Attachment11_CALO_Foundation_Document_2012.pdf

Attachment 11

Cape Lookout National Seashore

Contents

Introduction

Part 1: Core Components

Brief Description of Cape Lookout National Seashore

Park Purpose

Park Significance

Interpretive Themes

Fundamental Resources and Values

Other Important Resources and Values

Part 2: Dynamic Components

Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments

Assessment of Planning and Data Needs

Analysis of Fundamental Resources and Values

Analysis of Other Important Resources and Values

Identification of Key Parkwide Issues

Prioritization of Planning and Data Needs

Part 3: Preparers and Meeting Attendees

Appendix A: Enabling Legislation, Related Federal Legislation, Regulations, and Executive Orders

Appendix B: Wilderness Character

Appendix C: Climate Change and Sea Level Trends for Planning at Cape Lookout National Seashore

Appendix D: Inventory of Past Planning Documents and Associated Resource Studies

Appendix E: Inventory of Proposed Wilderness Designation, Special Mandates, and Compendiums

Appendix F: Inventory of Agreements

Analysis of Fundamental Resources and Values The analysis of fundamental resources and values articulates the importance of each fundamental resource and value, its current status, potential threats and opportunities, needed data, planning and management decisions, and relevant laws and NPS policies related to management of the resources.

Fundamental Resource or Value:

Intact barrier island system driven by coastal geologic processes

Importance

The seashore’s 56 miles of barrier islands provides one of the best examples of a dynamic coastal barrier island system in the world. The natural interplay of winds, waves, tides, and currents continually restructures the barrier island system. With time, beaches and dunes shift location through erosion and accretion processes. Overwash from severe events, such as hurricanes, can produce more rapid changes, which can cause entire islands to migrate landward. Evidence of these geologic processes underscores the natural forces that created this system, which are not as prevalent on the more developed islands neighboring the seashore.

Condition

• Natural processes persist although some areas are experiencing alterations from human activity (i.e., Shackleford Banks, Ocracoke Inlet, and Barden Inlet)

• Primarily undeveloped

• Occasional dredging of inlets (Ocracoke, New Drum, Barden, and Beaufort)

• Intact and functioning

Trends

• Intact and functioning

• See appendix C for historical trends for average annual temperature, precipitation, and sea level rise

Threats

• Impacts associated with maintenance of Beaufort Inlet shipping channel accessing the

State Port at Morehead City (i.e., nearshore hydrodynamic impacts from dredging)

• Climate change and associated inluences (sea level rise, increase in annual temperature)

• Seashore development

• Concentrated visitor use impacts (pedestrians, ORV use)

• Nonnative species proliferation

• Illegal and improper use of ORVs

• Maintaining routes for off-road vehicle use

• Ramps cause breaches in the dune system and increase gaps between dunes causing unnatural erosion dynamics

• Offshore wind energy development and sand mining operations would impact dynamics of natural processes

Opportunities

• Scientiic research as it relates to barrier islands

• Public education and interpretation

• Maintain intact barrier island system

• Partnerships with U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, State of North

Carolina, and Carteret County

• Proactively discuss boundary interpretations with State of North Carolina agencies

Fundamental Resource or Value: Undeveloped character

Importance

One of the seashore’s most distinguishing values is its primarily undeveloped qualities in contrast to neighboring barrier islands. There are no roads or bridges to the seashore’s islands, which contributes to unique visitor opportunities. Natural processes are central to the visitor experience here. The ocean’s power resonates through the sounds of pounding surf along the Core Banks, for example, while few traces of human use are noticeable within Core Sound marshes. Visitors can witness the vast ocean viewshed by day and enjoy some of the darkest night sky vantages along the East Coast by night.

Condition

• Very little development between access nodes

• Limited facilities on islands

Trends

• Visitor use impacts are increasing at arrival nodes

• Increased ORV use over time may also impact the undeveloped character of the islands’ more remote areas

• NPS placement of signs away from developed nodes may not take into account goal of maintaining the undeveloped character outside developed zones at a minimum level

• Mainland shoreline development increases visitor use and may negatively impact viewshed

Threats

• Potential offshore development (e.g, wind energy) could have negative impact on viewshed and night sky

• Lights and noise from NPS operations and facilities can negatively impact quality of night sky viewing and natural sounds

• Use of generators on the islands negatively impact natural sounds

• Overlight tours negatively impact natural sounds and viewshed quality

• Potential military overlights impact natural sounds and viewshed quality

Opportunities

• Visitor education/enhanced interpretation throughout seashore (i.e., improved signs and interpretive displays at visitor centers and developed areas to let visitors know what is being done to preserve the seashore’s undeveloped character)

Existing information (e.g., data, plans) that provides knowledge base for planning and management

• Alternative transportation plans (existing plans do not include delivery sites)

• Use statistics (some soundscape data; seashore will receive oceanside viewshed data for potential offshore energy development project)

• GPS data for structures

Data Needs to Protect and Maintain FRV

• Visitor use experience data (i.e., study how visitors perceive seashore management with regard to levels of visitor use and NPS-related seashore development)

• Night skies data

• Natural sounds data

• Viewshed data

• User capacity

• Better energy management data collection and controls for operations at the seashore

Planning Needs to Protect and Maintain FRV

• Comprehensive sign plan

• Development concept plan or master plan that focuses on easing pressure at access nodes; include alternative transportation components

Foundation Document

Threats

• Climate change and associated inluences (sea level rise, increase in annual mean temperature)

• Forest fuel loads increase wildire threats near historic structures

• U.S. Coast Guard proposal to delist the lighthouse as an aid to navigation (ATN) and to discontinue support for maintaining the lighting apparatus

• Barden Inlet migration and sound-side shore erosion has destroyed the Keepers’

Quarters Coal Shed (Hurricane Isabel, 2003), and threatens the 1873 Keepers’ Quarters, Summer Kitchen, the historic landscape, and the 1859 lighthouse

• Impending loss of U.S. Coast Guard support to the lighthouse, the underwater power cable is nearing the end of its useful life

• Lack of a NPS cyclic maintenance program and insuficient funding for historic preservation at the site

• Increased visitation and inadequately managed pedestrian trafic

• Impact to ocean viewshed from development of offshore energy

• Climate change and associated inluences (sea level rise, increase in annual mean temperature)

• Forest fuel loads increase wildire threats near historic structures

• Storm events

• Weathering

• Public break-ins and vandalism

Opportunities

• Lighthouse is an iconic structure that serves as a driver for tourism in the region

• Opportunity to partner with U.S. Coast Guard for solarization of the light apparatus and for return of the Cape Lookout Fresnel lens

• Opportunity to partner with Carteret County Tourism Development Authority for interpretation of the light station and for preservation of the site

• Utilize the lighthouse in creative, resource-compatible ways to raise nonfederal funds for maintenance and protection

Existing information (e.g., data, plans) that provides knowledge base for planning and management

• Structural engineering reports for lighthouse

• Historic structure report (HSR) for lighthouse

• 11 HSRs for Cape Village structures (i.e., Life-Saving Station)

• Cultural landscape report (CLR)

• Engineering drawings

• GIS layers (location)

• Cape Lookout Village Historic Structure Reuse Implementation Plan/Environmental

Assessment

• Development concept plan for Cape Lookout Light Station

• Wildland ire management plan (2010)

Data Needs to Protect and Maintain FRV

• Review structural engineering report to identify critical needs

• Need HSR for Coast Guard station

• Shoreline change data

• Document and catalog historic fabric

Planning Needs to Protect and Maintain FRV

• Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Report

• Lighthouse restoration plan (identify strategies for identifying and implementing restoration work on lighthouse buildings, grounds, and structural repairs for the top of the lighthouse and a strategy on how to respond to shoreline change)

• Update wildland ire management plan (as needed)

• Climate change scenario planning

• Structural ire management plan (SFMP)

Fundamental Resource or Value: Portsmouth Village National Historic District

Importance

Chartered in 1753 by the North Carolina Colonial Assembly, Portsmouth Village played a critical role in the conduct of maritime commerce in North Carolina from the colonial period until the

American Civil War. It remains an intact village, featuring 21 historic buildings and structures.

Condition

• Total of 21 historic structures, highlighted by the U.S. Life-Saving Service complex, Methodist church, post ofice, schoolhouse, and several former residences

• Structures condition varies—recent hurricanes caused signiicant damage

• Structures are 50% stabilized

• Six interiors are open to the public, including the Salter Dixon house (visitor center), school-house, church, post ofice, U.S. Life-Saving Service complex, and the Henry Pigott House

• Exterior orientation waysides are located at the Haulover dock and on the road to the village; ive waysides are located near structures usually open in the village; and most structures are identiied by low proile trailside makers used to identify the buildings

• Village contains a large portion of the seashore’s archeological sites

• The village’s interpretive story has been told through exhibits, waysides and an audio tour

Trends

• Physical elements and recent storm events are increasing challenges to maintain structures

• The seashore maintains the structures that are in good and fair condition and stabilizes the ones that are in poor condition

• Losing grave site identiication on markers due to weathering of historic fabric on gravestones

• Additional structures will come under direct NPS management as they are released from historic leases or life estates

• Lack of resource protection presence most of the year

• See Appendix C for historical trends for average annual temperature, precipitation, and sea level rise

Threats

• Lack of adequate sanitation (inadequate septic systems and low likelihood of being able to install suitable systems due to shallow water table)

• Lack of a potable water well and distribution system

• Climate change and the associated inluences (sea level rise, increase in annual mean temperature)

• Storm events and hurricanes

• Termites

• Lack of funds to maintain structures

• Lack of properly trained staff in historic preservation, restoration, and stabilization techniques for structural maintenance (both NPS staff and volunteers)

• Lack of oversight to leaseholders

• Head stone damage due to storm events and vandalism

Opportunities

• Further partnering for rehabilitation

• Greater role for “Friends” group

• Enhance interpretation and outreach

Existing information (e.g., data, plans) that provides knowledge base for planning and management

• National register nominations

• NPS List of Classiied Structures (LCS)

• Cultural landscape report

• Five historic structure reports (HSRs)

• Historic resource study for village and seashore as a whole

• GPS data for location and irst loor elevation of each structure

• Condition assessment reports

• Thompson drawings

• Archeological (ASMIS) data

• Historic furnishings plan for Washington Roberts House

• Draft Wildland Fire Management Plan (2010)

• See appendix D for detailed list

Data Needs to Protect and Maintain FRV

• 17 HSRs for Portsmouth Village

• Identify and measure water inundation frequency and height

• Update condition assessment

• Preserve, document, and catalog historic fabric

Planning Needs to Protect and Maintain FRV

• Comprehensive management strategy (prioritize management objectives, discuss public access, funding, etc.)

• Update wildland ire management plan (as needed)

• Climate change scenario planning

• Structural ire management plan

Management Actions to Protect and Maintain FRV

• Maintain relationship with the “Friends” group

• Continue to seek funds to support and manage the village

• Continue to train staff on historic preservation techniques

• Seek funding for a cultural resource specialist

• Support interpretation of the village by volunteers and staff and provide for outreach

• Provide enhanced resource protection presence

• Forest fuel reduction program to protect and maintain structures

Laws and Policies that Apply to the FRV and the NPS Policy-level Guidance of the Resource or Value

• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

• Executive Order 13287, “Preserve America 2003”

• NPS Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource Management

• Executive Order 13423, “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic

Performance”

• See appendix F for detailed list of agreements

Fundamental Resource or Value: Sea turtles

Importance

Cape Lookout National Seashore is used as nesting habitat by four federally listed sea turtles: the loggerhead, green, leatherback, and Kemp’s ridley. One other federally listed sea turtle species, the hawksbill, occupies the surrounding waters.

Condition • Sea turtle species are federally protected

Trends • Nesting numbers are variable

Threats

• Predators

• Storm events

• Illegal and improper use of ORVs

• Pedestrians and certain recreational activities

• Light pollution (habitat disturbance; can affect sea turtle navigation at night)

• Noise pollution causes habitat disturbance

• Marine debris, including petrochemical spills

• Litter from visitor use causes habitat disturbance

• Climate change and the associated inluences (sea level rise, increase in mean annual temperature)

Opportunities • Scientiic research partnerships

Existing information (e.g., data, plans) that provides knowledge base for planning and management

• Interim Protected Species Management Plan (2007)

• Seashore has conducted annual monitoring reports since 1990; seashore has retained other monitoring information dating to the 1970s

Data Needs to Protect and Maintain FRV

• Impacts of off-road vehicle use

• Further document predator interaction with species

Planning Needs to Protect and Maintain FRV

• Predator management plan

• Climate change scenario planning

• Complete off-road vehicle management plan

Management Actions to Protect and Maintain FRV

• Complete off-road vehicle management plan and implement appropriate recommendations regarding sea turtle management

Laws and Policies that Apply to the FRV and the NPS Policy-level

Guidance of the Resource or Value

• Coastal Zone Management Act of 1966

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

• Endangered Species Act of 1973

• NPS Director’s Order 77: Natural Resource Protection

• Executive Order 13423, “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and

Economic Performance”

Fundamental Resource or Value: Scientific study

Importance

The seashore’s wealth and diversity of natural and cultural resources make it a premier location to study coastal adaptation. This assemblage of seashore resources also serves as a natural laboratory to study barrier island dynamics, climate change, and ecological changes over time.

Condition

• Limited funding for scientiic study (other than monitoring coastal bird and turtle nesting)

• Political pressure (e.g., inconsistencies across jurisdictions on research needs, possible political manipulation of research efforts)

Trends

• Funding research projects is an increasing challenge

• Area marketing of tourism is increasing

• Increased needs for partnership development

• Increased need for applied research for real world applications

• Increased accessibility for electronic research information

• See appendix C for historical trends for average annual temperature, precipitation, and sea level rise

Threats

• Inlet dredging (Ocracoke Inlet)

• Maintenance of Morehead City navigation channel

• External threats

· pollution in the estuary

· climate change and the associated inluences (sea level rise, increase in mean annual temperature)

• Seashore development

• Visitor use

• Nonnative species proliferation

• Offshore energy development

• Lack of funding for research projects

Opportunities

• Public interpretation and education opportunities

• Potential for marketing the seashore’s barrier island resources for research purposes

Existing information (e.g., data, plans) that provides knowledge base for planning and mgmt.

• Research permits over time

Data Needs to Protect and Maintain FRV

• Shoreline GIS data (obtain and incorporate from academic scholarly round table)

• Existing data gap analysis

Planning Needs to Protect and Maintain FRV

• Resource stewardship strategy

• Climate change scenario planning

Management Actions to Protect and Maintain FRV

• Appropriate use of research permits

• Information sharing of research

• Centrally organize and protect existing information for future seashore managers

• Build stronger relationship with university research centers and laboratories

• Seek research funding

Laws and Policies that Apply to the FRV and the NPS Policy-level

Guidance of the Resource or Value

• NPS Management Policies 2006 (2.1.2): Decision makers and planners will use the best available scientiic and technical information and scholarly analysis to identify appropriate management actions for protection and use of park resources.

• Executive Order 13423, “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic

Performance”

• National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998

Fundamental Resource or Value:

Recreational opportunities and experiences in a remote setting

Importance

The seashore’s recreational opportunities are regionally signiicant due to the variety and scale afforded by its unique geography and primarily undeveloped character. In addition, multigenerational activities, such as surf ishing, hunting, shelling, and beachcombing celebrate rich cultural traditions.

Condition

• Seashore continues to provide diverse, high quality visitor experiences in a remote setting

Trends

• Visitation numbers have varied over the past 10 years, with an average of 650,000 visitors per year (NPS Public Use Statistics Ofice)

• Number of motorized vehicles is increasing

• Motorized vehicle types are getting larger

• North Carolina ranks 10th in the nation in number of overall boat registrations in

2009 and that number was increasing (National Marine Manufacturers Association

2010 Recreational Boating Statistical Abstract)

Threats

• Litter from visitors and shipping lanes threatens natural qualities

• Cutting trees and wood collection in maritime forest threatens resource sustainability

• Human waste in areas without bathroom facilities (especially areas with high visitor concentrations, such as on the sound-side beach from Whale Creek to the west end of Shackleford Banks)

• Natural sounds intrusion from boat stereos and generators

• Shoaling along channels is dificult to manage and causes access problems

• Ferry operating costs and fares are too high for some visitors, causing a socioeconomic barrier

• Visitor crowding can diminish experience for some user groups

• External development threatens viewshed and night skies qualities

• Storm events threaten recreational infrastructure

• Climate change and the associated inluences (sea level rise, increase in mean annual temperature)

Opportunities

• The seashore is partnering with the Town of Beaufort for a ferry access location

• Partnerships with agencies to establish access points on the mainland (i.e., USFWS;

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Carteret County)

• Reestablishing concessions contracts will help provide consistent levels of service and accessibility

• Expand interpretation and education programs

Existing information (e.g., data, plans) that provides knowledge base for planning and management

• Long-range interpretive plan (June 2011)

• Alternative transportation plans

• Visitor use studies

• Commercial services plan

• See appendix D for detailed list of existing information

Fundamental Resource or Value: Aquatic habitat

Importance

The seashore’s wetlands, tidal marshes, seagrass beds, and freshwater ponds support nursery habitat and form the aquatic base of the barrier island ecosystem. Healthy functionality of each component aids the region’s overall water quality. Combined with the natural beneits the seashore’s aquatic habitat supports, this resource also contributes to unique, resource-compatible recreational opportunities.

Condition • Intact, primarily undeveloped and functioning

Trends

• Healthy and stable overall

• Erosion and accretion is increasing

• See appendix C for historical trends for average annual temperature, precipitation, and sea level rise

Threats

• Point source pollution, including trash from visitor uses, petrochemicals, and debris from shipping activities

• Nonpoint pollution, including septic tank runoff from Down East communities and general wastewater treatment and enforcement issues

• Visitor use impacts, including illegal and improper use of ORVs, boat propeller scarring of seagrass beds, boat wake, and construction and removal of duck blinds

• Noncompliance with NPS prohibition of commercial ishing, including pound nets

• Storm events

• Invasive and nonnative species

• Jurisdictional issues related to commercial ishing

• Climate change and the associated inluences (sea level rise, increase in mean annual temperature)

Opportunities

• General partnership opportunities to protect resources (i.e., federal, state and local agencies, as well as nongovernmental organizations)

• Partnerships for data needs (i.e., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[NOAA])

• Public education and public policy advocacy

• Partner with Cape Hatteras National Seashore for data needs

Existing information (e.g., data, plans) about the FRV that provides knowledge base for planning and management

• Submerged aquatic maps (NOAA)

• North Carolina Marine Fisheries (shellish data)

Data Needs to Protect and Maintain FRV

• General GIS support, including habitat change analysis

• Conirmation of boundary jurisdictions

• Climate change/sea level rise

• Monitor resource condition

• Monitor water quality

Planning Needs to Protect and Maintain FRV

• Resource stewardship strategy

• Climate change scenario planning

Fundamental Resource or Value: Terrestrial habitat

Importance

Similar to aquatic habitat, the seashore’s open beaches, dunes, shrub thickets, and maritime forest stabilize the island’s low proile terrestrial existence and provide the ecological foundation for its unique lora and fauna. The federally listed seabeach amaranth, a coastal plant, is found within the seashore.

Condition • Generally healthy and unaltered, but alterations from visitor use exist

Trends

• Dynamic changes, including erosion and accretion are increasing, especially areas adjacent to navigation channels, such as the west end of Shackleford Banks

• See Appendix C for historical trends for average annual temperature, precipitation, and sea level rise

Threats

• Nonnative species proliferation

• General visitor use impacts

• Illegal and improper use of ORVs

• Maintenance of road system causes localized impacts

• Beach nourishment proposals could potentially cause a range of adverse impacts to lora and fauna

• Human-caused ires have various impacts

• Maintenance of navigation channels can impact dynamic terrestrial processes

• Existing development may continue to have various impacts on terrestrial habitat

• Jetty failure could expose sensitive terrestrial habitat to damage

• Dredging could expose sensitive terrestrial habitat to damage and impact natural processes

• Climate change and the associated inluences (sea level rise, increase in mean annual temperature)

Opportunities

• Beach nourishment can reduce storm damage to terrestrial habitat by creating a “soft,” nonpermanent, and more ecologically sensitive alternative to “hard” structures such as seawalls (Note: Beach nourishment is both an opportunity and a threat)

• Strengthen partnership with NPS Exotic Plant Management Team (EPMT) and collaborate with other resource agencies engaged in exotic species management

Existing information (e.g., data, plans) about the FRV that provides knowledge base for planning and management

• Vegetation map is being updated from 1970s NPS inventory and monitoring (I&M) version

• Shoreline position and aerial photography

• Mapping for road network

Data Needs to Protect and Maintain FRV

• Inventory and monitoring of terrestrial species and composition of terrestrial habitat

• Assessment of habitat functionality and use

• Analysis of habitat change over time due to effects from geologic/coastal changes and human-caused changes

• Inventory and study of nonnative, invasive plants and animals

• Conirmation of boundary jurisdictions

• Climate change/sea level rise

Fundamental Resource or Value: Human connection to the banks

Importance

The human connection to the seashore’s geographic setting provides a link to understanding human’s ability to adapt to a changing coastal environment isolated from the mainland. The human connection to place at the seashore also includes a diversity of multigenerational activities that celebrate rich cultural traditions.

Condition

• Seashore retains a broad continuum regarding perspective to place

• Connection to the banks is ongoing

Trends

• Losing commercial ishing and boat building industries

• Losing youth due to lack of regional job opportunities

• Connection to place being lost as older generations pass on

Threats

• Losing history as structures degrade or are lost (i.e., camps at Shackleford Banks)

• Distortion of stories over time

Opportunities

• Continue working with Core Sound Waterfowl Museum and Heritage Center to preserve the “Down East experience”

• Preserve stories and oral histories

• Public interpretation and education (particularly youth)

• Partner with universities, nongovernmental organizations, regional museums, etc.

• Develop a curriculum-based program to bring children to the seashore

• Advertise merits of scenic byway connections as a means of preserving region’s unique history (i.e., Outer Banks Scenic Byway)

Existing information (e.g., data, plans) that provides knowledge base for planning and management

• Long-Range Interpretive Plan (June 2011)

• Some oral histories

• Various books written about the area’s heritage

• Scope of Collection Statement (2011)

Data Needs to Protect and Maintain FRV

• Complete translation of oral histories

• Ethnohistorical study

• Archival and historical research

• Additional research on Diamond City

• Comprehensive archeological surveys

• Additional research on World War II connection and history (i.e., provide history of spotlights, gun turrets, concrete basin, submarine nets, etc.)

Planning Needs to Protect and Maintain FRV

• Archive collection plan (include scope)

• Update scope of collection statement (as needed)

Management Actions to Protect and Maintain FRV

• Continue working with Core Sound Waterfowl Museum and Heritage Center to preserve the “Down East experience’

• Work with local school system to provide interpretive and educational opportunities

• Enhance interpretative programs to provide more comprehensive history of Diamond

City and seashore’s unique World War II history

• Obtain additional cultural resource staff

• Continue working with local organizations to preserve historical connections

• Provide for resource protection presence

Laws and Policies that Apply to the FRV and the NPS Policy-level

Guidance of the Resource or Value

• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

• Executive Order 13287, “Preserve America 2003”

• NPS Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource Management

• See appendix F for detailed list of agreements

Analysis of Other Important Resources and Values The analysis of other important resources and values identiies its current status, potential threats and opportunities, needed data, planning and management decisions, and relevant laws and NPS policies related to management of the resources.

Other Important Resource or Value: Archeological sites (prehistoric sites, shipwrecks, cemeteries)

Importance

The seashore retains an archeological legacy associated with survival at edge of the sea. Sites include prehistoric occupation sites, cemeteries at Portsmouth Village Historic

District, and sunken ships and cargoes from colonial exploration to losses associated with German submarine attacks during the irst months of World War II.

Condition • All prehistoric sites known to exist at the seashore are located on Shackleford Banks

Trends • Most documented sites are deteriorating

Threats

• Coastal erosion

• Limited funding and stafing to conduct archeological site work

• Storm events

• Visitor use damage—both casual and intentional (i.e., pot hunters)

• Climate change and the associated inluences (sea level rise, increase in mean annual temperature)

Opportunities • Research partnership opportunities

Existing information (e.g., data, plans) that provides knowledge base for planning and management

• Historic structures reports, historic resource studies, and other archeological reports

• State of North Carolina maritime archeological records (i.e., recorded shipwreck sites)

• See appendix D for detailed list

Data Needs to Protect and Maintain OIRV

• Comprehensive archeological surveys

• General archival and historical research

• Sea level rise data

Planning Needs to Protect and Maintain OIRV

• Cemetery management plan

• Archive collections plan

• Archeological overview and assessment

• Climate change scenario planning

Management Actions to Protect and Maintain OIRV

• Develop a historic preservation training program for resource protection/resource management staff

• Develop a monitoring program, which would include training resource protection/ resource management staff of archeological locations

• Provide scheduled monitoring by resource protection/resource management staff

Laws and Policies that Apply to the OIRV and the NPS Policy-level

Guidance of the Resource or Value

• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

• Executive Order 13287, “Preserve America 2003”

• NPS Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource Management

Other Important Resource or Value: Diamond City and whaling industry

Importance

Shackleford Banks was the site of Diamond City, a whaling village on its east end that was one of the most distinctive of the pre-1900s “Down East” Outer Banks communities. Few remnants remain of the settlement; however, its story is exemplary of the region’s early commercial whaling industry and the attempt to sustain commerce at the edge of the sea.

Condition • Some historical and archeological resources are known to exist

Trends • Most documented sites are deteriorating

Threats

• Coastal erosion

• Climate change and the associated inluences (sea level rise, increase in mean annual temperature)

Opportunities • Research partnership opportunities

Existing information (e.g., data, plans) that provides knowledge base for planning and management

• Historic structure reports, historic resource studies, and other archeological reports

• See appendix D for detailed list

Data Needs to Protect and Maintain OIRV

• Archival and historical research for Diamond City

• Archive collections plan

Planning Needs to Protect and Maintain OIRV

• Archive collections plan

• Climate change scenario planning

Management Actions to Protect and Maintain OIRV

• None indicated

Laws and Policies that Apply to the OIRV and the NPS Policy-level Guidance of the Resource or Value

• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

• Executive Order 13287, “Preserve America 2003”

• NPS Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource Management

• Executive Order 13423, “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and

Economic Performance”

Other Important Resource or Value: Seabeach amaranth

Importance

Seabeach amaranth is another sensitive species supported by the seashore’s unique natural ecosystem. This annual plant is typically found in suitable habitat of overwash fans, sand lats, and low dunes. It is a federally protected species and acts as an eficient sand binder capable of creating mini sand dunes. The species often grows in the same areas selected for nesting by shorebirds such as plovers, terns, and skimmers.

Condition

• Seabeach amaranth is federally protected (primarily occurs on Shackleford Banks and the south end of South Core Banks)

Trends

• Variable—stabilization of the plant species depends on dynamic conditions of the barrier island environment

• See appendix C for historical trends for average annual temperature, precipitation, and sea level rise

Threats

• Marine debris, including petrochemical spills

• Visitor use causes habitat disturbance

• Climate change and the associated inluences (sea level rise, increase in mean annual temperature)

Opportunities • Scientiic research partnerships

Existing information (e.g., data, plans) that provides knowledge base for planning and management

• Interim Protected Species Management Plan

• Seashore has conducted comprehensive annual surveys since 1993

Data Needs to Protect and Maintain OIRV

• None indicated

Planning Needs to Protect and Maintain OIRV

• Climate change scenario planning

Management Actions to Protect and Maintain OIRV

• Continue to implement Interim Protected Species Management Plan

Laws and Policies that Apply to the OIRV and the NPS Policy-level

Guidance of the Resource or Value

• Coastal Zone Management Act of 1966

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

• Endangered Species Act of 1973

• NPS Director’s Order 77: Natural Resource Protection

Identification of Key Parkwide Issues All parks face a variety of issues that must be addressed now or through future planning.

An issue is a point or matter that must be decided. A key parkwide or major issue may raise questions regarding park purpose and signiicance, or there may be other questions of importance that, in the judgment of NPS staf, need to be addressed in future planning.

Key parkwide issues exist at Cape Lookout National Seashore and each are addressed in the analysis of FRVs and identiication of planning and data needs. These include 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.

Because each of these issues is addressed elsewhere in this document, a thorough discussion is not needed here.

Prioritization of Planning and Data Needs This section prioritizes the need for future plans and studies or research for Cape

Lookout National Seashore. It provides a comprehensive review and prioritization of plans and data needed to maintain and protect the seashore’s fundamental (and other important) resources and values, as well as address key parkwide and other major issues.

The planning and data needs were ranked below. Based on these criteria, plans and studies were grouped into categories of high, medium, and low priority projects. This information will be used by the seashore, regional oices, and the NPS Washington oice to determine priorities and consider the future funding needs of the park unit.

Planning Needs

Related to an FRV?

Planning Need/Notes Priority

Yes

Strategy for management of the Cape Lookout Lighthouse and associated historic structures

Plan would address a suite of alternatives and include strategies for storm event response, climate change/sea level rise, and shifting shorelines due to erosion and accretion

High #1

Yes

Portsmouth Village master plan

This comprehensive management strategy would prioritize management needs, considering cost, strategies for storm response and climate change/sea level rise;

provide guidance for access and circulation; and discuss funding strategies

High #2

Yes Harkers Island master plan High #3

Yes Great Island and Long Point master plan High #4

Yes Resource stewardship strategy, including climate change scenario planning High #5

Yes Comprehensive sign plan High #6

Yes Nonnative species and predator management plan (combine for eficiency) High #7

Yes Sustainability plan/green plan (carbon footprint, operations, alternative energy, etc.) High #8

Yes Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Report for the Cape

Lookout Lighthouse Medium

Yes Alternative transportation implementation plan serving Long Point, Great Island, and

Portsmouth Medium

Yes Cape Village master plan Medium

Yes Comprehensive management plan (predeined scope akin to general management plan)

Medium

Yes Backcountry management plan Medium

Yes Hunting management plan Medium

Yes Land protection plan Medium

No Operations plan for Les and Sally’s Place Medium

Yes Structure assessment plan (noncontributing/nonhistoric) and future use Medium

Yes Visitor use management plan (include capacity) Medium

Yes Structural ire management plan Medium

Yes Air tour management plan Low

No Archive collection plan (include scope) Low

No Cemetery management plan Low

Data Needs

Related to an FRV?

Data Need/Notes Priority

Yes

Review visitor data collection system and methodology used to generate the igures

Seashore needs more accurate visitation figures, including concentration and frequency for boats, boat registrations, off-road vehicle use, etc.

High #1

Yes Conirm boundary jurisdictions High #2

Yes Historic structure reports for all buildings in Portsmouth Village High #3

Yes Improved energy management data collection and controls (seashore operations) High #4

Yes Historic structure report for Coast Guard station at Cape Village High #5

Yes Visitor use capacity High #6

Yes Elevation change modeling High #7

Yes

Document and catalog historic fabric

Information would include elements such as shutters, building pieces, grave stones, etc., and would include associated collections

High

Yes Further document predator interaction with species (loss of nests to predators) High

Yes Land ownership data High

Yes Update condition assessments in the facility management software system (Portsmouth

Village) High

Yes Viewshed data High

Yes Visitor use experience data/baselines High

Yes

Analysis of landscape change over time

Analysis would include GIS assessment of overwash processes (relative to developed areas such as ramps), habitat, vegetation, shoreline change data (island movement over time), and the seashore’s existing structures impacts on the landscape

Medium

Yes Comprehensive archeological surveys Medium

Yes Ecological impacts (herd carrying capacity) Medium

Yes Existing data gap analysis (scientiic study) Medium

Yes Identify and measure inundation frequency and height (storm events) for the Portsmouth

Village and Cape Lookout Village Historic Districts and other developed nodes Medium

Yes Natural sounds data Medium

Yes Night skies data Medium

Yes Ethnohistorical study Medium

Yes Archeological overview and assessment Medium

No Additional research on Diamond City Low

Yes Archival and historical research Low

Yes Complete translation of oral histories Low

Yes Geologic resources inventory report (synthesis of existing data) Low

Yes Study to assess horse and human interactions Low

Yes New resource condition monitoring (i.e., aquatic and terrestrial habitat at seashore) Low

Yes Revisit structural engineering report for lighthouse Low

Yes Water quality monitoring Low

No Additional research on World War II connection and history (spotlights, gun turrets, concrete basin, submarine nets)

Low

Part 3:

Preparers and Meeting Attendees

This foundation document was developed as a collaborative efort among park staf and regional staf, with the assistance of NPS DSC specialists. A workshop to facilitate this process was held April 17–19, 2012, at Harkers Island, North Carolina.

Preparers Andrew Coburn, Project Manager, NPS Denver Service Center

Steve DeGrush, Natural Resource Specialist, NPS Denver Service Center

Meeting Attendees Mike Baker, Chief of Maintenance, Cape Lookout National Seashore

Jodi Eshleman, Coastal Engineer, NPS Geologic Resources Division

Wouter Ketel, Management Assistant, Cape Lookout National Seashore

Pat Kenney, Superintendent, Cape Lookout National Seashore

Joe Lamm, Park Ranger, Cape Lookout National Seashore

Barry Munyan, Chief Ranger, Cape Lookout National Seashore

Michael Rikard, Chief of Resource Management, Cape Lookout National Seashore

Amy Wirsching, Community Planner, NPS Southeast Regional Oice

APPENDIX A:

ENABLING LEGISLATION,

RELATED FEDERAL LEGISLATION,

REGULATIONS, AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Legislative Background The U.S. Congress authorized Cape Lookout National Seashore on March 10, 1966 (PL

89-366). The legislation stated, 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 enabling legislation deined the seashore to include “the Outer Banks of Carteret

County, North Carolina, between Ocracoke Inlet and Beaufort Inlet, plus adjoining marshlands and waters.” The seashore was to be administered “for the general purposes of public outdoor recreation, including conservation of natural features contributing to public enjoyment.”

Legislative History

Public Law Date Description

HR 89-1278 February 11, House of Representatives report submitted prior to the seashore’s enabling legislation (PL 89-366). Report provided amendments to HR 1784 and recommended establishment of Cape Lookout National Seashore.

Public Law 89-366 March 10, 1966 Enabling legislation for Cape Lookout National Seashore; this enabling legislation deined the national seashore to include the Outer Banks of Carteret County, North Carolina, between Ocracoke Inlet and Beaufort

Inlet, plus adjoining marshlands and waters.

Public Law 93-477 (amended Public Law 89-366)

October 26, Amended Cape Lookout National Seashore boundary.

Included Cape Lookout Lighthouse within the national seashore boundary.

Called for the Secretary of the Interior to report wilderness suitability recommendations in accordance with the Wilderness Act.

Public Law 105-202, (amended Public Law 89-366)

Known as the “Shackleford Banks Wild Horses Protection Act”

July 16, 1998 Allowed a herd of 100 free-roaming horses at Cape Lookout National

Seashore.

Directed the National Park Service to enter into an agreement with the nonproit Foundation for Shackleford Horses (or another qualiied nonproit entity) for the management of wild horses within the Cape Lookout

National Seashore.

Prohibited the National Park Service from removing any horses except for emergencies, or if the number of horses exceeded 110.

Allowed the authorized entity to adopt any of those horses that the

Secretary of the Interior removes from the seashore.

Extended the authority of the National Peace Garden Foundation to establish a commemorative work in honor of the nation’s commitment to peace, consistent with PL 105-202 (extended until June 30, 2002)

Public Law 105-229 (amended Public Law 89-366)

August 13, Purported to make amendments to subsection (b) that were identical to the ones made by PL 105-202 (July 16, 1998); therefore, in order to effectuate the probable intent of Congress, the amendments were not executed.

Public Law 106-355

Known as the “National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act of 2000’’

October 24, Amended Title III of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470w) by adding requirements for historic lighthouses. Requirements included broad inventory, monitoring, and information dissemination objectives.

Detailed requirements discussed terms of conveyance, should they be applicable for historic lighthouses in the future.

Public Law 109-117 (amended Public Law 89-366)

December 1, Allowed for an adjustment in the number of free-roaming horses permitted at Cape Lookout National Seashore. Amendments speciied “not less than 110 free-roaming horses,” with a target population of between 120 and

130 free-roaming horses.

Allowed for removal of free-roaming horses that is carried out as part of a plan to maintain the viability of the herd.

APPENDIX B:

WILDERNESS CHARACTER

Overview of Wilderness Qualities From the pounding ocean surf on the south side of Cape Lookout National Seashore’s southwesternernmost barrier island to the comparatively calm salt marshes in the Back

Sound, the 2,990-acre ribbon of sand between the two zones hosts wilderness qualities unique to the eastern United States. Located two miles from the mainland, the primary wilderness attribute of this salty strip of land called Shackleford Banks is a sense of remoteness not found on neighboring coastal islands outside of the seashore. Those islands, in contrast, are easily accessed, heavily used, and far more developed.

Shackleford Banks includes a variety of landscapes from undulating high dunes to maritime forest. Visitors disperse along the island on foot to ish, beachcomb, swim, picnic, hike, backpack, and camp. Natural processes tend to dominate the wilderness experience here. The ever-present power and dynamism of the ocean is emphasized, for example, by deposits from past storm overwash events.

The National Park Service submitted a wilderness recommendation to Congress in

August 1985 for the Shackleford Banks area; however, no formal designation has been made to date. A 1974 wilderness study conducted for the seashore proposed designating approximately 16% (2,992 acres) as wilderness. In accordance with the Wilderness Act

(PL 88-577) and directed by PL 93-477, the study examined the entire seashore boundary for wilderness suitability. The proposed wilderness includes the entire emergent land area on Shackleford Banks.

Wilderness Character Integration An interagency team has developed a national framework to monitor wilderness character, using four main qualities of wilderness. Each quality is discussed in further detail for the proposed wilderness area:

1. Untrammeled—wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from modern human control or manipulation

2. Natural—wilderness maintains ecological systems that are substantially free from the efects of modern civilization

3. Undeveloped—wilderness retains its primeval character and inluence and is essentially without permanent improvements or modern human occupation

4. Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation—wilderness provides outstanding opportunities for a primitive and unconined type of recreation

Wilderness Quality: Untrammeled

The untrammeled quality of Shackleford Banks within Cape Lookout National Seashore is indicated by sections of sparsely visited beaches and dense pockets of maritime forest on the island’s interior that see very few humans. The more untrammeled areas of the island are located in its eastern half. Visitors to these areas may witness native wildlife, such as the loggerhead sea turtle that comes ashore to nest. They may experience expansive ocean views, where sightings of vessels are less frequent. Here, the seashore thoroughly appears to have been afected primarily by the forces of nature, and the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man. There is virtually no development on Shackleford Banks and vehicles and other mechanized uses are not allowed (with the exception of limited NPS administrative operation of all-terrain vehicles). No formal access is provided to the other parts of the island, which helps Shackleford Banks retain untrammeled qualities.

Threats to untrammeled quality.

The primary actions that degrade the untrammeled quality on Shackleford Banks include high concentrations of visitors that use the island’s beaches for recreation activities.

Visitation is highest during summer weekends. Visitors tend to recreate in the Back Sound areas on the west side of the island, which is a relatively small portion of Shackleford

Banks. Litter, noise, and impacts to vegetation from beach activities remain challenges for seashore management in those areas. Inventory and monitoring actions by NPS staf include the limited operation of all-terrain vehicles stored on the island, which can hinder the untrammeled wilderness quality. Signs and posts have been installed near some bird and turtle monitoring areas, directing visitors to “stay out” of these sensitive sites.

NPS staf is required to manage a wild horse herd on the island as well, which requires administrative use of such vehicles and can further impact the island’s untrammeled quality.

Wilderness Quality: Natural

The community of life within the proposed Shackleford Banks wilderness is part of a complex barrier island ecosystem. Federally protected species, such as the loggerhead sea turtle, nest from late May to early August, and the seashore hosts an amazing diversity of birds along the Atlantic Flyway. American oystercatchers and seabeach amaranth are other sensitive species supported by the seashore’s unique natural ecosystem. The island’s combination of dunes, forest, and marshes is underscored by sparse human visitation to most parts of the island, which retains its overall natural character.

There are no roads or bridges to Shackleford Banks and the island remains a rare haven of diversity and complexity on the North Carolina coast. Natural processes are central to the visitor experience as the natural interplay of winds, waves, tides, and currents continually restructure the island. Indeed, the island’s natural qualities also serve as a natural laboratory to study barrier island dynamics, climate change, and ecological changes over time.