What's driving beach restrictions

CHAPEL HILL -- No reasonable person doubts the need for an off-road vehicle (ORV) management plan for the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, especially in the face of regional population growth and improved highway systems leading to the Outer Banks.

After many years of U.S. Department of Interior foot-dragging, an ORV regulation/negotiation process was launched this year. Under the direction of a professionally competent park superintendent, the National Park Service went out of its way to encourage public participation in ORV management for the park.

Litigants representing environmental organizations, along with dozens of other stakeholders, agreed months ago to take part in a highly visible process of good faith regulation/negotiation designed to provide factual information to the Park Service for an effective ORV management plan. A primary purpose of the process was to avoid costly litigation.

However, through their litigation, while sitting as major participants of the negotiation process, the environmental activists evidenced little intention of good-faith negotiation.

The recently announced "settlement" being prepared by lawyers for the Justice Department and environmental organizations is beyond public view. There is no opportunity for public participation under the court-directed settlement proceeding. "Transparency" in a settlement between the federal government and the environmental litigants is not possible without a public review and comment period.

The court is sending a clear message that it does not care what the public thinks. This is an insult to citizens who have taken the time and their personal resources to attend the meetings, sit at the table to negotiate in good faith and provide factual information and constructive comment to the Park Service.

There are predictable outcomes from this court action. The settlement will result in restrictive beach usage.

For many years, environmental organizations have targeted the 12 percent of the shoreline that is the most ORV accessible part of the park. In effect they are transforming the most popular recreational areas into six new wildlife refuges, so as to prevent ORVs on the beach.

Under the settlement proceedings, there is no public discussion of economic impact. The "settlement" will definitely affect the lives and economic well-being of thousands of citizens who live and own businesses and property in the villages on the Outer Banks. Businesses will close, and families will suffer. The value of property will decrease.

Just as bad, there will be a substantial loss in recreational enjoyment, such as surf-fishing, for hundreds of thousands of citizens who visit the park and its unique environment.

There will be no serious consideration of environmental fact, because there is no peer-reviewed science to support the claims of species loss as the result of ORV traffic. Environmental organizations claim expertise that the court accepts at face value, yet there has been no data to support the claims. Science explains how the environment works by way of measurement and quantification. Without data, there is no science. Without science, there is no basis for effective management.

The real objective of the litigation is not species protection, it is ORV restriction. If the beach-using public is not concerned to the point of outrage by the current situation, it should be. The only thing that will make the public be heard, and turn the situation around, is legislation that requires public participation or focused ORV management in the park. Those who care should contact their lawmakers today and express their concern.

(Michael A. Berry, a former senior manager for the Environmental Protection Agency, served as deputy director of the National Center for Environmental Assessment at RTP. He has taught public health, environmental science and business and environment courses at UNC. He is a consultant specializing in evaluation of environmental quality and human health effects, environmental management strategies and policy.)