Background
Plant communities found on peatland soils include forests, basin shrublands, and seepage communities. Peatland plant communities in the southeastern United States are important to landscape and regional biodiversity because they are often the only natural areas that have not been converted to urban or agricultural uses, and they support several threatened, endangered and sensitive species (TES). Several of these plant communities are rare themselves, due to alterations in fire and hydrology over large expanses of the region. Many of these communities can be found on Department of Defense (DoD) installations in the southeast. The ecology and management of six different but similar communities are reviewed here with an emphasis on land uses associated with DoD installations.
Management approaches to protecting TES and natural plant communities are often designed to address immediate and local problems (M. Imlay, Natural Resource Specialist, Army National Guard Bureau, professional discussion, 18 August 1995). Although this approach can be rewarding and effective for an individual installation, it precludes any organized understanding of land use impacts, or sharing of lessons learned, and can sometimes lead to repeated, inefficient efforts to solve similar problems throughout a region of the country. Duplication of effort needs to be reduced or eliminated.
This report constitutes one in a series that is the product of an interlaboratory effort between the U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (USACERL) and the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) to generate habitat-based management strategies for TES on DoD lands in the southeastern United States (Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program [SERDP] work unit "Regional Guidelines for Managing T&E Species Habitats"; Martin et al. 1996). This effort is directed at developing strategies to manage TES and their habitats on a plant community basis, using methods that apply to multiple species and that apply to military training lands across the southeastern United States. Any increase in understanding of the habitat requirements of listed TES will help training and natural resource personnel to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), while avoiding restrictions on the military mission. Furthermore, the results detailed in this report suggest a greatdeal of additional effort is required before the management process can largely be driven by solid scientific information (as required by the ESA).
Objectives
The objectives of this research were to compile known information, identify gaps in knowledge, and stimulate future research efforts on the potential positive and negative effects of landscape planning, silviculture, military training, and other resource-based activities on six peatland communities that serve as high-quality habitat for TES on military lands in the southeastern United States.
This SERDP work unit, in particular, was undertaken to reduce duplication of effort in conservation of TES using habitat in peatland shrub- and/or forest-dominated communities. It is hoped that this review of information may be used to improve the ecological and economic effectiveness of TES habitat management. By understanding the ecological requirements of TES and the environmental resilience or sensitivity of the six peatland communities discussed here, installations acquire increased control over TES management and land use decisions.
Approach
To identify potential impacts and management options to mitigate those impacts, researchers reviewed the available literature and conducted interviews with community ecologists throughout the southeastern United States, with an emphasis on interviewing those people who have been involved in TES and plant community survey work on military installations. Site visits were made to military installa tions. Potential impacts were also discussed with military natural resources personnel, botanists, community ecologists, and military contractors such as The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and state Natural Heritage Program (NHP) staff. Information also was acquired from installation TES survey reports in which impacts and management were addressed. Land Condition Trend Analysis (LCTA) reports, Land Rehabilitation and Maintenance (LRAM) data, and academic and Federal agency literature on logging and recreational impacts to plant communities were also used.
Scope
Within the context of the larger DoD mission, TES populations can be maintained through the following framework: (1) identify mission requirements, (2) identify TES requirements, (3) identify ideal compromises for meeting both TES and mission requirements, and (4) pursue these compromises and develop realistic, workable approaches. The fourth step should be executed through professional management of TES populations, at the installation level, to reduce restrictions on the military mission. This document partially contributes to the total TES and land-manage ment process. It provides information to assist in identifying the needs of TES (step 2), and perhaps will assist in identifying options for compromise as well (step 3). The content of this report is not intended to provide the "bottom line" for manage ment of TES on military lands - only to provide information from literature review for the consideration of installation land managers.
This report focuses on plant communities because they provide habitat for numerous species. By managing at the community or ecosystem level, DoD has the opportunity to conserve multiple TES simultaneously. Plant communities are less ambiguous entities than complete ecosystems, and have been described and cataloged for many decades by ecologists and biogeographers. They provide a useful basis for understanding and managing the natural systems that support military training and other land uses.
Peatland communities support multiple uses, including DoD training and testing, TES conservation, and forest commodities (e.g., timber) production. This document provides a review of wetland ecology and recommended management practices for peatland shrub- and forest-dominated communities. It is intended to provide current information for management on military installations that is compatible with the military mission (e.g., training). Where feasible, recommendations mimic natural disturbance patterns and provide suitable habitat for the diversity of species that inhabit the community, with an emphasis on TES.
A range of management options was considered for areas that trainers and resource managers recognize as potential endangered species habitat. These options are not intended to constrain military training. Rather, management options were developed within the context of training requirements, and should be considered only to the extent they are compatible with training. Many of the more restrictive land use options identified in this report apply to lands already protected due to their sensitive nature (forested wetlands). Training will continue to be the primary land use concern, with training-land decisions being made daily based on whatever information is available at the time. Flexibility in management options identifiedin this and related reports will enable land managers to make more informed decisions and effectively support the training mission. Moreover, while manage ment options in this report are not intended to be applied across entire DoD installations, they are presented as potential tools consistent with an ecosystem approach and support healthy, functional communities.
Mode of Technology Transfer
This report is to be used by DoD natural resource policymakers, installation land managers, and the natural resources research community, in conjunction with associated documents produced under this SERDP work unit (e.g., Trame and Harper 1997) Harper et al. 1997; and by Trame and Tazik (1995) to (1) develop ecosystem-compatible approaches to describe natural communities and TES habitat within the context of military land management, (2) evaluate military-related effects on those communities, (3) develop community-based strategies for supporting both military land use and TES habitat management, and (4) develop management solutions for military impacts to natural communities when management for TES habitat is a priority.
This report is available on the CERL web page at http://www.cecer.army.mil