A Call for a Biodiversity Conservation Plan for Oak Mountain
State Park, Alabama
Prepared for
Alabama State Parks
and the
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Prepared by
Friends of
Authored by Dr. R. Scot Duncan1, Henry Hughes2
and Gregory J. Harber3
Edited by and Ann Batum and James
Lowery
June 2004
President, Friends of
Mr. Scott Stone
Work:
President and Chief Operating Officer
Nelbran Glass
O: 205-328-2172
C: 205-616-4903
Fax: 205-322.3790
Home:
Report Authors
Primary Author:
Dr. R. Scot
Assistant Professor of Biology
email: sduncan@bsc.edu
phone (W): 205-226-4777
Secondary Authors:
Mr. Greg Harber
(205) 251-2133
email: gharber@mindspring.com
Group affiliation:
Mr. Henry Hughes
(205) 871-6473
email: henrysvf@earthlink.net
Group affiliation: Friends of Shades Creek,
Executive Director
Chief Editor
Ann Batum
(205) 991-7729
email: abatum@earthlink.net
Group affiliation: Oak Mountain Neighbors
A Call for a Biodiversity Conservation
Plan for
Friends of
Friends of
Contact Information............................................................................................................................. 2
Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................. 3
Table of Contents................................................................................................................................ 4
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 5
2. Structure
and Development of a Successful Biodiversity Conservation Plan...................................... 6
2.a. A Mission
Statement Prioritizing Biodiversity Conservation........................................................ 6
2.b.
Characteristics of a Successful Biodiversity Conservation Plan.................................................. 7
2.c. Commitment
to Principles of Conservation................................................................................ 8
2.c.i. Biodiversity Conservation as a High
Priority.................................................................... 8
2.c.ii. Favoring Native Species
of Conservation Concern.......................................................... 8
2.c.iii. Need for Active Management......................................................................................... 9
2.c.iv. Management Across Varying Time Scales....................................................................... 9
2.c.v. Site-specific Management............................................................................................... 9
2.c.vi. Reduce Fragmentation of Natural Ecosystems............................................................... 10
2.c.vii. Minimizing External Threats........................................................................................... 10
2.c.viii. Maximizing External
Benefits......................................................................................... 10
3. Proposed
Process for Developing a Biodiversity Conservation Plan............................................... 10
3.a. Inception................................................................................................................................ 11
3.b. Authorship............................................................................................................................. 11
3.c. Timeframe.............................................................................................................................. 11
3.d. Review,
Comment, Revision, and Final Approval.................................................................... 11
4. FOM’s
Position on Specific Management Activities in Oak Mountain State Park........................... 12
4.a. Deer
Management and Deer Habitat Management.................................................................. 12
4.b. Prescribed
Burns................................................................................................................... 12
4.c. Mechanical
Removal and Felling of Vegetation........................................................................ 12
4.c.i. Clearcut Logging.......................................................................................................... 13
4.c.ii. Removal of Exotic Invasive Plants................................................................................. 14
4.c.iii. Fuel Reduction.............................................................................................................. 14
4.c.iv. Forest Restoration Efforts............................................................................................. 15
4.c.v. Creating Wildlife Viewing Areas................................................................................... 15
4.c.vi. Safety Concerns........................................................................................................... 16
4.c.vii. Pest or Disease Outbreak............................................................................................. 16
4.c.viii. Salvage Logging after
Windstorm.................................................................................. 17
4.d. Survey of
Park Boundary....................................................................................................... 17
4.e. Creation
of a Forest Demonstration Area................................................................................ 17
5. Biographical
Information about the Authors................................................................................... 18
6. References.................................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 1.
Information Flow In a Functioning Biodiversity Conservation Plan........................................ 19
Friends
of Oak Mountain (FOM) believes
that Oak Mountain State Park (OMSP) is a key player in protecting the state's
natural heritage. Rich with
biodiversity, the park contains many natural ecosystems and hundreds of plant
and animal species. Thus, the park is,
and increasingly will be, a vitally important refuge for species that once were
widespread in north-central
Providing
outdoor recreational opportunities is one of the most important management
priorities for the park. Thousands of visitors enjoy the park's vast network of
hiking, biking, and horse-back riding trails; fishing and swimming in the
lakes; camping; golfing; and picnic facilities.
The revenue generated from these visitors is critically important to
supporting OMSP and other components of Alabama State Parks. Clearly, recreational use of the park needs
to remain a top priority for park management and development in the coming
century. Current levels and types of
recreational activities in the park appear to be compatible with maintaining
the park's biodiversity. However, as
recreational use of the park grows and matures, it is critical that the needs
of recreation are carefully balanced with the needs of the park's native
species and their ecosystems.
In addition,
both the needs of biodiversity and
recreation in the park need to be managed in light of the rapid degree of
urbanization in the areas immediately surrounding the park. OMSP is within one of the fastest growing
metropolitan areas in the south.
In light of
these changes, we need to carefully consider and plan for the long-term
survival of the park's ecosystems and native species. To protect the park's biodiversity, it will
be increasingly important to coordinate the management of the park's
biodiversity with the various other management priorities within the park, and
to plan how management should respond to changes in the landscape surrounding
the park. FOM believes that this is a crucial time to address these diverse
issues. FOM believes that an important starting point in this process would be
for DCNR and State Parks to adopt a mission statement for OMSP that includes
biodiversity conservation and recreation as equally important priorities for
park management. In a separate, but
related, proposal FOM strongly urges the development of a Biodiversity
Conservation Plan (BCP) for the park that specifically addresses how to manage
park resources to ensure the survival of the park's natural ecosystems and
native species. In this document, we
explain our vision of how such a mission statement might read, how a BCP would
be structured and how it would function, how a BCP might be developed, and FOM’s position on specific management activities in
To clarify the
role biodiversity conservation should play in park stewardship,
a mission statement is needed to define the management goals for the park. FOM believes that it is critical to the
preservation of biodiversity in the park for this mission statement to place
equally important priority on biodiversity and recreation in the park. This
will provide guidance for balancing between different and occasionally
competing demands on the park’s natural and financial resources. FOM believes that a strong commitment to biodiversity
conservation will not interfere significantly with current recreational uses of
the park (camping, trail biking, hiking, fishing, horseback riding, etc.). However, such a mission statement would help
ensure that the needs of biodiversity are represented and protected when future
recreational developments are considered.
Fortunately, by virtue of OMSP’s large size, biodiversity conservation
and most forms of current and foreseeable recreational activities in the park
should be very compatible. However, any
form of off-road recreational vehicle activity (e.g., ATVs, jet skis) would not
be compatible with biodiversity conservation and many other forms of recreation
in the park.
Friends
of
"
The goal of the
Biodiversity Conservation Plan (BCP) as envisioned by FOM should be to enable
park managers to protect and maintain for the foreseeable future sustainable
populations of the native species that permanently or periodically reside in
the park, and the ecosystems on which these species rely. There are five major features that would
characterize a successful BCP. Firstly,
the BCP should describe the major ecosystems that exist in the park, species of
particular importance in these ecosystems, and the major threats to these
species and ecosystems. While a thorough
map of the park and its ecosystems needs to be produced soon, it would not be
practical to wait for such a comprehensive survey. Instead, the major ecosystems and habitats
should be listed and described, and used as a basis for constructing the BCP.
Secondly, the BCP should commit the park to a set
of flexible conservation principles to help guide management of species and
ecosystems in the park, other park management decisions, and any proposed
revisions to the BCP. In essence, these
conservation principles would be used to develop flexible guidelines for
activities in the park so that long-term biodiversity preservation is not
compromised. In the section below we
outline several conservation principles that FOM believes should be included in
the BCP.
Thirdly, the BCP should be developed according
to an adaptive management model, that of making
informed management decisions, monitoring their effectiveness, and revising
future management approaches based on lessons learned. Ideally, we would wait for science to provide
the answers before proceeding with certain management methods. However, due to
limited resources and the careful but slow pace of scientific investigation,
waiting is not always possible. Instead,
managers should monitor the results of biodiversity management in the
park. Using this new information,
management practices can be refined to better promote biodiversity
conservation.
Fourthly, a successful BCP must be flexible (see
Figure 1). New scientific knowledge is
continuously being generated about the park’s ecosystems and their inhabitants,
and the landscape surrounding the park.
A successful BCP would incorporate such new knowledge to better guide
biodiversity management in the park. In
addition, information from monitoring biodiversity management in the park will
periodically need to be incorporated into the BCP to better refine park management
guidelines. The BCP also needs to be available for periodic internal and public
review, comment, and revision to incorporate new knowledge and increased
understanding of the park's ecosystems.
Public review also provides citizens the opportunity to discuss with
park officials how well the intentions of the BCP are being met through park
management, and provide park officials with feedback on how adherence to the
BCP is affecting recreational enjoyment of the park. Public review will help facilitate trust,
understanding, and communication between the park and Alabama's citizens, and
will give park managers opportunities to explain and engender support for the
intentions of park management practices that may not be well-understood by the
public (e.g., the use of prescribed fire).
FOM also strongly advocates that public review be initiated with any
major change in park policy that might significantly affect park biodiversity,
or any proposed major development in the park that might significantly affect
park biodiversity.
Fifthly, the plan should be fiscally practical,
recognizing the park’s ever-present budgetary limitations,
and fiscally creative, incorporating cost-savings (for example, working with
volunteer groups, other state agencies, and other sections within DCNR) with
management that enhances biodiversity.
A successful BCP
should outline a set of conservation principles to which park management should
be committed. These general principles
should be used to help managers develop specific guidelines for achieving
biodiversity conservation. The
principles described below are those that FOM believes should be included in
the development of a BCP. The principles
are far-reaching to provide the greater context for understanding the complexity
of biodiversity conservation. While
commitment to such principles is important for the success of biodiversity
conservation, we acknowledge that DCNR and State Parks does not have sufficient
resources to meet all the needs outlined here.
However, by committing to such principles, DCNR and State Parks would
chart a course for both current and future efforts to protect biodiversity in
the park.
The conservation of
biodiversity in the park should be of high priority. It should be considered
just as important as other management priorities in the park. Why should biodiversity conservation be
prioritized so highly? The native
species inhabiting the park must live there far into the foreseeable future. If
populations of those species disappear, then those species may be lost from the
park forever. While we humans have the ability to be flexible in the location
and intensity of our activities, plants and animals are much less flexible in
the way they can respond to our activities in the park. Thus, the planning of
management and development activities in the park needs to take into account
how such activities may impact the park's populations of native species and
their ecosystems. It is important to
realize that FOM is not advocating the curtailing of current recreational use
in the park, nor are we advocating that recreation in the park should not be
expanded. Instead, we are encouraging
that the growth of recreation in the park be developed together with policies
to sustain biodiversity.
Any human
activity in the park is likely to negatively affect populations of some native
species or the ecosystems on which they depend.
However, it would be impossible to manage the park such that no species
or ecosystems were negatively affected by human activities. Instead, FOM believes that management and
development activities in the park should be guided by the BCP to favor native species of conservation concern
over those native species that are of less concern to conservation and whose
regional populations are stable or are increasing in size. These “species of conservation concern” are
species whose populations are declining at the local, state, or national
levels. Illustrating this point with a
simplistic example, resource management that led to a decline in Indigo Bunting
habitat in the park would be of little concern, but loss of Wood Thrush habitat
in the park would be of much concern. FOM
advocates that DCNR consider species to be of conservation concern if those
species are included in the following categories:
a. As delineated by the Endangered Species
Act and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, any species that are federally
endangered, federally threatened, proposed federally endangered, proposed
federally threatened, or are candidate species.
b. As delineated by The Nature Conservancy
of Alabama’s Alabama Natural Heritage Program, any species classified as
Globally Critically Imperiled (G1 species), Globally Imperiled (G2), or
Globally Rare (G3), Critically Imperiled in Alabama (S1), Imperiled in Alabama
(S2), Rare or Uncommon in Alabama (S3), of Historical Occurrence by not having
been seen in 20 years (SH), Possibly Imperiled in Alabama (SU), and Extirpated
in Alabama (SX). See the Alabama Natural
Heritage Program’s
c. As delineated by the National Audubon
Society’s Watchlist located at the following
address: http://www.audubon.org/bird/watchlist/index.html.
It is important to note
that FOM is not requesting that DCNR take active measures to re-introduce
native species that have been extirpated from the park. However, FOM advocates that DCNR support the
re-introduction of such species as resources and/or opportunities arise for
their re-introduction.
Active
management of the park's natural areas may be necessary to promote biodiversity
conservation in the park. Many of the
normal processes that once kept biodiversity levels high in the park are now
absent or diminished. Intervention to mimic these processes will be necessary
in many cases to preserve native biodiversity.
Adaptive management principles should be applied. For example, large carnivores in the park are
absent. Thus, the BCP would likely call
for the controlling of herbivore populations, especially deer, by periodic
culling of such herds (a position FOM supports).
Because the
populations of native species living in the park need to survive indefinitely,
biodiversity conservation planning in the park needs to incorporate both
near-term and long-term management goals for multiple time periods (for
example, 5, 50, and 100-year scales). Many
important management goals may take many decades to achieve but may require
incremental actions in the near term.
For example, a long-term goal may be to restore herbaceous plant species
diversity in the understory of the mountain longleaf pine forests. To achieve this, near-term goals would
include periodic prescribe burns. Mid-term goals may include distributing seeds
of herbaceous plants in areas where prescribed burns have created favorable
conditions for establishment. Long-term
goals may be to reconnect currently isolated patches of longleaf pine forest
within the park via restoration of longleaf forest in areas between these
patches.
Management
strategies promoting native biodiversity need to be tailored to the particular
ecosystem, community, or habitat being affected by that management. On the broad scale, there are three major
types of natural ecosystems to consider in the park: upland forest (mountain
longleaf forest), lowland deciduous forest, and the park’s streams. Management plans promoting native
biodiversity need to be developed for each of these ecosystems. Within each one, different management
strategies may be needed. For example,
fire is an appropriate management tool promoting biodiversity in upland forests
that historically have been exposed to natural fires, but it is not an
appropriate management tool for promoting biodiversity in lowland deciduous
forest. Thus, the BCP would likely call
for continued use of prescribed fire as a management tool in upland forests
throughout the park (a position FOM advocates).
Terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems function best when connectivity between them is
maximized. Similarly, populations of
most native species are more secure when connectivity in their landscape is
maintained. Connectivity allows species
and ecosystem processes to move naturally throughout the park. Thus, management and development activities
in the park should minimize fragmentation of the park's natural
ecosystems. For example, the land within
the park was once an intact forest ecosystem with only a very few natural
clearings. Through time, the park's
forests became fragmented as developments were added. Thus, the Biodiversity Conservation Plan
might emphasize that forest fragmentation in the park should not be increased
any more than is absolutely necessary (a position FOM advocates). When locations for new development in the
park are sought, such development could be placed in areas already developed
(e.g., under-used facilities) rather than clearing additional forest. In
addition, when resources and opportunities arise, connections between separated
sections of forest should be established via forest restoration.
Biodiversity
conservation planning needs to recognize threats that are now and will be,
coming from the changing landscape beyond the park's borders.
As land outside the park is developed, it will be increasingly difficult
for many of the park's native species to survive, especially those with large
ranges extending beyond the park and those in the park that need periodic
recruitment from populations outside the park.
Other external threats that will result from continued development
outside the park include increased chance of wildfire, and more air, water, and
noise pollution. Increased development
near the border will also lead to increased invasions into the park of exotic
plant and animal species. For many of
these threats, there is little that can be done to mitigate them. But for other threats, much can be done to
minimize them. For example, the
Biodiversity Conservation Plan might call for periodic surveys along the park
border by park personnel or volunteers to locate and remove invasive exotic
species.
A Biodiversity
Conservation Plan should also look to the landscape and entities beyond the
park’s border as potential resources to help preserve park biodiversity. For example, if OMSP can be connected to (or
maintain connection to) protected natural areas surrounding the park, there
will be more habitat available for the park's migratory species or species that
travel large distances for obtaining food.
Such landscape connectivity could be achieved through cooperative
agreements with public agencies and private entities owning land in the area.
Another external benefit are the many citizens of the
area who would help with efforts to implement the BCP (e.g., invasive species
removal, biodiversity surveys). Such creative endeavors should be explored in
the development and implementation of the BCP.
The following
are suggested guidelines for the development of a BCP. Clearly, DCNR and State Parks has ultimate
authority in designing the process of BCP development. However, FOM believes that following the
principles discussed below will help ensure that a thorough and successful plan
for the park is constructed.
The process of
developing a Biodiversity Conservation Plan (BCP) should begin with the
commitment of DCNR and State Parks to adopting a mission statement for the park
and a commitment to developing a BCP.
FOM advocates
that DCNR forms a committee of authors to develop the BCP for the park. These authors should represent a diversity of
institutions and expertise related to biodiversity conservation. Especially important would be including
experts on park management and recreation, forest ecology, invasive species
control, stream ecology, prescribed fire, and the ecology of the wildland-urban interface.
Each author should bring to the committee considerable knowledge about
biodiversity conservation and/or park management. FOM proposes that representatives from five
categories be included to create a well-balanced committee representing diverse
viewpoints: (1) the State of
FOM proposes
that the committee of authors have one year to develop a final document. Ideally, this process, including public
review and comment, would be completed by
Public
involvement in the process of developing a BCP will be crucial for engendering
public support for the plan. Including
diverse feedback during plan development is critical for its success. It will
engender among the stakeholders trust, commitment, and community pride that
will help ensure broad support for the BCP.
Feedback will be necessary from the recreational representatives, local
government officials, local business owners, and local property owners. It may
be wise for the authors to solicit public opinion from these entities about the
development of the plan prior to writing of the draft. Once the BCP is drafted, it should be made
readily available for review and comment by the public and all stakeholders.
Sufficient time should be given to allow the public to review and comment on
the plan (the draft should be made available as hard copy by request and posted
online as a PDF file). At that stage in
the process it would be wise to solicit review from experts on relevant issues
who did not participate in authoring the draft.
After gathering feedback from the public and solicited reviewers, the
authors would then revise the BCP as needed, and then submit the draft to DCNR
and State Parks for review and comment.
After receiving and incorporating comments from DCNR and State Parks
administrations, a 'final' draft would be completed and given to DCNR and State
Parks for final approval. The word "final" is in quotes here to
emphasize that the BCP will still be an evolving document with continual future
revisions as explained above.