Beach relocation part of final Assateague management plan

An abbreviated version of the final general management plan for Assateague Island National Seashore has been posted on the National Park Service website.

It can be viewed at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?documentID=82260.

The plan will guide national seashore managers for the next 15 to 20 years, according to Deborah Darden, Assateague Island National Seashore superintendent.

The plan "sets the stage for managers to respond to island changes likely to occur due to natural processes, climate change and sea level rise,” Darden said in a statement on the National Park Service website.

Among the plan's elements is the relocation of the recreational beach on Assateague in Virginia about 1½ miles north of the existing beach area to a more stable part of the barrier island.

Chincoteague Town Manager Jim West told the Chincoteague Town Council at the council's September meeting some of the language in the final plan was altered as the result of comments the National Park Service received about a draft version — he called the changes "somewhat encouraging."

The draft plan was available for public review for 90 days in early 2016.

The park service received 268 pieces of correspondence about the plan, according to a letter from Darden included with the document.

In the final iteration, the preferred management alternative for Assateague — number three out of four options originally identified by the park service — remains the one that represents "a long-term shifting of seashore facilities and assets to adapt to climate change," the document states.

Public input "confirmed our belief that alternative 3 is the preferred alternative and that the management actions it proposes will best guide long-term stewardship" of the national seashore, Darden said in the letter.

Alternative 3, as explained in the plan, is:

"Over time, visitor use infrastructure would evolve to more sustainable designs and likely shift to more stable locations both on and off the island. Most recreational uses and activities would continue while new, water-based points of access would provide access to additional low-density visitor use in the seashore’s backcountry. Natural processes and the effects of climate change/sea-level rise would be the primary forces influencing the condition and evolution of natural resources."

Impact on horseshoe crabs

The abbreviated final plan includes an analysis of comments the agency received.

Eighty-nine commenters identified a preference among the four management alternatives. Of those, about 83 percent preferred alternative 3. About 10 percent preferred the first alternative — which was that the park service would continue to manage resources and visitor uses as it does today.

Assateague beach site moving north to avoid storm damage

RELATED    Feds seek public comment on Assateague beach design

Among topics sparking multiple comments were the economic effects the plan might have on the horseshoe crab industry and aquaculture.

Letters from commenters are included in an appendix to the document.

The draft document said the horseshoe crab harvest should not be allowed within the national seashore's jurisdiction because the creatures are classified as arachnids, not crustaceans, and therefore are wildlife.

The taking of wildlife in national parks is not permitted.

Virginia officials questioned the reason for the ban.

"There is no demonstrable fisheries management reason to institute a ban on the harvest of horseshoe crabs within a half-mile of mean low water in the Assateague Island area," a comment from the Virginia Marine Resources Commission read in part.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates the annual value of the horseshoe crab harvest at about $55,000, according to the plan, but a comment from Accomack County suggested the value could be higher.

In response, the National Park Service said it "proposes to consult with the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of Maryland to develop a process to gradually reduce and eliminate horseshoe crab harvesting over a reasonable period of time."

That process also will consider "broader issues related to horseshoe crab fishery management in Delaware Bay, including the additional pressure on the horseshoe crab stock in other areas" that could result from a ban on the harvest off Assateague.

It also will consider whether a ban would include taking horseshoe crabs for bleeding and then returning them to the water. Horseshoe crab blood is used for medical applications.

Strong economic drivers

The Chincoteague Chamber of Commerce said, in a letter from Executive Director Evelyn Shotwell, that as a representative of the business community the Chamber has the obligation to ask the National Park Service "to consider the impact this document will have on the people of Chincoteague and their way of life."

"You simply cannot take away a person's means of making a living," the letter stated, adding that aquaculture, horseshoe crab harvesting and finfishing "all are strong economic drivers in this area."

The VMRC said "the prohibition of aquaculture around Assateague Island National Seashore would adversely affect the livelihood of over 50 local watermen, remove millions of dollars from the local economy ... and displace a significant historical community and way of life."

The agency noted the dockside value of aquaculture oysters and clams harvested from leases within National Park Service boundaries between 2007 and 2015 totaled more than $2.2 million — $1.7 million from hard clams and about $518,000 from oysters.

"I am opposed to the NPS setting any type of controls on harvesting and aquaculture activities that occur within the water column you claim ownership of," said Thomas Clark, owner of Toms Cove Aquafarms.

"What a shame it is that the government has — or thinks it has — the right to just take from the public. Oyster and clamming have been done in Toms Cove for well over 150 years," he said.

In response, the park service said it is not proposing to prohibit aquaculture in the waters around the Virginia portion of Assateague, but instead would issue a special-use permit to the VMRC "to allow for the continued practice of commercial aquaculture and maintenance of the historic setting."

The Virginia Marine Resources Commission would issue commercial aquaculture leases and continue to have oversight over aquaculture in the area, and would be responsible for managing the leases and ensuring that commercial aquaculture within the national seashore's waters is consistent with the special-use permit, the response said.

RELATED: Assateague Island Surf Shop in Berlin to add beer and wine

A letter from former Accomack County Administrator Steve Miner, written on behalf of the county, called the park service's claim it has jurisdiction over aquaculture in the waters off Assateague "an improper overreach" and a misinterpretation of a regulation governing agricultural activities in national parks.

Other comments — from the Commonwealth of Virginia, the town of Chincoteague, the Chincoteague Chamber of Commerce and individuals — addressed the plan's potential effect on Chincoteaguers' traditional way of life — including the possible removal of oyster watch houses and duck blinds that have been handed down from generation to generation.

"We ask that language in the GMP should state 'no action will be taken relative to watch houses and duck blinds' due to their historical and cultural significance," a comment from the Chincoteague Chamber of Commerce read in part.

"These structures are not and should not be the subject of federal regulation," Miner said in his letter, adding, "They are allowed under local and state oversight and the Service has stated no legitimate basis for its assertion of authority over them."

The National Park Service in response to those concerns said it will "initiate an assessment of the structures to determine their legal status and the authority for their presence." Only unauthorized structures would be removed, according to the agency.

Additionally, the park service will conduct an ethnographic study "to document the traditional use of these structures" and develop interpretive programming about them.

The north end

In Maryland, Worcester County and the town of Ocean City said a sub-zone is needed for the northern six miles of Assateague for the North End Restoration Project.

"Sand nourishment at the north end of Assateague Island helps to maintain a healthy beach and dune system, provide materials to fill areas that may be subject to breaching, and support the supply of sand material for the active recreational beach areas on this section of the island," a comment from Worcester County read in part.

The county asked that work needed to continue the sand nourishment project be specifically referenced as being permitted in the Natural Resource Zone.

The park service in its response said the agency believes statements already in the plan "are clear with respect to the intent to continue to implement the North End Restoration Project and that a separate sub-zone is not needed."

Still, the final plan was changed to note that "the impacts of the Ocean City Inlet would continue to be mitigated by the North End Restoration Project" as long as the National Park Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers agree that the actions meet project objectives and as long as there is funding.

After a 30-day no-action period following the release of the plan, the National Park Service will document the selected management alternative in an official record of decision, Darden said.

On Twitter @cvvaughnESN

443-260-3314