The Battle Over a North Carolina Beach Continues

In spite of its noble efforts for the protection of numerous avian species, the National Audubon Society finds itself in a sticky situation in the small town of Pine Island, North Carolina. The NAS is in the process of negotiating the sale of a twelve acre tract of land in Pine Island that is to be developed into condominiums, a shopping center, and restaurants. Ordinarily, this wouldn't seemingly hold much significance. However, in wake of the Audubon's lawsuit against the National Park Service in reference to beach access at Cape Hatteras National Seashore, the organization has found few friends along the coastline of North Carolina.
The NAS and Defenders of Wildlife have employed the services of the Southern Environmental Law Center to bring suit against the National Park Service in reference to the seashore of Cape Hatteras. Due to the nesting of Piping Plovers, the organizations have asked that areas containing breeding or nesting pairs of the species be closed to four wheel drive and pedestrian access. These closures have created a firestorm of criticism by both local residents as well as visitors to the national park. The buffer zones that are recommended by the special interest groups far exceed buffers deemed necessary by the National Park Service.

Due to these circumstances, many North Carolinians, as well as others who frequent the national park, feel that this sale of land is a hypocritical move on the part of Audubon of NC, especially since this area is part of some of the most eco-friendly property in all of the Outer Banks. Sandy Semans of The Outer Banks Sentinel reported on research findings by Mike Schafale of the N.C. National Heritage Program, who stated, "The extensive development on the Currituck Banks has made all the natural community types that occur there rare. They are now so rare that any intact natural remnant, even as small as 12-13 acres, may merit identification as a Significant Natural Heritage Area." Many who are opposed to this sale have wondered how the organization can sue to restrict access at Cape Hatteras and develop prime habitat in their locale.

Looking into the history of Audubon's ownership of this particular tract shows that the land was donated to the society in 1979. From this time, the NAS has been exempt from property tax due to their non-profit status; another reason that has those opposed to the sale fuming. Although promised a comment from Ida Phillips of Audubon of North Carolina, there has been no follow up from the agency after two months of waiting for a response.

Interestingly, this is not the only sale of land proposed by the National Audubon Society. Reporter Jen DeGregorio penned an article in January 2010 for The Times-Picayune concerning the potential sale of one of Louisiana's oldest and most protected wetland habitats in the Vermilion Parish. Ironically, the organization is considering opening up the twenty six thousand acre tract, known as the Paul J. Rainey Sanctuary, to drilling for both oil and gas (www.nola.com). The organization's stance becomes quite confusing when Audubon of Florida's website asks its readers to "Protect Florida's Beaches from Oil Drilling."

Again, many residents of the North Carolina coast are wondering how the agency justifies their stance on these proposed land sales when it seems that the NAS is participating in actions that run counter productive to their stated cause. Although the NAS has non-profit status, on may also wonder how that comes into play with the sale of land from which they will profit. There are many questions that need to be answered by the National Audubon Society; however, there is little on their websites that indicate any transparency of these particular issues.

Sources:
www.nc.audubon.org
www.nola.com
www.womacknewspapers.com/obsentinel/
www.fl.audubon.org

It seems that with so many posts attacking the messenger and not a single person presenting factual evidence that contradicts Ted's story, Ted must be spot on! Thank you Ted!

Thanks Ted! You have shed light on a very important issue for North Carolina. As for the claims of "Audubon lies" load of BS, then I guess the park service lies, the scientists lie, the economic stats lie, the success of birds and turtles lie. And the only ones telling the truth are the those who can't seem to enjoy the beach without driving all over it. For those, I have a prime bridge over an outer banks inlet to sell you.

Let's see if Mr. Williams will allow full disclosure of the facts given in a polite, civil manner.

http://www.islandfreepress.org/2012Archives/03.30.2012-CostBenefitAnalys...

As a postscript, it looks like the fledge rates for Piping Plover and Oystercatchers will be somewhere in the area of 0.70 this year. For the Piping Plover this is well below the average for the Interim Plan period. For Oystercatchers, this is in line with 2004 Management. And as for the claim that sea turtle hatchlings and eggs were being run over, please some proof because I have seen the detailed reports and summarized the data for a negotiated rulemaking member and I didn't find any such observations.

Finally, those pedestrian areas--very few if any users (except those who used an ORV to get to the beach in the first place). It might be because the infrastructure intergral to providing access and providing work arounds for ORV users is not in place. Instead we have 50-100 vehicles parked on a sand shoulder of a 2 lane highway that serves as the only road for travel between villages and to the park. This has created a safety issue of major proportions. But your right, this is great progress.