Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
S
W R
Bon Secour
National Wildlife Refuge
Alabama Beach Mouse
USFWS Photo
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for
management decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies
needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and identify the Fish and
Wildlife Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail
program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above
current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service
strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans
do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational
and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
Bon Secour
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
November 2005
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
BON SECOUR NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Baldwin and Mobile Counties, Alabama
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
1875 Century Boulevard
Atlanta, Georgia 30345
November 2005
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose and Need For The Plan ................................................................................................... 1
Fish and Wildlife Service ................................................................................................................ 1
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................... 2
Legal Policy Context ......................................................................................................................... 3
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency ........................................................................................... 3
Ecosystem Context ......................................................................................................................... 4
Ecological Threats and Problems .................................................................................................. 4
Conservation Priorities ................................................................................................................... 7
Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem Team 5-Year Action Plan .................................................... 8
North American Bird Conservation Initiative ......................................................................... 8
North American Waterfowl Management Plan ..................................................................... 8
Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan ............................................................................ 9
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan ........................................................................................ 9
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan ................................................................... 10
Mobile Bay National Estuary Program, Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan .................................................................................................................................... 10
Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan ............................. 10
Alabama Coastal Area Management Plan ......................................................................... 10
Fort Morgan Peninsula Resource Assessment .................................................................. 11
Alabama Gulf Coast Strategic Plan for Tourism ................................................................ 11
II. THE REFUGE .................................................................................................................................. 13
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 13
History and Purposes Of The Refuge .......................................................................................... 13
Refuge Environment ..................................................................................................................... 15
Biological Environment ....................................................................................................... 15
Physical Environment ......................................................................................................... 28
Refuge Administration and Management ........................................................................... 29
Social and Economic Environment ..................................................................................... 38
Cultural Environment .......................................................................................................... 40
Significant Resource Threats and Problems ...................................................................... 42
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................... 50
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 50
Public Involvement and Planning Process ................................................................................... 50
Summary Of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 51
Fish and Wildlife Populations ............................................................................................. 51
Habitats ............................................................................................................................... 52
Resource Protection ........................................................................................................... 52
Environmental Education and Outreach ............................................................................. 52
Public Use ........................................................................................................................... 53
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION .......................................................................................................... 54
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 54
Bon Secour National ii Wildlife Refuge
Vision ........................................................................................................................................... 54
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ................................................................................................ 55
Goal 1: Fish and Wildlife Populations ............................................................................... 55
Goal 2: Habitats ................................................................................................................. 59
Goal 3: Resource Conservation ........................................................................................ 62
Goal 4: Public Use and Environmental Education ............................................................ 66
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................... 74
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 74
Proposed Projects and Personnel ............................................................................................... 74
Funding and Personnel ................................................................................................................ 79
Volunteers ................................................................................................................................... 82
Partnership Opportunities ............................................................................................................ 82
Step-Down Management Plans ................................................................................................... 82
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ........................................................................................ 82
VI. LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................................... 84
SECTION B. APPENDICES
APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................... 86
APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ......................................................... 98
APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES .............................................................................. 104
APPENDIX IV. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ...................................................................... 112
Public Scoping Comments ......................................................................................................... 112
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan And Environmental Assessment Comments ........... 115
APPENDIX V. BUDGET REQUESTS ................................................................................................ 126
Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) ................................................................................ 126
Maintenance Management System Needs ................................................................................ 127
APPENDIX VI. REFUGE BIOTA ........................................................................................................ 128
APPENDIX VII. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 148
APPENDIX VIII. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ................................ 160
APPENDIX IX. FINDING OF NO-SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................................. 164
Table of Contents iii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem, Fish and Wildlife Service ...................................................... 5
Figure 2. Planning study area, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Baldwin and Mobile counties,
Alabama ............................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 3. Alabama beach mouse habitat on Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Baldwin County,
Alabama ............................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 4. Sea turtle nesting along the Fort Morgan Peninsula, Baldwin County, Alabama ................. 19
Figure 5. Perdue Unit, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Baldwin County, Alabama ................... 21
Figure 6. Sand Bayou Unit, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Baldwin County, Alabama ........... 22
Figure 7. Little Point Clear Unit, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Baldwin County, Alabama .... 24
Figure 8. Fort Morgan Unit, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Baldwin County, Alabama ........... 25
Figure 9. Little Dauphin Island Unit, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Mobile County, Alabama
(acquisition and ownership) ................................................................................................. 26
Figure 10. Skunk Bayou Unit, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Baldwin County, Alabama
(acquisition and ownership) ................................................................................................. 27
Figure 11. Wetland Resources, Perdue Unit, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Baldwin County,
Alabama ............................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 12. Wetland resources, Sand Bayou Unit, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Baldwin
County, Alabama .................................................................................................................. 33
Figure 13. Wetland resources, Little Point Clear Unit, B on Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Baldwin
County, Alabama .................................................................................................................. 34
Figure 14. Wetland resources, Fort Morgan Unit, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Baldwin
County, Alabama .................................................................................................................. 35
Figure 15. Administrative and public use facilities of Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge ............... 36
Figure 16. Organization chart, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge .................................................. 38
Figure 17. Fort Morgan Peninsula zoning district ................................................................................. 43
Figure 18. Fort Morgan Peninsula zoning district .................................................................................. 44
Figure 19. Proposed recreational facilities for the Sand Bayou Unit, Bon Secour National Wildlife
Refuge ................................................................................................................................. 70
Figure 20. Proposed recreational facilities for the Perdue Unit, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge
............................................................................................................................................. 71
Figure 21. Proposed recreational facilities for the Little Point Clear Unit, Bon Secour National Wildlife
Refuge ................................................................................................................................. 72
Figure 22. Proposed recreation facilities for the Fort Morgan Unit, Bon Secour National Wildlife
Refuge ................................................................................................................................. 73
Figure 23. Proposed organizational chart for Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge ........................... 81
Bon Secour National iv Wildlife Refuge
List of Tables
Table 1. Acquisition history for the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Baldwin and Mobile
counties, Alabama. ................................................................................................................. 29
Table 2. Land acquisition figures and acquisition strategies employed for the Bon Secour National
Wildlife Refuge through October 2003. .................................................................................. 30
Table 3. Prioritized acquisition acreage (habitat) and estimated values for the Bon Secour National
Wildlife Refuge. ....................................................................................................................... 31
Table 4. Funding for Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Fiscal Years 1999-2003. ........................ 37
Table 5. Summary of ecological threats and problems facing Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge. 45
Table 6. Summary of concerns reflected on the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge Planning
Packet. ................................................................................................................................... 51
Table 7. Proposed projects and personnel costs for Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge. .............. 80
Table 8. New personnel needed to fulfill the purposes of the refuge and to implement the Final
Comprehensive Conservation Plan. ....................................................................................... 80
Table 9. Proposed step-down management plans for Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge. ............ 83
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A: COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND
INTRODUCTION
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge was prepared to
guide management actions and to provide direction for the refuge. Fish and wildlife conservation will
receive first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and
encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and does not detract from, the mission of the refuge or
the purposes for which it was established.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals of the refuge and that could
be implemented within the 15-year planning period. This comprehensive conservation plan describes
the management alternative selected by the Fish and Wildlife Service and its effects on the
environment.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The plan will serve as an operational guide for managing the refuge, for achieving the refuge=s
purposes; for attaining the vision and goals developed for the refuge; for contributing to the National
Wildlife Refuge System mission; and for addressing key problems, issues, and relevant mandates.
The plan is designed to:
Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction;
Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on and around the refuge;
Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education
programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and
Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
Perhaps the greatest needs of the Service involve communication with the public and the public=s
participation in carrying out the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Many agencies,
organizations, institutions, and businesses have developed relationships with the Service to advance
the mission of national wildlife refuges.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges covering over 95
million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million
acres, is in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United
States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands and other
special management areas. It operates 66 national fishery resource offices and 78 ecological
services field stations. The Service enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered
Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves
and restores wildlife habitat, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also
Bon Secour National 2 Wildlife Refuge
oversees the Federal Aid program which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on
fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 is:
A...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management,
and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats
within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.@
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear
legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Actions were
initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete
comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with full public
involvement, help guide management of refuges. Consistent with this Act, approved plans will serve
as the guidelines for refuge management over the next 15 years. The Act provides that each refuge
shall be managed to:
Fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
Consider the needs of wildlife first;
Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of the
Refuge System;
Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System; and
Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are
legitimate and priority public uses; and allow refuge managers authority to determine
compatible public uses.
Approximately 38 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2002, most to observe wildlife in
their natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, there are significant economic benefits to local
communities. In 2001, 82 million people, 16 years and older, either fished, hunted, or observed
wildlife, generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36
percent in 7 years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities
averaged 120 per refuge, up from an average of 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into
local economies. The 15 refuges in the study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming);
Crab Orchard (Illinois); Eufaula (Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira
(Kansas); Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay
(California); Laguna Atacosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake
(California); and Tensas River (Louisiana) B the same refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other
findings also validate the belief that communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on
food, lodging, and transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in
1995. For each federal dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding communities benefitted with
$4.43 in recreation expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income (Caudill and Laughland, unpubl.
data).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2002,
volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at more
than $22 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first;
that ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must be
healthy and growth must be strategic; that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat management with
broad participation from others; and will be facilitated to provide outstanding opportunities to participate in
outdoor recreation and to foster an appreciation for refuges and wildlife.
LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge
System, congressional legislation, Presidential executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for
management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines established by the Secretary
of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Refer to
Appendix III for a listing of relevant legal mandates.
Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally
opened. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act. Those mandates are to:
Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as to refuge purposes and goals;
Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses which benefit the conservation of fish and
wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public (these uses include hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation); and
Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent agency policy,
is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other state fish and
game agencies and tribal governments during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife
management areas and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the protection of fish and wildlife
species and contribute to their overall health and sustainment. An essential part of comprehensive
conservation planning is integrating common mission objectives where appropriate.
The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources provides management and protection for
the state=s fish and wildlife resources through conservation enforcement officers in each county, statewide,
and through fisheries and wildlife biologists (http://www.dcnr.state.al.us). The Department=s major goal is to
promote stewardship and enjoyment of Alabama=s natural resources for both present and future generations.
It is responsible for freshwater fish, wildlife, marine resources, waterway safety, state lands, state parks, and
other natural resources. The Department manages 24 state parks; 23 fishing lakes; 3 fish hatcheries; 2
waterfowl refuges; 2 wildlife sanctuaries; 34 wildlife management areas; and a mariculture center. It has
responsibility for more than 645,000 acres of trust lands set aside for wildlife purposes. The state=s
participation and contribution throughout this planning process has provided for ongoing opportunities
and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainment of fish and wildlife in Alabama.
Bon Secour National 4 Wildlife Refuge
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
Sustainable communities and species conservation and recovery require the joint efforts of private
landowners and local communities, as well as state and federal governments. Bon Secour National
Wildlife Refuge lies in the southeastern part of a larger Fish and Wildlife Service management unit
(watershed) referred to as the Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem (Figure 1). The Service is developing
cooperative partnerships in an effort to reduce the declining trend of fish and wildlife populations and
biological diversity within this ecosystem.
The Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem is characterized by flat to rolling topography broken by numerous
streams and river bottoms. The estuaries and coastal waters and lands located at the lower end of
the Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem in the Mobile River basin include saline, brackish (mixed saline and
fresh), and fresh waters, as well as coastlines and adjacent lands. Coastal beach/dunes, strands,
offshore barrier islands, tidal marsh and freshwater wetlands, pine woodlands, and live oak forests are
interrelated features, which are crucial as habitats for coastal fish and wildlife. Uplands are dominated
by pine, originally longleaf and slash in the south and shortleaf mixed with hardwoods in the north.
These are fire-maintained systems that give way to loblolly pines and hardwoods in more damp areas
and bottomland hardwood forests in extensive lowland drainages. Today, most forests are
fragmented or remain in scattered patches throughout the region.
Flood waters and storms once recharged aquatic and terrestrial habitats and created rich, dynamic
systems that supported a diverse abundance of fish and wildlife species. Currently, however, water
quality is significantly impacted by agricultural and industrial runoff. Rivers and water bodies
throughout this ecosystem are highly turbid and laden with pesticides, supporting a small fraction of
the once abundant aquatic resources. Declines in fish, wildlife, and habitats have prompted the
Service to designate coastal habitats found in this ecosystem as areas of special concern.
The Service is focusing efforts to adopt collaborative resource partnerships within and outside the
agency to reduce the declining trend of fish and wildlife populations and biological diversity, to
establish conservation priorities, to clarify goals, and to solve common threats and problems
associated with fish and wildlife resources. Biological objectives in the lower Central Gulf, for species
groups targeted in this plan, reflect the various local, regional, national, and international conservation
plans, including: Loggerhead Sea Turtle Recovery Plan; Alabama Beach Mouse Recovery Plan; U.S.
Shorebird Conservation Plan; Partners-in-Flight Initiative; Waterbird Conservation Plan; Mobile Bay
Initiative; and North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
National wildlife refuges in the Central Gulf serve as part of the last safety net to support biological
diversity B the greatest challenge facing the Service. Impacts and underlying causes and threats to
biological diversity in this area include:
Loss and reduction of species with specific habitat requirements;
Loss, alteration, and fragmentation of high-quality coastal habitat due to development;
Loss of natural shoreline as a result of development, hydrologic modifications, natural erosion,
bulkheading, shoreline armoring, and inadequate coastal engineering;
Lack of monitoring and regulation to protect fish and wildlife resources; and
Increased demand for beach access and use resulting in increased disturbance to wildlife.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
Figure 1. Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem, Fish and Wildlife Service
Bon Secour National 6 Wildlife Refuge
Elimination and fragmentation of coastal habitats have decimated wildlife species throughout the Gulf
coast, and are recognized by the Service as serious threats to wildlife in Alabama. Species most
adversely affected by fragmentation are those that are area sensitive or that require special habitat
such as protected, undisturbed beach dunes that offer secure breeding habitat and a particular food
source. Fragmentation affects migratory songbirds, sea turtles, beach mice, and many other species,
mostly through high rates of nesting failure and predation. More than 370 species of breeding
migratory songbirds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and raptors are found in this region. Some of these
species, such as the red-cockaded woodpecker and the Bachman=s warbler, have declined
significantly and need the benefits of large, managed forest blocks to recover and sustain their
existence (C. Hunter, pers. comm., Fish and Wildlife Service).
During the past two centuries, increasing human development, including transportation, housing,
water supply, electricity, food, and waste disposal, has caused many changes in the nature and
quality of Gulf coastal areas. The primary threat to this ecosystem is the loss of biological diversity.
Factors leading to biodiversity loss include: loss and fragmentation of habitat, spread of invasive
species, overuse of resources, pollution, and change in global climate.
Implications and complications of biodiversity loss are having an unforeseen effect on jobs and the
economy. In the Mobile Bay estuary, the loss of mussel and oyster populations has virtually
eliminated one of the largest industries in the region and resulted in significant impacts on both
regional economy and culture. More than $200 million in estimated commercial and sport fishing
revenue loss is attributed to the destruction of estuaries between 1954 and 1978 (Mobile Bay Natural
Estuary Program 1999).
Dams, locks, levees, and other channel modifications have separated and fragmented the aquatic
habitats of many species that depend on free-flowing rivers. Agriculture, forest removal, and coastal
development have separated and fragmented terrestrial habitats of many species that depend on
large undisturbed blocks of land cover for survival. As a result, this area is experiencing biotic
extinctions at a rate unparalleled elsewhere in the continental United States; almost 50 percent of
biotic extinctions have occurred in the Mobile Bay watershed within the last century (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and Natural Heritage Network Central Databases).
As a further consequence of this habitat fragmentation, many of the surviving populations of coastal
fish and wildlife only persist in small and isolated populations, such as those found at Bon Secour
Refuge. Without natural avenues of migration, however, exchange of individuals and genetic material
between populations becomes virtually impossible. Thus remaining populations are rendered even
more vulnerable to habitat modification and degradation, as well as the multitude of impacts
associated with coastal development, such as outdoor recreational vehicles, jet skis, feral and free-roaming
pets, litter, and pollution.
Coastal ecosystems are fragile and support numerous unique habitats. Forested wetlands, marshes,
oyster reefs, and seagrass beds are disappearing rapidly. Alabama has lost 25,000 acres of both
wetlands and bay bottoms in the Mobile-Tensaw Delta. Historic (pre-Coastal Zone Management Act)
port and industrial development is believed to have caused the vast majority of losses in wetlands and
bay water bottoms in and around Mobile Bay (C. Ferraro, pers. comm., Alabama Department of
Environmental Management). As of 1998, 45 percent of Mobile County and 32 percent of Baldwin
County have been cleared and developed for residential and commercial activities (Mullens et al.,
1999). Seagrass beds serve as nurseries for many animal species, including fish, shrimp, and crabs.
Many established beds have totally disappeared since the 1960s. An estimated 90 percent of
commercial fish and shellfish landings in Alabama rely on these grassy wetlands as critical habitat during
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
their life cycles. It is unknown how many acres of seagrass beds have been lost. However, possible
reasons for the apparent decline include increased turbidity and/or other water quality problems, changes in
water-flow regimes from upstream dam construction, invasive species, and natural variability, such as
drought (C. Ferraro, pers. comm., Alabama Department of Environmental Management).
The Mobile River Basin aquatic populations have been severely impacted. The reduction of ecological
function in the basin from the impounded waters of 28 major dams, coupled with development related
impacts, has resulted in widespread changes in flow, substrate, and water quality in river and stream
habitats. States in the southeastern United States have the greatest numbers of imperiled and vulnerable
freshwater fish species, with 61 species at risk in Alabama.
Channel modifications and pollution have gradually eliminated large populations of native aquatic species,
including fish, mussels, snails, insects, and crustaceans. Aquatic species have become isolated, and
without avenues for migration are further affected by land surface pollution runoff. Barriers to movement
prevent anadromous fish, including striped bass, Gulf sturgeon, and Alabama shad, from reaching
spawning grounds and key habitat areas. Almost 40 percent of North America=s aquatic turtles inhabit the
drainages of the Mobile River Basin. This basin ranks third in the nation in its variety of fishes and is
among the top ten river basins in the world in its diversity of freshwater mussels.
CONSERVATION PRIORITIES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting various regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, ecosystem, national, and international levels.
Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected parties to address
declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The conservation guidance
described in the listed plans and initiatives, along with issues, problems and trends, was reviewed and
integrated, where appropriate, into this comprehensive conservation plan.
Conservation management on private lands is extremely important to the future conservation of fish and
wildlife resources. To achieve conservation priorities on private lands and in conjunction with public lands,
the synergy of all federal, state, tribal, and private organizations, working together, will ensure that the
Service not only protects the more important areas, but also reduces redundancy and overlap.
Perhaps the greatest needs of the Service involve communication with the public and public agency
participation in efforts to carry out the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Many agencies,
organizations, institutions, and businesses have developed relationships with the Service to advance the
mission of national wildlife refuges. This comprehensive conservation plan supports, among others, the
Partners-in-Flight Plan, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Western Hemisphere
Shorebird Reserve Network, and the National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan.
Bon Secour National 8 Wildlife Refuge
CENTRAL GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM TEAM 5-YEAR ACTION PLAN
The restoration, recovery, and protection of pine habitats and associated plant and animal
communities are the goals of the Service=s Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem Team. Historically, the
longleaf pine community was the predominant vegetative community of the southeastern coastal
plain, with roughly 60 percent coverage in upland areas. In Alabama, longleaf pine communities are
concentrated in Mobile, Baldwin, Washington, and Monroe counties. Virtually all of the virgin timber
was cut between 1870 and 1920. Between 1955 and 1994, longleaf pine acreage decreased by 73
percent. Most of the remaining longleaf pine and pine savanna habitats are in private ownership.
These habitats have become extremely fragmented and degraded by logging and grazing, as well as
by intensive site preparation and fire suppression.
The Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem Team developed a 5-year action plan (October 1996) that
addresses refuge contributions to the ecosystem. The following management priorities for migratory
birds are identified for Bon Secour Refuge, which is a vital staging and fallout area for birds migrating
across the Gulf of Mexico:
Promote management/restoration/protection of important wintering and breeding habitat;
Manage refuge lands as migratory habitat bases (anchors) and examples of good habitat;
Actively support high priority acquisition efforts at Bon Secour Refuge; and
Support research to identify important habitats, sensitive species, and habitat management
techniques.
NORTH AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVATION INITIATIVE
The North American Bird Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government, private and academic
organizations, and private industry leaders addressing bird conservation. Priority lands include
coastal intertidal habitats that provide critical wintering areas (American oystercatcher), important
wintering and spring migration areas (e.g., short-billed dowitcher and dunlin), and important fall
staging areas (e.g., red knot). Sizable numbers of brown pelicans, black skimmers, black necked
stilts, black rails, least terns, and reddish egrets breed on offshore islands, including Little Dauphin
Island, which is part of the refuge. Coastal areas provide important wintering, nesting, and foraging
habitats for large numbers of shorebirds, waterfowl (e.g., canvasbacks), and other species. Managed
impoundments in coastal areas are important to migrating and wintering dabbling ducks, including the
American black duck.
NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Gulf Coast Joint Venture, a regional partnership composed of individuals, conservation
organizations, and state and federal agencies, implements the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan and targets the conservation of migratory birds and their habitats along the western
Gulf of Mexico from Brownsville, Texas, to Mobile Bay in Alabama. The primary goal of the joint
venture is to provide wintering and stop-over habitat for scaup, canvasbacks, and numerous dabbling
duck species. Three major waterfowl habitats have been targeted for Mobile Bay, including coastal
marsh, submerged aquatic vegetation, and forested wetlands.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
PARTNERS-IN-FLIGHT BIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
Bon Secour Refuge is located in the East Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic planning area. Managed
as part of the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the East Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic planning area
represents a scientifically based land bird conservation planning effort that ensures long-term
maintenance of healthy populations of native land birds, primarily non-game land birds. Non-game
land birds have been vastly under-represented in conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting
significant declines. The plan is voluntary and non-regulatory, focusing on relatively common species
in areas where conservation actions can be most effective, rather than the frequent local emphasis on
rare and peripheral populations.
Conservation issues in this planning area include coastal zone development that rapidly destroys bird
habitat. The impact of this change on in-transit migratory birds is difficult to quantify, but considered to
be extreme. All remaining maritime community habitat is recommended for protection and acreage
increase through restoration, where possible. This includes maritime forests, as well as the emergent
wetlands, beaches, and dunes that are crucial to many priority breeding, wintering, and in-transit
migratory birds.
A cooperative partnership under the guidance of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan
and the Partners-in-Flight Plan has identified the following three bird conservation priorities for the
East Gulf Coastal Plain:
Manage and maintain existing habitats identified as being of value to bird populations;
Restore or consolidate important habitats; and
Provide a combination of these strategies to increase and sustain breeding bird populations.
U.S. SHOREBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort throughout the United States to ensure
that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird species are restored and protected. The plan
was developed by a wide range of agencies, organizations, and shorebird experts for separate
regions of the country. It identifies conservation goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key
research needs, and proposed education and outreach programs to increase awareness of
shorebirds and the threats they face.
Located within the Southeastern Coastal Plains planning region, the refuge is an important location for
breeding shorebirds and transient species during both northbound and southbound migrations.
Shorebirds in this planning region face potential impacts primarily from chronic, human-caused
disturbance to roosting, nesting, and foraging birds; oil spills; transfer of water rights that may directly
or indirectly affect the shorebird food base in some systems by reducing freshwater input into
important estuarine habitats; recent, but sharp increases in harvesting pressure on horseshoe crab
populations leading to decreasing food resources for northbound migrating shorebirds; barrier beach
stabilization that may affect foraging and nesting habitat; contaminants (e.g., agricultural runoff,
dredged materials, and water treatment areas); and inadequate management capability on public
lands, where high quality habitats should be more available. The well-documented loss of wetland
habitats in this region during the last 200 years undoubtedly affects shorebirds.
Bon Secour National 10 Wildlife Refuge
NORTH AMERICAN WATERBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
This plan provides a framework for the conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in
29 nations. Threats to waterbird populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands,
introduction of predators and invasive species, pollutants, mortality from fisheries and industries,
disturbance, and conflicts arising from abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the
southeast include pelagic areas, marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes.
Fifteen species of waterbirds are federally listed, including breeding populations of wood storks,
Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping cranes, interior least terns, and the Gulf coast population of
brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan is the standardization of data collection efforts to better
recommend effective conservation measures.
MOBILE BAY NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM, COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION AND
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Mobile Bay was designated a National Estuary in March 1995 to conserve and restore the bay, which
was being threatened by pollution, development, and overuse. There are 14 preservation and
protection projects in the Mobile Bay area, including 100,000 acres of wetlands. This combination of
federal, state, and local projects helps to reduce the rate of wetland loss.
With joint participation of the State of Alabama, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, citizens,
elected officials, business and industry representatives, resource users, and managers, the Mobile
Bay plan describes a variety of actions to improve priority environmental issues affecting the Mobile
Bay Estuary. Priority issues identified in this plan include: habitat loss, regulatory enforcement, non-point
source pollution, water quality, growth management, municipal treatment facilities, public
education, and industrial impacts.
WEEKS BAY NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve contains 6,018 acres located along the eastern
shore of Mobile Bay in Baldwin County. The Reserve was established in 1986 to protect an estuarine
system abundant with fish and wildlife. In this watershed, demand for waterfront footage generated by
residential and commercial development threatens the ecological balance of coastal habitats. From
1980-1990, the coastal population in Baldwin County grew by 25 percent and from 1990-2000, the
population grew by 43 percent (Mobile Bay National Estuary Program 1999). Two of the major goals
of the Reserve=s management plan are stewardship of natural resources and educating the public
about estuaries. The plan calls for the development of partnerships between the Reserve and federal,
state, and local agencies to help achieve these goals.
ALABAMA COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN
Administered by the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the Coastal
Section of the Division of State Lands oversees this plan. Its purpose is to promote, improve, and
safeguard lands and waters along the Alabama coast. The goals of the plan are to sustain coastal
waters and resources for natural, recreational, and economic benefits; to protect the livelihoods of
citizens who live and work along the coast by planning for both natural and man-made impacts which
threaten the area; and to provide effective leadership in managing and sustaining coastal resources
for all Alabamians. A major focus of the plan includes public outreach efforts such as Adopt-A-Beach,
Boaters and Anglers Pledge Program, Annual Coastal Cleanup, National Marine Debris Monitoring
Program, and Semi-annual Underwater Cleanup.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
FORT MORGAN PENINSULA RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
The Fort Morgan plan was produced by the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources, Division of State Lands, Coastal Section. The plan=s purpose is to serve as a tool to
manage development along the Fort Morgan Peninsula. The plan describes in detail the
characteristics of both the natural and man-made environment and projects hypothetical development
scenarios. In 1970, only 28 percent of beachfront in Baldwin County was developed. By 1996, 61
percent of the beachfront was developed, while a shift from single-family residences to high-density
condominiums and hotels had occurred (Douglas et al., 1999). As the amount of beachfront property
in the cities of Orange Beach and Gulf Shores has been reduced due to development, pressures have
shifted to the Fort Morgan Peninsula. The assessment recommends the development of a strategic
plan to manage growth and safeguard lives, property, and the peninsula=s environment.
ALABAMA GULF COAST STRATEGIC PLAN FOR TOURISM
Tourism is vital to the economic health of the Gulf Coast. Funds generated from tourism support
schools, facilities, and services. In 1999, the Alabama Gulf Coast Convention and Visitor=s Bureau
commissioned a strategic plan to determine the future of tourism in the area. In the plan, one of the
under-utilized types of tourism was Aeco@ or nature-based tourism. The plan recommends that the
Bureau promote nature-based and adventure tourism by sponsoring a plan for its development,
including a major museum/visitor center, trails, tours, interpretive exhibits, and audio-visual programs
and by developing facilities that do not threaten the resources.
Bon Secour National 12 Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
II. The Refuge
INTRODUCTION
Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge is located on the Gulf Coast, 8 miles west of the city of Gulf
Shores, Alabama, in Baldwin and Mobile counties. The planning study area is divided into five
separate management units along the Fort Morgan Peninsula and Little Dauphin Island (Figure 2).
Although the refuge was established in 1980, to date, only 6,978 acres have been acquired within the
12,570-acre acquisition boundary, including the 575 acres leased from the State of Alabama. The
Service has management jurisdiction along the shoreline above mean high tide, except on the Little
Dauphin Island Unit, which contains 560 acres of submerged bottoms managed by the Service. The
potential wildlife habitat values of beach/dune, maritime forests, and estuarine habitats provided the
impetus to purchase the properties for the refuge.
Management efforts since 1980 have emphasized acquiring land, securing staff to operate the refuge,
and initiating conservation programs that benefit endangered wildlife species. However, Service
acquisition of key properties, such as inholdings and beach/dune habitat, may not be realized within
the 15-year planning period due to budget constraints and landowner preferences. The five units
within the acquisition boundary have a significant Aedge,@ which contributes to the predation of birds,
sea turtles, and beach mice. Edge effect is the tendency of a transitional zone between communities
to contain a greater variety of species and higher population densities of species than surrounding
communities.
Current conservation management projects for the refuge include:
Recruiting and training staff;
Improving existing facilities;
Managing habitats to reduce the threats and problems associated with species of concern;
Acquiring land to complete refuge boundaries;
Assisting in sea turtle and Alabama beach mouse recovery; and
Defining research within the beach/dune area and involving partners and volunteers to
accomplish this research.
HISTORY AND PURPOSES OF THE REFUGE
Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge was established through both legislative and administrative
authorities.
The purposes of the refuge are listed as:
A... to ensure the well-being of these (nationally endangered and threatened species, such as the
brown pelican, bald eagle, and several species of sea turtles, as well as many more species identified
by the state to be of special concern) and other species, to serve as a living laboratory for scientists
and students and to provide wildlife-oriented recreation for the public.@
94 Stat. 483, dated June 9, 1980
(Act to establish the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge)
Bon Secour National 14 Wildlife Refuge
Figure 2. Planning study area, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Baldwin and Mobile
counties, Alabama
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
A...to conserve an undisturbed beach/dune ecosystem which includes a diversity of fish and wildlife,
and their habitat.@
94 Stat. 484, dated June 9, 1980
(Act to establish the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge)
A...to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species...or
(B) plants...@
16 U.S.C. 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973)
A...for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife
resources...=
16 U.S.C 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)
A...for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in performing its activities and
services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or
condition of servitude...@
16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)
A...for conservation purposes...@
7 U.S.C. 2002. (Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act)
REFUGE ENVIRONMENT
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Populations
Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge was established for the protection of neotropical migratory
songbird habitat and threatened and endangered species. These species are given priority when
implementing management activities.
Neotropical migratory songbirds and shorebirds. Bon Secour Refuge represents the best remaining
stopover and staging habitat for neotropical migratory songbirds during the fall and spring migration
along the Alabama coastline. Migratory birds utilize this area for resting and building fat reserves
critical to successful migration (Moore and Woodrey 1993, and Moore and Woodrey 1997). The
refuge also provides crucial habitat for beach nesting birds, such as snowy and Wilson=s plovers,
American oystercatchers, least terns and black skimmers; secretive marshbirds, such as rails; and
migratory and wintering shorebirds on beaches, especially the federally threatened piping plover. A
portion of the refuge’s Fort Morgan unit and all of Little Dauphine Island are designated as critical
habitat for the piping plover. Shorebirds use beaches and washover sites, which support high quality
food sources during migration and winter.
Bon Secour National 16 Wildlife Refuge
Alabama beach mouse. This federally listed species inhabits the beach dune and scrub/shrub
habitats found along the Fort Morgan Peninsula. Beach mice have experienced a two-thirds reduction
in available habitat, primarily due to coastal development. Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge
protects the last remaining undisturbed beach mouse habitat found in Alabama, consisting of several
key plant communities that form a mosaic of micro-habitats. Management focus is on protecting
sufficient space to support populations, including movement corridors, which serve as conduits for
genetic exchange. Beach mouse recovery depends on efforts from federal, state, and private
partners to ensure that refuge populations do not become genetically isolated.
Alabama beach mice are intensively managed at Bon Secour Refuge. Critical habitat for beach mice
is currently listed as 500 feet landward to the mean high tide line, which includes the beach dunes;
however, the mice also occur in scrub/shrub habitats north of these dunes. New research findings
have therefore led the Service to revisit critical habitat for the mouse to include these interior habitats.
Figure 3 depicts the distribution of mouse habitat on the Fort Morgan Peninsula based on the most
recent information available to the Service. It clearly shows the high degree of habitat fragmentation
by coastal development outside of refuge boundaries and the importance of the refuge in securing the
continued survival of the species. The Perdue Unit of the refuge represents the largest and best
remaining example of beach mouse habitat protecting approximately 4 miles of beach with well-developed
dune and scrub/shrub/swale habitat. The Fort Morgan Unit, while differing in topography,
also supports substantial numbers of beach mice.
Sea turtles. Loggerhead, green, and Kemp=s ridley sea turtles have been documented to nest on the
refuge. Refuge beaches support nest densities as high or higher (4.5-5.0 nests/mile) than many
areas along the Gulf Coast (Figure 4). While the overall numbers of nests for loggerheads are not
great relative to Atlantic coast nesting beaches, it is believed that the northern Gulf nesting population
may significantly contribute to the male segment of the overall sea turtle population (Thane Wibbles,
pers. comm., University of Alabama, Birmingham). This increases the importance of protecting the
nesting beaches of the refuge.
Green and loggerhead sea turtles have long been a focus of management concern. Conservation
strategies to protect these turtles under the Endangered Species Act include on-site nest monitoring
and protection, as well as fostering a public ethic through educational programs. Negotiating with
local governments and communities to eliminate or control artificial beachfront lighting, which is known
to deter females from nesting and to disorient hatchlings, is also a strategy used to protect these
turtles. In 2000, emergent success rate of hatchlings along the Alabama coast was less than 25
percent, as hatchlings were prone to disorientation by artificial light sources. Poor hatching success
on the refuge has also been attributed to predation (e.g., ghost crabs, foxes, and coyotes), inundation,
and moist sand from low beach elevation. Disorientation due to lights from surrounding developments
has been documented on the Perdue and Fort Morgan units. Refuge personnel patrol the beach for
sea turtle nests on areas between these units, some of which include private lands.
In 2001, the Service initiated a sea turtle volunteer program called Share the Beach, in an effort to
involve local residents, tourists, and businesses in sea turtle conservation. The program was under
the management of the Fish and Wildlife Service=s Daphne Ecological Services Field Office until
2003, when responsibility shifted to the refuge, primarily for logistical concerns.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Hatching success has increased to 85 percent along the Alabama coast as a result of increased
monitoring efforts and public support of conservation measures. The refuge will continue to
administer this program until 2005, when Share the Beach will incorporate as a non-profit organization
funded by individuals, corporations, grants, and the AAdopt-A-Nest@ program of the Friends of Bon
Secour National Wildlife Refuge. The State of Alabama will become the lead agency and will permit
the program. However, due to the refuge=s location and proximity to nesting areas, it is expected that
refuge staff will continue to manage sea turtle nests on refuge property, and most strandings on and
off refuge property.
Bon Secour National 18 Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Alabama beach mouse habitat on Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Baldwin
County, Alabama
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Figure 4. Sea turtle nesting along the Fort Morgan Peninsula, Baldwin County, Alabama
Bon Secour National 20 Wildlife Refuge
Piping plover. Piping plovers winter along the southern Atlantic Coast and the entire Gulf Coast.
Those wintering on the refuge are likely to be a mixture of the threatened Atlantic Coast and the
endangered Great Lakes populations. The Fish and Wildlife Service has designated 166 acres of the
Fort Morgan Unit and the entire Little Dauphin Island Unit (about 290 acres) as critical habitat. This
designation includes the Fort Morgan and Little Dauphin Island units of the refuge. These properties
are frequented by refuge visitors who may disrupt foraging or resting plovers and other wintering bird
species. The amount of visitor use, however, is unknown. Monitoring disturbance to plovers and their
wintering habitat use on the refuge is a critical need.
Other species. Other threatened and endangered species found on the refuge include the bald eagle
and the wood stork. Species of conservation concern that exist on the refuge include the gopher
tortoise, Gulf salt marsh snake, Mississippi diamondback terrapin, black pine snake, eastern
coachwhip snake, northern yellow bat, mimic glass lizard, eastern diamondback rattlesnake, and the
Gulf Coast tiger beetle.
The refuge includes large and diverse populations of lizards, snakes, toads, and frogs. Bountiful
fisheries and oyster grounds are adjacent to the refuge. Bobcats, opossums, eastern cottontails,
raccoons, red foxes, coyotes, and armadillos are commonly found in the woodlands. Black bears and
red-cockaded woodpeckers historically occurred on the refuge, but have been extirpated.
Ongoing research includes studies on neotropical migratory songbirds on the Fort Morgan Unit,
Alabama beach mice on the Perdue Unit, post-hurricane dune restoration on both the Perdue and
Fort Morgan units, and sea turtle monitoring and insect surveys in various locations.
Habitats
This exceptional area supports several critically imperiled and federally listed species including the
Alabama beach mouse, piping plovers, sea turtles, and a host of other state-listed rarities.
The following is a brief description of each refuge unit with accompanying maps depicting the
respective acquisition boundaries and current status of land ownership and management within and
adjacent to these boundaries.
Perdue Unit. (2,628 acres acquired out of 2,835 acres in the acquisition boundary, Figure 5)
The Perdue Unit is the largest unit on the refuge. It is bordered on the east and west by high density
residential development (Laguna Key Subdivision and Martinique on the Gulf, respectively), to the
south by the Gulf of Mexico, and to the north by State Highway 180. A portion of the predominately
landlocked, saltwater Little Lagoon also forms a large portion of the eastern refuge boundary.
Habitats range from a well-developed beach/dune ecosystem to maritime forests and pine woodlands.
There is an extensive scrub/shrub/swale habitat characterized by alternating low, relict dune ridges
and wet swale habitats. There are many extensive permanent and semi-permanent wetlands with
emergent vegetation found throughout the unit. Also found within the Perdue Unit is the
freshwater/brackish water Gator Lake (40 acres).
Sand Bayou Unit. (998 acres acquired and 289 acres in acquisitions or leases pending out of 2,208
acres in the acquisition boundary, Figure 6)
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Figure 5. Perdue Unit, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Baldwin County, Alabama
Bon Secour National 22 Wildlife Refuge
Figure 6. Sand Bayou Unit, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Baldwin County, Alabama
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
This unit is bordered on the north by the Gulf intracoastal canal and on the east and west by Oyster
Bay and Bon Secour Bay. Southern portions of the unit are bordered by predominately low-density
residential development and undeveloped properties; however, in recent years, the trend has been
towards higher density residential development. A major portion of the land within the acquisition
boundary is privately owned with high potential for further development and habitat fragmentation.
Habitats include wet pine flatwoods, mixed pine hardwoods, and freshwater marshes composed of
black needlerush and smooth cord grass.
Little Point Clear Unit. (1,990 acres acquired or managed out of 2,529 acres in the acquisition
boundary, Figure 7)
The Little Point Clear Unit is bordered on the east, west, and north by Mobile Bay. The southern
boundary is undeveloped private lands, Highway 180, and low-density residential development.
Habitats within this unit consist of scrub/shrub, pine flatwoods, saltwater marsh, and tidal creeks.
There are many permanent and semi-permanent wetlands scattered across the unit, which is
characteristic of dune and swale topography.
Fort Morgan Unit. (510 acres acquired or managed, unit complete, Figure 8)
The Fort Morgan Unit is found at the western terminus of the Fort Morgan Peninsula. It is bordered on
the south by the Gulf of Mexico, on the north by Mobile Bay, on the west by Mobile Pass, and on the
east by low to medium density single-family and multi-family residences. Habitats in this unit consist
of beach dunes, brackish water marshes, scrub/shrub, and pine woodlands. The land within this unit
is owned by the State of Alabama, and managed by the Alabama State Historical Commission. The
natural areas are managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service under a cooperative agreement with the
state.
Little Dauphin Island Unit. (850 acres, unit complete, Figure 9)
Little Dauphin Island is located just north of the eastern end of Dauphin Island. Access to this island
is by water craft only and there is no development. Due to the topography of this sand spit, the habitat
is mainly saltwater marsh with low dunes and a small amount of pine savanna. The northwestern tip
consists of open mudflats. Of the 850 acres managed, 290 acres are upland and 560 acres are
submerged bottoms. The Fish and Wildlife Service has deeded jurisdiction over these bottoms from
the State of Alabama.
Skunk Bayou Unit. (no acreage within the 3,831-acre acquisition boundary has been acquired, Figure
10)
This unit falls within the planning boundary of the Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve.
Initially, one tract was acquired for this unit, but it was later transferred to the Weeks Bay Reserve
when it was established in 1986. From the date legislation was signed to establish the refuge through
the present, lands within this unit remain a low priority for meeting the purposes of Bon Secour
Refuge.
Management
The Service manages refuge resources and, where possible, coordinates with neighboring land
managers, agencies, and landowners to conserve biological diversity.
Bon Secour National 24 Wildlife Refuge
Figure 7. Little Point Clear Unit, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Baldwin County,
Alabama
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Figure 8. Fort Morgan Unit, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Baldwin County, Alabama
Bon Secour National 26 Wildlife Refuge
Figure 9. Little Dauphin Island Unit, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Mobile County,
Alabama (acquisition and ownership)
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Figure 10. Skunk Bayou Unit, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Baldwin County, Alabama
(acquisition and ownership)
Bon Secour National 28 Wildlife Refuge
Public land management is playing a key role in developing quality bird habitat at Bon Secour Refuge.
Bird habitat priority areas are identified on the refuge and, when restored, will serve as important
Aanchors@ for biological diversity. Priorities identified for the refuge include a stronger management
emphasis on migratory songbirds. Focal species are managed according to refuge size and location,
which also contribute to the overall health of the ecosystem.
Mapping and typing of plant communities have not been accomplished for the refuge. The refuge may lie
at or near the western range for some plant communities, such as those containing sand pine and scrub
oaks. The Little Point Clear Unit contains dunes/swales that are not observed west of the Fort Morgan
Peninsula. In addition to community typing, the fire history of the Fort Morgan Peninsula is also unknown.
The only two freshwater ponds on the refuge are Little Gator Lake and Gator Lake. Gator Lake is
connected to the Little Lagoon via a small channel. During high tides, the salt water from the Little
Lagoon flows into Gator Lake, where a variety of freshwater and saltwater species occur.
Coastal habitats of Bon Secour Refuge include uplands such as beach/dune, grassland, strand, and
maritime hammocks, as well as wetlands such as tidal marshes. Each habitat is shaped by strong
and consistent winds, saltwater spray, and sun. Typical beach/dune vegetation includes sea oats,
cordgrass, sand spur, dune panic grass, and morning glory. Coastal grasslands include muhly grass,
bluestem grasses, and sea oats, as well as occasional shrubs such as wax myrtle and groundsel.
Coastal strands and maritime hammocks include shrub and tree species that are tolerant of wind and
salt spray, such as saw palmetto, sand live oak, cabbage palm, yaupon, sea grape, and prickly pear.
Tidal marsh habitats include grasses, rushes, and sedges along low wave-energy wetlands and river
mouths. Typical species include black needle rush, smooth cordgrass, and saw grass.
With the exception of a few species, no data exist relative to many species= occurrence, status, and
distribution on the refuge. A need exists for basic biological surveys and monitoring for rare taxa and
plant communities.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
The refuge is located along the Gulf Coast of Alabama and the Mobile Bay Estuary. The Mobile Bay
watershed includes 65 percent of the State of Alabama, and portions of the States of Mississippi,
Georgia, and Tennessee.
Refuge lands are a fragile combination of barrier islands, low-lying marshes, and highly erodible
mainland shores. In addition to sea-level rise, winter storms, and altered sediment supplies,
hurricanes frequently damage or destroy the human developments and infrastructure that line the
coast. In 1992, Hurricane Andrew, and in 1995, Hurricane Opal, caused billions of dollars in losses.
Even with more accurate predictions of large storm events, people continue to build homes within the
flood plain and along the coastline. Between 1990 and 2000, the population in Baldwin County
increased by more than 50 percent (Mobile Bay National Estuary Program 1999).
Frequent and large storms rejuvenate the barrier ecosystem. The refuge is part of an unstable land
mass, constantly shifting and moving due to the frequent hurricanes that pummel the coastal area of
the Fort Morgan Peninsula. Ecological forces of the Gulf Coastal Plain include disturbances such as
fires, winds, tornadoes, and floods.
The timing of the flows throughout this watershed has been altered over the years by flood control
projects and agricultural diversion. Water quality is significantly impacted by agricultural and
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
municipal runoff. Rivers and water bodies throughout this area support a small fraction of the once
abundant aquatic resources.
The climate of the refuge is characterized by warm, humid summers and relatively mild winters.
Average maximum summer temperatures vary from the high 80s to low 90s Fahrenheit. During winter
months, freezing is not uncommon, and temperatures less than 19 degrees Fahrenheit can occur.
Annual precipitation ranges from 52 to 64 inches along the coast. The central Gulf Coast also has
one of the highest frequencies of hurricane landfalls in the nation. The bay is additionally influenced
by tidal changes that average a little less than 12 feet throughout the year. All of these factors,
combined with highly variable river flows, contribute to a hydrology that is dynamic, complex, and
necessary to support the variety of plants and animals existing in the Mobile Bay Estuary.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
Land Protection and Conservation
In the 1970s, development along the sugar sand beaches of Alabama rapidly expanded. What was
once considered nothing but sand became prime real estate as venture capitalists began marketing
the Gulf Coast as a tourist destination. In 1979, Hurricane Frederic slammed into Gulf Shores and
destroyed 80 percent of existing residential development, facilitating the advent of high density
residential development in the form of condominiums. A proposal to develop 1,200 acres with 8,000
feet of Gulf frontage and 22,000 feet of lagoon frontage was met with substantial resistance by the
local community, local government officials, environmental activists, and the scientific community. In
1980, Congressman Jack Edwards introduced legislation to establish Bon Secour National Wildlife
Refuge, which would protect a total of 10,000 acres. Additional legislation was passed to add what
would become the Sand Bayou Unit, increasing the refuge acquisition boundary by approximately
2,000 acres. The first two tracts identified for inclusion in the refuge were the Perdue (1,290 acres)
and Little Dauphin Island (850 acres) tracts. Table 1 presents the acquisition history of Bon Secour
National Wildlife Refuge.
Table 1. Acquisition history for the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Baldwin and Mobile
counties, Alabama.
Year Acreage Acquired Year Acreage Acquired
1981 2060.86 1993 137.99
1982 107.23 1994 1698.67
1983 323.00 1998 150.00
1984 1330.18 1999 52.33
1985 251.95 2000 123.06
1986 14.47 2001 10.30
1987 16.67 2002 34.23
1988 386.52 2003 144.00
1990 136.62
Total 6978.08
Bon Secour National 30 Wildlife Refuge
Throughout its history, the refuge has repeatedly emphasized land acquisition as a conservation
priority, depending on available acquisition funding. There have been two major periods of acquisition
in the early 1980s and mid-1990s. Since the original Land Protection Plan was adopted in 1985, three
boundary expansions have been approved in 1990 (37 acres), 2001 (587 acres), and in 2003 (14
acres). The current acquisition boundary is 12,570 acres. To date, only 6,978 acres within the
acquisition boundary have been acquired. This represents a significant shortfall. Table 2 presents
current refuge acreages and the methods used to protect the properties.
The remaining inholdings have been classified into five priority categories. Per policy, the Service will
acquire land within the acquisition boundary from willing sellers. Subject properties will be appraised
by a Service-contracted independent appraiser and are subject to review by the Service=s Regional
Office Realty Review Appraiser before a fair-market offer can be made. Table 3 presents priority
properties targeted for inclusion in Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge. The priorities were set
based on: 1) critical habitat for the Alabama beach mouse; 2) secondary habitat for beach mouse; 3)
large, contiguous, undeveloped tracts; and 4) wetlands. The importance of wetlands lies not only in
the variety of fish and wildlife depending on them, but also in the vital functions they provide for the
benefit of the ecosystem, as well as the human population. Examples of these functions are
floodwater storage and flood protection for downstream areas, water purification through removal of
suspended sediments and pollutants, and groundwater recharge. Three different types of wetlands
have been identified within the refuge acquisition boundaries: depressional (located in a depression in
the landscape and generally draining only a small area); fringe (located near a large body of water and
receiving regular two-way flow); and riverine (primarily fed by a river or stream). Figures 11-14 show
the distribution of those wetlands in relation to refuge boundaries. This information is not currently
available for the Little Dauphin Island Unit.
Table 2. Land acquisition figures and acquisition strategies employed for the Bon Secour
National Wildlife Refuge through October 2003.
Protection Strategy Acres
Land Transfer 32
Donation 135
Fee Title Purchased 6,236
Lease Agreements 575
Total 6,978
Key partnerships have facilitated the refuge=s acquisition thus far. The first tract (Perdue) was
acquired with the assistance of The Nature Conservancy. To date, the Conservancy has assisted
with the acquisition of more than 3,000 acres. Other organizations that have been instrumental in
land protection efforts include The Conservation Fund, Alabama Coastal Heritage Trust, Sierra Club,
Mobile Bay Audubon Society, and Tonsmeier Properties. Relationships with these individuals and
organizations need to be expanded if acquisition goals are to be met. Escalating land prices and
speculative high-density development are impediments to the refuge achieving its acquisition goals
and being able to provide quality habitat for many wildlife species.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Table 3. Prioritized acquisition acreage (habitat) and estimated values for the Bon Secour
National Wildlife Refuge.
Type Acreage
Estimated
Value
Priority 1 Alabama beach mouse Critical
Habitat
(fee title and transfer from BLM)
50 $4,000,000
Priority 2 Alabama beach mouse
Secondary Habitat
Large, contiguous tracts
10
1,356
1,500,000
5,800,000
Priority 3 Wetlands/Other 130 430,000
Total 1,546 $11,730,000
In addition to fee title acquisition, the Service needs to explore non-traditional protection strategies,
such as lease agreements and conservation easements. With land prices currently at $70,000/acre
for small lots, $15,000-$20,000/acre for large parcels, and $6,000/foot for beach front lots, these
strategies may represent the only viable options to protect the remaining tracts.
Education and Visitor Services
Bon Secour Refuge supports five of the six priority public uses identified for refuges: wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, interpretation, and fishing (Figure 15).
Due to the fragmented habitat, endangered species issues, high visitation, lack of big game species,
and proximity to densely populated areas, hunting is not appropriate for these lands and waters.
Environmental education efforts on the refuge have been minimal at best due to staff size and higher
priority projects. However, recent management emphasis was shifted to providing more outreach and
educational programming for students. Currently, the main environmental education programs occur
during the sea turtle nesting season. Approximately 200 volunteers are trained each summer.
Throughout the year, scout troops and boys and girls clubs visit the refuge on a sporadic basis. The
staff responds to requests, but do not advertise student programs due to a lack of facilities and staff to
support such visits on and off the refuge.
In 2003, programming for winter visitors known as Asnowbirds@ began and was extremely popular
and successful. With minimal advertisement, refuge volunteers, who led interpretive tours, were
overwhelmed by the response. An average of 40 people attended each tour. The key to being able to
provide these programs is the availability of trained volunteers to lead them. In the future, refuge staff
should expand these opportunities.
Bon Secour National 32 Wildlife Refuge
Figure 11. Wetland Resources, Perdue Unit, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Baldwin
County, Alabama
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Figure 12. Wetland resources, Sand Bayou Unit, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Baldwin
County, Alabama
Bon Secour National 34 Wildlife Refuge
Figure 13. Wetland resources, Little Point Clear Unit, B on Secour National Wildlife Refuge,
Baldwin County, Alabama
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Figure 14. Wetland resources, Fort Morgan Unit, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Baldwin
County, Alabama
Bon Secour National 36 Wildlife Refuge
Figure 15. Administrative and public use facilities of Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
The refuge hosts more than 98,000 visitors annually (Alabama Gulf Coast Convention and Visitors Bureau,
unpubl. data, 2002). Visitor services include a visitor contact station with a small educational display area.
The displays are Ahomemade@ and lack consistency with the Service=s design standards. Approximately
25,000 people visit the refuge office annually. Three developed trails are available in the Perdue Unit,
highlighting dune, swale, wetland, maritime forest, and scrub habitats. Unmarked trails in the Sand Bayou and
Little Point Clear units are sporadically used by birders and nature enthusiasts who know about them.
Kayaking is becoming a popular activity in the Little Lagoon, Gator Lake, and the many bays and finger
sloughs that surround the Sand Bayou and Little Point Clear units of the refuge. There are no boat launching
points in these units. To access Little Lagoon, kayaks and canoes must be portaged 1/4-mile, while access to
Gator Lake requires a portage of 1 mile.
Interpretive displays include small kiosks at the Jeff Friend Trailhead and at Gator Lake. A larger kiosk with
newer displays is located at the Pine Beach Trailhead. Parking facilities are located at both trailheads and at
the Mobile Street Dune Walkover. Additionally, there is an overflow parking lot near Mobile Street. Additional
parking is needed for the Gator Lake Trail and seasonally for beach access, but may not be feasible since this
is occupied, undisturbed Alabama beach mouse habitat.
Saltwater surf fishing is available in the Perdue and Fort Morgan units of the refuge. Target species include
bluefish, redfish, Spanish mackerel, speckled trout, and flounder. Saltwater species also occur in the Little
Lagoon and Gator Lake (40 acres), and wading these areas is a popular past time. Gator Lake also contains
freshwater species, such as bluegill and bass, but fishing success is limited. Fishing opportunities in Gator
Lake need to be improved if this resource is to be available to visitors. The staff has fielded many complaints
in the past as the lake is relatively inaccessible due to phragmites and other emergent vegetation crowding the
banks. Anglers are reluctant to wade in the murky water of a pond named AGator@ Lake.
Personnel, Operation, and Maintenance
Refuge administration refers to the operation and maintenance of refuge programs and facilities, including
construction. The refuge has five permanent employees and receives substantial assistance from volunteers,
interns, and Student Conservation Associates (Figure 16). Since its establishment, the refuge=s staff has
fluctuated between zero and five employees. During tight fiscal years, positions were left vacant in order to
save operational expenses. At other times in its history, the refuge was complexed, mainly for administrative
reasons, with Mississippi Sandhill Crane and Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuges. Table 4 summarizes the
operating and maintenance funding received for 1999-2003. Periodically, special funding for endangered
species recovery projects is available.
Table 4. Funding for Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Fiscal Years 1999-2003.
Category FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003
Operations 122,800 102,300 226,000 257,300 269,900
Maintenance 79,300 10,300 48,700 118,300 106,300
Endangered
Species
2,000 3,000 0 0 20,000
Restoration 0 73,700 0 0 0
Quarters 0 0 0 0 11,400
Construction 93,800 58,700 33,400 0 0
Total 297,900 248,000 308,100 375,600 407,600
Bon Secour National 38 Wildlife Refuge
Figure 16. Organization chart, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge
The major management activities on the refuge include sea turtle nest monitoring and wildlife surveys,
facility maintenance and boundary posting, and visitor services. The refuge has several key
partnerships that support management objectives, including: Mobile Bay Audubon Society, Fort
Morgan Historic Site, Baldwin County Museum Society, Alabama Gulf Coast Convention and Visitors
Bureau, Gulf State Park, Share the Beach Sea Turtle Volunteers, and Friends of Bon Secour National
Wildlife Refuge.
One type of facility that is often overlooked when thinking about refuge operations is living quarters.
Because the refuge is located in a resort area, affordable housing is not easily available. However, the
refuge has four residences and one bunkhouse that are available for refuge employees or for visiting
students, interns, and professors. While this has enabled the refuge to host hundreds of students and
several interns each year, as well as house refuge employees, it takes a significant amount of time
and operational dollars to maintain these facilities. In addition to living quarters, Figure 16 shows
other facilities that must be maintained for refuge management and visitor services programs.
Currently, all constructed facilities and improvements are located in the Perdue Unit.
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
The refuge currently consists of 6,978 acres within an approved acquisition boundary of 12,570 acres.
The remaining 5,592 acres are in a combination of private-ownership and state-ownership lands as
part of the Weeks Bay National Estuary Research Reserve. The refuge is located in unincorporated
areas of Mobile and Baldwin counties. The nearest towns in Baldwin County include Gulf Shores (8
miles), Orange Beach (12 miles), and Foley (17 miles). The town of Dauphin Island is the nearest
community to the Little Dauphin Island Unit in Mobile County. Mobile, the largest metropolitan area in
either county, is 50 miles from the refuge.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
Much of the growth in these Gulf Coast counties traces to retirees who have migrated to the
Asouthern shore@ (Alabama Gulf Coast Chamber of Commerce 2003). This movement has
catapulted Orange Beach to the fourth fastest growing town in Alabama during the 1990s, with a
growth rate of more than 200 percent from 1980 to 1990, and 68 percent from 1990 to 2000. In
unincorporated Fort Morgan, where the refuge is located, the population has grown from 3,732
seasonal residents in 1988 to 4,876 seasonal residents in 1998. The projection for 2008 is 5,808
seasonal residents (Alabama Gulf Coast Chamber of Commerce 2003).
In both counties, the economies of the coastal areas are driven by tourism. While the permanent
population of the Gulf Shores/Orange Beach area hovers around 10,000, it swells to 50,000 during
peak tourist seasons. The area is home to more than 9,000 hotel rooms and condominium units. In
Baldwin County, the area boasts 32 miles of sugar sand beaches and 15 golf courses. The coastal
area of Mobile County contains 18 miles of beaches, but 9 miles are privately owned and closed to the
public. Dauphin Island has one golf course and is characterized by single family rental homes and a
few 4-story condominium towers. The average yearly temperature of 75 degrees Fahrenheit and
average water temperature of 70 degrees Fahrenheit help to characterize the area as Aperfect@ for
many tourists.
Demographics of refuge visitors reveal that 82 percent are college educated; there is a 1:1 ratio of
males to females; 60 percent are couples between the ages of 35 and 54; and the average length of
stay is 8-10 days, which translates into $34 million in spending annually for the local economy
(Alabama Gulf Coast Convention and Visitors Bureau 2003).
The refuge has three peak visitation periods: January-March; March-April; and June-August. From
November through March each year, an estimated 280,000 Asnowbird@ visitors descend on Gulf
Shores and Orange Beach to spend a mild winter on the shore. The resident population of these two
cities and unincorporated Fort Morgan hovers around 10,000, so the influx of these visitors is a major
contributor to the economy. On a marketing survey, nearly 14 percent of these visitors indicated that
they visited Bon Secour Refuge. These visitors are generally midwestern couples who are educated,
financially comfortable, and have identified wildlife and environmental values as some of the reasons
for choosing this area for their winter home (Alabama Gulf Coast Convention and Visitors Bureau
2003).
During March and April each year, there are two types of visitors: Spring break revelers and birders.
The number of visitors to the area during these three months is 240,000 and 13 percent of these
visitors visit the refuge. Most of the visitors are families from southeastern states. During the
summer, while the commercial beach areas host nearly 500,000 visitors, only 3 percent visit the
refuge. In a 1995 survey, the refuge was not considered an attraction by visitors. The 2002 data
(growth of 3 percent in summer visits and 13 percent in spring visits) exemplify the growing popularity
of refuges and other natural areas, and clearly demonstrate that nature-based tourism is one of the
fastest growing niche markets in the industry (Alabama Gulf Coast and Visitors Bureau 2003).
The refuge provides numerous benefits, including prevention of pollution in area waterways,
improvement in air quality, protection of habitat for animal species, and recreational opportunities. If
the Gulf Coast area is to remain a highly desirable destination for seasonal residents and tourists, the
unique mix of nature-based attractions and golf courses, which together form Agreen space,@ needs
to be maintained. Refuge visitation needs to be carefully monitored and controlled to ensure that
serious degradation of resources does not occur.
Bon Secour National 40 Wildlife Refuge
CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT
Very few systematic archaeological and historical investigations have been conducted on Bon Secour
National Wildlife Refuge. Since its establishment in 1980, all archaeological investigations and
historic building assessments have been conducted primarily to ensure compliance with Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act (Kanaski 1998; R Christopher Godwin and Associates, in
prep.). An exception is the Baldwin County Archaeological Preservation Committee=s investigation of
the Ivanhoe, a 19th century Confederate blockade runner wreck (Franklin 1999 and Thompson 1997).
Earlier investigations were conducted by C.B. Moore, Walter Jones, and David DeJarnette. Moore
examined sites at Seymour=s Bluff, Shell Bank, and Bottle Creek in 1905. Jones recorded a number
of precolumbian sites along Bon Secour Bay and Little Lagoon in the late 1930s and early 1940s
(Alabama State Site Files n.d.). DeJarnette tested the Strong Bayou Site (1Ba81) in 1941-1942
(Kanaski 1998). Landforms that appear to have a high to moderate potential for archaeological sites
include the shorelines of Bon Secour Bay and Little Lagoon. The archaeological potential of the
beach ridges, or ridge and swale systems seen in the Perdue Unit, would appear to be moderate.
However, recent archaeological investigations by Neilsen (2000a & b) and R. Christopher Goodwin
and Associates (in prep.) did not identify any archaeological sites on the ridges. The active beach and
dune zone along the Gulf Coast possesses very little potential for intact archaeological sites, except
for shipwrecks, such as the Ivanhoe.
Curren (1976) noted the lack of evidence for Paleoindian-Middle Archaic occupations in the Gulf
Shores area. Late Archaic groups sporadically used the area. Their sites appear to be limited to the
higher elevations east and west of the delta and Mobile Bay. Curren suggested that geomorphic
processes, such as sea-level fluctuation and a gradually sinking coastline, may have masked earlier
sites. Considerable investigations have been conducted at more than 300 Woodland-Early Historic
Period sites in the Mobile Bay and Delta region. The sites range from shell middens consisting of
oyster (Cassostrea virginica) or marsh clam (Rangia cuneata), sand mounds, village middens
accompanied by mounds, and 18th- and 19th-century forts. In the delta region, Woodland Period
sites are located above the 50-foot contour and along the Gulf Coast=s shore on the southwest side
of the bay. Mississippian sites are located predominately on sand spits at the bay=s mouth and on
the Gulf Coast. In such estuarine habitats, fresh water is a critical variable for site location. A number
of large sites are found near or by a river or small creek.
Soil fertility is another critical variable. Small floodplains along streams flowing into the bay offered
fertile land for agriculture. Along the Gulf Coast proper, sites whose major occupations date to the
Mississippian Period are found clustered on the long and narrow freshwater lakes. The Mississippian
groups exploited shellfish, fishes, aquatic reptiles, and white-tailed deer in the rich marine and
estuarine habitats. The most frequent invertebrates seen in shell midden sites are oyster and marsh
clam. Shell midden sites in the central and lower bay areas, including those on the sand pits at the
mouth of the bay, consist primarily of oyster. Shell midden sites comprised primarily of marsh clam
occur in the central bay and the delta region. In the southeast section of the bay, marsh clams were
collected from the freshwater/brackish water lakes.
At the time of European contact, Mobile Bay was the home of the Tomeh (Tohome) and Mobile
Indians. Knight (1984) believes these historic groups descended from the local, late prehistoric
Pensacola complex groups. The groups= subsistence strategies included deltaic horticulture and
seasonal hunting, fishing, and gathering. Seasonal movement of villages and farmsteads occurred in
conjunction with flooding of the delta. The Tomeh and Mobile Indians relied on isolated farmsteads
with small tracts of arable soils where they grew maize, beans, and squash. The farmsteads were
apparently associated with larger permanent villages located on the bluff which flanked the delta.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
Critical variables for site selection included access to arable and renewable delta soils, access to
nearby flood-protected areas suitable for permanent habitation, access to tidal bays with tidal ranges
suitable for fish weir technology, access to shellfish beds, and access to mast-bearing forests (Knight
1984). Waselkov and Gums (2000) provide a detailed description of historic Indians in the Mobile Bay
area.
In the early 16th century, Alonso Alvarez de Pineda reported a large town near the mouth of Mobile
Bay and 40 villages along the bay and river (Swanton 1946). By 1700, there were five villages
associated with the Mobile, a sixth to the Little Tomeh. Refugee groups from northwest Florida
(Apalachee, Chatot, and Tawasa) and west of the Bay (Taensa, Chitimacha, and Choctaw) fled to
communities around the bay in the 18th century. This is reflected in the archaeological record by the
diverse ceramic styles (Knight 1984).
Fort Morgan, a brick masonry fort, was constructed between 1819 and 1834, as part of Mobile Bay=s
defenses. The lighthouse, near the fort, was constructed in 1822. The 55-foot conical brick tower
marked the entrance to the bay (Holland 1994). Mobile was one of the few major Gulf coast harbors
remaining under Confederate control by 1864. The Union fleet, under the command of Admiral David
G. Farragut, had blockaded the Gulf Coast, including Mobile, since 1860. Blockade runners, such as
the Scottish built Ivanhoe, provided munitions and staple supplies to the Confederacy. The Ivanhoe,
a clincher-plate ironhulled, steam-powered side-sheeler, ran aground southeast of Fort Morgan on her
maiden voyage in June 1864. Troops from the nearby fort salvaged much of her cargo despite heavy
bombardment from the USS Glasglow, USS Metacomet, and USS Mongahela. Union troops boarded
the Ivanhoe on July 6, 1864, and set fire to the vessel, in an unsuccessful attempt to destroy her
(Thompson 1997, Franklin 1999, and Wise 1988). On August 5, 1864, Farragut=s squadron sailed
past Fort Morgan and engaged the Tennessee, a Confederate ironclad, and three gunboats. Within
less than three hours, Farragut controlled the lower portion of Mobile Bay. However, Fort Morgan,
Fort Powell, and Fort Gaines remained in Confederate hands and controlled the bay=s entrance.
Farragut landed troops under the command of General Granger approximately three miles east of Fort
Morgan on August 9. By August 21, the Union troops and artillery were in position to begin their siege
of the fort. On August 22, a coordinated bombardment of Fort Morgan began, breaching the fort=s
walls at several locations, setting its wooden buildings on fire, and disabling all but two of the
Confederate guns. The fort was unconditionally surrendered to the Union forces on August 23
(Anderson 1962; Neilsen 2000a). The light tower was seriously damaged during the Union
bombardment and a temporary light was placed on the fort=s southwest bastion in 1864. The
Lighthouse Board erected a 35-foot iron skeleton tower on the bastion in 1873. This tower was
replaced in 1966 by the current steel skeleton tower (Holland 1994). A Taft-Endicott period battery
was constructed adjacent to the fort between 1890-1910 (Lewis 1979). Pilot Town, which is located at
Navy Cove on Bon Secour Bay, is the site of a middle 19th to early 20th century settlement. Navy
Cove served as a resupply depot for American ships during the War of 1812, and later as a supply
point for the Union=s siege of Fort Morgan in 1864. A permanent settlement developed following the
Civil War, but was destroyed by a storm surge from the Hurricane of 1906 (Warner 2003). Extensive
archaeological and historical investigations have recently been conducted, but technical reports
describing the fieldwork and its results are not yet available (Neilsen 2000b).
Neilsen (2000b) notes that post-bellum settlement of the Gulf Shores area was sparse. The Dixie
Graves Parkway, also known as Fort Morgan Road, was opened in 1934. Sporadic residential
development occurred primarily along the north side of the parkway. Today, much of southern
Baldwin County=s economy focuses on the recreational and resort industry.
Bon Secour National 42 Wildlife Refuge
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE THREATS AND PROBLEMS
The greatest challenges posed for managing Bon Secour Refuge are declining populations of fish and
wildlife species and loss of habitat to development, which accelerates species= decline. To date, only
6,978 acres have been acquired by the refuge within the 12,570-acre acquisition boundary. Excepting
state lands that fall within the Skunk Bayou Unit, that leaves more than 1,700 acres on the Peninsula
that fall within the acquisition boundary, but are privately owned. This is considered a significant
shortfall to fully implement the purposes legislated by Congress.
Coastal development, habitat fragmentation, introduction of exotics, recreation use, and suppression
of natural fire represent the trends along the Gulf Coast and Fort Morgan Peninsula. Most of the
lands outside, and some within the refuge=s acquisition boundary, have been zoned as Two or
Multiple Family Districts, or Local Business Districts (Figures 17 and 18), allowing for construction of
not only private housing but also tourist accommodations, condominiums of up to 20 stories, and
other facilities. The zoning designation indicates the number of units allowed per acre. For example,
an R6 zoning would allow up to six residential units per acre, while an R4 zoning would allow up to
four residential units per acre. A significant portion of the undeveloped land on the Fort Morgan
Peninsula is zoned at these higher residential densities. Encroaching development has already led to
significant declines in fish and wildlife populations, habitat degradation and elimination, wildlife/people
conflicts, pesticide- and petroleum-based product accumulations in the water, pest management
problems, and a need for increased law enforcement to administer recreation programs and habitat
protection. The few areas that remain still in a relatively natural state, including those in private
ownership within the refuge=s acquisition boundary, are basically open to future development under
the pressure of a rapidly growing tourist industry, resulting in further enhancement of present
problems and conflicts.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
Figure 17. Fort Morgan Peninsula zoning district
Bon Secour National 44 Wildlife Refuge
Figure 18. Fort Morgan Peninsula zoning district
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45
Many of the refuge=s significant resource problems and management challenges are reflected on a
larger scale within the lower Mobile Bay watershed and Fort Morgan Peninsula. These problems,
both individually and cumulatively, play a significant role in determining future conditions on the
refuge. These resource problems and management challenges are briefly summarized in Table 5.
Table 5. Summary of ecological threats and problems facing Bon Secour National Wildlife
Refuge.
Management Area Management Issue or Concern
Upland Habitats Changes in habitat composition and species diversity due to fire
suppression;
Management for the Alabama beach mouse comes at the
expense of other species;
Increase in exotic pest plant and animal species;
Fragmentation due to ownership and zoning patterns;
Increase in number and density of developments adjacent to the
refuge and within the refuge boundary.
Unauthorized access through the refuge from adjoining
property.
Wetland and Coastal
Habitats
Erosion at Little Dauphin Island
Loss of submerged aquatic vegetation;
Increase in exotic pest plant species;
Accumulation of contaminant runoff due to increased use of
pesticides and herbicides;
Increased use of boats and personal water craft in Little
Lagoon;
Coastal armoring and improper use of sand fence or other dune
building materials (e.g., hay bales).
Lighting from human structures affects nesting and hatchling
sea turtles
Recreation Increase in public use of refuge without adequate staff and
facilities to accommodate or manage that increase; Pressure to
provide more facilities for the visiting public; Pressure to conduct
more outreach to various parts of the community.
General Administration Maintenance of numerous entrance points and facilities; Lack of
a constant law enforcement presence;
Lack of staff to conduct baseline surveys and monitoring;
Pressure to support conservation measures off-refuge.
In 1985, the Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Alabama beach mouse as endangered.
Encroachment of refuge boundaries from residential beach development and the subsequent
increases in habitat fragmentation, human use of the beach, feral cats (pets), and exotic plant
introductions (landscaping) continue to place the Alabama beach mouse at risk, resulting in Aisland@
populations existing primarily on public lands. Therefore, elucidation of this species= habitat needs,
viable dune management techniques, and potential visitor impacts on the dune system are vital for
long-term conservation (Fish and Wildlife Service unpublished report 2001).
Bon Secour National 46 Wildlife Refuge
The Bon Secour Refuge is an important site for contributing to sea turtle recovery. Removing
impediments such as derelict sand fencing, managing coastal lighting, implementing measures to
protect nesting females, nests, and hatchlings, and educating the public are important conservation
tools used by the Service. The number of sea turtles that successfully nest on refuge beaches is
influenced by various factors, including managing for reduced disturbance to nesting females and
increasing survivorship of hatchlings until they enter the Gulf of Mexico.
Common problems associated with sea turtles include all-terrain vehicles, sunbathers disturbing
nests, predation of eggs by feral pets, ghost crabs, foxes, and coyotes, and disorientation of
hatchlings due to beachfront lighting.
The loss of habitat and wildlife to development and coastal encroachment, predation, off-road
vehicles, invasive species, and natural, as well as human disturbance, poses a serious threat to
migratory birds and resident species. Beach development has decimated migratory land bird
populations throughout the Fort Morgan Peninsula. More than 30 species of breeding migratory
songbirds are found in this region. Some of these species, such as prairie warblers, have declined
significantly and need the benefits of secluded successional scrub habitat to recover and sustain their
existence.
Factors such as hydrology, age class of trees, vegetative types, and proximity to residential and
commercial development, require that planning at Bon Secour Refuge must be site specific, thus
complicating the implementation of management practices. Recovery of longleaf pine and pine
savanna communities via protection and management, as well as acquisition of private lands within
the refuge=s acquisition boundary, is a high priority for the Service. The two primary management
methods associated with these habitats are hydrologic restoration and prescribed burning.
The refuge=s coastal habitats and management units are five areas separated by residential homes,
high rises, golf courses, and municipal development on the Fort Morgan Peninsula. Homes and high
rise structures have mostly been developed after the establishment of the refuge. The Fort Morgan
Peninsula is one of the fastest developing areas in the region. This growth has led to increasing
wildland-urban interface challenges such as smoke management problems and reduced application
of prescribed fire near urban areas due to public misperceptions. The altered fire regime due to
inadequate and incompatible fire management, incompatible development, habitat destruction, and
habitat succession continues to be a conservation threat to trust species and their viability.
Coastal armoring includes structures such as sea walls, rock revetments, and sandbags that are
installed in an attempt to protect waterfront property from erosion. This hardening of the shoreline
actually accelerates waterfront erosion, necessitating that adjacent properties also be armored to
prevent further scouring and undercutting of those properties. Incompatible sand fencing for dune
restoration is a common method of armoring along the Gulf side of the peninsula. These structures
are located along the shoreline at nearby developments and if not constructed properly, block female
turtles from reaching suitable nesting habitat.
Beach renourishment consists of pumping, trucking, or otherwise depositing sand on a beach to
replace what has been lost to erosion. While it is preferable to coastal armoring, it can negatively
impact sea turtles if the sand is too compacted for turtles to nest, or if the sand imported is drastically
different from native beach sediments, thereby potentially affecting nest-site selection, digging
behavior, incubation temperature, moisture content of nests, and gas exchange within nests. If
renourishment is allowed to proceed during the nesting season, nests can also be buried far beneath
the surface or run over by heavy machinery.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47
Bon Secour Refuge is faced with the challenge of contributing substantially to off-refuge ecosystem
objectives, such as migratory bird and threatened and endangered species management. These ever-increasing
responsibilities, coupled with the current low levels of funding, make it difficult to meet the
demand for biological services on and off the refuge. The refuge staff is also facing the challenge of
managing an active and increasing visitor services program. The refuge provides limited recreation
opportunities, but the demand makes it difficult to develop quality wildlife-dependent recreation
opportunities involving the priority uses of fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and
environmental education and interpretation.
Heavy use of beaches by the public, during a period broadly overlapping the breeding season of
several species, results in one of the most serious natural resource management challenges that
managers must work to resolve. Predicted increases in human use of the refuge lead to increased
disturbance of beach nesting birds and sea turtles. Shorebird use of beaches during migration on the
Little Dauphin Island and Fort Morgan units should be monitored to determine present status and the
effect of recreational use on population levels.
Related to the increase in popularity of refuge beaches by residents and tourists is the observed trend
of increased dog-related activities on refuge beaches and trails. According to the website
www.dogfriendly.com, Bon Secour Refuge beach is the only public beach in Alabama that allows dog
use. As other public lands in the area have prohibited pets from areas under their jurisdiction, more
tourists and residents rely on refuge trails and beaches to exercise their pets. Coinciding with the
increase in dog-use is a marked decline in the number of shorebirds utilizing refuge beaches for
foraging, loafing, and nesting activities. While there is no direct evidence to suggest a correlation
between these two trends, it is well-described in the literature that dogs can negatively affect
shorebird use of areas where they are permitted. Dog-use of the refuge is a historic use and the
appropriateness of this activity has never been addressed, nor have the effects on the endangered
Alabama beach mouse, nesting sea turtles, and sea turtle hatchlings been determined. Public
concern about the increase of canine feces on refuge trails, beaches, and boardwalks has grown, as
well as concern about the number of unrestrained dogs since the majority of people using the refuge
for this purpose choose to ignore the leash law. If left unchecked, this use may materially interfere
with the purposes of the refuge and prevent implementation of several management objectives.
The development of baseline data is a task expected to take years for present staff to accomplish.
The refuge system policy requires inventories of plants, fish, wildlife, and habitats. Monitoring of
critical parameters and trends of selected species and species groups, as well as the subsequent
basing of management on sound data, continues to be a problem due to staffing constraints. No
standard inventory and monitoring method is in place to monitor conditions and impacts. Fish, reptile,
and amphibian conservation is overlooked because of lack of information and limited funding to
manage these resources.
The coastal habitats, long growing season, abundant rainfall, and geographical proximity to the Mobile
Bay and the Gulf of Mexico are critical to migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and
other wildlife. The refuge location and habitat features are significant ecological niches for the
conservation of many trust and resident species. The refuge is home to a wide variety of amphibians,
reptiles, mammals, and birds and is well known locally and nationally for its wildlife. Conservation of
the Alabama beach mouse, loggerhead sea turtle, nongame migratory birds, and several other
species of management concern is the primary focus of the current refuge staff.
Bon Secour National 48 Wildlife Refuge
With encroaching development, invasive species such as Chinese tallow trees and cogon grass are
expanding onto refuge lands. Current known locations are along refuge roads and trails. Without
control, these species will spread into the refuge interiors, degrading habitat for the Alabama beach
mouse, 370 species of birds, and a variety of herpetofauna. Eradication in the early stages of
infestation is vital in order to combat the continued spread of these species.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49
Bon Secour National 50 Wildlife Refuge
III. Plan Development
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with Service guidelines and National Environmental Policy Act recommendations,
public involvement has been a crucial factor throughout the development of this Comprehensive
Conservation Plan for Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge. This plan has been written with input and
assistance from interested citizens, conservation organizations, and employees of local and state
agencies. The participation of these stakeholders and their ideas has been of great value in setting
the management direction for Bon Secour Refuge. The Service, as a whole, and the refuge staff, in
particular, are very grateful to each one who has contributed time, expertise, and ideas to the planning
process. The staff remains impressed by the passion and commitment of so many individuals for the
lands and waters administered by the refuge.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND PLANNING PROCESS
Preparation for the comprehensive conservation plan began with a Biological Review in November
2000 and a Public Use Review in June 2001, both of which provided recommendations for the
management direction of the refuge. The following paragraphs summarize the efforts taken to solicit
public input and present the results of the public consultation process. A detailed description of that
process is presented in Appendix IV.
On February 19, 2003, the first of a series of public meetings was held in Gulf Shores, Alabama. A
planning team was formed to identify issues and concerns regarding the refuge, its wildlife, habitats,
and management. The planning team consisted of the refuge manager, refuge biologist, a refuge
planner, and an outreach specialist from the Daphne Ecological Services Field Office. Non-Service
members of the planning team included:
Director - Fort Morgan Historic Site
Executive Director/CEO - Alabama Gulf Coast Convention and Visitors Bureau
Vice Chair, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee - Alabama Gulf Coast Chamber
of Commerce
President - Friends of Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge
Chief, Coastal Section, Division of State Lands - Alabama Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources
Education and Outreach Coordinator, Coastal Section, Division of State Lands - Alabama
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Scientific Coordinator - Mobile Bay National Estuary Program
Baldwin County Extension Agent (Environment and Marine Resources)
Park Superintendent - Gulf State Park
Park Naturalist - Gulf State Park
Nongame Biologist - Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Executive Director - Dauphin Island Sea Lab
Past President - Fort Morgan Civic Association
Coastal Programs Coordinator - The Nature Conservancy of Alabama
Private property owner within the refuge boundary
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51
Further meetings were held from March through June 2003 to provide continuous information to the
public and solicit further input. Efforts were taken to widely announce public meetings by publishing
dates, times, and locations in local newspapers, as well as on flyers distributed to everyone on the
comprehensive conservation plan mailing list. A comment packet was designed to identify the
importance of different refuge features and opportunities for the public, while also allowing for “free-hand”
comments on values, issues, and concerns related to the refuge. This packet was available at
all public meetings, at the refuge office, and at the Alabama Gulf Coast Convention and Visitors
Bureau. It could also be requested via mail or e-mail. In addition, it was sent out to everyone on the
mailing list, the sea turtle volunteers, and the Friends of Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge. Out of
an estimated total of 500 comment packets distributed to the public, 102 completed forms
(approximately 20 percent response) were returned to the refuge. A summary of the responses is
found in Table 6 and a complete analysis of the comment packet and results can be found in
Appendix IV.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES
The planning team identified a number of issues related to fish and wildlife protection, habitat
restoration, recreation, and management of threatened and endangered species. Additionally, the
planning team considered federal and state mandates, plus applicable local ordinances, regulations,
and plans. The team also directed the process of obtaining public input through public meetings,
open planning team meetings, comment packets, and personal contacts. The planning team
reviewed comments received at public meetings and also evaluated responses from the comment
packet. Several recurring themes were evident during this scoping process.
Table 6. Summary of concerns reflected on the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge Planning
Packet.
Items receiving the most support: Items receiving the least support:
conserving habitat for wildlife providing more recreational opportunities
protecting threatened and endangered species improving fishing opportunities
protecting the whole biological system improving public use facilities
increasing law enforcement improving refuge accessibility
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS
The rescue of stranded and injured wildlife was a concern voiced by several citizens during the public
scoping phase of this planning effort. It was recommended that the various agencies and
organizations along the Gulf Coast develop and implement a comprehensive stranding call list.
Some citizens suggested that the refuge design and implement scientifically based monitoring
programs to document changes in plant and animal communities in response to habitat management.
Another comment was for the refuge to identify and inventory current populations of plants (including
submerged aquatic vegetation) and wildlife, and then determine which populations are in need of
monitoring.
Some participants stated that the main emphasis of refuge management should be to protect
threatened and endangered species. It was recommended that the refuge increase law enforcement
to better protect wildlife and habitat.
Bon Secour National 52 Wildlife Refuge
HABITATS
A thorough understanding of refuge habitats and their associated plant communities is fundamental to
sound habitat management. Many stakeholders understand this concept and consequently, several
expressed a strong desire to enhance the refuge’s biological program. Among other items, the
participants recommended that the refuge:
Manage or remove invasive species;
Enhance beach preservation activities and erosion control;
Improve native habitats for endemic plants and animals;
Map and type plant communities; and
Play a more effective role in the cooperative management of resources on Fort Morgan
Peninsula and coastal Alabama.
RESOURCE PROTECTION
Many stakeholders commented on the Service’s need for continued land acquisition and negotiations
with inholders. Special concerns included annexation by the city of Gulf Shores, potential zoning
changes, and increased developmental pressures. It was suggested that the refuge coordinate with
other agencies and organizations (e.g., Alabama Coastal Heritage Trust, Friends of Bon Secour
National Wildlife Refuge, and Little Lagoon Group) to protect land through traditional and innovative
acquisition methods.
Several comments were made regarding the problem of litter on the refuge. Some of the suggestions
were to make trash containers, marked for refuge use only, available on the refuge; to encourage dog
owners to remove pet litter; and to explore ways to remove storm debris from the beach.
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
Overall, many participants expressed their desire for more public involvement to further promote
understanding and appreciation of the refuge and the wildlife and habitat it supports. Suggestions
were made to host an annual or semi-annual public meeting to provide information on refuge
programs and opportunities, and to enhance communication through appropriate brochures, web
sites, and signage. Some of the public comments also indicated a need to improve the current
environmental education program and facilities in order to meet present and future demands.
Suggestions for improvement of the environmental education and outreach programs included:
Construction of an education/visitor center;
Addition of staff and volunteers;
Participation in research, monitoring, and restoration activities as a means to educate the
public (i.e., hands-on learning);
Education of the public on native landscaping and dune restoration techniques; and
Strengthening of partnerships with other environmental education programs in the area (e.g.,
Weeks Bay National Estuary Research Reserve, Gulf State Park, Dauphin Island Sea Lab,
Mobile Bay National Estuary Program, and Baldwin County Extension Service).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53
PUBLIC USE
Bon Secour Refuge provides a variety of wildlife-dependent recreational uses, including fishing,
wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. To
facilitate these uses, a system of parking lots, trails, and interpretive structures has been developed.
Some comments indicated a need for more extensive interpretation of the ecological and cultural
resources of the refuge, including an expansion of the refuge’s web site, improvement of maps and
their distribution, and improved signage on the refuge. Specific recreational concerns, issues, and
opportunities are summarized:
Desire to fish at night on the Fort Morgan Unit;
Lack of fishing opportunities at Gator Lake;
Degraded fishing and birding experiences in the western end of Little Lagoon and adjacent
refuge lands due to an increase in motorized boat traffic and personal watercraft;
Need to vary recreational uses among the five refuge units (i.e., some units should have more
public use, while other units receive too much public use during certain times of the year);
Recommendation to study current level of public use on the refuge and to determine the
appropriate level of recreational activity for each refuge unit;
Need for a new and improved trail system on the refuge, including canoe and kayak trails in
different habitats (e.g., Sand Bayou and Little Point Clear units);
Recommendation to construct observation platforms and elevated walking areas;
Need to improve refuge parking areas, boardwalks, water access, and access to the beach;
Need for a comfort station adjacent to the beach access at the end of Mobile Street;
Recommendation to institute user fees for recreational activities; and
Recommendation that the refuge coordinate with other local agencies in the development of
bike, kayak, and canoe trails on Fort Morgan Peninsula.
On July 10, 2003, the planning team held another public meeting in Gulf Shores to present its vision
and direction for the comprehensive conservation plan and to solicit additional public input. The
public meeting also served as a venue to explain the refuge planning process, to introduce the
planning team members, and to present the issues previously raised in the process. Approximately
50 people attended the meeting and several expressed their support of the planning effort and
direction.
Bon Secour National 54 Wildlife Refuge
IV. Management Direction
INTRODUCTION
The Fish and Wildlife Service manages fish and wildlife habitats considering the needs of all
resources in decision-making. But first and foremost, fish and wildlife conservation assumes priority in
refuge management. A requirement of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
is for the Service to maintain the ecological health, diversity, and integrity of refuges.
This plan contains the goals, objectives, and strategies for the next 15 years that will be used to
achieve the refuge=s vision.
Four alternatives for managing the refuge were considered: A - No Action (Current Management); B -
Wildlife and Habitat Emphasis; C - Public Use Emphasis; and D - Wildlife and Habitat Management
Enhancement While Optimizing Public Use. Each of these alternatives is described in the
Alternatives section of the Environmental Assessment, which was prepared in conjunction with the
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The Service chose Alternative D as its management
direction.
Implementing this alternative will result in a greater public understanding and appreciation of fish,
wildlife, and their habitats and in a higher quality, more evenly balanced recreational program for
visitors. Partnerships will be expanded to benefit conservation efforts all along the central Gulf Coast
to preserve, enhance, restore, and manage coastal barrier island habitat. If and when funding
becomes available, additional staff and facilities will be added to accomplish objectives for
establishing baseline data on refuge resources, managing habitats, providing opportunities and
facilities for wildlife observation and photography, and providing educational programs that promote a
greater understanding of refuge purposes and resources, as well as the unique values of Fort Morgan
Peninsula and coastal Alabama. Under this alternative, the refuge will continue to acquire inholdings
from willing sellers within the present acquisition boundary. Acquisition methods to be employed
include: land transfers, fee title, partnerships with conservation organizations, conservation
easements, and leases and cooperative agreements with state agencies.
An overriding concern reflected in this plan is that wildlife conservation is the first priority in refuge
management. All public uses must be compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation. Appropriate
wildlife-dependent uses such as fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental
education and interpretation will be emphasized.
VISION
Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, which includes a diversity of flora and fauna, was established to
preserve fragile barrier features along the rapidly developing Gulf Coast. The refuge is vital to the future of
wildlife conservation in south Alabama and will protect habitats that are critical to the survival of threatened
and endangered species, migratory birds, and resident native fish and wildlife. Refuge staff will identify,
conserve, manage, enhance, and restore populations of native fish and wildlife species and the natural
diversity, abundance, and ecological functions of refuge habitats while promoting conservation through
innovative partnerships, private landowner cooperation, and existing land protection programs to complete
acquisition within the approved refuge boundary. By managing a healthy refuge, the Service will also
facilitate compatible public uses for school children, refuge neighbors, vacationing families, and residents.
Partnerships with local communities, agencies, and citizens will be developed to increase public awareness
of the environmental issues facing all partners and will foster stewardship of the natural and cultural
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55
resources found on the Fort Morgan Peninsula and in coastal Alabama. The envisioned future is one of
increased staff and facilities, habitat restoration and protection, and involving people so they can enjoy the
refuge as a rare and valuable resource.
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES
The goals, objectives, and strategies addressed are the Service's response to the issues, concerns,
and needs expressed by the planning team, the refuge staff an