The agency’s case, tested

What the agency argues, and whether its own record backs it

2

Hold up

3

Not fully backed

1

Contradicted by its own record

3

Never analyzed

• EffectsContradicted by its own recordBuilding on the conveyed parcels would cause only short-term, minor harm to wildlife, including threatened and endangered species.

  The agency points to small building areas, conservation easements, and its finding of no population-level effects or measurable habitat loss at the island scale. But a few paragraphs earlier the same section says limited construction and ongoing residential use could cause localized, long-term adverse effects. It names the eastern indigo snake and tricolored bat as listed species most likely to be affected. The section can't call the same effects both long-term and short-term. Endangered Species Act consultation isn't finished.

  The agency’s words, the record and the law +Hide the words

  The agency says

  “Overall, alternative 2 would result in short-term, minor, adverse effects for wildlife and wildlife habitat, including threatened and endangered species, if development were to occur on parcels conveyed to private ownership.”

  Wildlife, Including Threatened and Endangered Species

  Elsewhere in the same document

  “Limited construction and ongoing residential use could result in localized, long-term, adverse effects on wildlife within or adjacent to the project area.”

  Wildlife, Including Threatened and Endangered Species

  “The NPS will complete the section 7 consultation process prior to finalizing the decision document.”

  Endangered Species Act, Section 7 Consultation

  The law

  “Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency (hereinafter in this section referred to as an "agency action") is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species” Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2) ↗

• EffectsNot fully backedFill and foundations for new homes would permanently affect only about 0.69 acres of soil.

  The agency says construction would be confined to the potential building areas, which make up 20% of the conveyed parcels. It says the other 80% would bar ground disturbance and that no unique or sensitive soils would be affected. But Chapter 2 allows up to two homes on exchange 1b and six on exchange 2b, each with a total building footprint of up to 15,000 square feet, plus driveways, patios and an access road. At the maximum, that's far more than the roughly 30,000 square feet that 0.69 acres represents. The document doesn't explain how it arrived at 0.69 acres.

  The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words

  The agency says

  “Fill and foundations could permanently affect approximately 0.69 acres of soils (Cainhoy fine sand, Mandarin fine sand, and Pottsburg sand soil types) by compacting naturally occurring soils, reducing the porosity of the soil, and reducing the biological activity in the soil.”

  Soils

  Elsewhere in the same document

  “Construction and maintenance of a maximum of six single-family residences would be permitted, together with ancillary structures and a single access road to Old House Road, provided the total building footprint does not exceed 15,000 square feet per residence.”

  Exchange 2

• EffectsNot fully backedHomes in the floodplain on the conveyed land are unlikely because of insurance costs and sea level rise risk.

  The agency applies the same reasoning under the no-action alternative, where it calls floodplain development on the private parcels possible but unlikely. It adds that permits, wetland rules and state coastal laws would limit impacts. But the document offers no insurance data, cost figures or sea level scenario to back the judgment. It uses that judgment to discount floodplain in the building areas, including 5 acres on exchange 2b, while still counting acquired floodplain as newly protected.

  The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words

  The agency says

  “However, as noted under alternative 1, development within the floodplain is unlikely based on insurance considerations and risk to private landowners based on predicted future sea level rise scenarios.”

  Water Resources

  Elsewhere in the same document

  “Conversely, the transfer of NPS property into private ownership would place 3.4 acres of freshwater forested/shrub wetland 5 acres of the 1% floodplain within the potential building area, subjecting them to potential future development (figure 19).”

  Water Resources

• Show 1 more claim +Show fewer

  • EffectsNot fully backedHomes on the conveyed parcels would sit outside key visitor areas and wouldn't affect major trails or backcountry routes.

    Chapter 2 says twice that the conveyed parcels aren't in areas with high visitor use. Appendix B says they don't provide public recreational access and that homes would likely be low density, partially screened by vegetation, and unlikely to produce substantial night lighting. The easements also cap building at 20% of each parcel and set a 35-foot height limit. But the document gives no distances from the conveyed parcels to trails or campgrounds, and it says several campgrounds are near the exchanges. The Visitor Use and Experience section, where Appendix B sends visual and lighting effects, doesn't analyze views or lighting from the conveyed parcels.

    The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words

    The agency says

    “As a result, potential impacts on recreation resulting from development of these transferred parcels would be limited, localized to areas outside key visitor use areas, and unlikely to affect major visitor routes or backcountry corridors.”

    Visitor Use and Experience

    Elsewhere in the same document

    “Sea Camp, Stafford Beach, Hickory Hill, and Yankee Paradise are in the vicinity of the proposed parcel exchanges; visitors in these areas may use trails affected by the parcel exchanges.”

    Visitor Use and Experience

    “Future development could also introduce localized sources of artificial lighting that may alter nighttime visual conditions and contribute to minor changes in the area’s natural lightscape.”

    Issues Considered but Dismissed from Detailed Analysis