Interview with Superintendent, Mike Murray

[vasurfisher]

NCBBA News " Jan./Feb./Mar. 2006

Editorial: Interview with Mike Murray,
New CHNSP Superintendent
by John Newbold #14

Just prior to writing my editorial for this issue, I was afforded the opportunity to inter-
view the new Superintendent of Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Mr. Michael Murray.
I was told I would have about an hour and at once accepted the offer to meet with him
and ask some hard questions that have been on my mind and, I am sure, on the minds of
the membership. My questions and his answers will replace the usual format of an edito-
rial and piece from the park service. I found Mike to be a straight shooter, a person who
wants to be available to hear the concerns of park users, and a person who is aware of the
challenges that face this park and that. face him as superintendent.

If the questions and answers that follow raise concerns or additional questions, con-
tact, him at once with copies to me. I believe we are all going to see a change in the way
the park has been managed and I also believe our voices wilt be heard. Read on and let
Superintendent Murray hear from you if your concerns are not addressed!



Q. With such a successful career in the NPS, why would you choose to come to
this park with all the problems it faces? What is your agenda?

A. As a child. I came on vacations here frequently. I love the challenges of working at a national seashore, and I find it much more interesting because of the diverse land owner-
ship and the many challenging issues of working closely with the community. I wanted to be closer to home and wanted a warmer climate, but I really like the variety and interesting issues that apply to a national seashore.

Q. What do you see as the most important and pressing needs in the park that need your attention now?

A. First, and foremost is the off-road vehicle management and protected species management issue. They are interrelated. It has been divisive to the community. There are many, many other long-term issues that, need to he addressed. Making some progress on the off-road vehicle management and protected species management issue is important so that we can pay attention to some of the other long-term issues as well-



Q. Because our park system surrounds seven villages, do you see differences in how an ORV plan should he written for CHNS versus a plan, say, for Cape Cod?

A. I think every park is unique. Up in Cape Cod, the national seashore transects six
incorporated towns. Politically, that is uniquely different than here. There are some common similarities, but each area is unique. It is a complicated issue. My feeling is that in any isolated area where there is a national park and surrounding small communities, there is a unique, symbiotic relationship between the communities and the park and vice versa. We are mutually dependent upon each other. We depend on the community to provide all the services for visitors - places to stay, places to get gasoline and food. Likewise, the park area is often part of the draw to the area that brings the people here and keeps the businesses operating. So we need to look out for each other´s interests and try to make things work.



Q. ORV use in the Cape Cod area is severely restricted with many require-
ments, including permits and quotas, herding of vehicles into small areas, and going so far as to dictate tire type on vehicles. From my personal experience, radar was used to control a 5 MPH limit, and ORVs were forced to travel at the high fide line in the trash, rather than down low near the water. Do you see any of this on the horizon for CHNS?

A. No, I don´t think so. I can´t fully explain why some of those specifics evolved there.
Here we have a much wider, flatter beach and more space to work with. I can speak to
their permit system. The problem there was the limit on the number of permits that was
established during negotiated rule making. At the time, no participant thought having a
limit on the number of permits would be a problem, I wasn´t involved in the discussion,
hut from what 1 read and heard about it afterwards, environmental groups just wanted
to have some kind of ;a limit on numbers and ORV groups felt like it was safe to pick a
high number. What it did was, once they had a limit, there was a scarcity of permits. The
first, year they sold out by Labor Day, the next year by the fourth of July, and every year
thereafter earlier and earlier- To me, that´s a lesson learned the hard way Putting a tap
or limit on the number of permits created the problem. I don´t have any personal agenda
other than to try to utilize local knowledge to figure out what will work here and then try
to facilitate some compromises and practical common sense solutions.



Q. During Larry Belli´s tenure corridors were established with white staking throughout the park, closing off areas for good that were seasonally closed for nesting plovers in the past. By eliminating ORV use in these areas that had no protocol to close, grasses have developed which do not appeal to plovers, thus forcing the birds to nest closer to the water´s edge, which can effectively close an area to ORV use. Will you eliminate the staking and corridor system?



A. Probably not initially, and just because I know that we are close to having the in-
terim protected species strategy and it includes some corridors. In the long-term plan, I´m open to any ideas, to he honest. Some of the things you mentioned like grasses growing in areas of enclosed use, I don´t have any first hand knowledge about that. I´ve heard people say that, a lot. My experience is in a more northern climate. To my understanding, corridors have only been around two years. In the long term, I would like to look at where we have opportunities for habitat restoration away from the beach so we can benefit the birds without compromising ORV access. I´m open to taking a look at those kinds of issues.



Q. Can we expect more large-scale closings during prime seasons if birds/plovers are seen, but not nesting? And if these birds are really so endangered, why not remove the eggs to an aviary and 100% guarantee their success?

A. In the interim plan, what, I´m trying to create is the flexibility - that we have some
responsibility to give the birds some habitat area, where they have a chance to mate and
nest, successfully, but, I´m also looking for ways to insure we have some flexibility and
opportunities for ORV access. It´s subject to interpretation as to what you mean by large-
scale, closures. During the bird breeding season for piping plovers, there is some guid-
ance, not .strict requirements, established by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, on buffer
zone distances. If we have good monitoring, we can actually size smaller buffer zone
distances under certain circumstances. There are some perimeters identified in the re-
covery plan. What the recovery plan also talks about, though, is in areas if you have an
approved plan accepted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and you have intensive
monitoring, then you can utilize these smaller buffer distances. So what we are shooting for is to be able to exercise that second option. What I´m trying to design is a plan for the park service that exercises the most flexible approach. If a closure impacts access to a key area, we are going to try to find an alternate route or bypass around it. The most difficult period is when chicks are running around. The agency responsible for the decisions to remove eggs to an aviary is the US Fish and Wildlife, They are authorized under the Endangered Species Act to determine what steps are needed to recover threatened and endangered species. If it´s a species threatened with extinction, like the American condor, they will go to those measures. Typically, piping plovers, overall, on the east coast have been improving in numbers.



Q. The new Interim Protected Species Management plan calls for adding sev-
eral additional birds that are not endangered. Why are there now closed areas year round set aside for "resting and feeding"? To my knowledge, only CHNS has done this. Why?



A. The version of the Interim Species Plan that is coming out is going to define perim-
eters during the nesting season for a variety of species. These areas, which are set aside for piping plovers during their wintering and migrating season, are also used by other
wintering and migrating birds. During that time of year, the park service has some re-
sponsibility to provide some habitat for migrating and wintering plovers. What we areproposing is that it focuses on interior habitat so that the shoreline corridors are open.



Q. In a lawsuit, it was determined in federal court that this was not a critical habitat for piping plover and yet these areas continue to be closed. This is aconcern which many people have.

A. Obviously, in this case, it was determined that US Fish and Wildlife had not pro-vided sufficient analysis to justify the critical habitat designation. In the interim plan,habitat is being used in a more general sense for types of environmental places and
requirements that birds need to live. What my goal is to do is try to find ways to enhance
habitat that doesn´t conflict with ORV use.



Q. Why can´t the beach area in South Nags Head from old Ramp 1 (Mainte-
nance Shed) to Coquina Beach be open in the fall and winter as it once was?

A. I don´t know. In the scheme of things, that is certainly something to look at in the
long term plan, I can probably look at it more quickly than that, but not overnight. Before I make changes, I want to be really deliberate, hear all sides, be transparent to the public, have meetings or get input from people. I am very willing to consider this.



Q. There has come about over the past eight to ten years (four Superintendents and two Interims) a loss of trust and lack of communication between CHNS and ORV users and residents in this area. We are told one thing, and it either doesn´t happen at all, or it happens differently. Park users should expect timely answers to questions, rather than be told "I´ll get back to you on that", and nothing is ever heard again. How can/will you change this?

A. I´ve heard that comment from many people and I´m not here to judge what´s happened in the past, I want to focus on what I plan to do. It will require a lot of hard work. It will require good communication and relationship building. I need to make myself available to hear comments. We are in the process of hiring new staff. I need time to work with the park staff so that we are all on the same wavelength on how to do business with folks. My feeling is that the local citizens and the visiting population are all very passionate about the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, and I appreciate that. I understand the strong feelings when something doesn´t go well. What I feel is important is to be up front with the public and all the user groups, and hear their concerns. If I can figure out a way to address the concerns, I will try to do that. I´m also responsible for fulfilling the park service mission and complying with their regulations, goals, policies, and process requirements. So sometimes we don´t have quick answers, and then sometimes I simply have to say no. But I feel I owe it to people to say that we can´t do that and here is the reason why. It is going to take a long time to rebuild trust, but it´s going to have to be a combination of factors. It´s going to have to be deliberate decision making. It´s going to mean having meetings and getting input, and not making unilateral decisions sitting over here in Manteo. I need to work with staff so they can see how I operate, and that´s how I want them to operate. That doesn´t mean that every time we get a question that we put somebody off. We are a part of a bureaucrat system, and different levels of employees have different levels of authority to make decisions. Over time, I hope to help the staff understand how I want to make decisions, what our policies are, and how I want to see them implemented. Then they are better able to deal with it on the front line. In the meanwhile, I´m going to be cautious about making any rash decisions because I simply don´t know how things should be. That doesn´t mean I´m going to avoid decisions, but that I´m going to be methodical, deliberate, and get input from people. If I´m asked a question and I don´t know, I will get back with you and I will give you a time frame.



Q. Of all the past superintendents, only Tom Hartman made himself available and accessible. He attended NCBBA meetings and kept us "in the loop" as to what was going on. How available do you feel you can be?

A. I will be as available as one person can be -1 need to clone myself, at least, initially
I am asking any group that has a stake, or a passion, or an interest in what´s going on in
any of the three parks to invite me-1 can´t say I can come to every meeting, but

certainly invite me.



Q. When will the Pole Road be restored and reopened to its pre-storm condition? There is absolutely no reason it cannot be done, and its continued closing has been a "hot bed" on this island

A- I´m sympathetic to reopening it. What I have to do is be sure we do it in an environ´
mentally appropriate way. Since it has been closed for a while, we are responsible to gc
through a planning process. We´ve had an acting chief of resource management. His term here has ended and he has gone on leave, but we´ve asked him to come back for a month and that is one of the projects we want him to work on- So, I can´t make a commitment to a date it might reopen, but we are putting an effort in doing our planning requirement for it next month.

Q. What is your opinion of making new accesses?

A. I am for reevaluating comprehensively all the access routes. Part of it is, do we have ramps where we need them? Part of this thinking about the whole access issue is that if we have certain areas typically closed because of bird nesting, can we figure out ways around it? Since this may he at multiple site´s, what I have to do is figure out how to pull that. together into more of a comprehensive planning process. We´re going to look at the sites specific to the spur road right now. But when we start looking at everything else, it´ll probably have to be part of the long term planning process because it will create a number of environmental complaints.

Q. How do you see "negotiated rule making" coming together and creating an ORV plan? Does NPS have their own plan in place should the process fail?

A. Two thoughts. I feel strongly that negotiated rule making is the best way to get to a plan like that and to develop a regulation. If that doesn´t keep moving forward, then the park .service will need to step up to the plate and do it ourselves. Right now, one of our biggest vulnerabilities is not having a park .specific off-road vehicle regulation. So, we´ll
take care of that one way or the other, but 1 much prefer negotiated rule making because I think having a group figuring it out will be much more effective. If that breaks down for some reason, then very shortly thereafter, we´ll announce our own process. It will be a public process, and we´ll get, input.

Q. One of the potential stake holders in the negotiated rule making process isa small group called the Recreational Alliance, hastily formed by Jim Lyon, husband of NPS employee Marcia Lyon, in objection to ORV´s that used the beach
in front of his home, ORV users feel he is being seated because his position is self-serving and may have been the result of his wife´s employment connection.Your thoughts?

A. I really haven´t developed a judgment on this yet, but I can understand the percep-
tion- It´s a pretty logical perception to he concerned about it. Right now, where we are in the process is the third party neutral. The Consensus Building Institute is the one who
has been evaluating the appropriateness of groups. They are not looking to get a certain
mix of individuals. They arc looking to get a mixture of interests. I can tell you from the
Cape Cod negotiated rule making, a number of groups created themselves at the last
minute and submitted participants to be considered- Some of them were selected and
some weren´t. So, my understanding now is

that the 25 participants proposed at this
point were selected because of the diverse interests that they represent, I have heard a variety of comments about different individuals, including the gentleman mentioned, about whether compatible consensus building can occur where there is conflict of interest. CBI will take the comments and may revise their proposal, and the park service will consider that before publishing our proposal.

Q. Another potential stake holder is a group called National Park Conservation Association, which has recently filed a lawsuit against NPS banning ORV´s in all parks, but excluding CHNS from the suit if:

A. They are seated as a stake holder.
B. They stay seated. But if they drop out, CHNS is included in the suit.

ORV users see this as blackmail, and a cloud over negotiated rule making from the onset! Several ORV groups have talked of dropping out of the process if NPCA is seated, since the concept of negotiated rule making is to eliminate lawsuits. ORV user groups and Dare and Hyde County Commissioners have already
intervened in the suit. Your thoughts?

A. Let me give you a little background, and I don´t know all the details. I think the
proposed stipulation ran he interpreted two different ways. On the national level, this
Bluewater Network lawsuit has been waiting in the wings for years. It´s not really about
Cape Hatteras National Seashore. There are a number of other parks that have never
done the special regulation to authorize ORV use in those parks- That conflicts with park
service policies and regulations. Three or four years ago, that same group petitioned forrule making or something to the park service to get information about where all thoseparks were. This has been developing over the last three or four years. The NPCA is a national group which focuses on the national park system, policies, issues, and management actions. Mv feeling is this stipulation could he interpreted that they recognized that Cape Hatteras National Seashore has a process underway, and that they´re trying to exclude it. from the suit, but perhaps made a strategic mistake in specifying that NPCA has to he involved. In talking with some folks at NPCA, their intention was to recognize and give Cape Hatteras a chance to move forward, but the way they worded it looked like an attempt at leverage. I don´t know how to interpret it. I understand why people are
taking it negatively. My feeling about negotiated rule making is that it´s not dependent on any one group, or even small numbers of groups being involved, but the right diversity of interests that pull the range of interest. needs to be involved. My feeling is that it is really, really important, that the local organizations he involved - people who use thearea, know the lay of t.hc land, know what´s happened here in the past, for they´ll havethe best ideas to figure out the practical way to make this work. National groups alsohave an interest since we are a part of the national park system. I want to see the comments about the make up of the group, not only the people, hut the interests being represented. Ultimately, I believe that negotiated rule making, despite certain groups or indi-
viduals not wanting to work with certain groups or individuals, as long as we have a good balance of interests there, is the best. way to go. The alternative is for the park service to do this ourselves. We will get some of the same input from people, hut it would be better if all the potential litigants, the people who may sue one side or the other, are at the table. 1 understand the commitment when people applied to participate was that they would hold off on resorting to legal measures or other things which might influence the process.

Q. What is the plan for reopening a "safety closure" once the beach has returned to normal conditions? Will the Ranger patrolling have the authority to reopen it or will it have to come from Manteo?

A. Currently, the safety closure perimeters are defined via the Superintendent Order
7, adopting portions of the 1978 interim ORV plan. Once we have this interim protected species strategy out, I want to revise Superintendent´s Order 7. I don´t know how to define what´s an appropriate safety closure, I have to wonder whether a beach less than 100 feet wide needs to be closed, I would think that there´s many times where it is safe to drive on something more narrow than 100 feet wide. So, I´d like to make it reasonable input?



Q. Will the Interim Species Management Plan become the final Species Management Plan? If not, who will rewrite the plan, and will it be subject to public input?

A. It´s a good question, but I don´t fully understand the answer. The Interim Species
Plan is intended to get us through the next three or four years. However, what it takes tc
do the negotiated rule making, and depending on what we come up with in the negoti-
ated rule making and the ORV plan, it may change something in the interim plan- 11
nothing changes, then we would have to go through the process to make it a long term
plan. But if we decided to go in a different direction in the next few years, then we would have to modify it. Any significant change in the interim plan, obviously, would require public input.

Q. To what extent do you anticipate expanding the Law Enforcement group ai
Cape Hatteras National Seashore?

A. Most parks have suffered staffing losses due to budget attrition- We are in the pro-
cess of filling some vacant positions. By this summer, we should have 16 or 17 law en-
forcement staff compared to, I think, 11 last year. That´s filling positions we used to have
filled. Currently, that´s about the best we can do in terms of our budget. We recognize the
need to have adequate staffing. Let me mention one thing you did not bring up. We haveno intention of doing an escort program or bringing in any special event teams. I understand it was poorly perceived, and looking back on it, it might have been a big mistake. I can explain the rationale why it happened that way. I was in Washington and somewhat involved in the discussion of the issue. Because it was in a kind of a crisis situation, the park, and Washington supported this, decided to try something different to keep access open. The only kind of short term emergency funding available to the park was for law, enforcement operations. So, inherently, in order to get the funding, the park had to re-
quest law enforcement staff. Unfortunately, that gives the wrong image.



Q. What changes are being made in the Resource Management Group? Will you run them, or will they run you?

A. I´m a hands-on manager, and very interested in resource management. I have e
degree in Biology, but my background is in resource and visitor protection which is lav
enforcement and emergency services. We´re in the process of hiring a new chief of re
source management and we´re establishing a wildlife biologist position to supervise the
field operation. We´ll be hiring a number of new biological technicians to be on the ground;

staff during the bird season. My intention is to be assured we have the right management

plans, the right staff training in place, so that staff understands what we´re trying
to do. I intend to be involved sufficiently that I know what is going on. I´m ultimately

responsible to make this work. I will have some new staff, and it will be a scramble to get everybody hired, trained, and on the job for this summer. The goal is to sort of reform the program to have long term program continuity- Plus, we will have an actual plan. ^ ^

Q. How can NCBBA and other user groups help you manage your park?

A. You help us by letting us know what you think, even if it´s in a case where you
disagree with us. I´m aware of some of the programs which NCBBA does in terms of
beach cleanup and donations of funds to support certain programs. Those are certainly
welcome and very beneficial. I think just working closely with us. We need to be available to work with you, but vice versa. So as we work through some of these things, we benefit from your on the ground knowledge, and then we tend to have the knowledge of administrative and legal requirements. By meshing the two, I think we can come up with some solutions that we´ll be able to implement, but, hopefully, work for everybody better than what we´ve been doing,