Huguenot Park - Your access today!

[kitester]

Some people may feel that there is a lot of information concerning the issues that surround the park. I hope that they will take the time to read about them. If you use the park or enjoy the beach dont let its access be taken away. Lack of understanding the truth and apathy about the issues are the most potent weapons any special interest group can use to gain control. 

[Dog Walker]

Kite:  I still think there are creative ways to have access to the park without allowing hundreds of cars on the beach at the same time.  I suggest a tram system with a tractor pulling trailers with some of the trailers devoted to equipment, fishing gear, boards, sails, etc.  Access and automobile access are not the same thing so we should not conflate them.

There is a similar system in place at the Itchituknee (sp?) State Park.  If you've never been tubing on the River there you've missed some great fun on a hot day.  (The water is COLD!)  You load your tubes, floats, etc. in a trailer and get into a passenger trailer.  A tractor pulls the whole train a couple of miles up a trail upstream and you float from there back to the landing which is within walking distance of the parking lot.

A similar tram system could circulate continually around Huguenot Park, dropping off and picking up people, kids, dogs and equipment.  No danger to the people on the beach, no danger of getting stuck in the sand or trapped by the tide and no danger to the birds.

[Overstreet]

If the trucks can run over the bird so can the tram.

If you want to turn Huguenot into Ichetucknee you might as well go to Ichetucknee.

If they park at the gate and take the tram you will need to make parking lots the size of the beach in the dunes and marsh to serve the same numbers of people.

[BridgeTroll]

If they park at the gate and take the tram you will need to make parking lots the size of the beach in the dunes and marsh to serve the same numbers of people.

Good point

[north miami]

If they park at the gate and take the tram you will need to make parking lots the size of the beach in the dunes and marsh to serve the same numbers of people.

Good point

I imagine that the parking areas could be placed where a lot of the camp ground is.JYes- we lose some camping areas.The camping facility is not greatly utilized.Seperate the public from their vehicles- even a tiny bit,and expect uproar....and an effective resource mangement tool benefiting both the resource and human recreation experience.

Consider the changes that happened with Anastasia.

I drive Hugenot because it is convenient,and there are many positives with direct vehicle access.But in my heart I know that the best times are at Talbot..........

[BridgeTroll]

I imagine that the parking areas could be placed where a lot of the camp ground is.

A)  Not nearly enough room.  Unless of course you bulldoze the dunes seperating the camping spots.
B)  So now you want to remove beachside camping there also?
C)  You are right about one thing... There ARE many positives associated with direct vehicle access...

[kitester]

I think its great that people are willing to think of other solutions. I like the Tram idea except that to meet the minimum you would need to find over 700 spaces to completely replace parking lost on the beach. Much of the area that we now consider the CWA would have to be turned into parking and migh need boardwalks as well. I have been to Ithcituknee many times and the tram system works great there. Some thing to remember is that there is a lot of paved area for those trams to run on, there is a huge amount of parking and the cost of the tram maintenance and operations might be very expensive. I wonder if anyone has the cost figures for that or knows where to get them?
                                        But we are losing sight of the most important facts.

Here is the truth. There is no need for further changes or protections at the park. All of the concerns have been reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service and they were ready two years ago to sign off on the plan as it was. All of the protections and safety issues have been answered fully. The Audubon lobby and sympathizers on the ARC decided that they know better than all the other agencies or scientists. Their roll in this has been to misguide, misinform, and push for the very narrow minded and unsupportable agenda that beach driving is a threat to the environment everywhere it happens. I think it would be a mistake to open all beaches everywhere to driving. But this one mile of manmade beach is not the critically environmentally sensitive area that they would have you believe it is. The acid test would be to ask what would happen if a big storm or storms submerged and flattened the CWA so that all the nesting areas were washed away? What would be the real cost to those few bird species that have started nesting there in the past eight years or so? Certainly not much if you look at the big picture. Not a single species out there hangs in the balance or is even threatened. Locally what would happen to them if the park ceased to exist? They would do what they did before. They would begin to nest at the next available place which would most likely be the North end of Little Talbot Island and bird Island. I remember when you could drive out there too. Now the walk is so far the only real way to access it is by boat. Huguenot Park should be a done deal. There are simply no other outstanding issues that need to be addressed with the possible exception of the removal of the Naval debris near the jetty. In fact I think dogs could be allowed back into the park except during the Red Knot migrations and nesting season since they are only a threat during those times. You see how easy a solution that would be and how we need not completely disenfranchise  one user group because of a narrow minded agenda? The park is there for everybody and the birds and neither needs to be the loser.                 

[buckethead]

It seems what is needed is an elevated monorail from downtown to Heugenot.

[BridgeTroll]

http://jaxpoliticsonline.com/2009/12/21/beach-access-closure-proposal-catches-local-officials-by-surprise/

Beach Access Closure Proposal Catches Local Officials by Surprise
By Nick Callahan
In a recent letter to the Duval County Legislative Delegation, Scott Shine, a local Political Consultant and sitting member of the Jacksonville Ethics Commission, highlighted recent actions taken by Florida Officials to limit beach access at Huguenot Park. Spurred on by the Duval Audubon Society’s President, Carole Adams, the Florida Division of Lands Acquisition and Restoration Council (ARC) unilaterally acted to close a large section of Huguenot Park’s Beach to vehicular traffic in order to protect several species of birds that are neither endangered nor threatened.

Local leaders successfully lobbied to have the ban temporarily lifted, but ARC’s decision illustrates how slippery a slope conservation efforts can become. Conservation of natural resources is a tremendously important policy issue that cannot become politicized or unduly influenced by one group, no matter how noble the cause may be. When this happens, due process becomes an endangered species and our environment becomes stripped of a precious resource we all cherish.

The recent action of the Florida ARC illustrates how fragile representative democracy can become in the face of lopsidedly zealous debate. Ignoring opposing viewpoints, shirking proper notification protocols and threatening park officials with draconian measures does absolutely nothing to promote the duties the ARC is charged with. If anything, the manner in which they acted, when considering this proposal, erodes their efficacy and standing with reasonable individuals.

Natural resources certainly need to be protected, but not at the cost of due process. The Florida Division of Land and ARC do some very important work, but when duplicitous measures are used to promote their agendas we all suffer. Proposals, such as the Huguenot Park closures, need to be judiciously reviewed before being hastily implemented. Detached reflection is what is expected of a policy making body when faced with difficult decisions; anything less amounts to a toxic mix of politics and passions.

To learn more about the proposed Huguenot Park Closures, read Scott Shine’s letter to the Duval County Legislative Delegation, reprinted in its entirety below:

To: Duval County Legislative Delegation

December 14, 2009

Subject: Beach Access Closure Proposal Catches Local Officials by Surprise.

Vehicle access to Florida Beaches is an area of responsibility delegated by the Florida Legislature to local municipal government (FS 161.58).

On December 10th 2009, the City of Jacksonville (COJ) Parks Management met with the Florida Division of Lands to review changes to the city’s management plan for Huguenot Memorial Park (HMP). The changes were offered by COJ on its own initiative, in an effort to facilitate wildlife and habitat protection at HMP. These actions included closing the emergent inlet shoals at Ft. George Inlet to vehicles and a plan to manage pedestrian activity in the Rufa Red Knot feeding areas along the shoals. Neither of these actions is required by federal or state law â€" Red Knots are not a “listed” species protected as threatened or endangered.

Audubon of Florida has been a member of COJ HMP Advisory Board and Shorebird Management Team for the past two years. Audubon has consistently said they are not for closing beach driving and have presented no such request to the COJ. As is noted in this quote last week from Audubon:

“Duval Audubon Society President Carole Adams said … the group isn't seeking to prohibit vehicle driving at Huguenot beach,” Florida Times Union 12/4/2009

However, on December 10th, the Florida Division of Lands Acquisition and Restoration Council (ARC) were presented with a proposal from Audubon to close approximately half of the beach at HMP managed under a lease from the state. The ARC took up the recommendation in its meeting on the 10th, acted unilaterally, affirmed it, and moved it for a vote of the full ARC on the following day.

While Audubon had been telling COJ officials and parks management that it did not support general beach closure to vehicles prior to the meeting, an email surfaced from Audubon’s Executive Director stating the following while the closure issue was pending in the ARC:

“In a fund-raising e-mail to supporters Friday, Draper [Audubon of Florida Executive Director] wrote he was on his way to hearing joining another staffer “in asking that one of the last refuges for shorebirds in Northeast Florida be closed to beach driving.” Florida Times Union 12/12/2009

In this same article, the leader of a statewide beach access advocacy organization, Florida Open Beaches Foundation expresses alarm. “It was an ambush, pure and simple,” said Robert Taylor, the group’s president.

Continued concern resulted from the fact that the closure proposal was not up for consideration and was not on the ARC agenda. It was not known to, or supported by the COJ Parks Department. No member of the Duval County Legislative Delegation, or the Jacksonville City Council were aware of the pending closure action by the ARC and had little opportunity to react to it. Vehicle access to Florida Beaches is one of the few areas of responsibility delegated by the Florida Legislature to local municipal government regarding beach management. Under Florida Statute 161.58 vehicle access limitations are the jurisdiction of the Jacksonville City Council and, by law, can only be eliminated with a 3/5ths majority vote of the City Council.

Quick actions by local elected officials persuaded the ARC not to act on the beach closure proposal in its full meeting on the Dec. 11th. This gave our leadership approximately one hour to react on the morning of the final meeting. Still, the ARC is withholding final approval of the COJ lease for the third time, now requesting a 100 year environmental impact study. Huguenot Park has existed as a landmass in its current configuration for only about 70 years. The ARC is also requiring the city to produce a “carrying capacity” anticipated to be used as mechanism to place a numerical cap on park access. The plan will be reviewed again by the ARC in one year.

Over 90% of the Florida state land in the upland at HMP’s beach front is designated as a Critical Wildlife Area by FWC and there is no public access of any kind allowed in that area. This Critical Wildlife Area makes up the vast majority of the city’s lease. It is ironic that COJ primarily provides beach access on the sovereign submerge lands areas of the beach (section Xs11 Florida Constitution, FS 161.58), while providing law enforcement and environmental protection to state lands the city and public have no recreational access to. Providing beach access is a mandate for COJ/Duval County under Florida’s Growth Management Act.

The COJ has successfully managed HMP for more than 25 years. Its management plan is supported by many organizations and individuals including the regional biologist for Florida Fish and Wildlife. The COJ has never been cited or deemed to be in volition of any wildlife protection as mandated under the Federal Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or any other law mandating the protection of wildlife at HMP.

Scott Shine
HMP Advisory Board
HMP Shorebird Management Team

[kitester]

Bridgetroll,

Thanks for finding that letter and posting it. It is good to have greater and greater public review. It is important to understand that this one small group of people almost did and still wants to impose their agenda on the rest of us. Not to give the city its lease, to force them to battle over an already properly decided issue is unfair to this community. The letter demonstrates the true intentions of the Audubon and how entrenched their following is. Doesn't it seem like a conflict of interest to allow people to sit on a committee who have  biased agendas regarding the decisions they make? Doesn't it seem like a conflict of interest to for that committee to force the city to pay for a management plan (6 million$$$) that is authored by Audubon sympathizers, reviewed by Audubon sympathizers and ultimately manipulated by Audubon members?

[Shine]

Damn good letter, IMO.

;-)

[kitester]

To all those who have been following this thread,

At this time there is a small flock, about 50, Red Knots feeding at the park. The city is proceeding with its plans to place posts across the point from into the surf zone on the Atlantic side to into the water on the inlet side as per the management plan. When installed the point will be completely closed to automotive traffic during low tides while these birds are in the park. When the birds migrate out of the park driving access to the point will be restored during all tide levels. Driving/parking lanes will be provided for behind the line of posts. At higher tide levels the shoals are flooded and the birds move off the point. Driving on the shoals at high tide is also impossible. During this time the driving/parking lanes will be open and accessible above the mean high tide line. This will allow fishermen or people with small boats and PWC's access to the deep water, non surf launch areas on the north point during parts of the day from the Atlantic side and as tides permit on the pond side of the park.   
Signs will be mounted on the posts instructing drivers not to drive beyond that line. In other words from that time forward there will be no driving on the shoals allowed. To begin with the city will place the posts about 100 feet apart for most of that distance. This is an attempt to lessen the eyesore, danger and maintenance  associated with of a string of posts. People should make every effort to stay behind that line. Drivers that want to use the excuse that that they did not see the signs or posts (they will be brightly colored) can be cited and or removed from the park. Additionally if there are a significant number of violations more posts will be installed to shorten the distance between posts to 50 feet. Please remember that these restrictions are a compromise the city has worked hard for. The Audubon wanted to and was almost successful in achieving full time year round closure of more than 50% of the park which included the all of the north point and most of the pond area to automotive and pedestrian traffic. As it stands people may still walk out on the shoals at any time of the year. Audubon member volunteers will be in place to educate people about Red Knots and encourage them to maintain a reasonable distance from them if they choose walk on the shoals.   Please help the park maintain as much access as possible by abiding by these new restrictions.

Later in the year when the fledgling birds begin to emerge from the dunes certain areas may be closed as needed. Further posts on this subject will  follow new information.       
     

[Dog Walker]

Kite,  Thanks for the information.  Good that there are volunteers there to help people understand the restrictions and the reason for them.  Honey vs. vinegar is always better.

[kitester]

Well here is the official position of the Sierra Club straight from the spokesperson.

"Because the areas of Talbot Island State Park and the Timuquan Preserve are so lovely we support the closure of Huguenot Memorial Park.  We want to close the entire park to all vehicular traffic in all areas of the park". We want the city to consider the possibility of complete vehicle restrictions because we want the area to be a world class natural area. 

That position has been denied by both the Audubon and the Sierra Club from the beginning. But time after time they push for increased restrictions that disenfranchise the Jacksonville community and threaten the last truly remaining access to areas along the St. Johns River, Ft. George River and the Atlantic coastal beaches within any reasonable driving distance. They are pushing for this so that the permanent lesser closure of the North Point will seem like a workable compromise. The question is why?  When asked why they wanted the seasonal closures to become permanent and year round  the response was "Well since you close it for the fledgling birds for a large part of the high use popular months why not just make full time and permanent? Only a relatively few users will have to give up the access."

That is how the Audubon  and the Sierra Club view the park and your access. Those relative few. Fishermen, jet skiers, wind/kiteboarders, surfers and the handicapped.       

There is no reason for these extended closures. No additional bird protections are necessary. No endangered or even remotely threaten species are at risk by any human activity at the park. Unless of course you include the controlled burn pushed for by Audubon and administered by the FWC. What a poorly thought out plan that was. 

Here is the acid test.....If the park disappeared  into the sea tomorrow what species would truly be affected? The answer is us! Every bird species in the park would simply move a few miles north or a few miles south. Don't believe it? Why do you think the birds are there in the first place? Bird Island and the shoals on the north end of Talbot Island in Nassau Sound, 4.5 miles north, were washed over two years straight by storm water and rough seas. What did the birds begin to do? Look for other places to nest. That happened about 8 years ago and that is when the colony began to develop at the park. Since then they have been in the habit of returning to the park to nest. But look at google satellite images of Bird Island and the north tip of Talbot Island now. There is much more suitable nesting area there.

Its time to ask your selves when will we speak up and stand up for the park? When will it be too late? Anyone who has an interest in continued access to Huguenot Park  needs to contact the city councilmen and ask them to take a stand. If you wait till they close parts of the park permanently the rest will be close behind. So unless you are a bird watcher who doesn't mind a two mile walk you better send those e-mails and demand public herrings. For those who say we already had public hearings you need to know that those were not for the changes about to be sneaked by from a narrow minded special interest group.           

[BridgeTroll]

This is how it works... the slippery slope in full display.  They want to close the beach to vehicles permanently... so they get a consession for temporary closure... a compromise... then turn around and and try to close it permanently anyway.

This is precisely the reason gun owners and backers of firearms rights refuse to give in to "gun control".  It is not gun control... it is simply the first step to banning them.

Our current healthcare reform bill is simply the first step to total control of health services.

Audubon of Florida has been a member of COJ HMP Advisory Board and Shorebird Management Team for the past two years. Audubon has consistently said they are not for closing beach driving and have presented no such request to the COJ. As is noted in this quote last week from Audubon:

“Duval Audubon Society President Carole Adams said … the group isn't seeking to prohibit vehicle driving at Huguenot beach,” Florida Times Union 12/4/2009
However, on December 10th, the Florida Division of Lands Acquisition and Restoration Council (ARC) were presented with a proposal from Audubon to close approximately half of the beach at HMP managed under a lease from the state. The ARC took up the recommendation in its meeting on the 10th, acted unilaterally, affirmed it, and moved it for a vote of the full ARC on the following day.

While Audubon had been telling COJ officials and parks management that it did not support general beach closure to vehicles prior to the meeting, an email surfaced from Audubon’s Executive Director stating the following while the closure issue was pending in the ARC:

“In a fund-raising e-mail to supporters Friday, Draper [Audubon of Florida Executive Director] wrote he was on his way to hearing joining another staffer “in asking that one of the last refuges for shorebirds in Northeast Florida be closed to beach driving.” Florida Times Union 12/12/2009

In this same article, the leader of a statewide beach access advocacy organization, Florida Open Beaches Foundation expresses alarm. “It was an ambush, pure and simple,” said Robert Taylor, the group’s president.

The Auduban Society are apparently liars...