South Fork Conservancy, in discussing its goals for the South Fork of the Peachtree Creek, says it wants to restore “the historic creek,” most of which, SFC asserts, “is now hidden under bridges, pavement, culverts and invasive plants.” How do they plan to do this? They would not be removing the bridges, pavement, and culverts.
Preservation vs. Recreational Restoration
Sometimes SFC suggests that restoration means rebuilding a historic Indian trail along the creek. SFC couples this goal with an assertion that developing a connected trail along with removal of invasive plants will restore and preserve the creek by increasing human contact with the creek – the “more eyes on the creek” theory.
In stark opposition to the SFC vision is an important goal for Atlanta “greenways” explained in the FINAL APPROVED GREENWAY ACQUISITION PLAN (GAP), approved by EPA and EPD on March 29, 2001
[Greenways] protect plant and animal life within the greenway, they distance relatively impervious surfaces from rivers and lakes, they provide space for best management practices (BMPs), they provide effective flood control, and they control erosion. Greenways provide a sanctuary within which living tissue live and multiply in space and time. Some of the species living within greenways are endangered or threatened. Greenways protect riparian corridors from human activities such as development, recreation, and resource extraction. This in return protects species that may be in danger of becoming extinct. Since greenways are natural buffers, the living and non-living tissue function together as an ecosystem which is healthy for humans and the environment. [riparian: pertaining to the bank of a watercourse]
Treating appropriate segments of the South Fork creek as a protective greenway that is out of bounds to development of a recreational trail will protect the creek’s riparian corridor, and protect wildlife species that presently live in those segments. This is preservation - a major goal of Protect Morningside Greenspaces.
Urban wildlife habitat is a scarce resource that should be carefully protected. No type of development that could impact it should proceed without benefits that heavily outweigh preservation. SFC can accomplish its goals without a connected recreational trail and without disturbing segments of the creek corridor that protect wildlife.
SFC would allow on leash dog walking along the proposed trail (off leash dog activity would be a violation of municipal ordinances). Practically, it would be impossible to prevent dog walking and nearly impossible to prevent users from illegally letting dogs off leash along such a trail. Dogs significantly increase the negative impact of trails on wildlife.
The City of Atlanta should take advantage of its ownership of segments of the South Fork corridor that provide protective wildlife habitat by preventing all development including trails. Do trails really matter? Can a dirt hiking trail harm wildlife populations? Let’s look at some scientific studies.
Hiking Trails Drive Away Wildlife
South Fork, between Morningside Nature Preserve and Johnson Taylor Park is a narrow riparian zone that provides habitat for a range of wildlife. Neighbors report seeing deer, opossum, coyotes, barred owls, ducks, pileated woodpeckers, downy and redheaded woodpeckers, red tailed hawks, geese, chipmunks, snapping turtles, box turtles, blue birds, goldfinch, great blue heron, beaver, foxes, raccoons, river otters, and fish.
Scientific researchers have conducted studies of the impact of trails and the presence of dogs in green spaces including narrow riparian zones. A review of several such studies along with abstracts and citations is found in the recent paper “The Impact of Recreational Trail Development for Human and Domestic Dog Use on Urban Wildlife Habitat.” The studies led to several conclusions including the following:
- Even quiet recreational development such as a trail generally results in decreased abundance of wildlife.
- South Fork in the Morningside segment is a narrow riparian zone in which the stream and wetland ecosystem are vulnerable because of the small scale. Fragmentation of habitats is likely.
- There is growing evidence that quiet, nonconsumptive recreation may not be compatible with biodiversity protection.
- The paper concludes with the following recommendations:
- Before approving a trail, require wildlife impact studies suitable for EPA/EPD review.
- Give weight to neighbor knowledge of wildlife populations and the negative impacts they have witnessed when access has been increased.
Consider that some segments may be inappropriate for trail development leading to a need to abandon the concept of a connected system of trails.
Set aside sensitive South Fork segments as “no trail wildlife preservation zones,” including the segment between Zonolite and Morningside Nature Preserve (this segment has beach zones flanked by narrow areas containing animal nests and burrows that are sensitive to dog activity). By the same token, access to Johnson Taylor Preserve should not be increased.
An additional study by the University of New South Wales found that scents left by dogs (even on leash) tend to drive away wildlife.
Connected Trail is Not the Path to Preservation
SFC has not shown that building trails aids in preservation of wildlife habitats in environments like the South Fork segment from Morningside Nature Preserve to Johnson Taylor Park. Nor should benefits to human recreation automatically be assumed to trump potential negative impacts on quality of life and wildlife habitats.
Should the trail be developed in this segment, we fear that dogs would dig up small animal burrows and destroy nests, the red-tailed hawks and owls would not have enough prey, the ducks would be frightened away from their mating and nesting grounds, and we would find a general lessening of animal and bird populations along the creek corridor. Significant evidence predicts these setbacks to preservation.
Let’s not let it happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment