beach, a minimum 600-foot ORV closure around each brood would be established. A 2-mile 

ORV closure would also be established at the north end of South Core Banks from the first nest hatch 

until the last chick has fledged or is lost. Ramp-to-ramp ORV closures would occur for American 

oystercatcher chicks found on the beach unless no back route was available, then ORVs would be allowed 

to traverse the area at 15 mph. For colonial waterbird chicks present at the point of Cape Lookout beach, 

150-foot buffers would be established around the broods. All of these closures and buffers would be 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 313

reopened to ORV traffic when the last chick is fledged or lost. Additionally, all of Shackleford Banks, 

Portsmouth Flats, the interior of the point of Cape Lookout, the beach between mile markers 41a and 41b, 

and Power Squadron Spit would be permanently closed to public ORV use. Since habitat protected by 

these buffers and closures overlaps red knot foraging habitat, red knots would see beneficial impacts from 

the lack of ORV disturbance in these areas while they are in place. The buffers for the unfledged chicks of 

other protected species would also provide benefits to red knots. The buffers would be adjusted in 

response to brood movements, and the frequent adjustment of the buffers by NPS staff could cause some 

disturbance of foraging red knots causing some adverse impacts (Anderson and Keith 1980; Ellison and 

Cleary 1978; Tremblay and Ellison 1979; Hand 1980). 

Management of Wintering and Nonbreeding Birds—Red knots do not breed at the Seashore, but use 

the Seashore as a stopover point during spring and fall migrations. As a result, surveys for red knots 

would be conducted in the spring and fall during their migration period on North and South Core Banks 

according to the International Shorebird Survey guidelines for frequency and timing. In accordance with 

the International Shorebird Survey guidelines, surveying for red knots would occur at 10-day intervals on 

the 5th, 15th, and 25th of each month from March 15 through June 5 and from July 15 through October 15 

(NPS 2012u). Surveying activities could have short-term adverse impacts on red knots as the presence of 

resource staff and vehicles in proximity to the birds could result in flushing responses or other behavioral 

changes that negatively impact feeding, resting, or other actions of red knots (Anderson and Keith 1980; 

Ellison and Cleary 1978; Hand 1980; Tremblay and Ellison 1979). However, resource protection staff 

would take proper measures, such as using binoculars so they can observe the species from greater 

distances, to minimize any disturbance to red knots during the surveys. Additionally, the survey intervals 

(i.e., 10 days) would also help minimize adverse impacts from surveying by not causing chronic 

disturbances. While the actual survey activities may cause some short-term adverse impacts, overall, 

surveying the nonbreeding population of red knots at the Seashore would also result in long-term benefits, 

due to increased knowledge and awareness of the species. 

Some red knots winter over at the Seashore. Additional winter counts in recent years found 370 birds on 

February 17 and 39 birds on November 16 on North Core Banks; and 69 birds on November 14 on 

Shackleford Banks in 2012 (NPS 2012u); 58 birds on South Core Banks on December 9, 2011 (NPS 

2011b); 120 birds on North Core Banks on December 15, 2010 (NPS 2010k); and 340 birds on North 

Core Banks on December 15, 2009 (NPS 2009b). Some short-term disturbance to foraging or resting red 

knots may occur due to the presence of NPS staff and vehicles during these surveys. However, the data 

collected would provide long-term beneficial impacts by providing Seashore managers with information 

on the types and locations of habitats used, the seasonality of red knot use of the Seashore, as well as 

other pertinent information, allowing the Seashore to better understand and manage the species. 

Surveys would also occur for the nonbreeding population of piping plovers that spend the winter months 

at the Seashore. Surveys for nonbreeding plovers would occur just once per month from August 1 through 

March 31. Surveying activities for nonbreeding plovers could cause some disturbance to red knots on the 

beach through the presence of NPS staff and vehicles causing flushing behavior. However, any impacts 

would be greatly minimized by the fact that the surveys for nonbreeding plovers only occur once per 

month. 

Under alternative A, the Seashore would be closed to vehicles from January 1 through March 15. This 

closure would result in long-term benefits for wintering red knots by providing protected habitat during 

the winter and allowing the beach profile to recover without any vehicles on it. Outside of the January 1 

through March 15 timeframe, no closures would be specifically implemented for migrating or wintering 

shorebird protection which could result in disturbance of individuals, leading to displacement and altered 

foraging behavior (Burger 1991; Zonick 2000; McAtee and Drawe 1981). However, impacts would be 

minimized somewhat through permanent ORV closures which include all of Shackleford Banks, 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

314 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Portsmouth Flats, the interior of the point of Cape Lookout, the ocean beach between mile markers 41a 

and 41b, and Power Squadron Spit. 

While the closure of the Seashore to vehicles from January 1 through March 15 would help protect 

wintering red knots, no closures would be established for pedestrians, which could result in disturbance of 

birds and habitat from pedestrian use, leading to displacement and altered foraging behavior. However, 

adverse impacts would be largely imperceptible because many passenger ferries stop operating in the 

winter, the amount of pedestrian use during the winter months is very low, and without a means of 

transportation on the beach, most visitor use would be confined to areas in the immediate vicinity of the 

ferry landings. 

Predator Management—In migratory stopover areas for the red knot, such as the Seashore, a number of 

avian predators, such as the peregrine falcon or large gulls such as the great black-back gull and the 

herring gull, are the most common predators of red knots (FR 2013b). While mammalian predators may 

be a threat by causing disturbance to red knots, direct mortality from them is low (FR 2013b). An indirect 

impact from ORV and recreational use is the attraction of mammalian and avian predators to the waste 

stream (food, trash, fish bait, and scraps, etc.) associated with recreational use (NPS 2006e; USFWS 

1996a). Although the Seashore would enforce proper trash disposal and anti-wildlife feeding regulations, 

recreational use of the ocean beach would continue to attract predators, which could slightly enhance the 

occurrence of disturbance from predators, or in the case of large gulls, mortality, of red knots, resulting in 

some small amount of adverse impacts. 

Education/Public Outreach—Under alternative A, the public would continue to receive information at 

the visitor centers about listed/sensitive species and their ecology, as well as the measures the Seashore is 

taking to protect these species. Annual protected species reports would continue to be published on the 

Seashore’s website regarding the previous season. The public would continue to be notified about 

closures that would limit ORV or pedestrian traffic, as well as when these closures reopen. Also, 

education and outreach materials would be provided regarding the impacts of trash disposal, wildlife 

feeding, and pets on sensitive species at the Seashore. Such public outreach is beneficial to red knots as it 

educates the public on the specific needs of the species and alerts the public ahead of time to areas where 

they cannot go due to potential impacts on sensitive birds. Public education has long been recommended 

as a way to reduce disturbance to sensitive species and habitats and garner support for conservation 

programs (Klein, Humphrey, and Franklin 1995; Boettcher et al. 2007; Carlson and Godfrey 1989) 

Therefore, public outreach as part of species management would result in long-term beneficial impacts to 

red knots. 

Research/Monitoring—Ongoing research at the Seashore under alternative A would include monitoring 

American oystercatcher nesting and chick survival and success and document causes of chick mortality. 

In the future, there would likely be other research to study wildlife at the Seashore. Research efforts have 

the potential to negatively impact feeding and resting behavior of shorebirds over the long-term due to the 

increased human presence and use of ORVs (Anderson and Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; Hand 

1980; Tremblay and Ellison 1979). However, any research directed at red knots would result in long-term 

beneficial impacts for the species because it is likely that results from the research would lead to a greater 

understanding of the red knot which could inform future protection and management of the species.

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

ORVs and Pedestrian Access— Under alternative A, 81 percent (45 miles) of the Seashore beaches 

would be open for public ORV use, including ATVs and UTVs, in designated routes and areas (as 

documented in the Superintendent’s Compendium) from March 16 through December 31. As described 

above under “Buffer/Closure Establishment,” the Seashore does not establish ORV and full recreational 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 315

closures for red knots, but full recreational closures are established for other species, such as piping 

plovers, sea turtles, seabeach amaranth, and state-listed and special-status species. Safety closures are also 

established when certain areas of the beach become too hazardous for safe public use. Based on data from 

2008 to 2013, the total amount of ORV resource and safety closures at the Seashore averages 

approximately 10 miles during the summer months and approximately 5.4 miles during the fall. These 

closures protect approximately 22 percent more of the Seashore that would otherwise be open to ORV 

impacts during the summer months, and approximately 12 percent more of the Seashore during the fall 

months. To the extent that these closures encompass the ocean beach where red knots forage and rest, the 

closures provide beneficial impacts by protecting habitat and birds from the adverse impacts caused by 

ORV use. 

ORV use and other recreational activities that occur in the months when red knots are present at the 

Seashore (stopovers during spring and fall migration; winter residents) have the potential to adversely 

impact red knots by disturbing their resting and foraging behaviors. Disturbance of shorebirds can cause 

behavioral changes that result in less time resting or foraging, shifts in feeding times, decreased food 

intake, and more time and energy spent in alert postures or fleeing from the disturbance, also known as 

frequent escape flight (Burger 1994; Burger et al. 2007; Johnson and Baldassarre 1988; Lafferty 2001a, 

2001b; Tarr 2008). 

Each year red knots migrate long distances between their breeding grounds in the Arctic and their 

wintering areas. Wintering areas include the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts of North America, the 

Caribbean, and along the north and southeast coasts of South America (FR 2013b). Because of the long 

distances traveled, stopover areas, such as the Seashore, are important for the birds to be able to feed on 

easily digestible food to quickly restore weight gain for the next leg of their migration (FR 2013b). 

Disturbance of migratory birds at stopover areas is of concern because frequent escape flights result in a 

reduction in time foraging or resting and an increase in the time spent flying (Tarr 2008). By reducing 

time spent foraging and increasing energy spent fleeing, disturbance by ORVs and other recreational 

activities may hinder the red knot’s ability to replenish its fat reserves for the next phase of its migration 

(FR 2013b). In a study of shorebirds on Delaware Bay beaches in New Jersey, Burger et al. (2004) found 

that wintering shorebirds flew away and did not return to forage in response to 58 percent or more of the 

human disruptions and showed no indications of habituating to disturbance. Escudero et al. (2012) also 

found that total red knot feeding time was 0.5 hours shorter due to continuous disturbance and flushing of 

birds by ORVs, people, and dogs during prime feeding time just after high tide. 

Although ATVs and UTVs are considered to be a type of ORV, their use may impact shorebird behaviors 

differently than other types of vehicles. At Cape Lookout and Cape Hatteras National Seashores, 

McGowan and Simons (2006) found that while increases in ATV traffic increased the rate of trips to and 

away from the nest and reduced the percent of time spent incubating in American oystercatchers, other 

types of ORVs (i.e., four-wheel drive passenger vehicles) and pedestrian traffic had little measured effect 

on incubation. ATVs are louder and faster than other ORVs and pedestrians, which may be why birds are 

affected more by ATV traffic (McGowan and Simons 2006). 

In another study, Simons and Borneman (2012) found that American oystercatchers were on their nests 

significantly less during all types of ORV (passenger vehicles, ATVs – single passenger, and UTVs – allterrain vehicles with side-by-side passengers) and pedestrian events than before those events occurred, 

with the most significant decline in percentage of observations on the nest attributable to ATVs followed 

by UTVs. Based on the authors’ graphical display of the data, American oystercatchers were on their 

nests approximately 85 percent of the time 20 minutes prior to all observances of human activities (e.g., 

passing of ORVs, ATVs, and UTVs). During the passing of an ORV (i.e., passenger vehicle), American 

oystercatchers were on their nests approximately 80 percent of the time, while during the passing of 

UTVs and ATVs the birds were observed on their nests approximately 62 percent and 33 percent of the 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

316 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

time respectively. However, in the same study, Simons and Borneman (2012) found that the average heart 

rate of 36 incubating oystercatchers during all types of human activity (pedestrians, ORVs, ATVs, and 

UTVs) was not significantly higher than the heart rate from birds 20 minutes before a human activity 

event occurred. Therefore, although the physiological response of American oystercatchers seems to 

indicate habituation to disturbance, their behavioral response does not indicate a habituation to 

disturbance. While the study was looking at nesting birds, it is reasonable to surmise that because they are 

louder and faster, ATVs and UTVs would also have an increased disturbance effect on other bird 

behavior such as foraging. Thus, even with buffers and other ORV or full recreational closures, ATV and 

UTV use as allowed under alternative A could adversely affect red knots at the Seashore because of the 

potential for greater disturbance and disruption of foraging behavior along the ocean shoreline as 

compared to other types of ORVs. 

ORV traffic can also adversely impact beach invertebrates, which are a food source for red knots. In 

Australia, Schlacher and others (2008) found ORV impacted beaches had significantly fewer species at 

reduced densities than non-ORV beaches, and although these impacts were detectable throughout the 

year, the impacts increased during the summer when ORV traffic was greater. At Cape Cod National 

Seashore, Leatherman and Godfrey (1979) found that in the soft sands of intertidal sand flats, amphipods 

(Talorshestia) numbered fewer where ORV driving occurred than where it did not occur. The authors also 

found that polychaete worm (clam worm) populations and soft-shell clam (Mya arenaria) populations 

were totally decimated when applying 50 vehicle passes per day over 20 days to experimental plots. ORV 

traffic has also been shown to affect the burrowing performance of clams (Sheppard, Pitt, and Schlacher 

2009). Not all invertebrates are susceptible to impacts from ORVs though, especially those species that 

burrow into the sand in the intertidal zone when the tide is out, because ORVs only sink into the firm sand 

one tenth of an inch or so (Wolcott and Wolcott 1984). Wolcott and Wolcott (1984) found that in the 

intertidal zone coquina clams and mole crabs, both of which reside below the sand surface when the tide 

is out, are immune to ORV damage, whereas Vande Merwe and Vander Merwe (1991) found in a study in 

South Africa that the gastropod Bullia rhodostoma, the clams Donax serra and Donax sordidus, and the 

benthic mysid (Gastrosaccus psammodytes) showed a high tolerance for ORV traffic. 

The number of red knots wintering at the Seashore is far less than the number of birds that use it as a 

migratory stopover (winter numbers range from less than 100 to upwards of 400, while spring migration 

numbers generally exceed 1,000 and reached approximately 1,600 in 2012 (NPS 2012u, 2011b, 2010k, 

2009b)). However, the closure of the Seashore to vehicles from January 1 through March 15 every year 

would help protect any wintering red knots from the impacts of ORV use (e.g., displacement, frequent 

escape flights) during this time. The seasonal closure would allow the beach profile to recover from heavy 

fall fishing use, which would indirectly benefit red knots by protecting potential habitat in the spring. 

Passenger ferries would continue to enable pedestrians to access the Seashore from January 1 through 

March 15. Any potential adverse impacts to wintering red knots, such as temporary displacement and 

reduced foraging success, would be minimal due to reduced used of the Seashore by pedestrians during 

the winter months and the fact that without a means of transportation on the beach, most visitor use would 

be confined to areas in the immediate vicinity of the ferry landings. 

Under alternative A, pedestrian-only use areas would include Shackleford Banks, Portsmouth Flats, the 

lighthouse beach as defined between mile markers 41a and 41b, and Power Squadron Spit from mile 

marker 46.2 west to the end of the spit. Although ORVs would not be permitted in these areas, which 

would reduce the impact of motorized vehicle use on red knots in those areas, the presence of pedestrians 

and continued non-ORV recreational activities could result in short-term adverse impacts, such as species 

displacement and frequent escape flights, depending on the time of year and frequency of activities. 

Buffers, closures, and other species management measures under alternative A are designed to help 

protect special-status species, including the red knot. However, noncompliance with these measures does 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 317

occur (NPS 2012t, 2011a, 2010b, 2009a, 2008c, 2007i). Noncompliance can result in people, vehicles, 

and pets coming into close proximity to red knots. This could lead to flushing responses or other 

behavioral changes, which in turn could have the potential to negatively impact birds during feeding, 

resting, or other activities (Burger 1991; Flemming et al. 1988; Melvin et al. 1994; Patterson et al. 1991; 

Patterson, Fraser, and Roggenbuck 1990; Zonick 2000). Dogs are of particular concern, as shorebirds are 

more likely to be flushed by dogs than people, and birds react to dogs at greater distances than people 

(Lafferty 2001a, 2001b. In reacting to dogs, Burger et al. (2007) found that foraging shorebirds in 

migratory habitat did not return to the beach following the disturbance. Unleashed dogs also often chase 

shorebirds (Burger 1986; Lafferty 2001b). From 2010 to 2012, an average of 195 citations or warnings 

were given for dogs off leash (NPS 2012t, 2011a, 2010b). While regular patrols of areas by law 

enforcement rangers, trained observers, and field biologists help to deter closure and leash violations, 

with continued ORV and pedestrian access at the Seashore, and no planned increases in law enforcement 

or resource protection staffing under alternative A, it is anticipated that noncompliance (either intentional 

or unintentional) with regulations and closures would likely continue to occur. These violations would 

adversely impact red knots by bringing vehicles, pedestrians, and likely pets in close proximity to the 

birds, causing short term adverse impacts at the location of the violation and could result in long-term 

adverse impacts from decreased fitness for the next leg of the red knot’s migration. 

Night-Driving—Under alternative A, there would be no restrictions on night driving. Red knots are 

known to be active at night (Niles et al. 2009) and would be subject to vehicular and pedestrian 

disturbance, which could impact their foraging behavior. As described above under “ORVs and 

Pedestrian Access,” red knots rely on foraging at migration stopovers to add necessary body fat reserves 

for their long migration, and disturbance can result in less time foraging as well as expending energy in 

flight responses. Therefore, allowing night driving under alternative A would result in long-term adverse 

impacts. 

Permit Requirements—Under alternative A, there would be no permitting requirements (except for 

long-term parking) for ORV use at the Seashore. It is anticipated that visitation to the Seashore will 

slowly grow in the future, with an estimated annual increase of approximately 1.5 percent (NPS 2010j). 

With increased visitation, it is assumed that the number of ORVs on the beach at the Seashore would also 

slowly grow in the future. As described under the alternatives where a permit system would be 

implemented, such a system would provide additional education to ORV users regarding protected 

species and important habitat at the Seashore, as well as additional methods (i.e., revoking permits) for 

dealing with noncompliance of Seashore regulations. The lack of a permit system could result in limited 

adverse impacts on red knots because without a permit program, there would be less user education 

regarding protected species. Also, without a permit program, the number of ORVs on the Seashore would 

be allowed to grow unencumbered, and as the number of vehicles at the Seashore continues to increase, 

the potential for vehicle disturbance to red knots would also likely increase from current levels. This 

disturbance could include flushing response and other behavioral changes. The continued increase in 

vehicles on the Seashore could also result in an increase in the amount of noncompliance with Seashore 

regulations that are in place to protect special-status species, including the red knot. 

Camping—Under alternative A, camping and campfires would be permitted on all beaches of the 

Seashore that are not otherwise closed by the Superintendent’s Compendium, closed for safety, or closed 

for species protection. For species protection, areas where camping and campfires would be prohibited 

include all full recreational closures and the six sea turtle nesting relocation areas on North Core and 

South Core Banks. Prohibiting camping and beach fires in full recreational closures would benefit red 

knots where these closures overlap their habitat on the foreshore of the ocean beach, as disturbance from 

these activities would be reduced or eliminated. The sea turtle nesting relocation areas encompass the full 

beach area, including the foreshore, and each is approximately 0.5 to 1.0 mile long; thus prohibiting 

camping and campfires in these areas would provide beneficial impacts to red knots using these areas to 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

318 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

rest or forage by removing any disturbance from these activities. However, for red knots outside buffers 

or closures for other protected species, the use of ORVs and the presence of pedestrians associated with 

camping and beach fires could result in temporary displacement and/or increased stress responses for 

foraging and resting birds. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative A 

Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Seashore have the potential to 

impact red knots. Various dredging has occurred and will continue to occur in the vicinity of the 

Seashore. Following Hurricane Irene, the Long Point ferry basin received dredging in 2011 (NPS 2011). 

However, dredging activities at the Seashore are generally minor and do not affect the ocean beach where 

red knots occur. In addition, the Beaufort Inlet has been dredged and would continue to be dredged on an 

annual basis as long as funding is available to the Army Corps of Engineers. In the past, dredge material 

from the dredging of Beaufort Inlet has not been placed on any Seashore beaches. However, moving 

forward, as part of the Morehead City Harbor DMMP, NPS has agreed to allow consideration for the 

deposition of restricted amounts of dredged material on Shackleford Banks during the 20-year period 

beginning in 2015 and extending through 2034 (USACE 2013). As it relates to Shackleford Banks, if the 

NPS allows dredged material to be deposited on the beach, the placement of material would potentially 

occur every 3 to 4 years along a 3.65-mile-long stretch of beach; the dredged material would be 

compatible with the existing beaches (>90 percent sand); and in any year that the NPS allows beach 

disposal to occur, the NPS would only permit it from November 16 through March 30, If it occurs, 

disposal of material on the beach would occur from the base of the existing frontal dune to the -24 foot 

depth, adding up to 33 acres of new ocean beach every 3 years about 1 mile east of the Shackleford Spit 

off Beaufort Inlet (USACE 2013). While disposal activities could temporarily disturb wintering red knots, 

causing short-term adverse impacts, long-term beneficial impacts would result from the increase in acres 

of beach habitat on Shackleford Banks. 

Oregon Inlet has been dredged in the past and would continue to be dredged in the future. Due to the 

presence of nesting sea turtles, dredging activities do not take place during the spring or summer, which is 

also when red knot numbers peak during their spring and fall migration period (April/May and August); 

so there would be no direct impacts to migrating red knots. The dredging of inlets can affect spit 

formation adjacent to inlets, which over time could result in the loss of potential prime ocean shoreline 

foraging habitat, resulting in long-term adverse impacts. Dredging operations can also result in long-term 

beneficial impacts to red knots as well. Sand from dredging operations is often used for onshore beach 

nourishment which can help to curtail erosion and expand ocean beach habitat where red knots forage, 

though wintering plovers may be temporarily disturbed during the beach nourishment activities. 

Several past, present, and future plans and actions at the Seashore address visitation and improvement of 

visitor amenities and, therefore, could impact red knots at the Seashore. The Commercial Services Plan / 

Environmental Assessment / Assessment of Effect (NPS 2007m) guides the Seashore in improving the 

management and operation of commercial visitor services, while providing self-directed and facilitated 

visitor opportunities. Visitor services that are offered and could continue to be offered at the Seashore 

include, land transportation services, sale of limited food and sundry supplies, and ferry transportation. 

Land transportation services include a beach shuttle service originating in the lighthouse area and 

traveling to points on South Core Banks, limited UTV tours at the northern end of North Core Banks, and 

limited vehicle transportation service from the Long Point and Great Island concession areas. These 

services could have adverse impacts on red knots and their habitat similar to those previously described 

for public ORV use. However, any adverse impacts would be relatively small given the size of the 

operations and because their vehicles would continue to use established transportation routes including 

the back route and would adhere to all buffers/closures and other Seashore regulations. While the sale of 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 319

food could increase trash at the Seashore and attract predators, sales are limited and confined to 

developed areas of the Seashore, so impacts would be negligible. Ferry operations occur on the soundside 

of South Core and North Core Banks where there are no red knots, so there would be no impacts from the 

continued operation of these services. 

The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps conduct flight operations in the area of the Seashore. These operations 

include recent actions taken by the military to lower the ceiling (or altitude) above which planes may fly 

up to the speed of sound from 10,000 feet to 3,000 feet, and increased capabilities of offshore training. In 

addition, Marine Corps Cherry Point Air Station is located approximately 30 miles northwest of the 

Seashore. The air station and its associated support locations occupy more than 29,000 acres, (U.S. 

Marine Corps n.d.). A 2012 report on the effects of military overflights on American oystercatchers at the 

Seashore (Simmons and Borneman, 2012), concluded that at their peak sound level, military overflights 

contributed to a 72.5 dBA (A-weighted decibel) sound level, which is comparable to walking along the 

oceanside of the point of Cape Lookout (see “Soundscapes/Acoustic Environment”). Thus, the report 

concluded that there is no noteworthy evidence that military overflights affect the behavioral responses of 

American oystercatchers, including low-altitude flyovers (Simmons and Borneman 2012). A separate 

study (Derose-Wilson et al. n.d.) looked at the potential impacts of the military flights on Wilson’s plover 

and colonial waterbirds (least terns, common terns, gull-billed terns, and black skimmers). Derose-Wilson 

et al. (n.d.) found that Wilson’s plovers did not exhibit any behavior changes to the military overflights, 

whereas least terns incubated their nests more after an overflight, but only during overflights in sound 

exposure levels greater than 90 dBA, which was the top 10 percent of sound exposure levels for all 

military overflights. Though sample sizes were small for other nesting colonial waterbirds, the authors 

found no indication that responses from colonial waterbirds would be different than those of the least tern. 

Although neither study specifically assessed the impacts to red knots, the authors of both studies 

concluded that the lower altitude flights did not have an appreciable effect on the behavior of any of the 

birds in question. Given the red knots do not nest at the Seashore and their similar use of the beach as 

foraging habitat to the American oystercatchers, it is reasonable to assume that the military overflights 

would not have an appreciable adverse effect on the red knot. 

Currently, the BOEM is analyzing the issuance of leases for developing offshore commercial wind 

energy. BOEM in cooperation with the State of North Carolina has established a task force, comprised of 

relevant federal agencies, state government officials, and local and Tribal elected government officials, in 

the planning and decision-making process in identifying a wind energy area off the coast of North 

Carolina. Although the planning process includes a thorough analysis of reasonable alternatives and 

cumulative impacts on sensitive resources, including migrating birds, the development of off-shore wind 

turbines could adversely impact migrating red knots (including those that may use the Seashore). 

However, whether they impact red knots would depend on how far offshore the wind turbines are located, 

and if they are within the migratory path of the red knot. Adverse impacts associated with wind turbines 

include direct mortality from collisions with turbine blades and/or turbine avoidance, which can reduce 

fitness by exclusion from key foraging habitat or by energetic costs of inducing longer flight paths 

(especially for migrating shorebirds and ducks) (BOEM n.d.). 

Many past, present and future actions, plans, and programs at the Seashore provide benefits for red knots. 

The Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan/Environmental 

Assessment states that the NPS will meet its obligations under the NPS Organic Act and the ESA to both 

proactively conserve listed species and prevent detrimental effects on these species. To meet these 

obligations, the Service will “manage designated critical habitat, essential habitat, and recovery areas to 

maintain and enhance their value for the recovery of threatened and endangered species.” In addition, the 

Service will take on active management programs to inventory, monitor, restore, and maintain listed 

species’ habitats, control detrimental nonnative species, control detrimental visitor access, and reestablish extirpated populations as necessary (NPS 2006a). Although the plan permits continued ORV 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

320 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

access, which has the potential to impact red knots at the Seashore, the plan is beneficial for red knots, 

because it includes measures to educate visitors about resources at the Seashore and management 

measures, including buffers and closures for other species along the ocean shoreline that also protect red 

knots. In addition, the plan includes future ongoing monitoring and staff resource protection activities, 

which have the potential to benefit the species by providing additional information to drive future 

management decisions. The education aspect of the plan provides long-term benefits to red knots because 

it helps to educate visitors about the conservation needs of the species at the Seashore and the protection 

measures that are put in place to help protect it. 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore also previously implemented an Interim Protected Species Management 

Strategy/EA and more recently implemented a long-term ORV management plan/EIS; both of which 

include protection measures for special-status species to minimize potential adverse impacts from ORVs, 

pedestrians, and pets. Though measures are not specifically targeted towards the red knot, the red knot 

does benefit from them, as many of the measures protect other species using the ocean shoreline for 

foraging. Since this is where the red knot is primarily found, they too would benefit from these protective 

measures. Because Cape Hatteras National Seashore is in such close proximity to Cape Lookout National 

Seashore, the benefits to red knots at Cape Hatteras from these two plans also provide benefits to red 

knots at Cape Lookout through the long term protection of the entire regional population. 

The USFWS recovery plan and designation of critical habitat for the piping plover provides protection to 

other species inhabiting the same areas, including red knots. Designated critical habitat for the piping 

plover at the Seashore includes all of the inlets in the Seashore, Portsmouth Flats, Kathryn-Jane Flats, and 

the point of Cape Lookout. The habitat includes ocean beach, mud flats, sand flats, and soundside beach 

used as foraging areas and sparsely vegetated low dunes. The critical habitat designated or the piping 

plover at the Seashore is protected and disturbance to these areas is limited. Because the critical habitat 

includes areas of ocean beach where red knots also forage, the red knot would also experience long-term 

benefits from the protection of these areas. An American Oystercatcher Conservation Plan exists as well, 

which focuses on the East and Gulf coast populations, including American oystercatchers occurring at the 

Seashore. The plan addresses major threats to the health of the species and outlines recommended 

conservation activities to remedy these threats. Because American oystercatchers share habitat with other 

shorebirds, conservation efforts for oystercatchers would likely result in long-term benefits for red knots 

at the Seashore (Schulte et al. 2007). 

A population of culturally important wild horses exists at the Seashore on Shackleford Banks. The 

population of approximately 109 wild horses is legislatively protected (NPS 2012u) and is maintained 

through a horse management plan that defines how the population is cooperatively managed by both the 

NPS and the foundation of Shackleford Horses (NPS 2007h). The horses are generally found on the 

dunes, in the swales between the dunes, on the marsh or in the forest. Because they are generally not 

found on the ocean shoreline where red knots forage, management of the horses under the horse 

management plan would have no impacts on red knots. 

The Seashore is implementing a long-range interpretive plan (NPS 2011k) that further articulates the 

purpose, significance, and themes of the Seashore. The long-range interpretive plan informs and guides 

the Seashore’s interpretive and education programs, which includes information about threatened and 

endangered species within the Seashore. Such education programs, if implemented, would provide longterm benefits to red knots as they would help to educate visitors about the conservation needs of sensitive 

species at the Seashore and the protection measures that are put in place to help protect them. 

The Foundation Document (NPS 2012s) for the Seashore identifies the following projects that may 

impact red knots at the Seashore to some degree: Harkers Island Master Plan, Great Island and Long Point 

Master Plan, Resource stewardship strategy, Comprehensive Sign Plan, nonnative species and predator 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 321

management plan, and the sustainability plan/green plan. These planning efforts would establish 

development patterns at the Seashore, taking into consideration the location of sensitive species, 

especially their breeding locations, and plan to avoid or minimize impacts to these habitats. A 

comprehensive sign plan would allow the NPS to more effectively communicate messages to visitors, 

including those regarding the importance of species management at the Seashore. A nonnative species 

and predator management plan would provide for additional protection of red knots by helping to reduce 

disturbance from mammalian predators. All of these planned efforts would have some measure of 

beneficial impacts on red knots at the Seashore to the extent that they provide beneficial impacts or along 

the ocean shoreline where the red knots are generally found foraging. 

Finally, Cape Lookout National Seashore conducted a predator study to evaluate ways to alleviate threats 

to federally listed species at the Seashore. A three-year research study (2007-2009) evaluated the response 

of both predator (raccoon) and prey populations to raccoon removal. The NPS decided to implement the 

preferred alternative (Experimental Reduction of Raccoon Population to Evaluate Removal as an Option 

for Protected Species Management) outlined in the predator study/EA. Although the preferred alternative 

would result in direct removal of raccoons and reduction in the raccoon population at the Seashore, the 

overall impact would provide some slight long-term benefits to red knots by helping to control 

mammalian predators, such as fox and others, which can cause disturbance to adult birds. Predator 

trapping might result in short-term disturbance to foraging red knots. However, overall predator 

management actions would likely be beneficial to red knots. 

The overall combined impacts of these past, current, and future actions on red knot would be short- and 

long-term, and adverse from disturbance to foraging and nesting birds from visitor/ORV use, dredging 

activities, visitor amenity improvements, and military overflights. There would also be long-term 

beneficial impacts from the protection afforded to red knots and their habitat by species monitoring, other 

protected species’ buffers, habitat protection, visitor protection patrols, visitor education programs, 

predator management, and future planning efforts under the Foundation Plan. While adverse effects on 

red knot from other actions occurring in the region would still exist, actions under alternative A would 

provide additional protection that would be beneficial to the regional population of this species and would 

offset some of the adverse effects. 

ALTERNATIVE B

Impacts of Alternative B 

Resource Management Activities 

Surveying and Monitoring—Similar to alternative A, under alternative B the Seashore would not 

conduct any surveying or monitoring activities targeted specifically for red knots other than surveying for 

migrating and wintering red knots (see “Management of Wintering and Nonbreeding Birds”). However, 

surveying and monitoring for other protected bird species (i.e., piping plover, American oystercatcher, 

and colonial waterbirds) and sea turtles would be the same as under alternative A, and result in the same 

short-term adverse impacts. Surveying and monitoring activities would bring NPS staff and/or vehicles in 

proximity to shorebird species, including red knots. This would have the potential to lead to flushing 

responses or other behavioral changes that have been known to occur in other types of shorebirds, and 

could have the potential to negatively impact feeding, resting, or other actions of red knots as well 

(Anderson and Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; Hand 1980; Tremblay and Ellison 1979). To help 

minimize any adverse impacts from monitoring and surveying activities, under alternative B there would 

be more consistent training and supervision of resource staff who conduct the surveys. This would result 

in a higher quality of monitoring for shorebird species, resulting in beneficial impacts. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

322 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Establishment of Prenesting Closures— Red knots do not breed at the Seashore, so there would be no 

prenesting closures established targeting them. Establishing full recreational prenesting closures for other 

protected bird species under alternative B would be the same as for alternative A, except that they would 

be established by March 16, prior to opening the beach to vehicles. While the protected prenesting areas 

could also provide protection from disturbance for any red knots that may use this same habitat, including 

those that may arrive prior to the peak migration timeframe of April and May, red knots are generally 

found in the intertidal area of the beach where they forage in the wet sand. Thus, any potential beneficial 

impacts from prenesting closures for other species would be minimal. 

Buffer/Closure Establishment—Under alternative B, no ORV or full recreational closures would be 

implemented that specifically target red knots, putting individual birds at risk of disturbance from ORVs, 

pedestrians, and pets, causing short- and long-term adverse impacts. Disturbance can lead to flushing (or 

escape) responses, which in turn could disrupt foraging and resting behavior (Anderson and Keith 1980; 

Ellison and Cleary 1978; Hand 1980; Tremblay and Ellison 1979). However, ORV and full recreational 

closures for other protected bird species, as well as nest relocation areas for sea turtles, would occur under 

alternative B in the same manner as they would under alternative A. These buffers and closures would 

help protect red knots as they would under alternative A to the extent that they encompass the ocean 

shoreline, which is the red knots prime foraging habitat and where they are most often found at the 

Seashore. Buffers and closures that would benefit red knots include the minimum 600-foot ORV buffer 

on either side of a piping plover brood for unfledged chicks, a 2-mile ORV closure established at the 

north end of South Core Banks from the first piping plover nest hatch until the last chick has fledged or is 

lost, ramp-to-ramp ORV closures for American oystercatcher chicks, and the 150-foot buffers established 

at the point of Cape Lookout beach for colonial waterbird chicks. The six sea turtle nest relocation areas 

(0.5 to 1.0 miles in length) established on North Core and South Core Banks would also protect red knots 

once they are closed to ORV traffic beginning 50 days after the first nest is relocated to them until they 

are reopened after the last nest has been excavated. Red knots would also be afforded protection by the 

permanent closure to ORVs of Shackleford Banks, Portsmouth Flats, and the interior of the point of Cape 

Lookout, the beach between mile markers 41a and 41b, and Power Squadron Spit. 

The buffers for the unfledged chicks of other protected species would also provide benefits to red knots. 

The buffers would be adjusted in response to brood movements, and the frequent adjustment of the 

buffers by NPS staff could cause some disturbance of foraging red knots causing some adverse impacts 

(Anderson and Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; Tremblay and Ellison 1979; Hand 1980). 

Management of Wintering and Nonbreeding Birds— Under alternative B, surveying activities for 

nonbreeding and wintering birds would be the same as described for alternative A, potentially resulting in 

noise disturbance and short-term displacement of red knots from the presence of resource staff and 

essential vehicles in foraging/resting habitat (Anderson and Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; Hand 

1980; Tremblay and Ellison 1979). However, resource protection staff would take proper measures, such 

as using binoculars so they can observe the species from greater distances, to minimize any disturbance to 

red knots during the surveys. Additionally, the survey intervals (i.e., 10 days) would also help minimize 

adverse impacts from surveying by not causing chronic disturbances. While the actual survey activities 

may cause some short-term adverse impacts, overall, surveying the nonbreeding population of red knots 

at the Seashore would also result in long-term benefits, due to increased knowledge and awareness of the 

species. Surveys would also occur for the nonbreeding population of piping plovers that spend the winter 

months at the Seashore. Surveys for nonbreeding plovers would occur just once per month from August 1 

through March 31. Surveying activities for nonbreeding plovers could cause some disturbance to red 

knots on the beach through the presence of NPS staff and vehicles causing flushing behavior. However, 

any impacts would be greatly minimized by the fact that the surveys for nonbreeding plovers only occurs 

once per month. 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 323

As described for alternative A, some red knots use the Seashore as wintering habitat; therefore, the 

closure of the Seashore from January 1 through March 15 would result in long-term benefits for any 

wintering red knots by providing protected habitat during the winter and allowing the beach profile to 

recover from heavy fall fishing use. Recovery of the beach profile would also benefit red knots that use 

the Seashore as a stopover during their spring and fall migrations. Outside of the January 1 through 

March 15 timeframe, no closures would be specifically implemented for migrating or wintering shorebird 

protection which could result in disturbance of individuals, leading to displacement and altered foraging 

behavior (Burger 1991; Zonick 2000; McAtee and Drawe 1981). However, impacts would be minimized 

somewhat through permanent ORV closures which include all of Shackleford Banks, Portsmouth Flats, 

the interior of the point of Cape Lookout, the ocean beach between mile markers 41a and 41b, and Power 

Squadron Spit. 

While the closure of the Seashore to vehicles from January 1 through March 15 would help protect 

wintering red knots, no closures would be established for pedestrians, which could result in disturbance of 

birds and habitat from pedestrian use, leading to displacement and altered foraging behavior. However, 

adverse impacts would be largely imperceptible because many passenger ferries stop operating in the 

winter, the amount of pedestrian use during the winter months is very low, and without a means of 

transportation on the beach, most visitor use would be confined to areas in the immediate vicinity of the 

ferry landings. 

Predator Management—Under alternative B, the Seashore would perform limited removal of 

mammalian predators, when predation is observed that impacts sensitive species. In migratory stopover 

areas for the red knot, such as the Seashore, avian predators are the most common predators of red knots 

(FR 2013b). While mammalian predators may be a threat by causing disturbance to red knots, direct 

mortality from them is low (FR 2013b). Thus, while predator management may somewhat reduce 

disturbance to red knots from mammalian predators, the overall beneficial impacts would be small. 

Education/Public Outreach—In addition to the outreach and education measures that would be 

implemented under alternative A, under alternative B staffing levels would increase for interpretation 

positions (to provide formal outreach and on-site ORV education on the subject of protected species 

management) and law enforcement (among other duties, law enforcement assists with public education). 

Also, educational materials would be provided to Seashore users through an operator education 

certificate, which would be required for all ORV operators and would be valid for one year. Under 

alternative B, the Seashore would work with vehicle ferry operators to coordinate distribution of 

education materials regarding ORV rules and regulations. In addition, a uniform system of resource 

closure signage would be provided, as well as regularly updated maps of closures, which would also be 

available online. Such public outreach is beneficial to red knots as it further educates the public on current 

resource protection measures, as well as the specific needs of sensitive species. Therefore, public outreach 

under alternative B, as part of species management, would likely have short- and long-term beneficial 

impacts on red knots. 

Research/Monitoring—Research and monitoring under alternative B would be the same as alternative 

A, except that visitor compliance would be monitored to determine the success of specific regulations or 

the need to re-focus enforcement and education efforts. In the future, there would likely be other research 

to study wildlife at the Seashore. Research efforts have the potential to negatively impact feeding and 

resting behavior of shorebirds over the long-term due to the increased human presence and use of ORVs 

(Anderson and Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; Hand 1980; Tremblay and Ellison 1979). However, 

any research directed at red knots would result in long-term beneficial impacts for the species because it 

is likely that results from the research would lead to a greater understanding of the red knot which could 

inform future protection and management of the species. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

324 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

ORVs and Pedestrian Access—The same amount of beach area (approximately 81 percent or 45 miles) 

would be open to public ORV use from March 16 through December 31 under alternative B as it would 

be under alternative A. Therefore, management of ORV and other recreational use under alternative B 

would be similar to alternative A, with a few exceptions that would result in additional beneficial impacts 

for red knots. On sections of Core Banks where no ferry landing access is available (e.g., Middle Core 

Banks and Ophelia Banks, or future areas that may become cut off during storm events) designated ORV 

routes would be closed. These areas would reopen to public ORV use if they become rejoined to an area 

with ferry access. During times when areas are cut off from ferry access, impacts from ORVs would be 

eliminated in those areas, providing short- and potentially long-term beneficial impacts. 

The back route from mile marker 44 to mile marker 45, which is normally closed to ORV traffic, would 

be open to ORV traffic when the point of Cape Lookout is closed to ORV through-traffic for resource 

protection or safety reasons. As discussed under alternative A, most ORV users respect ORV closure, 

however, some noncompliance has occurred in the past (NPS 2012t, 2011a, 2010b, 2009a, 2008c, 2007i) 

and would be expected to continue to occur in the future. the point of Cape Lookout is a popular visitor 

destination and when it is closed it also prevents access on the beach to the west. Allowing use of the 

back route from mile marker 44 to 45 when the point of Cape Lookout is closed would allow ORV users 

to continue to easily access the beach area to the west of the point of Cape Lookout. This would likely 

help reduce visitor frustration with the closure of the point of Cape Lookout, and may help prevent any 

potential noncompliance with the closure, thus providing some short-term beneficial impacts to red knots 

that may be foraging along the ocean shoreline in that area. 

In addition, alternative B would establish pass-through only areas for American oystercatcher nests, 

providing a minimum 300-foot buffer around nests, which could result in indirect protection of red knots 

that occur within American oystercatcher buffers. However, benefits would be limited, because many red 

knots occur outside of established buffers, and as mentioned above, some noncompliance with buffers and 

closures does exist and would be expected to continue to exist in the future. 

Under alternative B, the back route would be regularly maintained by the Seashore and re-established if 

impacted by a storm event. This would continue to allow the back route to be used by ORVs as a bypass 

when full beach closures occur for species protection or safety reasons. Additionally, if driving conditions 

on the back route deteriorate significantly vehicles are less likely to use it to traverse long distances along 

the Seashore and are more likely to drive on the beach. Regularly maintaining the back route and reestablishing it after impacts from storms would help encourage vehicles to use it instead of the beach, 

lessening potential vehicle impacts on red knots that are foraging along the ocean shoreline. Also under 

alternative B, there is the potential for small changes to the number and location of ramps as needed, and 

ramps may be moved or re-established after major storm events to restore access. The area between the 

back route and the ocean beach where vehicle ramps are or would be located is not habitat generally used 

by the red knot. Additionally, no maintenance or construction of ramps would occur during the piping 

plover nesting season, which overlaps with the spring and fall migration of the red knot. As a result, there 

would be no impact to red knot habitat from establishing or reestablishing ramps, and there would be no 

impact to red knots from construction activities (e.g., disturbance from noise or the presence of 

construction vehicles) during the key spring and fall migration periods. Red knots do occur at the 

Seashore year-round so construction activities could potentially impact red knots by disturbing their 

foraging behavior, causing short-term adverse impacts. However, outside of the spring and fall migration 

period, red knots exist in smaller numbers, and the area impacted would be small compared to the overall 

habitat available to red knots, thus minimizing any adverse impacts. 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 325

Under alternative B, all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs would be 

prohibited at the Seashore after a five-year grace period. As discussed under alternative A, based on 

studies by McGowan and Simons (2006) and Simons and Borneman (2012), it appears that ATV use, and 

to some extent UTV use, impacts American oystercatchers to a greater extent than other types of ORVs 

(e.g., four-wheel drive passenger vehicles) likely due to the fact that they are louder and faster. The 

studies do not differentiate between different types of ATVs and/or UTVs because high-performance 

sport-model ATVs and UTVs, as well as two-stroke models are designed for racing, jumping, and moving 

at high rates of speed; however, these models likely could cause more impacts to shorebirds than utilitymodel ATVs and UTVs that are designed to be used in a utilitarian way. The speed and noise of highperformance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs may be perceived by shorebirds as a greater 

threat, causing shorebirds to alter their behavior. If ATV and UTV traffic has a greater effect on 

American oystercatchers on the beach, ATV and UTV traffic would likely have the same effect on other 

shorebirds, including the red knot. High-performance sport-model ATVs and UTVs also have greater 

technical mobility and are likely able to access areas of the Seashore that other larger ORVs cannot, 

increasing the possible area of disturbance with these vehicles and their passengers. Eliminating these 

vehicles and their potential impacts from the Seashore would provide short- and long-term benefits to red 

knots. 

Night-Driving—Red knots are known to be active at night (Niles et al. 2009) and vehicular and 

pedestrian disturbance can impact shorebird foraging behavior, including red knots (Burger 1994; Burger 

et al. 2007; Johnson and Baldassarre 1988; Lafferty 2001a, 2001b; Tarr 2008). Red knots rely on foraging 

at migratory stopovers, such as the Seashore, to add necessary body fat reserves for their long migration, 

and disturbance can result in less time foraging, as well as expending energy in flight responses (FR 

2013b). Under alternative B, night driving would be prohibited between the hours of 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. 

from May 1 through August 31, except in the Great Island and Long Point cabin areas. Prohibiting night 

driving during this timeframe would provide short- and long-term benefits to red knots by reducing 

potential impacts to foraging birds at night. However, this timeframe does not fully protect red knots, as it 

does not encompass the entire time that red knots are at the Seashore, particularly during their spring 

migration when their numbers peak at generally over 1,000 birds not only in May, but in April as well 

(NPS 2012u, 2011b, 2010k, 2009b, 2008b, 2007q, 2006i). 

Permit Requirements—Under alternative B, long-term (annual) and short-term (10-day) vehicle permits 

would be instituted to better manage vehicles at the Seashore, though it would not limit the number of 

vehicles that could operate on the Seashore at any one time. Additionally, each licensed driver would be 

required to obtain an operator education certificate to operate a vehicle at the Seashore. Both the permit 

and the operator education certificate could be revoked for violation of applicable Seashore regulations or 

terms and conditions of the permit. The permit would be fee-based and fees collected from the permitting 

system could be used by the Seashore to put towards among other things species management and 

protection, as well as education measures which would benefit red knots. Educational information 

provided with the permit and operator education certificate would benefit red knots by making ORV users 

more aware of the need for and benefit of resource closures that may overlap red knot foraging habitat, as 

well as other Seashore regulations in place to protect this species. This, along with the deterrent of 

potentially losing driving privileges would likely result in a higher level of compliance with buffers, 

closures, and other Seashore regulations, resulting in short- and long-term beneficial impacts to red knots. 

While most ORV users respect resource closures, closure violations do occur (NPS 2012t, 2011a, 2010b, 

2009a, 2008c). Such violations bring vehicles, people, and pets in close proximity to protected bird 

species which can result in adverse impacts on foraging, resting, or other behaviors in shorebirds, 

including the red knot (Anderson and Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; Hand 1980; Tarr 2008; 

Tremblay and Ellison 1979). Although fees collected from the permitting system could be used toward 

species management and protection, benefits would be limited as unrestricted numbers of ORVs would be 

allowed at the Seashore, increasing the potential for disturbance (e.g., temporary displacement, frequent 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

326 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

escape flights) of resting and foraging birds. Since red knots regularly forage on the ocean shoreline 

outside of established closures, the potential for disturbance is greater as they often forage in areas used 

by ORVs. 

Camping—Under alternative B, camping and campfire activities along the ocean beach would be 

permitted in areas similar to alternative A (on all beaches of the Seashore that are not otherwise closed by 

the Superintendent’s Compendium, closed for safety, or closed for species protection, that is, full 

recreational closures and the six sea turtle nest relocation areas). As described under alternative A, 

prohibiting camping and beach fires in the full recreational closures would benefit red knots where these 

closures overlap their foraging habitat on the ocean beach, as disturbance from these activities would be 

reduced or eliminated. Prohibiting camping and campfires in the six sea turtle nest relocation areas, each 

of which is approximately 0.5 to 1.0 miles long, would remove any impacts from these activities since the 

prohibition would encompass the entire beach, including the foreshore where red knots forage, again, 

providing benefits to the red knot. However, for red knots outside buffers or closures for other protected 

species, the use of ORVs and the presence of pedestrians associated with camping and beach fires could 

result in temporary displacement and/or increased stress responses for foraging and resting birds. 

Additionally, alternative B would establish campsites designated for emergency camping in areas along 

the back route. However, these areas do not provide habitat for red knots, so there would be no impacts 

from these actions. 

Adaptive Management Strategy—Under alternative B, an adaptive management strategy would be 

implemented to ensure that the goals of species protection are being met. Although the adaptive 

management strategy depends on the American oystercatcher as the indicator species, it would provide 

both short- and long-term beneficial impacts to red knots. If levels of disturbance to the American 

oystercatcher from ORVs are triggered (see chapter 2 for the trigger thresholds), more intensive 

management actions could be implemented. These management actions would potentially include 

increased education and focused enforcement, which would help reduce closure violations that could 

impact red knots if they occur in areas along the ocean shoreline; trash management and fish scrap 

disposal, which would likely reduce the number of predators attracted to the beach that could disturb red 

knots; predator control, which would again help reduce predator disturbance to red knots; ORV route 

restrictions and increased buffer sizes, both of which would protect red knots if they occur along the 

ocean shoreline; and a reduction in the number of long-term (annual) and/or short-term (10-day) vehicle 

permits along with managing the size of the vehicle storage lots, both of which would help to reduce the 

number of vehicles on the Seashore at any one time, and thus likely reducing the potential impacts on red 

knots from ORVs. If species indicators continue to be triggered due to visitor use impacts for two 

consecutive years after implementing the previously mentioned actions, then reducing the number of 

long-term (annual) and/or short-term (10-day) vehicle permits issued and increasing the size of species 

protection buffers could be implemented. These actions would reduce the number of vehicles driving on 

the beach and increase the distance vehicles could approach birds, thereby reducing the amount of 

potential impacts caused by ORVs, providing short- and long-term beneficial impacts to red knots. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative B 

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions under alternative B would be the same as those 

described under alternative A. The overall combined impacts of these past, present, and future actions on 

red knots would be short- and long-term, limited, and adverse from disturbance to foraging and nesting 

birds from visitor/ORV use, dredging activities, visitor amenity improvements, and military overflights. 

There would also be long-term beneficial impacts from the protection afforded to red knots and their 

habitat by species monitoring, other protected species’ buffers, habitat protection, visitor protection 

patrols, visitor education programs, predator management, and future planning efforts under the 

Foundation Plan. While adverse effects on red knots from other actions occurring in the region would still 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 327

exist, actions under alternative B would provide additional protection that would be beneficial to the 

regional population of this species and would offset some of the adverse effects. 

ALTERNATIVE C

Resource Management Activities 

Surveying and Monitoring—Under alternative C, surveying and monitoring activities for protected 

species at the Seashore would be the same as alternative A. There would be no surveying or monitoring 

activities targeted specifically for red knots other than surveying for migrating and wintering red knots 

(see “Management Wintering and Nonbreeding Birds”). Surveying and monitoring for other protected 

bird species (i.e., piping plover, American oystercatcher, and colonial waterbirds) and sea turtles would 

result in the short-term adverse impacts as described for alternative A. Surveying and monitoring 

activities would bring NPS staff and/or vehicles in proximity to shorebird species, including red knots. 

This would have the potential to lead to flushing responses or other behavioral changes that have been 

known to occur in other types of shorebirds, and could have the potential to negatively impact feeding, 

resting, or other actions of red knots as well (Anderson and Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; Hand 

1980; Tremblay and Ellison 1979). To help minimize any adverse impacts from monitoring and surveying 

activities, under alternative C there would be more consistent training and supervision of resource staff 

who conduct the surveys. This would result in a higher quality of monitoring for shorebird species, 

resulting in beneficial impacts. 

Establishment of Prenesting Closures—Similar to alternative B, under alternative C full recreational 

prenesting closures for other protected bird species besides red knots would be established by March 16, 

prior to opening the beach to vehicles. No prenesting closures would be established for red knots since 

they do not nest at the Seashore. While the protected prenesting areas for other species could also provide 

protection from disturbance for any red knots that may use this same habitat, including those that may 

arrive prior to the peak migration timeframe of April and May, red knots are generally found in the 

intertidal area of the beach where they forage in the wet sand. Thus, any potential beneficial impacts from 

prenesting closures for other species would be minimal. 

Buffer/Closure Establishment—Under alternative C, no ORV or full recreational closures would be 

implemented that specifically target red knots, putting individual birds at risk of disturbance from ORVs, 

pedestrians, and pets, causing short- and long-term adverse impacts. Disturbance can lead to flushing (or 

escape) responses, which in turn could disrupt foraging and resting behavior (Anderson and Keith 1980; 

Ellison and Cleary 1978; Hand 1980; Tremblay and Ellison 1979). However, ORV and full recreational 

closures for other protected bird species, as well as nest relocation areas for sea turtles, would occur under 

alternative C in the same manner as they would under alternative A. These buffers and closures would 

help protect red knots as they would under alternative A to the extent that they encompass the ocean 

shoreline, which is the red knots’ prime foraging habitat and where they are most often found at the 

Seashore. Buffers and closures that would benefit red knots include the minimum 600-foot ORV buffer 

on either side of a piping plover brood for unfledged chicks, a 2-mile ORV closure established at the 

north end of South Core Banks from the first piping plover nest hatch until the last chick has fledged or is 

lost, ramp to ramp ORV closures for American oyster chicks, and the 150-foot buffers established at the 

point of Cape Lookout beach for colonial waterbird chicks. The six sea turtle nest relocation areas (0.5 to 

1.0 miles in length) established on North Core and South Core Banks would also protect red knots once 

they are closed to ORV traffic beginning 50 days after the first nest is relocated to them until they are 

reopened after the last nest has been excavated. Red knots would also be afforded protection by the 

permanent closure to ORVs of Shackleford Banks, Portsmouth Flats, the interior of the point of Cape 

Lookout, the beach between mile markers 41a and 41b, and Power Squadron Spit. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

328 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

The buffers for the unfledged chicks of other protected species would also provide benefits to red knots. 

However, the buffers would be adjusted in response to brood movements, and the frequent adjustment of 

the buffers by NPS staff could create some disturbance of foraging red knots causing some adverse 

impacts (Anderson and Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; Tremblay and Ellison 1979; Hand 1980). 

Management of Wintering and Nonbreeding Birds—Under alternative C, surveying activities for 

nonbreeding and wintering birds would be the same as described for alternative A, potentially resulting in 

noise disturbance and short-term displacement of red knots from the presence of resource staff and 

essential vehicles in foraging/resting habitat (Anderson and Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; Hand 

1980; Tremblay and Ellison 1979). However, resource protection staff would take proper measures, such 

as using binoculars so they can observe the species from greater distances, to minimize any disturbance to 

red knots during the surveys. Additionally, the survey intervals (i.e., 10 days) would also help minimize 

adverse impacts from surveying by not causing chronic disturbances. While the actual survey activities 

may cause some short-term adverse impacts, overall, surveying the nonbreeding population of red knots 

at the Seashore would also result in long-term benefits, due to increased knowledge and awareness of the 

species. Surveys would also occur for the nonbreeding population of piping plovers that spend the winter 

months at the Seashore. Surveys for nonbreeding plovers would occur just once per month from August 1 

through March 31. Surveying activities for nonbreeding plovers could cause some disturbance to red 

knots on the beach through the presence of NPS staff and vehicles causing flushing behavior. However, 

any impacts would be greatly minimized by the fact that the surveys for nonbreeding plovers only occurs 

once per month. 

Additionally, under alternative C the Seashore would extend the beginning date it closes the Seashore to 

vehicles from January 1 through December 16, meaning the Seashore would be closed to vehicles from 

December 16 through March 15 each year. Though not specifically implemented to protect nonbreeding 

birds, the December 16 closure date would provide an additional 15 days of protection for wintering red 

knots compared to alternative A and would allow the beach profile a greater opportunity to recover from 

heavy fall fishing use. Similar to alternative A, no resource closures would be established for pedestrians 

during the winter months. Any adverse impacts from pedestrians on wintering plovers would be largely 

imperceptible because many passenger ferries stop operating in the winter, the amount of pedestrian use 

during the winter months is very low, and without a means of transportation on the beach, most visitor 

use would be confined to areas in the immediate vicinity of the ferry landings. 

Predator Management—Under alternative C, the Seashore would perform limited removal of 

mammalian predators, when predation is observed that impacts sensitive species. In migratory stopover 

areas for the red knot, such as the Seashore, avian predators are the most common predators of red knots 

(FR 2013b). While mammalian predators may be a threat by causing disturbance to red knots, direct 

mortality from them is low (FR 2013b). Thus, while predator management may somewhat reduce 

disturbance to red knots from mammalian predators, the overall beneficial impacts would be small. 

Education/Public Outreach—Education and outreach measures under alternative C would be the same 

as for alternative B, including increases in staffing levels for interpretation positions and law enforcement 

positions, and would provide short- and long-term benefits. Benefits would occur because the public 

would receive education about the specific needs of the species and alerts ahead of time about closures 

due to the potential for species or habitat disturbance or injury. 

Research/Monitoring—Research and monitoring under alternative C would be the same as alternative B. 

Research efforts have the potential to negatively impact feeding and resting behavior of shorebirds over 

the long-term due to the increased human presence and use of ORVs (Anderson and Keith 1980; Ellison 

and Cleary 1978; Hand 1980; Tremblay and Ellison 1979). However, any research about red knots would 

result in long-term beneficial impacts for the species because it is likely that results from the research 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 329

would lead to a greater understanding of the red knot which could inform future protection and 

management of the species. 

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

ORVs and Pedestrian Access— ORV routes under alternative C would be the same as under B, with the 

exception that approximately 4 miles of pedestrian-only use areas would be added to the Seashore. During 

the summer season 3.1 miles of additional pedestrian-use only area would be added (0.35 miles at Long 

Point Cabin Camp, 1.9 miles at Great Island Cabin Camp, and 0.8 miles at Codds Creek), while the yearround pedestrian-use only area at the lighthouse would be expanded by 0.7 miles. 

Adding 4 miles of pedestrian-only use areas means that the amount of ocean beach available for ORV 

use, prior to temporary species and safety closures, would be approximately 74 percent (41 miles) from 

the Friday preceding Memorial Day through Labor Day (as compared to 81 percent (45 miles) under 

alternatives A and B) and approximately 79 percent (44 miles) during the rest of the year (from March 16 

through the Thursday preceding Memorial Day and from Labor Day through December 15) when ORVs 

are allowed on the beach (ORVs are prohibited from December 16 through March 15). As described 

under alternative A, ORV resource safety closures have historically protected an additional approximately 

10 miles (22 percent) of Seashore from ORV impacts during the summer and approximately 5.4 miles (12 

percent) of Seashore during the fall. Reducing the amount of beach available for ORV use increases the 

amount of area where red knots would be free from potential impacts of ORVs, providing short- and longterm benefits to the red knot, though impacts from pedestrians could still occur in these areas. Also, the 

majority of the new pedestrian-only use areas are only in effect during the summer months (3.1 miles of 

the new approximately 4 miles of pedestrian-only use areas). Therefore these areas would not provide 

protection to the red knot during the majority of their spring migration when they are most numerous at 

the Seashore, reducing the overall beneficial impacts of the new pedestrian-only use areas. Under 

alternative C, ORV use would be kept at historical levels so reducing the percentage of Seashore available 

for ORV access could result in increased ORV density where ORVs are permitted which could result in 

increased disturbance of resting and foraging individuals in those areas (leading to changes in habitat 

preference and foraging behavior), causing short- and long-term adverse impacts on red knots. However, 

any increase in density, and resultant impacts from that, would be extremely slight given the relatively 

small increase in the amount of pedestrian-only use areas compared to the overall amount of Seashore 

available to ORVs and where the increases are occurring, 

Similar to alternative B, ORV use would be discontinued in areas on Core Banks that are cut off from 

ferry access, though it would be restored if/when the areas rejoin an area with ferry access. During the 

time that ORV use is discontinued there would be no potential adverse impacts from vehicles on red knots 

which would result in both short- and long-term beneficial impacts. Also similar to alternative B, the back 

route between mile marker 44 and mile marker 45 would be opened to ORV use when the point of Cape 

Lookout is closed to through-traffic. This would provide easy access to the beach area to west of the point 

of Cape Lookout that would otherwise be inaccessible by ORVs, and would potentially help prevent 

closure violations on the point of Cape Lookout by likely reducing visitor frustration due to the closure; 

resulting in beneficial impacts to any red knots using that particular area. 

Under alternative C all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs would be 

prohibited after a five-year grace period. Additionally, utility-model ATVs and UTVs would be permitted 

at the Seashore only between September 15 and December 15. As discussed under alternative A, based on 

studies by McGowan and Simons (2006) and Simons and Borneman (2012), it appears that ATV use, and 

to some extent UTV use, impacts American oystercatchers to a greater extent than other types of ORVs 

(e.g., four-wheel drive passenger vehicles) likely due to the fact that they are louder and faster. The 

studies do not differentiate between different types of ATVs and/or UTVs because high-performance 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

330 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

sport-model ATVs and UTVs, as well as two-stroke models are designed for racing, jumping, and moving 

at high rates of speed however, these models likely could cause more impacts to shorebirds than utilitymodel ATVs and UTVs that are designed to be used in a utilitarian way. The speed and noise of highperformance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs may be perceived by American oystercatchers 

(and likely other shorebirds such as the red knot) as a greater threat, causing the birds to alter their 

behavior. Eliminating these vehicles and their potential impacts from the Seashore after a five-year grace 

period would likely provide short- and long-term benefits to red knots. Additionally, limiting utilitymodel ATV and UTV use to the months of mid-September to mid-December would avoid the timeframe 

when red knots are at the Seashore, thus eliminating the potential impacts of these vehicles on the species, 

providing short- and long-term beneficial impacts. 

Like alternative B, there is the potential for small changes to the number and location of ramps as needed, 

and ramps may be moved or re-established after major storm events to restore access to the beach. The 

area between the back route and the ocean beach where vehicle ramps are or would be located is not 

habitat generally used by the red knot. Additionally, no maintenance or construction of ramps would 

occur during the piping plover nesting season, which overlaps with the spring and fall migration of the red 

knot. As a result, there would be no impact to red knot habitat from establishing or reestablishing ramps, 

and there would be no impact to red knots from construction activities (e.g., disturbance from noise or the 

presence of construction vehicles) during the key spring and fall migration periods. Red knots do occur at 

the Seashore year-round so construction activities could potentially impact red knots by disturbing their 

foraging behavior, causing short-term adverse impacts. However, outside of the spring and fall migration 

period, red knots exist in smaller numbers, and the area impacted would be small compared to the overall 

habitat available to red knots, thus minimizing any adverse impacts. 

Night-Driving—Under alternative C, all public ORV use would be prohibited on the ocean beach and 

back route from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. from May 1 through September 14, extending the end date beyond 

August 31, which is the end date under alternative B. Red knots are known to be active at night, and they 

rely on foraging at migratory stopovers, such as the Seashore, to add necessary body fat reserves for their 

long migration, and disturbance can result in less time foraging, as well as expending energy in flight 

responses (FR 2013b). Prohibiting night driving during the above timeframe would reduce ORV impacts 

on red knots foraging at night providing short- and long-term beneficial impacts. While the extended time 

of prohibiting night driving would benefit red knots for two additional weeks in September, many birds 

have left the Seashore prior to this time, so the added benefits would be somewhat limited. The timeframe 

also does not fully protect the red knot during its spring migration, as it does not encompass the month of 

April which is during the peak of the migration when over 1,000 birds are generally at the Seashore (NPS 

2012u, 2011b, 2010k, 2009b, 2008b, 2007q, 2006i). It would also not protect wintering red knots that 

may be at the Seashore in March when public ORV use begins at the Seashore or from September 15 

through December 15. 

Permit Requirements—Under alternative C, and similar to alternative B, a fee-based, long-term (annual) 

and short-term (10-day) vehicle permit and an ORV operator education certificate, would be required to 

operate an ORV at the Seashore. In addition, to manage the number of vehicles operating on the Seashore 

at any one time, a limit would also be established on the number of annual and 10-day permits issued each 

year, with the limit being based on the historical average use on each island. Although ORV use would 

not be allowed in resource protection areas, placing a limit on the number of permits issued for ORV use 

on the beach would prevent future unlimited growth of ORV use on the beach. This would likely prevent 

increased amounts of adverse impacts outside of closures, compared to historical levels, on red knots 

using the intertidal zone of Seashore beaches, and result in short- and long-term beneficial impacts. As 

described for alternative B, fees collected from the permitting system would be used toward species 

management and protection, which would benefit red knots. Educational information provided by the 

permit and education requirement would benefit red knots because ORV users would be more aware of 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 331

the regulations in place to protect this species. ORV users would also be more likely to comply with 

buffers and closures for other species that overlap red knot habitat, as well as other Seashore regulations 

due to the potential threat of losing their individual driving privileges through the revocation of their 

permit or operator education certificate if violations occur. 

Camping—Under alternative C, camping and campfire activities along the ocean beach would be 

permitted in areas similar to alternative B (on all beaches of the Seashore that are not otherwise closed by 

the Superintendent’s Compendium, closed for safety, or closed for species protection, that is, full 

recreational closures and the six sea turtle nest relocation areas). Prohibiting camping and beach fires full 

recreational closures would benefit red knots where these closures overlap their foraging habitat on the 

ocean beach, as disturbance from these activities would be reduced or eliminated. Disturbances to resting 

and foraging red knots from these activities would also be removed from the six sea turtle nest relocation 

areas, each of which is approximately 0.5 to 1.0 miles long, providing beneficial impacts to red knots 

using these areas. However, for red knots outside buffers or closures for other protected species, the use 

of ORVs and the presence of pedestrians associated with camping and beach fires could result in 

temporary displacement and/or increased stress responses for foraging and resting birds. 

Similar to alternative B, under alternative C campsites for emergency camping would be designated in 

areas along portions of the back route. However, these areas do not provide habitat for red knots, so there 

would be no impact to the species from these actions. 

Adaptive Management Strategy—Under alternative C, an adaptive management strategy would be 

implemented, the same as under alternative B, to ensure that the goals of species protection are being met. 

The additional management actions that could be implemented would provide short- and long-term 

beneficial impacts to red knots and their habitat. Benefits would result from reducing closure violations 

through increased education and focused enforcement; reducing predation through trash management and 

fish scrap disposal; and reducing ORV impacts through route restrictions, increased buffer sizes, and 

limits on the number of vehicle permits issued, as well as managing the size of the vehicle storage lots. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative C 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions under alternative C would be the same as those 

described under alternative A. The overall combined impacts of these past, present, and future actions on 

red knot would be short- and long-term, limited, and adverse from disturbance to foraging and nesting 

birds from visitor/ORV use, dredging activities, visitor amenity improvements, and military overflights. 

There would also be long-term beneficial impacts from the protection afforded to red knots and their 

habitat by species monitoring, other protected species’ buffers, habitat protection, visitor protection 

patrols, visitor education programs, predator management, and future planning efforts under the 

Foundation Plan. While adverse effects on red knot from other actions occurring in the region would still 

exist, actions under alternative C would provide additional protection that would be beneficial to the 

regional population of this species and would offset some of the adverse effects. 

ALTERNATIVE D

Impacts of Alternative D 

Resource Management Activities 

Surveying and Monitoring—Under alternative D, surveying and monitoring activities for protected 

species at the Seashore would be that same as for alternative A. There would be no surveying or 

monitoring activities targeted specifically for red knots other than surveying for migrating and wintering 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

332 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

red knots (see “Management Wintering and Nonbreeding Birds”). However, surveying and monitoring for 

other protected bird species (i.e., piping plover, American oystercatcher, and colonial waterbirds) and sea 

turtles would result in the short-term adverse impacts as described for alternative A. Surveying and 

monitoring activities would bring NPS staff and/or vehicles in proximity to shorebird species, including 

red knots. This would have the potential to lead to flushing responses or other behavioral changes that 

have been known to occur in other types of shorebirds, and could have the potential to negatively impact 

feeding, resting, or other actions of red knots as well (Anderson and Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; 

Hand 1980; Tremblay and Ellison 1979). To help minimize any adverse impacts from monitoring and 

surveying activities, under alternative D there would be more consistent training and supervision of 

resource staff who conduct the surveys. This would result in a higher quality of monitoring for shorebird 

species, resulting in beneficial impacts. 

Establishment of Prenesting Closures—Similar to alternative B, under alternative D full recreational 

prenesting closures for other protected bird species besides red knots would be established by March 16, 

prior to opening the beach to vehicles. No prenesting closures would be established for red knots since 

they do not nest at the Seashore. While the protected prenesting areas for other species could also provide 

protection from disturbance for any red knots that may use this same habitat, including those that may 

arrive prior to the peak migration timeframe of April and May, red knots are generally found in the 

intertidal area of the beach where they forage in the wet sand. Thus, any potential beneficial impacts from 

prenesting closures for other species would be minimal. 

Buffer/Closure Establishment—Under alternative D, no ORV or full recreational closures would be 

implemented that specifically target red knots, putting individual birds at risk of disturbance from ORVs, 

pedestrians, and pets, causing short- and long-term adverse impacts. Disturbance can lead to flushing (or 

escape) responses, which in turn could disrupt foraging and resting behavior (Anderson and Keith 1980; 

Ellison and Cleary 1978; Hand 1980; Tremblay and Ellison 1979). However, red knots would experience 

short- and long-term beneficial impacts from ORV and full recreational closures for other protected bird 

species, as well as nest relocation areas for sea turtles. Under alternative D, this would occur in the same 

manner as under alternative A, except that some buffer sizes for protected bird species would increase, 

especially for unfledged piping plover chicks. 

Buffers around colonial water birds, least tern, and American oystercatchers exhibiting courtship or 

mating behavior, or nesting would be expanded to 600 feet, 300 feet, and 450 feet respectively. The 

extent to which these buffers provide additional protection for red knots depends on where they are put in 

place and the width of the beach at that location. On narrower sections of beach, these expanded buffers, 

especially the 600-foot buffers, may encompass some of the intertidal area where red knots are found 

foraging, and thus would provide them protection from ORV impacts. 

Buffers would also be expanded for unfledged piping plover chicks. Based on one set of 

recommendations in the Piping Plover Recovery Plan (USFWS 1996a), unless data from previous years 

show that broods at a site forage close to their nests, buffers would extend at least 650 feet on each side of 

the nest site during the first week following hatching. The size and location of the buffer would be 

adjusted in response to the observed mobility of the brood, but in no case would it be reduced to less than 

650 feet on each side. In some cases, highly mobile broods may require buffers up to 3,250 feet, even 

when intensively monitored. Because of the narrow width of most of Core Banks, such buffers would 

likely extend from the oceanside low water line to the soundside low water line or the farthest extent of 

dune habitat. This closure would close approximately 3 miles of Portsmouth Flats, 7 miles of KathrynJane Flats (if chicks are present), and the tip (approximately 2.5 miles) of Old Drum Inlet (unless the inlet 

fills in), totaling a minimum of 9.5 miles of the Seashore. If these areas are closed to ORV use, it would 

eliminate ORV impacts for red knots in these areas, providing short- and long-term beneficial impacts. In 

accordance with recommendations in the Piping Plover Recovery Plan, vehicles may be allowed to pass 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 333

through portions of the protected area that are considered inaccessible to plover chicks because of steep 

topography (USFWS 1996a). However, any steep topography is likely to be located near the dune line, 

which is not where red knots are typically found, so this provision would have minimal adverse impacts 

on red knots. 

While the buffers for the unfledged chicks of other protected species would also provide benefits to red 

knots, the buffers would be adjusted in response to brood movements, and the frequent adjustment of the 

buffers by NPS staff could create some disturbance of foraging red knots causing some adverse impacts. 

Management of Wintering and Nonbreeding Birds—Under alternative D, surveying activities for 

nonbreeding and wintering birds, including both red knots and piping plovers, would be the same as 

described for alternative A. This would potentially result in noise disturbance and short-term 

displacement of red knots from the presence of resource staff and essential vehicles in foraging/resting 

habitat (Anderson and Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; Hand 1980; Tremblay and Ellison 1979). 

However, resource protection staff would take proper measures, such as using binoculars so they can 

observe the species from greater distances, to minimize any disturbance to red knots during the surveys. 

Additionally, the survey intervals (i.e., 10 days for red knots and once per month for piping plovers) 

would also help minimize adverse impacts from surveying by not causing chronic disturbances. While the 

actual survey activities may cause some short-term adverse impacts, overall, surveying the nonbreeding 

population of red knots at the Seashore would also result in long-term benefits, due to increased 

knowledge and awareness of the species. 

Additionally, and similar to alternative C the Seashore would extend the beginning date it closes the 

Seashore to vehicles from January 1 through December 16, meaning the Seashore would be closed to 

vehicles from December 16 through March 15 each year. Though not specifically implemented to protect 

nonbreeding birds, the December 16 closure date would provide an additional 15 days of protection for 

wintering red knots compared to alternative A and would allow the beach profile a greater opportunity to 

recover from heavy fall fishing use. No resource closures would be established for pedestrians during the 

winter months. Any adverse impacts from pedestrians on wintering plovers would be largely 

imperceptible because many passenger ferries stop operating in the winter, the amount of pedestrian use 

during the winter months is very low, and without a means of transportation on the beach, most visitor 

use would be confined to areas in the immediate vicinity of the ferry landings. 

Predator Management—Under alternative D, the Seashore would perform limited removal of 

mammalian predators, when predation is observed that impacts sensitive species. In migratory stopover 

areas for the red knot, such as the Seashore, avian predators are the most common predators of red knots 

(FR 2013b). While mammalian predators may be a threat by causing disturbance to red knots, direct 

mortality from them is low (FR 2013b). Thus, while predator management may somewhat reduce 

disturbance to red knots from mammalian predators, the overall beneficial impacts would be small. 

Education/Public Outreach—Education and outreach measures under alternative D would be the same 

as for alternative B, including increases in staffing levels for interpretation positions and law enforcement 

positions, and would provide short- and long-term benefits. Benefits would occur because the public 

would receive education about the specific needs of the species and alerts ahead of time about closures 

due to the potential for species or habitat disturbance or injury. 

Research/Monitoring—Research and monitoring under alternative D would be the same as alternative 

B. Research efforts have the potential to negatively impact feeding and resting behavior of shorebirds 

over the long-term due to the increased human presence and use of ORVs (Anderson and Keith 1980; 

Ellison and Cleary 1978; Hand 1980; Tremblay and Ellison 1979). However, any research directed at red 

knots would result in long-term beneficial impacts for the species because it is likely that results from the 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

334 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

research would lead to a greater understanding of the red knot which could inform future protection and 

management of the species. 

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

ORVs and Pedestrian Access—Under alternative D, ORV routes and pedestrian-only use areas would 

include those areas under alternative C, except the closures at Long Point, Great Island, and Codds Creek 

would be pedestrian-only use areas year-round instead of just during the summer, as under alternative C. 

Additionally, the total amount of pedestrian-only use areas would increase by approximately 8 percent 

(from 2 to 10 miles). 

Under alternative D about 0.5 miles of summertime pedestrian-only use area would be created at 

Johnsons Creek, and the 3.6 miles of Middle Core Banks would be a pedestrian-only use area during the 

summer whether or not it is contiguous with North Core Banks (currently it is an island). The ocean beach 

from the Portsmouth Access Road north to the demarcation line at Ocracoke Inlet would also become a 

summer pedestrian-only use area. In addition, the year-round pedestrian-only use area in front of the 

lighthouse would be expanded approximately 0.9 miles to the south, for a total closure of approximately 

1.6 miles, or 0.9 miles larger than under alternative A and 0.2 miles larger than under alternative C. 

Adding these pedestrian-only use areas would reduce the amount of Seashore beaches open to ORV use. 

About 63 percent (35 miles) of the beach, prior to temporary species and safety closures, would be open 

to ORV use from the Friday preceding Memorial Day through Labor Day, while about 73 percent (41 

miles) of the beach would be open to ORV use during the rest of the year (from March 16 through the 

Thursday preceding Memorial Day and from Labor Day through December 15) when ORVs are allowed 

on the beach (ORVs are prohibited from December 16 through March 15). As described under alternative 

A, ORV resource and safety closures historically protect an additional approximately 10 miles (22 

percent) of Seashore during the summer and approximately 5.4 miles (12 percent) during the fall. Impacts 

to red knots from ORV use would be eliminated in these new pedestrian-only use areas, resulting in shortand long-term beneficial impacts, though impacts from pedestrian disturbance would still occur in these 

areas. Also, the new pedestrian-only use areas that are only in effect during the summer months would not 

provide protection to the red knot during the majority of their spring migration when they are most 

numerous at the Seashore, reducing the overall beneficial impacts of the new pedestrian-only use areas. 

Reducing the amount of area open to ORV use could increase the density of ORVs in areas that remain 

open to ORVs, potentially resulting in some increased adverse impacts to red knots in those areas. 

However, to offset this potential, the Seashore would reduce the number of vehicle permits issued by 8 

percent. This would provide short- and long-term beneficial impacts to red knots by reducing the amount 

of potential ORV impacts. 

Similar to alternative B, on sections of Core Banks where no ferry landing access is available (i.e., Middle 

Core Banks and Ophelia Banks), designated ORV routes would be closed, which could provide further 

protection for red knots at the Seashore by reducing the amount of Seashore available to ORV access. 

This would limit the potential for species contact with vehicles and vehicle operators/passengers, 

providing short- and possibly long-term beneficial impacts while the area(s) are closed to public ORV 

use.

Under alternative D, all ATVs and high-performance sport-model and two-stroke UTVs would be 

prohibited year-round after a five-year grace period. Additionally, utility-model UTVs would be 

permitted only between September 15 and December 15. As discussed under alternative A, based on 

studies by McGowan and Simons (2006) and Simons and Borneman (2012), it appears that ATV use, and 

to some extent UTV use, impacts American oystercatchers to a greater extent than other types of ORVs 

(e.g., four-wheel drive passenger vehicles) likely due to the fact that they are louder and faster. (As noted 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 335

under alternative B, given the impacts that ATVs and UTVs have on nesting American oystercatchers, it 

is also likely that ATVs and UTVs have similar impacts on other shorebirds, such as the red knot, and 

other bird behavior such as foraging and resting.) The studies do not differentiate between different types 

of ATVs and/or UTVs, because high-performance sport-model ATVs and UTVs, as well as two-stroke 

models are designed for racing, jumping, and moving at high rates of speed; however, these models likely 

could cause more impacts to shorebirds than utility-model ATVs and UTVs that are designed to be used 

in a utilitarian way. The speed and noise of high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and 

UTVs may be perceived by shorebirds as a greater threat, causing shorebirds to alter their behavior. 

Eliminating all ATVs (which Simons and Borneman (2012) showed has a greater impact on birds than 

UTVs)as well as their potential impacts from the Seashore after a five-year grace period would provide 

short- and long-term benefits to red knots. Additionally, limiting utility-model UTV use to the months of 

mid-September to mid-December would eliminate their potential impacts on red knots, providing shortand long-term beneficial impacts. 

Unlike alternatives B and C, regular maintenance of the back route would not occur under alternative D. 

With no maintenance, the condition of the back route is likely to deteriorate. As it does, ORV users may 

opt to use the ocean beach more often, which could increase ORV impacts on red knots using the ocean 

shoreline for foraging. However, the back route would be re-established when impacted by a storm event, 

which would encourage use of the back route instead of the beach, which would benefit red knots by 

removing some vehicle travel from the ocean beach. Although ramps would be re-established to restore 

access after storm events, no new ramps would be added to the Seashore beach. The area between the 

back route and the ocean beach where vehicle ramps would be re-established is not habitat generally used 

by the red knot. Additionally, no construction of ramps would occur during the piping plover nesting 

season, which overlaps with the spring and fall migration of the red knot. As a result, there would be no 

impact to red knot habitat from reestablishing ramps, and there would be no impact to red knots from 

construction activities (e.g., disturbance from noise or the presence of construction vehicles) during the 

key spring and fall migration periods. Red knots do occur at the Seashore year-round so construction 

activities could potentially impact red knots by disturbing their foraging behavior, causing short-term 

adverse impacts. However, outside of the spring and fall migration period, red knots exist in smaller 

numbers, and the area impacted would be small compared to the overall habitat available to red knots, 

thus minimizing any adverse impacts. 

Night-Driving—Under alternative D, night driving would prohibited at the Seashore on the ocean beach 

and the back route during the same timeframe as described for alternative C, between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. 

from May 1 through September 14. This would result in short- and long-term beneficial impacts on red 

knots, as it would eliminate potential disturbances from ORVs on red knots foraging at night. However, 

this timeframe would not encompass the month of April which is during the peak of the migration when 

over 1,000 birds are generally at the Seashore (NPS 2012u, 2011b, 2010k, 2009b, 2008b, 2007q, 2006i). 

It would also not protect wintering red knots that may be at the Seashore in March when public ORV use 

begins at the Seashore or from September 15 through December 15. 

Permit Requirements—Under alternative D, vehicle permit and ORV operator education certificate 

requirements would be similar to those described for alternative C, except that the number of vehicle 

permits would be reduced by 8 percent. The reduction of permits by 8 percent compared to alternative C 

is based on the percentage increase of pedestrian-only use areas under alternative D. The reduction is 

intended to keep the average vehicle density similar to current average use to help prevent increases in 

ORV impacts due to higher densities of vehicles in areas where ORV use is allowed. Although ORV use 

would not be allowed in resource protection areas, placing a limit on the number of permits issued for 

ORV use on the beach would prevent future unlimited growth of ORV use on the beach. This would 

likely prevent increased amounts of adverse impacts, compared to historical levels, on red knots using the 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

336 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

intertidal zone of Seashore beaches and result in short- and long-term beneficial impacts. As described for 

alternative B, fees collected from a permitting program would be used toward species management and 

protection, which would benefit red knots. Educational information provided by the permit and education 

requirement would benefit red knots because ORV users would be more aware of the regulations in place 

to protect this species. ORV users would also be more likely to comply with buffers and closures for other 

species that overlap red knot habitat, as well as other Seashore regulations due to the potential threat of 

losing their individual driving privileges through the revocation of their permit or operator education 

certificate if violations occur. 

Camping—Under alternative D, camping and campfire activities along the ocean beach would be 

permitted in areas similar to alternative B (on all beaches of the Seashore that are not otherwise closed by 

the Superintendent’s Compendium, closed for safety, or closed for species protection, that is, full 

recreational closures and the six sea turtle nesting relocation areas). Prohibiting camping and beach fires 

full recreational closures would benefit red knots where these closures overlap their foraging habitat on 

the ocean beach, as disturbance from these activities would be reduced or eliminated. Disturbances to 

resting and foraging red knots from these activities would also be removed from the six sea turtle nest 

relocation areas, each of which is approximately 0.5 to 1.0 miles long, providing beneficial impacts to red 

knots using these areas. However, for red knots outside buffers or closures for other protected species, the 

use of ORVs and the presence of pedestrians associated with camping and beach fires could result in 

temporary displacement and/or increased stress responses for foraging and resting birds. Although 

alternative D would also establish designated campsites for emergency camping in portions of the existing 

long-term parking lots, these areas do not provide habitat for red knots, so there would be no impact to the 

species from these actions. 

Also under alternative D, campsites for emergency camping would be designated in portions of the 

existing long-term parking lots. These areas, however, do not provide habitat for the red knot, so there 

would be no impacts on the species from designating these areas as emergency camping sites. 

Adaptive Management Strategy—Under alternative D, an adaptive management strategy would be 

implemented, the same as under alternative B, to ensure that the goals of species protection are being met. 

The additional management actions that could be implemented would provide short- and long-term 

beneficial impacts to red knots and their habitat. Benefits would result from reducing closure violations 

through increased education and focused enforcement; reducing predations through trash management 

and fish scrap disposal; and reducing ORV impacts through route restrictions, increased buffer sizes, and 

limits on the number of vehicle permits issued, as well as managing the size of the vehicle storage lots. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative D 

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions under alternative D would be the same as those 

described under alternative A. The overall combined impacts of these past, present, and future actions on 

red knot would be short- and long-term, limited, and adverse (from disturbance to foraging and nesting 

birds from visitor/ORV use, dredging activities, visitor amenity improvements, and military overflights). 

There would also be long-term beneficial impacts from the protection afforded to red knots and their 

habitat by species monitoring, other protected species’ buffers, habitat protection, visitor protection 

patrols, visitor education programs, predator management, and future planning efforts under the 

Foundation Plan. While adverse effects on red knot from other actions occurring in the region would still 

exist, actions under alternative D would provide additional protection that would be beneficial to the 

regional population of this species and would offset some of the adverse effects. 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 337

ALTERNATIVE E

Impacts of Alternative E 

Resource Management Activities 

Surveying and Monitoring— Under alternative E, surveying and monitoring for other protected bird 

species, besides the red knot, would occur in the same manner as under alternative A. Similar to other 

alternatives, other than surveying for migratory and wintering red knots, there would be no specific 

surveying or monitoring activities targeting red knots. Surveying and monitoring for other bird species 

would bring NPS staff and/or vehicles in proximity to shorebird species, including red knots. This would 

have the potential to lead to flushing responses or other behavioral changes that have been known to 

occur in other types of shorebirds, and could have the potential to negatively impact feeding, resting, or 

other actions of red knots as well (Anderson and Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; Hand 1980; 

Tremblay and Ellison 1979). However, these impacts would likely not occur as often under alternative E 

as they would under the other alternatives. Under alternative E, public use of ORVs would be prohibited 

on the Seashore. With the potential impacts on shorebirds from public ORV use eliminated the likely 

lower pedestrian presence resulting from this, and the fact that with no ORV access, pedestrian use would 

likely be centered around the ferry landing areas, the cabins, and Power Squadron Spit where visitors can 

easily access the beach by their own boats, surveying and monitoring protocols would be reviewed and 

may change. 

Establishment of Prenesting Closures— Similar to alternative B, under alternative D full recreational 

prenesting closures for other protected bird species besides red knots would be established by March 16, 

prior to opening the beach to vehicles. No prenesting closures would be established for red knots since 

they do not nest at the Seashore. While the protected prenesting areas for other species could also provide 

protection from disturbance for any red knots that may use this same habitat, including those that may 

arrive prior to the peak migration timeframe of April and May, red knots are generally found in the 

intertidal area of the beach where they forage in the wet sand. Thus, any potential beneficial impacts from 

prenesting closures for other species would be minimal. 

Similar to other alternatives, no prenesting closures would be targeted for red knots since they do not 

breed at the Seashore. To protect piping plover and colonial waterbirds and their habitat, full recreational 

prenesting closures for these species would be established by April 1, similar to alternative A. As 

described for alternative A, while these areas could provide protection from disturbance to red knots that 

may use this habitat, red knots are generally found on in the intertidal area of the beach where they forage 

in the wet sand. Thus, any potential beneficial impacts from prenesting closures for other species would 

be minimal. 

Buffer Closure/Establishment—Under alternative E, no full recreational closures (public use of ORVs 

is prohibited under alternative E so ORV closures are not applicable) would be established targeting red 

knots, putting individual birds at risk of disturbance from pedestrians and pets, causing short- and longterm adverse impacts. However, impacts would be minimized by the fact that with no ORV transportation 

on the Seashore to easily access more remote areas, pedestrian use would likely occur mostly in general 

proximity to the ferry landings. Additionally, full recreational closures for other protected species would 

still occur in the same manner as under alternative A, and to the extent that they encompass the intertidal 

zone, they would also provide protection to red knots from pedestrians and pets. 

Management of Wintering and Nonbreeding Birds—Under alternative E, surveying activities for 

nonbreeding and wintering birds, including both red knots and piping plovers, would be the same as 

described for alternative A even though recreational ORV use at the Seashore would be prohibited year-
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

338 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

round. While surveying activities would likely result in noise disturbance and short-term displacement of 

red knots from the presence of resource staff and essential vehicles in foraging/resting habitat, resource 

protection staff would take proper measures, such as using binoculars so they can observe the species 

from greater distances, to minimize any disturbance to red knots during the surveys. Additionally, the 

survey intervals (i.e., 10 days for red knots and once per month for piping plovers) would also help 

minimize adverse impacts from surveying by not causing chronic disturbances. While the actual survey 

activities may cause some short-term adverse impacts, overall, surveying the nonbreeding population of 

red knots at the Seashore would also result in long-term benefits, due to increased knowledge and 

awareness of the species. 

Under alternative E, a seasonal closure of the Seashore would not be established because ORVs would 

not be permitted at the Seashore; thereby removing any potential habitat or behavioral alterations that 

could be caused by the presence of vehicles. This would result in long-term beneficial impacts on red 

knots at the Seashore. Pedestrians would still access the Seashore during the winter months. Adverse 

impacts from pedestrians on wintering red knots would be largely imperceptible because many passenger 

ferries stop operating in the winter, the amount of pedestrian use during the winter months is very low, 

and without a means of transportation on the beach, most visitor use would be confined to areas in the 

immediate vicinity of the ferry landings. 

Predator Management—Under alternative E, predator management would be the same as alternative A. 

While predators would not be removed, mortality from mammalian predation on red knots is low (FR 

2013b), so any short-term impacts would be from disturbance caused by mammalian predators. 

Prohibiting public ORV use on the Seashore under alternative E may also help to indirectly protect red 

knots from disturbances caused by mammalian predators. With no ORV use, the amount of trash at the 

Seashore is likely to be reduced, especially in areas more remote from pedestrian ferry landing areas. 

Trash often attracts predators, so a reduction of trash may correlate to a reduction in the number of 

predators and potential disturbance of red knots, resulting in long-term beneficial impacts. 

Education/Public Outreach—Under alternative E, education and outreach would be the same as 

described under alternative A; however, all efforts would be directed toward pedestrian use because 

ORVs would not be permitted at the Seashore. Such public outreach is beneficial to red knots as it 

educates the public to the specific needs of the species. 

Research/Monitoring—Research and monitoring under alternative E would be the same as alternative A. 

Research efforts have the potential to negatively impact feeding and resting behavior of shorebirds over 

the long-term due to the increased human presence and use of ORVs (Anderson and Keith 1980; Ellison 

and Cleary 1978; Hand 1980; Tremblay and Ellison 1979). However, any research directed at red knots 

would result in long-term beneficial impacts for the species because it is likely that results from the 

research would lead to a greater understanding of the red knot which could inform future protection and 

management of the species. 

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

ORVs and Pedestrian Access—Under alternative E, the public use of ORVs would be prohibited along 

the entire Core Banks and Shackleford Banks. Other recreation use on the ocean beach such as 

swimming, camping, beach fires, fishing, and the use of cabins would still occur. With no ORVs to access 

more remote areas of the beach, these activities and their impacts on red knots would likely occur at a 

reduced rate and only in general proximity to the ferry landing sites. With no public use of ORVs on the 

beach, impacts on red knots and their habitat from public ORV use as described under alternative A 

would not occur, resulting in short- and long-term beneficial impacts. In addition, the use of vehicles by 

NPS staff for law enforcement purposes would likely be reduced from current levels because staff would 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 339

only be dealing with pedestrians and management of recreational use would be simplified compared with 

the other alternatives. 

Night-Driving—Under alternative E, there would be no night driving on the Seashore because public 

ORV use would be prohibited year-round. This would eliminate all potential adverse impacts from night 

driving on red knots, resulting in short- and long-term beneficial impacts. 

Permit Requirements—Under alternative E, there would be no vehicle permit requirements because 

public ORV use would not be allowed at the Seashore. Therefore, there would be no effects on red knots. 

Camping—Under alternative E, camping and campfire activities along the ocean beach would be 

permitted in areas similar to alternative A (on all beaches of the Seashore that are not otherwise closed by 

the Superintendent’s Compendium, closed for safety, or closed for species protection, that is, full 

recreation closures and the six sea turtle nest relocation areas). Prohibiting camping and beach fires in full 

recreational closures would benefit red knots where these closures overlap their foraging habitat on the 

ocean beach, as disturbance from these activities would be reduced or eliminated. Disturbances to resting 

and foraging red knots from these activities would also be removed from the six sea turtle nest relocation 

areas, each of which is approximately 0.5 to 1.0 miles long, providing beneficial impacts to red knots 

using these areas. Additionally, with no public ORV use allowed on the Seashore under this alternative, 

camping and campfires would likely be limited to those areas readily accessible by foot such as in front of 

the cabins, by the lighthouse, or possibly Power Squadron Spit which is accessible by private boat. This 

would greatly reduce the amount of area where impacts from these activities could occur. 

Adaptive Management Strategy—Under alternative E, an adaptive management strategy would be 

implemented similar to alternative B to ensure that the goals of species protection are being met, 

providing short- and long-term beneficial impacts to red knots. With no public ORV use allowed on the 

Seashore under alternative E, American oystercatcher disturbance would be monitored as it relates to 

impacts from pedestrians and other recreational use and not from ORVs, and only those non-ORV 

management actions indicated in chapter 2 would be implemented. The management actions that could be 

implemented include increased education and focused enforcement, which would help reduce closure 

violations that could impact red knots if they occur in areas along the ocean shoreline; additional focused 

trash management and fish scrap disposal, which would likely reduce the number of predators attracted to 

the beach that could disturb red knots; additional predator control, which would again help reduce 

predator disturbance to red knots; and increased buffer sizes, which would protect red knots if they occur 

along the ocean shoreline. If species indicators continue to be triggered due to visitor use impacts for two 

consecutive years after implementing the previously mentioned actions, increasing the size of species 

protection buffers could be implemented. This action would increase the distance visitors could approach 

birds, providing some short- and long-term beneficial impacts to red knots that may occur in the closures 

established for other species. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative E 

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions under alternative E would be the same as those 

described under alternative A. The overall combined impacts of these past, present, and future actions on 

red knot would be short- and long-term, limited, and adverse (from disturbance to foraging and nesting 

birds from visitor use, ORV use, dredging activities, visitor amenity improvements, and military 

overflights). There would also be long-term beneficial impacts from the protection afforded to red knots 

and their habitat by species monitoring, other protected species’ buffers, habitat protection, visitor 

protection patrols, visitor education programs, predator management, and future planning efforts under 

the Foundation Plan. While adverse effects on red knot from other actions occurring in the region would 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

340 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

still exist, actions under alternative E would provide additional protection that would be beneficial to the 

regional population of this species and would offset some of the adverse effects. 

DETERMINATION OF EFFECT

As of September 2013 the USFWS proposed to list the red knot as a threatened species under the ESA of 

1973, as amended. This does not obligate the NPS to consult with the USFWS on the red knot at this 

time. However, given the potential for the species to be listed as a threatened species during the process of 

this ORV management plan/EIS, the NPS is making a determination on this species to aid any future 

consultation with the USFWS should it become necessary to do so. 

Alternative A 

Impacts on red knots would be long-term adverse because their prime foraging habitat (ocean shoreline) 

would not be afforded protection by ORV or full recreational closures targeted specifically for the 

protection of the red knot, and while buffers and closures for other protected species at the Seashore (i.e., 

birds and sea turtles) would protect some of the red knot’s prime foraging habitat, it would not protect all 

of it, especially during the spring migration when red knots are most numerous at the Seashore. Surveying 

activities for the red knot, as well as other protected species at the Seashore, could have short-term 

adverse impacts on red knots because the presence of resource staff could result in temporary 

displacement of foraging birds. However, surveys for the red knot would also result in long-term benefits, 

due to increased knowledge and awareness of the species. Impacts of ORV and other recreational use 

would be long-term and adverse because no specific management would be provided for this species, 

especially during key life stages (migration and wintering). The lack of fully protecting the red knot’s 

prime foraging habitat through ORV and full recreational closures, a permitting system, limits on the 

number of public ORVs on the Seashore, or night-driving restrictions, and allowing pets outside of full 

recreational closures in the vicinity of foraging birds would contribute to adverse impacts under 

alternative A. Overall the impacts of the alternative A would result in a finding of may affect / are likely 

to adversely affect red knots at the Seashore under the ESA because the action would result in direct or 

indirect impacts to the species that are not discountable, insignificant, or beneficial. Although alternative 

A does provide some additional protection, the adverse impacts on the red knot from other actions 

occurring in the region would still exist. Therefore, the effects of these other actions, added to the effects 

of actions under alternative A, may affect/are likely to adversely affect red knots on a regional basis. 

Alternative B 

Impacts on red knots would be long-term adverse because their prime foraging habitat (ocean shoreline) 

would not be afforded protection by ORV or full recreational closures targeted specifically for the 

protection of the red knot, and while buffers and closures for other protected species at the Seashore (i.e., 

birds and sea turtles) would protect some of the red knot’s prime foraging habitat, it would not protect all 

of it, especially during the spring migration when red knots are most numerous at the Seashore. Surveying 

activities for the red knot, as well as other protected species at the Seashore, could have short-term 

adverse impacts on red knots because the presence of resource staff could result in temporary 

displacement of foraging birds, but more consistent training and supervision of resource staff who 

conduct the surveys would help reduce those impacts. Surveys for the red knot would also result in longterm benefits, due to increased knowledge and awareness of the species. The red knot may benefit from 

expanded breeding season closures for other protected species, although benefits would be minimal as red 

knots prefer ocean beach habitat (Harrington 1996, 2001). They would also benefit from wintering 

closures for piping plover at the inlets and the point of Cape Lookout. Impacts of ORV and other 

recreational use would be long-term and adverse, because no specific management would be provided for 

this species especially during key life stages (migration and wintering), increasing the possibility of 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 341

habitat and noise disturbance (and potential injury or mortality) from recreational use. Allowing ORVs 

access to North and South Core Banks would contribute to these adverse impacts, including noise 

disturbance, temporary displacement, and increased frequent escape flights. However, increasing 

education and outreach, increasing compliance by increasing law enforcement staffing levels, 

implementing a vehicle permit program where driving privileges can be revoked, and implementing 

additional species management measures, such as a seasonal restriction on night driving and prohibiting 

high-performance sport-model ATV and UTV use would help lessen the long-term adverse impacts of 

ORV use on red knots by reducing vehicular disturbance of the species and educating visitors on the 

importance of resource protection. Additionally, if species protection goals are not being met, the 

Seashore would implement intensive management actions under an adaptive management strategy, such 

as increased education and focused enforcement, additional trash management and fish scrap disposal, 

additional predator control, ORV route restrictions and increased buffer sizes, and limits on the number of 

vehicle permits issued would also help reduce ORV and recreational impacts on piping plovers and their 

habitat. All of these measures would help mitigate/reduce the potential for long-term adverse impacts of 

ORV use. Overall, impacts of alternative B on red knots at the Seashore would result in a finding of may

affect / are likely to adversely affect under the ESA because the action would result in direct or indirect 

impacts to the species that are not discountable, insignificant, or beneficial. Although alternative B does 

provide some additional protection, the adverse impacts on the red knot from other actions occurring in 

the region would still exist. Therefore, the effects of these other actions, added to the effects of actions 

under alternative B, may affect/are likely to adversely affect red knots on a regional basis. 

Alternative C 

Impacts on red knots would be long-term adverse because their prime foraging habitat (ocean shoreline) 

would not be afforded protection by ORV or full recreational closures targeted specifically for the 

protection of the red knot, and while buffers and closures for other protected species at the Seashore (i.e., 

birds and sea turtles) would protect some of the red knot’s prime foraging habitat, it would not protect all 

of it, especially during the spring migration when red knots are most numerous at the Seashore. Surveying 

activities could have short-term adverse impacts on red knots because the presence of resource staff could 

result in temporary displacement of foraging birds, but more consistent training and supervision of 

resource staff who conduct the surveys would help reduce those impacts. Surveying for the red knot 

would also result in long-term benefits, due to increased knowledge and awareness of the species. The red 

knot would indirectly benefit from expanded closures for breeding American oystercatcher pairs and 

unfledged piping plover chicks where they encompass the ocean shoreline, because red knots that rest or 

forage within closures would be afforded the same protection. Impacts of ORV and other recreational use 

would be long-term and adverse, because no specific management would be provided for this species, 

especially during key life stages (migration and wintering), increasing the possibility of habitat and noise 

disturbance (and potential injury or mortality) from recreational use. However, increasing education and 

outreach, increasing the amount of pedestrian-only use areas, implementing a vehicle permit program 

with limits on the number of ORVs that can use the Seashore at any one time and the ability to revoke 

driving privileges, implementing additional species management measures, such as seasonal restrictions 

on night driving and prohibiting high-performance sport-model ATV and UTV use while also limiting 

utility-model ATV and UTV use would help lessen the long-term adverse impacts of ORV use on red 

knots by reducing vehicular disturbance with the species and educating visitors on the importance of 

resource protection. Additionally, if species protection goals are not being met, the Seashore would 

implement intensive management actions under an adaptive management strategy, such as increased 

education and focused enforcement, additional trash management and fish scrap disposal, additional 

predator control, ORV route restrictions and increased buffer sizes, and limits on the number of vehicle 

permits issued would also help reduce ORV and recreational impacts on piping plovers and their habitat. 

All of these measures would help mitigate/reduce the potential for long-term adverse impacts of ORV 

use. Overall, impacts of alternative C on red knots at the Seashore would result in a finding of may affect / 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

342 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

are likely to adversely affect under the ESA because the action would result in direct or indirect impacts 

to the species that are not discountable, insignificant, or beneficial. Although alternative B does provide 

some additional protection, the adverse impacts on the red knot from other actions occurring in the region 

would still exist. Therefore, the effects of these other actions, added to the effects of actions under 

alternative B, may affect/are likely to adversely affect red knots on a regional basis. 

Alternative D 

Impacts on red knots would be long-term adverse because their prime foraging habitat (ocean shoreline) 

would not be afforded protection by ORV or full recreational closures targeted specifically for the 

protection of the red knot, and while buffers and closures for other protected species at the Seashore (i.e., 

birds and sea turtles) would protect some of the red knot’s prime foraging habitat, it would not protect all 

of it, especially during the spring migration when red knots are most numerous at the Seashore. Surveying 

activities could have short-term adverse impacts on red knots because the presence of resource staff could 

result in temporary displacement of foraging birds, but more consistent training and supervision of 

resource staff who conduct the surveys would help reduce those impacts. Surveying for the red knot 

would also result in long-term benefits, due to increased knowledge and awareness of the species. The red 

knot would indirectly benefit from expanded buffers and closures for state-listed birds and piping plovers 

where they encompass the ocean shoreline, because red knots that rest or forage within closures would be 

afforded similar protection. Impacts of ORV and other recreational use would be long-term and adverse 

because no specific management would be provided for this species, especially during a key life stage of 

wintering, increasing the possibility of habitat and noise disturbance (and potentially injury or mortality) 

from recreational use. However, increasing education and outreach; implementing a vehicle permit 

program with limits on the number of ORVs that can use the Seashore at any one time and the ability to 

revoke driving privileges; implementing additional species management measures, such as seasonal 

restriction on night driving, prohibiting all ATV use and high-performance sport-model UTV use; 

limiting utility-model UTV use; and reducing the percentage of Seashore available to ORV access would 

help lessen the long-term adverse impacts of ORV use on red knots by reducing vehicular disturbance 

with the species and educating visitors on the importance of resource protection. Additionally, if species 

protection goals are not being met, the Seashore would implement intensive management actions under an 

adaptive management strategy, such as increased education and focused enforcement, additional trash 

management and fish scrap disposal, additional predator control, ORV route restrictions and increased 

buffer sizes, and limits on the number of vehicle permits issued would also help reduce ORV and 

recreational impacts on piping plovers and their habitat. All of these measures would help mitigate/reduce 

the potential for long-term adverse impacts of ORV use. Overall, impacts of alternative D on red knots at 

the Seashore would result in a finding of may affect / are likely to adversely affect under the ESA because 

the action would result in direct or indirect impacts to the species that are not discountable, insignificant 

(under ESA), or beneficial. Although alternative D does provide some additional protection, the adverse 

impacts on the red knot from other actions occurring in the region would still exist. Therefore, the effects 

of these other actions, added to the effects of actions under alternative D, may affect/are likely to 

adversely affect red knots on a regional basis. 

Alternative E 

Prohibiting public ORV use at the Seashore under alternative E would remove a source of disturbance for 

red knots, resulting in long-term beneficial impacts. It would also indirectly limit disturbances from 

essential vehicle use and pedestrian use at the Seashore. While NPS staff would still conduct surveying 

and monitoring activities which could have short-term adverse impacts on red knots because the presence 

of resource staff could result in temporary displacement of foraging birds, they would likely do so at a 

reduced level of effort without the threat of ORV impacts on species, lessening the overall impact. 

However, surveying for the red knot would also result in long-term benefits, due to increased knowledge 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 343

and awareness of the species. Without ORVs to access more remote areas of the Seashore, pedestrian use 

and its impacts would likely be limited to areas in general proximity to the ferry landing areas, lessening 

the overall impacts on red knots from pedestrians. Additionally, if species protection goals are not being 

met, the Seashore would implement additional intensive management actions under an adaptive 

management strategy, such as increased education and focused enforcement, additional trash management 

and fish scrap disposal, additional predator control, and increased buffer sizes. All of these measures 

would help mitigate/reduce the potential for long-term adverse impacts due to pedestrian use of the 

Seashore. Overall, the impacts of alternative E on red knots at the Seashore would result in a finding of 

may affect / are not likely to adversely affect under the ESA because the action would result in direct or 

indirect impacts to the species that are discountable, insignificant (under ESA), or beneficial. Although 

alternative E provides additional protection to the red knot at the Seashore and would offset some of the 

adverse effects from regional impacts, the adverse effects on red knots from other actions occurring in the 

region would still exist. Therefore, the effects of these other actions, added to the effects of actions under 

alternative E, may affect/are likely to adversely affect red knots on a regional basis. 

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Impacts of ORV and other recreational use would result in long-term adverse impacts on red knots under 

alternative B. Allowing continued ORV access along 81 percent (45 miles)of the Seashore would 

contribute to these long-term impacts, including noise disturbance, temporary displacement, and possibly 

injury/mortality of individuals. However, impacts would be reduced when compared to alternative A (the 

no-action alternative) due to increased education and outreach; the use of additional species management 

measures, such as focused predator management, and the prohibition of all high-performance sport-model 

and two stroke ATVs and UTVs, and the more intensive management actions that could be implemented 

under the adaptive management strategy. Red knots are active at night, so additional benefits would also 

result from a seasonal restriction on night driving from May 1 through August 3; however, benefits from 

this restriction would be limited since it does not cover the red knot’s spring migration period when it is 

most numerous at the Seashore. Compared to alternative E, impacts on red knots would be greater under 

alternative B would provide less protection for red knots, because while alternative B allows public ORV 

use which can adversely impact red knots, under alternative E public ORV use on the Seashore would be 

prohibited, eliminating this source of adverse impact and reducing the impact from pedestrians, who 

without transportation opportunities to more remote areas of the Seashore would likely be limited to areas 

in general proximity to the ferry landing areas. 

Under alternative C, the impacts of ORV and other recreational use would result in long-term adverse 

impacts on red knots from noise disturbance, temporary displacement, and possibly injury/mortality of 

individuals. However, impacts would be reduced when compared to alternative A (the no-action 

alternative), due to increased education and outreach; the use of additional species management measures, 

such as expanded species closures (for other protected birds); the increase in the amount of pedestrianonly use areas by 4 miles; the expansion of the winter vehicle closure timeframe (changing it to 

December 16 through March 15 compared to January 1 through March 15 under alternative A); the 

closing of ORV routes where no ferry access is available; the prohibition on all high-performance sportmodel and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs at the Seashore; shortening the timeframe that non-sport ATVs 

and UTVs would be permitted within the Seashore each year (reducing the March 16 through December 

time under alternative A to September 15 through December 15); the reduction in the amount of Seashore 

open to public ORV use; and the fee-based ORV permitting system that would also limit the number of 

vehicles on the Seashore, and the more intensive management actions that could be implemented under 

the adaptive management strategy. Red knots are active at night, so additional benefits would also result 

from a seasonal restriction on night driving from May 1 through September 14; however, benefits from 

this restriction would be limited since it does not cover the red knot’s spring migration period when it is 

most numerous at the Seashore, and most birds have already left the Seashore prior to the latter portion of 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

344 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

the period. Compared to alternative E, the amount of impacts on red knots under alternative C would be 

greater due to public ORV use being allowed under alternative C, whereas it would be prohibited under 

alternative E. The prohibition of public ORV use under alternative E would also reduce the amount of 

impacts from pedestrians, because without ORVs to access the more remote areas of the Seashore 

pedestrians would likely be limited to areas in general proximity to the ferry landing areas. 

Alternative D would also result in long-term adverse impacts on red knots from disturbance, temporary 

displacement, and possibly injury/mortality of individuals. However, impacts would be reduced when 

compared to alternative A (the no-action alternative), due to increased education and outreach; the use of 

additional species management measures, such as expanded buffers/closures (for other protected birds); 

the closing of ORV routes where no ferry access is available; the reduction in the amount of Seashore 

open to public ORV use; the implementation of a vehicle permit program and the reduction in the number 

of public ORVs allowed on the Seashore by 8 percent; the prohibition of all ATVs, as well as all highperformance sport-model and two-stroke UTVs at the Seashore; and the shortening of the timeframe that 

non-sport UTVs would be permitted within the Seashore each year (reducing the March 16 through 

December 31 timeframe under alternative A to September 15 through December 15), and the more 

intensive management actions that could be implemented under the adaptive management strategy. Red 

knots are active at night, so additional benefits would also result from a seasonal restriction on night 

driving from May 1 through September 14; however, benefits from this restriction would be limited since 

it does not cover the red knot’s spring migration period when it is most numerous at the Seashore, and 

most birds have already left the Seashore prior to the latter portion of the period. Compared to alternative 

E (the no ORV alternative), impacts on red knots under alternative D would be greater due to public ORV 

use being allowed under alternative D, whereas it would be prohibited under alternative, eliminating 

because ORV access would continue to be permitted under alternative D. The prohibition of public ORV 

use under alternative E would also reduce the amount of impacts from pedestrians, because without ORVs 

to access the more remote areas of the Seashore pedestrians would likely be limited to areas in general 

proximity to the ferry landing areas. 

Under alternative E, prohibiting public ORV use at the Seashore would provide long-term beneficial 

impacts compared to alternative A where public ORV use would be allowed along 81 percent of the 

Seashore. While continued pedestrian access under alternative E would result in some short- and longterm disturbance (e.g., noise, temporary displacement, etc.) of red knots, these impacts would be reduced 

compared to alternative A because without the use of ORVs to access more remote areas of the Seashore, 

pedestrian use under alternative E would likely be limited to areas in the general proximity to the ferry 

landing areas. As a result, overall, alternative E would provide more protection and result in fewer 

adverse impacts to red knots compared to alternative A. 

CONCLUSION

Overall, impacts on red knots from ORVs and other recreational uses under alternatives A, B, C, and D 

are expected to be long-term and adverse, although compared to the existing condition, the proposed 

changes under each action alternative are beneficial. Red knots do not breed at the Seashore, however, 

many red knots use the Seashore during migration, and some individuals may overwinter at the Seashore. 

The majority of red knots at the Seashore are observed in two locations: (1) from Ocracoke Inlet to mile 7 

on North Core Banks, and (2) from Ophelia Inlet to mile 29 on South Core Banks. The red knot occurs at 

the Seashore during their northbound spring migration (April 15 to May 25), with peak counts ranging 

from 700 to 1,611 birds, based on data from 2006 to 2013. The red knot’s southbound fall migration 

occurs at the Seashore in August, and peak counts range from 100 to 800 birds. 

During the red knot’s migration stopover at the Seashore, they can potentially encounter several sources 

of negative impact, including avian predators, dredging activities, and human disturbance. A number of 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 345

avian predators, including the peregrine falcon, great black-back gull, and the herring gull, are the most 

common predators of red knots, and can be attracted to the Seashore by the waste stream (fish bait, food 

scraps) associated with recreational uses at the Seashore. The types of UTVs (e.g., two stroke; with 

trailers) and the number of vehicles through a permit system would be increasingly limited under 

alternatives B, C, and D, but could negatively impact migrating or wintering red knot populations. 

Because red knots do not breed at the Seashore, there would be no red knot-specific recreational or ORV 

pre-nesting closures established, or red knot-specific surveying or monitoring. Surveying for other 

protected shorebirds (e.g., piping plover) under all of the alternatives may lead to temporary impacts on 

migrating red knots (e.g., flushing) and could negatively impact their feeding and resting behaviors. 

Outside of the January 1 through March 15 timeframe (alternatives A and B) or December 16 through 

March 15 timeframe (alternatives C and D), no closures would be specifically implemented for spring and 

fall migrating or wintering shorebird protection, which could result in disturbance of individuals, leading 

to displacement and altered foraging behavior of red knots. 

Several sources of positive impacts at the Seashore on the red knot include mammalian predator 

management, other bird and turtle nesting closures, and seasonal recreational closures. Some mammalian 

predator management discussed in alternatives B, C, and D designed to benefit other sensitive shorebird 

species, would have an overall positive impact on the red knot. Also, active nests of other bird species 

identified during surveying, could lead to full recreational closures, which could benefit red knots. Under 

all of the alternatives, full recreational pre-nesting closures would be established by April 1 in all active, 

historical, and potential shorebird areas, which could provide some areas where migrating red knots 

would be protected from disturbance. Sea turtle closures which occur on the beach during the red knot’s 

fall migration may provide additional protection. Also, a 600-foot ORV closure around a known piping 

plover’s chick and a 150-foot buffer around other waterbird chicks would afford some protection for red 

knots at the end of their spring migration period. Under alternative A, the Seashore would be closed to 

vehicles from January 1 through March 15. This winter recreational closure would result in long-term 

benefits for wintering red knot populations by providing protected habitat during the winter and allowing 

the beach profile an extended time to recover without any vehicles on it. 

Significance Discussion 

The purpose of the Seashore is to preserve the outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational resources 

and values of a dynamic, intact, natural barrier island system where ecological processes dominate. The 

Seashore is one of the few remaining locations on the Atlantic Coast where visitors can experience and 

recreate in an undeveloped, remote barrier island environment that can be reached only by boat or ferry. 

The Seashore is an important migration stopover site for the red knot, particularly during springtime. Red 

knots have one of the longest migration routes of any shorebird, around 9,000 miles (Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology 2013), as they overwinter in southern Chile and Argentina and migrate north to the Canadian 

Arctic Regions for breeding. On September 27, 2013, the red knot was proposed for listing as a threatened 

species under the ESA. The USFWS plans to publish a separate proposed rule identifying critical habitat 

before the end of 2013, and plans to make a final decision on both rules in 2014 (USFWS 2013b). As of 

December 20, 2013, critical habitat has not yet been defined, and the red knot does not have special-status 

listing in North Carolina. The greatest concerns related to wintering and migrating red knots are 

disturbances at their stopover areas. 

Red knots do not receive species-specific protections, but gain indirect protections that increase in 

varying degrees under alternatives A, B, C, and D. These protections would increase under alternatives C 

and D, which limit ORVs to historical limits, and would dramatically increase under alternative E, since 

the elimination of ORVs may cause a decrease in disturbances of wintering and wintering red knots. 

Overall, impacts on red knots from ORVs under alternatives A, B, C, and D are expected to be long-term 

and adverse. However, compared to the existing condition, the proposed changes under each action 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

346 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

alternative are beneficial. Allowing ORVs access to the North and South Core Banks under alternatives 

A, B, C, and D would contribute to other adverse impacts, including noise disturbance, temporary 

displacement, and an increased frequency of escape flights. However, several ORV management options 

in alternatives B, C, and D would help mitigate long-term adverse impacts on red knots, including the 

reduction of vehicular contact with individual birds, reducing mortality due to predators, increasing the 

education of visitors about the importance of resource protection, and increasing resource protection 

measures under the adaptive management strategy. Also, alternatives B, C, and D would impose seasonal 

restrictions on night driving and implement species buffers and closures, restrictions on ATV and UTV 

use, the exclusion of ORV use on Shackleford Banks, ORV permit limits under alternatives C and D, and 

several adaptive management strategies. Prohibiting ORV access at the Seashore under alternative E 

would remove a source of disturbance for red knots, resulting in long-term beneficial impacts, which 

could eventually reduce the need for mitigation of red knots at the Seashore. Despite some adverse effects 

to red knots, the action alternatives result in a beneficial change compared to the no-action alternative and 

existing condition, and would not result in significant adverse impacts to the red knot. 

Under alternatives A, B, C, and D, designating legal routes for ORV use does not establish a precedent for 

future actions with significant effects, because ORV use has occurred at the Seashore since the 1930s and 

continued since the establishment of the Seashore as a park unit in 1976, and the current and proposed 

species protection measures benefit the red knot. Since the purpose of the Seashore is to preserve natural 

and recreational resources, and since ORV use is also currently legally permitted in several other national 

seashores, these alternatives would not be precedent-setting within the national park system. As described 

above, ORV use does not cause significant impacts to red knots, in part because of the substantial 

resource protection and mitigation measures taken by the Seashore. Alternative E, which prohibits ORV 

use, would not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects to red knots, because many 

other national park units do not allow ORV use. 

There are a number of cumulative impacts to red knots, described in the impacts analysis above, which 

may be short- and long-term, limited, and adverse, such as impacts from ORVs, as well as long-term 

beneficial. However, while adverse effects on red knots from other actions occurring in the region could 

be significant, resource management actions under alternatives A, B, C, D, and E would provide 

additional protections that would be beneficial to the species and would contribute minimally to any 

significant adverse cumulative impacts already occurring regionally. 

In conclusion, compared to the existing condition, additional impacts to red knots under alternatives A, B, 

C, D, and E would be small. The Seashore has substantial resource protection in place, and mitigation 

measures would continue and would be strengthened in the action alternatives, many of which benefit red 

knots. When compared to the existing condition, in light of the significance criteria in 40 CFR 1508.27, 

there would be no significant adverse impacts to red knots from alternatives A, B, C, D, or E. 

SEA TURTLES 

SPECIES-SPECIFIC METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS

Potential impacts on federally listed sea turtle populations and their habitat within the Seashore were 

evaluated based on the species’ known interactions with humans, domestic pets, recreational and 

nighttime activities, predators, artificial lighting, and ORVs, as well as past and present occurrence at the 

Seashore. Information about habitat and species occurrence within the Seashore and potential impacts on 

sea turtles from recreation and other activities was acquired from staff at Cape Lookout National 

Seashore, the USFWS, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), and available 

literature.
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 347

Although five threatened or endangered sea turtle species occur in the waters of North Carolina, only 

three species, the loggerhead, green, and leatherback, are known to regularly nest at the Seashore. 

Occurrences of Kemp’s ridley turtles at the Seashore are mostly from strandings, usually due to either 

prior death or incapacitation from hypothermia; however, in 2003 and 2012 a single nest was documented 

each year (NPS 2004d, 2012n). Kemp’s ridley turtles nest almost exclusively on a single beach on the 

east coast of Mexico, with nesting occurrences outside that area extremely limited. Within the United 

States, the majority of Kemp’s ridley nests are found along the south Texas coast. The hawksbill sea turtle 

has never been recorded nesting at the Seashore and is only known to the Seashore through three dead 

strandings, one in 2003 and two in 2005. Therefore, the analysis only focuses on the three species that 

nest at the Seashore with some frequency: the loggerhead, green, and leatherback sea turtles. For these 

three species, the analysis focuses on effects on sea turtles from a variety of human recreation and other 

activities, as well as impacts incurred as a result of surveying and management activities. Except for the 

timing of nest laying activities, the nesting habits for loggerhead, green, and leatherback sea turtles at the 

Seashore are similar. Therefore, the analysis generally discusses the impacts on the sea turtles as a group. 

Impacts on a specific species are noted where they differ from impacts on the other sea turtle species. 

Sea turtle nesting habitat overlaps protected bird species habitat seaward of the primary dune line. 

Consequently, management of birds could also benefit nesting sea turtles and is included in the analysis. 

However, the extent to which the bird closures are beneficial to the turtles depends on the location, size, 

and duration of the closures. In the analysis, it is assumed that compliance with closures and other 

regulations such as leash requirements, disposal of bait and fish carcasses, etc., would increase from 

current levels where alternatives would result in an increase of natural resource and law enforcement staff 

at the Seashore. 

It should also be noted that Cape Lookout National Seashore is at or near the northern limit of the 

breeding range for all four species of sea turtles that nest there. The loggerhead sea turtle is also the only 

species for which recovery criteria are designated for the state of North Carolina in its recovery plan 

(NMFS and USFWS 2008, 1992, 1991; NMFS, USFWS and SEMARNAT 2011). As such it may be 

difficult to manage the current populations for increased nesting density, especially for the green, 

leatherback, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles. 

In general, direct and indirect impacts on sea turtles, their nests, eggs, and hatchlings would primarily 

occur during the sea turtle nesting and hatching seasons from May 1 through November 15 and during 

summer and fall storm events when post-hatchlings may wash ashore. There may be direct impacts on 

live stranded turtles year-round. 

STUDY AREA

The study area for assessment of the various alternatives is the Seashore. Based on the fact that the 

loggerhead sea turtle is the primary nester within the Seashore (98 percent of all nests) and is the only sea 

turtle for which recovery criteria are designated for the state of North Carolina in its recovery plan, the 

study area for the cumulative impacts analysis is the state of North Carolina. 

ALTERNATIVE A

Impacts of Alternative A: No Action 

Resources Management Activities 

Surveying and Monitoring—Under alternative A, NPS staff would survey for turtle crawls and nests 

between May 1 and September 15. On North Core Banks and South Core Banks surveys would occur 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

348 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

daily prior to 12 p.m. On Shackleford Banks surveys would occur 2–3 days per week while Middle Core 

Banks would be surveyed irregularly due to difficulty accessing the island. Periodic monitoring 

(e.g., 2-3 days) for unknown nesting and emerging hatchlings would continue through November 15. 

These monitoring periods encompass the nesting season for loggerhead sea turtles (mid-May to midAugust), the most prevalent nesters at the Seashore, and the vast majority of the nesting season for the 

green and leatherback sea turtles, which are infrequent nesters at the Seashore. Prior to May 1, the 

leatherback sea turtle is the only species likely to nest at the Seashore. Although turtle surveying would 

not occur prior to May 1, turtle crawls may be detected by bird monitors who are surveying the beaches 

three times per week (or every other day) beginning April 1. From 1990 to 2005 when daily monitoring 

for turtle nests did not start until June and ended August 15 of each year, staff patrolling the beaches for 

other reasons readily found turtle nests, documenting two nests in April, 135 nests in May, and two nests 

in September. ORVs are not allowed on Shackleford Banks; however, patrolling Shackleford only two to 

three times per week may result in missed crawls or nests, because pedestrian traffic, blowing sand, or 

rain may obscure turtle crawls. While surveying activities under alternative A could miss some nests, the 

risk is small; since 1990, following similar practices, less than 1 percent of nests were known to be 

missed and hatched without adequate protection (Altman pers. comm. 2010a; NPS 2011c, 2010h, 2010b, 

2009c). The 1 percent of the nests that go undetected would not be subject to management by the NPS 

staff and would be exposed to adverse impacts because the nests would be subject to multiple potential 

threats such as being run over by ORVs (only pertains to North Core Banks and South Core Banks), 

which could destroy eggs or compact the sand to the point where hatchlings are unable to emerge; 

depredation by raccoons or other predators; and loss due to erosion or frequent flooding since a decision 

about potentially relocating the nest could not be made. Hatchlings emerging from unprotected nests 

would be at a greater risk of being disoriented by light pollution since wooden light barriers would not 

have been erected around the nest. If an undetected nest were located in an area open to ORV use 

hatchlings would be subjected to impacts associated with tire tracks because they would not be raked 

smooth by NPS staff. If tracks are not raked smooth, hatchlings can become easily trapped and 

disoriented in the ruts, leading to an increased risk of death by predation, being run over by subsequent 

ORV traffic, or exhaustion prior to reaching the ocean (Hosier, Kochhar, and Thayer 1981; Lamont, 

Percival, and Colwell 2002; NMFS and USFWS 2008). 

NPS staff would use ORVs to survey for turtle crawls and nests providing short- and long-term benefits. 

Using ORVs during surveys allows NPS staff to cover the entire length of the shoreline each morning in 

search of turtle crawls and nests, significantly reducing the number of nests that would otherwise go 

undetected and unprotected. Using ORVs also allows NPS staff to take the necessary supplies with them 

to install closures around located nests to protect them. Conducting surveys, as called for in the 

monitoring protocols, during the morning would allow patrols to avoid potentially impacting emerging 

hatchlings or nesting females, since these activities typically occur at night. Overall, patrolling for sea 

turtle crawls and nests daily would be beneficial, as it greatly reduces the potential impacts of ORVs by 

allowing NPS staff to detect and protect nests. Daily patrols also allow staff to monitor closure violations, 

and on rare occasions vandalism, and repair any damage to the closure. They also allow staff to detect any 

predator activity and protect those nests with predator exclosures. 

During periods following severe storm events or when large quantities of seaweed are washed ashore, 

post-hatchling washbacks would be monitored. This monitoring would provide benefits to hatchlings 

washed ashore by helping prevent them from being run over by vehicles or disturbed by pedestrians or 

their pets and by protecting them from potential predation. 

Under alternative A, the Seashore would mark turtle nests using two posts with reflective tape on them, 

increasing the visibility of the turtle nests for ORV operators. However, the posts are only 5 feet apart and 

perpendicular to the shoreline. If an ORV accidently violates a closure area, the small buffer size would 

greatly increase the risk that the nest would be run over. 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 349

Fifty days after a nest is laid, a funnel-shaped ORV closure would be established around each nest to 15 

feet below the high tide line and any tire ruts not smoothed naturally by wind or rain would be raked 

smooth. The closure would be 60 feet wide at the nest and 150 feet wide below the high tide line, with a 

minimum of a 15-foot buffer duneward of the nest. If a 15-foot buffer behind the nest is not possible, a 

ramp-to-ramp ORV closure would be established, with vehicles routed around the nest via the back route. 

Relocation of nests solely to resolve recreational access issues would not be considered. The size of the 

expanded buffers would create a large vehicle-free area around the nest, protecting the nest and hatchlings 

from being run over. The expanded buffers would also create a large area free from tire ruts, eliminating 

the potential for hatchlings to become trapped or disoriented in the tire ruts as they make their way to the 

ocean. By protecting all of the detected turtle nests in the Seashore during the incubation and hatching 

periods, these buffers would provide substantial short- and long-term benefits to the sea turtles. 

Sea turtle nesting habitat overlaps protected bird species habitat seaward of the primary dune line. 

Therefore, management for bird species under alternative A would also be beneficial to sea turtles and 

their habitat. However, the extent to which the bird management practices and closures are beneficial to 

turtles would depend on the location, size, and duration of the closures. For example, a closure extending 

further in front of the primary dune line where turtles nest, or a pre-nesting closure overlapping sea turtle 

nesting habitat that is kept in place after July 15 because birds are using it would provide more protection 

than a closure located mainly behind the primary dune line or a closure removed by July 15 because birds 

do not use it. 

In the event of a hurricane, beaches would not be reopened to ORVs until all existing turtle nests were 

found and remarked and closures reestablished. This would help prevent nests from being impacted by 

ORVs or other recreational activities. 

Relocating Nests—In accordance with NCWRC guidelines, relocating sea turtle nests for environmental 

reasons would be considered as a last resort because relocating nests has the risk of either damaging the 

eggs or the embryonic development process (Miller, Limpus, and Godfrey 2003). During monitoring 

when a nest is found staff would assess the need to relocate the nest. Nests that would be relocated are 

those that are laid below the high tide line and subject to frequent inundation, which can cause mortality 

of incubating egg clutches (Foley, Peck, and Harman 2006) or in areas where they are likely to be washed 

away or are in danger of erosion. If relocation is necessary, procedures for relocating nests provided in the 

NCWRC handbook (NCWRC 2006) would be followed. If a nest needs to be relocated it would be 

relocated to the nearest of six turtle relocation nesting areas established on the beach (three on North Core 

Banks and three on South Core Banks). Due to the fact that no ORVs are allowed on Shackleford Banks, 

nests on Shackleford Banks would be relocated to the nearest suitable habitat. The six relocation areas on 

North Core and South Core Banks would be designated during the sea turtle nesting period and would be 

established from one ramp to the next ramp and would generally be 0.5 to 1.0 miles long. The relocation 

areas would be closed to ORV traffic beginning 50 days after the first nest is relocated to the area and 

would not reopen until the last nest in the area has excavated. Camping and campfires would also be 

prohibited in these areas. Relocating nests would have both beneficial and adverse impacts. 

Historically, the single greatest impact on hatching success has been weather related events such as 

hurricanes or other storms which can uncover nests through erosion, flood nests, or bury nests too deep 

for them to hatch properly (NPS 1991, 1992, 1993b, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997b, 1998c, 1999b, 2000d, 

2001c, 2002c, 2003b, 2004d, 2005b, 2006g, 2007j, 2008d, 2009c, 2010c, 2010h, 2011c, 2012n). 

Relocating nests prone to these events or located in areas below the high tide line to areas higher up on 

the beach increases the likelihood that these nests would not be lost by being washed away or 

continuously inundated with sea water, resulting in short- and long-term beneficial impacts. Because 

ORVs, as well as camping and campfires, are restricted from the relocation areas, relocating nests to these 

areas also protects the nests and emerging hatchlings from ORV and light pollution impacts. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

350 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Relocation of nests does have some potential adverse impacts. Six to 12 hours after deposition, the egg 

embryo becomes attached to the top of the eggshell (NCWRC 2006). After this time, the embryo becomes 

very sensitive to movement and can be dislodged if the egg is rotated. This would result in the death of 

the embryo. However, having three nest relocation areas per island reduces the travel time from a nest site 

to a relocation area, allowing staff to minimize the amount of time it takes to relocate a nest and the 

potential for adverse impacts to occur. If nesting pits are not constructed properly this can lead to loss of 

hatchlings was well. Relocating nests into a single beach closure can increase the risk of a large loss due 

to storms, pathogens, or predation. Additionally, relocated nests are often placed near the dune line where 

plants are increasing the risk of root invasion which can destroy eggs or trap hatchlings. However, these 

risks are minimal compared to the risk of a nest being lost due to overwash or erosion at its original 

location.

Relocating nests at the Seashore has been very successful to date, resulting in beneficial impacts. From 

1990 to 2011 an average of 47 percent of the nests found at Cape Lookout National Seashore were 

relocated to protect them from frequent flooding and erosion (NPS 2012n). However, in 2005, the 

USFWS and the NCWRC recommended that the Seashore reduce the number of nests relocated to a 

target of 30 percent, preferring to allow nests to exist without human intervention and the potential 

impacts of relocating them (Cordes pers. comm. 2005b). Since 2005, an average of 27 percent of the nests 

have been relocated, ranging from a high of 39 percent in 2006 to a low of 13 percent in 2010 (NPS 

2006g, 2007j, 2008d, 2009c, 2010c, 2010h, 2011c, 2012n). Hatching rates since 1990 for relocated nests 

have been the same as for nonrelocated nests, averaging 65 percent emergent success. However, when 

factoring unknown egg losses for nonrelocated nests due to predation and erosion, the average emergence 

success rate for nonrelocated nests is less than relocated nests (56 percent to 65 percent respectively) 

(NPS 2011c). 

In addition to the inherent risks of relocating nests, nest relocation can also alter the natural sex ratio of 

the nest by altering the incubation temperature (Foley et al. 2006). Temperatures warmer than 84.6°F 

produce more females, while colder temperatures produce more males. Because North Carolina is near 

the northern limit of loggerhead nesting, it is believed that North Carolina contributes more males to the 

population (Mrosovsky 1988). By relocating nests from lower on the beach to areas higher on the beach 

where incubation temperatures would presumably be slightly higher, more females could be produced 

than would naturally occur. However, there is currently not enough temperature or sex ratio data to 

determine if sex ratios are being altered due to relocation efforts. 

Besides sex ratios, relocating nests can also alter other hatchling characteristics. Loggerheads naturally 

distribute their nests both temporally (nest several times throughout the nesting season) and spatially 

(locate nests low or high on the beach and in different sections along the beach) (NMFS and USFWS 

2008). This not only helps to avoid completely losing their reproductive effort in case environmental 

factors, such as storms, temperature, sand conditions, or other incubation environments preclude 

development of the hatchings, but it also varies the incubation environment of the eggs. In addition to the 

sex ratio of the hatchlings, the incubation environment has also been shown to influence among other 

things size, early swimming behavior, and early growth in hatchlings (Foley et al. 2006). Because the 

characteristics of hatchlings vary with incubation environments, a scattered nesting pattern increases the 

variation of hatchling characteristics. This may ensure that at all times, at least some hatchlings have 

characteristics that are appropriate for survival, when the exact characteristics that are best suited for 

survival vary unpredictably over space and time (Carthy, Foley, and Matsuzawa 2003). Relocating nests 

and/or concentrating them in one area of a beach may very well reduce the variety of incubation 

environments that could influence the development of hatchling characteristics that increase survival rates 

(Foley et al. 2006). 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 351

Closing designated relocation areas along North Core Banks and South Core Banks to ORV traffic before 

the hatching of the first relocated nest would provide benefits for any turtles that come ashore in those 

areas to nest by eliminating potential disturbance from ORVs that might cause false crawls. This would 

be particularly true in the area south of the lighthouse on South Core Banks where the relocation area 

overlaps an area that generally receives the highest annual concentration of natural nests (refer to figure 

11 in chapter 3). 

Light Management—The sea-finding mechanisms in emerging hatchlings are complex and involve cues 

from both brightness and shape. Studies indicate that strong brightness stimuli can override competing 

cues (Witherington and Martin 1996). Hatchlings tend to orient toward the brightest direction over a 

broad horizontal direction, which on an undeveloped beach is often toward the open horizon of the ocean. 

However, light pollution, such as that from ORV headlights, beach fires, or lights from nearby residences 

or other developments, can cause emerging hatchlings to become disoriented (meander or circle) or 

misoriented (led in the wrong direction) (Witherington and Martin 1996). Depending on the location of 

the artificial lights with respect to a hatching nest, hatchlings may move toward the artificial light in a 

direction that is away from or parallel to the ocean. This can result in the hatchlings never finding their 

way to the ocean. It can also cause the hatchlings to expend more energy than necessary to find the ocean, 

leading to exhaustion and an increased risk of predation or desiccation (NMFS and USFWS 2008). 

Erecting 2-foot high plywood barriers behind and to the sides of nests 10 days before the estimated hatch 

date for those nests in locations deemed vulnerable to light pollution (i.e., in front of the cabins at Long 

Point and Great Island) would decrease the impact of light pollution on hatchlings emerging from their 

nests, providing short- and long-term beneficial impacts. For example, in 2005 a light barrier was used 

successfully on a nest directly in front of the Long Point cabin area (NPS 2006g). While erecting the light 

barriers would not completely eliminate the impacts from light pollution on hatchlings, due to the remote 

undeveloped nature of the Seashore and the limited amount of night driving that takes place, relatively 

few artificial-light impacts on hatchlings have been documented, with only 22 incidences recorded since 

1990 (NPS 1991, 1992, 1993b, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997b, 1998c, 1999b, 2000d, 2001c, 2002c, 2003b, 

2004d, 2005b, 2006g, 2007j, 2008d, 2009c, 2010c, 2010h, 2011c, 2012n). There were an additional five 

incidences where hatchlings crawled inland, but these were in areas relatively free from light pollution 

and were attributed to hatchlings being confused by the topography. There have been several other 

incidences where hatchlings appeared to be disoriented while crawling outside of the closure areas, but no 

causes were attributed to this by NPS staff (NPS 2011c). 

Prohibiting camping and beach fires in the nest relocation areas when the ORV closures go into effect 

would help protect hatchlings and nesting turtles in those areas from artificial light pollution; however, 

throughout the rest of the Seashore, these activities would not be prohibited and could contribute to false 

crawls in nesting adults or disorientation in hatchlings. Encouraging concessionaires and cabin users to 

minimize light use would help minimize light pollution on the beach. The extensive back route system 

throughout the Seashore also helps to minimize light pollution on the beach by allowing vehicles to drive 

behind the primary dune line rather than along the shoreline. 

Predator Management—Under alternative A, all nests would be protected from predation by placing 

wire screens anchored by rebar over the nest. In past years the highest rate of predation, primarily by 

raccoon, has occurred on South Core Banks south of the lighthouse (NPS 1991, 1992, 1993b, 1994, 1995, 

1996, 1997b, 1998c, 1999b, 2000d, 2001c, 2002c, 2003b, 2004d, 2005b, 2006g, 2007j, 2008d, 2009c, 

2010c, 2010h, 2011c, 2012n). In this location, nests would be afforded greater protection by placing wire 

cages over the nests. While some nests still suffer some egg loss due to raccoon predation, screening nests 

does help protect against total nest loss. Using predator exclosures would entail a slight risk of damaging 

eggs during placement or trapping emerging hatchlings as occurred in one nest in 2011 (NPS 2011c); 

however, the risk is minimal and is far outweighed by the benefits of protecting the nests against 

predation. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

352 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Education/Public Outreach—Under alternative A, the Seashore would continue to encourage 

concessionaires and people staying in Seashore cabins to minimize the use of outdoor lights. These 

actions would provide benefits to sea turtles by reducing the amount of light pollution on the beaches that 

could disorient emerging hatchlings or cause nesting females to abort their nesting attempts. 

The public outreach that would continue to be provided under alternative A would be beneficial to the sea 

turtle. Providing the public information as to the specific needs of the species and alerting them ahead of 

time to areas where they cannot go would help avoid potential impacts on the species. Enforcing proper 

trash disposal (pack in/pack out) would also be beneficial by eliminating trash on the beach that attracts 

predators such as raccoons that could also prey on eggs or hatchlings. 

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

Under alternative A, 81 percent (45 miles) of the Seashore beaches would be available for ORV use in 

designated routes and areas (as documented in the Superintendent’s Compendium) from March 16 

through December 31. In addition to the ORV closures described above that are established for the 

protection of sea turtles, the Seashore also establishes ORV and full recreational closures for piping 

plovers and other special-status bird species s at the Seashore, as well as safety closures when certain 

areas of the beach become too hazardous for safe public use. Based on data from 2008 to 2013, the total 

amount of ORV resource and safety closures at the Seashore averages approximately 10 miles during the 

summer months and approximately 5.4 miles during the fall. These closures protect approximately 22 

percent more of the Seashore that would otherwise be open to ORV impacts during the summer months, 

and approximately 12 percent more of the Seashore during the fall months. While these closures are not 

exclusively put in place for the protection of sea turtles, sea turtle nesting habitat significantly overlaps 

with shorebird nesting habitat, so all of these closed areas likely provides beneficial impacts to sea turtles 

by protecting their nesting habitats from the adverse impacts caused by ORV use. 

While all of the species management actions provide substantial protection to sea turtles, there would still 

be some risk of disturbance or injury to adult nesting females, hatchlings, and live stranded sea turtles due 

to ORV use and other activities (i.e., pedestrian use, pets). Sea turtles nest along all of the Seashore ocean 

beaches. Although the process of nest site selection is not well understood, and there is a lack of data 

describing the characteristics of nesting sites at the Seashore, 24-hour-per-day ORV use may affect the 

beach profile and substrate characteristics in a way that reduces suitability for nesting and hatching 

success (Cohen et al. 2010). Vehicle traffic on beaches displaces large amounts of sand (Schlacher and 

Thompson 2008) and can contribute to erosion, especially during high tides or on narrow beaches, where 

driving is concentrated higher on the beach, which may make some areas unsuitable for nesting (NMFS 

and USFWS 2008). Vehicle driving also compacts the sand, making it more difficult for females to dig 

their nest cavities. Vehicles also leave ruts in the sand and although these ruts would be raked smooth 

50 days into the incubation period when nest closures are expanded, closure violations do occur, leaving 

ruts which can trap hatchlings attempting to reach the ocean (Hosier, Kochhar, and Thayer 1981). Closure 

violations can also result in hatchlings being run over, as happened to one hatchling in 2006 (NPS 2007d). 

Adverse impacts from ORVs would occur along all areas of the beach open to ORV use during the sea 

turtle nesting and hatching season. In areas of the Seashore closed to ORV use (Portsmouth Flats, 

between mile markers 41a and 41b, the interior of the point of Cape Lookout at mile marker 44, Power 

Squadron Spit from mile marker 46.2 west to the end of the spit and all of Shackleford Banks), and in 

other areas that are closed temporarily (i.e., safety closures and turtle nest relocation areas and other 

resource closures), these impacts would be eliminated. Over the years, closure violations, and on rare 

occasion vandalism of closures and nests, has continued to occur (NPS 2001c, 2002c, 2003b, 2004d, 

2005b, 2006g, 2007j, 2008d, 2009c, 2010c, 2010h, 2011c, 2012n), and with no increase in law 

enforcement or resource staffing levels under alternative A, closure violations, and on rare occasion 

vandalism, would be expected to continue. 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 353

There has never been a recorded death of a nesting sea turtle at the Seashore due to being struck by an 

ORV, and such incidents are extremely rare in general. However, the 2010 death of a nesting female 

loggerhead sea turtle at Cape Hatteras National Seashore and three previous incidents in the state of Texas 

show that ORV use on beaches can result in nesting sea turtles being killed. At Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore, on June 24, 2010, a female loggerhead sea turtle was struck and killed by an ORV that was 

illegally driving at night on Ocracoke Island (NPS 2010h). In 2002 on Matagorda Island in Texas, a 

nesting Kemp’s ridley sea turtle was struck by an ORV after having laid her eggs. It was not known if the 

turtle died or not, as visitors put the injured turtle back in the water. While a dead Kemp’s ridley washed 

ashore two weeks later approximately 8 kilometers from the accident site, there was no way of knowing if 

it was the turtle that was struck (Shaver 2004). Additionally, in 2008 two nesting Kemp’s ridley turtles 

documented on South Padre Island in Texas were apparently struck by passing vehicles and ultimately 

died as a result of their injuries (Shaver 2009). Because night driving is allowed at the Seashore there is a 

slight risk that a vehicle could strike and either injure or kill a nesting or live stranded turtle, resulting in 

short- and long-term adverse impacts. 

Night-driving—Under alternative A, the Seashore would continue to provide sea turtles with protection 

from human disturbance, although there would be no restriction on night driving. False crawls (aborted 

turtle crawls that do not result in a nest, also often referred to as nonnesting crawls) can be detrimental to 

sea turtles and can be caused by, among other things, suboptimal sand conditions; encounters with roots, 

debris, or rocks while digging a nest; encounters with obstacles while crawling up a beach; disturbance 

from lights, noise, or other unusual activities; or other reasons that are not known. If too many false 

crawls occur for one individual, turtles can shed their eggs in the water and, thus, those eggs would be lost 

(Witherington and Martin 1996). Although turtles may attempt to nest again that same night or on 

subsequent nights, causing a turtle to abort a nesting attempt is considered an incidental take under 

section 7 of the ESA, and it may cause the turtle to nest in another location that is less optimal. It may 

also cause the turtle to expend more energy than it otherwise would, potentially reducing its fitness level. 

Under normal, undisturbed conditions, there is generally a one to one ratio between the number of nests 

and the number of false crawls in a given area (i.e., 50 percent of nesting activities are false crawls) 

(Godfrey pers. comm. 2005b). Since 1990, an average of 49.2 percent of all turtle activity at the Seashore 

each year was false crawls, with individual years ranging from 35.8 percent to as high as 61.5 percent 

(NPS 1991, 1992, 1993b, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997b, 1998c, 1999b, 2000d, 2001c, 2002c, 2003b, 2004d, 

2005b, 2006g, 2007j, 2008d, 2009c, 2010c, 2010h, 2011c, 2012n). By island, false crawls average 52.6 

percent of the nesting activities on North Core Banks (range: 34.5 percent to 67.4 percent), 50.0 percent 

of nesting activities on South Core Banks (range: 39.2 percent to 66.7 percent), and 32.3 percent of the 

nesting activities on Shackleford Banks (range: 0.0 percent to 73.3 percent). While no ORV use is 

allowed on Shackleford Banks, the island is not monitored daily, therefore, the number of false crawls 

may be underreported as tracks may become washed out or obscured by wind, rain, or pedestrian tracks 

prior to discovery. While it is not known how many false crawls on North Core Banks and South Core 

Banks have been caused directly by ORVs, Schofield (1995) did show a weak positive correlation 

between an increase in the number of vehicles operating at night at the Seashore and increases in the 

number of false crawls. With the number of ORVs at the Seashore expected to slowly grow over the 

coming years (overall visitation is expected to grow by 1.5 percent annually [NPS 2010j]), the number of 

ORVs driving at night would also likely increase. Based on the weak positive correlation shown by 

Schofield (1995), it is possible that an increase in the number of ORVs operating at night in the future 

under alternative A would cause an increase in the number of false crawls, resulting in long-term adverse 

impacts on sea turtles. It is important to note, however, that many different factors can contribute to false 

crawls, and no definitive assessment exists of how the level of ORV use, or any other recreational use, 

may influence sea turtle nesting activity. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

354 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Permit Requirements—Under alternative A, there would be no permit requirements placed on ORV 

users at the Seashore. As described under the alternatives where a permit system would be implemented, 

such a system would provide the Seashore with a method for providing additional education to ORV 

users regarding sensitive habitat and species at the Seashore, as well as additional methods (i.e., revoking 

permits) for dealing with noncompliance of Seashore regulations. It is anticipated that visitation to the 

Seashore will slowly grow in the future, with an estimated annual increase of approximately 1.5 percent 

(NPS 2010j). With increased visitation, it is assumed that the number of ORVs on the beach at the 

Seashore would also slowly grow in future. Without the additional avenue for increasing education and 

compliance related to ORV use, the anticipated increase in the number of ORVs on the beach would 

potentially increase the risk of vehicle disturbance on sea turtles from current levels. Disturbance could 

include injuries, direct or indirect mortality, and/or false crawls. 

Adaptive Management Strategy—Under alternative A, there would be no adaptive management 

strategy at the Seashore. An adaptive management strategy would monitor disturbance to American 

oystercatcher (an indicator species), primarily related to impacts from ORVs, and management actions 

protecting species could be altered based on the results of that monitoring. The lack of an adaptive 

management strategy may result in an increased risk of false crawls, injury, and/or mortality to sea turtles 

from current levels from vehicle use as the number of ORVs on the beach is anticipated to continue to 

slowly increase in the future NPS (NPS2010j).

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative A 

Other past, current, and future planned actions within and around Cape Lookout National Seashore have 

the potential to impact the populations of all three species of sea turtles that regularly nest at the Seashore. 

The dredging of Beaufort Inlet and Oregon Inlet to the north has occurred in the past and would continue 

to occur in the future. Details of the dredging operations are not known, but if a hopper dredge is used, 

especially during nesting season when more turtles are present, it may have short- to long-term adverse 

impacts on sea turtles. Hopper dredges are historically known to be responsible for incidental takes of sea 

turtles (NMFS and USFWS 2008). 

Commercial fishing can adversely impact sea turtles; and while commercial fishing does not occur within 

the Seashore, it does occur in the adjacent waters and throughout the state of North Carolina as a whole. 

Commercial fishing, whether from shore or boat, may result in the incidental take of sea turtles, because 

they can get hooked or entangled in fishing line and nets. Sea turtles can also be injured or killed by 

propeller strikes from commercial fishing boats, resulting in short- to long-term adverse impacts on sea 

turtles. Limited concessionaire services are offered, and would continue to be offered, at Cape Lookout 

National Seashore. Services offered include a beach shuttle service originating in the lighthouse area and 

traveling to points on South Core Banks, limited UTV tours at the northern end of North Core Banks, and 

limited vehicle transportation service from the Long Point and Great Island concession areas. Adverse 

impacts to nesting sea turtles and hatchlings from these concessionaire services would include affecting 

the beach profile and substrate characteristics in ways that reduce suitability for nesting and hatching 

success, though these impacts would be relatively small given the size of the operations and because their 

vehicles would continue to use established transportation routes including the back route. 

Several NPS past, current, and future planning efforts could also affect the sea turtles. Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore implemented a long-term ORV management plan/EIS. The plan, which includes 

restrictions on night driving, provides beneficial protection measures for nesting and hatching sea turtles 

and greatly minimizes the potential impacts on sea turtles caused by ORV and other recreational use on 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore, though some adverse impacts would still occur. 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 355

The Seashore is currently implementing the results of a predator study it conducted. The study provided 

the Seashore with long term monitoring protocols for raccoons on the Seashore and guidelines for future 

management. The Seashore will experimentally reduce the raccoon population which will help reduce the 

adverse impacts that raccoon predation has on sea turtles nests. The Seashore is also implementing a longrange interpretive plan (NPS 2011k that further articulates the purpose, significance, and themes of the 

Seashore. It is necessary to inform and guide the Seashore’s interpretive and education programs, which 

includes information about threatened and endangered species within the Seashore. By doing so it 

provides beneficial short- and long-term impacts on sea turtles. 

In 2008 NMFS and USFWS published the latest recovery plan for the loggerhead sea turtle. The plan 

indicates that North Carolina is part of the Northern Recovery Unit for the species (includes areas from 

the Florida/Georgia state boundary to southern Virginia). The plan also lays out recommended 

conservation measures for activities affecting all aspects of the loggerhead’s life history, along with the 

goal of increasing the number of loggerhead nests over a 50-year period. For the Northern Recovery Unit 

the goal is to increase the number of nests to 14,000 with North Carolina contributing 2,000 of the nests. 

Recovering the loggerhead sea turtle population through conservation measures enacted on nesting 

beaches as well as in the marine environment would have substantial short- and long-term beneficial 

impacts on the nesting population of loggerhead sea turtles at the Seashore. 

The overall combined impacts of these past, present, and future actions on sea turtles would be short- and 

long-term adverse as well as long-term beneficial. These impacts, combined with the impacts described 

under alternative A, would result in short- and long-term adverse cumulative impacts. While adverse 

effects on sea turtles from actions occurring in the region would still exist, actions under alternative A 

would provide additional protection that would be beneficial to the regional sea turtle population and 

would offset some of the adverse effects. 

ALTERNATIVE B

Impacts of Alternative B 

Resources Management Activities 

Surveying and Monitoring—Surveying for sea turtle nests/crawls and monitoring for evidence of 

hatching and the impacts of these actions under alternative B would be the same as under alternative A 

and would result in overall short- and long-term benefits to sea turtles due to the protection provided by 

daily surveys for nests during the sea turtle nesting season, marking each nest found, and expanding 

closures when turtles are hatching. Additionally, there would be more consistent training and supervision 

of resource staff who conduct the surveys. This would result in a higher quality of monitoring for the 

species, resulting in beneficial impacts. 

Relocating Nests—Similar to alternative A, relocating nests from areas prone to erosion or frequent 

flooding would provide short- and long-term beneficial impacts. While inherent risks from relocating 

nests as described under alternative A and potential adverse effects from altering the natural sex ratio and 

other hatchling characteristics in relocated nests, also described under alternative A, would still occur, the 

benefits of having relocated nests successfully hatch would outweigh these potential adverse impacts. 

Light Management—Light management activities under alternative B would be the same as under 

alternative A and would result in overall short- and long-term beneficial impacts. These would arise from 

erecting 2-foot high plywood barriers behind and to the sides of nests 10 days before the estimated hatch 

date for those nests in areas vulnerable to light pollution (i.e., in front of the cabins at Long Point and 

Great Island), prohibiting camping and beach fires in the turtle nest relocation areas, encouraging 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

356 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

concessionaires and cabin users to minimize light use, and continuing use of the back route system which 

minimizes the number of vehicles driving up and down the ocean beach. Similar to alternative A, some 

adverse impacts (false crawls and disorientation of hatchlings) from light pollution produced by campers 

and campfires outside of the turtle relocation areas would still occur. 

Predator Management—Similar to alternative A, predator exclosure cages would be placed over all 

nests. Additionally under alternative B, the Seashore, on a limited basis, would remove nonnative 

mammalian predators that have the potential to adversely impact federally listed species or species of 

special concern. The Seashore would also remove native mammalian predators, such as raccoons, on a 

limited basis when predation on federally listed or species of special concern is observed. Since 1990, 

raccoons have impacted on average eight turtle nests each year (NPS 1991, 1992, 1993b, 1994, 1995, 

1996, 1997b, 1998c, 1999b, 2000d, 2001c, 2002c, 2003b, 2004d, 2005b, 2006g, 2007j, 2008d, 2009c, 

2010c, 2010h, 2011c, 2012n). The overall impacts of raccoon predation on turtle nests has been greatly 

reduced by installing cages over the nests, limiting the number of eggs that a raccoon can reach within a 

nest. As a result few nests have been completely lost to raccoon predation. Removal of mammalian 

predators such as raccoons would further reduce the number of eggs lost to predation each year. 

Education/Public Outreach—In addition to the outreach and education measures that would be 

implemented under alternative A, under alternative B staffing levels would increase for interpretation 

positions (to provide formal outreach and on-site ORV education on the subject of protected species 

management) and law enforcement (among other duties, law enforcement assists with public education). 

The Seashore would standardize their resource closure signs, and possibly color code them for ease of 

understanding. A telephone number to report law enforcement violations would be established, and 

additional education materials about ORV regulations and species protection would be provided to the 

ferry operators to distribute. This information would be made available in the cabins on the islands. 

Additional interpretive programs related to ORV use would be added at the Seashore and maps of closure 

areas would be regularly updated online and posted throughout the Seashore where possible. All of these 

additional measures would serve to better educate ORV operators to the resource management measures 

of the Seashore as described in chapter 2 and better inform them about species protection, providing 

short- and long-term beneficial impacts. 

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

Under alternative B, the same amount of beach area would be open to ORV use as under alternative A. 

Therefore management of ORV and other recreational use under alternative B would be similar to 

alternative A, except that alternative B would also include some restrictions on night driving, as well as 

an adaptive management strategy, and a vehicle permit and operator education certificate program that 

would result in additional protection of sea turtles and hatchlings. 

Night-Driving—Under alternative B, the Seashore would be closed to all ORV use from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. 

from May 1 through August 31, except in the Great Island and Long Point cabin areas. The May 1 

through August 31 timeframe essentially encompasses the entire turtle nesting season. Since 1990 there 

have been only two nesting activities before May 1 (the earliest was on April 21) and four nesting 

activities after August 31 (the latest was on September 8) (NPS 1991, 1992, 1993b, 1994, 1995, 1996, 

1997b, 1998c, 1999b, 2000d, 2001c, 2002c, 2003b, 2004d, 2005b, 2006g, 2007j, 2008d, 2009c, 2010c, 

2010h, 2011c, 2012n). Turtle nesting and hatching occurs mostly during nighttime hours; however, on 

rare occasions these events do take place during daylight hours (Altman pers. comm. 2010a). A review of 

21 years of nesting data on Casey Key in Sarasota County, Florida showed that the majority of 

loggerhead nesting activities take place after dusk (Dusk occurs after sunset and is the time at which the 

sun is 6 degrees below the horizon in the evening. At this time objects are distinguishable, but there is no 

longer enough light to perform any outdoor activities.) and before dawn (Dawn is the time of morning at 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 357

which the sun is 6 degrees below the horizon. At this time, there is enough light for objects to be 

distinguishable and that outdoor activities can commence.) with only 1.4 percent of nesting occurring 

around dusk and no recorded nesting activities occurring during dawn (Welsh and Tucker 2009). A study 

on Masonboro Island in North Carolina found that hatchling emergence occurred mostly from 8 p.m. to 1 

a.m. with some activity before and after these times (Neville et al. 1988). 

As discussed under alternative A, ORVs can adversely impact sea turtles by causing false crawls, 

disorienting turtles with their headlights, killing them by running over them, leaving tire ruts that 

hatchlings can get trapped in, and running over turtle crawls which can obscure the tracks that help NPS 

staff identify and protect nests. Prohibiting beach driving from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. would protect turtles from 

these potential impacts, though some impacts could still occur between the hours of sunset and 9 p.m. 

Additionally, some adverse impacts could still occur to emerging hatchlings after August 31. Since 1990, 

approximately 25 percent of nests laid in areas open to ORV use (i.e., North Core and South Core Banks) 

hatched after August 31(NPS 1991, 1992, 1993b, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997b, 1998c, 1999b, 2000d, 2001c, 

2002c, 2003b, 2004d, 2005b, 2006g, 2007j, 2008d, 2009c, 2010c, 2010h, 2011c, 2012n). This means that 

for those nests in areas open to ORV use, hatchlings would still be exposed to potential adverse impacts 

from ORVs. Potential impacts after August 31 would be minimized, however, through the continued use 

of expanded buffers, light barriers around the nests, and greater compliance with closures and regulations 

through Seashore law enforcement staff conducting night patrols. 

Permit Requirements—Alternative B would include a vehicle permit and an operator education 

certificate requirement for those visitors wishing to operate an ORV on the Seashore. Permits would 

either be valid long-term (annual) or short-term (10 days), while the education certificate would be valid 

for one calendar year. The permit or certificate may also be revoked for violation of applicable Seashore 

regulations or terms and conditions of the permit. Requiring a vehicle permit and operator education 

certificate would provide beneficial impacts on sea turtles by actively educating operators about species 

protection at the Seashore and providing a deterrent (i.e., losing driving privileges) to driving behavior 

that could endanger sea turtles. While most ORV users respect sea turtle nest protection areas, since 2000 

there has been an annual average of 29 documented violations of vehicle closures for turtle nests (NPS 

2001c, 2002c, 2003b, 2004d, 2005b, 2006g, 2007j, 2008d, 2009c, 2010c, 2010h, 2011c, 2012n). Vehicles 

disregarding beach closures threaten the survival of turtle hatchlings by leaving tire ruts that can impede 

hatchlings on their way to the ocean or by running them over. The potential deterrent of losing driving 

privileges on the Seashore would likely reduce the number of closure violations, resulting in short- and 

long-term beneficial impacts. 

Adaptive Management Strategy—Under alternative B, an adaptive management strategy would be 

implemented to ensure that the goals of species protection are being met. While the American 

oystercatcher would be used as the indicator species to determine if levels of disturbance warrant 

implementing more intensive management actions, the additional management actions, if implemented, 

would provide both short- and long-term beneficial impacts for protecting sea turtles. The additional 

management actions that could be implemented under the adaptive management strategy would 

potentially include increased education and focused enforcement, which would help reduce closure 

violations that could impact sea turtles; additional trash management and fish scrap disposal, which would 

likely reduce the number of predators attracted to the beach that could prey upon sea turtle eggs and 

hatchlings; additional predator control, which would help protect nests and hatchlings from raccoons and 

other predators; ORV route restrictions and increased buffer sizes, both of which would protect beach 

nesting habitat, as well as sea turtle nests; and a reduction in the number of vehicle permits issued along 

with managing the size of the vehicle storage lots, both of which would help reduce the number of 

vehicles driving on the beach and the amount of impacts caused by ORVs. If species indicators continue 

to be triggered due to visitor use impacts for two consecutive years after implementing the previously 

mentioned actions, then reducing the number of vehicle permits issued and increasing the size of species 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

358 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

protection buffers could be implemented. These actions would reduce the number of vehicles driving on 

the beach and increase the distance vehicles could approach nests, thereby reducing the amount of 

impacts caused by ORVs and providing short- and long-term beneficial impacts to sea turtles. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative B 

The past, present, and future actions discussed under the cumulative impacts scenario for alternative A 

would be the same under alternative B. The cumulative impact of these past, present, and future actions, 

would likely be short- and long-term adverse, as well as long-term beneficial. These impacts when 

combined with the impacts of alternative B, would likely be short- and long-term adverse. While adverse 

effects on sea turtles from actions occurring in the region would still exist, actions under alternative B 

would provide additional protection that would be beneficial to the regional sea turtle population and 

would offset some of the adverse effects. 

ALTERNATIVE C

Impacts of Alternative C 

Resources Management Activities 

Surveying and Monitoring—Surveying for sea turtle nests/crawls and monitoring for evidence of 

hatching, nest protection measures, and the impacts of the actions under alternative C would be the same 

as under alternative A. Impacts from these resource management activities would result in short- and 

long-term benefits to the sea turtles due to the protection from daily surveys of nests during the sea turtle 

nesting season, marking each nest found, and expanding closures when turtles are hatching. Additionally, 

there would be more consistent training and supervision of resource staff who conduct the surveys. This 

would result in a higher quality of monitoring for the species, resulting in beneficial impacts. 

Relocating Nests—Similar to alternative A, relocating nests from areas prone to erosion or frequent 

flooding under alternative C would provide short- and long-term beneficial impacts. While inherent risks 

from relocating nests as described under alternative A and potential adverse effects from altering the 

natural sex ratio and other hatchling characteristics in relocated nests, also described under alternative A, 

would still occur, the benefits of having relocated nests successfully hatch would outweigh these potential 

adverse impacts. 

Light Management—Light management activities under alternative C would be the same as under 

alternative A and would result in overall short- and long-term beneficial impacts. These would arise from 

erecting 2-foot high plywood barriers behind and to the sides of nests 10 days before the estimated hatch 

date for those nests in areas vulnerable to light pollution (i.e., in front of the cabins at Long Point and 

Great Island), prohibiting camping and beach fires in the turtle nest relocation areas, encouraging 

concessionaires and cabin users to minimize light use, and continuing use of the back route system which 

minimizes the number of vehicles driving up and down the ocean beach. Similar to alternative A, some 

adverse impacts (false crawls and disorientation of hatchlings) from light pollution produced by campers 

and campfires outside of the turtle relocation areas would still occur. 

Predator Management—Predator management under alternative C would be the same as under 

alternative B. Predator exclosure cages would be used on all nests. There would be limited removal of 

nonnative mammalian predators that have the potential to adversely impact federally listed species or 

species of special concern and native mammalian predators (such as raccoons) would be removed on a 

limited basis when predation on federally listed or species of special concern is observed. Although 

predator exclosure cages have the small potential to damage eggs during placement or trap hatchling 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 359

during their emergence, these small adverse impacts are outweighed by the beneficial impacts of reducing 

both egg and hatchling predation that the predator management actions would have. 

Education/Public Outreach—Education and public outreach measures under alternative C would be the 

same as for alternative B, including increases in staffing levels for interpretation positions and law 

enforcement positions, and would provide short- and long-term benefits. Benefits would arise from 

standardizing information and better educating ORV and other recreational users of the resource 

management measures of the Seashore as described in chapter 2 and better informing them about species 

protection. 

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

Management of ORV and other recreational use under alternative C would be similar to alternative B, 

except that alternative C would increase the amount of pedestrian-use only areas on Seashore by about 4 

miles, would expand the restriction on night driving, and impose limits on the number of vehicle permits 

issued. These elements of alternative C would provide additional beneficial protection measures for 

nesting and hatching sea turtles as compared to both alternatives B and A. 

ORV routes under alternative C would be the same as under alternative B with the exception that 

approximately 4 miles of pedestrian-only use areas would be added to the Seashore. During the summer 

season 3.1 miles of additional pedestrian-use only area would be added (0.35 miles at Long Point Cabin 

Camp, 1.9 miles at Great Island Cabin Camp, and 0.8 miles at Codds Creek), while the year-round 

pedestrian-use only area at the lighthouse would be expanded by 0.7 miles. Taking into consideration 

annual recurring resource closures (e.g., turtle relocation areas and piping plover closures), this means 

that the amount of ocean beach available for ORV use, prior to temporary species and safety closures, 

would be approximately 74 percent (41 miles) during the summer turtle nesting season (as compared to 

81 percent [45 miles] under alternatives A and B) and approximately 79 percent (44 miles) during the rest 

of the year when ORVs are allowed on the beach (ORVs are prohibited from January 1 through 

March 15). As described under alternative A, ORV resource and safety closures historically protect an 

additional approximately 10 miles (22 percent) of the Seashore during the summer and approximately 5.4 

(12 percent) of the Seashore that would otherwise be open to ORVs and their impacts. Reducing the 

amount of beach available for ORV use increases the amount of area where nesting turtles and hatchlings 

would be free from the potential impacts of ORVs. This is especially important in the vicinity of the 

lighthouse, where on average the annual number of sea turtle nests is slightly higher than in other areas to 

the north on South Core Banks or on North Core Banks (see figure 15 under “Sea Turtles” in chapter 3). 

Night-driving—Similar to alternative B, under alternative C, the Seashore would be closed to all ORV 

use from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m.; however, under alternative C the restriction would be from May 1 through 

September 14 (extending the end date beyond August 31, which is the end date under alternative B). This 

timeframe essentially covers all of the initial nesting activities at the Seashore, as it does under alternative 

B, but unlike alternative B, it would also essentially cover the entire end of the nesting season as well, 

since September 8 is the latest nesting activity ever recorded at the Seashore. As discussed under 

alternative B, turtle nesting and hatching occurs during nighttime hours, although on extremely rare 

occasions, they do occur during daytime hours (Altman pers. comm. 2010a). Similar to alternative B, the 

restrictions placed on night driving would provide short- and long-term beneficial impacts on nesting sea 

turtles. However, hatching events continue into October; since 1990, approximately 13 percent of all nests 

laid in areas open to ORV use (i.e., North Core and South Core Banks) have hatched after September 14 

(NPS 1991, 1992, 1993b, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997b, 1998c, 1999b, 2000d, 2001c, 2002c, 2003b, 2004d, 

2005b, 2006g, 2007j, 2008d, 2009c, 2010c, 2010h, 2011c, 2012n). This means that for nests located in 

areas open to ORV use, hatchlings would be exposed to potential impacts from night driving after 

September 14. These impacts would be minimized though through the continued use of expanded buffers, 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

360 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

light barriers around the nests, and greater public compliance with closures and regulations resulting from 

Seashore law enforcement staff conducting night patrols. 

Permit Requirements—Under alternative C, vehicle permit and ORV operator education certificate 

requirements would be implemented similar to alternative B. This would result in short- and long-term 

benefits through increased education about protected species, as well as likely greater compliance with 

Seashore rules and regulations through the threat of being able to revoke an operator’s driving privileges 

on the Seashore. 

In addition, in order to manage the number of vehicles on the Seashore at any one time, a limit on the 

number of annual and 10-day permits would be established based on historical use. Placing a limit on the 

number of permits issued for ORV use on the beach would prevent the level of ORV use from increasing, 

thus preventing increased amounts of adverse impacts, compared to historical levels, on turtles and their 

habitat from ORVs. This would result in long-term beneficial impacts. However, the beneficial impacts 

contributed from the limit on vehicles to the overall beneficial impacts to sea turtles and their habitat 

under this alternative would be relatively small. This is because the other management practices that 

would be in place under this alternative, namely turtle closures and restrictions on night driving, would 

already provide substantial short- and long-term beneficial impacts on sea turtles and their habitat. 

Adaptive Management Strategy—Similar to alternative B, adaptive management strategy actions would 

be adopted under alternative C to ensure that resource protection measures are meeting their goals. The 

additional management actions that could be implemented would provide short- and long-term beneficial 

impacts on sea turtles and their habitat. Benefits would result from reducing closure violations through 

increased education and enforcement; reducing predation through fish scrap disposal and predator control 

measures; and reducing ORV impacts through route restrictions, increased buffer sizes, and limits on the 

number of vehicle permits issued, as well as managing the size of the vehicle storage lots. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative C 

The past, present, and future actions discussed under the cumulative impacts scenario for alternative A 

would be the same under alternative C. The cumulative impact of these past, present, and future actions, 

would likely be short- and long-term adverse, as well as long-term beneficial. These impacts when 

combined with the impacts of alternative C, would likely be short- and long-term adverse. While adverse 

effects on sea turtles from actions occurring in the region would still exist, actions under alternative C 

would provide additional protection that would be beneficial to the regional sea turtle population and 

would offset some of the adverse effects. 

ALTERNATIVE D

Impacts of Alternative D 

Resources Management Activities 

Surveying and Monitoring—Under alternative D, surveying for sea turtle nests/crawls and monitoring 

for evidence of hatching, as well as protection measures such as installing buffers, and the impacts of 

these actions, would be the same as under alternative A. These measures would result in short- and longterm beneficial impacts on sea turtles from the protection provided by conducting daily surveys for nests 

during the sea turtle nesting season, marking each nest found, and expanding closures when turtles are 

hatching. Additionally, there would be more consistent training and supervision of resource staff who 

conduct the surveys. This would result in a higher quality of monitoring for the species, resulting in 

beneficial impacts. 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 361

Relocating Nests—Similar to alternative A, relocating nests from areas prone to erosion or frequent 

flooding under alternative D would provide short- and long-term beneficial impacts. While inherent risks 

from relocating nests, as described under alternative A, and potential adverse effects from altering the 

natural sex ratio and other hatchling characteristics in relocated nests, also described under alternative A, 

would still occur, the benefits of having relocated nests successfully hatch would outweigh these potential 

adverse impacts. 

Light Management—Light management activities under alternative D would be the same as under 

alternative A and would result in overall short- and long-term beneficial impacts These would arise from 

erecting 2-foot high plywood barriers behind and to the sides of nests 10 days before the estimated hatch 

date for those nests in areas vulnerable to light pollution (i.e., in front of the cabins at Long Point and 

Great Island), prohibiting camping and beach fires in the turtle nest relocation areas, encouraging 

concessionaires and cabin users to minimize light use, and continuing use of the back route system which 

minimizes the number of vehicles driving up and down the ocean beach. Similar to alternative A, some 

adverse impacts (false crawls and disorientation of hatchlings) from light pollution produced by campers 

and campfires outside of the turtle relocation areas would still occur. 

Predator Management—Predator management under alternative D would be the same as alternative B. 

Predator exclosure cages would be used on all nests. There would be limited removal of nonnative 

mammalian predators that have the potential to adversely impact federally listed species or species of 

special concern. Native mammalian predators, such as raccoons, would be removed on a limited basis 

when predation on federally listed or species of special concern is observed. While predator exclosure 

cages have the small potential to damage eggs during placement or trap hatchling during their emergence, 

these small adverse impacts are outweighed by the beneficial impacts of reducing both egg and hatchling 

predation that the predator management actions would have. 

Education/Public Outreach—Education and public outreach measures under alternative D would be the 

same as under alternative B, including increases in staffing levels for interpretation positions and law 

enforcement positions, and would provide short- and long-term benefits. Benefits would arise from 

standardizing information and better educating ORV and other recreational users of the resource 

management measures of the Seashore as described in chapter 2 and better informing them about species 

protection. 

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

Management of ORVs and other recreational uses under alternative D would be similar to alternative C, 

except the amount of pedestrian-only use areas at the Seashore would increase. When compared to 

alternative A, alternative D would add 10 miles of pedestrian-only use areas where as alternative C would 

only add 4 miles. 

Under alternative D, ORV routes and pedestrian-only use areas would include those areas under 

alternative C except the closures at Long Point, Great Island, and Codds Creek would be pedestrian-only 

use areas year-round instead of just during the summer, as under alternative C. Alternative D would also 

create about 0.5 miles of summertime pedestrian-only use area at Johnsons Creek, and the 3.6 miles of 

Middle Core Banks would be a pedestrian-only use area during the summer whether or not it is 

contiguous with North Core Banks (currently it is an island). The ocean beach from the Portsmouth 

Access Road north to the demarcation line at Ocracoke Inlet would also become a summer pedestrianonly use area. In addition, the year-round pedestrian-only use area in front of the lighthouse would be 

expanded approximately 0.9 miles to the south, for a total closure of approximately 1.6 miles, or 0.9 miles 

larger than under alternative A and 0.2 miles larger than under alternative C. Adding these pedestrianonly use areas would reduce the amount of Seashore beaches open to ORV use. About 63 percent (35 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

362 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

miles) of the beach, prior to temporary species and safety closures, would be open to ORV use during the 

majority of the sea turtle summer nesting season, while about 73 percent (41 miles) of the beach would be 

open to ORV use during the rest of the year when ORV use is permitted. As described under alternative 

A, ORV resource and safety closures on average historically protect an additional approximately 10 miles 

(22 percent) of the Seashore during the summer and approximately 5.4 (12 percent) of the Seashore that 

would otherwise be open to ORVs and their impacts. The additional pedestrian-only use areas under 

alternative D would provide additional protection for nesting and hatching sea turtles by removing 

potential impacts from ORVs in these areas. This is especially important in the vicinity of the lighthouse 

where on average the annual number of sea turtle nests is slightly higher than in other areas to the north 

on South Core Banks or on North Core Banks (see figure 15 under “Sea Turtles” in chapter 3). 

Night-Driving—Under alternative D, restrictions on night driving would be the same as under alternative 

C and would provide the same short- and long-term beneficial impacts on nesting and emerging hatchling 

sea turtles as described under alternative C. These benefits include reducing the potential ORVs have to 

cause false crawls; to run over nesting turtles, nests laid that night, and hatchlings; the likelihood that 

crawl tracks would be run over and obscured prior to NPS staff finding them during their morning turtle 

patrols; to cause light pollution from headlights; and produce additional tire tracks after NPS staff have 

raked them smooth that hatchlings could become trapped in. However, similar to alternative C, hatchlings 

emerging after September 14 from nests located in areas open to ORVs (i.e., North Core and South Core 

Banks) would be subject to nighttime impacts from ORVs since nighttime driving restrictions end on that 

date. As noted under alternative C, this would affect approximately 13 percent of the nests laid on North 

Core and South Core Banks. Potential impacts would be minimized through the continued use of 

expanded buffers, light barriers around the nests, and greater public compliance with closures and 

regulations due to Seashore law enforcement staff conducting night patrols. 

Permit Requirements—Under alternative D, vehicle permit and ORV operator education certificate 

requirements would be implemented similar to alternative B and would result in short- and long-term 

benefits through increased education about protected species, as well as likely greater compliance with 

Seashore rules and regulations through the threat of being able to revoke an operator’s driving privileges 

on the Seashore. 

Similar to alternative C, a limit on the number of annual and 10-day vehicle permits would be established 

under alternative D. As discussed under alternative C, placing a limit on the number of vehicles that can 

access the beaches would provide long-term beneficial impacts, though the contribution to the overall 

beneficial impacts on sea turtles realized under this alternative would be relatively small. This is because 

other management actions which would provide substantial short- and long-term benefits, namely 

resource buffers and night driving restrictions. However, the beneficial impact that limits would have on 

sea turtles under alternative D would be slightly more than alternative C, since the limit would be slightly 

lower, further limiting the number of vehicles on the Seashore at any one time. 

Adaptive Management Strategy—Similar to alternative B, adaptive management strategy actions would 

be adopted under alternative D to ensure that resource protection measures are meeting their goals. The 

additional management actions that could be implemented would provide short- and long-term beneficial 

impacts on sea turtles and their habitat. Benefits would result from reducing closure violations through 

increased education and enforcement; reducing predation through fish scrap disposal and predator control 

measures; and reducing ORV impacts through route restrictions, increased buffer sizes, and limits on the 

number of vehicle permits issued, as well as managing the size of the vehicle storage lots. 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 363

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative D 

The past, present, and future actions discussed under the cumulative impacts scenario for alternative A 

would be the same under alternative D. The cumulative impact of these past, present, and future actions, 

would likely be short- and long-term adverse, as well as long-term beneficial. These impacts when 

combined with the impacts of alternative D, would likely be short- and long-term adverse. While adverse 

effects on sea turtles from actions occurring in the region would still exist, actions under alternative D 

would provide additional protection that would be beneficial to the regional sea turtle population and 

would offset some of the adverse effects. 

ALTERNATIVE E

Impacts of Alternative E 

Resources Management Activities 

Surveying and Monitoring—Though public use of ORVs would be prohibited on the Seashore under 

alternative E, the NPS would still use ORVs to conduct resource management and resource and visitor 

protection activities. Surveying for and protecting sea turtle nests and hatchlings under alternative E 

would occur in the same manner as under alternative A. Therefore, surveying for sea turtle nests/crawls 

and monitoring for evidence of hatching, as well as establishing buffers around nests, and the impacts of 

these actions, would be the same as under alternative A and result in short- and long-term beneficial 

impacts on sea turtles. Impacts would result from the protection provided to sea turtles from daily surveys 

for nests during the sea turtle nesting season, marking each nest found, and expanding closures when 

turtles are hatching to protect nests and hatchlings from potential pedestrian impacts. However, with 

impacts from recreational ORVs eliminated and impacts from pedestrians reduced because of the more 

difficult access to areas further away from the arrival points with no recreational ORV use, surveying and 

monitoring protocols by NPS staff would be reviewed and may change. 

Relocating Nests—Similar to alternative A, relocating nests from areas prone to erosion or frequent 

flooding under alternative E would provide short- and long-term beneficial impacts. While inherent risks 

from relocating nests as described under alternative A and potential adverse effects from altering the 

natural sex ratio and other hatchling characteristics in relocated nests, also described under alternative A, 

would still occur, the benefits of having relocated nests successfully hatch would outweigh these potential 

adverse impacts. 

Light Management—Though light impacts from ORVs would be eliminated, light management 

activities would still be implemented under alternative E due to potential impacts from light pollution 

related to camping, campfires, and use of the cabins. As they relate to these activities, light management 

measures under alternative E would be the same as under alternative A and would result in overall shortand long-term beneficial impacts. These would arise from erecting 2-foot high plywood barriers behind 

and to the sides of nests 10 days before the estimated hatch date for those nests in areas vulnerable to light 

pollution (i.e., in front of the cabins at Long Point and Great Island), prohibiting camping and beach fires 

in the turtle nest relocation areas, and encouraging concessionaires and cabin users to minimize light use. 

Similar to alternative A, some adverse impacts (false crawls and disorientation of hatchlings) from light 

pollution produced by campers and campfires outside of the turtle relocation areas would still occur. 

However, with no ORV use to provide easy access to remote locations along the beach, the areas where 

camping and campfires would occur and could impact sea turtles through light pollution would be 

reduced.
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

364 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Predator Management—Predator management under alternative E would be the same as under 

alternative A. While predator exclosures have the small potential to damage eggs during placement or trap 

hatchlings during their emergence, these small adverse impacts are outweighed by the short- and longterm beneficial impacts of reducing both egg and hatchling predation that the predator exclosures provide. 

Education/Public Outreach—Education and public outreach measures under alternative E would be 

similar to those under alternative A, but would only focus on pedestrian use since ORV use would not be 

permitted at the Seashore. Short- and long-term beneficial impacts on sea turtles would result from 

educating the public about the species and the resource management measures of the Seashore to protect 

the species as described in chapter 2. 

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

Under alternative E the public use of ORVs would be prohibited on the entire Seashore (all 56 miles), not 

just Shackleford Banks. However, other recreation use on the ocean beach such as swimming, camping, 

beach fires, fishing, and the use of the cabins would still occur, though likely at a reduced rate and in 

general proximity to the ferry landing sites. With no public use of ORVs on the beach, the impacts on 

nesting sea turtles and hatchlings caused by ORVs, as discussed under alternative A, would not occur. 

ORVs would not compact the sand making it more difficult for turtles to dig their nest cavities, they 

would not contribute to erosion, nor would vehicle violations of closures occur, eliminating the potential 

that nests or hatchlings would be run over or that vehicle ruts would be left behind that could trap 

hatchlings on their way to the ocean. Any false crawls or disorientation of hatchlings caused by the 

presence of vehicles on the beach at night would be eliminated as well. Eliminating all of these potential 

impacts would result in short- and long-term beneficial impacts. 

Prohibiting camping and beach fires in the nest relocation areas would help protect hatchlings and nesting 

turtles in those areas from artificial light pollution; however, throughout the rest of the Seashore these 

activities would not be prohibited and could contribute to false crawls in nesting adults or disorientation 

in hatchlings. However, because ORVs would not be allowed on the Seashore, the ability to carry wood 

and other supplies to remote areas of the ocean beach would be greatly reduced, likely limiting the areas 

impacted to those that are readily accessible by foot, such as areas in front of the cabins or the lighthouse, 

and possibly Power Squadron Spit, which is readily accessible by private boat. There would be no change 

in impacts on Shackleford Banks since ORVs are already prohibited on that island. Encouraging cabin 

users to minimize light use would help minimize light pollution on the beach in these areas. Some 

vandalism of turtle closures or nests by pedestrians might still occur. Such violations could result in direct 

impacts on nests as have occurred in the past, or could result in footprints left in the sand that could trap 

hatchlings as they try to make their way to the ocean. However, as discussed previously, incidences of 

vandalism are currently rare, and due to the limited access to the remote sections of the beach with the 

prohibition of ORVs under this alternative, they would likely become even more rare. 

Adaptive Management Strategy—Under alternative E, an adaptive management strategy would be 

adopted similar to that under alternative B, to ensure that the goals of species protection are being met, 

providing short- and long-term beneficial impacts to sea turtles. With no public ORV use allowed on the 

Seashore under alternative E, American oystercatcher disturbance would be monitored as it relates to 

impacts from pedestrians and other recreational use and not from ORVs and only those non-ORV 

management actions indicated in chapter 2 would be implemented. The additional management actions 

that could be implemented include increased education and focused enforcement, which would help 

reduce closure violations that could impact sea turtles; additional trash management and fish scrap 

disposal, which would likely reduce the number of predators attracted to the beach that could prey upon 

sea turtle eggs and hatchlings; additional predator control, which would help protect nests and hatchlings 

from raccoons and other predators; and increased buffer sizes, would protect beach nesting habitat, as 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 365

well as sea turtle nests. If species indicators continue to be triggered due to visitor use impacts for two 

consecutive years after implementing the previously mentioned actions, increasing the size of species 

protection buffers could be implemented. This action would increase the distance visitors could approach 

nests providing some short- and long-term beneficial impacts to sea turtles, especially if closure violations 

occur.

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative E 

Cumulative impacts on sea turtles under alternative E would be the same as those described for alternative 

A. The cumulative impact of these past, present, and future actions, would likely be short- and long-term 

adverse as well as long-term beneficial. These impacts when combined with the impacts of alternative E, 

would likely be short- and long-term beneficial with the added protection for sea turtles by prohibiting 

ORV use under alternative E offsetting some of the regional adverse effects. 

DETERMINATION OF EFFECT

Alternative A 

Under alternative A, resource management activities would result in substantial short- and long-term 

benefits to sea turtles. Benefits would be due to the protection provided to sea turtles from daily surveys 

for nests during the sea turtle nesting season (between May 1 and September 15), marking each nest 

found, expanding closures when turtles are hatching, and installing light barriers around nests vulnerable 

to light pollution (i.e., in front of the cabins located at Long Point and Great Island) 10 days prior to the 

estimated hatch date. Relocating nests from areas prone to erosion or frequent flooding, and prohibiting 

ORV use, as well as camping and campfires in the relocation areas, would also contribute to the 

beneficial effects. However, some adverse impacts from light pollution associated with camping and 

campfires outside of the relocation areas would cause some short- and long-term adverse impacts on 

nesting turtles and hatchlings. 

ORV and other recreational use would have short- and long-term adverse impacts on sea turtles due to the 

amount of Seashore available for ORV use (approximately 81 percent [45 miles] prior to any subsequent 

resource or safety closures) and by allowing nighttime driving on the beach. ORV and other recreational 

uses would have impacts on sea turtles by affecting the beach profile and substrate characteristics in ways 

that reduce suitability for nesting and hatching success, likely continued closure violations and on rare 

occasion vandalism of turtle closures, and impacts caused by night driving and campfires. Under the ESA, 

these impacts would result in a finding of may affect/are likely to adversely affect sea turtles because the 

actions would result in direct or indirect impacts to the sea turtle species that are not discountable, 

insignificant, or beneficial. Though there would be beneficial impacts from resource management 

activities, the actions under alternative A would also likely cause adverse effects. 

Alternative B 

Under alternative B, resource management activities would result in substantial short- and long-term 

benefits. Benefits would be due to the protection provided to sea turtles from daily surveys for nests 

during the sea turtle nesting season, marking each nest found, expanding closures when turtles are 

hatching, and installing light barriers around nests vulnerable to light pollution (i.e., in front of the cabins 

located at Long Point and Great Island) 10 days prior to the estimated hatch date, removing mammalian 

predators, requiring ORV users to obtain a vehicle permit and an operator education certificate, and 

increasing compliance with rules and regulations through the threat of revoking a vehicle permit or ORV 

operator certificate as well as increased enforcement and education through increased staffing levels in 

law enforcement and interpretation positions, respectively. Relocating nests from areas prone to erosion 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

366 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

or frequent flooding, and prohibiting ORV use, as well as camping and campfires in the nest relocation 

areas would also contribute to the beneficial effects. However, some adverse impacts from light pollution 

associated with camping and campfires outside of the relocation areas would cause some short- and longterm adverse impacts on nesting turtles and hatchlings. 

ORV and other recreational use under alternative B would have short- and long-term adverse impacts on 

sea turtles by affecting the beach profile and substrate characteristics in ways that reduce suitability for 

nesting and hatching success, impacts caused by camping and campfires, and likely continued closure 

violations and on rare occasion vandalism of turtle closures. However, increased staffing levels of law 

enforcement and interpretation positions would help reduce noncompliance through increased 

enforcement and education. Being able to revoke an ORV operator’s education certificate or vehicle 

permit would also help reduce closure and other violations. Prohibiting ORV nighttime driving from 9 

p.m. to 6 a.m. from May 1 through August 31, and conducting night patrols would substantially reduce 

ORV impacts on adult and hatchling turtles caused by night driving during this timeframe. However, 

hatchlings in nests in areas open to ORV use after August 31 (approximately 25 percent of nests laid on 

North Core and South Core Banks have hatched after August 31 since 1990) would still be subject to 

adverse night driving impacts. In addition, managing the number of vehicles on the beach and 

implementing additional protection measures under the adaptive management strategy if resource 

protection goals are not achieving the desired results would also enhance protection of sea turtles and 

provide beneficial impacts. Under the ESA, these impacts would result in a finding of may affect/are 

likely to adversely affect sea turtles because the actions would result in direct or indirect impacts to the sea 

turtle species that are not discountable, insignificant, or beneficial. Though there would be beneficial 

impacts from resource management activities and restrictions on ORV nighttime driving, the actions 

under alternative B would also likely cause adverse effects. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C resource management activities would result in substantial short- and long-term benefits 

due to the protection provided to sea turtles from daily surveys for nests during the sea turtle nesting 

season, marking each nest found, expanding closures when turtles are hatching, and installing light 

barriers around nests vulnerable to light pollution (i.e., in front of the cabins at Long Point and Great 

Island) 10 days prior to the estimated hatch date, removing mammalian predators, requiring ORV users to 

obtain a vehicle permit and an operator education certificate, and increasing compliance with rules and 

regulations through the threat of revoking a vehicle permit or ORV operator certificate as well as 

increased enforcement and education through increased staffing levels in law enforcement and 

interpretation positions, respectively. Relocating nests from areas prone to erosion or frequent flooding, 

and prohibiting ORV use, as well as camping and campfires in the relocation areas. However, some 

adverse impacts from light pollution associated with camping and campfires outside of the relocation 

areas would cause some short- and long-term adverse impacts on nesting turtles and hatchlings. 

ORV and other recreational use under alternative C would have short- and long-term adverse impacts on 

sea turtles by affecting the beach profile and substrate characteristics in ways that reduce suitability for 

nesting and hatching success, impacts caused by campfires, and likely continued closure violations and on 

rare occasion vandalism of turtle closures. However, increased staffing levels of law enforcement and 

interpretation positions would help reduce noncompliance through increased enforcement and education. 

Being able to revoke an ORV operator’s education certificate or vehicle permit would also help reduce 

closure and other violations. These adverse impacts would be reduced by increasing the amount of 

pedestrian-only use areas by about 4 miles and restricting public ORV nighttime driving from 9 p.m. to 6 

a.m. from May 1 through September 14. However, hatchlings emerging from nests after September 14 in 

areas open to ORV use (approximately 13 percent of nests laid on North Core and South Core Banks have 

hatched after September 14 since 1990) would still be subject to adverse impacts from night driving. 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 367

Managing the number of vehicles on the beach and implementing additional protection measures under an 

adaptive management strategy if resource protection goals are not achieving the desired results would also 

enhance protection of sea turtles and provide beneficial impacts. Under the ESA, these impacts would 

result in a finding of may affect/are likely to adversely affect sea turtles because the actions would result 

in direct or indirect impacts to the sea turtle species that are not discountable, insignificant, or beneficial. 

Though there would be beneficial impacts from resource management activities, the use of vehicle 

permits, a limit on the number of vehicle permits issued, and restrictions on ORV nighttime driving, the 

actions under alternative C would also likely cause adverse effects. 

Alternative D 

Under alternative D, resource management activities would result in substantial short- and long-term 

benefits due to the protection provided to sea turtles from daily surveys for nests during the sea turtle 

nesting season, marking each nest found, expanding closures when turtles are hatching, and installing 

light barriers around nests vulnerable to light pollution (i.e., in front of the cabins at Long Point and Great 

Island) 10 days prior to the estimated hatch date, removing mammalian predators, requiring ORV users to 

obtain a vehicle permit and an operator education certificate, and increasing compliance with rules and 

regulations through the threat of revoking a vehicle permit or ORV operator certificate as well as 

increased enforcement and education through increased staffing levels in law enforcement and 

interpretation positions, respectively. Relocating nests from areas prone to erosion or frequent flooding, 

and prohibiting ORV use, as well as camping and campfires in the relocation areas. However, some 

adverse impacts from light pollution associated with camping and campfires outside of the relocation 

areas would cause some short- and long-term adverse impacts on nesting turtles and hatchlings with some 

small additional benefits by further limiting the number of vehicles on the Seashore at any one time. 

ORV and other recreational use under alternative D would have short- and long-term adverse impacts on 

sea turtles by affecting the beach profile and substrate characteristics in ways that reduce suitability for 

nesting and hatching success, impacts from campfires, and likely continued closure violations and on rare 

occasion vandalism of turtle closures. However, increased staffing levels of law enforcement and 

interpretation positions would help reduce noncompliance through increased enforcement and education. 

Being able to revoke an ORV operator’s education certificate or vehicle permit would also help reduce 

closure and other violations. Additionally, impacts would be reduced by increasing the amount of 

pedestrian-only use areas by 10 miles. Prohibiting public ORV nighttime driving from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. 

from May 1 through September 14 would eliminate impacts on adult and hatchling turtles caused by night 

driving during this timeframe, though hatchlings in nests in areas open to ORV use after September 14 

would still be subject to some adverse night driving impacts (approximately 13 percent of nests laid on 

North Core and South Core Banks have hatched after September 14 since 1990). Managing the number of 

vehicles on the beach and implementing additional protection measures under an adaptive management 

strategy if resource protection goals are not achieving the desired results would also enhance protection of 

sea turtles and provide beneficial impacts. Under the ESA, these impacts would result in a finding of may 

affect/are likely to adversely affect sea turtles because the actions would result in direct or indirect 

impacts to the sea turtle species that are not discountable, insignificant, or beneficial. Though there would 

be beneficial impacts from resource management activities, restrictions on ORV nighttime driving, the 

use of vehicle permits, a limit on the number of vehicle permits issued, the actions under alternative D 

would also likely cause adverse effects. 

Alternative E 

Under alternative E, resource management activities would result in short- and long-term benefits. 

Benefits would be due to the protection provided to sea turtles from daily surveys for nests during the sea 

turtle nesting season, marking each nest found, expanding closures when turtles are hatching, and 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

368 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

installing light barriers around nests vulnerable to light pollution (i.e., in front of the cabins at Long Point 

and Great Island) 10 days prior to the estimated hatch date. Relocating nests from areas prone to erosion 

or frequent flooding and prohibiting camping and campfires in the relocation areas would also contribute 

to the beneficial effects. However, some adverse impacts from light pollution associated with camping 

and campfires outside of the relocation areas would cause some short- and long-term adverse impacts on 

nesting turtles and hatchlings, though given the reduced access to the beach with no ORV use, these 

impacts would be reduced. 

Prohibiting public ORV use throughout the entire Seashore, not just on Shackleford Banks would provide 

protection for sea turtles by eliminating adverse impacts from public ORV use. Though very rare, some 

pedestrian vandalism of resource closures would continue to occur causing some small amount of adverse 

impacts. However, the number of occurrences would likely become even rarer due to limited access to the 

ocean beach with no ORV use. Additionally, if species protection goals are not being met, the Seashore 

would implement additional intensive management actions under an adaptive management strategy, such 

as increased education and focused enforcement, additional trash management and fish scrap disposal, 

additional predator control, and increased buffer sizes. All of these measures would help mitigate/reduce 

the potential for long-term adverse impacts due to pedestrian use of the Seashore. Under the ESA, these 

impacts would result in a finding of may affect/not likely to adversely affect sea turtles because the actions 

would result in direct or indirect impacts to the sea turtle species that are discountable, insignificant, or 

beneficial.

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource management activities proposed under alternative B would provide slightly more beneficial 

impacts to sea turtles than those proposed under alternative A (the no-action alternative) because there 

would be more consistent training and supervision of resource staff who conduct the surveys, the limited 

removal of native and nonnative mammalian predators, and the increased education and public outreach 

measures that would be implemented under alternative B. In comparison to alternative E (the no ORV 

alternative), the limited removal of native and nonnative mammalian predators under alternative B would 

provide slightly more beneficial impacts to sea turtles than alternative E. Adverse impacts from ORV use 

and other recreational uses under alternative B would be less than those incurred under alternative A. This 

is due to the night driving restrictions that would be put into place under alternative B from 9 p.m. to 

6 a.m. from May 1 through August 31, the additional management measures that could be implemented 

under the adaptive management strategy if species indicators are triggered, the vehicle permit system, the 

ORV operator education certificate requirement, and the likely increased compliance with resource 

closures due to additional law enforcement and interpretative staffing positions. However, adverse 

impacts from ORV use and other recreational uses under alternative B would be greater than those under 

alternative E. This is because no ORV use would be allowed on the Seashore under alternative E, 

eliminating all impacts on sea turtles from ORV use and reducing impacts from other recreational uses 

due to the reduced access to the beaches without ORVs. 

Resource management activities under alternative C would provide slightly more beneficial impacts on 

sea turtles than they would under alternative A (the no-action alternative). This is because there would be 

more consistent training and supervision of resource staff who conduct the surveys, limited removal of 

native and nonnative mammalian predators, and increased education and public outreach measures that 

would be implemented under alternative C. In comparison to alternative E (the no ORV alternative), the 

limited removal of native and nonnative mammalian predators under alternative C would provide slightly 

more beneficial impacts to sea turtles than alternative E. Adverse impacts from ORV use and other 

recreational uses under alternative C would be less than those incurred under alternative A. This is due to 

the expansion of pedestrian-only use areas by 4 miles, night time driving restrictions from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. 

from May 1 through September 14, the additional management measures that could be implemented 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 369

under the adaptive management strategy if species indicators are triggered, the likely increased 

compliance with resource closures due to increased law enforcement and interpretative staffing positions, 

the vehicle permit system, the ORV operator education certificate requirement, and the limit on the 

number of vehicle permits that would be issued. However, adverse impacts from ORV use and other 

recreational uses under alternative C would be greater than those under alternative E. This is because no 

ORV use would be allowed on the Seashore under alternative E eliminating all impacts on sea turtles 

from ORV use and reducing impacts from other recreational uses due to the reduced access to the beaches 

without ORVs. 

Resource management activities under alternative D would provide slightly more beneficial impacts on 

sea turtles than they would under alternative A (the no-action alternative). This is because there would be 

more consistent training and supervision of resource staff who conduct the surveys, limited removal of 

native and nonnative mammalian predators, and increased education and public outreach measures that 

would be implemented under alternative D. In comparison to alternative E (the no ORV alternative), the 

limited removal of native and nonnative mammalian predators under alternative C would provide slightly 

more beneficial impacts to sea turtles than alternative E. Adverse impacts from ORV use and other 

recreational uses under alternative D would be less than those incurred under alternative A. This is due to 

the expansion of pedestrian-only use areas by 10 miles, night time driving restrictions from 9 p.m. to 6 

a.m. from May 1 through September 14, the additional management measures that could be implemented 

under the adaptive management strategy if species indicators are triggered, the likely increased 

compliance with resource closures due to increased law enforcement and interpretative staffing positions, 

the vehicle permit system, the ORV operator education certificate requirement, and the limit on the 

number of vehicle permits that would be issued. Compared to alternative E, adverse impacts from ORV 

use and other recreational uses under alternative D would be greater. This is because no ORV use would 

be allowed on the Seashore under alternative E eliminating all impacts on sea turtles from ORV use and 

reducing impacts from other recreational uses due to the reduced access to the beaches without ORVs. 

The resource management activities proposed for alternative E (the no ORV alternative) are the same 

activities proposed for alternative A (the no-action alternative) and their impacts would be the same. 

However, unlike alternative A, under alternative E there would be no public ORV use on the Seashore 

and surveying and monitoring protocols would be reviewed and may change due to the elimination of 

impacts from recreational ORV use and a reduction in the amount of impacts from pedestrians. Under 

alternative A, the North and South Core Banks of the Seashore would remain open to ORV use in 

designated routes and areas (as documented in the Superintendent’s Compendium), except where resource 

or safety closures are present. There would be no night driving restrictions under alternative A and no 

permitting system for ORV use at the Seashore. Therefore, when compared to alternative A, alternative E 

would provide more protection to sea turtles because there would be no impacts related to ORV use and 

impacts related to other recreational uses would be reduced due to limited access to the ocean front 

beaches with no ORV use. 

CONCLUSION

Overall, impacts on sea turtles from ORVs and other recreational uses under alternatives A, B, C, and D, 

are expected to be long-term and adverse, although compared to the existing condition, the proposed 

changes under each alternative would be beneficial. Surveying for sea turtle nests/crawls and monitoring 

for evidence of hatching, as well as nest protection measures would be the same under all of the 

alternatives (alternatives A, B, C, D, and E) and would provide short- and long-term benefits. Benefits 

would be due to the protection provided to sea turtles from daily surveys for nests conducted during the 

sea turtle nesting season (between May 1 and September 15), marking each nest found, expanding 

closures when turtles are hatching, and installing light barriers to protect nests and hatchlings from light 

pollution 10 days prior to the estimated hatch date. Other actions to benefit turtle populations include 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

370 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

relocating nests from areas prone to erosion or frequent flooding, and prohibiting ORV use, camping, and 

campfires in the relocation areas. Selected removal of mammalian predators under alternatives B, C, and 

D would provide additional beneficial impacts compared to alternatives A and E. 

Under alternatives B, C, and D, requiring vehicle permits and revocable ORV user education certificates 

would enhance compliance with Seashore rules and regulations providing additional beneficial impacts 

not realized under alternative A. The beneficial impacts from these resource management activities would 

not be as beneficial as alternative E, which would prohibit nonessential recreational ORV use and 

associated impacts altogether at the Seashore. 

Alternatives C and D would provide slightly more long-term benefits to sea turtle populations through the 

use of vehicle capacity limits compared to alternative A, which alternative B would not provide. For 

alternatives B, C, and D, if species indicators are triggered under the adaptive management strategy 

(increased education and focused enforcement which would help reduce closure violations; fish scrap 

disposal, which would likely reduce the number of mammalian predators attracted to the beach; route 

restrictions; increased buffer sizes; and a limit on the number of vehicles) the additional management 

actions to be implemented would help protect sea turtle nests, hatchlings, and beach habitat. 

Under alternatives A, B, C, and D, ORV use on the Seashore would be allowed, which would result in 

short- and long-term adverse impacts on sea turtles. Impacts would result from disturbing (i.e., causing 

false crawls or disorienting hatchling) or injuring adult nesting female sea turtles, hatchlings, and live 

stranded sea turtles due to ORV use and other activities (i.e., pedestrian and pet use). ORVs would affect 

the beach profile and substrate characteristics in ways that reduce suitability for nesting and hatching 

success. The ORV impacts under alternatives C and D would be less than alternatives A and B because 

there would be more pedestrian-only use areas (additional 4 miles under alternative C and additional 10 

miles under alternative D). 

Alternatives B, C, and D would provide short- and long-term beneficial impacts by restricting night 

driving. Although all three alternatives would restrict driving from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m., alternative B would 

do so from May 1 through August 31, whereas the restriction would be extended to September 14 under 

alternatives C and D; encompassing more of the hatching period. Adverse impacts that would be avoided 

with these restrictions include potential false crawls caused by ORVs, disorientation of hatchlings from 

vehicle headlights, the potential to run over adult nesting or hatchling turtles, leaving of tire ruts at night 

that hatchlings can get trapped in, and driving over nesting turtle crawls and obscuring them from 

detection – which could cause a nest to go unprotected. However, since hatching events continue until 

October, nests located in areas open to ORVs would still be subject to adverse impacts from night driving 

on hatchlings once the night driving restrictions are lifted. 

By prohibiting nonessential recreational ORV use throughout the entire Seashore, alternative E would 

provide more protection for sea turtles than alternatives A, B, C, and D. Although it is expected some 

Seashore violations and vandalism of resource closures would continue to occur, the number of these 

occurrences would be reduced under alternative E, compared to all of the other alternatives, due to the 

limited access to the ocean beach with no ORV use. 

Significance Discussion 

The purpose of the Seashore is to preserve the outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational resources 

and values of a dynamic, intact, natural barrier island system where ecological processes dominate. The 

Seashore is one of the few remaining locations on the Atlantic Coast where visitors can experience and 

recreate in an undeveloped, remote barrier island environment that can be reached only by boat or ferry. 

Five of the seven sea turtle species existing in the world today occur in the coastal waters of North 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 371

Carolina and the Seashore, and all are listed as either federally threatened or endangered. Although five 

threatened or endangered sea turtle species occur in the waters of North Carolina, only three species, the 

loggerhead, green, and leatherback, are known to regularly nest at the Seashore. Therefore, this 

significance discussion only focuses on those three species. In 1978, the loggerhead turtle was federally 

listed as threatened throughout its range. Additionally, in March 2013, the USFWS proposed designating 

739.3 miles of loggerhead sea turtle nesting beaches located in the coastal counties from North Carolina 

to Mississippi as critical habitat; however, the beaches of the Seashore are not included in this proposed 

designation. In 1978, the green turtle was federally listed as threatened along North Carolina waters, and 

the leatherback was listed as federally endangered in 1970. Since 1990, the number of sea turtle nests at 

the Seashore has averaged 135 nests, ranging from a low of 77 in 2004 to a peak of 242 in 1999. Within 

the Seashore, the greatest annual number of sea turtle nests are at South Core Banks (53 percent of the 

total nests); 34 percent of the sea turtle nests are at North Core Banks; and 13 percent of the sea turtle 

nests are at Shackleford Banks. The loggerhead sea turtle is the only species for which recovery criteria 

are designated for the state of North Carolina in its recovery plan. The greatest concern to sea turtles is the 

impacts to nests and hatchlings, in the form of light pollution, erosion, flooding, ORVs, and predators. 

Sea turtles at the Seashore currently receive substantial protections, which continue under all alternatives. 

Adverse impacts to sea turtles across all the alternatives would overall be small, as described in the 

impacts analysis above. Although there may be occasional adverse impacts to individual species, under all 

alternatives the Seashore would conduct extensive monitoring for sea turtle crawls and nests from May 1 

through November 15. Turtle nests are marked by NPS staff to improve visibility and to prevent being 

run over by ORVs. NPS staff also establish actual ORV closures around nests, or, if not practical, 

establish ramp-to-ramp ORV closures. These two measures protect nests from being run over and provide 

a large area undisturbed by tire tracks, which eliminate the potential for hatchlings to become trapped or 

disoriented as they make their way to the ocean. These measures result in substantial protections for all 

turtle nests detected during their critical periods of incubation and hatching. There are some overlap 

protections from buffer closures of other species, depending on buffer size, location, and duration, as well 

as resource closures that close the beach to ORVs. Historically, these closures have averaged between 5 

and 14 miles in the summer season (May through August), and between 3.5 and 8 miles in the fall season 

(September through November). The Seashore also establishes six relocation areas on North Core and 

South Core Banks during the nesting period, which are closed to ORV traffic, camping, and campfires. 

Although a small number of documented closure violations have been noted since 2001, there has never 

been a recorded death of a nesting sea turtle at the Seashore due to being struck by an ORV. There would 

be no significant impacts to sea turtles under alternative A, as the impacts to sea turtles are generally 

minor, as described above. The current species protection measures are substantial, and the action simply 

formalizes ORV routes that exist under the current condition. Under alternatives B, C, and D, additional 

protections for sea turtles, above and beyond the no-action alternative and existing condition, include light 

pollution mitigation measures, a ban on night driving, focused predator management, a permit system that 

limits ORV numbers in alternatives C and D, ORV route restrictions and reductions, creation of 

additional pedestrian-only areas, ATV and UTV restrictions, and adaptive management strategies. These 

additional measures under alternatives B, C, and D would primarily result in increased protections and 

beneficial impacts to sea turtles, as described in detail in the impacts analysis above. Accordingly, there 

are no significant adverse impacts to sea turtles under alternatives B, C, and D because the impacts to sea 

turtles are generally minor, the current species protection measures are substantial, and the action simply 

formalizes existing ORV routes. Under alternative E, ORV use is not allowed, which eliminates the 

majority of potential adverse impacts to sea turtles from ORVs. This is a beneficial change for sea turtles 

compared to the existing condition, essentially eliminating adverse impacts from ORVs, and does not 

result in significant adverse impacts. 

Under alternatives A, B, C, and D, designating legal routes for ORV use does not establish a precedent for 

future actions with significant effects, because ORV use has occurred at the Seashore since the 1930s and 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

372 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

continued since the establishment of the Seashore as a park unit in 1976, and the current and proposed 

species protection measures are substantial, resulting in a low overall level of impacts to sea turtles. ORV 

use is currently legally permitted in several other national seashores and recreation areas, and in this 

regard is not precedent-setting within the national park system. As described above, ORV use also does 

not cause significant impacts to sea turtles, in part because of the substantial resource protection and 

mitigation measures taken by the Seashore, as well as the adaptive management strategy in alternatives B, 

C, and D, which would further strengthen mitigation measures and even limit use if certain indicators are 

triggered. Alternative E, which prohibits ORV use, would not establish a precedent for future actions with 

significant effects to sea turtles because many other national park units do not allow ORV use. 

There are a number of cumulative impacts to sea turtles, described in the impacts analysis above, which 

may be both short and long-term adverse as well as long-term beneficial. However, while adverse effects 

on sea turtles from past and on-going actions occurring in the region could be significant, actions under 

alternatives A, B, C, D, and E would provide additional protections that would be beneficial to the 

regional sea turtle population, and would mitigate any significant adverse cumulative impacts already 

occurring. 

In conclusion, compared to the existing condition, additional impacts to sea turtles under alternatives A, 

B, C, D, and E would be small. The Seashore currently has in place substantial resource protection and 

mitigation measures that would continue and would be strengthened in the action alternatives. When 

compared to existing condition, in light of the significance criteria at 40 CFR 1508.27, there would be no 

significant adverse impacts to sea turtles from alternatives A, B, C, D, or E. 

SEABEACH AMARANTH 

SPECIES-SPECIFIC METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS

Potential impacts on seabeach amaranth populations and habitat at the Seashore were evaluated based on 

the species life history, its past and present occurrence at the Seashore, as well as known effects on the 

species from activities relating to humans, pets, predators, and ORVs. Information about habitat and other 

existing data were acquired from staff at Cape Lookout National Seashore, the USFWS, and available 

literature.

The analysis focuses on impacts on seabeach amaranth from a variety of human, recreational and other 

activities, as well as impacts incurred as a result of surveying and management activities. Seabeach 

amaranth often grows in habitat areas used by other protected species within the Seashore such as piping 

plovers, oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and sea turtles. Therefore, any ORV-related closures 

established to protect the habitat or nests of these species would also benefit seabeach amaranth, although 

the extent of the benefit would depend upon the actual location, size, and duration of the closures. It is 

also assumed that increases in natural resource and law enforcement staffing at the Seashore would 

increase public compliance with closures and other Seashore regulations (e.g., leash laws) from that 

which currently exists. 

Primary steps in assessing impacts on seabeach amaranth at the Seashore were to determine 

(1) occurrence and location of seabeach amaranth in areas likely to be affected by management actions 

described in the alternatives; (2) current and future use and distribution of ORV by alternative; (3) habitat 

impact or alteration caused by the alternatives; and (4) disturbance potential of the actions and the 

potential to directly or indirectly affect seabeach amaranth as a result of ORV use. 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 373

STUDY AREA

The study area for assessment of the various alternatives is the Seashore. The study area for the 

cumulative impacts analysis is the state of North Carolina. 

ALTERNATIVE A

Impacts of Alternative A: No Action 

Resource Management Activities 

Seabeach amaranth is an annual whose seeds are viable for long periods and can be dispersed long 

distances by wind and water, allowing it to occupy newly created habitat. Seeds may also just accumulate 

around the base of a plant when it dies, allowing it to continue to occupy currently available habitat. 

Therefore, to protect and maintain this species, it is necessary to protect the plants and habitat where they 

now occur, potential habitat where plants might eventually occur, and unknown sites where seeds might 

be (Jolls, Sellars, and Wigent 2004). In the Carolinas, seabeach amaranth has historically been found most 

prevalent on south- and southeast-facing beaches, rather than north- or northeast facing beaches which 

experience greater erosion rates (USFWS 1996b). Within Cape Lookout National Seashore specifically, 

seabeach amaranth has historically been most prevalent on the south facing beaches of Shackleford Banks 

and from the point of Cape Lookout to Power Squadron Spit (NPS 2011d). 

Under alternative A, during late July or early August, when plants are large enough to be easily detected 

and seed production has begun, an annual survey would be conducted of all potential seabeach amaranth 

habitat to locate and document plants as recommended in the seabeach amaranth recovery plan (USGS 

1996b). When a seabeach amaranth plant is found outside of an existing closure (i.e., bird or turtle 

closure) staff would establish an ORV closure around the plant with the size of the closure based on best 

professional judgment, but at a minimum it would be a 30-foot by 30-foot closure as recommended by the 

U.S. Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (Cohen et al. n.d.). The closures would not be 

removed until the plants have died in late autumn or early winter. Providing a closure of this size until the 

plant dies would provide both short- and long-term benefits by helping to protect plants from being run 

over by ORVs or trampled by people, and from erosion caused by multiple passes of ORVs in high-use 

areas. 

Beginning on June 1, prior to the annual survey in late July or early August, habitat outside of existing 

bird closures would be monitored 1–2 days per week for emerging plants. Seabeach amaranth seedlings 

are typically first visible beginning in June. Though it is difficult to readily see plants at this time of year 

due to their size (Lyons pers. comm. 2005), surveying for plants beginning June 1 would be beneficial by 

documenting and protecting plants found that might otherwise be destroyed by ORVs, pedestrians, or 

natural events (i.e., storm overwash) and go undocumented prior to the annual survey. Conducting 

periodic monitoring for seedlings is easily accomplished by incorporating it into bird monitoring efforts. 

Potentially protecting plants that are vulnerable to human impacts because they are outside other resource 

closures at the earliest possible stage in their growth, rather than waiting until they are larger and more 

readily visible, would enhance the chances that the seabeach amaranth population would increase within 

the Seashore. However, plants are often not found prior to the annual survey in late July or early August 

(NPS 2007l, 2008e, 2009d, 2010d, 2011d); minimizing the long-term benefits provided by periodic 

monitoring. 

Under alternative A there would be no management specifically targeting seabeach amaranth habitat, 

although individual species would be protected by a 30-foot by 30-foot buffer, when found. However, two 

areas where the plant has historically been found in the greatest numbers, Shackleford Banks and Power 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

374 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Squadron Spit, would continue to be closed to ORV traffic on an annual basis, affording protection to the 

plant from ORV use (see “ORV and Other Recreational Use” below) and providing short- and long-term 

beneficial impacts. Other areas permanently closed to ORV use that contain potential seabeach amaranth 

habitat where plants have been found in the past that would contribute to these beneficial impacts include 

Portsmouth Flats, the interior of the point of Cape Lookout, and the beach between mile markers 41a and 

41b (NPS 2002d, 2004g, 2006j). 

As noted in the seabeach amaranth recovery plan, throughout its entire range some of the largest seabeach 

amaranth populations are associated with nesting sites for the piping plover, Wilson’s plover, least tern or 

Caspian tern (USFWS 1996b). At the Seashore, seabeach amaranth habitat also closely corresponds with 

that preferred by the piping plover, American oystercatcher, other protected bird species, and sea turtles. 

Therefore, protection provided to these species would also provide short- and long-term beneficial 

impacts on seabeach amaranth by protecting additional habitat from potential ORV impacts, as discussed 

below under “ORV and Other Recreational Use.” The full amount of protection for seabeach amaranth 

from these other species closures would vary annually and depend upon the location, size, and duration of 

the species closures. However, some areas are known habitat that have consistently had full recreational 

closures from year to year that have also benefited seabeach amaranth. Under alternative A, full 

recreation closures in active, historical, and potential new nesting habitat for piping plover and active 

nesting areas from the previous breeding season for colonial waterbirds, as determined by a qualified staff 

biologist, would be established on April 1. These areas may be expanded in areas where piping plover are 

observed prospecting for territories outside of full recreational closure areas or where colonial waterbird 

nests or nests scrapes are found outside of full recreational closure areas. Some areas of active and 

historical piping plover nesting habitat include Portsmouth Flats, Kathryn-Jane Flats, Old Drum Inlet, 

New Drum Inlet, and Plover Inlet (mile 23.6) among others. Seabeach amaranth germinates from April 

through July and protecting these areas for bird species would also protect habitat and seabeach amaranth 

seedlings that germinate within these areas during the time of bird nesting activities, when seedlings 

might otherwise not be seen, resulting in short- and long-term beneficial impacts. 

Under alternative A, there would also continue to be three turtle nest relocation areas established on each 

of North Core Banks and South Core Banks. These areas, some of which are up to 1 mile long, would be 

closed to ORV traffic beginning 50 days after the first turtle nest is relocated to the area and would not 

reopen until all relocated nests in the area have been excavated. While these turtle closures are located on 

eastern facing beaches and would not necessarily encompass the beginning of the germination period for 

seabeach amaranth, once closed, any plants that germinate within them would be protected from ORV 

impacts. Additionally, all resource closures (i.e., bird and turtle) would be surveyed for seabeach 

amaranth prior to reopening them to ORV traffic when closures are no longer required to protect nesting 

birds and their chicks or turtle nests and hatchlings. If any plants are detected, 30-foot by 30-foot buffers 

would be established around the plants while other areas of the closures where there are no plants would 

be reopened to ORV traffic. 

Because seabeach amaranth must recruit annually and its seeds can be dispersed long distances via wind 

and water (Jolls, Sellars, and Wigent 2004), closures for other species that overlap seabeach amaranth 

habitat and the 30-foot by 30-foot buffers installed around plants would not likely protect all areas in the 

Seashore where seeds exist and could potentially germinate in areas of ORV traffic. Unprotected 

seedlings or plants in areas open to ORV use could be crushed and go completely undocumented, and 

seeds may be pulverized or buried beyond their germination depth (Cohen et al. 2010). Because ATVs 

and UTVs are used to conduct bird and turtle surveys and monitoring, there would also be a small 

probability of resource monitoring vehicle impacts on plants and seeds due to crushing and burial, 

respectively, causing some small amount of long-term adverse impacts. 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 375

Education/Public Outreach—Public outreach and education measures informing visitors about species, 

resource information, wise use, and ORV program information would continue to be provided under 

alternative A. These measures would be beneficial to seabeach amaranth by providing the public 

information as to the specific needs of all protected species found at the Seashore and alerting the public 

ahead of time to areas where they cannot go due to potential impacts on the species. These actions would 

help prevent resource closure violations and protect seabeach amaranth. 

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

ORV use can have both direct and indirect adverse impacts on seabeach amaranth. Stems of the plant are 

easily broken or crushed by tires; thus, even limited traffic can be detrimental during the growing season 

(Federal Register 1993). While ORV impacts to seabeach amaranth are most detrimental during the 

plant’s growing season, some adverse impacts can occur during the plant’s dormant season, because 

ORVs can pulverize seeds and bury them to depths beyond which they can germinate (Cohen et al. 2010). 

Under alternative A, approximately 81 percent (45 miles) of the Seashore would be available for ORV 

use from March 16 through December 31. In areas open to ORV traffic any unprotected plants, especially 

newly germinating and juvenile plants that are difficult to see and that could easily be missed and not 

protected during periodic monitoring in June or during the annual survey, could be potentially crushed by 

an ORV. However, the risk of direct impacts from ORVs is greatly reduced because the majority of 

habitat suitable for seabeach amaranth, and the areas where the majority of the plants have been found 

historically at the Seashore are protected from ORV impacts either through year-round closures 

(Shackleford Banks, Power Squadron Spit, the interior of the point of Cape Lookout, Portsmouth Flats, 

and on the beach between mile markers 41a and 41b) or through seasonal resource closures for other 

protected species during the plant’s germination and growing season, as discussed above under “Resource 

Management Activities.” 

From January 1 through March 15 the Seashore would only be open for pedestrian use, with ORVs 

prohibited from using the Seashore during this time. This along with the year-round closures mentioned 

above (pedestrian-only areas), would minimize potential ORV impacts on seabeach amaranth during a 

majority of its dormant season (December through April) when ORV traffic could otherwise pulverize the 

plant’s seeds or bury them to a depth beyond which they can germinate. 

Under alternative A, ORV and pedestrians would continue to be prohibited from seabeach amaranth 

closures. In areas of the Seashore that are closed to ORV use year-round no additional buffers would be 

erected around any seabeach amaranth plants. While these ORV closed areas receive pedestrian traffic, 

not erecting closures around the plants would not create much of a hazard for the plants. Pedestrian use of 

beaches typically does not overlap heavily with the habitat of seabeach amaranth, as joggers prefer wet 

sand and sunbathers prefer to be closer to the water rather than the narrow niche of habitat between the 

high tide line and the toe of the primary dunes or overwash flats where seabeach amaranth is typically 

found (USFWS 1996b). Pedestrian traffic during the dormant season would be much less than during the 

growing season and would not likely have any impacts on the species. Even during the growing season, 

pedestrian traffic would generally have little effect on seabeach amaranth populations, as many beaches 

with daily use by thousands of sunbathers, joggers, and other recreation enthusiasts have substantial and 

apparently healthy populations of seabeach amaranth (USFWS 1996b). However, there would still be a 

slight risk that some undetected/unprotected seedlings/plants could be trampled by pedestrians and or 

their pets, specifically by those who tent camp near the toe of the dunes, resulting in some small amount 

of adverse impacts. 

Overall, ORVs and other recreation uses at the Seashore would have some short-and long-term adverse 

impacts on seabeach amaranth; however, as detailed above, these impacts would be relatively small since 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

376 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

much of the habitat for seabeach amaranth is already protected through year-round and seasonal closures 

or does not generally overlap with pedestrian use of the beaches. 

Permit Requirements—Under alternative A, there would be no permit requirements placed on ORV 

users at the Seashore. It is anticipated that visitation to the Seashore will slowly grow in the future, with 

an estimated annual increase of approximately 1.5 percent (NPS 2010j). With increased visitation, it is 

assumed that the number of ORVs on the beach at the Seashore would also increase slowly in the future. 

Although ORV use would continue to be prohibited in ORV or full recreational closures, the lack of a 

permit system could result in limited adverse impacts on seabeach amaranth because without a permit 

program, there would be less user education regarding these closures. Also, without a permit program, the 

number of ORVs on the Seashore would be allowed to grow unencumbered, which could result in a 

corresponding increase the amount of noncompliance (intentional or unintentional) with closures and 

other Seashore regulations that are in place to protect seabeach amaranth. As described under the 

alternatives where a permit system would be implemented, such a system would provide the Seashore 

with a means for providing additional education to ORV users regarding the importance of seabeach 

amaranth and its habitat at the Seashore, as well as additional methods (i.e., revoking permits) for dealing 

with noncompliance of Seashore regulations. As a result, the lack of a permit system under alternative A 

could result in an increased risk of mortality to seabeach amaranth from vehicle disturbances.

Adaptive Management Strategy—Under alternative A, there would be no adaptive management 

strategy at the Seashore. An adaptive management strategy would monitor disturbance to American 

oystercatcher (an indicator species), primarily related to impacts from ORVs, and management actions 

could be altered based on the results of that monitoring. The lack of an adaptive management strategy 

may result in an increased risk of mortality to seabeach amaranth from vehicle disturbances. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative A 

Other past, present, and future planned actions within and around the Seashore have the potential to 

impact seabeach amaranth. In the past, dredge material from the dredging of Beaufort Inlet has not been 

placed on any Seashore beaches. However, moving forward, as part of the Morehead City Harbor 

DMMP, NPS has agreed to allow consideration of disposal of restricted amounts of dredged material to 

on Shackleford Banks during the 20-year period beginning in 2015 and extending through 2034 (USACE 

2013). Beach disposal of dredge material can have both adverse and beneficial impacts. The deposition of 

dredge material on beaches and use of heavy equipment at the dredge deposition site could either directly 

damage plants if activities take place during the plant’s growing season or could pulverize or bury seeds if 

it occurs during the plant’s dormant season causing long-term adverse impacts. However, placement of 

dredge material for beach replenishment projects also rebuilds habitat for seabeach amaranth and can 

have long-term beneficial impacts. At Wrightsville beach, after several beach replenishment projects in 

the 1980, the seabeach amaranth population increased from zero to several thousand (USFWS 1996b). 

For the Morehead City Harbor DMMP, as it relates to Shackleford Banks, if the NPS allows dredged 

material to be deposited on the beach, it would potentially occur every 3 to 4 years along a 3.65-mile-long 

stretch of Shackleford Banks, the dredged material would be compatible with the existing beaches (>90 

percent sand), and the NPS would only allow it to be deposited on the beach from November 16 through 

March 30 in any year, which is outside of the growing season for seabeach amaranth. Other areas where 

disposal could take place are on all of the beaches in Fort Macon State Park, the majority of Atlantic 

beach, and Pine Knoll Shores if there is sufficient material. For Fort Macon State Park and Atlantic beach, 

beach disposal would occur during the colder months prior to germination of the plant. If there is 

sufficient material beach disposal on Pine Knoll Shores would occur during the warmer months within the 

beach disposal window. While beach disposal is expected to provide beneficial impacts to seabeach 

amaranth through the restoration of habitat, the biological assessment recognizes that disposal on a 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 377

portion of the beaches in the growing season may slow population recovery over the short term (USACE 

2013). 

Several NPS past, current, and future planning efforts can also affect seabeach amaranth. If seabeach 

amaranth becomes re-established at Cape Hatteras National Seashore, protection measures implemented 

under the past Cape Hatteras National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Strategy/EA and 

the existing Cape Hatteras National Seashore ORV Management Plan/EIS could have long-term 

beneficial impacts on seabeach amaranth populations within Cape Lookout National Seashore and 

throughout the rest of the plant’s habitat in North Carolina. Wind and water can disperse the plant’s seeds 

over long distances; therefore, given the proximity of Cape Hatteras National Seashore seabeach 

amaranth seeds produced there could be a future potential seed source for suitable habitat in Cape 

Lookout National Seashore and other areas in North Carolina. 

The Comprehensive Interpretation Plan articulates the Seashore’s purpose, significance and themes. The 

plan is necessary to inform and guide the Seashore’s interpretive and education programs, which includes 

information about threatened and endangered species within the Seashore, and would have long-term 

beneficial impacts on seabeach amaranth. 

The Seashore has also prepared an Interim Off Road Management Report based in part on the action 

outlined in the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management 

Plan/Environmental Assessment and the Superintendent’s Compendium. It details how ORV closures are 

established and would provide short-term beneficial impacts on seabeach amaranth until the long-term 

ORV plan is implanted by providing another measure of educating the visiting public about protecting 

seabeach amaranth and other species at the Seashore. 

The 1996 recovery plan for seabeach amaranth discusses mechanisms that can be implemented to help 

achieve the recovery/delisting of the plant which is defined as “when the species exists again in at least 

six of the States within its historic range...and when a minimum of 75 percent of the sites with suitable 

habitat within each State are occupied by amaranth populations for 10 consecutive years.” Identifying 

measures such as protecting existing populations and habitat; implementing management measures to 

protect long-term reproduction, establishment, maintenance, and vigor; developing cultivated sources of 

plants and seeds; enforcing laws protecting the species and/or habitat; and developing materials to educate 

the public about the status of the species and the recovery plan objectives would provide long-term 

benefits to the species in North Carolina. 

The recovery plan notes that predation by webworms (caterpillars of small moths that feed on the leaves 

of seabeach amaranth), and if prolific enough, can defoliate the plants to the point of either killing them or 

reducing their seed production (USFWS 1996b). Even though some webworm predation has been 

observed in recent years at the Seashore (NPS 2008e, 2009d, 2010d), the Seashore does not treat for 

webwork, resulting in short- and long-term adverse impacts. Any adverse impacts would be relatively 

small, as the occurrences of webworms are fairly limited (Rikard pers. comm. 2013a). 

Beach vitex, a nonnative species originally introduced to South Carolina from Korea, is a fast spreading 

plant that grows in similar habitats and out-competes seabeach amaranth. In North Carolina the Board of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services has listed beach vitex as a Class B State Noxious Weed (NCDA&CS 

2011), which bans the sale, transport and possession of beach vitex by nurseries, garden shops, and 

private property owners and the plant has not been documented in the Seashore (Altman pers. comm. 

2010b, 2012a). The protective measures taken by the State of North Carolina provide short- and longterm benefits to seabeach amaranth by helping to prevent the spread of beach vitex in the state. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

378 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

The overall combined impacts of these past, present, and future actions on seabeach amaranth would be 

short- and long-term adverse as well as long-term beneficial. These impacts, combined with the impacts 

described under alternative A, would likely result in short- and long-term beneficial cumulative impacts. 

While adverse effects on seabeach amaranth from other actions occurring in the state would still exist, 

actions under alternative A would provide additional protection that would be beneficial to the state 

seabeach amaranth population and would offset some of the adverse effects. 

ALTERNATIVE B

Impacts of Alternative B 

Resource Management Activities 

Surveys conducted for seabeach amaranth plants and protection measures implemented when plants are 

detected under alternative B would be the same as under alternative A, resulting in short- and long-term 

beneficial impacts on seabeach amaranth. Additionally, there would be more consistent training and 

supervision of resource staff who conduct the surveys. This would result in a higher quality of monitoring 

for the species, resulting in beneficial impacts. 

Management activities under alternative B would be the same as described for alternative A except 

historical shorebird nesting areas would be posted prior to opening the beach to vehicles by March 16 

(rather than posting habitat by April 1). Since seabeach amaranth habitat often overlaps shorebird nesting 

habitat, this measure would likely provide some additional protection to seabeach amaranth. As noted 

above, impacts from management activities described for alternative A would also occur under alternative 

B including beneficial impacts from erecting buffers around plants found during surveying, keeping areas 

such as Shackleford Banks, Power Squadron Spit, Portsmouth Flats, the interior of the point of Cape 

Lookout, and the beach between mile markers 41a and 41b as pedestrian-only use areas; and closing turtle 

relocation areas to ORV traffic. Some small amount of adverse impacts would also occur from essential 

vehicle use possibly crushing or burying seeds and from not having a plan in place for addressing the 

management of webworms or beach vitex. 

Education/Public Outreach—Under alternative B, public education and outreach measures in addition 

to those under alternative A would enhance the protection of seabeach amaranth and its habitat. Under 

alternative B, staffing levels would increase for interpretation positions (to provide formal outreach and 

on-site ORV education on the subject of protected species management) and law enforcement (among 

other duties, law enforcement assists with public education). The Seashore would standardize and clarify 

their resource closure signs, and additional education materials about ORV regulations and species 

protection would be provided to the commercial service providers for distribution to visitors. Additional 

interpretive programs related to ORV use would be added at the Seashore and maps of closure areas 

would be regularly updated online and posted throughout the Seashore where possible. These additional 

measures would serve to better educate ORV operators to the resource management measures of the 

Seashore as described in chapter 2 and better inform them about species protection, providing short- and 

long-term beneficial impacts on seabeach amaranth. 

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

Under alternative B, the amount of Seashore open to ORV use and other recreational uses would be the 

same as under alternative A, approximately 81 percent of the beach. As a result the impacts would also be 

the same as under alternative A, short- and long-term adverse, with a few exceptions. 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 379

Under alternative B, the back route would be regularly maintained by the Seashore and re-established if 

impacted by a storm event. This would continue to allow the back route to be used by ORVs as a bypass 

when full beach closures occur for species protection or safety reasons. Additionally, if driving conditions 

on the back route deteriorate significantly vehicles are less likely to use it to traverse long distances along 

the Seashore and are more likely to drive on the beach. Regularly maintaining the back route and reestablishing it after impacts from storms would help encourage vehicles to use it instead of the beach, 

lessening potential vehicle impacts on seabeach amaranth plants and their seeds. Also under alternative B, 

there is the potential for small changes to the number and location of ramps as needed, and ramps may be 

moved or re-established after major storm events to restore access. While ramps would not be constructed 

in areas where seabeach amaranth plants exist, to the extent that new ramps are constructed or existing 

ramps are re-established in areas that might provide suitable habitat for seabeach amaranth, these 

activities would remove potential habitat for the plant species. However, the area impacted by any new or 

re-established ramps would be small compared to the overall habitat available to seabeach amaranth, 

minimizing any adverse impacts. 

Permit Requirements—Alternative B would include an operator education certificate for those visitors 

wishing to operate an ORV on the Seashore. Having a certificate program would enhance the education of 

ORV users as to the resource management measures of the Seashore as described in chapter 2 and would 

provide some short- and long-term benefits to the protection of seabeach amaranth through this 

knowledge. The Seashore would also require a permit for the vehicle, and it along with the operator 

education certificate could be revoked for violation of applicable Seashore regulations or terms and 

conditions of the permit. Benefits would arise from the ability of the Seashore to revoke the operator 

certificate and vehicle permit. While most ORV users respect resource closures, violations do occur each 

year (NPS 1991, 1992, 1993b, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997b, 1998c, 1999b, 2000d, 2001c, 2002d, 2003b, 

2004d, 2005b, 2006g, 2007j, 2008d, 2009c, 2010c, 2010h, 2011c, 2012n), and vehicles driving through 

closures, especially bird closures, can run over seabeach amaranth plants that are growing in those 

closures. The potential deterrent of losing driving privileges on the Seashore would likely reduce the 

number of closure violations. 

Adaptive Management Strategy—Under alternative B, an adaptive management strategy would be 

adopted to ensure that the goals of species protection are being met. While the American oystercatcher 

would be used as the indicator species to determine if levels of disturbance warrant implementing more 

intensive management actions, some of the additional management actions if implemented would provide 

both short- and long-term beneficial impacts for protecting seabeach amaranth. The additional 

management actions that could be implemented that could help protect seabeach amaranth include 

increased education and focused enforcement, which would help reduce closure violations that could 

impact seabeach amaranth; route restrictions and increased buffer sizes, both of which could protect 

beach habitat suitable for seabeach amaranth since its habitat overlaps that of the protected bird species; 

and a reduction in the number of vehicle permits issued, as well as managing the size of the vehicle 

storage lots, both of which would help reduce the number of vehicles driving on the beach and potentially 

lessen the amount of impacts caused by ORVs by a small amount. If species indicators continue to be 

triggered due to visitor use impacts for two consecutive years after implementing the previously 

mentioned actions, then reducing the number of vehicle permits issued and increasing the size of species 

protection buffers could be implemented. These actions would reduce the number of vehicles driving on 

the beach and increase the distance vehicles could approach plants, thus reducing the overall amount of 

potential impacts caused by ORVs, providing short- and long-term beneficial impacts to seabeach 

amaranth. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

380 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative B 

The past, present, and future actions discussed under the cumulative impacts scenario for alternative A 

would be the same under alternative B. The cumulative impact of these past, present, and future actions, 

would likely be short- and long-term adverse, as well as long-term beneficial. These impacts, when 

combined with the impacts of alternative B, would likely result in short- and long-term beneficial 

impacts. While adverse effects on seabeach amaranth from other actions occurring in the state would still 

exist, actions under alternative B would provide additional protection that would be beneficial to the state 

seabeach amaranth population and would offset some of the adverse effects. 

ALTERNATIVE C

Impacts of Alternative C 

Resource Management Activities 

Surveys conducted for seabeach amaranth plants and protection measures implemented when plants are 

detected under alternative C would be the same as under alternative A, resulting in short- and long-term 

beneficial impacts on seabeach amaranth. Additionally, there would be more consistent training and 

supervision of resource staff who conduct the surveys. This would result in a higher quality of monitoring 

for the species, resulting in beneficial impacts. 

Management activities under alternative C would be the same as under alternative B. Impacts would be 

short- and long-term beneficial from keeping areas such as Shackleford Banks, Power Squadron Spit, 

Portsmouth Flats, the interior of the point of Cape Lookout, and the beach between mile markers 41a and 

41b as pedestrian-only use areas; closing turtle relocation areas to ORV traffic; and erecting bird closure 

areas, including historical bird nesting areas by March 16, especially in areas that overlap suitable 

seabeach amaranth habitat. Some small amount of adverse impacts would also occur from essential 

vehicle use possibly crushing or burying seeds and from not having a plan in place for addressing the 

management of webworms or beach vitex. 

Education/Public Outreach—Education and public outreach measures under alternative C would be the 

same as under alternative B, including increases in staffing levels for interpretation positions and law 

enforcement positions, and would result in short- and long-term beneficial impacts from better educating 

the public and ORV operators to the resource management measures of the Seashore as described in 

chapter 2 and better informing them about species protection.

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

Under alternative C, the impacts from ORV and other recreational use would be similar to alternative B; 

however, they would occur over a slightly smaller area due to an increase in the amount of pedestrianonly use area under alternative C. Additionally, creating new ramps and/or re-establishing ramps after 

storm events would cause some slight adverse impacts. 

Under alternative C the amount of Seashore beach open to ORV use would decrease from that open to 

ORVs under alternative A because approximately 4 miles of additional pedestrian-only use areas would 

be designated. The amount of seashore open to ORVs during the summer season would be approximately 

74 percent (as compared to 81 percent under alternative A) and approximately 79 percent during the rest 

of the year when ORVs are allowed on the beach (ORVs are prohibited from January 1 through 

March 15). The additional ORV restrictions would add slightly to the long-term benefits already provided 

to seabeach amaranth. Most of the areas where seabeach amaranth has historically occurred are already 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 381

protected by year-round closures or seasonal resource closures for other protected species during the 

plant’s germinating and growing season. 

Similar to alternative B, there is the potential for small changes to the number and location of ramps as 

needed, and ramps may be moved or re-established after major storm events to restore access to the 

beach. While ramps would not be constructed in areas where seabeach amaranth plants exist, to the extent 

that new ramps are constructed or existing ramps are re-established in areas that might provide suitable 

habitat for seabeach amaranth, these activities would remove potential habitat for the plant species. The 

area impacted by any new or re-established ramps would be small compared to the overall habitat 

available to seabeach amaranth, minimizing any potential adverse impacts.

Permit Requirements—Similar to alternative B, alternative C would include an operator education 

certificate for those visitors wishing to operate an ORV as well as a vehicle permit; both of which could 

be revoked for violation of applicable Seashore regulations or terms and conditions of the permit. Having 

a certificate program would enhance the education of ORV users as to the resource management measures 

of the Seashore as described in chapter 2 and would provide some short- and long-term benefits to the 

protection of seabeach amaranth through this knowledge. And similar to alternative B, the potential 

deterrent of losing driving privileges on the Seashore would likely reduce the number of closure 

violations, providing short- and long-term beneficial impacts. 

To manage the number of vehicles on the Seashore at any one time, capacity limits based on historical 

ORV use would be established and administered through limiting the number of vehicle permits issued 

under alternative C. While some benefits to seabeach amaranth would be realized by limiting the number 

of vehicles on the beach, the added benefits would be small, especially during the spring and summer 

(March 16 through September 15) since most of the habitat suitable for seabeach amaranth is already 

protected through year-round closures or seasonal resource closures for other species, and limiting the 

number of vehicles on the beach would not alter this. During the fall (between September 16 and 

December 31) when many of the resource closures are removed, a limit on the number of vehicles on the 

beach would provide slightly more beneficial impacts by limiting the number of vehicles that can 

potentially alter suitable habitat or bury seeds below depths at which they can germinate. 

Adaptive Management Strategy—Under alternative C, an adaptive management strategy would be 

adopted similar to that under alternative B and would result in both short- and long-term beneficial 

impacts on seabeach amaranth from the additional management actions that could be implemented. 

Additional management actions that could help provide additional protection to seabeach management 

include increased education and focused enforcement, which would help reduce closure violations that 

could impact seabeach amaranth; route restrictions and increased buffer sizes, both of which could protect 

beach habitat suitable for seabeach amaranth since its habitat overlaps that of the protected bird species; 

and a reduction in the number of vehicle permits issued and managing the size of the vehicle storage lots, 

both of which would reduce the number of vehicles driving on the beach and potentially the amount of 

impacts caused by ORVs by a small amount. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative C 

The past, present, and future actions discussed under the cumulative impacts scenario for alternative A 

would be the same under alternative C. The cumulative impact of these past, present, and future actions, 

would likely be short- and long-term adverse and long-term beneficial. These impacts, when combined 

with the impacts of alternative C, would likely result in short- and long-term beneficial impacts. While 

adverse effects on seabeach amaranth from other actions occurring in the state would still exist, actions 

under alternative C would provide additional protection that would be beneficial to the state seabeach 

amaranth population and would offset some of the adverse effects. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

382 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

ALTERNATIVE D

Impacts of Alternative D 

Resource Management Activities 

Surveys conducted for seabeach amaranth plants and protection measures implemented when plants are 

detected under alternative D would be the same as under alternative A, resulting in short- and long-term 

beneficial impacts on seabeach amaranth. Additionally, there would be more consistent training and 

supervision of resource staff who conduct the surveys. This would result in a higher quality of monitoring 

for the species, resulting in beneficial impacts. 

Management activities under alternative D would be the same as under alternative B. Impacts would be 

short- and long-term beneficial from keeping areas such as Shackleford Banks, Power Squadron Spit, 

Portsmouth Flats, the interior of the point of Cape Lookout, and the beach between mile markers 41a and 

41b as pedestrian-only use areas; closing turtle relocation areas to ORV traffic; and erecting bird closure 

areas, including historical bird nesting areas by March 16, especially in areas that overlap suitable 

seabeach amaranth habitat. Some small amount of adverse impacts would also occur from essential 

vehicle use possibly crushing or burying seeds and from not having a plan in place for addressing the 

management of webworms or beach vitex. 

Education/Public Outreach—Under alternative D, education and public outreach measures would be the 

same as under alternative B, including increases in staffing levels for interpretation positions and law 

enforcement positions. Short- and long-term beneficial impacts would result better educating ORV 

operators to the resource management measures of the Seashore as described in chapter 2 and better 

informing them about species protection. 

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

Under alternative D, the impacts from ORVs and other recreational uses would be similar to alternative 

A, however, they would occur over a slightly smaller area due to an increase in the amount of pedestrianonly use area under alternative D. Additionally, similar to alternative C, creating new ramps or reestablishing ramps after storm events would cause some slight adverse impacts. 

Under alternative D, an additional 10 miles of Seashore would be designated as pedestrian-only areas. 

The amount of seashore open to ORVs during the summer season would be approximately 63 percent (as 

compared to 81 percent under alternative A) and approximately 73 percent during the rest of the year 

when ORVs are allowed on the beach (ORVs are prohibited from January 1 through March 15. Because 

the majority of habitat where seabeach amaranth has historically been found is already protected from 

ORV impacts through year-round closures and other seasonal resource closures, the reduction in where 

ORVs can drive on the beach on a seasonal or year-round basis would only provide a small increase in 

benefits to seabeach amaranth. 

Similar to alternative B, the back route would be regularly maintained and re-established when impacted 

by storm events. This would continue to allow the back route to be used by ORVs as a bypass when full 

beach closures occur for species protection or safety reasons and would encourage use of the back route 

instead of the beach when traversing long distances along the Seashore. This would benefit seabeach 

amaranth through less driving on the beach. Although ramps would be re-established under alternative D 

to restore access after storm events, no new ramps would be added to the Seashore beach. Ramps would 

not be re-established in areas where seabeach amaranth plants exist, but to the extent that ramps are reestablished after major storm events in areas that might provide suitable habitat for seabeach amaranth, 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 383

these activities would remove potential habitat for the plant species. The area impacted by any reestablished ramps would be small compared to the overall habitat available to seabeach amaranth, 

minimizing the amount of potential adverse impacts. 

Permit Requirements—Similar to alternative B, alternative D would include an operator education 

certificate for those visitors wishing to operate an ORV as well as a vehicle permit; both of which could 

be revoked for violation of applicable Seashore regulations or terms and conditions of the permit. Having 

a certificate program would enhance the education of ORV users as to the resource management measures 

of the Seashore as described in chapter 2 and would provide some short- and long-term benefits to the 

protection of seabeach amaranth through this knowledge. And similar to alternative B, the potential 

deterrent of losing driving privileges on the Seashore would likely reduce the number of closure 

violations, providing short- and long-term beneficial impacts. 

Similar to alternative C, to manage the number of vehicles on the Seashore at any one time, capacity 

limits based on current average ORV use would be established and administered through limiting the 

number of vehicle permits issued under alternative D. However, under alternative D the limit on the 

number of permits issued would be slightly less than under alternative C. While some benefits to 

seabeach amaranth would be realized by limiting the number of vehicles on the beach, the added benefits 

would be small, especially during the spring and summer (between March 16 and September 15) since 

most of the habitat suitable for seabeach amaranth is already protected through year-round closures or 

seasonal resource closures for other species, and limiting the number of vehicles on the beach would not 

alter this. During the fall (between September 16 and December 31) when many of the resource closures 

are removed, a limit on the number of vehicles on the beach would provide slightly more beneficial 

impacts by limiting the number of vehicles that can potentially alter suitable habitat or bury seeds below 

depths at which they can germinate. 

Adaptive Management Strategy—Under alternative D, an adaptive management strategy would be 

adopted similar to that under alternative B and would result in both short- and long-term beneficial 

impacts on seabeach amaranth from the additional management actions that could be implemented. 

Additional management actions that could help provide additional protection to seabeach amaranth 

include increased education and focused enforcement, which would help reduce closure violations that 

could impact seabeach amaranth; route restrictions and increased buffer sizes, both of which could protect 

beach habitat suitable for seabeach amaranth since its habitat overlaps that of the protected bird species; 

and a reduction in the number of vehicle permits issued and managing the size of the vehicle storage lots, 

both of which would reduce the number of vehicles driving on the beach and potentially the amount of 

impacts caused by ORVs. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative D 

The past, present, and future actions discussed under the cumulative impacts scenario for alternative A 

would be the same under alternative D. The cumulative impact of these past, present, and future actions, 

would likely be short- and long-term adverse and long-term beneficial. These impacts, when combined 

with the impacts of alternative D, would likely be short- and long-term beneficial. While adverse effects 

on seabeach amaranth from other actions occurring in the state would still exist, actions under alternative 

D would provide additional protection that would be beneficial to the state seabeach amaranth population 

and would offset some of the adverse effects. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

384 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

ALTERNATIVE E

Impacts of Alternative E 

Resource Management Activities 

Though public use of ORVs would be prohibited on the Seashore under alternative E, the NPS would still 

use ORVs to conduct resource management activities. Surveying for and protecting seabeach amaranth 

under alternative E, including erecting buffers and surveying for plants prior to reopening bird or turtle 

resource closures, would occur in the same manner as under alternative A and would result in short- and 

long-term beneficial impacts. Some small amount of adverse impacts would also occur from essential 

vehicle use possibly crushing or burying seeds However, with impacts from recreational ORV use 

eliminated and pedestrian impacts reduced and likely to only occur near arrival points due to the lack of 

recreational ORV use, surveying and monitoring protocols conducted by NPS staff would be reviewed 

and may change. 

Education/Public Outreach—Education and public outreach measures under alternative E would be 

similar to those employed under alternative A, but would focus on non-ORV recreational uses and would 

result in both short- and long-term beneficial impacts on seabeach amaranth from better educating the 

public about the Seashore rules and regulations and better informing them about species protection. 

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

Under alternative E, public ORV use on the beach throughout the entire Seashore, not just on Shackleford 

Banks, would be prohibited, eliminating all potential adverse impacts from public ORV use on seabeach 

amaranth, including the potential to run over undetected plants outside of resource closures and 

pulverizing seeds or burying them to depths beyond which they can germinate. As noted under alternative 

A, in North Carolina the majority of seabeach amaranth plants are found on south- and southeast- facing 

beaches rather than north- or northeast- facing beaches (USFWS 1996b). At Cape Lookout this includes 

Shackleford Banks and from the point of Cape Lookout to Power Squadron Spit on South Core Banks, 

and these are the two areas where most of the seabeach amaranth plants are historically found within the 

Seashore (NPS 2011d). The majority of these beaches (all of Shackleford Banks and Power Squadron 

Spit) are already closed to ORVs year-round and other portions of the Seashore are also currently closed 

year-round to ORVs. So while closing the entire Seashore to ORV use would be beneficial to seabeach 

amaranth, the added protection would not be substantially more than what is already provided for the 

plant. 

While public use of ORVs on the beach would be prohibited under alternative E, other recreation use on 

the ocean beach such as swimming, camping, beach fires, fishing, and the use of the cabins would still 

occur. Without ORVs to access the more remote portions of the Seashore, pedestrian use would likely be 

reduced and restricted to areas that are readily accessible to the ferry landing areas, such as in front of the 

cabins and the lighthouse, as well as Power Squadron Spit where private boats are able to safely access 

the beach. Impacts on Shackleford Banks would remain the same as ORVs are already prohibited from 

that island. Pedestrian use of beaches typically does not overlap heavily with the habitat of seabeach 

amaranth, and many beaches with daily use by thousands of sunbathers, joggers, and other recreation 

enthusiasts have substantial and apparently healthy populations of seabeach amaranth (USFWS 1996b). 

Joggers prefer wet sand and sunbathers prefer to be closer to the water, areas where seabeach amaranth 

does not grow (USFWS 1996b). Thus, prior to the Seashore’s survey for seabeach amaranth in late July 

or early August, any germinating plants outside of other resource closures would not likely be impacted 

by pedestrians. However, there would still be a slight risk that some undetected/unprotected 

seedlings/plants could be trampled by pedestrians and or their pets, specifically by those who tent camp 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 385

near the toe of the dunes resulting in a small amount of short- and long-term adverse impacts. Pedestrian 

traffic during the dormant season would be much less than during the growing season and would not 

likely have any impacts on the species. 

Permit Requirements—Under alternative E, there would be no permit requirements placed on ORV 

users at the Seashore, since public recreational ORV use would be prohibited.

Adaptive Management Strategy—Under alternative E, an adaptive management strategy would be 

adopted similar to that under alternative B, though with no public ORV use allowed on the Seashore 

under alternative E, American oystercatcher disturbance would be monitored as it relates to impacts from 

pedestrians and other recreational use and not from ORVs, and only those non-ORV management actions 

indicated in chapter 2 would be implemented. The additional management actions that could be 

implemented that would help protect seabeach amaranth include increased education and focused 

enforcement, which would help reduce closure violations that could impact seabeach amaranth; and 

increased buffer sizes, which could protect beach habitat suitable for seabeach amaranth since its habitat 

overlaps that of the protected bird species. If species indicators continue to be triggered due to visitor use 

impacts for two consecutive years after implementing the previously mentioned actions, then increasing 

the size of species protection buffers could be implemented. This action would increase the distance that 

visitors could approach seabeach amaranth plants, thus providing short- and long-term beneficial impacts 

by reducing the likelihood of visitors trampling the plant, especially if there is a closure violation. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative E 

The past, present, and future actions discussed under the cumulative impacts scenario for alternative A 

would be the same under alternative E. The cumulative impact of these past, present, and future actions, 

would likely be short- and long-term adverse as well as long-term beneficial. These impacts, when 

combined with the impacts of alternative E, would likely be short- and long-term beneficial. While 

adverse effects on seabeach amaranth from other actions occurring in the state would still exist, actions 

under alternative E would provide additional protection that would be beneficial to the state seabeach 

amaranth population and would offset some of the adverse effects. 

DETERMINATION OF EFFECT

Alternative A 

Under alternative A, resource management activities would result in long-term beneficial impacts on 

seabeach amaranth. Benefits would be due to the protection provided by not allowing ORV use in areas 

where seabeach amaranth has historically been found in the Seashore (Shackleford Banks and Power 

Squadron Spit), installing closures around plants that are detected, surveying for plants periodically 

beginning in June when plants first begin to germinate and conducting an intensive annual survey in late 

July or early August when plants are readily visible, installing pre-nesting and other closures for nesting 

bird species that overlap seabeach amaranth habitat, and surveying bird and turtle closures for plants prior 

to reopening these closures to ORV and other recreation use. Some long-term adverse impacts would 

occur though from the lack of management practices regarding removal of webworms which predate on 

seabeach amaranth and have been found in the Seashore, and the lack of a management plan for beach 

vitex, which if it spreads to the Seashore, would have adverse impacts on seabeach amaranth by 

outcompeting it for similar habitat. Some small amount of adverse impacts may also occur from essential 

vehicles running over seeds and either pulverizing them or burying them to depths beyond which they can 

germinate. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

386 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

ORV and other recreational use would have long-term adverse impacts on seabeach amaranth. Impacts 

from ORVs would occur along the approximately 81 percent of the Seashore that is open to ORV use. 

Plants may go undetected and therefore unprotected from recreational use of the Seashore, potentially 

resulting in plants being run over by ORVs or trampled by pedestrians, particularly those that camp near 

the toe of the dunes. Additionally, during the dormant season of the seabeach amaranth, more areas of the 

Seashore are open to ORV use. While there would be no plants to be impacted, seeds of the plant could 

either be pulverized or buried by ORVs driving over them. Under ESA, these impacts would result in a 

finding of may affect/are likely to adversely affect seabeach amaranth because the actions would result in 

direct or indirect impacts to the species that are not discountable, insignificant, or beneficial. Though 

there would be beneficial impacts from resource management activities, the actions under alternative A 

would also likely cause adverse effects. 

Alternative B 

Under alternative B, resources management activities would result in long-term beneficial impacts on 

seabeach amaranth. The same benefits discussed under alternative A above would also occur under 

alternative B, as well as additional benefits due to increased education about the biological resources and 

the resource management measures at the Seashore for recreational users as described in chapter 2. Some 

long-term adverse impacts would occur though from the lack of management practices regarding removal 

of webworms which predate on seabeach amaranth and have been found in the Seashore, and the lack of a 

management plan for beach vitex, which if it spreads to the Seashore, would have adverse impacts on 

seabeach amaranth by outcompeting it for similar habitat. Some small amount of adverse impacts may 

also occur from essential vehicles running over seeds and either pulverizing them or burying them to 

depths beyond which they can germinate. 

ORV and other recreational use would have long-term adverse impacts on seabeach amaranth. With 

approximately 81 percent of the Seashore open to ORV use, the same amount as under alternative A, 

those impacts described under alternative A above would also occur under alternative B. Alternative B 

would also result in additional long-term adverse impacts from habitat loss if new ramps are constructed 

or existing ramps are re-established after a storm in habitat that would otherwise be suitable for seabeach 

amaranth. Some beneficial impacts would occur by deterring violations of Seashore rules and regulations 

through the possible revocation of operator certificates and vehicle permits as well as increased 

enforcement and education through increased staffing levels for law enforcement and interpretation 

positions, respectively. Benefits would also arise from maintaining the back route, which would 

encourage vehicle operators to use it instead of the ocean beach where the seabeach amaranth habitat is, 

and potentially implementing additional management actions under the adaptive management strategy 

such as increased education and testing, focused enforcement, route restrictions, increased buffer sizes, 

and potentially limiting the number of vehicle permits issued. Under ESA, these impacts would result in a 

finding of may affect/are likely to adversely affect seabeach amaranth because the actions would result in 

direct or indirect impacts to the species that are not discountable, insignificant, or beneficial. Though 

there would beneficial impacts from resource management activities, the actions under alternative B 

would also likely cause adverse effects. 

Alternative C 

Under alternative C, resource management activities would result in long-term beneficial impacts on 

seabeach amaranth. The same benefits, discussed under alternative A above would also occur under 

alternative C, as well as additional benefits due to increased education about the biological resources and 

the resource management measures at the Seashore for recreational users as described in chapter 2. Some 

long-term adverse impacts would occur though from the lack of management practices regarding removal 

of webworms which predate on seabeach amaranth and have been found in the Seashore, and the lack of a 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 387

management plan for beach vitex, which if it spreads to the Seashore, would have adverse impacts on 

seabeach amaranth by outcompeting it for similar habitat. Some small amount of adverse impacts may 

also occur from essential vehicles running over seeds and either pulverizing them or burying them to 

depths beyond which they can germinate. 

ORV and other recreational use would have long-term adverse impacts on seabeach amaranth. Those 

impacts described under alternative A above would also occur under alternative C for those portions of 

the Seashore open to ORV use (approximately 74 percent during the summer and 79 percent during the 

rest of the year except from January 1 through March 15 when ORV use is prohibited on the Seashore.) 

Alternative C would also result in additional long-term adverse impacts from habitat loss if new ramps are 

constructed or existing ramps are re-established after a storm in habitat that would otherwise be suitable 

for seabeach amaranth. Short- and long-term beneficial impacts would result from deterring violations of 

Seashore rules and regulations through the possible revocation of operator certificates and vehicle permits 

as well as increased enforcement and education through increased staffing levels for law enforcement and 

interpretation positions respectively. Benefits would also arise from maintaining the back route, which 

would encourage vehicle operators to use it instead of the ocean beach where the seabeach amaranth 

habitat is. Limiting the number of vehicles on the beach at any one time by capping the number of vehicle 

permits issued and potential management activities (increased education and testing, focused 

enforcement, route restrictions, increased buffer sizes, and further reduced vehicle limits) if triggered 

under the adaptive management strategy would also provide some small beneficial impacts. Under ESA, 

these impacts would result in a finding of may affect/are likely to adversely affect seabeach amaranth 

because the actions would result in direct or indirect impacts to the species that are not discountable, 

insignificant, or beneficial. Though there would beneficial impacts from resource management activities, 

the actions under alternative C would also likely cause adverse effects. 

Alternative D 

Under alternative D, resources management activities would result in long-term beneficial impacts on 

seabeach amaranth. The same benefits discussed under alternative A above would also occur under 

alternative D, with additional benefits due to increased education about the biological resources and the 

resource management measures at the Seashore for recreational users as described in chapter 2. Some 

long-term adverse impacts would occur though from the lack of management practices regarding removal 

of webworms, which predate on seabeach amaranth and have been found in the Seashore, and the lack of 

a management plan for beach vitex, which if it spreads to the Seashore, would have adverse impacts on 

seabeach amaranth by outcompeting it for similar habitat. Some small amount of adverse impacts may 

also occur from essential vehicles running over seeds and either pulverizing them or burying them to 

depths beyond which they can germinate. 

ORV and other recreational use would have long-term adverse impacts on seabeach amaranth. Those 

impacts described under alternative A above would also occur under alternative D for those portions of 

the Seashore open to ORV use (approximately 63 percent during the summer and 73 percent during the 

rest of the year except from January 1 through March 15 when ORV use is prohibited on the Seashore). 

Alternative D would also result in additional long-term adverse impacts from habitat loss if existing 

ramps are re-established after a storm in habitat that would otherwise be suitable for seabeach amaranth. 

Short- and long-term beneficial impacts would result from deterring violations of Seashore rules and 

regulations through the possible revocation of operator certificates and vehicle permits as well as 

increased enforcement and education through increased staffing levels for law enforcement and 

interpretation positions, respectively. Benefits would also arise from maintaining the back route, which 

would encourage vehicle operators to use it instead of the ocean beach where the seabeach amaranth 

habitat is. Limiting the number of vehicles on the beach at any one time through limits on the number of 

vehicle permits issued and potential management activities (increased education and testing, focused 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

388 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

enforcement, route restrictions, increased buffer sizes, and further reduced vehicle limits) if triggered 

under the adaptive management strategy would also provide some small beneficial impacts. Under ESA, 

these impacts would result in a finding of may affect/are likely to adversely affect seabeach amaranth 

because the actions would result in direct or indirect impacts to the species that are not discountable, 

insignificant, or beneficial. Though there would beneficial impacts from resource management activities, 

the actions under alternative D would also likely cause adverse effects. 

Alternative E 

Under alternative E, resources management activities would result in short- and long-term benefits to 

seabeach amaranth, similar to alternative A. Benefits would be due to the protection provided by 

installing closures around plants that are detected, surveying for plants periodically beginning in June 

when plants first begin to germinate and conducting an intensive annual survey in late July or early 

August when plants are readily visible, installing pre-nesting and other closures for nesting bird species 

that overlap seabeach amaranth habitat, and surveying bird and turtle closures for plants prior to 

reopening these closures to other recreation use. Some long-term adverse impacts would occur though 

from the lack of management practices regarding removal of webworms which predate on seabeach 

amaranth and have been found in the Seashore, and the lack of a management plan for beach vitex, which 

if it spreads to the Seashore, would have adverse impacts on seabeach amaranth by outcompeting it for 

similar habitat. Some small amount of adverse impacts may also occur from essential vehicles running 

over seeds and either pulverizing them or burying them to depths beyond which they can germinate. 

Prohibiting ORV use on the Seashore would eliminate their potential adverse impacts on the plant. It 

would also likely limit the amount of pedestrian use of the Seashore, as well as likely restricting most of 

the pedestrian use to areas that are easily accessible from the ferry landings. Since pedestrian use does not 

typically overlap seabeach amaranth habitat and overall use of the Seashore would likely decrease due to 

the prohibition of ORV use, adverse impacts from pedestrian use would be reduced, though there would 

still be a slight risk that some undetected/unprotected seedlings/plants could be trampled by pedestrians 

and or their pets, specifically by those who tent camp near the toe of the dunes. Under ESA, these impacts 

would result in a finding of may affect/are not likely to adversely affect seabeach amaranth because the 

actions would result in direct or indirect impacts to the species that are discountable, insignificant, or 

beneficial. Though there would beneficial impacts from resource management activities and prohibiting 

public ORV use throughout the Seashore, the actions under alternative E would also likely cause some 

small adverse effects. 

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource management activities proposed under alternative B would provide slightly more beneficial 

impacts to seabeach amaranth than those proposed under alternative A (the no-action alternative) and 

alternative E (the no ORV alternative) because there would be more consistent training and supervision of 

resource staff who conduct the surveys, closures for historical bird nesting areas would be erected by 

March 16 (rather than April 1), providing earlier protection of potential seabeach amaranth habitat and 

possibly seeds that could germinate if the habitat overlaps that of seabeach amaranth. Additional benefits 

would also result from increased education and public outreach measures that would be implemented 

under alternative B. Adverse impacts from ORV use and other recreational uses under alternative B 

would be less than those incurred under alternative A. This is due to regular maintenance of the back 

route which would encourage its use rather than the ocean beach, the additional management measures 

that could be implemented under the adaptive management strategy if species indicators are triggered, the 

vehicle permit system, the ORV operator education certificate requirement, and the likely increased 

compliance with resource closures due to increased law enforcement and interpretative staffing positions. 

Some adverse impacts that would occur under alternative B that would not occur under alternative A 
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 389

would result from the loss of habitat if construction of new ramps or the re-establishment of existing 

ramps after storms occur in areas of suitable habitat for the plant. Adverse impacts from ORV use and 

other recreational uses under alternative B would be greater than those under alternative E because no 

public ORV use would be allowed on the Seashore under alternative E, eliminating all impacts on 

seabeach amaranth from public ORV use and reducing impacts from other recreational uses, especially 

camping near the toe of the primary dunes, due to the reduced access to the beaches without ORVs. 

Resource management activities proposed under alternative C would provide slightly more beneficial 

impacts to seabeach amaranth than those proposed under alternative A (the no-action alternative) and 

alternative E (the no ORV alternative) because there would be more consistent training and supervision of 

resource staff who conduct the surveys and because closures for historical bird nesting areas would be 

erected by March 16 (rather than April 1), providing earlier protection of potential seabeach amaranth 

habitat and possibly seeds that could germinate if the habitat overlaps that of seabeach amaranth. 

Additional benefits would also result from increased education and public outreach measures that would 

be implemented under alternative C. Adverse impacts from ORV use and other recreational uses under 

alternative C would be less than those incurred under alternative A. This is due to the expansion of 

pedestrian-only use areas by 4 miles, the additional management measures that could be implemented 

under the adaptive management strategy if species indicators are triggered, the vehicle permit system, the 

ORV operator education certificate requirement, the limit on the number of vehicle permits that would be 

issued, and the likely increased compliance with resource closures due to increased law enforcement and 

interpretative staffing positions. Some adverse impacts that would occur under alternative C that would 

not occur under alternative A would result from the loss of habitat if construction of new ramps or the reestablishment of existing ramps after storms occurs in areas of suitable habitat for the plant. Compared to 

alternative E, alternative C would provide less protection for seabeach amaranth because ORV access 

would be permitted under alternative C whereas no impacts from recreational ORVs would occur under 

alternative E and potential impacts from other recreational uses, especially camping near the toe of the 

primary dunes, would be lessened due to reduced access to the beaches without ORVs. 

Resource management activities proposed under alternative D would provide slightly more beneficial 

impacts to seabeach amaranth than those proposed under alternative A (the no-action alternative) and 

alternative E (the no ORV alternative) because there would be more consistent training and supervision of 

resource staff who conduct the surveys and closures for historical bird nesting areas would be erected by 

March 16 (rather than April 1), providing earlier protection of potential seabeach amaranth habitat and 

possibly seeds that could germinate if the habitat overlaps that of seabeach amaranth. Additional benefits 

would also result from increased education and public outreach measures that would be implemented 

under alternative D. Impacts from ORV use and other recreational uses under alternative D would be 

reduced when compared to alternative A. This is due to the expansion of pedestrian-use only areas by 10 

miles. Additional benefits would occur from additional management measures that could be implemented 

under the adaptive management strategy if species indicators are triggered, the vehicle permit system, the 

ORV operator education certificate requirement, the limit on the number of vehicle permits that would be 

issued, and the likely increased compliance with resource closures due to increased law enforcement and 

interpretative staffing positions. Some adverse impacts that would occur under alternative D that would 

not occur under alternative A would result from the loss of habitat if the re-establishment of existing 

ramps after storms occurs in areas of suitable habitat for the plant. Compared to alternative E, alternative 

D would provide less protection for seabeach amaranth because ORV access would be permitted under 

alternative D whereas no impacts from ORVs would occur under alternative E and potential impacts from 

other recreational uses, especially camping near the toe of the primary dunes, would be lessened due to 

reduced access to the beaches without ORVs. 

The resource management activities proposed for alternative E (the no ORV alternative) are the same 

activities proposed for alternative A (the no-action alternative) and their impacts would be the same. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

390 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

However, under alternative E there would be no public use of ORVs on the Seashore and surveying and 

monitoring protocols would be reviewed and may change due to the elimination of impacts from 

recreational ORV use and a reduction in the amount of impacts from pedestrians. Under alternative A, the 

North and South Core Banks of the Seashore would remain open to ORV use in designated routes and 

areas (as documented in the Superintendent’s Compendium), except where resource or safety closures are 

present. When compared to alternative A, alternative E would provide more protection to seabeach 

amaranth because there would be no impacts related to ORV use and impacts related to other recreational 

uses would be reduced due to limited access to the ocean front beaches with no ORV use. 

CONCLUSION

Surveying and monitoring for seabeach amaranth, as well as implementing protection measures for 

detected plants would be the same under all of the alternatives (alternatives A, B, C, D, and E) and would 

provide short- and long-term benefits, as well as some small potential for long-term adverse effects. 

Benefits would be due to the protection provided to seabeach amaranth habitat, seeds, and any 

germinating plants from erecting pre-nesting and other resource closures for birds and sea turtles that 

would overlap seabeach amaranth habitat, monitoring habitat outside of bird closures for plants beginning 

on June 1 when they are typically first visible, conducting an annual survey in late July or early August 

when plants are readily visible and have begun their seed set, and erecting at a minimum a 30-foot by 30-

foot buffer around any detected plants. Alternatives B, C, and D would provide slightly more benefits 

than alternative A because pre-nesting closures would be posted prior to opening the Seashore to ORVs 

by March 16 (rather than April 1). Some long-term adverse impacts from NPS staff using ORVs to 

conduct species surveys and monitoring would occur under all alternatives due the possibility of running 

over plant seeds and either pulverizing them or potentially burying them to depths beyond which they can 

germinate. 

Education and public outreach measures to inform the public and ORV users about the rules and 

regulations of the Seashore and about the protected species would provide short- and long-term beneficial 

impacts on seabeach amaranth under all alternatives, though under alternative E these measure would just 

focus on pedestrian use since ORVs would be prohibited from the Seashore under alternative E. 

Standardizing resource closure signs, providing additional education materials about ORV regulations and 

species protection to commercial service providers for distribution to visitors, and adding interpretive 

programs related to ORV use at the Seashore and maps of closure areas online under alternatives B, C, 

and D would add to the beneficial impacts. 

Under alternatives A, B, C, and D, ORV use on the Seashore would be allowed resulting in short- and 

long-term adverse impacts on seabeach amaranth. Impacts would result from running over plants and 

either pulverizing seeds or burying them beyond the depth at which they can germinate. Throughout 

North Carolina, seabeach amaranth is usually found on south and southeast facing beaches, and at the 

Seashore this corresponds to areas that are year-round pedestrian-only use areas: Shackleford Banks and 

Power Squadron Spit. Other year-round pedestrian-only use areas that support, or have supported 

seabeach amaranth plants in the past, include Portsmouth Flats, the interior of the point of Cape Lookout, 

and the beach between mile markers 41a and 41b. These areas that are closed year-round to ORV use and 

historically support the majority of the plants found at the Seashore provide short- and long-term 

beneficial impacts to the plant. Though these pedestrian-only use areas would occur under all of the 

alternatives, alternatives C and D would have additional pedestrian-only use areas (additional 4 miles 

under alternative C and additional 10 miles under alternative B) resulting in fewer adverse impacts than 

alternatives A and B. 

Maintenance of the back route under alternatives B, C, and D would likely encourage vehicles to use it 

rather than the ocean beach, providing some beneficial impacts to seabeach amaranth. However, re-
Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 391

establishing ramps from the back route to the ocean beach after storm events may result in long-term 

adverse impacts if the location of the re-established ramp is in an area of suitable habitat for seabeach 

amaranth. In addition, alternatives B and C would construct some new ramps, which also could result in a 

loss of seabeach amaranth habitat. However, given the small areas of the ramps and the overall habitat 

available throughout the Seashore, any adverse impacts from re-establishing or creating new ramps would 

be relatively small. 

Under alternatives B, C, and D, requiring vehicle permits and ORV user education certificates that could 

be revoked would enhance compliance with Seashore rules and regulations providing beneficial impacts 

not realized under alternative A. The beneficial impacts from these resource management activities would 

not be as beneficial as alternative E, which would prohibit nonessential recreational ORV use, and their 

impacts, altogether at the Seashore. 

For alternatives B, C, and D, the additional management actions to be implemented if species indicators 

are triggered under the adaptive management strategy (increased education and focused enforcement; 

route restrictions, increased buffer sizes, and a limit on the number of vehicles) would help protect 

seabeach amaranth habitat and plants as well, to the degree that seabeach amaranth is present, since the 

majority of its habitat occurs on the south and southeast facing beaches where ORV use is not permitted. 

Through the use of vehicle capacity limits, alternatives C and D would provide some small additional 

long-term benefits compared to alternatives A and B. However, the vehicle capacity limits under 

alternatives C and D would not have too much of an effect on seabeach amaranth because during the 

spring and summer (March 16 through September 15) most of the habitat suitable for seabeach amaranth 

would already be protected through year-round or seasonal closures for other species and limiting the 

number of vehicles on the beach would not alter this. Some additional benefits would arise during the fall 

and winter (between September 16 and December 31) when many of the resource closures are removed 

by limiting the number of vehicles that can potentially alter suitable habitat, pulverize seeds, or bury seeds 

below depths where they can germinate. 

By prohibiting nonessential recreational ORV use throughout the entire Seashore, alternative E would 

provide more protection for seabeach amaranth than alternative A or alternatives B, C, and D. Potential 

impacts from other recreational uses, especially camping at the toe of the primary dunes, would be 

lessened due to the reduced access to remote areas of the beach with no ORV use. 

Significance Discussion 

The purpose of the Seashore is to preserve the outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational resources 

and values of a dynamic, intact, natural barrier island system where ecological processes dominate. The 

Seashore is one of the few remaining locations on the Atlantic Coast where visitors can experience and 

recreate in an undeveloped, remote barrier island environment that can be reached only by boat or ferry. 

The seabeach amaranth is a low-growing annual plant, endemic to barrier island beaches along the U.S. 

Atlantic Coast, including those beaches within the Seashore. Historically, seabeach amaranth was found 

in nine states, from Massachusetts to South Carolina. However, the greatest concern for this species is the 

destruction or alteration of suitable habitat, primarily because of beach stabilization efforts and stormrelated erosion, which caused this species to be eliminated from two-thirds of its historical range. 

Therefore, the USFWS and the state of North Carolina listed the seabeach amaranth as a threatened plant 

species. Since its federal listing, the seabeach amaranth has reappeared in several states, but it remains 

highly vulnerable to the previously mentioned threats, plus impacts associated with beach grooming (and 

some forms of “soft” beach stabilization, such as sand fencing and planting of beach-grasses), vehicular 

traffic (which can easily break or crush the fleshy plant and bury seeds below depths from which they can 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

392 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

germinate), herbivory/predation by webworms (caterpillars of small moths) and nutria, and competition 

from beach vitex (an aggressive, invasive woody plant). 

Throughout North Carolina, seabeach amaranth is usually found on south and southeast facing beaches, 

and at the Seashore this corresponds to areas that are year-round pedestrian-only use areas: Shackleford 

Banks and Power Squadron Spit. Beaches facing other directions that support (or have supported) 

seabeach amaranth plants are year-round pedestrian-only use areas that include Portsmouth Flats, the 

interior of the point of Cape Lookout, and the beach between mile markers 41a and 41b. These areas are 

closed year-round to ORV use and historically support the majority of the plants found at the Seashore, 

and provide short- and long-term beneficial impacts to the plant. Though these pedestrian-only use areas 

would occur under all of the alternatives, alternatives C and D would have additional pedestrian-only use 

areas (additional 4 miles under alternative C and additional 10 miles under alternative B) resulting in 

fewer adverse impacts than alternatives A and B. Maintenance of the back route under alternatives B, C, 

and D would likely encourage vehicles to use it rather than the ocean beach, which would provide some 

beneficial impacts to the preferred habitat of the seabeach amaranth. However, re-establishing ramps from 

the back route to the ocean beach after storm events may result in long-term adverse impacts if the 

location of the re-established ramp is in an area of suitable habitat for seabeach amaranth. In addition, 

alternatives B and C would construct some new ramps which also could result in a loss of seabeach 

amaranth habitat. Given the small areas of the ramps and the overall habitat available throughout the 

Seashore, any adverse impacts from re-establishing or creating new ramps would be relatively small. 

Under alternatives B, C, and D, requiring vehicle permits and ORV user education certificates that could 

be revoked would enhance compliance with Seashore rules and regulations providing beneficial impacts 

not realized under alternative A. The beneficial impacts from these resource management activities would 

not be as beneficial as alternative E, which would prohibit nonessential recreational ORV use, and their 

impacts, altogether at the Seashore. For alternatives B, C, and D, the additional management actions to be 

implemented if species indicators are triggered under the adaptive management strategy (increased 

education and focused enforcement; route restrictions, increased buffer sizes, and a limit on the number of 

vehicles) would also help protect seabeach amaranth habitat and plants. Through the use of vehicle 

capacity limits, alternatives C and D would provide some small additional long-term benefits compared to 

alternatives A and B. However, the vehicle capacity limits under alternatives C and D would not have too 

much of an effect on seabeach amaranth because during the spring and summer (March 16 through 

September 15) most of the habitat suitable for seabeach amaranth would already be protected through 

year-round or seasonal closures for other species or pedestrian-only areas, and limiting the number of 

vehicles on the beach would not alter this. Any remaining impacts to seabeach amaranth from ORVs 

under alternative E would be further reduced, since this alternative prohibits recreational ORV use. 

Because impacts to seabeach amaranth from ORVs are already limited due to the majority of its habitat 

being in pedestrian only areas on south and southeast facing beaches, in addition to resource management 

measures, impacts to seabeach amaranth from ORVs are not likely to be significant under any alternative. 

Under alternatives A, B, C, and D, designating legal routes for ORV use does not establish a precedent for 

future actions with significant effects, as ORV use has occurred at the Seashore since the 1930s and 

continued since the establishment of the Seashore as a park unit in 1976, and the current and proposed 

species protection measures are substantial, and the areas designated for ORVs are primarily outside of 

seabeach amaranth habitat, resulting in a low overall level of impacts to this species. ORV use is also 

currently legally permitted in several other national seashores and recreation areas, and in this regard is 

not precedent-setting within the national park system. Alternative E, which prohibits ORV use, would 

also not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects to seabeach amaranth, as many 

other national park units do not allow ORV use. 

There are a number of cumulative impacts to seabeach amaranth, described in the impacts analysis above, 

which may be short- and long-term, limited, and adverse, as well as long-term beneficial. Adverse 
State-listed and Special-status Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 393

impacts could also occur under all alternatives from not having a management plan in place to manage 

webworms which have been found in the Seashore and predate on seabeach amaranth or for the invasive 

beach vitex, which if eventually found in the Seashore out competes seabeach habitat for the same habitat. 

However, while adverse effects on seabeach amaranth from other actions occurring in the region would 

still exist, actions under alternatives A, B, C, D, and E would not designate ORV routes in seabeach 

amaranth habitat, or would not designated routes at all (alternative E), and would provide additional 

protections that would be beneficial to the regional population of this species and would mitigate any 

significant adverse cumulative impacts already occurring. 

In conclusion, compared to the existing condition, additional impacts to seabeach amaranth under 

alternatives A, B, C, D, and E would be small. The Seashore currently has not designated ORV routes in 

areas of prime seabeach amaranth habitat, but has implemented resource protection and mitigation 

measures that would directly and indirectly benefit seabeach amaranth. When compared to the existing 

condition, in light of the significance criteria at 40 CFR 1508.27, there would be no significant adverse 

impacts to seabeach amaranth from alternatives A, B, C, D, or E. 

STATE-LISTED AND SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES 

GUIDING REGULATIONS AND POLICIES

The NPS Management Policies 2006 state that NPS will inventory, monitor, and manage state and locally 

listed species in a manner similar to its treatment of federally listed species to the greatest extent possible. 

In addition, the NPS will inventory other native species that are of special management concern to parks 

(such as rare, declining, sensitive, or unique species and their habitat) and will manage them to maintain 

their natural distribution and abundance (NPS 2006d, section 4.4.2.3). As a result, the NPS is obligated to 

manage access to important habitat for such species. In addition, one of the Seashore’s management goals 

is to provide protection for species that occur within the Seashore and that suffer population reductions or 

require special management. Therefore, an analysis of the potential impacts on state-listed species and 

certain Seashore sensitive species is included in this section. 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS

The following information was used to assess impacts on state-listed species: 

x Species found in areas likely to be affected by management actions described in the alternatives. 

x Habitat loss or alteration caused by the alternatives. 

x Displacement and disturbance potential of the actions and the species’ potential to be affected by 

the activities. 

Potential impacts on state-listed species populations and habitat were evaluated based on available data on 

the species’ past and present occurrence at the Seashore, as well as the species’ association with humans, 

pets, predators, and ORVs. Information on habitat and other existing data were acquired from staff at the 

Seashore, the USFWS, and available literature. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan identifies 

American oystercatchers and Wilson’s plovers as species of high concern. American oystercatchers and 

Wilson’s plovers are listed as species of special concern in North Carolina. The colonial waterbird species 

addressed in this analysis are state-listed threatened (gull-billed tern) and species of special concern 

(common tern, least tern, and black skimmer). 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

394 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

The analysis focuses on effects on state-listed species from a variety of human recreational activities 

(including ORV use), as well as impacts incurred as a result of surveying and management activities. 

Although the action alternatives involve the construction of ramps, parking areas, and interdunal roads, 

construction activities would occur outside of the bird breeding season, during daylight hours, and outside 

of any key breeding or foraging habitat. In the unlikely event that state-listed species are found in a 

construction area, the area would be under a resource closure and no construction would occur. Therefore, 

impacts from construction were assumed to be negligible. 

Under all alternatives, the Seashore establishes resource closures and buffers designed to protect statelisted and special-status species as well as other protected species such as piping plovers, sea turtles, and 

seabeach amaranth. The Seashore also conducts routine law enforcement patrols of the beach areas to 

enforce the closures, respond to violations, conduct investigations, and assist in public education. 

Although most public users of the Seashore respect the closures and buffers, noncompliance does occur 

(NPS 2012t, 2011a, 2010b, 2009a, 2008c, 2007i) and can adversely impact piping plovers. Studies have 

shown that increasing enforcement of regulations increases future compliance by not only the violator, 

but also of people other than the violator (Shimshack 2010; Shimshack and Ward 2005; Van Houten et al. 

2013). Thus, under the alternatives that increase law enforcement and resource management staffing 

levels, it is assumed that increased enforcement would result in increased compliance with the closures 

and other rules and regulations of the Seashore. 

STUDY AREA

The geographic study area for state-listed species is defined as Cape Lookout National Seashore in its 

entirety for the analysis of the impacts of the alternatives. The geographic study area for the cumulative 

impacts analysis is the state of North Carolina. 

ALTERNATIVE A

Impacts of Alternative A: No Action 

Resource Management Activities 

Surveying and Monitoring—Under alternative A, NPS staff would perform surveys of recent breeding 

areas for protected species and would also continue to monitor breeding, nesting, and fledging activities 

throughout the breeding season. Beginning in mid-April, all of the beaches on North Core Banks and 

South Core Banks would be surveyed for American oystercatcher activity two times per week and active 

colonial waterbird nesting areas would be surveyed three days per week during piping plover surveys. 

There would be prenesting surveying for Wilson’s plovers. During nesting and hatching, American 

oystercatcher and colonial waterbird nests would be checked every two days on North Core Banks and 

South Core Banks. In areas where piping plover occur, American oystercatchers and colonial waterbirds 

would also be surveyed every day. Wilson’s plover nests and broods would be observed incidental to 

piping plover monitoring. For all state-listed and special-status species that breed at the Seashore, when 

broods are mobile, more frequent observations would be provided along with enforcement presence. 

Monitoring would end when all chicks have fledged. 

Surveying for state-listed and special-status species would provide long-term benefits from data collected, 

as it would allow the Seashore to better manage the species. However, surveying would cause some 

adverse impacts by bringing NPS staff and/or essential vehicles into direct short-term contact with statelisted and special-status species and their habitat, and these activities themselves are known risk factors 

(McGowan 2004; Sabine 2005; Nol and Humphrey 1994; Simons and Schulte 2008; Corbat and 
State-listed and Special-status Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 395

Bergstrom 2000). All state-listed and special-status species are highly vulnerable to disturbance and are 

known to abandon habitat when they are impacted by pedestrians, vehicles, pets, and even resource 

managers in or near their nesting habitat (Sabine 2005; Corbat and Bergstrom 2000). Therefore, the 

presence of NPS staff and/or their vehicles has the potential to lead to flushing responses, which in turn 

could have the potential to negatively impact feeding, reproduction, resting, or other factors (McGowan 

2004; Sabine 2005; Nol and Humphrey 1994; Simons and Schulte 2008; Corbat and Bergstrom 2000). 

NPS staff driving ORVs can also cause mortality of birds as occurred in 2012 when a fledgling American 

oystercatcher just learning to fly on South Core Banks flew into the headlights of a Park Ranger ORV, 

was struck and fatally wounded (NPS 2012p). To minimize adverse impacts, NPS staff would use best 

professional judgment and take precautions to minimize disturbance during surveying, such as observing 

incubating birds with optical equipment from appropriate distances and maintaining slow speeds while 

using ORVs in or near state-listed species habitat. 

The only surveying for Wilson’s plovers would be a census during the annual piping plover census (first 

week of June); however, it is common for the Wilson’s plover to use the same nesting sites as the piping 

plover and American oystercatcher (NPS 2006e). Therefore, the impacts of surveying and monitoring on 

the Wilson’s plover are expected to be the same as the American oystercatcher and colonial waterbirds, 

overall long-term beneficial with intermittent adverse impacts from potential disturbance resulting in 

flushing. 

Establishment of Prenesting Closures—Under alternative A, specific full recreational prenesting 

closures would not be established for American oystercatchers or Wilson’s plovers. For colonial 

waterbirds, full recreational prenesting closures would be established on April 1 in active colonial 

waterbird nesting areas, while ORV closures would be established in historical least tern and black 

skimmer nesting areas and any potential new habitat where, from site inspection, a qualified staff 

biologist determines that nesting may be likely to occur. The closures would also be expanded as 

necessary when nests or nest scrapes are found in new areas. These closures would protect nesting birds 

from adverse impacts caused by disturbance from ORVs and pedestrians, resulting in long-term beneficial 

impacts. American oystercatchers begin nesting at the Seashore in April (NPS 2012p, 2011e, 2010e, 

2009e, 2008h, 2007n, 2006c, 2005c, 2004b), and with no specific prenesting closures for this species they 

would be subject to disturbance from ORVs and pedestrians, resulting in long-term adverse impacts. 

However, prenesting closures for piping plovers and colonial waterbirds established on April 1 would be 

available for use by American oystercatchers, and provide long-term beneficial impacts by protecting 

species that nest in these closures from ORV and pedestrian disturbance. Wilson’s plovers are often found 

nesting in the same areas as piping plovers and American oystercatchers (NPS 2006e), and their peak 

nesting period is from late April through late May (Bergstrom 1982); therefore, piping plover prenesting 

closures beginning on April 1 would also provide protection to Wilson’s plovers. However, Wilson’s 

plovers begin establishing territories in mid-March through early April (Tomkins 1944; Bergstrom 1988), 

so those birds beginning to establish territories prior to April 1 would not be protected from ORV and 

pedestrian disturbances, resulting in long-term adverse impacts. 

Buffer/Closure Establishment—Oystercatchers need large, undisturbed beach areas for successful 

nesting. Research has shown that disturbance by pedestrians, kayakers, vehicles, and unleashed pets can 

cause the abandonment of nest habitat as well as direct loss of eggs and chicks (Cohen et al. 2010; Sabine, 

Schweitzer, and Meyers 2006, 2008; Toland 1999; Hodgson, Paul, and Rachal 2008; Meyers 2005). To 

help prevent these adverse impacts, under alternative A, a 10-square-foot full recreational closure would 

be established around American oystercatcher nests in areas subject to ORV or pedestrian traffic, and a 

ramp to ramp ORV closure would be established three days prior to the expected hatch date. The ramp to 

ramp ORV closure would remain in place once the chicks hatch unless there is no back route present, then 

ORVs would be allowed to pass through the area, without stopping, at 15 mph. As chicks move, a 

minimum 300-foot ORV closure would be maintained around the brood. For nests that occur on the ocean 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

396 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

beach, a 300-foot buffer would be established around the nest and vehicles would be allowed to pass 

through the area only, no stopping would be allowed. Providing buffers and closures around nests and 

chicks would reduce impacts caused by vehicles and pedestrians, resulting in short- and long-term 

beneficial impacts. However, in some instances adverse effects could still occur. While establishing 

buffers around nesting and fledging areas and the use of symbolic fencing can provide a deterrent to the 

entry of people, pets, and ORVs into sensitive habitat, first-time breeders are less tolerant to disturbance 

than are older, established breeders (Nol and Humphrey 1994); therefore, buffers for first-time breeders 

may not provide sufficient protection. Also, as noted above, in areas where there is no back route present, 

ORVs would be allowed to pass through closures at reduced speeds. Although signs would be posted 

warning operators of flightless chicks in the area, it is possible that noise disturbance (which can interfere 

with nesting and foraging behavior) and injury/mortality would occur for individuals. For example, in 

2008 in an area where there was no back route, signs were posted on the beach warning drivers of the 

presence of American oystercatcher chicks on the beach, however one chick was found dead in a tire 

track (NPS 2008h). In adjusting ORV closures to provide a minimum 300-foot buffer around broods, 

observations of chick movements may not be sufficient (frequent enough) to properly adjust buffers so 

that they protect chicks from ORV and pedestrian disturbance. For example, if observations are made 

during times of low chick mobility, buffers would adjust to 300 feet and result in leaving chicks that 

move greater than 300 feet at another time (after the observation is complete) unprotected. 

Ground-nesting colonial waterbirds are particularly vulnerable to impacts from human activities 

undertaken by ORV riders, pedestrians, photographers, wildlife managers, scientists, and even poachers 

because of the birds’ usually high colony density and co-occurrence with human recreation (Erwin 1980, 

2005; Rodgers and Smith 1995; Rodgers and Schwikert 2002). Disturbances affect the animals’ ability to 

feed, rest, and breed by evoking a flush response (Rodgers and Smith 1995; Rodgers and Schwikert 

2002). Even modest disturbances early in the spring, when the birds are first arriving and prospecting for 

breeding sites, can be highly disruptive to colonial species (Buckley and Buckley 1976). To help prevent 

these adverse impacts, under alternative A, a full recreational closure of 150 feet would be established 

around all colonial waterbird nests, resulting in long-term benefits for nesting colonial waterbirds by 

protecting nests from pedestrians and vehicles. Observations and resultant management would be 

responsive to individual bird behavior when determining adequate size of closure zones around nests. 

Colonial waterbird closures would be expanded as necessary where species are observed with nests or 

where nest scrapes are found. Providing buffers and closures around nests and chicks would reduce the 

impacts caused by vehicles and pedestrians, providing short- and long-term beneficial impacts. 

Similar to American oystercatchers and colonial waterbirds, Wilson’s plovers are subject to disturbance 

by vehicles and pedestrians. Additionally, when they leave their nests as a result of being disturbed they 

are extremely reluctant to return when intruders are anywhere near; a practice that exposes eggs to 

predation and overheating (Corbat and Bergstrom 2000). Although closures and buffers would not be 

established specifically for Wilson’s plovers, the birds are typically found nesting in the same area as 

piping plovers and American oystercatchers (NPS 2006e); therefore, buffers for these species would also 

protect Wilson’s plovers. Additionally, Wilson’s plover nests, scrapes, and chicks found outside of 

existing closures would be posted which would help to notify ORV users and pedestrians of their 

presence and help lessen potential impacts from disturbance given the lack of species-specific buffers for 

Wilson’s plovers. 

There would be long-term benefits to American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers 

from the ORV and full recreational closures and frequency of observations that adjust in response to chick 

behavior, which would allow NPS staff to change buffer sizes and locations in response to highly mobile 

broods, such as occurred successfully in 2010 at the point of Cape Lookout where a buffer was frequently 

adjusted to accommodate frequent movements between the tip of the point and the dunes (NPS 2010e). 

Basing buffer size on chick behavior and adjusting these buffers in response to brood movements may 
State-listed and Special-status Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 397

result in some long-term adverse impacts since frequent adjustment of the buffers could result in 

additional disturbance to American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers by NPS 

staff (Anderson and Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; Tremblay and Ellison 1979; Hand 1980). 

However, the potential adverse impacts resulting from disturbance by NPS staff while adjusting the 

buffers would be outweighed by the beneficial impacts provided to the plovers by protecting them from 

ORV and pedestrian impacts through the timely adjustment of the buffers during the critical reproductive 

stage. 

Under alternative A, if staff is available, a limited escort program may be used around bird closures to 

maintain access to Portsmouth Village. If implemented, a limited escort program would benefit statelisted and special-status bird species by increasing protection and reducing the potential for birds to be 

disturbed or killed by ORVs. For example, in 2008, after an American oystercatcher chick had been run 

over by an ORV in an area where there was no back route, NPS staff, to prevent a similar occurrence at 

mile 8.96 on North Core Banks, successfully escorted vehicles past American oystercatcher chicks on the 

beach where there was no back route (NPS 2008h). 

In addition to buffers and closures implemented for bird species, six nest relocation areas (three each on 

North Core and South Core Banks) would be designated for sea turtle nests each year and would be 

closed to ORV traffic beginning 50 days after the first nest is relocated to the area. The nest relocation 

areas would reopen to ORV traffic when the last nest in the area has been excavated. These ORV closures 

would be ramp to ramp closures, and would generally be 0.5 to 1.0 mile long. Additionally, camping and 

campfires would be prohibited in these areas. These areas would not generally act as prenesting closures 

for shorebirds as shorebirds have generally established their nests prior to mid-June, however, these areas 

would protect approximately 3.0 to 6.0 miles of beach from ORV impacts that could be used by 

shorebirds for foraging or resting. Also, if birds renest in these areas after losing their original nest due to 

predation or human disturbance they would be protected from ORV impacts. 

Management of Wintering and Nonbreeding Birds—Under alternative A, there would be no surveys 

conducted for wintering or nonbreeding American oystercatchers (colonial waterbirds and Wilson’s 

plovers do not winter at the Seashore), and there would be no ORV or full recreational closures 

established specifically targeting wintering and nonbreeding birds. However, the Seashore would be 

closed to public ORV use from January 1 through March 15. This would result in long-term benefits, 

providing habitat for wintering American oystercatchers and allowing the beach profile to recover from 

heavy fall fishing use. Outside of the January 1 through March 15 timeframe, no closures would be 

specifically implemented for wintering and nonbreeding shorebird protection which could result in 

disturbance of individuals, leading to displacement and altered foraging behavior (Burger 1991; Zonick 

2000; McAtee and Drawe 1981). However, impacts would be minimized through permanent ORV 

closures which include all of Shackleford Banks, Portsmouth Flats, the interior of the point of Cape 

Lookout, the ocean beach between mile markers 41a and 41b, and Power Squadron Spit. 

While the closure of the Seashore to vehicles from January 1 through March 15 would help protect 

wintering species, no closures would be established for pedestrians, which could result in disturbance of 

birds and habitat from pedestrian use, leading to displacement and altered foraging behavior. However, 

adverse impacts would be largely imperceptible because many passenger ferries stop operating in the 

winter, the amount of pedestrian use during the winter months is very low, and without a means of 

transportation on the beach, most visitor use would be confined to areas in the immediate vicinity of the 

ferry landings. 

Though winter surveys would not occur for American oystercatchers, surveying of wintering piping 

plovers would occur once per month between August 1 and March 31. Surveying activities for 

nonbreeding plovers could cause some disturbance to American oystercatchers on the beach through the 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

398 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

presence of NPS staff and vehicles causing flushing behavior. However, any potential impacts would be 

minimal because surveys for nonbreeding plovers only occur once per month, and wintering American 

oystercatchers appear to use soundside habitat more than the ocean beach. During winter flock counts in 

2008, 2009, and 2010 American oystercatchers were only found on the soundside of Shackleford Banks 

and on the soundside mud flats of Ophelia Inlet on South Core Banks (NPS 2010e, 2009e, 2008h). 

Predator Management—Predation continues to be a major factor affecting the reproductive success of 

shorebirds across their range and at the Seashore. Typical predators for American oystercatcher include 

mammalian species such as raccoon, red fox, feral cats, rats, and dogs, as well as avian species such as 

American crow and gulls (Cohen et al. 2010). At the Seashore, 38 percent of the American oystercatcher 

nests lost in 2012 was attributed to predation (NPS 2012p). For colonial waterbirds, predators include 

raccoons, red fox, rats, feral cats, muskrat, skunk, opossum and ghost crabs, as well as avian species such 

as gulls, peregrine falcons, and owls (Buckley and Buckley 1976; Erwin, Truitt, and Jimenez 2001; 

Cohen et al. 2010). Under alternative A, no nest protection measures would be put in place to protect 

shorebird nests from predators which would allow continued predation of nests and birds to occur, 

resulting in long-term adverse impacts. 

An indirect impact from recreational use is the attraction of mammalian and bird predators to trash 

associated with recreational use (NPS 2006e; USFWS 1996a). The Seashore would enforce proper trash 

disposal and anti-wildlife feeding regulations to reduce the attraction of predators to the area providing 

short- and long-term beneficial impacts to state-listed and special-status species. 

Education/Public Outreach—Under alternative A, the public would continue to receive information at 

the visitor centers about state-listed and special-status species and their ecology, as well as the measures 

the Seashore is taking to protect these species. Annual protected species reports would continue to be 

published on the Seashore’s website regarding the previous breeding season. The public would continue 

to be notified about closures that would limit ORV or pedestrian traffic, as well as when these closures 

reopen. Education and outreach materials would be provided regarding the impacts of trash disposal, 

wildlife feeding, and pets on sensitive species at the Seashore. Such public outreach is beneficial to statelisted and special-status species as it educates the public on the specific needs of the species and alerts the 

public ahead of time to areas where they cannot go due to potential impacts on the species. 

Research/Monitoring—Ongoing research at the Seashore under alternative A would include monitoring 

American oystercatcher nesting and chick survival and success and document causes of chick mortality. 

In the future, there would likely be other research to study wildlife at the Seashore. Research efforts have 

the potential to negatively impact feeding and resting behavior of shorebirds over the long-term due to the 

increased human presence and use of ORVs (Anderson and Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; Hand 

1980; Tremblay and Ellison 1979). However, the research directed towards the American oystercatcher, 

and any future research directed towards state-listed and special-status species would result in long-term 

beneficial impacts for the species because it is likely that results from the research would lead to a greater 

understanding of the species and could inform future protection and management of the species. 

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

ORVs and Pedestrian Access—Studies of the effects of humans and vehicles on American 

oystercatchers have indicated lower nest survival and higher chick mortality in places with higher levels 

of disturbance (McGowan 2004; Sabine 2005; Simons and Schulte 2008). Studies in Europe on the 

European oystercatchers (Haematopus ostralegus), in the same genus as American oystercatcher and 

closely related, have shown reduced foraging efficiency and lower rates of chick feeding in disturbed 

versus undisturbed habitats (Verhulst, Oosterbeek, and Ens 2001). In addition to direct impacts or 

mortality, reasons for lower reproductive success in areas of high disturbance may include reduced time 
State-listed and Special-status Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 399

spent foraging (Sabine et al. 2008; Verhulst, Oosterbeek, and Ens 2001; Stillman and Goss-Custard 

2002), thermal stress to eggs caused by a lack of incubation when reacting to disturbance (Sabine, 

Schweitzer, and Meyers 2006; Verhulst, Oosterbeek, and Ens 2001), and expenditure of energy reserves 

during flushing or defensive displays (Toland 1999; Nudds and Bryant 2000; Stillman and Goss-Custard 

2002). 

Ground-nesting colonial waterbirds are particularly vulnerable to impacts from human activities 

undertaken by ORV riders, pedestrians, photographers, wildlife managers, scientists, and even poachers 

because of the birds’ usually high colony density and co-occurrence with human recreation (Erwin 1980, 

2005; Rodgers and Smith 1995; Rodgers and Schwikert 2002). Disturbances affect the animals’ ability to 

feed, rest, and breed by evoking a flush response (Rodgers and Smith 1995; Rodgers and Schwikert 

2002). Human activities which have indirect effects include the presence of domestic and feral animals 

and leaving garbage that subsequently attracts bird and mammal predators. Even modest disturbances 

early in the spring, when the birds are first arriving and prospecting for breeding sites, can be highly 

disruptive to colonial species (Buckley and Buckley 1976). 

Similar to American oystercatchers and colonial waterbirds, Wilson’s plovers are subject to disturbance 

by vehicles and pedestrians. Additionally, when they leave their nests as a result of being disturbed they 

are extremely reluctant to return when intruders are anywhere near; a practice that exposes eggs to 

predation and overheating (Corbat and Bergstrom 2000). 

Under alternative A, approximately 81 percent (approximately 45 miles) of the Seashore beaches would 

be open to public ORV use, including ATVs and UTVs, in designated routes and areas (as documented in 

the Superintendent’s Compendium) from March 16 through December 31. As described above under 

“Buffer/Closure Establishment,” the Seashore establishes resource closures state-listed and special-status 

species as well as other protected species at the Seashore. The Seashore also establishes safety closures 

when certain areas of the beach become too hazardous for safe public use. Based on data from 2008 to 

2013, the total amount of ORV resource and safety closures at the Seashore averages approximately 10 

miles during the summer months and approximately 5.4 miles during the fall. These closures protect 

approximately 22 percent more of the Seashore that would otherwise be open to ORV impacts during the 

summer months, and approximately 12 percent more of the Seashore during the fall months. Although 

these closures are not exclusively put in place for the protection of state-listed and special-status species, 

and all of closures may not encompass habitat frequently used by all of the species, they do provide 

beneficial impacts by protecting habitat and birds from the adverse impacts caused by ORV use. 

ORV and other recreational activities that occur in the months when state-listed bird and special-status 

species are in residence on Seashore beaches (April through August) have the potential to disrupt resting 

and foraging birds from the noise associated with vehicle use and the presence of pedestrians. Of 

particular concern is when these disturbance factors result in birds being forced to fly while they are 

foraging, known as frequent escape flight. Frequent escape flights result in a reduction in time foraging 

and an increase in the time spent flying (Tarr 2008). Because foraging is replaced with flying, birds would 

not be able to add the body fat they need for migration, resulting in long-term adverse impacts including 

increased risk of predation, and reduced reproduction. In addition, continued vehicle use would put birds 

at risk of injury and/or direct mortality from collisions. 

ORV use can modify coastal habitat by affecting the beach profile and substrate characteristics in ways 

that reduce the suitability for nesting and hatching success. Vehicle traffic on beaches displaces large 

amounts of sand (Schlacher and Thompson 2008) and can contribute to erosion, especially during high 

tides or on narrow beaches where driving is concentrated higher on the beach. Anders and Leatherman 

(1987) found that ORV traffic displaces sand seaward and changes the compaction of the sand in the 

vicinity of the track. They found that it compacts the sand at depth while loosening the sand at the surface 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

400 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

making it more susceptible to erosion, which may lead to steeper dune profiles. All of these changes can 

make habitat less desirable for nesting or foraging. 

ORV traffic can also adversely impact beach invertebrates, which are a food source for American 

oystercatchers, some colonial waterbirds species, and Wilson’s plovers. In Australia, Schlacher and 

Thompson (2008) found that ORV impacted beaches had significantly fewer species at reduced densities 

than non-ORV beaches, and although these impacts were detectable throughout the year, the impacts 

increased during the summer when ORV traffic was greater. At Cape Cod National Seashore, Leatherman 

and Godfrey (1979) found that in the soft sands of intertidal sand flats amphipods (Talorshestia)

numbered fewer where ORV driving occurred than where it did not occur. They also found that 

polychaete worm (clam worm) populations and soft-shell clam (Mya arenaria) populations were totally 

decimated when applying 50 vehicle passes per day over 20 days to experimental plots. However, not all 

invertebrates are susceptible to impacts from ORVs, especially those species that burrow into the sand in 

the intertidal zone when the tide is out because ORVs only sink into the firm sand one tenth of an inch or 

so (Wolcott and Wolcott 1984). Wolcott and Wolcott (1984) found that in the intertidal zone coquina 

clams and mole crabs, both of which reside below the sand surface when the tide is out, are immune to 

ORV damage, whereas Vande Merwe and Vander Merwe (1991) found in a study in South Africa that the 

gastropod Bullia rhodostoma, the clams Donax serra and Donax sordidus, and the benthic mysid 

(Gastrosaccus psammodytes) showed a high tolerance for ORV traffic. 

In addition to impacting some invertebrates living in the sand, access to the intertidal zone often requires 

vehicles to cross over the wrack line, an area of high concentrations of invertebrates. Driving over the 

wrack line would crush and scatter seaweed, shells, and macroinvertebrates, causing damage and 

dispersal to an important source of food and habitat for many beach invertebrates (Kluft and Ginsberg 

2009; Stephenson 1999). Although no information could be found in the literature regarding the 

recovery/recolonization of macroinvertebrates in a disturbed wrack line once the disturbance is removed, 

the closing of the ocean beach to ORVs in areas for foraging piping plover chicks and the sea turtle nest 

relocation areas would allow a new wrack line to develop undisturbed with subsequent tidal cycles, 

providing new forage habitat, reducing the overall impact state-listed and special-status species from 

ORVs disturbing the wrack line. 

Although ATVs and UTVs are considered to be a type of ORV, and all ORV use has the potential to 

disturb bird nesting behavior, ATV use, and to some extent UTV use, may impact these behaviors 

differently than other types of ORVs (e.g., passenger vehicles and trucks). At Cape Lookout and Cape 

Hatteras National Seashores, McGowan and Simons (2006) found that while increases in ATV traffic 

increased the rate of trips to and away from the nest and reduced the percent of time spent incubating for 

American oystercatchers, other ORVs (i.e., four-wheel drive passenger vehicles) and pedestrian traffic 

had little measured effect on incubation. ATVs are louder and faster than other ORVs and pedestrians, 

which may be why birds are affected more by ATV traffic (McGowan and Simons 2006). Other types of 

ORVs and pedestrians also tend to stay closer to the water’s edge where the sand is packed firm, thus 

generally traveling farther away from nesting areas than ATVs (McGowan and Simons 2006). 

In another study, Simons and Borneman (2012) found that American oystercatchers were on their nests 

significantly less during all types of ORV (passenger vehicles, ATVs – single passenger, and UTVs – allterrain vehicles with side-by-side passengers) and pedestrian events than before those events occurred, 

with the most significant decline in percentage of observations on the nest attributable to ATVs followed 

by UTVs. Based on the authors’ graphical display of the data, American oystercatchers were on their 

nests approximately 85 percent of the time 20 minutes prior to all observances of human activities (e.g., 

passing of ORVs, ATVs, and UTVs). During the passing of an ORV (i.e., passenger vehicle), American 

oystercatchers were on their nests approximately 80 percent of the time, while during the passing of 

UTVs and ATVs they were observed on their nests approximately 62 percent and 33 percent of the time, 
State-listed and Special-status Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 401

respectively. However, in the same study Simons and Borneman (2012) found that the average heart rate 

of 36 incubating oystercatchers during all types of human activity (pedestrians, ORVs, ATVs, and UTVs) 

was not significantly higher than the heart rate from birds 20 minutes before a human activity event 

occurred. Therefore, while the physiological response of American oystercatchers seems to indicate 

habituation to disturbance, their behavioral response does not indicate a habituation to disturbance. 

Therefore, even with buffers and other ORV or full recreational closures, ATV and UTV use as allowed 

under this alternative could adversely affect American oystercatchers at the Seashore more than other 

types of ORVs because of the disturbance and noise associated with their use. 

As part of a study looking at impacts from military overflights at the Seashore on nesting Wilson’s plover 

and colonial waterbirds (least tern, common tern, gull-billed tern, and black skimmer) during the 2010 

and 2011 nesting season, DeRose-Wilson et al. (no date) recorded data regarding other human 

disturbances, namely ORV traffic and pedestrians, though sample sizes were small for some species. 

Although the authors did not find any clear trends associated with ORV vehicle traffic and incubating bird 

behavior, they did find that black skimmers appeared to spend significantly less time incubating their 

nests following the passing of an ATV than other types of ORVs, although they did note the finding may 

have been an artifact of a small sample size. While this study provides no clear conclusions about the 

potential impacts of ATVs and UTVs compared to other types of ORVs, given the potential impact of 

ATVs and UTVs on other shorebird species, it is likely that even with existing buffers and closures that 

some short-term and possibly-long term adverse impacts on state-listed and special-status species would 

occur more so from ATVs and UTVs than other types of ORVs under this alternative. 

As described above under “Management of Wintering and Nonbreeding Birds,” closing the Seashore to 

vehicles from January 1 through March 15 every year under alternative A would protect wintering 

American oystercatchers from the impacts of ORV use and allow the beach profile to recover from heavy 

fall fishing use. While passenger ferries would continue to enable pedestrians to access the Seashore 

during this time, any potential adverse impacts to wintering American oystercatchers, such as temporary 

displacement, reduced foraging success, and increased susceptibility to predators would be minimal due 

to reduced use of the Seashore by pedestrians during the winter months, and the fact that without a means 

of transportation on the beach, most visitor use would be confined to areas in the immediate vicinity of 

the ferry landings. 

Under alternative A, pedestrian-only use areas would include Shackleford Banks, the lighthouse beach as 

define between mile markers 41a and 41b; and Power Squadron Spit from mile marker 46.2 west to the 

end of the spit. Although ORVs would not be permitted in these areas, which would reduce the threat of 

motorized vehicle use on state-listed and special-status birds that occur in those areas, the presence of 

pedestrians and continued occurrence of non-ORV recreational activities could result in short-term 

adverse impacts, depending on the time of year and life stage of the bird. One such non-ORV recreation 

activity that could adversely impact state-listed and special-status bird species is kite flying. The USFWS 

recognizes that piping plovers are highly disturbed by kites, and it is believed this may be because plovers 

perceive kites as potential avian predators (USFWS 1996a). Because other shorebirds such as the 

American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers are also preyed upon by avian 

predators similar to piping plovers, it is also likely that they are highly disturbed by flying kites as well. 

To lessen the potential impact on piping plovers, the Piping Plover Recovery Plan recommends a 200-

meter buffer (approximately 656 feet) around nesting or territorial adults and unfledged juvenile piping 

plovers between April 1 and August 31 (USFWS 1996a), though no similar recommendations for buffer 

sizes have been found for American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, or Wilson’s plovers. While kite 

flying is allowed at the Seashore, no large full recreational closures are provided around state-listed and 

special-status bird species except a 150-foot full recreational buffer around nesting colonial waterbirds; 

however, given the recommended distance for piping plovers, the 150-foot closure may not be large 

enough to provide protection from disturbances caused by kite flying. As a result, some adverse impacts 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

402 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

from kite flying could occur. However, kite flying at the Seashore is rare (Rikard pers. comm. 2013b), so 

the potential for adverse impacts due to kite flying would be minimal. 

Buffers established under alternative A are designed to protect state-listed and special-status bird species. 

However, noncompliance with buffers and closures does occur as documented in annual piping plover 

reports (NPS 2012t, 2011a, 2010b, 2009a, 2008c, 2007i) and American oystercatcher reports (NPS 

2012p, 2011e, 2010e, 2009e, 2008h). From 2010 to 2012 an average of six citations for pedestrians in 

bird nesting areas and five citations for vehicles in bird nesting areas were issued by Seashore law 

enforcement, while an average of 195 citations or warnings were given for dogs off leash (NPS 2012t, 

2011a, 2010b). These numbers, however, do not reflect all of the violations that occur; just ones where 

law enforcement was present when they did. For example, in 2009, 53 pedestrian violations and 20 

vehicle violations were documented (foot prints or vehicle tracks found within closures), but only one 

pedestrian and 6 vehicle citations were issued, while in 2008 42 pedestrian and 55 vehicle violations were 

documented, but only 1 pedestrian and 7 vehicle citations were issued (NPS 2009a and 2008c). 

Noncompliance with buffers and closures results in vehicles, people, and/or pets entering protected bird 

habitat and coming in close proximity to the birds. This can lead to flushing responses or other behavioral 

changes in birds, which in turn could have the potential to negatively impact feeding, reproduction, 

resting, or other activities (Burger 1991; Flemming et al. 1988; Melvin et al. 1994; Patterson et al. 1991; 

Patterson, Fraser, and Roggenbuck 1990; Zonick 2000). As an example at the Seashore, in 2012, 

pedestrians were issued a citation for violating a closure and causing an American oystercatcher nest to be 

abandoned on Shackleford Banks (NPS 2012p). Closure violations can all result in mortality of protected 

birds as well. In 2008, a protected American oystercatcher nest at the toe of the dunes on South Core 

Banks was run over and destroyed by a truck(s) as apparently a high tide forced vehicles to drive higher 

on the beach (NPS 2008 j). While regular patrols of areas by law enforcement rangers, trained observers, 

and field biologists help to deter closure and leash violations, with continued ORV and pedestrian access 

at the Seashore and no planned increases in law enforcement or resource protection staffing under 

alternative A, it is anticipated that noncompliance (either intentional or unintentional) with regulations 

and closures would continue to occur. These violations would adversely impact state-listed and specialstatus bird species by bringing vehicles, pedestrians, and possibly pets in close proximity to birds, causing 

short term adverse impacts at the location of the violation and could result in long-term adverse impacts 

from decreased reproductive output if there is a chronic lack of compliance (Burger 1991; Culbert 2004; 

Flemming et al. 1988; Melvin et al. 1994; Patterson et al. 1991; Patterson, Fraser, and Roggenbuck 1990; 

USFWS 2010; Zonick 2000). 

Although pedestrian access would be prohibited through American oystercatcher buffers, ORVs would be 

permitted to pass through the buffer area. Stopping a vehicle within this area would not be permitted; 

however, temporary displacement could occur for nesting and foraging American oystercatchers and 

other state-listed and special-status birds from vehicle passbys. Mortality may occur as well, such as 

happened in 2008. In an area where no back route existed at the time on North Core Banks, signs were 

posted reducing the speed limit to 15 miles per hour and warning drivers to look out for American oyster 

chicks. After observing three chicks in tire ruts near the tide line on May 27, on May 30, one chick was 

found dead in a tire rut and the other two chicks were not seen (NPS 2008h). Therefore, allowing ORVs 

to pass through American oystercatcher buffers would likely result in short-term adverse impacts 

including disturbance, temporary flushing from nests, increased risk of nest predation while adults are 

flushed from their nests, as well as mortality. 

Night-Driving—Under alternative A, night driving would continue to be allowed without any limitations. 

American oystercatchers and Wilson’s plovers are known to be active at night (Simons and Schulte 2008; 

Morrier and McNeil 1991) and would be subject to noise and habitat disturbance, as well as the potential 

for injury and/or mortality, from the presence of vehicles and pedestrians at night. This disturbance can 
State-listed and Special-status Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 403

impact their foraging behavior and has been shown to result in disorientation and even abandonment of 

oystercatcher chicks (Simons and Schulte 2008). Allowing night driving under alternative A would result 

in long-term adverse impacts on birds that forage at night. 

Permit Requirements—Under alternative A, there would be no permitting requirements (except for 

long-term parking) for public ORV use at the Seashore. As described under the alternatives where a 

permit system would be implemented, such a system would provide the Seashore with a means for 

providing additional education to ORV users regarding protected species and important habitat at the 

Seashore, as well as additional methods (i.e., revoking permits) for dealing with noncompliance of 

Seashore regulations. The lack of a permit system could result in limited adverse impacts on state-listed 

and special-status bird species because without a permit program, there would be less user education 

regarding protected species. It is anticipated that visitation to the Seashore will slowly grow in the future, 

with an estimated annual increase of approximately 1.5 percent (NPS 2010j). With increased visitation, it 

is assumed that the number of ORVs on the beach at the Seashore would also slowly grow in the future, 

which could also lead to greater noncompliance (unintentional or intentional) with buffers and closures. 

Although ORV and full recreation closures would be established for the American oystercatcher and 

colonial waterbirds, to help protect them from ORV impacts, the lack of a permit system that limits the 

number of vehicles on the Seashore at any one time would have long-term adverse impacts on most statelisted and special-status species that nest on Seashore beaches because unrestricted numbers of ORVs 

would be allowed during the breeding season and the additional enforcement mechanism of a revocable 

permit would not be in place. 

Camping—Under alternative A, camping and campfires would be permitted on all beaches of the 

Seashore that are not otherwise closed by the Superintendent’s Compendium, closed for safety, or closed 

for species protection (i.e., full recreational closures and the six sea turtle nest relocation areas). Camping 

activities can cause adult birds to flush from their nests, potentially resulting in loss of eggs or chicks, 

complete abandonment of the nest, and increased susceptibility to predation (Elliot-Smith and Haig 2004; 

Cohen, Houghton, and Fraser 2009; Burger 1987; Boettcher et al. 2007; Lauro and Tanacredi 2002; 

Patterson, Fraser, and Roggenbuck 1990). Prohibiting camping and campfires in full recreational closures 

would benefit state-listed and special-status bird species by removing the potential impacts of the 

activities, providing short- and long-term beneficial impacts to state-listed and special-status bird species. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative A 

Other past, present, and future planned actions within the Seashore have the potential to impact statelisted and special-status species. The following assessment applies to all the state-listed and special-status 

bird species addressed in this section, since so many of the cumulative effects are applied similarly to all 

of these species. 

Various dredging has occurred and will continue to occur in the vicinity of the Seashore. Following 

Hurricane Irene, the Long Point ferry basin received dredging in 2011 (NPS 2011). However, dredging 

activities at the Seashore are generally minor causing temporary short-term adverse impacts from 

disturbances created on the soundside of the Seashore. In addition, the Beaufort Inlet has been dredged 

and would continue to be dredged on an annual basis as long as funding is available to the Army Corps of 

Engineers. In addition, the Beaufort Inlet has been dredged and would continue to be dredged on an 

annual basis as long as funding is available. In the past, dredge material from the dredging of Beaufort 

Inlet has not been placed on any Seashore beaches. In the past, dredge material from the dredging of 

Beaufort Inlet has not been placed on any Seashore beaches. However, moving forward, as part of the 

Morehead City Harbor DMMP, NPS has agreed to allow consideration for the deposition of restricted 

amounts of dredged material on Shackleford Banks during the 20-year period beginning in 2015 and 

extending through 2034 (USACE 2013). As it relates to Shackelford Banks, if the NPS allows dredged 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

404 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

material to be deposited on the beach, placement of material would potentially occur every 3 to 4 years 

along a 3.65-mile-long stretch of the beach, dredged material would be compatible with the existing 

beach (>90 percent sand), and in any year that the NPS allows beach disposal to occur, the NPS would 

only permit it to occur from November 16 through March 30. If it occurs, disposal of material on the 

beach would occur from the base of the existing frontal dune to the -24 foot depth. This would potentially 

add up to 33 acres of new ocean beach as often as every 3 years about 1 mile east of the Shackleford Spit 

off Beaufort Inlet (USACE 2013). While disposal activities could temporarily disturb wintering American 

oystercatchers that occur on Shackleford Banks, causing short-term adverse impacts, long-term beneficial 

impacts would result from the increase in acres of beach habitat on Shackleford Banks. Colonial 

waterbirds and Wilson’s plovers do not winter at the Seashore, so they would not be affected by beach 

disposal activities. 

Oregon Inlet has been dredged in the past and would continue to be dredged in the future. Due to the 

presence of nesting sea turtles, dredging activities do not take place during the spring or summer, which is 

also when state-listed and special-status species are present at the Seashore; only American oystercatchers 

winter at the Seashore as most colonial waterbirds and the Wilson’s plovers leave the Seashore after 

breeding is done in July through September timeframe, so there would be no direct impacts to state-listed 

and special-status species during this timeframe. The dredging of inlets can affect spit formation adjacent 

to inlets, which over time could result in the loss of potential prime ocean shoreline foraging habitat for 

state-listed and special-status species shorebirds, resulting in long-term adverse impacts. Dredging 

operations can also result in long-term beneficial impacts to state-listed and special-status species 

shorebirds. Sand from dredging operations is often used for onshore beach nourishment which can help to 

curtail erosion and expand ocean beach habitat where these species nest and forage, though wintering 

American oystercatchers may be temporarily disturbed during the beach nourishment activities. 

Several past, present, and future plans and actions at the Seashore address visitation and improvement of 

visitor amenities and, therefore, could impact state-listed and special-status bird species at the Seashore. 

The Commercial Services Plan / Environmental Assessment / Assessment of Effect (NPS 2007m) guides 

the Seashore in improving the management and operation of commercial visitor services, while providing 

both self-directed and facilitated visitor opportunities. Visitor services that are offered and could continue 

to be offered at the Seashore include land transportation services, sale of limited food and sundry 

supplies, and ferry transportation. Very little new facility construction to support projected visitor 

demands for transportation, rental services, and sales of supplies is proposed as part of the Commercial 

Services Plan, and what little construction is proposed would occur at the current arrival locations on the 

islands. Since these areas are already developed and do not provide habitat for state-listed and specialstatus species, there would be no impact from any of the limited construction activities. 

Land transportation services which include a beach shuttle service originating in the lighthouse area and 

traveling to points on South Core Banks, limited UTV tours at the northern end of North Core Banks, and 

limited vehicle transportation service from the Long Point and Great Island concession areas could have 

adverse impacts on state-listed and special-status species and their habitat, similar to those previously 

described for public ORV use. However, any adverse impacts would be relatively small given the size of 

the operations and because their vehicles would continue to use established transportation routes 

including the back route, and would adhere to all buffers/closures and other Seashore regulations. While 

the sale of food could increase trash at the Seashore and attract predators, sales are limited and confined 

to developed areas of the Seashore, so impacts would be negligible. Ferry operations occur on the 

soundside of South Core and North Core Banks, and while these activities could cause some disturbance 

to species, any impacts would be small as they occur in fixed areas with relatively small footprints 

compared to all of the available habitat for state-listed and special-status species. 
State-listed and Special-status Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 405

Currently, the BOEM is analyzing the issuance of leases for developing offshore commercial wind 

energy. BOEM in cooperation with the State of North Carolina has established a task force, comprised of 

relevant federal agencies, state government officials, and local and Tribal elected government officials, in 

the planning and decision-making process in identifying a wind energy area off the coast of North 

Carolina. Although the planning process includes a thorough analysis of reasonable alternatives and 

cumulative impacts on sensitive resources, including migrating birds, the development of off-shore wind 

turbines could adversely impact migrating state-listed and special-status species birds in the region 

(including those that may use the Seashore). However, if they impact state-listed and special-status 

species would depend on how far offshore the wind turbines are located, and if they are within the 

migratory path of the state-listed and special-status species. Adverse impacts associated with wind 

turbines include direct mortality from collisions with turbine blades and/or turbine avoidance, which can 

reduce fitness by exclusion from key foraging habitat or by energetic costs of inducing longer flight paths 

(especially for migrating shorebirds and ducks (BOEM n. d.). 

The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps conduct flight operations in the area of the Seashore. These operations 

include recent actions taken by the military to lower the ceiling (or altitude) above which planes may fly 

up to the speed of sound from 10,000 feet to 3,000 feet, and increased capabilities of offshore training. In 

addition, the Marine Corps Cherry Point Air Station is located approximately 30 miles northwest of the 

Seashore. The air station and its associated support locations occupy more than 29,000 acres (U.S. Marine 

Corps n.d.). 

A 2012 report on the effects of military overflights on American oystercatchers at the Seashore (Simmons 

and Borneman, 2012), concluded that at their peak sound level, military overflights contributed to a 

72.5 dBA (A-weighted decibel) sound level, which is comparable to walking along the oceanside of the 

point of Cape Lookout (see “Soundscapes/Acoustic Environment”). Thus, the report concluded that there 

is no noteworthy evidence that military overflights affect the behavioral responses of American 

oystercatchers, including low-altitude flyovers (Simmons and Borneman 2012). A separate study 

(Derose-Wilson et al. n.d.) looked at the potential impacts of the military flights on Wilson’s plover and 

colonial waterbirds (least terns, common terns, gull-billed terns, and black skimmers). Derose-Wilson et 

al. (n.d.) found that Wilson’s plovers did not exhibit any behavior changes to the military overflights 

whereas least terns incubated their nests more after an overflight, but only during overflights in sound 

exposure levels greater than 90 dBA, which was the top 10 percent of sound exposure levels for all 

military overflights. Although sample sizes were small for other nesting colonial waterbirds, the authors 

found no indication that their responses would be different than those of the least tern. The authors of 

both studies concluded that the lower altitude flights did not have an appreciable effect on the behavior of 

any of the birds in question, indicating that these operations are likely to create minimal impacts to 

shorebirds at the Seashore. 

Many past, present, and future actions, plans, and programs at the Seashore provide benefits for statelisted species and special-status species. The Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species 

Management Plan/Environmental Assessment states that the NPS will meet its obligations under the NPS 

Organic Act and the ESA to both proactively conserve listed species and prevent detrimental effects on 

these species. To meet these obligations, the Service will “manage designated critical habitat, essential 

habitat, and recovery areas to maintain and enhance their value for the recovery of threatened and 

endangered species.” In addition, the Service will take on active management programs to inventory, 

monitor, restore, and maintain listed species’ habitats, control detrimental nonnative species, control 

detrimental visitor access, and re-establish extirpated populations as necessary (NPS 2006a). Although the 

plan permits continued ORV access, which has the potential to impact state-listed species and specialstatus species at the Seashore, the plan is beneficial for state-listed species and special-status species, 

because it includes measures to educate visitors about resources at the Seashore and management 

measures, including buffers and closures for species. In addition, the plan includes future ongoing 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

406 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

monitoring and staff resource protection activities, which have the potential to benefit the species by 

providing additional information to drive future management decisions. The education aspect of the plan 

provides long-term benefits to state-listed species and special-status species because it helps to educate 

visitors about the conservation needs of the species at the Seashore and the protection measures that are 

put in place to help protect it. 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore also previously implemented an Interim Protected Species Management 

Strategy/EA and more recently implemented a long-term ORV management plan/EIS; both of which 

include protection measures for state-listed and special-status bird species to minimize potential adverse 

impacts from ORVs, pedestrians, and pets. Because Cape Hatteras National Seashore is in such close 

proximity to Cape Lookout National Seashore, the benefits to state-listed and special-status bird species at 

Cape Hatteras from these two plans also provide benefits to state-listed and special-status bird species at 

Cape Lookout through the long term protection of the entire regional population. 

The USFWS recovery plan and designation of critical habitat for the piping plover at the Seashore also 

provides protection indirectly to state-listed and special-status bird species inhabiting the same areas. 

Designated critical habitat for the piping plover at the Seashore includes all the inlets on the Seashore, 

Portsmouth Flats, Kathryn-Jane Flats, and the point of Cape Lookout. The habitat includes ocean beach, 

mud flats, sand flats, and soundside beach used as foraging areas and sparsely vegetated low dunes. All 

piping-plover breeding sites (and thereby, indirectly, but not officially, those of Wilson’s plover) at the 

Seashore were designated as critical habitat for wintering birds. Colonial waterbirds and American 

oystercatcher often use these areas for nesting and foraging habitat as well. Therefore, the critical habitat 

designation at the Seashore for piping plovers would result in long-term beneficial impacts on Wilson’s 

plovers, as well as other state-listed and special-status bird species that share the same foraging and 

breeding habitat. An American Oystercatcher Conservation Plan exists as well, which focuses on the East 

and Gulf coast populations, including American oystercatchers occurring at the Seashore. The plan would 

result in long-term beneficial impacts on the American oystercatcher, because the plan addresses threats 

to the health of the species and outlines recommended conservation activities to remedy these threats. 

Because American oystercatchers share habitat with other coastal shorebirds, conservation efforts for 

oystercatchers would also likely result in long-term benefits for other state-listed and special-status birds 

at the Seashore (Schulte et al. 2007). 

A population of culturally important wild horses exists at the Seashore on Shackleford Banks. The 

population of approximately 109 wild horses is legislatively protected (NPS 2012b) and is maintained 

through a horse management plan that defines how the population is cooperatively managed by both the 

NPS and the foundation of Shackleford Horses (NPS 2007h). The horses are generally found on the 

dunes, in the swales between the dunes, on the marsh or in the forest. Because they are generally not 

found on the ocean shoreline where special-status bird species forage, management of the horses under 

the horse management plan would have no impacts on special-status species. 

The Seashore is implementing a long-range interpretive plan (NPS 2011k) that further articulates the 

purpose, significance, and themes of the Seashore. The long-range interpretive plan informs and guides 

the Seashore’s interpretive and education programs, which includes information about threatened and 

endangered species within the Seashore. Such education programs, if implemented, would provide longterm benefits to state-listed and special-status birds as they would help educate visitors about the 

conservation needs of the birds that inhabit the Seashore and the protection measures that are put in place 

to help protect them. 

The Foundation Document (NPS 2012s) for the Seashore identifies the following projects that may 

impact state-listed or special-status species at the Seashore to some degree: Harkers Island Master Plan, 

Great Island and Long Point Master Plan, Resource stewardship strategy, Comprehensive Sign Plan, 
State-listed and Special-status Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 407

nonnative species and predator management plan, and the sustainability plan/green plan. These planning 

efforts would establish development patterns at the Seashore, taking into consideration the location of 

sensitive species, especially their breeding locations, and plan to avoid or minimize impacts to these 

habitats. A comprehensive sign plan would allow the NPS to more effectively communicate messages to 

visitors, including those regarding the importance of species management at the Seashore. A nonnative 

species and predator management plan would provide for additional protection of state-listed and specialstatus birds by reducing the number of mammalian predators on the Seashore. All of these planned efforts 

would have some measure of beneficial impacts on state-listed and special-status bird species at the 

Seashore. 

Finally, the Seashore conducted a predator study to evaluate if predator removal is an effective means to 

alleviate predator threats to threatened and endangered species at the Seashore. A three-year research 

study (2007–2009) evaluated the response of both predator (raccoon) and prey populations to raccoon 

removal. The NPS decided to implement the preferred alternative (Experimental Reduction of Raccoon 

Population to Evaluate Removal as an Option for Protected Species Management) outlined in the predator 

study/EA. Although the preferred alternative of the predatory study would result in direct removal of 

raccoons and reduction in the raccoon population at the Seashore, the overall impact would provide longterm benefits to state-listed and special-status bird species by helping to control mammalian predators, 

such as raccoon and fox, which prey upon eggs, young, and adult birds. Predator trapping might result in 

short-term disturbance to nests and young, or result in loss of nests or hatchlings if trappers are not 

cognizant of nest locations. However, overall predator management actions would likely be highly 

beneficial for state-listed and special-status bird species by reducing the predation pressure on these 

species. 

The overall combined impacts of these past, current, and future actions on state-listed birds would be 

short- and long-term, and adverse (from disturbance to foraging and nesting birds from visitor/ORV use, 

dredging activities, visitor amenity improvements, and military overflights), as well as long-term 

beneficial (from the protection afforded to species and their habitat by species monitoring, species 

buffers, habitat protection, visitor protection patrols, visitor education programs, control of the wild horse 

population, future planning efforts under the Foundation Plan, and predator management). While adverse 

effects on state-listed and special-status bird species from other actions occurring in the region would still 

exist, actions under alternative A would provide additional protection that would be beneficial to the 

regional populations of these species and would offset some of the adverse effects. 

ALTERNATIVE B

Impacts of Alternative B

Resource Management Activities 

Surveying and Monitoring—Surveying and monitoring for state-listed and special-status bird species 

and their habitat under alternative B and the impacts from these actions would be the same as described 

under alternative A. NPS staff would perform surveys of recent breeding areas for protected species and 

would also continue to monitor breeding, nesting, and fledging activities throughout the breeding season. 

Surveying and monitoring would provide long-term benefits to state-listed and special-status birds 

because it allows the Seashore to collect data and better manage the species. While overall, surveying and 

monitoring activities would provide beneficial impacts, they could also cause some adverse impacts by 

bringing staff and/or essential vehicles into direct short-term contact with state-listed and special-status 

species and their habitat, and these activities themselves are a known risk factor (McGowan 2004; Sabine 

2005; Nol and Humphrey 1994; Simons and Schulte 2008; Corbat and Bergstrom 2000). However, to 

minimize any adverse impacts, NPS staff would use best professional judgment and take precautions to 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

408 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

minimize disturbance during surveying, such as observing incubating birds with optical equipment from 

appropriate distances and maintaining slow speeds while using ORVs in or near protected species habitat. 

Additionally, to help minimize any adverse impacts from monitoring and surveying activities, under 

alternative B there would be more consistent training and supervision of resource staff who conduct the 

surveys. This would result in a higher quality of monitoring for shorebird species, resulting in beneficial 

impacts. 

Establishment of Prenesting Closures—Under alternative B, establishing prenesting closures would be 

established the same as alternative A, and would result in the same except historical shorebird nesting 

areas would be posted by March 16, prior to the opening of the Seashore to public ORV use. This action 

would result in short- and long-term benefits for state-listed and special-status birds by protecting their 

habitat, as well as any birds when they first arrive at the Seashore. Wilson’s plovers begin establishing 

territories in mid-March through early April (Tomkins 1944; Bergstrom 1988), and typically are found 

nesting in piping plover habitat, so the establishment of piping plover prenesting closures by March 16 

would protect nesting Wilson’s plovers. While most colonial waterbirds begin arriving at the Seashore in 

April and May, the least tern begins arriving in late March, so establishing prenesting closures for 

colonial waterbirds by March 16 would also help protect them from ORV and pedestrian disturbances. 

Buffer/Closure Establishment—Under alternative B, establishing ORV and full recreation closures for 

protected bird species, as well as turtle relocation areas under alternative B would be the same as under 

alternative A. Establishing the buffers and closures, including ramp to ramp ORV closures for American 

oystercatchers, and adjusting them for the movement of chicks would result in short-and long-term 

benefits by reducing the potential contact between ORVs and birds. While frequent adjustment of the 

buffers by NPS staff may result in additional disturbance to the shorebirds, (Anderson and Keith 1980; 

Ellison and Cleary 1978; Hand 1980; Tremblay and Ellison 1979), any potential adverse effects would be 

outweighed by the benefits to the chicks from adjusting the buffers to protect them from disturbance due 

to ORVs. Closing each of the six turtle nest relocation areas to ORVs 50 days after the first nest is 

relocated to the area would eliminate impacts from ORVs on any shorebirds using these areas for foraging 

and resting. As noted under alternative A, due to the timeframes of when the turtle nest relocation areas 

are closed to ORV traffic, they generally would not act as prenesting closures; however, they could be 

used by birds renesting if their first nests are lost due to predation or human disturbance. 

Management of Wintering and Nonbreeding Birds—Similar to alternative A, there would be no 

surveys conducted for wintering or nonbreeding American oystercatchers (colonial waterbirds and 

Wilson’s plovers do not winter at the Seashore) under alternative B, and there would be no ORV or full 

recreational closures established specifically targeting wintering and nonbreeding birds. However, like 

alternative A, the Seashore would be closed to public ORV use from January 1 through March 15. This 

would result in long-term benefits, providing habitat for wintering American oystercatchers and allowing 

the beach profile to recover from heavy fall fishing use. Outside of the January 1 through March 15 

timeframe, no closures would be specifically implemented for wintering and nonbreeding shorebird 

protection which could result in disturbance of individuals, leading to displacement and altered foraging 

behavior (Burger 1991; Zonick 2000; McAtee and Drawe 1981).Impacts would be minimized, though, 

through permanent ORV closures which include all of Shackleford Banks, Portsmouth Flats, the interior 

of the point of Cape Lookout, the ocean beach between mile markers 41a and 41b, and Power Squadron 

Spit.

While the closure of the Seashore to vehicles from January 1 through March 15 would help protect 

wintering species, no closures would be established for pedestrians, which could result in disturbance of 

birds and habitat from pedestrian use, leading to displacement and altered foraging behavior. However, 

adverse impacts would be largely imperceptible because many passenger ferries stop operating in the 

winter, the amount of pedestrian use during the winter months is very low, and without a means of 
State-listed and Special-status Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 409

transportation on the beach, most visitor use would be confined to areas in the immediate vicinity of the 

ferry landings. 

Though winter surveys would not occur for American oystercatchers, surveying of wintering piping 

plovers would occur once per month between August 1 and March 31. Surveying activities for 

nonbreeding plovers could cause some disturbance to American oystercatchers on the beach through the 

presence of NPS staff and vehicles causing flushing behavior. Any potential impacts would be minimal 

though, because surveys for nonbreeding plovers only occur once per month, and wintering American 

oystercatchers appear to use soundside habitat more than the ocean beach (NPS 2010e, 2009e, 2008h). 

Predator Management—As noted under alternative A, predation continues to be a major factor affecting 

the reproductive success of shorebirds across their ranges and at the Seashore. While no specific nest 

protection measures would be put in place to protect nests of state-listed and special-status species, 

alternative B would include the limited removal of mammalian predators when predation is observed that 

impacts sensitive species. Predator removal is considered more effective than nest exclosures in 

increasing reproductive output, likely due to increased chick survival (Cohen, Houghton, and Fraser 

2009). A predator removal study conducted on South Core Banks found a decrease in piping plover nest 

predation (down from 27.6 percent in 2008 to 5.6 percent in 2009) one year after removal and euthanasia 

of half of the raccoon population (Waldstein 2010). The study also found increased piping plover 

productivity one year after the raccoon removal (up to 0.64 fledglings per pair in 2009 from 0.23 

fledglings per pair in 2008), but the increase was not statistically significant (Waldstein 2010). While the 

study focused on piping plovers, it is likely that the productivity of the American oystercatcher, colonial 

waterbird, and Wilson’s plover would also increase. By helping to reduce predation pressure and 

potentially resulting in increased nesting and fledging success, the limited removal of mammalian 

predators under alternative B would result in short- and long-term beneficial impacts for state-listed and 

special-status bird species. 

The Seashore would also continue to enforce proper trash disposal and anti-wildlife feeding regulations to 

reduce the attraction of predators to the area. By helping to reduce predation pressure, this too would 

result in short- and long-term beneficial impacts to state-listed and special-status species. 

Education/Public Outreach—In addition to the outreach and education measures that would be 

implemented under alternative A, under alternative B staffing levels would increase for interpretation 

positions (to provide formal outreach and on-site ORV education on the subject of protected species 

management) and law enforcement (among other duties, law enforcement assists with public education. 

Also, educational materials would be provided to Seashore users through an operator education 

certificate, which would be required for all ORV operators and would be valid for one year. Under 

alternative B, the Seashore would work with vehicle ferry operators to coordinate distribution of 

education materials regarding ORV rules and regulations. In addition, a uniform system of resource 

closure signage would be provided, as well as regularly updated maps of closures, which would also be 

available online. Such public outreach is beneficial to state-listed and special-status species as it further 

educates the public to the specific needs of the species and alerts the public ahead of time to areas where 

they cannot go due to potential impacts on the species. Therefore, public outreach under alternative B as 

part of species management would have long-term beneficial impacts on state-listed and special-status 

bird species. 

Research/Monitoring—Research and monitoring under alternative B would be the same as alternative 

A, except that visitor compliance would be monitored to determine the success of specific regulations or 

the need to re-focus enforcement and education efforts. Visitor use studies would also be conducted to 

identify use patterns. In the future, there would likely be other research to study wildlife at the Seashore. 

Research efforts have the potential to negatively impact feeding, reproduction, resting, or other state-
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

410 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

listed and special-status species behavior over the long term due to the increased human presence and use 

of ORVs (Anderson and Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; Tremblay and Ellison 1979; Hand 1980). 

However the research, including the additional elements under alternative B, would contribute to the 

long-term beneficial impacts of research and monitoring on state-listed and special-status species because 

it is likely that results from the research would lead to a greater understanding of the various species 

which could inform future protection and management of the species. 

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

ORVs and Pedestrian Access—The same amount of beach area (approximately 81 percent or 45 miles) 

would be open to public ORV use from March 16 through December 31 under alternative B as it would 

be under alternative A. Therefore, management of ORVs and other recreational use under alternative B 

would be similar to alternative A with a few exceptions that would result in additional protection of 

American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers and their habitat. 

On sections of Core Banks where no ferry landing access is available (e.g., Middle Core Banks and 

Ophelia Banks or future areas that may become cut off during storm events) designated ORV routes 

would be closed. These areas would reopen to ORV use if they become rejoined to an area with ferry 

access. During times when areas are cut off from ferry access, impacts from ORVs would be eliminated 

in those areas, providing short- and potentially long-term beneficial impacts. 

The back route from mile marker 44 to mile marker 45, which is normally closed to ORV traffic, would 

be open to ORV traffic when the point of Cape Lookout is closed to ORV through-traffic for resource 

protection or safety reasons. As discussed under alternative A, most ORV users respect ORV closure, 

however, some noncompliance has occurred in the past (NPS 2012t, 2011a, 2010b, 2009a, 2008c, 2007i) 

and would be expected to continue to occur in the future. The point of Cape Lookout is a popular visitor 

destination and when it is closed it also prevents access on the beach to the west. Allowing use of the 

back route from mile marker 44 to 45 when the point of Cape Lookout is closed would allow ORV users 

to continue to easily access the beach area to the west of the point of Cape Lookout. This would likely 

help reduce visitor frustration with the closure of the point of Cape Lookout, and may help prevent any 

potential noncompliance with the closure, thus providing some short-term beneficial impacts to American 

oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers and their habitat. 

Although all ORV use has the potential to disturb bird nesting behavior, as discussed under alternative A, 

based on studies by McGowan and Simons (2006) and Simons and Borneman (2012), it appears that ATV 

use, and to some extent UTV use, impacts shorebirds to a greater extent than other types of ORVs (e.g., 

four-wheel drive passenger vehicles) likely due to the fact that they are louder and faster. The studies do 

not differentiate between different types of ATVs and/or UTVs because high-performance sport-model 

ATVs and UTVs, as well as two-stroke models are designed for racing, jumping, and moving at high 

rates of speed; however, these models likely could cause more impacts to shorebirds than utility-model 

ATVs and UTVs that are designed to be used in a utilitarian way. The speed and noise of highperformance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs may be perceived by shorebirds as a greater 

threat, causing shorebirds to alter their behavior. Because of this, all high-performance sport-model and 

two-stroke ATVs and UTVs would be prohibited at the Seashore under alternative B after a five-year 

grace period. Eliminating these vehicles and their potential impacts from the Seashore would provide 

short- and long-term benefits to American oystercatchers. If ATV and UTV traffic has a greater effect on 

American oystercatchers nesting on the beach, they likely have the same effect on other shorebirds, thus 

eliminating the vehicles and their potential impacts would likely provide some measure of short- and 

long-term beneficial impacts to all state-listed and special-status species. 
State-listed and Special-status Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 411

Alternative B would involve regular maintenance of the back route and pull-outs along the back route 

would be provided. Additionally, the back route would be extended to allow vehicles to bypass bird 

closures at the Cape. Construction and regular maintenance activities associated with the back route could 

disrupt (i.e., noise) and displace state-listed and special-status species, especially those using habitat along 

the back routes (i.e., salt marsh, grassland, and shrub/thicket habitats). However, any adverse impacts that 

would result are expected to be short-term and limited, as suitable habitat exists in other areas of the 

Seashore, prenesting closures would be available for state-listed and special-status species, and activities 

would be coordinated with resource management staff to ensure they are not occurring in sensitive 

resource areas during sensitive life stages of state-listed and special-status species. Extension of the back 

route would benefit state-listed and special-status species by providing a route around species closures 

and offering further protection. 

Pedestrian access on the Seashore would be the same as described for alternative A, potentially resulting 

in disturbance and potential displacement of American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s 

plovers, depending on visitor density and the timing of disturbance (e.g., during critical periods of 

reproduction). Disturbance as a result of pedestrian and ORV access during the most critical periods of 

reproduction and within key habitats could occur. Such disturbance could result in abandonment of nests, 

loss of habitat, or potentially direct mortality if closure compliance is lacking or if the breach of the 

closure occurs during the earlier life stages (Melvin et al. 1994; Patterson et al. 1991; Flemming et al. 

1988; Patterson, Fraser, and Roggenbuck 1990; Zonick 2000; Burger 1991; Culbert 2004; USFWS 2010). 

Night-Driving—Under alternative B, night driving would be prohibited at the Seashore between the 

hours of 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. from May 1 through August 31, except in the Great Island and Long Point 

cabin areas. American oystercatchers and Wilson’s plovers are known to be active at night (Simons and 

Schulte 2008; Morrier and McNeil 1991) and would be subject to noise and habitat disturbance, as well as 

the potential for injury and/or mortality, from the presence of vehicles and pedestrians at night. This 

disturbance can impact their foraging behavior and has been shown to result in disorientation and even 

abandonment of oystercatcher chicks (Simons and Schulte 2008). Prohibiting night driving at night from 

May 1 through August 31 would provide long-term benefits to American oystercatchers and Wilson’s 

plovers by reducing potential impacts (including direct injury and/or mortality from collision with 

vehicles) to chicks and foraging birds at night. However, outside of the May 1 through August 31 

timeframe when night driving is permitted American oystercatchers and Wilson’s plovers would still be 

subject to impacts from night driving which could include interrupting foraging behavior, injury, or 

mortality from collisions with vehicles. 

Permit Requirements—Under alternative B, long-term (annual) and short-term (10-day) vehicle permits 

would be instituted to better manage vehicles at the Seashore, though it would not limit the number of 

vehicles that could operate on the Seashore at any one time. Additionally, each licensed driver would be 

required to obtain an ORV operator education certificate to operate a vehicle at the Seashore. Both the 

permit and operator education certificate could be revoked for violation of applicable Seashore 

regulations or terms and conditions of the permit. The permit would be fee-based and fees collected from 

the permitting system could be used by the Seashore to put towards among other things species 

management and protection, as well as education measures which would benefit American oystercatchers, 

colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers. Educational information provided with the permit and operator 

education certificate would benefit American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers by 

making ORV users more aware of the need for and benefit of ORV and full recreational closures for 

resource protection and of the regulations in place to protect this species. This, along with the deterrent of 

potentially losing driving privileges would likely result in a higher level of compliance with buffers, 

closures, and other Seashore regulations, resulting in short- and long-term beneficial impacts to American 

oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers. Although the permit system would result in 

benefits to the species, it would not limit the number of vehicles on the Seashore. An unrestricted growth 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

412 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

of ORVs on the Seashore could increase the potential for disturbance (e.g., temporary displacement, 

frequent escape flights) of nesting and foraging birds. For American oystercatchers that regularly forage 

on the ocean shoreline and on the soundside outside of resource closures, the potential for disturbance is 

greater as they often forage in the same areas used by ORVs – the firm sand along the water’s edge 

(McGowan and Simons 2006). 

Camping—Under alternative B, camping and campfire activities along the ocean beach would be 

permitted in areas similar to alternative A (on all beaches of the Seashore that are not otherwise closed by 

the Superintendent’s Compendium, closed for safety, or closed for species protection, that is, full 

recreational closures and the six sea turtle nest relocation areas.). As described under alternative A, 

prohibiting camping and campfires within areas closed for resource protection would provide short-and 

long-term beneficial impacts to American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers by 

greatly reducing the impacts from these activities which could otherwise cause adult American 

oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers to flush from nests, resulting in loss of eggs or 

chicks, complete abandonment of the nest, and increased susceptibility to predation (Elliot-Smith and 

Haig 2004; Cohen, Houghton, and Fraser 2009; Burger 1987; Boettcher et al. 2007; Lauro and Tanacredi 

2002; Patterson, Fraser, and Roggenbuck 1990). 

Additionally, alternative B would also establish campsites designated for emergency camping in areas 

along the back route. However, these areas do not provide habitat for state-listed or special-status bird 

species and would result in no effects on these species. 

Adaptive Management Strategy—Under alternative B, an adaptive management strategy would be 

implemented to ensure that the goals of species protection are being met. Although the adaptive 

management strategy depends on the American oystercatcher as the indicator species to determine if 

levels of disturbance warrant implementing more intensive management actions, the additional 

management actions, if implemented, would provide both short- and long-term beneficial impacts to all 

state-listed and special-status bird species. If levels of disturbance to the American oystercatcher from 

ORVs are triggered (see chapter 2 for the trigger thresholds) the additional management actions that could 

be implemented would potentially include increased education and focused enforcement, which would 

help reduce closure violations that could impact American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and 

Wilson’s plovers; additional focused trash management and fish scrap disposal, which would likely 

reduce the number of predators attracted to the beach that could prey upon American oystercatchers, 

colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers; additional predator control, which would help protect 

American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers, their nests, and fledglings from 

raccoons and other mammalian predators; route restrictions and increased buffer sizes, both of which 

would protect American oystercatcher, colonial waterbird, and Wilson’s plover habitat, as well as the 

birds themselves and their nests; and a reduction in the number of vehicle permits issued along with 

managing the size of the vehicle storage lots, both of which would help reduce the number of vehicles 

driving on the beach and the amount of impacts caused by ORVs. If species indicators continue to be 

triggered by visitor use impacts for two consecutive years after implementing the previously mentioned 

actions, then reducing the number of vehicle permits issued and increasing the size of species protection 

buffers could be implemented. These actions would reduce the number of vehicles driving on the beach 

and increase the distance vehicles could approach birds and nests, thereby reducing amount of potential 

impacts caused by ORVs, providing short- and long-term beneficial impacts to American oystercatchers, 

colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative B 

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions under alternative B would be the same as those 

described under alternative A. The overall combined impacts of these past, present, and future actions on 
State-listed and Special-status Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 413

state-listed and special-status bird species would be short- and long-term, and adverse (from disturbance 

to foraging and nesting birds from visitor/ORV use, dredging activities, shoreline stabilization, visitor 

amenity improvements, and military overflights), as well as long-term beneficial (from the protection 

afforded to species and their habitat by species monitoring, species buffers, habitat protection, visitor 

protection patrols, visitor education programs, control of the wild horse population, future planning 

efforts under the Foundation Plan, and predator management). While adverse effects on state-listed and 

special-status bird species from other actions occurring in the region would still exist, actions under 

alternative B would provide additional protection that would be beneficial to the regional populations of 

these species and would offset some of the adverse effects. 

ALTERNATIVE C

Impacts of Alternative C

Resource Management Activities 

Surveying and Monitoring—Surveying and monitoring for state-listed and special-status bird species 

and their habitat, and the impacts from the actions under alternative C would be the same as described for 

alternative A. As described under alternative A, surveying and monitoring for state-listed and specialstatus bird species and their habitat provides long-term beneficial impacts to the species because it allows 

the Seashore to better manage American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers, which 

may lead to increased reproductive success of the species at the Seashore. While overall surveying 

activities would provide beneficial impacts, they could also cause some short-term adverse impacts by 

negatively impacting feeding, reproduction, resting, or other shorebird behavior (Burger 1991, 1994). 

However, NPS staff would use best professional judgment and take precautions to minimize disturbance 

during surveying, such as observing incubating birds with optical equipment from appropriate distances 

and maintaining slow speeds while using ORVs in or near American oystercatcher, colonial waterbird, 

and Wilson’s plover habitat. Additionally, to help minimize any adverse impacts from monitoring and 

surveying activities, under alternative C there would be more consistent training and supervision of 

resource staff who conduct the surveys. This would result in a higher quality of monitoring for shorebird 

species, resulting in beneficial impacts. 

Establishment of Prenesting Closures—Under alternative C, establishing full recreational closures for 

prenesting habitat, and the impacts from these actions would be the same as under alternative B. Shortand long-term beneficial impacts would result from establishing full recreational closures in historical 

shorebird nesting areas prior to opening the beach to vehicles on March 16. This would protect bird 

habitat, as well as any birds when they first arrive at the Seashore and begin courtship and mating 

behaviors. Wilson’s plovers begin establishing territories in mid-March through early April (Tomkins 

1944; Bergstrom 1988), and typically are found nesting in piping plover habitat. Thus, even though no 

prenesting closures specifically address Wilson’s plovers, the establishment of piping plover prenesting 

closures by March 16 would protect nesting Wilson’s plovers. While most colonial waterbirds begin 

arriving at the Seashore in April and May, the least tern begins arriving in late March, so establishing 

prenesting closures for colonial waterbirds by March 16 would also help protect them from ORV and 

pedestrian disturbances.

Buffer/Closure Establishment—Under alternative C, the establishment of ORV and full recreational 

closures would be the same as described for alternative A. For nests, this includes ramp to ramp ORV 

closures for American oystercatcher nests three days before chicks hatch, and the 150-foot ORV closures 

established at the point of Cape Lookout beach around colonial waterbird nests. For chicks, it includes 

ramp to ramp ORV closures for American oystercatcher chicks, 150-foot buffers (ORV closures) around 

colonial waterbird broods on the point of Cape Lookout beach, and posting areas where Wilson’s plover 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

414 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

chicks are found outside existing closures on North Core and South Core Banks. These measures would 

help protect state-listed and special-status bird species from potential ORV impacts; though since these 

are just ORV closures, species would still be subject to disturbance by pedestrians and/or their pets. 

Foraging and resting state-listed and special-status bird species would also benefit from the six turtle nest 

relocation areas (each 0.5 to 1.0 miles in length) when those areas are closed to ORV traffic. 

Since piping plover chicks also forage on the ocean shoreline, the 600-foot ORV closure around piping 

plover broods, and the 2-mile ORV closure at the north end of South Core Banks for piping plover chicks 

would also benefit any American oystercatcher, colonial waterbird, or Wilson’s plover chicks and adults 

foraging or resting in the same areas. Establishing ORV closures around birds and adjusting them based 

on chick behavior would result in short- and long-term benefits by reducing the potential for contact 

between Seashore visitors and birds. While frequent adjustment of buffers by NPS staff may result in 

additional disturbance to shorebirds, (Anderson and Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; Hand 1980; 

Tremblay and Ellison 1979), any potential adverse effects would be outweighed by the benefits to the 

chicks from adjusting the buffers to protect them from disturbance due to pedestrians and ORVs. Statelisted and special-status bird species would also be afforded protection by the permanent closure to ORVs 

of Shackleford Banks, Portsmouth Flats, the interior of the point of Cape Lookout, the beach between 

mile markers 41a and 41b, and Power Squadron Spit. 

Management of Wintering and Nonbreeding Birds—Similar to alternative A, there would be no 

surveys conducted for wintering or nonbreeding American oystercatchers (colonial waterbirds and 

Wilson’s plovers do not winter at the Seashore) under alternative C, and there would be no ORV or full 

recreational closures established specifically targeting wintering and nonbreeding birds. However, under 

alternative C, the beginning date of the winter closure of the Seashore to public ORV use would be 

extended to December 16, meaning that the Seashore would be closed to public ORV use from 

December 16 through March 15. This would provide an additional two weeks of long-term beneficial 

impacts to wintering American oystercatchers by eliminating all potential impacts from public ORV use 

and allowing the beach profile a greater opportunity recover from heavy fall fishing use. Outside of the 

December 16 through March 15 timeframe, no closures would be specifically implemented for wintering 

and nonbreeding shorebird protection which could result in disturbance of individuals, leading to 

displacement and altered foraging behavior (Burger 1991; Zonick 2000; McAtee and Drawe 1981). This 

would only affect American oystercatchers though, as colonial waterbirds and Wilson’s plovers leave the 

Seashore in the July through September timeframe and do not winter at the Seashore. Impacts to 

wintering American oystercatchers would be minimized through permanent ORV closures which include 

all of Shackleford Banks, Portsmouth Flats, the interior of the point of Cape Lookout, the ocean beach 

between mile markers 41a and 41b, and Power Squadron Spit. 

While the closure of the Seashore to vehicles from December 16 through March 15 would help protect 

wintering American oystercatchers, no closures would be established for pedestrians, which could result 

in disturbance of birds and habitat from pedestrian use, leading to displacement and altered foraging 

behavior. However, adverse impacts would be largely imperceptible because many passenger ferries stop 

operating in the winter, the amount of pedestrian use during the winter months is very low, and without a 

means of transportation on the beach, most visitor use would be confined to areas in the immediate 

vicinity of the ferry landings. 

Though winter surveys would not occur for American oystercatchers, surveying of wintering piping 

plovers would occur once per month between August 1 and March 31. Surveying activities for 

nonbreeding plovers could cause some disturbance to American oystercatchers on the beach through the 

presence of NPS staff and vehicles causing flushing behavior. Any potential impacts would be minimal 

though, because surveys for nonbreeding plovers only occur once per month, and wintering American 

oystercatchers appear to use soundside habitat more than the ocean beach (NPS 2010e, 2009e, 2008h). 
State-listed and Special-status Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 415

Predator Management—Under alternative C, predator management activities would be the same as for 

alternative B and result in short- and long-term beneficial impacts. The limited removal of mammalian 

predators would help reduce predation pressure and likely result in increased reproductive success, while 

the continued enforcement of proper trash disposal and anti-wildlife feeding regulations would help 

reduce the attraction of predators to the beach by removing trash as a potential food source.

Education/Public Outreach—Education and public outreach measures under alternative C would be the 

same as for alternative B, including increases in staffing levels for interpretation positions and law 

enforcement positions, and would provide short- and long term benefits. Benefits would occur because 

the public would receive education about the specific needs of the species and alerts ahead of time about 

closures due to the potential for species or habitat disturbance and injury. 

Research/Monitoring—Research and monitoring under alternative C would be the same as alternative B. 

While research efforts have the potential to negatively impact feeding, reproduction, resting, or other 

American oystercatcher, colonial waterbird, and Wilson’s plover behavior over the long term due to the 

increased human presence and use of ORVs (Anderson and Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; 

Tremblay and Ellison 1979; Hand 1980), the research to be conducted would provide long-term beneficial 

impacts by increasing knowledge about the species that would help inform future management actions.

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

ORVs and Pedestrian Access—ORV routes under alternative C would be the same as under alternative 

B, with the exception that approximately 4 miles of pedestrian-only use areas would be added to the 

Seashore. During the summer season 3.1 miles of additional pedestrian-use only area would be added 

(0.35 miles at Long Point Cabin Camp, 1.9 miles at Great Island Cabin Camp, and 0.8 miles at Codds 

Creek), while the year-round pedestrian-use only area at the lighthouse would be expanded by 0.7 miles. 

Adding 4 miles of pedestrian-only use areas means that the amount of ocean beach available for ORV 

use, prior to other possible temporary ORV or full recreational closures for species protection and safety, 

would be approximately 74 percent (41 miles) from the Friday preceding Memorial Day through Labor 

Day (as compared to 81 percent [45 miles] under alternatives A and B) and approximately 79 percent (44 

miles) during the rest of the year (from March 16 through the Thursday preceding Memorial Day and 

from Labor Day through December 15) when ORVs are allowed on the beach (ORVs are prohibited from 

December 16 through March 15). As described under alternative A, ORV resource and safety closures on 

average historically protect an additional approximately 10 miles (22 percent) of the Seashore during the 

summer and approximately 5.4 (12 percent) of the Seashore that would otherwise be open to ORVs and 

their impacts. Reducing the amount of beach available for ORV use increases the amount of area where 

American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers would be free from potential impacts 

of ORVs. For example, the increase in pedestrian-only use areas under this alternative would be in a 

nesting area for least tern and American oystercatcher and would expected to provide benefits to these 

species by limiting ORV-related disturbance in the nesting areas (Rikard 2013a).Under alternative C, 

public ORV use would be kept at historical levels, so reducing the amount of Seashore available for 

public ORV access could result in an increased ORV density where ORVs are permitted which could 

increase the potential for impacts due to the higher ORV densities. However, any increase in density, and 

resultant impacts from that, would be extremely slight given the relatively small increase in the amount of 

pedestrian-only use areas compared to the overall amount of Seashore available to ORVs and where the 

increases are occurring. 

Similar to alternative B, ORV use would be discontinued in areas on Core Banks that are cut off from 

ferry access, though it would be restored if/when the areas rejoin an area with ferry access. During the 

time that ORV use is discontinued there would be no potential adverse impacts from vehicles which 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

416 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

would result in both short- and long-term beneficial impacts on American oystercatchers, colonial 

waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers. Also similar to alternative B, the back route between mile marker 44 

and mile marker 45 would be opened to ORV use when the point of Cape Lookout is closed to throughtraffic. This would provide access to the beach area to the west of the point of Cape Lookout that would 

otherwise be inaccessible by ORVs without traversing Cape Village and would potentially help prevent 

closure violations on the point of Cape Lookout by likely reducing visitor frustration due to the closure. 

Under alternative C all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs would be 

prohibited at the Seashore after a five-year grace period. Additionally, utility-model ATVs and UTVs 

would be permitted only from September 15 through December 15 at the Seashore. As discussed under 

alternative A, based on studies by McGowan and Simons (2006) and Simons and Borneman (2012), it 

appears that ATV use, and to some extent UTV use, impacts shorebirds to a greater extent than other 

types of ORVs (e.g., four-wheel drive passenger vehicles) likely due to the fact that they are louder and 

faster. The studies do not differentiate between different types of ATVs and/or UTVs because highperformance sport-model ATVs and UTVs, as well as two-stroke models are designed for racing, 

jumping, and moving at high rates of speed; however, these models likely could cause more impacts to 

shorebirds than utility-model ATVs and UTVs that are designed to be used in a utilitarian way. The speed 

and noise of high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs may be perceived by 

shorebirds as a greater threat, causing the shorebirds to alter their behavior. Eliminating these vehicles 

and their potential impacts from the Seashore after a five-year grace period would provide short- and 

long-term benefits to American oystercatchers and likely to all other state-listed and special-status 

species. Additionally, limiting utility-model ATV and UTV use during the majority of the nesting season 

and removing their adverse impacts would provide short- and long-term beneficial impacts. 

Like alternative B, regular maintenance of the back route would occur under alternative C. Although the 

potential for habitat disturbance exists, activities would be coordinated with resource management staff to 

ensure they are not occurring in sensitive resource areas or during sensitive times in the species life 

stages. In addition, activities associated with back route maintenance would occur in previously disturbed 

areas. Therefore, activities associated with back route maintenance would likely result in limited, shortterm adverse impacts on state-listed and special-status species at the Seashore. 

Night-Driving—Under alternative C, all recreational ORV use on the ocean beach and back route would 

be prohibited from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. from May 1 through September 14, extending the end date beyond 

August 31, which is the end date under alternative B. Restrictions on night driving under alternative C 

would reduce potential impacts at night on chicks and foraging adults of state-listed and special-status 

bird species, which include disturbance of nesting and foraging behaviors and injury or mortality from 

collisions with a vehicle. This would result in short- and long-term beneficial impacts. The longer range 

of dates under alternative C would account for late nesters, further contributing to the long-term benefits 

of night driving restrictions. 

Permit Requirements—Under alternative C, and similar to alternative B, long-term (annual) and shortterm (10-day) vehicle permits and an ORV operator education certificate would be required to operate an 

ORV on the Seashore. In addition, to manage the number of vehicles operating on the Seashore at any one 

time, a limit would be established on the number of annual and 10-day permits issued each year, with the 

limit being based on the historical average use on each island. Although public ORV use would not be 

allowed in ORV or full recreational closures, placing a limit on the number of permits issued for ORV use 

would prevent future unlimited growth of ORV use on the beach. This would likely prevent increased 

amounts of adverse impacts outside of closures, compared to historical levels, on American 

oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers and their habitat from ORVs; resulting in shortand long-term beneficial impacts. 
State-listed and Special-status Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 417

As described for alternative B, fees collected from the permitting system would be used toward species 

management and protection, which would benefit American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and 

Wilson’s plovers. Educational information provided by the permit and education requirement would 

benefit these species because ORV users would be more aware of the regulations in place to protect them. 

ORV users would also be more likely to comply with buffers and closures for other species that overlap 

the habitat for state-listed and special-status species, as well as other Seashore regulations due to the 

potential threat of losing their individual driving privileges through the revocation of their vehicle permit 

or ORV operator education certificate if violations occur. 

Camping—Under alternative C, camping and campfire activities along the ocean beach would be 

permitted in areas similar to alternative B (on all beaches of the Seashore that are not otherwise closed by 

the Superintendent’s Compendium, closed for safety, or closed for species protection, that is, full 

recreational closures and the six sea turtle nest relocation areas) and result in short- and long-term 

beneficial impacts by greatly reducing the impacts on American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and 

Wilson’s plovers from these activities. These activities can bring both vehicles and pedestrians into close 

proximity to shorebirds and result in birds being flushed from nests, resulting in loss of eggs or chicks, 

complete abandonment of the nest, and increased susceptibility to predation (Elliot-Smith and Haig 2004; 

Cohen, Houghton, and Fraser 2009; Burger 1987; Boettcher et al. 2007; Lauro and Tanacredi 2002; 

Patterson, Fraser, and Roggenbuck 1990). Although alternative C would also establish designated 

campsites for emergency camping in areas along the back route, these areas do not provide habitat for 

state-listed or special-status bird species and would result in no effects on these species. 

Adaptive Management Strategy—Under alternative C, an adaptive management strategy would be 

implemented, the same as under alternative B, to ensure that the goals of species protection are being met. 

The additional management actions that could be implemented would provide short- and long-term 

beneficial impacts to American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, Wilson’s plovers, and their habitat. 

Benefits would result from reducing closure violations through increased education and focused 

enforcement; reducing predation through trash management and fish scrap disposal; and reducing ORV 

impacts through route restrictions, increased buffer sizes, and limits on the number of vehicle permits 

issued, as well as managing the size of vehicle storage lots. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative C 

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions under alternative C would be the same as those 

described under alternative A. The overall combined impacts of these past, present, and future actions on 

state-listed and special-status bird species would be short- and long-term, and adverse (from disturbance 

to foraging and nesting birds from visitor/ORV use, dredging activities, visitor amenity improvements, 

and military overflights), as well as long-term beneficial (from the protection afforded to species and their 

habitat by species monitoring, species buffers, habitat protection, visitor protection patrols, visitor 

education programs, control of the wild horse population, future planning efforts under the Foundation 

Plan, and predator management). While adverse effects on state-listed and special-status bird species from 

other actions occurring in the region would still exist, actions under alternative C would provide 

additional protection that would be beneficial to the regional populations of these species and would 

offset some of the adverse effects. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

418 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

ALTERNATIVE D

Impacts of Alternative D

Resource Management Activities 

Surveying and Monitoring—Surveying and monitoring for state-listed and special-status bird species 

and their habitat, and the impacts from the actions under alternative D would be the same as described for 

alternative A. As described under alternative A, surveying and monitoring for state-listed and specialstatus bird species and their habitat provides long-term beneficial impacts to the species because it allows 

the Seashore to better manage American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers, which 

may lead to increased reproductive success of the species at the Seashore. While overall surveying 

activities would provide beneficial impacts, they could also cause some short-term adverse impacts by 

negatively impacting feeding, reproduction, resting, or other shorebird behavior (Burger 1991, 1994). 

However, NPS staff would use best professional judgment and take precautions to minimize disturbance 

during surveying, such as observing incubating birds with optical equipment from appropriate distances 

and maintaining slow speeds while using ORVs in or near American oystercatcher, colonial waterbird, 

and Wilson plover habitat. Additionally, to help minimize any adverse impacts from monitoring and 

surveying activities, under alternative D there would be more consistent training and supervision of 

resource staff who conduct the surveys. This would result in a higher quality of monitoring for shorebird 

species, resulting in beneficial impacts. 

Establishment of Prenesting Closures—Under alternative D, establishing full recreational closures for 

prenesting habitat, and the impacts from these actions would be the same as under alternative B. Shortand long-term beneficial impacts would result from establishing full recreational closures in historical 

shorebird nesting areas prior to opening the beach to vehicles on March 16. This would protect bird 

habitat, as well as any birds when they first arrive at the Seashore and begin courtship and mating 

behaviors. Wilson’s plovers begin establishing territories in mid-March through early April (Tomkins 

1944; Bergstrom 1988), and typically are found nesting in piping plover habitat. Thus, even though no 

prenesting closures specifically address Wilson’s plovers, the establishment of piping plover prenesting 

closures by March 16 would protect nesting Wilson’s plovers. While most colonial waterbirds begin 

arriving at the Seashore in April and May, the least tern begins arriving in late March, so establishing 

prenesting closures for colonial waterbirds by March 16 would also help protect them from ORV and 

pedestrian disturbances.

Buffer/Closure Establishment—Under alternative D, buffers around state-listed and special-status bird 

species exhibiting courtship and mating behavior would increase, as would buffers around nests and 

unfledged chicks. For the American oystercatcher, buffers around birds exhibiting courtship and mating 

behavior, as well as around nests, would be established at 450-feet, which would provide additional 

protection to mating pairs and nests. Also, where American oystercatcher nests are present, vehicles 

would be routed around nests or chicks where the back route is available during the nesting season. 

Prohibiting vehicles from passing through American oystercatcher buffers (when the back route is 

available) would likely provide additional protection to mating pairs and nests by removing a potential 

source of disturbance, resulting in long-term beneficial impacts. For unfledged chicks, colonial waterbird 

and American oystercatcher buffers would increase by 600 feet under alternative D. This measure would 

provide additional protection for unfledged chicks, potentially resulting in increased fledging success. For 

colonial waterbirds, buffers for courting and mating behavior, as well as for nesting, would be established 

at 600-feet. These increased buffer sizes would provide additional protection to mating and nesting birds 

as well as provide additional protection to chicks, resulting in short- and long-term beneficial impacts. 
State-listed and Special-status Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 419

In addition to increases in buffers for state-listed and special-status bird species, under alternative D, 

based on one set of recommendations in the Piping Plover Recovery Plan (USFWS 1996a), unless data 

from previous years show that broods at a site forage close to their nests, ORV closures would extend at 

least 650 feet on each side of the nest site during the first week following hatching; this is an increase of 

50 feet from alternatives A, B, and C. The size and location of the ORV closure would also be adjusted in 

response to the observed mobility of the brood, but in no case would it be reduced to less than 650 feet on 

each side, and in some cases, highly mobile broods may require buffers up to 3,250 feet, even when 

intensively monitored. Because of the narrow width of most of North Core and South Core Banks, such 

buffers would likely extend from the oceanside low water line to the soundside low water line or the 

farthest extent of dune habitat. If needed, a buffer of this size (i.e., 3,250 feet), depending on where it 

needs to be established could close approximately 3 miles of Portsmouth Flats, 7 miles of Kathryn-Jane 

Flats (if chicks are present), or the tip (approximately 2.5 miles) of Old Drum Inlet (unless the inlet fills 

in). Though the ORV closures would be established for piping plovers, they could also be used by statelisted and special-status species, providing short- and long-term beneficial impacts to those species as 

well.

Increases in closures and buffers for state-listed and special-status species under alternative D represent 

substantial increases over the closures established under the other alternatives (except for alternative E 

where public ORV use would be prohibited on the Seashore year-round). The closures and buffers would 

likely result in considerable beneficial impacts on breeding state-listed and special-status bird species by 

reducing the potential for disturbance and injury associated with pedestrian and vehicle access near 

breeding pairs and young; thus, likely increasing nesting and fledging success for state-listed and specialstatus bird species at the Seashore. Additionally, sea turtle nest relocation areas would be established in 

the same manner as under alternative A and would provide protection from ORV impacts for state-listed 

and special-status bird species using that habitat. 

Management of Wintering and Nonbreeding Birds—Under alternative D, management of wintering 

and nonbreeding birds would be the same as described for alternative C, resulting in limited short-term 

disturbance from activities associated with piping plover surveys, and pedestrian disturbance in areas 

within close proximity to the ferry landings, as well as long-term beneficial impacts (i.e., protection and 

habitat recovery) from the closure of the Seashore to vehicles from December 16 through March 15. 

Predator Management—Under alternative D, predator management activities would be the same as for 

alternative B and result in short- and long-term beneficial impacts. The limited removal of mammalian 

predators would help reduce predation pressure and likely result in increased reproductive success, while 

the continued enforcement of proper trash disposal and anti-wildlife feeding regulations would help 

reduce the attraction of predators to the beach by removing trash as a potential food source.

Education/Public Outreach—Education and public outreach measures under alternative D would be the 

same as for alternative B, including increases in staffing levels for interpretation positions and law 

enforcement positions, and would provide short- and long term benefits. Benefits would occur because 

the public would receive education about the specific needs of the species and alerts ahead of time about 

closures due to the potential for species or habitat disturbance and injury. 

Research/Monitoring—Research and monitoring under alternative D would be the same as alternative 

B. While research efforts have the potential to negatively impact feeding, reproduction, resting, or other 

American oystercatcher, colonial waterbird, and Wilson’s plover behavior over the long term due to the 

increased human presence and use of ORVs (Anderson and Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; 

Tremblay and Ellison 1979; Hand 1980), the research to be conducted would provide long-term beneficial 

impacts by increasing knowledge about the species that would help inform future management actions. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

420 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

ORVs and Pedestrian Access—Under alternative D, ORV routes and pedestrian-only use areas would 

include those areas under alternative C except the closures at Long Point, Great Island, and Codds Creek 

would be pedestrian-only use areas year-round instead of just during the summer, as under alternative C. 

Additionally, the total amount of total amount of pedestrian-only use areas would increase by 

approximately 8 percent (from 2 to 10 miles). 

Under alternative D about 0.5 miles of summertime pedestrian-only use area would be created at 

Johnsons Creek, and the 3.6 miles of Middle Core Banks would be a pedestrian-only use area during the 

summer whether or not it is contiguous with North Core Banks (currently it is an island). The ocean beach 

from the Portsmouth Access Road north to the demarcation line at Ocracoke Inlet would also become a 

summer pedestrian-only use area. In addition, the year-round pedestrian-only use area in front of the 

lighthouse would be expanded approximately 0.9 miles to the south, for a total closure of approximately 

1.6 miles, or 0.9 miles larger than under alternative A and 0.2 miles larger than under alternative C. 

Adding these pedestrian-only use areas would reduce the amount of Seashore beaches open to ORV use. 

About 63 percent (35 miles) of the beach, would be open to ORV use from the Friday preceding 

Memorial Day through Labor Day, not considering any temporary ORV resource or safety closures, 

which as described under alternative A have historically averaged approximately 10 miles during the 

summer months. About 73 percent (41 miles) of the beach would be open to ORV use during the rest of 

the year (from March 16 through the Thursday preceding Memorial Day and from Labor Day through 

December 15) when ORVs are allowed on the beach (ORVs are prohibited from December 16 through 

March 15). As described under alternative A, temporary ORV resource and safety closures historically 

protect an average of approximately an additional 5.4 miles of Seashore during the fall months. Impacts to 

American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers from ORV use would be eliminated 

in these new pedestrian-only use areas and would result in short- and long-term beneficial impacts. For 

example, the increase in pedestrian-only areas under this alternative would be in a nesting area for least 

tern and American oystercatcher and would expected to provide additional benefits to these species 

(Rikard 2013a). Reducing the amount of area open to ORV use could have the potential to increase the 

density of ORVs in areas that remain open to ORVs, potentially resulting in some increased impacts to 

American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers and their habitat in those areas. 

However, to offset this potential, the Seashore would reduce the number of permits issued by 8 percent 

(see “Permit Requirements” below). 

ORV access (related to species closures) under alternative D would be similar to alternative B. On 

sections of Core Banks where no ferry landing access is available (i.e., Middle Core Banks and Ophelia 

Banks), designated ORV routes would be closed, which could provide further protection for American 

oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers at the Seashore by reducing the amount of 

Seashore available to ORV access. This would limit the potential for species contact with vehicles and 

vehicle operators/passengers. 

Under alternative D, all ATVs and high-performance sport-model and two-stroke UTVs would be 

prohibited year-round after a five-year grace period. Additionally, utility-model UTVs would be 

permitted only between September 15 and December 15. As discussed under alternative A, based on 

studies by McGowan and Simons (2006) and Simons and Borneman (2012), it appears that ATV use, and 

to some extent UTV use, impacts American oystercatchers to a greater extent than other types of ORVs 

(e.g., four-wheel drive passenger vehicles) likely due to the fact that they are louder and faster. The 

studies do not differentiate between different types of ATVs and/or UTVs because high-performance 

sport-model ATVs and UTVs, as well as two-stroke models are designed for racing, jumping, and moving 
State-listed and Special-status Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 421

at high rates of speed; however, these models likely could cause more impacts to shorebirds than utilitymodel ATVs and UTVs that are designed to be used in a utilitarian way. The speed and noise of highperformance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs may be perceived by the shorebirds as a 

greater threat and alter their behavior. Eliminating all ATVs (which Simons and Borneman (2012) 

showed has a greater impact on birds than UTVs)as well as their potential impacts from the Seashore after 

a five-year grace period would provide short- and long-term benefits to American oystercatchers and 

likely all other state-listed and special-status species at the Seashore. Additionally, limiting utility-model 

UTV use to only the non-nesting season for these species and removing their adverse impacts would also 

provide both short- and long-term beneficial impact. 

Unlike alternatives B and C, regular maintenance of the back route would not occur under alternative D. 

However, for resource protection and safety, the back route would be re-established when impacted by a 

storm event, and there would be no net loss of ramps (locations may change after storm events). In the 

case of extreme high tides or other emergencies, the area of the former long-term vehicle storage and 

parking lots (which would be closed under alternative D) would be open to temporary overnight use, for 

the duration of the extreme condition. Like alternatives B and C, the potential for habitat disturbance 

exists, but activities would be coordinated with resource management staff to ensure they are not 

occurring in sensitive resource areas or during sensitive times. These activities would not be a regular 

occurrence and any impact is expected to be short-term. Additionally, the area impacted by any reestablished ramps would be small compared to the overall habitat available to American oystercatchers, 

colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers, minimizing any adverse impacts. Therefore, activities 

associated with replacement of the back route and ramps would likely result in limited, short-term adverse 

impacts on state-listed and special-status species at the Seashore. 

Night-Driving—Under alternative D, night driving would prohibited at the Seashore on the ocean beach 

and the back route during the same timeframe as described for alternative C, between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. 

from May 1 through September 14. This would result in short- and long-term beneficial impacts on 

American oystercatchers and Wilson’s plovers, which are known to be active at night (Simons and 

Schulte 2008; Morrier and McNeil 1991), by eliminating potential disturbances from ORVs on individual 

of these species that may be foraging at night. 

However, this timeframe would not encompass the month of April, which is during the peak of the 

migration when over 1,000 birds are generally at the Seashore (NPS 2006c, 2007n, 2008h, 2009e, 2009g, 

2010e, 2010g, 2011e, 2011g, 2012p, 2012r). It would also not protect state-listed or special-status species 

that may be at the Seashore from September 15 through December 15. 

Permit Requirements—Under alternative D, vehicle permit and ORV operator education certificate 

requirements would be similar to alternative C, except that the number of vehicle permits issued would be 

reduced by 8 percent. The reduction of permits by 8 percent compared to alternative C is based on the 

percentage increase of pedestrian-only use areas under alternative D, and is intended to reduce the number 

of vehicles on the beach to keep the average vehicle density similar to current average use despite there 

being less Seashore open to public ORV use. This would help prevent increases in ORV impacts due to 

potentially higher densities of vehicles in areas where public ORV use is allowed. Although public ORV 

use would not be allowed in resource protection areas, placing a limit on the number of permits issued for 

ORV use on the beach would prevent future unlimited growth of public ORV use on the beach, thus 

preventing likely increased amounts of adverse impacts, compared to historical levels, on American 

oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers. This would result in short- and long-term 

beneficial impacts. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

422 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

As described for alternative B, fees collected from a permitting program would be used toward species 

management and protection, which would benefit American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and 

Wilson’s plovers. Educational information provided by the permit and education requirement would 

benefit American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers because ORV users would be 

more aware of the regulations in place to protect this species and would be more likely to comply with 

buffers, closures, and other Seashore regulations due to the potential threat of losing their individual 

driving privileges through the revocation of their vehicle permit or ORV operator education certificate if 

violations occur. 

Camping—Under alternative D, camping and campfire activities along the ocean beach would be 

permitted in areas similar to alternative B (on all beaches of the Seashore that are not otherwise closed by 

the Superintendent’s Compendium, closed for safety, or closed for species protection, that is, full 

recreational closures and the six sea turtle nest relocation areas) and result in short- and long-term 

beneficial impacts by greatly reducing the impacts on American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and 

Wilson’s plovers from these activities. These activities can bring both vehicles and pedestrians into close 

proximity to shorebirds and result in birds being flushed from nests, resulting in loss of eggs or chicks, 

complete abandonment of the nest, and increased susceptibility to predation (Elliot-Smith and Haig 2004; 

Cohen, Houghton, and Fraser 2009; Burger 1987; Boettcher et al. 2007; Lauro and Tanacredi 2002; 

Patterson, Fraser, and Roggenbuck 1990). Although alternative D would also establish designated 

campsites for emergency camping in portions of the existing long-term parking lots, these areas do not 

provide habitat for state-listed or special-status bird species and would result in no effects on these 

species. 

Adaptive Management Strategy—Under alternative D, an adaptive management strategy would be 

implemented, the same as under alternative B, to ensure that the goals of species protection are being met. 

The additional management actions that could be implemented would provide short- and long-term 

beneficial impacts to American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers and their 

habitat. Benefits would result from reducing closure violations through increased education and focused 

enforcement; reducing predation through trash management and fish scrap disposal; and reducing ORV 

impacts through route restrictions, increased buffer sizes, and limits on the number of vehicle permits 

issued, as well as managing the size of vehicle storage lots.

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative D 

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions under alternative D would be the same as those 

described under alternative A. The overall combined impacts of these past, present, and future actions on 

state-listed and special-status bird species would be short- and long-term, and adverse (from disturbance 

to foraging and nesting birds from visitor/ORV use, dredging activities, visitor amenity improvements, 

and military overflights), as well as long-term beneficial (from the protection afforded to species and their 

habitat by species monitoring, species buffers, habitat protection, visitor protection patrols, visitor 

education programs, control of the wild horse population, future planning efforts under the Foundation 

Plan, and predator management). While adverse effects on state-listed and special-status bird species from 

other actions occurring in the region would still exist, actions under alternative D would provide 

additional protection that would be beneficial to the regional populations of these species and would 

offset some of the adverse effects. 
State-listed and Special-status Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 423

ALTERNATIVE E

Impacts of Alternative E 

Resource Management Activities 

Surveying and Monitoring—Though public use of ORVs on the Seashore would be prohibited under 

alternative E, the NPS would still use ORVs to conduct resource management and resource and visitor 

protection activities. Surveying for and protecting state-listed and special-status bird species and their 

habitat under alternative E would occur in the same manner as under alternative A. However, given the 

prohibition of ORVs on the Seashore, the likely lower pedestrian presence resulting from this, and the fact 

that with no public ORV access, pedestrian use would likely be centered around the ferry landing areas, 

the cabins, and Power Squadron Spit where visitors can easily access the beach by their own boats, 

surveying and monitoring protocols would be reviewed and may change. Overall, surveying activities 

would provide long-term beneficial impacts to American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and 

Wilson’s plovers by allowing the Seashore to better manage the species, which may lead to increased 

reproductive success of the species at the Seashore. Some short-term adverse impacts could still occur by 

staff and/or vehicle presence negatively impacting feeding, reproduction, resting, or other shorebird 

behavior; however, NPS staff would use best professional judgment and take precautions to minimize 

disturbance during surveying, such as observing incubating birds with optical equipment from appropriate 

distances and maintaining slow speeds while using ORVs in or near state-listed and special-status bird 

species habitat. 

Establishment of Prenesting Closures—To protect state-listed and special-status bird species and their 

habitat, full recreational closures for prenesting colonial waterbird habitat would be established, similar to 

alternative A, by April 1 in all active (where birds are presently nesting or nested the previous breeding 

season), nesting habitat as determined appropriate by a qualified staff biologist, and the closures would 

also be expanded as necessary when nests or nest scrapes are found in new areas. However, since public 

use of ORVs would be prohibited on the Seashore under alternative E, the closures would be applicable to 

pedestrians only. As described for alternative A, these closures would protect nesting birds from adverse 

impacts caused by disturbance from pedestrians and pets, resulting in long-term beneficial impacts. 

American oystercatchers begin nesting at the Seashore in April (NPS 2012p, 2011e, 2010e, 2009e, 2008h, 

2007n, 2006c, 2005c, 2004b), and with no specific prenesting closures for this species they would be 

subject to disturbance from pedestrians and pets, resulting in long-term adverse impacts. However, 

prenesting closures for piping plovers and colonial waterbirds established on April 1 would be available 

for use by these species, and provide long-term beneficial impacts by protecting species that nest in these 

closures from pedestrian and pet disturbance. Wilson’s plovers are often found nesting in the same areas 

as piping plovers and American oystercatchers (NPS 2006e), and their peak nesting period is from late 

April through late May (Bergstrom 1982); therefore, piping plover prenesting closures beginning on 

April 1 would provide protection to Wilson’s plovers as well. However, Wilson’s plovers begin 

establishing territories in mid-March through early April (Tomkins 1944; Bergstrom 1988), so those birds 

beginning to establish territories prior to April 1 would not be protected from pedestrian and pet 

disturbances, resulting in long-term adverse impacts. Overall though, any impacts from pedestrians and or 

their pets would be reduced, because with no ORV use on the beach, pedestrian use would likely occur 

mostly around the ferry landings, limiting the amount of shorebird habitat potentially impacted by them. 

Buffer/Closure Establishment—Under alternative E, establishing buffers and closures would be the 

same as described for alternative A, except that no recreational ORV-specific closures would be 

established because public use of ORVs would not be permitted on the Seashore under this alternative. 

Any disturbance to American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers would be limited 

to that by monitoring and emergency response vehicles. Establishing buffers and full recreation closures 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

424 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

outside of prenesting closures, would result in short- and long-term benefits for state-listed and specialstatus species by protecting adults, nests, and unfledged chicks from potential impacts caused by 

pedestrians and pets. 

Management of Wintering and Nonbreeding Birds—Similar to alternative A, there would be no 

surveys conducted for wintering or nonbreeding American oystercatchers (colonial waterbirds and 

Wilson’s plovers do not winter at the Seashore) under alternative E. Surveys for wintering piping plovers 

would still occur once per month from August 1 through March 31 each year. While surveying activities 

for wintering piping plovers could result in some noise and habitat disturbance (potentially causing 

temporary displacement) of American oystercatcher from the presence of resource staff and essential 

vehicles, impacts would be largely imperceptible because the surveys would occur only once per month. 

Not allowing public ORV use at the Seashore during any time of year would eliminate all impacts from 

ORVs on wintering American oystercatchers, resulting in long-term beneficial impacts. During the winter 

months pedestrians would still have access to the Seashore and there would be no full recreational 

closures established to protect wintering shorebird populations. However, any impacts from disturbance 

by pedestrians would be largely imperceptible because many passenger ferries stop operating in the 

winter, the amount of pedestrian use during the winter months is very low, and without a means of 

transportation on the beach, most visitor use would be confined to areas in the immediate vicinity of the 

ferry landings. 

Predator Management—Under alternative E, predator management would be the same as alternative A. 

No nest protection measures would be put in place to protect shorebird nests from predators and no 

removal of predators would occur, which would allow continued predation of nests and birds to occur, 

resulting in long-term adverse impacts. With no public ORV use allowed under alternative E, and the 

Seashore continuing to enforce proper trash disposal and anti-wildlife feeding regulations, the amount of 

trash at the Seashore would likely to be reduced substantially, especially in areas more remote from the 

ferry landing areas since they would not be as easily accessed by pedestrians without ORVs. Trash often 

attracts predators, so a reduction of trash may correlate to a reduction in the number of predators and 

predation of state-listed and special-status bird species, resulting in long-term beneficial impacts. 

Education/Public Outreach—Under alternative E, education and outreach would be the same as 

described under alternative A; however, all efforts would be directed toward pedestrian use as public 

ORV use would not be permitted at the Seashore. Such public outreach would provide short- and longterm beneficial impacts for state-listed and special-status species as it educates the public to the specific 

needs of protected species. 

Research/Monitoring—Research and monitoring under alternative E would be the same as alternative A, 

While research efforts have the potential to negatively impact feeding, reproduction, resting, or other 

state-listed and special-status bird species behavior over the long term due to the increased human 

presence and use of ORVs (Anderson and Keith 1980; Ellison and Cleary 1978; Tremblay and Ellison 

1979; Hand 1980), the research to be conducted would provide long-term beneficial impacts by 

increasing knowledge about the species that would help inform future management actions. 

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

ORVs and Pedestrian Access—Under alternative E, the public use of ORVs would be prohibited along 

the entire Core Banks and Shackleford Banks. However, other recreational use on the ocean beach such as 

swimming, camping, beach fires, fishing, and the use of the cabins would still occur, though likely at a 

reduced rate and in general proximity to the ferry landing sites. With no public use of ORVs on the beach, 

impacts on American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers and their habitat from 
State-listed and Special-status Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 425

public ORV use as described under alternative A would not occur, resulting in short- and long-term 

beneficial impacts. In addition, the use of vehicles by NPS staff for law enforcement purposes would 

likely be reduced from current levels because staff would only be dealing with pedestrians, and 

management of recreational use would be simplified compared with the other alternatives. 

Adverse impacts (e.g., noise disturbance and short-term displacement) to state-listed and special-status 

species would continue from the presence of pedestrians and pets at the Seashore. However, impacts 

would be minimized because without ORVs to provide easy access to the more remote areas of the 

Seashore, pedestrian uses would likely be confined to the areas around the ferry landings. 

Night-Driving—Under alternative E, there would be no night driving on the Seashore because all public 

ORV use would be prohibited on the Seashore year-round. This would eliminate all potential impacts 

from ORVs at night on American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers, resulting in 

short- and long-term beneficial impacts. 

Permit Requirements—Under alternative E, there would be no vehicle permit requirements because 

public ORV use would not be allowed at the Seashore. Therefore, there would be no effects on state-listed 

and special-status bird species. 

Camping—Under alternative E, camping and campfire activities along the ocean beach would be 

permitted in areas similar to alternative A (on all beaches of the Seashore that are not otherwise closed by 

the Superintendent’s Compendium, closed for safety, or closed for species protection, that is, full 

recreational closures and the six sea turtle nest relocation areas). Camping and campfires can disturb 

nesting, resting, and foraging adult shorebirds and their chicks, causing short- and long-term adverse 

impacts; however, prohibiting these activities in full recreational closures and the sea turtle nest relocation 

areas would provide beneficial impacts to all shorebirds using these areas. Additionally, with no public 

ORV use allowed on the Seashore under this alternative, any adverse impacts would be reduced and 

likely limited to those areas readily accessible by foot, such as in front of the cabins, by the lighthouse, 

and possibly Power Squadron Spit which is accessible by private boat. 

Adaptive Management Strategy—Under alternative E, an adaptive management strategy would be 

adopted similar to that under alternative B to ensure that the goals of species protection are being met, 

providing short- and long-term beneficial impacts to all state-listed and special-status bird species. With 

no public ORV use allowed on the Seashore under alternative E, American oystercatcher disturbance 

would be monitored as it relates to impacts from pedestrians and other recreational use and not from 

ORVs, and only those non-ORV management actions indicated in chapter 2 would be implemented. The 

additional management actions that could be implemented would include increased education and focused 

enforcement, which would help reduce closure violations that could impact American oystercatchers, 

colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers; additional focused trash management and fish scrap disposal, 

which would likely reduce the number of predators attracted to the beach that could prey upon American 

oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers; additional predator control, which would help 

protect American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers, their nests, and fledglings 

from raccoons and other mammalian predators; and increased buffer sizes, which would protect American 

oystercatcher, colonial waterbird, and Wilson’s plover habitat, as well as the birds themselves and their 

nests. If species indicators continue to be triggered by visitor use impacts for two consecutive years after 

implementing the previously mentioned actions, then increasing the size of species protection buffers 

could be implemented. This would increase the distance vehicles could approach birds and nests, thereby 

reducing amount of potential impacts caused by ORVs, providing short- and long-term beneficial impacts 

to American oystercatchers, colonial waterbirds, and Wilson’s plovers. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

426 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative E 

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions under alternative E would be the same as those 

described under alternative A. The overall combined impacts of these past, present, and future actions on 

state-listed and special-status bird species would be short- and long-term, and adverse (from disturbance 

to foraging and nesting birds from visitor/ORV use, dredging activities, visitor amenity improvements, 

and military overflights), as well as long-term beneficial (from the protection afforded to species and their 

habitat by species monitoring, species buffers, habitat protection, visitor protection patrols, visitor 

education programs, control of the wild horse population, future planning efforts under the Foundation 

Plan, and predator management). While adverse effects on state-listed and special-status birds from other 

actions occurring in the region would still exist, actions under alternative E would provide additional 

protection that would be beneficial to the regional populations of these species and would offset some of 

the adverse effects. 

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Under alternative B, impacts on state-listed and special-status bird species from resource management 

activities would be slightly less than impacts under alternatives A (the no-action alternative) and E (the 

no-ORV alternative) because there would be more consistent training and supervision of resource staff 

who conduct the surveys, the limited predator removal in alternative B, establishing pre-nesting closures 

by March 16 (15 days earlier than under alternative A, not applicable to alternative E), and the increased 

education and research programs. ORV and other recreational use would result in long-term adverse 

impacts on state-listed and special-status bird species under alternative B. Allowing continued ORV 

access on approximately 81 percent (45 miles) of the Seashore would contribute to these long-term 

impacts, including noise disturbance, temporary displacement, and possibly injury/mortality of 

individuals. However, impacts under alternative B would be less than impacts incurred under alternative 

A (the no-action alternative) due to increased education and outreach, the closing of ORV routes where 

no ferry access is available, the prohibition on all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs 

and UTVs at the Seashore, prohibiting night driving from May 1 through August 31, the ORV permitting 

system, the likely increased compliance with resource closures due to increased law enforcement and 

interpretative staffing positions, and the more intensive management actions that could be implemented 

under the adaptive management strategy. However, the impacts on state-listed and special-status bird 

species from ORV and other recreational uses under alternative B would be greater than those incurred 

under alternative E because no public ORV access would be allowed at the Seashore under alternative E. 

Impacts on state-listed and special-status bird species from resource management activities under 

alternative C would be slightly less than for alternatives A (the no-action alternative) and E (the no ORV 

alternative). This is due to more consistent training and supervision of resource staff who conduct the 

surveys, the limited predator removal under alternative C, increased educational and research efforts, and 

the winter vehicle closure from December 16 through March 15 (not applicable to alternative E). Under 

alternative C, ORV and other recreational use would result in long-term adverse impacts on state-listed 

birds from noise disturbance, temporary displacement, and possibly injury/mortality of individuals. 

However, these impacts would be less than those incurred under alternative A, due to a seasonal 

prohibition on night driving from May 1 through September 14, the increase in the amount of pedestrianonly use areas by 4 miles, the closing of ORV routes where no ferry access is available, the prohibition on 

all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs at the Seashore, shortening the 

timeframe that non-sport ATVs and UTVs would be permitted within the Seashore each year (reducing 

the March 16 through December 31 time under alternative A to September 15 through December 15), the 

reduction in the amount of Seashore open for ORV use, the fee-based ORV permitting system that would 

also limit the number of vehicles on the Seashore, the likely increased compliance with resource closures 

due to increased law enforcement and interpretative staffing positions, and the more intensive 
State-listed and Special-status Species 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 427

management actions that could be implemented under the adaptive management strategy. Compared to 

alternative E, the amount of impacts on state-listed and special-status bird species under alternative C 

would be greater due to public ORV use being allowed under alternative C whereas it would be 

prohibited under alternative E. 

Under alternative D, impacts on state-listed and special-status bird species from resource management 

activities would be less than those under alternatives A (the no-action alternative) and E (the no ORV 

alternative). This is due to more consistent training and supervision of resource staff who conduct the 

surveys, the limited predator removal, expanded buffers around American oystercatchers, colonial 

waterbirds, and least terns, the expansion of brood buffers based on the mobility of the brood, and the 

increased education and monitoring efforts. ORV and other recreational use would result in long-term 

adverse impacts on state-listed birds under alternative D from noise disturbance, temporary displacement, 

and possibly injury/mortality of individuals. However, these impacts would be less than those incurred 

under alternative A. This is due to the expansion of pedestrian-use only areas by 10 miles; the prohibition 

on night time driving from May 1 through September 14, the closing of ORV routes where no ferry 

access is available, the prohibition of all ATVs, as well as all high-performance sport-model and twostroke UTVs at the Seashore, shortening the time frame that utility-model UTVs would be permitted 

within the Seashore each year (reducing the March 16 through December 31 time under alternative A to 

September 15 through December 15), the reduction in the amount of Seashore open for ORV use, the feebased ORV permitting system with a limit on the number of vehicles allowed which would reduce the 

number of public ORVs allowed on the Seashore by 8 percent in order to keep the average vehicle density 

similar to historical use, the likely increased compliance with resource closures due to increased law 

enforcement and interpretative staffing positions, and the more intensive management actions that could 

be implemented under the adaptive management strategy. Compared to alternative E, the amount of 

impacts on state-listed and special-status bird species under alternative D would be greater due to public 

ORV use being allowed under alternative D whereas it would be prohibited under alternative E. 

The resource management activities proposed for alternative E (the no ORV alternative) are essentially 

the same activities proposed for alternative A (the no-action alternative) except that no recreational ORVspecific closures would be established, and surveying and monitoring protocols would be reviewed and 

may change given the prohibition of ORVs on the Seashore, the likely lower pedestrian presence resulting 

from this, and the fact that with no ORV access, pedestrian use would likely be centered around the ferry 

landing areas, the cabins, and Power Squadron Spit where visitors can easily access the beach by their 

own boats. Under alternative A, the North and South Core Banks of the Seashore would remain open to 

ORV use in designated routes and areas (as documented in the Superintendent’s Compendium), except 

where resource or safety closures are present. There would be no night driving restrictions under 

alternative A and no restrictions on the number of vehicles allowed on the Seashore either. Therefore, 

when compared to alternative A, alternative E would provide more protection to state-listed and specialstatus bird species because there would be no impacts related to public ORV use, and impacts related to 

other recreational uses would be reduced due to limited access to the ocean front beaches due to no public 

ORV use. 

CONCLUSION

Impacts on state-listed birds from ORV and other recreational use under alternatives A, B, C, and D are 

expected to be long term and adverse. Allowing ORVs access to North and South Core Banks under 

alternative B would contribute to these adverse impacts, including noise disturbance, temporary 

displacement, and increased frequent escape flights. However, increased education and outreach; the use 

of additional species management measures, such as seasonal restriction on night driving; and restricting 

ATV and UTV use under alternatives B, C, and D would likely help mitigate the long-term adverse 

impacts of ORV use on state-listed birds by reducing vehicular contact with individual species and 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

428 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

educating visitors about the importance of resource protection. Additional benefits would result under 

alternative B because posting of nesting areas for shorebirds would occur 15 days earlier in the season 

(potentially catching early nesters) and a minimum 300-foot buffer for American oystercatchers would be 

provided once breeding behavior occurs. Benefits may result under alternative C because piping plover 

closures would increase to 300 feet for unfledged chicks on the beach and a minimum 300-foot buffer for 

American oystercatchers would be provided once breeding behavior occurs, potentially providing 

additional habitat for state-listed and special-status species. However, compliance with closures may not 

be absolute, resulting in continued disturbance of breeding habitat and potential mortality of individuals if 

noncompliance occurs. Under alternative D, species buffers/closures would increase considerably to 

account for unfledged chicks and nests that may occur near or outside of current closure boundaries, 

providing additional protection. Impacts on state-listed birds from essential vehicle use and pedestrian 

access under alternative E would likely be slight, short-term and adverse due to limited noise disturbance 

and temporary species displacement. Prohibiting ORV access at the Seashore under alternative E would 

remove a source of disturbance for all state-listed and special-status species, resulting in long-term 

beneficial impacts, which could eventually reduce the need for special management of and mitigation for 

state-listed and special-status species. 

Significance Discussion 

The purpose of the Seashore is to preserve the outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational resources 

and values of a dynamic, intact, natural barrier island system where ecological processes dominate. The 

Seashore is one of the few remaining locations on the Atlantic Coast where visitors can experience and 

recreate in an undeveloped, remote barrier island environment that can be reached only by boat or ferry. 

The Seashore plays a vital role in the survival of several state-listed and special-status species, as it 

provides many important and unique habitats, such as marshes, tidal flats, and riparian areas. Six statelisted and special-status species occur at the Seashore, including one state-listed threatened species (gullbilled tern) and five state-listed species of special concern (American oystercatcher, black skimmer, 

common tern, least tern, and Wilson’s plover). Most of these state-listed and special-status species have 

been known to occur along the Atlantic Coast beaches (including the Seashore) since the 1800s (Molina, 

Parnell, and Erwin 2009; Nol and Humphrey 2012; Corbat and Bergstrom 2000). Gull-billed terns, 

common terns, least terns, and black skimmers prefer relatively undisturbed islands for nesting, which 

typically includes barrier island beaches. The greatest concerns for these species are coastal development 

and associated increases in human disturbance, and predation by overabundant species. In 2011, the North 

Carolina coast supported 192 breeding pairs of American oystercatchers, of which 33 percent lived within 

the Seashore. American oystercatchers are considered a shorebird indicator species because they are one 

of the most sensitive bird species to disturbance at the Seashore, are highly vulnerable to disturbances, 

and are known to abandon habitat when they are impacted by pedestrians, vehicles, pets, and even 

resource managers in or near their nesting habitat. In 2004, the Seashore produced 61 nesting pairs of 

Wilson’s plover, which represents 26 percent of North Carolina’s population. The Wilson’s plover prefers 

beach areas that include salt flats, coastal lagoons, sand dunes, and overwash areas. The greatest concern 

to Wilson’s plover at the Seashore is disturbances associated with beachgoers, pets, and ORV traffic on 

beaches. 

These six avian species currently receive indirect protection at the Seashore, as they can breed in areas 

protected for federally listed species (e.g., piping plover). These protections would increase in varying 

degrees under alternatives A, B, C, and D. These protections would further increase under alternatives C 

and D, which limit ORVs to historical numbers, and would dramatically increase under alternative E, 

since the elimination of ORVs may cause an increase in the fledging success of these six avian species. 

Adverse impacts to these species across all alternatives would be small, as described in the analysis 

above. Although there may be occasional adverse impacts to individual birds, under all alternatives the 

Seashore would continue to conduct indirect monitoring and other species buffers and closures. A 
Other Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 429

decrease in recreational uses during seasonal closures, as discussed in the alternatives, would help protect 

wintering individuals of these species along the Seashore. Under alternatives B, C, and D, additional 

protections for piping plovers (ban on night driving, etc.) would indirectly benefit these species. These 

measures would be a beneficial change for these six avian species, compared to the existing condition, 

greatly reducing (and in some cases eliminating) impacts from ORVs, and would not result in significant 

adverse impacts. 

Under alternatives A, B, C, and D, designating legal routes for ORV use does not establish a precedent for 

future actions with significant effects, as ORV use has occurred at the Seashore since the 1930s and 

continued since the establishment of the Seashore as a park unit in 1976, and the current and proposed 

species protection measures are substantial, and the areas designated for ORVs are primarily outside of 

state-listed and special-status species habitat, resulting in a low overall level of impacts to this species. 

ORV use is also currently legally permitted in several other national seashores and recreation areas, and 

in this regard is not precedent-setting within the national park system. Alternative E, which prohibits 

ORV use, would also not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects to state-listed and 

special-status species, as many other national park units do not allow ORV use. 

There are a number of cumulative impacts to state-listed and special-status species, described in the 

impacts analysis above, which may be short- and long-term, limited, and adverse, as well as long-term 

beneficial. However, while adverse effects on state-listed and special-status species from other actions 

occurring in the region would still exist, actions under alternatives A, B, C, D, and E would provide 

additional protection that would be beneficial to the regional population of these state-listed and specialstatus species, and would mitigate any significant adverse cumulative impacts already occurring. 

In conclusion, compared to the existing condition, additional impacts to state-listed and special-status 

species under alternatives A, B, C, D, and E would be small. The Seashore currently has in place 

substantial resource protection and mitigation measures that would continue and would be strengthened in 

the action alternatives. When compared to the existing condition, in light of the significance criteria at 40 

CFR 1508.27, there would be no significant adverse impacts to state-listed and special-status species from 

alternatives A, B, C, D, or E. 

OTHER WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT 

GUIDING REGULATIONS AND POLICIES

The Seashore’s GMP (NPS 1983) identifies the following natural resource-related goals to provide 

direction for future management of the Seashore: 

x Protect native wildlife and ensure its perpetuation, to the extent possible, especially those on the 

federal endangered and threatened species lists. 

x Designate transportation corridors for minimizing damage by motorized vehicles to dunes, 

wildlife, and vegetation. 

These goals were further developed for the Foundation Document (NPS 2012s), as stated at the beginning 

of this chapter. NPS regulations and policies, including the NPS Organic Act of 1916, NPS Management

Policies 2006 (NPS 2006d), and the NPS Natural Resource Management Reference Manual 77, also 

direct national parks to provide for the protection of Seashore resources. The Organic Act directs national 

parks to conserve wildlife unimpaired for future generations and is interpreted to mean that native animal 

life is to be protected and perpetuated as part of the natural ecosystem of a park unit. Parks rely on natural 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

430 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

processes to control populations of native species to the greatest extent possible; otherwise, they are 

protected from harvest, harassment, or harm by human activities. 

The NPS Management Policies 2006 state that the NPS “will maintain as parts of the natural ecosystems 

of parks all plants and animals native to park ecosystems. The term “plants and animals” refers to all five 

of the commonly recognized kingdoms of living things and includes such groups as flowering plants, 

ferns, mosses, lichens, algae, fungi, bacteria, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, insects, 

worms, crustaceans, and microscopic plants or animals.” The NPS will achieve this by 

x Preserving and restoring the natural abundances, diversities, dynamics, distributions, habitats, and 

behaviors of native plant and animal populations and the communities and ecosystems in which 

they occur; 

x Restoring native plant and animal populations in parks when they have been extirpated by past 

human-caused actions; and 

x Minimizing human impacts on native plants, animals, populations, communities, and ecosystems, 

and the processes that sustain them (NPS 2006d). 

Section 4.1 of NPS Management Policies 2006 states that “natural resources will be managed to preserve 

fundamental physical and biological processes, as well as individual species, features, and plant and 

animal communities. The Service will not attempt to solely preserve individual species (except threatened 

or endangered species) or individual natural processes; rather, it will try to maintain all the components 

and processes of naturally evolving park ecosystems, including the natural abundance, diversity, and 

genetic and ecological integrity of the plant and animal species native to those ecosystems” (NPS 2006d). 

According to section 8.2.2.1 of the NPS Management Policies 2006, “Superintendents will develop and 

implement visitor use management plans and take action, as appropriate, to ensure that recreational uses 

and activities in the park are consistent with its authorizing legislation or proclamation and do not cause 

unacceptable impacts on park resources or values” (NPS 2006d). 

Seashore wildlife has evolved in a barrier island ecosystem, which is dependent on the continuation of 

natural shoreline processes. Barrier islands are highly dynamic with changes in sea level, wave and wind 

action, and ocean currents continuously creating and altering habitat for wildlife through the processes of 

erosion and accretion of shorelines and sand dunes, overwash across the islands, and the formation, 

migration, and closure of inlets. To protect coastal barrier processes, the NPS Management Policies 2006

direct that natural shoreline processes such as erosion, deposition, dune formation, overwash, inlet 

formation, and shoreline migration will be allowed to continue without interference (NPS 2006d, 

section 4.8.1.1). The policies further state, “[w]here human activities or structures have altered the nature 

or rate of natural shoreline processes, the Service will, in consultation with appropriate state and federal 

agencies, investigate alternatives for mitigating the effects of such activities or structures and for restoring 

natural conditions.” 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS

The following describes the methodology used to evaluate the impacts of the proposed alternatives on 

general wildlife and wildlife habitat at the Seashore. This discussion focuses on those species that may 

potentially be impacted by the actions described in the proposed alternatives and is, therefore, directed 

toward specific wildlife, including invertebrates, “other” bird species (those not state or federally 

protected or species of special concern), mammals, and reptiles and amphibians. The analysis is organized 

according to those four wildlife types. Although a number of studies have investigated ORV impacts on 

invertebrates found on sandy beaches, the studies have focused on a relatively small number of species, 

and only a few of the studies have occurred on southeastern U.S. beaches that would have similar species 
Other Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 431

to the beaches of Cape Lookout National Seashore (Wolcott and Wolcott 1984, Landry 2004; Zaremba et 

al. 1973). There have also not been any comprehensive studies within the Seashore to determine the 

species composition and abundance of invertebrates within bird foraging habitat. As a result, sufficient 

information is not available to provide a site-specific assessment of impacts of ORVs on all of the 

invertebrate species inhabiting the wrack, intertidal sand flats, island spits, and the high-energy intertidal 

zone at the Seashore. Therefore, impacts on invertebrates are discussed in general terms based on existing 

studies and, where possible, impacts on species specific to the Seashore are discussed. 

The discussion of potential impacts on other bird species and their associated habitat focuses on 

shorebirds that would likely be using the same habitats as the protected species addressed in this draft 

plan/EIS. Information about habitat and other existing data were acquired from staff at the Seashore, the 

USFWS, and available literature (refer to appendix B). A comprehensive list of other bird species can be 

found in chapter 3. Although the action alternatives involve the potential relocation of ramps, parking 

areas and interdunal roads, construction activities would occur outside of the bird breeding season, during 

daylight hours and outside of any key breeding or foraging habitat. Therefore, impacts from construction 

were assumed to result in minimal disturbance to these species.

The discussion of potential impacts on mammals, reptiles and amphibians focuses on those species likely 

to occur in habitat where ORV use is permitted. Because ORV use is not permitted on Shackleford Banks, 

this draft plan/EIS would have no effect on the herd of horses at the Seashore. Therefore, impacts on 

horses are not analyzed below. In addition to discussing the impacts of ORV use, the discussion of 

potential impacts on mammalian predators focuses on whether predators would be removed under each 

alternative. Information about habitat and other existing data were acquired from staff at the Seashore and 

available literature. 

For each alternative, potential impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat were evaluated based on the pattern 

of proposed ORV use at the Seashore, resulting from what areas are open to ORV and other recreational 

uses and for what duration, the nature of habitats and species present, and the nature of coastal barrier 

processes that create and alter habitat. Primary steps in assessing impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat 

were to determine the following: (1) the potential for species to occur in habitats likely to be affected by 

management actions described in the alternatives; (2) current and future use and distribution of ORVs by 

alternative; (3) habitat impact or alteration caused by the alternatives; and (4) disturbance potential of the 

action and the potential to directly or indirectly affect wildlife or wildlife habitat as a result of ORV 

activities. The information contained in this analysis was obtained through best professional judgment of 

the NPS staff and experts in the field and by reviewing applicable scientific literature. 

STUDY AREA

The study area for assessment of the various alternatives, as well as the cumulative impacts, is Cape 

Lookout National Seashore. 

ALTERNATIVE A

Impacts of Alternative A: No Action 

Resource Management Activities 

Surveying and Monitoring—Under alternative A NPS staff would perform surveys of recent breeding 

areas for protected species and would also continue to monitor breeding, nesting, and fledging activities 

throughout the breeding season. Surveying and monitoring activities would bring staff and/or vehicles 

into contact with other wildlife species (especially invertebrates and birds), increasing the potential for 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

432 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

disturbance and likely resulting in temporary displacement. However, there are several other bird species 

that are not at the Seashore during their breeding cycle, and the impacts of disturbance from resource 

management staff to these species are less than those species breeding at the Seashore under all 

alternatives. Because resource protection staff would also take proper measures to minimize any 

disturbance to these species, such as using binoculars to observe birds from greater distances, thereby 

limiting the amount of noise disturbances to habitat areas, surveying activities associated with all 

alternatives would likely result in limited adverse impacts on other bird species. 

The use of vehicles for surveying and monitoring could result in mortality of individual invertebrates 

caused by compaction of the species under vehicle tires (Wolcott and Wolcott 1984). This would also be 

the case for certain reptile and amphibian species in the area. NPS staff would continue to use ATVs and 

UTVs and occasionally ORVs to conduct bird and turtle surveys and also to establish resource closures as 

required based on species behavior under all alternatives. Driving in the wrack line would be avoided 

because studies have shown that areas closed to ORV use have higher densities of invertebrates in these 

areas (Landry 2004; Kluft and Ginsberg 2009; Moss and McPhee 2006). Due to the low number of 

vehicles used by staff and the fact that such use would occur predominantly during the day, adverse 

impacts on beach invertebrates (and potentially reptiles and amphibians) from resources management 

activities would be limited across all alternatives. 

Predator Management—An indirect impact from ORV and recreational use is the attraction of 

mammalian and bird predators to the waste stream (scraps of food, fish bait and other trash) associated 

with recreational use (NPS 2006e; USFWS 1996a). Although the Seashore would enforce proper trash 

disposal and anti-wildlife feeding regulations, recreational use would continue to have indirect impacts on 

other bird species through the attraction of predators, which would result in mortality of the predated 

species. These predators are a well-known factor in nest failure for ground nesting birds within the 

Seashore (McGowan and Simons 2006; NPS 2012s). Other bird species that do not breed at the Seashore 

would not be subject to predation pressures during this life cycle stage. However, under alternative A, 

predators could still take some adults of migratory bird species through opportunistic predation at times 

when these species are present at the Seashore. 

Full Recreational or ORV Closures—Alternative A includes the establishment of full recreational 

closures for prenesting at recent piping plover breeding areas, and nesting buffers and closures around 

established territories and nests of colonial waterbirds and American oystercatchers. These closures 

would use symbolic fencing, which typically consists of bird usage signs to delineate areas where 

pedestrians and vehicles should not enter. The symbolic fencing would deter the entry of people and 

ORVs into these habitats. These closures would indirectly benefit other wildlife species, especially other 

bird species, by protecting potentially shared habitat. Other wildlife species would also benefit from the 

management measures for federally or state-listed or sensitive species under all of the alternatives. For 

example, other bird species present at the Seashore may take advantage of prenesting closures established 

for piping plover or other breeding bird species. Therefore, prenesting closures would likely result in 

benefits for those bird species. 

The establishment of full recreational closures for prenesting could bring NPS staff in direct contact with 

wildlife (especially birds) and associated habitat, likely resulting in temporary displacement. Although 

essential vehicles used could crush invertebrates or collide with other wildlife species, resource protection 

staff would take appropriate measures such as employing slow speeds and internal communication with 

wildlife resource specialists to minimize any disturbance to these species. 
Other Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 433

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

Invertebrates 

Wildlife potentially affected by alternative A would include invertebrate species that inhabit the intertidal 

sand flats, wrack line, and moist substrate habitat at the Seashore. Under alternative A, ORV routes would 

include the entire ocean beach including the wrack line or intertidal zone that would be open to ORV use 

unless closed by protected species closures. Although ORVs generally drive above the high tide line on 

the upper beach or hard packed sand along the shoreline, ORVs may also drive into the intertidal zone. 

Driving on the sands of the intertidal zone would likely have adverse impacts on invertebrates due to 

mortality of individual species caused by compaction under vehicle tires (Wolcott and Wolcott 1984). 

Access to the intertidal zone often requires vehicles to cross over the wrack line, an area of high 

concentrations of invertebrates. Driving over the wrack line would crush and scatter seaweed, shells, and 

macroinvertebrates, causing damage and dispersal to an important source of food and habitat for many 

beach invertebrates (Kluft and Ginsberg 2009; Stephenson 1999). 

In 2008, Schlacher and others studied four beaches: two beaches with no ORV use and two beaches with 

heavy ORV use (an average of 727 ORV crossings per day, which is much lower than the average 

number of ORVs at Cape Lookout National Seashore), to study the differences in how intertidal beach 

invertebrate populations are affected by ORVs. Schlacher and others (2008) observed ORV-impacted 

beaches had significantly fewer species at substantially reduced densities (Schlacher, Richardson, 

McLean 2008). The result in macrobenthic populations were marked shifts in community composition 

and structure, and these population shifts were strongest in the middle and upper shore, where ORV 

traffic was concentrated (Schlacher, Richardson, McLean 2008). Also, strong effects from ORVs were 

detectable during all seasons, but increased during the summer, correlated with an increase in ORV traffic 

(Schlacher, Richardson, McLean 2008). Even though the Schlacher 2008 study was conducted on 

southeast Queensland, Australia beaches, this study is applicable to the Seashore because both beaches 

allow ORV use, particularly in the summer months. Since high-energy, intertidal beaches in the 

southeastern United States generally support 20–30 invertebrate species, many of which are primary food 

sources for many of the sensitive bird species including the piping plover and red knot, adverse ORV 

impacts on invertebrates resulting from ORV use could adversely affect invertebrate populations, which 

may indirectly adversely affect sensitive bird species populations by decreasing available food sources. 

Impacts on ghost crab populations from night driving at the Seashore, which is permitted under 

alternative A, would also occur. As demonstrated by Wolcott and Wolcott (1984), as few as 20–50 

vehicles driving at night could impact (by direct crushing) ghost crab populations, at the Seashore. As 

unlimited night driving would continue under alternative A, it can be expected that this level of traffic 

would have adverse impacts on the ghost crab population that are detectable. Conversely, the 

corresponding reduction in predation of sea turtle and shorebird eggs and hatchlings would result in 

beneficial impacts to those species through potentially increased survival rates. 

Other Bird Species 

Under alternative A, North and South Core Banks would remain open to ORV use in designated 

routes/areas (as documented in the Superintendent’s Compendium) from March 16 through December 31, 

except where resource or safety closures are present. ORV and other recreational activities that occur in 

the months when other bird species are in residence on Seashore beaches have the potential to impact 

resting and foraging birds from vehicle use, as well as the associated noise and presence of people 

associated with vehicles. Of particular concern is when these disturbance factors result in birds being 

forced to fly while they are foraging, known as frequent escape flight. Frequent escape flights result in a 

reduction in time foraging and an increase in the time spent flying (Tarr 2008). Because foraging is 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

434 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

replaced with flying, birds would not be able to add the body fat they need for migration, resulting in an 

adverse impact. Because this alternative would not limit the number of vehicles and pedestrians to access 

most areas of North and South Core Banks 24 hours a day, there is the potential for frequent disturbance 

to bird species. Although buffers would be established for protected species habitat, which could be used 

by other birds, it is likely that other birds found outside of full recreational or ORV closures for species 

protection would be disturbed by ORV use and other recreational activities, as vehicle disturbance can 

affect nonbreeding birds (Tarr 2008). Disturbance could be limited to noise and short-term displacement 

or it could be more considerable such as injury or mortality due to vehicle collisions. See the piping 

plover and red knot portions of the “State-listed and Special-status Species” section for a more thorough 

discussion of potential disturbance related impacts to birds. 

The Seashore would take certain steps to minimize the associated effects of disturbance on bird species 

and their associated habitat. For example, the closure of the Seashore to ORV use from January 1 through 

March 15 would continue to act as a de facto ORV closure for wintering/nonbreeding birds, and would 

protect habitat for these species during this time. These management efforts would likely benefit other 

bird species over the long term and help mitigate the adverse impacts of ORV use on other birds within 

the Seashore. 

Mammals 

Continued ORV use under alternative A would likely result in noise disturbance and species displacement 

for mammals in the area of analysis (e.g., raccoon, nutria, cottontail), which can disrupt foraging and/or 

breeding behavior and increase energy expenditure (Switalski and Jones 2010). More considerable 

impacts of ORV use on mammals include direct injury or mortality of individual species. Mammalian 

predators are more likely to be affected by ORV use at the shoreline than other mammal species, as they 

are attracted to bird nests/species closures and trash associated with fishing and other recreational 

activities. For other mammals, however, adverse impacts would likely be more noticeable at the existing 

back route than along the beach, because the soundside back route is located in preferred habitat (i.e., salt 

marsh, grassland, and shrub/thicket). 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Implementation of alternative A would likely result in noise disturbance for certain reptile and amphibian 

species in the area of analysis (e.g., snakes, lizards), which can lead to increased stress, loss of hearing, 

and/or habitat avoidance (Switalski and Jones 2010). The use of vehicles under alternative A could also 

result in direct injury and mortality of individual species from species being crushed by vehicles. Similar 

to mammals, adverse impacts would likely be more noticeable at existing back route locations, which are 

located in grassland, and shrub/thicket habitats. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative A 

Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Seashore have the potential to 

impact other wildlife and wildlife habitat. While bird species considered in this section may arrive at the 

Seashore at different times, other wildlife inhabits the Seashore year-round. In general the below actions 

would occur year-round and have the potential to impact many of these species. 

Dredging activities have occurred in the vicinity of the Seashore, and these activities are expected to 

continue into the foreseeable future. Following Hurricane Irene, the Long Point ferry basin was dredged 

in 2011 (NPS 2011i). However, dredging activities at the Seashore are generally minor and do not affect 

the ocean beach, where many wildlife species, including other bird species, use habitat. In addition, the 

Federal channel in Beaufort Inlet has been dredged and would continue to be dredged on an annual basis 
Other Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 435

as long as funding is available to the U.S. Corps of Engineers. In the past, dredge material from the 

dredging of Beaufort Inlet has not been placed on any Seashore beaches. However, moving forward, as 

part of the Morehead City Harbor DMMP, NPS has agreed to allow consideration within the EIS of 

deposition of restricted amounts of dredged material on Shackleford Banks during the 20-year period 

beginning in 2015 and extending through 2034 (USACE 2013). For the Morehead City Harbor DMMP, 

dredged material would be compatible with the existing beaches (>90 percent sand); beach disposal 

would occur only from November 16 through March 30 in any year; and disposal would occur along a 

3.65-mile-long stretch of Shackleford Banks. Disposal of material on the beach would occur from the 

base of the existing frontal dune to the -24 foot depth, adding up to 33 acres of new ocean beach every 3 

years about 1 mile east of the Shackleford Spit off Beaufort Inlet (USACE 2013). While disposal 

activities could temporarily disturb Seashore wildlife, causing short-term adverse impacts, long-term 

beneficial impacts would result from the increase in acres of beach habitat on Shackleford Banks. 

While the dredging operations would impact benthic invertebrates within the channel, it would not 

directly impact invertebrates within the sandy beach habitat of the Seashore, unless the dredge spoil was 

deposited on the beach, as it was at Long Point in 2011. However, during the dredging operations some 

heavy construction equipment may be used at the deposition site. Depending on the size and weight of the 

equipment and the timing and duration of the operations, there could be localized, short-term adverse 

impacts on some of the invertebrate species on the beach due to crushing and compaction of the sand 

(Kluft and Ginsberg 2009). However, given the total available spit habitat within the Seashore, the overall 

impact on the Seashore would be minimal. The type and locational placement of the dredged material, as 

well as the timing and frequency of placement, may also have adverse impacts on invertebrates in the area 

of analysis. Deposition of dredged material has direct adverse impacts on invertebrates in the area where 

the material is deposited, due to crushing under the weight of the material, changes in the sediment 

characteristics of the beach, and increases in turbidity. While populations of most beach invertebrates can 

recover fairly quickly from a single beach disposal event, annual sand placements could keep beach fauna 

in a long-term state of disturbance at reduced levels (Garza and Whitman n.d.). Large-scale or 

maintenance dredging can occur when many bird species are using the Seashore and could result in shortterm adverse impacts due to disturbance. Similar impacts would be expected for mammals, and reptiles 

and amphibians; however, impacts are expected to be slight. Impacts would depend on the timing and 

duration of the maintenance dredging as well as the type and placement of the dredge spoils. Dredging 

occurs infrequently at the Seashore. Since 2000, Long Point and Long Point have each been dredged no 

more than four times and the lighthouse area once. 

The Seashore recently completed historic structure protection activities at the Cape Lookout lighthouse 

area, which included adding sand to the shoreline for protection of historic structures. Due to the dynamic 

environment and constant changes in the shoreline of the Seashore, projects other than dredging but 

involving structure stabilization may be required in the future for the protection of historic structures. The 

stabilization of historic structures could have short-term impacts on wildlife, especially if it takes place 

during the breeding season. If this were the case, short-term impacts on nesting success could result that 

would be localized and observable. Conversely, stabilization of historic structures is unlikely to result in 

the creation of new bird nesting habitat. The degree to which this activity is beneficial or adverse is a 

function of the extent, timing, and location of the activity itself relative to bird nesting and the degree to 

which the activity results in the creation or maintenance of high-quality habitat for birds. 

Beach re-nourishment projects have occurred at the Seashore, but these events are infrequent. During 

beach re-nourishment, invertebrate species are impacted in the short-term by burial under sand. Most 

species found in the intertidal zone, such as the mole crabs and coquina clams, would recover quickly if 

nourishment activity ends before the spring (USFWS 2000). For ghost crabs the recovery period would be 

longer. If the sediment used is dissimilar to that of the existing beach, long-term adverse impacts on 

species recovery would occur (Peterson, Hickerson, and Johnson 2000). Additionally, considerable long-
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

436 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

term adverse impacts would occur if maintenance frequency were shorter than the recovery period of the 

invertebrate species affected. The area of the proposed project is fairly small, and the overall long-term 

effect on beach invertebrate populations across the Seashore would be adverse and limited or beneficial 

depending upon the timing, extent, and frequency of the re-nourishment, as well as the sediment 

characteristics. 

Several past, present, and future plans and actions at the Seashore address visitation and improvement of 

visitor amenities and, therefore, could impact wildlife and wildlife habitat at the Seashore. The 

Commercial Services Plan / Environmental Assessment / Assessment of Effect guides the Seashore in 

improving the management and operation of commercial visitor services, while providing both selfdirected and facilitated visitor opportunities. Visitors services which are offered and could continue to be 

offered at the Seashore include land transportation services, sale of limited food and sundry supplies, and 

ferry transportation. 

Land transportation services which include a beach shuttle service originating in the lighthouse area and 

traveling to points on South Core Banks, limited UTV tours at the northern end of North Core Banks, and 

limited vehicle transportation service from the Long Point and Great Island concession areas could have 

adverse impacts on Seashore wildlife and their habitat similar to those previously described for public 

ORV use. However, any adverse impacts would be relatively small given the size of the operations and 

because their vehicles would continue to use established transportation routes including the back route 

and would adhere to all buffers/closures and other Seashore regulations. While the sale of food could 

increase trash at the Seashore and attract predators, sales are limited and confined to developed areas of 

the Seashore, so impacts would be small. Ferry operations occur on the soundside of South Core and 

North Core Banks where existing development is related to visitor arrival points on the soundside. These 

areas contain comparably limited wildlife habitat. Therefore, the overall impact on wildlife and wildlife 

habitat is expected to be adverse and limited. 

Currently, three vehicle/passenger ferries enable the public to transport their vehicles to both South Core 

Banks and North Core Banks. From the late 1980s until about 1993, a concession passenger ferry service 

operated from the Shell Point area on Harkers Island to the Cape Lookout lighthouse area. The 

Commercial Services Plan / Environmental Assessment / Assessment of Effect (NPS 2007m) calls for a 

return to this type of operation through establishment of a passenger ferry departure gateway and a 

concession-operated ferry departing from Shell Point. These services, and future development of these 

services, provide access to the Seashore for both day and overnight use and increase the amount of 

recreational use that occurs at the Seashore. Recreation use has resulted and would continue to result in 

adverse impacts that are both short- and long-term on wildlife (e.g., invertebrates) inhabiting the wrack 

and the moist sand of the island spits and intertidal zone of the Seashore. The impacts of recreational use 

are addressed above under alternative A and include crushing animals, disturbing/dispersing the wrack 

line, and disrupting foraging/breeding habitat. The Interim Off-road Vehicle Management Plan and 

Evaluation of Existing ORV Use at Cape Lookout National Seashore is based on the actions outlined in 

the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan/Environmental 

Assessment and the Superintendent’s Compendium, and details how ORV closures are established. 

Although the plan permits continued ORV access, which threatens wildlife and wildlife habitat at the 

Seashore, the plan is beneficial for other birds and invertebrates especially, because it includes measures 

to educate visitors about resources at the Seashore and management measures to protect those resources. 

In addition, the plan discusses future monitoring and staff resource protection activities. 

Many past, present and future actions, plans, and programs at the Seashore provide benefits for all 

wildlife at the Seashore. The Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management 

Plan/Environmental Assessment states that the NPS will meet its obligations under the NPS Organic Act 

and the ESA to both proactively conserve listed species and prevent detrimental effects on these species. 
Other Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 437

To meet these obligations, the Service will “manage designated critical habitat, essential habitat, and 

recovery areas to maintain and enhance their value for the recovery of threatened and endangered 

species.” In addition, the Service will take on active management programs to inventory, monitor, restore, 

and maintain listed species’ habitats, control detrimental nonnative species, control detrimental visitor 

access, and re-establish extirpated populations as necessary (NPS 2006a). Although the plan permits 

continued ORV access, which has the potential to impact all wildlife, including other bird species, at the 

Seashore, the plan is beneficial for other birds and wildlife, because it includes measures to educate 

visitors about resources at the Seashore and management measures, including buffers and closures for 

other species along the ocean shoreline. In addition, the plan includes future ongoing monitoring and staff 

resource protection activities, which have the potential to benefit the species by providing additional 

information to drive future management decisions. The education aspect of the plan provides long-term 

benefits to all wildlife at the Seashore because it helps to educate visitors about the conservation needs of 

the species at the Seashore and the protection measures that are put in place to help protect it. 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore also previously implemented an Interim Protected Species Management 

Strategy/EA and more recently implemented a long-term ORV management plan/EIS; both of which 

include protection measures for special-status species to minimize potential adverse impacts from ORVs, 

pedestrians, and pets. Though measures are not specifically targeted towards other wildlife species, other 

species would benefit from them, as many of the measures protect other species using the ocean shoreline 

for foraging. Because Cape Hatteras National Seashore is in such close proximity to Cape Lookout 

National Seashore, the benefits to other bird species at Cape Hatteras from these two plans also prove 

benefits to other bird species at Cape Lookout through the long term protection of the entire regional 

population. 

The Special Use Permit program at the Seashore authorizes activities that provide benefit to an individual, 

group or organization, rather than the public at large. Examples include parking, special events, 

commercial filming/still photography, weddings, scattering of ashes, group camping, and First 

Amendment activities (NPS 2012g). Special use permits are granted for specific periods of time and 

specific locations. Special park uses can have adverse effects on park natural resources (including wildlife 

and wildlife habitat). In some instances, such as a minor, one-time activity (for instance a wedding), the 

effects would be slight. In other cases where activities are permitted over a longer time period, impacts 

could be more considerable. For instance, the use of duck blinds, temporary structures left in place for the 

purpose of facilitating hunting activities, require special use permits and may have the potential to result 

in adverse impacts to wildlife. Duck blinds may be placed in position as early as September 7 and must be 

completely removed no later than March 31. Special use permits require written authorization and some 

management control in order to protect park resources and the public interest (NPS 2007m). In the case of 

duck blinds, a maximum of two blinds are allowed per permit, and blind locations must be a minimum of 

500 yards apart. The park resource manager recommends permit conditions aimed at eliminating or at 

least mitigating threats to the resource, health and safety issues, or other managerial concerns, which 

would benefit other wildlife at the Seashore. 

There are several current and future U.S. Navy and Marine Corps operations in the area of the Seashore 

that would likely result in adverse impacts on wildlife at the Seashore. These operations include recent 

actions taken by the military to lower the ceiling (or altitude) above which planes may fly up to the speed 

of sound from 10,000 feet to 3,000 feet, and increased capabilities of offshore training. In addition, 

Marine Corps Cherry Point Air Station is located approximately 30 miles northwest of the Seashore. The 

air station and its associated support locations occupy more than 29,000 acres, (U.S. Marine Corps n.d.). 

Depending on the duration and magnitude of local U.S. Navy and Marine Corps operations, some shortterm species disturbance and/or displacement could result for wildlife at the Seashore. A 2012 report on 

the effects of military overflights on American oystercatchers at the Seashore (Simmons and Borneman, 

2012), concluded that at their peak sound level, military overflights contributed to a 72.5 dBA sound 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

438 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

level, which is comparable to walking along the Oceanside of the point of Cape Lookout (see 

“Soundscapes/Acoustic Environment”). Thus, the report concluded that there is no noteworthy evidence 

that military overflights affect the behavioral responses of American oystercatchers, including lowaltitude flyovers (Simmons and Borneman 2012), further indicating that these operations are likely to 

create minimal impact to bird behavior at the Seashore. 

Currently, the BOEM is analyzing the issuance of leases for developing offshore commercial wind 

energy. BOEM in cooperation with the State of North Carolina has established a task force, comprised of 

relevant federal agencies, state government officials, and local and Tribal elected government officials, in 

the planning and decision-making process in identifying a wind energy area off the coast of North 

Carolina. It is unlikely that the development of off-shore wind stations would adversely impact wildlife 

species at the Seashore. However, adverse impacts to pelagic, or oceanic, bird species may occur. These 

impacts would be associated with wind turbines and include direct mortality of birds from collisions with 

turbine blades and/or turbine avoidance, which can reduce fitness by inducing longer flight paths, 

resulting in higher energetic costs (BOEM n. d.). 

Many past, present, and future actions, plans, and programs at the Seashore provide benefits for wildlife 

and wildlife habitat. The Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management 

Plan/Environmental Assessment states that the NPS will meet its obligations under the NPS Organic Act 

and the ESA to both proactively conserve listed species and prevent detrimental effects on these species. 

To meet these obligations, the Service will “manage designated critical habitat, essential habitat, and 

recovery areas to maintain and enhance their value for the recovery of threatened and endangered 

species.” In addition, the Service will take on active management programs to inventory, monitor, restore, 

and maintain listed species’ habitats, control detrimental nonnative species, control detrimental visitor 

access, and re-establish extirpated populations as necessary (NPS 2006a). These management programs 

indirectly benefit other wildlife species by protecting habitat that is shared between protected and 

unprotected species. 

The USFWS designation of critical habitat and recovery plans for several federally listed species at the 

Seashore provide protection to other bird species inhabiting the same areas as other wildlife at the 

Seashore. Critical habitat designation for the piping plover includes beaches adjacent to all the inlets in 

the Seashore, Portsmouth Flats, Kathryn-Jane Flats, and the point of Cape Lookout. The habitat includes 

ocean beach, mud flats, sand flats, and soundside beach used as foraging areas and sparsely vegetated low 

dunes. All piping-plover breeding sites (and thereby indirectly, but not officially, those of Wilson’s 

plovers) at the Seashore were designated by the USFWS as critical habitat for wintering birds in 2008. 

While not officially protected, other bird species that share the same foraging and breeding habitat as the 

piping plover and Wilson’s plover benefit over the long term by the protections extended to the piping 

plover and Wilson’s plover under the existing critical habitat designations at the Seashore. 

A population of culturally important wild horses exists at the Seashore on Shackleford Banks. The 

population of approximately 109 wild horses is legislatively protected (NPS 2012b) that defines how the 

population is cooperatively managed by both the NPS and the foundation of Shackleford Horses (NPS 

2007h). The horses are generally found on the dunes, in the swales between the dunes, on the marsh or in 

the forest. Control of the horse population could result in long-term benefits to other species, including 

birds and invertebrates, and other mammals that inhabit the Shackleford Banks by indirectly protecting 

potential habitat from overuse by feral horses. 

The Foundation Document (NPS 2012s) for the Seashore identifies the following projects that may 

impact wildlife at the Seashore to some degree: Harkers Island Master Plan, Great Island and Long Point 

Master Plan, Resource stewardship strategy, Comprehensive Sign Plan, nonnative species and predator 

management plan, and the sustainability plan/green plan. These planning efforts would establish 
Other Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 439

development patterns at the Seashore, taking into consideration the location of wildlife species, especially 

their breeding and other sensitive locations, and plan to avoid or minimize impacts to these habitats. A 

comprehensive sign plan would allow the NPS to more effectively communicate messages to visitors, 

including those regarding the importance of species management at the Seashore. A nonnative species 

and predator management plan would provide for additional protection of wildlife species by helping to 

reduce disturbance from mammalian predators. Conversely, it could result in the removal of some 

mammalian predators, resulting in adverse impacts to those species. All of these planned efforts would 

have some measure of beneficial impacts on most of the wildlife species at the Seashore to the extent that 

they provide beneficial impacts or along the ocean shoreline where these species can be found. 

Finally, the Seashore has conducted a predator study to evaluate ways to alleviate threats to threatened 

and endangered species at the Seashore. This three-year research study (2007-2009) evaluated the 

response of both predator (raccoon) and prey populations to raccoon removal. The NPS decided to 

implement the preferred alternative (Experimental Reduction of Raccoon Population to Evaluate Removal 

as an Option for Protected Species Management) outlined in the predator study/EA. Approximately 50 

percent of the raccoon population was removed from South Core Banks in late 2008. Although the 

preferred alternative resulted in direct removal of raccoons, the general impact was short-term and limited 

because enough animals remained following the removal to sustain raccoon populations in the future 

regardless of future management policies. As a result of the overall reduction in the raccoon population 

on South Core Banks, long-term beneficial impacts for other bird species inhabiting that area of the 

Seashore accrued due to reduced predation pressure. 

The impact of these past, present, and future actions on invertebrates would likely be short- and long-term 

adverse (from crushing and compaction during dredging activities, short-term burial during beach renourishment, and increased recreational use following implementation of the Commercial Services Plan / 

Environmental Assessment / Assessment of Effect) and beneficial (from resource protection and education 

measures in the Interim Off-road Vehicle Management Plan and Evaluation of Existing ORV Use at Cape 

Lookout National Seashore). When combined with the long-term adverse and beneficial impacts of 

alternative A, these impacts would likely result in long-term, detectable adverse and beneficial cumulative 

impacts to invertebrates, depending upon the individual species. Cumulative impacts on other bird species 

would likely be short- and long-term adverse (from temporary displacement caused by aircraft overflights 

and direct mortality of pelagic birds from collisions with turbine blades following development of offshore wind stations) and long-term beneficial (from creating new bird nesting habitat through stabilization 

of historic structures and measures to reduce predation and provide protection to bird species inhabiting 

areas designated under critical habitat and recovery plans). These impacts, combined with the extensive 

long-term adverse and beneficial impacts under alternative A, would likely result in observable long-term 

adverse and beneficial cumulative impacts to other bird species. While adverse effects on these wildlife 

species from other actions occurring in the region would still exist, ongoing resource management 

activities and de facto closures under alternative A would result in protections that would be beneficial to 

wildlife populations and would offset some of the adverse effects.

ALTERNATIVE B

Impacts of Alternative B 

Resource Management Activities 

Surveying and Monitoring—Under alternative B, as under alternative A, NPS staff would perform 

surveys of recent breeding areas for protected species and would also continue to monitor breeding, 

nesting, and fledging activities throughout the breeding season. Surveying activities would likely result in 

limited adverse impacts from noise disturbances and other potential damage from the use of vehicles. As 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

440 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

described under alternative A, due to the limited amount of vehicles used by staff and the fact that such 

use would occur predominantly during the day, adverse impacts on beach invertebrates (and potentially 

reptiles and amphibians) from resources management activities would be limited across all alternatives. 

Predator Management—Under alternative B, the Seashore would perform limited removal of 

mammalian predators, when predation of protected species is observed. The limited removal of 

mammalian predators would benefit other birds at the Seashore by potentially reducing predation pressure 

and disruption of breeding habitat. Under alternative B, the Seashore would perform limited removal of 

mammalian predators when predation of protected species is observed. This would adversely impact 

certain mammals at the Seashore (primarily raccoons) from the direct removal of these species. However, 

impacts would likely be slight as they would not be observed at the population level. Additionally, 

following guidelines set forth by the American Society of Mammalogists (ASM n.d.) and the American 

Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA 2007), efforts would be made during removal of the predators to 

ensure that management actions are conducted as humanely as possible to minimize the suffering of the 

animals. 

As under alternative A, recreational use under alternative B would continue to have indirect impacts on 

other bird species through the attraction of predators, which would result in mortality of the predated 

species. Under alternative B, the Seashore would continue to use predator exclosures, but would also 

perform limited removal of mammalian predators when predation is observed that impacts sensitive 

species. Predator removal would likely reduce predation pressure and disruption of breeding habitat, 

potentially increasing nest and fledging success for all bird species breeding at the Seashore, resulting in 

long-term beneficial impacts. Predator removal is considered more effective than nest exclosures in 

increasing reproductive output, likely due to increased chick survival (Cohen, Houghton, and Fraser 

2009). A predator removal study conducted on the South Core Banks found a decrease in piping plover 

nest predation (down from 27.6 percent in 2008 to 5.6 percent in 2009) one year after removal and 

euthanasia of half of the raccoon population (Waldstein 2010). The study also found increased piping 

plover productivity one year after the raccoon removal (up to 0.64 fledglings per pair in 2009 from 0.23 

fledglings per pair in 2008), but the increase was not statistically significant (Waldstein 2010). Predator 

removal efforts may also reduce the incidence of predation on adult birds. 

Full Recreational or ORV Closures—Under alternative B, as under alternative A, the provision of full 

recreational closures for prenesting and nesting protected bird species would indirectly benefit other bird 

species, resulting in benefits for those species. 

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

Invertebrates 

Similar to alternative A, ORV routes and other recreational uses under alternative B would continue to 

adversely impact invertebrate species that inhabit the intertidal sand flats, wrack lines, and moist substrate 

habitats at the Seashore. As shown in the below study, ORVs can alter or damage invertebrate habitat and 

foraging opportunities, and crush individuals under vehicle tires. Schlacher and others (2008) studied four 

beaches—two beaches with no ORV use and two beaches with heavy ORV use—for differences in how 

intertidal beach invertebrate populations are affected by ORVs. Schlacher and others (2008) observed 

ORV-impacted beaches had significantly fewer species at substantially reduced densities (Schlacher, 

Richardson, and McLean 2008). The results in macrobenthic populations were marked shifts in 

community composition and structure, and these population shifts were strongest in the middle and upper 

shore, where ORV traffic was concentrated (Schlacher, Richardson, and McLean 2008).Strong effects 

from ORVs were detectable during all seasons, but increased during the summer, correlated with an 

increase in ORV traffic (Schlacher, Richardson, and McLean 2008). Even though this study was 
Other Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 441

conducted on southeast Queensland, Australia beaches, the study is applicable to Cape Lookout because 

both beaches have recreational ORV users throughout the year, particularly in the summer months. 

However, under alternative B, the phasing out of sport-model and two-stroke ATVs/UTVs over a fiveyear period and the exclusion of ORV routes where ferry landings do not exist, could help mitigate some 

of the adverse impacts of ORVs on invertebrates at the Seashore by limiting contact between vehicles and 

invertebrates that inhabit the intertidal sand flats, wrack line, and moist substrate areas. Schlacher and 

others (2007) studied an eastern Australian beach (North Stradbroke) that also has ghost crabs. During the 

study, the researchers observed that crab densities were significantly lower in areas subjected to heavy 

beach traffic, which suggested crabs were directly crushed by ORVs. They also observed that 100 percent 

of crabs were killed in shallow (5 cm; 2 in.) burrows, and 10-30 percent are killed in deep (20 cm; 7.9 in.) 

burrows, and none were killed in deeper (at least 30 cm; 11.8 in.) burrows. In addition, the authors 

observed that populations of dusk-emerging ghost crabs were killed in large numbers on the beach surface 

(Schlacher, Thompson, and Price 2007). Because a seasonal restriction on night driving would be 

implemented under alternative B (at night is the time when ghost crabs are most active) long-term 

benefits would likely result for the ghost crab population, as the amount of time ORVs spend in ghost 

crab habitat would be limited and the potential for direct mortality from direct crushing would be reduced. 

Also under alternative B, an education operator certificate would be required to operate a vehicle at the 

Seashore, which could indirectly benefit invertebrate species by providing Seashore visitors with current 

information regarding sensitive Seashore resources, seasonal closures, and ORV rules and regulations. 

Since high-energy, intertidal beaches in the southeastern United States generally support 20–30 

invertebrate species, many of which are primary food sources for many of the sensitive bird species 

including the piping plover and red knot, adverse ORV impacts on invertebrates resulting from this 

alternative could adversely affect invertebrate populations, which may indirectly adversely affect 

sensitive bird species populations by decreasing available food sources. 

Other Bird Species 

Under alternative B, as described under alternative A, the North and South Core Banks of the Seashore 

would remain open to ORV use in designated routes/areas, except where resource or safety closures are 

present. ORV and other recreational activities that occur in the months when other bird species are in 

residence at Seashore beaches have the potential to impact resting and foraging birds by increasing the 

potential for frequent escape flights and nest abandonment as a result of noise and presence of people. 

Because this alternative would allow an unlimited number of vehicles and pedestrians to access most 

areas of the Seashore at North and South Core Banks, there is the potential for frequent disturbance to 

other bird species, including the potential for species injury and mortality. Even though buffers would be 

established for protected species (which could be used by other bird species), it is likely that some birds 

would continue to be disturbed by pedestrian and ORV use outside of closures. 

However, unlike alternative A, where there is no ferry landing access provided (i.e., the former Middle 

Core Banks and Ophelia Banks), no ORV routes would be designated under alternative B. In addition, all 

high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs would be prohibited within the Seashore 

(after a five-year grace period), and restrictions on night driving (from May 1 through August 31) would 

be implemented. These actions under alternative B would likely help mitigate some of the adverse 

impacts of ORV use on other bird species due to a reduced potential for reduced contact with ORV users 

and vehicles. 

As mentioned under alternative A, the Seashore takes certain actions which result in minimizing the 

effects of disturbance on bird species and their associated habitat, including a seasonal closure to ORV 

use from January 1 through March 15 at the Seashore. However, benefits would likely be limited because 

an escort program would only be used on a case-by-case basis. As described for invertebrates, the 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

442 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Seashore would implement additional education and outreach under alternative B, which would include 

an operator education requirement for all ORV drivers. The new educational materials and programs 

could result in indirect, long-term benefits to other bird species at the Seashore by educating the public on 

resource closures and driving restrictions. 

Unlike alternative A, alternative B would involve regular maintenance of the back route and the provision 

of pull-outs along the back route. Additionally, the back route would be extended to allow vehicles to 

bypass bird closures at the Cape. Construction and regular maintenance activities associated with the back 

route could disrupt (i.e., noise) and displace certain birds, especially those using habitat along the back 

routes (i.e., salt marsh, grassland, and shrub/thicket habitats). However, any adverse impacts that would 

result are expected to be short-term and limited, as suitable habitat exists in other areas of the Seashore, 

and activities would be coordinated with resource management staff to ensure they are not occurring in 

sensitive resource areas. Extension of the back route could indirectly benefit other birds by providing an 

alternative route around species closures and offering further protection, which may be used by other bird 

species. 

In addition to increased education and outreach, as well as additional species management measures, 

alternative B would include an adaptive management strategy that would be based on species disturbance. 

American oystercatcher disturbance would be monitored in relation to impacts from ORVs, and necessary 

actions would take place if species indicators are triggered. The use of an adaptive management strategy 

could result in long-term benefits to other bird species due to the potential for increased management and 

species protection if significant disturbance is observed. 

Mammals 

As described for alternative A, continued ORV use under alternative B would likely result in noise 

disturbance and species displacement for mammals in the area of analysis (e.g., raccoon, nutria, 

cottontail), which can disrupt foraging and/or breeding behavior and increase energy expenditure 

(Switalski and Jones 2010). More considerable impacts of ORV use on mammals include direct injury or 

mortality of individual species. However, the phasing out of high-performance sport-model and twostroke ATVs and UTVs, the exclusion of ORV routes where ferry landings do not exist, and a seasonal 

restriction on night driving would help mitigate some of the adverse impacts of ORV use on mammals at 

the Seashore by limiting the potential for contact between vehicles and individual species. 

Under alternative B, noise occurring from construction and regular maintenance activities associated with 

the back route would likely disrupt and displace certain mammals. However, any adverse impacts that 

would result are expected to be short-term and limited, as suitable habitat exists in other areas of the 

Seashore and activities associated with back route maintenance would occur in previously disturbed areas. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

As described for alternative A, continued ORV use under alternative B would likely result in noise 

disturbance for certain reptile and amphibian species in the area of analysis (e.g., snakes and lizards), 

which can lead to increased stress, loss of hearing, and/or habitat avoidance (Switalski and Jones 2010). 

The use of vehicles under alternative B could also result in direct injury and mortality of individual 

species from species being crushed by vehicles. Similar to mammals, adverse impacts would likely be 

more noticeable at existing back route locations, which are located in salt marsh, grassland, and 

shrub/thicket habitats. However, the phasing out of high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs 

and UTVs, the exclusion of ORV routes where ferry landings do not exist, and a seasonal restriction on 

night driving would help mitigate some of the adverse impacts of ORV use on reptiles and amphibians at 

the Seashore by limiting the potential for contact between vehicles and individual species. 
Other Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 443

Construction and regular maintenance activities associated with the back route would likely disrupt and 

displace certain reptile and amphibian species that use the salt marsh, grassland, and shrub/thicket habitats 

near the back routes. However, any adverse impacts that would result are expected to be short-term and 

limited, as suitable habitat exists in other areas of the Seashore and activities associated with back route 

maintenance would occur in previously disturbed areas. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative B 

The past, present, and future actions discussed under the cumulative impact scenario for alternative A 

would be the same under alternative B, which would be adverse (from crushing and compaction during 

dredging activities, short-term burial during beach re-nourishment, increased recreational use following 

implementation of the Commercial Services Plan / Environmental Assessment / Assessment of Effect,

temporary displacement caused by aircraft overflights, and direct mortality of pelagic birds from 

collisions with turbine blades following development of off-shore wind stations), as well as beneficial 

(from resource protection and education measures in the Interim Off-road Vehicle Management Plan and 

Evaluation of Existing ORV Use at Cape Lookout National Seashore and from creating new bird nesting 

habitat through stabilization of historic structures and measures to reduce predation and provide 

protection to bird species inhabiting areas designated under critical habitat and recovery plans). These 

impacts, combined with the extensive long-term adverse impacts under alternative B, would likely result 

in long-term adverse cumulative impacts to other bird species. While adverse effects on these wildlife 

species from other actions occurring in the region would still exist, expanded measures providing greater 

resource protection under alternative B, such as operator education requirements and the exclusion of 

ORV routes where ferry landings do not exist, would result in protections that would be beneficial to 

wildlife populations and would offset some of the adverse effects.

ALTERNATIVE C

Impacts of Alternative C 

Resource Management Activities 

Surveying and Monitoring—Under alternative C, as under alternative A, NPS staff would perform 

surveys of recent breeding areas for protected species and would also continue to monitor breeding, 

nesting, and fledging activities throughout the breeding season. Surveying activities would likely result in 

limited adverse impacts on other bird species. Due to the limited amount of vehicles used by staff and the 

fact that such use would occur predominantly during the day, adverse impacts on beach invertebrates (and 

potentially reptiles and amphibians) from resources management activities would be limited across all 

alternatives. 

As described for alternative B, alternative C would include an adaptive management strategy based on 

American oystercatcher disturbance, which could result in long-term benefits to other bird species due to 

the potential for increased management and species protection if significant disturbance is observed. 

Predator Management—As under alternative A, recreational use under alternative C would continue to 

have indirect impacts on other bird species through the attraction of predators, which would result in 

mortality of the predated species. Like alternative B, the limited removal of mammalian predators under 

alternative C, when predation of protected species is observed, would adversely impact certain mammals 

at the Seashore (primarily raccoons) from the direct removal of these species. The limited removal of 

mammalian predators would likely benefit other birds in the long term by potentially reducing predation 

pressure. However, impacts would likely be short-term and slight, as they would not be observed at the 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

444 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

population level, and efforts would be made during removal of predators to ensure that management 

actions are conducted as humanely as possible to minimize the suffering of the animals. 

Full Recreational or ORV Closures—Under alternative C, as under alternative A, the provision of full 

recreational or ORV closures for prenesting and nesting protected bird species would indirectly benefit 

wildlife species, resulting in benefits for those bird species. 

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

Invertebrates 

Similar to alternative A, ORV routes and other recreational use under alternative C would continue to 

adversely impact (primarily by crushing) invertebrate species that inhabit the intertidal sand flats, wrack 

line, and moist substrate habitat at the Seashore by damaging habitat and foraging opportunities, and 

crushing individual species under vehicle tires. However, the prohibition of ATVs and high-performance 

sport-model and two-stroke UTVs (with five-year grace period), as well as the exclusion of ORV routes 

where ferry landings do not exist, could help mitigate some of the adverse impacts of ORV use on all 

invertebrates at the Seashore by limiting contact between vehicles and invertebrates that inhabit the 

intertidal sand flats, wrack line, and moist substrate areas. Additionally, pedestrian-only use areas would 

expand by four miles under alternative C, slightly reducing the percentage of Seashore available for ORV 

use and reducing contact between vehicles and invertebrate species. Like alternative B, night driving 

would be limited under alternative C, which would likely further reduce the chance of ghost crabs being 

crushed, as night is the time when ghost crabs are most active. Also similar to alternative B, the 

requirement of an education operator certificate could indirectly benefit invertebrate species by providing 

park visitors with current information regarding park resources, closures, and ORV rules and regulations. 

Therefore, the implementation of alternative C would likely result in long-term limited adverse impacts 

on invertebrate species at the Seashore. 

Alternative C would limit the number of vehicle permits issued annually, based on historical average use. 

Placing a limit on the number of permits issued for ORV use on the beach (after year 3 of the plan) would 

prevent the level of ORV use from increasing, thus preventing likely increased amounts of adverse 

impacts, compared to historical levels, on invertebrates and their habitat. This would result in short- and 

long-term beneficial impacts to invertebrates. However, it should be noted that during years 1–3 of the 

plan, ORV density could slightly increase due to the reduction in the areas available for ORV use, and the 

lack of a limitation on the number of permits issued. 

Other Bird Species 

Under alternative C, as described under alternative A, the North and South Core Banks of the Seashore 

would remain open to ORV use in designated routes/areas, except where resource or safety closures are 

present. ORV and other recreational activities that occur in the months when other bird species are in 

residence on Seashore beaches have the potential to impact resting and foraging birds from vehicle use, as 

well as the associated noise and presence of people, by increasing the potential for frequent escape flights 

and nest abandonment. However, the designation of new pedestrian-only areas, the seasonal prohibition 

on ATVs and UTVs, the elimination of high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs, 

and the exclusion of ORV routes where ferry landings do not exist, would likely reduce the potential for 

disruption of other birds by ORV users due to the potential for reduced contact with ORV users and 

vehicles.

Similar to alternative B, night driving restrictions would be implemented under alternative C; however, 

under alternative C the night driving restriction would be extended two weeks (from May 1 through 
Other Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 445

September 14) compared to alternative B. The longer prohibition period would help protect late nesters. 

Restrictions on night driving under alternative C would provide long-term benefits to other bird species 

that forage at night. 

Like alternative B, regular maintenance of the back route would occur under alternative C. Although the 

potential for habitat disturbance exists, activities would be coordinated with resource management staff to 

ensure they are not occurring in sensitive resource areas. In addition, activities associated with back route 

maintenance would occur in previously disturbed areas. Therefore, activities associated with back route 

maintenance would likely result in limited, short-term adverse impacts on other bird species at the 

Seashore. 

As described for invertebrates, alternative C would include a daily vehicle permit system, which would 

include a limit on the number of ORVs at the Seashore at any one time. Because this alternative would 

limit the number of vehicles allowed at the Seashore, the potential for frequent disturbance to other bird 

species could be reduced. 

As mentioned under alternative A, the Seashore takes certain actions which result in minimizing the 

effects of disturbance on bird species and their associated habitat, including a seasonal closure of the 

Seashore to ORV use from January 1 through March 15. As described for alternative B, the Seashore 

would implement additional education and outreach under alternative C, which would include an operator 

education certificate for all ORV drivers. The new educational materials and programs could result in 

indirect long-term benefits to other bird species at the Seashore by educating the public on resource 

closures and driving restrictions. 

Mammals 

As described for alternative A, continued ORV use under alternative C would likely result in noise 

disturbance and species displacement for mammals in the area of analysis (e.g., raccoon, nutria, 

cottontail) and could result in direct injury or mortality of individual species. However, the designation of 

new pedestrian-only areas, the seasonal prohibition on ATVs and UTVs, and elimination of highperformance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs, the exclusion of ORV routes where ferry 

landings do not exist, and a seasonal restriction on night driving would help mitigate some of the adverse 

impacts of ORV use on mammals at the Seashore by limiting the potential for contact between vehicles 

and individual species. 

Like alternative B, alternative C would involve regular maintenance of the back route and pull-outs along 

the back route would be provided. Noise occurring from construction and regular maintenance activities 

associated with the back route would likely disrupt and displace certain mammals. However, any adverse 

impacts that could result are expected to be short-term and limited, as suitable habitat exists in other areas 

of the Seashore and areas that would receive maintenance contain previously disturbed habitat. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

As described for alternative A, continued ORV use under alternative C would likely result in noise 

disturbance for certain reptile and amphibian species in the area of analysis (e.g., snakes and lizards), 

which can lead to increased stress, loss of hearing, and/or habitat avoidance (Switalski and Jones 2010). 

The use of vehicles under alternative C could also result in direct injury and mortality of individual 

species from species being crushed by vehicles. However, the designation of new pedestrian-only areas, 

the seasonal prohibition on ATVs and UTVs, the elimination of high-performance sport-model and twostroke ATVs and UTVs, the exclusion of ORV routes where ferry landings do not exist, and a seasonal 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

446 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

restriction on night driving would help mitigate some of the adverse impacts of ORV use on reptiles and 

amphibians at the Seashore by limiting the potential for contact between vehicles and individual species. 

Like alternative B, noise occurring from regular maintenance activities associated with the back route 

would likely disrupt and displace certain reptile and amphibian species that use the salt marsh, grassland, 

and shrub/thicket habitats near the back routes. However, any adverse impacts that would result are 

expected to be short-term and limited, as suitable habitat exists in other areas of the Seashore and 

activities associated with back route maintenance would occur in previously disturbed areas. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative C 

The past, present, and future actions discussed under the cumulative impact scenario for alternative A 

would be the same under alternative C, which would be adverse (from crushing and compaction during 

dredging activities, short-term burial during beach re-nourishment, and increased recreational use 

following implementation of the Commercial Services Plan / Environmental Assessment / Assessment of 

Effect, temporary displacement caused by aircraft overflights and direct mortality of pelagic birds from 

collisions with turbine blades following development of off-shore wind stations), as well as beneficial 

(from resource protection and education measures in the Interim Off-road Vehicle Management Plan and 

Evaluation of Existing ORV Use at Cape Lookout National Seashore and from creating new bird nesting 

habitat through stabilization of historic structures and measures to reduce predation and provide 

protection to bird species inhabiting areas designated under critical habitat and recovery plans). These 

impacts, combined with the extensive long-term adverse impacts under alternative C, would likely result 

in long-term adverse cumulative impacts. While adverse effects on wildlife from other actions occurring 

in the region would still exist, expanded measures providing greater resource protection under alternative 

C, such as a seasonal prohibition of ATVs and UTVs, elimination of high-performance sport-model and 

two-stroke ATVs and UTVs, and the exclusion of ORV routes where ferry landings do not exist, would 

result in protections that would be beneficial to wildlife populations and would offset some of the adverse 

effects.

ALTERNATIVE D

Impacts of Alternative D 

Resource Management Activities 

Surveying and Monitoring—Under alternative D, as under alternative A, NPS staff would perform 

surveys of recent breeding areas for protected species and would also continue to monitor breeding, 

nesting, and fledging activities throughout the breeding season. Surveying activities would likely result in 

limited adverse impacts on other bird species. As described for alternative B, alternative D would include 

an adaptive management strategy based on American oystercatcher disturbance, which could result in 

long-term benefits to other bird species due to the potential for increased management and species 

protection if significant disturbance is observed. Due to the limited amount of vehicles used by staff and 

the fact that such use would occur predominantly during the day, adverse impacts on beach invertebrates 

(and potentially reptiles and amphibians) from resources management activities would be limited across 

all alternatives. 

Predator Management—As under alternative A, recreational use under alternative D would continue to 

have indirect impacts on other bird species through the attraction of predators, which would result in 

mortality of the predated species. As described for alternative B, the Seashore would perform limited 

removal of mammalian predators under alternative D when predation of protected species is observed. 
Other Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 447

The limited removal of mammalian predators would likely benefit birds and other species in the long term 

by potentially reducing predation pressure. 

Full Recreational or ORV Closures—Under alternative D, as under alternative A, the provision of full 

recreational or ORV closures for prenesting and nesting protected bird species would indirectly benefit 

wildlife species, resulting in benefits for those bird species. 

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

Invertebrates 

Similar to alternative A, ORV routes and other recreational use under alternative D would continue to 

adversely impact invertebrate species that inhabit the intertidal sand flats, wrack line, and moist substrate 

habitat at the Seashore by damaging habitat and foraging opportunities, and crushing individual species 

under vehicle tires. However, the seasonal restriction on UTV use, combined with the year-round 

prohibition of ATVs, ORV trailers, and high-performance sport-model and two-stroke UTVs, as well as 

the exclusion of ORV routes where ferry landings do not exist, would all help to mitigate some of the 

adverse impacts of ORV use on all invertebrates at the Seashore by limiting vehicular contact with 

individual species. Additionally, pedestrian-only use areas would expand by ten miles under alternative 

D, reducing the percentage of Seashore available for ORV use and the likelihood of impact. Like 

alternative B, night driving would be limited under alternative D, which would likely further reduce the 

adverse impacts of ORV use on ghost crabs, as night is the time when ghost crabs are most active. Also 

similar to alternative B, the requirement of an education operator certificate under alternative D could 

indirectly benefit invertebrate species by providing Seashore visitors with current information regarding 

Seashore resources, closures, and ORV rules and regulations. Therefore, the implementation of alternative 

D would likely result in long-term limited adverse impacts on invertebrate species at the Seashore. 

Similar to alternative C, alternative D would limit the number of vehicle permits issued annually. 

However, under alternative D, the limit on the number of vehicle permits available would be eight percent 

less than the average number of permits issued per island in years 1–3 of the ORV plan. An eight percent 

reduction in annual permits would potentially reduce daily ORV use by a similar amount, which could 

reduce the potential for disturbance to invertebrate species, thereby resulting in direct long-term beneficial 

impacts to these species. 

Other Bird Species 

Under alternative D, as described under alternative A, the North and South Core Banks of the Seashore 

would remain open to ORV use in designated routes/areas, except where resource or safety closures are 

present, likely resulting in disturbance of resting and foraging birds by increasing the potential for 

frequent escape flights and nest abandonment. However, the designation of new pedestrian-only areas, the 

seasonal restriction of UTVs, the year-round prohibition of ATVs, ORV trailers, and high-performance 

sport-model and two-stroke UTVs, and the exclusion of ORV routes where ferry landings do not exist 

would likely reduce the potential for disruption of other birds by ORV users by limiting contact between 

vehicles and individual species. 

Under alternative D, night driving restrictions would the same as described for alternative C. The longer 

prohibition period (to September 14) would help protect late nesters, resulting in long-term benefits to 

other bird species that forage at night. 

As described for invertebrates, alternative D would include a vehicle permit system, which would include 

a limit on the number of ORVs at the Seashore annually. This limit would be eight percent less than 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

448 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

historical average use on each island. An eight percent reduction in annual permits would potentially 

reduce daily ORV use by a similar amount, which could reduce the potential for disturbance to other bird 

species. 

As mentioned under alternative A, the Seashore takes certain actions which result in minimizing the 

effects of disturbance on bird species and their associated habitat, including a seasonal closure of the 

Seashore to ORV use from January 1 through March 15. As described for alternative B, the Seashore 

would implement additional education and outreach under alternative D, including an operator education 

certificate for all ORV drivers, which could result in indirect long-term benefits to other bird species at 

the Seashore by educating the public on resource closures and driving restrictions. 

Unlike alternatives B and C, regular maintenance of the back route would not occur under alternative D. 

However, for resource protection and safety, the back route would be re-established when impacted by a 

storm event, and there would be no net loss of ramps (although locations may change after storm events). 

In the case of extreme high tides or other emergencies, the area of the former long-term vehicle storage 

and parking lots would be open to temporary overnight use for the duration of the extreme condition. Like 

alternatives B and C, the potential for habitat disturbance exists, but activities would be coordinated with 

resource management staff to ensure they are not occurring in sensitive resource areas or during sensitive 

times. These activities would not be a regular occurrence and any impact is expected to be short-term. 

Therefore, activities associated with replacement of the back route and ramps would likely result in 

limited, short-term adverse impacts on other bird species at the Seashore. 

Mammals 

As described for alternative A, continued ORV use under alternative D would likely result in noise 

disturbance and species displacement for mammals in the area of analysis (e.g., raccoon, nutria, 

cottontail), which can disrupt foraging and/or breeding behavior and increase energy expenditure 

(Switalski and Jones 2010). More considerable impacts of ORV use on mammals include direct injury or 

mortality of individual species. Many of these species are crepuscular to nocturnal feeders and are not 

active during the day when most ORV use occurs. However, they may inhabit shallow depressions or 

areas of vegetative cover while at rest. The designation of new pedestrian-only areas, the seasonal 

restriction on UTV use, the year-round prohibition of ATVs, ORV trailers, and high-performance sportmodel and two-stroke UTVs, the exclusion of ORV routes where ferry landings do not exist, and a 

seasonal restriction on night driving would help mitigate some of the adverse impacts of ORV use on 

mammals at the Seashore by limiting the potential for contact between vehicles and individual species. 

Like alternative B, the limited removal of mammalian predators under alternative D, when predation of 

protected species is observed, would adversely impact certain mammals at the Seashore (primarily 

raccoons) from the direct removal of these species. However, impacts would likely be slight, as they 

would not be observed at the population level, and efforts would be made during removal of the predators 

to ensure that management actions are conducted as humanely as possible to minimize the suffering of the 

animals. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

As described for alternative A, continued ORV use under alternative D would likely result in noise 

disturbance for certain reptile and amphibian species in the area of analysis (e.g., snakes and lizards), 

which can lead to increased stress, loss of hearing, and/or habitat avoidance (Switalski and Jones 2010). 

The use of vehicles under alternative D could also result in direct injury and mortality of individual 

species from species being crushed by vehicles. However, the designation of new pedestrian-only areas, 

the seasonal restriction on UTV use, the year-round prohibition of ATVs, ORV trailers, and high-
Other Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 449

performance sport-model and two-stroke UTVs, the exclusion of ORV routes where ferry landings do not 

exist, and a seasonal restriction on night driving would help mitigate some of the adverse impacts of ORV 

use on reptiles and amphibians at the Seashore by limiting the potential for contact between vehicles and 

individual species. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative D 

The past, present, and future actions discussed under the cumulative impact scenario for alternative A 

would be the same under alternative D, which would be adverse (from crushing and compaction during 

dredging activities, short-term burial during beach re-nourishment, increased recreational use following 

implementation of the Commercial Services Plan / Environmental Assessment / Assessment of Effect,

temporary displacement caused by aircraft overflights, and direct mortality of pelagic birds from 

collisions with turbine blades following development of off-shore wind stations), as well as beneficial 

(from resource protection and education measures in the Interim Off-road Vehicle Management Plan and 

Evaluation of Existing ORV Use at Cape Lookout National Seashore and from creating new bird nesting 

habitat through stabilization of historic structures and measures to reduce predation and provide 

protection to bird species inhabiting areas designated under critical habitat and recovery plans). These 

impacts, combined with the long-term adverse impacts under alternative D, would likely result in longterm adverse cumulative impacts. While adverse effects on wildlife from other actions occurring in the 

region would still exist, measures providing greater resource protection under alternative D, such as 

expanded pedestrian-only use areas and a vehicle permit limits set at eight percent less than historical 

average use on each island, would result in protections that would be beneficial to wildlife populations 

and would offset some of the adverse effects.

ALTERNATIVE E

Impacts of Alternative E 

Resource Management Activities 

Surveying and Monitoring—Under alternative E, as under alternative A, NPS staff would perform 

surveys of historical nesting areas for protected species and would also continue to monitor breeding, 

nesting, and fledging activities throughout the breeding season. Surveying activities would likely result in 

limited adverse impacts on other bird species. Due to the limited amount of vehicles used by staff and the 

fact that such use would occur predominantly during the day, adverse impacts on beach invertebrates (and 

potentially reptiles and amphibians) from resources management activities would be limited across all 

alternatives. 

Predator Management—As under alternative A, recreational use under alternative E would continue to 

have indirect impacts on other bird species through the attraction of predators, which would result in 

mortality of the predated species. 

Full Recreational or ORV Closures—Under alternative E, as under alternative A, the provision of full 

recreational closures (ORV closures would not be applicable under alternative E) for prenesting and 

nesting protected bird species would indirectly benefit wildlife species, resulting in benefits for those bird 

species. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

450 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

ORV and Other Recreational Use 

Invertebrates 

The closure of the Seashore to ORV access and use would remove a source of disturbance and mortality 

for invertebrate species, resulting in long-term benefits. Although ORV access and use would be 

prohibited, essential vehicles would continue to use routes as designated in alternative A. Any adverse 

impacts that could result from essential vehicle use would likely be slight because use would be limited. 

Although pedestrians would still be allowed to access the Seashore, any disturbance that could result 

would be slight compared to the effects of vehicle use on invertebrate species. Pedestrian-related impacts 

to invertebrates may occur as a result of either trampling of invertebrate habitat or direct mortality 

through crushing underfoot. However, because pedestrians travel at slower speeds than vehicles, they are 

able to respond more quickly to the visible presence of invertebrates and readily avoid disturbances to 

invertebrates at the Seashore (Lucrezi and Schlacher 2009). 

Other Bird Species 

As described for invertebrates, the closure of the Seashore to ORV access and use would remove a source 

of disturbance and mortality for other bird species. Any adverse impacts that could result from essential 

vehicle use would likely be slight because use would be limited and NPS staff would take the necessary 

measures to avoid disturbance of nesting and foraging birds. The continued presence of pedestrians would 

remain as a source of disturbance, resulting in temporary displacement of individual species. However, 

any adverse impacts that would result are expected to be limited compared to the impacts of ORV use on 

nesting and foraging birds. 

Mammals 

The closure of the Seashore to ORV access and use would remove a source of noise and habitat 

disturbance for mammals, resulting in long-term benefits. 

Any adverse impacts that could result from essential vehicle use would likely be slight because use would 

be limited and NPS staff would take the necessary measures to avoid disturbance of preferred habitat. The 

continued presence of pedestrians would likely remain as a source of noise disturbance, potentially 

resulting in temporary displacement of individual species. However, any adverse impacts that would 

result are expected to be limited compared to the potential impacts associated with ORV use (e.g., species 

injury and destruction of habitat). 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

The closure of the Seashore to ORV access and use would remove a source of disturbance (e.g., noise, 

species displacement) and mortality for certain reptile and amphibian species, resulting in long-term 

benefits. Although essential vehicle use would continue and pedestrians would still have access to the 

Seashore, adverse impacts would likely be short-term and slight compared to the potential impacts (i.e., 

injury and/or direct mortality) of ORV use on individual species. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative E 

The past, present, and future actions discussed under the cumulative impact scenario for alternative A 

would be the same under alternative E, which would be adverse (from crushing and compaction during 

dredging activities, short-term burial during beach re-nourishment, increased recreational use following 
Other Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 451

implementation of the Commercial Services Plan / Environmental Assessment / Assessment of Effect,

temporary displacement caused by aircraft overflights, and direct mortality of pelagic birds from 

collisions with turbine blades following development of off-shore wind stations), as well as beneficial 

(from resource protection and education measures in the Interim Off-road Vehicle Management Plan and 

Evaluation of Existing ORV Use at Cape Lookout National Seashore and from creating new bird nesting 

habitat through stabilization of historic structures and measures to reduce predation and provide 

protection to bird species inhabiting areas designated under critical habitat and recovery plans). These 

impacts, combined with the extensive long-term adverse impacts under alternative E, would likely result 

in long-term adverse cumulative impacts. While adverse effects on wildlife from other actions occurring 

in the region would still exist, prohibition of ORV access and use would result in protections that would 

be beneficial to wildlife populations and would offset some of the adverse effects. 

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative E would provide the highest level of protection and result in fewer adverse impacts compared 

to alternatives A, B, C, or D. Under alternative E, although continued pedestrian access would likely 

result in short-term disturbance (e.g., noise, temporary disturbance) of wildlife and wildlife habitat, longterm beneficial impacts would result from prohibiting ORV access at the Seashore as native habitat would 

have the opportunity to recover from heavy vehicle use and a considerable source of disturbance would be 

removed. 

Impacts of ORV and other recreational use would result in long-term adverse impacts on wildlife and 

wildlife habitat under alternative B. Allowing continued ORV access along approximately 81 percent (45 

miles) of the Seashore would contribute to these long-term impacts, including noise disturbance, 

temporary displacement, and potentially injury/mortality of individuals. However, impacts would be 

reduced when compared to alternative A (the no-action alternative) due to increased education and 

outreach; the use of additional species management measures, such as a seasonal restriction on night 

driving from May 1 through August 31; and the prohibition on all high-performance sport-model and 

two-stroke ATVs and UTVs. Compared to alternative E, impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat would 

be greater under alternative B, because alternative E prohibits public ORV use on the Seashore, 

eliminating this source of adverse impact to wildlife and wildlife habitat. Further, alternative E reduces 

the impact from pedestrians, who without transportation opportunities to more remote areas of the 

Seashore would likely be limited to areas in general proximity to the ferry landing areas. 

Under alternative C, the impacts of ORV and other recreational use would result in long-term adverse 

impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat from noise disturbance, temporary displacement, and potentially 

injury/mortality of individuals. However, impacts would be reduced when compared to alternative A (the 

no-action alternative), due to increased education and outreach; the use of additional species management 

measures, such as a seasonal restriction on night driving from May 1 through September 14; the increase 

in the amount of pedestrian-only use areas by 4 miles; the closing of ORV routes where no ferry access is 

available; the prohibition of all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs at the 

Seashore; shorting the timeframe that non-sport ATVs and UTVs would be permitted within the Seashore 

each year (reducing the March 16 through December time under alternative A to September 15 through 

December 15); the reduction in the amount of Seashore open to public ORV use; and the fee-based ORV 

permitting system that would also limit the number of vehicles on the Seashore. Compared to alternative 

E, the severity of impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat under alternative C would be greater due to 

public ORV use being allowed under alternative C, whereas it would be prohibited under alternative E. 

The prohibition of public ORV use under alternative E would also reduce the amount of impacts from 

pedestrians, because without ORVs to access remote areas of the Seashore, pedestrians would likely be 

limited to areas in general proximity to the ferry landing areas. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

452 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Alternative D would also result in long-term adverse impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat from 

disturbance, temporary displacement, and potentially injury/mortality of individuals. However, impacts 

would be reduced when compared to alternative A (the no-action alternative), due to increased education 

and outreach; the use of additional species management measures, such as a seasonal restriction on night 

driving from May 1 through September 14; the closing of ORV routes where no ferry access is available; 

the reduction in the amount of Seashore open to public ORV use; the implementation of a vehicle permit 

program and the reduction in the number of public ORVs allowed on the Seashore by 8 percent; the 

prohibition of all ATVs, as well as all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke UTVs at the 

Seashore; and the shortening of the timeframe that non-sport UTVs would be permitted within the 

Seashore each year (reducing the March 16 through December 31 timeframe under alternative A to 

September 15 through December 15). Compared to alternative E, impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat 

under alternative D would be greater due to public ORV use being allowed under alternative D, whereas it 

would be prohibited under alternative E. The prohibition of public ORV use under alternative E would 

also reduce the amount of impacts from pedestrians, because without ORVs to access remote areas of the 

Seashore, pedestrians would likely be limited to areas in general proximity to the ferry landing areas. 

Under alternative E, prohibiting public ORV use at the Seashore would provide long-term beneficial 

impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat compared to alternative A, under which public ORV use would be 

allowed along approximately 81 percent of the Seashore. While continued pedestrian access under 

alternative E could result in some short- and long-term disturbance (e.g., noise, temporary displacement, 

etc.) of wildlife, these impacts would be reduced compared to alternative A because without the use of 

ORVs, pedestrian use under alternative E would likely be limited to areas in the general proximity to the 

ferry landing areas. As a result, alternative E would provide more protection and result in fewer adverse 

impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat compared to alternative A. 

CONCLUSION

Overall, impacts on non-listed wildlife species from ORVs and other recreational use under alternatives 

A, B, C, and D are expected to be long-term and adverse. The continued use of ORVs at the Seashore 

under these alternatives would result in direct adverse impacts on invertebrate species primarily due to 

injury and/or mortality from compaction by, or collision with, vehicles arising from unrestricted driving 

in the intertidal and wrack areas. However, as discussed above in the Schlacher and others (2008) study, 

the number of ORVs at the Seashore would have be a noticeable source of impact on invertebrates. 

Allowing continued ORV access and access for visitors to the Seashore would contribute to these adverse 

impacts through noise, disturbance, temporary displacement, and increased frequent escape flights. 

However, restrictions on night driving under alternative B would help mitigate some of these adverse 

impacts of vehicles use on invertebrates. Under alternative C, increased education and outreach, the use of 

additional species management measures such as a seasonal restriction on night driving, and additional 

restrictions on ATV and UTV use would likely help mitigate the long-term adverse impacts of ORV use 

on wildlife species by reducing vehicular contact with individual species and educating visitors on the 

importance of resource protection. Under alternative D, impacts would be reduced when compared to 

alternative A due to the reduction of ORV use areas as well as increased education and outreach and the 

use of additional species management measures and ATV and UTV use restrictions. Under alternative E, 

considerable, long-term beneficial impacts would result from prohibiting ORV access at the Seashore as 

native habitat would have the opportunity to recover from heavy vehicle use, and a considerable source of 

disturbance would be removed. Prohibiting ORV access at the Seashore would remove a source of 

disturbance and mortality for invertebrates, resulting in long-term beneficial impacts that may cause 

positive changes in species abundance and ecosystem diversity at the Seashore. Although continued 

pedestrian access would likely result in short-term disturbance (e.g., noise, temporary disturbance) of 

wildlife and wildlife habitat under alternative E, adverse impacts on invertebrates are expected to be slight 

and short-term from potential noise disturbance related to continued pedestrian access. 
Other Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 453

Significance Discussion 

The purpose of the Seashore is to preserve the outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational resources 

and values of a dynamic, intact, natural barrier island system where ecological processes dominate. The 

Seashore is one of the few remaining locations on the Atlantic Coast where visitors can experience and 

recreate in an undeveloped, remote barrier island environment that can be reached only by boat or ferry. 

The Seashore is mandated to maintain parts of the natural ecosystems of all plants and animals native to 

park ecosystems. While there are many species located at the Seashore, this discussion of potential 

impacts on mammals, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates focuses on those non-listed species likely to 

occur in habitat where ORV use is permitted. The greatest concerns related to these species are impacts 

associated with ORV use. 

These non-listed species currently receive indirect protection at the Seashore, as they can occur and breed 

in areas with federally listed species (e.g., piping plover). These protections would increase in varying 

degrees under alternatives A, B, C, and D. These protections would further increase under alternatives C 

and D, which limit ORVs to historical limits, and would dramatically increase under alternative E, since 

the elimination of ORVs may cause an increase in the reproductive success of these non-listed species. 

Adverse impacts to these species across all alternatives would be small, as described in the analysis 

above. While there may be occasional adverse impacts to individual birds, under all alternatives the 

Seashore would continue to conduct indirect monitoring and other species buffers and closures. A 

decrease in recreational uses during seasonal closures, as discussed in the alternatives, help protect 

wintering individuals of these species along the Seashore. Under alternatives B, C, and D, additional 

protections for piping plovers (ban on night driving, etc.) would indirectly benefit these species. These 

measures would be a beneficial change for these nonlisted species, compared to the existing condition, 

greatly reducing, and in some cases eliminating impacts from ORVs, and would not result in significant 

adverse impacts. 

Under alternatives A, B, C, and D, designating legal routes for ORV use does not establish a precedent for 

future actions with significant effects, as ORV use has occurred at the Seashore since the 1930s and 

continued since the establishment of the Seashore as a park unit in 1976, and the current and proposed 

species protection measures are substantial, resulting in a low overall level of impacts to non-listed 

species. ORV use is also currently legally permitted in several other national seashores and recreation 

areas, and in this regard is not precedent-setting within the national park system. As described above, 

ORV use does not cause significant impacts to non-listed species, in part because of the substantial 

resource protection and mitigation measures taken by the Seashore, as well as the adaptive management 

strategy in alternatives B, C, and D, which would further strengthen mitigation measures and even limit 

use if certain indicators are met. Alternative E, which prohibits ORV use, would not establish a precedent 

for future actions with significant effects to non-listed, as many other national park units do not allow 

ORV use. 

There are a number of cumulative impacts to non-listed species, described in the impacts analysis above, 

which may be short- and long-term, limited, and adverse, as well as long-term beneficial. However, while 

adverse effects on non-listed species from other actions occurring in the region would still exist, actions 

under alternatives A, B, C, D, and E would provide additional protections that would be beneficial to the 

regional population of these species and would mitigate any significant adverse cumulative impacts 

already occurring. 

In conclusion, compared to the existing condition, additional impacts to non-listed species under 

alternatives A, B, C, D, and E would be minimal. The Seashore has in place substantial resource 

protection and mitigation measures which would continue and would be strengthened in the action 

alternatives. When compared to the existing condition, in light of the significance criteria at 40 CFR 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

454 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

1508.27, there would be no significant adverse impacts to non-listed species from alternatives A, B, C, D, 

or E. 

SOUNDSCAPES/ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 

GUIDING REGULATIONS AND POLICIES

An intact natural soundscape enhances visitor experience and allows for natural functioning of wildlife 

communication. Regarding general park soundscape management, NPS Management Policies 2006,

section 4.9 “Soundscape Management,” requires that the NPS “preserve, to the greatest extent possible, 

the natural soundscapes of parks.” Additionally, the NPS “will restore to the natural condition wherever 

possible those park soundscapes that have become degraded by the unnatural sounds (noise), and will 

protect natural soundscapes from unacceptable impacts” (NPS 2006d). Director’s Order 47: Soundscape 

Preservation and Management, was developed to emphasize NPS policies “that will require, to the fullest 

extent practicable, the protection, maintenance, or restoration of the natural soundscape resource in a 

condition unimpaired by inappropriate or excessive noise sources.” This Director’s Order also directs 

park managers to measure acoustic conditions, differentiate existing or proposed human-made sounds that 

are consistent with park purposes, set acoustic goals based on the sounds deemed consistent with the park 

purpose, and determine which noise sources are impacting the parks (NPS 2000f). 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS

Two metrics were used to assess soundscape impacts: Leq(h) and Lmax. Leq(h) is the one-hour energyequivalent sound level. Leq is a way of summarizing variable sound levels into a single numerical value 

that reflects the cumulative acoustical energy measured over time (in this case one hour). The Leq(h)

metric takes into account the number of ORV passbys and the times in between passbys when there is no 

ORV noise. More specifically, the change in Leq(h) during the hour with the most ORV activity was used 

to identify the areas where ambient sound levels would increase by 3 dBA or more due to motorized 

vehicles. Similarly, the areas experiencing a 3 dBA change in ambient sound levels during an ORV 

passby was assessed using the Lmax metric. Lmax is the loudest sound that would occur during a given 

period of time. The rationale for the 3 dBA change criterion for assessing impacts is explained below, 

followed by further details on the modeling methodology. 

Background Information on Reduction in Listening Area 

An increase in the ambient noise level affects the ability of humans 

and animals to perceive other sounds within a certain distance. In 

general, the higher the ambient noise level, the shorter the distance 

from which other sounds (for example those of a songbird) can be 

heard. This concept is expressed in terms of listening area and 

alerting distance. In terms of impact metrics, a 3 dBA increase in the 

natural ambient is an important indicator of potential impact because 

it results in a 50 percent reduction in listening area for humans and 

animals and a 30 percent reduction in alerting distance, as described 

below (NPS 2010a). 

Reduction in listening area quantifies the loss of hearing ability to humans and animals as a result of an 

increase in ambient noise level. Under natural ambient conditions a sound is audible within a certain area 

around a visitor or animal. If the ambient level is increased due to a noise event, the area in which the 

Listening Area—The largest area 

around a person or animal where 

a sound is still audible.

Alerting distance—Longest linear

distance between a person or

animal and a sound source where 

the sound source is still audible.
Soundscapes/Acoustic Environment 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 455

sound is audible decreases. Table 52 and figure 27 illustrate the relationship between increased ambient 

and listening area reduction. 

TABLE 52: REDUCTION IN LISTENING AREA AND ALERTING DISTANCE DUE TO INCREASES IN AMBIENT LEVELS

dBA Ambient Increase 3 6 10 20 

Percent Reduction in Listening Area 50% 75% 90% 99% 

Percent Reduction in Alerting Distance 30% 50% 70% 90% 

For example, under natural ambient conditions, an owl perched in a tree may be able to hear a mouse 

scurrying through the brush anywhere within an area of 100-square-meters of the perch. If a noise event 

increases the ambient level by 3 dBA, the area in which the owl can hear a mouse would decrease by 50 

percent to approximately 50 square meters. 

Reduction in alerting distance is closely related to reduction in listening area. The residual alerting 

distance is equal to the square root of the residual listening area. Instead of addressing losses in terms of 

an area, reduction in alerting distance expresses the reduction as a linear distance from a source. For 

example, under natural ambient conditions, a hiker may be alerted to the sound of a flash flood at a 

distance of 1 mile. If a noise such as an ORV increases the ambient level by 6 dBA, the distance at which 

the flood could be detected would decrease by 50 percent to approximately 1/2 mile or 2,640 feet (NPS 

2010a). 

FIGURE 27: REDUCTION IN LISTENING AREA
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

456 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Visitors and wildlife are impacted by their failure to hear natural sounds that would have been audible in 

the absence of noise: a bird misses the sound of a worm, a mouse misses the footfall of a coyote, a visitor 

misses the sound of a distant waterfall. Reductions in listening area and alerting distance capture these 

types of impacts. 

Estimated Natural Ambient Methodology 

Soundscapes monitoring at Portsmouth Island (on North Core Banks) 

was conducted between May 6, 2008, and June 3, 2008 (NPS 2013j). 

The monitoring site was located approximately 1,500 feet from the 

surf and was shielded from the surf by intervening sand dunes. A 

detailed analysis of the natural ambient sound level at the monitoring 

site was not available, but was assumed to be approximately equal to 

the L90 sound level (e.g., sound level exceeded 90 percent of the 

time), consistent with the recommendations of Director’s Order 47 

for determining background sound levels. The L90 sound level was 

35.9 dBA during the day and 42.9 dBA at night. The daytime L90

level was used for impact assessment purposes because the majority 

of ORV activity occurs during the daytime. 

With monitoring results available for only one location, it was necessary to estimate natural ambient 

levels in other portions of the Seashore for incorporation in the impact assessment. The natural ambient 

sound levels at the Seashore vary substantially in different areas. On the oceanside of the islands, the surf 

and wind are the dominant sounds. The sound level at 50 feet from the surf was estimated based on the 

monitoring at Portsmouth Island, correcting for attenuation over soft cover (4.5 dBA per doubling of 

distance).2

 An additional 5 dBA shielding correction was applied in the calculation of the surf sound level 

at 50 feet because the height of the dunes blocked line-of-sight between the monitor location and surf 

(FHWA 2000).3

 The ground elevation at the monitor site (based on Light Detection and Ranging data) 

was 4.9 feet and the microphone was placed 1 meter above the ground, for a total elevation of 8.2 feet. 

The elevation of the top of the intervening dunes varied between 10 feet and 14 feet. The resulting 

estimate of the surf plus wind natural ambient was 63 dBA at 50 feet from the surf line. Table 53 

summarizes the natural ambient assumed for the impact analysis as a function of distance from the surf 

line. Note that the location of the dunes in the modeling area (peak dune elevation at 300 feet from surf) 

differs from the monitored area (peak dune elevation at 1,000 feet from surf), but the modeled area dune 

conditions are considered representative of a greater length of the Seashore than the monitored site. 

 

2

 Due to linear nature, the surf was treated as a “line source.” 

3

 5 dBA is a general insertion loss for a noise barrier that just blocks line-of-sight. 

L90—The sound level that is 

exceeded 90 percent of the time. 

In other words, sounds were 

louder than the L90 level only 10

percent of the time in the analysis 

period. L90 is useful as an 

indicator of the background

ambient sound level.
Soundscapes/Acoustic Environment 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 457

TABLE 53: ESTIMATED NATURAL AMBIENT AT VARIOUS DISTANCES FROM SURF

Distance from Surf (feet) Natural Ambient (dBA)a Landmarks/Notes 

50 63 Reference distance for surf 

150 55.8 Assumed travel location for ORVs on beach 

200 54.0 Approximate dune line in modeling area(varies) 

300 46.3 Approximate highpoint of dunes in modeling area (varies)- -

5 dBA shielding correction begins to apply 

500 43.0 Approximate location of interior road (varies) 

800 39.9 Soundside marsh 

1,000 38.5 

1,500 35.8 Distance to surf for soundscapes monitoring site 

2,000 34.0 

4,000 29.5 Distant soundside islands (such as Cowpen Island) 

a

 Surf noise assumed to attenuate at 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. 5 dBA shielding correction for dunes applied 

at distances 300 feet and greater from surf. 

ORV Leq Modeling Methodology 

The Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5 (TNM2.5) was used to model the 

Leq(h) attributable to ORVs along a typical section of the Seashore. The TNM2.5 modeling takes into 

account the key factors influencing ORV sound levels at the Seashore, including terrain (a highpoint 

occurs on the dunes, providing some shielding from ORV noise travelling from one side of the island to 

another in most areas), ground cover type (sand, vegetated areas, open water) and vehicle types 

(automobiles and ATVs), and the effect of speed (25 mph limit in most areas). Motorcycles are not 

permitted to operate at the Seashore, but were used as a proxy for ATV noise emissions for the TNM2.5 

modeling (ATVs were not included in the Federal Highway Administration data collection supporting 

TNM development).4

Rather than modeling the entire Seashore, a typical area was selected for modeling considered generally 

representative of many areas along both the North Core and South Core Banks. Thus the results of the 

modeling of the typical area can be used to draw conclusions about soundscapes impacts across the 

Seashore. Figure 28 provides an overview of the modeling area, which is located on North Core Banks, 

6.2 miles north of the Long Point cabins and ferry landing. A total of 18 receptor points (locations where 

sound levels are calculated) were placed in a line across the island to provide information on Leq(h) at 

different distances from the beach and interior back route. Vehicles on the beach were assumed to operate 

 

4

 ATVs were not included in TNM development because the focus of the model was on-road noise analysis. ATV 

and motorcycle sound levels vary from vehicle model to vehicle model and the specifics of the test procedure 

utilized. However, the general similarity of ATV and motorcycle sound levels is supported by the data reported in 

California Off-Highway Vehicle Noise Study (Wyle 2005). Under the SAE J-1287 test procedure, ATV sound levels 

were 80–95 dBA, compared to 84–104 dBA for motorcycles (at one-half of rated engine speed). Based on this data 

use of motorcycle data as a proxy for ATVs may over predict ATV noise impacts, but it should be noted that data 

comparing ATVs and motorcycles under conditions similar to operating conditions at the Seashore is not available 

(low speed (25 mph max) and on sand). 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

458 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

approximately 150 feet from the surf.5 Table 54 summarizes the receptor locations relative to the surf, 

beach ORV track and the interior back route. Receptors were modeled using a height of approximately 

five feet above ground level. 

Source: http://www.nconemap.com/. 

Note: Location is on the North Core Banks, 6.2 miles north of the Long Point cabins and ferry landing 

FIGURE 28: ORV NOISE MODELING LOCATION AND RECEPTORS

 

5

 ORVs are allowed to operate on the open beach between the dunes and the tide line. Therefore, the exact location 

of ORV operation on the beach is varies. However, the distance from the surf selected (150 feet) is conservative—

vehicles travelling closer to the surf (to take advantage of firmer sand for example) would generate less impact on 

soundscapes than vehicles traveling at 150 feet from the surf. 
Soundscapes/Acoustic Environment 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 459

TABLE 54: NOISE MODELING RECEPTORS

Location 

Receptor 

ID

Elevation 

(feet) 

Distance to 

Surf (feet) 

Distance to Beach 

Track (feet) 

Distance to Interior 

Track (feet) 

Beach R1 -2.19 0 147 506 

R2 0.2 68 79 438 

R3 6.16 128 19 378 

R4 7.48 167 20 339 

Dunes R5 9.27 218 71 288 

R6 10.58 260 113 246 

R7 13.25 289 142 217 

R8 9.27 312 165 194 

R9 7.84 364 217 142 

R10 6.61 423 276 83 

R11 6.12 487 340 19 

R12 4.69 526 379 20 

R13 4.04 608 461 102 

Marsh R14 3.07 677 530 171 

R15 3.67 779 632 273 

R16 3.16 914 767 408 

R17 2.54 1,048 901 542 

R18 3.47 1,335 1,188 829 

When terrain lines break line of sight between a noise source and a receptor, noise levels are reduced 

because the sound waves are forced to diffract over the protrusion. Terrain lines were used to reflect the 

typical topographic patterns of the island. Elevation information for all TNM inputs was obtained from 

bare earth Light Detection and Ranging data. 6

As sound waves propagate away from a source they interact with the ground. Noise levels decrease most 

rapidly when traveling low over soft ground such as sand or grass, less rapidly over hard surfaces such as 

pavement. The beach and sand dune areas were modeled as the “loose soil” ground cover type to 

approximate sand. The ocean was modeled as “water” and vegetated areas associated with the Core 

Sound marsh lands as “field grass.” 

All ORVs were assumed to be cruising at the Seashore speed limit of 25 mph. 

Different numbers of ORVs were modeled to characterize the variation in ORV activity that occurs over 

the year and the potential effects of the action alternatives on the number of ORV visitors to the Seashore. 

Table 55 summarizes the modeled ORV volume scenarios. For modeling of the existing condition and the 

anticipated condition under alternative A, 2007-2012 NPS data on the estimated number of ORVs on the 

 

6

 Light Detection and Ranging data distributed by http://www.ncfloodmaps.com/. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

460 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

beach at Great Island was used to determine the average and peak daily volumes. The Great Island data 

was used because Great Island has higher annual ORV volumes than Long Point. The peak volume 

typically occurs during the fall fishing season. 

TABLE 55: ORV USE LEVELS FOR NOISE MODELING (LEQ)

Existing Conditions/ 

Alternative A 

10% Reduction in ORV 

Visitation - Alternatives 

B, C, and D 

30% Reduction in ORV 

Visitation - Alternatives 

B, C, and D 

100% Reduction in 

ORV VisitationAlternative E 

Average Use 

Level (MarchDecember) 

Peak

Use

Level 

Average Use 

Level (MarchDecember) 

Peak

Use

Level 

Average Use 

Level (MarchDecember) 

Peak

Use

Level 

Average Use 

Level (MarchDecember) 

Peak

Use

Level 

ORVs on 

beach 

and/or back 

route (Daily) 

56 187 50 168 39 131 0 0

ORVs

Passing in 

Peak Hour 

(assumed

half of daily 

as worst 

case) 

28 94 25 84 20 65 0 0

Number of 

Autos (87% 

of total 

ORVs),

rounded 

24 81 22 73 17 57 0 0

Number of 

ATVs (13% 

of total 

ORVs),

rounded 

4 12 3* 11* 3* 9* 0 0

* Number of ATVs shown primarily applicable to alternative B. ATVs would be eliminated all year under alternative D 

and eliminated part of the year under alternative C. The soundscapes impact of this change was modeled separately 

using 100% auto volumes. 

Alternatives B, C, and D would implement ORV management measures such as permits/fees that could 

reduce ORV visitors compared to the existing condition. As discussed in the “Socioeconomics 

Resources” section, these alternatives could reduce ORV visitors on the order of 10 to 30 percent. There 

is a large degree of uncertainty in predicting visitor response to alternatives B, C, and D. Nevertheless, a 

10 percent and a 30 percent reduction in ORV volumes (compared to the 2007-2012 averages) was 

modeled to provide information on the range of possible soundscape changes due to reduced ORV 

visitors. Alternative E was not modeled as ORV use by visitors would be eliminated. 

NPS administrative ORV trips were assumed to be on average less than 10 a day in the summer and fall. 

In the winter, administrative trips would be on average less than three a day. Therefore, these low 

numbers of administrative trips would be adequately represented by the ORV use scenarios discussed 

above.

The daily ORV use levels discussed above were converted to peak hourly volumes under the conservative 

assumption that up to half of the total number of vehicles on the beach would pass the same point within 

one hour. In reality, ORV use would be more dispersed throughout the day and vehicles would spend a 
Soundscapes/Acoustic Environment 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 461

significant amount of time parked in one location while people engage in fishing or other recreational 

activities. Detailed information on ORV routing to specific areas of the Seashore is not available. 

Information on the number of ATVs on the beach at any one time is not available. However, 2007-2012 

NPS data on ATVs transported by ferry is available and indicates that on average ATVs consist of 13 

percent of vehicles arriving on ferries. The percentage varies substantially day to day, some days there are 

zero ATVs and other days the number of ATVs is greater than the other vehicle types. For alternatives A 

and B, ATVs were assumed to comprise 13 percent of the total number of ORVs (modeled as motorcycle 

vehicle type) and automobiles (including light trucks) were modeled as 87 percent of the total. ATVs 

would be eliminated all year under alternative D and part of the year under alternative C—this condition 

was analyzed using 100 percent auto volumes. 

Two sets of model runs were conducted using the volumes shown in table 55. One set of model runs 

covered the typical condition of all the ORVs operating on the beach. A second set of model runs were 

conducted to analyze noise levels when all ORVs are traveling on the back route (such as when a 

particular beach area is closed to ORVs and the back route is used to bypass the affected area). 

ORV Lmax Modeling Methodology 

To convey information about the intensity of individual ORV passbys, an analysis using the Lmax metric 

was performed. Lmax is the loudest sound that would occur during an ORV pass by and does not take into 

account how often the sound is occurring. An advantage of the Lmax metric in comparison to Leq is that it 

can be easier for people to relate to because it can be directly experienced during a vehicle passby (as 

opposed to the more abstract energy average level reflected by Leq metrics). 

For the Lmax analysis, passby noise levels for automobiles and motorcycles were obtained from the vehicle 

testing conducted for the development of Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Model. 

Motorcycles are not permitted to operate at the Seashore, but served as a proxy for ATV noise emissions 

(refer to “ORV Leq Modeling Methodology” and the related footnote above). At a reference distance of 50 

feet from the source and a speed of 25 mph (maximum permitted), cruise mode Lmax noise levels are as 

follows:

x Automobiles—60 dBA 

x Motorcycles (ATV proxy)—68 dBA. 

The reference noise levels are based on “average pavement,” not beach driving conditions. Reference Lmax

levels for off-road conditions are not reported in the TNM technical manual (FHWA 1998). However, 

given the low speeds involved, the dominant noise source would be the vehicle engine itself, not the noise 

from tire-pavement interaction. Therefore, using the Federal Highway Administration noise emissions 

data was considered reasonable for this project. 

ORV Lmax levels were adjusted for attenuation over soft cover (4.5 dBA per doubling of distance) and 

shielding provided by the dunes (where appropriate). The increase in the total sound level during an ORV 

passby was then compared to the natural ambient for each receptor location. 

Non-ORV Noise Sources 

The focus of the quantitative analysis was ORV noise because an ORV regulation is the subject of this 

ORV management plan/EIS and ORVs are the most common cause of human-related noise at the 

Seashore (Simons and Borneman 2012). Military overflights and other noise sources are considered in the 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

462 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

evaluation of cumulative impacts, but are not explicitly accounted for in the ORV modeling. Pedestrians 

and pets are not considered to be a major source of disturbance to natural soundscapes at the Seashore. 

Evidence for the low level of pedestrian-related noise is the number of human activity types recorded at 

American Oystercatcher nests in 2010 and 2011. There were less than 200 observations of pedestrians 

(through video and audio recording), compared to over 2,000 observations of passenger vehicles and over 

1,000 observations of ATVs (Simons and Borneman 2012).7

ALTERNATIVE A

Impacts of Alternative A: No Action 

Under alternative A, ORV use by visitors and by NPS for administrative purposes would continue at the 

Seashore similar to existing conditions. From March 16 through December 31, approximately 81 percent 

of Seashore beaches would be open to ORV use. Outside of this season (e.g., from January 1 through 

March 15), no ORV use would occur and there would be no impacts on soundscapes from that specific 

use. During the season when ORVs are allowed, the geographic extent and intensity of impacts would 

vary substantially day-to-day. Impacts on the more heavily visited South Core Banks would generally be 

higher than on the North Core Banks (refer to the “Visitor Use and Experience” section for detailed 

information on visitor numbers). 

ATVs would be allowed at the Seashore under alternative A. Although expected to comprise a small 

proportion of the overall ORV total 8

, ATV pass bys would be more noticeable than automobile passbys. 

For example, at full throttle, ATV sound levels at 50 feet can be between 75 and 90 dBA (Lmax)

depending on the specific model.9

 However, full throttle conditions would be relatively rare given the 25 

mph speed limit. Under cruise conditions, ATV Lmax at 50 feet is 68 dBA or perceived almost twice as 

loud as a typical passenger car pass by at the same speed (60 dBA). 10

In the near term, alternative A is not expected to change ORV use levels from existing conditions. For 

much of the season, ORV passbys would be an infrequent event (e.g., 56 per day under average use level) 

and would not be a prominent element of the beach-side soundscape. Because no limit on the number of 

ORVs visiting the Seashore would be established under alternative A, it is possible that ORV use and 

impacts on soundscapes could gradually increase over time. The extent to which ORV use would increase 

under alternative A is not known and cannot be reasonably projected. 

No ORV-related soundscape impacts would occur in the designated pedestrian areas (19 percent of 

Seashore beaches (11 of 56 miles) year-round). 

 

7

 The military overflight study data suggests a higher percentage of ATVs operating on the beach compared to the 

NPS ferry data on ATVs being transported to the Seashore. The soundscapes modeling relied on the ferry data 

because the ferry data represents the entire year, compared to the military overflight studies that are focused on 

specific bird breeding seasons and at select nest locations. 

8

 13 percent assumed for this analysis, see the methodology section for discussion of available data 

9

 EPA F-76a test method. http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/files/ca%20ohv%20noise%20report%20wr%2004-31-

06.pdf 

10 Based on assumption motorcycle noise measurements are representative of ATVs. 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/traffic_noise_model/old_versions/tnm_version_10/tech_manual/tnm02.

cfm#tnm21 
Soundscapes/Acoustic Environment 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 463

Alternative A would not restrict night-driving at the Seashore, potentially contributing to adverse impacts 

on soundscapes (the precise extent of night driving at the Seashore is not known). In general, humans are 

more sensitive to noise during the nighttime hours than the same noise occurring during the day (FTA 

2006). 

Detailed discussion of the modeling results for ORVs operating on the beach and back route is provided 

below, followed by discussion of cumulative impacts. 

Impact of ORV Travel on Beach 

Table 56 summarizes the modeling results for ORVs traveling on the beach. The impact of ORVs on 

Leq(h) during the March through December average use levels is low—the maximum increase over 

natural ambient at a distance of 20 feet from the ORV is 1.2 dBA. For reference, a 3 dBA change in sound 

levels is generally considered a barely perceptible change for humans. Impacts on Leq at more distant 

receptors would be less than 1 dBA under average ORV use levels. The increase over natural ambient is 

smaller to the east (towards the ocean) because the surf noise quickly becomes dominant. Note that the 

ORV Leq(h) is less than the natural ambient at all locations. An increase over natural ambient would still 

occur because Leq is a measure of total acoustic energy. 

TABLE 56: ALTERNATIVE A LEQ MODELING RESULTS—IMPACT OF BEACH ORV USE

Receptor 

ID

Natural

Ambient 

(dBA) 

Average Use Peak Use 

Modeled ORV 

Leq(h) dBA 

Total 

Leq(h)

dBA 

Change from 

Natural Ambient 

(dBA) 

Modeled ORV 

Leq(h) dBA 

Total 

Leq(h)

dBA 

Change from 

Natural

Ambient (dBA) 

R1 73.5 37.3 73.5 0.0 42.3 73.5 0.0 

R2 60.8 42.2 60.9 0.1 47.2 61.0 0.2 

R3 56.8 50.2 57.7 0.9 55.3 59.1 2.3 

R4 55.0 50.2 56.2 1.2 55.2 58.1 3.1 

R5 53.3 43.0 53.7 0.4 48.1 54.4 1.1 

R6 52.3 39.4 52.5 0.2 44.4 53.0 0.7 

R7 51.5 37.9 51.7 0.2 42.9 52.1 0.6 

R8 46.1 36.2 46.5 0.4 41.2 47.3 1.2 

R9 45.1 33.5 45.4 0.3 38.5 46.0 0.9 

R10 44.1 31.4 44.3 0.2 36.4 44.8 0.7 

R11 43.1 30.4 43.3 0.2 35.4 43.8 0.7 

R12 42.6 29.0 42.8 0.2 33.9 43.1 0.5 

R13 41.7 27.7 41.9 0.2 32.6 42.2 0.5 

R14 41.0 26.9 41.2 0.2 31.9 41.5 0.5 

R15 40.1 25.7 40.3 0.2 30.6 40.6 0.5 

R16 39.0 24.1 39.1 0.1 29.1 39.4 0.4 

R17 38.2 22.6 38.3 0.1 27.6 38.6 0.4 

R18 36.6 20.4 36.7 0.1 25.4 36.9 0.3 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

464 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Peak ORV use levels would result in a 2.3 to 3.1 dBA increase in Leq(h) over natural ambient at a distance 

of 20 feet from the ORVs. Increases over natural ambient would be less than 1.3 dBA at locations greater 

than 20 feet from the ORV path under the peak use scenario. 

Table 57 provides the maximum instantaneous sound level that would occur due to a single ORV passby 

on the beach. This does not represent a sound level that would be continuously experienced by visitors 

and wildlife, but is a useful supplemental indicator for intermittent sound level that would be experienced 

by visitors and wildlife. An auto passby would result in an increase of up 11.4 dBA over the natural 

ambient at 20 feet from the vehicle path. Increases of 3 dBA or greater would extend to R10 during an 

auto passby, 276 feet away in the dunes. An ATV passby would result in an increase over natural ambient 

of up to 19.1 dBA. Increases of 6 dBA or greater would extend past the most distant analysis location 

(R18) during an ATV passby, 1,188 feet away in the marsh. For reference, a 6 dBA increase corresponds 

to a 75 percent reduction in listening area (see table 52). A 10 dBA increase is sometimes perceived by 

humans as being twice as loud; while a 3 dBA increase is a barely perceptible change. A 10 dBA increase 

is equivalent to a 90 percent reduction in listening area, compared to a 50 percent reduction with a 3 dBA 

increase. 

TABLE 57: ALTERNATIVE A LMAX RESULTS—IMPACT OF BEACH ORV USE

Receptor 

ID

Natural

Ambient 

(dBA) 

Auto- On Beach ATV- On Beach 

ORV Lmax dBA Total dBA 

Change from 

Natural Ambient 

(dBA) 

ORV Lmax

dBA Total dBA 

Change from 

Natural

Ambient (dBA)

R1 73.5 53.0 73.5 0.0 61.0 73.7 0.2 

R2 60.8 57.0 62.3 1.5 65.0 66.4 5.6 

R3 56.8 66.1 66.6 9.8 74.1 74.2 17.4 

R4 55.0 66.0 66.4 11.4 74.0 74.1 19.1 

R5 53.3 57.7 59.1 5.8 65.7 66.0 12.7 

R6 52.3 54.7 56.7 4.4 62.7 63.1 10.8 

R7 51.5 53.2 55.4 3.9 61.2 61.6 10.1 

R8 46.1 47.2 49.7 3.6 55.2 55.7 9.6 

R9 45.1 45.4 48.3 3.2 53.4 54.0 8.9 

R10 44.1 43.9 47.0 2.9 51.9 52.5 8.4 

R11 43.1 42.5 45.8 2.7 50.5 51.2 8.1 

R12 42.6 41.8 45.2 2.6 49.8 50.6 8.0 

R13 41.7 40.5 44.2 2.5 48.5 49.4 7.7 

R14 41.0 39.6 43.4 2.4 47.6 48.5 7.5 

R15 40.1 38.5 42.4 2.3 46.5 47.4 7.3 

R16 39.0 37.2 41.2 2.2 45.2 46.1 7.1 

R17 38.2 36.2 40.3 2.1 44.2 45.1 6.9 

R18 36.6 34.4 38.6 2.0 42.4 43.4 6.8 

The Lmax results show ORV passbys would be distinctly perceptible events, even when the effect on the 

overall acoustic energy level (Leq) is low due to the relatively low numbers of ORVs and the masking 

effect of the surf and wind. 
Soundscapes/Acoustic Environment 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 465

Impact of ORV Travel on Back Route 

Table 58 summarizes the modeling results for the three scenarios involving ORV travel on the back route. 

In general, the increases over natural ambient from ORV travel on the back route are much higher than 

the same number of ORVs on the beach because the natural ambient on the soundside of the islands is 

quieter than the oceanside. 

TABLE 58: ALTERNATIVE A LEQ MODELING RESULTS—IMPACT OF BACK ROUTE ORV USE

Receptor 

ID

Natural

Ambient 

(dBA) 

Average Use Peak Use 

Modeled ORV 

Leq(h) dBA 

Total Leq(h) 

dBA 

Change from 

Natural

Ambient (dBA)

Modeled ORV 

Leq(h) dBA 

Total 

Leq(h) dBA 

Change from 

Natural

Ambient (dBA)

R1 73.5 24.4 73.5 0.0 29.4 73.5 0.0 

R2 60.8 25.5 60.8 0.0 30.5 60.8 0.0 

R3 56.8 30.2 56.8 0.0 35.1 56.8 0.0 

R4 55.0 30.2 55.0 0.0 35.2 55.0 0.0 

R5 53.3 32.0 53.3 0.0 37 53.4 0.1 

R6 52.3 33.2 52.4 0.1 38.1 52.5 0.2 

R7 51.5 34.5 51.6 0.1 39.5 51.8 0.3 

R8 46.1 35.1 46.4 0.3 40.1 47.1 1.0 

R9 45.1 37.4 45.8 0.7 42.4 47.0 1.9 

R10 44.1 41.8 46.1 2.0 46.8 48.7 4.6 

R11 43.1 50.2 51.0 7.9 55.2 55.5 12.4 

R12 42.6 50.1 50.8 8.2 55.1 55.3 12.7 

R13 41.7 40.6 44.2 2.5 45.6 47.1 5.4 

R14 41.0 36.6 42.3 1.3 41.6 44.3 3.3 

R15 40.1 33.1 40.9 0.8 38 42.2 2.1 

R16 39.0 29.6 39.5 0.5 34.6 40.3 1.3 

R17 38.2 27.3 38.5 0.3 32.3 39.2 1.0 

R18 36.6 24.0 36.8 0.2 29 37.3 0.7 

Under average use levels, the 3 dBA increase over ambient criterion would be exceeded within 20 feet of 

the road (R11 and R12). Under peak use, the 3 dBA increase would be exceeded out to R10 (83 feet away 

towards the dunes) and R14 (171 feet away towards the marsh). Under peak use, the impact at a distance 

of 20 feet is an over 12 dBA increase over natural ambient. For reference, a 10 dBA increase is 

sometimes perceived by humans as being twice as loud; while a 3 dBA increase is a barely perceptible 

change. A 10 dBA increase is equivalent to a 90 percent reduction in listening area, compared to a 50 

percent reduction with a 3 dBA increase. 

Table 59 provides the maximum instantaneous sound level that would occur due to a single ORV passby 

on the back route. As with the Leq modeling results, the soundscapes impact of ORVs on Lmax is greater 

when operating on the back route. An auto passby would result in an increase over the natural ambient of 

6 dBA or greater between R8 (194 feet away in the dunes) and R18 (829 feet away in the marsh). These 

increases would be over 10 dBA with an ATV passby. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

466 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

TABLE 59: ALTERNATIVE A LMAX RESULTS—IMPACT OF BACK ROUTE ORV USE

Receptor 

ID

Natural

Ambient 

(dBA) 

Auto- Back route ATV- Back route 

ORV Lmax

dBA Total dBA 

Change from 

Natural Ambient 

(dBA) 

ORV Lmax

dBA Total dBA 

Change from 

Natural

Ambient (dBA)

R1 73.5 39.9 73.5 0.0 47.9 73.5 0.0 

R2 60.8 40.9 60.8 0.0 48.9 61.1 0.3 

R3 56.8 41.8 56.9 0.1 49.8 57.6 0.8 

R4 55.0 42.5 55.2 0.2 50.5 56.3 1.3 

R5 53.3 43.6 53.7 0.4 51.6 55.5 2.2 

R6 52.3 44.6 53.0 0.7 52.6 55.5 3.2 

R7 51.5 50.4 54.0 2.5 58.4 59.2 7.7 

R8 46.1 51.2 52.4 6.3 59.2 59.4 13.3 

R9 45.1 53.2 53.8 8.7 61.2 61.3 16.2 

R10 44.1 56.7 56.9 12.8 64.7 64.7 20.6 

R11 43.1 66.3 66.3 23.2 74.3 74.3 31.2 

R12 42.6 66.0 66.0 23.4 74.0 74.0 31.4 

R13 41.7 55.4 55.5 13.8 63.4 63.4 21.7 

R14 41.0 52.0 52.3 11.3 60.0 60.0 19.0 

R15 40.1 48.9 49.5 9.4 56.9 57.0 16.9 

R16 39.0 46.3 47.1 8.1 54.3 54.5 15.5 

R17 38.2 44.5 45.4 7.2 52.5 52.6 14.4 

R18 36.6 41.7 42.9 6.3 49.7 49.9 13.3 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative A 

Other than ORVs, other sources of manmade sounds at the Seashore include the following: 

x Marine engines, including ferries, private motorboats and commercial fisheries traveling to or 

near the island would have long-term adverse impacts on soundscapes. Land-based soundscapes 

impacts with these activities are concentrated near the designated docking areas (areas where the 

noise is compatible with the use and visitor expectations for the ferry landing areas). Marine 

engines are limited to a maximum of 82 dBA at a distance of 82 feet. Marine engine noise 

exposure patterns could change in the future as a result of the establishment of a concession 

contracted passenger ferry service from Harkers Island and the Town of Beaufort to Shackleford 

Banks and the Cape Lookout lighthouse on South Core Banks through the use of somewhat larger 

vessels, as called for in the Commercial Services Plan / Environmental Assessment / Assessment 

of Effect (NPS 2007m) and the Passenger Ferry Departure Site EA (NPS 2013a). However, any 

change in soundscapes within the park itself would be minor, as evidenced by the dismissal of 

soundscapes as a topic for analysis in the Passenger Ferry Departure Site EA. 

x Personal watercraft, the use of which is limited to 10 designated areas (which include the Long 

Point and Great Island ferry landing areas and along portions of the soundside of Shackleford 

Banks) would have long-term adverse impacts on soundscapes. Maximum personal watercraft 
Soundscapes/Acoustic Environment 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 467

noise levels at 50 feet ranged from 68 to 76 dBA (NPS 2004a). Personal watercraft noise levels at 

Cape Lookout would be 73 dBA when operating 50-feet from the shoreline, decreasing to 68 

dBA 100 feet from the shoreline, and 63 dBA 200 feet from the shoreline (assuming personal 

watercraft are operating at normal speed and obeying regulations). All personal watercraft 

operating within Cape Lookout are required to operate at flat-wake speed. 

x Hunting, which can generate high-intensity sound levels from weapons firing (130 dBA +) would 

have long-term adverse impacts on soundscapes. Hunting is permitted at Cape Lookout in 

designated areas in accordance with state and federal regulations (NPS 2013b). 

x Diesel electricity generators at some of the cabins and the Light Station Visitor Center would 

have long-term adverse impacts within a localized area near the cabins. The long-range 

interpretive plan recommends replacement of the generators at the visitor center with an 

alternative/cleaner power source (NPS 2011k). 

x Small aircraft and military aircraft. United States Marine Corps conducts training flights in the 

Core Military Operations Area, which covers the North Core Banks and all but the southernmost 

portion of the South Core Banks. During the Wilson’s plover and colonial waterbird nesting 

seasons from April through August in 2010 and April through August in 2011 there were 249 

military aircraft flights in the Core Military Operations Area (Virginia Tech 2012). In 2008, NPS 

and United States Marine Corps agreed to lower the minimum altitude for tactical speed of the 

Core Military Operation Area from 10,000 feet to 3,000 feet above ground level. Soundscapes 

monitoring conducted in conjunction with a study of potential impacts on birds found that for 29 

flights below 10,000 feet, the Lmax was 67.7. For eight flights near 3,000 feet above ground level, 

the Lmax was 79.7 dBA. Aircraft overflights are expected to continue to have long-term adverse 

impacts on soundscapes in the future. 

Past, present and future construction actions such as dredging Beaufort Inlet and the rehabilitation of 

historic structures have short-term and intermittent adverse impacts on soundscapes. Dredging involves 

extensive marine engine use (discussed above) and other heavy-duty equipment; while rehabilitation of 

historic structures primarily involves hand power tools and trucks to transport building materials (creating 

impacts similar to those analyzed for ORV passbys). 

A past action that continues to influence soundscapes is the Finding of No Significant Impact for the Cape 

Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

(2007r), which prohibited ORVs from driving between mile markers 41a and 41b, Power Squadron Spit, 

the interior of the point of Cape Lookout, and on Portsmouth Flats. Interim management measures to 

protect special-status species such as the piping plover and sea turtle also affect soundscapes by rerouting 

ORV traffic to the back route, thereby reducing human-caused sound intrusion on the beach, but 

increasing it on the bay side and through the use of ATVs by NPS staff for implementation of resource 

protection measures. 

The Cape Lookout GMP was established in 1982. The 1982 GMP provided the framework that allowed 

existing ferry service and ORV travel on the islands to continue, as well as improvements to visitor and 

administrative facilities. Additional visitor accommodations were constructed at Great Island and Long 

Point as a result of the 2001 GMP amendment, increasing the maximum potential overnight visitors and 

increasing potential human-caused sound, such as ORVs. The 2001 amendment also resulted in 

temporary construction noise disturbance from building demolition, but subsequently returned to normal 

levels. In 2012, the Seashore completed their Foundation Document (NPS 2012s), which details priority 

projects and planning needs. To the extent that the priority planning efforts detailed Foundation 

Document allows for future development, impacts to soundscape would include temporary noise from 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

468 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

construction projects, and increased noise levels from visitation in newly developed areas, should that 

occur.

The overall combined impacts of these past, current, and future actions on soundscapes would be longterm adverse. However, the geographic and temporal extent of soundscapes impacts would be greatly 

variable across the Seashore. Human-caused sounds would be most prevalent near the ferry landing sites 

and cabin camps where they are consistent with the use of these areas. In more remote areas along the 

beach or back route, human-caused sounds would be rare and undisturbed natural soundscapes would be 

the predominant condition. Aircraft overflights would be the predominant human-caused sound during the 

winter season when visitor centers and other services are not open. Marine engine noise would be the 

main the contributor to cumulative impacts at ferry landings between April and November. ORV noise 

would be main contributor to cumulative impacts away from the ferry landings. These impacts, combined 

with the long-term adverse impacts under alternative A, would likely result in long-term adverse 

cumulative impacts. Alternative A would not offset the adverse impacts of these other impacts because 

ORV use would continue similar to existing conditions (including night time use, use of ATVs, and no 

limit on total use level). 

ALTERNATIVE B

Impacts of Alternative B 

Under alternative B, ORV use (by visitors and by NPS for administrative purposes) would continue at the 

Seashore and the general patterns (geographic and seasonal) and intensity of ORV use would be similar to 

the description of the impacts of alternative A. As with alternative A, up to 81 percent of the Seashore 

beaches would be available for ORV use from March 16 through December 31 under alternative B. 

However, alternative B includes restrictions on certain types of ATVs and UTVs, night driving 

restrictions, back route improvements and a permit system that would slightly reduce ORV impacts on 

soundscapes relative to alternative A, as discussed below. 

Under alternative B, all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs (as defined by 

the manufacturer) would be prohibited after a five-year grace period. This provision would eliminate the 

noisiest vehicle types11 from the Seashore and would likely have a long-term beneficial impact on 

soundscapes. However, the specific number of high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs being 

used at the Seashore is not known, therefore it is not possible to determine the extent to which motorized 

intrusions on natural soundscapes would be reduced relative to existing conditions as a result of this 

requirement. There is also insufficient data available to characterize the Lmax level of the ATVs eliminated 

by this requirement in comparison to those that would be allowed. ATV noise levels vary model to model 

and depend on numerous design and operation characteristics. No data were located identifying sound 

levels specific to high-performance or sport-model ATVs. Therefore, it is not possible to make a 

conclusive comparison between typical ATVs and high-performance sport-model ATVs. 

 

11 No studies specifically addressing two-stroke and high-performance ATV noise characteristics compared to other 

types of ATVs were located in a literature search. However, two-stroke engines tend to generate higher noise levels 

than four-stroke engines in other types of vehicles that have been studied in detail, including snowmobiles 

(Yellowstone National Park Winter Use Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement). Therefore, it is 

reasonable to conclude two-stroke ATVs generate higher noise levels than four-stroke ATVs. In general, high 

performance engines are capable of generating higher maximum noise levels than typical engines for a given type of 

vehicle. 
Soundscapes/Acoustic Environment 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 469

Under alternative B, night driving would be prohibited from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. from May 1 through August 

31. There would be no impact on soundscapes during the night hours when the prohibition is in effect (no 

change in listening area/alerting distance/visitor experience). This is a beneficial effect on soundscapes 

because overnight visitors may be especially sensitive to motorized sounds occurring at night. 

The back route would be retained under alternative B. Regular maintenance of the back route would occur 

and pull-outs along the back route would be provided for opposing vehicles to pass each other and 

designated campsites would be established along the back route for emergency camping. As a result of 

these changes to the back route, it is possible that ORV travel on the back route could increase slightly 

relative to alternative A. 

The permit system (with fees) established under alternative B could result in reduced ORV use relative to 

alternative A (depending on the sensitivity of visitors to price) and result in long-term beneficial impacts 

on soundscapes. As discussed in the “Socioeconomics Resources” section, the precise effect of this 

change is uncertain, but is anticipated to be in the range of 10 to 30 percent decrease in ORV visitors. 

Table 60 shows the range of Leq sound level changes associated with a 10 to 30 percent reduction in ORV 

volumes on the beach. The difference between a 10 percent reduction and a 30 percent reduction in ORVs 

in terms of Leq is negligible. Because of the logarithmic nature of decibels (dBs), it would take a doubling 

or halving of the number of ORVs to result in a 3 dBA change in Leq (all other factors held constant). The 

3 dBA criterion would not be exceeded at the modeled receptors under either the 10 percent or 30 percent 

ORV volume reduction scenarios. 

Table 61 compares the change from natural ambient under alternative A with the change from natural 

ambient with the reduced ORV volumes on the beach under alternative B. Overall, the differences are 

minor. In terms of average use, the difference is 0.3 dBA or less. The difference is greater under peak use, 

with the hypothetical 30 percent reduction in ORV volumes under alternative B resulting in up to 0.7 

dBA less change in the natural ambient than alternative A. 

As shown in table 62, a 10 percent to 30 percent reduction in ORV volumes would also slightly reduce 

soundscape impacts of ORV operations on the back route. 

Pedestrian-only areas would be same as alternative A. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative B 

The past, present, and future actions discussed under the cumulative impact scenario for alternative A 

would be the same under alternative B and would result in long-term and adverse impacts to soundscapes. 

These impacts, combined with the long-term beneficial impacts under alternative B, would likely result in 

long-term adverse and beneficial cumulative impacts. While adverse effects on soundscapes from other 

actions occurring at the Seashore would still exist, actions under alternative B (such as prohibition of 

high-performance sport-model ATVs, limitations on night driving and the permit system) would offset 

some of the adverse effects. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

470 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

TABLE 60: ALTERNATIVE B LEQ MODELING RESULTS—IMPACT OF BEACH ORV USE

Receptor 

ID

Natural

Ambient 

(dBA) 

Average Use- 10% Reduction 

in ORVs 

Peak Use- 10% Reduction in 

ORVs

Average Use- 30% Reduction 

in ORVs 

Peak Use- 30% Reduction in 

ORVs

Modeled 

ORV

Leq(h)

dBA 

Total 

Leq(h)

dBA 

Change 

from

Natural

Ambient 

(dBA) 

Modeled 

ORV

Leq(h)

dBA 

Total 

Leq(h)

dBA 

Change 

from

Natural

Ambient 

(dBA) 

Modeled 

ORV

Leq(h)

dBA 

Total 

Leq(h)

dBA 

Change 

from

Natural

Ambient 

(dBA) 

Modeled 

ORV

Leq(h)

dBA 

Total 

Leq(h)

dBA 

Change 

from

Natural

Ambient 

(dBA) 

R1 73.5 36.5 73.5 0.0 41.9 73.5 0.0 36 73.5 0.0 41 73.5 0.0 

R2 60.8 41.4 60.8 0.0 46.8 61.0 0.2 40.8 60.8 0.0 45.8 60.9 0.1 

R3 56.8 49.4 57.5 0.7 54.8 58.9 2.1 48.9 57.5 0.7 53.9 58.6 1.8 

R4 55.0 49.3 56.0 1.0 54.8 57.9 2.9 48.8 55.9 0.9 53.8 57.5 2.5 

R5 53.3 42.2 53.6 0.3 47.6 54.3 1.0 41.7 53.6 0.3 46.7 54.2 0.9 

R6 52.3 38.6 52.5 0.2 44 52.9 0.6 38.1 52.5 0.2 43.1 52.8 0.5 

R7 51.5 37.0 51.7 0.2 42.4 52.0 0.5 36.5 51.6 0.1 41.5 51.9 0.4 

R8 46.1 35.3 46.4 0.3 40.8 47.2 1.1 34.9 46.4 0.3 39.9 47.0 0.9 

R9 45.1 32.6 45.3 0.2 38.1 45.9 0.8 32.2 45.3 0.2 37.1 45.7 0.6 

R10 44.1 30.5 44.3 0.2 36 44.7 0.6 30.1 44.3 0.2 35 44.6 0.5 

R11 43.1 29.5 43.3 0.2 35 43.7 0.6 29.1 43.3 0.2 34 43.6 0.5 

R12 42.6 28.0 42.7 0.1 33.5 43.1 0.5 27.6 42.7 0.1 32.6 43.0 0.4 

R13 41.7 26.7 41.8 0.1 32.2 42.2 0.5 26.3 41.8 0.1 31.3 42.1 0.4 

R14 41.0 26.0 41.1 0.1 31.5 41.5 0.5 25.6 41.1 0.1 30.5 41.4 0.4 

R15 40.1 24.8 40.2 0.1 30.2 40.5 0.4 24.4 40.2 0.1 29.3 40.4 0.3 

R16 39.0 23.2 39.1 0.1 28.7 39.4 0.4 22.8 39.1 0.1 27.7 39.3 0.3 

R17 38.2 21.7 38.3 0.1 27.2 38.5 0.3 21.3 38.3 0.1 26.2 38.5 0.3 

R18 36.6 19.5 36.7 0.1 24.9 36.9 0.3 19 36.7 0.1 24 36.8 0.2 
Soundscapes/Acoustic Environment 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 471

TABLE 61: COMPARISON OF IMPACT OF BEACH ORV USE, ALTERNATIVE A VERSUS ALTERNATIVE B

Receptor 

ID

Natural Ambient 

(dBA) 

Average Use- Change From Natural Ambient Peak Use- Change From Natural Ambient 

Alternative A 

Alternative B 

30% Reduction Difference Alternative A 

Alternative B 

30% Reduction Difference

R1 73.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

R2 60.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 -0.1 

R3 56.8 0.9 0.7 -0.2 2.3 1.8 -0.5 

R4 55.0 1.2 0.9 -0.3 3.1 2.5 -0.7 

R5 53.3 0.4 0.3 -0.1 1.1 0.9 -0.3 

R6 52.3 0.2 0.2 -0.1 0.7 0.5 -0.2 

R7 51.5 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.6 0.4 -0.1 

R8 46.1 0.4 0.3 -0.1 1.2 0.9 -0.3 

R9 45.1 0.3 0.2 -0.1 0.9 0.6 -0.2 

R10 44.1 0.2 0.2 -0.1 0.7 0.5 -0.2 

R11 43.1 0.2 0.2 -0.1 0.7 0.5 -0.2 

R12 42.6 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.5 0.4 -0.1 

R13 41.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.4 -0.1 

R14 41.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.4 -0.1 

R15 40.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.3 -0.1 

R16 39.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.3 -0.1 

R17 38.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.3 -0.1 

R18 36.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 -0.1 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

472 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

TABLE 62: ALTERNATIVE B LEQ MODELING RESULTS—IMPACT OF BACK ROUTE ORV USE

Receptor 

ID

Natural

Ambient 

(dBA) 

Average Use- 10% Reduction 

in ORVs 

Peak Use- 10% Reduction in 

ORVs

Average Use- 30% Reduction 

in ORVs 

Peak Use- 30% Reduction in 

ORVs

Modeled 

ORV

Leq(h)

dBA 

Total 

Leq(h)

dBA 

Change 

from

Natural

Ambient 

(dBA) 

Modeled 

ORV

Leq(h)

dBA 

Total 

Leq(h)

dBA 

Change 

from

Natural

Ambient 

(dBA) 

Modeled 

ORV

Leq(h)

dBA 

Total 

Leq(h)

dBA 

Change 

from

Natural

Ambient 

(dBA) 

Modeled 

ORV

Leq(h)

dBA 

Total 

Leq(h)

dBA 

Change 

from

Natural

Ambient 

(dBA) 

R1 73.5 23.5 73.5 0.0 29 73.5 0.0 23.1 73.5 0.0 28 73.5 0.0 

R2 60.8 24.6 60.8 0.0 30.1 60.8 0.0 24.2 60.8 0.0 29.1 60.8 0.0 

R3 56.8 29.2 56.8 0.0 34.7 56.8 0.0 28.8 56.8 0.0 33.8 56.8 0.0 

R4 55.0 29.3 55.0 0.0 34.8 55.0 0.0 28.9 55.0 0.0 33.8 55.0 0.0 

R5 53.3 31.1 53.3 0.0 36.6 53.4 0.1 30.7 53.3 0.0 35.6 53.4 0.1 

R6 52.3 32.3 52.3 0.0 37.7 52.4 0.1 31.8 52.3 0.0 36.8 52.4 0.1 

R7 51.5 33.6 51.6 0.1 39 51.7 0.2 33.1 51.6 0.1 38.1 51.7 0.2 

R8 46.1 34.2 46.4 0.3 39.6 47.0 0.9 33.7 46.3 0.2 38.7 46.8 0.7 

R9 45.1 36.5 45.7 0.6 42 46.8 1.7 36.1 45.6 0.5 41 46.5 1.4 

R10 44.1 41 45.8 1.7 46.4 48.4 4.3 40.5 45.7 1.6 45.5 47.9 3.8 

R11 43.1 49.4 50.3 7.2 54.8 55.1 12.0 48.8 49.8 6.7 53.8 54.2 11.1 

R12 42.6 49.3 50.1 7.5 54.7 55.0 12.4 48.7 49.7 7.1 53.7 54.0 11.4 

R13 41.7 39.8 43.9 2.2 45.2 46.8 5.1 39.3 43.7 2.0 44.3 46.2 4.5 

R14 41.0 35.7 42.1 1.1 41.2 44.1 3.1 35.3 42.0 1.0 40.2 43.6 2.6 

R15 40.1 32.1 40.7 0.6 37.6 42.0 1.9 31.7 40.7 0.6 36.7 41.7 1.6 

R16 39.0 28.7 39.4 0.4 34.2 40.2 1.2 28.3 39.4 0.4 33.2 40.0 1.0 

R17 38.2 26.4 38.5 0.3 31.9 39.1 0.9 26 38.5 0.3 30.9 38.9 0.7 

R18 36.6 23.1 36.8 0.2 28.6 37.2 0.6 22.7 36.8 0.2 27.6 37.1 0.5 
Soundscapes/Acoustic Environment 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 473

ALTERNATIVE C

Impacts of Alternative C 

Under alternative C, ORV use (by visitors and by NPS for administrative purposes) would continue at the 

Seashore and the general patterns (geographic and seasonal) and intensity of ORV use would be similar to 

the description of the impacts of alternative A. However, alternative C would reduce the percentage of the 

beach open to ORVs from the Friday preceding Memorial Day through Labor Day when compared to 

alternative A (74 percent instead of 81 percent). This increase in pedestrian-only areas would reduce the 

geographic extent of the area potentially affected by ORV noise, resulting in long-term beneficial effects 

on soundscapes in those areas. 

Under alternative C, non-sport ATVs and UTVs would be permitted between September 15 and 

December 15. During other times of the year, ATVs and UTVs would not be permitted. ORV-related 

impacts on soundscapes would be lower during the months where ATVs would be prohibited because 

ATVs are generally noisier than automobiles. For example, based on the Lmax analysis, the impact on 

natural soundscapes of an auto operating on the beach would be 7.7 dBA less at 20 feet than the impact of 

an ATV (table 63). Similar to alternative B, all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and 

UTVs (as defined by the manufacturer) would be prohibited under alternative C after a five-year grace 

period. No data were located identifying sound levels specific to high-performance sport-model ATVs. 

Therefore, it is not possible to make a conclusive comparison between typical ATVs and highperformance sport-model ATVs. 

TABLE 63: ALTERNATIVE C LMAX RESULTS—IMPACT OF ELIMINATING ATVS

Receptor ID Natural Ambient (dBA) 

Difference in Impact on Natural Ambient, Auto vs. ATV 

Beach Back route 

R1 73.5 -0.2 0.0 

R2 60.8 -4.1 -0.2 

R3 56.8 -7.6 -0.7 

R4 55.0 -7.7 -1.1 

R5 53.3 -6.9 -1.8 

R6 52.3 -6.4 -2.5 

R7 51.5 -6.2 -5.2 

R8 46.1 -6.0 -7.0 

R9 45.1 -5.8 -7.5 

R10 44.1 -5.5 -7.8 

R11 43.1 -5.4 -8.0 

R12 42.6 -5.3 -8.0 

R13 41.7 -5.2 -7.8 

R14 41.0 -5.1 -7.7 

R15 40.1 -5.0 -7.6 

R16 39.0 -4.9 -7.4 

R17 38.2 -4.8 -7.2 

R18 36.6 -4.8 -7.0 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

474 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Another way of understanding the impact of the elimination of ATVs outside the September 15 through 

December 15 time period is with Leq(h) modeling. Table 64 summarizes the results of the Leq modeling 

conducted to test the effect of eliminating ATVs. The modeling results are based on the peak fall level of 

ORV (100 percent auto) use and the assumption that 13 percent of the ORV fleet consists of ATVs under 

existing conditions (based on 2007-2012 ferry data, see the “Methodology” section). At a distance of 20 

feet, the elimination of ATVs reduces the ORV impact to natural ambient by up to 1.0 dBA on the beach 

and 2.1 dBA on the back route. The reduction would be higher closer to the vehicle path and is smaller at 

more distant locations from the vehicle path. For reference, a 10 dBA increase is sometimes perceived by 

humans as being twice as loud; while a 3 dBA increase is a barely perceptible change. A 10 dBA increase 

is equivalent to a 90 percent reduction in listening area, compared to a 50 percent reduction with a 3 dBA 

increase.

TABLE 64: ALTERNATIVE C LEQ MODELING RESULTS—IMPACT OF ELIMINATING ATVS

Receptor 

ID

Natural

Ambient 

(dBA) 

Peak Use On Beach, No 

ATVs 

Peak Use On Back route, No 

ATVs 

Change in 

impact on 

natural 

ambient 

from

Eliminating 

ATVs, on 

beach 

Change in 

impact on 

natural 

ambient 

from

Eliminating 

ATVs, on 

back route 

Modeled 

ORV

Leq(h)

dBA 

Total 

Leq(h)

dBA 

Change 

from

Natural

Ambient 

(dBA) 

Modeled 

ORV

Leq(h)

dBA 

Total 

Leq(h)

dBA 

Change 

from

Natural

Ambient 

(dBA) 

R1 73.5 39.1 73.5 0.0 25.8 73.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 

R2 60.8 44.5 60.9 0.1 26.9 60.8 0.0 -0.1 0.0 

R3 56.8 52.9 58.3 1.5 31.5 56.8 0.0 -0.8 0.0 

R4 55.0 52.9 57.1 2.1 31.3 55.0 0.0 -1.0 0.0 

R5 53.3 45.5 54.0 0.7 33.1 53.3 0.0 -0.5 -0.1 

R6 52.3 41.5 52.6 0.3 34.5 52.4 0.1 -0.3 -0.1 

R7 51.5 39.8 51.8 0.3 36.2 51.6 0.1 -0.3 -0.1 

R8 46.1 37.7 46.7 0.6 36.7 46.6 0.5 -0.6 -0.5 

R9 45.1 34.7 45.5 0.4 39.3 46.1 1.0 -0.5 -0.9 

R10 44.1 32.6 44.4 0.3 44.2 47.2 3.1 -0.4 -1.5 

R11 43.1 31.5 43.4 0.3 52.9 53.3 10.2 -0.4 -2.1 

R12 42.6 30.1 42.8 0.2 52.8 53.2 10.6 -0.3 -2.1 

R13 41.7 28.9 41.9 0.2 42.8 45.3 3.6 -0.3 -1.8 

R14 41.0 28.1 41.2 0.2 38.4 42.9 1.9 -0.3 -1.4 

R15 40.1 26.9 40.3 0.2 34.4 41.1 1.0 -0.3 -1.1 

R16 39.0 25.4 39.2 0.2 31 39.6 0.6 -0.2 -0.7 

R17 38.2 24.1 38.4 0.2 28.7 38.7 0.5 -0.2 -0.5 

R18 36.6 22 36.7 0.1 25.4 36.9 0.3 -0.2 -0.4 

Alternative C would include a permit system (with fees) and an annual limit on the number of ORVs 

based on historical use levels. The limit is expected to be similar to existing use levels (2,500 permits 

annually for North Core Banks and 3,000 permits annually for South Core Banks). This provision would 

prevent ORV use and associated soundscape impacts from increasing over time as could occur under 
Soundscapes/Acoustic Environment 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 475

alternative A and B. In addition, the permit fees could potentially reduce ORV use by 10 to 30 percent, 

with corresponding minor beneficial impacts on soundscapes as was discussed above for alternative B. 

Similar to alternative B, the back route would be retained under alternative C; regular maintenance of the 

back route would occur and pull-outs along the back route would be provided for opposing vehicles to 

pass each other. As a result of these changes to the back route, it is possible that ORV travel on the back 

route could increase slightly relative to alternative A and would be similar to those impacts described 

under alternative B. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative C 

The past, present, and future actions discussed under the cumulative impact scenario for alternative A 

would be the same under alternative C and would result in long-term and adverse impacts to soundscapes. 

These impacts, combined with the long-term beneficial impacts under alternative C, would likely result in 

long-term adverse and beneficial cumulative impacts. While adverse effects on soundscapes from other 

actions occurring at the Seashore would still exist, actions under alternative C (such as increased 

pedestrian-only areas, limits on ORV permits and limiting ATV use to the period between September 15 

and December 15) would offset some of the adverse effects. 

ALTERNATIVE D

Impacts of Alternative D 

ORVs would be used at the Seashore by visitors and by NPS for administrative purposes under alternative 

D. Alternative D would involve most of the same management changes discussed above for alternative C. 

As a result, the impact of alternative D would be similar, but less than alternative C. The differences with 

alternative D include greater limits on the percent of the beach open to ORVs during different times of the 

year, which would reduce the geographic extent of impacts on soundscapes. The number of annual ORV 

permits would also be reduced under alternative D by 8 percent, relative to alternative C (designed to 

prevent the density of ORVs from increasing). The lower average ORV density would result in reduced 

intensity of impacts on soundscapes on an annual average basis, although there is no guarantee that peak 

fishing season ORV access would be reduced. 

Finally, alternative D would eliminate all ATVs year-round. The numerical impact of eliminating ATVs 

in terms of Lmax and Leq is shown in tables 63 and 64 (under the discussion for alternative C, above). The 

beneficial effects of eliminating ATVs would be greatest for visitors/wildlife in close proximity to the 

vehicle operating path (e.g., within 20-50 feet). The results show 5 to 6 dBA Lmax reductions over much of 

the modeled area with the elimination of ATVs on the beach and larger reductions (7 dBA) with the 

elimination of ATVs on the back route. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative D 

The past, present, and future actions discussed under the cumulative impact scenario for alternative A 

would be the same under alternative D and would cause long-term and adverse impacts to soundscapes. 

These impacts, combined with the long-term beneficial impacts under alternative D, would likely result in 

long-term adverse and beneficial cumulative impacts. While adverse effects soundscapes from other 

actions occurring at the Seashore would still exist, actions under alternative D (such as increased 

pedestrian-only areas, limits on vehicle permits and prohibition of ATV use) would offset some of the 

adverse effects. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

476 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

ALTERNATIVE E

Impacts of Alternative E 

Public ORV access would be closed under alternative E. NPS ORV use for official purposes would 

continue, but the overall impact on soundscapes from official ORV use would be negligible due to the 

low number of trips anticipated (less than 10 per day in summer/fall). The difference in natural 

soundscapes would be the most noticeable during the peak fishing season when currently there are the 

most ORVs. The effect of alternative E would be prominent near the back route where lower existing 

sound levels make ORV noise audible across greater distances than on the beach. At other times of the 

year and in other locations (such as visitors close to the surf), the elimination of ORV use would not 

result in a meaningful change in soundscapes because typical ORV use is infrequent and masked by the 

surf.

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative E 

The past, present, and future actions discussed under the cumulative impact scenario for alternative A 

would be the same under alternative E and would result in long-term and adverse impacts to soundscapes. 

These impacts, combined with the long-term beneficial impacts under alternative E, would likely result in 

long-term adverse and beneficial cumulative impacts. While adverse effects on soundscapes from other 

actions occurring at the Seashore would still exist, actions under alternative E (e.g., prohibition of ORV 

use) would offset some of the adverse effects. 

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative B would result in fewer impacts than alternative A through various management measures, 

including prohibition of high-performance sport-model ATVs and limits on night driving. Alternative B 

would result in greater impacts to soundscapes than alternative E because ORV use would be permitted. 

Alternative C would result in fewer impacts than alternative A through various management measures, 

including reduced area of beach available for ORV use (74 percent of Seashore beach would be available 

for ORV use from the Friday preceding Memorial Day through Labor Day (compared to 81 percent under 

alternative A), a limit on vehicle permits, and limiting ATV use to the period between September 15 and 

December 15. Alternative C would result in greater impacts to soundscapes than alternative E because 

ORV use would be permitted. 

Alternative D would result in fewer impacts than alternative A through various management measures, 

including reduced area of beach available for ORV use (63 percent of Seashore beach would be available 

for ORV use from the Friday preceding Memorial Day through Labor Day (compared to 81 percent under 

alternatives A), a limits on vehicle permits, and prohibition of ATV use. Alternative D would result in 

greater impacts to soundscapes than alternative E because visitor auto/truck use would be permitted. 

Alternative E would result in fewer impacts to soundscapes than alternative A because all ORV use would 

be eliminated (low levels of NPS administrative ORV use would continue under alternative E). 

CONCLUSION

All the action alternatives would have beneficial impacts on soundscapes because of management 

measures that would limit the extent and intensity of ORV activity (e.g., increased pedestrian-only areas, 

limitations on night driving or certain types of ORVs). Alternative D would eliminate the noisiest type of 

ORVs entirely (ATVs) and alternative E would eliminate all ORVs. Impacts of alternative B would be 
Soundscapes/Acoustic Environment 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 477

slightly less than alternative A, while impacts of alternative E would be less than alternative B. Similar to 

alternative A, none of the action alternatives would result in significant adverse impacts. The overall 

character of the Seashore soundscapes would remain consistent with a remote barrier island environment. 

Significance Discussion 

The purpose of the Seashore is to preserve the outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational resources 

and values of a dynamic, intact, natural barrier island system where ecological processes dominate. The 

Seashore is one of the few remaining locations on the Atlantic coast where visitors can experience and 

recreate in an undeveloped, remote barrier island environment that can be reached only by boat or ferry. 

ORV use at the Seashore predates establishment of the Seashore in 1976. ORV use at the Seashore is 

limited to some degree by ferry size and availability, with an estimated 5,500 ORVs transported to the 

Seashore each year. While ORV use is generally low through most of the year, it does intermittently 

impact the natural soundscapes of the Seashore. However, the majority of ORV activity occurs on the 

beach side of the islands where surf and wind sounds are prominent. Other human sounds influencing 

soundscapes at the Seashore include various watercraft and aircraft overflights. Overall soundscape 

quality remains high and consistent with the character of the Seashore as evidenced by the L90 sound level 

of 35.9 dBA during the day and 42.9 dBA at night during monitoring in 2008. 

Tables 56 through 64 define the intensity of impacts of the alternatives in terms of Leq and Lmax metrics. 

The unique characteristics of the seashore were taken into account by incorporating natural ambient data 

based on monitoring in the impact assessment and accounting for the masking provided by the surf. Even 

under peak use (which occurs for relatively few days per year), exceedances of 3 dBA over the natural 

ambient in terms of Leq(h) would be limited to within 20 feet of the vehicle operating path on the beach. 

Impact of operating on the back route would be higher than the impacts of operating on the beach because 

of the lower natural ambient on the sound side of the islands (located farther away from surf sounds). 

However, the frequency of ORV operations on the back route is generally lower than on the beach. 

Considering these facts and the low level of ORV use under alternatives A, B, C, and D, none of these 

alternatives would result in significant adverse impacts to natural soundscapes. Alternatives B, C, and D 

would have beneficial effects on soundscapes relative to alternative A from the implementation of various 

management measures such as limits on certain types of vehicles and the permit system, among others. 

Alternative E would eliminate ORV use and thus would have beneficial impacts on soundscapes. 

There are no applicable laws pertaining specifically to soundscapes at the Seashore. Director’s Order 47 

and the NPS Management Policies 2006 set a certain general policy direction with respect to soundscapes 

management, but do not set any absolute standard. The ambient noise levels at the Seashore would be 

well below levels that would constitute a public health concern.12

Under alternatives A, B, C, and D, designating legal routes for ORV use does not establish a precedent for 

future actions with significant effects, as ORV use has occurred at the Seashore since the 1930s and 

continued since the establishment of the Seashore as a park unit in 1976, and the current and proposed 

ORV management measures result in a low overall level of impacts to soundscapes. ORV use is also 

currently legally permitted in several other national seashores and recreation areas, and in this regard is 

not precedent-setting within the national park system. As described above, ORV use also does not cause 

significant impacts to soundscapes, in part because of the management measures taken by the Seashore, 

 

12 For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration limit for occupational exposure is 85 dBA 

averaged over 8 hours. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

478 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

as well as the adaptive management strategy in alternatives B, C, and D, which would further strengthen 

mitigation measures/limits on ORV use. Alternative E, which prohibits ORV use, would also not establish 

a precedent for future actions with significant effects on soundscapes, as many other national park units 

do not allow ORV use. 

There are a number of cumulative impacts to soundscapes, described in the impacts analysis above, which 

may be short- and long-term, limited, and adverse, as well as long-term beneficial. However, while 

adverse effects to soundscapes from other actions occurring in the region would still exist, actions under 

alternatives A, B, C, D, and E would provide additional protections that would be beneficial to 

soundscapes and would partially mitigate any adverse cumulative impacts already occurring. 

In conclusion, compared to the existing condition, additional impacts to soundscapes under alternatives A, 

B, C, D, and E would be small. The Seashore has in place ORV management and mitigation measures 

that would continue and even be strengthened in the action alternatives. When compared to the existing 

condition, in light of the significance criteria at 40 CFR 1508.27, there would be no significant adverse 

impacts to soundscapes from alternatives A, B, C, D, or E. 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

GUIDING REGULATIONS AND POLICIES

Congress authorized the establishment of Cape Lookout National Seashore as a unit of the NPS “to 

preserve for public use and enjoyment an area in the State of North Carolina possessing outstanding 

natural and recreational values” (Seashore’s enabling legislation; Act of March 10, 1966 [16 USC 459g]). 

The enabling legislation, as amended, further states that “[t]he Secretary shall administer the Cape 

Lookout National Seashore for the general purposes of public outdoor recreation, including conservation 

of natural features contributing to public enjoyment” (16 USC 459g-4). Management goals related to 

ORV use are included in the Seashore’s GMP (1982), which states, “Use of private vehicles on Core 

banks and Portsmouth Island will be allowed to continue. Drivers will be directed, through appropriate 

regulations, to avoid dunes, vegetation, loggerhead turtles and shorebird nesting areas, and conflicts with 

other visitor activities.” The 2001 amendment to the GMP addressed improvements to overnight 

accommodations and transportation services to persons visiting North Core Banks (excluding the 

Portsmouth Village area) and South Core Banks, and is also applicable to visitor use and experience 

under this planning effort. 

NPS Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006d) state that the enjoyment of park resources and values by 

people of the United States is part of the fundamental purpose of all parks and that the NPS is committed 

to providing appropriate, high-quality opportunities for visitors to enjoy the parks. 

Section 1.5 of NPS Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006d) states that in its role as steward of park 

resources, the NPS must ensure that park uses that are allowed would not cause impairment of, or 

unacceptable impacts on, park resources and values. When proposed park uses and the protection of park 

resources and values come into conflict, the protection of resources and values must be predominant. 

Appropriate visitor enjoyment is often associated with the resource conditions and inspirational qualities 

of parks. As a general matter, preferred forms of enjoyment are those that are uniquely suited to the 

superlative natural and cultural resources found in the parks and that (1) foster an understanding of and 

appreciation for park resources and values, or (2) promote enjoyment through a direct association with, 

interaction with, or relation to park resources. These preferred forms of use contribute to the personal 

growth and well-being of visitors by taking advantage of the inherent educational value of parks. Equally 

important, many appropriate uses also contribute to the health and personal fitness of park visitors. These 

are the types of uses that the Service will actively promote, in accordance with the Organic Act. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 479

As stated in NPS Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006d), off-road motor vehicle use in national park 

units is governed by Executive Order 11644 (Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands, as amended by 

Executive Order 11989), and 36 CFR 4.10. ORV routes and areas may be allowed only in locations where 

there would be no adverse impacts on the area’s natural, cultural, scenic, and esthetic values, and in 

consideration of other existing or proposed recreational uses. The Executive Orders require that ORV 

routes and areas be located to minimize conflicts between ORV use and other existing or proposed 

recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands and to ensure the compatibility of such uses 

with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account noise and other factors. 

While recreation is a key component of the NPS Management Policies 2006, the policies also instruct 

park units to maintain all native plants and animals as parts of the natural ecosystem. The NPS would 

achieve this by preserving and restoring the natural abundances, diversities, dynamics, distributions, 

habitats, and behaviors of native plant and animal populations and the communities and ecosystems in 

which they occur (NPS 2006d). 

In addition, the Seashore has identified objectives for communicating with the general public and visitor 

population that enjoy the recreational opportunities and natural and cultural resources provided by the 

Seashore. Communication and information sharing is an integral component of ensuring visitor 

satisfaction. Thus, the proposed plan should also accomplish the following: 

x Continue an ongoing and meaningful dialogue with the multiple public groups interested in 

and/or affected by ORV management. 

x Establish procedures for prompt and efficient public notification of management actions (for 

example, beach access status) including any temporary ORV use restrictions for reasons such as 

resource and public safety closures or storm events. 

x Build stewardship through public awareness and understanding of NPS resource management and 

visitor use policies and responsibilities as they pertain to the Seashore and ORV management. 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS

Quantitative information was used to assess the overall impact of ORV management on the supply of 

available recreational resources. This assessment considers the availability of ORV recreational 

opportunities to assess the level of impacts for each action. The planning team incorporated the comments 

received during public scoping and the history of ORV use at the Seashore to help make a determination 

of the level of impact on visitor use and experience. Data used in this analysis, including visitor statistics, 

historical use patterns, visitor use observations obtained from park rangers, and data provided by other 

land management agencies, are presented in chapter 3. 

The likelihood of ORV or full recreational closures and the associated restriction of ORV or pedestrian 

access were also considered in determining visitor use impacts. These closures are dependent on the 

breeding habits of specific species, particularly the piping plover, American oystercatcher, and four 

species of colonial waterbirds, including when the bird species court, establish territory, build nests, and 

lay eggs, as well as when the young first leave the nest to forage for food. Consideration was also given to 

three species of sea turtles, including when turtles establish nests until turtle hatchlings return to the sea. 

However, in times of ORV or full recreational closures, visitors have the opportunity to use the back route 

to access areas of the Seashore. 

Also, in evaluating visitor experience, the Seashore’s enabling legislation was considered so that the 

analysis evaluated the ability of visitors to engage in a desired activity. For example, allowing year-round 

ORV access at the Seashore could provide for enhanced visitor experience and would allow visitors to 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

480 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

engage in a desired activity, but it would not meet the objectives of the ORV management plan/EIS to 

minimize impacts on natural physical resources, wildlife, and wildlife habitat and vegetation, and was 

thus not carried forward as a viable alternative element. Please refer to chapter 2 for more information on 

alternatives considered but dismissed from further analysis. 

STUDY AREA

The geographic study area for the visitor use and experience analysis includes the entire area within the 

Seashore boundary. 

ALTERNATIVE A

Impacts of Alternative A: No Action 

ORV and Full Recreational Closures—In addition to the resource protection measures outlined in the 

Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

(NPS 2006a), the Seashore would implement additional resource management activities to support longterm species protection and recovery goals. Measures that have the potential to impact visitor use and 

experience include authorizing and designating ORV routes from March 16 through December 31, 

restricting ATV and UTV use to the period between March 16 and December 31; and closing the 

Seashore to all vehicles from January 1 through March 15 to provide habitat for wintering species and to 

allow the beach profile to recover from heavy fall fishing use. Further resource management activities that 

would be implemented under alternative A can be found in “Chapter 2: Alternatives.” 

Under alternative A, it is expected that up to approximately 8113 percent of the Seashore’s ocean beach 

(45 out of 56 total miles) would remain designated as ORV routes from March 16 through December 31; 

11 of 56 miles of the Seashore would be closed to ORV use (all of Shackleford Banks, the Cape Lookout 

spit and the beach near the Cape Lookout lighthouse), and all ORV routes would close from January 1 

through March 15 of each year. No other non-ORV areas would be established. Complying with the 

resource protection measures under alternative A would mean the designated routes may be temporarily 

closed for species, resource management and safety when needed (based on data from 2008 through 2013, 

species, resource management and safety closures average approximately 10 miles in the summer, and 5.4 

miles in the fall). ORV users occasionally change their planned route from one Seashore location to 

another. In most cases, the back route would be used as an alternate route. But in some instances, access 

to a preferred location, such as a specific location on the beach, may not be allowed for the duration of a 

visit, or for an entire season if species activity such as nesting, breeding, and fledging are occurring. 

Visitors would also be made aware of the purpose of the species management measures which include 

meeting the Seashore’s obligations under the ESA and park guidance such as the NPS Management 

Policies 2006, and protecting park resources for future generations. Efforts would be made to ensure 

visitors are aware of these closures before they reach the Seashore, including information provided on the 

Seashore’s website and via selected social media websites. Because North and South Core Banks would 

be available for ORV use and access, implementation of resource protection measures would represent an 

inconvenience, resulting in short delays or temporary changes of plans. While ORV users may not be able 

to access a specific area, other comparable areas that offer similar opportunities, such as alternative 

 

13 For alternatives, these percentages are simply a starting point and do not account for any other ORV or full 

recreational closures due to resource protection and safety that may be implemented, as needed, which may adjust 

these percentages. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 481

fishing locations, would be available. However, users would experience inconvenience from having to 

find a different location that could result in a decrease in visitor satisfaction. 

Under alternative A, the back route would be re-established to the same or equivalent locations if certain 

locations are impacted by a storm event. Because the back route is important for management of ORV 

access and species protection, maintenance and repairs to the back route would have long-term benefits to 

visitors of the Seashore as it would maintain access routes around ORV closures, which would continue 

to allow ORV access to remote areas of the Seashore for both resource management activities and 

recreational use. 

However, ORV users would be slightly impacted by management actions that would not provide ferry 

service on sections of Core Banks where no ferry landing access is available, because any new islands 

that might be created due to storm events or other causes would not have ferry landings, and few visitors 

are expected to make the extra effort to bring their own ATVs and UTVs to the island. 

ATV and UTV Use—Under alternative A, ATVs and UTVs would be permitted from March 16 through 

December 31 at the Seashore, which would be a continuation of current management. As a result, ATV 

and UTV users would experience beneficial impacts under alternative A, because operating ATVs and 

UTVs at the Seashore would be allowed. However, continued ATV/UTV use may negatively impact 

visitors who seek a quiet environment at the Seashore, because these vehicles introduce man-made noise 

at the Seashore. 

Camping—While camping is permitted on all of the beaches at the Seashore, some beach areas may be 

closed to camping by the Superintendent’s Compendium, or for temporarily for safety or resource 

protection measures. Potential camping restrictions under alternative A would result in slightly adverse, 

short-term impacts on visitors seeking to camp at the Seashore, as access to some desired camping areas 

may be prohibited. However, since camping is permitted on all of the beaches at the Seashore (pending 

the above mentioned closures), ample room would be available to find an alternative camping location. 

Similarly, campfires under alternative A would only be permitted on the ocean and soundside beaches 

between the mean high tide line and the water. Campfires would be prohibited within turtle closures or 

within 300 feet of American oystercatcher nesting buffers. These campfire restrictions would result in 

slightly adverse, long-term impacts on visitors who desire campfires at the Seashore, since it is possible 

that visitors may be prohibited from having campfires at their preferred location, due to resource closures. 

Permitting and Limits on the Number of Vehicle Permits—Alternative A does not require ORV 

permitting, or an ORV operator education certificate. Thus, unlimited numbers of ORVs could access the 

Seashore, with no requirements related to obtaining an ORV use permit, including any additional 

financial cost to the visitor. Over the short-term, it is not anticipated that this would affect visitor use and 

experience, as it would maintain current conditions which public comments indicate result in a positive 

visitor experience. However, over the long-term, unlimited use without ORV permitting requirements or 

an operator education certification (both potential mechanisms to manage visitation levels) could lead to 

an increase in visitor use levels that result in degradation of park resources, overcrowding, and increased 

conflict between park users, because numbers would be allowed to rise unchecked. The lack of an 

educational certificate may not allow for the full appreciation for and understanding of the Seashore’s 

mission and resources as well as a lack of understanding of the rules and regulations. As a result, 

unfavorable effects (such as degradation of park resources, overcrowding, increases in conflict among 

park users, and a lack of understanding of the rules and regulations) are estimated to be long-term, and 

slightly noticeable. 

Long-Term Vehicle Parking/Storage—Under alternative A, long-term vehicle parking/storage would 

continue to be provided at four parking lots at the Seashore, located at Long Point (North Core Banks), 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

482 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Great Island main lot (South Core Banks), Great Island Carly Dock lot (South Core Banks), and the 

Lighthouse Complex (South Core Banks). A parking permit would continue to be required. There would 

be a fee for the permit, but there would be no limits on the number of long-term parking permits issued. 

While the lack of a limit on the number of long-term parking permits issued could result in beneficial 

impacts to visitors, there is potential for this to also result in slightly adverse impacts to visitors, if the 

long-term parking lots are full and visitors who have purchased a long-term parking permit are not able to 

park there. Visitors may also artificially expand the boundary of these lots, increasing the number of 

vehicles in these lots and detracting from the experience of some visitors who would prefer to see less 

vehicles during their visit. Allowing long-term parking at the Seashore would result in favorable impacts 

on visitor use and experience, even with the slight fee, because ORV users would not be required to 

transport their ORVs to and from the Seashore with each visit, which results in additional cost and 

inconvenience to the visitor. 

ORVs and Other Recreational Uses—Under alternative A, ORVs would be restricted from accessing 

certain areas of the Seashore (see “ORV and Full Recreational Closures”), but up to 81 percent of the 

Seashore would be open for ORV use from March 16 through December 31. The back route would be reestablished to the same or equivalent locations when it is impacted by a storm event for resource 

protection and safety, resulting in beneficial impacts to ORV users because the back route is the primary 

mechanism for traversing the Seashore via ORV, even when there are resource closures. There would be 

occasional maintenance on the back route, as needed. For resource protection and safety, the number and 

location of ramps may be adjusted when they are impacted by a storm event. Ramps would be located or 

re-established on flat sand, between dunes where there would be fewer impacts. As a result of the general 

area that would be available for ORV use, and the maintenance and re-establishment of ramps at the 

Seashore, impacts to ORV users would be long-term and beneficial. 

ORV use at the Seashore would provide access to fishing sites along Seashore beaches, and to fishing 

tournaments. Because fishing is a popular visitor activity at the Seashore, the largely unrestricted access 

would continue to support a valuable visitor experience for this user group. Likewise, access to cabin 

facilities, backcountry camping sites, beaches, and sunbathing areas would continue largely unchanged 

for both ORV and non-ORV users. On occasion, site-specific resource management activities, such as 

ORV or full recreational closures on the beach, could result in changes to access routes and relocation of 

preferred activities, but in most cases, an alternate route would be identified so that ORV users and nonORV users would be able to reach their initial destination or an alternative destination in the vicinity. 

Pedestrian Activities—Pedestrian uses, such as beach walking and shell collecting would continue 

throughout the entire Seashore outside of any full recreational or safety closures. Existing pedestrian use 

is generally focused near vehicle and passenger ferry landings and camps, Power Squadron Spit and 

Shackleford Banks, and access to these areas is not expected to change as sensitive resources are not 

likely to breed or nest at the ferry landing areas or the camps (Ketel 2013). Access to pedestrian use areas 

located away from the ferry landings would remain available by use of the back route to circumvent 

shoreline closures and restricted areas. 

Because ORV use would be permitted on up to approximately 81 percent of the Seashore from March 16 

through December 31, adverse impacts on visitors pursuing an ORV-free seashore experience at the 

Seashore would occur, although they would be slight. This is because the areas that pedestrians would 

most likely access would typically be the areas near ferry landings (since the typical pedestrian visitor 

does not venture far from ferry landings due to the lack of potable water available at the Seashore, and the 

difficulty of walking long distances on the sand), and only the Cape Lookout lighthouse ferry landing area 

has a pedestrian-only beach. There is also a potential for user-conflicts between those that visit the 

Seashore without access to an ORV (who are generally restricted to using the beach adjacent to the ferry 

landing), and those with access to ORVs. Visitors wishing to have an ORV-free experience at the 
Visitor Use and Experience 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 483

Seashore may be adversely impacted because ORVs may inhibit their ability to experience a remote, 

natural, undeveloped setting at the Seashore. Additionally, there may be safety concerns related to ORVs 

driving on a section of beach adjacent to a ferry landing area that has a high density of non-ORV visitors. 

However, visitors would continue to be able to have an ORV-free experience at the Seashore on 

Shackleford Banks, where ORVs would continue to be prohibited. 

For the pedestrians that do choose to walk outside of the ferry landing areas, they would likely encounter 

ORVs which may negatively impact their experience. However, the Seashore would allow for pedestrianonly access on 100 percent of its beaches from January 1 through March 15, which would result in 

favorable impacts on visitors seeking an ORV-free experience. 

Night Driving—ORVs use their headlights to navigate Seashore routes at night. The use of headlights 

and artificial lights at cabin areas used in association with camping (using lanterns, RV lights and 

campfires), contributes to “light pollution” in an otherwise undeveloped area, where this intrusion is not 

anticipated (NPS 2012v). Recent research shows that light that is emitted just above the horizontal plane 

(slightly upwards) is the most likely to cause light pollution (Luginbuhl, Walker, and Wainscoat 2009). 

This reduces night sky viewing opportunities for visitors. Starry night skies and natural darkness are 

important resource values that the National Park Service attempts to protect. National parks hold some of 

the last remaining harbors of darkness and provide an excellent opportunity for the public to experience 

this endangered resource (NPS 2013k). Under alternative A, night driving and headlight use would not 

change, and adverse impacts on night skies due to the lack of night driving restrictions would continue, 

which could potentially degrade night sky viewing opportunities. Conversely, because night driving 

would be allowed at the Seashore under alternative A, impacts to visitors who enjoy fishing at night 

would be long-term and beneficial, because this use would continue. 

ORV and Pedestrian Conflicts—At locations where pedestrians and ORV users would both be present, 

the noise and the sight of vehicles could decrease the visitor experience for those seeking solitude and a 

natural setting. ORVs, through noise and speed, can exclude other users from an area that could otherwise 

have been enjoyed by those visitors. Adverse effects on visitor experience for those seeking an ORV-free 

experience would continue to occur outside pedestrian-only areas, and potentially increase, as visitation to 

the Seashore continues to rise without any limitations on ORV use. Without limits on ORVs accessing the 

Seashore, greater numbers of ORVs are likely to be used in the park, and adverse impacts on visitor 

experience could occur if overcrowded conditions are reached. 

Miscellaneous Vehicle and Operator Requirements—The following vehicle and operator requirements 

would be applicable under alternative A: licensing and registration requirements, compliance with North 

Carolina state laws, drivers must have a valid driver’s license, vehicles with less than three wheels would 

be prohibited, all ATV users must wear a helmet and eye protection, and ORV drivers and passengers 

would be prohibited from sitting on the tailgate or roof or hanging outside of moving vehicles. 

These operator and vehicle requirements would result in essentially no new impacts on ORV users, 

because these requirements are currently in place. The beneficial impacts of these requirements to health 

and safety of all visitors resulting from these equipment requirements would also continue. 

Vehicle Delivery—Visitors would be permitted to deliver ATVs and UTVs noncommercially to the 

Seashore for personal use at designated and marked soundside access points. Other ORVs would only be 

delivered via NPS authorized vehicle ferries. This would continue current management and continue the 

long-term, beneficial impacts to ORV users, because ATV and UTV users would have options on how 

they may transport their ATVs and UTVs to the Seashore and would not notice any change from existing 

operations. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

484 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Shade Shelters—Over time, a number of shade shelters located throughout the Seashore have been 

destroyed by storms. Under alternative A, shade shelters would remain located at four locations 

throughout the Seashore (see table 3) 

Continuing to provide shade shelters at the Seashore would result in continued long-term, beneficial 

impacts on all Seashore visitors, as visitors would be able to escape storms and intense sunlight under 

these shelters, as needed, thus improving their visit to the Seashore. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative A 

Other past, present, and future activities within and surrounding the Seashore have the potential to affect 

visitors and the recreational opportunities supported within the Seashore. 

Until the ORV management plan/EIS is complete, the NPS developed the Interim Off-road Vehicle 

Management Plan and Evaluation of Existing ORV Use at Cape Lookout National Seashore and a Cape

Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan/Environmental Assessment and 

FONSI (NPS 2006a, 2007d) for Cape Lookout National Seashore to ensure for the proper management of 

protected species and to comply with the ESA. The plan also provides for appropriate use of the 

Seashore’s recreational resources, including prescribing where ORV and full recreational closures occur 

on the Seashore. The species addressed in the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species 

Management Plan/Environmental Assessment are those federal and state-listed species that are 

specifically affected by recreation at the Seashore. Since the FONSI was signed in 2007, visitation to the 

Seashore has declined rather substantially, and steadily (from 860,602 visitors in 2007, to 601,954 in 

2009, to 480,294 in 2012 (NPS 2013c); however, the reasons for this decline are not known, but could 

include the economic downturn. Impacts of the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected 

Species Management Plan/Environmental Assessment on visitor use and experience are expected to be 

long-term and adverse to those wishing to have unrestricted ORV access at the Seashore (because the 

Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

places restrictions on where ORVs are allowed to operate), as well as long-term and beneficial to those 

visitors seeking solitude from vehicular activities. However, impacts would be short-term and adverse to 

any visitor whose preferred area is under a temporary full recreational closure at the time of their visit. 

The Harkers Island and Cape Lookout National Seashore Keepers’ Quarters Exhibit Plan, the Portsmouth 

Village Exhibit Plan, and the Wayside Exhibit Plan involve exhibit planning and design for new exhibits. 

The Harkers Island exhibits orient visitors to the breadth of resources and recreational opportunities 

within the park. The Keepers’ Quarters exhibits orient visitors to the cape area and interpret the history of 

the Lighthouse Complex and associated historic resources. In recent years, the Seashore has increased 

other visitor amenities, including a new visitor center and bookstore, and shelter and restrooms at the 

passenger ferry landing by the lighthouse on South Core Banks, and opening the lighthouse to visitors. 

These improvements also include a replacement boardwalk at the lighthouse Keepers’ Quarters. These 

and future improvements could bring more visitors to the lighthouse area on South Core Banks, resulting 

in long-term beneficial impacts on visitor use and experience due to increased visitor activities and 

amenities. 

Special Use Permits are available at the Seashore. These permits authorize activities that provide benefit 

to an individual, group or organization, rather than the public at large, and that require written 

authorization and some management control in order to protect park resources and the public interest. 

Examples include long-term parking, special events, commercial filming/still photography, weddings, 

group camping, First Amendment activities, and constructing temporary Duck Blinds. Special Use 

Permits are granted for specific periods of time and specific locations. Certain cost recovery, fees, and 

insurance requirements may apply. The availability of Special Use Permits at the Seashore contributes to 
Visitor Use and Experience 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 485

beneficial impacts to visitor use and experience, because these permits allow for certain special uses 

(listed above), which otherwise would not be available. 

The Passenger Ferry Feasibility Study, Passenger Ferry Departure Site (Selection), and Harkers Island 

Passenger Ferry Departure Site (Facility) Environmental Assessments involve implementing 

improvements to ferry service at Beaufort and Harkers Island, such as creating a new ticketing office, a 

queuing shelter, additional restrooms, expanded parking, and new docks. These improvements would 

result in long-term beneficial impacts to visitor use and experience, because there would be improved and 

expanded amenities for visitors boarding ferries to the Seashore from these locations. 

The Cape Hatteras National Seashore Long-term ORV Management Plan/EIS has influenced ORV 

management at Cape Lookout, primarily due to lessons learned from the Cape Hatteras ORV 

management process, their proximity to each other, and because beach driving is a unique visitor 

experience for the region. Although the experience at each seashore is different for ORV users, change in 

management at one seashore may result in a visitation shift to the other seashore in order for visitors to 

get their desired experience. Impacts to visitors to Cape Lookout under these scenarios are unknown at 

this time and would depend on visitor views and how visitation patterns shift. 

The Seashore recently completed historic structure protection activities at the Cape Lookout lighthouse 

area. This project included adding about 75,000 cubic yards of sand to the shoreline for protection of 

historic structures at the Cape Lookout lighthouse. The Seashore also recently completed a Cape Lookout 

Village Historic Structures Reuse Implementation Plan/EA in 2007. This project proposes reuse of 

historic structures as rental cabins, interpretive and visitor facilities. These plans have long-term 

beneficial impacts on visitor use and experience, due to the improvements made to the historic structures 

and districts that provide enhancements to the visitor experience. 

The Seashore’s Foundation Document, which identifies the purpose, need, and objectives of the Seashore, 

provides Seashore-wide guidance for long range planning including the eight priority projects identified 

in table 51. The planning actions identified in this document would likely have long-term beneficial 

impacts on visitor use and experience, as a result of implementing long-range planning for Seashore 

management and operations throughout the entire Seashore that meet the needs of the various visitors and 

visitor activities found at the Seashore. Likewise, the contracts for commercial service providers (ferry 

and concessioner operators) are currently in the process of being developed under a commercial services 

plan, and would likely have long-term beneficial impacts on visitor use and experience due to maintaining 

a regular ferry schedule for visitors, and improving concessioner operations and services through 

additional NPS oversight of this sole source of public transportation to the Seashore, outside of a personal 

boat. 

The Seashore plans to update the Horse Management Plan (NPS 2007h) for the wild horse population on 

Shackleford Banks. The plan would define how this culturally significant resource is to be cooperatively 

managed by both the NPS and the Foundation of Shackleford Horses. This Congressionally mandated 

cooperative partnership began in 1999 and operates under a Memorandum of Understanding that states 

that the herd size will be maintained at 110–130 animals (NPS 2000a). The plan would likely have longterm beneficial impacts on visitor use and experience, as it would use a comprehensive approach to 

maintain and manage the wild horse population at Shackleford Banks, which is a popular attraction for 

visitors and ensure that the visitor experience in this area of the Seashore is maintained and/or enhanced. 

A long-range interpretive plan (NPS 2011k) articulates the purpose, significance, and themes of the 

Seashore, and the necessity to inform and guide the Seashore’s interpretive and education programs into 

the next decade. The plan also provides an overall framework for the Seashore’s efforts to improve and 

expand upon visitor services including ranger-led programs, exhibits, and facilities, which would have 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

486 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

long-term beneficial impacts on visitor use and experience because of the enhancement of the visitor 

experience achieved through these improved programs. 

Currently, the BOEM North Carolina Renewable Energy Task Force is discussing plans for off-shore 

commercial wind leasing. The task force, comprised of relevant Federal agencies, State government 

officials, and local and Tribal elected government officials, assists BOEM in the planning and decisionmaking process in identifying a Wind Energy Area off the coast of North Carolina. Although the planning 

process includes a thorough analysis of reasonable alternatives and cumulative impacts, it is possible that 

the development of off-shore wind stations could adversely impact visitor experience at the Seashore if 

the wind turbines are visible from the Seashore, thus negatively impacting the natural viewscape for 

Seashore visitors. 

Military overflights above the Seashore may result in long-term slightly adverse impacts on visitor use 

and experience, especially for those visitors seeking quiet and solitude at the park. This source of noise 

would contribute to long-term adverse impacts on visitor use and experience when considered together 

with the ORV noise from alternative A. However, the intensity of noise from military overflights would 

likely be less than noteworthy because of the masking effect of the surf sounds, and the concentration of 

motorized noises in developed/transportation oriented-areas (such as the ferry landings) where it is 

consistent with the use of park. 

The overall combined impacts of these past, current, and future actions on visitor use and experience 

would be long-term, limited, and adverse (from restricting ORV access at the Seashore to visitors wanting 

unrestricted access, from the noise from ORVs and military overflights to visitors seeking quiet and 

solitude at the Seashore, and from the potential visual impact of the BOEM wind turbines), as well as 

long-term beneficial (from increased visitor amenities, improvements made to the historic structures and 

districts, maintaining a regular ferry schedule, improving concessioner operations and services, 

maintaining and managing the wild horse population at Shackleford Banks, the improvement of visitor 

services including ranger-led programs and exhibits, and the availability of the Special Use Permits). 

These impacts, combined with the noticeable long-term adverse and beneficial impacts under alternative 

A, would likely result in long-term adverse and beneficial cumulative impacts, of which management of 

ORV use under alternative A would contribute a large part. 

ALTERNATIVE B

Impacts of Alternative B 

ORV and Full Recreational Closures—Under alternative B, up to 81 percent (45 out of 56 miles) of the 

Seashore’s ocean beach would remain open to ORV use from March 16 through December 31. Further, 

approximately 19 percent (11 of 56 total miles of the Seashore’s ocean beach) would be closed to ORV 

use (all of Shackleford Banks, the Cape Lookout Spit and the beach near the Cape Lookout lighthouse). 

No other non-ORV areas would be established. The same impacts associated with resource protection 

closures under alternative A would apply to alternative B, with the addition of the adaptive management 

strategy. The adaptive management strategy would possibly increase protection measures, based on the 

condition of the American oystercatcher, which is being used as an indicator species for potential impacts 

to other species at the Seashore. Thus, depending on the resource management activities as prescribed 

under the adaptive management strategy, ORV users and pedestrians alike could experience long- and 

short-term, noticeable, adverse and beneficial impacts to visitor use: no impacts would result if resource 

protection activities are not changed as a result of the adaptive management strategy. Adverse impacts 

would result if increased protection measures are implemented as directed in the adaptive management 

strategy. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 487

ORV users would be slightly impacted by management actions under all action alternatives that 

discontinue ORV use on sections of Core Banks where no ferry landing access is available, because any 

new islands that might be created due to storm events or other causes would not have ferry landings, and 

would not allow ORV use. 

ATV and UTV Use—Under alternative B, all high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and 

UTVs would be prohibited after a five-year grace period, whereas non-sport ATVs and UTVs would be 

permitted from March 16 through December 31. Owners and operators of high-performance sport-model 

and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs would be adversely impacted because these vehicles would no longer be 

permitted at the Seashore and this visitor experience would no longer be available. However, this 

restriction would also result in long-term beneficial impacts on visitors seeking quiet and solitude at the 

Seashore, because these vehicles would no longer be allowed at the Seashore. 

Camping—Impacts related to camping under alternative B would be the same as those under alternative 

A. Other impacts to camping would remain localized and short-term due to temporary resource and safety 

closures, and localized long-term adverse due to camping restrictions, and campfire restrictions. Further, 

emergency (storm refuge) parking could be provided, on a case-by-case basis, in designated areas along 

the back route under alternative B. This would allow for overnight vehicle parking during times of 

adverse weather or unusually high tide events, which would result in beneficial impacts to visitor 

experience. 

Permitting and Limits on the Number of Vehicle Permits—Under alternative B, a vehicle permit 

would be required. The Seashore would offer a short-term permit (estimated to cost the operator $80 and 

last up to 10 days), and a long-term permit (estimated to cost the operator $150, and last a calendar year). 

Because there would be no limit on the number of permits issued, and the NPS would ensure that the 

permit is easily obtainable, impacts on ORV users are expected to be noticeable, particularly due to the 

time, effort, and cost needed to obtain the vehicle permit. An operator education certificate would also be 

required in order to operate an ORV at the Seashore, which would result in slight impacts on visitor use 

and experience due to the time and effort required to obtain the permit. Revocation of the vehicle permit 

and/or the education certificate could result from a visitor violating applicable park regulations or terms 

and conditions of the permit, which would result in adverse impacts on those visitors, and also beneficial 

impacts on all users as overall experience at the Seashore would improve if all visitors are obeying the 

rules.

Long-Term Vehicle Parking and Storage—Under alternative B, a parking permit would be required for 

long-term parking, and there would be a fee for the monthly permit. Under alternative B, the quantity of 

the permits would be limited based on the season and the geographic location of the parking lot (North 

Core Banks - Long Point would allow 20 vehicles; South Core Banks Great Island lots (including the 

Great Island main lot and the Great Island Carly Dock lot) would allow 90 vehicles; and the South Core 

Banks Light Station lot would allow 20 vehicles). Based on data collected on parking lot use in 2009 and 

2010, the limit on the number of parking permits would result in between 5 and 10 days when the parking 

lots would be full as a result of the restrictions under alternative B. This would result in less than 50 fewer 

parking space days spread over the spring and summer, where a parking space day is one vehicle in one 

parking space for one day. There would be less impact on parking in the fall season because more permits 

would be available. Allowing long-term parking at the Seashore would result in favorable impacts on 

visitor use and experience, even with the fee and limited number of permits available, because ORV users 

would not be required to transport their ORVs to and from the Seashore with each visit. Limiting the 

number of permits would also prevent the boundary of the lots from expanding because of lack of space, 

and would be a beneficial long-term impact to those visitors preferring not to see as many vehicles during 

their visit to the Seashore. Long-term adverse impacts are also possible for those visitors who are unable 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

488 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

to get a permit and would experience the additional cost an inconvenience of taking their vehicles on and 

off the Seashore by ferry each time they visit. 

ORVs and Other Recreational Uses—Under alternative B, ORVs would be restricted from accessing 

certain areas of the Seashore (see “ORV and Full Recreational Closures”), but up to 81 percent of the 

Seashore would be open to ORV use from March 16 through December 3114. The back route would be reestablished to the same or equivalent locations when they are impacted by a storm event for resource 

protection and safety, resulting in beneficial impacts to ORV users because the back route is critical for 

traversing the Seashore via ORV. Occasional maintenance would occur on the back route as needed. Up 

to four additional ramps may be created on North Core Banks, and five on South Core Banks, and pullouts would be established along the back route. For resource protection and safety, the location of ramps 

may be adjusted when they are impacted by a storm event. As a result of the general area that would be 

available for ORV use, and the maintenance, re-establishment, and establishment of additional ramps at 

the Seashore, impacts to ORV users would be long-term and beneficial. 

ORV use would provide access to fishing sites along Seashore beaches (except for those areas closed for 

resource, safety, or administrative uses, which is approximately 10 miles in the summer, and 5.4 miles in 

the fall, based on data from 2008 through 2013), and to fishing tournaments held during the spring and 

fall. Because fishing is a popular visitor activity at the Seashore, the largely unrestricted access would 

continue to support a valuable visitor experience for this user group. The resource closures would not be 

overly restrictive because the back route would provide access around turtle nests and bird closures. 

Therefore, impacts under alternative B to fishermen would not result in new noticeable adverse impacts 

on visitors participating in fishing because historical beach access for fishermen would be maintained as 

they are under alternative A. Likewise, access to cabin facilities, backcountry camping sites, swim 

beaches, and sunbathing areas would continue largely unchanged for both ORV and non-ORV users. On 

occasion, site-specific resource management activities, such as ORV or full recreational closures, could 

result in changes to access routes and relocation of preferred activities, but in most cases, an alternate 

route would be identified so that ORV users and non-ORV users would be able to reach their initial 

destination or an alternative destination in the vicinity. 

Pedestrian Activities—As under alternative A, pedestrian uses, such as swimming, sunbathing, beach 

walking, and shell collecting would be allowed outside of any full recreation closure under alternative B. 

There would still be the same pedestrian-only areas at the Seashore under alternative B as there would be 

under alternative A. Visitors would continue to be able to have an ORV-free experience at the Seashore 

on Shackleford Banks, where ORVs would continue to be prohibited. Impacts to all user groups would 

not be noticeable as the location and extent of pedestrian-only areas would be the same as the existing 

condition.

Night Driving—The use of headlights for driving at night at the Seashore may adversely impact night 

sky viewing opportunities for visitors. However, nighttime driving restrictions would be implemented 

under alternative B, from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. from May 1 through August 31. The night driving restriction 

would prohibit ORV use during these times, though all other permitted recreational activities would be 

allowed. This restriction would result in noticeable long-term impacts on ORV users, particularly in the 

early fall, because many ORV users and fishermen enjoy the opportunity to operate an ORV at night to 

 

14 For alternatives, these percentages are simply a starting point and do not account for any other safety or resource 

closures due to resource protection and safety that may be implemented, as needed, which may adjust these 

percentages. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 489

change fishing locations, return to camp after dusk, or to leave camp to go fishing before dawn. This 

would result in adverse impacts to ORV users and fisherman, because these activities would no longer be 

allowed. However, there would be long-term beneficial impacts on visitors seeking to view night skies 

without the intrusion of headlights, which diminish the ability to see night skies. 

ORV and Pedestrian Conflicts—Because pedestrians and ORVs could be present in the same areas 

under alternative B, the noise and the sight of vehicles and vehicle tracks could degrade the visitor 

experience for those visitors seeking solitude and a natural setting, which would result in short-term, 

adverse impacts to those visitors which would be similar to those described under alternative A. 

Miscellaneous Vehicle and Operator Requirements—Due to the restrictions on vehicle type (such as 

three-wheeled vehicles and trailers), and other restrictions (number of axles, wheels, vehicle length), 

certain vehicles would not be allowed to be operated at the Seashore. This would result in slightly 

noticeable, adverse impacts on visitor use and experience, because visitors would no longer be able to 

operate vehicles that do not meet these requirements and may choose to not visit the Seashore. Further, 

certain vehicle equipment requirements could also result in slightly adverse impacts on ORV users, since 

various items would be required for each ORV which visitors might view as a burdensome requirement 

that requires additional financial investment. 

Vehicle Delivery—Impacts related to vehicle delivery under alternative B would be the same as those 

under alternative A (continued long-term, beneficial impacts to ORV users, because ATV and UTV users 

would be permitted to transport their ATVs and UTVs to the Seashore to certain designated soundside 

access points and would not notice any change from existing operations).

Shade Shelters—Providing six additional shade shelters at the Seashore would result in long-term, 

beneficial impacts on all Seashore visitors, as visitors would be able to escape storms and intense sunlight 

under these shelters, as needed, thus improving their visit to the Seashore beyond the current number of 

shade shelters offered. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative B 

The past, present, and future actions under alternative B would be the same under alternative A which 

would be long-term, limited, and adverse (from restricting ORV access at the Seashore to visitors wanting 

unrestricted access, from the noise from ORVs and military overflights to visitors seeking quiet and 

solitude at the Seashore, and from the potential visual impact of the BOEM wind turbines), as well as 

long-term beneficial (from increased visitor amenities, improvements made to the historic structures and 

districts, maintaining a regular ferry schedule, improving concessioner operations and services, 

maintaining and managing the wild horse population at Shackleford Banks, the improvement of visitor 

services including ranger-led programs and exhibits, and the availability of the Special Use Permits). 

These impacts, combined with the long-term adverse and beneficial impacts under alternative B, would 

likely result in observable long-term adverse and beneficial cumulative impacts of which management of 

ORV use at the Seashore would be a large part. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

490 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

ALTERNATIVE C

Impacts of Alternative C 

ORV and Full Recreational Closures—Under alternative C, up to 79 percent15 (44 of 56 miles) of 

Seashore beach would be available for ORV use from March 16 through the Thursday preceding 

Memorial Day and from the day after Labor Day through December 15. Up to approximately 74 percent 

(41 of 56 miles) of Seashore beach would be available for ORV use from the Friday preceding Memorial 

Day through Labor Day. This would result in unfavorable, localized and short-term impacts on visitor use 

and experience, due to the restrictions placed on areas that visitors would be able to access. Temporary 

resource and safety closures under alternative C would be the same as under alternative A. 

As under alternative B, alternative C would implement the adaptive management strategy. Under the 

adaptive management strategy, actions may increase protection measures, based on the condition of the 

American oystercatcher, which is being used as an indicator species for potential impacts to other species 

at the Seashore. Thus, depending on the resource management activities as prescribed under the adaptive 

management strategy, ORV users and pedestrians alike could experience long- and short-term, noticeable, 

adverse and beneficial impacts to visitor use: no impacts would result if no resource protection activities 

are changed as a result of the adaptive management strategy; adverse impacts would result if resource 

protection measures are increased, including reduction in the number of permits issued, reduction in 

available parking, or increased species buffers where ORV and other use is not permitted; and beneficial 

impacts to visitor experience would result for those wishing to view birds and other wildlife, if increased 

protection measures are implemented as directed under the adaptive management strategy. 

Under alternative C, ORV and full recreational closures at the Seashore would result in restricting areas 

where ORV use and recreational pursuits occur; however, pedestrians and visitors participating in 

activities such as swimming, sunbathing, beach walking, and shell collecting would be able to participate 

in activities outside of any full recreational closure. The effects of full recreational closures on visitor 

experience would result in long-term, noticeable adverse impacts, if visitors are prohibited from entering 

an area they wish to access. When full recreational closures are implemented at the Seashore, impacts on 

users would likely be short-term and noticeably adverse, even if the closures were temporary, since any 

full recreational closure that restricts ORV access and other visitor uses would most likely occur during 

the spring/summer months. The fall fishing season is expected to be less impacted by full recreational 

closures, because the Seashore does not implement full recreational closures as frequently as they do in 

the spring/summer months. In most cases, the back route would be used as an alternate route so that ORV 

users would be able to reach their initial destination if an ORV closure temporarily restricts their access. 

ORV users would be slightly impacted by management actions under all alternatives that discontinue 

ORV use on sections of Core Banks where no ferry landing access is available, because any new islands 

that might be created due to storm events or other causes would not have ferry landings, and would not 

allow ORV use. 

ATV and UTV Use—Under alternative C, non-sport ATVs and UTVs would be permitted between 

September 15 and December 15. All high-performance sport-model and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs 

 

15 For alternatives, these percentages are simply a starting point and do not account for any other safety or resource 

closures due to resource protection and safety that may be implemented, as needed, which may adjust these 

percentages. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 491

would be prohibited after a five-year grace period. Owners and operators of high-performance sportmodel and two-stroke ATVs and UTVs would be adversely impacted after the five-year grace period 

because these vehicles would no longer be permitted at the Seashore and this visitor experience would no 

longer be available. Owners and operators of non-sport ATVs and UTVs would also be impacted, as these 

vehicles would only be allowed to operate at the Seashore during the fall and early winter months. 

Camping—Impacts to visitors wishing to camp at the Seashore would be the same as those under 

alternative B (localized and short-term due to temporary resource and safety closures, and localized longterm adverse due to camping restrictions, and campfire restrictions).

Permitting and Limits on the Number of Vehicle Permits—Under alternative C, short- and long-term 

vehicle permits and applicable fees would be required, and limits on the number of permits would be 

established. The initial number of permits issued would be 2,500 for North Core Banks, and 3,000 for 

South Core Banks, which is based on 2005-2010 user data for the average number of vehicles delivered to 

each island, excluding decreases due to hurricanes. Because the limit on the number of permits issued 

would be determined in year 4 of the ORV plan and based on the average number of permits issued per 

island in years 1–3 of the ORV plan, short-term impacts on ORV users are expected to be slight but 

noticeable, as the number of permits would be based on the average number of ORVs entering the 

Seashore for those years. Long-term impacts to ORV users would be expected to be noticeable and 

adverse if the demand to bring ORVs to the Seashore surpasses the number of permits issued, which 

would restrict some visitors from bringing their ORVs to the Seashore. The same operator education 

certificate described under alternative B would also be required in order to operate an ORV at the 

Seashore. These requirements would result in slight impacts on visitor use and experience, particularly 

due to the time, effort, and cost of obtaining the permit and the education certificate. Revocation of the 

vehicle permit and/or the education certificate could result from a visitor violating applicable park 

regulations or terms and conditions of the permit, which would result in adverse impacts on those visitors, 

and beneficial impacts on all users because overall experience at the Seashore would improve if all 

visitors are obeying the rules. 

Long-Term Vehicle Parking and Storage—A parking permit would be required for long-term parking 

as described under alternative B; however, the number of long-term parking lots would be reduced from 

four to three; the parking lots at the Great Island area would be consolidated at the north end of Great 

Island, near Great Island Carly Dock, while still accommodating the number of vehicles described under 

alternative B. There would be a fee for the monthly permit, and the same quantity of permits available 

under alternative B would be available under alternative C. Based on data collected on parking lot use in 

2009 and 2010, the limit on the number of parking permits might result in 5 to 10 days when the parking 

lots would be full as a result of the restrictions under alternative C. This would result in less than 50 fewer 

parking space days spread over the spring and summer, where a parking space day is one vehicle in one 

parking space for one day. There would be less impact on parking in the fall season because more permits 

would be available. Even though ORV users would not be required to transport their vehicles to and from 

the Seashore with each visit, allowing long-term parking at the Seashore would result in unfavorable 

impacts on visitor use and experience for ORV users, due to the fee for the long-term parking lots, the 

reduced number of parking lots, and the limited number of permits available which would all result in 

some visitors not being able to park and incurring the cost and inconvenience of transporting their vehicle 

back and forth from the Seashore for each visit. However, by consolidating the four existing parking lots 

into three parking lots, impacts on the visual environment would be beneficial, as less land area would be 

devoted to parking lots and the natural setting of the Seashore would be restored at the site of the former 

parking lot. 

ORVs and Other Recreational Uses—Under alternative C, ORVs would be restricted from accessing 

certain areas of the Seashore (see “ORV and Full Recreational Closures”). ORV use areas would decrease 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

492 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

by approximately 4 miles (0.7 miles year-round and 3.1 miles in the summer) under alternative C, 

resulting in long-term slightly adverse impacts to ORV users. However, up to 79 percent of the Seashore 

would be open to ORV use from March 16 through the Thursday preceding Memorial Day and from the 

day after Labor Day through December 15. Seventy-four percent of Seashore beach would be available 

for ORV use from the Friday preceding Memorial Day through Labor Day. 

The back route would be re-established to the same or equivalent location when it is impacted by a storm 

event for resource protection and safety, resulting in beneficial impacts to ORV users because the back 

route is critical for traversing the Seashore via ORV. Occasional maintenance would occur on the back 

route as needed. Up to four additional ramps may be created on North Core Banks, and five on South 

Core Banks, and pull-outs would be established along the back route. For resource protection and safety, 

the location of ramps may be adjusted when they are impacted by a storm event. As a result of the general 

area that would be available for ORV use, and the maintenance, re-establishment, and establishment of 

additional ramps at the Seashore, impacts to ORV users would be long-term and beneficial. 

ORV use at the Seashore would provide access to fishing sites along Seashore beaches (except for those 

areas closed for resource, safety, or administrative uses, which is approximately 10 miles in the summer, 

and 5.4 miles in the fall, based on data from 2008 through 2013), and to fishing tournaments held during 

the spring and fall. Because fishing is a popular visitor activity at the Seashore, the largely unrestricted 

access would continue to support a valuable visitor experience for this user group. However, when the 

resource, safety, or administrative closures are considered with the 4-mile reduction of ORV use areas, 

impacts under alternative C to fishermen would result in slightly noticeable adverse impacts on visitors 

participating in fishing activities because historical beach access for fishermen would be reduced when 

compared to current conditions, even though the back route would provide access around turtle nests and 

bird closures. Likewise, access to cabin facilities, backcountry camping sites, swim beaches, and 

sunbathing areas would continue largely unchanged for both ORV and non-ORV users. On occasion, sitespecific resource management activities, such as ORV or full recreational closures, could result in 

changes to access routes and relocation of preferred activities, but in most cases, an alternate route would 

be identified so that ORV users and non-ORV users would be able to reach their initial destination or an 

alternative destination in the vicinity. 

Pedestrian Activities—Pedestrian-only areas would increase by approximately 4 miles (0.7 miles yearround and 3.1 miles in the summer) under alternative C. Under alternative C, pedestrian uses, such as 

swimming, sunbathing, beach walking, and shell collecting would be allowed outside of any full 

recreational or safety closure. Because there would be an increase of pedestrian-only areas at the Seashore 

under alternative C, those seeking an ORV-free visitor experience would benefit from alternative C. Two 

of the proposed pedestrian-only areas are at ferry landing locations, which would be easily accessible to 

pedestrians arriving by ferry. The third proposed area is at Codds Creek. It is likely that visitors would 

either use an ORV, private boat or a kayak to access the pedestrian-only area at Codds Creek, because of 

its distance from the lighthouse or Great Island ferry landings. Therefore while the additional pedestrianonly area at Codds Creek represents a beneficial impact to non-ORV users, it is unknown how many 

visitors would benefit from this area. Furthermore, visitors would continue to be able to have an ORVfree experience at the Seashore on Shackleford Banks, where ORVs would continue to be prohibited. 

Night Driving—Nighttime driving restrictions would be expanded under alternative C, from 9 p.m. to 6 

a.m. from May 1 through September 14. The night driving restriction would prohibit ORV use during 

these times, though all other permitted recreational activities would be allowed. This restriction would 

result in noticeable long-term impacts on ORV users, particularly in the fall, because many ORV users 

and fishermen enjoy the opportunity to operate an ORV at night to change fishing locations, return to 

camp after dusk, or to leave camp to go fishing before dawn. This would result in noticeable adverse 

impacts to ORV users and fisherman, because these activities would no longer be allowed. However, 
Visitor Use and Experience 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 493

there would be long-term beneficial impacts on visitors seeking to view night skies without the intrusion 

of headlights, which diminish the ability to see night skies. 

ORV and Pedestrian Conflicts—In some cases, pedestrians and ORV users could encounter each other 

on the oceanside beaches, raising the possibility of conflict between ORV and non-ORV uses and a 

diminished visitor experience for visitors seeking solitude and freedom from vehicular distractions. 

Because pedestrians and ORVs could still be present in the same areas under alternative C, the noise and 

the sight of vehicles could decrease the visitor experience for those visitors seeking solitude and a natural 

setting. The increase in pedestrian-only areas by approximately 4 miles would have slightly adverse 

impacts on ORV users, as there would be less area to operate ORVs, and beneficial impacts to non-ORV 

users wishing to experience the Seashore in the absence of ORV use. 

Miscellaneous Vehicle and Operator Requirements— The impacts from the vehicle and operator 

requirements under alternative C would be similar to those under alternative B. Due to the restrictions on 

vehicle type (such as three-wheeled vehicles and trailers), restrictions on trailers (after a five-year grace 

period), and other restrictions (number of axles, wheels, vehicle length), certain vehicles and all trailers 

would not be allowed to be operated at the Seashore. This would result in slightly noticeable, adverse 

impacts on visitor use and experience, because visitors would no longer be able to operate vehicles that do 

not meet these requirements and may choose to not visit the Seashore. Further, certain vehicle equipment 

requirements could also result in slightly adverse impacts on ORV users, since various items would be 

required for each ORV, which visitors might view as a burdensome requirement that requires additional 

financial investment. 

Vehicle Delivery—Because vehicles would only be transported to the Seashore via NPS authorized 

ferries under alternative C, adverse impacts to ORV users would be long-term and slight, because ORV 

users would no longer be able to transport their vehicles to the Seashore via private or noncommercial 

means. This could result in some visitors not coming to the Seashore because they cannot afford or do not 

want to pay a commercial ferry operator for transport of their ORV.

Shade Shelters—The impacts related to shade shelters under alternative C would be the same as those 

under alternative B (long-term, beneficial impacts on all Seashore visitors, as visitors would be able to 

escape storms and intense sunlight under these shelters, as needed, thus improving their visit to the 

Seashore beyond the current number of shade shelters offered). 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative C 

The past, present, and future actions under alternative C would be the same under alternative A, which 

would be long-term, limited, and adverse (from restricting ORV access at the Seashore to visitors wanting 

unrestricted access, from the noise from ORVs and military overflights to visitors seeking quiet and 

solitude at the Seashore, and from the potential visual impact of the BOEM wind turbines), as well as 

long-term beneficial (from increased visitor amenities, improvements made to the historic structures and 

districts, maintaining a regular ferry schedule, improving concessioner operations and services, 

maintaining and managing the wild horse population at Shackleford Banks, the improvement of visitor 

services including ranger-led programs and exhibits, and the availability of the Special Use Permits). 

These impacts, combined with the long-term adverse and beneficial impacts under alternative C, would 

likely result in observable long-term adverse and beneficial cumulative impacts, of which management of 

ORV use at the Seashore would contribute a large part. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

494 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

ALTERNATIVE D

Impacts of Alternative D 

ORV and Full Recreational Closures—Under alternative D, up to 73 percent16 (41 of 56 miles) of 

Seashore beach would be available for ORV use from March 16 through the Thursday preceding 

Memorial Day and from the day after Labor Day through December 15. Sixty-three percent (35 of 56 

miles) of Seashore beach would be available for ORV use between the Friday preceding Memorial Day 

and Labor Day. Temporary resource and safety closures under alternative D would be the same as under 

alternative B, with the exception of increased resource buffers for sensitive bird species (buffers would be 

increased during courtship/mating including increasing colonial water bird buffers to 600 feet; least tern 

buffers to 300 feet; and American oystercatcher buffers to 450 feet) as well as increased pedestrian-only 

areas in the vicinity of unfledged piping plovers (pedestrian-only areas would extend at least 650 feet on 

each side of the nest site during the first week following hatching, but in no case should be reduced to less 

than 650 feet on each side of observed broods. In some cases, highly mobile broods may require protected 

areas up to 3,250 feet, even when intensively monitored). This would result in ORV closures that are at 

least 50 feet and up to 2,650 feet greater than currently occurring. These resource protection measures 

would result in, localized and short-term adverse impacts on visitor use and experience, due to the 

restrictions placed on areas that visitors would be able to access. 

As under alternative B, alternative D would implement the adaptive management strategy. Under the 

adaptive management strategy, management actions may increase protection measures, based on the 

condition of the American oystercatcher, which is being used as an indicator species for potential impacts 

to other species at the Seashore. Thus, depending on the resource management activities as prescribed 

under the adaptive management strategy, ORV users and pedestrians alike could experience long- and 

short-term, noticeable, adverse impacts to visitor use: no impacts would result if no resource protection 

activities are changed as a result of the adaptive management strategy; adverse impacts would result if 

resource protection measures are increased including reduction in the number of permits issued, or 

increased species buffers where ORV and other use is not permitted. 

Under alternative D, ORV and full recreational closures at the Seashore would result in restricting areas 

where ORV use and recreational pursuits could occur; however, pedestrians and visitors participating in 

activities such as swimming, sunbathing, beach walking, and shell collecting would be able to participate 

in activities outside of any resource closure. The effects of ORV or full recreational closures for resource 

protection on visitor experience would result in long-term, noticeable adverse impacts, if visitors are 

prohibited from entering an area they wish to access. Impacts on users from ORV and full recreational 

closures would likely be long-term and adverse, even if the closure were temporary, since any full 

recreational closure that restricts ORV access and other visitor uses would most likely occur during the 

spring/summer months. The fall fishing season is expected to be less impacted by full recreational 

closures, because the Seashore does not implement full recreational closures as frequently as they do in 

the spring/summer months. In most cases, the back route would be used as an alternate route so that ORV 

users would be able to reach their initial destination. However, in the event that the 3,250-foot ORV 

buffer is required to protect highly mobile piping plover broods, the entire northern portion of Portsmouth 

 

16 For alternatives, these percentages are simply a starting point and do not account for any other safety or resource 

closures due to resource protection and safety that may be implemented, as needed, which may adjust these 

percentages. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 495

Island (on North Core Banks) would be closed, and the back route would not be available for ORV use, 

resulting in noticeable adverse impacts to ORV users. 

ORV users would be slightly impacted by management actions under all alternatives that would 

discontinue ORV use on sections of Core Banks where no ferry landing access is available, because any 

new islands that might be created due to storm events or other causes would not have ferry landings, and 

would not allow ORV use. 

ATV and UTV Use—Non-sport UTVs would be permitted between September 15 and December 15. All 

ATVs and high-performance sport-model and two-stroke UTVs would be prohibited after a five-year 

grace period. These restrictions would result in noticeable, adverse impacts on visitor use and experience, 

as visitors who previously used those vehicles at the Seashore would no longer be able to do so under 

alternative D as the experience for UTV users would be limited to approximately three months, compared 

to the nine months currently permitted. The types of UTVs allowed would be greatly limited compared to 

current use, because all ATVs and sport-model UTVs would be banned any time of the year. 

Owners and operators of all ATVs and high-performance sport-model and two-stroke UTVs would be 

adversely impacted after the five-year grace period because these vehicles would no longer be permitted 

at the Seashore, and this visitor experience would no longer be available. However, this restriction would 

also result in long-term beneficial impacts on visitors seeking quiet and solitude at the Seashore. 

Camping—Impacts to visitors wishing to camp at the Seashore would be the same as those under 

alternative B (localized and short-term due to temporary resource and safety closures, and localized longterm adverse due to camping restrictions, and campfire restrictions).

Permitting and Limits on the Number of Vehicle Permits—Under alternative D, short- and long-term 

vehicle permits and applicable fees would be required as under alternative B, while additional limits on 

the number of permits would be established. The limit on the number of permits issued would be 

determined in year 4 of the ORV plan from the average number of permits issued per island in years 1–3 

of the ORV plan, minus 8 percent. Short-term impacts on ORV users would be noticeable and adverse, 

because the number of vehicle permits available would represent an 8 percent decrease from the current 

average. Long-term impacts to ORV users would be noticeable and adverse if the demand to bring ORVs 

to the Seashore surpasses the number of permits issued, which would restrict some visitors from bringing 

their ORVs to the Seashore. The same operator education certificate described for alternative B would 

also be required in order to operate an ORV at the Seashore. These requirements would result in slight 

impacts on visitor use and experience due to the time, effort, and cost required to obtain the permit and 

education certificate. Revocation of the vehicle permit and/or the education certificate could result from a 

visitor violating applicable park regulations or terms and conditions of the permit, which would result in 

adverse impacts on those visitors, and also beneficial impacts on all visitors as overall experience at the 

Seashore would improve if all visitors are obeying the rules. 

Long-Term Vehicle Parking and Storage—Under alternative D, long-term parking and storage would 

be discontinued, which would result in long-term substantial adverse impacts on ORV users at the 

Seashore because ORV users would be required to transport their vehicle to and from the Seashore with 

every visit, rather than leave their vehicle at the Seashore for part of or the entire season, likely resulting 

in inconvenience and a higher cost to the user. Furthermore, the lack of long-term parking under 

alternative D could discourage some ORV users from visiting the Seashore entirely, due to this 

inconvenience and high cost to ORV users, resulting in long-term, substantially adverse impacts to those 

users. Portions of the long-term parking lots would be designated as emergency overnight parking areas, 

which would allow for overnight vehicle parking during times of adverse weather or unusually high tide 

events, thus improving visitor use and experience because visitors would be able to seek shelter at the 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

496 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

central location of the parking lots in times of severe weather. For those who desire an ORV-free 

Seashore experience, the prohibition of long-term parking would result in long-term beneficial impacts, 

because the visual impacts from ORVs in the long-term parking lots would be eliminated. 

ORVs and Other Recreational Uses—Under alternative D, ORVs would be restricted from accessing 

certain areas of the Seashore (see “ORV and Full Recreational Closures”), but generally 73 percent of 

Seashore beach would be open to ORV use from March 16 through the Thursday preceding Memorial 

Day and from the day after Labor Day through December 15. Sixty-three percent of Seashore beach 

would be available for ORV use from the Friday preceding Memorial Day through Labor Day. This 

reduction in ORV use areas would result in long-term, noticeable adverse impacts to ORV users. 

The back route would be re-established to the same or equivalent locations when they are impacted by a 

storm event for resource protection and safety, resulting in beneficial impacts to ORV users because the 

back route is critical for traversing the Seashore via ORV. Occasional maintenance would occur on the 

back route as needed. For resource protection and safety, the location of ramps may be adjusted when 

they are impacted by a storm event. Ramps would be located or re-established on flat sand, between 

dunes where there would be fewer impacts. The back route on South Core Banks from mile marker 44a to 

mile marker 44b would be open from March 16 through December 15 (through construction of bridges 

over the low-lying area; this bypass route would allow access around the Point when resource closures are 

in effect). As a result of the general maintenance, re-establishment, and establishment of additional ramps 

at the Seashore, impacts to ORV users would be long-term and beneficial. 

Fishing would continue at all of the open Seashore beaches, except for those areas closed for resource, 

safety, or administrative reasons (approximately 10 miles in the summer, and 5.4 miles in the fall, based 

on data from 2008 through 2013). The resource closures would not be overly restrictive because the back 

route would provide access around turtle nests and bird closures. When the resource, safety, or 

administrative closures are considered with the roughly 10 mile reduction of ORV use areas, impacts 

under alternative D to fishermen would result in noticeable adverse impacts on visitors participating in 

fishing activities because historical beach access for fishermen would be reduced when compared to 

current conditions. Likewise, access to cabin facilities, backcountry camping sites, beaches, and 

sunbathing areas may also be restricted to ORVs based on the available ORV use areas. On occasion, sitespecific resource management activities, such as ORV or full recreational closures, could result in 

changes to access routes and relocation of preferred activities, but in most cases, an alternate route would 

be identified so that ORV users and non-ORV users would be able to reach their initial destination or an 

alternative destination in the vicinity. 

Pedestrian Activities—Pedestrian-only areas would increase by 4.2 miles year-round and 5.7 miles in 

the summer under alternative D, which would result in long-term beneficial impacts to non-ORV users 

due to the increase in areas that would be available to experience an ORV-free Seashore, and long-term 

slightly adverse impacts for ORV users, because the areas they would be able to operate an ORV would 

be decreased. Visitors to the Seashore would be able to access the pedestrian-only areas at Johnsons 

Creek, Long Point, Great Island, Codds Creek, and the lighthouse (due to the proximity of these areas to 

ferry landings or maintenance of docks to facilitate access), while the other pedestrian-only areas at 

Middle Core Banks and Portsmouth beach (the ocean beach north from the road to Portsmouth) would be 

much more difficult to access without ORVs or other modes of transportation. Thus, the benefits of the 

pedestrian-only areas that are in close proximity to ferry landings would be greater than the pedestrianonly areas that are further away from ferry landings. As under alternative A, pedestrian uses, such as 

swimming, sunbathing, beach walking, and shell collecting would be allowed outside of any full 

recreational or safety closure under alternative D. Furthermore, visitors would continue to be able to have 

an ORV-free experience at the Seashore on Shackleford Banks, where ORVs would continue to be 

prohibited. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 497

Night Driving—Because nighttime driving would be prohibited at the Seashore from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m., 

from May 1 through September 14, under alternative D, there would be long-term beneficial impacts on 

visitors seeking to view night skies without the intrusion of headlights, which may diminish the ability to 

see night skies. Conversely, this restriction would also result in noticeable long-term impacts on ORV 

users, particularly in the fall, because many ORV users and fishermen enjoy the opportunity to operate an 

ORV at night to change fishing locations, return to camp after dusk, or to leave camp to go fishing before 

dawn. This would result in adverse impacts to ORV users and fisherman, because these activities would 

no longer be allowed. 

ORV and Pedestrian Conflicts—Under alternative D, pedestrians and ORV users could encounter each 

other on the oceanside beaches, raising the possibility of conflict between ORV and non-ORV users and a 

diminished visitor experience for visitors seeking solitude and freedom from vehicular distractions. 

However, because there would be an increase in pedestrian-only areas at the Seashore by approximately 

10 miles under alternative D, those seeking an ORV-free visitor experience would benefit from the 

additional area allowing a pedestrian-only experience. 

Miscellaneous Vehicle and Operator Requirements—Under alternative D, no trailers would be 

allowed after a five-year grace period, while UTV trailers (5 feet or less) would continue to be allowed. 

Further, the same vehicle equipment requirements under alternative B would be implemented, which 

could also result in slightly adverse impacts on ORV users, since various items would be required for 

each ORV, which visitors might view as a burdensome requirement that requires additional financial 

investment.

Vehicle Delivery—The impacts related to vehicle delivery under alternative D would be the same as 

those under alternative C. The adverse impacts to UTV users would be long-term and noticeable, because 

UTV users would no longer be able to transport their vehicles to the Seashore via private or 

noncommercial means. However, based on NPS staff observation, this restriction would likely impact 

very few visitors, because the number of visitors that transport their UTVs to the Seashore is very limited. 

Shade Shelters—The impacts related to shade shelters under alternative D would be the same as those 

under alternative B (long-term, beneficial impacts on all Seashore visitors, as visitors would be able to 

escape storms and intense sunlight under these shelters, as needed, thus improving their visit to the 

Seashore beyond the current number of shade shelters offered). 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative D 

The past, present, and future actions under alternative D would be the same under alternative A which 

would be long-term, limited, and adverse (from restricting ORV access at the Seashore to visitors wanting 

unrestricted access, from the noise from ORVs and military overflights to visitors seeking quiet and 

solitude at the Seashore, and from the potential visual impact of the BOEM wind turbines), as well as 

long-term beneficial (from increased visitor amenities, improvements made to the historic structures and 

districts, maintaining a regular ferry schedule, improving concessioner operations and services, 

maintaining and managing the wild horse population at Shackleford Banks, the improvement of visitor 

services including ranger-led programs and exhibits, and the availability of the Special Use Permits). 

These impacts, combined with the long-term adverse and beneficial impacts under alternative D, would 

likely result in observable long-term adverse and beneficial cumulative impacts, of which management of 

ORVs at the Seashore would contribute a large part. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

498 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

ALTERNATIVE E

Impacts of Alternative E 

ORV and Full Recreational Closures—As a result of prohibiting all ORVs at the Seashore, the NPS 

would not designate specific areas and trails on public lands where the use of ORVs may be permitted. 

This would result in substantial long-term adverse impacts on ORV users, as well as long-term beneficial 

impacts on visitors seeking an ORV-free Seashore experience. However, due to the nature and the 

geography of the Seashore, it is unlikely that many visitors would be able to access the entire Seashore 

without the aid of a vehicle. While this may be provided by a commercial provider, this access is not 

guaranteed under this ORV management plan/EIS. Thus, the long-term benefits to non-ORV users may 

be limited to the areas of the Seashore that are within a reasonable walking distance of a ferry landing. 

Similarly, these areas could become overcrowded (because visitors might not walk far from the ferry 

landings), thus presenting adverse impacts on visitors seeking solitude at the Seashore. 

As under alternative B, alternative E would implement the adaptive management strategy. The adaptive 

management strategy would possibly increase protection measures, based on the condition of the 

American oystercatcher, which is being used as an indicator species for potential impacts to other species 

at the Seashore. Thus, depending on the resource management activities as prescribed under the adaptive 

management strategy, pedestrians could experience long- and short-term, noticeable, adverse impacts to 

visitor use: no new impacts would result if no resource protection activities are changed; adverse impacts 

would result if resource protection measures are increased including species buffers. 

ATV and UTV Use—All ATVs and UTVs would be prohibited year-round at the Seashore, resulting in 

long-term substantial adverse impacts to ATV and UTV users, because this use would no longer be 

allowed. Although ATV and UTV areas may be available in other areas outside the Seashore, the 

environment of the Seashore is unique and adjacent areas would not offer the same type of remote beach 

experience. However, there would be long-term beneficial impacts on visitors seeking solitude and an 

ORV-free Seashore experience, because non-ORV users and visitors seeking solitude and a natural setting 

would not have any audible or visual disturbances from ATVs and UTVs. 

Camping—Official camping regulations under alternative E would be the same as those under 

alternative A. However, the lack of ORV use at the Seashore would severely limit access to camping 

areas along Seashore beaches. Because it would be much more difficult to access remote areas of the 

Seashore for camping, impacts to visitors wishing to camp would be long-term and substantially adverse. 

Permitting and Limits on the Number of Vehicle Permits—Under alternative E, there would be no 

ORV allowed at the Seashore and therefore a permitting system would not be required and there would be 

no impact from such a system. 

Long-Term Vehicle Parking and Storage—Under alternative E, there would be no long-term vehicle 

parking or storage, because vehicles would not be allowed at the Seashore, therefore impacts related to 

long-term vehicle parking and storage are not applicable. 

ORVs and Other Recreational Uses—Under alternative E, ORVs would be restricted from accessing 

the Seashore. One-hundred percent of Seashore beach would be available for pedestrian-access only, 

year-round. The back route would be re-established to the same or equivalent locations when it is 

impacted by a storm event for resource protection and safety, but would only be used by NPS staff for 

administration and management purposes. Occasional maintenance would occur on the back route as 

needed. Because the Seashore would prohibit ORV use year-round, impacts to ORV users would be longterm and substantially adverse, while impacts to non-ORV users would be long-term and beneficial, 
Visitor Use and Experience 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 499

because non-ORV users and visitors seeking solitude and a natural setting would not have any vehicular 

intrusions or distractions. 

The lack of ORV use at the Seashore would severely limit access to fishing sites along Seashore beaches, 

and to fishing tournaments held during the spring and fall. Fishing would likely be limited to the ferry 

landing areas due to the lack of available options for accessing remote areas of the Seashore with fishing 

equipment in tow. This would result in long-term substantial adverse impacts on fishermen, because it 

would be difficult to access many historical and preferred fishing areas at the Seashore. 

Pedestrian Activities—As under alternative A, pedestrian uses, such as swimming, sunbathing, beach 

walking, and shell collecting would be allowed outside of any full recreational or safety closure under 

alternative E. The opportunity to experience the Seashore in solitude from vehicular distractions would be 

entirely attainable under alternative E. Therefore, impacts would be long-term beneficial for pedestrians 

and visitors seeking an ORV-free Seashore experience. However, the long-term benefits to non-ORV 

users may be limited to the areas of the Seashore that are within a reasonable walking distance of a ferry 

landing. Similarly, these areas could become overcrowded (because visitors might not walk far from the 

ferry landings), thus presenting adverse impacts on all visitors, and especially visitors seeking solitude at 

the Seashore. 

Night Driving—Because ORVs would not be permitted under alternative E, there would be long-term 

beneficial impacts on visitors seeking to view night skies without the intrusion of headlights, which 

diminish the ability to see night skies. Similarly, impacts to visitors who desire to drive at night at the 

Seashore would be long-term and substantially adverse. 

ORV and Pedestrian Conflicts—Because ORVs would be prohibited from the Seashore year-round, 

there would not be any impacts related to ORV and pedestrian conflicts.

Miscellaneous Vehicle and Operator Requirements—Because ORVs would be prohibited from the 

Seashore year-round, there would not be any miscellaneous vehicle or operator requirements or impacts 

from these requirements.

Vehicle Delivery—Because ORVs would be prohibited from the Seashore year-round, there would not be 

any vehicle delivery requirements or impacts from these requirements.

Shade Shelters—The impacts related to shade shelters under alternative E would be the same as those 

under alternative B (long-term, beneficial impacts on all Seashore visitors, as visitors would be able to 

escape storms and intense sunlight under these shelters, as needed, thus improving their visit to the 

Seashore beyond the current number of shade shelters offered). 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative E 

The past, present, and future actions discussed under alternative A would be similar under alternative E, 

which would be long-term, limited, and adverse (from restricting ORV access at the Seashore to visitors 

wanting unrestricted access, and from the noise from military overflights to visitors seeking quiet and 

solitude at the Seashore), as well as long-term beneficial (from increased visitor amenities, improvements 

made to the historic structures and districts, maintaining a regular ferry schedule, improving concessioner 

operations and services, maintaining and managing the wild horse population at Shackleford Banks, and 

the improvement of visitor services including ranger-led programs and exhibits, and the availability of 

Special Use Permits). These impacts, combined with the long-term adverse and beneficial impacts under 

alternative E, would likely result in observable long-term adverse and beneficial cumulative impacts, of 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

500 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

which management of ORV use (including discontinuing ORV use under alternative E) would contribute 

a large part to long-term adverse impacts. 

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Compared to alternative A, impacts on ORV users under alternative B would be slightly more adverse, 

due to the expanded rules and regulations that would be implemented under alternative B, such as night 

driving, vehicle requirements, and vehicle permits. Compared to alternative A, impacts on non-ORV 

users would not be noticeable. Compared to alternative E, impacts on ORV users under alternative B 

would be beneficial, as ORV use would be prohibited under alternative E. Compared to alternative E, 

impacts on non-ORV users would be noticeably adverse, due to the presence of ORVs under 

alternative B. 

Compared to alternative A, impacts on ORV users under alternative C would be slightly more adverse, 

due to the expanded rules and regulations that would be implemented under alternative C, such as night 

driving, vehicle requirements, vehicle permits, and vehicle restrictions. Compared to alternative A, 

impacts on non-ORV users would be beneficial. Compared to alternative E, impacts on ORV users under 

alternative C would be considerably beneficial, due to the prohibition of ORVs under alternative E. 

Compared to alternative E, impacts on non-ORV users would be noticeably adverse, due to the continued 

presence of ORVs under alternative C. 

Compared to alternative A, impacts on ORV users under alternative D would be more adverse, due to the 

expanded rules and regulations that would be implemented under alternative D, such as night driving, 

vehicle requirements, an 8 percent reduction in the number of vehicle permits, and vehicle restrictions. 

Compared to alternative A, impacts on non-ORV users would be slightly beneficial, due to the increase in 

pedestrian-only areas. Compared to alternative E, impacts on ORV users under alternative D would be 

considerably beneficial, due to the prohibition of ORVs under alternative E. Compared to alternative E, 

impacts on non-ORV users would be noticeably adverse, due to the presence of ORVs under 

alternative D. 

Compared to alternative A, impacts on ORV users under alternative E would be substantially adverse, as 

ORVs would be prohibited throughout the entire Seashore. Impacts on non-ORV users would be longterm and beneficial, as ORVs would be prohibited throughout the entire Seashore. However, the benefits 

of alternative E to non-ORV users would be primarily limited to the areas of the Seashore that are within 

reasonable walking distance of a ferry landing, and further limited if those areas become over-crowded 

with pedestrians.

CONCLUSION

Alternatives A, B, C, and D would not adversely impact the unique geography and undeveloped qualities 

that many visitors come to the Seashore to enjoy. Surfing, hunting, shelling, and beachcombing would 

continue to be allowed under all alternatives. In addition, under all alternatives visitors would still be able 

to learn about the natural history of coastal North Carolina and the cultural and historic significance of the 

region. 

Under alternative A, visitors would be able to witness the vast ocean viewshed by day and night. Because 

nighttime driving would not be restricted, visitors who enjoy fishing would be able to leave their camps 

before dawn to reach their fishing locations, as well as leave their fishing locations after dusk to return to 

their camps. However, there would be impacts on the ability to enjoy some of the darkest night sky 

vantages along the East Coast. Visitors to the Seashore would still be able to experience a unique 

recreational setting and enjoy noncommercialized and self-reliant outdoor activities in a remote and 
Visitor Use and Experience 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 501

natural setting, even though the presence of ORVs may create some adverse impacts by detracting from 

the feeling of solitude and the natural setting. Alternative A may also have adverse impacts on visitor use 

and experience due to restrictions on ORV access in certain areas. 

Under alternatives B, C, and D, visitors would still be able to witness the vast ocean viewshed by day. 

The ability to enjoy some of the darkest night sky vantages along the East Coast by night would be 

achievable because nighttime driving would be restricted from at least May 1 through August 31, with 15 

additional days (until September 14) under alternatives C and D. Conversely, due to the nighttime driving 

restrictions, visitors who enjoy fishing would not be allowed to leave their camps before dawn to reach 

their fishing locations, and would not be allowed to leave their fishing locations after dusk to return to 

their camps. Visitors to the Seashore would still be able to experience a unique recreational setting where 

visitors enjoy noncommercialized and self-reliant outdoor activities in a remote and natural setting, even 

though the presence of ORVs may create some adverse impacts by detracting from the feeling of solitude 

and the natural setting in some areas. Alternatives B, C, and D may also have adverse impacts on visitor 

use and experience due to restrictions on ORV access in certain areas. 

Under alternative E, visitors would be able to witness the vast ocean viewshed by day and enjoy some of 

the darkest night sky vantages along the East Coast by night, because ORV use would not be allowed at 

the Seashore under alternative E. Visitors would still be able to learn about the natural history of coastal 

North Carolina and the cultural and historic significance of the region. Visitors to the Seashore would still 

be able to experience a unique recreational setting where visitors enjoy noncommercialized and selfreliant outdoor activities in a remote and natural setting, without ORVs detracting from this experience. 

However, many areas of the Seashore may no longer be as easily accessible due to the distance from the 

ferry landings and difficulty accessing these areas by foot. The elimination of ORV use at the Seashore 

under alternative E is likely to have severe adverse impacts on ORV visitor use and experience, because 

this alternative eliminates ORV use, which is a traditional use at the Seashore that many visitors expect. 

Eliminating ORV use at the Seashore would also severely decrease visitors’ opportunities to access 

remote areas of the Seashore, due to the geography of the Seashore and the general lack of amenities that 

would facilitate visitors walking far distances. 

Significance Discussion 

The purpose of Cape Lookout National Seashore is to preserve the outstanding natural, cultural, and 

recreational resources and values of a dynamic, intact, natural barrier island system where ecological 

processes dominate. The Seashore is one of the few remaining locations on the Atlantic coast where 

visitors can experience and recreate in an undeveloped, remote barrier island environment that can be 

reached only by boat or ferry. ORV use at the Seashore predates establishment of the Seashore in 1976. 

Beginning in the 1930s, vehicles were transported to the banks by shallow draft ferries and were used to 

provide access to productive commercial and recreational fishing spots, as well as for other recreational 

pursuits such as sightseeing and camping. ORV use has been ongoing since the establishment of the 

Seashore in 1976. ORV use at the Seashore is limited to some degree by ferry size and availability, with 

an estimated 5,500 ORVs transported to the Seashore each year. The percentage amount of Seashore 

beaches available to ORVs varies depending on the season and alternative, ranging from up to 81 percent 

available in alternatives A and B, up to 79 percent available in alternative C, up to 73 percent available in 

alternative D, and 0 percent available in alternative E, with the Seashore being completely closed to 

ORVs late December through mid-March in alternatives A, B, C, and D. However, routes available to 

ORVs have historically been reduced for resource protection measures, with average reductions to beach 

access as described above between 10 and 25 percent in the summer season (May through August) and 6 

and 14 percent in the fall season (September through November). While the percentage of beach closed is 

based on the number and type of species at the Seashore at any given time and concurrent buffer zones, 

the protections generating these closures would continue in the action alternatives, with potentially greater 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

502 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

reductions in alternative D due to increased buffer zones. Thus, while ORV access is allowed throughout 

many areas of the Seashore, the restrictions in place for resource protection may cause some 

inconveniences to ORV users. 

Visitors at the Seashore currently enjoy several different types of recreational opportunities, including 

fishing, camping, visiting the lighthouse, shell collecting, and swimming, which would continue under all 

of the proposed alternatives. The impacts to visitor use and experience under alternatives A, B, C, and D 

are not likely to be significant, or highly controversial, because ORV use would still be allowed in a 

majority of the Seashore (which would facilitate an array of visitor opportunities at the Seashore), and 

there are relatively minor changes from the existing condition. However, due to full recreational and ORV 

closures under alternatives A, B, C, and D, the ability to access all areas of the Seashore would be 

reduced, and could inconvenience some visitors using vehicles if full recreational or ORV closures 

prevent them from accessing a desirable area of the Seashore. Adverse impacts to visitor use and 

experience across all the alternatives would generally be noticeable, as described in the impacts analysis 

above. There would be no significant impacts to visitor use and experience under alternative A, as the 

impacts to visitor use and experience are limited, the current species protection measures do not cause 

significant impacts to visitor use and experience at the Seashore, and the action simply formalizes existing 

ORV routes that currently occur under the existing condition. Under alternatives B, C, and D, 

constructing up to six additional shade shelters along the back route would benefit visitor use and 

experience, above and beyond the no-action alternative and existing conditions. Conversely, additional 

pedestrian-only areas on the Seashore would adversely impact ORV users, since ORVs would be 

prohibited from these areas. However, an increase in pedestrian-only areas under alternatives C and D 

would benefit visitors seeking an ORV-free Seashore experience. As a result, there would be no 

significant adverse impacts to visitor use and experience under alternatives B, C, and D, as the impacts to 

visitors would be small, as described above. 

The impacts on visitor use and experience under alternative E, which prohibits ORV use, would likely be 

significant and highly controversial, because a majority of the visitors at the Seashore use ORVs to access 

different areas of the Seashore. Alternative E would severely limit visitor opportunities, because the 

geography of the Seashore and the general lack of amenities that would facilitate visitors walking far 

distances, visitors would likely be confined to the areas surrounding the ferry landings, thus altering the 

visitor experience at the Seashore significantly. Conversely, visitors seeking an ORV-free experience at 

the Seashore would experience beneficial impacts under alternative E, because the use of ORVs would be 

prohibited. 

Under alternatives A, B, C, and D, designating legal routes for ORV use does not establish a precedent for 

future actions with significant effects to visitor experience, as ORV use has occurred at the Seashore since 

the 1930s and continued since the establishment of the Seashore as a park unit in 1976. ORV use is also 

currently legally permitted in several other national seashores and recreation areas, and in this regard is 

not precedent-setting within the national park system. Alternative E, which prohibits ORV use, would 

also not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects to visitor experience, as many 

other national park units do not allow ORV use. 

In conclusion, in light of the significance criteria at 40 CFR 1508.27, impacts to visitor experience under 

alternatives A, B, C, and D would be small when compared to the existing condition, but under alternative 

E could be significant. 
Socioeconomic Resources 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 503

SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES 

GUIDING REGULATIONS AND POLICIES

Although economic or social effects do not by themselves require the preparation of an environmental 

impact statement (EIS), when an EIS is prepared and economic or social and natural or physical 

environmental effects are interrelated, then the EIS must discuss all these effects on the human 

environment (40 CFR 1508.14). CEQ also requires NPS to consider the effects of actions on the quality, 

growth, expansion, and use of outlying and gateway communities (40 CFR 1502.16). 

NEPA requires the analysis of social and economic impacts resulting from proposed major federal actions 

in an EIS. From these requirements, NPS has identified conditions that it wants to achieve in association 

with its management of national parks. These conditions are described in the NPS Management Policies 

2006 (NPS 2006d). 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS

The economic situation and business revenue within the region of influence (ROI) is influenced by 

Seashore management decisions, in addition to other factors. The socioeconomic impact is closely tied to 

the impact on visitor use and experience. The long term impacts of any alternative depend in part on how 

visitors and businesses alter their behavior in response to an alternative. Visitors may decide to visit other 

beaches for recreation or vary their activities or the timing of their trips. Businesses may change the goods 

and services they offer in response to changes in regulations and visitor preferences. These long term 

adjustments are difficult to predict. 

The methods and assumptions used for this analysis are guided by past experience and historical data. A 

variety of information was used to assess the impacts of the proposed alternatives including data on 

visitation, parking permits, and ferry traffic; the results from an input-output model; interviews with 

potentially affected businesses, and interviews with NPS staff. The data on visitation, parking permits and 

ferry traffic are of variable quality and the numbers for any particular year reflect unpredictable variation 

in weather, gas prices, and other factors. The analysis presents a qualitative discussion of the expected 

impacts of the alternatives informed by the data and the quantitative modeling results for the ROI. The 

actual impacts would vary year to year based on the many factors that affect visitation such as the 

weather, rules governing the use of ORVs at other nearby beaches, gas prices, bird nesting patterns, and 

fish abundance. 

This analysis does not consider the economic impacts on regions outside the ROI. 

If an alternative results in individuals visiting other sites outside the Seashore, then these regions would 

experience an increase in business while businesses in the ROI would experience a decrease. Similarly, if 

one of the alternatives resulted in increased visitation to the Seashore that attracted visitors away from 

other beaches, these other regions would suffer an economic loss. The socioeconomic impacts of the 

alternatives were estimated at two different scales. Impacts to the ROI, Carteret County, were estimated 

for several scenarios using IMPLAN (MIG, Inc. 2012), an input-output model that provides a way to 

measure the impact of changes in spending by visitors from outside the ROI on output and employment 

within the ROI. The predicted change in output and employment is compared to the size of the Carteret 

County economy to assess the order of magnitude of the impacts relative to the ROI as a whole. However, 

the potential impacts of the alternatives on the businesses that directly serve ORV visitors to the Seashore 

are also discussed. The impacts on this group of businesses would be much larger than the impacts on the 

economy of Carteret County as a whole. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

504 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Summary of Interviews with Businesses 

To gather input for the analysis, interviews were conducted with three vehicle ferry operators who serve 

visitors using ORVs and the Crystal Coast Tourism Authority (RTI 2013). The ferry operators were asked 

about the number of employees and whether they fell under the threshold to be considered a small 

business ($7 million in annual revenue for the Small Business Association threshold). The businesses 

employed between two and six employees, including the owners, and were all small businesses. 

The respondents were asked for their predictions of business in the future under the different alternatives. 

Below is a summary of what the respondents reported. 

x Under alternative A, the respondents thought that with no changes to current management their 

revenue would increase or stay the same in the future. 

x For alternative B, most of the respondents believed it would decrease business and that the 

prohibition on nighttime driving in the summer would have the biggest single impact among the 

features of the alternative. However, some respondents thought that there might be an increase in 

visitors who do not use ORVs and that the parking permit limit would improve safety and 

crowding. The respondents differed in what they believed the size of the decline might be, with 

responses varying between 25 percent and 75 percent. 

x Under alternative C, the respondents differed in what they believed the size of the decline might 

be, with responses varying between 50 percent and 75 percent. Some respondents believed that 

nighttime driving restrictions might have the biggest impact. Other respondents thought there was 

a chance that because of the ban on nighttime driving, visitors who fished might make more day 

trips and revenue would increase. Some respondents thought that there might be an increase in 

visitors who do not use ORVs similar to alternative B. 

x When asked about alternative D, the respondents all believed the alternative would reduce 

visitation and revenue, with their estimates varying between 75 percent and 100 percent. Some 

respondents thought alternative D might potentially force some businesses to close. The decline 

in miles of beach open to ORVs, the ban of long-term parking, and limitations on ATVs and 

UTVs were listed by respondents as the most important factors. 

x The respondents believed that alternative E would result in large declines in revenue, with 

estimates varying from 75 percent to 100 percent reduction in business with the potential to force 

some businesses to close. 

Summary of Visitation Data and IMPLAN Analysis 

To estimate the impacts on the ROI, the IMPLAN model requires estimates of the changes in spending by 

out-of-town visitors in different industry categories as inputs. Deriving the changes in spending in turn 

requires assumptions about the current level of visitation associated with ORV use including vehicle and 

passenger ferry trips, the average length of a trip, and spending per day per visitor. Although some 

visitation data are collected each year by the NPS, there are gaps in the data that make it difficult to firmly 

establish baseline visitation. Likewise, data on current visitation do not indicate how visitors will react to 

the management changes in action alternatives. 

Given the available data, the goal of the economic analysis is to provide a range of potential outcomes 

and a sense of the relative magnitude of the outcomes for the entire ROI and for the smaller set of 

businesses that serve visitors to the Seashore who use ORVs. To do this, two estimates of baseline 

visitation under the no-action alternative were created using different assumptions about the number of 

days the average trip lasted. The analysis then looked at the impact of a decline of 10 percent, 30 percent 
Socioeconomic Resources 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 505

and 100 percent in visitation and ferry trips using IMPLAN. The assumptions used to create the high and 

low baseline visitation estimates are discussed below. Where possible, the assumptions are based on 

historical data collected by the NPS. As reported below, the predicted impacts for all the scenarios were 

very small relative to the whole economy of Carteret County, which contains many attractions and 

businesses in addition to the Seashore. Small variations in the assumptions do not produce qualitatively 

different results at the county level. 

Table 65 presents the estimates for the baseline number of vehicle and passenger ferry trips and the 

number of visitor days (the number of visitors multiplied by the number of days per trip) for two 

assumptions about the number of days per trip. In the table, values are identified as “approximate” or 

“assumed.” “Approximate” variables are based on professional judgment using data either reported by 

ferry owners or collected by the NPS staff, while “assumed” variables are based on the judgment of NPS 

staff in the absence of reliable data. In most cases, the assumptions err on the side of overstating the 

number of vehicles and passengers. For example, the lower bound estimate for the length of an average 

trip is a three-day trip, although there are day-trip visitors to the islands and weekend visitors who may 

only spend two days on the islands (the upper bound estimate for the average trip length is seven days). 

As another example, because data on the number of separate trips made by visitors who leave their 

vehicles in the long term parking lots on the islands are not available, it was assumed that visitors with 

cars in the parking lots on the islands made an average of 18 trips over the season (18 weeks was the 

average number of weeks per parking permit based on data from 2010 through 2012). As discussed 

above, the IMPLAN model assumes visitors bring new money to the ROI that would not have been spent 

in the ROI on something else if they did not make the trip. It was assumed that all the visitors are from 

out of the ROI or that if they are local, they would not spend the money they spent on their trips to the 

Seashore at other businesses in the ROI if they do not visit the Seashore. 

Adding together the total number of passenger ferry round trips for ATV and UTV passengers and other 

ORV passengers yields an estimate of over 22,000 ferry round trips. In 2010, the vehicle ferries reported 

approximately 16,000 passenger round trips, suggesting that for the estimate to be accurate over 6,000 

passenger round trips for visitors associated with vehicles would occur on passenger-only ferries. 

Assumptions are conservative, and may overstate vehicle trips and visits by ORV users. Although other 

assumptions could be made, the results from the IMPLAN analysis presented below suggest that the 

impacts on the economy of the ROI would be very small regardless of the assumptions. 

The Seashore has not conducted a study of visitor spending. NPS has created spending profiles based on 

surveys in other national parks, and for this study the spending profile for visitors camping in the park 

was used (Stynes 2011). The camping profile was selected because NPS staff believe that the majority of 

ORV visitors to the islands do not stay in hotels on the mainland and bring most of their supplies with 

them, although some visitors to the islands who use ORVs may stay in cabins (which are operated by the 

Seashore). Table 66 presents the spending assumptions by category. The documentation for the Money 

Generation Model (used to generate the results in Stynes 2011)17 suggests that the average party size was 

three for camping in the park, however to err on the side of overstating the potential economic losses from 

a decline in visitation, an average party size of two was assumed to calculate per person spending. 

 

17 Information about party size and other assumptions are available at 

http://www.mgm2impact.com/files/AppendixC.pdf. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

506 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

TABLE 65: ASSUMPTIONS TO CALCULATE VISITATION UNDER ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION

Description 

Annual 

Estimate Source 

Vehicle ferry round trips 5,500 Approximate, based on data from ferry owners on vehicle trips 

from 2005 through 2010, matches assumption in alternative A 

for baseline vehicle numbers 

ATV and UTV ferry round trips 1,025 Approximate, based on data reporting breakdown of vehicle 

types 

ORV ferry round trips 4,475 Approximate, based on data reporting breakdown of vehicle 

types 

ATV and UTV passengers 1538 Approximate, 1.5 people per ATV and UTV based on NPS 

(2012) 

ORV passengers 11635 Approximate 2.6 people per ORV based on number of 

passengers and vehicles carried by vehicle ferries from 

selected years with complete data between 2005 and 2011 

ATV and UTV passenger ferry 

round trips 

2238 Assumed, 1 trip per person plus 700 visitors taking ATV and 

UTV tours on island (approximate based on data from tour 

operator) 

ORV passenger ferry round trips 20586 Approximate, 1.79 passenger ferry trips per vehicle trip based 

on average number of parking permits sold 2010-2012 (207) 

and average number of weeks per permit (18), assuming 1 trip 

per week for 207 parking permit holders and 1 trip for per 

vehicle for vehicles without parking permits 

Lower bound visitor days 68470 Assumed, three-day trip per person 

Upper bound visitor days 159764 Assumed, seven-day trip per person 

a

 Approximate estimates are based on professional judgment using data collected from ferry owners and NPS 

staff, data may not be complete for all years and values should be interpreted as approximations. 

b Assumed estimates are assumptions where no reliable data exist. 

TABLE 66: SPENDING BY CATEGORY (PER PARTY PER DAY/NIGHT)

Spending Category 

Average Per Party Per 

Day/Night Spending 

(in 2010 dollars) IMPLAN Sector Name

Motel, hotel, B&B $0.83 Hotels and motels, including casino hotels 

Camping fees $18.09 Other accommodations 

Restaurants & bars $13.86 Food services and drinking places 

Amusements $9.99 Other amusement and recreation industries 

Groceries $16.32 Retail Stores - Food and beverage 

Gas & oil $24.59 Retail stores - gasoline stations 

Local transportation $4.42 Scenic and sightseeing transportation and support 

activities for transportation 

Retail Purchases $13.27 Retail Stores- Miscellaneous 

Total $101.39 

Source: Stynes (2011), Table 1. 
Socioeconomic Resources 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 507

Based on discussions with staff at the Seashore, it was assumed that there would be no change in 

visitation by visitors who do not use ORVs. It is possible that restricting ORVs might result in an increase 

in visitation by those who do not use ORVs, but any increase was not expected to be large enough to 

impact the results. 

IMPLAN Model Results 

Economic impact analyses trace the flows of spending associated with the affected industries to identify 

changes in sales, income, jobs, and tax revenues resulting from a policy action. An economic impact 

analysis typically examines the effect of a change in policy on the economy of a particular region. 

Economic impact analysis differs from benefit-cost analysis, which focuses on the change in economic 

efficiency resulting from a change in policy and includes both market and nonmarket values. 

To measure the economic impacts of the proposed alternatives, IMPLANv3 (MIG, Inc. 2012) was used. 

IMPLAN is an input-output model that simulates how changes in sales and employment in one industry 

can affect other industries and the regional economy as a whole. IMPLAN is one of the most widely used 

regional economic impact modeling software packages, and it has been used frequently in economic 

impact studies for the NPS (see examples of applications of IMPLAN to National Parks at 

http://web4.canr.msu.edu/mgm2/). 

The process for generating the impacts in the IMPLAN model is illustrated in figure 29. This process can 

be separated into three types of impacts: 

Direct Impacts—the immediate consequences in industries that experience a change in sales. 

Indirect Impacts—responses in other industries to changes in the industries experiencing direct 

impacts. 

Induced Impacts—responses by households to the change in income received as the economy 

changes. Since wage payments adjust as the economy experiences impacts, households purchase 

more or less goods and services, which leads to greater expansion or contraction of the economy. 

FIGURE 29: FEEDBACK PROCESS THAT GENERATES A PROGRAM’S TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT

To apply IMPLAN, the analyst must estimate the direct impacts of an economic activity or policy and 

provide them as input. IMPLAN contains a data file with information on the region of interest that 

provides information, such as ratios of jobs to sales for each sector, the proportion of spending by 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

508 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

individuals and firms located within the region, the amount that is spent within the region, and the amount 

that each sector purchases from all the other sectors within the region per unit of output. Applying the 

multipliers generated from the data file allows the IMPLAN program to estimate the total regional 

impacts resulting from a given direct impact. 

The economic database that IMPLAN uses comes from official government statistics (e.g., the National 

Income and Product Accounts published annually by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Bureau of 

Economic Analysis accounts for the United States, along with numerous other data sources). These data 

are constructed to be internally consistent (i.e., county data sum to state totals and state data sum to 

national totals). In some cases, regional values are created where no data previously existed, and for other 

categories new values are calculated to replace existing data. Thus, IMPLAN contains comprehensive and 

consistent regional accounts but at the cost of making alterations to existing data and creating new data 

(Crihfield and Campbell 1991). Because of this, IMPLAN may not match data on economic output from 

other reports. The NPS did not calibrate the IMPLAN data for tourism sectors of the economy to other, 

external data because all data in IMPLAN is generated using the same assumptions, providing 

consistency across sectors. 

Using the estimate of visitation in baseline under the no-action alternative (alternative A), impacts were 

calculated for three scenarios for reductions in visitation by visitors who use ORVs (a subset of total 

visitors to the Seashore): 10 percent reduction in visitation, 30 percent reduction in visitation, and 100 

percent reduction in visitation using the assumptions from tables 65 and 66. Table 67 presents the change 

in value added18 (comparable to Gross Regional Product) and employment for the upper and lower bound 

assumptions about trip length. The change in output and employment predicted by the model are just 

approximations of the impacts based on multipliers and not an examination of the actual businesses 

affected, but they provide a sense of the potential magnitude. The scenarios for a 10 percent and 30 

percent reduction in visitation related to vehicle use on the islands in the Seashore is predicted to result in 

impacts on value added and employment representing less than one tenth of a percent of the Carteret 

County economy. The upper bound estimate for a 100 percent reduction in visitation results in a loss of 

approximately $10 million in value added and 200 jobs based on the IMPLAN multipliers. These 

numbers represent approximately 0.6 percent of the total Gross Regional Product and labor force for 

Carteret County. It is difficult to say whether a change of 200 employees could be distinguished from the 

monthly variations in the county employment. From January 2009 through June 2013, the U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics reported the average month-to-month change (in absolute value) in the number of people 

employed in Carteret County was 600 with a standard deviation of 300. If all 200 jobs were lost in one 

month and if all the people who lost their jobs continued looking for another job and were unable to find 

one, a change of this size could increase the monthly unemployment rate by an average of approximately 

0.60 percent. However, many factors would influence the observed changes in the county unemployment 

rate including the timing of the job losses (e.g., it is unlikely all job losses would occur in one month), 

how quickly the people found new jobs, whether they stayed in Carteret County, whether the lost jobs 

were seasonal or permanent, and other changes in economic conditions unrelated to the plan. 

 

18 In IMPLAN, value added is defined as “The difference between an industry’s or an establishment’s total output 

and the cost of its intermediate inputs. It equals gross output (sales or receipts and other operating income, plus 

inventory change) minus intermediate inputs (consumption of goods and services purchased from other industries or 

imported)” (see www. implan.com). 
Socioeconomic Resources 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 509

TABLE 67: RANGE OF PROJECTED ANNUAL IMPACTS BY SCENARIO AND AS A PERCENT OF CARTERET COUNTY

TOTALS

Scenario Scenario 

Change in 

Value Added 

Percent of 

Carteret County 

Totala Change in Employment 

Percent of 

Carteret County 

Total 

10% Reduction in 

Visitation

Lower Boundb -$488,000 -0.03% -10 -0.03% 

Upper Boundb -$992,000 -0.06% -20 -0.06% 

30% Reduction in 

Visitation

Lower Bound -$1,464,000 -0.09% -30 -0.09% 

Upper Bound -$2,975,000 -0.18% -60 -0.18% 

100% Reduction in 

Visitation

Lower Bound -$4,880,000 -0.29% -100 -0.31% 

Upper Bound -$9,917,000 -0.60% -200 -0.61% 

a Total value added (Gross Regional Product) for Carteret County in the IMPLAN model was $ 1,654,657,189 and 

total employment was 32,693 (2008 data). 

b The lower bound scenario assumes a three-day trip, the upper bound assumes a seven-day trip. 

Note: Results estimated using IMPLANv3 (MIG Inc. 2012) with 2008 data on the Carteret County economy. Results 

are in 2012 dollars. 

Although the impacts on the county as a whole may be small, the effects would be concentrated on a 

small number of businesses that serve Seashore visitors, particularly the vehicle ferry operators. It is 

believed that the ORV visitors typically stay on the island and their spending on hotels and restaurants 

may be limited. Their spending on other supplies, including gas, fishing and camping supplies, may be 

larger. However, as a percentage of total revenue, changes in the number of ORV visitors will have the 

greatest impact on the vehicle ferry operators because there are many other visitors who come to Carteret 

County beyond those that visit the Seashore. For businesses that directly serve ORV visitors, the impacts 

may be large, and it is possible that some businesses may close under these scenarios. 

ALTERNATIVE A

Impacts of Alternative A: No Action 

Alternative A, the no-action alternative, represents a continuation of current ORV management. There 

would be no limit on the number of ORVs using the beach from March 16 through December 31. Up to 

81 percent of the beach would be designated as available to ORV use during the season. ORV drivers 

would not be required to purchase vehicle permits or receive educational training. Parking lots would be 

open with a weekly fee for a parking permit and no limit on the number of permits issued, which could 

result in the lots becoming overfilled. 

Under alternative A, visitation and spending are expected to continue according to historical patterns. 

Visitation to the Seashore increased steadily until 2008. Visitation has been lower between 2008 and 

2011, falling from a high of approximately 860,000 in 2007 to between 500,000 and 600,000 in the 

following years. However, ferry passengers represent a portion of the total visitation. For passenger and 

vehicle ferries, between 2007 and 2011 there was an average of approximately 99,000 ferry passengers 

per year, including all destinations on North Core, South Core and Shackleford Banks (NPS 2012l). If all 

other conditions remain the same and visitation continues as it has been, alternative A would have 

beneficial impacts in terms of continued visitor spending for the businesses that serve ORV visitors and 

the economy of the ROI. Alternative A allows for unregulated increases in visitation, which would have 

beneficial impacts on the local economy in the form of future increased visitor spending unless ORV 

visitors became so numerous that visitors who wanted a less crowded experience stopped visiting. While 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

510 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

visitation would not be limited by number of permits, some limitation would still exist as a result of 

capacity of the vehicle ferries, which would create a limit to this potential increase. Alternative A would 

have adverse impacts on visitors who do not currently visit because they would prefer an ORV-free 

experience on the island, however staff at the Seashore believe that even prohibiting ORV use on the 

island would not result in a large increase in other visitors. 

Alternative A would continue the current visitation and business revenue trend, bringing long-term 

benefits to businesses that serve current visitors. The visitors who come to the Seashore bring economic 

benefits to the area in the form of spending on ferry rides, food, gas, souvenirs, overnight lodging, and 

other items. However, the Seashore is located in a county that attracts a large number of visitors to other 

beaches and attractions in the area. According to data from the Seashore provided by the vehicle ferries, 

the vehicle ferries carried a total of approximately 16,000 passengers. In comparison, Fort Macon State 

Park had over 1 million visitors in 2011 and the Pine Knoll Shores Aquarium had over 600,000 visitors 

between May 2006 and May 2007 (North Carolina Aquariums n.d.). The number of ORV visitors to the 

islands in the Seashore is small compared to overall visitation to the area. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative A 

Other past, present, and future planned actions within and surrounding the Seashore have the potential to 

impact the economy of the ROI and the businesses that serve visitors that bring their ORVs to the islands 

or take ATV and UTV tours of the islands. Anything that results in a change in visitation or the way the 

Seashore manages contracts with outside venders would have impacts on the economy and businesses in 

the ROI. 

The Commercial Services Plan / Environmental Assessment / Assessment of Effect (NPS 2007m) guides 

the Seashore in improving the management and operation of commercial visitor services, while providing 

both self-directed and facilitated visitor opportunities. Concessionaire services that are offered and would 

continue to be offered at the Seashore include passenger and vehicle ferry services, guided recreational 

and educational activities, land transportation and shuttle services on the islands, and kayak rentals. The 

commercial services have been managed through two contracts and eight commercial use authorizations 

(CUAs), all operating on short (one- to three-year) contracts (NPS 2007m). Currently, three 

vehicle/passenger ferries enable the public to transport their vehicles to North and South Core Banks. 

Passenger-only ferries operate from several other locations. The contracts for commercial service 

providers (ferry and concessioner operators) are currently in the process of being developed under a 

commercial services plan. The plan is likely to have long-term beneficial impacts on visitor use and 

experience, because visitation and revenue for businesses could be increased if the new contracts improve 

concessioner operations and services for visitors. The impacts on the businesses that currently operate in 

the Seashore could be long-term adverse or beneficial, depending on how the contracts are structured and 

whether all the current businesses would be able to continue operating. 

The Seashore increased visitor amenities in 2006-2007, including a new visitor center and bookstore, and 

shelter and restrooms at the passenger ferry landing by the lighthouse on South Core Banks. The Cape 

Lookout lighthouse has reopened to the public, which has increased visitation to the islands. Plans for 

increased visitor amenities also include other improvements to the historic structures and visitor services 

on the islands. If these improvements result in more visitors to the island, then they would have a 

beneficial impact on the local economy. 

Special Use Permits are available at the Seashore and offer benefits to visitors. Under these permits, 

visitors can engage in activities such as special events, commercial filming/still photography, weddings, 

scattering of ashes, group camping, First Amendment activities, and constructing a temporary Duck 
Socioeconomic Resources 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 511

Blind. These permits add to the opportunities for visitors to use the Seashore and, if carefully managed, 

would increase the economic activity associated with use of the Seashore. 

Until the ORV management plan/EIS is complete, the NPS developed an Interim Off Road Management 

Report and a Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management 

Plan/Environmental Assessment and FONSI (NPS 2006a, 2007d) for Cape Lookout National Seashore to 

ensure the proper management of protected species and to comply with the ESA. The plan also provides 

for appropriate use of recreational resources at the Seashore, including prescribing the locations of 

resource closures on the Seashore. Impacts of the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected 

Species Management Plan/Environmental Assessment on the businesses and economy of the ROI are 

expected to be long-term and adverse to the extent that the measures reduce visitation by visitors who use 

ORVs and therefore reduce revenue to the communities surrounding the Seashore. 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore developed a long-term ORV management plan/EIS to replace ORV 

management under Cape Hatteras National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Strategy / 

Environmental Assessment. Both plans place restrictions on ORV use at Cape Hatteras and may result in 

increases in ORV use at the Seashore if visitors who drive ORVs are looking for a less crowded area or 

when popular stretches of beach are closed in Cape Hatteras. The changes in ORV management in Cape 

Hatteras are expected to have short and long-term beneficial impacts on the businesses and economy of 

the ROI if visitation increases at the Seashore. 

The Carteret County Comprehensive Plan provides policies and programs to promote continued quality of 

life and a sustainable development pattern over a 20-year period. Goals and objectives are set out for 

economic development, education, the environment, health care, quality of life, recreation, cultural and 

natural resources, regional relations, and transportation. To the extent that the plan strengthens the 

economy of the ROI, it should have long-term, beneficial impacts. 

Currently, the BOEM North Carolina Renewable Energy Task Force is discussing plans for offshore 

commercial wind leasing. The task force, comprised of relevant Federal agencies, State government 

officials, and local and Tribal elected government officials, assists BOEM in the planning and decisionmaking process in identifying a Wind Energy Area off the coast of North Carolina (BOEM n.d.). 

The development of wind farms has the potential for long-term impacts that may be beneficial or adverse 

for the local economy of the ROI and businesses that serve visitors to the Seashore. Economic 

development associated with the wind farms could have short and long-term beneficial impacts if the 

projects bring jobs to the ROI. On the other hand, if the offshore commercial wind farms are an eyesore, 

which would depend on where the wind farms are located and how large they are, and the growth of the 

wind farm industry results in reductions in visitation to the Seashore or the ROI in general, then the 

project would have short and long-term adverse impacts because declining visitation would result in less 

revenue for businesses that serve these visitors. 

Taken as a whole, past, present and future actions may have both adverse and beneficial impacts. 

Improvements such as enhancements to visitor services that bring additional visitors to the Seashore or 

additional jobs to the ROI would have short and long term beneficial impacts on the economy of the ROI 

from increased revenue to businesses in the ROI. However, changes to the contracts for ferry operators 

could have adverse or beneficial impacts, depending on how the new contracts are structured. These 

impacts, combined with the long-term beneficial impacts under alternative A, particularly for the 

businesses that serve ORV visitors, would likely result in observable long-term adverse and beneficial 

cumulative impacts. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

512 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

ALTERNATIVE B

Impacts of Alternative B 

Like alternative A, alternative B allows for the same percentage of beach to be designated as available for 

ORV use as alternative A and there would be no limits on the number of ORVs. Like alternative A, while 

visitation would not be limited by number of permits, some limitation would still exist as a result of 

capacity of the vehicle ferries. However, there are a number of provisions in alternative B that could lead 

to a reduction in visitation and visitor spending relative to alternative A. Alternative B requires ORV 

drivers to purchase permits at an expected fee of $80 for a 10-day permit and $150 for a one-year permit. 

Drivers would be required to obtain an educational certificate and carry certain required equipment such 

as a jack and a shovel. Night driving by ORVs would be prohibited from May 1 through August 31. 

Based on statistics from the Seashore, approximately 25 percent to 35 percent of ORV visitors came 

during the summer between 2007 and 2010. The Seashore does not collect data on night driving 

frequency, however staff observations suggest that there is minimal night driving. 

Only non-sport ATVs and UTVs would be allowed. High-performance sport models would be banned 

after a five-year grace period. Based on data from vehicle ferry operators for 2007-2012, ATVs and UTVs 

averaged 13 percent of vehicles on South Core and 20 percent on North Core. Although there are no data 

available on the number of high-performance sport-model ATVs and UTVs, the ban on these vehicles 

would only affect a small portion of total ORV use. 

The number of parking permits available in the lots on the islands would be reduced in spring and 

summer and increased in the fall relative to alternative A. An average of 207 individuals per year bought 

parking permits between 2010 and 2012. These permit holders paid for an average of 18 weeks of longterm parking per permit based on data from 2010 through 2012. Based on data collected on parking lot 

use in 2009 and 2010, the limit on the number of parking permits would result in between 5 and 10 days 

when the parking lots would be full under the alternative B restrictions. This would result in less than 50 

fewer parking space days spread over the spring and summer, where a parking space day is one car in a 

space for one day. The same data suggests that in 2008 the impact would have been larger, with parking 

lots being over-capacity mostly during the spring between 42 and 81 days, depending on the lot, with a 

total of approximately 1,000 parking space days lost. There would be less impact on parking in the fall 

season because more permits would be available. 

Table 67 provides an estimate of the magnitude of the impact a reduction in visitation by ORV visitors 

might have on the ROI for different levels of visitation. If alternative B results in a decrease in overall 

visitation, it would likely be closer to 10 percent and probably not as large as 30 percent, depending in 

large part on how the restriction on night driving during the summer affects visitation and the number of 

sport-model ATVs and UTVs in use. Looking at the results in table 67, even a 30 percent reduction in 

ORV visitation would result in an impact of less than one-tenth of one percent on output and employment 

in the ROI, although vehicle ferry operators believed the reduction in their business might be larger than 

30 percent (between 25 percent and 75 percent). 

The impact on the economy of the ROI under alternative B would be adverse, but, as discussed above, the 

impacts are likely to be very small relative to the whole of Carteret County. However, the impacts would 

be larger for the businesses that directly serve ORV visitors. Alternative B may result in some reduction 

in visitation by ORV users relative to alternative A. The permit price is not expected to have a big impact 

on visitation based on the low cost of the permits relative to the cost of trips to the Seashore and the 

popularity of the site. However, interviews with ferry operators suggest they think that the prohibition on 

night driving during the summer might have a noticeable impact on ORV visitation, although that might 

be partially offset if some visitors make day trips. While the regional economy is unlikely to suffer a 
Socioeconomic Resources 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 513

measurable impact, the businesses that directly serve ORV visitors may experience noticeable, long-term 

adverse impacts. A decline in ferry trips would impact ferry operator revenue. Depending on the size of 

the change in visitation, the level of ferry traffic might not support the current number of ferry operators. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative B 

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions that have the potential to impact piping plover under 

alternative B would be the same as those described under alternative A. Taken as a whole, the cumulative 

past, present and future actions may have both adverse and beneficial impacts on socioeconomics. 

Improvements resulting from past, present and future actions by the Seashore and Carteret County that 

may bring additional visitors to the Seashore or additional jobs to the ROI would have short and long 

term beneficial impacts on the economy of the ROI from increased revenue to businesses in the ROI. 

Future actions affecting the ferry operator’s contracts could have beneficial or adverse impacts on ferry 

operators depending on whether the number of operators was reduced. When combined with the potential 

for decreases in ORV visitation under alternative B, the cumulative adverse impacts on the ferries and 

other businesses the directly serve ORV visitors would be long-term and adverse for businesses that serve 

ORV visitors. For the economy of the ROI, the cumulative impacts combined with the direct impacts of 

alternative B, would likely result in observable long-term adverse and beneficial cumulative impacts. 

ALTERNATIVE C

Impacts of Alternative C 

Alternative C contains provisions similar to alternative B for vehicle permits, education, and required 

vehicle equipment and would expand existing and create additional vehicle-free areas. In the spring from 

March 16 through the Thursday before Memorial Day and in the fall from Labor Day weekend through 

December 15, up to 79 percent of the beach would be designated as available for ORV use. Between 

Memorial Day and Labor Day, up to 74 percent would be designated as available for ORV use depending 

on the size of the resource closures. Similar to alternative B, alternative C requires ORV drivers to 

purchase permits at an estimated fee of $80 for a 10-day permit and $150 for a one-year permit. Drivers 

would be required to obtain an educational certificate and carry certain required equipment such as a jack 

and a shovel. Night driving would be prohibited from May 1 through September 14, somewhat longer 

than under alternative B. The Seashore does not collect data on night driving frequency, however staff 

observations suggest that there is minimal night driving. 

Non-sport ATVs and UTVs would be allowed on a seasonal basis (between September 15 and December 

15); high-performance sport-model ATVs and UTVs would not be allowed at any time after a five-year 

phase–out period. Based on data from vehicle ferry operators for 2007-2012, ATVs and UTVs averaged 

13 percent of vehicles on South Core Banks and 20 percent on North Core Banks. Although there is no 

data available on the number of high-performance sport-model ATVs and UTVs, the ban on these 

vehicles would only affect a portion of total ORV use. Under alternative C, all ORVs, including ATVs 

and UTVs would have to be transported by commercial ferry (visitors would not be permitted to transport 

ATVs and UTVs to the seashore by private vessel). NPS staff have observed very few visitors 

transporting ATVs and UTVs by private vessel, so the impact is expected to be negligible. 

The number of parking permits available in the lots on the islands would be reduced in spring and 

summer and increased in the fall relative to alternative A. Based on data collected on parking lot use in 

2009 and 2010, the limit on the number of parking permits might result in 5 to 10 days when the parking 

lots would be full under the alternative C restrictions. This would result in less than 50 fewer parking 

space days spread over the spring and summer, where a parking space day is one car in a space for one 

day. The same data suggest that in 2008 the impact would have been larger, with parking lots being over-
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

514 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

capacity mostly during the spring between 42 and 81 days, depending on the lot, with a total of 

approximately 1,000 parking space days lost. There would be less impact on parking in the fall season 

because more permits would be available. 

In contrast to alternative B, alternative C would impose a limit on the number of vehicle permits that 

would be issued. The limit would start at an initial level based on the historical average number of 

vehicles that were transported to North and South Core Banks per year. With the reduced miles of beach 

designated as available for ORVs, there may be an increase in crowding. It is unlikely that any increased 

crowding due to the restrictions would result in a reduction in visitation. The limit on the number of 

vehicle permits issued under alternative C may limit the future growth of ORV visitation relative to 

alternatives A and B, which have no vehicle permits and vehicle permits without limits respectively. 

Relative to alternative A, the collective requirements under alternative C may result in a decrease in ORV 

visitors and visitor spending for businesses and the ROI and the decrease may be more than alternative B. 

Table 67 provides an estimate of the magnitude of the impact a reduction in visitation by ORV visitors 

might have on the ROI for different levels of visitation. If alternative C results in a decrease in visitation, 

it would also likely be closer to 10 percent but potentially up to 30 percent or more, depending in large 

part on how the restriction on night driving during the summer affects visitation. Looking at the results in 

table 67, even a 30 percent reduction in ORV visitation would result in an impact of less than one-tenth of 

one percent on output and employment in the ROI, which would likely be small, although the businesses 

contacted during the survey expected larger reductions for their businesses (more than 50 percent to 75 

percent)

As with alternative B, the impacts are likely to be very small relative to the whole of Carteret County. 

However, there would be adverse impacts for the businesses that directly serve ORV visitors. The 

businesses that directly serve ORV visitors may experience noticeable, long-term, adverse impacts. A 

decline in ferry trips would impact ferry operator revenue. Depending on the size of the change in 

visitation, the level of ferry traffic might not support the current number of ferry operators. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative C 

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions that have the potential to impact piping plover under 

alternative and C would be the same as those described under alternative A. Taken as a whole, the 

cumulative past, present and future actions may have both adverse and beneficial impacts on business 

revenue and the regional economy. Improvements resulting from past, present and future actions by the 

Seashore and Carteret County that may bring additional visitors to the Seashore or additional jobs to the 

ROI would have short and long term beneficial impacts on the economy of the ROI from increased 

revenue to businesses in the ROI. Future actions affecting the ferry operator’s contracts could have 

beneficial or adverse impacts on ferry operators depending on whether the number of operators was 

reduced. When combined with the potential for decreases in ORV visitation under alternative C, the 

cumulative adverse impacts on the ferries and other businesses the directly serve ORV visitors would be 

long-term and adverse. For the economy of the ROI, the cumulative impacts combined with the impacts 

of alternative C would likely result in observable long-term adverse and beneficial cumulative impacts. 

ALTERNATIVE D

Impacts of Alternative D 

Alternative D contains provisions similar to alternatives B and C for vehicle permits, education 

certificates, and required vehicle equipment and creates some additional vehicle-free areas. However, the 

Seashore would reduce the number of vehicle permits available with the goal of reducing the number of 
Socioeconomic Resources 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 515

ORVs on the islands by 8 percent compared to historical levels. In the spring from March 16 through the 

Thursday before Memorial Day and between the day after Labor Day weekend and December 15, up to 

73 percent of the beach would be designated as available for ORV use. Between Memorial Day and Labor 

Day, up to 63 percent would be designated as available for ORV use depending on the size of the resource 

closures. The combination of increased pedestrian-only beach areas with fewer vehicle permits would 

likely result in crowding (which considers the level of visitor use combined with the number of beach 

miles open to a specific use) levels similar to historical conditions. Under alternative D, no ATVs would 

be permitted at the Seashore. Non-sport UTVs would be allowed between September 15 and December 

15. Additionally, after five years UTVs with two-stroke engines would be prohibited. Based on data from 

vehicle ferry operators for 2007-2012, ATVs and UTVs averaged 13 percent of vehicles on South Core 

and 20 percent on North Core. Taken together, these requirements and restrictions would most likely 

result in a decrease in ORV visitors and spending by ORV visitors at businesses in the ROI. 

Under Alternative D long-term parking would not be provided on the islands, and the lots would only be 

used for emergencies. An average of 207 individuals per year bought parking permits between 2010 and 

2012. These permit holders paid for an average of 18 weeks of long-term parking per permit based on 

data from 2010 through 2012. The net impact of closing the parking lots on ferry operators is hard to 

predict. The lack of long term parking may reduce visitation if visitors decide to make fewer trips. 

Alternatively, it may increase the number of ferry trips by visitors who want to make multiple trips to the 

islands and can no longer store their vehicles in the long-term parking. 

If alternative D resulted in a reduction in visitation, that would result in a reduction in spending in the 

area. Based on the number of visitors who come during the summer and who may use ATVs and sportmodel UTVs, the reduction in visitation that might result may be around 30 percent or perhaps more of 

current ORV visitors, depending on the impact of the night driving prohibition in the summer, the closure 

of the long-term parking lots, and the size of resource closures. As with the other alternatives, businesses 

contacted during the survey expected larger reductions in business (a loss of 50 percent to 100 percent of 

revenue). Based on the results in table 67, the regional economic impacts are expected to be long-term 

and adverse, but most likely the impacts would be very small for Carteret County, the ROI. 

The businesses that directly serve ORV visitors may experience noticeable and much larger long-term, 

adverse impacts, unless the elimination of long-term parking lots results in increased ferry trips. 

Depending on the size of the change in visitation, the level of ferry traffic might not support the current 

number of ferry operators. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative D 

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions that have the potential to impact piping plover under 

alternative D would be the same as those described under alternative A. Taken as a whole, the cumulative 

past, present and future actions may have both adverse and beneficial impacts. Improvements resulting 

from past, present and future actions by the Seashore and Carteret County that may bring additional 

visitors to the Seashore or additional jobs to the ROI would have short and long term beneficial impacts 

on the economy of the ROI from increased revenue to businesses in the ROI. Future actions affecting the 

ferry operator’s contracts could have beneficial or adverse impacts on ferry operators depending on 

whether the number of operators was reduced. When combined with the potential for decreases in ORV 

visitation under alternative D, the cumulative adverse impacts on the ferries and other businesses the 

directly serve ORV visitors would be long-term and adverse. For the economy of the ROI, the cumulative 

impacts combined with the direct impacts of alternative D would likely result in observable long-term 

adverse and beneficial cumulative impacts. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

516 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

ALTERNATIVE E

Impacts of Alternative E 

Alternative E would prohibit ORV use at the Seashore, resulting in a total loss of current ORV visitor 

spending for the ferry operators and other businesses ORV visitors frequent. The vehicle ferries could still 

operate as passenger ferries, but according to the ferry operators it is unlikely that there would be enough 

passenger business to support the current number of ferry operators. Ferry operators indicated in the 

survey that they might lose most or all of their revenue. Conversely, the prohibition on ATVs at the 

Seashore could result in increased business for commercial ATV providers, which would not be 

prohibited19.

Alternative E would result in long-term, adverse impacts for businesses that serve visitors using ORVs 

because the alternative would result in the total loss of revenue from ORV visitors. The impact on the 

regional economy would be adverse. As discussed in IMPLAN model results section, the upper bound 

scenario for a 100 percent reduction in ORV visitation could result in a loss of approximately 200 jobs, at 

least in the short term, based on the IMPLAN multipliers. While 200 jobs is less than 1 percent of total 

employment, if all the jobs were lost in the same time period it could have a noticeable impact on the 

unemployment rate in the short term. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative E 

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions that have the potential to impact piping plover under 

alternative E would be the same as those described under alternative A. Taken as a whole, the cumulative 

past, present and future actions may have both adverse and beneficial impacts. Improvements resulting 

from past, present and future actions by the Seashore and Carteret County that may bring additional 

visitors to the Seashore or additional jobs to the ROI would have short and long term beneficial impacts 

on the economy of the ROI from increased revenue to businesses in the ROI. When combined with the 

elimination of ORV visitation under alternative E, the cumulative adverse impacts on the ferries and other 

businesses the directly serve ORV visitors would be long-term and adverse. For the economy of the ROI, 

the cumulative impacts combined with the direct impacts of alternative E would likely result in 

observable long-term adverse and beneficial cumulative impacts. 

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A would result in long-term, beneficial impacts relative to alternative E for businesses that 

serve current ORV visitors. Alternative A would result in continued revenue from ORV visitors, which 

would provide support for businesses that serve these visitors and the economy of the ROI. 

Alternatives B, C, and D may result in long-term adverse impacts resulting from a loss of visitor spending 

relative to alternative A for businesses that serve visitors using ORVs if the restrictions on ORVs such as 

the prohibition of night driving in the summer, loss of long-term parking, restrictions on ATVs and UTVs 

and the permit fee and education requirements result in fewer visitors and lower visitor spending. Adverse 

impacts relative to alternative A would be greater under alternatives C and D, than B, because additional 

 

19 Executive Order 11644, Use of ORVs on public lands, section 3(C), defines ORVs, and excludes “any vehicle 

whose use is expressly authorized by the respective agency head under a permit, lease, license, or contract.” This 

definition is incorporated by reference into 36 CFR 4.10 governing ORVs in park units. Therefore, commercial 

vehicle uses, including CUAs, do not require routes designated by special regulation. 
Socioeconomic Resources 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 517

use restrictions are added such as more pedestrian-only areas, no long-term parking available (under 

alternative D), additional limitations on ATV and UTV use, and a limit on the number of vehicle permits 

available. The smaller percentage of beach open to ORVs under alternative C compared to alternative A 

might result in increased crowding, which could result in a reduction in visitation and greater impacts to 

those businesses that rely on Seashore visitation. Under alternative D, additional adverse impacts would 

be realized from prohibitions on all ATVs and sport-model UTVs, seasonal restrictions on non-sport 

UTVs, and lower limits on vehicle permits, all of which would result in fewer visitors and less visitor 

spending. The loss of long-term parking under alternative D could have positive or negative impacts on 

the number of ferry trips visitors make relative to alternative A. 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D offer long-term, beneficial impacts for businesses serving ORV visitors and 

the economy of the ROI when compared to alternative E because these alternatives allow ORVs on the 

islands, which would result in more visitors and spending by visitors in the ROI. The benefits to the ROI 

from alternatives A, B, C, and D relative to alternative E are not expected to be noticeable because the 

revenue from ORV visitors is small compared to the size of the economy of the ROI. However, the 

specific businesses that serve ORV visitors would experience noticeable beneficial impacts under all the 

other alternatives relative to alternative E because they would continue to profit from ORV visitor traffic. 

CONCLUSION

Socioeconomic impacts from the alternatives depend on how the alternatives affect visitor experience and 

the cost of a visit. The impacts of the alternatives on visitor experience, whether beneficial or adverse, 

influence whether and how often visitors make trips to the Seashore and how much the visitors spend at 

local businesses. For some visitors, the use of ORVs enhances their trips by providing access to areas that 

would be difficult to walk, especially with fishing gear or other supplies. However, the presence of ORVs 

detracts from the experience for other visitors, who are looking for a natural environment free from 

motorized vehicles on the beach or who may be concerned about the safety of having vehicles on the 

beach.

Alternatives B, C, and D may result in long-term adverse impacts resulting from a loss of visitor spending 

relative to alternative A for businesses that serve visitors using ORVs if the restrictions on ORVs such as 

night driving restrictions, long-term parking restrictions, ATVs and UTVs restrictions, and the permit fee 

and education requirements result in fewer visitors and lower visitor spending. Adverse impacts relative 

to alternative A would be greater under alternatives C and D, than B, because additional restrictions on 

the areas ORVs can use to create more pedestrian-only areas, the loss of long-term parking on the islands 

(under alternative D), more stringent restrictions on ATV and UTV use, and a limit on the number of 

vehicle permits available. The smaller percent of beach open to ORVs under alternative C compared to 

alternative A might result in increased crowding, which could result in a reduction in visitation and 

greater impacts to those businesses that rely on Seashore visitation. Under alternative D, additional 

adverse impacts would be realized from prohibitions on all ATVs and sport-model UTVs, seasonal 

restrictions on non-sport UTVs, and lower limits on vehicle permits, all which would result in fewer 

visitors and less visitor spending. The loss of long-term parking under alternative D could have beneficial 

or adverse impacts on the number of ferry trips visitors make relative to alternative A depending on 

whether visitors took more day trips in response to the loss of long-term parking. The reductions in 

visitors may result in the closure of one or more of the vehicle ferries if demand is not sufficient to 

support the existing ferries under alternatives B, C, and D. 

Alternative E prohibits ORV use by visitors and would have an adverse impact on the businesses that 

serve ORV visitors because it would eliminate visitation by ORVs and the need for vehicle ferries, which 

would result in lower revenue for these businesses. The vehicle ferries would have to rely on passenger 

traffic and some or all of the vehicle ferries may have to close depending on the level of passenger traffic. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

518 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Conversely, the prohibition on ATVs at the Seashore could result in increased business for commercial 

ATV providers, which would not be prohibited. 

There are a number of cumulative impacts to the economy of the region, described in the impacts analysis 

above, which may be both long-term adverse and beneficial impacts. Efforts by the Seashore and other 

entities in the ROI to improve visitor experience and bring additional visitors to the area would have a 

beneficial impact on the economy, and none of the alternatives are expected to have long-term, adverse 

impacts on the economy of the ROI as a whole. Future decisions about contracting between the Seashore 

and vendors such as vehicle ferries could have adverse or beneficial impacts on the vehicle ferry 

operators, depending on the content of the contracts. Actions under alternative A would continue the 

current beneficial impacts for vehicle ferry operators. Actions under alternatives B, C, D, and E could 

have adverse impacts on the vehicle ferry operators that might detract from other beneficial trends in the 

ROI that could bring additional visitors to the Seashore.

Significance Discussion 

The purpose of Cape Lookout National Seashore is to preserve the outstanding natural, cultural, and 

recreational resources and values of a dynamic, intact, natural barrier island system where ecological 

processes dominate. The Seashore is one of the few remaining locations on the Atlantic coast where 

visitors can experience and recreate in an undeveloped, remote barrier island environment that can be 

reached only by boat or ferry. ORV use at the Seashore predates establishment of the Seashore in 1976. 

Beginning in the 1930s, vehicles were transported to the banks by shallow draft ferries and were used to 

provide access to productive commercial and recreational fishing spots, as well as for other recreational 

pursuits such as sightseeing and camping. ORV use has been ongoing since the establishment of the 

Seashore in 1976. ORV use at the Seashore is limited to some degree by ferry size and availability, with 

an estimated 5,500 ORVs transported to the Seashore each year. The percentage amount of Seashore 

beaches available to ORVs varies depending on the season and alternative, ranging from 81 percent 

available in alternatives A and B, 79 percent available in alternative C, 73 percent available in alternative 

D, and 0 percent available in alternative E, with the Seashore being completely closed to ORVs from late 

December through mid-March in alternatives A, B, C, and D. However, routes available to ORVs have 

historically been reduced during sensitive nesting and breeding seasons, with average reductions to beach 

access as described above between 10 and 25 percent in the summer season (May through August) and 6 

and 14 percent in the fall season (September through November). Use at the Seashore by both ORV 

drivers and visitors not bringing vehicles is limited to some degree by ferry size and availability, with an 

estimated 5,500 ORVs transported to the Seashore each year. Thus, while ORV access is allowed 

throughout many areas of the Seashore, the number of ORVs visiting the Seashore annually is low. 

Currently, three vehicle ferries serve the Seashore, along with a business that offers ATV tours. While the 

number of ORVs using the Seashore is low, changes in visitation by ORV drivers would potentially have 

an adverse impact on the businesses that directly serve these visitors. As discussed above, reductions in 

ORVs are not expected to noticeably increase the number of visitors not using ORVs, based in part on the 

isolated nature of the islands. 

Looking at the ROI, Carteret County, as a whole, none of the alternatives are expected to have a 

significant, adverse, long-term impact on the economy of the ROI. Based on the results from the 

IMPLAN modeling reported in table 67, the contribution of ORV visitation to the economy of the ROI is 

small (less than 1 percent of output and employment), so even a 100 percent reduction in visitation should 

not be significant for the ROI as a whole in the long term. In the short term, a 100 percent reduction in 

visitation would likely involve short-term adverse impacts as the local economy and job market absorbs 

the displaced workers or the workers leave the area. 
Seashore Management and Operations 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 519

However, the impacts on individual businesses in the ROI, in particular the vehicle ferries, may be 

adverse under the alternatives that restrict ORV use, including alternatives B, C, and D, and would likely 

be significant to individual operators under alternative E, which would not allow private ORV use. 

However, due to the existing capacity of the vehicle ferries, these use restrictions in alternatives C and D 

are not likely to cause a large drop in visitation compared to current levels. Under alternatives A, B, C, 

and D, designating legal routes for ORV use does not establish a precedent for future actions with 

significant effects to socioeconomics, as ORV use has occurred at the Seashore since the 1930s and 

continued since the establishment of the Seashore as a park unit in 1976. ORV use is also currently 

legally permitted in several other national seashores and recreation areas, and in this regard is not 

precedent-setting within the national park system. Alternative E, which would prohibit ORV use, would 

also not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects to visitor experience, as many 

other national park units do not allow ORV use. 

The impacts on socioeconomics under alternative E, which would prohibit ORV use, would likely be 

significant and highly controversial, because a majority of the visitors at the Seashore use ORVs to access 

different areas of the Seashore and may not choose to visit if this use is not permitted. This reduction in 

visitation could adversely impact businesses that currently benefit from ORV users. Conversely, visitors 

seeking an ORV-free experience at the Seashore would experience beneficial impacts under alternative E, 

because the use of ORVs would be prohibited, and the increased visitation of this segment of visitors may 

result in positive socioeconomic impacts. 

In conclusion, in light of the significance criteria at 40 CFR 1508.27, there would not be significant 

impacts to the economy of the ROI as a whole. Alternatives B, C, and D could have adverse impacts on 

the vehicle ferry operators, whereas alternative E would have significant adverse impacts on the vehicle 

ferry operators as well as any mainland business that currently benefit from ORV users at the Seashore. 

These impacts to socioeconomics under alternatives A, B, C, and D would be small when compared to the 

existing condition, but under alternative E could be significant. 

SEASHORE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS

For the purpose of this analysis, Seashore management and operations refer to the quality and 

effectiveness of NPS staff to maintain and administer Seashore resources and provide for an appropriate 

visitor experience. This includes an analysis of the projected need for staff time and materials in 

relationship to ORV management under each of the alternatives, as well as the various funding 

mechanisms available to implement these alternatives. The analysis also considers trade-offs for staff time 

or the budgetary needs required to accomplish the proposed alternatives and discusses each alternative in 

terms of its impacts on the various divisions that comprise Seashore management: Visitor and Resource 

Protection, Resource Management, Administration, Facility Management, and Interpretation and 

Education. NPS staff from each of the divisions were members of the interdisciplinary team and were 

consulted regarding expected staffing and funding needs under each alternative. The impact analysis is 

based on the current description of Seashore operations presented in chapter 3. 

STUDY AREA

The study area for the Seashore management and operations is the Seashore boundary. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

520 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

ALTERNATIVE A

Impacts of Alternative A: No Action 

Under the no-action alternative, the operations and maintenance of the Seashore related to ORV use 

would continue. Table 68 provides funding needs for each division under alternative A. 

TABLE 68: STAFFING AND FUNDING—ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION

Division Total Annual Costs 

Visitor and Resource Protection $259,600 

Resource Management $201,700 

Administration $12,500 

Facility Management $12,700 

Interpretation and Education $0 

Total Annual Costs $486,500 

Visitor and Resource Protection—Under alternative A, Seashore law enforcement staff would continue 

to be responsible for enforcing visitor compliance with ORV regulations and resource closures in addition 

to other resource protection activities. Law enforcement staff would continue to perform routine patrols of 

beach areas, respond to violations, conduct investigations, monitor public safety, respond to medical 

emergencies, search and rescues, and assist in public education through visitor contacts. No restrictions 

on night driving would occur under alternative A, which would reduce the need for nighttime and early 

morning patrols. Other actions that the visitor and resource protection division would remain responsible 

for under alternative A include, maintaining a telephone number for visitors to report law enforcement 

violations, and conducting presentations for local organizations regarding what to look for when reporting 

violations. 

In order to accomplish the above activities, an approximate personnel costs would be $259,600 a year. 

However, there are some inadequacies under alternative A regarding the visitor and resource protection 

division. The current management structure for the visitor and resource protection division uses 

temporary field staff that is limited to a six-month appointments, while the visitor use season is nine 

months long (March through December). Relying heavily on temporary staff is not efficient because (1) 

the positions do not cover the entire visitor season, and (2) temporary staff generate higher training and 

equipment costs, and result in higher turnover. 

Resource Management—Under alternative A, resource management staff would continue to be 

responsible for monitoring and establishment of buffers for protected birds, turtles, and seabeach 

amaranth. Resource management staff would also continue to be responsible for determining monitoring 

requirements, hiring, training and supervising field staff, conducting all field surveys and for preparation 

of annual monitoring reports. 

Resource management staff would continue to be responsible for surveying and monitoring of piping 

plovers, colonial waterbirds, Wilson’s plovers, American oystercatchers, seabeach amaranth, and sea 

turtles (see tables 4 and 5 in chapter 2). 

Total approximate personnel costs for the resource management division would equal $201,700 a year. 
Seashore Management and Operations 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 521

However, there are some inadequacies under alternative A regarding the resource management division. 

The Seashore currently does not have an information technology specialist to perform network 

administration or communications; the Seashore has only very limited geographic information system 

(GIS) capacity; and there are insufficient supervisors for field staff. 

Under alternative A, resource management functions related to ORV management would continue to be 

accomplished within the existing Seashore budget. 

Administration—Under alternative A, Seashore administrative staff would continue to be directly 

involved in ORV management activities and all divisions would require administrative support. This 

support would provide technical assistance to field and administrative staff associated with ORV 

management including training, procurement, and human resources. Total approximate personnel costs 

for the administration division would equal $12,500 a year. Under alternative A, Seashore management 

and administrative functions related to ORV management would continue to be accomplished within the 

existing Seashore budget. 

Facility Management—Under alternative A, the facility management division at the Seashore would 

continue to be responsible for providing support for all island operations, including maintenance of visitor 

facilities, utility systems, ferry docks, passenger docks, island ranger stations and bunkhouses for staff 

and volunteers, routine maintenance, emergency repairs of the back route and beach ramps, and would 

also be responsible for maintaining the vehicles, boats and ranger stations and other support structures 

used by law enforcement, resources management, and other staff associated with ORV management. 

Total approximate personnel costs for the facility management related to ORV management would equal 

$12,700 a year. 

Under alternative A, facility management functions related to ORV management would continue to be 

accomplished within the existing Seashore budget.

Interpretation and Education—Under alternative A, there would not be staff devoted to ORV 

management or education from the interpretation and education division. Existing interpretation and 

education staff provide the information to visitors about ORV management. The division publishes a 

limited number of publications to ensure ORV users are informed about seashore resources and rules. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative A 

Certain ongoing activities within the Seashore contribute to cumulative impacts including, for example, 

maintenance of over 70 historic structures, two National Register Historic Districts, many National 

Register structures, over 45 cabins and other structure in the cabin areas, multiple independent utility 

systems, species management activities, reopening of the lighthouse and increased visitor amenities, 

visitor use studies, the issuing of special use permits, and the preparation of park planning documents. 

These activities are generally accounted for in the current staff and budget of the Seashore and represent 

negligible adverse impacts on Seashore management and operations. 

Other past, present, and planned future activities within the Seashore that have the potential to affect 

Seashore management and operations would include the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim 

Protected Species Management Plan/Environmental Assessment, the Harkers Island and Cape Lookout 

National Seashore Keepers’ Quarters Exhibit Plan, the Wayside Exhibit Plan, the Interim Off-road 

Vehicle Management Plan and Evaluation of Existing ORV Use at Cape Lookout National Seashore, the 

Commercial Services Plan / Environmental Assessment / Assessment of Effect, the Cape Lookout National 

Seashore Long-Range Interpretive Plan, the Foundation Document, the establishment of Ferry Gateways 

and the concession based ferry operations. The creation of these plans and their implementation would 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

522 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

require varying levels of staff time. For example, the implementation of the Cape Lookout National 

Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan/Environmental Assessment, which was developed 

as an interim plan until the long-term ORV management plan is finalized, involves considerable effort 

from all of the divisions that comprise Seashore management and operations, which has resulted in longterm noticeable adverse impacts on Seashore management and operations from activities such as carrying 

out and compiling research, determining alternative elements of the Plan/EA, hiring and managing 

consultants, facilitating public involvement, and reviewing and finalizing the Plan/EA. The 

implementation of the Harkers Island and Cape Lookout Keepers’ Quarters Exhibit Plan has had longterm adverse impacts on Seashore management and operations as a result of planning and installing 

exhibits on Harkers Island and near the Keepers’ Quarters and the staff time required for those activities. 

The Interim ORV Management Plan, which is in part based on the actions outlined in the Interim 

Protected Species Management Plan/EA and the Superintendent’s Compendium, has also had long-term 

adverse impacts on Seashore management and operations due to increased ranger patrols and increased 

ranger presence at the vehicle landings at Long Point and Great Island. The Commercial Services 

Plan/EA and the concession based ferry operations is expected to have long-term beneficial impacts on 

Seashore management and operations as a result of establishing ferry concession contracts, which would 

give the Seashore more oversight over these services. A long-range interpretive plan (NPS 2011k) 

articulates the purpose, significance, and themes of the Seashore. The plan informs and guides the 

Seashore’s interpretive and education programs into the next decade. The implementation of the 

Foundation Document could have noticeable long-term adverse impacts on Seashore management and 

operations depending on the amount of time and resources devoted to implementing the priority planning 

projects identified under the plan, and whether the planning effort detracts from other efforts at the 

Seashore. 

The overall combined impacts of these past, current, and future actions on Seashore management and 

operations would be long-term, and adverse (from time and funding spent to complete the Cape Lookout 

National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan/Environmental Assessment, the time and 

funding needed for planning and installing of exhibits on Harkers Island and near the Keepers’ Quarters, 

increased ranger patrols at Long Point and Great Island, as well as long-term beneficial (from renewing 

concession contracts, thus freeing up Seashore management time, staffing and funding for other 

management activities). These impacts, combined with the long-term negligible impacts under alternative 

A, would likely result in observable long-term adverse and beneficial cumulative impacts. 

ALTERNATIVE B

Impacts of Alternative B 

Under alternative B, the operations and maintenance would require additional staff and operational 

funding. Table 69 provides funding needs under alternative B. 
Seashore Management and Operations 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 523

TABLE 69: STAFFING AND FUNDING—ALTERNATIVE B

Division Total Annual Costs 

Visitor and Resource Protection $439,600 

Resource Management $276,900 

Administration $43,000 

Facility Management $98,000 

(Plus one-time, first-year cost: $190,000) 

Interpretation and Education $83,500 

Total Annual Costs $941,000 

(Plus one-time, first-year cost: $190,000) 

Visitor and Resource Protection—Under alternative B, Seashore visitor and resource protection staff 

would be responsible for enforcing visitor compliance with ORV regulations and resource closures and 

managing fee collection. Law enforcement staff would perform routine patrols for beach areas, respond to 

violations, conduct investigations, and assist in public education through visitor contacts. Fee collection 

staff would be involved in managing the ORV permit program. 

Additional actions that the visitor and resource protection division would be responsible for under 

alternative B are described in more detail in chapter 2. 

In order to accomplish resource protection and ORV vehicle permit and fee management activities under 

alternative B (see tables 1 and 5), additional staff would be required, which would be filled by law 

enforcement rangers and ORV fee collection employees. These employees would operate at the Seashore 

for nine months of the year, and they would likely be permanent employees. Total approximate personnel 

costs for the visitor and resource protection division related to ORV use would equal $439,600 a year. 

Under alternative B, the Seashore’s visitor and resource protection division would need additional staffing 

and approximately $180,000 in additional funding when compared to current funding estimates in 

alternative A. Additional revenue from the ORV program would be used to recover costs and would in 

part cover additional requirements for this division. Any costs not covered by permit fees would need to 

be addressed by obtaining additional funding. The use of additional sources of funding sought as a result 

of this ORV management plan/EIS would offset costs for this division related to ORV management 

activities, resulting in negligible adverse effects. If additional funding is not procured, impacts to 

Seashore management and operations could experience noticeable long-term adverse impacts. 

Resource Management—Under alternative B, resource management staff would be responsible for 

monitoring and establishment of buffers for protected birds, turtles, and seabeach amaranth. Resource 

management staff would also be responsible for determining monitoring requirements, hiring, training 

and supervising field staff, and conducting all field surveys. These staff would also provide input into the 

weekly resources management report updates, access updates and map products that are provided to the 

public through a GIS specialist. 

Pre-nesting surveys, courtship and mating season surveys, nesting surveys, observations of hatchlings, 

and nonbreeding surveys for piping plover, colonial waterbirds, and American oystercatchers would be 

the same as under alternative A. Surveys for sea turtles and seabeach amaranth would also be the same as 

under alternative A (see tables 1 and 5). 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

524 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Additional actions that the resource management division would be responsible for under alternative B 

include monitoring and implementing the adaptive management strategy, providing information on the 

“state of the species” throughout the Seashore (to show visitors the results of species management 

measures), attending meetings of local organizations and presenting information regarding ORV use and 

species protection (as practical), documenting species information in GIS, providing GIS based mapping 

for communications to the public, assisting with maintenance of web-based mapping of closures to the 

public, and improved training and supervision of field staff. 

Total approximate personnel costs for the resource management division would equal $276,900 a year. 

Under alternative B, the Seashore’s resource management division would need additional staffing and 

approximately $75,200 in additional funding when compared to alternative A. Additional revenue from 

the ORV program would be used to recover costs and would in part cover additional requirements for this 

division. Any costs not covered by permit fees would need to be addressed by obtaining additional 

funding. The use of additional sources of funding sought as a result of this ORV management plan/EIS 

would offset costs for this division related to ORV management activities, resulting in negligible adverse 

effects. If additional funding is not procured, impacts to Seashore management and operations could 

experience noticeable long-term adverse impacts. 

Administration—Under alternative B, Seashore administrative staff would be directly involved in ORV 

management activities and all divisions would require administrative support. This support reflects 

overhead costs such as payroll, human resources functions, involvement of the superintendent, and other 

similar costs, as well as procurement and fee collection services. Support would also include management 

of the long-term parking permit program. Under alternative B, the Seashore’s administration division 

would need additional staffing and approximately $30,500 in additional funding when compared to 

alternative A. Additional revenue from the ORV program (from permit fees) would be used to recover 

costs and would in part cover additional requirements for this division. Any costs not covered by permit 

fees would need to be addressed by obtaining additional funding. The use of additional sources of funding 

sought as a result of this ORV management plan/EIS would offset costs for this division related to ORV 

management activities, resulting in negligible adverse effects. If additional funding is not procured, 

impacts to Seashore management and operations could experience noticeable long-term adverse impacts. 

Facility Management—Under alternative B, the facility management division at the Seashore would be 

responsible for maintenance activities related to ORV management. Facility management personnel 

would provide routine maintenance and emergency repairs of the back route, beach ramps and parking 

lots and would also be responsible for maintaining the vehicles used by law enforcement, resources 

management, and other staff associated with ORV management. Up to four additional ramps may be 

created on North Core Banks and five on South Core Banks. Under alternative B, the facility management 

divisions would develop and maintain pull-outs along the back route that allow northbound and 

southbound vehicles to more easily pass one another on the road. Designated overnight emergency 

parking (storm refuge) areas would be established on each island, to allow for overnight vehicle parking 

during times of adverse weather or high-tide events. Designated campsites may also be established on 

each island, accessible from the back route. Facility management employees would also be responsible 

for constructing up to six additional shade shelters on the back route, distributed throughout the Seashore. 

Total approximate personnel costs for the facility management division would equal approximately 

$98,000 a year. A one-time, first-year cost of $190,000 would be needed for heavy equipment needed to 

maintain the back route. 

Under alternative B, the Seashore’s facility management division would need additional staffing and 

approximately $85,300 in additional funding when compared to current funding estimates under 
Seashore Management and Operations 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 525

alternative A. There would also be a first-year cost of $190,000 to acquire equipment. Additional revenue 

from the ORV program (from permit fees) would be used to recover costs and would in part cover 

additional requirements for this division. Any costs not covered by permit fees would need to be 

addressed by obtaining additional funding. The use of additional sources of funding sought as a result of 

this ORV management plan/EIS would offset costs for this division related to ORV management 

activities, resulting in negligible adverse impacts. If additional funding is not procured, impacts to 

Seashore management and operations could experience noticeable long-term adverse impacts. 

Interpretation and Education—Under alternative B, staff in the interpretation and education division 

would provide materials to Seashore visitors related to ORV use, as well as species management. 

Interpretation and education division staff would also be responsible for issuing the operator education 

certificates, which would be required for all ORV operators under alternative B. Staff time would be 

required to develop these materials, as well as funds to print and distribute the materials and education 

certificates. The interpretation and education division would also be responsible for developing and 

delivering the education certification program. Total approximate personnel costs for the interpretation 

and education division would equal $83,500 a year. 

Under alternative B, the Seashore’s interpretation and education division would need additional staffing 

and approximately $83,500 in additional funding when compared to funding estimates under alternative 

A. Additional revenue from the ORV program (from permit fees) would be used to recover costs and 

would in part cover additional requirements for this division. Any costs not covered by permit fees would 

need to be addressed by obtaining additional funding. The use of additional sources of funding sought as 

a result of this ORV management plan/EIS would offset costs for this division related to ORV 

management activities, resulting in negligible adverse impacts. If additional funding is not procured, 

impacts to Seashore management and operations could experience noticeable long-term adverse impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative B 

The past, present, and future actions under alternative B would be the same under alternative A. The 

overall combined impacts of these past, present, and future actions on Seashore management and 

operations would be long-term, limited, and adverse (from time and funding spent to complete the Cape

Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan/Environmental Assessment, the 

time and funding needed for planning and installing of exhibits on Harkers Island and near the Keepers’ 

Quarters, increased ranger patrols at Long Point and Great Island, and time and funding spent expanding 

and improving upon existing visitor services). There would also be long-term beneficial impacts from 

renewing concession contracts, thus freeing up Seashore management time, staffing and funding for other 

management activities. The impacts of these actions, in combination with the slightly long-term adverse 

impacts on Seashore management and operations under alternative B, would likely result in observable 

long-term adverse cumulative impacts on Seashore management and operations. 

ALTERNATIVE C

Impacts of Alternative C 

Under alternative C, the operations and maintenance of the Seashore would continue to include the same 

divisions outlined under alternative B. Table 70 provides the total staffing and funding needs under 

alternative C. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

526 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

TABLE 70: STAFFING AND FUNDING—ALTERNATIVE C

Division Total Annual Costs 

Visitor and Resource Protection $439,600 

Resource Management $276,900 

Administration $43,000 

Facility Management $98,000 

(Plus one-time, first-year cost: $190,000) 

Interpretation and Education $83,500 

Total Annual Costs $941,000 

(Plus one-time, first-year cost: $190,000) 

Visitor and Resource Protection—Under alternative C, Seashore visitor and resource protection staff 

would be responsible for enforcing visitor compliance with ORV regulations and resource closures as 

described in chapter 2. Although the nighttime driving restriction under alternative C would be two weeks 

longer than under alternative B, the increase in hours spent enforcing the nighttime driving restrictions 

would be nominal for law enforcement staff. Therefore, under alternative C, the visitor and resource 

protection division would have the same responsibilities, and staffing and funding requirements as under 

alternative B (described above). 

Under alternative C, visitor and resource protection functions related to ORV management would require 

additional staffing and approximately $180,000 in additional funding beyond what is currently budgeted. 

Additional revenue from the ORV program (from permit fees) would be used to recover costs and would 

in part cover additional requirements for this division. Any costs not covered by permit fees would need 

to be addressed by obtaining additional funding. The use of additional sources of funding sought as a 

result of this ORV management plan/EIS would offset costs for this division related to ORV management 

activities, resulting in negligible adverse impacts. If additional funding is not procured, impacts to 

Seashore management and operations could experience noticeable long-term adverse impacts. 

Resource Management—Under alternative C, the resource management division would have the same 

responsibilities, and staffing and funding requirements as under alternative B (described above). 

Under alternative C, resource management functions related to ORV management would require 

additional staffing and approximately $75,200 in additional funding beyond what is currently budgeted. 

Additional revenue from the ORV program (from permit fees) would be used to recover costs and would 

in part cover additional requirements for this division. Any costs not covered by permit fees would need 

to be addressed by obtaining additional funding. The use of additional sources of funding sought as a 

result of this ORV management plan/EIS would offset costs for this division related to ORV management 

activities, resulting in negligible adverse impacts. If additional funding is not procured, impacts to 

Seashore management and operations could experience noticeable long-term adverse impacts. 

Administration—Under alternative C, the administration division would have the same responsibilities, 

and staffing and funding requirements as under alternative B (described above). 

Under alternative C, Seashore administrative functions related to ORV management would require 

additional staffing and approximately $30,500 in additional funding beyond what is currently budgeted. 

Additional revenue from the ORV program (from permit fees) would be used to recover costs and would 

in part cover additional requirements for this division. Any costs not covered by permit fees would need 

to be addressed by obtaining additional funding. The use of additional sources of funding sought as a 
Seashore Management and Operations 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 527

result of this ORV management plan/EIS would offset costs for this division related to ORV management 

activities, resulting in negligible adverse impacts. If additional funding is not procured, impacts to 

Seashore management and operations could experience noticeable long-term adverse impacts.

Facility Management—Under alternative C, the facility management division would have the same 

responsibilities, and staffing and funding requirements as under alternative B (described above). 

Under alternative C, facility management functions related to ORV management would require additional 

staffing and approximately $85,300 in additional funding beyond the current budget (plus a one-time, 

first-year cost of $190,000 for heavy equipment needed to maintain the back route, and to support the 

expansion of bunkhouse facilities at the Harkers Island headquarters area, which would be needed to 

accommodate the increase in staff and their equipment for the facility management division under this 

alternative). Additional revenue from the ORV program (from permit fees) would be used to recover costs 

and would in part cover additional requirements for this division. Any costs not covered by permit fees 

would need to be addressed by obtaining additional funding. The use of additional sources of funding 

sought as a result of this ORV management plan/EIS would offset costs for this division related to ORV 

management activities, resulting in negligible adverse impacts. If additional funding is not procured, 

impacts to Seashore management and operations could experience noticeable long-term adverse impacts. 

Interpretation and Education—Under alternative C, the interpretation and education division would 

have the same responsibilities, and staffing and funding requirements as under alternative B (described 

above).

Under alternative C, the Seashore would require additional staffing and approximately $83,500 in 

additional funding beyond what is currently budgeted to conduct interpretive activities related to ORV use 

and species protection. Additional revenue from the ORV program (from permit fees) would be used to 

recover costs and would in part cover additional requirements for this division. Any costs not covered by 

permit fees would need to be addressed by obtaining additional funding. The use of additional sources of 

funding sought as a result of this ORV management plan/EIS would offset costs for this division related 

to ORV management activities, resulting in negligible adverse impacts. If additional funding is not 

procured, impacts to Seashore management and operations could experience noticeable long-term adverse 

impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative C 

The past, present, and future actions under alternative C would be the same under alternative A. The 

overall combined impacts of these past, present, and future actions on Seashore management and 

operations would be long-term, limited, and adverse (from time and funding spent to complete the Cape

Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan/Environmental Assessment, the 

time and funding needed for planning and installing of exhibits on Harkers Island and near the Keepers’ 

Quarters, increased ranger patrols at Long Point and Great Island, and time and funding spent expanding 

and improving upon existing visitor services). There would also be long-term beneficial impacts from 

renewing concession contracts, thus freeing up Seashore management time, staffing and funding for other 

management activities. The impacts of these actions, in combination with the long-term adverse impacts 

on Seashore management and operations under alternative C, would likely result in observable long-term 

adverse cumulative impacts on Seashore management and operations. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

528 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

ALTERNATIVE D

Impacts of Alternative D 

Under alternative D, the operations and maintenance of the Seashore would continue to include the same 

divisions as outlined under alternative B. Table 71 provides the total staffing and funding needs under 

alternative D. 

TABLE 71: STAFFING AND FUNDING—ALTERNATIVE D

Division Total Annual Costs 

Visitor and Resource Protection $439,600 

Resource Management $276,900 

Administration $43,000 

Facility Management $98,000 

Interpretation and Education $83,500 

Total Annual Costs $941,000 

Visitor and Resource Protection—Although the visitor and resource protection staff would have 

slightly increased responsibilities under alternative D when compared to alternative B (two additional 

weeks of enforcing nighttime driving restrictions, and enforcing increased ATV and UTV restrictions), 

the visitor and resource protection division would have the same staffing and funding requirements as 

under alternative B (described above). 

Under alternative D, visitor and resource protection functions related to ORV management would require 

additional staffing and approximately $180,000 in additional funding beyond what is currently budgeted. 

Additional revenue from the ORV program (from permit fees) would be used to recover costs and would 

in part cover additional requirements for this division. Any costs not covered by permit fees would need 

to be addressed by obtaining additional funding. The use of additional sources of funding sought as a 

result of this ORV management plan/EIS would offset costs for this division related to ORV management 

activities, resulting in negligible adverse impacts. If additional funding is not procured, impacts to 

Seashore management and operations could experience noticeable long-term adverse impacts. 

Resource Management—Under alternative D, although resource management staff would be responsible 

for establishing resource buffers that are larger than the resource buffers proposed under any other 

alternatives, the time and staffing needed to establish these increased resource buffers would be nominal 

in comparison to the other alternatives. Therefore, under alternative D, the resource management division 

would have the same responsibilities, staffing and funding requirements as under alternative B (described 

above).

Under alternative D, resource management functions related to ORV management require additional 

staffing and approximately $75,200 in additional funding beyond what is currently budgeted. Additional 

revenue from the ORV program (from permit fees) would be used to recover costs and would in part 

cover additional requirements for this division. Any costs not covered by permit fees would need to be 

addressed by obtaining additional funding. The use of additional sources of funding sought as a result of 

this ORV management plan/EIS would offset costs for this division related to ORV management 

activities, resulting in negligible adverse impacts. If additional funding is not procured, impacts to 

Seashore management and operations could experience noticeable long-term adverse impacts. 
Seashore Management and Operations 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 529

Administration—Under alternative D, Seashore administrative staff would be directly involved in ORV 

management activities and all divisions would require administrative support. This support reflects 

overhead costs such as payroll, human resources functions, involvement of the superintendent, and other 

similar costs. Under alternative D, the administration division would have similar responsibilities, and the 

same staffing and funding requirements as under alternative B (described above). 

Under alternative D, Seashore administrative functions related to ORV management would require 

additional staffing and approximately $30,500 in additional funding beyond what is currently budgeted. 

Additional revenue from the ORV program (from permit fees) would be used to recover costs and would 

in part cover additional requirements for this division. Any costs not covered by permit fees would need 

to be addressed by obtaining additional funding. The use of additional sources of funding sought as a 

result of this ORV management plan/EIS would offset costs for this division related to ORV management 

activities, resulting in negligible adverse impacts. If additional funding is not procured, impacts to 

Seashore management and operations could experience noticeable long-term adverse impacts.

Facility Management—Under alternative D, the facility management division at the Seashore would be 

responsible for all maintenance activities related to ORV management. Facility management personnel 

would provide emergency repairs to beach ramps, and would also be responsible for maintaining the 

vehicles used by law enforcement, resources management, and other staff associated with ORV 

management. Under alternative D, the facility management division would not provide camping pull-outs 

along the back route, nor would they provide routine maintenance to the back route; the back route and 

other routes would only be reestablished when they are impacted by storm events. 

Under alternative D, facility management functions related to ORV management would require additional 

staffing and approximately $85,300 in additional funding beyond what is currently budgeted. Additional 

revenue from the ORV program (from permit fees) would be used to recover costs and would in part 

cover additional requirements for this division. Any costs not covered by permit fees would need to be 

addressed by obtaining additional funding. The use of additional sources of funding sought as a result of 

this ORV management plan/EIS would offset costs for this division related to ORV management 

activities, resulting in negligible adverse impacts. If additional funding is not procured, impacts to 

Seashore management and operations could experience noticeable long-term adverse impacts. 

Interpretation and Education—Under alternative D, the interpretation and education division would 

have the same responsibilities, and staffing and funding requirements as under alternative B (described 

above).

Under alternative D, the Seashore would require additional staffing and approximately $83,500 in 

additional funding beyond what is currently budgeted in order to conduct interpretive activities related to 

ORV use and species protection. Additional revenue from the ORV program (from permit fees) would be 

used to recover costs and would in part cover additional requirements for this division. Any costs not 

covered by permit fees would need to be addressed by obtaining additional funding. The use of additional 

sources of funding sought as a result of this ORV management plan/EIS would offset costs for this 

division related to ORV management activities, resulting in negligible adverse impacts. If additional 

funding is not procured, impacts to Seashore management and operations could experience noticeable 

long-term adverse impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative D 

The past, present, and future actions under alternative D would be the same under alternative A. The 

overall combined impacts of these past, present, and future actions on Seashore management and 

operations would be long-term, limited, and adverse, (from time and funding spent to complete the Cape
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

530 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan/Environmental Assessment, the 

time and funding needed for planning and installing of exhibits on Harkers Island and near the Keepers’ 

Quarters, increased ranger patrols at Long Point and Great Island, and time and funding spent expanding 

and improving upon existing visitor services). There would also be long-term beneficial impacts from 

renewing concession contracts, thus freeing up Seashore management time, staffing and funding for other 

management activities. The impacts of these actions, in combination with the slightly long-term adverse 

impacts on Seashore management and operations under alternative D, would likely result in observable 

long-term adverse cumulative impacts on Seashore management and operations. 

ALTERNATIVE E

Impacts of Alternative E 

Under alternative E, the operations and maintenance of the Seashore would continue to include the same 

divisions as outlined under alternative B. Table 72 provides the total staffing and funding needs under 

alternative E. 

TABLE 72: STAFFING AND FUNDING—ALTERNATIVE E

Division Total Annual Costs 

Visitor and Resource Protection $194,100 

Resource Management $191,700 

Administration $0 

Facility Management $12,700 

Interpretation and Education $0 

Total Annual Costs $398,500 

Visitor and Resource Protection—Under alternative E, Seashore law enforcement staff would be 

responsible for enforcing visitor compliance with safety and resource closures, and ensuring that no 

ORVs and ATVs/UTVs access the Seashore. Law enforcement staff would perform routine patrols areas 

along the Seashore, respond to violations and emergency situations (ensuring visitor safety), conduct 

investigations, and assist in public education through visitor contacts. 

In order to accomplish the above activities, as well as enforce all applicable regulations at the Seashore, 

less law enforcement staff would be required. Total approximate labor cost for these positions would 

equal $194,100 a year. 

Under alternative E, protection functions related to ORV management would be accomplished with a 

decrease in staffing and a decrease in approximately $65,500 in personnel costs, resulting in long-term 

beneficial impacts to Seashore management and operations. 

Resource Management—Under alternative E, resource management staff would be responsible for all 

surveying, monitoring and establishment of buffers for protected birds, turtles, and seabeach amaranth, 

including monitoring and implementing the adaptive management strategy, to the degree applicable. 

Resource management staff would also be responsible for determining monitoring requirements, hiring, 

training and supervising field staff, and conducting all field surveys. These staff would also provide input 

into the weekly resources management report updates and access updates that are provided to the public. 

Resource management staff would continue to have responsibilities for resource management closures 
Seashore Management and Operations 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 531

related to essential vehicle use, and would be responsible for establishing pedestrian closures for resource 

protection. 

In order to accomplish the above activities, the resources management division would not require 

additional staff. Total approximate labor cost for these positions would equal approximately $201,700 a 

year. Under alternative E, resources management functions related to species management would be 

accomplished with no additional staff or funding. 

Administration—Under alternative E, all management divisions would require administrative support. 

This support reflects overhead costs such as payroll, human resources functions, involvement of the 

superintendent, and other similar costs. However, due to the prohibition of ORV use at the Seashore, 

administration staff would no longer be responsible for administrative support related to ORV use. 

Actions under alternative E would not require any FTE staffing to support field operations, or any 

personnel costs. 

Under alternative E, Seashore administrative functions related to ORV management would be 

accomplished with a decrease in staffing and a decrease of approximately $12,500 in personnel costs, 

resulting in long-term beneficial impacts to Seashore management and operations. 

Facility Management—Under alternative E, the facility management division at the Seashore would be 

responsible for all maintenance activities. Facility management personnel would provide maintenance for 

the vehicles used by law enforcement, resources management, and other staff. Under alternative E, 

facility management functions related to management would be accomplished with no additional staff or 

funding. 

Interpretation and Education—Under alternative E, staff in the interpretation and education division 

would provide materials to Seashore visitors related to species management. Staff time would be required 

to develop these materials, as well as funds to print and distribute the materials. The interpretation and 

education division would also be responsible for additional interpretive programs at the Seashore. 

However, due to the prohibition of ORV use at the Seashore, r interpretation and education staff would no 

longer be responsible for providing materials to Seashore visitors related to ORV use. Actions under 

alternative E would not require any new staffing under the interpretation and education division. 

Cumulative Impacts under Alternative E 

The past, present, and future actions under alternative E would be the same under alternative A. The 

overall combined impacts of these past, present, and future actions on Seashore management and 

operations would be long-term, limited, and adverse (from time and funding spent to complete the Cape

Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan/Environmental Assessment, the 

time and funding needed for planning and installing of exhibits on Harkers Island and near the Keepers’ 

Quarters, increased ranger patrols at Long Point and Great Island, and time and funding spent expanding 

and improving upon existing visitor services). There would also be long-term beneficial impacts from 

renewing concession contracts, thus freeing up Seashore management time, staffing and funding for other 

management activities. The impacts of these actions, in combination with the long-term beneficial 

impacts on Seashore management and operations under alternative E, would likely result in observable 

long-term beneficial cumulative impacts on Seashore management and operations. 

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Compared to alternative A, implementation of alternatives B and C (which have the same impacts to 

Seashore management and operations) would result in long-term noticeable adverse impacts on Seashore 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

532 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

management and operations due to the increase in staffing and personnel costs in order to enforce visitor 

compliance with ORV regulations and resource closures, enforce nighttime driving restrictions, work with 

vehicle ferry operators, provide visitors with ORV closure information, manage a vehicle permit system, 

develop, update and manage the education certificate, manage the ORV parking lots, record the number 

of vehicles operating or stored at the Seashore each day, attend meetings of local organizations and 

present information regarding ORV use and species protection, construct additional ramps along the back 

route, and designate emergency overnight parking areas. Total approximate annual cost to implement 

alternative B, as well as alternative C, would be $941,000 (plus one-time, first-year cost of $190,000), 

compared to an approximate annual cost of $486,500 to implement alternative A, resulting in an increase 

of $454,500 annually that would need to be covered with additional permit fees or new funding sources 

(including the one-time cost of $190,000, the first-year cost would be $1,131,000). 

Compared to alternative A, implementation of alternative D would result in long-term noticeable adverse 

impacts on Seashore management and operations. This is due to the considerable increase in staffing and 

funding needs in order to enforce visitor compliance with ORV regulations and resource closures over a 

nine-month visitor season, enforce nighttime driving restrictions, work with vehicle ferry operators, 

provide visitors with ORV closure information, manage a vehicle permit system, develop, update and 

manage the education certificate, manage the ORV parking lots, record number of vehicles operating or 

stored at the Seashore each day, attend meetings of local organizations and presenting information 

regarding ORV use and species protection, construct additional ramps along the back route, and designate 

emergency overnight parking areas. Total approximate annual cost to implement alternative D would be 

$941,000, compared to an approximate annual cost of $486,500 to implement alternative A, resulting in 

an increase of $454,500 annually that would need to be covered with additional permit fees or new 

funding sources. 

Compared to alternative A, the implementation of alternative E would have long-term beneficial effects 

on Seashore management and operations. For alternative E, implementation would allow a decrease 

staffing, and a decrease in annual spending across all Seashore operations. Total approximate annual cost 

to implement alternative E would be $398,500. 

CONCLUSION

Implementation of alternative A would require approximately $486,500 in personnel costs. Under 

alternative A, all management functions related to ORV management would continue to be accomplished 

within the existing Seashore budget. However, there are some inadequacies under alternative A as stated 

above, regarding the visitor and resource protection division and the resource management division. The 

funding and staffing for the visitor and resource protection division under alternative A only covers a sixmonth period, while the visitor use season is nine months long (March through December). The resource 

protection division under alternative A also relies heavily on seasonal staff, which results in greater 

turnover and is not as efficient as permanent staff. Furthermore, the resource management division 

currently does not have an information technology specialist to perform network administration or 

communications, nor does this division have adequate GIS capacity or sufficient supervisors for field 

staff. Although the implementation of alternative A would not require staffing or funding that is 

unavailable to the Seashore, implementation of alternative A would likely result in long-term, noticeable 

adverse impacts due to the inadequacies stated above. However, the Seashore would still be able to 

comply with all applicable laws and regulations and management would continue in a way that furthers 

the purpose and significance of the Seashore. 

Under alternatives B, C, and D there would be an overall increase in duties related to ORV management 

for staff in the Seashore management and operations divisions. The increased level of effort for these 

alternatives would be the same under alternatives B, C, and D, which would be approximately $454,500 
Seashore Management and Operations 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 533

annually in additional funding in order to meet the staffing, support, and other costs. However, 

alternatives B and C would also have a one-time, first-year additional cost of $190,000 for heavy 

equipment needed to maintain the back route, and to support the expansion of bunkhouse facilities at the 

Harkers Island headquarters area. Additional revenue from the ORV program (from permit fees) would be 

used to recover costs and would in part cover additional requirements for the Seashore under alternatives 

B, C, and D. Any costs not covered by permit fees would need to be addressed by obtaining additional 

funding. Although the implementation of alternatives B, C, and D would require staffing or funding that 

is currently unavailable to the Seashore, implementation of alternatives B, C, and D would likely result in 

long-term, slightly adverse impacts due to the increases in management and operations responsibilities. 

However, the Seashore would still be able to comply with all applicable laws and regulations and 

management would continue in a way that furthers the purpose and significance of the Seashore. 

Implementation of alternative E would require less staff for Seashore management and operations. Total 

personnel costs would equal approximately $398,500. Under alternative E, all Seashore management 

functions would continue to be accomplished within a decreased Seashore budget. Alternative E would be 

accomplished with a decrease in staff, and a decrease of $88,000 in total annual personnel costs. Because 

the implementation of alternative E would not require staffing or funding that is unavailable to the 

Seashore, implementation of alternative E would result in long-term beneficial impacts to Seashore 

management and operations. 

Significance Discussion 

The purpose of the Seashore is to preserve the outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational resources 

and values of a dynamic, intact, natural barrier island system where ecological processes dominate. The 

Seashore is one of the few remaining locations on the Atlantic coast where visitors can experience and 

recreate in an undeveloped, remote barrier island environment that can be reached only by boat or ferry. 

Under alternatives B, C, and D there would be an overall increase in responsibilities related to ORV 

management for staff in the Seashore management and operations divisions. The increased level of effort 

for these alternatives would be the same under alternatives B, C, and D, which would be approximately 

$454,500 annually in additional funding in order to meet the staffing, support, and other costs. However, 

alternatives B and C would also have a one-time, first-year additional cost of $190,000 for heavy 

equipment needed to maintain the back route, and to support the expansion of bunkhouse facilities at the 

Harkers Island headquarters area. Even though the Seashore would need to obtain additional funds and 

staffing compared to current management, the implementation of alternatives B, C, and D is not likely to 

result in significant adverse impacts on Seashore management and operations. The Seashore would still 

be able to comply with all applicable laws and regulations and management would continue in a way that 

furthers the purpose and significance of the Seashore. In the event that the Seashore is unable to procure 

additional funding for alternatives B, C, and D, impacts to Seashore management and operations could be 

noteably adverse, requiring the Seashore to reprogram other management priorities to effectively manage 

ORV use. 

Under alternative A, NPS staff would be able to manage ORV use with existing staff and funding, 

resulting in negligible adverse impacts to Seashore management and operations. However, there are some 

inadequacies under alternative A as stated above, regarding the resource protection division and the 

resource management division. The funding and staffing for the visitor and resource protection division 

under alternative A only covers a six-month period, while the visitor use season is nine months long 

(March through December). The visitor and resource protection division under alternative A also relies 

heavily on seasonal staff, which results in greater turnover and is not as efficient as permanent staff. 

Furthermore, the resource management division currently does not have an information technology 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

534 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

specialist to perform network administration or communications, nor does this division have adequate 

GIS capacity or sufficient supervisors for field staff. 

Implementation of alternative E would allow for a reduction in staff. Total personnel costs would equal 

approximately $398,500. Under alternative E, all Seashore management functions would continue to be 

accomplished within a decreased Seashore budget. Alternative E would be accomplished with a decrease 

of $88,000 in total annual personnel costs. The implementation of alternative E would not require staffing 

or funding that is unavailable to the Seashore. Therefore, implementation of alternative E would not result 

in significant impacts on Seashore management and operations as the Seashore would still be able to 

comply with all applicable laws and regulations and management would continue in a way that furthers 

the purpose and significance of the Seashore. 

As stated above, there is uncertainty regarding procuring some of the additional funding required in order 

to implement alternatives B, C, and D. Additional revenue from the ORV program (from permit fees) 

would be used to recover costs and would in part cover additional requirements for the Seashore under 

alternatives B, C, and D. Any costs not covered by permit fees would need to be addressed by obtaining 

additional funding. In the event that the Seashore is unable to procure additional funding for alternatives 

B, C, and D, impacts to Seashore management and operations could be notably adverse, because the 

ability of NPS staff to perform ORV management responsibilities would be considerably reduced. 

However, the implementation of alternatives B, C, and D would involve some additional funding through 

the ORV permit program, and as a result, the lack of additional funding beyond the ORV permit program 

would not result in significant adverse impacts. 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF 

LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.16) require an EIS to consider the relationship between short-term uses 

of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. Special attention 

should be given to impacts that narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment or pose a longterm risk to human health or safety. 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D would all allow for ORV use, with varying levels of management activities. 

All of these alternatives would have impacts on the resources at the Seashore including threatened and 

endangered species, species of special concern, other wildlife and soundscapes. While these impacts may 

result in population fluctuations or temporary alterations to the soundscape at the Seashore, long-term 

productivity of these resources would not be impacted as a result of the various management measures 

including species protection measures that are common to all action alternatives. Additional mitigation 

measures under alternatives B, C, and D such as limits on the types of ATVs and UTVs, vehicle permits, 

and night driving restrictions would further establish that there are no impacts to long-term productivity 

of the Seashores resources. 

Alternative E would not allow for recreational ORV use at the Seashore. While minimal impacts would 

result from administrative ORV use, potential impacts to Seashore resources would be reduced, and longterm productivity of Seashore resources would continue. 
Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 535

IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF 

RESOURCES 

NPS must consider if the effects of the alternatives cannot be changed or are permanent (that is, the 

impacts are irreversible). NPS must also consider if the impacts on Seashore resources would mean that 

once gone, the resource could not be replaced; in other words, the resource could not be restored, 

replaced, or otherwise retrieved (NEPA section 102[c][v]). 

An irreversible commitment of resources applies primarily to the effects of using nonrenewable 

resources, such as minerals or cultural resources, or to those factors such as soil productivity that are 

renewable only over long periods. It could also apply to the loss of an experience as an indirect effect of a 

“permanent” change in the nature or character of the land. 

An irretrievable commitment of resources is defined as the loss of production, harvest, or use of natural 

resources. The amount of recreational activities foregone is irretrievable, but the action is not irreversible. 

If the use changes, it is possible to resume production. An example of such a commitment would be the 

loss of ORV access in a particular area of the Seashore as a result of a decision to close that area. If the 

decision were reversed, visitor experiences related to ORV access, though lost in the interim, would be 

available again. 

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION

Under alternative A, there would be no irreversible impacts to any resources found within the Seashore. 

However, alternative A has the potential to have irretrievable impacts on federally listed endangered, 

threatened, or candidate species; state-listed and special-status species; other wildlife and wildlife habitat; 

soundscapes/acoustic environment; visitor use and experience (of non-ORV visitors); and Seashore 

management and operations. Irretrievable impacts to ORV users would be minimal as the amount of 

Seashore available currently for use would not change, and additional requirements such as an education 

permit or vehicle type restrictions, would not occur. This is due to the continued use of ORVs at the 

Seashore in designated areas with the least restrictions compared to any other alternative. Impacts on 

these resources would be concentrated along designated ORV routes and areas, and outside of any 

designated resource closures, rather than scattered along user-created routes. 

ALTERNATIVE B

Under alternative B, there would be no irreversible impacts to any resources found within the Seashore. 

Alternative B has a potential for irretrievable impacts (federally listed endangered, threatened, or 

candidate species; state-listed and special-status species; other wildlife and wildlife habitat; 

soundscapes/acoustic environment, visitor use and experience for non-ORV users, and Seashore 

management and operations) similar to alternative A, due to continued ORV use at the Seashore in 

designated areas. However, ORV driving restrictions under alternative B (including a slight decrease in 

areas where ORV use would be allowed, restrictions on ATV and UTV use, miscellaneous vehicle 

requirements, vehicle permits, and educational requirements), would decrease the potential for 

irretrievable impacts to occur on resources, while increasing to some degree the irretrievable impacts on 

the visitor experience of ORV users. 

ALTERNATIVE C

Under alternative C, there would be no irreversible impacts to any resources found within the Seashore. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

536 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Alternative C has a potential for irretrievable impacts (federally listed endangered, threatened, or 

candidate species; state-listed and special-status species; other wildlife and wildlife habitat; 

soundscapes/acoustic environment; visitor use and experience for non-ORV users; socioeconomics; and 

Seashore management and operations) due to continued ORV use at the Seashore in designated areas. In 

addition, the implementation of permit limits could impact visitation at the Seashore which would result 

in a change in visitation patterns and therefore also impact, to some degree, socioeconomics. However, 

ORV driving restrictions under alternative C (a decrease in areas where ORV use would be allowed, 

increased restrictions on ATV and UTV use, miscellaneous vehicle requirements, limited number of 

vehicle permits available, and educational requirements), would decrease the potential for irretrievable 

impacts to occur to natural resources, but would increase the potential for irretrievable impacts to the 

visitor experience of ORV users. 

ALTERNATIVE D

Under alternative D, there would be no irreversible impacts to any resources found within the Seashore. 

Alternative D has a potential for irretrievable impacts (federally listed endangered, threatened, or 

candidate species; state-listed and special-status species; other wildlife and wildlife habitat; 

soundscapes/acoustic environment, visitor use and experience for non-ORV users; socioeconomics; and 

Seashore management and operations) due to continued ORV use at the Seashore in designated areas, 

with these impact slightly reduced due to additional non-ORVs provided under this alternative, as well as 

limit on ORV user permits that keeps use at current levels. However, ORV driving restrictions under 

alternative D (a decrease in areas where ORV use would be allowed, increased restrictions on ATV and 

UTV use, miscellaneous vehicle requirements, a limited and reduced number of vehicle permits available, 

and educational requirements), would decrease the potential for irretrievable impacts to occur to natural 

resources and the visitor experience of non-ORV users, but would increase the potential for these types of 

impacts to the visitor experience of ORV users and socioeconomics. 

ALTERNATIVE E

Under alternative E, there would be no irreversible impacts to any resources found within the Seashore. 

Alternative E has the least potential for irretrievable impacts to natural resources (federally listed 

endangered, threatened, or candidate species; state-listed and special-status species; other wildlife and 

wildlife habitat; and soundscapes/acoustic environment) and to the visitor use and experience of nonORV users and Seashore management and operations) since no ORV use would be authorized at the 

Seashore. Alternative E has the potential for irretrievable impacts related to the prohibition of ORV use 

within the Seashore and the forgone visitor use and experiences related to ORV use as well as the 

potential socioeconomic impacts to local businesses from the prohibition of that use. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

NPS is required to consider if the alternative actions would result in impacts that could not be fully 

mitigated or avoided (NEPA section 101[c][ii]). 

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION

Under alternative A, there would be long-term, unavoidable adverse impacts on Seashore wildlife 

(federally listed endangered, threatened, or candidate species; state-listed and special-status species; other 

wildlife and wildlife habitat), soundscapes/acoustic environment, and visitor use and experience, and 

Seashore management and operations due to the continued ORV use at designated areas at the Seashore. 

Unavoidable impacts to Seashore wildlife would include potential disturbance from human uses including 
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 537

both ORV use and pedestrian use, however, these disturbances would be minimized to the extent possible 

by the full recreational and ORV closures that are established throughout the Seashore. Unavoidable 

impacts on soundscapes would result from ORV noise being audible to visitors and impacting the 

opportunity for visitors to experience natural quiet in areas of the Seashore where ORV use is allowed. In 

addition, there would be continued unavoidable adverse impacts on visitor use and experience for ORV 

users and non-ORV users alike. ORV use would only be permitted on designated routes, thus restricting 

ORV users to a confined space; conversely, non-ORV users could be adversely impacted by the sights 

and sounds of ORVs if they wish to experience the Seashore without such audible and visual intrusions. 

Management divisions at the Seashore would continue to incur staffing and total personnel costs in order 

to successfully manage ORV use at the Seashore under alternative A. 

ALTERNATIVE B

Under alternative B, there would be long-term, unavoidable adverse impacts on Seashore wildlife 

(federally listed endangered, threatened, or candidate species; state-listed and special-status species; other 

wildlife and wildlife habitat), soundscapes/acoustic environment, and visitor use and experience, and 

Seashore management and operations due to the continued ORV use at designated areas at the Seashore. 

Unavoidable impacts to Seashore wildlife would include potential disturbance from human uses including 

both ORV use and pedestrian use, however, these disturbances would be minimized to the extent possible 

by the full recreational and ORV closures that are established throughout the Seashore. 

Unavoidable impacts on soundscapes would result from ORV noise being audible to visitors and 

impacting the opportunity for visitors to experience natural quiet in areas of the Seashore where ORV use 

is allowed. In addition, there would be continued unavoidable adverse impacts on visitor use and 

experience for ORV users and non-ORV users alike. ORV use would only be permitted on designated 

routes, thus restricting ORV users to a confined space; conversely, non-ORV users could be adversely 

impacted by the sights and sounds of ORVs if they wish to experience the Seashore without such audible 

and visual intrusions. Management divisions at the Seashore would be required to increase staffing and 

total personnel costs in order to successfully manage ORV use at the Seashore under alternative B. ORV 

use would be monitored and mitigation measures, including vehicle permits, an educational certificate, 

and full recreational closures would be used to reduce impacts on resources. 

ALTERNATIVE C

Under alternative C, there would be long-term, unavoidable adverse impacts on Seashore wildlife 

(federally listed endangered, threatened, or candidate species; state-listed and special-status species; other 

wildlife and wildlife habitat), soundscapes/acoustic environment, and visitor use and experience, and 

Seashore management and operations due to the continued ORV use at designated areas at the Seashore. 

Unavoidable impacts to Seashore wildlife would include potential disturbance from human uses including 

both ORV use and pedestrian use, however, these disturbances would be minimized to the extent possible 

by the full recreational and ORV closures that are established throughout the Seashore. Unavoidable 

impacts on soundscapes would result from ORV noise being audible to visitors and impacting the 

opportunity for visitors to experience natural quiet in areas of the Seashore where ORV use is allowed. In 

addition, there would be continued unavoidable adverse impacts on visitor use and experience for ORV 

users and non-ORV users alike. ORV use would only be permitted on designated routes, thus restricting 

ORV users to a confined space; conversely, non-ORV users could be adversely impacted by the sights 

and sounds of ORVs if they wish to experience the Seashore without such audible and visual intrusions. 

Management divisions at the Seashore would be required to increase staffing and total personnel costs in 

order to successfully manage ORV use at the Seashore under alternative C. ORV use would be monitored 

and mitigation measures, including vehicle permits, an educational certificate, and full recreational 

closures would be used to reduce impacts on resources. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

538 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

ALTERNATIVE D

Under alternative D, there would be long-term, unavoidable adverse impacts on Seashore wildlife 

(federally listed endangered, threatened, or candidate species; state-listed and special-status species; other 

wildlife and wildlife habitat), soundscapes/acoustic environment, and visitor use and experience, and 

Seashore management and operations due to the continued ORV use at designated areas at the Seashore. 

Unavoidable impacts to Seashore wildlife would include potential disturbance from human uses including 

both ORV use and pedestrian use, however, these disturbances would be minimized to the extent possible 

by the full recreational and ORV closures that are established throughout the Seashore. Unavoidable 

impacts on soundscapes would result from ORV noise being audible to visitors and impacting the 

opportunity for visitors to experience natural quiet in areas of the Seashore where ORV use is allowed. In 

addition, there would be continued unavoidable adverse impacts on visitor use and experience for ORV 

users and non-ORV users alike. ORV use would only be permitted on designated routes, thus restricting 

ORV users to a confined space; conversely, non-ORV users could be adversely impacted by the sights 

and sounds of ORVs if they wish to experience the Seashore without such audible and visual intrusions. 

Management divisions at the Seashore would be required to increase staffing and total personnel costs in 

order to successfully manage ORV use at the Seashore under alternative D. ORV use would be monitored 

and mitigation measures, including vehicle permits, an educational certificate, and full recreational 

closures would be used to reduce impacts on resources. 

ALTERNATIVE E

Unavoidable adverse impacts under alternative E would be reduced compared to alternatives A, B, C, and 

D. The prohibition of ORV use at the Seashore would result in the increased protection of resources 

(federally listed endangered, threatened, or candidate species; state-listed and special-status species; other 

wildlife and wildlife habitat, and soundscapes/acoustic environment) in highly impacted ORV areas, 

which would mitigate adverse impacts on these resources. There would be some unavoidable adverse 

impacts on visitors no longer being able to access areas of the Seashore on their ORVs, and to the local 

economy from loss of visitor spending, jobs, and income (particularly for the ferry operators). 
Chapter 5: 

Consultation and Coordination 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 539

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

One intent of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is to encourage the participation of federal 

and state involved agencies and affected citizens in the assessment procedure, as appropriate. This chapter 

describes the consultation conducted during development of this Off-road Vehicle Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement (ORV management plan/EIS), including consultation with other 

agencies. This chapter includes a description of the public involvement process and a list of the recipients 

of the draft document. 

HISTORY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

The public involvement activities for this ORV management plan/EIS fulfill the requirements of the 

NEPA and National Park Service (NPS) Director’s Order 12 (NPS 2011h). 

THE SCOPING PROCESS 

The NPS divides the scoping process into two parts: internal scoping and external / public scoping. 

Internal scoping involved discussions among NPS personnel regarding the purpose of and need for 

management actions, issues, literature reviews, management alternatives, mitigation measures, the 

analysis boundary, available references and guidance, and other related topics. 

Public scoping is the early involvement of the interested and affected public in the environmental analysis 

process. The public scoping process helps ensure that people have been given an opportunity to comment 

and contribute early in the decision-making process. For this ORV management plan/EIS, project 

information was distributed to individuals, agencies, and organizations early in the scoping process, and 

people were given opportunities to express concerns or views and identify important issues or even other 

alternatives or alternative elements. 

Taken together, internal and public scoping are essential elements of the NEPA planning process. The 

following sections describe the various ways scoping was conducted for this project. 

INTERNAL SCOPING 

Internal scoping for this project began on May 8, 2007, with NPS staff members from the Seashore, NPS 

Environmental Quality Division, NPS Southeastern Region, and contractor personnel in attendance. 

During the three-day meeting, the NPS identified the purpose of and need for action, management 

objectives, issues, and impact topics. The planning team also discussed possible alternative elements, 

cumulative impacts, and strategies for public involvement throughout the process. Various roles and 

responsibilities for developing the ORV management plan were clarified. The results of the meetings 

were captured in a report that is on file as part of the decision file. 

PUBLIC SCOPING 

Public scoping was conducted to engage the public, the major interest groups, and local public entities on 

the planning effort, and provide an opportunity to comment on the purpose and need for the planning 

effort, as well as preliminary alternatives. 
Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

540 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

The public scoping process began on August 7, 2007, with the publication of a Notice of Intent in the 

Federal Register (FR, Volume 72, Number 151). The Notice of Intent summarized the history of ORV 

management at the Seashore, discussed preliminary issues and impact topics, listed the project website, 

and announced the upcoming public scoping meetings. The Seashore posted a public scoping newsletter 

on the NPS Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) website at 

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/calo, and sent the newsletter to individuals, businesses, agencies, and 

organizations on the Seashore’s email distribution list. 

PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS

On September 11, 12, and 13, 2007, the NPS held public scoping meetings for the ORV management 

plan/EIS. The scoping meetings were intended to initiate public involvement early in the planning stages 

and to obtain community feedback on the initial purpose, need, and objective statements for ORV 

management at Cape Lookout National Seashore. Meetings were held in the following locations: 

x On September 11, 2007, a public meeting was held in Beaufort, North Carolina at the Duke 

Marine Lab from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Thirty-eight people attended. 

x On September 12, 2007, a public meeting was held in Raleigh, North Carolina at the McKimmon 

Center from 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Twenty-six people attended. 

x On September 13, 2007, a public meeting was held in Charlotte, North Carolina at The Hut from 

6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Thirty-one people attended. 

The meetings were open house style and offered a variety of methods for the public to provide comments. 

NPS personnel and contractor staff were present at each display to answer questions from attendees and 

record attendees’ comments. Comment sheets were provided to meeting attendees as an additional 

method for accepting public comment. Those attending the meetings were also given a newsletter that 

provided additional opportunities for comment, including directing comments to the PEPC website. To 

keep the public involved and informed throughout the planning process, individuals were given the option 

to receive notification of the availability of draft ORV management documents by either e-mail or regular 

mail and the option to either download a digital copy or receive a hardcopy through the mail. The public 

scoping period was open until October 26, 2007. 

PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS

During the public comment period (August 24, 2007 to October 26, 2007), 98 items of correspondence 

were received, containing a total of 667 signatures and 2,290 individual comments. Of the 2,290 

comments received, 832 were related to the alternative concepts; 704 comments were related to the 

affected environment at the Seashore; 601 comments were related to the impact analysis; and 42 

comments were concerned with the purpose and need of the ORV management plan/EIS. The remaining 

comments were of a general nature concerning consultation and coordination, park operations, 

socioeconomics, threatened and endangered species, various values of visitor experience, and visitor 

conflicts and safety. 

THE COMMENT ANALYSIS PROCESS

Comment analysis is a process used to compile and correlate similar public comments into a usable 

format for decision makers and the NPS planning team. Comment analysis assists the team in organizing, 
Public Scoping 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 541

clarifying, and addressing technical information pursuant to NEPA regulations. It also aids in identifying 

the topics and issues to be evaluated and considered throughout the planning process. 

The process includes 

x Reading and coding public comments from correspondence received 

x Interpreting and analyzing the comments to identify issues and themes 

x Preparing a comment summary. 

A coding structure was developed to help sort comments into logical groups by topic and issue. The NPS 

derived the coding structure from an analysis of the range of topics discussed during internal scoping, past 

planning documents, and the comments themselves. The coding structure was designed to capture all 

comment content rather than restricting or excluding any ideas. 

The NPS PEPC database was used to manage the comments. The database stores the full text of all 

correspondence and allows each comment to be coded by topic and issue. The database tallies the total 

number of pieces of correspondence and comments received, sorts and reports comments by particular 

topics or issues, and provides demographic information on the sources of each comment. 

Analysis of the public comments involved assigning codes to statements made in public letters, email 

messages, and written comment forms. All comments were read and analyzed, including those of a 

technical nature; opinions, feelings, and suggestions for alternative elements to be considered in the ORV 

management plan/EIS; and comments of a personal or philosophical nature. 

A comment analysis report was prepared that summarized concern statements as well as the full text of all 

comments corresponding to the appropriate concern statement (NPS 2008i). All scoping comments were 

considered to be important as useful guidance and public input to the public scoping process. With regard 

to development of the ORV management plan/EIS, comments in favor of or against the proposed action 

or alternatives, those that only agree or disagree with NPS policy. Comments that offer opinions or 

provide information not directly related to the issues, alternatives, or impact analysis were considered 

non-substantive comments. Although the analysis process attempts to capture the full range of public 

concerns, the content analysis report should be used with caution. Comments from people who chose to 

respond do not necessarily represent the sentiments of the entire public. 

PUBLIC ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOPS

After the internal and public scoping meetings, suggestions and ideas for alternatives for ORV 

management were gathered and compiled into an extensive list of preliminary alternative elements. These 

alternative elements were organized by topic areas and formatted into an alternatives options workbook 

for presentation to the public to obtain further comments and suggestions. Although not required by the 

NEPA process, the development of these workbooks and the public workshops that followed was 

intended to generate more detailed public input during the alternatives development process. Members of 

the public were asked to evaluate the preliminary alternatives and encouraged to identify possible new 

alternative options for ORV management at the Seashore. The workbook was organized into the 

following sections: ORV Management, Education and Outreach, Law Enforcement, ORV Permits, Other 

ORV Management Issues, and Species Protection. The Alternatives Option Workbook was distributed to 

the public as follows: 

x A press release, with the workbook as an attachment, was sent electronically to all recipients on 

the Cape Lookout National Seashore ORV e-mail list. 
Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

542 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

x Microsoft Word and PDF versions of the workbooks were made available online on the NPS 

PEPC website. 

x Hard copies of the workbook were distributed at public alternatives development meetings 

discussed below, and provided to members of the public by the Seashore when requested. 

The NPS held meetings to inform the public about the Alternatives Options Workbook for the ORV 

management plan/EIS as follows: 

x On April 7, 2008, a public meeting was held in Beaufort, North Carolina at the Duke Marine Lab 

from 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. 

x On April 8, 2008, a public meeting was held in Raleigh, North Carolina at the McKimmon Center 

from 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. 

x On April 9, 2008, a public meeting was held in Charlotte, North Carolina at Bass Pro Shops 

Outdoor World from 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. 

The public was asked to provide completed workbooks by June 5, 2008. A total of 90 workbooks, 

containing 6,175 comments, were received during the public comment period in both electronic and hard 

copy formats. All workbooks were reviewed and considered during the alternatives development process. 

Extensive comments were received on the preliminary alternatives, many of which provided suggestions 

on how preliminary management options could be improved. Most comments offered options for 

protected species management, law enforcement, ORV permitting, closures, and ORV ramp and route 

configuration. 

ALTERNATIVES NEWSLETTER PUBLIC SCOPING

On June 15, 2012, the NPS issued an ORV management plan/EIS alternatives newsletter for the Seashore. 

The alternatives newsletter invited the public to review additional proposed alternatives, and submit 

comments on the alternatives through July 20, 2012. The NPS received 350 items of correspondence in 

response to the ORV management plan/EIS alternatives newsletter. The Seashore evaluated comments 

and information received in finalizing the alternatives for this draft ORV management plan/EIS. 

OTHER CONSULTATION

Consultation and coordination with local and federal agencies and various interest groups is ongoing 

during the NEPA process to identify issues or concerns related to protected species management within 

the Cape Lookout National Seashore. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) prepared a Biological 

Opinion on August 14, 2006, in response to the Interim Protected Species Management Strategy and 

amended the biological opinion on April 24, 2007. As required by this Biological Opinion, the Seashore 

submits annual reports to the USFWS that contains information regarding “performance standards” which 

are required in the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan / 

Environmental Assessment Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). 

The North Carolina State Environmental Review Clearinghouse was also notified of the proposed 

alternatives in 2012. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) reviewed the draft 

alternatives newsletter, and stated that NCWRC biologists are available to work with the NPS as 

alternatives and management strategies are developed for the ElS. The North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources concurred that the proposed activity is consistent with the 

enforceable policies of the State's coastal management program, and also encouraged the NPS to work 
List of Recipients of the Off-road Vehicle Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 543

with the NCWRC to resolve any concerns regarding the protection of sea turtles, colonial waterbirds, and 

shorebirds.

Prior to implementation of the selected alternative, additional consultations will be conducted with the 

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 

the USFWS under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the North Carolina Coastal Commission under 

the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). 

Notice of the availability of this document will be posted on the PEPC website and provided to a variety 

of federal, state, and local agencies and interest groups, including those listed below. 

LIST OF RECIPIENTS OF THE OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT 

PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

This ORV management plan/EIS was made available to the agencies and governmental representatives 

listed below. In addition, a variety of media outlets were notified about the availability of the document 

for public review. Copies for review are available at park headquarters. 

CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATES

x Honorable Richard Burr, Senator 

x Honorable Kay Hagan, Senator 

x Honorable Walter B. Jones, Jr. North Carolina 3rd District Representative 

FEDERAL AGENCIES

x Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4 

x National Marine Fisheries Service 

x National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

x National Park Service, Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore 

x U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

x U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Ecological 

Services, Raleigh Field Office 

STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

x State of North Carolina Clearinghouse 

x North Carolina Office of the Governor 

x North Carolina Office of the Lt. 

Governor

x North Carolina State Historic 

Preservation Officer 
Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 544

LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 

Name Title 

National Park Service 

Michael Edwards Environmental Quality Division, Project Manager 

Patrick Kenney Superintendent 

Russ Wilson Former Superintendent 

Wouter Ketel Chief of Interpretation, Management Assistant 

Michael Rikard Chief of Resource Management 

Barry Munyan Chief of Visitor and Resource Protection 

Jon Altman Wildlife Biologist 

Mike Baker Chief of Maintenance 

The Louis Berger Group 

Holly Bender Economist 

Megan Blue-Sky Environmental Scientist/GIS Specialist 

Stuart Fidel Environmental Planner 

Lori Fox Planner, Project Manager 

Jeff Gutierrez Environmental Planner, Deputy Project Manager 

Lia Jenkins Environmental Scientist 

Brandon Marette Biologist 

Dana Otto Senior Consultant 

Josh Schnabel Environmental Planner 

Spence Smith Environmental Planner 

Nancy Van Dyke Senior Consultant 
List of Preparers and Consultants 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 545

Name Title 

Landon Vine Environmental Scientist 

Eric Voigt Environmental Planner 

RTI 

Ross Loomis Socioeconomic Analysis 

Carol Mansfield Socioeconomic Analysis 

The Final Word 

Juanita Barboa Technical Editor 

Sherrie Bell Technical Editor / Document Designer 
Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

546 Cape Lookout National Seashore 
References, Glossary, and Index 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 547

REFERENCES 

Altman, J., National Park Service (Cape Lookout National Seashore) 

2010a Personal communication via email with S. Smith, Louis Berger Group, Inc., regarding sea 

turtle nests by mile marker at Cape Lookout National Seashore. February 10, 2010. 

2010b Personal communication via email with S. Smith, Louis Berger Group, Inc., regarding 

occurrence of beach vitex at Cape Lookout National Seashore. August 4, 2010. 

2012a Personal communication via email with J. Gutierrez, Louis Berger Group, Inc. regarding 

occurrence of beach vitex at Cape Lookout National Seashore during 2010 and 2011. 

September 28, 2012. 

2012b Personal communication via email with L. Fox, Louis Berger Group, Inc. providing 2012 sea 

turtle nesting database. May 23, 2012. 

2013a Personal communication via email with C. Cunningham, Louis Berger Group, Inc. providing 

piping plover hatching and fledging success data. May 7, 2013. 

2013b Personal communication via email with C. Cunningham, Louis Berger Group, Inc. providing 

information on colonial waterbird monitoring at Cape Lookout National Seashore. May 15, 

2013. 

American Bird Conservancy 

2005 Globally Important Bird Areas of the United States; viewed at 

http://www.abcbirds.org/iba/ibalist.htm on 1-23-06. 

American Society of Mammalogists (ASM) 

n.d. Guidelines for the Capture, Handling and Care of Mammals as approved by the American 

Society of Mammalogists. Prepared by the Animal Care and Use Committee. Available at 

http://www.mammalsociety.org/committees/commanimalcareuse/98acucguidelines.PDF. 

Accessed June 7, 2007. 

American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) 

2007 Guidelines on Euthanasia. Formerly Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia). Available at 

http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/sep07/070915b.asp. Accessed April 17, 2009. 

America’s Byways 

2012 Accessed online at: http://byways.org/explore/byways/12834. 

Amirault, D.L., F. Shaffer, K. Baker, A. Boyne, A. Calvert, J. McKnight, and P. Thomas 

2006 Preliminary results of a Piping Plover five year banding study in Eastern Canada - support for 

expanding conservation efforts to non-breeding sites? Proceedings of the Symposium on the 

Wintering Ecology and Conservation of Piping Plovers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Raleigh, NC. 

Anders, F. and S. Leatherman 

1987 “Disturbance of Beach Sediment by Off-road Vehicles.” Environmental Geology and Water 

Sciences 9:183–189. 
References 

548 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Anderson, S.H. 

1995 Recreational disturbance and wildlife populations. p. 157-168, in R. L. Knight and K. J. 

Gutzwiller eds. Wildlife and Recreationists. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 

Anderson D.W. and J.O. Keith 

1980 “The human influences of seabird nesting success: conservation implications.” Biological

Conservation. 18:65-80. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) 

2002 Beach Nourishment: A Review of the Biological and Physical Impacts. Habitat Management 

Series #7. Available on line at: 

http://www.asmfc.org/publications/habitat/beachNourishment.pdf. Accessed June 30, 2009.

Baicich, P.J. and C.J.O. Harrison 

1997 A guide to the nests, eggs, and nestlings of North American birds. Second edition. Academic 

Press, San Diego, CA.

Baker, A.J., P.M. González, T. Piersma, L.J. Niles, I.L.S. do Nascimiento, P.W. Atkinson, N.A. Clark, 

C.D.T. Minton, M.K. Peck, and G. Aarts 

2004 “Rapid population decline in red knot: fitness consequences of decreased refueling rates and 

late arrival in Delaware Bay.” Proc. Royal Soc. London 271: 875-882. 

Barber J.R., C. Crooks, and K. Fristrup 

2010 “The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms.” Trends Ecol Evol 25:180–

189.

Barber J.R., C.L. Burdett, S.E. Reed, K.A. Warner, C. Formichella, K.R. Crooks, D.M. Theobald, and 

K.M. Fristrup 

2011 “Anthropogenic noise exposure in protected natural areas: estimating the scale of ecological 

consequences.” Landsc Ecol 26(9):1281–1295.

Bent, A.C. 

1929 Life histories of North American shore birds. Part 2. United States National Museum 

Bulletin, Number 146, Washington, D. C., USA.

Bergstrom, P.W. 

1982 Ecology of incubation in Wilson’s Plover (Charadrius wilsonius). Ph.D. diss., University. of 

Chicago, Chicago, IL. 

1988 Breeding biology of Wilson’s Plovers. Wilson Bull. 100: 25–35. 

1989 Incubation temperatures of Wilson's plovers and killdeers. Condor 91:634–641. 

Bildstein, K.L., G.T. Bancroft, P.J. Dugan, D.H. Gordon, and R.M. Erwin 

1991 “Approaches to the Conservation of Coastal Wetlands in the Western Hemisphere.” Wilson

Bull. 103:218–254. 
References 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 549

Blanco, D., H.R. Goi and G. Pugnali.

1992 The importance of Punta Rasa, Buenos Aires Province, in the migration of the Red Know 

(Calidris canutus). El Hornero 13: 203-206. 

Blickley, J.L. 

2012 “Experimental Evidence for the Effects of Chronic Anthropogenic Noise on Abundance of 

Greater SageǦGrouse at Leks.” Conservation biology 26.3:461.

Boettcher, R., T. Penn, R.R. Cross, K.T. Terwilliger, and R.A. Beck 

2007 An Overview of the Status and Distribution of Piping Plovers in Virginia. Waterbirds. 30: 

138-151. 

Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill, eds. 

2001 The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, 2nd ed. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, 

Manomet, MA. 

Buckley, P.A. and F.G. Buckley 

1976 Guidelines for the protection and management of colonially nesting waterbirds. North 

Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston, Massachusetts. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 

2012 “Local Area Unemployment Statistics.” <http://www.bls.gov/lau>; (December 10, 2012).

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) 

n.d. Renewable Energy Programs. Offshore Renewable Energy Guide – North Carolina. 

Available at: http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/State-Activities/NorthCarolina.aspx. Accessed 12/15/12. 

Burger, J. 

1981 “The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay.” Biological Conservation 21:231-241. 

1986 “The effect of human activities on shorebirds in two coastal bays in the Northeastern United 

States.” Environmental Conservation 13:123-130. 

1987 “Physical and Social Determinants of Nest Site Selection in Piping Plover in New Jersey.” 

Condor 98:811–818. 

1991 “Foraging Behavior and the Effect of Human Disturbance on the Piping Plover (Charadrius

Melodus).” J. Coastal Research, 7:39-52. 

1994 “The Effect of Human Disturbance on Foraging Behavior and Habitat use in Piping Plover 

(Charadrius melodus).” Estuaries 17:695–701. 

Burger, J. and M.G. Gochfeld 

1990 Black skimmer: social dynamics of a colonial species. Columbia University Press, New York. 

1998 Effects of ecotourism on bird behavior at Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, Florida. 

Environmental Conservation 25:13-21 
References 

550 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Burger, J., C. Jeitner, K. Clark, and L.J. Niles 

2004 “The Effect of Human Activities on Migrant Shorebirds: Successful Adaptive Management.” 

Environ. Conserv. 31: 283–288. 

Burger, D, S.A. Carlucci, C. W. Jeitner, L. Niles 

2007 Habitat choice, disturbance, and management of foraging shorebirds and gulls at a migratory 

stopover. Journal of Coastal Research, 23(5), 1159–1166. West Palm Beach (Florida), ISSN 

0749-0208. 

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 

1998 Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. California Department of 

Transportation Environmental Program, October 1998 

Cairns

1982 “Biology and Behavior of Breeding Piping Plovers.” Wilson Bull. 94:531–545. 

Catlin, D.H., J.D. Fraser, J.H. Felio, and J.B.Cohen. 

2011 “Piping Plover Habitat Selection and Nest Success on Natural, Managed, and Engineered 

Sandbars.” Journal of Wildlife Management 75(2):305-310. 

California State Lands Commission 

2005 Disposition of Offshore Cooling Water Conduits SONGS Unit 1 EIR, Section 4.9, Noise, 

p. 4.9-3. State Clearinghouse Number SCH2004061092. June 2005.

Cameron, S. 

2004 Beach Nesting Bird Reproductive Success in NC. Technical Report. North Carolina Wildlife 

Resource Commission. 

Cameron S. and D. Allen 

2008 2007 Survey of Nesting Colonial Waterbirds in the North Carolina Coastal Zone along with 

an Updating of the Colonial Waterbird Database. Final Report to the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Wilmington District, NC. 

Cameron, S.E., D.H. Allen, M.M. Lyons, J.R. Cordes, and S.B. Maddock 

2005 “Compilation and Assessment of Piping Plover Wintering and Migratory Staging Area Data 

in North Carolina.” Proceedings of the Symposium on the Wintering Ecology and 

Conservation of Piping Plovers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh, NC. Available 

online at: http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_pipl_proc.html. 

Carlson, L.H. and P.J. Godfrey 

1989 “Human Impact Management in a Coastal Recreation and Natural Area.” Biological

Conservation 49 (1989) 141-156. 

Carteret County Chamber of Commerce 

2012 Business Directory. http://memberservices.membee.com/ncmorcoc/irmdirectory1.aspx 

accessed December 14, 2012. 
References 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 551

Carthy, R.R, A. Foley, and Y. Matsuzawa 

2003 “Incubation Environment of Loggerhead Turtle Nests: Effects on Hatching Success and 

Hatchling Characteristics.” In Loggerhead Sea Turtles, ed. A.B. Bolten and B.E. 

Witherington, 144–153. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Books. 

Catlin D.H., J.D. Fraser, J.H. Felio, and J.B. Cohen 

2011 “Piping Plover Habitat Selection and Nest Success on Natural, Managed, and Engineered 

Sandbars.” Journal of Wildlife Management 75(2):305-310. 

Cohen, J.B. 

2005a Management and Protection Protocols for the Threatened Piping Plover (Charadrius 

melodus) on Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina. October. 

2005b “Factors Limiting Piping Plover Nesting Pair Density and Reproductive Output on Long 

Island, New York.” Ph.D. diss., Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, VA. 

Cohen, J.B., R.M. Erwin, J.B. French Jr., J.L. Marion, and J.M. Meyers, 

2010 Recommendations for Management of Endangered Species at Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1262. 

Cohen, J.B., Karpanty, S.M., Catlin, D.H., Fraser, J.D. and R. A. Fischer 

2008 “Winter Ecology of Piping Plovers at Oregon Inlet, North Carolina.” Waterbirds 2008 31:3, 

472-479 

Cohen, J.B., Wunker, E.H., and J.D. Fraser 

2008 “Substrate and Vegetation Selection by Nesting Piping Plovers.” The Wilson Journal of 

Ornithology 120 (2): 404-407. 

Cohen, J.B., L.M. Houghton, and J.D. Fraser 

2009 Nesting Density and Reproductive Success of Piping Plovers in Response to Storm- and 

Human-Created Habitat Changes. Reviewed work(s): Wildlife Monographs, No. 173, August 

2009. pp. 1-24. 

Cohen, J.B., R.M. Erwin, J.B. French Jr., J.L. Marion, and J.M. Meyers 

n.d. Synthesis of management, monitoring, and protection protocols for threatened and 

endangered species and species of special concern at Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North 

Carolina/.

Corbat, C.A. and P.W. Bergstrom 

2000 Wilson’s Plover (Charadrius wilsonia). In The Birds of North America, No. 516 (A. Poole 

and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Cordes, J., National Park Service (Cape Lookout National Seashore) 

2005a Personal communication via email with S. Smith, Louis Berger Group, Inc., regarding the 

number of sea turtle nests by species found at the Seashore during the years 1990 through 

2005. December 22, 2005. 
References 

552 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

2005b Personal communication with S. Smith, Louis Berger Group, Inc., during Interim Protect 

Species EA internal scoping meeting regarding NCWRC request to only relocate 30 percent 

of sea turtle nests. October 10, 2005. 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology 

2013 Red Knot [On-line]. Available at: http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/red_knot/id (accessed 

December 20, 2013). 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

2005 Guidance on the consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis. Memorandum 

June 24, 2005. 

Coutu, S., J.D. Fraser, J. McOnnaughey, and J. Loegering 

1990 “Piping Plover Distribution and Reproductive Success on Cape Hatteras National Seashore.” 

Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, VA. 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe 

1979 Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. 

Performed for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of 

Biological Services, Washington, D.C. 

Crihfield J.B. and H.S. Campbell 

1991 “Evaluating Alternative Regional Planning Models.” Growth and Change 22(2):1–16. DOI: 

10.1111/j.1468-2257.1991.tb00544.x. 

Culbert R.A. 

2004 Summary of 2004 Nesting Season for Piping Plovers, Least Terns, and American 

Oystercatchers on Joseph Sylvia State Beach, Norton Point Beach, and Eastville Point Beach. 

County of Dukes County, Natural Resources Department. Vineyard Haven, MA. 

Davidson College. 

n.d. “Amphibians and Reptiles of North Carolina.” Accessed online at: 

http://www.herpsofnc.org/. Accessed October 9, 2012. 

Davis, M.B., T.R. Simons, M.J. Groom, J.L. Weaver, and J.R. Cordes 

1999 Reproductive success, status, and viability of the American oystercatcher (Haematopus

palliatus). Thesis, North Carolina State University, Department of Zoology, Raleigh, NC. 

Davis, M.B., T.R. Simons, M.J. Groom, J.L. Weaver, and J.R. Cordes 

2001 “The Breeding Status of the American Oystercatcher on the East Coast of North America and 

Breeding Success in North Carolina.” Waterbirds 24:195–202. 

DeRose-Wilson, A., M.D. Hillman, S.M. Karpanty, J.D. Fraser 

n.d. Assessing the responses of Wilson’s plovers, least terns, common terns, gull-billed terns, and 

black skimmers to military overflights of the Core Military Area and to other human events at 

Cape Lookout National Seashore. 98 p. 
References 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 553

Diaz, R.J., and R. Rosenberg 

2008 “Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems.” Science, 321(5891), 926-

929. 

Dinsmore, S., J. Collazo, and J. Walters 

1998 “Seasonal Numbers and Distribution of Shorebirds on North Carolina's Outer Banks.” Wilson

Bull. 110(2):171–181. 

Doherty, P.J. and J.A. Heath 

2011 “Factors affecting piping plover hatching success on Long Island, New York.” Journal of 

Wildlife Management 75(1): 109-115. 

Dolan, R., P.J. Godfrey, and W.E. Odum 

1973 “Man’s Impact on the Barrier Islands of North Carolina.” Amer. Sci. 61:152–162. 

Drake, K.R., J.E. Thompson, K.L. Drake, and C. Zonick 

2001 “Movement, Habitat Use, and Survival of Nonbreeding Piping Plovers.” Condor 103 (2): 

259–267. 

Ehrhart, L.M., D.A. Bagley, and W.E. Redfoot 

2003 “Loggerhead Turtles in the Atlantic Ocean: Geographic Distribution, Abundance, and 

Population Status.” In Loggerhead Sea Turtles, ed. A.B. Bolten and B.E. Witherington, 157–

174. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Books. 

Ehrhart, L.M. and B.E. Witherington 

1987 Human and Natural Causes of Marine Turtle Nest and Hatchling Mortality and Their 

Relationship to Hatchling Production on an Important Florida Nesting Beach. Final Report, 

Project Number GFC-84-018, Technical Report No. 1. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish 

Commission, Nongame Wildlife Program, Tallahassee, FL. 141 pp. 

Elias, S.P., J.D. Fraser, and P.A. Buckley 

2000 “Piping Plover Brood Foraging Ecology on New York Barrier Island Ecology.” Journal of 

Wildlife Management 64:346–354. 

Elliott-Smith, E., and S.M. Haig 

2004 Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). 

Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/002. 

Elliott-Smith, E., S.M. Haig, and B.M. Powers 

2009 Data from the 2006 International Piping Plover Census: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 

426, 332 p. 

Ellison L.N. and L. Cleary 

1978 “Effects of human disturbance on breeding of Doublecrested Cormorants.” Auk 95: 510-517. 
References 

554 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Erwin, R.M. 

1977 “Black skimmer breeding ecology and behavior.” Auk 94: 709-717. 

1979 Species interactions in a mixed colony of common terns (Sterna hirundo) and black skimmers 

(Rynchops niger), Animal Behaviour 27: 1054-1062. 

1980 “Breeding habitat use by colonially nesting waterbirds in two mid-Atlantic regions under 

different regimes of human disturbance.” Biological Conservation 18: 39-51. 

1989 “Responses to human intruders by birds nesting colonies: experimental results and 

management guidelines.” Colonial Waterbirds 12:104–108. 

2005 Management, monitoring and protection protocols for colonially nesting waterbirds at Cape 

Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina. USGS report to the National Park Service. 29 pp. 

Erwin, R.M., B.R. Truitt, and J.E. Jimenez 

2001 “Ground-nesting waterbirds and mammalian carnivores in the Virginia barrier island region: 

running out of options.” Journal of Coastal Research 17: 292-296. 

Erwin, R.M., J.D. Nichols, T.B. Eyler, D.B. Stotts, and B.R. Truitt 

1998 “Modeling colony-site dynamics: A case study of gull-billed terns (Sterna nilotica) in coastal 

Virginia.” Auk 115: 970-978. 

Escudero, G., J.G. Navedo, T. Piersma, P. De Goeij, and P. Edelaar 

2012 “Foraging conditions ‘at the end of the world’ in the context of long-distance migration and 

population declines in red knots.” Austral Ecology 37:355-364. 

Federal Register (FR) 

1993 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Seabeach Amaranth 

(Amaranthus pumilus) to a Threatened Species. Federal Register 58:65 FR 18035-18042. 

April 7. 

2007 Federal Register: April 30, 2007. Department of Defense, Department of the Navy. Available 

at <http://www.navycherrypointrangecomplexeis.com/EIS.aspx>.Accessed June 2007 

2011 Endangered and Threatened Species; Determination of Nine Distinct Population Segments of 

Loggerhead Sea Turtles as Endangered or Threatened; Final Rule. Federal Register 76:184 

FR 58868–58952. September 22. 

2013a Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the 

Northwest Atlantic Ocean Distinct Population Segment of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta 

caretta); Proposed Rule. 78:58 FR 18000-18082. March 25, 2013. 

2013b Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Threatened Status for the Rufa 

Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa). Federal Register 78:189 FR 60024 -60098. September 30, 

2013 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

1995 Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. U.S. Department of 

Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Office of Environment and 

Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch, Washington, D.C. June 1995. 4 pp.
References 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 555

1998 FHWA Traffic Noise Model Technical Manual. Accessible at: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/traffic_noise_model/old_versions/tnm_version_

10/tech_manual/tnm10techmanual.pdf

2000 Noise Barrier Design Handbook. Available at; 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/noise_barriers/design_construction/design/index

.cfm

Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICN) 

1992 Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. August 1992.

Flemming, S.P., R.D. Chiasson, P.C. Smith, P.J. Austin-Smith, and R.P. Bancroft 

1988 “Piping Plover Status in Nova Scotia Related to Its Reproductive and Behavioral Responses 

to Human Disturbance.” J. Field Ornithol. 59:321–330. 

Flora of North America 

2013 Amaranthus pumilus [On-line]. Available at: 

http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=242415669 (accessed 

December 20, 2013). 

Foley, A.M., S.A. Peck, and G.R. Harman 

2006 “Effects of Sand Characteristics and Inundation on the Hatching Success of Loggerhead Sea 

Turtle (Caretta caretta) Clutches on Low-Relief Mangrove Islands in Southwest Florida.” 

Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 2006, 5(1): 32–41. 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

2006 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Available at: 

http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf. 

Garza, E. and R.L. Whitman 

n.d. “The Nearshore Benthic Community of Southern Lake Michigan and its Response to Beach 

Nourishment.” Journal of Great Lakes Research Vol. 30(1):114–122. United States 

Geological Survey. Lake Michigan Research Station. Online at: 

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/seagrant/GLWL/Benthos/30_1_114-122.pdf. Accessed January 6, 

2014. 

Gochfeld, M.G. and J. Burger 

1994 Black skimmer (Rynchops niger). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North 

America. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and American 

Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

Godfrey, M., North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 

2005a Personal communication via email with K. Sayles, National Park Service (Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore) providing unpublished data regarding the annual number of loggerhead 

sea turtle nests in North Carolina, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, and Cape Lookout 

National Seashore for the years 1995 through 2004. October 4, 2005. 
References 

556 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

2005b Personal communication via email with S. Smith, Louis Berger Group, Inc., regarding the 

natural ratio of false crawls to turtle nests for loggerhead sea turtles October 6, 2005. 

2008 Personal communication via email with S. Smith, Louis Berger Group, Inc., providing 

unpublished data regarding the annual number of loggerhead, green, and leatherback sea 

turtles in North Carolina, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, and Cape Lookout National 

Seashore for the years 1996 through 2008 (2008 data is incomplete, for the nesting season 

hadn’t ended yet). October 3, 2008. 

2010 Personal communication via email with S. Smith, Louis Berger Group, Inc., providing data 

regarding the number of loggerhead, green, and leatherback sea turtle nests in North Carolina 

for the year 2009. February 23, 2010. 

2012 Personal communication via email with S. Smith, Louis Berger Group, Inc. confirming the 

northern most nesting location along the Atlantic coast for leatherback sea turtles. November 

29, 2012. 

Golder, W.W. 

1985 “Piping Plovers Nesting at Cape Hatteras, N.C.” Chat 49:69–70. 

Goldin, M.R. and J.V. Regosin 

1998 “Chick Behavior, Habitat Use, and Reproductive Success of Piping Plovers at Goosewing 

Beach, Rhode Island.” J. Field Ornithol. 69(2):228–234. 

Green, K. 

2002 Beach Nourishment: A Review of the Biological and Physical Impacts. ASMFC Habitat 

Management Series #7. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 

Haig, S.M. and L.W. Oring 

1988 “Distribution and Dispersal in the Piping Plover.” Auk 105:630–638. 

Hand, J.L. 

1980 “Human disturbance in Western Gull Larus Occidentalis Livens colonies and possible 

amplification by intraspecific predation.” Biological Conservation 18: 59-63. 

Hanson, J., T. Wibbels, and E.M. Martin 

1998 “Predicted Female Bias in Sex Ratios of Hatchling Loggerhead Sea Turtles from a Florida 

Nesting Beach.” Can. J. of Zool. 76:1850–1861. 

Harrington, B.A. 

1996 The flight of the Red Knot. W.W. Norton and Co., New York. 

2001 “Red knot (Calidris canutus).” In The birds of North America, No. 563 (ed. A Poole & F. 

Gill). 1-32. Philadelphia: The Birds of North America. 

Hayman, P, Marchant, and T. Prater 

1986 Shorebirds: an identification guide. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA 
References 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 557

Hecht, A. 

2008 USFWS, email communication with John Walsh, The Louis Berger Group, Inc., regarding 

the piping plover recovery effort. July 3, 2008. 

Hilty, S.L. and W.L. Brown 

1986 A guide to the birds of Columbia. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ. 

Hobbs, C.H. III, Landry, C.B., and J.E. Perry III 

2008 “Assessing Anthropogenic and Natural Impacts on Ghost Crabs (Ocypode quadrata) at Cape 

Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina.” Journal of Coastal Research 24(6):1450-1458. 

Hodgson, A.B., A.F. Paul, and M.L. Rachal 

2008 American Oystercatcher Nesting in Hillsborough Bay, Florida: Population Trends 1990–

2007 and Management Recommendations. Florida Coastal Islands Sanctuaries, Tampa, FL. 

Sovereign Lands Management Initiatives Program 2006. Tampa Port Authority, Tampa, FL. 

Hosier, P.E., and T.E. Eaton 

1980 “The Impact of Vehicles on Dune and Grassland Vegetation on a South-eastern North 

Carolina Barrier Beach.” The Journal of Applied Ecology. 17(1): 173–182. 

Hosier, P.E., M. Kochhar, and V. Thayer 

1981 “Off-road vehicle and pedestrian track effects on the sea-approach of hatchling loggerhead 

turtles.” Environmental Conservation 8(2):158–161. Summer 1981. 

Houghton, L.M. 

2005 Piping Plover Population Dynamics and Effects of Beach Management Practices on Piping 

Plovers at West Hampton Dunes and Westhampton Beach, New York. Dissertation. Virginia 

Polytechnic Institute and State University. 162 pp. 

Howell, S.N.G. and S. Webb 

1995 A guide to the birds of Mexico and northern Central America. Oxford Univ. Press, New 

York.

Inman, D.L. and R. Dolan 

1989 “The Outer Banks of North Carolina: Budget of sediment and inlet dynamics along a 

migrating barrier system.” Journal of Coastal Research, 193-237. 

Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) 

2009 ISSG Global Invasive Species Database: Impact information for Vitex rotundifolia. Accessed 

July 10, 2009: 

http://www.issg.org/database/species/impact_info.asp?si=1110&fr=1&sts=&lang=EN. 

IPCC

2013 Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. 
References 

558 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 

Isaackson, D., J. Wallander, and M. Larsson 

2006 “Managing predation on ground-nesting birds: The effectiveness of nest exclosures.” 

Biological Conservation 136 (2007) 136 –142. 

Jankowski, M.D., J.C. Franson, E. M ̈ostl, W.P. Porter, and E.K. Hofmeister 

2010 “Testing independent and interactive effects of corticosterone and synergized resmethrin on 

the immune response to West Nile virus in chickens.” Toxicology 269:81–88. 

Johnsgard, P.A. 

1981 The plovers, sandpipers and snipes of the world. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 

Nebraska, USA. 

Johnson and Baldassarre 

1988 “Aspects of the wintering ecology of Piping Ploversin coastal Alabama.” Wilson Bull.

100:214-233. 

Jolls, C.L., J.D. Sellars, and C.A. Wigent 

2004 Restore Seabeach Amaranth, a Federally Threatened Species: Habitat Assessment and 

Restoration of Amaranthus pumilus (Amaranthacaeae), Using Remote Sensing Data. 2001.

Natural Resource Presentation Program, RMP Project Statement CAHA-N-018.000, National 

Park Service, Final Report. 144 pp. 

Judd, F.W., R.I. Lonard, J.H. Everitt, and R. Villarreal 

1989 “Effects of Vehicular Traffic in the Secondary Dunes and Vegetated Flats of South Padre 

Island, Texas.” Proceedings of Sixth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management. 1989: 

4634–4645. 

Ketel, W. 

2005 National Park Service (Cape Lookout National Seashore). Personal communication with The 

Louis Berger Group, Inc. Subject: ORV and other recreational uses. 

Klein, M.L. S.R. Humphrey, and P.H. Franklin 

1995 “Effects of Ecotourism on Waterbirds in a Wildlife Refuge.” Conservation Biology Volume 

9, No 6, December 1995. Pps 1454-1465. 

Kluft, J.M. and H.S. Ginsberg 

2009 The effect of off-road vehicles on barrier beach invertebrates at Cape Cod and Fire Island 

National Seashores. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR—2009/138. National Park Service. 

Boston, MA. April 2009. 
References 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 559

Kuklinski, M.L., L.M. Houghton, and J.D. Fraser 

1996 Piping Plover Breeding Ecology on Cape Hatteras National Seashore with Special Reference 

to the Effect of Temperature on Productivity. Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, 

Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, VA. 

Lafferty K.D. 

2001a “Birds at a Southern California Beach: Seasonality, Habitat Use and Disturbance by Human 

Activity.” Biodiversity and Conservation. 10:1949-1962. 

2001b Disturbance to wintering western snowy plovers. Biological Conservation 101:315-325. 

Lamont M.M., H.F. Percival, and S.V. Colwell 

2002 “Influence of Vehicle Tracks on Loggerhead Hatchling Seaward Movement along a 

Northwest Florida Beach.” Florida Field Naturalist 30(3):77-82, 2002. 

Lande, R. 

1988 “Genetics and Demography in Biological Conservation.” Science 241:1455–1460. 

Landry C. 

2004 Assessing the Anthropogenic and Natural Impacts on Ghost Crab (Ocypode quadrata)

Populations at Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina. Thesis Draft. Department of 

Coastal and Ocean Policy. Virginia Institute of Marine Science. College of William and 

Mary. August 5, 2004. 

Lauro, B. and J. Burger 

1989 “Nest-site selection of American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliates) in salt marshes.” Auk

106:185í192. 

Lauro, B. and J. Tanacredi 

2002 “An Examination of Predatory Pressures on Piping Plovers Nesting at Breezy Point, New 

York.” Waterbirds 25: 401-409. 

Leatherman, S. and P. Godfrey 

1979 The Impact of Off-road Vehicles on Coastal Ecosystems in Cape Cod National Seashore: An 

Overview. UM/NPSCRU Report No. 34, 34 pp. 

Lin, J., L. Xie, L.J. Pietrafesa, J.S. Ramus, and H.W. Paerl 

1997 Life in the Chesapeake Bay. Second Edition. Johns Hopkins University Press. 

Lippson, A.J., and R.L. Lippson 

1997 Life in the Chesapeake Bay. Second Edition. Johns Hopkins University Press. 

Loegering, J.P. 

1992 “Piping Plover Breeding Biology, Foraging Ecology and Behavior on Assateague Island 

National Seashore, Maryland.” M.S. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 
References 

560 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Loegering, J.P., and J.D. Fraser. 

1995 “Factors Affecting Piping Plover Chick Survival in Different Brood-rearing Habitats.” 

Journal of Wildlife Management 59(4):646–655. 

Loegering, J.P., J.D. Fraser, and L.L. Loegering 

1995 “Ghost Crabs Prey on a Piping Plover Chick.” Wilson Bull. 107:768–769. 

Loomis J.B. and D.S. White 

1996 “Economic Benefits of Rare and Endangered Species: Summary and Meta-Analysis.” Ecol.

Econ. 18:197–206. 

Lucrezi, S. and T.A. Schlacher 

2009 Human disturbance as a cause of bias in ecological indicators for sandy beaches: 

Experimental evidence for the effects of human trampling on ghost crabs (Ocypode spp.). 

Ecological Indicators, Volume 9, Issue 5, September 2009, Pages 913–921 

Luginbuhl, C.B., C.E. Walker, and R.J. Wainscoat 

2009 Lighting and Astronomy, Physics Today, Vol 62:12. Located online at: 

http://physicstoday.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_62/iss_12/32_1.shtml?bypassSSO=1 

Accessed on April 10, 2013. 

Lyons, M., National Park Service (Cape Hatteras National Seashore) 

2005 Personal communication with Spence Smith, The Louis Berger Group Inc., during Internal 

Scoping Meeting regarding seabeach amaranth and where it is normally found within Cape 

Hatteras National Seashore. September 28, 2005. 

Majka, C.G. and F. Shaffer 

2008 “Beetles (Coleoptera) in the Diet of Piping Plovers in the Iles de la Madeleine, Québec, 

Canada.” Wader Study Group Bull. 115(2):77–83. 

Mallin, M.A. 

2000 “Impacts of Industrial Animal Production on Rivers and Estuaries.” American Scientist

88:26–37. 

Marion, J.L. United States Geological Survey (USGS) Patuxent Wildlife Research Center 

n.d. Management, monitoring, and protection protocols for seabeach amaranth at Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore, North Carolina. 

Martin, R.E. 

1996 “Storm Impacts on Loggerhead Turtle Reproductive Success.” Marine Turtle Newsletter 

73:10–12. 

McAtee, J.W. and D.L. Drawe 

1981 “Human Impact on Beach and Foredune Microclimate on North Padre Island, Texas.” 

Environmental Management. Vol. 5. No. 2. pp. 121–134. 
References 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 561

McGowan, C.P.

2004 Factors affecting nesting success of American Oystercatchers (Haematopus palliatus) in 

North Carolina. Thesis. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.

McGowan, C.P., T.R. Simons, W. Golder, and J. Cordes 

2005 “A comparison of American Oystercatcher reproductive success on barrier beach and river 

island habitats in coastal North Carolina.” Waterbirds 28:150-155. 

McGowan, C.P. and T.R. Simons 

2006 “Effects of Human Recreation on the Incubation Behavior of American Oystercatchers: 

Wilson.” J. of Ornith. 118:485–493. 

Melvin, S.M., L.H. McIvor, A. Hecht, and C.R. Griffin 

1994 “Piping Plover Mortalities Caused by Off-road Vehicles on Atlantic Coast Beaches.” Wildl.

Society Bull. 22:409–414. 

Meyer de Schauensee, R. and W.H. Phelps, Jr. 

1978 A guide to the birds of Venezuela. Princeton University. Press, Princeton, NJ. 

Meyers, J.M. 

2005 Management, monitoring and protection protocols for the American Oystercatcher 

(Haematopus palliatus) at Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina. USGS report to 

the National Park Service. 26 pp. 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. (MIG, Inc) 

2012 IMPLAN System (2004 software and 2004 North Carolina State IMPLAN data). 1725 Tower 

Drive West, Suite 140, Stillwater, MN 55082. http://www.implan.com. 

Miller, J.D. 

1997 “Reproduction in Sea Turtles.” In The Biology of the Sea Turtle, ed. P.L. Lutz and J.A. 

Musick, 51–81. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 

Miller, J.D., C.J. Limpus, and M.H. Godfrey 

2003 “Nest Site Selection, Oviposition, Eggs, Development, Hatching, and Emergence of 

Loggerhead Turtles.” In Loggerhead Sea Turtles, ed. A.B. Bolten and B.E. Witherington, 

125–143. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Books. 

Molina, K.C., J.F. Parnell, and R.M. Erwin 

2009 Gull-billed Tern (Gelochelidon nilotica), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). 

Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/140. 

Morrier, A. and R. McNeil 

1991 “Time-activity budget of Wilson’s and Semipalmated plovers in a tropical environment.” 

Wilson Bull. 103: 598–620. 
References 

562 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Morrison, R.I.G. and R.K. Ross 

1989 “Atlas of Nearctic shorebirds on the coast of South America.” Can. Wildl. Serv. Spec. Publ.

vol. 1-2. 

Morrison, R.I.G., R.K. Ross and L.J. Niles 

2004 “Declines in wintering populations of red knots in southern South America.” Condor 106: 60-

70. 

Moss, D. and D.P. McPhee 

2006 “The Impacts of Recreational Four-Wheel Driving on the Abundance of the Ghost Crab 

(Ocypode cordimanus) on Subtropical Sandy Beaches in SE Queensland.” Coastal Mgmt.

34(1):133–140. 

Mrosovsky, N. 

1968 “Nocturnal Emergence of Hatchling Sea Turtles: Control by Thermal Inhibition of Activity.” 

Nature 220(5174):1338–1339. 

1988 “Pivotal Temperatures for Loggerhead Turtles (Caretta caretta) from Northern and Southern 

Nesting Beaches.” Can. J. of Zool. 66(3):661–669. 

Muiznieks, B. 

2009. National Park Service (Cape Hatteras National Seashore). Email communication with Doug 

Wetmore, The Louis Berger Group Inc., regarding the breeding behavior of the wintering 

piping plover. August 31, 2009. 

Murphy, R.K., I.M.G. Michaud, D.R.C. Prescott, J.S. Ivan, B.J. Anderson, and M.L. French-Pombier 

2003 “Predation on Adult Piping Plovers at Predator Exclosure Cages.” Waterbirds 26:150–155. 

National Audubon Society 

2005 “Waterbirds: Wilson’s Plover.” Accessed December 23, 2008: 

http://web1.audubon.org/waterbirds/species.php?speciesCode=wilplo. 

2009 Important Bird Areas in the U.S. Available at http://www.audubon.org/bird/iba 05/2009 

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS and USFWS) 

1991 Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of Atlantic Green Turtle. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Washington, D.C. 52 pp. 

1992 Recovery Plan for Leatherback Turtles in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.

Washington, D.C. 65 pp. 

2008 Recovery Plan for the Northwest Atlantic Population of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta

caretta). Second revision. Silver Spring, MD. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and SEMARNAT (NMFS, USFWS 

and SEMARNAT) 

2011 Bi-National Recovery Plan for the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), Second 

Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, Maryland 156 pp. + appendices. 
References 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 563

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

n.d. Office of Protected Resources: Marine Mammals. Available at 

<www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/>. Accessed June 2007. 

2012 Coastal Services Center. Map Viewer. http://csc-s-mapsq.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes/viewer.html. 

National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) 

2003 “Rare & Endangered: Piping Plover.” National Parks Magazine 43(Nov-Dec). Available on 

line at: http://www.npca.org/magazine/2003/november_december/rare_endangered.html. 

Accessed on May 4, 2009. 

National Park Service (NPS), U. S. Department of the Interior 

1937 Cape Hatteras National Seashore Enabling Legislation. Congress. August. 

1976 Cape Lookout National Seashore: Assessment of Archaeological and Historical Resources,

by John E. Ehrenhard, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida. Copy available 

at National Seashore Headquarters. 

1980 Cape Lookout National Seashore General Management Plan. 

1982 Cape Lookout National Seashore General Management Plan/EIS. 

1991 Cape Lookout National Seashore 1990 Sea Turtle Monitoring Program. 

1992 Cape Lookout National Seashore 1991 Sea Turtle Monitoring Program. 

1993a NPS Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design. 

1993b Cape Lookout National Seashore 1992 Sea Turtle Monitoring Program. 

1994 Cape Lookout National Seashore 1993 Sea Turtle Monitoring Program. 

1995 Cape Lookout National Seashore 1994 Sea Turtle Monitoring Program. 

1996 Cape Lookout National Seashore 1995 Sea Turtle Monitoring Program. 

1997a Piping Plover Monitoring 1997: Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

1997b Cape Lookout National Seashore 1996 Sea Turtle Monitoring Program.

1998a Directors Order 28: Cultural Resource Management. 

1998b Piping Plover Monitoring 1998: Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

1998c Cape Lookout National Seashore 1997 Sea Turtle Monitoring Program. 

1999a Piping Plover Monitoring 1999: Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

1999b Cape Lookout National Seashore 1998 Sea Turtle Monitoring Program. 

2000a Fiscal Year 2000 Strategic Plan. 

2000b Memorandum of Understanding. “Feral horses at Cape Lookout National Seashore.” Natural

Resource Year in Review. (August 2000–1999). 

2000c Piping Plover Monitoring 2000: Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

2000d Cape Lookout National Seashore 1999 Sea Turtle Monitoring Program. 

2000e Reference Manual #53: Special Park Uses. Current as of June 2009; issued April 2000.
References 

564 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

2000f Director’s Order 47: Soundscape Preservation and Noise Management. Available at 

http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DOrder47.html. Accessed December 15, 2008. 

2001a Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis and Decisionmaking Handbook. National Park Service, Washington D.C. Effective Date: January 8, 2001. 

2001b Piping Plover Monitoring 2001: Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

2001c Cape Lookout National Seashore 2000 Sea Turtle Monitoring Program. 

2001d Amendment to General Management Plan/Environmental Assessment. Cape Lookout 

National Seashore. North Carolina. 

2002a Directors Order 77: Natural Resource Management 

2002b Piping Plover Monitoring 2002: Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

2002c Cape Lookout National Seashore 2001 Sea Turtle Monitoring Program. 

2002d Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) locations in 2002. Cape Lookout National 

Seashore. 

2003a Piping Plover Monitoring 2003: Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

2003b Cape Lookout National Seashore 2002 Sea Turtle Monitoring Program. 

2003c Cape Lookout National Seashore, PWC Alternative B: Reinstate PWC Use under a Special 

Regulation with Additional Management Prescriptions. Accessible at: 

http://www.nps.gov/calo/planyourvisit/upload/altB_new.pdf. 

2004a Cape Lookout National Seashore Personal Watercraft Use Environmental Assessment. 

2004b “American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliates) Monitoring at Cape Lookout National 

Seashore Summary Report.”

2004c Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Monitoring at Cape Lookout National Seashore. 2004 

Summary Report. 

2004d Cape Lookout National Seashore 2003 Sea Turtle Monitoring Program. 

2004e Cape Lookout National Seashore Personal Watercraft Use Environmental Assessment, 

December 2004. 

2004f Natural Resource Management Reference Manual 77. Accessed online at 

http://www.nature.nps.gov/rm77/. Last updated on February 5, 2004. 

2004g Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) locations in 2004. Cape Lookout National 

Seashore. 

2005a Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Monitoring at Cape Lookout National Seashore. 2005 

Summary Report. 

2005b Cape Lookout National Seashore 2004 Sea Turtle Monitoring Program. 

2005c American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus) Monitoring at Cape Lookout National 

Seashore. 2005 Summary Report. 

2006a Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Plan/Environmental 

Assessment. Cape Lookout National Seashore. March. 

2006b Cape Hatteras National Seashore Interim Protected Species Management Strategy / 

Environmental Assessment. 
References 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 565

2006c “American Oystercatcher Monitoring at Cape Lookout National Seashore. 2006 Summary 

Report.”

2006d NPS Management Policies 2006. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 

Washington, D.C. 

2006e Biological Assessment for the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected Species 

Management Plan/EA. 

2006f Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Monitoring at Cape Lookout National Seashore. 2006 

Summary Report. 

2006g Cape Lookout National Seashore 2005 Sea Turtle Monitoring Program. 

2006h 2005 Colonial Waterbird Breeding Summary, Cape Hatteras National Seashore. 

2006i Red Knot (Caalidris canutus rufa) Monitoring at Cape Lookout National Seashore 2006 

Summary Report. 

2006j Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) locations in 2006. Cape Lookout National 

Seashore. 

2007a Interim Off-road Vehicle Management Plan and Evaluation of Existing ORV Use at Cape 

Lookout National Seashore (February 2, 2007). 

2007b Finding of No Significant Impact for the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Interim Protected 

Species Management Plan/Environmental Assessment. July 13, 2007. 

2007d Finding of No Significant Impact: Cape Lookout National Seashore Village Historic 

Structures Reuse Implementation Plan Environmental Assessment/Assessment of Effect. July. 

2007e Finding of No Significant Impact: Commercial Services Plan Environmental 

Assessment/Assessment of Effect. Cape Lookout National Seashore. October. 

2007f “Cape Lookout National Seashore Commercial Services Plan Newsletter.” March 2007. 

2007g Personal communication with Seashore staff during the long-term ORV management 

plan/EIS internal scoping meetings. May 8–10, 2007. 

2007h Horse Management Plan Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

2007i Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Monitoring at Cape Lookout National Seashore. 2007 

Summary Report. 

2007j Cape Lookout National Seashore 2006 Sea Turtle Monitoring Program. 

2007k Cape Lookout National Seashore Colonial Waterbird 2007 Summary. National Park Service, 

Cape Lookout National Seashore. North Carolina. 

2007l Cape Lookout National Seashore Seabeach Amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) 2007 Report. 

2007m Commercial Services Plan / Environmental Assessment/Assessment of Effect. Cape Lookout 

National Seashore. 

2007n American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus) Monitoring at Cape Lookout National 

Seashore 2007 Summary Report. National Park Service, Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

North Carolina. 

2007o Draft Cape Lookout Village Historic Structures Reuse Implementation Plan, Environmental 

Assessment / Assessment of Effect, Cape Lookout National Seashore, Carteret County, North 

Carolina. Available online at http://www.nps.gov/calo/parkmgmt/historic-sitemanagement.htm. 
References 

566 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

2007p Ethnohistorical Overview and Assessment Study of Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Including a Case Study of Harkers Island. Draft Report of Phase I. December 14, 2007. 

2007q Red Knot (Caalidris canutus rufa) Monitoring at Cape Lookout National Seashore 2007 

Summary Report. 

2007r Finding of No Significant Impact for the Cape Lookout National Seashore Interim Protected 

Species Management Plan/Environmental Assessment. June 2007. 

2008a Finding of No Significant Impact: Experimental Reduction of Raccoon Population to 

Evaluate Removal as an Option for Protected Species Management. November. 

2008b Red Knot (Caalidris canutus rufa) Monitoring at Cape Lookout National Seashore 2008 

Summary Report. 

2008c Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Monitoring at Cape Lookout National Seashore. 2008 

Summary Report. 

2008d Cape Lookout National Seashore 2007 Sea Turtle Monitoring and Management Report. 

2008e Cape Lookout National Seashore Seabeach Amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) 2008 Report. 

2008f Cape Lookout National Seashore Colonial Waterbird 2008 Summary. National Park Service, 

Cape Lookout National Seashore. North Carolina. 

2008g Shackleford Banks Horses 2007 Findings Report 

2008h American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus) Monitoring at Cape Lookout National 

Seashore 2008 Summary Report. National Park Service, Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

North Carolina. 

2008i Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, Public Scoping 

Content Analysis Report. January 2008. 

2009a Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) monitoring at Cape Lookout National Seashore. 2009 

Summary Report. 29 pp. 

2009b Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa) Monitoring at Cape Lookout National Seashore. 2009 

Summary Report. Available on line at: http://www.nps.gov/calo/parkmgmt/upload/ 

2009%20CALO%20Red%20Knot%20Report.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2010. 

2009c Cape Lookout National Seashore 2008 Sea Turtle Monitoring and Management Report 

2009d Cape Lookout National Seashore Seabeach Amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) 2009 Report. 

2009e American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus) Monitoring at Cape Lookout National 

Seashore 2009 Summary Report. National Park Service, Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

North Carolina. 

2009f Cape Lookout National Seashore Colonial Waterbird 2009 Summary. Available on line at: 

http://www.nps.gov/calo/parkmgmt/upload/2009%20Cape%20Lookout%20National%20Seas

hore%20Colonial%20Waterbird[1].pdf. Accessed July 15, 2010. 

2009g 2009 Wilson’s Plover Window Census. Available on line at: 

http://www.nps.gov/calo/parkmgmt/upload/2009%20CALO%20WIPL%20Window%20Cens

us.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2010. 

2009h Nature and Science, Natural Sounds, Sources of Human-Caused Sounds in National Parks. 

Last updated August 25, 2009. Accessed September 8, 2009: 

http://www.nature.nps.gov/naturalsounds/sources/ 
References 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 567

2010a Zion National Park Soundscape Management Plan. Utah. National Park Service. September 

2010. 

2010b Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Monitoring at Cape Lookout National Seashore. 2010 

Summary Report. 27 pp. 

2010c Cape Lookout National Seashore 2009 Sea Turtle Monitoring and Management Report. 

2010d Cape Lookout National Seashore Seabeach Amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) 2010 Report 

2010e American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus) Monitoring at Cape Lookout National 

Seashore 2010 Summary Report. National Park Service, Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

North Carolina. 

2010f Cape Lookout National Seashore Colonial Waterbird 2010 Summary. National Park Service, 

Cape Lookout National Seashore. North Carolina. 

2010g 2010- Wilson's Plover Census. National Park Service, Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

Accessed online, April 2, 2012 

2010h Cape Lookout National Seashore 2010 Sea Turtle Monitoring and Management Report 

2010i Personal Communication with Wouter Ketel (Cape Lookout) and Jeff Gutierrez (Louis 

Berger) regarding the number of ORVs that access the Seashore. October 18, 2010. 

2010j Cape Lookout National Seashore Passenger Transportation Feasibility Study. 2010. 

2010k Red Knot (Caalidris canutus rufa) Monitoring at Cape Lookout National Seashore 2010 

Summary Report. 

2011a Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Monitoring at Cape Lookout National Seashore. 2011 

Summary Report. 26 pp. 

2011b Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa) Monitoring at Cape Lookout National Seashore. 2011 

Summary Report. National Park Service, Cape Lookout National Seashore. Accessed online, 

April 2, 2012. 

2011c Cape Lookout National Seashore 2011 Sea Turtle Monitoring and Management Report. 

National Park Service, Cape Lookout National Seashore. North Carolina. 

2011d Cape Lookout National Seashore Seabeach Amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) 2011 Report. 

2011e American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus) Monitoring at Cape Lookout National 

Seashore, 2011 Summary Report. National Park Service, Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

Harkers Island, NC: 17 pp. 

2011f Cape Lookout National Seashore Colonial Waterbird 2011 Summary. National Park Service, 

Cape Lookout National Seashore. North Carolina. 

2011g 2011 Wilson's Plover Census. National Park Service, Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

Accessed online, April 2, 2012 

2011h Director’s Order #12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and DecisionMaking. Effective Date: 10/5/2011. 

2011i Park News. Hurricane Irene Update: Long Point Ferry Basin Dredging Contract Started on 

October 24. Posted October 27, 2011. Accessed online at: 

http://www.nps.gov/calo/parknews/10-27-2011.htm. Accessed 12/15/2012. 
References 

568 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

2011j Passenger Ferry Departure Site Environmental Assessment/Assessment of Effect. March 

2011. 

2011k Cape Lookout National Seashore Long-Range Interpretive Plan. June 2011. Accessible at: 

http://www.nps.gov/calo/parkmgmt/upload/CALO-LRIP-2011_small.pdf 

2012a CALO Species Factsheet. Accessed online at: 

http://www.nps.gov/calo/naturescience/animals.htm. Accessed October 5, 3012. 

2012b Shackleford Banks Horses 2011 Findings Report. Cape Lookout National Seashore News 

Release, March 30, 2012. Accessed online at: 

htt://www.nps.gov/calo/parkmgmt/upload/2011-Shackleford-Banks-Horses-FindingsReport.pdf. Accessed October 9, 2012. 

2012c Mammals. Accessed online at: http://www.nps.gov/calo/naturescience/mammals.htm. 

Accessed October 9, 2012. 

2012d Reptiles. Accessed online at: http://www.nps.gov/calo/naturescience/reptiles.htm. Accessed 

October 9, 2012. 

2012e Natural Features & Ecosystems. Accessed online at: 

http://www.nps.gov/calo/naturescience/naturalfeaturesandecosystems.htm. Accessed October 

9, 2012. 

2012f Animals. Accessed online at: http://www.nps.gov/calo/naturescience/animals.htm. Accessed 

October 9, 2012. 

2012g Special Use Permits Program. Accessed online at: 

http://www.nps.gov/calo/planyourvisit/permits.htm. Accessed 12/15/12. 

2012h Shackleford News Release 

2012i Final Long-term ORV Management Plan/EIS for Cape Hatteras National Seashore.

2012j Notice of Availability for Long-term Management Plan/EIS for Cape Hatteras. 

2012k Final Rule for Long-term Management Plan/EIS for Cape Hatteras. 

2012l Alternative Transportation Management Plan 

2012m List of Authorized Ferry Services. Accessible at: 

http://www.nps.gov/calo/planyourvisit/ferry.htm. 

2012n Cape Lookout National Seashore 2012 Sea Turtle Monitoring and Management Report. 

2012o Cape Lookout National Seashore Seabeach Amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) 2012 Report. 

2012p American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus) Monitoring at Cape Lookout National 

Seashore 2012 Summary Report. National Park Service, Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

North Carolina. 

2012q Cape Lookout National Seashore Colonial Waterbird 2012 Summary. National Park Service, 

Cape Lookout National Seashore. North Carolina. 

2012r 2012 Wilson’s Plover Window Census, June 1-9, 2012. Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

North Carolina. 

2012s Foundation Document. Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. National Park 

Service. U.S. Department of the Interior. October 2012. 

2012t Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Monitoring at Cape Lookout National Seashore. 2012 

Summary Report. 26 pp. 
References 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 569

2012u Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa) Monitoring at Cape Lookout National Seashore. 2012 

Summary Report. National Park Service, Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

2012v National Park Service, Natural Sounds and Night Skies. Light Pollution. Located online at: 

http://www.nature.nps.gov/night/light.cfm Access on April 10, 2013. 

2013a Cape Lookout National Seashore Harkers Island Ferry Departure Gateway – Facilities. 

Accessible at: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=43990. 

2013b Cape Lookout National Seashore, Seashore Hunting. Accessible at: 

http://www.nps.gov/calo/planyourvisit/hunting.htm. 

2013c National Park Service Visitor Use Statistics. Accessed at https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/. 

2013d Cape Lookout National Seashore Superintendent’s Compendium 

2013e Personal Communication from Michael Rikard (NPS) regarding the number of miles closed 

each month (2008-2013) for resource protection. November 14, 2013. 

2013f Personal Communication from Wouter Ketel (NPS) regarding the average number of vehicles 

transported to the Seashore via ferry. November 7, 2013. 

2013g Personal Communication between Wouter Ketel (NPS) and Jeff Gutierrez (Louis Berger 

Group) regarding the number of active ORVs at the Seashore. November 7, 2013. 

2013h Personal communication with Michael Rikard, Resource Management Specialist, Cape 

Lookout National Seashore. April 5, 2013. 

2013i Personal Communication between Wouter Ketel (NPS) and Jeff Gutierrez (Louis Berger 

Group) regarding current and proposed staffing and funding for the Seashore. November 17, 

2013. 

2013j Cape Lookout National Seashore and Cape Hatteras National Seashore Acoustical 

Monitoring Snapshot. National Park Service. National Resource Stewardship and Science. 

Natural Sounds and Night Skies Division. January 2013. 

2013k National Park Service, Natural Sounds and Night Skies. Night Sky. Located online at 

http://www.nature.nps.gov/night/ Accessed on April 10, 2013. 

2013l Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Monitoring at Cape Lookout National Seashore. 2012 

Summary Report. 24 pp. 

2014 Personal communication between Wouter Ketel (NPS) and Jeff Gutierrez (Louis Berger 

Group) regarding average number of active vehicles at the Seashore. March 18, 2014. 

Neville, A., W.D. Webster, J.F. Gouveia, E.L. Hendricks, I. Hendricks, G. Marvin, and W.H. Marvin. 

1988 The effects of nest temperature on hatchling emergence in the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta

caretta). Pp. 71-73 in B.A. Schroeder, ed. Proceedings of the Eight Annual Workshop on Sea 

Turtle Conservation and Biology. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-214. 

News Observer 

2006 Wolves Complicate Navy’s Airfield Plans. Rawlins, Wade. August 31, 2006. The News and 

Observer. 

2007a Wildlife Service Talks Tough on OLF. Rawlins, Wade. March 20, 2007. The News and 

Observer. 
References 

570 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

2007b U.S. House Votes to Stop Airstrip Plans. Barrett, Barbara, Ryan Teague Beckwith, Tommy 

Goldsmith, Jane Stancill, and Dan Kane. May 18, 2007. The News and Observer. 

Nicholls, J.L. and G.A. Baldassarre 

1990a “Habitat Selection and Interspecific Associations of Piping Plovers Along the Atlantic and 

Gulf Coasts of the United States.” Wilson Bull. 102:581–590. 

1990b “Winter distribution of Piping Plovers along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United 

States.” The Wilson Bulletin 102:400-412. 

Niles, L., A. Dey, H. Sitters, and C. Minton 

2005 Report on the Status of Red Knots on the Delaware Bay with Recommendations for the 2005 

Field Season: New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife Endangered and Nongame Species 

Program. 

Niles, L.J., H.P. Sitters, A.D. Dey, P.A. Atkinson, A.J. Baker, K.A. Bennett, R. Carmona, K.E. Clark, 

N.A. Clark, C. Espoz, P.M. Gonzalez, B.A. Harrington, D.E. Hernandez, K.S. Kalasz, R.G. Lathrop, R.N. 

Matus, C.D.T. Minton, R.G.I. Morrison, M.K. Peck, W. Pitts, R.A. Robinson, and I.L. Serrano 

2008 Status of the Red Knot (Calidrus canutus rufa) in the Western Hemisphere. Studies in Avian 

Biology No. 36:1–185. Available at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/literature/statusassessment_red-knot.pdf.

Nisbet, I.C.T. 

2002 Common tern (Sterna hirundo). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. 

The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and American Ornithologists’ 

Union, Washington, D.C. 

Nol, E. 

1989 “Food supply and reproduction performance of the American Oystercatcher in Virginia.” 

Condor 91:429í435. 

Nol, E. and R.C. Humphrey 

1994 “American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliates).” In A. Pool and F. Gill, editors. The birds 

of North America, Number 82, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 

2012 American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus), The Birds of North America Online (A. 

Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America 

Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/082. 

North Carolina Audubon 

2008 “Protect Beach-Nesting Birds.” Available on line at: http://nc.audubon.org/birds-scienceeducation/protect-beach-nesting-birds Accessed on January 5, 2010. 

North Carolina Aquarium 

n.d. http://www.ncaquariums.com/pressreleases/firstyear.htm. 
References 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 571

North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) 

2011 Noxious Weed Regulations, North Carolina Administrative Code Chapter 48: Plant Industry, 

Section 1700 – Noxious Weed. 

North Carolina Department of Commerce 

2012 “Travel Economic Impact Model.” 

<http://www.nccommerce.com/tourism/research/economic-impact/teim>. (December 10, 

2012). 

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) 

2008 Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2008. 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) 

n.d. Wildlife Species and Conservation: North Carolina’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy. Available at <www.ncwildlife.org/>. Accessed June 2007. 

2006 Handbook for Sea Turtle Volunteers in North Carolina. Raleigh, NC. 

2007 Need full citation chapter 3, Table 27. 

2008a North Carolina Piping Plover Breeding Summary, 2008. 

2008b Protected Wildlife Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission, Raleigh, NC. 8 pp. 

2011 “Coastal Recreational Fishing License Sales Update.” Release Date: December 31, 2011. 

<http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=cb2056ac-c61c-4b7e-af61-

628f901c0516&groupId=38337>. 

2014 Protected Wildlife Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission, Raleigh, NC. 8 pp. February 2014. 

Nudds, R.L. and D.M. Bryant 

2000 “The Energetic Cost of Short Flight in Birds.” Journal of Experimental Biology 203:1561-

1572. 

Office of State Budget and Management, North Carolina 

2012 “Projected Annual County Population 

Totals.”<http://www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts_and_figures/socioeconomic_data/popula

tion_estimates/county_projections.shtm >; (December 10, 2012). 

Paerl, H.W., J.D. Bales, L.W. Ausley, C.P. Buzzelli, L.B. Crowder, L.A. Eby, and J.S. Ramus 

2001 “Ecosystem impacts of three sequential hurricanes (Dennis, Floyd, and Irene) on the United 

States' largest lagoonal estuary, Pamlico Sound, NC.” Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences, 98(10), 5655-5660. 

Palmer, R.S. 

1967 Family Haematopodidae. Pages 147í150 in G. Stout, editor. Shorebirds of North America. 

Viking Press, New York, New York, USA. 
References 

572 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Parnell, J.F., and Committee 

1977 Birds. Pages 330-384 In J. Cooper, S. Robinson, and J. Funderburg, editors. Endangered and 

threatened plants and animals of North Carolina. North Carolina State Museum of Natural 

History, Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Parnell, J.F., D.G. Ainley, H. Blokpoel, B. Cain, T.W. Custer, J.L. Dusi, S. Kress, J.A. Kushlan, W.E. 

Southern, L.E. Stenzel, and B.C. Thompson 

1988 “Colonial waterbird management in North America.” Colonial Waterbirds 11(2): 129-169. 

Parnell, J.F., R.M. Erwin, and K.C. Molina 

1995 Gull-billed tern (Sterna nilotica). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North 

America. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and American 

Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

Patterson, M.E., J.D. Fraser, and J.W. Roggenbuck 

1990 “Piping Plover Ecology, Management, and Research Needs.” Virginia Journal of Science

41(4A):419-426. 

1991 “Factors Affecting Piping Plover Productivity on Assateague Island.” Journal of Wildlife 

Management 55:525–531. 

Paulson, D. 

1993 Shorebirds of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 

Peterson, C.H., D.H.M. Hickerson, and G.G. Johnson 

2000 “Short-term consequences of nourishment and bulldozing on the dominant large invertebrates 

of a sandy beach.” Journal of Coastal Research. 16:368-378. 

Pipkin, K. 

2009 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Email communication with Doug Wetmore, 

The Louis Berger Group Inc. providing the date when the American Oystercatcher was listed 

by the state of North Carolina as a species of special concern. January 2, 2009. 

Porter, D. 

1997 “The Precocious Killdeer.” Available on line at: 

http://www.birdwatching.com/stories/killdeer.html. Accessed on January 5, 2010. 

Post, W. and S.A. Gauthreaux 

1989 Status and Distribution of South Carolina Birds. Charleston, SC: Charleston Museum. 

Rabon, D.R., S. Johnson, R. Boettcher, M. Dodd, M. Lyons, S. Murphy, S. Ramsey, S. Roff, and K. 

Stewart 

2003 “Confirmed Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Nests from North Carolina, with a 

Summary of Leatherback Nesting Activities North of Florida.” Marine Turtle Newsletter 101, 

July 2003. 
References 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 573

Raffaele, H., J. Wiley, O. Garrido, A. Keith, and J. Raffaele 

1998 A guide to the birds of the West Indies. Princeton University. Press, Princeton, NJ. 

Rikard, M. 

2013a Personal communication via email with L. Fox, Louis Berger Group, Inc., regarding 

occurrence and treatment of webworms on seabeach amaranth at Cape Lookout National 

Seashore. August 15, 2013. 

2013b Personal communication between Michael Rikard, Resource Management Specialist Cape 

Lookout National Seashore, and Lori Fox, Louis Berger Group. Email December 3, 2013. 

Rodgers, J.A., Jr., and S.T. Schwikert 

2002 “Buffer-zone Distances to Protect Foraging and Loafing Waterbirds from Disturbance by 

Personal Watercraft and Outboard-powered Boats.” Conservation Biology 16:216–224. 

Rodgers. J.A., and H.T. Smith 

1995 “Set-back distances to protect nesting bird colonies from human disturbance in Florida.” 

Conservation Biology 9:89-99. 

Research Triangle Institute International (RTI) 

2013 Business owners (confidential). January 2-22, 2013. Personal communication with Sara 

Casey, RTI International. 

Ruppert, E.E., and R.S Fox 

1988 Seashore Animals of the Southeast. University of South Carolina Press (1988). 429 pp. 

Sabine, J. B., III 

2005 Effects of human activity and predation on breeding American Oystercatchers. Thesis, The 

University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA. 

Sabine, J.B., S.H. Schweitzer, and J.M. Meyers 

2006 “Nest Fate and Productivity of American Oystercatchers, Cumberland Island National 

Seashore, Georgia.” Waterbirds 29:308–314. 

Sabine, J.B., J.M. Meyers, C.T. Moore, and S.H. Schweitzer 

2008 “Effects of Human Activity on Behavior of Breeding American Oystercatchers, Cumberland 

Island National Seashore, Georgia, USA.” Waterbirds 31(1):70–82. 

Schlacher, T.A., L. Thompson, and S. Price 

2007 “Vehicles versus conservation of invertebrates on sandy beaches: mortalities inflicted by offroad vehicles on ghost crabs.” Marine Ecology 28 (2007) 354-367. 

Schlacher, T.A., D. Richardson, I.McLean 

2008 “Impacts of Off-Road Vehicles (ORVs) on Macrobenthic Assemblages on Sandy Beaches.” 

Environmental Management 41: 878-892. 
References 

574 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Schlacher, T.A. and L.M.C. Thompson 

2008 “Physical impacts caused by off-road vehicles (ORVs) to sandy beaches: spatial 

quantification of car tracks on an Australian barrier island.” Journal of Coastal Research,

2008. 224: p. 234-242. 

Schofield, K.A. 

1995 An analysis of nighttime vehicle use impacts on sea turtle nesting: South Core Banks, Cape 

Lookout National Seashore. Masters Thesis. School of the Environment, Duke University. 

Schroeder, B.A., A.M. Foley, and D.A. Bagley 

2003 “Nesting Patterns, Reproductive Migrations, and Adult Foraging Areas of Loggerhead 

Turtles.” In Loggerhead Sea Turtles, ed. A.B. Bolten and B.E. Witherington, 114–124. 

Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Books. 

Schulte, S. 

2012 Ecology and Population Dynamics of American Oystercatchers (Haematopus palliates).

Raleigh, North Carolina, 2012. 

Schulte, S., S. Brown, D. Reynolds, and the American Oystercatcher Working Group 

2007 Conservation Action Plan For the American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus) for the 

Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States Version 2.0, June 2007. Available on-line at 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/FocalSpecies/Plans/AM

OY.pdf.

Schweitzer, S. and M. Abraham 

2012 Nesting Season Report for Piping Plovers, North Carolina. 

Seaturtle.org

2011 Sea turtle nest monitoring system: North Carolina WRC sea turtle project – Year 2011. 

Accessed at: http://www.seaturtle.org/nestdb/index.shtml?view=1&year=2011. Accessed on: 

May 23, 2013. 

2012 Sea turtle nest monitoring system: North Carolina WRC sea turtle project – Year 2012. 

Accessed at: http://www.seaturtle.org/nestdb/index.shtml?view=1&year=2012. Accessed on: 

May 23, 2013. 

Shabica, S.V. 

1979 Off-Road Recreational Vehicle Use of Perdido Key Florida: A Discussion. Gulf Islands 

National Seashore. Coastal Field Research Laboratory reports to the Superintendent. No. 1. 

Shaver, D. National Park Service. 

2004 Kemp’s ridley sea turtle project at Padre Island National Seashore and Texas sea turtle 

nesting and stranding 2002 report. U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. 45 

pp. 

2009 Texas sea turtle nesting and stranding 2008 report. U.S. Department of the Interior. National 

Park Service. 41 pp. 
References 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 575

Sheppardm, N., K.A. Pitt, and T.A. Schlacher 

2009 “Sub-lethal effects of off-road vehicles (ORVs) on surf clams on sandy beaches.” Journal of 

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 380: 113–118. 

Shields, M.A. and J.F. Parnell 

1990 “March nesting by American Oystercatchers in North Carolina.” J. Field Ornithol. 61:431-

433. 

Shimshack, J.P. 

2010 Compliance and Deterrence in Environmental and Natural Resource Contexts: Remarks 

Prepared for the “NOAA National Enforcement Summit” Washington, DC. August 3, 2010. 

Shimshack, J.P. and M.B. Ward 

2005 “Regulator Reputation, Enforcement, and Environmental Compliance.” Journal of 

Environmental Economics & Management 50(2005): 519-540. 

Simons, T.R. and S. Schulte 

2008 American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliates) Research and Monitoring in North Carolina: 

2007 Annual Report. USGS North Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. 

Simmons, T.R. and T. Borneman 

2012 Effects of Military Jet Overflights on American Oystercatchers Breeding Behavior and 

Productivity at Cape Lookout National Seashore. 2011 Annual Report to The U.S. Marine 

Corps. Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, NC, 7 March 2012. 

Simons, T.R. and J.J. Stocking 

2011 American Oystercatcher Conservation Initiative in North Carolina: 2010 Report. USGS North 

Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Biology, North 

Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 

Slabbekoorn H., and Ripmeester EAP 

2008 “Birdsong and anthropogenic noise: implications and applications for conservation.” Mol 

Ecol 17:72–83. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) 

2009 Species Descriptions. Coquina clam. Accessed at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/species.html in 

April 2009.

Spaans, A.L. 

1978 “Status and numerical fluctuations of some North American waders along the Surinam 

coast.” Wilson Bull. 90: 60-83. 

Staine, K.J. and J. Burger 

1994 “Nocturnal foraging behavior of breeding piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) in New 

Jersey.” Auk 111(3): 579-587. 
References 

576 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Stanley, D.W. and S.W. Nixon 

1992 “Stratification and bottom-water hypoxia in the Pamlico River Estuary.” Estuaries, 15(3), 

270-281. 

Stephenson, G. 

1999 “Vehicle Impacts on the Biota of Sandy Beaches and Coastal Dunes. A Review from a New 

Zealand Perspective.” Science for Conservation 121. Department of Conservation, 

Wellington, New Zealand. 

Stevenson, H.M. and B.H. Anderson 

1994 The birdlife of Florida. University. Press of Florida, Gainesville. 

Stillman, R, and J.D. Goss-Custard 

2002 “Seasonal Changes in the Response of Oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus to Human 

Disturbance.” Journal of Avian Biology. Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 358-365 

Strauch, J.G., Jr. and L.G. Abele 

1979 “Feeding ecology of three species of plovers wintering on the bay of Panama, Central 

America Studies.” Avian Biol. 2:217-230. 

Stynes D.J. 

2011 Economic benefits to local communities from national park visitation and payroll, 2010. 

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRR—2011/481. National Park Service, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 

Suiter, D., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

2005 Personal communication via email with C. Green, NPS Southeast Region, regarding seabeach 

amaranth survey data for North Carolina. November 23, 2005. 

Switalski. T.A. and A. Jones 

2010 “Off-road vehicle best management practices for forestlands: A review of scientific literature 

and guidance for managers.” Journal of Conservation Planning. Vol 8 (2012) 12 – 24 

Tarr, N.M. 

2008 Fall migration and vehicle disturbance of shorebirds at South Core Banks, North Carolina. 

Thesis, North Carolina State University, Department of Forestry and Environmental 

Resources. 

Tessler, D.F., J.A. Johnson, B.A. Andres, S. Thomas, and R.B. Lanctot 

2007 Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani) Conservation Action Plan. International Black 

Oystercatcher Working Group, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska, and Manomet Center for Conservation 

Sciences, Manomet, Massachusetts.
References 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 577

Thibault, M. and R. McNeil 

1994 “Daylight variation in habitat use by Wilson’s Plovers in northeastern Venezuela.” Wilson

Bull. 106: 299–310. 

Thompson, B.C., J.A. Jackson, J. Burger, L.A. Hill, E.M. Kirsch, and J.L. Atwood. 

1997 Least tern (Sterna antillarum). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. 

The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and American Ornithologists’ 

Union, Washington, D.C. 

Toland, B. 

1999 “Nest Site Characteristics, Breeding Phenology, and Nesting Success of American 

Oystercatchers in Indian River County, Florida.” Fla. Field Nat. 27:112–116. 

Tomkins 

1944 “Wilson’s Plover in its summer home.” Auk 61: 259–269. 

1954 “Life history notes on the American oyster-catcher.” Oriole 19:37í45.

Tremblay, J. and L.N. Ellison 

1979 “Effects of human disturbance on breeding of Blackcrowned Night Herons.” Auk 96: 364-

369. 

Tsipoura, N. and J. Burger 

1999 “Shorebird diet during spring migration stopover on Delaware Bay.” Condor. 101: 635-644. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District 

2013 Draft Intergrated Dredged Material Mangement Plan (DMMP) and Environmental Impact 

Statement. Morehead City Harbor. Morehead, NC. July 2013. 

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

2012 “Regional Data: Total full-time and part-time employment by NAICS Industry” Generated by 

RTI International; using iTable; 

<http://bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=70&step=1&isuri=1&acrdn=1>; (December 10, 

2012). 

U.S. Census Bureau 

2000 “Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF3) – Sample Data.” Generated by RTI International; using 

American FactFinder. <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (March 23, 2010). 

2012a QT-P4 Race, Combinations of Two Races, and Not Hispanic or Latino: 2010. For Davis CDP 

and Atlantic CDP, North Carolina. 2010 Census Summary File 1. Accessed online, December 

13, 2012. Available: http://factfinder2.census.gov. 

2012b S1701 Poverty Status Within the Past 12 Months. For Davis CDP and Atlantic CDP, North 

Carolina. Accessed online, December 13, 2012. Available: http://factfinder2.census.gov. 

2012c “State & County QuickFacts” <http://quickfacts.census.gov>; (December 10, 2012). 
References 

578 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

2012d “Nonemployer Statistics” <http://www.census.gov/econ/nonemployer/>; (December 10, 

2012). 

2012e “Census 2010 Summary File 2 (SF2) – Sample Data” Generated by RTI International; using 

American FactFinder. <http://factfinder2.census.gov>; (December 10,2012). 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce 

Census Bureau 

2008 “2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.” 

http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/fishing.html. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

1992 Soil Survey of Dare County, North Carolina. The United States Department of Agriculture, 

Soil Conservation Service. March 1992. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

n.d.a What are Coastal Barriers. Accessed September 2007. Available at 

<www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/cbra2>. 

n.d.b “Loggerhead Sea Turtles in North Carolina.” Accessed October 19, 2009: 

http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/reptile/logger.html. 

1988 Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains Piping Plover Recovery Plan. 

1994 Piping Plover Atlantic Coast Population: Recreational Activity Guidance. Available on line 

at: http://www.fws.org/northeast/pipingplover/recguide.pdf. Accessed on May 22, 2009. 

1996a Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Atlantic Coast population, Revised Recovery Plan. 

USFWS Regional Office, Hadley, Massachusetts. 258 pp. 

1996b Recovery Plan for Seabeach Amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA. 

2000 Piping Plover Atlantic Coast Population Recovery Plan: Life History and Ecology. Available 

on line at: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pipingplover/recplan/ecology.html. Accessed on 

May 22, 2009. 

2001 Critical Habitat for Piping Plover. Available at <http://www.fws.gov/plover/>. Accessed 

July 2007. 

2002 2000–2001 status update: U.S. Atlantic Coast piping plover population. Sudbury, 

Massachusetts. 9 pp. 

2003a Piping Plover Great Lakes Population Recovery Plan. 

2003b “Seabeach Amaranth.” Accessed March 10, 2010: 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/es/amaranthweb/overview.html. 

2004a U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. High Priority Shorebirds. Unpublished Report, U. S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., MBSP 4107, Arlington, VA, 22203 U.S.A. 5 pp. 

2004b 2002–2003 Status Update: U.S. Atlantic Coast piping plover population. Sudbury, MA. 

2004c Preliminary 2004 Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Abundance and Productivity Estimates. 

Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pipingplover/status/preliminary.04.pdf. 
References 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 579

2005a Preliminary 2005 Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Abundance and Productivity Estimates. 

Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pipingplover/status/preliminary.05.pdf. 

2006a Biological Opinion for the Interim Protected Species Management Plan/EA at Cape Lookout 

National Seashore. 

2006b 2006 Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Abundance and Productivity Estimates. Available online 

at: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pipingplover/pdf/final06.pdf. 

2007a Amended Biological Opinion for the Interim Protected Species Management Plan/EA at Cape 

Lookout National Seashore. 

2007b The Atlantic Coast Piping Plover. Online fact sheet. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pipingplover/index.html. 

2007c 2007 Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Abundance and Productivity Estimates. Available on line 

at: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pipingplover/pdf/final07.pdf. 

2007d Candidate Species: Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act. 

http://www.fws.gov/ENDANGERED/factsheets/candidate_species.pdf. February 2007. 

2007e “Seabeach Amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. 

Fish and Wildife Service, Southeast Region, Ecological Services.” Raleigh, North Carolina. 

2008a Preliminary 2008 Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Abundance and Productivity Estimates. 

Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pipingplover/status/preliminary.08.pdf. 

2008b Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. Online version 

available at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/>. 

2009a Preliminary 2009 Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Abundance and Productivity Estimates 

2010 Letter to Ronald Foley, Regional Director, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and 

Historic Preservation. 

2011 Abundance and productivity estimates – 2010 update: Atlantic Coast piping plover 

population. Sudbury, Massachusetts. 4 pp. 

2012a Preliminary 2011 Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Abundance and Productivity Estimates. 

Accessed online, March 21, 2012. Available: 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pipingplover/preliminary2011%2020March2012%20for%20A

C%20website.pdf 

2012b Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta). Factsheet. Updated February 2012. Available online 

at: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/PDF/Loggerhead-SeaTurtle.pdf.

2013a Preliminary 2012 Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Abundance and Productivity Estimates. 

Accessed online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pipingplover/pdf/preliminary2012_18April2013.pdf 

2013b “Service Proposes to List Red Knot as a Threatened Species Under the Endangered Species 

Act.” September 27, 2013. Accessed on November 22, 2013 at 

http://www.fws.gov/news/ShowNews.cfm?ID=60042DE0-FB9E-C978-063157265CB076C1

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Department of Commerce, and U.S. Census Bureau 

2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.” 

<http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/fishing.html>. 
References 

580 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

U.S. Geological Survey 

2001 Vulnerability of U.S. National Parks to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Change. 

U.S. Marine Corps 

n.d. Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, Cherry Point, North Carolina: MCAS Cherry Point 

History. Located online at: http://www.cherrypoint.marines.mil/About.aspx. Accessed on 

January 6, 2014. 

U.S. Navy 

2007 Letter from J.M. Hinson, Director Fleet Training to Robert Vogel, Superintendent Cape 

Lookout National Seashore regarding preparation of an EIS/Overseas EIS for an increase in 

training operations. April 25, 2007. 

2012 Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement. Accessed online at: http://aftteis.com/Home.aspx. 

U.S. Travel Association

2012 “The Economic Impact Of Travel On North Carolina Counties.” The credit line should read: 

“This study was prepared for the North Carolina Division of Tourism, Film and Sports 

Development by the US Travel Association.” 

http://www.nccommerce.com/tourism/research/economic-impact/teim. 

Van Houten, R., L. Malenfant, R.D. Blomberg, B.E. Huitema, and S. Casella 

2013 High-Visibility Enforcement on Driver Compliance With Pedestrian Right-of-Way Laws. 

(Report No. DOT HS 811 786). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. 

Verhulst, S., K. Oosterbeek, and B. J. Ens 

2001 “Experimental Evidence for Effects of Human Disturbance on Foraging and Parental Care in 

Oyster-catchers.” Biological Conservation 101:375–380. 

Virginia Tech 

2012 Assessing the Responses of Wilson’s Plovers, Least Terns, Common Terns, Gull-Billed 

Terns, and Black Skimmers to Military Overflights of the Core Military Operations Area and 

to other Human Events at Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC. 

Vooren, C.M. and A. Chiaradia 

1990 “Seasonal abundance and behaviour of coastal birds on Cassino Beach, Brazil.” Ornitologia.

Waldstein, A.H. 

2010 Raccoon Ecology and Management on Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. A 

thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University In partial 

fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Master of Science. 

Watts, B.D., and D.S. Bradshaw 

1995 “Ghost Crabs Prey on Piping Plover Eggs.” Wilson Bull. 107:767–768. 
References 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 581

Welsh, R. and A.D. Tucker 

2009 “Shifting patterns of nocturnal emergence events of nesting loggerhead turtles (Caretta

caretta).” Marine Turtle Newsletter 125:10-12, 2009 

Whittaker, D and R.L. Knight 

1998 “Understanding wildlife responses to humans.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:312-317 

Wilkinson, P.M. and M. Spinks 

1994 “Winter Distribution and Habitat Utilization of Piping Plovers in South Carolina.” Chat

58:33–37. 

Winstead, L. 

2009 National Park Service (Cape Lookout National Seashore). Personal communication via email 

correspondence with Jeff Gutierrez, The Louis Berger Group, pertaining to visitation 

statistics at Cape Lookout for 2005-2008. April 28, 2009. 

Wiss, J., Elstner Associates, Inc. and John Milner Associates, Inc. 

2005 Cape Lookout Village Cultural Landscape Report, Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

Carteret County, North Carolina. Available online at 

http://www.nps.gov/calo/parkmgmt/historic-site-management.htm. 

2007 Portsmouth Village Cultural Landscape Report, Cape Lookout National Seashore, Carteret 

County, North Carolina. Available online at http://www.nps.gov/calo/parkmgmt/historic-sitemanagement.htm. 

Witherington, B.E., K.A. Bjorndal, and C.M. McCabe 

1990 “Temporal Pattern of Nocturnal Emergence of Loggerhead Turtle Hatchlings from Natural 

Nests.” Copeia 4:1165–1168. 

Witherington, B.E., and R.E. Martin 

1996 Understanding, Assessing, and Resolving Light-Pollution Problems on Sea Turtle Nesting 

Beaches. Florida Marine Research Institute Technical Report TR-2. 73 pp. 

Wolcott, D.L. and T.G. Wolcott 

1984 “Impact of Off-Road Vehicles on Macroinvertebrates of a Mid-Atlantic Beach.” Biol.

Conserv. 29: 217–240. 

1999 “High Mortality of Piping Plovers on Beaches with Abundant Ghost Crabs: Correlation Not 

Causation.” Wilson Bull. 111:321–329. 

Zaremba, R.E., P.J. Godfrey, and S.P. Leatherman 

1973 The Ecological effects of Off-Road Vehicles on the Beach/Backshore (Drift Line) Zone in 

Cape Cod National Seashore, Massachusetts. National Park Service Cooperative Research 

Unit. Document No. QX79-14. 
References 

582 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Zarudsky, J.D. 

1985 “Breeding status of the American Oystercatcher in the town of Hempstead.” Kingbird

35:105-113. 

Zonick, C.A. 

2000 “The Winter Ecology of Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus) along the Texas Gulf Coast.” 

Ph.D. Diss., University of Missouri – Columbia. 
Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 583

GLOSSARY 

Adaptive management—A system of management practices based on clearly identified outcomes, 

monitoring to determine if management actions are meeting outcomes, and, if not, facilitating 

management changes that will best ensure that outcomes are met or to re-evaluate the outcomes. Adaptive 

management recognizes that knowledge about natural resource systems is sometimes uncertain and is the 

preferred method of management in these cases (source: Departmental Manual 516 DM 4.16). 

All-terrain vehicle (ATV)—A motorized off-highway vehicle designed to travel on four low-pressure 

tires, having a seat designed to be straddled by the operator and handlebars for steering control. 

Demarcation line—The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries uses as the boundary between the 

Atlantic Ocean and the inside sounds a federally designated line. This line delineates “International 

Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea” (COLREGS Lines of Demarcation) which were established 

by the Coast Guard to designate where "International Rules of the Road" separate from “U.S. Inland 

Rules.” Individual lines were established where practical, by physical objects like fixed aids to navigation 

or prominent points of land, because they are readily discernible by eye rather than by instruments. 

Full recreational closures—In these areas, all recreational users are prohibited, including pedestrians, 

their pets, and ORVs. 

Ocean beach—The area adjacent to the ocean and ocean inlets that is subject to public trust rights. This 

area is in constant flux due to the action of wind, waves, tides, and storms and includes the wet sand area 

of the beach that is subject to regular flooding by tides and the dry sand area of the beach that is subject to 

occasional flooding by tides, including wind tides other than those resulting from a hurricane or tropical 

storm. 

ORV closures—In these areas, ORV use is prohibited, but other recreational users such as pedestrians 

and leashed pets are allowed. 

Off-road vehicle (ORV)—Any motorized vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel on or 

immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain (source: 

Executive Order 11644: Use of Off-road Vehicles on Public Lands, as amended by Executive Order 

11989). 

Soundside beach—The soundside beach is defined as the beach/shore on the soundside of the islands 

beginning at the U.S. Coast Guard demarcation line, with the exception of the area between the end of 

Power Squadron Spit to the demarcation line near the Cape Lookout Lighthouse which will be managed 

as sound side shoreline and beach 

Street-legal—Meeting all legal requirements for use on ordinary roads. 

Utility-type vehicle (UTV)—A motorized vehicle designed and manufactured for general maintenance, 

security, recreational, and landscaping purposes, but does not include vehicles designed and used 

primarily for the transportation of persons or property on a street or highway. 
Glossary 

584 Cape Lookout National Seashore 
Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 585

INDEX

accessibility, 243 

adaptive management, 16, 57, 58, 59, 60, 63, 73, 

74, 75, 88, 90, 92, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 

290, 294, 299, 302, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 

309, 310, 326, 331, 336, 339, 341, 342, 343, 

344, 346, 354, 356, 357, 360, 362, 364, 366, 

367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 376, 379, 381, 

383, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 391, 392, 412, 

417, 422, 425, 426, 427, 442, 443, 446, 453, 

478, 486, 490, 494, 498, 524, 530 

air quality, 21 

American oystercatcher, 1, 12, 15, 55, 57, 61, 

67, 71, 75, 91, 93, 94, 97, 98, 99, 100, 106, 215, 

216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 222, 227, 228, 230, 

231, 235, 239, 242, 277, 279, 284, 290, 297, 

298, 302, 311, 312, 314, 315, 319, 320, 321, 

322, 324, 325, 326, 327, 329, 332, 334, 335, 

339, 341, 354, 357, 364, 374, 376, 379, 385, 

393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 

402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 408, 409, 410, 411, 

412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 

421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 427, 428, 432, 437, 

442, 443, 446, 462, 479, 481, 486, 490, 494, 

498, 520, 523 

archeological resources, 22, 23, 32 

boating, 6, 234 

camping, 6, 16, 17, 50, 62, 64, 65, 86, 90, 91, 

92, 95, 98, 104, 212, 219, 237, 243, 244, 246, 

247, 260, 261, 282, 290, 294, 298, 299, 301, 

312, 317, 326, 331, 336, 338, 339, 349, 351, 

355, 358, 361, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 

370, 371, 384, 389, 391, 397, 403, 412, 417, 

422, 424, 425, 437, 469, 481, 482, 483, 484, 

487, 488, 491, 492, 495, 496, 498, 501, 502,

505, 506, 509, 510, 518, 529 

colonial waterbirds, 1, 50, 97, 98, 106, 215, 217, 

220, 221, 224, 225, 226, 239, 284, 311, 319, 

321, 327, 332, 337, 372, 374, 394, 395, 396, 

397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 403, 404, 405, 406, 

408, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 

418, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 427, 432, 

479, 520, 523, 543 

consultation, 11, 50, 51, 52, 271, 272, 283, 340, 

430, 539, 540, 542 

cost, 54, 56, 60, 68, 87, 110, 257, 259, 261, 481, 

482, 484, 487, 488, 491, 495, 507, 508, 512, 

517, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 530, 531, 532, 533 

critical habitat, 27, 37, 38, 39, 41, 174, 175, 176, 

177, 192, 202, 242, 266, 271, 272, 283, 284, 

285, 302, 303, 305, 306, 307, 310, 319, 320, 

345, 371, 405, 406, 437, 438, 439, 443, 446, 

449, 451 

cultural resources, 2, 3, 12, 22, 28, 32, 69, 75, 

76, 478, 479, 535 

demarcation line, 65, 86, 297, 334, 361, 420 

education, 13, 14, 15, 18, 37, 43, 46, 47, 54, 55, 

56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68, 69, 74, 75, 76, 

87, 89, 92, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 

107, 109, 110, 262, 271, 277, 282, 284, 285, 

286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 294, 295, 

296, 298, 299, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 

307, 308, 309, 314, 317, 320, 321, 323, 325, 

326, 328, 330, 331, 333, 335, 336, 338, 339, 

341, 342, 343, 344, 346, 352, 354, 355, 356, 

357, 359, 360, 361, 362, 364, 365, 366, 367, 

368, 369, 370, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 

381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 

390, 391, 392, 394, 398, 403, 406, 407, 409, 

411, 412, 413, 415, 416, 417, 419, 421, 422, 

424, 425, 426, 427, 437, 439, 441, 442, 443, 

444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 451, 452, 481, 

485, 487, 491, 495, 511, 513, 514, 516, 517, 

519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 525, 526, 527, 528, 

529, 530, 531, 532, 535, 541 

elements common to all alternatives, 45, 47, 49, 

54, 61 

enabling legislation, 1, 2, 6, 11, 17, 68, 72, 478, 

479 

endangered species, 1, 2, 15, 27, 33, 40, 43, 50, 

68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 92, 174, 199, 202, 228, 230, 

259, 265, 284, 285, 319, 320, 355, 377, 405, 

406, 407, 430, 437, 438, 439, 534, 540, 543 
Index 

586 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

environmentally preferable alternative, 78 

Executive Order 11644, 1, 2, 4, 25, 26, 31, 49, 

479, 516 

Executive Order 11989, 2, 25, 31, 479 

fishing, 6, 11, 17, 22, 23, 24, 27, 42, 100, 219, 

237, 239, 242, 243, 246, 252, 253, 254, 256, 

257, 258, 259, 260, 266, 276, 280, 287, 292, 

296, 301, 303, 304, 316, 323, 328, 333, 338, 

354, 364, 384, 397, 401, 408, 414, 424, 434, 

460, 461, 475, 476, 480, 481, 482, 483, 488, 

489, 490, 492, 494, 496, 497, 499, 500, 501, 

502, 509, 517, 518 

health and safety, 80, 437, 483 

hiking, 6 

impairment, 29, 32, 478 

Interim Protected Species Management Strategy, 

40, 266, 269, 284, 320, 377, 406, 437, 511, 542 

invertebrates, 16, 178, 198, 201, 222, 223, 226, 

228, 229, 230, 278, 279, 316, 400, 430, 431, 

432, 433, 435, 436, 438, 439, 440, 441, 443, 

444, 445, 446, 447, 449, 450, 452, 453 

loggerhead turtle, 33, 41, 202, 205, 206, 207, 

208, 371, 478 

mammals, 21, 27, 30, 41, 58, 99, 221, 231, 234, 

273, 276, 430, 431, 434, 435, 438, 440, 442, 

443, 445, 448, 450, 453 

management action, 1, 2, 33, 46, 55, 57, 61, 93, 

95, 99, 101, 102, 106, 228, 264, 271, 286, 288, 

290, 292, 294, 297, 299, 301, 302, 304, 305, 

306, 307, 308, 321, 326, 331, 336, 339, 341, 

342, 343, 344, 346, 352, 354, 357, 359, 360, 

361, 362, 364, 368, 370, 372, 376, 379, 381, 

383, 385, 386, 391, 392, 393, 407, 412, 415, 

417, 419, 422, 424, 425, 426, 427, 431, 440, 

444, 448, 479, 481, 487, 490, 494, 495, 539 

marshes, 1, 216, 222, 223, 226, 230, 428 

mitigation, 309, 310, 311, 346, 371, 372, 393, 

428, 429, 453, 478, 534, 537, 538, 539 

natural physical resources, 3, 68, 73, 75, 76, 480 

noise, 16, 17, 25, 30, 102, 106, 107, 213, 232, 

233, 234, 235, 247, 275, 278, 279, 287, 289, 

292, 293, 296, 298, 300, 306, 309, 322, 324, 

325, 328, 330, 333, 335, 338, 341, 342, 343, 

344, 346, 353, 396, 399, 401, 402, 410, 411, 

416, 421, 424, 425, 426, 427, 432, 433, 434, 

439, 441, 442, 444, 445, 446, 448, 450, 451, 

452, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461, 

462, 463, 466, 467, 468, 473, 476, 477, 479, 

481, 483, 486, 489, 493, 497, 499, 537, 538 

piping plover, 1, 12, 15, 37, 41, 50, 51, 54, 61, 

67, 68, 71, 93, 94, 95, 98, 99, 101, 169, 170, 

171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 

180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 

189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 

198, 199, 222, 227, 228, 230, 231, 239, 242, 

271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 

280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 

289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 

298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 

307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 315, 320, 

321, 322, 324, 327, 328, 330, 332, 333, 335, 

337, 340, 341, 342, 345, 352, 359, 372, 374, 

394, 395, 396, 397, 400, 401, 402, 406, 408, 

409, 413, 414, 418, 419, 423, 424, 428, 432, 

433, 434, 438, 440, 441, 453, 467, 479, 494, 

513, 514, 515, 516, 520, 523 

preferred alternative, 40, 78, 285, 321, 407, 439 

protected species, 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 13, 33, 40, 

45, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 61, 64, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 

75, 76, 97, 98, 179, 197, 242, 259, 261, 266, 

267, 268, 269, 270, 277, 284, 285, 287, 294, 

312, 313, 314, 317, 318, 319, 321, 322, 323, 

326, 327, 328, 331, 333, 336, 337, 339, 340, 

341, 342, 356, 360, 362, 372, 375, 377, 378, 

381, 390, 394, 398, 399, 403, 405, 407, 409, 

424, 431, 433, 434, 436, 438, 439, 440, 441, 

443, 446, 448, 449, 467, 480, 484, 511, 521, 

522, 525, 527, 530, 531, 542 

purpose and need, 1, 539, 540 

red knot, 1, 15, 169, 199, 200, 201, 202, 228, 

231, 94, 102, 271, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 

317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 

326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 

335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 

344, 345, 346, 433, 434, 441 
Index 

Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS 587

reptiles and amphibians, 232 430, 431, 432, 434, 

435, 440, 442, 443, 445, 446, 448, 449, 450 

restoration, 376, 454 

safety, 1, 2, 3, 9, 11, 17, 19, 25, 45, 47, 48, 49, 

53, 54, 55, 56, 69, 74, 76, 79, 81, 91, 92, 100, 

101, 103, 104, 106, 239, 256, 261, 277, 281, 

282, 288, 290, 293, 294, 297, 299, 302, 309, 

315, 317, 324, 326, 329, 331, 334, 336, 339, 

352, 359, 362, 365, 369, 379, 382, 390, 399, 

403, 410, 412, 415, 417, 420, 421, 422, 425, 

427, 433, 441, 444, 447, 448, 477, 479, 480, 

481, 482, 483, 487, 488, 490, 491, 492, 494, 

495, 496, 498, 499, 504, 517, 520, 530, 534, 540 

scoping, 2, 13, 14, 15, 45, 68, 70, 73, 479, 539, 

540, 541, 542 

sea turtles, 1, 12, 15, 40, 41, 43, 50, 52, 55, 72, 

79, 95, 98, 100, 103, 169, 202, 205, 206, 208, 

209, 210, 211, 213, 232, 239, 242, 271, 272, 

283, 312, 315, 318, 321, 322, 327, 332, 340, 

341, 342, 346, 347, 348, 349, 352, 353, 354, 

355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 362, 363, 364, 

365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 374, 

390, 394, 404, 479, 520, 523, 543 

seabeach amaranth, 1, 12, 15, 22, 52, 81, 95, 

100, 104, 169, 213, 214, 215, 271, 272, 315, 

372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 

381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 

390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 520, 523, 530 

shade shelters, 48, 57, 82, 484, 489, 493, 497, 

499, 502, 524 

soils, 3, 18, 19, 22, 74 

soundscapes, 16, 17, 78, 108, 169, 219, 232, 

234, 267, 284, 319, 405, 438, 454, 456, 457, 

458, 460, 462, 463, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 

473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 534, 535, 536, 

537, 538 

special regulation, 1, 2, 13, 26, 31, 35, 40, 43, 

47, 49, 53, 73, 516 

threatened species, 27, 70, 71, 265, 311, 340, 

345, 428, 429 

tidal flats, 1, 3, 178, 201, 228, 428 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2, 11, 

16, 33, 37, 41, 43, 50, 51, 52, 68, 72, 93, 95, 98, 

169, 170, 171, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 

182, 192, 196, 197, 198, 199, 202, 205, 207, 

208, 209, 210, 211, 213, 214, 226, 227, 229, 

256, 257, 258, 261, 266, 271, 272, 273, 274, 

275, 276, 277, 278, 280, 281, 283, 285, 289, 

295, 296, 310, 311, 314, 320, 332, 340, 345, 

346, 347, 348, 350, 351, 352, 354, 355, 371, 

372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 384, 391, 393, 

398, 401, 402, 406, 411, 419, 431, 432, 435, 

438, 542, 543 

vegetation, 3, 4, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 31, 36, 68, 

73, 75, 76, 174, 175, 195, 206, 210, 216, 217, 

219, 221, 228, 231, 242, 247, 429, 478, 480 

visitation, 6, 18, 28, 34, 41, 68, 88, 109, 235, 

236, 243, 247, 249, 281, 283, 317, 318, 353, 

354, 376, 403, 404, 436, 460, 468, 481, 483, 

484, 485, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 

510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 

519, 536 

visitor experience, 1, 17, 55, 74, 234, 454, 469, 

479, 481, 482, 483, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 

490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 497, 502, 517, 

518, 519, 535, 536, 540 

wetlands, 3, 19, 31, 81 

wildlife, 1, 3, 11, 15, 16, 21, 23, 25, 30, 31, 43, 

48, 50, 55, 68, 70, 72, 73, 75, 76, 78, 92, 94, 95, 

98, 107, 169, 173, 194, 199, 209, 226, 228, 233, 

234, 256, 257, 258, 266, 277, 314, 323, 346, 

373, 396, 398, 399, 409, 415, 419, 424, 429, 

430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 

439, 443, 444, 446, 447, 449, 451, 452, 454, 

456, 464, 475, 480, 490, 534, 535, 536, 537, 

538, 542, 543, 544 
Index 

588 Cape Lookout National Seashore 
Appendix A: 

Cape Lookout Interim Protected 

Species Management Plan / 

Environmental Assessment 

Modified Preferred Alternative 

Draft Off-road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS A-1

APPENDIX A: CAPE LOOKOUT INTERIM PROTECTED 

SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL 

ASSESSMENT MODIFIED PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

ALTERNATIVE ELEMENTS SUMMARY—SPECIES SURVEY AND MANAGEMENT

Activity 

Alternative D: 

Increased Species Protection Areas, Education, and Outreach (Preferred Alternative) 

Bird—Pre-nesting* Species Survey 

PIPL—Survey active nesting areas for piping plover arrival and pre-nesting behavior beginning 

March 15, at least once a week on North Core Banks (NCB) and South Core Banks (SCB). 

Beginning April 1, surveying in these areas would increase to three times a week (or every 

other day). Survey would include potential new habitat and historic nesting areas as 

determined appropriate by a qualified staff biologist. Monitoring reports will include descriptions 

of management measures in place and document piping plover behavior sufficient to evaluate 

the effects of management actions at the site. 

AMOY—Survey all NCB and SCB beaches for AMOY activity 2 days per week beginning midApril. Surveys cease when all chicks have fledged or are lost. 

CWB—Survey active nesting areas for CWB at least 3 days per week when PIPL monitoring 

occurs. Survey potential new habitat and historic nesting areas as time permits. Surveys cease 

when all chicks have fledged or are lost. 

Every 3 years during the statewide census, map colonies using GPS. 

WIPL—No survey. 

Species Management 

PIPL—April 01, establish full recreational closure in active, historic, and potential new habitat 

as determined by a qualified staff biologist. 

Enlarge protected areas where PIPL observed prospecting for territories outside of full 

recreational closure area (same as alternative A). 

If birds do not use site, open by July 15. 

CWB—April 01, establish full recreational closure in active CWB nesting areas. Establish ORV 

closures in historic least tern and black skimmer nesting areas and any potential new habitat 

where, from site inspection, a qualified staff biologist determines that nesting may be likely to 

occur.

Closures would be expanded as necessary when nests or nest scrapes are found in new 

areas. 

Bird—Courtship/

Mating*

Species Survey 

PIPL—Survey, 7 days per week NCB and SCB and other areas at least 1 day per week, 

locations where territorial, courtship, and/or mating behavior observed. Monitoring will include 

descriptions of the management measures in place and human activity observed in the areas 

where courting behavior occurred. 

AMOY—Survey number (pair/single), behavior, courtship, and evidence of scrapes. 

CWB— Record territorial/mating behavior if observed during PIPL surveys. 

WIPL—No monitoring. 

Species Management 

PIPL—Expand full recreational closures to provide for a 150-foot buffer in areas of territorial, 

courtship, and/or mating (scrapes) behavior occurring outside existing closures. 

AMOY—No closures. 

WIPL—Post WIPL nests or scrapes found outside existing closures on NCB and SCB. 
Appendices 

A-2 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Activity 

Alternative D: 

Increased Species Protection Areas, Education, and Outreach (Preferred Alternative) 

Bird—Nesting* Species Survey 

PIPL—Survey nests 7 days per week on NCB and SCB. Survey nests at least one day per 

week if they occur elsewhere. 

Record (1) date & time; (2) nest number; (3) nest location with a GPS unit (1 time). Nest 

markers should not be placed in the sand; (4) number of eggs (if bird is not flushed, record that 

the bird was incubating and number of eggs was not observed); (5) habitat; (6) status of nest 

(laying, incubating, lost, abandoned, hatching, hatched); (7) presence and behavior of the 

adults [incubating eggs, shading eggs, resting, foraging, disturbed (record source), territorial 

flight, territorial encounter, distraction display or other defensive behavior toward predator or 

pedestrian, courtship, other behavior (describe)]; (8) presence of potential predators, humans, 

pets, or ORVs within 300 feet and locations relative to the nest; (9) evidence (i.e., trails) and 

number of potential predators, humans, pets, or ORVs within posted areas, including distance 

to the nest; and (10) suspected cause of nest loss, if apparent. Other specific data will include 

number of observations of plovers performing territorial defense or courtship displays outside 

symbolic fencing; and, making nest scrapes outside the symbolic fencing. Data will include a 

description of the management measures in place where these behaviors are observed. 

After incubation starts, observe incubating bird with optical equipment from appropriate 

distance that does not disturb the birds. 

AMOY—Survey nests every 2 days on NCB and SCB, other areas 1 day per week. Record (1) 

nest locations with GPS and mile marker locations; (2) number of eggs present and hatch date; 

(3) presence or evidence of predators, including trails within 30 feet of the nest; and (4) human, 

or ORV tracks within 90 feet of a nest. CWB—Survey nests at least once every 2 days on NCB 

and SCB and 1 day per week elsewhere when PIPL monitoring occurs. Record center of 

colony using GPS. Record same information as PIPL except regular counts of CWB are not 

performed and productivity information is not recorded. 

WIPL—Census WIPL during annual PIPL window census (1st week of June). 

Species Management 

PIPL—Expand full recreational closures to provide for a 150-foot buffer around nests. Place 

predator exclosures over nest after 4th egg is laid if conditions allow. Areas remain closed until 

chicks fledge or are lost. Any nest that appears to be at risk, reported to park biologist from 

field when possible. 

AMOY—Mark nest in an unobtrusive manner and establish a 10 square foot full recreational 

closure around the nest if nest in area subject to ORV or pedestrian traffic. Generally, nests 

found in the dunes are not posted because there is concern that predators might learn to 

associate posts with nests. Areas remain closed until chicks fledge or are lost, typically August 

15.

CWB—Expand full recreational closure to provide for a 150-foot buffer from all nests. 

WIPL—Post WIPL nests or scrapes found outside existing closures on NCB and SCB. 
Appendix A: Cape Lookout Interim Protected Species Management Plan / Environmental Assessment Modified 

Preferred Alternative 

Draft Off-road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS A-3

Activity 

Alternative D: 

Increased Species Protection Areas, Education, and Outreach (Preferred Alternative) 

Bird—Unfledged 

Chicks*

Species Survey 

PIPL—Survey brood 7 days per week on NCB and SCB; at least once per week elsewhere. 

Record (1) date & time; (2) nest/brood number; (3) location of brood; (4) number of chicks; (5) 

brood age (this is known from other data on hatch date); (6) brood behavior [foraging, 

resting/brooding, disturbed (record source), other]; (7) presence and behavior of adults 

[foraging, brooding, resting, disturbed (record source), territorial flight, territorial encounter, 

distraction display or other defensive behavior toward predator or pedestrian, courtship, other 

behavior (describe)]; (8) presence or evidence of potential predators, humans, or ORVs within 

300 feet and location relative to the brood including tracks within closures; (9) cause of chick 

loss, if carcass found and source of mortality apparent. Includes data on the interaction 

between people and plovers, including instances where vehicles, pedestrians, or pets are 

observed within the symbolic fencing and the type of response exhibited by the plovers. 

AMOY—Survey brood at least once every 2 days on NCB and SCB. Surveys cease when all 

chicks have fledged or are lost. 

CWB—Survey brood at least once every 2 days when PIPL monitoring occurs. Surveys cease 

when all chicks have fledged or are lost. 

WIPL—No survey. 

Species Management 

PIPL—After nest hatches, when a chick is found using the ocean beach, expand buffer to 

include a 600-foot ORV closure around each brood. ORV routed to backroad or, if no road, 

park would consider an escort. An escort program may be used on a case-by-case basis to 

maintain access to Portsmouth Village or areas with no backroad access if staffing allows. 

Establish a 2-mile ORV closure at north end of SCB from first nest hatch until last chick has 

fledged or is lost. Increase enforcement of public compliance with closures. Closures removed 

when last chick is fledged or is lost. 

AMOY—Establish ramp-to-ramp ORV closures if chicks present on the beach (route ORV 

traffic to backroad via designated ramps) unless no backroad is present, then ORV would be 

allowed at 15 mph, with signs warning operators of flightless chicks in the area. Adjust ORV 

closures based on chick movement, providing a minimum 300-foot buffer around brood. 

Closures would move with chicks. Closed areas reopened to ORV after last chick has fledged 

or is lost. 

CWB—Establish ORV closure that provides at least a 150-foot buffer around broods when 

chicks present at Cape Lookout Point Beach. In other areas, route traffic around ORV closures 

if chicks are in danger of being run over. 

WIPL—Post areas with WIPL chick found outside existing closures on NCB and SCB. 
Appendices 

A-4 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Activity 

Alternative D: 

Increased Species Protection Areas, Education, and Outreach (Preferred Alternative) 

Bird— Non-breeding 

(migrating / 

wintering) 

Species Survey 

PIPL—Survey entire seashore non-breeding population once per month August 1 to March 31. 

Coordinate with Cape Hatteras Natl. Seashore to conduct simultaneous surveys or receive 

survey data from Portsmouth Island during winter, since, based on past banding data, wintering 

birds move across Ocracoke Inlet. Send data on winter birds to NCWRC. Record: (1) date; (2) 

weather variables [air temperature, wind speed and direction, visibility, % cloud cover (est. by 

eye), precipitation; (3) tidal stage (hours after high tide); (5) number of birds; (5) habitat; (6) 

behavior of majority of birds in flock [foraging, resting, disturbed (record source), other]; and (7) 

check for band combination of any banded birds, using reporting protocols developed by staff 

for band color and location. A log will also be kept that records the date, time, and purpose of 

each official trip through areas where unfledged chicks are present. Monitors, law enforcement 

personnel, and other Cape Lookout National Seashore staff will record all observations of 

violations of dog leashing requirements in plover breeding areas, both inside and outside 

posted habitat. 

AMOY—No survey of non-breeding individuals. 

REKN—Survey in spring and fall on NCB and SCB following International shorebird survey 

protocols on frequency and timing. 

Species Management 

Closures not specifically implemented for wintering/ migrating shorebird protection. Permanent 

ORV closures at Shackleford Banks, Portsmouth Flats, the interior of Cape Lookout Point, 

beach between mile markers 41A and 41B, and Power Squadron Spit are maintained. 
Appendix A: Cape Lookout Interim Protected Species Management Plan / Environmental Assessment Modified 

Preferred Alternative 

Draft Off-road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS A-5

Activity 

Alternative D: 

Increased Species Protection Areas, Education, and Outreach (Preferred Alternative) 

Sea Turtles Species Survey 

May 01–September 15 survey for crawls/nests before 12:00 PM daily on SCB and NCB; 

Shackleford Banks 2-3 days per week; Middle Core Banks monitored irregularly (difficult 

access). Monitoring procedures and data collection follow the monitoring and reporting 

guidelines in the Handbook for Sea Turtle Volunteers in North Carolina (NCWRC 2002) and the 

USFWS Index Nesting Beach Survey Protocol. Periodic monitoring (e.g. every two or three 

days) for unknown nesting and emerging hatchlings will continue, especially in areas that are 

not surveyed regularly or that receive high visitor use, through November 15. Monitoring will 

also occur for post-hatchling washbacks during periods where there are large quantities of 

seaweed washed ashore or following severe storm events. 

Before May 1, park staff conduct PIPL monitoring and, if possible, note any turtle crawls/nests. 

Record (1) date & time; (2) species, if known; (3) whether it is a false or nesting crawl; (4) 

sequential nest number; (5) whether nest was relocated, original and relocation site names, 

and coordinates of original and relocation sites in Lat/Long; (6) distance from nest to tideline, in 

meters; (7) date when nest excavation conducted; (8) date(s) of nest overwash; (9) sources of 

egg or whole nest loss, if apparent; and (9) geographic coordinates of false crawls when first 

found. Monitor the effects of management actions on nesting, hatching, and stranded sea 

turtles on beaches within park boundaries. 

Conduct a nest excavation inventory to determine nest success after hatching. 

Species Management 

Nest Protection: 

Each located nest is immediately marked with stakes. 

50 days after nest laid, funnel shaped ORV closure established from nest to 15 feet below high 

tide line. ORV closure is 30 feet wide at nest; 60 feet wide below high tide line, with minimum 

10-foot buffer duneward of nest. If 10-foot minimum buffer is not possible, ramp-to-ramp ORV 

closure is established (vehicles routed around nest via backroad). ORV closure removed after 

nest hatches. 

Nest Relocation: 

Relocate nests laid at or below high tide line or in areas where they are likely to be washed 

away or are in danger of erosion. According to USFWS recommendations. 

3 nest relocation areas (up to 1 mile in length) are designated on SCB and NCB where ORV 

traffic is prohibited beginning 50 days after first nest relocated to area. Nests are relocated to 

the nearest designated area. No ORVs are allowed on Shackleford Banks, so nests are 

relocated to the nearest suitable habitat. 

Nests are relocated within 12 hrs after eggs laid or 14 days after the nest was laid. 

Nest Excavations: 

Nest excavated 5th day after a major hatch (indicated by distinctive hatchling tracks), 10 days 

after depression forms, or 75 days after nest was laid if no sign of hatching. 

If nest outside of a designated relocation area, the ORV closure would be removed after 

excavation. 

Predator Management: 

Screens or cages used to protect nests and prevent egg loss to raccoons. 

Light Management: 

Camping and campfires prohibited in nest relocation areas to prevent disturbance of hatchlings 

from artificial lights. 

Park encourages concessionaires and people staying in park cabins to minimize use of outdoor 

lights. Park will also ensure park users, concessionaires, and contractors are aware of the sea 

turtle protection measures implemented within the park boundaries. 

Nests in locations deemed vulnerable to light pollution, 2 foot high plywood barriers erected 

behind and to the sides of the nest 10 days before estimated hatch date. 

Fireworks are prohibited within the seashore. Seashore will coordinate with FWS to develop 

and implement measures to further minimize beach lighting threats. 
Appendices 

A-6 Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Activity 

Alternative D: 

Increased Species Protection Areas, Education, and Outreach (Preferred Alternative) 

Seabeach amaranth Species Survey 

June 1 begin monitoring habitat outside existing bird closures 1-2 days per week for 

seedlings/juvenile plants. 

Conduct annual survey in late-July or early-August to record plant numbers and distribution 

and identify areas for ORV closure. Survey habitat but concentrate on where plants have been 

found before. Surveys conducted in all areas of suitable habitat and results mapped using GIS. 

Data collected will include number of plants; general distribution of plants; general proportions 

of seedlings, medium and large plants at the time of the survey; and overall health (signs of 

stress, damage, disease or herbivory, etc). 

Species Management 

Establish ORV closure around all emergent plants. Size of closure based on best professional 

judgment but with at least a minimum 30-foot buffer around plant. 

Survey bird/turtle closures prior to reopening to ORV traffic, also no tent camping in ORV 

closure areas. 

Open closed area at end of growing season. 

Note: AMOY–American oystercatcher; CWB–colonial waterbird; NCB–North Core Banks; PIPL–piping plover; REKN–

red knot; SCB–South Core Banks; WIPL–Wilson’s Plover. 

$VWKHQDWLRQ¶VSULQFLSDOFRQVHUYDWLRQDJHQF\WKH'HSDUWPHQWRIWKH,QWHULRUKDVUHVSRQVLELOLW\IRUPRVW

RIRXUQDWLRQDOO\RZQHGSXEOLFODQGVDQGQDWXUDOUHVRXUFHV7KLVLQFOXGHVIRVWHULQJZLVHXVHRIRXUODQG

DQGZDWHUUHVRXUFHVSURWHFWLQJRXUILVKDQGZLOGOLIHSUHVHUYLQJWKHHQYLURQPHQWDODQGFXOWXUDOYDOXHVRI

RXUQDWLRQDOSDUNVDQGKLVWRULFSODFHVDQGSURYLGLQJIRUWKHHQMR\PHQWRIOLIHWKURXJKRXWGRRUUHFUHDWLRQ

7KHGHSDUWPHQWDVVHVVHVRXUHQHUJ\DQGPLQHUDOUHVRXUFHVDQGZRUNVWRHQVXUHWKDWWKHLUGHYHORSPHQWLV

LQ WKH EHVW LQWHUHVWV RI DOO RXU SHRSOH 7KH GHSDUWPHQW DOVR SURPRWHV WKH JRDOV RI WKH 7DNH 3ULGH LQ

$PHULFD FDPSDLJQ E\ HQFRXUDJLQJ VWHZDUGVKLS DQG FLWL]HQ UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU WKH SXEOLF ODQGV DQG

SURPRWLQJFLWL]HQSDUWLFLSDWLRQLQWKHLUFDUH7KHGHSDUWPHQWDOVRKDVDPDMRUUHVSRQVLELOLW\IRU$PHULFDQ

,QGLDQUHVHUYDWLRQFRPPXQLWLHVDQGIRUSHRSOHZKROLYHLQLVODQGWHUULWRULHVXQGHU86DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ



8QLWHG6WDWHV'HSDUWPHQWRIWKH,QWHULRUā1DWLRQDO3DUN6HUYLFH