DOCSLIB.ORG

Cape Lookout National Seashore North Carolina

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cape Lookout National Seashore North Carolina National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Cape Lookout National Seashore North Carolina CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE INTERIM PROTECTED SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT March 2006 Printed on recycled paper CONTENTS Summary.................................................................................................................................................xii PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION Purpose of and Need for Action................................................................................................................1 Purpose of the Plan ...............................................................................................................................1 Need for Action.....................................................................................................................................1 Objectives in Taking Action .....................................................................................................................1 Project Site Location.................................................................................................................................2 Background...................................................................................................................................................7 Summary of Protected Species Management at Cape Lookout National Seashore..................................8 Protected Bird Species ..........................................................................................................................9 Sea Turtles ..........................................................................................................................................11 Recreation and Protected Species Management .....................................................................................12 Scoping Process and Public Participation...................................................................................................14 Issues and Impact Topics ....................................................................................................................14 Impact Topics......................................................................................................................................15 Impact Topics Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis ......................................................16 Related Laws, Policies, Plans, and Actions ................................................................................................22 Guiding Laws and Policies .....................................................................................................................22 NPS Organic Act of 1916 ...................................................................................................................22 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36 (1992).....................................................................................23 NPS Management Policies 2001.........................................................................................................23 Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, Decision Making and Handbook............................................................................................................................................25 Cape Lookout National Seashore Purpose and Significance ..................................................................25 Cape Lookout National Seashore Planning Documents .....................................................................26 Other Seashore Plans, Policies, and Actions.......................................................................................28 Other Federal Laws, Executive Orders, Regulations, and Policies.....................................................30 State and Local Laws, Regulations, and Policies................................................................................33 ALTERNATIVES Alternatives.................................................................................................................................................35 Alternative A: No-Action Alternative, Continuation of Current Management ..........................................39 INTERIM PROTECTED SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT iii Species Surveying and Management ......................................................................................................39 Recreation ...........................................................................................................................................40 Outreach and Compliance...................................................................................................................41 Cost of Implementation.......................................................................................................................41 Elements Common to All Action Alternatives ...........................................................................................42 Alternative B: Increased Buffer Zones and Increased Surveying...............................................................45 Species Surveying and Management ......................................................................................................45 Recreation Use........................................................................................................................................46 Outreach and Compliance.......................................................................................................................46 Cost of Implementation...........................................................................................................................47 Alternative C: Adaptive Species Management; Increased Surveying, Enforcement, and Education.........48 Species Surveying and Management ......................................................................................................48 Recreation ...............................................................................................................................................48 Outreach and Compliance.......................................................................................................................49 Cost of Implementation...........................................................................................................................49 Alternative D: Increased Species Protection Areas, Education, and Outreach (Preferred Alternative)......51 Species Surveying and Management ......................................................................................................51 Federally-Listed Species Conservation Measures ..................................................................................52 Recreation ...............................................................................................................................................53 Outreach and Compliance.......................................................................................................................54 Cost of Implementation...........................................................................................................................54 How Alternatives Meet Objectives.............................................................................................................55 Alternatives Considered but Rejected.........................................................................................................56 Closures for Birds and Turtles Should be Kept to a Minimum...............................................................56 Open Turtle Closures after Hatchlings Have Gone out to Sea................................................................56 Increase Fines for People Breaking Rules ..............................................................................................56 Environmentally Preferred Alternative.......................................................................................................57 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Affected Environment.................................................................................................................................91 Federally Listed Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species........................................................................91 Piping Plover...........................................................................................................................................91 Piping Plover in North Carolina..........................................................................................................91 Breeding Biology................................................................................................................................94 iv CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE Nonbreeding and Wintering Plovers at Cape Lookout National Seashore .............................................97 Sea Turtles ............................................................................................................................................101 Loggerhead Turtle.............................................................................................................................103 Green Turtle......................................................................................................................................105 Leatherback Turtle............................................................................................................................106
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Environmental Assessment/Assessment of Effect ___
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Cape Hatteras National Seashore Environmental Assessment/Assessment of Effect ___ Review and Adjustment of Wildlife Protection Buffers April 2015 1 Department of the Interior National Park Service Environmental Assessment: Review and Adjustment of Wildlife Protection Buffers Cape Hatteras National Seashore North Carolina April 2015 Summary The National Park Service (NPS) proposes to modify wildlife protection buffers established under the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Final Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement of 2010 (ORV FEIS). This proposed action results from a review of the buffers, as mandated by Section 3057 of the Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2015, Public Law 113-291 (2014 Act). The 2014 Act directs the NPS “to ensure that the buffers are of the shortest duration and cover the smallest area necessary to protect a species, as determined in accordance with peer-reviewed scientific data.” This environmental assessment (EA) deals solely with review and modification, as appropriate, of wildlife protection buffers and the designation of pedestrian and vehicle corridors around buffers. All other aspects of the ORV FEIS remain unchanged. This EA analyzes potential impacts to the human environment resulting from two alternative courses of action. These alternatives are: alternative A (no action, i.e., continue current management under the ORV FEIS), and alternative B (modify buffers and provide additional access corridors) (the NPS preferred alternative). As more fully described in the EA, the proposed modifications to buffers and corridors in alternative B are as follows: For American oystercatcher: There would be an ORV corridor at the waterline during nesting, but only when (a) no alternate route is available, and (b) the nest is at least 25 meters from the vehicle corridor.
    [Show full text]
  • Seashore Pocket Guide
    . y a B e e L d n a n i t r a M e b m o C , h t u o m n y L ) e v o b a ( . e m i t m e h t e v i g u o y f i e c i v e r c n e d d i h a m o r f t u o . a n i l l a r o c d n a e s l u d s a h c u s s d e e w a e s b a r C e l b i d E k u . v o g . k r a p l a n o i t a n - r o o m x e . w w w e r a t s a o c s ’ r o o m x E n o e f i l d l i w e r o h s a e s k c a b e v o m n e t f o l l i w s b a r c d n a h s i F . l l i t s y r e v g n i p e e k d e r r e v o c s i d n a c u o y s l o o p k c o r r o f k o o l o t s e c a l p e t i r u o v a f r u o f o e m o S , g n i h c t a w e m i t d n e p S .
    [Show full text]
  • Seashore Wildlife and Tides Education and Learning Pack
    Seashore Wildlife and Tides Education and Learning Pack 0 Key Terms Seashore Wildlife Tides East Beach West Beach Shingle Sand Dunes Marram Grass Site of Special Scientific Interest Maritime and Coastal Agency Learning Objectives To compare the differences between East Beach and West Beach To understand which animals live on the Beaches To understand why West Beach is a Local Nature Reserve To understand why we have to respect the tide To compare different habitats, and what we find in each of them. 1 Seashore and Wildlife Littlehampton is lucky enough to have two different beaches, East and West Beach. Pebbles dominate the landscape when the tide is in but a large se bed, called ‘Winkle Island’, is exposed at low tide, along with long sand flats. Groynes on both beaches help the flow of the sea to try to detract the longshore drift from creating too much sand at the river mouth. The beaches are award-winning, with East Beach being awarded the 2015 Blue Flag and Seaside Award. East Beach East Beach is a lot busier in the holidays with tourists from all over the country visiting the seaside on day trips. East beach is mainly for tourists with cafes, adventure golf courses and train rides along the promenade operate in the summer months. East Beach is also home to the East Beach Cafe, designed by Heatherwick Studios. Britain’s longest bench can also be found along East Beach Promenade. It runs for 324 metres along the seafront and is made East Beach and Cafe, Littlehampton from reclaimed tropical hardwood slats from coastal groynes and landfill.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology at Point Reyes National Seashore and Vicinity, California: a Guide to San Andreas Fault Zone and the Point Reyes Peninsula
    Geology at Point Reyes National Seashore and Vicinity, California: A Guide to San Andreas Fault Zone and the Point Reyes Peninsula Trip highlights: San Andreas Fault, San Gregorio Fault, Point Reyes, Olema Valley, Tomales Bay, Bolinas Lagoon, Drakes Bay, Salinian granitic rocks, Franciscan Complex, Tertiary sedimentary rocks, headlands, sea cliffs, beaches, coastal dunes, Kehoe Beach, Duxbury Reef, coastal prairie and maritime scrublands Point Reyes National Seashore is an ideal destination for field trips to examine the geology and natural history of the San Andreas Fault Zone and the North Coast of California. The San Andreas Fault Zone crosses the Point Reyes Peninsula between Bolinas Lagoon in the south and Tomales Bay in the north. The map below shows 13 selected field trip destinations where the bedrock, geologic structures, and landscape features can be examined. Geologic stops highlight the significance of the San Andreas and San Gregorio faults in the geologic history of the Point Reyes Peninsula. Historical information about the peninsula is also presented, including descriptions of the aftermath of the Great San Francisco Earthquake of 1906. Figure 9-1. Map of the Point Reyes National Seashore area. Numbered stops include: 1) Visitor Center and Earthquake Trail, 2) Tomales Bay Trail, 3) Point Reyes Lighthouse, 4) Chimney Rock area, 5) Drakes Beach, 6) Tomales Bay State Park, 7) Kehoe Beach, 8) McClures Beach, 9) Mount Vision on Inverness Ridge, 10) Limantour Beach, 11) Olema Valley, 12) Palomarin Beach, 13) Duxbury Reef 14) Bolinas Lagoon/Stinson Beach area. Features include: Point Reyes (PR), Tomales Bay (TB), Drakes Estero (DE), Bolinas Lagoon (BL), Point Reyes Station (PRS), San Rafael (SR), and San Francisco (SF), Lucas Valley Road (LVR), and Sir Francis Drake Boulevard (SFDB).
    [Show full text]
  • Gulf Islands PWC Environmental Assesment
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Gulf Islands National Seashore Florida/Mississippi GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE Personal Watercraft Use Environmental Assessment Printed on recycled paper National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Gulf Islands National Seashore Florida/Mississippi GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE Personal Watercraft Use Environmental Assessment March 2004 SUMMARY Gulf Islands National Seashore was established in 1971, “In order to preserve for public use and enjoyment certain areas possessing outstanding natural, historic and recreational values…” The seashore stretches approximately 160 miles from Cat Island in Mississippi to the eastern tip of Santa Rosa Island in Florida. There are snowy-white beaches, sparkling blue waters, fertile coastal marshes, and dense maritime forests. Visitors can explore 19th century forts, enjoy shaded picnic areas, hike on winding nature trails, and camp in comfortable campgrounds. In addition, Horn and Petit Bois islands located in Mississippi are federally designated wilderness areas. Nature, history, and recreational opportunities abound in this national treasure. All areas of Gulf Islands National Seashore in the Florida District and the Davis Bayou area in the Mississippi District are reachable from Interstate 10. The Mississippi District barrier islands are only accessible by boat. The purpose of and the need for taking action is to evaluate a range of alternatives and strategies for managing personal watercraft (PWC) use at Gulf Islands National Seashore to ensure the protection of park resources and values while offering recreational opportunities as provided for in the national seashore’s enabling legislation, purpose, mission, and goals. Upon completion of this process, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Park Service (NPS) may either take action to adopt special regulations to manage PWC use, or it may not reinstate PWC use at this park unit.
    [Show full text]
  • California Coastal Commission Cd-0006-20
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 455 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219 FAX (415) 904-5200 TDD (415) 904-5400 Th3a CD-0006-20 (National Park Service) April 22, 2021 CORRESPONDENCE (received as of March 26, 2021) Individual Members of the Public Part I CD-0006-20 (NPS) CORRESPONDENCE - INDIVIDUALS PART I - pg 2 This item is a form letter sent to the [email protected] inbox from 12,360 separate contacts: Reject the Conditional Compliance to Point Reyes GLMPA Dear Executive Director John Ainsworth, As someone who is concerned about wild animals and wildlands, and one of over 250,000 In Defense of Animals supporters, I urge you to vote against the staff-recommended conditional compliance to the Point Reyes General Land Management Plan Amendment (GLMPA), and object to the National Park Service’s consistency determination, which is not consistent with the California Coastal Management Plan. The CCC received over 20,000 comments opposing the park's plan to continue ranching leases within the national park. We applaud the Commission for postponing the public hearing, which will allow enough time to adequately review and analyze comments with scientific and technical data. The staff report focused on water quality, yet the last tests were documented in 2013. In Defense of Animals recently performed professional scientific water quality tests from key collection points at Point Reyes National Seashore. Now the Commission has ample opportunity to review these new findings. The report also did not address other spillover effects from the Point Reyes GLMPA, including air quality and climate impacts from grazing cows, water quantity, and the loss of coastal public access.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Biological Research at Lundy
    Irving, RA, Schofield, AJ and Webster, CJ. Island Studies (1997). Bideford: Lundy Field Society Marine Biological Research at Lundy summarised in Tregelles ( 193 7) and are incorporated into the fljracombejauna andjlora (Tregelles, Palmer & Brokenshire 1946) and the Flora of Devon (Anonymous Keith Hiscock 1952). The first systematic studies of marine ecology at Lundy were undertaken by Professor L.A. Harvey and Mrs C.C. Harvey together with students of Exeter Introduction University in the late 1940s and early 1950s The earliest recorded marine biological studies near to (Anonymous 1949, Harvey 1951, Harvey 1952). These Lundy are noted in the work of Forbes (1851) who took studies again emphasised the richness of the slate dredge samples off the east coast of the island in 1848. shores especially when compared to the relatively The first descriptions of the seashore wildlife on Lundy impoverished fauna on the granite shores. A later are those published in 1853 by the foremost Victorian study (Hawkins & Hiscock 1983) suggested that marine naturalist and writer, P.H. Gosse, in the Home impoverishment in intertidal mollusc species was Friend (reproduced later in Gosse 1865). However, his due to the isolation of Lundy from mainland sources of descriptions are unenthusiastic, reveal nothing unusu­ larvae. al and draw attention to the very few species found on When marine biologists started to use diving the granite shores. There are further brief references to equipment to explore underwater around Lundy at Lundy in the literature of other Victorian naturalists. the end of the 1960s, they discovered rich and diverse Tugwell ( 1856) found the shores rich collecting communities and many rare species leading to a wide grounds and cites the success of a collecting party who range of studies being undertaken, both underwater (with the help of "an able-bodied man with a crowbar") and on the shore, in the 1970s and early 1980s.
    [Show full text]
  • Educator Resources MARINE LIFE
    Educator resources MARINE LIFE This package has been designed to give a brief introduction to the most common species you are likely to find in the rockpools of Yorkshire and other rocky shores of the UK. For your use we have attached some related further topics to allow for you to expand on any specific areas or to help tailor any learning or activities to the aptitude of the student. We have also included suggested subjects which can be linked to this topic. Topics within the key stages which relate to this topic: Key stage 1/2 Year 1 Animals, including humans - Identify and name a variety of common animals including fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals - Identify and name a variety of common animals that are carnivores, herbivores and omnivores - describe and compare the structure of a variety of common animals (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, including pets) Everyday materials - Identify and name a variety of everyday materials, including wood, plastic, glass, metal, water, and rock Year 2 Living things and their habitat - Identify that most living things live in habitats to which they are suited and describe how different habitats provide for the basic needs of different kinds of animals and plants, and how they depend on each other - Identify and name a variety of plants and animals in their habitats, including microhabitats - Describe how animals obtain their food from plants and other animals, using the idea of a simple food chain, and identify and name different sources of food Animals, including humans
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Best Practice for Watching Marine Wildlife a Guide to Best Practice for 1 Watching Marine Wildlife
    SMWWC Scottish Marine Wildlife Watching Code A Guide to Best Practice for Watching Marine Wildlife A Guide to Best Practice for 1 Watching Marine Wildlife Contents Introduction . 2 What is disturbance? . 4 Best practice guidance for: – Whales, dolphins and porpoises . 6 – Basking sharks . 16 – Seals . 24 – Birds . 32 – Otters . 42 – Turtles . 50 Dealing with cumulative impacts . 54 Annex 1: Reporting and recording . 58 Annex 2: Other more specialist codes . 62 Annex 3: Further reading . 66 Acknowledgements . 68 C O N T E N T S SMWWC Scottish Marine Wildlife Watching Code 2 3 INTRODUCTION The Scottish Marine Wildlife Watching Code is designed to be The Scottish Marine Wildlife Watching Code deals mainly with simple and concise, and easily understood by anyone who may wish minimising disturbance from individual encounters. There will to watch marine wildlife. In practice, avoiding disturbance of marine inevitably be times and places where the number of encounters with wildlife is far from simple for example, what may be disturbing to an wildlife increases to the point where the longer term well-being and otter in the water may not be disturbing to a seal hauled out on the survival of animals is compromised. We need mechanisms to deal rocks. Some basic knowledge and understanding of different species with this. This Guide therefore also includes a section which provides groups is useful. This Guide seeks to address this need while at the information on Dealing with cumulative impacts through the same time offering more detailed advice on best practice for development of local wildlife management initiatives and improved watching marine wildlife.
    [Show full text]
  • California Coastal Commission Cd 0006-20
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 455 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219 FAX (415) 904-5200 TDD (415) 904-5400 Th6b CD 0006-20 (National Park Service) December 18, 2021 CORRESPONDENCE (received as of December 18, 2021) PART 3 PAGES 434 - 656 CD-0006-20 CORRESPONDENCE James Coda 2009 Falcon Ridge Drive Petaluma, CA 94954 December 7, 2020 VIA EMAIL California Coastal Commission 455 Market Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94105 Re: Agenda Item CD-0006-20 (NPS, Point Reyes GMPA); Coastal Consistency Determination for the Point Reyes National Seashore and North District Golden Gate National Recreation Area General Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement Dear Commission Members: I. INTRODUCTION. I am very concerned about the water quality problems that exist in Point Reyes National Seashore (PORE) and Gate National Recreation Area (GOGA) with respect to Agenda Item CD-0006-20. These problems existed when the National Park Service (NPS) acquired the lands for these two national park units and there has never been any significant improvement. Conditions today are completely unacceptable for coastal watersheds, especially for coastal watersheds in units of the national park system. The Commission should object to what the Park Service plans to do to these parks.1 I am a retired attorney and starting in 2010 I have spent about two days each month photographing wildlife in the ranching area of PORE. Before my retirement I was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of California (San Francisco) where I handled environmental and natural resources cases for the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • California Coastal Commission Cd-0006-20
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 455 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219 FAX (415) 904-5200 TDD (415) 904-5400 Th3a CD-0006-20 (National Park Service) April 22, 2021 CORRESPONDENCE (received as of March 26, 2021) Individual Members of the Public Part II CD-0006-20 (NPS) CORRESPONDENCE - INDIVIDUALS PART II - pg 2 December 7, 2020 To: California Coastal Commission RE: The Consistency Determination for the National Park Service Point Reyes National Seashore 2020 General Management Plan Amendments The National Park Service (NPS) at the Pt. Reyes National Seashore (PRNS) has submitted for your review a Federal Consistency Determination for the adoption of amendments to the Seashore’s General Management Plan (GMP) and the accompanying Final EIS, which will be discussed during your meetings in January. We strongly urge the Commissioners to reject the NPS submittal because it misrepresents consistency of the GMP with the California Coastal Act with respect to Section 30251 Scenic and visual qualities: The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Role of Cattle at Point Reyes National Seashore: Effects of Grazing History on Coastal Plant Communities
    Ecological role of cattle at Point Reyes National Seashore: effects of grazing history on coastal plant communities Martin Arceo1, Riley Content-Castro2, Jacques Jougla3, Laurel Teague4 1 University of California, Riverside; 2 University of California, Santa Barbara; 3 University of California, Berkeley; 4 University of California, Santa Cruz ABSTRACT There is ongoing debate over the effectiveness of cattle grazing as a prospect for plant community conservation. Since the National Park Service acquired the land at Point Reyes Seashore, controversies over whether ranching should continue in the protected area have defined part of the park’s public image. Resolving uncertainties over impacts of cattle on the Point Reyes landscape could inform these debates and lead to viable long-term management strategies. In this study, we examine grassland species richness and composition under four different grazing land-use histories throughout the park (active grazing and 17, 39, and 87 years-since-grazing). Results point toward positive effects of active grazing on native forb richness through suppression of the invasive grasses Holcus lanatus and Festuca perennis. We find steep declines in native plant richness and abundances in the early decades following cessation of grazing and subsequent partial recovery of native species over longer timescales. Our research suggests that cattle foraging impacts plants according to functional group more than provenance. Cattle grazing and associated disturbances may have promoted the initial introduction and establishment of exotic plants into the Point Reyes landscape, but with exotic plants now well established throughout California and most native grazers absent or severely declined, new research suggests that cattle fill an important ecological role in promoting coexistence by native species on exotic-dominated landscapes.
    [Show full text]