1. United States
2. Utah
3. Letter

I Am Getting So Tired Of ALL The Lawmakers/non-representatives And The president Trying To Sell Off Our Sacred Public Lands! I oppose the land exchanges proposed in the Voluntary Land Exchange Environmental Assessment for Cumberland Island National Seashore (project ID 124458). Congress created Cumberland Island National Seashore in 1972 in order for the island to be “preserved in its primitive state.” The proposed land exchanges described in the environmental assessment move in the opposite direction, allowing permanent development of the seashore. For example, the land exchanges would allow for eight massive buildings — up to 15,000 square feet — to be built and would carve out a privately owned beach pavilion and private road to the beach for exclusive use by the development. These exchanges would let private landowners permanently reside in a national park unit and drive vehicles throughout the island. Allowing these land exchanges would be a direct violation of the island’s congressional mandate, a violation of public trust, and an alarming rollback of decades of public conservation efforts. Additionally, these land exchanges threaten the existence of several endangered and threatened species and their habitats. The seashore and wilderness areas protect marshland, forests, dunes, and beaches. The island provides essential habitat for shorebirds like red knots and piping plovers, as well as five species of federally protected sea turtles. Loggerhead sea turtles — an endangered species with critical habitat on Cumberland's eastern shoreline — nest on these beaches, which account for 30% of all nests in Georgia. The National Park Service should *not* allow for the increased and permanent development of the seashore through these land exchanges. The exchanges aren’t equal in value and seek to benefit a handful of private property owners without any real benefit to the seashore and its wilderness. These plans also come at the expense of the American public, which values the national seashore for its peaceful and wild state, as well as the wildlife who rely on its habitats for survival. I urge you to reconsider these land exchanges and reflect on the congressional intent of the seashore's enabling legislation: for the island to become wilder over time — not more developed. Your Disgusted Constituent!