Cumberland Island protects an expanse of maritime forest/NPS file

Growing popularity of Cumberland Island National Seashore, which shimmers in the Atlantic on Georgia's largest barrier island, has driven the National Park Service there to craft a plan to, it hopes, better manage that visitation.

The agency there has extended the public comment period on their Visitor Use Management Plan through December 30, providing interested parties additional time to review a document that, if approved, significantly evolves the seashore's nearly four-decades old general management plan.

Forty years ago the park was envisioned as "a remarkable seashore area of beach dunes, forests and uplands, and marsh. The outstanding beaches are enhanced by smooth, gentle, and predictable surf. While these beaches provide excellent opportunities for swimming, sunbathing, fishing, and beachcombing, other natural values on the island are conducive to pursuits such as hiking, camping, backpacking, and nature study."

At the time, the seashore was attracting roughly 32,000 visitors a year. "Roughly," because while the ferry that brought visitors to the island from nearby St. Marys on the mainland had a well-defined limit [149 passengers per trip, two trips a day], there was no hard limit on private boaters reaching the island via ocean- or sound-side beaches.

Come forward to 2022 and the seashore is seeing more than twice -- 72,240 visitors in 2021 -- the 1984 visitation level. Hence the need for an updated visitor management plan.

But questions have arisen from the plan: How exactly did the Park Service determine daily visitation could more than double? Should the agency have drafted a separate wilderness management plan? Is the plan contrary to the seashore's 2014 Foundation Document? What guidance, if any, did the seashore's 1984 General Management Plan provide in crafting the visitor use plan? Does the seashore's feral horse herd need to be better managed?

Though one of the main attractions at Cumberland Island, the feral horses create environmental problems/David and Kay Scott file

The current proposal differs from the guidelines laid out in the 1984 GMP, the most recent version of that document, in a number of ways:

• While the 1984 plan says there would be no concessions on the national seashore, 2004 legislation that revised the boundaries to the seashore's official wilderness also allowed for "not more than three concessions contracts." The proposed VUMP calls for not only "on-island cart and bicycle rentals," but also would allow for kayak and/or canoe rentals, "with the possibility of guided rental options."
• While the 1984 plan said visitation would be limited to roughly 300 a day, the new proposal would allow for more than double that to about 700 by raising the possibility of new ferry service to Plum Orchard and creating a 1,900-foot-wide "boat landing and anchoring area" along the southern tip of the seashore. In contrast, the seashore's Foundation Document warned that "[I]ntense visitation and overcrowding from boaters landing on south end" were threats to the seashore's integrity. That document, which was intended to "provide basic guidance for planning and management decisions," also noted that "Increasing and unmanaged visitation via private boat" was a threat to the concept of an uncrowded setting.
• While the 1984 plan said bicycling would not be allowed, the proposed VUMP would allow for up to 100 bikes [including eBikes] per day, and they would be allowed to be ridden on the beaches between Dungeness and Stafford Beach Crossing.
• The plan calls for greater dispersion of wilderness users through the creation of two new backcountry campsites, at Toonahowie and Sweetwater Lakes, coupled with the closure of the Yankee Paradise sites.
• While the 1984 plan said the feral horse herd on the island would be managed to ensure a healthy herd that would "promote, in part, short-grass characteristics favorable for the nesting of shorebirds," the VUMP notes the herd no longer is actively managed. However, the Foundation Document noted that the horses pose threats to the environment through trampling, overgrazing, and their waste, and identified the need for studies to "comprehensively quantify damages and impacts specifically on Cumberland Island, on both natural and cultural resources," and said there was a need for a feral horse management plan. More recently, in 2018, the Natural Resource Condition Assessment conducted for Cumberland Island noted that "[F]eral horses represent a unique issue for [Cumberland Island], as the species is not native to the island and represents a competitor to white-tailed deer for browsing forage. Horses have been known to trample native vegetation, wetlands, and bird nests, and have had dramatic impacts on the marsh habitats of the island due to overgrazing."

All that said, nothing prevents the National Park Service from changing course down the road. Indeed, in the VUMP seashore staff maintain that greater visitation and any impacts can be handled by dispersing the use.

"The park offers opportunities for high-quality resources and experiences, however, changes in visitation require thoughtful decision-making to ensure the desired resource conditions and visitor experiences are being achieved and maintained, consistent with the purposes for which the area was established," the draft plan states.