ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION – NO HARD COPY TO FOLLOW
Submitted by email to: el**************@****ga.gov
November 1, 2025
Beth Byrnes
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Coastal Resources Division
One Conservation Way
Brunswick, Georgia 31520
el**************@****ga.gov
Dear Ms. Byrnes:
I am writing on behalf of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks (Coalition), which represents over 4,600 current, former, and retired employees and volunteers of the National Park Service.
Collectively, our membership represents over 50,000 years of national park management and stewardship experience. Our members include former National Park Service directors, deputy directors, regional directors, and park superintendents, as well as a variety of program specialists and field staff. Recognized as the Voices of Experience, the Coalition educates, speaks, and acts for the preservation and protection of the National Park System, and mission-related programs of the National Park Service (NPS). Collectively, our membership has extensive knowledge and experience with the management of the Nation’s national seashores, including with the regulation and management of beach driving and with the issue of access to private property (inholdings) located within seashore boundaries.
We offer the following comments for your consideration on the proposed Foster Family Trust, Beach Driving Access Point, Atlantic Ocean, Cumberland Island, Camden County, Georgia. Based on our initial review of the permit application and applicable federal laws, regulations, and policies, we believe the permit must be denied and will explain the rationale for that in the comments below.
BACKGROUND
As described in the 2014 Foundation Document1https://npshistory.com/publications/foundation-documents/cuis-fd-2014.pdf. See p. 6. for Cumberland Island National Seashore (Seashore or Park), the Park was established on October 23, 1972, when the enabling legislation adopted by Congress was passed and signed into law. Based, in part, on the provisions of the enabling legislation, the purpose statement for the Seashore is:
Cumberland Island National Seashore maintains the primitive, undeveloped character of one of the largest and most ecologically diverse barrier islands on the Atlantic coast, while preserving scenic, scientific, and historical values and providing outstanding opportunities for outdoor recreation and solitude.
Also described in the Foundation Document are the following Fundamental Resources and Values that contribute to the Seashore’s significance as a unit of the National Park System:
Also described in the Foundation Document2Ibid. See p. 9. are the following Fundamental Resources and Values that contribute to the Seashore’s significance as a unit of the National Park System:
- Primitive and undeveloped character. The legislation establishing Cumberland Island National Seashore mandates that, with the exception of areas deemed especially adaptable for recreational uses, the seashore shall be permanently preserved in its primitive state, and no development for the convenience of visitors shall be undertaken that would be incompatible with the preservation of the prevailing unique flora and fauna or the physiographic conditions. In keeping with this directive, development within the national seashore has been minimal since establishment and natural processes have been allowed to dominate.
- Pristine beach (scenic). The pristine beach is of great importance to Cumberland Island as a national seashore and is exceptional because public access to undeveloped, uncrowded, pristine beaches is increasingly rare. There are very few areas in the United States where beaches remain undeveloped; with more than half of the nation’s population living near coastal areas, it is vital to §preserve such a cherished yet vulnerable resource.
- Wilderness. Taking into account both designated and potential wilderness, the Cumberland Island Wilderness encompasses more than half of the island’s land mass and is exceptionally large for a barrier island. Its deep, lush forest and untamed atmosphere offer outstanding opportunities for solitude and inspired recreation. Low visitation helps maintain these qualities.
The proposed action raises two general concerns related to: 1) Beach driving at the Seashore; and 2) Access to private properties within the Seashore. We provide the following background information related to these two concerns for your consideration.
1) Beach driving at the Seashore – Due, in part, to the park purpose stated above that is based on the Seashore’s enabling legislation and due, in part, to protect and conserve the fundamental resources and values described above; the National Park Service (NPS) has never authorized beach driving at the Seashore. Beach driving is considered a form of off-road vehicle (ORV) use under applicable NPS regulations. Specifically, 36 CFR § 4.10(b)3https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-36/chapter-I/part-4/section-4.10 requires units of the National Park System (parks) to promulgate park-specific special regulations to authorize ORV use, to establish related guidelines and restrictions, and to designate routes that are open to such use. Since NPS has never promulgated such a regulation, beach driving is prohibited at Cumberland Island National Seashore.
That said, NPS and its staff have the plenary authority under its enabling legislation and under the NPS Organic Act as amended4https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title54/subtitle1&edition=prelim to conduct park management activities at the Seashore, including activities that require vehicular access by NPS staff or cooperators on the beach. Under 36 CFR §1.65https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-36/chapter-I/part-1/section-1.6 , the NPS has the authority to issue permits6https://www.nps.gov/rlc/permits.htm to authorize research activities at the Seashore, which may include granting vehicular access to the beach by researchers, if appropriate. However, as stated previously, beach driving by the general public or for unofficial purposes, such as for recreational access by property owners, is NOT authorized under applicable federal regulations and is therefore illegal.
2) Access to private properties within the Seashore – The NPS has an obligation to allow reasonable access to private properties (offered referred to as “inholdings”) located within units of the National Park System. NPS Management Policies7https://www.nps.gov/subjects/policy/mp-8-use-of-parks.htm Section 8.8.5 states, in part:
8.6.5 Access to Private Property
The Park Service will allow access to the private property of adjacent landowners and property of landowners within park boundaries, when
• it would contribute in a material way to the park’s mission without causing unacceptable impacts on park resources or values or the purposes for which the park was established; or
• access is the landowner’s right by law or by deed reservation. (Emphasis added)
When one of these circumstances exists, commercial vehicles will be allowed access to private property only in accordance with 36 CFR 5.6, “Commercial Vehicles.”
In other words, the NPS must honor pre-existing rights to access to private property, such as may be established in legislation, a deeded easement, or a right-of-way grant. If no such instrument is pre-existing, then the NPS has the authority under 36 CFR Part 14 Rights-of-Way8https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-36/chapter-I/part-14 to issue permits to authorize vehicular access for property owners across park lands over appropriate designated routes to reach private properties within the park boundary. That said, the NPS does NOT have the authority to allow property owners to drive broadly or for recreational purposes on Seashore beaches, especially if beach driving is unrelated to reasonable, direct access between ferry landing(s) and the private property in question.
COMMENTS
1. The Coalition has reviewed the comments submitted on this matter by the organization Wild Cumberland9https://wildcumberland.org/about-us/ We strongly endorse their comments and with their permission request that the content and substance of their comments be incorporated here by reference. Key points in those comments that we reiterate here include the following:
- Georgia’s Shoreline Protection Act (SPA) recognizes the importance of public access to our coastal resources and generally allows for lateral beach access, meaning the public has the right to walk along the beach. However, vertical access, which is the ability to reach the beach from inland areas, is not specifically guaranteed.
-
Coastal sand dunes, beaches, sandbars, and shoals comprise a vital natural resources system and provide critical habitat for living resources. Our sand-sharing system acts as a buffer to protect real and personal property and natural resources from the damaging effects of floods, winds, tides and erosion. Only activities and alterations in the public interest and which do not substantially impair the values of functions of the sand-sharing system may be authorized by the State of Georgia.
-
The permit application does not demonstrate any public interest value and would substantially impair one of our nation’s largest remaining linear, maturing, intact and ephemeral wetlands.
-
Permitting the applicant’s proposed project would establish a new vehicle crossing on the beach closer to the boundary of a federally-protected Wilderness and inevitably lead to increased vehicle use, as well as increased light and noise pollution, on and adjacent to the barrier island’s 18-mile undeveloped shoreline. Visibility on this beach extends for miles in most conditions and any additional vehicular crossings will degrade both visitor experience and wildlife habitat.
-
The beach in question is also designated as critical habitat for multiple federally-protected species, including loggerhead and Kemp’s Ridley sea turtles. The status of many imperiled nesting species (Willets, Wilson’s Plovers, Least Tern, Killdeer, Gull-billed Tern) remain uncertain, particularly after a resurgence in coyote predation on the island.
-
There is NO NEED to locate an additional beach crossing a mere 0.4 miles from and adjacent to where a crossing already exists. The intentionally-limited crossings on Cumberland Island are routinely (and predictably) flooded. How would the proposed vehicular beach crossing be any less prone to flooding (thereby providing value to the NPS) than the existing (8) beach crossings that are listed in Georgia code? The natural, unimpeded maturation of this ecosystem should establish similar, desirable conditions.
-
The proposed road would be adjacent to, and terminate near, a public campground — where residents’ ongoing personal and commercial use is already documented to diminish the primitive recreational experience valued by public visitors.
The Wild Cumberland comments also raise significant concerns about the appropriateness of the State unilaterally allowing the construction of an additional beach access road for private property owners given that the State and the NPS share concurrent jurisdiction at the Seashore. Key comments include:
- Our state and our federal government maintain shared, or concurrent, jurisdiction on Cumberland Island. This means decisions can be made by the state government as long as the decision is consistent with federal purposes/use (16 U.S.C. Section 459i-6 and OCGA 27-1-11(a)). This explicitly provides that if state law or regulations present a conflict with federal law or interfere with Congressional objectives, then federal law preempts state law (Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution).
- This preemptive authority has been reinforced in litigation repeatedly; see High Point v. NPS, where the 11th Circuit ruled NPS did have the authority to deny a request to construct a dock:
“In establishing the Cumberland Island National Seashore, the Seashore Act placed the marshland within the boundaries of the federal park. It further authorizes the Park Service to administer, protect, and develop the seashore in accordance with the park service’s establishing statutes.”
- This ruling was specific to the marsh (and the authority CRD holds through the Georgia Coastal Marshlands Protection Act (CMPA)); for the relevant permit application, CRD holds authority under the state’s Shore Protection Act (SPA). Due to the concurrent jurisdiction of marsh and shoreline, the case of High Point v NPS remains applicable.
- As recently as 2024, with Horses of Cumberland Island et al. v Deb Haaland et al, (1:23-CV-01592), plaintiffs challenged multiple acts (failure to act) of the National Park Service and the State of Georgia, including the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), in managing the feral horse population of Cumberland Island.
- Attorney General Chris Carr’s office argued repeatedly to federal District Judge Sarah Geraghty that federal regulatory authority supersedes state regulatory authority within National Park Service boundaries:
“The Commissioner [of DNR] holds no authority to manage or regulate activities within the boundaries of the Seashore, even on lands within the Seashore owned by the State. DNR has no jurisdiction to manage land or activities within the boundaries of the Seashore.”
- While the state of Georgia owns tidewaters up to the high water mark, the NPS retains regulatory authority within the boundaries of the National Seashore (36 CFR Section 1.2).
The above comments raise significant questions regarding the State’s authority and appropriateness of DNR affording private property owners such extensive beach driving access at the Seashore when beach driving is otherwise prohibited under federal regulations. For these reasons, we urge the Coastal Resource Division (CRD) to deny the permit application from the Foster Family Trust to construct a new beach access road. The proposed road is neither necessary nor appropriate.
2. The enabling legislation10https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-86/pdf/STATUTE-86-Pg1066.pdf for Cumberland Island National Seashore creates two legal mandates for the management of land within the authorized boundary of the Seashore – Statutory federal law for lands within the authorized boundary of Cumberland Island National Seashore states that, “except for certain portions of the seashore deemed to be especially adaptable for recreational uses, particularly swimming, boating, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, and other recreational activities of similar nature, the seashore shall be permanently preserved in its primitive state, and no development of the project or plan for the convenience of visitors shall be undertaken which would be incompatible with the preservation of the unique flora and fauna or the physiographic conditions now prevailing…”.
This legislation creates two legal mandates for the management of land within the authorized boundary of Cumberland Island National Seashore:
1. With the exception (only) of areas developed for certain recreational uses for visitors, the Seashore “shall be permanently preserved in its primitive state…”.
2. Even in those areas deemed “especially adaptable for recreational uses” for park visitors (the only exception to 1.), nothing can be developed “which would be incompatible with the preservation of the flora and fauna or the physiographic conditions now prevailing…”.
In essence, the proposed new access road would not preserve the area in its primitive state and would not be accessible to park visitors. Accordingly, construction of the road cannot be permitted.
3. We have significant concerns about the State’s management of permits authorizing property owners and their guests at Cumberland Island National Seashore to drive extensively on Seashore beaches when beach driving (i.e., ORV use) is fundamentally prohibited under applicable federal regulations – Federal regulations applicable to beach driving at the Seashore are summarized in the Background section above. We will not restate them here, except to say that beach driving at Cumberland Island National Seashore by the public or for unofficial purposes, such as for recreational or sightseeing purposes by property owners, is PROHIBITED under federal regulations. However, according to a report11https://wildcumberland.org/beach-driving/ by Wild Cumberland, in 2024 “the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has issued over 300 beach driving permits (more than any other beach in the state of Georgia) to island residents and family members. Under the State’s permit, beach driving is allowed along the entire 17-mile beach of Cumberland Island.” Based on Coalition members’ collective experience in regulating and managing beach driving at a number of other national seashores, we can say without qualification that the amount (300 permits) and extent of beach driving access allowed by the DNR at the Cumberland Island (“along the entire beach”) is completely unprecedented for a national seashore and highly inappropriate given the Seashore’s conservation mandate.
At most national seashores where beach driving has been authorized by the NPS in accordance with 36 CFR 4.10(b), the NPS does NOT allow public vehicular access ALONG THE ENTIRE BEACH. There are typically designated beach driving routes that comprise less, often much less, than the entire beach in order to protect sensitive resources, such as beach nesting wildlife; and in order to ensure that park visitors have ample opportunities to experience and enjoy the pristine beaches and sense of solitude and wildness that national seashores were created to preserve. It is bitterly ironic that the State allows more extensive beach driving at Cumberland Island NS, where beach driving is prohibited under federal regulations, than is generally allowed at any other national seashore where beach driving is permitted under federal regulations.
In reviewing the State’s regulations12https://rules.sos.ga.gov/gac/391-2-2 related to beach driving authorizations, we are very concerned about the adequacy of terms and conditions that may be included in beach driving permits issued to property owners and their guests on Cumberland Island. In general, based on the Seashore’s legislative mandate and NPS regulatory requirements for off-road vehicle use, beach driving should be PROHIBITED “along the entire beach” at Cumberland Island National Seashore, except for any limited sections of beach that are essential for providing vehicle access between established ferry landings and private properties within the park boundary.
Moving forward, we urge the Shore Protection Committee, as established by O.C.G.A. 12-5-235, to engage in discussion(s) with the NPS about appropriate terms, conditions, and restrictions to include in beach driving permits at Cumberland Island; and/or to hold a public meeting discussion (or hearing); and/or to open public comment period about this topic.
CLOSING COMMENTS
As described in the comments above, we have a variety of concerns about the proposed beach access road, including that the proposed road is neither necessary nor appropriate. We urge DNR to deny the permit for this unnecessary project.
We also have significant concerns about the amount and extent of beach driving that DNR authorizes property owners and their guests to conduct in a unit of the National Park System where beach driving is otherwise prohibited under applicable federal regulations. We urge DNR, in consultation with the NPS, to conduct a formal review of the terms and conditions included in the permits; and to revise such terms and conditions so as to limit beach driving by property owners and their guests to only sections of the beach necessary to provide reasonable access to/from private property from/to established ferry landings. Allowing such extensive beach driving access by property owners and their guests in a national seashore where beach driving is otherwise illegal is both unprecedented and inappropriate.
In closing, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Philip A. Francis, Jr.
Chair of the Executive Council
Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks