Cumberland Island National Seashore and Wilderness in southern Georgia is the largest undeveloped barrier island on the eastern seaboard and one of the gems of America’s National Park system. Massive live oak maritime forests, saltwater marshes, and a spectacular white sand beach—home to loggerhead sea turtles—are remarkable to experience. The National Park Service (NPS) is asking for public input on two of four proposed land exchanges (first announced in 2024) on Cumberland Island. While the proposal released for public review lacks a lot of necessary information, it’s clear the exchanges would benefit private interests far more than the public interest, and would undermine Congress’ intent when the seashore and Wilderness were established—that Cumberland Island would be allowed to rewild over time. Please speak up by October 16 and tell the NPS, “No land exchanges on Cumberland Island!” Once the private enclave of wealthy families, the federal government acquired most private land on Cumberland Island in the 1960s to save it from real estate development like that which had beset many other East Coast barrier islands. Congress established the Cumberland Island National Seashore in 1972. Many previous land owners—as part of the deal when selling their land to the public—retained the right to occupy the land for a specified time period. Some of these “retained rights” have already expired and all eventually will. In 1982, Congress designated much of the island’s northern two-thirds as the Cumberland Island Wilderness, or as potential Wilderness until the nonconforming uses end, whether that be when retained rights expire or the government acquires ownership of the tracts of land. Already quite a treasure, Cumberland Island was on the path to wild restoration and becoming one of the premier Wildernesses in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Unfortunately, heirs to some of the remaining private tracts are angling to swap their land for prime wild property on the island. While it is not Wilderness or potential Wilderness, it is wild and would be developed if the land-swap moves forward. They’ve been working behind the scenes with the NPS to make that happen, with this proposal the result of those backroom deals. Both pieces of property NPS proposes to acquire appear to be in some sort of 10-year conservation covenants for tax breaks which began in 2025. Although the National Park Service generally alleges a risk of development to justify acquiring the two tracts of land, the agency has failed to point to any specific imminent threats of development on either tract. In the second land exchange, private owners wouldn’t even sell their whole tract—the maps show the private property owners have carved out private beachfront property for themselves as well as a private road to that private beachfront, fragmenting what the public would acquire. The fate of development is very clear, however, for the public land NPS is proposing to swap away. The current proposal would sell our public land and allow for up to eight new residences on land currently protected as part of the seashore, each with a potential 15,000-square-foot building footprint. Both pieces of land that would be transferred away are neighboring blocks likely centered around hookup access still there from the earlier owners and structures prior to NPS acquiring the land. Part of the land to be swapped away was originally transferred to the government in 1978. The occupants’ retained rights expired in 2010, and NPS removed these earlier structures. Currently, the land that we own has relatively wild maritime forests and wetlands, as documented by Wild Cumberland here. If these lands were traded away, the transfer would be permanent and would allow the building construction noted above, disturbing sensitive habitat with new roads, infrastructure, and human disturbance. It’s a good deal for the private interests, but a terrible one for the public, and will undermine six decades of rewilding on Cumberland Island. NPS has not explained why any of the lands are particularly suitable for an exchange. NPS has not disclosed detailed maps, photos, or relevant history, either. Acquiring land to protect the seashore and then disposing of it runs contrary to the Congressional mandate to permanently preserve the island in its primitive state, both within and outside of Wilderness. These land exchange proposals should also be opposed because of the dangerous precedent they’d set in transferring away public lands. The National Park Service is seeking public comment on the proposed land exchanges until October 16. Please send your comments to the NPS at the following link: https://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=153378 | 
