Cumberland Island National Seashore is proposing a four-parcel land exchange with private landowners on the island.
Cumberland Island National Seashore is a place of legend. Its tidal marshes, undeveloped beaches and dunes, and lush maritime forests make it one of America’s most unique, spectacular, and memorable barrier islands and National Parks. Since our founding in 1967, the protection of Cumberland Island has remained one of the Georgia Conservancy’s top priorities.
Learn more about our history on Cumberland Island.
Cumberland Island is also unique in that there are currently 1,000 acres of private land within the bounds of the National Seashore – much of which is held by the descendants of the island’s original and longtime owners. Since the establishment of the National Seashore in 1972, these private acres have been managed in a way that has largely preserved the wild character and ecological integrity of the island.
However, challenges with private holdings within a National Park have persisted since 1972 and have recently taken the form of potential development on private tracts.
In September 2024, the National Park Service (NPS) made public a proposal to exchange public lands on Cumberland Island National Seashore so that it may acquire four tracts of privately-owned land on the island.
From the National Park Service’s September 2024 announcement: The NPS is considering the acquisition, through land exchanges (including conservation easements), four potential parcels of privately owned land within the authorized boundary of Cumberland Island National Seashore, Georgia. This would create a relatively continuous corridor of NPS-owned land within core areas of the Seashore to improve manageability of these areas, preserve important resources, and prevent further development on these inholdings. By exchanging property with these landowners, the NPS would seek to relocate private interests to other areas where it is more appropriate and less impactful on visitors. The properties under consideration for NPS acquisition intersect the Seashore’s main road and key visitor use trails.
Two years later, in September 2026, the National Park Service announced that a formal public comment period had opened in regard to a proposed land exchange on Cumberland Island National Seashore. While NPS has proposed a land exchange involving four separate private parcels, the current public comment period focuses only on two of those parcels.
From the National Park Service’s September 9, 2026 announcement: Cumberland Island National Seashore today announced a 30-day public comment period on two voluntary proposed land exchanges. Under the proposals, the National Park Service would acquire privately owned parcels in ecologically sensitive areas of Cumberland Island. In exchange, the NPS would transfer federal land to the landowners, protected by conservation easements. These easements would permanently limit development, prohibit subdivision and ensure strong natural and cultural resource protections for generations to come.
Georgia Conservancy has several concerns and questions about the proposed land exchange, as outlined in our October 2026 comment letter below.
October 2026: Georgia Conservancy Comments Regarding Cumberland Island Voluntary Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
The Georgia Conservancy is pleased to submit the following comments on the Cumberland Island National Seashore (CUIS) Voluntary Land Exchange Environmental Assessment (EA) and the proposed land exchange described therein.
The Georgia Conservancy is a statewide, donor-supported conservation organization whose mission prioritizes healthy lands, thriving communities, and a future where every Georgian can enjoy the outdoors for generations to come. Since our founding in 1967, the Georgia Conservancy and its supporters have ensured the protection and conservation of some of our state’s most precious natural places, including Cumberland Island National Seashore. From our engagement in the creation of the National Seashore in 1972 and designation of Wilderness in 1982 to our development of the popular Cumberland Island Trail Map, the Georgia Conservancy has dedicated itself to conservation of and public access to this national treasure.
The Georgia Conservancy is supportive of the National Park Service’s (NPS) efforts to acquire lands and/or management control where private, fee-simple ownership remains, so long as those transactions meet the overarching goals listed below, which we believe to meet the spirit of the original legislative intent and the NPS 2014 Foundation Document of the Cumberland Island National Seashore.
Any land transaction should:
• result in a net gain in acreage of land under federal ownership or control.
• support increased public access, use and enjoyment with priority placed on lands with higher ecological value and continuity.
• minimize the potential for future construction of private homes on the island.
• ensure that any privately-owned lands are protected via a permanent conservation easement to ensure that private property on Cumberland Island is resistant to changes in ownership and/or Camden County zoning land use policies in perpetuity.
• include a Right of First Refusal or other legal mechanism that makes exchanged private lands more likely to be converted to public ownership or control in the future.
With regards to the specific land transactions contemplated in this EA, the Georgia Conservancy supports:
• the conversion of potential wilderness to wilderness.
• creation of new potential wilderness opportunities.
• reduction in acreage of lands with fee-simple ownership with no federal control over land use or management.
• acquisition of lands east of the north-south Main Road to provide uninterrupted conservation of habitats and public access to beach and the Parallel Trail.
• designation of 80% of the exchanged parcels as conservation areas.
We understand that the NPS and private landowners have been diligently working to find a mutually beneficial solution to private landownership that would abate the potential for incompatible development that could negatively impact the natural resources of the island and the visitor experience in the National Seashore. We generally support the use of land exchanges combined with conservation easements to achieve mutually desired outcomes between NPS and private landowners, decreasing the acreage of unencumbered, fee-simple private lands and increasing the acreage of wilderness area on the island. We agree that this approach can protect critical natural and cultural resources, along with the visitor experience, and has the potential to achieve the Park’s stated objectives and desired conditions. However, details matter, and we have concerns that the land exchanges, as proposed in the EA and further described in the recently released draft land exchange and conservation easement documents (Released Documents), may not meet the goals as stated above. We explain our concerns about the proposed land exchange details and right of first refusal in more detail below.
Land Exchange Comments
1. Exchange 1 contemplates exchanging 20 acres of publicly owned land to acquire 10 acres of privately owned land. This results in a net loss of NPS-owned or controlled lands and granting of additional potential rights to the private landholder. While we appreciate the value of acquiring the private out-holding in the wilderness area, our organizations cannot support any land transactions that result in a net loss of public lands. We would support the use of federal funding to ensure that any exchange is equitable but doesn’t result in a loss of public lands.
2. The private beach access exclusion from the property referenced in Exchange 2 leaves many questions, including:
a. Is this proposed access across the dunes an existing access point that the owners would like to maintain or a proposed new access location? If it is a new access point, has this proposal to impact the dunes been approved by law via the State of Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources Division?
b. Regardless of whether this is a proposal to maintain an existing private access strip or to construct a new walkway across the dunes, this private out-holding on the beach results in an interruption in continuous public access along the beach. If this out-holding is not part of the exchange, then this proposal doesn’t meet the NPS’s stated goal of proving continuous visitor access.
3. The EA, as well as the Released Documents, states that “the total building footprint” of the allowed single-family residences cannot exceed 15,000 square feet (sq. ft.). This language is unclear regarding whether this is building square footage, a building footprint, or a development footprint, i.e. the area that can be disturbed during development. If it is, in fact, literally referring to the building’s footprint, a building with a 15,000 sq. ft. footprint and 3 stories (as would be possible with a 35-foot height limit) would result in a 45,000 sq. ft. structure. If the 15,000 sq. ft. building footprint refers to the development area, then the 8 single family homes contemplated as part of these land exchange would result in 2.75 acres of disturbance, which is excessive.
In any case, 15,000 sq. ft. is inconsistent with the character of the island and incompatible with the conservation values espoused by both the NPS and private landholders and should be reduced to be consistent with the footprint of existing homes on the island built after the establishment of the National Seashore. In addition, clarity on the specific dimension being regulated is needed.
4. The EA specifically states that dock construction would not be authorized; however, there is no mention or restriction on private docks in the Released Documents. No new docks should be allowed via the proposed land exchange deals in order to reduce the impact that any future development will have on the island. Docks can impact marsh vegetation and reduce the productivity of the marsh through shading and unnatural accumulation of marsh wrack. Docks also reduce biodiversity of marsh-dependent bird species and introduce boat traffic and pollutants into sensitive areas, altering flow and bird populations. We understand that the private landowners may want boat access, and we propose that this access should be granted through existing dock structures. Future dock development should be explicitly prohibited via any future land exchange agreement or conservation easement.
5. There is no mention in the EA or Released Documents of a minimum riparian buffer to protect riparian habitats, reduce the visibility of any private homes from the water, and prevent non-point source pollution impacts to local waterways. Relying on the State’s statutory buffer of 25 feet will not be sufficient to protect the viewshed from the water or to prevent negative environmental impacts from development. Undisturbed riparian buffers of at least 300 feet are necessary to protect wildlife habitat and should be required as recommended by the University of Georgia Carl Vincent Institute of Government in their document, “Protecting Stream and River Corridors”. Furthermore, sufficient buffering of any view of private development from upland public areas must also be specifically required.
Right of First Refusal Comments
A properly crafted Right of First Refusal (ROFR) that is clear, strong, and specific can create an opportunity for NPS to acquire exchanged lands in the future. The fact that the properties currently under private, fee-simple ownership do not have a similar ROFR means that these land exchanges could, in effect, create an increased potential for future publicly owned acreage on Cumberland Island.
However, the ROFR language that was recently made public in the Released Documents is extremely broad and allows for the potential transfer of the exchanged properties to persons or entities not related to current owners without triggering a Right of First Refusal (ROFR) sale to NPS. This is unacceptable and contrary to the goal of increasing publicly owned land on Cumberland Island through private land exchanges. Our concerns with the proposed ROFR language are outlined below, and we ask that the final ROFR language be updated to address these issues:
1. The draft ROFR language states that if NPS elects not to, or fails to, exercise the ROFR, and the Private property owner completes the sale that was subject to the ROFR, then the ROFR falls away forever. This is problematic for several reasons:
a. If there were a future sale to a buyer at a price that NPS could not match, then NPS’s ROFR is extinguished forever.
b. NPS has a right to match an offer “on the same material terms and conditions,” but what if the offer is an in-kind transfer of property or some other non-cash consideration that NPS simply cannot match? For example, a swap for other property could make the ROFR unexercisable as a practical matter. Furthermore, there is no definition for what is considered “the same material terms and conditions.” (For example: is 5% less than the third-party’s offer materially the same?)
c. This section conflicts with the following statement: “[t]his First Refusal Right shall run with the land of the Property, or applicable portion thereof, in perpetuity, the same as the other Restrictions in this Deed.” The final ROFR language should be clarified and preserve the ROFR in perpetuity.
2. The draft ROFR language as written would allow the property to be transferred to an entity whose interests are later acquired, i.e. the transfer to an LLC that was later bought by an unrelated entity. In this scenario, the actual transfer of the property is not subject to the ROFR, so an unrelated third party could ultimately acquire the entity to whom the property was permissibly transferred (outside of the ROFR), with the end result being that the property is owned by a third party that otherwise would not fit into the exceptions of the ROFR.
3. The draft ROFR language currently excludes grants of easements, leases, licenses, or transfers not in fee (simple), which could result in a series of 99-year leases that are tantamount to ownership by an outside party, and prevent NPS acquisition for the foreseeable future.
4. Exclusions also carve out involuntary transfers (e.g., foreclosure, bankruptcy, etc.), and there are no prohibitions on pledging the property as collateral. This could result in a mortgage, followed by a default, and a foreclosure or foreclosure sale to a party that otherwise would not have a right to acquire the property.
5. The ROFR repeatedly references the sale of a “portion” of the property, but expressly prohibits subdivision except for sales to NPS, so there is an inherent inconsistency in that language that must be addressed. Subdivisions except for sales to the NPS should be prohibited.
6. Lastly, there are no references to NPS’s ability to enforce the ROFR if a private property owner completes a sale that does not comply with the ROFR, such as language that a non-permitted transfer is void, providing for an injunction, or restoration of ownership to the pre-sale status. There is also no requirement that the Private property owner provide written notice to NPS of the Closing of any sale other than to NPS such that the NPS could validate that the sale actually complied with all of the applicable requirements in the ROFR.
In summary, we ask that NPS and representatives of the private property owners consider our comments as they consider these proposed land exchanges to ensure that the values of conservation and visitor experience are upheld. In short, we believe that a net gain in publicly owned acreage should be the goal for any land exchange. We also encourage increased transparency on any proposed land exchanges and additional opportunities for the public to provide input, as appropriate, in order to build public support for a conservation-focused outcome that satisfies NPS, visitors, conservation stakeholders, and the island’s landowners.
We also encourage the NPS to communicate with Camden County to ensure that future zoning is consistent with the restrictions and reserved rights of the future Conservation Easements to avoid confusion and increase transparency for the public, NPS, and private landowners.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments and for your consideration of our recommendations and concerns. We applaud the NPS for continuing to work towards achieving the legislative intent of the creation of the National Seashore, while navigating the complexities and realities of private land ownership on Cumberland Island. We look forward to working with the National Park Service on this issue moving forward.
Click here to provide your comments to the National Park Service and to read their draft Environmental Assessment for the Voluntary Land Exchange at Cumberland Island National Seashore
September 2024 Update
From the National Park Service’s September 2024 announcement: The NPS is considering the acquisition, through land exchanges (including conservation easements), four potential parcels of privately owned land within the authorized boundary of Cumberland Island National Seashore, Georgia. This would create a relatively continuous corridor of NPS-owned land within core areas of the Seashore to improve manageability of these areas, preserve important resources, and prevent further development on these inholdings. By exchanging property with these landowners, the NPS would seek to relocate private interests to other areas where it is more appropriate and less impactful on visitors. The properties under consideration for NPS acquisition intersect the Seashore’s main road and key visitor use trails.
The properties contain important natural and cultural resources that the Seashore seeks to protect and conserve and values of the Seashore, including live oak maritime forests, pristine beaches, potential historic and archeological resources, an intact barrier island ecosystem, nesting for shorebirds and threatened sea turtles, and lands with a primitive and undeveloped character.
The proposed land exchange is the public’s first glimpse into the ongoing conversations and negotiations between NPS and the island’s private landowners. One privately-owned tract included in the proposed land exchange has been in the public eye since 2016 and has been a source of concern for conservationists and champions of Cumberland Island. With the potential for development in the heart of Cumberland Island, the protection of this privately-owned tract has been a priority of the National Park Service and its inclusion in this proposal provides a potential solution for conserving this tract and protecting its future as a publicly accessible part of Cumberland Island. This tract is listed as “Exchange 4” in NPS’ Land Exchange Civic Engagement Newsletter.
Click here to read the Newsletter and learn more about the four proposed land exchanges.
Click here to view the September 2024 public presentation (both PowerPoint and video) from the National Park Service.
Click here to read our October 2024 comments to the National Park Service that share our questions and general concerns regarding proposed land exchanges