Melissa Trenchik
Superintendent
Cumberland Island National Seashore
National Park Service
101 Wheeler Street
St. Marys, GA 31558
October 15, 2026
RE: Comments on the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Voluntary Land Exchanges at Cumberland Island National Seashore (PEPC Project No. 124458)
Dear Superintendent Trenchik,
Defenders of Wildlife respectfully submits these comments on the National Park Service’s Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Proposed Voluntary Land Exchanges at Cumberland Island National Seashore (PEPC Project. No. 124458). For the reasons set forth below, the exchanges are unwarranted and inconsistent with the law. NPS should instead consider development and other interrelated management activities through a revision of the 1984 General Management Plan for Cumberland Island.
The proposed exchanges would violate numerous bedrock conservation laws, including the NPS Organic Act and Cumberland Island Seashore Act
The Cumberland Island Seashore Act granted the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the National Park Service, the authority to acquire lands through exchange on Cumberland Island.1 In 1984, Congress amended the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which authorized NPS to use land exchanges more broadly. That language was then organized under a single title in 2014, alongside other mandates governing the management of the National Park System.
The language specific to land exchanges now states that
“[t]he Secretary may accept title to any non-Federal property or interest in property within a System unit or related area under the Secretary’s administration in exchange for any Federally-owned property or interest under the Secretary’s jurisdiction that the Secretary determines is suitable for exchange or other disposal and that is located in the same State as the non-Federal property to be acquired.”2
It also requires that the “values of the properties exchanged be approximately equal; or if they are not approximately equal, shall be equalized by the payment of cash to the grantor from funds appropriated for the acquisition of land for the area, or to the Secretary, as the circumstances require.”3
Finally, Director’s Order #25 states that
“[t]he proposed exchange should benefit the NPS unit, and the Federal lands to be exchanged must be deemed suitable for disposal or exchange. No exchange should be considered where there is no demonstrable benefit to the United States. Proposals for exchanges valued in excess of $500,000 must be submitted to the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, for a 30-day review.” 4
These requirements are embedded within two remarkably strong laws—the Cumberland Island Seashore Act and the general title of NPS authorities—and serve as a means of carrying out the conservation ends of both statutes.
As a threshold matter, the draft EA fails to acknowledge much less grapple with Cumberland Island’s rigorous statutory mandates. Instead, NPS relies on the threat of future, unnamed development—presumably homebuilding—to greenlight on an even greater scale the very homebuilding the exchanges are purportedly trying to prevent, making certain an otherwise speculative fear.
This illogical rationale misinterprets the spirit and letter of the law. Moreover, it transcends Cumberland Island by potentially creating a precedent that could affect the whole of the National Park System.
A. NPS has not satisfied the threshold requirement for a land exchange
The Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive “[p]ower to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States[.]”5 “Since the Constitution places the authority to dispose of public lands exclusively in Congress, the executive’s power to convey any interest in these lands must be traced to Congressional delegation of its authority.”6 Congress’s complete power over public lands authorizes it to “constitutionally limit the disposition of the public domain to a manner consistent with its views of public policy.”7
Axiomatically, federal agencies “possess only the authority that Congress has provided.”8 Where Congress has delegated land disposal authority to a federal land management agency, the Executive must abide by such statutory processes and limitations as Congress has seen fit to impose.9 Here the Secretary’s exchange discretion is limited to where he makes a finding that the parcels are “suitable for exchange.”10
NPS has failed to satisfy this perquisite.11 Indeed, NPS cannot find that these lands are suitable for exchange because such a finding is unsupported by the record.
1. The mere threat of building elsewhere does not make public land “suitable for exchange”
The lands proposed for exchange have been managed by NPS for decades, are not threatened by development, and cannot be rendered “suitable for exchange” based on unnamed future uses occurring elsewhere on private lands. Were this the case, any land on Cumberland Island, no matter its recreational or ecological importance, could be traded to address any number of equally theoretical or abstract “threats.”
This is an incorrect application of the law.
NPS must instead analyze the qualities of the parcels at issue, their relationship to management goals, applicable laws, and determine whether those lands, standing alone, qualify for transfer out of Cumberland Island.
2. The conservation value of the proposed federal parcels makes them unsuited for exchange
The EA does not demonstrate that the federal parcels proposed for divestment are suitable for exchange in light of their existing conservation value. Together, NPS proposes to transfer approximately 80 acres of federal land into private ownership.12 Both parcels are presently protected from private residential development by virtue of their federal ownership. The proposed exchanges could change that condition by transferring these lands to private ownership and authorizing residential development within designated portions of each parcel.
The federal parcels contain maritime forests and other native vegetative communities, including maritime hammock, wetlands, and sweetbay swamp forest.13 These native habitats are not confined to the portions of the parcels that would be managed under the proposed conservation easements. They also occur within the areas NPS would make available for residential development.
For example, the four-acre potential building area in Exchange 1b contains approximately 2.9 acres of maritime hammock.14 The 12-acre potential building area in Exchange 2b contains approximately 9.3 acres of maritime hammock and 1.1 acres of sweetbay swamp forest.15 Exchange 2b also contains freshwater wetlands, including 3.4 acres within the potential building area itself.16
These are the same types of intact habitats that NPS identifies elsewhere in the EA as important to Cumberland Island’s wildlife and ecology.17 In fact, NPS acknowledges that development of such lands could remove vegetation, fragment habitat, and cause short and long-term disturbance through artificial lighting, noise, and increased human activity.18
Rather than explain why the federal lands associated with these resource values (and potential losses) are “suitable for exchange,” NPS discounts their loss relying on the affected acreage relative to the size of Cumberland Island as a whole.19 However, an island- wide abundance of similar habitat does not establish that these parcels are suitable for exchange. The statutory threshold is “suitability,” not a percentage of habitat loss.
This flaw is compounded by NPS’s inconsistent treatment of development risk. NPS relies on the threat of habitat loss as a central justification to support the exchanges.20 Yet when the exchange would authorize development, NPS discounts those impacts as limited at the “island scale.”21 NPS cannot treat development as a conservation threat when it supports acquisition, but as insignificant when evaluating federal land disposal.
That reasoning, and the aforementioned facts, therefore, cannot support a rational finding that the federal parcels are “suitable for exchange.” At most, NPS has explained why it wants to acquire the parcels, but not why the federal parcels (with their associated habitat values) are suitable for exchange. Allowing the benefits of acquisition to substitute for that determination would render the suitability requirement largely meaningless.
B. The proposed exchanges would undermine the conservation purposes of the Cumberland Island Seashore Act and NPS Organic Act
According to the NPS Organic Act, NPS must
“promote and regulate the use of the National Park System by means and measures that conform to the fundamental purpose of the System units, which purpose is to conserve the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife in the System units and to provide for the enjoyment of the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”22
The Cumberland Island Seashore Act imposes an even stronger layered conservation mandate, dictating that “the seashore shall be permanently preserved in its primitive state,” and that “no development [. . .] 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.”23
It is within this conservation context that NPS may use land exchanges on Cumberland Island. For an exchange to pass legal muster, NPS must therefore demonstrate that it would further the purposes of the Cumberland Island Seashore Act and the NPS Organic Act (in addition to suitability, equal value requirements, and NPS policies).
1. Wildlife and Habitat
The proposed exchanges would not eliminate the wildlife and habitat impacts associated with private residential development. Instead, they would relocate those impacts to federal lands within the Seashore. In concluding that this tradeoff would benefit wildlife and habitat, NPS applies inconsistent assumptions to substantially similar development impacts and fails to demonstrate that the impacts it seeks to avoid would be greater than those the exchanges would enable.
The proposed land exchanges would authorize up to eight new residences on approximately 16 acres of federal land, with building footprints of up to 15,000 square feet per residence, together with ancillary structures, roads, driveways, septic systems, wells, and utilities.24 Much of the potential building area is in existing wildlife habitat.25
a. NPS applies inconsistent assumptions about private development when weighing the benefits and harms of the exchanges
NPS acknowledges that development of the federal parcels would introduce many of the same stressors it identifies on the private parcels, including vegetation removal, artificial lighting, increased noise, and regular human presence. These stressors could cause habitat avoidance, wildlife disturbance, and reduced habitat suitability for a variety of species. Yet, NPS characterizes wildlife impacts from development of the conveyed federal parcels as “short term” and “minor.”26 By contrast, NPS characterizes substantially similar effects from potential development of the parcels it seeks to acquire as “long term” to “permanent.”27
b. NPS fails to demonstrate that the development impacts it seeks to avoid would be greater than those the exchanges would enable
In the EA, NPS relies heavily on the threat of future development to establish the conservation benefit of the exchanges, but it never demonstrates that the development under the no action alternative would be more harmful than the development that the exchanges would enable. Under the no action alternative, NPS acknowledges that current zoning prohibits new residential structures on the private parcels, and development would require variances, rezoning, permits, or other regulatory approvals.28 Nevertheless, NPS relies on the possibility of future development, and the resulting habitat fragmentation and other speculative resource impacts, to justify exchanging those lands.
This justification is further undermined by existing restrictive covenants on the privately owned parcels associated with both exchanges. Under Georgia’s bona fide agricultural current-use assessment program, the McFadden and Foster properties are subject to conservation-related use restrictions through December 31, 2034, with financial penalties for violations (See Exhibits 1 and 2). Yet, the EA fails to acknowledge these existing restrictions or evaluate how they affect the likelihood of future residential development under the no-action alternative. This omission further calls into question NPS’s reliance on speculative development threats to justify the exchanges.
What is more, the baseline for the federal parcels is fundamentally different. Without the exchanges, those lands would remain in federal ownership and continue to be managed under Seashore policies and plans. In fact, NPS even concludes that under no action there would be “no impacts on vegetation” on the federal parcels proposed for conveyance.29
The exchanges would change that baseline by opening approximately 16 acres of those lands to potential residential development, including the associated loss and disturbance of existing wildlife habitat. NPS never demonstrates that avoiding speculative development of the private parcels justifies introducing these development risks to federal lands that currently face none.
c. The proposed exchanges could facilitate development beyond the parcels at issue
The EA fails to consider how the proposed land exchanges could facilitate additional development elsewhere on Cumberland Island. Rezoning these lands from conservation would increase permissible development intensity and could establish a precedent for similarly situated landowners to see comparable development rights.
Camden County’s Unified Development Code expressly recognizes the potential for individual rezoning decisions to establish precedents for broader land use changes. In fact, Section 1213 directs the County to consider whether a proposed rezoning would extend development rights denied to similarly situated landowners, encourage additional rezoning requests, create a “domino effect” leading to future growth beyond the original proposal, or affect surrounding property values.30
Although the exchanges would not themselves authorize development, subsequent rezoning or other development approvals could establish a precedent that similarly situated landowners could invoke to seek comparable rights. This could increase development pressure on the island and would also enhance property values – making future conservation acquisitions more costly if not financially prohibitive for NPS.
These consequences are particularly significant given NPS’s reliance on the threat of future private development to justify the exchanges. NPS cannot reasonably evaluate the benefits without also examining whether transferring federal lands could facilitate additional development and undermine future conservation opportunities. The EA should address these indirect and cumulative effects.
d. NPS’s resource analysis does not establish that the exchanges would further conservation of the Seashore’s natural resources
What is more, the EA does not establish that relocating development would better protect the Seashore’s natural resources. Instead, NPS repeatedly relies on acreage and “island scale” comparisons that obscure the specific resource impacts that would be vulnerable to development.
For example, in Exchange 2b, NPS notes that approximately 5.42 acres of wetlands would enter federal ownership while approximately 5.39 acres would leave it.31 But, 3.4 acres of freshwater forested/shrub wetlands on the federal parcel fall within the potential building area and would become subject to potential development.32 Also, no formal wetland delineation has been completed as part of this analysis and so the EA does not appropriately establish that the wetlands acquired and conveyed are comparable in type, function, condition, hydrologic connectivity or ecological value. Treating wetlands as interchangeable in this way is not only analytically deficient, it also does not demonstrate that the exchange would further conservation of the Seashore’s wetland resources.
The same problem is found throughout the EA. For example, NPS acknowledges that development within the potential building areas could remove approximately 12.2 acres of maritime hammock and 1.1 acres of sweetbay swamp forest, but discounts those losses because they would not substantially reduce habitat at the island scale.”33 That analysis does not address the condition, location, ecological function, or connectivity value of the habitat that would be lost.
NPS applies the same reasoning to wildlife impacts, emphasizing the absence of population-level effects or measurable reductions in habitat availability at the island scale.34 But island wide abundance does not establish that the habitat proposed for development lacks conservation value. The EA does not meaningfully evaluate the value of the habitat that would be lost before concluding that those losses would be minor.
The EA also applies inconsistent reasoning to sea turtle impacts. When evaluating potential development under the no action alternative, NPS recognizes that artificial lighting from residential development may affect sea turtles even when the development itself does not occur on nesting habitat.35 Yet, for the conveyed federal parcels, NPS dismisses effects to sea turtles because those parcels are on the marsh side and do not contain nesting beach habitat.36 The EA does not reconcile those two approaches to indirect lighting effects.
NPS takes a similarly speculative approach to floodplain impacts, discounting the likelihood of development in flood prone portions of the conveyed lands based in part on insurance considerations and financial risk to landowners rather than restrictions contained in the actual exchange agreement conditions itself.37 Again, these generalized assumptions do not demonstrate that transferring federally managed habitat to private ownership for development would advance the statutorily required conservation purposes of the Seashore.
e. The EA fails to account for wildlife impacts from residential access and beach driving The impacts of the proposed development would not be confined to the potential building areas. In fact, the EA recognizes that residential development on Cumberland Island generates vehicle use and that this activity can adversely affect wildlife and other Seashore resources.38 In evaluating potential development of the private parcels under the no action alternative, NPS identifies “vehicle trips” as one of the recurring adverse effects of residential use.39 The wildlife analysis similarly identifies vehicle use, together with routine human presence, lighting, and noise, as a source of chronic disturbance to wildlife. NPS even identifies avoiding increased motor vehicle use as a benefit of acquiring the private parcels.40
Yet, NPS does not apply the same analysis to the residential development that the exchanges would enable. The federal parcels already have road access and the proposed development areas would allow access roads and the connection for up to eight new residences to Old House Road. Those residences would generate recurring vehicle activity beyond the potential building areas, but the EA does not meaningfully evaluate the extent of these impacts on wildlife or natural resources.
The EA also fails to consider whether construction of up to eight new residences would increase boat and barge traffic in Cumberland Sound. Transporting construction materials, equipment, and workers to the island could increase vessel activity and associated disturbance to marine wildlife. Yet, the EA does not evaluate these potential impacts or explain why they were excluded from its analysis.
The EA also does not address whether development of the conveyed parcels could result in additional beach driving. Beach driving extends the effects of residential development beyond the conveyed parcels and into sensitive shoreline habitat. Yet, the EA does not evaluate whether the exchanges could increase frequency or intensity of beach driving nor does it evaluate its impacts on wildlife and habitat. As a result, NPS does not fully account for the full impacts of the residential development the exchanges would enable.
2. NPS fails to account for full the full scope and intensity of the residential development it would enable a. The EA does not address potential short term rental use
The EA also does not address whether the residences authorized by the exchanges could be rented or otherwise used for short-term lodging. The exchange agreements characterize the permitted use as “limited, non-commercial” single-family residential use, but do not expressly prohibit rentals or short-term rentals. This question is particularly relevant on Cumberland Island where short-term rentals already exist in connection with the Foster family’s retained rights agreement as “non-commercial” property uses.
The EA does not explain whether the restrictions proposed for the conveyed federal lands would foreclose similar short term rental use. If they would not, short term occupancy could generate a different pattern and intensity of use than currently contemplated in the EA, including greater turnover, more vehicle trips, and higher recreational use of the Seashore. NPS should clarify whether short term rentals would be prohibited and, if not, should evaluate the resulting visitor use and resource impacts.
b. The EA does not consider the exchanges in conjunction with the Visitor Use Management Plan
The EA evaluates the proposed land exchanges in isolation from other changes in use of the Seashore. NPS recently finalized a new Visitor Use Management Plan (VUMP) that substantially increases the number of visitors that may access Cumberland Island each day. Yet, the EA does not consider how the additional private residential use enabled by the exchanges would interact with public visitation, even though both would increase human activity on the Seashore.
This omission matters because the effects of the residential development are not confined to the conveyed parcels. As the EA recognizes, residential use entails visitor trips, construction, maintenance activities, lighting, noise, and routine human presence. Residents and their guests would also use the Seashore for access and recreation. Evaluating that additional use without considering the simultaneous increase in visitation understates the overall change in human activity and pressure that NPS is authorizing.
C. The proposed exchanges would not benefit the United States
NPS policy dictates that “no exchange should be considered where there is no demonstrable benefit to the United States.”41 This language is embedded within Director’s Order #25 describing NPS’ acquisition authorities under the LWCF.
NPS has yet to define “benefit” in either regulation or policy. The LWCF, however, gave NPS its general acquisition authority, including through land exchanges, and empowered NPS to acquire vulnerable lands for conservation and recreational purposes. Given the pace of development, Congress stressed that “it is important that [the use of LWCF funds and] acquisition be undertaken before the land becomes unavailable either because of skyrocketing prices, or because it has been preempted for other uses.”42
To ensure that LWCF funds are used to serve these ends, Congress requires approval of transactions exceeding $1,000,000. Likewise, Congressional notification is required for exchanges between $500,000 and $1,000,000.43
To our knowledge, NPS has never used LWCF funds to consummate an exchange that would enshrine, rather than foreclose, new development, yet that is what these exchanges would accomplish. Adding insult to injury, the cost to equalize values of these exchanges may exceed $1 million, effectively rewarding landowners with the bulk of funding needed to build new homes on Cumberland Island. And, although NPS’s failure to disclose the acquisition history and sufficiently detailed maps of the parcels shrouds these exchanges in uncertainty, the available evidence indicates that this exchange will result in NPS paying twice for these parcels—first to acquire them and now to dispose of them.
This type of outcome cannot be reasonably adjudged to benefit the United States, particularly when read in conjunction with the enabling legislation.
In his final testimony in support of the bill, Congressman W.S. Stuckey reflected on what Cumberland was and what he hoped it would become.
Although he wanted to preserve historic structures for posterity, preventing the continued spread of housing was arguably Congressman Stuckey’s singular motivation for introducing and enacting the bill.
“Elsewhere on the island lots have been sold to people interested in building vacation cottages. Thus, while Fraser’s large-scale development has been nipped in the bud, time remains critical. The greater the delay in authorizing Cumberland Island as a national seashore, the more numerous become the landowners who must be dealt with and the more likely that the island’s beauty will be marred [. . . ] I hope that the committee will move expeditiously to insure that future generations of Americans will be able to enjoy the natural beauty of Cumberland Island.”44
In weighing public benefit, we strongly encourage NPS to consider how the rationale for the exchanges could be applied elsewhere to detrimental effect, both on Cumberland Island and across the broader park system.
As NPS notes in the EA, landowners may develop their properties subject to “obtaining local variances, rezoning approvals, permits, and other regulatory authorizations”45—none of which have occurred yet. Through the exchanges, however, NPS may inspire Camden County to not only rezone the properties at issue today, but all of those that are privately owned, creating far-reaching, cascading impacts. Given that only two landowners would benefit from these exchanges, it is unwise to think the remaining landowners will not expect the same treatment. That prospect alone is reason enough to forgo the land exchanges at issue.
In addition, it must be recognized that the park system is pocketed with in holdings, many of which are “dormant” and otherwise undevelopable due to any number of economic and/or political reasons. By validating an otherwise speculative threat on Cumberland Island, NPS may embolden landowners elsewhere to leverage their inholdings with similar threats of development. This would impair NPS’ ability to identify genuine threats and ultimately divert resources from parks in actual need of limited LWCF funding.
1. NPS has not demonstrated compliance with the Coastal Barrier Resources Act
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) generally prohibits federal expenditures and financial assistance that encourage development within designated Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) units.46 These restrictions are intended to discourage development in vulnerable coastal areas and protect their natural resources.47
The proposed exchanges raise questions about the applicability of CBRA and its relations to LWCF. The EA does not establish whether the parcels are subject to CBRA’s federal expenditure restrictions, whether those restrictions would limit the use of LWCF funds to facilitate the exchanges, or whether any statutory exceptions would apply.
NPS should identify the CBRS designations applicable to the parcels, disclose any anticipated LWCF expenditures, explain how CBRA interacts with its proposed use of LWCF funds, including any restrictions or limitations on federal expenditures associated with the exchanges.
D. The Draft EA fails to satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act
1. The EA fails to account for reasonably foreseeable actions and related actions
NEPA requires an EA to evaluate a proposed action’s environmental effects in the context of reasonably foreseeable future conditions and planned actions.48 Here, NPS states that it considered reasonably foreseeable actions and land uses near the proposed exchanges, but then concludes, without further explanation, that “no applicable reasonably foreseeable actions were identified.49“ That conclusion is difficult to reconcile with the recently finalized Visitor Use Management Plan (VUMP).50 The VUMP governs future visitor access and use of the Seashore. The doubling of visitation authorized through that plan represents precisely the type of action that NPS should have considered when evaluating the exchanges.
NPS cannot genuinely analyze the impacts of the exchanges without considering how they would interact with the increase in visitor use authorized in the VUMP.
The EA’s treatment of future development suffers from a similar problem. NPS relies on the possibility of development on the private parcels to establish the benefits of the exchanges, even though current zoning prohibits new residential structures and development would require variances, rezoning, permits, and other approvals. Nevertheless, NPS discounts the development that the exchanges would enable on federal land based in part on similar uncertainties about future development. NPS cannot treat potential development as reasonably foreseeable when it supports the proposed exchanges while dismissing it when evaluating the environmental consequences.
In addition, NPSs own pre-NEPA civic engagement materials from 2024 identified four voluntary land exchanges under negotiation.51 Yet, the EA only evaluates Exchanges 1 and 2. It does not identify Exchanges 3 and 4, explain their current status, or explain why they were excluded from environmental review. If those exchanges are under active consideration, NPS should evaluate whether they are connected actions or otherwise account for them as reasonably foreseeable planned actions. If they are no longer under consideration, NPS should explain that change.
More broadly, the exchanges are occurring alongside other significant management issues and planning efforts affecting the Seashore, including VUMP implementation, wilderness stewardship, and management of feral horses. DOI directs agencies to consider connected actions as well as reasonably foreseeable trends and planned actions within the affected area.
Taken together, these omissions leave the EA without a meaningful assessment of the reasonably foreseeable conditions under which the exchanges would occur. NPS cannot simply declare that no applicable reasonably foreseeable action exists while disregarding an already approved park-wide visitor use plan and treating future development as foreseeable only when it supports the proposed action. NPS should evaluate these foreseeable actions and conditions before reaching a decision on the exchanges.
2. The EA lacks an adequate basis for conclusions that depend on unfinished conservation easements
NEPA requires an EA to provide sufficient evidence and analysis to determine whether a proposed action may have significant environmental effects.52 An agency, therefore, must have an adequate factual basis for the environmental conclusions on which its decision depends.53
Here, the EA repeatedly relies on proposed conservation easements to justify its conclusions about the environmental benefits of the exchanges, even though the easements have not been finalized. NPS acknowledges that the exact acreage, locations, and terms of the conservation easements remain subject to negotiation.54 Nevertheless, the EA continually treats the assumed 80% conservation areas and 20% building areas as well-established protections when evaluating the effects of the proposed action.
Those assumptions are central to NPS’s conclusions. For example, NPS suggests that the conservation easements will restrict development to the identified potential building areas. It then relies on that assertion to conclude that habitat loss would be limited, ecological connectivity would be maintained, and effects on wildlife would be minor. But those conclusions are only as sound as the restrictions on which they depend, and NPS has not finalized those restrictions.
NPS therefore reaches its environmental conclusions based on conservation easements whose final terms remain unresolved. NPS cannot assume the effectiveness of protections that have not yet been finalized. Until those terms are finalized, the EA lacks an adequate basis for the environmental conclusions that depend on them.
3. The EA fails to consider reasonable alternatives that could reduce the environmental impacts of the exchanges
NEPA requires federal agencies to “study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives” when a proposal involves “unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.”55 Here, the proposed exchanges present such a conflict because NPS must determine whether to retain federal parkland under NPS ownership or transfer that land to private ownership for potential residential development. NPS must therefore adequately consider appropriate alternatives to the proposed course of action.56
The EA, however, does not meaningfully consider alternatives that could accomplish NPS’s stated objectives while reducing the environmental impacts of the proposed exchanges. NPS dismisses fee simple acquisition solely because the participating landowners have “expressed a strong desire to retain ownership of their property” without explaining why the landowners’ preference renders fee simple acquisition infeasible or otherwise unreasonable.57 NPS similarly dismisses condemnation based on its willing seller policy.58 Neither rationale addresses whether the exchanges themselves could be modified to reduce their environmental impacts.59
For example, NPS does not evaluate whether its objectives could be achieved through smaller federal conveyances, reduced potential building areas, fewer residences, smaller buildable footprint sizes, or stronger site plan restrictions. Instead, the EA evaluates the exchanges as substantially pre-negotiated without explaining why less environmentally harmful configurations would not be reasonable. NPS has therefore not demonstrated that it considered appropriate alternatives to the proposed exchanges before settling on the options presented in the EA.
4. The EA improperly relies on incomplete information and unfinished consultation DOI’s implementing procedures for NEPA require NPS to use reliable existing data and resources in their environmental analysis.60 Where information concerning reasonably foreseeable significant effects is incomplete or unavailable, the agency must identify the missing information and make clear that it has not relied upon it.
Here, the EA acknowledges that formal wetland delineations have not been conducted for the project area.61 Yet, the EA reaches conclusions about the exchanges’ effects on wetlands before the delineations have happened. This is particularly significant for Exchange 2b where the proposed building area includes mapped freshwater wetlands that could be subject to future development.62 Without delineations, NPS lacks precise information about the location and extent of wetlands that could be affected by the exchange.
The EA contains additional scientific gaps relevant to its conclusions. For example, NPS acknowledges that no water quality testing was conducted in the project area.63 NPS instead relies on monitoring conducted elsewhere on the island, even though that monitoring has documented variability in surface water conditions, including elevated nutrient concentrations, low dissolved oxygen, and saltwater intrusion.64 The EA further recognizes that fecal coliform contamination remains a concern because of feral horse and hog activity.65 Given the adjacency to wetlands and the potential for new wells and wastewater systems associated with residential development, NPS should explain why site-specific water quality information is not necessary to evaluate the proposed ecological impacts of the exchanges.66
The EA also provides little parcel-specific data about the ecological condition and function of the federal lands proposed for conveyance. Although NPS identifies the vegetation communities present, it does not assess the quality or condition of that habitat or its importance to wildlife. Without this information, NPS lacks an adequate scientific basis to assess the ecological consequence of converting these federal lands to private residential use.
In addition, several consultation processes that may provide relevant information to the EA remain incomplete. NPS states it will complete NHPA Section 106 consultation before finalizing its decision.67 NPS likewise states that ESA Section 7 consultation will not be finalized until before the decision document is finalized.68 NPS should ensure that any information developed through these consultations is incorporated into the EA before reaching a final decision and should revise the EA where the information affects its conclusions.
Conclusion
For these reasons, we implore NPS to forgo the proposed exchanges.
NPS should instead address development, wilderness management, feral horses, and visitor use through a single, unified revision of the 1984 General Management Plan.
Given the geography, resource complexities, and fraught social dynamics at Cumberland Island, NPS cannot continue to resolve any single challenge through step-down plans or proposals without either ignoring another management conflict or creating another.
This was made obvious through the visitor use and land exchange planning processes. Rather than addressing the unique overlap between the two, neither plan acknowledged the other, nor did they identify much less confront two of the Seashore’s most enduring and related problems—the lack of wilderness and feral horse management plans, both of which should have been addressed in tandem given the inseparability of the issues.
Through a revision to the 1984 General Management Plan, NPS can and should finally address the sum of Cumberland’s parts.
A fresh start would create an important, overdue dialogue between NPS, NGO stakeholders, and the public. It would make the most of NPS’ limited resources for planning. Most importantly, it would finally allow NPS to chart a durable path forward for Cumberland Island.
Respectfully Submitted,
Center for Biological Diversity
Coalition to Protect America’s
National Parks
Defenders of Wildlife
Environment Georgia
National Parks Conservation
Association
Sierra Club
Wild Cumberland
Wilderness Watch
Footnotes
1. Pub. L. 92-536, Oct. 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 1066.
2. 54 U.S. Code § 102901(b)(1).
3. Id. at § 102901(b)(4)(A-B).
4. National Park Service, “Director’s Order #25” (Jan. 19. 2005), 11.2.
5. U.S. Const., art. VI, § 3, cl. 2.
6. Sioux Tribe of Indians v. U.S., 316 U.S. 317, 326 (1942).
7. U.S. v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 310 U.S. 16, 30 (1940).
8. Nat’l Fed. of Indep. Bus. v. Dep’t of Labor, 595 U.S. 109, 117 (2022).
9. Wilderness Soc. v. Morton, 479 F.2d 842, 892 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
10. 54 U.S. Code § 102901(b)(1).
11. See Gerber v. Norton, 294 F.3d 173, 185 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (“When a statute requires an agency to make a finding as a prerequisite to action, it must do so.”).
12. U.S. Nat’l Park Serv., Voluntary Land Exchange Env’t Assessment, Cumberland Island Nat’l Seashore 59 (Sept. 2026) (DOI-NPS-124458) [hereinafter Land Exchange EA].
13. Land Exchange EA, supra note 5, at 3.
14. Id.
15. Id.
16. Id. at 39.
17. “Together, the island’s marshes, forests, wetlands, and dune systems form an interconnected network that buffers storm energy, sustains wildlife habitat, and underpins the ecological integrity of one of the Atlantic coast’s most diverse barrier islands (Boyle and Rico 2022; NPS 2018; NPS 2024a).” Land Exchange EA, supra note 5, at 37.
18. Id. at 29-30.
19. Id. at 31.
20. Id. at 29-30.
21. Id. at 31, 40, 47.
22. 54 U.S.C. § 100101(a).
23. Pub. L. No. 92-536, § 1, 86 Stat. 1066 (1972) (emphasis added).
24. Land Exchange EA, supra note 5, at 61.
25. Id. at 39-40, and 55.
26. Id. at 31.
27. As NPS acknowledges, “[b]ecause the no-action alternative would not provide additional conservation or wilderness protections for privately owned parcels, the potential for these localized, long-term to permanent, adverse effects on wildlife habitat would remain over time within the project area and surrounding landscape.” Land Exchange EA, supra note 5, at 30.
28. Id. at 57.
29. Id. at 39.
30. Unified Development Code of Camden County, Georgia § 1213(a), 2026.
31. Id. at 56 tbl. 5.
32. Id.
33. Id. at 40.
34. Id. at 30.
35. Id. at 29.
36. Id. at 31.
37. Id. at 54.
38. Id. at 29.
39. Id. at 15.
40. Id. at 46.
41. Director’s Order #25, supra note 4.
42. H. Rept. 88-900 (88th Congress, 1st Session, dated November 14, 1963).
43. H. Rept. 119-215 (119th Congress, 1st Session, dated July 24, 2025).
44. 118 Cong. Rec. 35,653 (1972) (statement of Rep. Stuckey).
45. Land Exchange EA, supra note 5, at 5.
46. 16 U.S.C. § 3504(a).
47. 16 U.S.C. § 3501(b).
48. DOI NEPA Handbook §§ 1.2(b)(1), 6.1(w) (“Reasonably foreseeable means sufficiently likely to occur such that a person of ordinary prudence would take it into account in reaching a decision.”).
49. Land Exchange EA, supra note 5, at 14.
50. Nat’l Park Serv., Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Document: Visitor Use Management Plan, Cumberland Island National Seashore 1 (Aug. 2026).
51. National Park Service, Cumberland Island National Seashore Proposed Land Exchange: Civic Engagement Meeting 8, 11–12 (2024).
52. 42 U.S.C. § 4336(b)(2).
53. DOI NEPA Handbook, supra note 39, §1.5(b).
54. Land Exchange EA, supra note 5, at 5 (“However, the exact acreages, locations, and terms of the conservation easements would be part of a negotiation with the private landowners through the land exchange agreement process.”).
55. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(H).
56. DOI NEPA Handbook, supra note 39, §1.5(b)(1)(ii).
57. Land Exchange EA, supra note 5, at B-1.
58. Id.
59. Id.
60. DOI NEPA Handbook, supra note 39, §3.7(a).
61. Land Exchange EA, supra note 5, at 47.
62. Id. at 55.
63. Id. at 48.
64. Id.
65. Id.
66. The EA also incorrectly identifies the Floridan aquifer system as the “Floridian aquifer” multiple times. Although this error may appear minor, it underscores the need for greater scientific precision in this document. Id. at 54.
67. Id. at A-1.
68. Id. at A-2.