PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 180.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Sep 10, 2013
Preserving Public Access to Cape Hatteras Beaches Act - Directs the Secretary of the Interior to review and modify wildlife buffers in the Cape Haterras National Seashore Recreational Area in North Carolina.
Requires the Secretary, in modifying such wildlife buffers, to: (1) ensure that they are of the shortest duration and cover the smallest area necessary to protect a species, and (2) designate pedestrian and vehicle corridors around areas of the National Seashore closed because of wildlife buffers to allow access to areas that are open.
Requires the Secretary to determine appropriate buffer protections for species that are not listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, but that are identified for protection under state law.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Instructs the Secretary to undertake a public process to consider the following changes to the final rule: (1) opening beaches at the National Seashore that are closed to night driving restrictions, (2) extending seasonal off-road vehicle routes for additional periods in the Fall and Spring if off-road vehicle use would not create resource management problems at the National Seashore, and (3) modifying the size and location of vehicle-free areas.
Requires the Secretary to construct new vehicle access points and roads at the National Seashore: (1) as expeditiously as practicable, and (2) in accordance with applicable management plans for the National Seashore.
People & committees
Sen. Burr, Richard [R-NC] · R–NC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 180.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Wyden with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 113-102.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Wyden with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 113-102.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 113-27.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.486 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.486 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.486 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.486 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.