Revised Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment

The Jersey Coast Refuges (Edwin B. Forsythe and Cape May National 

Wildlife Refuges, including the new Two Mile Beach Unit)

Ocean, Atlantic, Burlington and Cape May Counties, New Jersey

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

July 2000

Abstract: The Service=s Proposed Action and two other alternatives are described, along with the process 

used to develop them and the environmental consequences of implementing each one. The three 

alternatives are: 

Alternative A. This is the No Action Alternative required by the Council of Environmental Quality=s 

regulations on the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

Selection of this Alternative would mean that there would be no change from our current 

management programs and emphasis at both Refuges. Seasonal travel and parking of 

motor vehicles would continue to be allowed in the Holgate Unit of the Brigantine 

Wilderness Area, on lands above mean high tide, in violation of the Wilderness s Act of 

1964. 

Alternative B. This Alternative would initiate new wildlife population and habitat management 

programs; provide new wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities; increase our land 

protection efforts; and provide new office and visitor facilities at both Refuges. All lands 

above mean high tide in the Holgate Unit of the Brigantine Wilderness Area would be 

closed to motor vehicle use by the public year-round in compliance with the provisions of 

the Wilderness Act. We would initiate efforts to establish a seasonal boat concession to 

ferry anglers and other Refuge visitors to the southern tip of the Holgate Peninsula. 

Alternative B is our Proposed Action.

Alternative C. This Alternative would initiate new wildlife population and habitat management 

programs; provide new wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities Refuge-wide; increase 

our land protection efforts; and provide new or remodeled office and visitor facilities at 

both Refuges. All lands above mean high tide in the Holgate Unit of the Brigantine 

Wilderness Area would be closed to motor vehicle use by the public year-round in 

compliance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act. We would also seek to further 

restrict motor vehicle access at the Holgate Unit by obtaining a license from the New 

Jersey Tidelands Council to close State-owned riparian lands below the mean high tide 

line. Efforts would be initiated to establish a seasonal boat concession to ferry anglers 

and other Refuge visitors to the southern tip of the Holgate Peninsula. 

Commenter Responsibility: Reviewers should provide the planning team with their comments by 

August 4, 2000. This will enable us to analyze and respond to their comments in a timely fashion and 

use any new information provided in the preparation of the final documents, helping avoid any undue 

delay in the decision making process. Reviewers have an obligation to structure their comments so that 

they are meaningful and alert us to their position and contentions. Comments should be specific and 

address the adequacy of the assessment and the merits of the alternatives discussed. All comments 
received from the public will be placed in our planning record for this action. As part of the record, 

comments will be made available for inspection by the general public, and copies may also be provided to 

the public. Persons who do not wish to have their names and other identifying information made 

available may make such a request in writing along with their comments. 

Public Hearing: A formal public hearing will be held at 7:00 PM on July 19, 2000. The hearing will 

provide an opportunity for all interested parties to present oral or written testimony on the revised draft 

document before a hearing officer and court reporter. Those wishing to do so will be able to sign up to 

speak when they enter the hearing room. This formal public hearing will be held at: 

Absegami High School 

201 South Wrangleboro Road 

Galloway Township, Atlantic County, New Jersey 

 

 

Comment Period: All other comments may be sent by either traditional or electronic mail, no later than 

August 4, 2000 to: 

The Jersey Coast Refuges Planning Team 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

300 Westgate Center Drive 

Hadley, MA 01035-9589 

FW5RW_CCP@fws.gov 
Reader=s Guide

 

 

Where=s the Comprehensive Conservation Plan? 

 

 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service=s planning process for all National Wildlife Refuges involves two levels of 

planning: 

1) the development of a broad Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP); and 

2) the formulation of more detailed step-down management plans required to fully implement the CCP. 

Public involvement and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance have been incorporated into 

the process at all appropriate stages. 

This Revised Draft Environmental Assessment provides NEPA compliance for the CCPs for both Forsythe and 

Cape May Refuges. Following the release of our final NEPA decision document [A Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) in the case of an environmental assessment] we will release final stand-alone CCPs for both 

Refuges. Each CCP will consist of materials currently found in the following sections of this document: 

$ Chapter I, Purpose of and Need for Action; 

$ the selected alternative from Chapter II, Alternatives; 

$ Chapter III, Affected Environment; 

$ Chapter V, Consultation and Coordination with Others and List of Preparers; and 

$ selected Appendices. 

 

The final approved CCP for each Refuge will, when fully implemented, help achieve refuge purposes, fulfill the 

National Wildlife Refuge System mission, maintain, and where appropriate, restore the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of the refuge and the System, and meet other mandates. It will guide 

management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies to accomplish these ends. We may also 

require step-down management plans to provide additional details about meeting CCP goals and objectives 

and to describe strategies and implementation schedules. The CCP will be based on the principles of sound 

fish and wildlife management, available science, legal mandates and our other policies, guidelines, and 

planning documents. It will, above all else, ensure that wildlife comes first on the Refuge. 

For further information on our planning process please refer to Part 602 of the Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual, National Wildlife Refuge System Planning.
1 

The Purpose of and Need for Action 

 

This document evaluates a reasonable range of 

alternative management strategies for the Edwin B. 

Forsythe and Cape May National Wildlife Refuges 

(Jersey Coast Refuges). Each alternative was 

generated with the potential to be fully developed into a 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). A Revised 

Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) has been 

prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

Development of a CCP is vital to the future 

management of the Jersey Coast Refuges. The purpose

of the CCP for each Refuge is to provide strategic 

management direction over the next 15 years by: 

1. Providing a clear statement of desired future 

conditions for habitat, wildlife, visitor services, and 

facilities; 

2. Providing Refuge neighbors, visitors, and 

partners with a clear understanding of the reasons 

for management actions; 

3. Ensuring Refuge management reflects the 

policies and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (Refuge System) and our other legal 

mandates; 

4. Ensuring the compatibility of current and future 

public use; 

 

5. Providing long-term continuity and direction for 

Refuge management; 

6. Providing direction for staffing, operations, 

maintenance, and the development of budget 

requests. 

 

The need to develop a CCP for each of the Jersey Coast 

Refuges is two-fold. First, the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge Improvement 

Act) requires that all National Wildlife Refuges have a 

CCP in place within 15 years to help fulfill the new 

mission of the Refuge System. 

Second, there is currently no master plan establishing 

priorities and ensuring consistent and integrated 

management for the Jersey Coast Refuges. A vision 

statement and goals, objectives, and management 

strategies are needed to effectively manage natural 

resources. Persistent issues related to non-wildlife 

dependent public use, beach access, wilderness 

management, and management for threatened and 

endangered species must be resolved with public and 

partner involvement. 

Decision to Be Made 

 

Based on the analysis documented in the EA, the 

Service will select an alternative to fully develop into a 

CCP for each Refuge. The selection will be made by 

the Regional Director based on an evaluation of the 

Service=s mission, the purposes for which each of the 

Refuges was established, and our other legal 

mandates.. 

Forsythe Refuge 

 

Forsythe Refuge is located in Atlantic, Burlington, and 

Ocean Counties, and consists of two divisions: the 

Brigantine Division and the Barnegat Division. (See 

Map 1-1 on page 16.) The Refuge extends along more 

than 50 miles of the coast. This Refuge was renamed in 

1984 in memory of the late conservationist 

Congressman from New Jersey, Edwin B. Forsythe, 

through a Congressional Joint Resolution 

(H.J. Res. 537). The resolution combined the 

Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge and the Barnegat 

National Wildlife Refuge. Those Refuges were 

established in 1939 and 1967, respectively, under 

provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. The 

Reedy Creek Unit was established in 1991, and is 

administered as part of Barnegat Division. The 

approved acquisition boundary of the Refuge 

encompasses more than 56,600 acres. As of September 

30, 1999, the Service owned or leased 44,302 acres 

within the approved Refuge acquisition area. 

Refuge wetlands are designated as Wetlands of 

International Importance under the Ramsar 

Convention. There are only 17 designated Wetlands of 

International Importance in the United States. Refuge 

lands and waters provide important resting and feeding 

habitat for tens of thousands of ducks and geese, 

wading birds, and shorebirds during their spring and 

fall migrations. 

Congress designated 6,600 acres of the Refuge as the 

Brigantine Wilderness on January 3, 1975 (P.L. 93-632) 

to be managed under the Wilderness Act of 1964 

(78 Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C. 1121 (note), 1131-1136). Map 

1-2 on page 16 shows the Refuge Wilderness Areas.

Cape May Refuge

Cape May Refuge is located in Cape May County, and 

includes the Delaware Bay Division, the Great Cedar 

Swamp Division, and the Two Mile Beach Unit. (See 
2 

Map 1-1 on page 16.) The Refuge was established in 

1989. The approved acquisition boundary for the 

Refuge encompasses more than 17,600 acres. As of 

October 22, 1999, the Service owned 10,001 acres 

within the approved Refuge acquisition area. 

In the past seven years, several studies or plans that 

involved the vicinity of the Refuge have been initiated 

or completed. These studies demonstrate the 

importance of this area. The Refuge acquisition area is 

within the New Jersey Coastal Area Facilities Review 

Act (CAFRA) zone and within the Service=s Twin Capes 

Project area (Cape May, NJ and Cape Charles, VA). It 

is partially within the Pinelands National Reserve, the 

Great Egg Harbor National Scenic and Recreational 

River, and the Cape May Migratory Bird Stopover 

Project. Delaware Bay wetlands within the Refuge are 

designated as Wetlands of International Importance 

under the RAMSAR Convention. There are only 17 

designated Wetlands of International Importance in the 

United States. 

Two Mile Beach Unit

The United States Coast Guard declared a major 

portion of its Electronic Engineering Center (EECEN) 

in Lower Township, Cape May County, excess to its 

needs in 1997. (See Map 1-3 on page 17.) 

The northernmost 490 acres of the former EECEN were 

transferred from the Coast Guard to the Service on 

October 22, 1999 as the Two Mile Beach Unit of Cape 

May Refuge under the Transfer of Certain Real 

Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 

May 19, 1948, as amended (16 U.S.C. '667b-667d; 

62 Stat. 240). Of the 490 acres, 221 acres are above 

mean high tide. Of these 221 acres, 90 acres are upland 

habitat and 131 acres are wetland habitat. 

The Coast Guard retained the remaining 530 acres of 

the former EECEN for its Long Range Aid to 

Navigation (LORAN) Support Unit (LSU) and the north 

dune antenna tower. The LSU will remain in operation 

indefinitely.

Purposes for the Jersey Coast 

Refuges 

 

Lands within the Refuge System are acquired and 

managed under a variety of legislative acts and 

administrative orders and authorities. These orders 

and authorities usually have one or more purposes for 

which land can be transferred or acquired. 

The purposes of Forsythe Refuge are: 

$ For lands acquired under the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. '715-715r), as 

amended, "...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, 

or for any other management purpose, for 

migratory birds...." (16 U.S.C. '715d); 

$ "...the development, advancement, 

management, conservation, and protection of 

fish and wildlife resources...." Fish and Wildlife 

Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. '742f(a)(4)); 

$ "...the conservation of the wetlands of the 

Nation in order to maintain the public benefits 

they provide and to help fulfill international 

obligations (regarding migratory birds)... " 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 

(16 U.S.C. '3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583); 

$ "...to secure for the American people of present 

and future generations the benefits of an 

enduring resource of wilderness." The 

Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 890:16 U.S.C. 

1121 (note), 1131-1136). 

The purposes of Cape May Refuge are: 

$ "...use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory 

birds...." The Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

(16 U.S.C. '715d); 

$ "...the development, advancement, 

management, conservation, and protection of 

fish and wildlife resources...." The Fish and 

Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. '742f(a)(4); 

$ "...the conservation of the wetlands of the 

Nation in order to maintain the public benefits 

they provide and to help fulfill international 

obligations(regarding migratory birds)... " The 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 

(16 U.S.C. '3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583). 

The purpose of Cape May Refuge=s Two Mile Beach 

Unit is: 

$ A...particular value in carrying out the national 

migratory bird management program@ The 

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife 

Conservation Purposes Act, 1972, as amended 

(16 U.S.C. '667b-667d; 62 Stat. 240). 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 
3 

its Mission 

 

National Wildlife Refuges are managed by the Service, 

part of the Department of the Interior. The mission of 

the Service is: 

A...working with others, to conserve, protect and 

enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit of the American people.@ 

National resources entrusted to the Service for 

conservation and protection are: migratory birds, 

endangered species, interjurisdictional fish, wetlands, 

and certain marine mammals. The Service also 

manages the Refuge System and national fish 

hatcheries, enforces federal wildlife laws and 

international treaties on importing and exporting 

wildlife, assists with state fish and wildlife programs, 

and helps other countries develop wildlife conservation 

programs. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

and its Mission 

 

The Refuge System is the world=s largest collection of 

lands and waters set aside specifically for the 

conservation of wildlife and ecosystem protection. Over 

520 National Wildlife Refuges are part of the national 

network today. Refuges occur in every state and a 

number of U.S. Territories, encompassing over 92 

million acres nationwide. Over 34 million visitors 

annually hunt, fish, observe and photograph wildlife, or 

participate in environmental education and interpretive 

activities on Refuges. 

In 1997, the Refuge Improvement Act was passed. This 

legislation established a unifying mission for the Refuge 

System, a new process for determining compatible 

activities on Refuges, and the requirement to prepare 

CCPs for each Refuge. The Act states that above all 

else, wildlife comes first in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. It does so by establishing that wildlife 

conservation is the principal mission of the Refuge 

System; by requiring that we maintain the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of each 

refuge and the Refuge System; and by mandating that 

we monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and 

plants on each refuge. It further states that the 

national mission, coupled with the purpose(s) for which 

each Refuge was established, will provide the principal 

management direction for each Refuge. 

The mission of the Refuge System 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 Refuge Improvement Act declares that all existing 

or proposed public uses must be Acompatible@ with the 

purposes for which each refuge was established. Six 

wildlife-dependent public uses were highlighted in the 

legislation as priorities to evaluate in CCPs. The six 

uses are: environmental education and interpretation, 

fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, and photography. 

ACompatibility@ is determined by the Refuge Manager 

after evaluating the activities= potential impact on 

Refuge resources. 

Refuge Vision

The following statement was developed by the planning 

team in order to describe the desired future status of 

the Jersey Coast Refuges. 

AEdwin B. Forsythe and Cape May National Wildlife 

Refuges, the Jersey Coast Refuges, will continue to 

contain some of the most important migratory bird 

habitat in the National Wildlife Refuge System. They 

will continue to be focal points for the protection, 

management, restoration, and enjoyment of migratory 

birds and other Federal Trust Resources in coastal New 

Jersey. Forsythe Refuge will provide a true wilderness 

experience on pristine barrier islands and salt marshes, 

that are premiere examples of these ecological 

communities and untrammeled by man. Both Refuges 

will provide stop-over habitats of sufficient size and 

quality to assist in maintaining migrating and 

wintering birds on the Atlantic Flyway. 

The Refuges will expand their roles in land protection 

efforts by acquiring additional habitat along the coast 

and inland watersheds, and working with all interested 

parties to promote conservation efforts on non-refuge 

lands. The Refuges will preserve important plant and 

animal populations, ecological communities, and the 

integrity of the landscape by protecting lands from 

development, restoring fire to the upland habitats, and 

repairing disruptions to wetlands. They will play a 

critical role in preserving biodiversity locally, regionally 

and within the Refuge System. 

The Refuges will build alliances with State, county and 

local governments, other organizations and local 

communities to promote the ecological integrity of the 

landscape, ecotourism and the historical and cultural 
4 

attractions of the region. Wildlife-dependent 

recreational opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, environmental education 

and interpretation will be provided on Refuge lands. 

The Refuges will help assure the sustainable economic 

viability of the area, and supplement and promote the 

values which attracted people and wildlife to the Jersey 

Shore in the first place.@

Refuge Goals

We have developed the following goals for the Jersey 

Coast Refuges. These goals highlight specific elements 

of our vision statement which will be emphasized in 

future management. Our planning team has identified 

Goal 1 as the top priority; Goals 2-4 are not in priority 

order. 

Goal 1: Protect and enhance federal trust 

resources and other species and habitats 

of special concern. 

Goal 2: Maintain and/or restore natural ecological 

communities to promote healthy, 

functioning ecosystems. 

Goal 3: Establish a land protection program to 

support accomplishment of species, 

habitat, and ecosystem goals. 

 

Goal 4: Provide opportunities for high-quality, 

compatible, wildlife-dependent public use. 

The Comprehensive Conservation 

Planning Process and Issue 

Identification

This effort to prepare CCPs for the Jersey Coast 

Refuges began in the summer of 1996. The Service=s 

action followed President Clinton=s signing of Executive 

Order 12996, on the Management and General Public 

Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System. In 

recognition of the Order=s four guiding principles, the 

Service focused its planning efforts on: 

$ Conserving and enhancing the quality and 

diversity of fish and wildlife habitat within the 

Refuges; 

$ Providing opportunities for compatible wildlifedependent recreational activities involving 

hunting, fishing, wildlife-observation and 

photography, environmental education and 

interpretation; 

$ Establishing partnerships with other Federal 

agencies, State agencies, tribes, organizations, 

industry and the general public; 

$ Increasing opportunities for public 

involvement in the planning of refuge land 

protection and management activities. 

 

This effort continued and was enhanced following 

passage of the Refuge Improvement Act in 1997. The 

Act states that the Service shall: 

$ Propose a CCP for each refuge or related 

complex of refuges; 

$ Publish a notice of opportunity for public 

comment in the Federal Register on each 

proposed CCP; 

$ Issue a final CCP for each refuge consistent 

with the provisions of this Act and, to the 

extent practicable, consistent with fish and 

wildlife conservation plans of the State in 

which the refuge is located; 

$ Not less frequently than 15 years after the 

date of issuance of a CCP, and every 15 years 

thereafter, revise the CCP as may be 

necessary. 

Initially, we focused on collecting information on 

natural resources and public use. In addition, we 

developed a vision statement and preliminary goals for 

the Jersey Coast Refuges, as well as the preliminary 

issues to be addressed in this planning effort. A 

mailing list of organizations and individuals was also 

compiled to insure that we were contacting a wide array 

of interested publics. 

In November and December 1996 we held a series of 11 

public meetings in: 

$ Ocean County, the Townships of Brick, Dover, 

Lacey, Stafford, and the Boroughs of Long 

Beach and Tuckerton; 

$ Atlantic County, the Township of Galloway; 

$ Cape May County, the Townships of Upper, 

Dennis, Middle, and Lower. 

We announced the location, dates, and times for these 

meetings in local newspapers and through special 

mailings. We also briefed local members of Congress on 
5 

the upcoming meetings. More than 280 people 

attended the meetings, which were held to let people 

know what the Service was doing to manage the Jersey 

Coast Refuges, and to elicit their input on topics of 

interest to them. 

We also distributed an AIssues Workbook@ to help collect 

the public=s ideas, concerns, and suggestions on 

important issues associated with managing the Jersey 

Coast Refuges. We distributed the workbook to 

everyone on our mailing list, those who attended the 

public meetings, and anyone who subsequently 

requested one. Nearly 1,000 copies were distributed. 

Through the workbook, we asked for public input on the 

issues and possible action options, the things people 

valued most about the New Jersey coast, their vision for 

the future, and the Service=s role in helping to conserve, 

protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their 

habitats. More than 150 copies of the workbook were 

completed and returned. 

In February 1997 we distributed a APlanning Update@

which summarized the responses received in the 

AIssues Workbook@. Responses from the workbooks and 

meetings were influential in helping us formulate the 

issues related to resource protection and public use. 

In April 1997 we also held an Alternatives Workshop. 

Twenty-five individuals, representing local and State 

conservation agencies and organizations, participated 

in the daylong workshop. The participants reviewed 

and discussed the issues and concerns identified in the 

AIssues Workbook@ and were asked to answer three 

questions: 

1) What should be done? 

2) Where should it be done? 

3) Who should help the Service do it? 

Input obtained from the public meetings, workbooks 

and workshop was used to identify a reasonable range 

of alternatives and prepare a draft CCP/EA. This draft 

was released for 45 days of public review and comment 

in May 1999. Over 200 people attended the three 

public meetings held in July at the following locations: 

Middle Township Building in Cape May County; 

Galloway Township Library in Atlantic County; and 

Stafford Township Municipal Building in Ocean 

County. 

We also received over 1,600 individual comment letters. 

 There were a great many duplicate comments received, 

since many people sent copies to both the Forsythe 

Refuge headquarters in Oceanville, New Jersey and our 

Regional Office in Hadley, Massachusetts. A summary 

of the public comments received and the disposition of 

the concerns expressed in those comments can be found 

in Appendix A on page 52. This summary also notes 

where we have changed the draft CCP/EA or why we 

did not make such changes. 

A Revised Draft CCP/EA is being released for 30 days of 

public review and comment. The Service is also holding 

a formal public hearing. The location, date, and time 

for this hearing are noted in the cover letter 

accompanying the Revised Draft, have been announced 

in local newspapers, and a formal Notice of Availability 

printed in the Federal Register. 

After the 30-day public review of the Revised Draft 

CCP/EA, we will compile and respond to the comments 

received. A Final CCP/EA will be prepared and, as 

required under NEPA, a decision will be made as to 

whether the Service=s Proposed Action supports a 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Assuming 

no significant impact is predicted, a FONSI will be 

prepared and released, along with stand-alone CCPs for 

both Forsythe and Cape May Refuges. Implementation 

of these plans will then begin and they will be 

monitored annually and revised when necessary. 

Key Issues

Together with the Jersey Coast Refuge goals the 

following key issues, and the range of options on how to 

resolve them, formed the basis for the development and 

comparison of the different alternatives under 

consideration. 

 

Managing habitats and wildlife populations

This issue was identified as being very important by the 

public at our meetings, in the workbook and at the 

workshop. A number of different management 

activities were suggested, including: habitat 

manipulation and restoration (e.g., burning, water level 

control, planting, mowing), wildlife population 

management, baseline surveys of wildlife species and 

ecological communities, population and habitat 

monitoring, and research. Other activities suggested 

include working with partners on cooperative efforts for 

habitat restoration and management on private lands. 

Some members of the public requested increased 

opportunities for furbearer trapping at Forsythe Refuge 

and providing furbearer trapping opportunities at Cape 

May Refuge. They noted that trapping is a necessary 

and important wildlife management tool. Other people 

objected to trapping. 
6 

Trapping is often used on National Wildlife Refuges to 

protect endangered and threatened species from 

predators, to protect refuge infrastructure, and to 

maintain furbearer populations at levels consistent 

with refuge objectives. 

The protection and management of wildlife populations 

and habitats is the fundamental mission of the Refuge 

System and the Jersey Coast Refuges. Special 

emphasis is placed on federal trust resources, including: 

endangered species, migratory birds, interjurisdictional 

fish, marine mammals, and wetlands. 

Controlling invasive and overabundant 

species 

 

Dealing with this issue is not only a national initiative 

for the Service, but was also deemed very important by 

the public at our meetings, in the workbook and at the 

workshop. The methods used to control these species 

are also of great concern. 

Both Forsythe and Cape May Refuges have significant 

problems involving invasive species, which impact 

native species directly, displacing or killing individuals, 

destroying habitats, and disrupting ecological 

communities. Invasive species requiring control are 

mostly exotics not native to the New Jersey landscape 

(e.g., Japanese honeysuckle, European bittersweet, 

autumn olive). 

Wildlife species may be deemed overabundant for 

various management objectives. Overabundant species 

may degrade habitat quality or the overall integrity of 

an ecological community (e.g., white-tailed deer), or 

may displace or prey upon other species that are 

actively being restored (e.g., raccoon). Other species, 

because of their numbers, may pose a human health 

risk (e.g., mosquitos). (See Mosquito control on page 

8). Overabundant snow geese and resident Canada 

geese are a management concern for the Refuge and for 

some landowners. Current goose control activities are 

discussed under this issue, but more aggressive 

techniques for goose control will be covered in separate 

documents. (See Control of resident Canada geese

and Control of white geese on page 9.) Deer and 

furbearer control activities are discussed under 

Increased opportunities for hunting on page 6 , and 

Managing habitats and wildlife populations on page 5. 

The effects of pesticides on fish, wildlife and 

plants

The public identified the presence of pesticides and 

chemicals in the environment as an important issue. 

Chemicals and pesticides from activities taking place on 

the Refuges or from off-refuge sources may impact fish, 

wildlife and plants found on the Jersey Coast Refuges. 

Such chemicals may be transported to the Refuges by 

wind, water or other mechanisms, or picked up offrefuge by fish and wildlife during their migrations. 

Many people encouraged us to minimize our use of 

chemicals and pesticides on the Refuges. 

The principle use of pesticides on the Refuge is to 

control mosquitos and invasive species. For example, at 

Forsythe Refuge during 1999, more than 1,000 pounds 

of pesticide were used to control mosquitos. Integrated 

Pest Management (IPM) provides an overall strategy to 

reduce pesticide use and promote other techniques to 

control problem species. For mosquitos, this includes 

Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM) (modifying 

mosquito breeding habitat to favor mosquito-eating 

fish). Because of previous OMWM treatment no 

pesticides were applied at Cape May Refuge in 1999. 

Another technique for suppressing phragmites, an 

invasive species, would be tidal inundation, instead of 

using herbicides.

 

Increasing opportunities for hunting

Many people identified hunting on the Refuges as an 

important issue during the public meetings, in the 

workbook and at the workshop. Some voiced concern 

over the Service=s policy of restricting access to lands at 

Forsythe Refuge that were historically available for 

hunting. Others felt that hunting should not be 

permitted on the Jersey Coast Refuges, often citing 

safety concerns and impacts on wildlife. 

 

Hunting has long been a traditional activity in coastal 

New Jersey. Local residents have hunted much of the 

land within the current and proposed boundaries of the 

Jersey Coast Refuges in the past. 

At Forsythe Refuge, deer hunting is allowed in 

designated areas by permit only. Upland game hunting 

is not allowed. Migratory game bird hunting is allowed 

in designated areas. Some people called for additional 

deer hunting opportunities during the six-day firearm 

season. Some people called for upland game hunting 

opportunities on the Refuge. Others called for 

additional opportunities to hunt migratory game birds 

on the Refuge, or did not agree with the Refuge=s policy 

of restricting hunting to only 40% of its lands. 

At Cape May Refuge, deer hunting is allowed Refugewide. Upland game hunting is not allowed. Migratory 

game bird hunting is allowed in designated areas. 

Some people called for upland game hunting 

opportunities on the Refuge. Others called for 

additional opportunities to hunt migratory game birds 
7 

on the Refuge. 

Because hunting is one of the six priority general public 

uses of the Refuge System, it A...shall receive priority 

consideration in refuge planning and management.@

(National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act). 

Refuge hunt programs must consider public safety, 

disturbance and other harm to wildlife, harm to 

habitat, and conflicts between different user groups. 

Increasing opportunities for fishing

Many people identified fishing on the Refuges as an 

important issue during the public meetings, in the 

workbook and at the workshop. 

While extensive fishing does occur within Refuge 

boundaries, the Service does not have management or 

law enforcement authority over fishing from boats in 

tidal waters within those boundaries. Fishing 

opportunities on lands managed by the Jersey Coast 

Refuges are limited. At Forsythe Refuge some 

opportunities are provided at several existing access 

sites, while Cape May Refuge is not open to fishing. 

Refuge beaches below mean high tide are under the 

jurisdiction of the New Jersey Tidelands Council, with 

the exception of Cape May Refuge=s Two Mile Beach 

Unit. 

 

Because fishing is one of the six priority general public 

uses of the Refuge System, it A...shall receive priority 

consideration in refuge planning and management.@

(National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act). 

Refuge fishing programs must consider public safety, 

disturbance and other harm to wildlife, harm to 

habitat, and conflicts between user groups. 

Increasing opportunities for wildlife 

observation and photography

There was a great deal of interest expressed in 

expanding wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities on the Refuges at the public meetings, in 

the workbook and at the workshop. This high interest 

is reflected in the fact that many visitors to the Jersey 

Coast Refuges come to observe the wildlife we manage. 

 

The fact that Forsythe Refuge and the Cape May 

peninsula are world-renowned destinations for bird 

watchers is reflected in our high number of visitors and 

the diversity of their hometowns. As hundreds of 

thousands of migratory birds use the Refuges each 

year, so tens of thousands of visitors come each month 

to observe them. 

Because wildlife observation and photography are two 

of the six priority general public uses of the Refuge 

System, they A...shall receive priority consideration in 

refuge planning and management.@ (National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act). Refuge wildlife 

observation and photography programs must consider 

public safety, disturbance and other harm to wildlife, 

harm to habitat, and conflicts between different user 

groups. 

Increasing opportunities for environmental 

education and interpretation

There was more interest in expanding environmental 

education and interpretation opportunities at the 

Refuges than any of the other priority public uses. In 

fact, there was great interest in increasing our outreach 

efforts to local schools and communities as well. Quite 

often people expressed an interest in promoting more 

environmentally friendly recreational activities while 

expressing concern for minimizing impacts on the 

resources. Many encouraged us to place special 

emphasis in our education and interpretation efforts on: 

the impacts of public use on wildlife and how those 

impacts can be reduced; how the public can help 

wildlife both at the Refuge and in their own back yards; 

and the importance of refuges in conserving wildlife 

and their habitats. 

Because environmental education and interpretation 

are two of the six priority general public uses of the 

Refuge System, they A...shall receive priority 

consideration in refuge planning and management.@

(National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act). 

Refuge environmental education and interpretation 

programs must consider public safety, disturbance and 

other harm to wildlife, harm to habitat, and conflicts 

between different user groups. 

Protecting and managing wilderness 

resources

In 1975 Congress designated 6,603 acres of the 

Forsythe Refuge as Wilderness. Undeveloped barrier 

beaches and dunes at Holgate and on Little Beach 

Island, and undisturbed salt marshes were included. 

There are stringent requirements specified in the 

Wilderness Act and in Service policy for protecting and 

managing these areas. These include the highest 

requirements for clean air, using minimum tools for 

management, and letting natural processes prevail. 

The protection and management of Wilderness often 

includes such actions as monitoring the ecological 

communities, research, education and outreach, 
8 

enforcement of Refuge regulations, reviewing the 

potential impacts of both on- and off-site activities on 

wilderness values, and the restoration of native species 

or natural communities. The single most contentious 

issue associated with the review of the draft CCP/EA 

was the use of motorized vehicles for surf fishing at 

Holgate, in violation of the provisions of the Wilderness 

Act. 

Increasing opportunities for land protection

During the public meeting, in the workbooks and at the 

workshop, people expressed a great deal of support for 

the protection of additional fish and wildlife habitat, 

and suggested that this occur not only through an 

expanded land acquisition program at the Jersey Coast 

Refuges, but also by working cooperatively with others 

to protect non-refuge lands as well. There is 

considerable interest in increasing land protection 

efforts at both Refuges, especially lands supporting 

federal trust species. The location of Cape May Refuge 

on the peninsula makes it particularly important to the 

successful migration of birds in the Atlantic flyway.

Increasing resource protection and visitor 

safety

People identified resource protection and visitor safety 

as a concern during the public meetings, in the 

workbook and at the workshop.

New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the 

nation. In addition, Ocean County was the fastest 

developing county in the United States during the 

1970=s and 1980=s. Development in both Atlantic and 

Cape May Counties has increased markedly since the 

birth of the Atlantic City casino industry in the 1980's. 

As a result, law enforcement incidents encountered on 

the Jersey Coast Refuges are no longer limited to 

wildlife related violations. Officers now respond to 

incidents involving vandalism, assault, breaking and 

entering, speeding, possession of illegal drugs, and the 

cultivation of marijuana. While these problems are 

currently more prevalent at Forsythe Refuge, they are 

expected to increase at Cape May Refuge in the future. 

 

The two Refuges currently encompass 54,000 acres, 

along 90 miles of the New Jersey Shore. Marking the 

expanding Refuge boundaries remains a constant 

logistical problem. Total annual public use surpasses 

300,000 visitors. It is expected to increase rapidly as 

more of Atlantic City=s 35 million annual visitors and 

the millions of Jersey Shore summer visitors discover 

the Jersey Coast Refuges. 

The current staffing level of three full-time Park 

Rangers is insufficient to adequately patrol and enforce 

Refuge and other federal regulations. These officers 

find it increasingly difficult to respond to public reports 

of potential violations. 

Improving Refuge buildings and facilities

The existing buildings and facilities at both Forsythe 

and Cape May Refuges are woefully inadequate and 

need to be replaced. This is especially important if the 

Refuges are to adequately accommodate work space for 

not only their current staff, but also any future 

increases in staffing levels that would be required to 

implement the actions and strategies in the Refuge 

CCPs. Additional laboratory and equipment storage 

space is also needed. 

New facilities in readily accessible locations would also 

help increase the visibility of the Service in coastal New 

Jersey and improve our visitor services, including 

providing opportunities for environmental education 

and interpretation. The 150,000 people, who currently 

use the wildlife drive at Forsythe Refuge, are provided 

few opportunities to learn about the Service or its 

programs during their visit to the Refuge. 

Use of the existing buildings at the Two Mile 

Beach Unit

A number of groups have expressed interest in using 

former Coast Guard buildings located at the site. Some 

of these buildings also have the potential for use as 

Refuge office, visitor or storage/maintenance facilities. 

There is also a lot of interest in seeing these buildings 

removed and restoring the habitat they currently 

displace. 

These buildings lie in the center of possibly the best 

remaining piece of maritime forest found on the New 

Jersey coast and an area critical to migrating birds. 

They also lie within the 100-year flood plain. 

 

 

 

Public access to the Two Mile Beach Unit

Some people expressed concern at the public meetings, 

in the workbook and at the workshop, about the 

possibility that the Service would close the beach 

during the piping plover breeding season. 

Although the Coast Guard never officially sanctioned 

public access to the beach, they did allow people to walk 

along the beach surf line and by that route to access the 

jetty at Cold Spring Inlet, a popular fishing location. In 

the past, this beach has supported nesting piping 

plovers and the least tern, although those species do not 
9 

currently use the area. 

Issues Outside the Scope of the 

Environmental Assessment 

 

These issues do not fall within the scope of The 

Purpose of and Need for Action and the Decision to be 

Made. Issues within this category will not be further 

addressed in this document. The Service will, however, 

pursue other courses of action, often in cooperation with 

other interested parties, to resolve them. 

Protecting sensitive areas from personal 

water craft use 

Many people expressed concern over the use of personal 

water craft at the public meetings, in the workbook and 

at the workshop. 

Personal water craft use in the State-managed waters 

surrounding or adjacent to lands of the Jersey Coast 

Refuges has risen dramatically. The Refuge does not 

have jurisdiction over these activities in these waters. 

 

Personal water craft have made previously inaccessible 

Refuge areas susceptible to adverse habitat and wildlife 

 impacts. Their use has increased wildlife-human 

interactions, involving disruption of roosting, foraging, 

and nesting birds over large areas of the Jersey Coast 

Refuges. 

The Service will increase its education and outreach 

efforts regarding the responsible use of personal water 

craft, and will work closely with the State to seek 

solutions for resolving this perplexing problem. 

Mosquito control

Several species of mosquitoes found in coastal New 

Jersey are important vectors of potentially lethal 

diseases, including Eastern Equine Encephalitis and 

West Nile Virus. The Service is striving to responsibly 

address risks to public health and safety and to protect 

trust resources from mosquito borne diseases and the 

impacts of pesticides on wildlife and the ecosystem. 

The Service and the mosquito control agencies in New 

Jersey and Delaware are working to develop new 

strategies for mosquito control, with appropriate NEPA 

compliance. The public will have the opportunity to 

review and comment on the proposed strategies before 

they are finalized. 

Control of resident Canada geese

Resident Canada geese are having a growing impact on 

communities across the country. Increasing urban and 

suburban development in the United States has 

resulted in the creation of ideal goose habitat conditions 

including park-like areas with short grass adjacent to 

small bodies of water. 

These habitat conditions have enticed rapidly growing 

numbers of locally breeding geese to live here year 

round. These resident goose populations are 

increasingly coming into conflict with human activities 

in many parts of the country. Large flocks of resident 

geese have serious impacts, on both wildlife and people: 

geese grazing in large numbers cause major habitat 

destruction, reducing the amount of critical forage 

available for migratory geese and other waterfowl 

during migration; high concentrations of goose 

droppings in lakes can cause excessive algae growth, 

leading to fish kills; high concentrations of goose 

droppings can also create health hazards to humans; 

and resident geese can denude lawns of vegetation. 

To help address this problem, the Service issued special 

Canada goose permits to states in the summer of 1999. 

The permits are designed to give states greater 

flexibility and opportunity to design management 

programs to control specific resident Canada goose 

populations. The permit program was designed as a 

short-term program until a comprehensive long-term 

management strategy can be developed and 

implemented. 

The Service is preparing an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) to lay out alternatives for dealing with 

all the resident Canada goose problems. The EIS will 

be completed in 2001.

Control of white geese

Populations of white geese B a term that encompasses 

greater and lesser snow geese and Ross= geese B have 

increased dramatically in the last 30 years. The species 

of primary concern in the Jersey Coast Refuge area is 

the greater snow goose. 

Numbers of lesser snow geese and Ross= geese have 

grown from 300,000 birds in 1969 to more than 3 

million birds today. Numbers of greater snow geese 

have grown from fewer than 50,000 in the late 1960's to 

about 800,000 today. 

As a result, the geese have destroyed and damaged vast 

areas of their sensitive Arctic breeding grounds as well 

as local migration stopover areas. This negatively 

impacts not only the geese, but for all the plants and 

the other animals in these areas. 
10 

The Service is preparing an EIS to lay out alternatives 

for dealing with all the white goose population 

problems. The EIS will be completed in May 2001.

The Compatibility Determination

Federal law and policy provide the direction and 

planning framework to protect the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (Refuge System) from incompatible or 

harmful human activities and to insure that Americans 

can enjoy Refuge System lands and waters. The 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

of1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge Improvement 

Act), is the key legislation on managing public uses and 

compatibility. 

Before activities or uses are allowed on a National 

Wildlife Refuge, the uses must be found to be a 

Acompatible use.@ A compatible use is a use, A...that will 

not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the 

purposes of the refuge.@ AWildlife-dependent 

recreational uses may be authorized on a refuge when 

they are compatible and not inconsistent with public 

safety. Except for consideration of consistency with 

State laws and regulations as provided for in section 

(m), no other determinations or findings are required to 

be made by the refuge official under this Act or the 

Refuge Recreation Act for wildlife-dependent recreation 

to occur.@ (Refuge Improvement Act) 

A number of compatibility determinations have been 

prepared over the years covering a variety of uses 

currently taking place on both Edwin B. Forsythe and 

Cape May National Wildlife Refuges (Jersey Coast 

Refuges). These compatibility determinations remain 

in effect and are being re-certified as part of this effort 

to prepare Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) 

for both Refuges.

Interim Compatibility Determination

An interim compatibility determination is one which 

assesses the compatibility of an activity during the 

period from the time the Service first acquires a parcel 

of land to when a formal long-term management plan 

for the parcel is prepared and adopted. The Service has 

completed interim compatibility determinations for the 

six priority general public uses of the System listed in 

the Refuge Improvement Act, hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation. (The interim 

compatibility determinations may be found in Appendix 

B on page 55.) The Act defines these six priority 

general public uses as Awildlife-dependent recreation@

and Awildlife-dependent recreational use.@ 

These interim compatibility determinations cover both 

of the Jersey Coast Refuges. It covers the period 

between Service acquisition of a parcel and the formal 

adoption of a long-term management plan for the 

parcel. (See Table 1.) 

Table 1. Interim Compatibility for Wildlife-dependent 

Recreational Activities at the Jersey Coast Refuges. 

Wildlifedependent 

Recreational 

Activities 

Existing 

Activities

? 

Compatible 

for 

Interim 

Use? 

Interim 

Use 

Allowed?

Hunting Yes Yes Yes 

Fishing from bank Yes Yes Yes 

Fishing from boat Yes Yes Yes 

Wildlife Observation Yes Yes Yes 

Wildlife 

Photography 

Yes Yes Yes 

Environmental 

Education 

No Yes Yes 

Interpretation No Yes Yes

The interim compatibility determinations cover the 

existing priority general public uses taking place 

within the proposed Land Protection Focus Areas 

(Focus Areas) described in the Service=s Proposed 

Action in this Revised Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

(CCP/EA). (See Alternative B - The Service=s Proposed 

Action on page 13, Maps 2-8a, b, c, and d, beginning on 

page , and Maps 2-16a and b, beginning on page 

 .) These Focus Areas are lands outside the currently 

approved Refuge acquisition boundary. The interim 

compatibility determinations do not cover existing 

priority general public uses on lands within the 

currently approved Refuge acquisition boundary. The 

CCP/EA sets forth the management for all lands within 

the currently approved Refuge acquisition boundary B

regardless of whether the Service already owns the 

properties or not. 

Several of the six priority general public uses occur on 

lands within the proposed Focus Areas. The current 

levels of hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, environmental education and 

interpretation taking place on these lands do not seem 

to be negatively impacting fish, wildlife, or plant 
11 

resources. 

Current levels of the six priority general public uses in 

the proposed Focus Areas would be compatible with the 

mission of the Refuge System and the purposes for 

which the Jersey Coast Refuges were established. The 

proposed Focus Areas have little estuarine habitat 

important to the Atlantic Brant, black ducks or rails, or 

important estuarine feeding and resting habitat for 

ducks or brant. The Refuges would allow the current 

levels of hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

wildlife photography to continue in the interim. We 

would monitor impacts of these uses and adjust levels 

and locations as appropriate through the adoption of 

long-term management plans. 

Walking, hiking and bicycling done for exercise and 

enjoyment of the outdoors occur on lands within the 

proposed Focus Areas. To eliminate conflicts between 

user groups, we would terminate bicycling on property 

within the proposed Focus Areas as soon as the Service 

acquired and posted a property within these areas. 

Walking and hiking would be allowed to continue at 

their current levels in the interim. We would monitor 

impacts of these uses and adjust levels and locations as 

appropriate through the adoption of long-term 

management plans. 

All terrain vehicle (ATV), dirt bike, and mountain bike 

riding occurs on some lands in the proposed Focus 

Areas. These activities negatively impact physical and 

biological resources, and are therefore not compatible 

with the purposes for which the Jersey Coast Refuges 

were established. To eliminate negative impacts, we 

would terminate these activities on property within the 

proposed Focus Areas as soon as the Service acquired 

and posted a property within these areas.

Administrative Separation of the 

Jersey Coast Refuges

The Service intends to administratively separate Cape 

May Refuge from Forsythe Refuge. The two Refuges 

were joined in 1995 for funding and administrative 

purposes. Development of this document and 

identification of management actions in the CCPs for 

each Refuge provides the Service the opportunity to 

administratively separate them. Within the next 

five years, depending upon the availability of adequate 

resources, the Service will separate the two Refuges. 

After they have been separated, both Refuges will have 

their own Refuge Managers and appropriate staffs. We 

would, however, continue to coordinate biological 

management between Refuges to achieve wildlife 

population, habitat, and ecosystem management goals 

and objectives. The biological activities at both Refuges 

involve many of the same techniques, expertise, and 

species and community types. Continued coordination 

would benefit the resource, and provide greater 

efficiency in program management. 

Potential Land Protection Methods

Land protection priority would be given to lands 

adjacent to Service-owned lands within existing Refuge 

boundaries, and also to larger contiguous tracts. 

Known hazardous waste sites or contaminated areas 

will be excluded from consideration. All land 

transactions are subject to contaminant surveys. 

Funding for land acquisition will come from the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund and the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund, under the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act. Except in unusual cases, developed 

parcels within the current acquisition boundary or 

proposed Focus Areas would not be acquired. 

The Service=s land acquisition policy is to obtain the 

minimum interest necessary to satisfy Refuge 

objectives. Conservation easements can sometimes be 

used in this context, when they can be shown to be a 

cost-effective method of protection. In general, any 

conservation easement must preclude destruction or 

degradation of habitat, and allow Refuge staff to 

adequately manage uses of the area for the benefit of 

wildlife. Because development rights must be included, 

the cost of purchasing conservation easements often 

approaches that of fee title purchase, thus rendering 

this method less practical. Nevertheless, donations of 

easements or voluntary deed restrictions prohibiting 

habitat destruction would be encouraged. In addition, 

the Service could negotiate management agreements 

with local and State agencies, and accept conservation 

easements on upland tracts. 

Some parcels within the proposed Refuge Focus Area 

may already be owned by State, local governments, or 

private conservation organizations. The Service would 

work with interested agencies to identify additional 

areas needing protection and provide technical 

assistance if needed. 

Property Taxes, Refuge Revenue 

Sharing, Relocation, and Landowner 

Rights

 

The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of June 15, 1935, as 

amended, provides annual payments to taxing 
12 

authorities, based on acreage and value of Refuge lands 

located within their jurisdiction. In 1999, the Service 

paid, $114,414 to Ocean County communities, $10,006 

to Burlington County communities, $85,410 to Atlantic 

County communities, and $80,646 to Cape May County 

communities. 

Money for these payments comes from the sale of oil 

and gas leases, timber sales, grazing fees, and the sale 

of other Refuge System resources and from 

Congressional appropriations. The Congressional 

appropriations are intended to make up the difference 

between the net receipts from the Refuge Revenue 

Sharing Fund and the total amount due to local taxing 

authorities. The actual Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Payment does vary from year to year, because Congress 

may or may not appropriate sufficient funds to make 

full payment. The actual payments made in 1999 were 

62.25% of full payment. 

The Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments are based on 

one of three different formulas, whichever results in the 

highest payment to the local taxing authority. In New 

Jersey, the payments are based on three-quarters of 

one percent of the appraised fair market value. The 

purchase price of a property is considered its fair 

market value until the property is reappraised. The 

Service reappraises the value of Refuge lands every five 

years. 

On wetlands and formerly farmland-assessed 

properties in New Jersey, the full entitlement Refuge 

Revenue Sharing Payments sometimes exceed the real 

estate tax. However, Refuge Revenue Sharing 

payments are more often less than the real estate tax. 

The fact that Refuges put little demand on the 

infrastructure of a municipality, must be considered in 

assessing the financial impact on the municipality. For 

example, there is no extra demand placed on the school 

system, roads, utilities, police and fire protection, etc. 

There is a substantial body of literature that shows that 

development, especially residential development, 

actually costs a community more in schools, roads, 

sewers and other services than the tax revenue 

generated by the development (Land Trust Alliance, 

1994). 

The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, provides 

certain relocation benefits to home owners, 

businessmen, and farm operators who are displaced as 

a result of Federal land acquisition. The law provides 

benefits to eligible owners and tenants for 

reimbursement of reasonable moving expenses, 

replacement of housing payments under certain 

conditions, relocation assistance services, and 

reimbursement of certain expenses incurred in selling 

real property to the Government. 

The owner of land adjacent to Refuge land or within an 

approved Refuge acquisition boundary or a proposed 

Refuge Focus Area, retains any and all the rights, 

privileges, and responsibilities of private land 

ownership. This includes the right of access, hunting, 

vehicle use, control of trespass, right to sell to any 

party, and the obligation to pay real estate taxes. The 

Refuge controls uses only on the properties it owns.

Monitoring and Adaptive Management

The Final CCPs for each Refuge will cover a 15-year 

period. Periodic review of the CCP will be required to 

ensure that established goals and objectives are being 

met and that the Plan is being implemented as 

scheduled. To assist this review process, a monitoring 

and evaluation program would be implemented, 

focusing on issues involving public use activities, and 

wildlife habitat and population management. 

Monitoring of public use programs would involve the 

continued collection and compilation of visitation 

figures and activity levels. In addition, research and 

monitoring programs would be established to assess the 

impacts of public use activities on wildlife and wildlife 

habitat, conflicts between Refuge users, and identify 

compatible levels of public use activities. We would 

reduce these activities if we determine that 

incompatible levels of public use were occurring. 

Collection of baseline data on all wildlife populations 

and habitats would be implemented. This data would 

update existing records of wildlife species using the 

Refuges, their habitat requirements, and seasonal use 

patterns. This data would also be used to evaluate the 

effects of public use and habitat management programs 

on wildlife populations. 

Refuge habitat management programs would be 

continually monitored for positive and negative impacts 

on wildlife habitat and populations and the ecological 

integrity of the ecosystem, and to determine if these 

management activities are helping to meet Refuge goals 

and objectives. Information resulting from monitoring 

would allow staff to set more specific and better 

management objectives, more rigorously evaluate 

management objectives, and ultimately, make better 

management decisions. 

Alternative A B the No Action 

Alternative
13 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no 

change in our current management programs at 

Forsythe Refuge. Seasonal travel and parking of motor 

vehicles would continue to be allowed in the Holgate 

Unit of the Brigantine Wilderness Area, on lands above 

mean high tide, in violation of the Wilderness s Act of 

1964. 

We would initiate few, if any, new wildlife population, 

habitat or ecosystem management activities, provide no 

new public recreation opportunities, and undertake no 

new major land acquisition efforts. The Refuge would 

continue to pursue land acquisition and Refuge 

operations and maintenance under it=s current staffing 

and funding levels. (See also Table 2. Actions and 

Strategies Matrix for Forsythe Refuge, beginning on 

page , and Maps 2-8a, b, c, and d, beginning on page 

 .) 

Cape May National Wildlife Refuge

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no 

change in our current management programs at Cape 

May Refuge. We would initiate few, if any, new wildlife 

population, habitat or ecosystem management 

activities, provide no new public recreation 

opportunities, and undertake no new major land 

acquisition efforts. The Refuge would continue to 

pursue land acquisition and Refuge operations and 

maintenance under it=s current staffing and funding 

levels. (See also Table 3. Actions and Strategies Matrix 

for Cape May Refuge, beginning on page , and Maps 

2-16a and b, beginning on page .) 

Two Mile Beach Unit

The No Action Alternative for the Two Mile Beach Unit 

is one of custodial management. The beach would be 

closed to access by the public. No active wildlife or 

public use management would be undertaken, and no 

public use opportunities would be provided. The 

Service=s major focus would be on posting and patrolling 

the property. We would abandon all buildings or 

improvements in place, except those required for the 

Coast Guard LORAN Support Unit. (See also Table 4.

Actions and Strategies Matrix for the Two Mile Beach 

Unit of Cape May Refuge, beginning on page .) 

Alternative B B The Service=s 

Proposed Action

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge

Under the Service=s Proposed Action, all lands above 

mean high tide in the Holgate Unit of the Brigantine 

Wilderness Area would be closed to motor vehicle use 

by the public year-round in compliance with the 

provisions of the Wilderness Act. We would initiate 

efforts to establish a seasonal boat concession to ferry 

anglers and other Refuge visitors to the southern tip of 

the Holgate Peninsula. 

Refuge staffing and funding levels would be increased 

and we would initiate new wildlife population, habitat, 

and ecosystem management activities; provide new 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities; increase our land protection efforts; and 

construct new office and visitor facilities to support the 

goals and objectives of the Refuge. 

Special emphasis would be placed on the six priority 

general public uses defined in the Refuge Improvement 

Act, i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, environmental education and 

interpretation. Public use surveys, along with wildlife 

and habitat monitoring, would help us estimate the 

volume and impacts of public use, and adapt our 

management strategies for that use. (See also Table 2. 

Actions and Strategies Matrix for Forsythe Refuge,

beginning on page , and Maps , 

beginning on page .) 

Cape May National Wildlife Refuge

Under the Service=s Proposed Action staffing and 

funding levels would be increased and we would initiate 

new wildlife population, habitat, and ecosystem 

management activities; provide new compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities; increase 

our land protection efforts; and construct new office and 

visitor facilities to support the goals and objectives of 

the Refuge. 

Special emphasis would be placed on the six priority 

general public uses defined in the Refuge Improvement 

Act, i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, environmental education and 

interpretation. Public use surveys, along with wildlife 

and habitat monitoring, would help us estimate the 

volume and impacts of public use, and adapt our 

management strategies for that use. (See also Table 3. 

Actions and Strategies Matrix for Cape May Refuge,

beginning on page , and Maps , beginning 

on page .) 

Two Mile Beach Unit
14 

Under the Service=s Proposed Action we would initiate a 

seasonal closure of the beach, above and below the 

mean high tide line, to benefit: 

# beach nesting birds such as piping plover, least 

tern, and black skimmer; 

# migratory shorebirds during spring and fall 

migration periods. 

The closure would take place from April 1 to September 

30, during which time, beach access would be allowed 

only during Refuge-scheduled bird/beach walks. This 

seasonal closure would be evaluated after two years to 

determine its effectiveness and to implement changes if 

necessary. 

 

Motor vehicles, and non-wildlife dependent uses such as 

swimming, sunbathing, and surfing, would be 

prohibited at all times. The beach would be open for 

walking and surf fishing from October through March, 

accessible from the north boundary of the beach and at 

the location of the former Coast Guard Beach Hut. 

Sand dunes would be closed to public access except at 

designated crossing points. 

A visitor center would be established in building A-14 

and environmental education and interpretation 

programs would be provided on a regular basis. We 

would also use building B-6 for Refuge administration, 

and all other buildings or improvements on the 

property would be removed, except those required for 

the Coast Guard LORAN Support Unit. (See also Table 

4. Actions and Strategies Matrix for the Two Mile 

Beach Unit of Cape May Refuge, beginning on page .) 

Alternative C

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge

Under this Alternative all lands above mean high tide 

in the Holgate Unit of the Brigantine Wilderness Area 

would be closed to motor vehicle use by the public yearround in compliance with the provisions of the 

Wilderness Act. We would also seek to further restrict 

motor vehicle access at the Holgate Unit by obtaining a 

license from the New Jersey Tidelands Council to close 

State-owned riparian lands below the mean high tide 

line. Efforts would be initiated to establish a seasonal 

boat concession to ferry anglers and other Refuge 

visitors to the southern tip of the Holgate Peninsula. 

Refuge staffing and funding levels would be increased 

and we would provide increased public use and access 

opportunities, including Refuge-wide hunting, trapping, 

fishing, and wildlife observation and photography. New 

office and visitor facilities would be constructed to 

support the goals and objectives of the Refuge. In 

addition, this Alternative would also place more 

emphasis on our habitat and wildlife management, 

environmental education, interpretive, and outreach 

efforts. (See also Table 2-2. Actions and Strategies 

Matrix for Forsythe Refuge, beginning on page , and 

Maps , beginning on page .) 

Cape May National Wildlife Refuge

Under this Alternative staffing and funding levels 

would be increased and we would allow hunting, 

trapping, and fishing Refuge-wide. The existing Refuge 

office and visitor contact building would be enlarged 

and remodeled and new storage and maintenance 

facilities constructed. Wildlife and habitat 

management activities would be increased, while 

wildlife observation and photography, environmental 

education and interpretation opportunities would be 

reduced. (See also Table 3. Actions and Strategies 

Matrix for Cape May Refuge, beginning on page , 

and Maps , beginning on page .) 

Two Mile Beach Unit

Under this Alternative we would provide year-round 

public access to the beach for walking and surf fishing. 

No motor vehicles would be permitted on the beach. 

Public trapping would be allowed, as would commercial 

bait fishing (both under Refuge special use permit). 

Public use improvements would be limited, and only a 

visitor contact station would be provided. 

We would use building B-6 for Refuge administration, 

provide selected building(s) to partners/cooperators for 

purposes compatible and complementary to the purpose 

of the Refuge, and remove all other excess buildings, 

except those required for the Coast Guard LORAN 

Support Unit. (See also Table 4. Actions and 

Strategies Matrix for the Two Mile Beach Unit of Cape 

May Refuge, beginning on page .) 

Environmental Consequences of 

Implementing the Alternatives 

on the Physical Environment

Climate

None of the Alternatives would measurably impact the 
15 

climatic conditions within the New Jersey coastal 

weather station zone (Sandy Hook, Long Branch, 

Atlantic City, and Cape May weather stations). All of 

the Alternatives would impact the micro-climatic 

conditions within the Refuge acquisition areas and the 

immediate surroundings (e.g., vegetated undeveloped 

lands would moderate local temperatures compared to 

developed lands).

Air Quality

All of the Alternatives would positively impact the air 

quality in Ocean, Burlington, Atlantic, and Cape May 

Counties, because the Brigantine Wilderness Area is a 

Class I Air Quality area. The Clean Air Act provides 

for special emissions control regulations in areas 

surrounding Class I Air Quality areas. Furthermore, 

all the Alternatives would maintain or improve the air 

quality in the municipalities in which Refuge property 

is located, in direct relationship to the extent of the 

areas protected from development. 

Not protecting the air quality of the Brigantine 

Wilderness Area, would likely threaten or destroy 

unique floral, faunal and scenic values.

Geology, Topography, and Soils

The Alternatives would not substantially impact these 

environmental features, except that the Alternatives 

would protect, in perpetuity, soil formation processes on 

lands the Refuge acquires. Some disturbances to 

surface soils and topography will occur at those 

locations selected for administrative, maintenance and 

visitor facilities, including visitor center, visitor contact 

stations, trails, platforms, and other structures.

Hydrology

Each Alternative would protect the natural hydrology of 

the affected areas. Alternative A would provide the 

least protection, while Alternatives B and C would 

provide the most protection. Each Alternative would 

prevent substantial upland acreage from being 

developed through land acquisition and through 

planning assistance to local governments and other 

conservation partners. They would maintain 

groundwater recharge areas, and prevent groundwater 

withdrawal, factors important for protecting wetlands 

and long-term water supply for those dependant on 

wells for their water supply. The upland and wetlands 

protected through the Alternatives would maintain 

natural catchments to hold and absorb surface waters, 

thereby minimizing flooding. 

Water Quality

All the Alternatives would substantially impact the 

water quality in individual streams and possibly in the 

bodies of water into which these streams flow, for 

example, Barnegat Bay, Little Egg Harbor, Great Bay, 

Great Egg Harbor, and Delaware Bay. These positive 

impacts would result from the protection of ground 

water recharge areas, runoff prevention, sediment 

retention and by minimizing non-point source 

pollution. Positive impacts would also result from 

maintaining the ecosystem functions of disturbance 

regulation, water regulation, and waste treatment. 

Environmental Consequences of 

Implementing the Alternatives 

on the Biological Environment

Threatened and Endangered Species

Each Alternative would protect sites important to these 

species. Alternative A would provide the least 

protection, while Alternatives B and C both have the 

potential to provide the most protection. 

Vegetation and Habitat

Each Alternative would prevent the conversion of 

agricultural and forest/shrub upland and wetlands to 

developed land. They would provide additional 

protection to wetlands beyond the protection afforded 

by existing wetlands regulations. They would also 

protect landscape characteristics such as habitat 

connectivity. Alternative A would provide the least 

protection, while Alternatives B and C both have the 

potential to provide the most protection, and contribute 

the greatest to habitat quality and the ecological 

integrity of the landscape. 

Wildlife Resources

Each Alternative would protect habitat types important 

to migratory birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, 

fish, and invertebrates. Alternative A 

would protect the least amount of habitat, while 

Alternatives B and C would protect the most. 

Environmental Consequences of 

Implementing the Alternatives 

on the Archaeological and 

Historical Environment

All the Alternatives would protect archaeological and 
16 

historical resources that may occur on land the Refuge 

acquires. They would not only protect archeological 

and historical resources from vandalism, but also 

during the planning and construction of all 

administrative, maintenance and visitor facilities. 

All the Alternatives would allow interpretation of 

human interaction with the Refuge environment over 

the last 12,000 years, and provide data on the nature 

and degree of change that have occurred to that 

environment. 

Environmental Consequences of 

Implementing the Alternatives 

on the Socioeconomic 

Environment

All the Alternatives would reduce the amount of 

developable land in townships where the Service 

acquires developable property for the Refuges. This 

would increase the value of the remaining developable 

land. 

The Alternatives would channel development to less 

environmentally sensitive areas, which would likely 

help townships reduce infrastructure costs related to 

any new development. They would also help assure the 

sustainable economic viability of the area, and promote 

the values which attract people to the Jersey Shore in 

the first place. 

Alternatives B and C would increase compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, 

environmental education and interpretation) in the 

area. These Alternatives would also stimulate 

ecotourism, potentially increasing tourism 

expenditures. 

Under some of the Alternatives certain newly acquired 

Refuge lands would be closed to all wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses, i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, environmental education 

and interpretation. This does not necessarily mean, 

however, that this would result in a net loss of 

opportunities in the area. While some private land 

owners allow the public to use their lands, others may 

not allow public access or only allow certain individuals 

to use their property. Thus, most lands we acquire may 

never have been open to the public. If we open these 

lands to public access it may very well represent a net 

increase in wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities in the area. 

All the Alternatives would decrease gross property tax 

revenues to townships in which the Service acquires 

developable property for the Refuges. However, the 

impact on net property tax revenues may be positive. 

Net property tax revenue equals the increase in gross 

property tax revenues from development, less the 

increase in costs to the municipality for services and 

infrastructure needed for the development. 

All the Alternatives would increase Refuge Revenue 

Sharing Payments to townships in which the Service 

acquires lands for the Refuge. 

For an analysis of the socioeconomic impacts of the 

proposed year-round closure of the Holgate Unit of the 

Brigantine Wilderness, above mean high tide, to 

motorized vehicles see Appendix C beginning on page 

59. 

Note for reviewers: For a more complete discussion of 

Alternatives A, B, and C, and the consequences of 

implementing each of these Alternatives, please see the 

full Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. Copies are available 

on request at the headquarters of Forsythe Refuge in 

Oceanville, New Jersey (609/652-1665), or the 

headquarters of Cape May Refuge in Cape May 

Courthouse, New Jersey (609/463-0994).
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 

The following Actions and Strategies Matrix compares management Alternatives for the key issues identified in 

Chapter I. Actions and strategies identified under each of the three Alternatives are not additive, Alternatives B & 

C do not include the actions in Alternative A, unless otherwise indicated.

Table 2. Actions and Strategies Matrix for Forsythe Refuge.

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge

Issue or concern 

 

Alternative A (the No 

Action Alternative) 

 

Alternative B (the Service=s 

Proposed Action) 

 

Alternative C 

 

How would we 

manage habitats and 

wildlife populations?

Continue to protect & 

monitor piping plover & 

swamp pink (federallylisted species) 

Complete a step-down 

habitat management 

plan for the Refuge 

Continue maintaining 

Barnegat & Brigantine 

impoundments 

Continue current 

population baseline 

surveys 

Establish monitoring 

program for water 

quality & contaminants 

Continue providing 

minimal on-site support 

for current research 

projects 

Continue using trapping 

to control furbearer 

populations in problem 

areas 

Same as Alternative A, except: 

Survey areas for potential threatened & 

 endangered species; actively restore 

good candidates (e.g. sea beach 

amaranth) 

Implement physiographic/species based 

habitat management prescription on all 

Refuge lands 

Conduct prescribed burns in upland 

forests, upland brush & grasslands 

Develop & implement cooperative 

private lands habitat restoration & 

management plan 

Conduct baseline surveys & monitoring 

on: plants, invertebrates, mammals, 

amphibians, raptors, fish, & waterbirds 

Implement species monitoring before & 

after major projects; expand use of GIS 

to document & model species & habitat 

Increase on-site support for current 

research & initiate new research on: 

impact of mosquito control techniques 

on wildlife; impact of public use on 

wildlife; beach/shoreline dynamics; 

impact of water quality & quantity on 

wetland resources; & pre-colonial 

ecology of area 

Develop computer archive of data& 

publications for staff, public, & partners 

Provide technical assistance to local 

communities on contaminant spill 

planning & response & other wildliferelated activities 

Restore colonial nesting birds on barrier 

& bay islands 

Identify spawning & nursery habitat for 

anadromous & interjusrisdictional fish 

Expand trapping areas to better manage 

furbearer populations 

In addition to Alternative B: 

Develop community-level 

habitat map 

Develop & implement 

community/species-based 

habitat management plan 

Develop & implement 

cooperative private lands 

habitat restoration plan 

Through partnerships, 

increase nesting structures 

for peregrine falcon, osprey, 

& barn owls 

Evaluate stream/river 

blockages impeding 

spawning runs for 

interjurisdictional fish 

Open all Refuge lands to 

public trapping 
41 

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge

Issue or concern Alternative A (the No 

Action Alternative) 

 

Alternative B (the Service=s 

Proposed Action) 

 

Alternative C 

 

How would we 

manage invasive and 

overabundant 

species?

Continue program to 

control approximately 

150 acres of 

Phragmites/year 

Continue special public 

hunting program to 

control populations of 

snow geese & resident 

Canada geese 

Conduct nest disruption 

of resident Canada geese 

Survey invasive/exotic species 

Implement Integrated Pest 

Management (IPM) program for 

Phragmites & six other invasive plant 

species 

Provide technical assistance to adjacent 

land owners on invasive species control 

Research alternative methods of 

controlling invasive species 

Use more aggressive control techniques 

for overabundant goose population 

Same as Alternative B 

How would we 

manage pesticide 

use?

Continue current levels 

of pesticide use for 

phragmites & mosquito 

control 

Expand Integrated Pest Management 

(IPM) program, minimizing pesticide 

use 

Same as Alternative B 

What big game 

hunting 

opportunities would 

we provide?

Continue current 

hunting programs in 

Deer Management Zones 

(DMZ) 56, 57 & 58 

In addition to Alternative A: 

Initiate a universally accessible hunt in 

DMZ 56 during the permit shotgun or 

muzzle loader seasons 

Expand deer hunting opportunities in 

DMZ 58 to include: Forked River Game 

Farm; former AT&T property; selected 

properties east of Route 9; Middle 

Branch of Forked River; & Cedar Run 

Creek 

In addition to Alternative B: 

Open DMZ 57 & 58 to sixday firearm, fall & winter 

bow seasons 

What upland game 

hunting 

opportunities would 

we provide? 

Continue to keep Refuge 

closed to upland game 

hunting 

Establish an upland game hunting area 

at Oak Island 

In addition to Alternative B: 

Open all Refuge lands to 

upland game hunting 

What migratory 

game bird hunting 

opportunities would 

we provide?

Continue current 

waterfowl, rail, & 

moorhen hunting in 

designated units 

In addition to Alternative A: 

At the Brigantine Division allow foot 

access to Unit 5 

At the Barnegat Division allow jump 

shooting from Jeremy Point to Cedar 

Run Creek in Unit A; eliminate foot 

access & jump shooting from Cedar Run 

Creek to Beach Haven in Unit A; & 

allow jump shooting & eliminate site 

requirements in Unit C 

Designate new hunting areas at: Reedy 

Creek; Stouts Creek; Forked River 

Game Farm; AT&T tract; & Cedar Run 

Creek 

In addition to Alternative B: 

Open all Refuge lands to 

migratory game bird hunting 

What fishing 

opportunities would 

Continue to operate boat 

launching ramp & 

In addition to Alternative A: In addition to Alternative B: 
42 

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge

Issue or concern Alternative A (the No 

Action Alternative) 

 

Alternative B (the Service=s 

Proposed Action) 

 

Alternative C 

 

we provide? parking area at Scotts 

Landing 

Continue to provide 

fishing opportunities at: 

Lily Lake; Graveling 

Point; Holgate 

(seasonal); Scott=s 

landing; Bridge to 

Nowhere; Dock Creek 

Road; Parkertown Road; 

Cedar Run Creek; Dock 

Road; & Stafford 

Avenue. 

Revise Refuge fishing 

plan 

Develop a Refuge fishing guide 

By 2002, provide a universally 

accessible saltwater fishing & crabbing 

pier on the Mullica River 

By 2003, upgrade 3 saltwater fishing & 

crabbing sites: Parker Run, Cedar Run 

Creek, & Cedar Creek 

By 2004, provide a universally 

accessible freshwater fishing pier at 

Cedar Run Creek 

Fishing opportunities in the Brigantine 

Wilderness Area are discussed under 

How would we manage the Brigantine 

Wilderness Area?

Allow fishing from all shore 

locations outside of the 

Holgate Unit, Little Beach 

Island & the Wildlife Drive 

What wildlife 

observation and 

photography 

opportunities would 

we provide?

Continue to provide 

opportunities at: 

Wildlife Drive, 

associated foot paths & 

observation tower; 

Reedy Creek Trail; 

Barnegat Impoundment 

observation deck; & 

Seasonal access at 

Holgate Beach. 

Monitor walking & 

bicycling activities on 

the Wildlife Drive 

Continue to maintain 

interpretive signs& 

provide brochures at 

existing Refuge public 

use sites 

In addition to Alternative A: 

Create new foot trails, with appropriate 

parking areas, kiosks & interpretive 

signs at: Four Mile Branch Bogs by 

2003; Stouts Creek by 2006; Cedar Run 

Bog by 2010; & Collinstown Rd by 2014 

By 2004, complete Reedy Creek Trail & 

add observation platform 

Construct universally accessible 

observation platform at Bonnet Island 

by 2005 & off of Wildlife Drive, 

overlooking the experimental pool by 

2007 

Develop parking for canoers & 

kayakers, with appropriate kiosks, at 

Westecunk Creek by 2008 & Cedar Run 

Creek by 2012 

Wildlife observation & photography 

opportunities in the Brigantine 

Wilderness Area are discussed under 

How would we manage the Brigantine 

Wilderness Area?

In addition to Alternative B: 

Open all Refuge lands to 

wildlife observation & 

photography, except those 

involving endangered species 

recovery efforts 

What environmental 

education and 

interpretation 

opportunities would 

we provide?

Continue current 

programs & projects: 

New displays at the 

renovated auditorium; 

5,000 students visit 

annually with teachers; 

Provide class visit 

planning & 

informational assistance 

In addition to Alternative A: 

Conduct outreach related to 

environmental education opportunities 

at the newly renovated auditorium 

Reach out to local community groups, 

especially those that are not the 

Refuge=s typical audience 

Increase interface with education 

community, including provision of 

In addition to Alternative B: 

Participate in development of 

a watershed-wide, 

cooperative outreach group 
43 

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge

Issue or concern Alternative A (the No 

Action Alternative) 

 

Alternative B (the Service=s 

Proposed Action) 

 

Alternative C 

 

as needed; 

Issue special use permits 

for class activities such 

as seining or collecting 

samples as requested; 

Upon request, show 

videos in auditorium for 

organized groups; 

Friends of Forsythe 

provide occasional 

interpretive tours of the 

Wildlife Drive; 

Distribute 3 Refuge 

brochures; & 

Continue to maintain 

interpretive signs& 

provide brochures at 

existing Refuge public 

use sites. 

teacher training, & help develop wildlife 

classroom projects 

Increase interpretive signs & available 

information 

Increase interpretive outreach to 

hunters & anglers 

Develop environmental education 

partnerships, introductory Refuge video 

for all age groups, wildlife learning 

materials for children, 5 new Refuge 

brochures, & 2 outdoor classroom sites 

Work with partners to address personal 

watercraft impacts through outreach & 

education 

Expand interpretive focus to include 

human impacts on wildlife 

Add scheduled seasonal nature tours on 

the Wildlife Drive, at Holgate & Reedy 

Creek with the help of partners & 

Friends of Forsythe 

How would we 

manage the 

Brigantine 

Wilderness Area?

Continue to seasonally 

allow motor vehicles to 

illegally drive & park 

above the mean high tide 

line at Holgate 

Continue to offer 

seasonal surf fishing 

opportunities at Holgate 

Continue to close all of 

the Holgate Peninsula to 

public access from April 

thru August during the 

piping plover breeding 

season 

Continue to keep Little 

Beach Island closed to 

all public access yearround 

Continue to allow 

migratory game bird 

hunting on designated 

salt marshes 

Continue to allow motor 

vehicles to assist in 

rescuing stranded 

marine mammals 

Prohibit motor vehicles use above the 

mean high tide line at Holgate yearround & post mean high tide line 

Continue offering seasonal surf fishing, 

wildlife observation & photography 

opportunities at Holgate from 

September thru March with access by 

foot only 

Initiate efforts to establish a boat 

concession to seasonally ferry anglers & 

other Refuge visitors to the southern tip 

of the Holgate Peninsula 

Continue to close all of the Holgate 

Peninsula & Little Beach Island to 

public access from April through August 

during the piping plover breeding 

season 

Open Little Beach Island to surf fishing, 

wildlife observation & photography 

seasonally by Refuge special use permit 

Encourage seasonal use of less sensitive 

areas of the Wilderness through guided 

tours or Refuge special use permit 

Continue to allow migratory game bird 

hunting on designated salt marshes 

Same as Alternative B, 

except: 

Seek a license from the NJ 

Tidelands Council to close 

the State-owned intertidal 

zone at Holgate to motor 

vehicles, eliminating the 

need to post mean high tide 

line 

In cooperation with Town 

provide observation platform 

immediately north of Holgate 

Unit 

Perform most beach 

maintenance & management 

activities by boat 
44 

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge

Issue or concern Alternative A (the No 

Action Alternative) 

 

Alternative B (the Service=s 

Proposed Action) 

 

Alternative C 

 

Continue to use motor 

vehicles for law 

enforcement at Holgate 

Beach 

Continue programs to 

monitor air quality & 

precipitation chemistry 

Conduct a Wilderness 

Review as part of the 

revision of the Refuge 

CCP in 2015 

Apply Aminimal tools@ concept to 

management activities such as: invasive 

species control, boundary posting, 

assisting stranded marine mammals, 

etc. 

Continue current air quality monitoring 

programs & add mercury monitoring in 

partnership with NJ DEP 

Develop partnerships with NJ DEP, 

local chambers of commerce, & others 

emphasizing wilderness values 

Conduct outreach to increase awareness 

of the Wilderness Area, using TV, 

calendars, posters, presentations, etc. 

By 2005 develop a Wilderness 

Management Plan, & by 2010 conduct a 

Wilderness Review of all Refuge lands 

acquired since 1972 

(Also see How would we manage 

habitats and wildlife populations? for 

other management activities) 

What would be our 

land protection 

strategy?

Continue efforts to 

acquire 12,300 acres of 

privately owned lands 

within approved Refuge 

acquisition boundaries 

from willing sellers 

Continue current level of 

land protection planning 

with government & 

private partners 

In addition to Alternative A: 

Acquire 11,500 acres within designated 

Focus Areas outside existing approved 

Refuge acquisition boundaries 

Increase land protection planning 

efforts with partners 

Expand off Refuge habitat protection & 

restoration efforts with other public & 

private landowners 

Same as Alternative B 

How would we 

ensure resource 

protection and visitor 

safety?

Continue current law 

enforcement efforts with 

1 seasonal & 2 full-time 

Park Rangers 

In addition to Alternative A: 

Hire 3 new full-time Park Rangers 

Same as Alternative B 

What buildings and 

facilities would be 

used or constructed 

for Refuge 

operations?

Continue to use existing 

Refuge buildings 

Conduct a Site Requirement Analysis 

Construct new headquarters & visitor 

center building(s) at the Brigantine 

Division to replace existing buildings 

Construct new Barnegat Division Office 

& visitor contact building(s) to replace 

existing field office 

Construct new Reedy Creek Unit office 

& visitor contact building(s) 

Same as Alternative B 

What would be the Current staffing level: In addition to Alternative A: In addition to Alternative A: 
45 

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge

Issue or concern Alternative A (the No 

Action Alternative) 

 

Alternative B (the Service=s 

Proposed Action) 

 

Alternative C 

 

future staffing needs 

at Forsythe Refuge?

1 Project Leader 

1 Deputy Project Leader 

1 Supervisory Refuge 

Operations Specialist 

1 Refuge Operations 

Specialist 

2 Biologists 

1 Outdoor Recreation 

Planner 

2 Maintenance Workers 

1 Lead Administrative 

Office Assistant 

1 Office Automation 

Assistant 

2 Park Rangers 

1 Seasonal Park Ranger 

1 Volunteer Coordinator 

1 SCEP (Student Career 

Experience Program) 

1 Crew Leader 

total FTEs = 17 

2 Safety Officers/Refuge Operations 

Specialists 

2 Biologists 

1 Forester/Fire Management Officer 

4 Biological Technicians 

6 Maintenance Workers 

1 Office Automation Assistants 

1 Outreach Specialist 

1 Computer Specialist 

3 Park Rangers 

1 Outdoor Recreation Planners 

2 Recreational Assistants 

1 Secretary 

total FTEs (A + B)= 42 

3 Safety Officers/Refuge 

Operations Specialists 

5 Biologists 

4 Biological Technicians 

6 Maintenance Workers 

3 Office Automation 

Assistants 

3 Park Rangers 

3 Outdoor Recreation 

Planners 

total FTEs (A + C)= 44 

What would be the 

future funding needs 

at Forsythe Refuge 

for the next 15 years?

Staffing & Projects: 

$15.3 million 

Land Protection: 

$19.7 million 

Staffing & Projects: 

$54.2 million 

Land Protection: 

$57.7 million 

Staffing & Projects: 

$60 million 

Land Protection 

$57.7 million 
46 

Table 3. Actions and Strategies Matrix for Cape May Refuge. 

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Cape May National Wildlife Refuge

Issue or concern 

 

Alternative A (the No 

Action Alternative) 

 

Alternative B (the Service=s Proposed 

Action) 

 

Alternative C 

 

How would we 

manage habitat and 

wildlife populations?

Complete a step-down 

habitat management plan 

for the Refuge 

Maintain open land 

through cooperative 

mowing 

Continue current baseline 

population surveys 

Establish monitoring 

program for water quality 

& contaminants 

Continue providing 

minimal on-site support for 

current research projects 

The Refuge would remain 

closed to public trapping 

Same as Alternative A, except: 

Survey all areas for potential threatened & 

endangered species & actively restore good 

candidates (e.g. sea beach amaranth) 

Implement physiographic/species based 

habitat management prescription on all 

Refuge lands 

Conduct prescribed burns in upland forests, 

upland brush & grasslands 

Develop & implement cooperative private 

lands habitat restoration plan 

Conduct comprehensive baseline flora & 

fauna surveys & long term monitoring 

Implement species monitoring before & 

after major projects; expand use of GIS to 

document & model species & habitat 

Initiate research on: impact of mosquito 

control techniques on wildlife; impact of 

public use on wildlife; beach/shoreline 

dynamics; impacts of water quality/quantity 

on wetland resources; & pre-colonial ecology 

of the area 

Develop computer archive of data & 

publications for staff, public, & partners 

Provide technical assistance to local 

communities on contaminant spill planning 

& response & other wildlife-related 

activities 

Open area north of Route 550 to trapping 

In addition to 

Alternative B: 

Develop an ecological 

community-level 

habitat map 

Develop & implement 

community/species 

based habitat 

management plan 

Develop & implement 

cooperative private 

lands habitat 

restoration plan 

Through partnerships, 

increase nesting 

structures for osprey, 

barred & barn owls 

Open entire Refuge to 

trapping 

How would we 

manage invasive and 

overabundant 

species?

No effort would be made to 

control invasive species 

Survey invasive & exotic species on the 

Refuge 

Implement Integrated Pest Management 

(IPM) program, including long term 

monitoring, on phragmites & other exotic 

plant species 

Research alternative methods of controlling 

problematic species 

Same as Alternative B 

How would we 

manage pesticide 

use?

Continue current levels of 

pesticide use for mosquito 

control 

Implement Integrated Pest Management 

(IPM) strategy minimizing pesticide use 

Provide technical assistance on IPM 

Same as Alternative B 
47 

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Cape May National Wildlife Refuge

Issue or concern 

 

Alternative A (the No 

Action Alternative) 

 

Alternative B (the Service=s Proposed Alternative C 

Action) 

strategies to local communities to control 

common problem species 

What big game 

hunting opportunities 

would we provide?

Continue current Refugewide deer hunt program Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A 

What upland game 

hunting opportunities 

would we provide? 

Continue to keep Refuge 

closed to upland game 

hunting 

In the Delaware Bay Unit open areas West 

of NJ Route 47 to upland game hunting 

In the Great Cedar Swamp Division open 

areas North of County Route 550 to upland 

game & turkey hunting 

Open entire Refuge to 

upland game hunting 

What migratory game 

bird hunting 

opportunities would 

we provide?

Continue current 

migratory game bird 

hunting program in the 

Delaware Bay Unit West of 

NJ Route 47 

In addition to Alternative A: 

In the Great Cedar Swamp Division open 

areas North of County Route 550 to 

migratory game bird hunting 

Open entire Refuge to 

migratory game bird 

hunting 

What fishing 

opportunities would 

we provide?

The entire Refuge would 

remain closed to fishing 

Open the entire Refuge to fishing & 

crabbing 

Same as Alternative B 

What wildlife 

observation and 

photography 

opportunities would 

we provide?

Continue to provide 

Refuge-wide opportunities 

for wildlife observation & 

photography 

Woodcock Trail would 

remain the only completed 

trail on the Refuge 

In addition to Alternative A: 

Develop universally accessible trail at the 

Refuge Headquarters 

Provide a parking lot & kiosk in the area of 

Gracetown Road as part of the proposed 35 

mile ARails to Trails@ project running from 

Cape May to Manumuskin in Cumberland 

County 

The ARails to Trails@ unimproved trail 

running through the Refuge would be open 

to hikers, bikers, & horses, with a side trail 

into the adjacent cedar swamp 

Develop parking lot, kiosk, & other trail 

improvements at Schellinger & Stocker 

tracts, & at Peach Orchard Road 

Establish a canoe landing & designated 

canoe route on Cedar Creek 

Develop universally 

accessible trail at the 

Refuge headquarters 

Provide a parking lot 

& kiosk in the area of 

Gracetown Road as 

part of the proposed 35 

mile ARails to Trails@

project running from 

Cape May to 

Manumuskin in 

Cumberland County 

The ARails to Trails@

unimproved trail 

running through the 

Refuge would be open 

to hikers, bikers, & 

horses, with a side 

trail into the adjacent 

cedar swamp 

What environmental 

education and 

interpretation 

opportunities would 

we provide?

Occasional programs 

provided at the Refuge in 

cooperation with partners 

& at special events 

Continue distribution of 

Refuge brochure 

Continue to maintain 

interpretive signs & 

provide brochures at 

existing Refuge public use 

In addition to Alternative A: 

Increase Refuge participation in local 

events, focusing on non-traditional groups 

Increase interpretive signage on Refuge 

trails & kiosks 

Schedule regular nature walks, assisted by 

partners 

Increase variety of Refuge brochures, maps,

Provide more selfguiding opportunities 

on the Refuge 

Place interpretive 

signage on Refuge 

trails & in kiosks 

Produce new Refuge 

brochures, maps & fact 

sheets for distribution 

at kiosks & remote 
48 

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Cape May National Wildlife Refuge

Issue or concern 

 

Alternative A (the No 

Action Alternative) 

 

Alternative B (the Service=s Proposed Alternative C 

Action) 

sites & handouts 

Develop teacher workshops & an outdoor 

classroom established 

Develop a Friends of Cape May Refuge 

group 

Develop web site for environmental 

education at Cape May Refuge 

locations 

When would we 

conduct a Wilderness 

Review of the Refuge?

Conduct a Wilderness 

Review for all Refuge lands 

as part of the revision of 

the CCP in 2015 

By 2010, conduct a Wilderness Review for 

all Refuge lands 

Same as Alternative A 

What would be our 

land protection 

strategy?

Continue efforts to acquire 

7,600 acres of inholdings 

within approved Refuge 

acquisition boundaries 

from willing sellers 

Continue current level of 

land protection planning 

with government & private 

partners 

In addition to Alternative A: 

Acquire 3,600 within the 4,900 acre Focus 

Areas that have been identified 

Expand landscape level land protection 

planning efforts with partners 

Expand off Refuge habitat protection & 

restoration efforts with other public & 

private landowners 

Acquire the Coast Guard=s LORAN Support 

Unit (adjacent to the Two Mile Beach Unit), 

should it become excess property 

Same as Alternative B 

How would we ensure 

resource protection 

and visitor safety?

Continue current law 

enforcement efforts with 1 

full-time & 1 seasonal Park 

Rangers 

In addition to Alternative A: 

Hire 1 new full-time & 1 new seasonal Park 

Rangers 

Same as Alternative B 

What buildings and 

facilities would be 

used or constructed 

for Refuge 

operations?

Continue to use existing 

Refuge buildings at the 

Kimbles Beach Road 

headquarters site 

Construct a new, larger office & visitor 

contact building at the Kimbles Beach Road 

headquarters site, along with new 

maintenance & storage buildings 

Enlarge & remodel 

existing Refuge office 

at the Kimbles Beach 

Road headquarters site 

& build new 

maintenance & storage 

buildings 

What would be the 

future staffing needs 

at Cape May Refuge 

(including the Two 

Mile Beach Unit)?

Current staffing level: 

1 Supervisory Refuge 

Operations Specialist 

1 Park Ranger 

1 Seasonal Park Ranger 

In addition to Alternative A:: 

1 Project Leader 

1 Deputy Project Leader 

2 Biologists 

2 Biological Technicians 

2 Outdoor Recreation Planners 

1 Outdoor Recreational Assistant 

In addition to 

Alternative A: 

1 Project Leader 

1 Deputy Project 

Leader 

3 Biologists 

2 Biological 

Technicians 

2 Outdoor Recreation 
49 

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Cape May National Wildlife Refuge

Issue or concern 

 

Alternative A (the No 

Action Alternative) 

 

Alternative B (the Service=s Proposed Alternative C 

Action) 

total FTEs = 3

2 Maintenance Workers 

1 Lead Administrative Support Assistant 

1 Park Ranger 

1 Forester/Fire Management Officer 

1 Secretary/Receptionist 

1 Seasonal Park Ranger 

1 SCEP (Student Career Experience 

Program) 

1 Tractor Operator 

total FTEs ( A + B) = 21 

Planners 

1 Outdoor Recreational 

Assistant 

3 Maintenance 

Workers 

1 Lead Administrative 

Support Assistant 

1 Computer Specialist 

1 Park Ranger 

1 Forester/Fire 

Management Officer 

1 Forestry Technician 

1 Secretary - 

Receptionist 

2 Seasonal Park 

Rangers 

2 SCEPs (Student 

Career Experience 

Program) 

1 Tractor Operator 

total FTEs (A+C) = 27

What would be the 

future funding needs 

at Cape May Refuge 

(including the Two 

Mile Beach Unit) for 

the next 15 years?

Staffing & Projects: 

$1.9 million 

Land protection: 

$4.6 million 

Staffing & Projects: 

$6.5 million 

Land Protection: 

$23.8 million 

Staffing & Projects: 

$6.9 million 

Land Protection: 

$23.8 million 

 
50 

Table 4. Actions and Strategies Matrix for the Two Mile Beach Unit of Cape May Refuge.

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Two Mile Beach Unit at Cape May National Wildlife Refuge

Issue or concern 

 

Alternative A (the No 

Action Alternative) 

 

Alternative B (the Service=s 

Proposed Action) 

 

Alternative C 

 

How would we manage 

habitat and wildlife 

populations?

There would be no 

active management or 

restoration of habitats 

or wildlife populations 

No wildlife surveys 

would be conducted 

No public trapping of 

furbearers would be 

allowed 

Restore disturbed areas using 

native vegetation 

Develop & implement a habitat 

management plan 

Develop & implement management 

plan for beach nesting birds & 

migrant shorebirds 

Conduct wildlife surveys 

Initiate comprehensive surveys of 

flora & fauna 

Study & monitor beach & sand 

dune dynamics 

Restore threatened & endangered 

species 

Develop agreement with Coast 

Guard for resource management at 

Loran Support Unit & Training 

Center to extend wildlife 

management program 

No public trapping of furbearers 

would be allowed 

Allow natural succession of 

disturbed areas 

Conduct baseline surveys of 

migratory birds & beach 

nesting birds 

Conduct baseline vegetation 

surveys 

Public trapping to manage 

furbearer populations 

How would we manage 

invasive and overabundant 

species?

There would be no 

active management of 

invasive species 

Survey invasive species & 

implement an Integrated Pest 

Management (IPM) plan to control 

undesirable species 

Same as Alternative B 

How would we manage 

pesticide use?

No pesticides would be 

used 

Implement IPM strategy, 

minimizing pesticide use 

Same as Alternative B 

What access opportunities 

would we provide to the 

beach?

No public access 

allowed 

Public access from October thru 

March 

Public access allowed yearround 

What hunting 

opportunities would we 

provide?

No hunting would be 

allowed 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A 

What fishing opportunities 

would we provide?

No fishing would be 

allowed 

Allow seasonal surf fishing on the 

beach from October thru March, 

foot access only 

Allow year-round surf 

fishing on the beach, & 

fishing & crabbing in back 

bay wetlands, foot access 

only 

Allow commercial bait 

fishing by Refuge special use 

permit 
51 

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Two Mile Beach Unit at Cape May National Wildlife Refuge

Issue or concern 

 

Alternative A (the No 

Action Alternative) 

 

Alternative B (the Service=s 

Proposed Action) 

 

Alternative C 

What wildlife observation 

and photography 

opportunities would we 

provide? 

Public access would be 

prohibited 

Maintain selected trails & roads, 

with improvements such as signs, 

kiosks, platforms & universal 

accessibility 

Allow seasonal wildlife observation 

& photography on beach form 

October thru March 

Consider the possibility of utilizing 

the former radar platform for 

wildlife observation 

Maintain selected trails & 

roads, with no improvements 

What environmental 

education and 

interpretation 

opportunities would we 

provide? 

Public access would be 

prohibited 

Establish Refuge visitor center with 

displays, exhibits & regular 

programs in building A-14 

Provide regular programs & guided 

nature walks, especially during 

peak bird migration periods 

Install signs & kiosks for selfguided interpretation 

Install self-guiding 

interpretive signs & kiosks 

Occasional programs & 

guided nature walks 

provided by partners 

Establish visitor contact 

station, staffed by partners 

What buildings would we 

use?

None of the existing 

buildings would be used 

or maintained 

Buildings & other 

improvements not 

needed by the Coast 

Guard would be 

removed as they 

become pubic safety 

hazzards 

Utilize buildings A-14, B-6, & any 

other improvements necessary for 

Refuge management 

Establish Refuge Visitor Center in 

building A-14 

Remove all other buildings & 

improvements not needed by the 

Coast Guard 

Utilize building B-6 & any 

other improvements 

necessary for Refuge 

management 

Provide selected buildings 

for use by missioncompatible partner(s) 

Establish Refuge visitor 

contact station, staffed by 

partners 

Remove all other buildings & 

improvements not needed by 

the Coast Guard 
52 

Appendix A 

 

 

Summary of public comments received on 

the draft CCP/EA and their disposition

The draft CCP/EA was released for 45 days of public 

review and comment in June 1999. Over 170 people 

attended the three public meetings held in July at the 

following location: Middle Township Building in Cape 

May County; Galloway Township Library in Atlantic 

County; and Stafford Township Municipal Building in 

Ocean County. We also received over 1,600 individual 

comment letters. There were a great many duplicate 

comments received, since many people sent copies to 

both the Forsythe Refuge headquarters in Oceanville, 

New Jersey and our Regional Office in Hadley, 

Massachusetts. A summary of the public comments 

received and the disposition of the concerns expressed 

in those comments follows. 

Comment: Most commenters thought that the proposed 

closure of Holgate beach to motorized vehicles was 

outside our authority. They questioned whether we had 

the authority to close the beach based upon the States 

ownership and jurisdiction of riparian lands below the 

mean high tide line. 

Response: The Holgate Peninsula above mean high tide 

has been owned by the Service since June 30, 1960, and 

was designated part of the Brigantine Wilderness Area 

under Public Law 93-632 on January 3, 1975. We not 

only have the authority to close Holgate beach above 

mean high tide to motorized vehicles, but are 

specifically directed to do so by the Wilderness Act of 

1964. 

The land below mean high tide in New Jersey is owned 

by the State. In the Draft CCP/EA, we proposed 

coordinating the closure with the New Jersey Tidelands 

Council. During the three public meetings held on the 

Draft document, we specifically stated that it was our 

intent to request a license from the Tidelands Council 

to close Holgate beach below the mean high tide line as 

well. This request has been dropped from Alternative 

B, our Proposed Action in the Revised Draft CCP/EA. 

Comment: Several commenters questioned whether we 

had the authority to close Holgate beach to motorized 

vehicles under the provisions of the Wilderness Act. 

Others stated that the original designation of Holgate 

as a Wilderness Area was inconsistent with the 

mandate and intent of the Act. They believed the high 

volume of boat traffic and close proximity of Holgate to 

a major urban area like Atlantic City would make it 

difficult, if not impossible, for Refuge visitors to obtain 

a Awilderness experience,@ as defined by the Act. 

Response: We not only have the authority to close the 

Wilderness Area at Holgate, including all the land 

above mean high tide, to motorized vehicles, but we are 

specifically directed to do so by the Wilderness Act of 

1964. When Congress designated our lands on Holgate 

Peninsula as part of the Brigantine Wilderness Area, 

they determined that this designation was consistent 

with the mandate and intent of the Wilderness Act of 

1964. While circumstances in the vicinity may make it 

difficult, if not impossible, for Refuge visitors to obtain 

a Awilderness experience,@ as defined by the Act, this 

does not give us the authority to disregard the Act=s 

specific prohibition against motorized vehicle use 

within wilderness areas. 

Comment: Many commenters also noted that closing 

Holgate beach to motorized vehicles would significantly 

reduce fishing opportunities on Forsythe Refuge. They 

felt this action would be inconsistent with our 

mandates under the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, which identifies fishing as 

one of six wildlife-dependent priority public uses of the 

Refuge System that should be given priority 

consideration over other uses of refuges. 

Response: While closing the area above mean high tide 

to motorized vehicles will reduce the fishing 

opportunities currently available on the Holgate 

Peninsula, it will not close the area to fishing. Those 

interested in fishing the Peninsula would still be able to 

do so on foot or by driving and parking their motorized 

vehicles below the mean high tide line. In fact, the 

potential introduction of a water ferry to the tip of the 

Peninsula, as included in Alternative B, our Proposed 

Action in the Revised Draft CCP/EA, would provide 

new opportunities to fish the Holgate for those who do 

not own suitable motorized vehicles or boats. 

Comment: Other commenters supported the closure of 

Holgate beach to motorized vehicles. They were 

primarily concerned that the current vehicular use of 

the beach caused water, air and noise pollution. 

Furthermore, they believed that motorized uses were 

not appropriate in designated Wilderness Areas. 

Response: We agree, and have included the proposed 

year-round closure of the Holgate Peninsula above 

mean high tide to motorized vehicles in Alternative B, 

our Proposed Action in the revised Draft CCP/EA. 
53 

Comment: Many commenters requested that both 

Forsythe and Cape May Refuges provide more 

environmental education opportunities and improve 

public access by providing additional interpretive trails. 

 They also requested that additional user-friendly maps 

and signs be placed throughout the Refuges. 

Response: We agree. In Alternative B, our Proposed 

Action in the Revised Draft CCP/EA, we have 

substantially expanded our environmental education 

offerings and increased the amount of interpretation 

that we would provide, including additional 

interpretative trails and signage. 

Comment: Several commenters were concerned that 

the proposed location of the new Barnegat Division 

office and visitor contact station would not provide the 

public with a suitable wildlife-oriented experience 

because of the commercial nature of the area. 

Response: While we concur with those commenter=s 

observations regarding the commercial nature of the 

area in question, we selected this site along U.S. Route 

9 because we own the land and wished to keep our new 

structure within an area that was already developed 

and had good access to a major traffic corridor. This 

will allow us to protect the habitats within the Refuge 

from further fragmentation, while allowing us better 

access to a larger segment of the public. From this 

location we will be able to direct our visitors to the 

many trails and other facilities found in more remote 

parts of the Refuge. 

Comment: Many commenters requested that at-large 

or Refuge-wide hunting be allowed at both Forsythe 

and Cape May Refuges in all areas deemed appropriate. 

 They were concerned about the diminishing number of 

areas around the Refuges that provided hunting 

opportunities for the public. In particular, several 

people requested that upland game hunting 

opportunities be provided. They referenced the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997, which includes hunting as one of six wildlifedependent priority public uses of the Refuge System 

that should be given priority consideration over other 

uses of the refuges. A few people commented that 

hunting was not an appropriate use on a National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

Response: In response to the concerns of these 

commenters, we added a third alternative, Alternative 

C, in the Revised Draft CCP/EA. This Alternative 

would provide opportunities for Refuge-wide hunting at 

both Refuges. At Forsythe we would expand deer 

hunting opportunities by including the State fall and 

winter bow and regular six-day firearms seasons, and 

open most of the Refuge to both upland game and 

migratory game bird hunting. At Cape May we would 

provide opportunities for upland game and migratory 

game bird hunting Refuge-wide. The entire Refuge is 

already open for deer hunting. Additional opportunities 

for hunting would also be provided on newly acquired 

lands at both Refuges. 

Alternative B, our Proposed Action in the revised Draft 

CCP/EA, while not providing Refuge-wide hunting, 

would significantly increase hunting opportunities at 

both Refuges. At Forsythe we would expand the area 

currently opened to permit deer hunting and initiate a 

universally accessible permit deer hunt, initiate upland 

game hunting in the Oak Island Unit of the Brigantine 

Division, and expand the area open to migratory game 

bird hunting. At Cape May we would open about 45% 

of the Refuge to upland game hunting and expand the 

current migratory game bird hunting area into that 

same 45% of the Refuge. The entire Refuge is already 

open for deer hunting. Additional opportunities for 

hunting would also be provided on newly acquired lands 

at both Refuges. 

While hunting must be given priority consideration 

over other public uses, it does not take priority over the 

other five wildlife-dependent priority public uses 

(fishing, wildlife observation and photography, 

environmental education and interpretation) identified 

in the Improvement Act. We believe that Alternative B, 

our Proposed Action in the Revised Draft CCP/EA, 

would help us best achieve Refuge purposes, vision and 

goals; fulfill the Refuge System mission; maintain and, 

where appropriate, restore the biological integrity, 

diversity and environmental health of both Refuges and 

the System; address the key issues and mandates; and 

is consistent with the principles of sound fish and 

wildlife management. 

Comment: The State of New Jersey, Division of Fish 

and Wildlife, requested that additional acreage within 

both Forsythe and Cape May Refuges be opened up to 

provide opportunities for hunting. They believed the 

Service=s safety concerns could be addressed by 

requiring that all hunters be in compliance with State 

fish and game regulations. 

Response: Alternative B, our Proposed Action in the 

Revised Draft CCP/EA, would significantly increase 

hunting opportunities at both Refuges. At Forsythe we 

would expand the area currently opened to permit deer 

hunting and initiate a universally accessible permit 

deer hunt, initiate upland game hunting in the Oak 
54 

Island Unit of the Brigantine Division, and expand the 

area open to migratory game bird hunting. At Cape 

May we would open about 45% of the Refuge to upland 

game hunting and expand the current migratory game 

bird hunting area into that same 45% of the Refuge. 

The entire Refuge is already open for deer hunting. 

Additional opportunities for hunting would also be 

provided on newly acquired lands at both Refuges. 

Comment: Other commenters requested additional 

trapping opportunities at both Forsythe and Cape May 

Refuges. They identified trapping as a necessary and 

important wildlife management tool. 

Response: We agree that trapping is an important 

wildlife management tool. It is often used on refuges to 

control predators and to manage populations of small 

mammals that impact refuge habitats and facilities 

such as dikes. Alternative B, our Proposed Action in 

the Revised Draft CCP/EA, includes additional 

opportunities for trapping at both Forysthe and Cape 

May Refuges. At Forsythe we would expand the areas 

open to trapping and at Cape May we would open about 

25% of the Refuge to trapping of muskrat, raccoon and 

fox. 

Comment: Many commenters supported our land 

protection proposals and wanted us to continue to 

acquire additional properties located near or around 

both Forsythe and Cape May Refuges. They supported 

our efforts to both increase habitat protection and 

provide additional public use opportunities. 

Response: Under Alternative B, our Proposed Action in 

the Revised Draft CCP/EA, we would acquire 12,300 

acres of privately owned lands within our currently 

approved acquisition boundaries at Forsythe Refuge, 

and 7,600 acres of privately owned lands within our 

currently approved acquisition boundaries at Cape May 

Refuge. We also have identified 17,000 acres of focus 

areas at Forsythe Refuge, 11,500 acres of which we are 

proposing to acquire, and 4,900 acres of focus areas at 

Cape May Refuge, 3,600 acres of which we are 

proposing to acquire. These lands are located outside 

our current approved Refuge acquisition boundaries 

and represent lands with habitats that are important to 

a number of federal trust species. They also encompass 

watersheds that are important to protect from future 

development to ensure that we have adequate water 

quantity and quality for Refuge wetlands and provide 

habitat corridors for the movement of wildlife between 

various state, local and federal conservation lands. 

Comment: Several commenters thought that the 

proposed two-year beach closure during the nesting 

season at the new Two Mile Beach Unit was 

unnecessary. They were concerned that the closure 

threatened their long-standing use of the beach, 

including being able to walk the beach to reach Cape 

May Inlet. Several suggested that fencing could be 

placed above the mean high tide line as a protective 

measure and that the proposed beach closure should 

only be enforced if birds actually began to nest at the 

site. 

Response: In light of our mandates as a Federal Land 

Management Agency, we believe it is important that 

the beach be available for undisturbed breeding, 

nesting, feeding, preening, and loafing by an 

assortment of migratory birds. Under the provisions of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997, compatible wildlife-dependent recreational use 

and all other compatible uses are secondary to the A... 

conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitat...@ We do not believe that placing fencing 

above the mean high tide line will adequately protect 

these birds, as the adults and young do much of their 

feeding at the wrack, or daily high tide line. Nor do we 

believe that closing the beach only if birds actually 

began to nest at the site is adequate. 

The U.S. Coast Guard LORAN Support Unit is 

prepared to follow our lead on closing that portion of 

the beach still under their jurisdiction. They also are 

prepared to close public access to the jetty on the north 

side of the Cape May Inlet. 

Under Alternative B, our Proposed Action in the 

Revised Draft CCP/EA, we would allow pedestrian 

access to the beach from about October 1 through 

March 31 each year. No vehicles would be allowed on 

the beach at any time. We would also allow pedestrian 

access to other parts of the Two Mile Beach Unit all 

year. 

Comment: Several commenters expressed a desire to 

see the existing buildings at the new Two Mile Beach 

Unit used for a variety of purposes such as housing for 

researchers or as a fishing clubhouse. Others 

commented that the we should demolish all the existing 

buildings and then restore the land to native 

vegetation. 

Response: Under Alternative B, our Proposed Action in 

the Revised Draft CCP/EA, we would maintain two 

existing buildings for Refuge office, storage and 

maintenance purposes, and one for use as a visitor 

center with displays, exhibits, and regular programs. 

We would remove all other buildings on the site, all of 
55 

which are located within the one hundred year 

floodplain, in compliance with the directives of 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management. This 

will allow us to restore the heart of the upland habitat 

at the Two Mile Beach Unit, in compliance with our 

mandate under the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, which calls for the A... 

conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitat...@ 

 

 

 
56 

Appendix B

INTERIM 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

 

EXISTING WILDLIFE-DEPENDENT USES OF REFUGE LANDS 

WITHIN NEW REFUGE ACQUISITION AREAS 

 

STATION NAME: Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

DATE(S) ESTABLISHED: Brigantine NWR - Jan. 24, 1939; 

Barnegat NWR - June 21, 1967; 

Edwin B. Forsythe NWR - May 22, 1984 - by combining the former Brigantine and 

Barnegat NWR's. 

ESTABLISHING AND ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES: 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge was created on May 22, 1984 by combining the former Brigantine and 

Barnegat National Wildlife Refuges (98 Stat. 207). The Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge was established on 

January 24, 1939 by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission under the authority of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act, to preserve estuarine habitats important to Atlantic brant (Branta berniclia) and to provide 

nesting habitats for black ducks (Anas rubripes) and rails. The Barnegat National Wildlife Refuge was established 

on June 21, 1967, under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, for preservation of estuarine feeding 

and resting habitat for ducks and brant. The State of New Jersey enabling legislation is New Jersey Statutes, 

Annotated, Title 23, Chapter 4, Section 23:4-56. 

PURPOSE(S) FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED: 

For lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715r), as amended, the purpose of the 

acquisition is "...for uses as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715d). 

For lands acquired under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742(a) 754), as amended, the purpose of the 

acquisition is "... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources..." (16 U.S.C. 742 (a)(4)) "... 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..." Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1)). 

For lands acquired under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901(b)) "...the conservation of 

the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international 

obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions ....@ Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 

1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583).For lands within the Brigantine Wilderness Area, "...to secure for the 

American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness." (78 Stat. 

890:16 U.S.C. 1121 (note), 1131-1136, Wilderness Act of 1964). 

OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES: 

3. Antiquities Act of 1906 (34 STAT 225). 

4. Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715r; 45 STAT 1222). 

5. Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k 1-4; 76 STAT 653). 

6. National Wildlife Refuge Administrative Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd - 668ee; 80 STAT 927), as amended. 

7. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq; 83 STAT 852). 

8. National Wildlife Refuge System Regulations in the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR)50 Subchapter C. 

9. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; 87 STAT 884), as amended. 

10. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. 
57 

11. Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1121(note), 1131-1136). 

10. Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq), as amended. 

11. National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P. L. 105-57). 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE: 

Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation are defined 

as wildlife-dependent recreational uses by The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. This 

interim compatibility statement addresses only these uses. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE: 

The current levels of the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses defined in The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation) in the proposed refuge expansion areas do not appear to be having any negative impacts on the 

habitat or wildlife within the areas. 

DETERMINATION: 

This use is compatible X . 

This use is not compatible . 

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY: 

The parcel needs to be posted. 

JUSTIFICATION: 

See Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

NEPA COMPLIANCE: 

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT X 1994 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FONSI X 1994 

The 1994 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI) are the most recently 

approved documents for expanding the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge. The Environmental 

Assessment and FONSI being prepared for the Jersey Coastal Refuges, scheduled to be completed in 2000, will 

supercede the 1994 documents. 

REFUGE MANAGER: ________________________ DATE:_________ 

REVIEWED BY: ______________________________ DATE:_________ 
58 

INTERIM 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

 

EXISTING WILDLIFE-DEPENDENT USES OF REFUGE LANDS 

WITHIN NEW REFUGE ACQUISITION AREAS 

STATION NAME: Cape May National Wildlife Refuge 

DATE(S) ESTABLISHED: January 20, 1989 

ESTABLISHING AND ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES: 

The Cape May National Wildlife Refuge was created on January 20, 1989 administratively under authority of the 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j; 70 stat 1119), as amended. 

PURPOSE(S) FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED: 

For lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715r), as amended, the purpose of the 

acquisition is "...for uses as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715d). 

For lands acquired under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742(a) 754), as amended, the purpose of the 

acquisition is "... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources..." (16 U.S.C. 742 (a)(4)) "... 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..." Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1)). 

For lands acquired under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901(b)) "...the conservation of 

the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international 

obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions ....@ Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 

1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583). 

OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES: 

1. Antiquities Act of 1906 (34 STAT 225). 

2. Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715r; 45 STAT 1222). 

3. Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k 1-4; 76 STAT 653). 

4. National Wildlife Refuge Administrative Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd - 668ee; 80 STAT 927), as amended. 

5. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq; 83 STAT 852). 

6. National Wildlife Refuge System Regulations in the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR)50 Subchapter C. 

7. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; 87 STAT 884), as amended. 

8. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. 

9. Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1121(note), 1131-1136). 

10. Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq), as amended. 

11. National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P. L. 105-57). 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE: 

Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation are defined 

as wildlife-dependent recreational uses by The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. This 

interim compatibility statement addresses only these uses. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE: 

The current levels of the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses defined in The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation) in the proposed refuge expansion areas do not appear to be having any negative impacts on the 
59 

habitat or wildlife within the areas. 

DETERMINATION: 

This use is compatible X . 

This use is not compatible . 

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY: 

The parcel needs to be posted. 

JUSTIFICATION: 

See Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

NEPA COMPLIANCE: 

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT X 1988 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FONSI X 1989 

The above Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI) are the most documents for 

establishing the Cape May National Wildlife Refuge. The Environmental Assessment and FONSI being prepared 

for the Jersey Coastal Refuges, scheduled to be completed in 2000, will supercede the above documents. 

REFUGE MANAGER: ________________________ DATE:_________ 

REVIEWED BY: _____________________________ DATE:_________ 

 

 
60 

Appendix C 

 

 

Socioeconomic Analysis of ORV Use at 

Holgate 

 

Background

The Holgate Unit of the Edwin B. Forsythe National 

Wildlife Refuge compromises 2.75 miles of Long Beach 

Island, including long expanses of undeveloped barrier 

beach. One of the most popular recreational activities 

occurring at Holgate beach is marine recreational surf 

fishing. Because there is no road access in the Holgate 

Unit, surf fishing along the beach has primarily been 

undertaken with the use of off-road vehicles (ORVs). 

Recreational surf fishing with ORVs is a popular 

pastime along the New Jersey coast and many ORV 

surf fishermen have formed private organizations to 

support their cause. ORV fishermen invest a 

substantial amount of resources in their recreational 

activity and frequently custom outfit their vehicles and 

purchase expensive fishing gear. For many 

participants, surf fishing with the use of an ORV is 

considered their most important recreational activity. 

Surf fishing at Holgate is particularly good at the 

southern point of the Unit where the waters of Great 

Bay and Egg Harbor meet the Atlantic. Stripe bass and 

bluefish are the most targeted species in the spring and 

fall, and in the summer flounders inhabit the shallow 

waters found around the bay. Surf fishing activity at 

Holgate beach typically peaks in the fall when large 

schools of bluefish and striped bass pass by the beach 

migrating south for the winter. 

The total value placed on ORV beach access at Holgate 

can be divided into actual expenditures incurred by 

ORV anglers and non-monetary benefits associated 

with angler satisfaction. While ORV anglers will incur 

expenditures when fishing at Holgate beach, they do 

not pay for the actual fish they catch, nor do they incur 

a specific cost for the enjoyment of fishing itself, which 

may include experiences such as socializing with fellow 

fishermen and being able to enjoy solitude while fishing 

on a remote beach. The non-monetary benefits 

associated with ORV surf fishing make estimating the 

specific economic value of fishing at Holgate a difficult 

task. Furthermore, the willingness to pay for a surf 

fishing excursion with an ORV will vary between 

fisherman, based on each anglers gratification with the 

experience. 

Many ORV anglers who surf fish along Holgate beach 

may consider the overall fishing experience to 

contribute to their general well being by affording them 

the opportunity for relaxation, experiencing nature, and 

gathering with friends. In a marine recreational 

fishing survey funded by the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), anglers were asked to rate the 

primary reasons they spend time fishing. In the MidAtlantic region which includes the New Jersey coast, 

anglers in the survey rated the opportunity to enjoy 

nature and the outdoors as their principal reason for 

fishing, followed by the opportunity to relax and escape 

from their daily routine, to spend quality time with 

friends and family, and to experience the excitement or 

challenge of sport fishing. While catching fish to eat 

was rated somewhat important to anglers, findings 

from the survey generally concur with previous studies 

that found non-catch reasons are rated significantly 

higher by almost all respondents. Catch was rated very 

important to only about a third of the anglers surveyed. 

 Putting a specific economic value on these nonmonetary traits is extremely difficult, and will not be 

attempted in this analysis. 

Typical angler expenditures associated with an ORV 

surf fishing trip to Holgate beach would include the 

purchases of bait, gear, ice, and meals. Furthermore, 

travel expenses incurred from the trip would include 

costs like fuel, tolls, travel fares and parking fees. A 

percentage of nonlocal ORV anglers fishing at Holgate 

beach may need overnight accommodations and would 

incur the additional costs associated with lodging. All 

of these expenditures can be assumed to have positive 

impacts on the local Long Beach Island community, in 

particular those businesses found along the route ORV 

users travel to reach Holgate beach. 

Impacts from the 1988 Seasonal Closure

In 1988, the Holgate Unit was closed from early April to 

September to both pedestrian and ORV traffic to 

protect piping plovers, a listed species under the 

Endangered Species Act. An economic analysis 

completed in 1998, concluded that the seasonal beach 

closure had negligible impact on the overall economy of 

the island, which amounts to about $500 million a year 

(Industrial Economics, 1998). However, the seasonal 

closure appears to have affected the beach usage 

patterns of some residents and visitors with consequent 

effects on the Islands economic welfare including 

potential losses in municipal revenues from beach 

buggy licenses, and lost revenues to some businesses, 

especially at the south end of the island near the 

entrance to the Holgate Unit. 

The seasonal closure particularly affected summer surf 

anglers as most of Long Beach Island=s beaches were 

already closed to ORV traffic between May and 

September to accommodate seasonal beach use for 

swimming and sunbathing. In response to the seasonal 

closure it is assumed that some anglers sought 
61 

alternative fishing sites off-island which resulted in 

negative economic effects on businesses that catered to 

these ORV surf fishing anglers. Furthermore, the 

seasonal closure prevented recreational fishing 

opportunities at Holgate for popular species like 

summer flounder, which are primarily targeted in the 

months of July and August and thus the closure 

reduced fishing opportunities for some anglers. Bait 

and tackle shops throughout the island appeared to 

have suffered some loss in revenues from the seasonal 

closure, and one shop nearest to the entrance to the 

Holgate Unit reported losing 30 percent or more of its 

overall revenues in the first few years after the closure. 

 In addition, several other motels and restaurants 

which specifically catered to anglers also reported a loss 

in revenues. However, the report concluded that all 

these businesses survived the seasonal closure and 

remained viable. 

Impacts from Alternative B, the Service=s Proposed 

Action 

The proposed year-round Holgate Unit closure (i.e., 

those lands above mean high tide) to ORVs, under the 

directives and principles of the Wilderness Act, can be 

expected to cause localized negative economic impacts 

to the Long Beach community. This Alternative would 

eliminate all motorized traffic year-round above mean 

high tide (the designated Wilderness Area know as the 

Holgate Unit) on the Holgate Peninsula. Although the 

closure is not expected to negatively impact the overall 

Long Beach Island economy, individual businesses such 

as bait and tackle shops will most likely suffer 

additional economic losses under a year-round ORV 

beach closure at Holgate. Along with bait and tackle 

shops it is anticipated that ORV surf fishing anglers 

will be the most directly impacted user group under the 

proposed closure. As stated above, many of the impacts 

ORV anglers incur will be non-monetary social impacts 

and putting a specific value on those losses or 

estimating the extent of the impact is a difficult task. 

As with the 1988 seasonal closure, the direct negative 

economic impacts associated with the year-round ORV 

beach closure above mean high tide will most likely be 

localized to the communities in Long Beach Island, in 

particular those nearest the entrance to the Holgate 

Unit, such as Long Beach Township. To reach the 

Holgate Unit with an ORV, anglers must cross Long 

Beach Township lands. In order to do this, they must 

purchase a Township beach buggy permit. In 1999, 

permit data collected from the Township identified that 

a total of 734 beach buggy permits were issued that 

year. Permits were issued under two categories, either 

for the full season or for limited use during the fall 

fishing tournaments. Full season permits cost $50.00, 

and a limited use permit sold for $25.00. In 1999, the 

Township issued 630 full season permits and 104 fall 

permits. Overall, beach buggy permit sales brought 

around $34,0000 in direct revenues to Long Beach 

Township in 1999. 

Given that the majority of ORV beach buggy permits 

were issued to anglers specifically to access the Holgate 

Unit, it is likely that the Township=s revenue from 

beach buggy sales would decrease under the Proposed 

Action. While Long Beach Township will see a 

reduction in overall ORV permit revenues, other Long 

Beach Island communities, such as Harvey Cedars and 

Surf City may see increases in their permit sales. It is 

also assumed that other New Jersey beachfront 

communities that offer ORV access for surf fishing may 

experience a slight increase in revenues from angler 

expenditures on beach buggy permits. 

To identify the areas from which ORV anglers were 

traveling, the beach buggy permits were divided into 

local and non-local categories. Non-local was 

determined to be any ORV permittee that listed their 

primary residence as a location more than two hours 

from Long Beach Island using an average vehicle travel 

time. Using that criteria, it was determined that 466 of 

the 734 ORV permits issued by the Township in 1999 

were for non-local anglers, while 268 of the permits 

were for local anglers. Although some local ORV 

anglers may have been identified as non-local by this 

criteria, it is difficult to determine whether an 

individual=s fishing trip would originate from Long 

Beach Island, or their primary residence. Many anglers 

identified as non-local may own or rent seasonal 

housing on Long Beach Island changing their travel 

patterns and travel expenditures. 

Impacts to Bait and Tackle Shops

As an industry directly dependent upon recreational 

fishing, bait and tackle shops located on Long Beach 

Island can be expected to incur economic losses from 

the proposed year-round beach closure to ORVs. Bait 

and Tackle shops located closest to the entrance to the 

Holgate Unit will most likely suffer the largest losses, 

with impacts being reduced as time and distance from 

the Unit increases. A typical surf fishing excursion 

requires a significant amount of gear and supplies such 

as rods, tackle, ice, and bait, and without the assistance 

of an ORV, it is anticipated many surf fishing anglers 

will seek alternative fishing sites and forgo a trip to 

Holgate beach. 

Some bait and tackle shops reported an overall revenue 

decline of up to 30% under the seasonal beach closure of 

1988. The economic impacts of the proposed year-round 

ORV beach closure are expected to be greater. This is 

especially true given that it restricts ORV fishing 
62 

access at the Holgate Unit to the area of the beach 

below mean high tide during the peak fall surf fishing 

period of September, October and November when 

anglers target large schools of migrating bluefish and 

stripped bass. Most anglers acquire bait, ice and 

limited fishing tackle the day of the actual fishing 

excursion. It is expected that many anglers frequenting 

these businesses on Long Beach Island, particularly 

those near the entrance to the Holgate Unit, will use 

alternative bait and tackle shops once the closure is 

implemented. 

The full extent of the economic impact on bait and 

tackle shops from the Proposed Action will really 

depend on how many ORV anglers seek alternative 

fishing sites off the Island, and whether the closure 

impacts participation in the annual Fall Long Beach 

Island Fishing Tournament. While it is anticipated 

that fishing effort at Holgate beach will be reduced 

under this Alternative, the majority of ORV anglers 

currently using Holgate beach are expected to continue 

fishing at alternative fishing sites. Predicting what 

level of fishing effort will actually shift off the Island is 

not possible at this time. Because it will still be 

possible for ORV anglers to access nearly 16 miles of 

beachfront along the Island, many anglers may 

continue to fish other sites on the Island and continue 

to frequent local bait and tackle businesses. 

Given that most anglers choose their fishing sites based 

upon criteria such as better catch rates and 

convenience, predicting which coastal communities may 

see a shift in fishing effort is difficult to predict. Also, 

many anglers and fishing tournament participants who 

use ORVs may change their fishing practices and 

continue to fish on the Island without accessing the 

beach with an ORV. Barnegat Light, found at the far 

north end of the Island, is a good example of a very 

popular fishing site where all ORV access above the 

mean high tide line is already prohibited. While some 

ORV anglers may decide to give up recreational surf 

fishing overall, that percentage is expected to be small 

and most anglers directly impacted by the ORV beach 

closure will continue to fish. 

Overall, the reduction in income at a few Long Beach 

Island bait and tackle shops may be substantial under 

this Alternative. It is possible that businesses catering 

primarily to surf fishermen may suffer unsustainable 

economic losses to their operations. 

Fall Fishing Tournament 

On Long Beach Island, the Southern Ocean County 

Chamber of Commerce sponsors an annual six week fall 

surf fishing tournament, typically running from 

October 2-November 14. The tournament is promoted 

by both the Chamber of Commerce and local media and 

the event brings in anglers and spectators from within 

and outside of the Long Beach Island area. The 

tournament encompasses all of Long Beach Island, 

including the Holgate Peninsula located at the southern 

end of the Island. 

Holgate beach currently provides ORV anglers with 

access to some of the best fishing sites along the Island, 

and without ORV access to Holgate it is possible that 

participation in the fall tournament may decline. Local 

businesses, like bait and tackle shops, depend on 

revenues generated from the fall tournament, and any 

impact on the tournaments level of participation would 

impact these business=s overall revenues. The fall 

tournament is structured to maintain fishing activity 

during the entire six week tournament, and a variety of 

cash prizes for the largest bluefish and striped bass 

landed are presented daily. Both local and nonlocal 

anglers participate in the event, with around 600 

anglers annually entering the tournament and paying 

the $25 registration fee, in addition to any ORV beach 

access permit fees. 

Predicting what percentage of ORV anglers may choose 

not to enter the tournament or fish elsewhere is 

difficult because Long Beach Island does offer 

alternative fishing sites, almost all with ORV beach 

access. A slight decline in angler participation in the 

tournament will likely occur under the ORV beach 

closure at Holgate. A reduction in angler participation 

would also slightly reduce Chamber of Commerce 

revenues associated with the entrance fees. It is 

expected that the tournament will continue and anglers 

will shift their fishing effort elsewhere or access the 

Holgate Peninsula either on foot or by driving their 

ORVs down the beach below the mean high tide line. 

Many other coastal communities along the New Jersey 

coast also sponsor fall surf fishing tournaments offering 

anglers alternative tournament options. Because other 

communities offer tournament options, it is expected 

that a certain percentage of the revenues and 

expenditures brought into Long Beach Island by the fall 

fishing tournament will be shifted to other bait and 

tackle shops located in those communities. 

Social Impacts to ORV Surf Fishing Anglers 

One of the most difficult impacts to predict under the 

year-round ORV closure are non-monetary social 

impacts to ORV surf fishing anglers. As discussed 

above, recreational fishing provides anglers with social 

benefits such as quality time with friends and 

relaxation opportunities. Putting a monetary value on 

these types of experiences is hard to calculate. Some 

anglers consider the best fishing on the island to be 
63 

located within the Holgate Unit, and prior to the 1988 

summer closure for piping plovers, a large number of 

ORV fishermen fished the waters near the tip of the 

island during the summer months (Industrial 

Economics, 1998). When the 1988 seasonal closure was 

implemented, it was determined that a significant 

number of serious anglers abandoned the Island to fish 

at sites such as Brigantine Island and Island Beach 

State Park. The year-round ORV closure will further 

limit fishing opportunities on the Island for ORV 

anglers. In particular, the closure will impact ORV 

anglers who primarily focused their fishing activity at 

Holgate beach. Under the proposed ORV closure, 

anglers choosing to continue fishing on Long Beach 

Island with ORVs would still be able to access long 

stretches of the beach on the Island. Current Long 

Beach Island ORV regulations would allow fishermen 

to access 16 miles of beach from the entrance to the 

Holgate Unit north to Loveladies, if they secure the 

proper beach access permits. Although ORV anglers 

may still be able to access the Holgate beach during low 

tide under the proposed closure, most will likely choose 

not to use the Holgate Peninsula and forgo the 

opportunity to experience driving their ORVs along an 

undeveloped wilderness beachfront. 

ORV fishermen who only occasionally fished at Holgate 

and who have easy access to alterative fishing sites will 

incur fewer impacts under this Alternative. Anglers 

who have primary fished Holgate beach, will experience 

a more significant disruption and loss of quality fishing 

time. The unique physical nature of Holgate beach 

offers miles of undeveloped beachfront along the New 

Jersey coast and finding an alternative site which offers 

ORV anglers the same wilderness fishing experience 

will be extremely difficult, if not impossible. The heavy 

residential and commercial development along the New 

Jersey=s coast has greatly reduced the opportunity for 

ORV fishermen to access areas lacking significant 

beachfront development. While areas such as 

Chicoteague National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia and 

the Outer Banks of North Carolina may still afford such 

remote fishing opportunities with ORVs, closing 

Holgate beach to ORVs will greatly reduce such fishing 

opportunities for ORV anglers in New Jersey. Overall, 

it is expected that ORV anglers will suffer some 

negative social impacts through reductions in fishing 

opportunities. The size and scope of such impacts will 

really be dependent on the availability of alternative 

ORV fishing sites and the willingness of ORV fishermen 

to travel to those sites. 

Impacts to Restaurants and Lodging 

Long Beach Island is a seasonal based economy totally 

dependent upon summer tourism. Long Beach Island 

has a permanent population of about 8,600 which swells 

to over 50,000 on peak weekends in the summer 

months. The island supports 31 hotels and motels plus 

seven bed and breakfast inns and about 5,000 

condominiums and other rental units. In addition, the 

guide for APlaces to Eat@ on the Island lists 39 

restaurants and other eating establishments on the 

island (Southern Ocean County Chamber of Commerce, 

1997). 

According to a recent economic study, the summer 

season, which runs from late May to Labor Day 

weekend, accounts for nearly 80 percent or more of the 

annual revenues for most hotels and motels located on 

the Island (Industrial Economics, 1998). Because the 

Island community is a seasonal based economy, many 

businesses will have already closed for the season by 

the time fall surf fishing begins. Furthermore, many 

ORV anglers do not begin fishing at Holgate until later 

in the fall depending on when migrating schools of 

bluefish and striped bass arrive. 

In 1988, the seasonal closure of Holgate beach for 

piping plovers appeared to have little effect on the 

overall lodging business. Assuming that most revenues 

are collected during the summer season, it is expected 

that closing the Holgate Unit year-round to ORVs will 

have only minor negative economic impacts on these 

businesses. Because a summer closure of Holgate 

beach was already in place, only those businesses which 

remained open after the summer season can be 

expected to incur any impacts from the year-round 

closure. Furthermore, the loss in revenues is expected 

to be minor as only a limited number of ORV anglers 

actually seek overnight lodging. The lighter traffic 

conditions during the fall fishing season and the 

willingness of ORV anglers to drive long distances also 

reduces the impact on lodging as many anglers will 

commute rather than seek overnight accommodations. 

 

Long Beach Island restaurants also depend upon the 

summer season for their primary revenues. However, 

some restaurants on the Island do remain open longer 

during the fall season and a limited amount of 

restaurants remain open year-round. Under the 

proposed ORV closure these businesses can be expected 

to see some slight decrease in overall revenues if ORV 

fishermen choose alternative fishing sites off the Island. 

 Because the Island still offers ORV access and fishing 

will continue during the fall, the impacts are expected 

to be minor. Furthermore, many ORV fishermen bring 

their meals with them on fishing trips and this 

tendency further reduces their dependence and impact 

on local businesses. 

Although the overall economic impact of the year-round 

closure is expected to be minimal, localized impacts 
64 

may be more severe. The 1998 economic study did 

identify that some businesses which rented primarily to 

anglers suffered up to a 10% overall revenue reduction 

under the seasonal closure (Industrial Economics, 

1998). Assuming these businesses also rented to ORV 

anglers in the fall, it is expected that they will see some 

further decline in their annual revenues under the 

Proposed Action. Furthermore, it is possible that some 

businesses which were kept open after the Labor Day 

weekend primarily to cater to ORV anglers will now 

close operations earlier. As with the bait and tackle 

shops, the extent of the impact will be reduced as the 

motels and restaurants are located farther from the 

entrance to the Holgate Unit. Overall, while some 

businesses may experience minor reductions in 

revenues, only off season businesses focused primarily 

of capturing the surf fishing expenditures should see 

any noticeable declines. 

Impacts from Boat Ferry Service

Under the Service=s Proposed Action, alternative access 

to the Holgate Unit may be allowed through a boat 

operated ferry system. Originating out of Long Beach 

Island, a boat ferry system would be expected to bring 

positive economic returns to the local economy. Ferry 

system concessionaires are currently in use at several 

National Wildlife Refuges nationwide to access 

Wilderness Areas, including Cape Romain Refuge in 

South Carolina and Monomoy Refuge in Massachusetts. 

 A boat ferry system would allow surf anglers to 

continue to access the best fishing sites on Holgate 

beach for a fixed cost. Many anglers may choose to use 

the ferry system to fish in a Wilderness Area without 

crowds and noise from motorized vehicles. The ferry 

system would also allow that segment of the public who 

do not have suitable motor vehicles the opportunity to 

access a remote beach environment. 

A boat ferry operation may also help promote an 

ecotourism business on the Island as birders and 

naturalists seek remote areas to experience nature. 

The Holgate Unit is an ideal place to view fall 

migrations of shore birds and marine life, and the 

Service encourages wildlife viewing on the Refuge 

System. Interest in ecotourism is growing and access to 

Holgate beach would provide an excellent opportunity 

to create a Long Beach Island ecotourism business. It 

is difficult to predict the level of revenues that would be 

associated with establishing ecotourist based business, 

but with promotions from organizations like the local 

Chamber of Commerce the returns could be significant. 

 

 

 

 
65 

 
Table of Contents

I. Purpose of and Need for Action

Introduction and Background................................................................................

The Purpose of and Need for Action......................................................................

Decision to be Made ...............................................................................................

Analysis Area..........................................................................................................

Purposes for the Jersey Coast Refuges .................................................................

National and Regional Mandates Guiding this Project .......................................

Other Legal and Policy Mandates.........................................................................

Relevant Ecosystem and Species Recovery Plans ................................................

Refuge Vision..........................................................................................................

Refuge Goals...........................................................................................................

The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process and 

Issue Identification.................................................................................................

Key Issues...............................................................................................................

Issues Outside the Scope of this Environmental Assessment.............................

Step-down Management Plans..............................................................................

II. Alternatives

Management Directions Common to all Alternatives..........................................

Alternative A B The No Action Alternative .........................................................

Forsythe Refuge ........................................................................................

Cape May Refuge ......................................................................................

Two Mile Beach Unit ................................................................................

Maps 

Forsythe Refuge ........................................................................................

Cape May Refuge ......................................................................................

Alternative B B The Service=s Proposed Action ....................................................

Forsythe Refuge ........................................................................................

Cape May Refuge ......................................................................................

Two Mile Beach Unit ................................................................................

Alternative C .........................................................................................................

Forsythe Refuge ........................................................................................

Cape May Refuge ......................................................................................

Two Mile Beach Unit ................................................................................

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Forsythe Refuge ................................................

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Cape May Refuge ..............................................

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Two Mile Beach Unit ........................................

III. Affected Environment
Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Physical Environment .......................................................................................................................................... 2 

Biological Environment ........................................................................................................................................ 4 

Archaeological and Historical Environment ....................................................................................................... 6 

Socioeconomic Environment................................................................................................................................. 7 

Cape May National Wildlife Refuge 

Physical Environment .......................................................................................................................................... 9 

Biological Environment ...................................................................................................................................... 10 

Archaeological and Historical Environmental .................................................................................................. 12 

Socioeconomic Environment............................................................................................................................... 12 

Two Mile Beach Unit 

Physical Environment ........................................................................................................................................ 14 

Biological Environment ...................................................................................................................................... 14 

Archaeological and Historical Environment ..................................................................................................... 15 

IV. Environmental Consequences IV - 1

Physical Environment ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 

Biological Environment ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 

Archaeological and Historical Environment .................................................................................................................... 3 

Socioeconomic Environment.............................................................................................................................................. 3 

Alternative A B The No Action Alternative 

Forsythe Refuge .................................................................................................................................................... 4 

Cape May Refuge ................................................................................................................................................. 9 

Two Mile Beach Unit .......................................................................................................................................... 12 

Alternative B B The Service=s Proposed Action 

Forsythe Refuge .................................................................................................................................................. 14 

Cape May Refuge ................................................................................................................................................ 23 

Two Mile Beach Unit .......................................................................................................................................... 27 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts............................................................................................................................ 29 

Short Term versus Long Term Productivity ..................................................................................................... 29 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources.............................................................................. 30 

Cumulative Impacts............................................................................................................................................ 31 

Alternative C 

Forsythe Refuge .................................................................................................................................................. 32 

Cape May Refuge ................................................................................................................................................ 36 

Two Mile Beach Unit .......................................................................................................................................... 38 

V. Consultation and Coordination with Others and List of 

Preparers V - 1 

Coordination with Others.................................................................................................................................................. 2 

List of Preparers ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 
Appendices

Appendix A: Principles of Wilderness Management 

Appendix B: Relevant Legal Mandates and Land Acquisition 

Legislation 

Appendix C: Issues Workbook 

Appendix D: Planning Update 

Appendix E: Summarized Public Comments 

Appendix F: Ecosystem Values 

Appendix G: Economic Analysis of ORV use at Holgate Beach 

Appendix H: Species of Concern 

Appendix I: Staffing Charts 

Appendix J: MMS Project List 

Appendix K: RONS Project List 

Appendix L: Glossary 

Appendix M: Works Cited 

Appendix N: Interim Compatibility Determinations 
Maps 

Map 1-1. Jersey Coast Refuges .............................................................................................................................I - 4 

Map 1-2. Brigantine Wilderness Area ..................................................................................................................I - 5 

Map 1-3. Two Mile Beach Unit .............................................................................................................................I - 6 

Maps 2-1a-d. Habitat Management, Forsythe Refuge........................................................................................... II - 13 

Maps 2-2a-d. Trapping, Forsythe Refuge ............................................................................................................... II - 17 

Maps 2-3a-c. Big Game Hunting, Forsythe Refuge............................................................................................... II - 21 

Maps 2-4. Upland Game Hunting, Forsythe Refuge ........................................................................................ II - 24 

Maps 2-5a-d. Migratory Game Bird Hunting, Forsythe Refuge ........................................................................... II - 25 

Maps 2-6a-b. Fishing, Forsythe Refuge.................................................................................................................. II - 29 

Maps 2-7a-d. Wildlife Observation (and Photography) 

and Interpretation, Forsythe Refuge ............................................................................................... II - 31 

Maps 2-8a-d. Land Protection Focus Areas, Forsythe Refuge .............................................................................. II - 35 

Maps 2-9a-c. Office and Visitor Facilities, Forsythe Refuge................................................................................. II - 39 

Maps 2-10a-b. Habitat Management, Cape May Refuge......................................................................................... II - 42 

Maps 2-11. Trapping, Cape May Refuge ............................................................................................................. II - 44 

Maps 2-12a-b. Big Game Hunting, Cape May Refuge............................................................................................. II - 45 

Maps 2-13a-b. Upland Game Hunting, Cape May Refuge ...................................................................................... II - 47 

Maps 2-14a-b. Migratory Game Bird Hunting, Cape May Refuge ......................................................................... II - 49 

Maps 2-15a-b. Wildlife Observation (and Photography) 

and Interpretation, Cape May Refuge ............................................................................................. II - 51 

Maps 2-16a-b. Land Protection Focus Areas, Cape May Refuge ............................................................................ II - 53 

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1-1. CCP process and NEPA compliance.......................................................................................................I - 13 

Table 2-1. Interim Compatibility for Wildlife-dependent 

Recreational Activities at the Jersey Coast Refuges............................................................................. II - 2 

Table 2-2. Actions and Strategies Matrix for Forsythe Refuge........................................................................... II - 74 

Table 2-3. Actions and Strategies Matrix for Cape May Refuge.......................................................................... II - 81 

Table 2-4. Actions and Strategies Matrix for the 

Two Mile Beach Unit of Cape May Refuge .......................................................................................... II - 85 
I Purpose of and Need for Action 

 

 

I - 2 Jersey Coast Refuges

Introduction and Background

The purpose of Chapter I is to: 

· Describe the need for a 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP) for Edwin B. Forsythe and 

Cape May National Wildlife 

Refuges (Jersey Coast Refuges); 

· Identify national, regional, and 

State plans, guidelines and 

mandates that influenced this 

project; 

· Highlight the purposes for which 

each Refuge was established; 

· Explain the planning process used 

for developing this CCP. 

The information provided in this Chapter 

sets the stage for Chapters II through 

IV. Chapter II describes alternative 

strategies for meeting goals and 

objectives and compares them to current 

management. Chapter III describes the 

existing physical, biological, and human 

environment. Chapter IV evaluates the 

environmental consequences of 

implementing each of the proposed 

alternatives. 

The Purpose of and Need for Action

This document evaluates a reasonable 

range of alternative management 

strategies for the Jersey Coast Refuges. 

 Each alternative was generated with the 

potential to be fully developed into a 

CCP. Our intent in this document is to 

clearly and accurately display the 

predicted social, economic, physical, 

and biological impacts of implementing 

each alternative, as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA). From this analysis, the 

Regional Director will select an 

alternative to be fully developed into a 

separate stand-alone CCP for each 

Refuge. 

Development of a CCP is vital to the 

future management of the Jersey Coast 

Refuges. The purpose of the CCP for 

each Refuge is to provide strategic 

management direction over the next 15 

years by: 

1. Providing a clear statement of 

desired future conditions for 

habitat, wildlife, visitor services, 

and facilities; 

2. Providing Refuge neighbors, 

visitors, and partners with a clear 

understanding of the reasons for 

management actions; 

3. Ensuring Refuge management 

reflects the policies and goals of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(Refuge System) and our other legal 

mandates; 

4. Ensuring the compatibility of 

current and future public use; 

5. Providing long-term continuity 

and direction for Refuge management; 

6. Providing direction for staffing, 

operations, maintenance, and the 

development of budget requests. 

 

The need to develop a CCP for each of the 

Jersey Coast Refuges is two-fold. First, 

the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge 

Improvement Act) requires that all 

National Wildlife Refuges have a CCP in 

place within 15 years to help fulfill the 

new mission of the Refuge System. 

Second, there is currently no master plan 

establishing priorities and ensuring 

consistent and integrated management for 

the Jersey Coast Refuges. A vision 

statement and goals, objectives, and 

management strategies are needed to 

effectively manage natural resources. 

Persistent issues related to non-wildlife 

dependent public use, beach access, 

wilderness management, and management for 

threatened and endangered species must be 

resolved with public and partner 

involvement. 

Decision to Be Made 

Based on the analysis documented in this 

Draft Environmental Assessment (EA), the 

Service will select an alternative to 

fully develop into a CCP for each Refuge. 

 The selection will be made by the 

Regional Director based on an evaluation 

of the Service’s mission, the purposes 

for which each of the Refuges was 

established, and our other legal 

mandates. In accordance with NEPA, the 

Regional Director must also determine 

whether the selected management 

alternative will have a significant 
impact on the quality of the human 

environment. If there is a significant 

impact, additional analysis would be 

required in an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). 

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment – 

July 

2000

Analysis Area

 

This EA covers Forsythe Refuge and Cape 

May Refuge, including the Two Mile Beach 

Unit, collectively called the Jersey 

Coast Refuges. (See Map 1-1.) 

Forsythe Refuge

Forsythe Refuge is located in Atlantic, 

Burlington, and Ocean Counties, and 

consists of two divisions: the 

Brigantine Division and the Barnegat 

Division. (See Map 1-1.) The Refuge 

extends along more than 50 miles of the 

coast. This Refuge was renamed in 1984 

in memory of the late conservationist 

Congressman from New Jersey, Edwin B. 

Forsythe, through a Congressional Joint 

Resolution (H.J. Res. 537). The 

resolution combined the 

Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge and 

the Barnegat National Wildlife Refuge. 

Those Refuges were established in 1939 

and 1967, respectively, under provisions 

of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. 

 The Reedy Creek Unit was established in 

1991, and is administered as part of 

Barnegat Division. The approved 

acquisition boundary of the Refuge 

encompasses more than 56,600 acres. As 

of September 30, 1999, the Service owned 

or leased 44,302 acres within the 

approved Refuge acquisition area. 

Refuge wetlands are designated as 

Wetlands of International Importance 

under the Ramsar Convention. There are 

only 17 designated Wetlands of 

International Importance in the United 

States. Refuge lands and waters provide 

important resting and feeding habitat 

for tens of thousands of ducks and 

geese, wading birds, and shorebirds 

during their spring and fall migrations. 

Congress designated 6,600 acres of the 

Refuge as the Brigantine Wilderness on 

January 3, 1975 (P.L. 93-632) to be 

managed under the Wilderness Act of 1964 

(78 Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C. 1121 (note), 

1131-1136). Map 1-2 shows the Refuge 

Wilderness Areas. This designation has 

far-ranging impacts on the management of 

these portions of the Refuge. See

Appendix A for the 10 guiding principles 

of wilderness management based on 

Wilderness Act direction and the 

wilderness management policies of the 

Bureau of Land Management, Forest 

Service, National Park Service, and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service.

Cape May Refuge 

Cape May Refuge is located in Cape May 

County, and includes the Delaware Bay 

Division, the Great Cedar Swamp Division, 

and the Two Mile Beach Unit. (See Map 1-

1.) The Refuge was established in 1989. 

 The approved acquisition boundary for 

the Refuge encompasses more than 

17,600 acres. As of October 22, 1999, 

the Service owned 10,001 acres within the 

approved Refuge acquisition area. 

In the past seven years, several studies 

or plans that involved the vicinity of 

the Refuge have been initiated or 

completed. These studies demonstrate the 

importance of this area. The Refuge 

acquisition area is within the New Jersey 

Coastal Area Facilities Review Act 

(CAFRA) zone and within the Service’s 

Twin Capes Project area (Cape May, NJ and 

Cape Charles, VA). It is partially 

within the Pinelands National Reserve, 

the Great Egg Harbor National Scenic and 

Recreational River, and the Cape May 

Migratory Bird Stopover Project. 

Delaware Bay wetlands within the Refuge 

are designated as Wetlands of 

International Importance under the Ramsar 

Convention. There are only 17 designated 

Wetlands of International Importance in 

the United States. 

Two Mile Beach Unit

The United States Coast Guard declared a 

major portion of its Electronic 

Engineering Center (EECEN) in Lower 

Township, Cape May County, excess to its 

needs in 1997. (See Map 1-3.) 

The northernmost 490 acres of the former 

EECEN were transferred from the Coast 

Guard to the Service on October 22, 1999 

as the Two Mile Beach Unit of Cape May 

Refuge under the Transfer of Certain Real 

Property for Wildlife Conservation 

Purposes Act of May 19, 1948, as amended 

(16 U.S.C. §667b-667d; 62 Stat. 240). Of 

the 490 acres, 221 acres are above mean 

high tide. Of these 221 acres, 90 acres 

are upland habitat and 131 acres are 

wetland habitat. 

The Coast Guard retained the remaining 
I Purpose of and Need for Action 

 

 

I - 4 Jersey Coast Refuges

530 acres of the former EECEN for its 

Long Range Aid to Navigation (LORAN) 

Support Unit (LSU) and the north dune 

antenna tower. The LSU will remain in 

operation indefinitely.

Purposes for the Jersey Coast Refuges

Lands within the Refuge System are 

acquired and managed under a variety of 

legislative acts and administrative 

orders and authorities. These orders 

and authorities usually have one or more 

purposes for which land can be 

transferred or acquired. Appendix B

lists the authorities for acquisition and 

management of National Wildlife Refuges. 

The purposes of Forsythe Refuge are: 

· For lands acquired under the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

(16 U.S.C. §715-715r), as amended, 

"...for use as an inviolate 

sanctuary, or for any other 

management purpose, for migratory 

birds...." (16 U.S.C. §715d); 

· "...the development, advancement, 

management, conservation, and 

protection of fish and wildlife 

resources...." Fish and Wildlife 

Act of 1956 

(16 U.S.C. §742f(a)(4)); 

· "...the conservation of the 

wetlands of the Nation in order 

to maintain the public benefits 

they provide and to help fulfill 

international obligations 

(regarding migratory birds)... " 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act 

of 1986 (16 U.S.C. §3901(b), 

100 Stat. 3583); 

· "...to secure for the American 

people of present and future 

generations the benefits of an 

enduring resource of wilderness." 

 The Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 

Stat. 890:16 U.S.C. 1121 (note), 

1131-1136). 

The purposes of Cape May Refuge are: 

· "...use as an inviolate 

sanctuary, or for any other 

management purpose, for migratory 

birds...." The Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 

§715d); 

· "...the development, advancement, 

management, conservation, and 

protection of fish and wildlife 

resources...." The Fish and 

Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 

§742f(a)(4); 

· "...the conservation of the 

wetlands of the Nation in order 

to maintain the public benefits 

they provide and to help fulfill 

international 

obligations(regarding migratory 

birds)... " The Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 

§3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583). 

The purpose of Cape May Refuge’s Two Mile 

Beach Unit is: 

· “...particular value in carrying 

out the national migratory bird 

management program” The Transfer 

of Certain Real Property for 

Wildlife Conservation Purposes 

Act, 1972, as amended 

(16 U.S.C. §667b-667d; 

62 Stat. 240). 

National and Regional Mandates

This section presents hierarchically, 

from the national-level to the locallevel, highlights of legal mandates, 

Service policy, and existing resource 

plans which directly influenced 

development of CCPs for the Jersey Coast 

Refuges. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its Mission

National Wildlife Refuges are managed by 

the Service, part of the Department of 

the Interior. The mission of the Service 

is: 

“...working with others, to conserve, 

protect and enhance fish and wildlife 

and their habitats for the continuing 

benefit of the American people.” 

National resources entrusted to the 

Service for conservation and protection 

are: migratory birds, endangered species, 

interjurisdictional fish, wetlands, and 

certain marine mammals. The Service also 

manages the Refuge System and national 

fish hatcheries, enforces federal 
I Purpose of and Need for Action 

 

 

I - 8 Jersey Coast Refuges

wildlife laws and international treaties 

on importing and exporting wildlife, 

assists with state fish and wildlife 

programs, and helps other countries 

develop wildlife conservation programs. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System and its 

Mission

 

The Refuge System is the world’s largest 

collection of lands and waters set aside 

specifically for the conservation of 

wildlife and ecosystem protection. Over 

520 National Wildlife Refuges are part 

of the national network today. Refuges 

occur in every state and a number of 

U.S. Territories, encompassing over 92 

million acres nationwide. Over 34 

million visitors annually hunt, fish, 

observe and photograph wildlife, or 

participate in environmental education 

and interpretive activities on Refuges. 

 

In 1997, the Refuge Improvement Act was 

passed. This legislation established a 

unifying mission for the Refuge System, 

a new process for determining compatible 

activities on Refuges, and the 

requirement to prepare CCPs for each 

Refuge. The Act states that above all 

else, wildlife comes first in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. It does 

so by establishing that wildlife 

conservation is the principal mission of 

the Refuge System; by requiring that we 

maintain the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of 

each refuge and the Refuge System; and by 

mandating that we monitor the status and 

trends of fish, wildlife, and plants on 

each refuge. It further states that the 

national mission, coupled with the 

purpose(s) for which each Refuge was 

established, will provide the principal 

management direction for each Refuge. 

The mission of the Refuge System is: 

“...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.” 

(National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 

105-57) 

The Refuge Improvement Act declares that 

all existing or proposed public uses 

must be “compatible” with the purposes 

for which each refuge was established. 

Six wildlife-dependent public uses were 

highlighted in the legislation as 

priorities to evaluate in CCPs. The six 

uses are: environmental education and 

interpretation, fishing, hunting, 

wildlife observation, and photography. 

“Compatibility” is determined by the 

Refuge Manager after evaluating the 

activities’ potential impact on Refuge 

resources. 

The Wilderness Act

The Wilderness Act mandates that certain 

federal lands be maintained in a 

natural, undeveloped state in order to 

“preserve for the American people of 

present and future generations the 

benefits of an enduring resource of 

wilderness.” The Act instructs federal 

agencies to manage Wilderness Areas in a 

manner which “preserves the wilderness 

character of the area,” and provides 

“outstanding opportunities for solitude, 

primitive and unconfined recreation.” 

In 1975, Congress designated 6,600 acres 

on Forsythe Refuge as the Brigantine 

National Wilderness Area. (See Map 1-2 

on page I-5.) 

Other Legal and Policy Mandates 

While the Refuge System Mission and the 

purposes for which each refuge was 

established provide the foundation for 

management, National Wildlife Refuges are 

also governed by other federal laws, 

Executive Orders, treaties, interstate 

compacts, and regulations pertaining to 

the conservation and protection of 

natural and cultural resources. Appendix 

B provides a summary of some of the most 

important federal laws related to 

management of National Wildlife Refuges. 

Service policies providing guidance on 

planning and the day-to-day management of 

a Refuge are contained within the Refuge 

System Manual and the Service Manual. 

Fulfilling the Promise, The National Wildlife Refuge 

System: Visions for Wildlife, Habitat, People, and 

Leadership

This report (USFWS, March 1999) resulted 

from the first-ever Refuge System 
 

 Purpose of and Need for Action 

 I

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment – 

July 

2000 I - 9 

Conference held in Keystone, Colorado in 

October 1998, and attended by every 

Refuge manager in the country, other 

Service employees, and leading 

conservation organizations. The report 

contains 42 recommendations dealing with 

Wildlife and Habitat, People, and 

Leadership. This CCP/EA deals with all 

three of these major topics, and we have 

looked to the 42 recommendations for 

guidance throughout the project. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan: 

Atlantic Coast Joint Venture 

This Plan (USFWS, 1986) documents the 

strategy between the United States, 

Canada, and Mexico to restore waterfowl 

populations through habitat protection, 

restoration, and enhancement. The Plan 

includes ten regional habitat “Joint 

Ventures” that are partnerships 

involving federal, state and provincial 

governments, tribal nations, local 

businesses, conservation organizations, 

and individual citizens. The Jersey 

Coast Refuges lie within the Atlantic 

Coast Joint Venture. Seven focus areas, 

totaling more than 90,400 acres, have 

been identified for protection in New 

Jersey. Both wetlands and adjacent 

uplands are part of the focus areas. 

The 23,400 acre Brigantine-Barnegat 

Wetlands focus area is within the 

Forsythe Refuge. 

The goal for the Atlantic Coast Joint 

Venture is: 

“Protect and manage priority wetland 

habitats for migration, wintering, 

and production of waterfowl, with 

special consideration to black 

ducks, and to benefit other wildlife 

in the joint venture area.”

In addition to the ten regional habitat 

joint ventures, there are two species 

joint ventures: Arctic Goose and Black 

Duck. Since black ducks winter in New 

Jersey, the goals and objectives of the 

Black Duck Joint Venture apply to 

management of the Jersey Coast Refuges. 

The coastal salt marsh habitats along the 

mid-upper Atlantic coast have been 

identified by the Black Duck Joint 

Venture as the most important habitat for 

wintering black duck. 

Partners In Flight Land Bird Conservation Plan: MidAtlantic Coastal Plain (Physiographic Area #44)

The Partners in Flight Program is 

developing a plan for the Mid-Atlantic 

Coastal Plain Physiographic Area (USFWS, 

April 1999). Habitat loss, land bird 

population trends, and vulnerability of 

species and habitats to threats are all 

factors used in the priority ranking of 

species. Further, the plan will identify 

focal species for each habitat type from 

which population and habitat objectives 

and conservation actions will be 

determined. This list of focal species, 

objectives and conservation actions will 

help direct land bird management on the 

Jersey Coast Refuges. 

The draft plan ranks species and habitats 

on the basis of overall conservation 

priority. The following first tier 

priority land birds breed on the Jersey 

Coast Refuges: 

 

· piping plover; 

· salt marsh sharp-tailed sparrow; 

· seaside sparrow; 

· American black duck; 

· eastern wood-pewee; 

· clapper rail; 

· American oystercatcher. 

The first-tier is "high overall (global) 

priority,” which indicates high 

vulnerability of a species throughout 

its range. 

 

Furthermore, more than 15 additional 

second-tier priority land birds breed on 

the Jersey Coast Refuges. The secondtier is “high physiographic area 

priority.” 

 

Also, seven of the eight priority habitat 

types identified in the plan are found 

currently or historically on the Jersey 

Coast Refuges: 

· pine savannah; 

· barrier and bay islands; 

· salt marsh; 

· forested wetland; 

· mixed upland forest; 

· early succession old field and 
I Purpose of and Need for Action 

 

 

I - 10 Jersey Coast Refuges

shrub/scrub; 

· fresh/brackish emergent wetland. 

Regional Wetlands Concept Plan - Emergency 

Wetlands Resources Act, Northeast Region

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency 

Wetlands Resources Act to promote the 

conservation of our nation’s wetlands. 

The Act directed the Department of the 

Interior to develop a National Wetlands 

Priority Conservation Plan identifying 

the location and types of wetlands that 

should receive priority attention for 

acquisition by federal and state 

agencies using Land and Water 

Conservation Fund appropriations. In 

1990, the Service’s Northeast Region 

completed a Regional Wetlands Concept 

Plan (USFWS, October 1990) to provide 

more specific information about wetlands 

resources in the Northeast. The 

Regional Plan identifies a total of 850 

wetland sites that warrant consideration 

for acquisition, and also identifies 

wetland values, functions, and potential 

threats for each site. The Plan 

identifies four sites within the Jersey 

Coast Refuges: Brigantine/Barnegat 

Wetlands, Manahawkin Lake, and Reedy 

Creek (all within Forsythe Refuge), and 

Great Cedar Swamp (within Cape May 

Refuge). 

Trust for Public Land Century Plan

The Trust for Public Land is a national 

nonprofit conservation organization 

dedicated to preserving land of 

recreational, ecological, and cultural 

value for public enjoyment. Its primary 

mission is to protect open space for 

public benefit. The Trust’s Barnegat 

Bay Initiative is a long-term protection 

strategy involving land acquisition, 

public education and scientific research 

on the regions remaining outstanding 

natural resources. Its goal is to 

collaborate with other non-profit and 

civic groups and local, state and 

federal government agencies to establish 

a powerful and united coalition working 

to preserve the Barnegat Bay watershed. 

Barnegat Bay is within the National 

Estuary Program 

The Century Plan (Land Trust Alliance, 

April 1994) is a guide for future action 

to preserve the Barnegat Bay watershed in 

Ocean County, New Jersey and heighten 

public awareness about the Bay’s 

landscape and ecological importance. It 

lists 100 unique conservation and public 

access sites that are of long-term 

importance to protecting the Bay as an 

ecosystem and treasured public resource. 

 Of the 100 sites, approximately 50 

percent are currently partially or 

totally within the approved acquisition 

boundary for the Forsythe Refuge. 

Relevant Ecosystem and Species Recovery 

Plans

Throughout the last decade, the Service 

has been putting more emphasis into 

defining and protecting entire 

ecosystems. To this end, the Service has 

initiated new partnerships with private 

landowners, state and federal agencies, 

corporations, conservation groups, and 

volunteers. Implementing an Ecosystem 

Team approach to management is a top 

national priority for the Service. 

Fifty-two Ecosystem teams were formed 

across the country, typically using large 

river watersheds to define ecosystems. 

Individual Ecosystem Teams are comprised 

of both Service professionals and 

partners, who work together to develop 

goals and priorities for research and 

management. 

Forsythe Refuge lies within the Hudson 

River/New York Bight Ecosystem, while 

Cape May Refuge lies within both the 

Hudson River/New York Bight Ecosystem and 

the Delaware River/Delmarva Coastal 

Ecosystem.

Hudson River/New York Bight Ecosystem Plan

The following resource priorities from 

this plan (USFWS, September 1994) are 

relevant to the Jersey Coast Refuges: 

· Protect and restore migratory 

birds, threatened and endangered 

species, and species of special 

concern associated with native 

grasslands and forest habitats. 

· Protect, restore and enhance 

populations of beach-dependent 

plants and animals, with emphasis 

on threatened and endangered 

species, and species of special 

concern. 

· Increase populations of colonial 

nesting water birds, shorebirds, 

waterfowl, and inter-
 

 Purpose of and Need for Action 

 I

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment – 

July 

2000 I - 11 

jurisdictional fish requiring 

shallow water, salt marshes, 

adjacent uplands, and coastal 

lagoons and rivers. 

Delaware River/Delmarva Coastal Ecosystem

The following resource priorities for 

the Delaware River/Delmarva Coastal 

Ecosystem are relevant to Cape May 

Refuge: 

· Protect, restore and enhance 

migratory bird habitat and 

populations, with emphasis on the 

coastal migration corridor. 

· Protect, restore, and enhance 

wetland habitats, with emphasis 

on Service-owned wetlands and 

other areas of exceptional value. 

· Protect and enhance populations 

of threatened, endangered, and 

candidate species and their 

habitats. 

· Protect and enhance populations 

of inter-jurisdictional fish and 

their habitats. 

· Protect, restore, and manage 

Trust Resources on Service-owned 

lands.

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), Atlantic Coast 

Population, Revised Recovery Plan

The primary objective of the revised 

recovery plan (USFWS, May 1996) is to 

remove the Atlantic coast piping plover 

population from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife and Plants by: 

· Achieving well-distributed 

increases in numbers and 

productivity of breeding pairs; 

· Providing for long-term 

protection of breeding and 

wintering plovers and their 

habitat. 

The Revised Recovery Plan describes 

detailed “Recovery Tasks” needed to meet 

the recovery objective. Forsythe Refuge 

is specifically mentioned in the 

following task: 

· Monitoring to identify limiting 

factors; 

· Control of feral animals and 

predators; 

· Erect exclosures for protection 

from predators; 

· Nourish or amend beaches. 

Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle (Cincindela 

dorsalis dorsalis), Recovery Plan

The recovery objective of this plan 

(USFWS, September 1994) is to remove the 

Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle from the 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. 

Recovery for the Northeastern beach tiger 

beetle will require reestablishing the 

species across its former range along the 

Atlantic Coast and protecting it within 

the Chesapeake Bay region. The Plan 

describes the Holgate Unit as part of the 

Northeastern beach tiger beetle 

historical range, and as having “medium 

restoration potential”. According to the 

Plan, the Holgate Unit would be an 

excellent restoration site, if off-road 

vehicles were prohibited from the 

intertidal zone. 

Recovery Plans for Other Federally Listed or 

Recovered Threatened or Endangered Species

Where the following federally listed 

threatened or endangered species occur on 

the Jersey Coast Refuges, we will follow 

the management goals and strategies laid 

out in their respective recovery plans: 

peregrine falcon, bald eagle, seabeach 

amaranth, and swamp pink. This list will 

change as new species are listed, 

delisted, or discovered on Refuge lands. 

Refuge Vision

The following statement was developed by 

the planning team in order to describe 

the desired future status of the Jersey 

Coast Refuges. 

“Edwin B. Forsythe and Cape May National 

Wildlife Refuges, the Jersey Coast 

Refuges, will continue to contain some 

of the most important migratory bird 

habitat in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. They will continue to be focal 

points for the protection, management, 

restoration, and enjoyment of migratory 

birds and other Federal Trust Resources 

in coastal New Jersey. Forsythe Refuge 
I Purpose of and Need for Action 

 

 

I - 12 Jersey Coast Refuges

will provide a true wilderness 

experience on pristine barrier islands 

and salt marshes, that are premiere 

examples of these ecological communities 

and untrammeled by man. Both Refuges 

will provide stop-over habitats of 

sufficient size and quality to assist in 

maintaining migrating and wintering 

birds on the Atlantic Flyway. 

The Refuges will expand their roles in 

land protection efforts by acquiring 

additional habitat along the coast and 

inland watersheds, and working with all 

interested parties to promote 

conservation efforts on non-refuge 

lands. The Refuges will preserve 

important plant and animal populations, 

ecological communities, and the 

integrity of the landscape by protecting 

lands from development, restoring fire 

to the upland habitats, and repairing 

disruptions to wetlands. They will play 

a critical role in preserving 

biodiversity locally, regionally and 

within the Refuge System. 

The Refuges will build alliances with 

State, county and local governments, 

other organizations and local 

communities to promote the ecological 

integrity of the landscape, ecotourism 

and the historical and cultural 

attractions of the region. Wildlifedependent recreational opportunities for 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, environmental education 

and interpretation will be provided on 

Refuge lands. The Refuges will help 

assure the sustainable economic 

viability of the area, and supplement 

and promote the values which attracted 

people and wildlife to the Jersey Shore 

in the first place.”

Refuge Goals

We have developed the following goals 

for the Jersey Coast Refuges. These 

goals highlight specific elements of our 

vision statement which will be 

emphasized in future management. Our 

planning team has identified Goal 1 as 

the top priority; Goals 2-4 are not in 

priority order. 

Goal 1: Protect and enhance 

federal trust resources and 

other species and habitats of 

special concern. 

Goal 2: Maintain and/or restore 

natural ecological communities 

to promote healthy, 

functioning ecosystems. 

Goal 3: Establish a land 

protection program to support 

accomplishment of species, 

habitat, and ecosystem goals. 

 

Goal 4: Provide opportunities 

for high-quality, compatible, 

wildlife-dependent public use.

The Comprehensive Conservation 

Planning Process and Issue Identification

This effort to prepare CCPs for the 

Jersey Coast Refuges began in the summer 

of 1996. The Service’s action followed 

President Clinton’s signing of Executive 

Order 12996, on the Management and 

General Public Use of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. In recognition 

of the Order’s four guiding principles, 

the Service focused its planning efforts 

on: 

· Conserving and enhancing the 

quality and diversity of fish and 

wildlife habitat within the 

Refuges; 

· Providing opportunities for 

compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreational activities involving 

hunting, fishing, wildlifeobservation and photography, 

environmental education and 

interpretation; 

· Establishing partnerships with 

other Federal agencies, State 

agencies, tribes, organizations, 

industry and the general public; 

· Increasing opportunities for 

public involvement in the planning 

of refuge land protection and 

management activities. 

 

This effort continued and was enhanced 

following passage of the Refuge 

Improvement Act in 1997. 

The Act states that the Service shall: 

· Propose a CCP for each refuge or 

related complex of refuges; 

· Publish a notice of opportunity 

for public comment in the Federal 
 

 Purpose of and Need for Action 

 I

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment – 

July 

2000 I - 13 

Register on each proposed CCP; 

· Issue a final CCP for each refuge 

consistent with the provisions of 

this Act and, to the extent 

practicable, consistent with fish 

and wildlife conservation plans 

of the State in which the refuge 

is located; 

· Not less frequently than 15 years 

after the date of issuance of a 

CCP, and every 15 years 

thereafter, revise the CCP as may 

be necessary. 

Initially, we focused on collecting 

information on natural resources and 

public use. In addition, we developed a 

vision statement and preliminary goals 

for the Jersey Coast Refuges, as well as 

the preliminary issues to be addressed 

in this planning effort. A mailing list 

of organizations and individuals was 

also compiled to insure that we were 

contacting a wide array of interested 

publics. 

In November and December 1996 we held a 

series of 11 public meetings in: 

· Ocean County, the Townships of 

Brick, Dover, Lacey, Stafford, 

and the Boroughs of Long Beach 

and Tuckerton; 

· Atlantic County, the Township of 

Galloway; 

· Cape May County, the Townships of 

Upper, Dennis, Middle, and Lower. 

We announced the location, dates, and 

times for these meetings in local 

newspapers and through special mailings. 

 We also briefed local members of 

Congress on the upcoming meetings. More 

than 280 people attended the meetings, 

which were held to let people know what 

the Service was doing to manage the 

Jersey Coast Refuges, and to elicit 

their input on topics of interest to 

them. 

We also distributed an “Issues Workbook” 

(Appendix C) to help collect the 

public’s ideas, concerns, and 

suggestions on important issues 

associated with managing the Jersey 

Coast Refuges. We distributed the 

workbook to everyone on our mailing 

list, those who attended the public 

meetings, and anyone who subsequently 

requested one. Nearly 1,000 copies were 

distributed. Through the workbook, we 

asked for public input on the issues and 

possible action options, the things 

people valued most about the New Jersey 

coast, their vision for the future, and 

the Service’s role in helping to 

conserve, protect, and enhance fish and 

wildlife and their habitats. More than 

150 copies of the workbook were completed 

and returned. 

In February 1997 we distributed a 

“Planning Update” (Appendix D) which 

summarized the responses received in the 

“Issues Workbook”. Responses from the 

workbooks and meetings were influential 

in helping us formulate the issues 

related to resource protection and public 

use. 

In April 1997 we also held an 

Alternatives Workshop. Twenty-five 

individuals, representing local and State 

conservation agencies and organizations, 

participated in the daylong workshop. 

The participants reviewed and discussed 

the issues and concerns identified in the 

“Issues Workbook” and were asked to 

answer three questions: 

1) What should be done? 

2) Where should it be done? 

3) Who should help the Service do 

it? 

Input obtained from the public meetings, 

workbooks and workshop was used to 

identify a reasonable range of 

alternatives and prepare a draft CCP/EA. 

 This draft was released for 45 days of 

public review and comment in May 1999. 

Over 200 people attended the three public 

meetings held in July at the following 

locations: Middle Township Building in 

Cape May County; Galloway Township 

Library in Atlantic County; and Stafford 

Township Municipal Building in Ocean 

County. 

We also received over 1,600 individual 

comment letters. There were a great many 

duplicate comments received, since many 

people sent copies to both the Forsythe 

Refuge headquarters in Oceanville, New 

Jersey and our Regional Office in Hadley, 

Massachusetts. A summary of the public 

comments received and the disposition of 

the concerns expressed in those comments 

can be found in Appendix E. This summary 
I Purpose of and Need for Action 

 

 

I - 14 Jersey Coast Refuges

also notes where we have changed the 

draft CCP/EA or why we did not make such 

changes. 

This Revised Draft CCP/EA is being 

released for 30 days of public review 

and comment. The Service is also 

holding a formal public hearing. The 

location, date, and time for this 

hearing are noted in the cover letter 

accompanying this Revised Draft, have 

been announced in local newspapers, and 

a formal Notice of Availability printed 

in the Federal Register. 

After the 30-day public review of this 

Revised Draft CCP/EA, we will compile 

and respond to the comments received. A 

Final CCP/EA will be prepared and, as 

required under NEPA, a decision will be 

made as to whether the Service’s Proposed 

Action supports a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI). Assuming no 

significant impact is predicted, a FONSI 

will be prepared and released, along with 

stand-alone CCPs for both Forsythe and 

Cape May Refuges. Implementation of 

these plans will then begin and they will 

be monitored annually and revised when 

necessary. 

Figure 1-1 describes the steps of the 

Service’s CCP process and how it is 

integrated with the NEPA process. 

Key Issues

Together with the Jersey Coast Refuge 

goals (see page I-11), the following key 

issues, and the range of options on how 

to resolve them, formed the basis for 

the development and comparison of the 

different alternatives proposed in 

Chapter II. 

Managing habitats and wildlife populations

This issue was identified as being very 

important by the public at our meetings, 

in the workbook and at the workshop. A 

number of different management 

activities were suggested, including: 

habitat manipulation and restoration 

(e.g., burning, water level control, 

planting, mowing), wildlife population 

management, baseline surveys of wildlife 

species and ecological communities, 

population and habitat monitoring, and 

research. Other activities suggested 

include working with partners on 

cooperative efforts for habitat 

restoration and management on private 

lands. 

Some members of the public requested 

increased opportunities for furbearer 

trapping at Forsythe Refuge and 

providing furbearer trapping 

opportunities at Cape May Refuge. They 

noted that trapping is a necessary and 

important wildlife management tool. 

Other people objected to trapping. 

Trapping is often used on National 

Wildlife Refuges to protect endangered 

and threatened species from predators, 

to protect refuge infrastructure, and to 

maintain furbearer populations at levels 

consistent with refuge objectives. 

The protection and management of 

wildlife populations and habitats is the 

fundamental mission of the Refuge System 

and the Jersey Coast Refuges. Special 

emphasis is placed on federal trust 

resources, including: endangered species, 

migratory birds, interjurisdictional 

fish, marine mammals, and wetlands. 

Controlling invasive and overabundant species

Dealing with this issue is not only a 

national initiative for the Service, but 

was also deemed very important by the 

public at our meetings, in the workbook 

and at the workshop. The methods used to 

control these species are also of great 

concern. 

Both Forsythe and Cape May Refuges have 

significant problems involving invasive 

species, which impact native species 

directly, displacing or killing 

individuals, destroying habitats, and 

disrupting ecological communities. 

Invasive species requiring control are 

mostly exotics not native to the New 

Jersey landscape (e.g., Japanese 

honeysuckle, European bittersweet, autumn 

olive). 

Wildlife species may be deemed 

overabundant for various management 

objectives. Overabundant species may 

degrade habitat quality or the overall 

integrity of an ecological community 

(e.g., white-tailed deer), or may 

displace or prey upon other species that 

are actively being restored (e.g., 

raccoon). Other species, because of 

their numbers, may pose a human health 

risk (e.g., mosquitos), (Mosquito control, 

page I-17). Overabundant snow geese and 

resident Canada geese are a management 
 

 Purpose of and Need for Action 

 I

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment – 

July 

2000 I - 15 

concern for the Refuge and for some 

landowners. Current goose control 

activities are discussed under this 

issue, but more aggressive techniques 

for goose control will be covered in 

separate documents (Control of resident 

Canada geese and Control of white geese, page 

I-17). Deer and furbearer control 

activities are discussed under Increased 

opportunities for hunting, and Managing habitats 

and wildlife populations, page I-14. 

The effects of pesticides on fish, wildlife and plants

The public identified the presence of 

pesticides and chemicals in the 

environment as an important issue. 

Chemicals and pesticides from activities 

taking place on the Refuges or from offrefuge sources may impact fish, wildlife 

and plants found on the Jersey Coast 

Refuges. Such chemicals may be 

transported to the Refuges by wind, 

water or other mechanisms, or picked up 

off-refuge by fish and wildlife during 

their migrations. Many people 

encouraged us to minimize our use of 

chemicals and pesticides on the Refuges. 

 

The principle use of pesticides on the 

Refuge is to control mosquitos and 

invasive species. For example, at 

Forsythe Refuge during 1999, more than 

1,000 pounds of pesticide were used to 

control mosquitos. Integrated Pest 

Management (IPM) provides an overall 

strategy to reduce pesticide use and 

promote other techniques to control 

problem species. For mosquitos, this 

includes Open Marsh Water Management 

(OMWM) (modifying mosquito breeding 

habitat to favor mosquito-eating fish). 

Because of previous OMWM treatment no 

pesticides were applied at Cape May 

Refuge in 1999. Another technique for 

suppressing phragmites, an invasive 

species, would be tidal inundation, 

instead of using herbicides.

 

Increasing opportunities for hunting

Many people identified hunting on the 

Refuges as an important issue during the 

public meetings, in the workbook and at 

the workshop. Some voiced concern over 

the Service’s policy of restricting 

access to lands at Forsythe Refuge that 

were historically available for hunting. 

 Others felt that hunting should not be 

permitted on the Jersey Coast Refuges, 

often citing safety concerns and impacts 

on wildlife. 

 

Hunting has long been a traditional 

activity in coastal New Jersey. Local 

residents have hunted much of the land 

within the current and proposed 

boundaries of the Jersey Coast Refuges 

in the past. 

At Forsythe Refuge, deer hunting is 

allowed in designated areas by permit 

only. Upland game hunting is not 

allowed. Migratory game bird hunting is 

allowed in designated areas. Some 

people called for additional deer 

hunting opportunities during the six-day 

firearm season. Some people called for 

upland game hunting opportunities on the 

Refuge. Others called for additional 

opportunities to hunt migratory game 

birds on the Refuge, or did not agree 

with the Refuge’s policy of restricting 

hunting to only 40% of its lands. 

At Cape May Refuge, deer hunting is 

allowed Refuge-wide. Upland game hunting 

is not allowed. Migratory game bird 

hunting is allowed in designated areas. 

 Some people called for upland game 

hunting opportunities on the Refuge. 

Others called for additional 

opportunities to hunt migratory game 

birds on the Refuge. 

Because hunting is one of the six 

priority general public uses of the 

Refuge System, it “...shall receive 

priority consideration in refuge planning 

and management.” (National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act). Refuge 

hunt programs must consider public 

safety, disturbance and other harm to 

wildlife, harm to habitat, and conflicts 

between different user groups. 

Increasing opportunities for fishing

Many people identified fishing on the 

Refuges as an important issue during the 

public meetings, in the workbook and at 

the workshop. 

While extensive fishing does occur within 

Refuge boundaries, the Service does not 

have management or law enforcement 

authority over fishing from boats in 

tidal waters within those boundaries. 

Fishing opportunities on lands managed by 

the Jersey Coast Refuges are limited. At 

Forsythe Refuge some opportunities are 
I Purpose of and Need for Action 

 

 

I - 16 Jersey Coast Refuges

provided at several existing access 

sites, while Cape May Refuge is not open 

to fishing. Refuge beaches below mean 

high tide are under the jurisdiction of 

the New Jersey Tidelands Council, with 

the exception of Cape May Refuge’s Two 

Mile Beach Unit. 

 

Because fishing is one of the six 

priority general public uses of the 

Refuge System, it “...shall receive 

priority consideration in refuge 

planning and management.” (National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act). 

 Refuge fishing programs must consider 

public safety, disturbance and other 

harm to wildlife, harm to habitat, and 

conflicts between user groups. 

Increasing opportunities for wildlife observation 

and photography

There was a great deal of interest 

expressed in expanding wildlife 

observation and photography 

opportunities on the Refuges at the 

public meetings, in the workbook and at 

the workshop. This high interest is 

reflected in the fact that many visitors 

to the Jersey Coast Refuges come to 

observe the wildlife we manage. 

The fact that Forsythe Refuge and the 

Cape May peninsula are world-renowned 

destinations for bird watchers is 

reflected in our high number of visitors 

and the diversity of their hometowns. 

As hundreds of thousands of migratory 

birds use the Refuges each year, so tens 

of thousands of visitors come each month 

to observe them. 

Because wildlife observation and 

photography are two of the six priority 

general public uses of the Refuge 

System, they “...shall receive priority 

consideration in refuge planning and 

management.” (National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act). Refuge 

wildlife observation and photography 

programs must consider public safety, 

disturbance and other harm to wildlife, 

harm to habitat, and conflicts between 

different user groups. 

Increasing opportunities for environmental 

education and interpretation

There was more interest in expanding 

environmental education and 

interpretation opportunities at the 

Refuges than any of the other priority 

public uses. In fact, there was great 

interest in increasing our outreach 

efforts to local schools and communities 

as well. Quite often people expressed an 

interest in promoting more 

environmentally friendly recreational 

activities while expressing concern for 

minimizing impacts on the resources. 

Many encouraged us to place special 

emphasis in our education and 

interpretation efforts on: the impacts of 

public use on wildlife and how those 

impacts can be reduced; how the public 

can help wildlife both at the Refuge and 

in their own back yards; and the 

importance of refuges in conserving 

wildlife and their habitats. 

Because environmental education and 

interpretation are two of the six 

priority general public uses of the 

Refuge System, they “...shall receive 

priority consideration in refuge planning 

and management.” (National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act). Refuge 

environmental education and 

interpretation programs must consider 

public safety, disturbance and other harm 

to wildlife, harm to habitat, and 

conflicts between different user groups. 

 

Protecting and managing wilderness resources

In 1975 Congress designated 6,603 acres 

of the Forsythe Refuge as Wilderness. 

Undeveloped barrier beaches and dunes at 

Holgate and on Little Beach Island, and 

undisturbed salt marshes were included. 

 

There are stringent requirements 

specified in the Wilderness Act and in 

Service policy for protecting and 

managing these areas. These include the 

highest requirements for clean air, 

using minimum tools for management, and 

letting natural processes prevail. The 

protection and management of Wilderness 

often includes such actions as monitoring 

the ecological communities, research, 

education and outreach, enforcement of 

Refuge regulations, reviewing the 

potential impacts of both on- and offsite activities on wilderness values, and 

the restoration of native species or 

natural communities. The single most 

contentious issue associated with the 

review of the draft CCP/EA was the use of 

motorized vehicles for surf fishing at 
 

 Purpose of and Need for Action 

 I

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment – 

July 

2000 I - 17 

Holgate, in violation of the provisions 

of the Wilderness Act. 

Increasing opportunities for land protection 

During the public meeting, in the 

workbooks and at the workshop, people 

expressed a great deal of support for 

the protection of additional fish and 

wildlife habitat, and suggested that 

this occur not only through an expanded 

land acquisition program at the Jersey 

Coast Refuges, but also by working 

cooperatively with others to protect 

non-refuge lands as well. There is 

considerable interest in increasing land 

protection efforts at both Refuges, 

especially lands supporting federal 

trust species. The location of Cape May 

Refuge on the peninsula makes it 

particularly important to the successful 

migration of birds in the Atlantic 

flyway.

Increasing resource protection and visitor safety

People identified resource protection 

and visitor safety as a concern during 

the public meetings, in the workbook and 

at the workshop.

New Jersey is the most densely populated 

state in the nation. In addition, Ocean 

County was the fastest developing county 

in the United States during the 1970’s 

and 1980’s. Development in both 

Atlantic and Cape May Counties has 

increased markedly since the birth of 

the Atlantic City casino industry in the 

1980's. As a result, law enforcement 

incidents encountered on the Jersey 

Coast Refuges are no longer limited to 

wildlife related violations. Officers 

now respond to incidents involving 

vandalism, assault, breaking and 

entering, speeding, possession of 

illegal drugs, and the cultivation of 

marijuana. While these problems are 

currently more prevalent at Forsythe 

Refuge, they are expected to increase at 

Cape May Refuge in the future. 

The two Refuges currently encompass 

54,000 acres, along 90 miles of the New 

Jersey Shore. Marking the expanding 

Refuge boundaries remains a constant 

logistical problem. Total annual public 

use surpasses 300,000 visitors. It is 

expected to increase rapidly as more of 

Atlantic City’s 35 million annual 

visitors and the millions of Jersey 

Shore summer visitors discover the 

Jersey Coast Refuges. 

The current staffing level of three fulltime Park Rangers is insufficient to 

adequately patrol and enforce Refuge and 

other federal regulations. These 

officers find it increasingly difficult 

to respond to public reports of potential 

violations. 

Improving Refuge buildings and facilities

The existing buildings and facilities at 

both Forsythe and Cape May Refuges are 

woefully inadequate and need to be 

replaced. This is especially important 

if the Refuges are to adequately 

accommodate work space for not only their 

current staff, but also any future 

increases in staffing levels that would 

be required to implement the actions and 

strategies in the Refuge CCPs. 

Additional laboratory and equipment 

storage space is also needed. 

New facilities in readily accessible 

locations would also help increase the 

visibility of the Service in coastal New 

Jersey and improve our visitor services, 

including providing opportunities for 

environmental education and 

interpretation. The 150,000 people, who 

currently use the wildlife drive at 

Forsythe Refuge, are provided few 

opportunities to learn about the Service 

or its programs during their visit to the 

Refuge. 

Use of the existing buildings at the Two Mile Beach 

Unit

A number of groups have expressed 

interest in using former Coast Guard 

buildings located at the site. Some of 

these buildings also have the potential 

for use as Refuge office, visitor or 

storage/maintenance facilities. There is 

also a lot of interest in seeing these 

buildings removed and restoring the 

habitat they currently displace. 

These buildings lie in the center of 

possibly the best remaining piece of 

maritime forest found on the New Jersey 

coast and an area critical to migrating 

birds. They also lie within the 100-year 

flood plain. 

I Purpose of and Need for Action 

 

 

I - 18 Jersey Coast Refuges

Public access to the Two Mile Beach Unit

Some people expressed concern at the 

public meetings, in the workbook and at 

the workshop, about the possibility that 

the Service would close the beach during 

the piping plover breeding season. 

Although the Coast Guard never 

officially sanctioned public access to 

the beach, they did allow people to walk 

along the beach surf line and by that 

route to access the jetty at Cold Spring 

Inlet, a popular fishing location. In 

the past, this beach has supported 

nesting piping plovers and the least 

tern, although those species do not 

currently use the area. 

Issues Outside the Scope of this 

Environmental Assessment 

These issues do not fall within the 

scope of The Purpose of and Need for Action

and the Decision to be Made. Issues within 

this category will not be further 

addressed in this document. The Service 

will, however, pursue other courses of 

action, often in cooperation with other 

interested parties, to resolve them. 

Protecting sensitive areas from personal water 

craft use 

Many people expressed concern over the 

use of personal water craft at the 

public meetings, in the workbook and at 

the workshop. 

Personal water craft use in the Statemanaged waters surrounding or adjacent 

to lands of the Jersey Coast Refuges has 

risen dramatically. The Refuge does not 

have jurisdiction over these activities 

in these waters. 

 

Personal water craft have made 

previously inaccessible Refuge areas 

susceptible to adverse habitat and 

wildlife impacts. Their use has 

increased wildlife-human interactions, 

involving disruption of roosting, 

foraging, and nesting birds over large 

areas of the Jersey Coast Refuges. 

The Service will increase its education 

and outreach efforts regarding the 

responsible use of personal water craft, 

and will work closely with the State to 

seek solutions for resolving this 

perplexing problem. 

Mosquito control

Several species of mosquitoes found in 

coastal New Jersey are important vectors 

of potentially lethal diseases, including 

Eastern Equine Encephalitis and West Nile 

Virus. The Service is striving to 

responsibly address risks to public 

health and safety and to protect trust 

resources from mosquito borne diseases 

and the impacts of pesticides on wildlife 

and the ecosystem. The Service and the 

mosquito control agencies in New Jersey 

and Delaware are working to develop new 

strategies for mosquito control, with 

appropriate NEPA compliance. The public 

will have the opportunity to review and 

comment on the proposed strategies before 

they are finalized. 

Control of resident Canada geese

Resident Canada geese are having a 

growing impact on communities across the 

country. Increasing urban and suburban 

development in the United States has 

resulted in the creation of ideal goose 

habitat conditions including park-like 

areas with short grass adjacent to small 

bodies of water. 

These habitat conditions have enticed 

rapidly growing numbers of locally 

breeding geese to live here year round. 

These resident goose populations are 

increasingly coming into conflict with 

human activities in many parts of the 

country. Large flocks of resident geese 

have serious impacts, on both wildlife 

and people: geese grazing in large 

numbers cause major habitat destruction, 

reducing the amount of critical forage 

available for migratory geese and other 

waterfowl during migration; high 

concentrations of goose droppings in 

lakes can cause excessive algae growth, 

leading to fish kills; high 

concentrations of goose droppings can 

also create health hazards to humans; and 

resident geese can denude lawns of 

vegetation. 

To help address this problem, the Service 

issued special Canada goose permits to 

states in the summer of 1999. The 

permits are designed to give states 

greater flexibility and opportunity to 

design management programs to control 

specific resident Canada goose 

populations. The permit program was 
 

 Purpose of and Need for Action 

 I

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment – 

July 

2000

designed as a short-term program until a 

comprehensive long-term management 

strategy can be developed and 

implemented. 

The Service is preparing an EIS to lay 

out alternatives for dealing with all 

the resident Canada goose problems. The 

EIS will be completed in 2001.

Control of white geese

Populations of white geese – a term that 

encompasses greater and lesser snow geese 

and Ross’ geese – have increased 

dramatically in the last 30 years. The 

species of primary concern in the Jersey 

Coast Refuge area is the greater snow 

goose. 

Numbers of lesser snow geese and Ross’ 

geese have grown from 300,000 birds in 

1969 to more than 3 million birds today. 

 Numbers of greater snow geese have 

grown from fewer than 50,000 in the late 

1960's to about 800,000 today. 

As a result, the geese have destroyed 

and damaged vast areas of their 

sensitive Arctic breeding grounds as 

well as local migration stopover areas. 

 This negatively impacts not only the 

geese, but for all the plants and the 

other animals in these areas. 

The Service is preparing an EIS to lay 

out alternatives for dealing with all 

the white goose population problems. 

The EIS will be completed in May 2001.

Step-down Management Plans 

Step-down management planning is the 

formulation of detailed plans for 

meeting goals and objectives identified 

in the CCP. These plans describe the 

specific strategies and implementation 

schedules we are to follow, “stepping 

down” from general goals and objectives. 

 They may be addressed in detail during 

preparation of the CCP, or prepared 

following completion of the CCP. The 

preparation of new step-down management 

plans or substantial changes to existing 

plans typically require further NEPA 

compliance and an opportunity for public 

review. 

The Refuge System Manual, Part 4, 

Chapter 3, lists over 25 specific 

management plans that are generally 

required on every Refuge. Some plans 

require annual revisions, others are on 

a 5 to 10 year revision schedule. There 

are separate step-down management plans 

for each of the two Jersey Coast 

Refuges. 

The following step-down management plans 

are currently being revised: 

· Fire Management Plan; 

· Habitat Management Plan. 

The following step-down management plans 

are considered “dated” and in need of 

revision or do not exist:

· Wildlife Population Management 

Plan, including trapping; 

· Wilderness Management Plan 

(Forsythe Refuge only); 

· Integrated Pest Management Plan, 

including chapters for each 

problem species; 

· Priority Wildlife-Dependent 

Recreation Plan, including 

hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, 

environmental education and 

interpretation.
I Purpose of and Need for Action 

 

 

I - 20 Jersey Coast Refuges
 

 Purpose of and Need for Action 

 I

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment – 

July 

2000
II Alternatives 

 

II - 2 Jersey Coast Refuges

Management Directions Common to 

all Alternatives

The Compatibility Determination 

Federal law and policy provide the direction and 

planning framework to protect the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (Refuge System) from incompatible 

or harmful human activities and to insure that 

Americans can enjoy Refuge System lands and 

waters. The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of1966, as amended by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 (Refuge Improvement Act), is the key 

legislation on managing public uses and 

compatibility. 

Before activities or uses are allowed on a National 

Wildlife Refuge, the uses must be found to be a 

Acompatible use.@ A compatible use is a use, A...that 

will not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or 

the purposes of the refuge.@ AWildlife-dependent 

recreational uses may be authorized on a refuge 

when they are compatible and not inconsistent with 

public safety. Except for consideration of 

consistency with State laws and regulations as 

provided for in section (m), no other determinations 

or findings are required to be made by the refuge 

official under this Act or the Refuge Recreation Act 

for wildlife-dependent recreation to occur.@ (Refuge 

Improvement Act) 

A number of compatibility determinations have been 

prepared over the years covering a variety of uses 

currently taking place on both Edwin B. Forsythe 

and Cape May National Wildlife Refuges (Jersey 

Coast Refuges). These compatibility determinations 

remain in effect and are being re-certified as part of 

this effort to prepare Comprehensive Conservation 

Plans (CCPs) for both Refuges.

Interim Compatibility Determination

An interim compatibility determination is one which 

assesses the compatibility of an activity during the 

period from the time the Service first acquires a 

parcel of land to when a formal long-term 

management plan for the parcel is prepared and 

adopted. The Service has completed interim 

compatibility determinations for the six priority 

general public uses of the System listed in the 

Refuge Improvement Act, hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation. (The interim 

compatibility determinations may be found in 

Appendix N.) The Act defines these six priority 

general public uses as Awildlife-dependent 

recreation@ and Awildlife-dependent recreational 

use.@ 

These interim compatibility determinations cover 

both of the Jersey Coast Refuges. It covers the 

period between Service acquisition of a parcel and 

the formal adoption of a long-term management plan 

for the parcel. (See Table 2.1.) 

Table 2.1 Interim Compatibility for Wildlifedependent Recreational Activities at the Jersey 

Coast Refuges. 

Wildlifedependent 

Recreational 

Activities 

Existing 

Activities

? 

Compatible 

for 

Interim 

Use? 

Interim 

Use 

Allowed?

Hunting Yes Yes Yes 

Fishing from bank Yes Yes Yes 

Fishing from boat Yes Yes Yes 

Wildlife 

Observation 

Yes Yes Yes 

Wildlife 

Photography 

Yes Yes Yes 

Environmental 

Education 

No Yes Yes 

Interpretation No Yes Yes

The interim compatibility determinations cover the 

existing priority general public uses taking place 

within the proposed Land Protection Focus Areas 

(Focus Areas) described in the Service=s Proposed 

Action in this Revised Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

(CCP/EA). (See Alternative B - The Service=s 

Proposed Action beginning on page II-55, Maps 2-8a, 

b, c, and d, beginning on page II-35, and Maps 2-16a 

and b, beginning on page II-53.) These Focus Areas 

are lands outside the currently approved Refuge 

acquisition boundary. The interim compatibility 

determinations do not cover existing priority general 

public uses on lands within the currently approved 

Refuge acquisition boundary. The CCP/EA sets 

forth the management for all lands within the 

currently approved Refuge acquisition boundary B

regardless of whether the Service already owns the 

properties or not. 
Several of the six priority general public uses occur 

on lands within the proposed Focus Areas. The 

current levels of hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, environmental 

education and interpretation taking place on these 

lands do not seem to be negatively impacting fish, 

wildlife, or plant resources. 

Current levels of the six priority general public uses 

in the proposed Focus Areas would be compatible 

with the mission of the Refuge System and the 

purposes for which the Jersey Coast Refuges were 

established. The proposed Focus Areas have little 

estuarine habitat important to the Atlantic Brant, 

black ducks or rails, or important estuarine feeding 

and resting habitat for ducks or brant. The Refuges 

would allow the current levels of hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and wildlife photography to 

continue in the interim. We would monitor impacts 

of these uses and adjust levels and locations as 

appropriate through the adoption of long-term 

management plans. 

Walking, hiking and bicycling done for exercise and 

enjoyment of the outdoors occur on lands within the 

proposed Focus Areas. To eliminate conflicts 

between user groups, we would terminate bicycling 

on property within the proposed Focus Areas as soon 

as the Service acquired and posted a property within 

these areas. Walking and hiking would be allowed 

to continue at their current levels in the interim. 

We would monitor impacts of these uses and adjust 

levels and locations as appropriate through the 

adoption of long-term management plans. 

All terrain vehicle (ATV), dirt bike, and mountain 

bike riding occurs on some lands in the proposed 

Focus Areas. These activities negatively impact 

physical and biological resources, and are therefore 

not compatible with the purposes for which the 

Jersey Coast Refuges were established. To 

eliminate negative impacts, we would terminate 

these activities on property within the proposed 

Focus Areas as soon as the Service acquired and 

posted a property within these areas. 

Administrative Separation of the Jersey 

Coast Refuges

The Service intends to administratively separate 

Cape May Refuge from Forsythe Refuge. The two 

Refuges were joined in 1995 for funding and 

administrative purposes. Development of this 

document and identification of management actions 

in the CCPs for each Refuge provides the Service the 

opportunity to administratively separate them. 

Within the next five years, depending upon the 

availability of adequate resources, the Service will 

separate the two Refuges. After they have been 

separated, both Refuges will have their own Refuge 

Managers and appropriate staffs. We would, 

however, continue to coordinate biological 

management between Refuges to achieve wildlife 

population, habitat, and ecosystem management 

goals and objectives. The biological activities at both 

Refuges involve many of the same techniques, 

expertise, and species and community types. 

Continued coordination would benefit the resource, 

and provide greater efficiency in program 

management. 

Potential Land Protection Methods

Land protection priority would be given to lands 

adjacent to Service-owned lands within existing 

Refuge boundaries, and also to larger contiguous 

tracts. Known hazardous waste sites or 

contaminated areas will be excluded from 

consideration. All land transactions are subject to 

contaminant surveys. 

Funding for land acquisition will come from the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund and the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, under the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act. Except in 

unusual cases, developed parcels within the current 

acquisition boundary or proposed Focus Areas would 

not be acquired. 

The Service=s land acquisition policy is to obtain the 

minimum interest necessary to satisfy Refuge 

objectives. Conservation easements can sometimes 

be used in this context, when they can be shown to 

be a cost-effective method of protection. In general, 

any conservation easement must preclude 

destruction or degradation of habitat, and allow 

Refuge staff to adequately manage uses of the area 

for the benefit of wildlife. Because development 

rights must be included, the cost of purchasing 

conservation easements often approaches that of fee 

title purchase, thus rendering this method less 

practical. Nevertheless, donations of easements or 

voluntary deed restrictions prohibiting habitat 

destruction would be encouraged. In addition, the 

Service could negotiate management agreements 

with local and State agencies, and accept 

conservation easements on upland tracts. 

Some parcels within the proposed Refuge Focus 

Area may already be owned by State, local 

governments, or private conservation organizations. 

 The Service would work with interested agencies to 

identify additional areas needing protection and 

provide technical assistance if needed. 
II Alternatives 

 

II - 4 Jersey Coast Refuges

Property Taxes, Refuge Revenue Sharing, 

Relocation, and Landowner Rights

 

The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of June 15, 1935, 

as amended, provides annual payments to taxing 

authorities, based on acreage and value of Refuge 

lands located within their jurisdiction. In 1999, the 

Service paid, $114,414 to Ocean County 

communities, $10,006 to Burlington County 

communities, $85,410 to Atlantic County 

communities, and $80,646 to Cape May County 

communities. 

Money for these payments comes from the sale of oil 

and gas leases, timber sales, grazing fees, and the 

sale of other Refuge System resources and from 

Congressional appropriations. The Congressional 

appropriations are intended to make up the 

difference between the net receipts from the Refuge 

Revenue Sharing Fund and the total amount due to 

local taxing authorities. The actual Refuge Revenue 

Sharing Payment does vary from year to year, 

because Congress may or may not appropriate 

sufficient funds to make full payment. The actual 

payments made in 1999 were 62.25% of full 

payment. 

The Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments are based 

on one of three different formulas, whichever results 

in the highest payment to the local taxing authority. 

 In New Jersey, the payments are based on threequarters of one percent of the appraised fair market 

value. The purchase price of a property is 

considered its fair market value until the property is 

reappraised. The Service reappraises the value of 

Refuge lands every five years. 

On wetlands and formerly farmland-assessed 

properties in New Jersey, the full entitlement 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments sometimes 

exceed the real estate tax. However, Refuge 

Revenue Sharing payments are more often less than 

the real estate tax. 

The fact that Refuges put little demand on the 

infrastructure of a municipality, must be considered 

in assessing the financial impact on the 

municipality. For example, there is no extra 

demand placed on the school system, roads, utilities, 

police and fire protection, etc. There is a substantial 

body of literature that shows that development, 

especially residential development, actually costs a 

community more in schools, roads, sewers and other 

services than the tax revenue generated by the 

development (Land Trust Alliance, 1994). 

The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as 

amended, provides certain relocation benefits to 

home owners, businessmen, and farm operators who 

are displaced as a result of Federal land acquisition. 

 The law provides benefits to eligible owners and 

tenants for reimbursement of reasonable moving 

expenses, replacement of housing payments under 

certain conditions, relocation assistance services, 

and reimbursement of certain expenses incurred in 

selling real property to the Government. 

The owner of land adjacent to Refuge land or within 

an approved Refuge acquisition boundary or a 

proposed Refuge Focus Area, retains any and all the 

rights, privileges, and responsibilities of private land 

ownership. This includes the right of access, 

hunting, vehicle use, control of trespass, right to sell 

to any party, and the obligation to pay real estate 

taxes. The Refuge controls uses only on the 

properties it owns.

Monitoring and Adaptive Management

The Final CCPs for each Refuge will cover a 15-year 

period. Periodic review of the CCP will be required 

to ensure that established goals and objectives are 

being met and that the Plan is being implemented as 

scheduled. To assist this review process, a 

monitoring and evaluation program would be 

implemented, focusing on issues involving public use 

activities, and wildlife habitat and population 

management. 

Monitoring of public use programs would involve the 

continued collection and compilation of visitation 

figures and activity levels. In addition, research and 

monitoring programs would be established to assess 

the impacts of public use activities on wildlife and 

wildlife habitat, conflicts between Refuge users, and 

identify compatible levels of public use activities. 

We would reduce these activities if we determine 

that incompatible levels of public use were 

occurring. 

Collection of baseline data on all wildlife populations 

and habitats would be implemented. This data 

would update existing records of wildlife species 

using the Refuges, their habitat requirements, and 

seasonal use patterns. This data would also be used 

to evaluate the effects of public use and habitat 

management programs on wildlife populations. 

Refuge habitat management programs would be 

continually monitored for positive and negative 

impacts on wildlife habitat and populations and the 

ecological integrity of the ecosystem, and to 
 

Alternatives II

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000

determine if these management activities are 

helping to meet Refuge goals and objectives. 

Information resulting from monitoring would allow 

staff to set more specific and better management 

objectives, more rigorously evaluate management 

objectives, and ultimately, make better management 

decisions. 

Ecosystem Services

Refuge lands provide substantial value to society 

through ecosystem services. These services (i.e., 

nutrient cycling, erosion control and sediment 

retention, water supply) represent benefits human 

populations derive, directly or indirectly, from 

ecosystem functions. Ecosystem services consist of 

the flow of material and energy from natural capital 

stocks (i.e., vegetation, minerals, the atmosphere) 

which combine with manufactured and human 

capital services to produce human welfare. 

Ecosystem services and the natural capital stocks 

that produce them are critical to the functioning of 

the earth=s life support system. Appendix F lists 17 

ecosystem services, the related ecosystem functions, 

and examples of how society benefits from them. 

Accessibility

Each Refuge will operate its programs or activities 

so that when viewed in its entirety, it is readily 

accessible to and useable by disabled persons. The 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, requires 

that programs and facilities be, to the highest 

degree feasible, readily accessible to and useable by 

all persons who have a disability. 

Protection and Management of Cultural 

Resources

The Service has a legal responsibility to consider the 

effects its actions have on archeological and historic 

resources. Under all alternatives, the Service will 

comply with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act before conducting any ground 

disturbing activities. Compliance may require any 

or all of the following: State Historic Preservation 

Records survey, literature survey, or field survey. 

Volunteer Opportunities and Educational 

Programs

As the Jersey Coast Refuges continue to contribute 

to the quality of life on the New Jersey coast, strong 

support in the community and the region will 

continue to contribute to their success. Helping 

hands are needed for program development, data 

gathering, and other opportunities discussed in the 

Alternatives. Only with this type of assistance can 

the Refuge achieve its goals and objectives, support 

the mission of the Service, and help meet the needs 

of the community. 

The volunteer program at Forsythe Refuge has been 

growing steadily. In 1990, volunteers provided more 

than 2,300 hours of assistance to the Refuge. In 

1999, volunteers provided about 3,900 hours of 

volunteer service. 

Much of this volunteer work was done by 60 core 

volunteers, five active Friends Group members, 

three schools who brought groups to work on specific 

problems and two Eagle scouts working on their 

projects. 

In addition, 65 one-time volunteers provided 756 

hours of service for a ACommunity Tree Planting 

project@ and another 90 onetime volunteers gave 360 

hours of service on AMake a Difference Day@. 

Volunteers are essential to the ongoing and planned 

operation and maintenance of the Jersey Coast 

Refuges. We are deeply indebted to all of our 

volunteers for their dedication and services rendered 

for the betterment of our nation=s natural resources. 

Volunteers participate in a wide variety of activities. 

 These include wildlife and wildlands photography, 

interpretation, providing information, observation 

and surveys of endangered species, such as, 

peregrine falcons and piping plovers, botanical 

surveys, fabrication of wood duck and bluebird 

boxes, waterfowl surveys and research assistance, 

litter pickup, trail clearing and maintenance, sign 

rehabilitation, and other maintenance projects. 

Other Partnership Opportunities

Nineteen Americorps members contributed a total of 

17,710 hours of work to Forsythe Refuge performing 

such tasks as construction of an observation 

platform, clearing trails, painting facilities, and 

creating the AAt the Refuge@ program. Americorps 

members performed the AAt the Refuge@ puppet 

show at a local hospital, a senior citizen home, and 

the Children=s Seashore House. Others participated 

in special events such as the International 

Migratory Bird Day, National Wildlife Refuge Day 
II Alternatives 

 

II - 6 Jersey Coast Refuges

and the 60th anniversary of Forsythe Refuge. 

The CCP/EA=s proposed Alternatives discuss ways to 

increase educational and interpretive programs 

through a Refuge Support Group. 

 
 

Alternatives II

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000

Alternative A B the No Action 

Alternative

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife 

Refuge

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no 

change in our current management programs at 

Forsythe Refuge. Seasonal travel and parking of 

motor vehicles would continue to be allowed in the 

Holgate Unit of the Brigantine Wilderness Area, on 

lands above mean high tide, in violation of the 

Wilderness s Act of 1964. 

We would initiate few, if any, new wildlife 

population, habitat or ecosystem management 

activities, provide no new public recreation 

opportunities, and undertake no new major land 

acquisition efforts. The Refuge would continue to 

pursue land acquisition and Refuge operations and 

maintenance under it=s current staffing and funding 

levels. (See also Table 2-2. Actions and Strategies 

Matrix for Forsythe Refuge, beginning on page II74.) 

Habitat and Wildlife Populations

We would continue to protect and monitor the piping 

plover and the swamp pink (Federally listed 

threatened species). Piping plover management 

activities would include identifying nests, 

establishing exclosures to protect nests, controlling 

mammal predators (red fox and feral cats), and 

monitoring plover numbers on a regular basis. The 

Refuge management objectives for piping plovers 

are 25 nesting pairs at Holgate and 25 nesting pairs 

at Little Beach Island (total of 50 nesting pairs). 

Swamp pink management activities would include 

annual visits to known populations, and periodic 

trimming of surrounding woody vegetation to 

prevent overgrowth of the sites. 

A step-down habitat management plan, detailing 

habitat objectives and implementation strategies 

would be completed. We have already developed a 

preliminary habitat prescription for all currently 

owned Refuge lands. However, the only habitats 

that we would actively manage are the Barnegat 

and Brigantine Impoundments (water level 

management, phragmites control, dike and water 

structure maintenance) which occupy only 4% of the 

Forsythe Refuge. Do to the lack of adequate funding 

and staff, we would not actively pursue the other 

habitat management objectives contained in the 

step-down habitat management plan, except for 

those habitat types that are targeted for natural 

regeneration (e.g., conversion of old field to upland 

forest). (See Maps 2-1a, b, c and d beginning on 

page II-13.) 

We would continue current population baseline 

surveys (song bird point counts, Monitoring Avian 

Production and Survivorship banding program, frog 

call surveys) as long as non-base funding for these 

activities is available. We would continue current 

monitoring programs (weekly bird count at the 

Brigantine Impoundment, shorebird survey). We 

would seek to establish partners-based monitoring 

programs for contaminants (USFWS Ecological 

Services, EPA, NJDEP) and water quality (USGS, 

NJDEP, Barnegat Bay Estuary Program). 

We would continue to provide minimal on-site 

support for research projects. Current research at 

the Refuge includes: assessing the impact of sealevel rise on marsh dynamics and bird use, and 

energetics of black ducks. We would continue to 

identify research needs to the Regional Research 

Coordinator and to potential research partners (e.g., 

USGS, Biological Resources Division). 

The current Refuge trapping activities to protect 

endangered and threatened species from predators 

(e.g., foxes and raccoons in piping plover areas), to 

protect Refuge infrastructure (e.g., muskrats that 

burrow in Refuge dikes), and to maintain furbearer 

populations at levels consistent with objectives for 

Refuge and surrounding habitat would be continued. 

 Trapping currently occurs under contract and 

Refuge special use permits. Maps 2-2a, b, c and d, 

beginning on page II-17, show the current Refuge 

special use permit trapping areas. 

Invasive and Overabundant Species 

We would continue use a combination of herbicide 

use, prescribed burning, mowing and water level 

management to control approximately 150 acres of 

phragmites per year in the Refuge impoundments. 

Public hunting to control populations of snow geese 

and resident Canada geese would also continue, as 

would nest disruption on the Refuge to limit 

production of resident Canada geese. These 

activities would continue until further planning 

prescribes other actions. 

Pesticide Use

We would continue current levels of pesticide use for phragmites and mosquito control, which largely 
II Alternatives 

 

II - 8 Jersey Coast Refuges

follow an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) 

approach. Mosquito control activities include 

surveillance, pesticide application, and Open Marsh 

Water Management (OMWM). We would continue to 

allow OMWM in previously ditched Refuge salt 

marshes to aid in biological control of mosquitos. 

We would not allow OMWM in the pristine, 

unditched Refuge salt marshes in the Brigantine 

Wilderness Area. Information on the location of 

these activities is available from the respective 

county mosquito control agency or the Refuge. 

All mosquito control activities on the Refuge are 

funded and implemented by county mosquito control 

agencies and the State, under an ongoing 

Cooperative Agreement which is being renegotiated. 

 Current mosquito control efforts on the Refuge 

would continue until further planning prescribes 

other actions. 

Big Game Hunting

The current Refuge deer hunting program would 

continue. Deer hunting is allowed, by permit, in the 

following Deer Management Zones (DMZ): 

# DMZ 56 in Atlantic Co., south of Stoney 

Hill Road; 

# DMZ 57 in Atlantic Co., north of Stoney 

Hill Road; 

# DMZ 58 in Burlington and Ocean Counties. 

 (See Maps 2-3a, b, and c beginning on page 

II-21.) 

All three zones are open for the permit shotgun 

season; 20 permits are available for DMZ 56, 35 for 

DMZ 57, and 50 for DMZ 58. DMZs 57 and 58 are 

also open for the permit bow and muzzle loader 

seasons; 35 permits are available for each zone for 

the permit bow season; 35 permits are available for 

DMZ 57 and 40 for DMZ 58 for muzzle loader 

season. 

Upland Game Hunting 

The entire Refuge would continue to be closed to 

upland game hunting. 

Migratory Game Bird Hunting

We would continue waterfowl, rail, and moorhen 

hunting in designated hunt units. (See Maps 2-4a, 

b, c and d beginning on page II-25.) Currently, 

about 40% of Refuge lands are open to migratory 

game bird hunting. The hunt units have regulations 

designed to provide a variety of opportunities for 

quality hunting experiences. 

Fishing

We would continue to offer a boat launching ramp 

and car parking area at Scotts Landing (Atlantic 

Co., Galloway Township). 

Freshwater fishing opportunities would continue to 

be provided at Lily Lake (Atlantic Co., Galloway 

Township), including bank fishing from the south 

shore and boat fishing. Boats at Lily Lake may not 

have internal combustion engines. (See Maps 2-5a 

and b beginning on page II-29.) 

We would continue to offer saltwater fishing 

opportunities at: 

# Cedar Creek (Ocean Co., Stafford 

Township) off Stafford Avenue; 

# Cedar Run Creek (Ocean Co., Eagleswood 

Township) off Cedar Run Dock Road; 

# Parker Run (Ocean Co., Little Egg Harbor 

Township) off Dock Road; 

# Gravelling Point (Ocean Co., Little Egg 

Harbor Township) near the end of Radio 

Road. 

Motorized vehicles are not permitted beyond 

designated parking areas at any of these locations. 

We would also continue to offer seasonal saltwater 

fishing opportunities at Holgate (Ocean Co., Long 

Beach Township) within the Brigantine Wilderness 

Area. (See Wilderness Management beginning on 

page II-8.) 

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Existing wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities would continue to be provided. (See 

Maps 2-6a, b, c and d beginning on page II-31.) 

Visitors would continue to be able to observe and 

photograph wildlife: 

# along the Wildlife Drive and from its two 

observation towers and associated foot 

trails; 

# on the newly developed trail at Reedy Creek 

in Brick Township; 

# from the observation deck at the Barnegat 
 

Alternatives II

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000

impoundments; 

# seasonally at Holgate. 

Refuge visitors would continue to be allowed to 

bicycle and walk on the Wildlife Drive. These 

activities would be monitored and periodically 

reviewed to determine if they are negatively 

impacting wildlife resources or create conflicts with 

other users. If it is determined that impacts or 

conflicts are occurring, those activities would be 

curtailed. 

We would also continue to maintain the interpretive 

signs and provide Refuge brochures at all of our 

existing Refuge public use sites. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Present levels of environmental education and 

interpretation would be continued. An average of 

3,000 to 5,000 students visit the Refuge each year, 

brought in by teachers from near and far. The 

Refuge auditorium, currently undergoing extensive 

renovation and the installation of new displays, 

would be reopened to the general public and 

organized groups, such as schools, on weekdays. 

We would continue to provide planning for class 

visits and informational assistance as needed. 

Many class visits are supplemented by orientations 

and videos upon arrival at the Refuge Headquarters 

auditorium. Trails, interpretive signs, and 

brochures for the Wildlife Drive and the Holgate 

Unit assist in interpretation. Environmental 

education classes may request special use permits 

for such activities as seining or collecting soil, water, 

or vegetation samples. The newly developed 

Friends of Forsythe would give occasional group 

tours of the wildlife drive, when requested in 

advance. 

We would also continue to maintain the interpretive 

signs and provide Refuge brochures at all of our 

existing Refuge public use sites. 

Wilderness Management

We would continue to offer seasonal saltwater surf 

fishing opportunities at the Holgate Unit (Ocean 

Co., Long Beach Township) within the Brigantine 

National Wilderness Area (Wilderness Area). (See 

Map 1-2 on page I-5.) Seasonal travel and parking 

of motor vehicles would continue to be allowed in the 

Holgate Unit on lands above mean high tide, in 

violation of the Wilderness s Act of 1964. Seasonal 

motor vehicle use in adjacent lands below the mean 

high tide line (State-owned riparian lands) would 

continue to be allowed under State law. These 

State-owned riparian lands are not part of the 

Refuge or the Wilderness Area. We would not 

survey or post the mean high tide line at the 

Holgate Unit. 

All of the Holgate Peninsula, above and below the 

mean high tide line, would continue to be closed to 

all public access during the piping plover breeding 

season (April through August). The piping plover is 

Federally-listed as threatened and State-listed as 

endangered. The southern tip of Holgate may also 

be closed beyond September 1, to protect latenesting black skimmers. 

Little Beach Island (Atlantic Co., Galloway 

Township) within the Brigantine Wilderness Area 

would continue to be closed to all public access yearround. 

Migratory game bird hunting in salt marshes that 

are in designated migratory game bird hunt units 

within the Brigantine Wilderness Area would 

continue to be allowed. 

We would continue to use full-sized motor vehicles 

(Off-road Vehicles, four-wheel drive trucks) 

primarily below the mean high tide line for law 

enforcement and, periodically, for partners to assist 

stranded marine mammals and sea turtles. We 

would continue to use low-ground pressure All 

Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) to perform management 

activities at Holgate during the piping plover 

breeding season. 

Air quality would continue to be monitored at an 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) site to track visibility 

and compounds affecting visibility (smog 

components, particulates, perceived air quality). We 

would also continue to monitor air quality at a 

National Atmospheric Monitoring Program (NADP) 

site to characterize precipitation chemistry (e.g., 

acidity, conductance, etc.). 

A Wilderness Review of all lands acquired since 

1972 would be conducted as part of the revision of 

the Refuge CCP in 2015 to determine what 

additional areas meet the criteria for possible 

Wilderness designation. 

Land Protection

We would maintain the present rate of land 

acquisition to acquire the remaining 12,300 acres of 

land within the currently approved 56,600 acre 

Refuge acquisition boundary. (See Maps 2-7a, b, c 
II Alternatives 

 

II - 10 Jersey Coast Refuges

and d beginning on page II- 35.) The Service would 

continue its policy of buying from willing sellers and 

focus its land acquisition efforts on developable 

upland properties first. 

The approved Refuge acquisition area includes the 

535-acre Forked River State Game Farm in Lacey 

Township, which is no longer needed by the New 

Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife. 

To acquire the remaining 12,300 acres of land within 

the approved Refuge acquisition area, we would 

require an additional $19,700,000 (average cost of 

$1,600 per acre), This figure does not include 

incidental acquisition costs. The average annual 

Land and Water Conservation appropriation for this 

Refuge, based on the five-year period, FY-1995/1999, 

is $1,700,000. 

We would maintain the present level of participation 

in off-Refuge land use planning efforts with 

governmental and private partners (e.g., the 

Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program and the 

Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research 

Reserve). 

Resource Protection and Visitor Safety

The current law enforcement staffing level of two 

full-time Park Rangers and one seasonal Park 

Ranger would be maintained. The amount of 

acreage and miles of coastline to patrol per full-time 

officer is 22,000 acres and 25 miles respectively. 

Refuge Buildings and Facilities

No new office or visitor buildings would be 

constructed. The existing Refuge headquarters and 

visitor center building is located at the Brigantine 

Division at the end of Great Creek Road, Oceanville, 

New Jersey. (See Map 2-9c on page II- 41.) The 

eight-mile Wildlife Drive begins at this location. 

Visitor facilities would be remodeled to provide 

higher-quality visitor experiences. There is a 

separate visitor contact station for visitors to obtain 

brochures and other information when the office is 

closed. The existing Barnegat Division field office is 

located on Collinstown Road, Barnegat, New Jersey. 

 (See Map 2-9b on page II-40.)
 

Alternatives II

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000

Alternative A B the No Action 

Alternative

Cape May National Wildlife Refuge

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no 

change in our current management programs at 

Cape May Refuge. We would initiate few, if any, 

new wildlife population, habitat or ecosystem 

management activities, provide no new public 

recreation opportunities, and undertake no new 

major land acquisition efforts. The Refuge would 

continue to pursue land acquisition and Refuge 

operations and maintenance under it=s current 

staffing and funding levels. (See also Table 2-3.

Actions and Strategies Matrix for Cape May Refuge, 

beginning on page II-81.) 

 

Habitat and Wildlife Populations

We would complete a step-down habitat 

management plan, detailing habitat objectives and 

implementation strategies. We have already 

developed a preliminary habitat prescription for all 

currently owned Refuge lands. However, we would 

not actively pursue the habitat management 

objectives contained in the plan, except for those 

habitat types that are targeted for natural 

regeneration (e.g., conversion of old field to upland 

forest). Refuge lands targeted as grasslands would 

continue to be maintained through mowing. (See 

Maps 2-10a and b beginning on page II-42.) 

Baseline population surveys (song bird point counts, 

Monitoring Avian Production and Survivorship 

banding program or MAPS, and frog call surveys), 

would continue as long as non-base funding for these 

activities is available. We would also seek to 

establish a partners-based monitoring program for 

contaminants (with USFWS Ecological Services, 

EPA, and NJDEP) and water quality (with USGS 

and NJDEP). 

We would continue to provide minimal on-site 

support for research projects. 

The entire Refuge would remain closed to public 

trapping. (See Map 2-11 on page II-44.)

Invasive and Overabundant Species

We would not manage invasive species. There 

would be no Refuge special hunts targeting 

populations of snow geese and resident Canada 

geese, which are not now considered to be 

overabundant on the Refuge. 

Pesticide Use

We would continue current levels of pesticide use for 

mosquito control, which largely follow an Integrated 

Pest Management (IPM) approach. We would allow 

Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM) in 

previously ditched Refuge salt marshes to aid in 

biological control of mosquitos. The Cape May 

County Mosquito Control Commission has not used 

pesticides on the Refuge during the last three years. 

 Current mosquito control efforts on the Refuge 

would continue until further planning prescribes 

other actions. 

Big Game Hunting

Virtually the entire Refuge would continue to be 

open for all six of New Jersey=s deer seasons, subject 

to Refuge and State regulations. (See Maps 2-12a 

and b beginning on page II-45.) The two closed 

areas in Middle Township would remain closed. 

Upland Game Hunting

The entire Refuge would continue to be closed to 

upland game hunting. (See Maps 2-13a and b

beginning on page II-47.) 

Migratory Game Bird Hunting

Migratory game bird hunting would continue on the 

Refuge, with no new opportunities provided. (See 

Maps 2-14a and b beginning on page II-49.) All 

Refuge lands west of NJ Route 47 in the Delaware 

Bay Division and all lands east of the power lines in 

the Great Cedar Swamp Division would continue to 

be open to migratory game bird hunting, according 

to State and Refuge regulations. The Refuge would 

be open to hunting the following species: ducks, 

geese, rails, coots, moorhens, mergansers, woodcock, 

and snipe. The Refuge would continue to be closed 

to crow hunting. 

Fishing

The entire Refuge would continue to be closed to 

fishing. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography

We would provide no new opportunities or improved 

facilities for wildlife observation and photography. 

The Woodcock Trail would remain the only improved 

and maintained facility for wildlife observation and 

photography. Existing trails and woodland roads 
II Alternatives 

 

II - 12 Jersey Coast Refuges

would not be improved or maintained. Almost the 

entire Refuge would continue to be available for 

wildlife observation and photography, but would 

probably remain underutilized due to the difficulty 

of access in many areas. (See Maps 2-15a and b 

beginning on page II-51.) 

Environmental Education and Interpretation

No new opportunities for environmental education 

and interpretation would be provided. 

Opportunities would remain limited to the few 

programs provided each year with the help of 

partner organizations. We would continue to 

maintain interpretive signs and provide Refuge 

brochures at existing public use sites. 

Wilderness Management

A Wilderness Review of all Refuge lands would be 

conducted as part of the revision of the Refuge CCP 

in 2015 to determine if any lands should be 

recommended for designation as part of the National 

Wilderness Preservation System.

Land Protection 

 We would continue our efforts to acquire the 

remaining 7,600 acres of inholdings within the 

currently approved Refuge acquisition boundary of 

17,600 acres. (See Maps 2-16a and b beginning on 

page II-53.) The Service would continue its policy of 

buying from willing sellers and focus its land 

acquisition efforts on developable upland properties 

first. 

To acquire the remaining 7,600 acres of land within 

the approved Refuge acquisition area, we would 

require an additional $4,560,000 (average cost of 

$600 per acre). This figure does not include 

incidental acquisition costs. The average annual 

Land and Water Conservation funding for this 

Refuge, based on the five-year period, FY-1995/1999, 

is $1,200,000. 

We would also maintain the present level of 

participation in off-Refuge land use planning efforts 

would continue, with government and private 

partners (e.g., the Migratory Bird Stopover Project). 

Resource Protection and Visitor Safety

The current law enforcement staffing level of one 

full-time and one seasonal Park Ranger would be 

maintained. 

Refuge Buildings and Facilities

No new office or visitor buildings would be 

constructed. The Refuge headquarters is located on 

Kimbles Beach Road, Cape May Court House, New 

Jersey. There is a separate visitor contact kiosk for 

visitors to obtain brochures and other information 

when the office is closed. 
 

Alternatives II

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000
II Alternatives 

 

II - 14 Jersey Coast Refuges

Alternative A B the No Action 

Alternative

Two Mile Beach Unit

The No Action Alternative for the Two Mile Beach 

Unit is one of custodial management. The beach 

would be closed to access by the public. No active 

wildlife or public use management would be 

undertaken, and no public use opportunities would 

be provided. The Service=s major focus would be on 

posting and patrolling the property. We would 

abandon all buildings or improvements in place, 

except those required for the Coast Guard LORAN 

Support Unit. (See also Table 2-4. Actions and 

Strategies Matrix for the Two Mile Beach Unit of 

Cape May Refuge, beginning on page II-85.) 

Habitat and Wildlife Populations

There would be no active management or 

restoration of habitats or wildlife populations, and 

no wildlife surveys would be conducted. 

There would be no public trapping opportunities 

under this Alternative. 

Invasive Species

No new programs would be initiated. 

Pesticide Use

Previous mosquito control efforts (maintenance of 

drainage ditches and tidal flushing of wetlands) 

would continue. 

Beach Access

The beach would be closed to all public use. 

Hunting

There would be no hunting opportunities. The 

Service and the Coast Guard have agreed that 

hunting would not be allowed because of the 

potential for catastrophic damage to the 625' 

LORAN tower if insulators on the support cables 

were damaged. 

Fishing 

There would be no fishing opportunities. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography

There would be no wildlife observation or 

photography opportunities; public access would be 

prohibited. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation

There would be no environmental education 

opportunities or programs; public access would be 

prohibited. 

Refuge Buildings and Facilities

All of the buildings on the property would be kept 

closed, and we would disconnect electrical service in 

selected buildings. We would not do any routine 

maintenance or make repairs to the buildings. All of 

the buildings would deteriorate over time, 

necessitating future demolition due to public safety 

hazards. The Coast Guard would continue to use 

building A-5 under a mutual agreement. 

There are currently 16 buildings or structural 

improvements on the Two Mile Beach Unit property. 

 The Service would abandon the buildings or 

improvements in place, except those buildings which 

must be maintained to assure continued utilities 

access for the Coast Guard LORAN Support Unit. 

All of the improvements on the property are within 

the 100-year floodplain (USCG, 1996). 
 

Alternatives II

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000

Alternative B B The Service=s 

Proposed Action

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife 

Refuge

Under the Service=s Proposed Action, all lands above 

mean high tide in the Holgate Unit of the Brigantine 

Wilderness Area would be closed to motor vehicle 

use by the public year-round in compliance with the 

provisions of the Wilderness Act. We would initiate 

efforts to establish a seasonal boat concession to 

ferry anglers and other Refuge visitors to the 

southern tip of the Holgate Peninsula. 

Refuge staffing and funding levels would be 

increased and we would initiate new wildlife 

population, habitat, and ecosystem management 

activities; provide new compatible wildlifedependent recreational opportunities; increase our 

land protection efforts; and construct new office and 

visitor facilities to support the goals and objectives 

of the Refuge. 

Special emphasis would be placed on the six priority 

general public uses defined in the Refuge 

Improvement Act, i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, environmental 

education and interpretation. Public use surveys, 

along with wildlife and habitat monitoring, would 

help us estimate the volume and impacts of public 

use, and adapt our management strategies for that 

use. (See also Table 2-2. Actions and Strategies 

Matrix for Forsythe Refuge, beginning on page II74.) 

Habitat and Wildlife Populations

We would expand our endangered and threatened 

species management efforts. In addition to 

protecting and monitoring piping plover and swamp 

pink, we would survey all Refuge lands for currently 

and potentially occurring threatened and 

endangered species (Federal and State-listed). 

Newly discovered occurrences would be protected 

and managed to maintain or expand those 

populations. A feasibility assessment would be 

conducted for sites where a listed species does not 

currently occur, but could potentially be restored. 

We would attempt to restore species at restoration 

sites with a reasonable chance for success. 

We would complete the step-down habitat 

management plan as stated in Alternative A and 

implement a comprehensive program of habitat 

management on and off Refuge lands. We have 

already developed a preliminary habitat prescription 

for all currently owned Refuge lands. This 

prescription will be the basis for step down habitat 

management plan. It was developed to provide 

habitat management objectives that characterize a 

desired physiognomic condition (major vegetative 

structure, e.g., forest, grassland, brush, marsh) and 

hydrologic regime (e.g., upland, tidal wetland, nontidal wetland). Specific habitat requirements for 

endangered or other high priority trust resources 

(e.g., piping plover) and ecological communities with 

special emphasis (e.g., Atlantic white cedar swamps) 

were considered in establishing site specific habitat 

objectives. A number of additional guiding 

principles were followed in developing the habitat 

prescription. They are as follows: 

1. salt marshes will be restored to pre-gridditched hydrology; 

2. grasslands or fields would be maximized for 

open land character; 

3. forests would be maximized for interior 

character; 

4. scrub/shrub would be maintained between 

forest and grassland to create soft 

boundaries; 

5. sensitive areas would be buffered; 

6. only native plant species and local 

genotypes would be used; 

7. habitat strategies would favor low intensity 

of maintenance, taking advantage of 

driving systems processes; 

8. the definition of native species, community 

composition, and landscape configuration 

would be based on a pre-colonial baseline; 

9. conversion or restoration of habitat types 

would be done with natural regeneration, 

exceptions might include no seed source, 

threat from exotic species, or physical 

stabilization required. 

 

Listed below are the habitat management objectives 

for Refuge-owned lands. (See also Maps 2-1a, b, c 

and d beginning on page II-13.) 

Marsh, Salt - 27,956 acres would be managed as Salt 

Marsh, comprised of: 5,547 acres of pristine 

unditched marsh that is part of the Brigantine 
II Alternatives 

 

II - 56 Jersey Coast Refuges

Wilderness Area, 22,388 acres of parallel gridditched marsh that would be targeted for restoration 

to pre-ditching hydrology, Salt Marsh restored to 12 

acres of Dredged Lagoon, three acres of Developed 

land, and two acres of Upland Brush. 

Forest, Upland - 5,659 acres would be managed for 

Upland Forest. Of the total acreage, 733 acres 

would be converted (allowed to regrow) from Upland 

Brush and 30 acres from Crop-Pasture; restoration 

would be required on 49 acres of Developed land, 

three acres of Dredged Lagoon, and a three acre 

Sand-Gravel Pit. 

Marsh, Impoundment - 1,685 acres of marsh would 

be managed under the Brigantine and Barnegat 

Impoundment Systems. Water levels and flow are 

actively manipulated throughout the year to 

produce mud flats, deep water (with submerged 

aquatic vegetation), moist soil (with annual wetland 

plants), and salt marsh. Although the 

impoundments are managed with current resources, 

additional resources are needed to replace obsolete 

water control structures and continue rehabilitation 

of the dikes. 

Dune - Beach - 589 acres would be managed as 

barrier island dune - beach habitat; the actual 

acreage would vary based on the highly dynamic 

shoreline changes. Most of the acreage lies within 

the Brigantine Wilderness Area (Holgate Unit and 

Little Beach Island), and, with the exception of 

control for exotic species, would be left largely to 

natural processes. One 11 acre area would be 

created from a Dredge Spoil Site. 

Forest, Wetland - 581 acres would be managed as 

Wetland Forests, with 2 acres restored from a SandGravel Pit. Additional research may support 

Atlantic White Cedar restoration in current Wetland 

Forest sites. 

Brush, Wetland/Bog - 197 acres would be managed 

as same habitat type, generally in a complex with 

Cedar Swamp Forests. One 36 acre site, Cedar Run 

Bog, is a former diked cranberry bog, and would be 

restored to its pre-diked shoreline with fish passage 

opened. 

Brush, Upland - 196 acres would be maintained or 

converted to early succession brushy uplands. 

Mechanical or fire techniques would be used to 

maintain 112 acres in a brushy state, 34 acres of 

brush would be allowed to regrow from crop/pasture 

or developed cover types, and 50 acres of upland 

forest would be set back to a brushy state. 

Grassland - 178 acres would be managed for 

Grassland habitat (native grasses and forbs). 

Grassland would be restored from Developed (139 

acres, includes dikes of impoundments), CropPasture (24), Dredge Spoil Site (15), and Upland 

Brush (15). Most areas currently covered with 

grasses and forbs are dominated by exotic and 

invasive species, requiring active restoration to 

native species. 

Forest, Island - 118 acres would be managed as 

Forest Island in salt marshes and bays of the 

estuary, of which 93 acres would be rehabilitated 

dredge spoil sites. 

Water, Open - 96 acres would be managed as Open 

Fresh Water, with a priority to restore fish passage 

to any corridor restrictions. There are also 

thousands of acres of non-Refuge navigable wasters 

interlacing and adjacent to other Refuge habitats 

(e.g. salt marshes). Navigable waters will be 

monitored for water quality and fish and wildlife use 

in cooperation with the State. 

Marsh, Fresh Non-tidal - 45 acres would be 

maintained as Fresh Non-tidal Marsh. 

Forest, Pitch-Pine Lowland - 24 acres would be 

maintained as Pitch-Pine Lowland Forest. 

Forest, Cedar Swamp - 20 acres of sand/gravel pit 

would be restored to Cedar Swamp Forest habitat, 

and 239 acres would be maintained as the same. 

Developed - 17 acres associated with offices and 

other Refuge facilities would remain as developed. 

This area would be landscaped with native plants to 

support Refuge activities and reduce negative 

impacts on wildlife. 

Dredged Lagoon - 15 acres would not be changed 

unless further study indicates that it could be 

converted to another cover type, such as salt marsh, 

in a legal and ecologically sound manner. 

Prescribed fire would be applied to all of the upland 

habitats, as follows: 

Upland Forest - reduce hazardous fuel, reduce 

overstory stand density, reduce understory density, 

increase heath or grass/forb density, control invasive 

species; frequency of burning - once every 8-15 years. 

Upland Brush - reduce hazardous fuel, set back 

succession, control invasive species; frequency of 

burning - 0nce every 5-15 years. 
 

Alternatives II

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000

Grassland - reduce hazardous fuel, set back 

succession (woody growth), control invasive species; 

frequency of burning - once every 1-3 years. 

Further detail on the prescribed burning program 

would be provided in the Fire Management Plan and 

Burn Prescriptions. Research and monitoring would 

provide refinement in the burn frequency and 

prescriptions. 

A private lands habitat restoration plan would be 

developed and implemented in cooperation with 

other agencies and organizations that have private 

lands programs, such as the Service=s Ecological 

Services Division, and the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture=s Natural Resource Conservation 

Service and Forest Service. 

We would conduct comprehensive baseline flora and 

fauna surveys of plants, raptors, water birds, fish, 

reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, and mammals. 

From the baseline surveys (including song bird point 

counts, frog call surveys, and MAPS banding 

stations), we would establish a long-term monitoring 

program (infrequent but periodic sampling - e.g., 

sample a group for five years, every 15 years). We 

would also implement species monitoring before and 

after major habitat management projects, and 

expand use of Geography Information Systems (GIS) 

to document and model species and habitat. A 

computer archive of data and publications would be 

developed to ensure access to information for staff, 

partners, and the public. 

We would use the results of baseline surveys, project 

evaluation surveys, and monitoring to develop, 

evaluate, and revise management objectives for 

wildlife populations, habitat, and public use. 

We would encourage research not only by 

identifying needs, but in co-developing research 

proposals and pursuing funding through Service and 

non-Service sources. 

New research under this Alternative would include 

the: 

# Impact of mosquito control techniques, such 

as pesticide applications and Open Marsh 

Water Management (OMWM), on wildlife; 

# Impact of different kinds and levels of 

public use on wildlife; 

# Impact of public use on the dynamics of 

beach and shoreline environment; 

# Impact of watershed development on water 

quality/quantity and wetland resources; 

# Pre-colonial ecology of the southern New 

Jersey coastal landscape (e.g., role of fire, 

plant and animal community composition); 

# Assessment of ecological integrity of the 

landscape based upon proposed land 

protection and management. 

Technical assistance would be provided to local 

communities and partners, on wildlife-related issues 

(e.g., wildlife and habitat monitoring; contaminant 

spill planning/response). 

We would initiate efforts to restore colonial nesting 

birds to barrier and bay islands. We would initiate 

research, if necessary, to determine limiting factors 

to successful restoration of bird colonies. 

We would also initiate efforts to identify and manage 

critical habitat on the Refuge for interjurisdictional 

fish. This would be covered in a step-down Wildlife 

Population Management Plan. 

Public trapping opportunities for raccoon, fox, 

muskrat, coyote and beaver, under Refuge special 

use permits, would be expanded into the Reedy 

Creek area in Brick Township, the Stouts Creek 

area in Lacey Township, and the Four Mile Branch 

Bogs area in Stafford Township to manage furbearer 

populations. (See Maps 2-2a, b, c and d beginning on 

page II-17.) 

Invasive and Overabundant Species

We would survey invasive and overabundant species 

on the Refuge, leading to the development and 

implementation of Integrated Pest Management 

(IPM) control strategies for phragmites and at least 

six other problem species. A monitoring program, in 

concert with habitat monitoring, would assess 

progress and identify additional problem species. 

Alternative methods of controlling certain species 

would be researched. We would also offer technical 

assistance and support to restoration and control 

efforts on nearby public and private lands. 

Efforts to manage greater snow and resident Canada 

geese would continue as stated under Alternative A, 

until further planning prescribes other actions. 

Pesticide Use

We would aggressively pursue alternatives to 

pesticides through Integrated Pest Management 

(IPM) efforts. We would offer technical assistance 
II Alternatives 

 

II - 58 Jersey Coast Refuges

on IPM strategies to local communities for 

controlling common problem species. 

Big Game Hunting

The current white-tailed deer hunting program 

would continue. Additional hunting opportunities 

would be provided by enlarging Deer Management 

Zone (DMZ) 58 and establishing handicapped 

accessible sites in DMZ 56. The following areas 

would be added to DMZ 58 (Maps 2-3a, b and c 

beginning on page II-21): 

# Forked River Game Farm, Lacey Township; 

# Former AT&T property, Lacey Township; 

# Selected properties east of US Route 9, 

Eagleswood, Stafford, and Barnegat 

Townships; 

# Middle Branch of Forked River, Lacey 

Township (permit bow season only); 

# Cedar Run Creek between the Garden 

State Parkway and Route 9, in Stafford 

Township (permit bow season only). 

The Refuge would weigh a number of factors in 

actually expanding big game hunting opportunities: 

# the size and configuration of new Refugeowned properties; 

# the availability of public access; 

# safety considerations including the State 

mandated 450-foot safety zone around 

buildings and playgrounds. 

We would reduce these activities if we determine 

that incompatible levels of big game hunting were 

occurring. 

Upland Game Hunting

We would also initiate the Refuge=s first upland 

game hunting opportunities in the Oak Island Unit 

of the Brigantine Division, Bass River Township, 

Ocean County. (See Map 2-4 on page II-24.) A 

parking and sign-in area would be established at the 

old McDonald house site, located on Route 9 in New 

Gretna. 

The Refuge would weigh a number of factors in 

actually expanding upland game hunting 

opportunities: 

# the size and configuration of new Refugeowned properties; 

# the availability of public access; 

# safety considerations including the State 

mandated 450-foot safety zone around 

buildings and playgrounds. 

We would reduce these activities if we determine 

that incompatible levels of upland game hunting 

were occurring. 

Migratory Game Bird Hunting

We would make the following changes in migratory 

game bird hunting opportunities: 

 

# Allow foot access to Brigantine Division 

Unit 5, Little Egg Harbor Township; 

# Allow jump shooting in Barnegat Division 

Unit A, from Jeremy Point in Little Egg 

Harbor Township to Cedar Run Creek in 

Eagleswood Township; 

# Eliminate foot access and jump shooting in 

part of Barnegat Division Unit A from 

Cedar Run Creek in Eagleswood Township, 

to Beach Haven West in Stafford Township; 

# Allow jump shooting and eliminate site 

requirements in the Barnegat Division Unit 

C, Clam Island. 

Detailed maps of the migratory game bird hunting 

units are available from Refuge headquarters. 

We would also open additional areas for waterfowl 

hunting within the following areas (Maps 2-5a, b, c 

and d beginning on page II-25):

# Reedy Creek in Brick Township; 

# Stouts Creek property in Lacey Township; 

# Forked River Game Farm in Lacey 

Township; 

# Former AT&T property, in Lacey Township; 

# Cedar Run Creek, between Route 9 and the 

Garden State Parkway, in Stafford 

Township. 
 

Alternatives II

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000

The Refuge would weigh a number of factors in 

actually expanding migratory game bird hunting 

opportunities: 

# the size and configuration of new Refugeowned properties; 

# the availability of public access; 

# safety considerations including the State 

mandated 450-foot safety zone around 

buildings and playgrounds. 

We would reduce these activities if we determine 

that incompatible levels of migratory game bird 

hunting were occurring. 

Fishing 

We would expand fishing opportunities on the 

Refuge as follows (Maps 2-6a and b beginning on 

page II- 29): 

# By 2002, provide universally accessible 

saltwater fishing and crabbing 

opportunities on the Mullica River (Atlantic 

Co., City of Port Republic) off U. S. Route 9; 

# By 2003, upgrade the saltwater fishing 

opportunities at Cedar Creek, Cedar Run 

Creek and Parker Run; 

# By 2004, provide universally accessible 

freshwater fishing opportunities at Cedar 

Run Bog (Ocean Co., Stafford Township) 

west of U. S. Route 9. 

We would reduce these activities if we determine 

that incompatible levels of fishing were occurring. 

Fishing opportunities in the Wilderness Area are 

discussed under Wilderness Management beginning 

on page II-59. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography

We would open new foot trails, with appropriate 

parking areas, entrance kiosks, and interpretive 

wayside signs at the following locations (Maps 2-7a, 

b, c and d beginning on page II-31): 

# Four Mile Branch Bogs, Stafford Township 

by 2003; 

# Stouts Creek (Murray Grove), Lacy 

Township by 2006; 

# Cedar Run Bog, Stafford Township by 2010; 

# Collinstown Road, Barnegat Township by 

2014. 

We would also: 

# Complete the existing trail and add an 

observation platform at the Reedy Creek 

Trail in Brick Township by 2004; 

# Construct universally accessible 

observation platforms, with appropriate 

parking areas, at Bonnet Island, Stafford 

Township by 2005, & off the Wildlife Drive, 

overlooking the Experimental Pool by 2007; 

# Develop parking sites & kiosks for canoeists 

& kayakers at Westecunk Creek by 2008 & 

Cedar Run Creek by 2012. 

We would reduce these activities if we determine 

that incompatible levels of wildlife observation and 

photography were occurring. 

Wildlife observation and photography opportunities 

in the Wilderness Area are discussed under 

Wilderness Management below. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Our participation in local environmental education 

and outreach events would be increased. We would 

also focus on developing and initiating outreach to 

groups and organizations with which the Service has 

not typically interacted. Outreach efforts and 

environmental education would stress the 

importance of conservation for maintaining all 

citizens' quality of life, and emphasize the positive 

and negative impacts of people on wildlife, including 

the impacts of personal water craft. 

We would increase the availability of interpretive 

information in new and existing public use areas, 

develop two outdoor classroom sites along the 

Wildlife Drive, provide teacher workshops, develop a 

Refuge video, and develop wildlife learning 

materials for children. (See Maps 2-7a, b, c and d

beginning on page II-31.) We would also increase 

seasonal availability of interpretive information for 

hunters and anglers, develop five new Refuge 

brochures, increase involvement and partnership 

with the educational community, and add scheduled 

seasonal nature tours at the Wildlife Drive, Holgate, 

and Reedy Creek (with the help of partners such as 

Friends of Forsythe). 
II Alternatives 

 

II - 60 Jersey Coast Refuges

We would reduce these activities if we determine 

that incompatible levels of environmental education 

and interpretation were occurring. 

Wilderness Management

All lands above mean high tide in the Holgate Unit 

would be closed to motor vehicle (also referred to as 

off-road vehicles or ORVs) use by the public yearround. (See Map 1-2 on page I- 5.) Seasonal motor 

vehicle use (September through March) would 

continue under State law, only in the adjacent Stateowned riparian lands, which are below mean high 

tide. The riparian lands are not part of the Refuge 

or the Wilderness Area. 

We would post the mean high tide line boundary of 

the Holgate Unit. This would help keep motor 

vehicles out of the Holgate Unit. We would use a 

seasonal Park Ranger to patrol the Unit during the 

peak use periods (September through December). 

Wave and storm actions associated with the Atlantic 

Ocean are constantly changing Holgate=s shoreline. 

Permanent horizontal and elevational control points 

will be set permanently in the dunes of Holgate. 

From the control points, the mean high tide 

boundary will be surveyed every year and posted. 

We would continue to offer seasonal surf fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography opportunities 

at the Holgate Unit, when the beach is open for 

public access from September through March. 

Access would be either by foot or motorized vehicles 

driving below mean high tide. 

We would also initiate efforts to establish a seasonal 

boat concession to ferry anglers and other Refuge 

visitors to the southern tip of the Holgate Peninsula. 

 The Service, in coordination with County and City 

officials, and representatives of the local 

metropolitan planning organization, would sponsor 

a review of appropriate alternative transportation 

systems to improve and replace current vehicular 

access to the beach at Holgate. Representatives of 

the Federal Highway Administration, Federal 

Transit Administration, New Jersey Department of 

Transportation and National Transit Institute at 

Rutgers University would be invited to participate. 

We would continue to close all of the Holgate 

Peninsula and Little beach Island, above and below 

the mean high tide line, to all public access during 

the piping plover breeding season (April through 

August). The piping plover is Federally-listed as 

threatened and State-listed as endangered. The 

southern tip of the Holgate may also be closed 

beyond September 1, to protect late-nesting black 

skimmers. 

We would open Little Beach Island (Atlantic Co., 

Galloway Township) through Refuge special use 

permits to seasonal (September through March) surf 

fishing and wildlife observation and photography. 

We would use these special use permits to limit the 

numbers and impacts of visitors to the island. 

Seasonal surf fishing at Little Beach Island is 

authorized under the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) 50, section 32.49. Motor vehicle use is not an 

issue at this location, either above or below the 

mean high tide line, because there is no vehicular 

access to the Island. 

Migratory game bird hunting in salt marshes that 

are in designated migratory game bird hunt units 

within the Brigantine Wilderness Area would 

continue to be allowed. We would encourage greater 

use of the Wilderness Area by other Refuge visitors, 

in appropriate seasons and locations, through guided 

tours or Refuge special use permits. Access to 

highly sensitive areas would be restricted. 

We would scrutinize all planned management 

actions to determine of they are necessary to protect 

wilderness resources and determine the Aminimum 

tool@ needed to carry them out. We would not use a 

tool simply because it is the most comfortable, 

convenient, or least expensive. 

We would continue National Atmospheric 

Monitoring Program (NADP) and Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments 

(IMPROVE) monitoring programs as stated in 

Alternative A. In addition, we would add air-borne 

mercury monitoring in partnership with the New 

Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

(NJDEP), and provide technical assistance to local 

communities on air quality issues and Class I air 

space. 

We would increase public awareness of the 

Wilderness Area through various media, including 

TV, calendars, posters, presentations, and an 

Internet web-site. We would also develop 

wilderness-related partnerships with organizations 

such as NJDEP, local chambers of commerce, local 

government agencies, and other wilderness-oriented 

groups. Partnerships would seek to: 

# Increase the public=s understanding and 

appreciation of the Brigantine Wilderness 

Area; 
 

Alternatives II

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000

# Identify new compatible uses for the area; 

# Provide training on the Aminimal tools@

concept in managing and accessing 

Wilderness; 

# Identify other alternatives to enhance the 

Wilderness quality and value to local 

communities of the Brigantine Wilderness 

Area. 

We would set aside Little Beach Island and adjacent 

salt marshes as a representative natural barrier 

island complex. A study would be undertaken to 

determine what species should be represented on 

the Island, yet are absent because of past human 

disturbance. Those plant and animal species would 

then be restored so that the Island could act as a 

colonizing source to New Jersey=s other barrier 

islands. Research would also be conducted to 

determine the impact of beach use on beach/dune 

dynamics, comparing Holgate and Little Beach 

Island. 

We would develop a detailed step-down Wilderness 

Management Plan by 2005 for the existing 

Brigantine Wilderness Area. By 2010 we would also 

conduct a Wilderness Review of all lands acquired 

since 1972 to determine what additional lands, if 

any, should be recommended for designation as part 

of the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

Land Protection

We would maintain the present rate of land 

acquisition to acquire the remaining 12,300 acres of 

land within the currently approved 56,600 acre 

Refuge acquisition boundary as described in 

Alternative A. 

We have also identified 12 Focus Areas containing 

approximately 17,000 acres of wildlife habitat 

essential to the long-term ecological integrity of the 

Refuge. (See Maps 2-8a, b, c and d beginning on 

page II- 35.) We plan to acquire 11,500 acres within 

those Focus Areas, which were defined in close 

cooperation with the State, local municipalities and 

our conservation partners. These Focus Areas are 

located from the Cedar Creek drainage in Berkley 

Township southward to the Doughty Creek drainage 

in Galloway Township. They primarily fall within 

unprotected stream corridors between the Garden 

State Parkway on the west and the Refuge and 

Barnegat Bay to the east. We would continue the 

Service=s policy of working with willing sellers. 

For the Service to acquire all 11,500 acres within 

the 12 Focus Areas would require an additional 

$38,000,000 (average cost of $3,300 per acre), 

excluding incidental acquisition costs. This would 

require increasing the average annual Land and 

Water Conservation Fund appropriation for 

Forsythe Refuge by about $2.5 million for the next 

fifteen years. For the five-year period, FY1995/1999, the average annual Land and Water 

Conservation funding for this Refuge was about $1.7 

million. 

We selected the 12 Focus Areas based on the 

following criteria: 

# Known sites of threatened or endangered 

species and communities; 

# Areas important to the ecological health of 

lands already owned (ensure intact 

ecosystem processes, such as, protecting the 

quality and quantity of water for wetlands, 

providing habitat corridors between 

existing conservation lands, or sufficient 

size of contiguous areas to protect viable 

populations); 

# Areas important for priority wildlife species 

(e.g., critical stopover habitat for migrating 

birds); 

# Areas identified as priority sites for 

protection by other conservation 

organizations; 

# Areas still viable for conservation 

protection (i.e., not already developed). 

The Focus Areas includes upland and wetlands 

crucial to the Refuge, Barnegat Bay, and Great Bay, 

such as: 

# Cedar Creek South in Berkeley and Lacey 

Townships; 

# The Pancoast Inland Area, Waretown 

Creek, and the Barnegat Bay Beach Inland 

area in Ocean Township; Westecunk Creek 

in Eagleswood Township; 

# Mill Branch/Tuckerton Creek, Giffords Mill 

Branch, and Otis Bogs/Willis Creek in 

Little Egg Harbor Township; 

# The Nacote Creek watershed and the 

Doughty Creek watershed in Galloway 
II Alternatives 

 

II - 62 Jersey Coast Refuges

Township. 

 

The Trust for Public Land=s Century Plan (TPL, 

1995) and Beyond the Century Plan (TPL, 1997) 

describe and delineate most of these areas. 

We would also expand our land planning efforts 

with municipalities, counties, and the State. We 

would focus on the value of ecosystem goods and 

services and alternatives to protect and restore 

these ecosystem elements. ABecause ecosystem 

services are not fully >captured= in commercial 

markets or adequately quantified in terms 

comparable with economic services and 

manufactured capital, they are often given little 

weight in policy decisions. This neglect may 

ultimately compromise the sustainability of humans 

in the biosphere. The economies of the Earth would 

grind to a halt without the services of ecological life 

support systems, in one sense, their total value to 

the economy is infinite.@ (Costanza et al., 1997) 

Appendix F outlines the array of ecosystem services 

that are crucial not only for fish, wildlife and plants, 

but also for humans. 

Our efforts to work with public and private 

landowners to implement wildlife habitat protection 

and restoration off Service-owned land would also be 

expanded. 

Resource Protection and Visitor Safety

Over the course of this plan, we would hire three 

new full-time Park Rangers, in addition to our 

current law enforcement staff, to better protect 

resources and visitors. 

Refuge Buildings and Facilities

A new Refuge headquarters office and visitor center 

building(s) would be constructed at the Brigantine 

Division. The site would be identified through a Site 

Requirement Analysis. The Service has identified 

several potential sites for new Refuge headquarters 

and visitor center building(s. (See Maps 2-9a, b and 

c beginning on page II-39.) 

The final decision on the location and construction of 

a new headquarters office and visitor center 

building(s) would be evaluated in a separate NEPA 

document at a later date. Chapter IV describes 

criteria for site selection and potential sites. 

The facility at the Brigantine Division would provide 

office space for Refuge employees, as well as for the 

Service=s New Jersey Field Office and Law 

Enforcement employees. The facility may also 

house personnel from conservation partners (e.g., 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, New Jersey 

Division of Fish and Wildlife, etc.). 

We would also construct a new Barnegat Division 

office and visitor contact building along U.S. Route 9 

in Ocean Township, Ocean County. The proposed 

site for a new Barnegat Division office and visitor 

contact building is shown in Map 2-9b on page II-40. 

A Reedy Creek Unit office and visitor contact 

building would also be constructed. The proposed 

site for the new Reedy Creek Unit facilities is shown 

in Map 2-9c on page II-41. 
 

Alternatives II

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000

Alternative B B The Service=s 

Proposed Action

Cape May National Wildlife Refuge

Under the Service=s Proposed Action staffing and 

funding levels would be increased and we would 

initiate new wildlife population, habitat, and 

ecosystem management activities; provide new 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities; increase our land protection efforts; 

and construct new office and visitor facilities to 

support the goals and objectives of the Refuge. 

Special emphasis would be placed on the six priority 

general public uses defined in the Refuge 

Improvement Act, i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, environmental 

education and interpretation. Public use surveys, 

along with wildlife and habitat monitoring, would 

help us estimate the volume and impacts of public 

use, and adapt our management strategies for that 

use. (See also Table 2-3. Actions and Strategies 

Matrix for Cape May Refuge, beginning on page II81.) 

Habitat and Wildlife Populations

We would expand our endangered and threatened 

species management efforts. We would survey all 

Refuge lands for currently and potentially occurring 

threatened and endangered species (Federal and 

State-listed). Newly discovered occurrences would 

be protected and managed to maintain or expand 

those populations. A feasibility assessment would 

be conducted for sites where a species does not 

currently occur, but could potentially be restored. 

We would attempt to restore species at sites with a 

reasonable chance of success. 

We would complete the step-down habitat 

management plan as stated in Alternative A and 

implement a comprehensive program of habitat 

management on and off Refuge lands. We have 

already developed a preliminary habitat 

prescription for all currently owned Refuge lands. 

This prescription would be the basis for step down 

habitat management plan. It was developed to 

provide habitat management objectives that 

characterize a desired physiognomic condition 

(major vegetative structure, e.g., forest, grassland, 

brush, marsh) and hydrologic regime (e.g., upland, 

tidal wetland, non-tidal wetland). Specific habitat 

requirements for endangered or other high priority 

trust resources (e.g., piping plover) and ecological 

communities with special emphasis (e.g., Atlantic 

white cedar swamps) were considered in 

establishing site specific habitat objectives. A 

number of additional guiding principles were 

followed in developing the habitat prescription. 

They are as follows: 

10. salt marshes will be restored to pre-gridditched hydrology; 

11. grasslands or fields would be maximized for 

open land character; 

12. forests would be maximized for interior 

character; 

13. scrub/shrub would be maintained between 

forest and grassland to create soft 

boundaries; 

14. sensitive areas would be buffered; 

15. only native plant species and local 

genotypeswould be used; 

16. habitat strategies would favor low intensity 

of maintenance, taking advantage of 

ecosystem processes; 

17. the definition of native species and 

community composition would be based on 

a pre-colonial baseline; 

18. conversion or restoration of habitat types 

would be done whenever practical with 

natural regeneration. 

 

Listed below are the habitat management objectives 

for Refuge-owned lands. (See also Maps 2-10a, b 

and c beginning on page II-42.) 

Forest, Upland - 4,090 acres would be managed for 

Upland Forest. Of the total acreage, 238 acres 

would be converted (allowed to regrow) from Upland 

Brush and 56 acres from Crop-Pasture; restoration 

would be required on 21 acres of developed land. 

Forest, Wetland - 2,346 acres would be managed as 

Wetland Forests. Additional research may indicate 

Atlantic White Cedar to be restored in current 

Wetland Forest sites. 

Marsh, Salt - 1,345 acres would be managed as Salt 

Marsh. 

Brush, Wetland/Bog - 343 acres would be managed 
II Alternatives 

 

II - 64 Jersey Coast Refuges

as same habitat type, generally in a complex with 

Cedar Swamp Forests. 

Grassland - 167 acres would be managed for 

Grassland habitat (native grasses and forbs). 

Grassland would be restored from developed (5 

acres), Crop-Pasture (159 acres), forest upland (2 

acres), and Upland Brush (1 acre). Most areas 

currently covered with grasses and forbs are 

dominated by exotic and invasive species, requiring 

active restoration to native species. 

Brush, Upland - 104 acres would be maintained or 

converted to early succession brushy uplands. 

Mechanical or fire techniques would be used to 

maintain 11 acres in a brushy state, 71 acres of 

brush would be allowed to regrow from crop/pasture, 

sand/gravel pit or developed cover types, and 22 

acres of upland forest would be set back to a brushy 

state. 

Water, Open - 61 acres would be managed as Open 

Fresh Water, with a priority to restore fish passage. 

 There are also thousands of acres of non-Refuge 

navigable wasters interlacing and adjacent to other 

Refuge habitats (e.g. salt marshes). Navigable 

waters will be monitored for water quality and fish 

and wildlife use in cooperation with the State. 

Marsh, Fresh Non-tidal - 25 acres would be 

maintained as Fresh Non-tidal Marsh. 

Dune - Beach - 37 acres would be maintained or 

converted to dune - beach habitat, the actual 

acreage will vary based on the highly dynamic 

shoreline changes. One 5-acre developed area and 

one 4-acre brush upland would be restored to a 

dune-beach habitat. 

Forest, Island - 8 acres of Upland Brush would be 

allowed to succeed into Forest Island habitat in salt 

marshes and bays of the estuary. 

Forest, Cedar Swamp - 7 acres of sand/gravel pit 

would be restored to, and 402 acres maintained as 

Cedar Swamp Forest habitat type. 

Developed - 1 acre associated with offices and other 

Refuge facilities would remain as developed, though 

landscaped with native plants and maintained in a 

way to support Refuge activities while minimizing 

impact on wildlife. 

Prescribed fire would be applied to all of the upland 

habitats, as follows: 

Upland Forest - reduce hazardous fuel, reduce 

overstory stand density, reduce understory density, 

increase heath or grass/forb density, control invasive 

species; frequency of burning - once every 8-15 years. 

Upland Brush - reduce hazardous fuel, set back 

succession, control invasive species; frequency of 

burning - 0nce every 5-15 years. 

Grassland - reduce hazardous fuel, set back 

succession (woody growth), control invasive species; 

frequency of burning - once every 1-3 years. 

Further detail on the prescribed burning program 

would be provided in the Fire Management Plan and 

Burn Prescriptions. Research and monitoring would 

provide refinement in the burn frequency and 

prescriptions. 

We would develop and implement a private lands 

habitat restoration plan in cooperation with other 

agencies and organizations that have private lands 

programs, such as the Service=s Ecological Services 

Division, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture=s 

Natural Resource Conservation Service. 

Comprehensive baseline flora and fauna surveys of 

plants, raptors, water birds, fish, reptiles, 

amphibians, invertebrates, and mammals would be 

conducted. From the baseline surveys (including 

song bird point counts, frog call surveys, and MAPS 

banding stations), we would establish a long-term 

monitoring program (infrequent but periodic 

sampling - e.g., sample a group for 5 years, every 15 

years). 

We would implement species monitoring before and 

after major habitat management projects, and 

expand use of Geography Information Systems (GIS) 

to document and model species and habitat. We 

would also develop a computer archive of data and 

publications to ensure access to information for staff, 

partners, and the public. The results of baseline 

surveys, project evaluation surveys, and monitoring 

would be used to develop, evaluate, and revise 

management objectives for wildlife populations, 

habitat, and public use. 

We would encourage research not only by identifying 

needs, but also in co-developing research proposals 

and pursuing funding through Service and nonService sources. New research would include: 

1) Impact of mosquito control techniques (such 

as pesticide applications and Open Marsh 

Water Management treatment) on wildlife; 
 

Alternatives II

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000

2) Impact of different kinds and levels of 

public use on wildlife; 

3) Impact of public use on the dynamics of 

beach and shoreline environment; 

4) Impact of watershed development on water 

quality/quantity and wetland resources; 

5) Pre-colonial ecology of the southern New 

Jersey coastal landscape (e.g., role of fire, 

plant and animal community composition); 

6) Describe habitat requirements for 

migratory birds (raptors, passerines, etc.). 

We would provide technical assistance to local 

communities and partners on wildlife-related issues 

(e.g., wildlife and habitat monitoring or contaminant 

spill planning/response). 

We would provide public trapping opportunities for 

raccoon, fox, muskrat, coyote and beaver, under 

Refuge special use permits, on Refuge lands north of 

Highway 550. (See Map 2-11 on page II-44.) 

Invasive and Overabundant Species

We would survey invasive and exotic species on the 

Refuge, leading to development and implementation 

of IPM control strategies for problem species. A 

monitoring program, in concert with habitat 

monitoring, would assess progress and identify 

additional problem species. Alternative methods of 

controlling certain species would be researched. We 

would also offer technical assistance and support to 

restoration and control efforts on nearby public and 

private lands. 

Pesticide Use

We would aggressively pursue alternatives to 

pesticides through Integrated Pest Management 

(IPM) efforts. We would offer technical assistance 

on IPM strategies to local communities for 

controlling common problem species. 

Big Game Hunting

Same as Alternative A. We would reduce these 

activities if we determine that incompatible levels of 

big game hunting were occurring. 

Upland Game Hunting

We would also initiate the Refuge=s first upland 

game hunting opportunities on selected areas of the 

Refuge. In the Delaware Bay Division, Refuge lands 

west of Highway 47 would be opened for hunting 

gray squirrel and cottontail rabbit. In the Great 

Cedar Swamp Division, Refuge lands north of 

Highway 550 would be opened to hunting gray 

squirrel, cottontail rabbit, and turkey. (See Maps 2-

13a and b beginning on page II-47.) 

The Refuge would weigh a number of factors in 

actually expanding upland game hunting 

opportunities: 

# the size and configuration of new Refugeowned properties; 

# the availability of public access; 

# safety considerations including the State 

mandated 450-foot safety zone around 

buildings and playgrounds. 

We would reduce these activities if we determine 

that incompatible levels of upland game hunting 

were occurring. 

Migratory Game Bird Hunting

We would open additional Refuge areas to migratory 

game bird hunting. In addition to Refuge lands west 

of NJ Route 47 in the Delaware Bay Division, all 

lands north of County Route 550 in the Great Cedar 

Swamp Division would be open to migratory game 

bird hunting, according to State and Refuge 

regulations. (See Maps 2-14a and b beginning on 

page II-49.) 

The Refuge would weigh a number of factors in 

actually expanding migratory game bird hunting 

opportunities: 

# the size and configuration of new Refugeowned properties; 

# the availability of public access; 

# safety considerations including the State 

mandated 450-foot safety zone around 

buildings and playgrounds. 

We would reduce these activities if we determine 

that incompatible levels of migratory game bird 

hunting were occurring. 

Fishing

We would open the entire Refuge to fishing and 

crabbing. These activities are functionally limited to 
II Alternatives 

 

II - 66 Jersey Coast Refuges

just a few freshwater ponds and various tidally 

influenced creeks. By opening the entire Refuge, the 

regulations would be simplified and the public would 

enjoy maximum fishing opportunities. 

We would reduce these activities if we determine 

that incompatible levels of fishing were occurring.

Wildlife Observation and Photography

We would make numerous improvements 

throughout the Refuge to provide visitors a quality 

experience. Planned improvements would make the 

Refuge much more accessible and enjoyable to the 

visitor. (See Maps 2-15a and b beginning on page 

II-51.) 

New projects would include: 

# A universally accessible trail at the Refuge 

headquarters. This trail would include a 

rolled and compacted surface of stone dust 

and numerous benches. 

# A parking lot and kiosk in the area of 

Gracetown Road/Woodbine Blvd. in Dennis 

Township. These improvements would be 

in conjunction with the proposed 35-mile 

trail on the former railroad bed running 

from Cape May to Manumuskin, 

Cumberland County. A portion of the Arails 

to trails@ trail through the Refuge would be 

open to hiking, bicycling, and horseback 

riding. Hiking trails into the adjacent 

cedar swamp would also be improved. 

# A canoe landing and designated canoe route 

would be established on Cedar Creek in 

Upper Township, providing opportunities 

for wildlife observation in areas otherwise 

difficult to access. 

# The Refuge would establish parking lots, 

kiosks, and other trail improvements at 

Peach Orchard Road in Upper Township, 

and the Stocker and Schellinger tracts in 

Middle Township. These improvements 

would be similar to what has already been 

done at the Woodcock Trail. These three 

sites already have unimproved trails that 

are in need of upgrade and regular 

maintenance. 

We would reduce these activities if we determine 

that incompatible levels of wildlife observation and 

photography were occurring. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation

We would increase our participation in local special 

events, and our efforts to reach non-traditional 

audiences. Numerous interpretive signs would be 

placed along Refuge trails and in kiosks. (See Maps 

2-15a and b beginning on page II-51.) Some signs 

would be periodically changed to describe seasonal 

events, such as the spring shorebird/horseshoe crab 

phenomenon on Delaware Bay. Nature walks 

would be scheduled regularly, especially with the 

assistance of volunteers and partner organizations. 

A variety of Refuge brochures, maps, and fact sheets 

would be produced, highlighting Refuge programs 

and natural resources, Delaware Bay, and the south 

Jersey shore. Teacher workshops would be 

developed and an outdoor classroom established on 

the Refuge. A Friends Group would also be 

established and a Refuge Web site set up. 

We would reduce these activities if we determine 

that incompatible levels of environmental education 

and interpretation were occurring. 

Wilderness Management

A Wilderness Review of all Refuge lands would be 

conducted in 2010 to determine if any lands should 

be recommended for designation as part of the 

National Wilderness Preservation System. 

Land Protection

We would maintain the present rate of land 

acquisition to acquire all the remaining land - 7,600 

acres of privately owned lands within the currently 

approved 17,600 acre Refuge acquisition boundary 

as described in Alternative A. 

We have also identified Focus Areas containing 

approximately 4,900 acres of wildlife habitat 

essential to the long-term ecological integrity of the 

Refuge. (See Maps 2-16a and b beginning on page 

II-53.) We plan to acquire 3,600 acres within these 

Focus Areas. The Service would cooperate with 

State and other land conservation organizations to 

protect the remaining 1,300 acres. 

For the Service to acquire all 3,600 acres within the 

Focus Areas, an additional $8,640,000 million 

(average cost of $2,400 per acre) would be required, 

excluding incidental acquisition costs. This would 

require increasing the average annual Land and 

Water Conservation Fund appropriation for Cape 

May Refuge by $1.1 million for the next six years. 

The average annual Land and Water Conservation 

funding for this Refuge, based on the five-year 
 

Alternatives II

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000

period, FY-1995/1999, was $1.2 million. 

We selected these Focus Areas based on the 

following criteria: 

# Known sites of threatened or endangered 

species and communities; 

# Areas important to the ecological health of 

lands already owned (ensure intact 

ecosystem processes, such as, protecting the 

quality and quantity of water for wetlands, 

providing habitat corridors between 

existing conservation lands, or sufficient 

size of contiguous areas to protect viable 

populations); 

# Areas important for priority wildlife species 

(e.g., critical stopover habitat for migrating 

birds); 

# Areas identified as priority sites for 

protection by other conservation 

organizations; 

# Areas still viable for conservation 

protection (i.e., not already developed). 

We would expand our land planning efforts with 

municipalities, counties, and the State and focus on 

the value of ecosystem goods and services and 

alternatives to protect and restore these ecosystem 

elements. ABecause ecosystem services are not fully 

>captured= in commercial markets or adequately 

quantified in terms comparable with economic 

services and manufactured capital, they are often 

given little weight in policy decisions. This neglect 

may ultimately compromise the sustainability of 

humans in the biosphere.@ (Costanza et al., 1997) 

Appendix F outlines the array of crucial ecosystem 

services that are crucial not only for fish, wildlife 

and plants, but also for humans. 

We would expand work with public and private 

landowners to implement wildlife habitat protection 

and restoration off Service-owned land. 

Should the Coast Guard=s LORAN Support Unit 

(adjacent to the Two Mile Beach Unit), become 

excess to its needs, we would work to acquire the 

site. (See Map 1-3 on page I-6.) 

Resource Protection and Visitor Safety

We would hire one additional full-time and one 

additional seasonal Park Rangers to better protect 

resources and visitors.

Refuge Buildings and Facilities

We would construct a new, larger office and visitor 

contact building at the Kimbles Beach Road 

headquarters site. We would also construct a new 

storage building and a maintenance building at the 

headquarters site. 
II Alternatives 

 

II - 68 Jersey Coast Refuges

Alternative B B The Service=s 

Proposed Action

Two Mile Beach Unit

Under the Service=s Proposed Action we would 

initiate a seasonal closure of the beach, above and 

below the mean high tide line, to benefit: 

# beach nesting birds such as piping plover, 

least tern, and black skimmer; 

# migratory shorebirds during spring and fall 

migration periods. 

The closure would take place from April 1 to 

September 30, during which time, beach access 

would be allowed only during Refuge-scheduled 

bird/beach walks. This seasonal closure would be 

evaluated after two years to determine its 

effectiveness and to implement changes if necessary. 

 

Motor vehicles, and non-wildlife dependent uses 

such as swimming, sunbathing, and surfing, would 

be prohibited at all times. The beach would be open 

for walking and surf fishing from October through 

March, accessible from the north boundary of the 

beach and at the location of the former Coast Guard 

Beach Hut. Sand dunes would be closed to public 

access except at designated crossing points. 

A visitor center would be established in building A14 and environmental education and interpretation 

programs would be provided on a regular basis. We 

would also use building B-6 for Refuge 

administration, and all other buildings or 

improvements on the property would be removed, 

except those required for the Coast Guard LORAN 

Support Unit. (See also Table 2-4. Actions and 

Strategies Matrix for the Two Mile Beach Unit of 

Cape May Refuge, beginning on page II- 85.) 

Habitat and Wildlife Populations

The biological program would emphasize stopover 

habitat for migratory birds, management for 

endangered species, and restoration of the DuneBeach and Salt Marsh habitat types. Habitat 

restoration subsequent to building removal would 

include planting of native vegetation. We would 

study habitat management needs and implement a 

habitat management plan. Habitat management 

may require planting, prescribed burning, mowing, 

control of exotic or invasive species, or modifying the 

dune/beach structure. We would develop and 

implement a management plan for beach nesting 

birds and migrant shorebirds. This plan would 

include managing predators, and other techniques 

employed to attract and benefit beach nesting birds. 

 We would initiate a comprehensive wildlife 

inventory program, including bird abundance and 

distribution surveys, as well as surveys for reptiles, 

amphibians, small mammals, and invertebrates. 

We would monitor beach and sand dune dynamics. 

Vegetation surveys and mapping would also be done 

to refine habitat management activities. Surveys 

and studies would utilize and incorporate GIS. 

Management actions would favor restoration of 

Federal and State-listed endangered and threatened 

species. We would also, under cooperative 

agreement, provide technical assistance for habitat 

management and wildlife surveys on adjacent Coast 

Guard lands. 

We would manage furbearer populations through a 

Refuge trapping program, but we would not allow 

public trapping. 

Invasive and Overabundant Species

We would survey invasive species and develop and 

implement an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) 

plan to control these species. This may include 

mechanical, biological, and chemical control of 

phragmites, mosquitoes, and other invasive species. 

Pesticide Use

We would implement an Integrated Pest 

Management plan (IPM), including considerations 

for mechanical, biological, and chemical control of 

undesirable species, including phragmites and 

mosquitoes. 

Beach Access

The beach would be closed to public access from 

April to September and opened from October 

through March. 

Hunting

Same as Alternative A. 

 

Fishing

We would offer seasonal surf fishing opportunities, 

when the beach is open for public access from 

October 1 through March 31. Fishing would be by 

walk-in access only; no motor vehicles would be 

allowed on the beach. 
 

Alternatives II

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000

We would reduce these activities if we determine 

that incompatible levels of fishing were occurring. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography

We would offer wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities on specific roads and trails. We would 

offer wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities on the beach only during the period 

October 1 through March 31. We would make 

improvements to provide visitors a quality 

experience, including signs, kiosks, universally 

accessible trails, and platforms. A wildlife 

observation platform would be established, possibly 

utilizing the existing former radar platform. 

We would reduce these activities if we determine 

that incompatible levels of wildlife observation and 

photography were occurring. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation

We would take an active role in environmental 

education and interpretation. A visitor center, with 

displays, exhibits, and regular programs, would be 

established in building A-14. This facility would be 

operated by Refuge staff and volunteers. We would 

provide regular programs and guided nature walks, 

especially during peak bird migration periods. 

Cooperating partners would provide additional 

opportunities and programs. Various self-guiding 

interpretive signs and kiosks would also be 

installed. 

We would reduce these activities if we determine 

that incompatible levels of environmental education 

and interpretation were occurring. 

Refuge Buildings and Facilities

There are currently 16 buildings or structural 

improvements on the Two Mile Beach Unit property. 

 We would use existing buildings A-14 and B-6 and 

any other improvements necessary for Refuge 

maintenance, storage, law enforcement, 

administration, etc. The Coast Guard would 

continue to use building A-5 under a mutual 

agreement. Building A-14, a new 5,000 square foot 

structure, would be renovated to accommodate a 

visitor center, with displays, exhibits, and regular 

programs, and some office space. All other buildings 

or improvements on the property would be removed, 

except those which must be maintained to assure 

continued utilities access for the Coast Guard 

LORAN Support Unit. We would explore the 

beneficial use of rubble resulting from the 

demolition of buildings and structures. 

Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management 

requires Federal agencies to provide leadership and 

take action, "...to reduce the risk of flood loss, to 

minimize the impact of floods on human safety, 

health, and welfare, and to restore and preserve the 

natural and beneficial values served by 

floodplains..." All the improvements on the excess 

property are within the 100-year floodplain (USCG, 

1996). 
II Alternatives 

 

II - 70 Jersey Coast Refuges
 

Alternatives II

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000

Alternative C

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife 

Refuge

Under this Alternative all lands above mean high 

tide in the Holgate Unit of the Brigantine 

Wilderness Area would be closed to motor vehicle 

use by the public year-round in compliance with the 

provisions of the Wilderness Act. We would also 

seek to further restrict motor vehicle access at the 

Holgate Unit by obtaining a license from the New 

Jersey Tidelands Council to close State-owned 

riparian lands below the mean high tide line. 

Efforts would be initiated to establish a seasonal 

boat concession to ferry anglers and other Refuge 

visitors to the southern tip of the Holgate Peninsula. 

Refuge staffing and funding levels would be 

increased and we would provide increased public use 

and access opportunities, including Refuge-wide 

hunting, trapping, fishing, and wildlife observation 

and photography. New office and visitor facilities 

would be constructed to support the goals and 

objectives of the Refuge. In addition, this 

Alternative would also place more emphasis on our 

habitat and wildlife management, environmental 

education, interpretive, and outreach efforts. (See 

also Table 2-2. Actions and Strategies Matrix for 

Forsythe Refuge, beginning on page II-74.) 

Habitat and Wildlife Populations

In addition to actions identified in Alternative B, we 

would develop an ecological community-level habitat 

map of the Refuge and the surrounding landscape. 

We would also develop and implement an ecological 

community/species-based habitat management plan 

for the Refuge and nearby lands. A cooperative 

private lands habitat restoration plan using 

community/species-based habitat targets would be 

developed and implemented. Through partnerships, 

we would increase available nesting structures for 

peregrine falcon, osprey, and barn owls. We would 

also identify and evaluate all stream or river 

blockages that impede spawning runs for 

interjurisdictional fish.

In addition to the actions identified in Alternative B, 

we would open the entire Refuge to public trapping 

for raccoon, fox, muskrat, coyote and beaver, under 

Refuge special use permits. (See Maps 2-2a, b, c 

and d beginning on page II-17.)

Invasive and Overabundant Species

Same as Alternative B. 

Pesticide Use

Same as Alternative B.

Big Game Hunting

In addition to the actions identified in Alternative B, 

we would expand deer hunting by opening Deer 

Management Zones (DMZ) 57 and 58 to the six-day 

shotgun, fall and winter bow seasons. (See Maps 2-

3a, b and c beginning on page II-21.) These three 

seasons do not require permits. This would 

essentially open the Refuge to Aat-large hunting,@

because DMZ 57 and 58 cover most of the upland 

habitat. We would not open DMZ 56 to these three 

seasons, because the Wildlife Drive runs through it. 

We currently close the Drive during the DMZ 56 

permit deer hunt season. 

Upland Game Hunting

In addition to the actions identified in Alternative B, 

we would open all remaining upland habitat to 

upland game hunting. (See Map 2-4 on page II-24.) 

Migratory Game Bird Hunting

In addition to the actions identified in Alternative B, 

we would open all remaining Refuge lands to 

migratory game bird hunting. (See Maps 2-5a, b, c 

and d beginning on page II-25.) 

Fishing

In addition to the actions identified in Alternative B, 

we would allow fishing from all shore locations 

outside the Holgate Unit and Little Beach Island 

portions of the Brigantine Wilderness Area and the 

Wildlife Drive. (See Maps 2-6a and b beginning on 

page II- 29.) 

See Wilderness Management on page II-71 for 

fishing within the Wilderness Area. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography

In addition to the actions identified in Alternative B, 

we would open all Refuge lands to wildlife 

observation and photography, with the exception of 

those areas involved in endangered species recovery 

efforts. (See Maps 2-7a, b, c and d beginning on 

page II-31.) 
II Alternatives 

 

II - 72 Jersey Coast Refuges

Environmental Education and Interpretation

In addition to the actions identified in Alternative B, 

we would participate in the development of a 

watershed-wide cooperative outreach group. (See 

Maps 2-7a, b, c and d beginning on page II-31.)

Wilderness Management

In addition to the actions identified in Alternative B, 

we would seek a license from the New Jersey 

Tidelands Council to stop motor vehicle use in the 

State-owned riparian lands on the Holgate 

Peninsula. These riparian lands are below mean 

high tide, and are not part of the Refuge or the 

Wilderness Area. We would not have to post the 

mean high tide line portion of the Holgate Unit 

boundary, if we obtained a license from the Council 

to prohibit motor vehicle use in the State-owned 

riparian zone. We would also work in cooperation 

with Town of Long Beach to provide an observation 

platform on Town lands north of the Holgate Unit. 

We would perform most beach maintenance and 

management activities by boat. 

Land Protection

Same as Alternative B.

Resource Protection and Visitor Safety

Same as Alternative B.

Refuge Buildings and Facilities

Same as Alternative B. 
 

Alternatives II

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000

Alternative C

Cape May National Wildlife Refuge

Under this Alternative staffing and funding levels 

would be increased and we would allow hunting, 

trapping, and fishing Refuge-wide. The existing 

Refuge office and visitor contact building would be 

enlarged and remodeled and new storage and 

maintenance facilities constructed. Wildlife and 

habitat management activities would be increased, 

while wildlife observation and photography, 

environmental education and interpretation 

opportunities would be reduced. (See also Table 2-3.

 Actions and Strategies Matrix for Cape May 

Refuge, beginning on page II-81.) 

Habitat and Wildlife Populations

In addition to the actions identified in Alternative B,

we would develop an ecological community-level 

habitat map of the Refuge and the surrounding 

landscape. We would also develop and implement 

an ecological community/species-based habitat 

management plan for the Refuge and nearby lands. 

A cooperative private lands habitat restoration plan 

using community/species-based habitat targets 

would be developed and implemented. Through 

partnerships, we would increase available nesting 

structures for osprey, barn and barred owls. 

In addition to the actions identified in Alternative B, 

we would allow public trapping of raccoon, fox, 

muskrat, coyote and beaver Refuge-wide, under 

Refuge special use permits. (See Map 2-11 on page 

II-44.) 

Invasive and Overabundant Species

Same as Alternative B. 

Pesticide Use

Same as Alternative B. 

Big Game Hunting

Same as Alternative A.

Upland Game Hunting

In addition to the actions identified in Alternative B, 

we would open all remaining Refuge upland habitat 

to upland game hunting. (See Maps 2-13a and b

beginning on page II-47.) 

Migratory Game Bird Hunting

In addition to the actions identified in Alternative B, 

we would open all remaining Refuge lands to 

migratory game bird hunting. (See Maps 2-14a and 

b beginning on page II-49.) 

Fishing

Same as Alternative B. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography

We would complete fewer projects for improving 

access than in Alternative B. Improvements would 

be limited to the universally accessible trail at the 

headquarters site and the Arails to trails@ project as 

described in Alternative B. (See Maps 2-15a and b 

beginning on page II-51.) 

Environmental Education and Interpretation

We would be involved less with education and 

interpretation programs than in Alternative B. 

These efforts would be more self-guiding, that is, 

Refuge visitors would receive education and 

interpretation messages strictly through signs, 

brochures, etc. Interpretive signs would be placed 

on Refuge trails and in kiosks. Brochures, maps, 

and fact sheets would also be produced for 

distribution in kiosks and remote brochure boxes. 

(See Maps 2-15a and b beginning on page II-51.) 

Wilderness Management

Same as Alternative A. 

Land Protection

Same as Alternative B. 

Resource Protection and Visitor Safety

Same as Alternative B. 

Refuge Buildings and Facilities

We would enlarge and remodel the current office and 

visitor contact building at the Kimbles Beach Road 

headquarters site, and construct new storage and 

maintenance buildings.
II Alternatives 

 

II - 74 Jersey Coast Refuges

Alternative C

Two Mile Beach Unit

Under this Alternative we would provide year-round 

public access to the beach for walking and surf 

fishing. No motor vehicles would be permitted on 

the beach. Public trapping would be allowed, as 

would commercial bait fishing (both under Refuge 

special use permit). Public use improvements would 

be limited, and only a visitor contact station would 

be provided. 

We would use building B-6 for Refuge 

administration, provide selected building(s) to 

partners/cooperators for purposes compatible and 

complementary to the purpose of the Refuge, and 

remove all other excess buildings, except those 

required for the Coast Guard LORAN Support Unit. 

 (See also Table 2-4. Actions and Strategies Matrix 

for the Two Mile Beach Unit of Cape May Refuge, 

beginning on page II-85.)

Habitat and Wildlife Populations

As buildings, parking lots, or other manmade 

structures are removed, the sites would be left to the 

processes of natural succession. Few habitat 

management or wildlife survey programs would be 

initiated. Baseline surveys of migratory bird and 

beach nesting birds would be conducted. Vegetation 

surveys would be conducted to document cover types 

and occurrence of rare plants or plant communities. 

 

We would allow public trapping, under Refuge 

special use permits, to manage furbearer 

populations. 

Invasive and Overabundant Species

Same as Alternative B. 

Pesticide Use

Same as Alternative B 

Beach Access

The beach would be open to public access on a yearround basis. 

Hunting

Same as Alternative A. 

 

Fishing

We would allow surf fishing on the beach and 

fishing/crabbing in the back bay wetlands yearround. Commercial bait fishing would be allowed 

under Refuge special use permit. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography

We would offer fewer wildlife observation and 

photography opportunities than in Alternative B. 

We would make limited improvements to the area to 

provide visitors a quality experience. We would 

maintain selected trails and roads, but not improve 

them.

Environmental Education and Interpretation

We would take a less active role in environmental 

education and interpretation than in Alternative B. 

We would install some self-guiding interpretive 

signs and kiosks. Occasional programs and guided 

nature walks would be provided by partner 

organizations. A visitor contact station, would be 

established in an existing building and operated by 

partner organizations. 

Refuge Buildings and Facilities

We would use building B-6 and any other 

improvements necessary for Refuge administration, 

maintenance, storage, and law enforcement. The 

Coast Guard would continue to use building A-5 

under a mutual agreement. We would provide 

selected building(s) to partners/cooperators for 

purposes compatible and complementary to the 

purpose of the Refuge. This would include such 

things as a visitor contact station (possibly staffed 

by partners), biological research classroom, seasonal 

housing for interns, etc. 

We would remove all other excess buildings within 

15 years and explore the beneficial uses of the clean 

building rubble. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

Alternatives II

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
II Alternatives 

 

II - 76 Jersey Coast Refuges
III Affected Environment 

 

III - 2 Jersey Coast Refuges

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife 

Refuge

Physical Environment

Climate

Both the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

(Forsythe Refuge) and Cape May National Wildlife Refuge 

(Cape May Refuge) are within the New Jersey coastal 

weather station zone (Sandy Hook, Long Branch, Atlantic 

City, and Cape May weather stations). The ocean 

moderates the State's continental climate within the 

coastal weather zone. The average monthly temperature 

is 35EF in January, the coldest month of the year, and 

75EF in July, the hottest month of the year. The growing 

season for the Refuges ranges from 245 days, at the north 

end of Forsythe Refuge, to 255 days at the southern end of 

Cape May Refuge. The growing season is the period of the 

year in which the average temperature is 43EF or more. 

The average annual precipitation in the coastal zone is 

42.6 inches. Precipitation is distributed fairly evenly 

through the year, with slightly more in July and August, 

and less in February. 

Air Quality

New Jersey is the most densely populated State in the 

country. The State also has the highest densities of roads 

and traffic. These factors impact air quality. The greatest 

adverse impact seems to be elevated levels of low-altitude 

ozone in the State. The ozone levels exceed 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) thresholds set for 

the State. Investigations at the Brigantine Division of 

Forsythe Refuge indicate that the low-altitude ozone 

levels at that site are high, with resultant damage to 

vegetation (Davis, 1995). 

In 1978, Congress designated the Brigantine Wilderness 

Area (Wilderness Area) as a Class I air quality area, 

giving it special protection under the Clean Air Act. 

Congress charged the Service with the responsibility of 

protecting the air quality and air quality related values 

(AQRVs) of the area from manmade pollution. AQRVs 

include vegetation, wildlife, soils, water quality, visibility, 

odors, and cultural and archaeological resources. 

Despite this protection, air pollution is impacting the 

Wilderness Area. The area lies in a highly industrialized 

airshed, with air pollution coming from many sources, 

including industry, automobiles, and power plants. 

Surveys conducted from 1993 to 1996 indicated that 

certain plant species exhibited typical symptoms of ozone 

injury (e.g., stippling and chlorosis). 

In addition to these documented effects, there is concern 

that other effects may be occurring. Rainfall throughout 

the area is acidic; rainfall pH at sampling locations in 

New Jersey is often less than 5.0. As is the case in most of 

the eastern US, visibility in the Wilderness Area is 

affected by pollution-caused haze. Also, inshore waters of 

the Wilderness Area may be at risk from atmospheric 

nitrogen pollution. Research along the Atlantic Coast has 

demonstrated that atmospheric nitrogen (primarily from 

power plant and automobile emissions) has contributed to 

nutrient level increases of inshore waters, with 

subsequent algae blooms, loss of seagrass beds, and 

deterioration of fish and wildlife habitat. 

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

 (NJDEP) operates continuous sulfur dioxide and ozone 

monitors at the Nacote Creek Station at the west side of 

Forsythe Refuge. The ozone monitor has recorded various 

violations of the National Air Quality Standards for ozone 

(the entire State of New Jersey is a Anon-attainment area@

for ozone). 

In addition, the Service monitors air quality at the 

Wilderness Area through two national programs. The 

Service monitors atmospheric pollutants in rain as part of 

the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP; 

the Aacid rain@ program). The Service monitors fine 

particles as part of the Interagency Monitoring of 

Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) Program. 

The Service and NJDEP cooperate in the emission 

permitting process to protect air quality in the Brigantine 

Wilderness. 

Geology, Topography and Soils

The Forsythe Refuge is within the Outer Coastal Plain, 

which consists of sedimentary deposits dating from the 

Tertiary period. 

Elevations on the Refuge range up to 50 feet above mean 

sea level. Topography is nearly level to gently sloping. 

Uplands slope gradually to a wide band of salt marsh to 

shallow bays. These bays are separated from the ocean by 

barrier islands or spits. 

The major soil series in the Barnegat Division are: 

Sulfaquents-Sulfihemists association and ManahawkinAtsion-Berryland association. Major soil series in the 

Brigantine Division are Tidal Marsh-Coastal Beach 

association and Downer-Hammonton-Sassafras 

association. 

Hydrology
 Affected Environment 

 III

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment - July 2000 III - 3

The major aquifer underlying the Refuge is the KirkwoodCohansey system, which dates from the Miocene and 

Pliocene Epochs. The Kirkwood Formation is chiefly sand, 

silt, and clay. The Cohansey Sand is chiefly 

unconsolidated quartz sand with some gravel and many 

clay beds. This system provides most of the potable water 

to the area. 

Pleistocene and Recent Age deposits overlie the KirkwoodCohansey formations and contain sand, gravel, silt, peat, 

and organic muck. Some shallow wells from these 

formations may be tapped locally for domestic use. 

Several aquifers underlie the Kirkwood-Cohansey system 

and are tapped to a lesser extent for public and domestic 

supply. 

The Refuge has both tidal and non-tidal surface waters. 

Non-tidal waters include marshes, bogs, ponds, creeks, 

artificial impoundments, and seasonally flooded forests. 

Tidal waters include ponds, salt and fresh marshes, creeks 

and old ditches, coves, bays, river channels, and inlets. 

Most of the salt marsh is tidally flooded daily, with the 

greatest inundation occurring at new and full moons. 

The Barnegat Division is drained by Reedy Creek, Sloop 

Creek, Clamming Creek, Maple Creek, Stouts Creek, 

Bridge Creek, Forked River, Oyster Creek, Double Creek, 

Gunning River, Cedar Creek, Mill Creek, Cedar Run, 

Dinner Point Creek, Westecunk Creek, Parker Run, Jesse 

Run and Salp Creek. 

The Brigantine Division is drained by the Mullica River, 

Roundabout Creek, Ballenger's Creek, Bass River, Nacote 

Creek, Motts Creek, Oyster Creek, Landing Creek, Rubes 

Creek, and Doughty Creek. 

Contaminants 

The Service collected sediments, mummichogs, and fiddler 

crabs in and adjacent to Forsythe Refuge in 1996 to 

determine baseline contamination. Sediments were 

collected at 25 locations; mummichogs and fiddler crabs 

from 10 of the 25 locations. The samples were analyzed 

for trace metals, organochlorine pesticides, 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's), and butyltin 

compounds (USFWS, 1998). 

The Service analyzed the samples for 19 trace metals: 

aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, 

chromium, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, 

mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, strontium, 

vanadium, and zinc. All of these trace metals were 

detected in the sediment samples. None of the sediment 

samples contained metal concentrations that exceeded 

severe toxic effects guidelines for sediment. 

Many sediment trace metal concentrations exceeded lower 

toxic effects guidelines, but these concentrations we

notably greater than background levels within New 

Jersey. Fiddler crabs contained higher mean metal

concentrations than mummichogs for all detected m

except zinc. 

There was no strong relationship between the sedim

concentrations of metals and those in crabs. Inorga

contaminant concentrations in Refuge biota were no

notably greater than reference levels and were less t

levels measured in areas known to be polluted. The

body concentrations of inorganic contaminants in bo

and crabs were not sufficient to cause acute or suble

effects to piscivorous birds and predatory fish. 

Several organic contaminants, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD), dichlorodiphenyl-dichloroeth

(DDE), total PCB's, and PCB 77, were detected in 

measurable quantities in all sediment samples. Lev

several organic contaminants, particularly the meta

of DDT (DDD and DDE) were greater than available

reference concentrations from other areas within sou

New Jersey. Some of the highest sediment concentr

of these organic contaminants were detected at sam

stations located just downstream of inactive cranber

bogs. One bog yielded a DDD concentration of signi

ecotoxicological concern. A few other sampling stati

also contained levels of DDE and total chlordane tha

exceeded severe toxic effect sediment guidelines. 

Detectable levels of p,p1-DDD, p,p1-DDE, dieldrin, 

heptachlor epoxide, oxychlordane, and total PCB's w

found in all crab and fish samples analyzed. Unlike

inorganic contaminant result, crabs did not have hig

organic contaminant levels than fish. Organic 

contaminant concentrations in Refuge biota were no

notably greater than reference levels and were less t

levels measured in areas known to be polluted. Bod

burdens of organic contaminants in mummichogs di

indicate that these fish should be suffering physiolo

impairment. The whole body concentrations of orga

contaminants in both fish and crabs were not suffici

cause acute or sublethal effects to piscivorous birds 

predatory fish. 

Overall, the contaminant levels in sediment and bio

from the Forsythe Refuge, with some exceptions, we

found to be low and of little concern with regard to t

potential for adverse effects on resident biota or the

predators. Exceptions were limited to seven sampli

stations where the concentrations of DDD, DDE, or
III Affected Environment 

 

III - 4 Jersey Coast Refuges

total chlordane exceeded severe toxic effects sediment 

guidelines. Two of these stations were located at the 

surface water outfalls of inactive cranberry bogs. 

Unfortunately, biota were not collected from these two 

stations. It is reasonable to suspect even greater 

concentrations of organic contaminants exist inside the 

cranberry bogs themselves. These inactive cranberry 

bogs may be a serious threat to Federal trust resources 

foraging there. In addition, these cranberry bogs may be 

a risk to Refuge visitors, if the areas were open to the 

public. 

Biological Environment

Jersey Coast Refuge plant and animal communities are 

described in "Significant Habitats and Habitat 

Complexes of the New York Bight Watershed" (USFWS, 

1997). The key biological value of Forsythe Refuge is the 

coastal estuaries and associated watershed. The Refuges 

hosts a number of rare species and communities. Many 

birds depend upon the habitat during migration and 

commercial fish species depend on the waters for a 

portion of their life cycle. 

Threatened, Endangered, Recovered and Rare Species

In and around Forsythe Refuge, there are 14 animal 

species Federally-listed as endangered, threatened, 

recovered, or species of concern, formerly called candidate 

species (Appendix H). We actively manage for the piping 

plover (Charadrius melodus), peregrine falcon (Falco 

peregrinus), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). 

Piping plovers nest on the protected Wilderness Areas of 

the Holgate Unit and on Little Beach Island. Generally 

19-37 pairs nest at the two areas. These breeding pairs 

represent about 29 percent of New Jersey breeding 

population. 

Peregrine falcons use the Forsythe Refuge throughout 

the year. Two nesting pairs use artificial nesting 

structures on the Refuge. The peregrine falcon has 

successfully nested on the Refuge since 1980. The Refuge 

is also important for wintering peregrines. 

Bald eagles regularly use the Refuge wetlands to forage 

while migrating through or wintering in the area. 

During the nesting season, most use is along the Mullica 

River, but occasionally eagles forage over Refuge 

impoundments and adjacent salt marsh. During the 

winter eagles regularly forage in the impoundments and 

salt marshes of the Brigantine Division. 

Vegetation and Habitat Types

About 82% of the Refuge land at the Forsythe Refuge is 

wetland, and 18% is upland. Salt marsh makes up about 

78% of the Refuge land at the Forsythe Refuge. This is 

the largest single land use/habitat type within the 

Refuge. The dominant salt marsh species are salt marsh 

cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) and salt-meadow grass 

(Spartina patens). Most of the salt marsh was gridditched during the first part of this century for mosquito 

control. Approximately 6,000 acres of salt marsh is 

unditched, and was designated as wilderness under the 

Wilderness Act. The salt marsh is interlaced with small 

tidal streams, mudflats, and ponds or pannes. 

Forested wetlands make up about 4% of the Refuge land 

at the Forsythe Refuge. The dominant overstory trees in 

this habitat are red maple (Acer rubrum), oaks (Quercus

spp.), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), sweetgum 

(Liquidambar styraciflua), and occasional stands of 

Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides). Bogs and 

brush-dominated wetlands are interspersed through the 

forested wetlands. The cedar swamps and bogs are 

classified as sensitive ecological communities, with 

several rare plant species (e.g., bog asphodel - 

Narthecium americanum and swamp pink - Helonias 

bullata). 

Forested uplands make up about 13% of the Refuge land 

at the Forsythe Refuge. Upland forests range from 

deciduous to coniferous dominated overstory composition, 

with tree species including: pitch pine (Pinus rigida), 

oaks (e.g., white oak - Quercus alba, chestnut oak - Q. 

prinus, black oak - Q. velutina, scarlet oak - Q. coccinea), 

black cherry (Prunus serotina), and sweet gum 

(Liquidambar styraciflua). Fire played a prominent role 

in defining the composition and structure of upland plant 

communities, both historically and prehistorically (Little, 

1998). There are still some nearby State lands in the 

Pine Barrens that receive regular fire treatment (both 

prescribed and wild), but fire on Refuge lands has been 

suppressed for decades. 

Grassland uplands make up about 3% of the Refuge land 

at the Forsythe Refuge. These grasslands contain forbs 

and grasses interspersed with sassafras (Sassafras 

albidum), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and 

winged sumac (Rhus copalina). Current grasslands are 

comprised of both native and exotic species. 

Beaches and vegetated dunes make up about 2% of the 

Refuge land at the Forsythe Refuge. These habitats are 

critical for species unique to those communities. Most of 

the Refuge's shrub/scrub habitat is located on islands. 

Additional shrub/scrub habitats (upland brush) are found 

on the mainland, and represent early successional stages 

of upland forest. The Holgate Unit and Little Beach 

Island, which are part of the Brigantine Wilderness Area, 

represent these community types. 
 Affected Environment 

 III

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment - July 2000 III - 5

Open water habitat types of the Refuge include bays, 

streams, rivers and small ponds or reservoirs. These 

shallow waters are critical elements of the coastal 

ecosystem. However, only the small ponds and reservoirs 

are owned by the Refuge. All navigable waterways and 

inter-tidal areas (between mean high and low tide) fall 

within the jurisdiction of the State of New Jersey. 

Ownership notwithstanding, open waterways found 

throughout the lands owned by the Refuge have a major 

influence on the ecological functions of those 

communities. 

Three large, managed impoundments are an important 

feature of the Brigantine Division. The Northwest Pool 

and the Southwest Pool, about 500 and 300 acres 

respectively, are fed by Doughty Creek and springs. 

These two pools are managed as a freshwater 

impoundment and moist-soil unit. The East Pool 

(536 acres), receives water from the two west pools and 

tide gates. This pool is managed as a brackish 

impoundment. 

Other freshwater bodies in the Brigantine Division 

include: the spring-fed Experimental Pool, Lily Lake (a 

22-acre reservoir upstream from the impoundments on 

Doughty Creek), and two ponds that were former borrow 

pits. Several freshwater impoundments and one brackish 

impoundment (totaling about 350 acres) are located in 

the Barnegat Division. 

Wildlife Resources

Migratory Birds: Migratory birds use the Refuge in three 

different ways. First, many thousands of birds of all 

kinds use the Refuge as stopover habitat during the 

spring and fall migrations. Second, a wide variety and, in 

some cases, very large portions of populations depend 

upon the Refuge for wintering habitat. Finally, a rich 

variety and number of birds breed on the Refuge. 

The coastal wetlands of New Jersey are of international 

importance to wintering waterfowl. In 1991, 39% of the 

Atlantic Flyway American black duck (Anas rubripes) 

population, 67 % of the Atlantic brant (Branta bernicla) 

population, and 34% of the greater snow goose (Chen 

caerulescens) population were recorded in New Jersey 

during the Service=s mid-winter inventory. 

The wetlands of the Forsythe Refuge are classified as 

Wetlands of International Importance under the 

RAMSAR Convention, one of only seventeen sites s

designated in the United States. During a Decemb

1991, aerial survey of the Refuge, 85,570 waterfowl

observed. The highest waterfowl concentrations at

Refuge do not occur until late December. Weekly 

waterfowl counts conducted at the Brigantine Divis

Impoundments indicate waterfowl populations nea

double from early in the month, so it is possible nea

180,000 birds use the Refuge during the peak perio

Many marsh and water birds use the Refuge. The 

common include great blue heron (Ardea herodias),

egret (Casmerodious albus), snowy egret (Egretta t

black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax),

ibis (Plegadis falcinellus) and cattle egret (Bubulcu

Herons and egrets nest on or near the Refuge, frequ

foraging in the salt marshes, streams, ponds, and 

impoundments. Until recently, least terns and bla

skimmers nested in substantial numbers on Holgat

other barrier/bay islands. 

Shorebird use of the Refuge peaks during the sprin

migration. The most common species are: sanderlin

(Calidris alba), semi-palmated sandpiper (Calidris

pusilla), dunlin (Calidris alpina), semi-palmated plo

(Charadrius semipalmatus), short-billed dowitcher 

(Limnodromus griseus), willet (Catoptrophorus 

semipalmatus), greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanol

lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes), black-bellied plo

(Pluvialis squatarola), least sandpiper (Caladris 

minutilla), ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres), re

knot (Caladris canutus), whimbrel (Numenius phae

spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularia) and pectoral 

sandpiper (Calidris melanotos). 

Many raptors breed on the Forsythe Refuge, includ

red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), turkey vultu

(Cathartes aura), sharp-shinned hawks (Accipiter 

striatus), broad-winged hawks (Buteo platypterus),

shouldered hawks (Buteo lineatus), northern harrie

(Circus cyaneus), great horned owls (Bubo virginian

common barn owls (Tyto alba), barred owls (Strix v

and short-eared owls (Asio flammeus). Many other

raptors may be seen during migration; some of them

winter at the Refuge. 

Many songbirds species use the Refuge for nesting and to 

rest or feed during migration. The most important 

nesting species are those dependent upon the marshes 

and coastal island habitats, for example, seaside sparrow 

(Ammodranus maritimus), marsh wren (Cistothorus 

palustris), and sedge wren (Cistothorus platensis). A 

large number of birds nesting on or migrating through 

the Refuge are Neotropical migrants (wintering in 

Central and South America). As a group, Neotropic

migrants have shown recent population declines du

habitat loss and deterioration in wintering areas an

along migration corridors. 

Mammals: Over 30 species of mammals occur on th

Refuge, in assemblages characteristic of the Mid-At

coastal communities. Forest species include red fox
III Affected Environment 

 

III - 6 Jersey Coast Refuges

(Vulpes vulpes), grey fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), 

coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), long-tailed 

weasel (Mustela frenata), short-tailed weasel (Mustela 

erminea), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), opossum 

(Didelphis virginiana), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus 

virginianus), grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), red 

squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), chipmunk (Tamias 

striatus), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), redbacked vole (Clethrionomys gapperi), pine vole (Microtus 

pinetorum), masked shrew (Sorex cinereus), short-tailed 

shrew (Blarina brevicauda), eastern mole (Scalopus 

aquaticus), and a variety of bat species. Shrubland and 

grassland species of mammals include the meadow vole 

(Microtis pennsylvanicus), meadow jumping mouse 

(Zapus hudsonius), woodchuck (Marmota monax), eastern 

cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), and several of the 

forest and wetland species. Mammals associated with 

wetlands include mink (Mustela vison), river otter (Lutra 

canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), meadow vole, 

southern bog lemming (Synaptomys cooperi), and least 

shrew (Cryptotis parva). 

Several mammals have substantial impacts on the 

habitat and populations managed on the Refuge. High 

densities of white-tailed deer have negatively affected the 

structure and composition of plant communities. High 

densities of muskrats, have compromised the integrity of 

dikes needed to retain and manipulate water in 

impoundment. 

Many species of nesting, migrating, or wintering raptors 

dependent on the availability of small mammal 

populations in all cover types. 

Reptiles and Amphibians: Nineteen species of reptiles 

and amphibians occur on the Refuge. These species fall 

into two major groups -- Pine Barrens and coastal 

estuarine environment. Important species from the Pine 

Barrens group include wood turtles (C. insculpta), Cope's 

gray and pine barrens treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis and H. 

andersonii), ambystomid salamaders (Ambystoma spp.). 

The most important estuarine environment species is the 

northern diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys t. terrapin). 

Fish: The salt marshes, streams, ponds, bays, and rivers 

that comprise the estuaries of the Refuge are critical to a 

rich variety of fish, shell fish, and crabs. These species 

are the foundation for sport and commercial fisheries, as 

well as food base for many birds and mammals. Most of 

the species are found in navigable waterways, areas the 

Service does not own. 

Invertebrates: A wide variety and number of 

invertebrates, both terrestrial and aquatic, are of 

biological importance. Invertebrates are not well 

documented from this area, unless they are economically 

important. Tiger beetles and lepidopterans, some rare, 

are frequently observed. There is a long history of 

aggressive mosquito control, which has impacted other 

species. 

Archaeological and Historical Environment

Prehistoric Period

Human occupation of the New Jersey coast began with 

the arrival of Native American hunter-gatherer bands, 

approximately 10,000 B.C. Only a few archaeological 

sites earlier than about 5000 B.C. have been found in the 

area, probably partly due to a major rise in sea level due 

to Pleistocene glacial melting. The coastline of that time 

is now lies submerged in the Atlantic Ocean, and former 

freshwater river valleys are now salt marsh. An artifact 

collection from the area of Cape May Refuge is one of the 

few signs of settlement in this period. 

Human population on the coast seems to have increased 

somewhat after 5000 B.C., as the climate became notably 

warmer. The locations and contents of archaeological 

sites reflect a more diverse mix of hunting and gathering 

of upland, wetland, and aquatic resources that varied 

with the seasons. Sea level change became much more 

gradual by about 2000 B.C., and the extensive coastal 

wetlands that developed provided rich hunting, 

shellfishing, and plant gathering environments. This 

greater resource reliability supported a larger and more 

stable human population. Small scale hoe agriculture, 

pottery, and the bow and arrow are notable developments 

found at sites dating after about 1000 B.C. 

Except for a handful of studies prior to Refuge 

construction projects, Forsythe Refuge lands have never 

been surveyed for archaeological sites. Prehistoric site 

potential is high, but site discovery is complicated by 

major changes in sea level over the last 12,000 years. 

Much of the Refuge is tidal marsh, and archaeological 

sites in this setting are especially difficult to locate and 

study. In exposed areas, they have often been lost to 

erosion. The upland portions of the Refuge have 

generally high potential for prehistoric sites, as much of 

this land adjoins wetland resources used by their 

inhabitants. 

Historic Period

Permanent settlement of the Forsythe Refuge area by 

Euro-Americans began in the second quarter of the 18th 

century. This was preceded by a long period of contact 

with Native American Lenape through offshore fishing 

and the fur trade. By the middle of the century, the 

Lenape were severely diminished by European diseases 

and had lost nearly all of their former lands. Many 
 Affected Environment 

 III

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment - July 2000 III - 7

emigrated to northwest New Jersey and the Ohio Valley 

during this period. 

Colonial towns on the New Jersey shore were generally 

established at estuaries with suitable harbors for fishing 

and trade, such as the Mullica River. The New York 

Road linked these communities along the shore. Ore 

from bogs and charcoal from the pine barrens provided 

raw materials for an ironworks at Batsto that produced 

munitions for the American Revolution. A British raid 

in 1778 burnt the community of Chestnut Neck and all 

the vessels in the harbor, including some privateers, but 

did not achieve its secondary goal of destroying the 

ironworks. Limited by shallow and small harbors, these 

shore communities experienced slow economic and 

population growth during the 19th century. Fishing, 

shellfishing, and agriculture remained the primary 

economic activities for most families. The later 

development of Atlantic City, Cape May, and other 

resorts had little effect on the surrounding areas without 

beachfront. This factor has done much to preserve the 

rural character of the Refuge vicinity. 

Upland areas on Forsythe Refuge generally consist of 

former farmland associated with historic period 

settlement. Much of the Brigantine Division, for 

example, was part of a large early 19th century farm 

based on Brigantine Island. Therefore, historic period 

archaeological resources are unlikely except in a few 

settings, such as present or former landing areas. Some 

remains of wharves for these landings, and possibly 

sunken small craft, may exist in the marshes. A 

lifesaving station site near Brigantine City is one of the 

few documented historic archaeological sites at the 

Refuge. 

There are currently no standing historic structures on the 

Refuge, but the Forked River Game Farm, proposed for 

acquisition from the New Jersey Division of Fish and 

Wildlife, has several structures that will require review 

of their eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places. 

Socioeconomic Environment

The Forsythe Refuge receives over 300,000 visitors per 

year. The predominant public uses of the Refuge are 

hunting, fishing, clamming, crabbing, wildlife 

observation, environmental education, and boating

dikes surrounding the impoundments at the Brigan

Division serve as an 8-mile auto tour for the public

Brigantine impoundment area accounts for about o

half of the Refuge visitors. The impoundment area

renowned as one of the premier birding sites in No

America. A recent study shows that birders alone, 

make up about 75% of the auto tour visitors, annua

add about $4.01 million to the local economy (Kerlin

1995). 

Wildlife-dependent public use at the Refuge is cons

with the primary industry for the regionBtourism. 

New Jersey shore has long been a major tourist 

destination. Boating, fishing, hunting, shellfishing

beach-related pursuits are typical for tourists. Mos

the tourists come from major nearby metropolitan 

centers: Philadelphia, Newark, and New York City

Over the last 20 years, the development of casinos a

related industries has created a large influx of peop

This has spurred the rapid construction of housing 

support infrastructure (e.g., roads, malls, plazas, ut

towers and corridors). The increase in human dens

and associated uses have caused considerable strai

the ecosystem from the following factors: 

1. Habitat loss - direct conversion of natural h

types to developed types. 

2. Habitat fragmentation - conversion of large

contiguous tracts of natural habitat types t

mosaic of discontinuous, smaller habitat ty

relicts; or erecting barriers that cause direc

lethal impacts to fish, wildlife and plants (e

roads, towers, dams). 

3. Habitat degradation - partial deterioration 

habitat due to pollution (siltation, nutrient

pesticides, metals), exotic and pest species 

(phragmites, house cats), incompatible uses

terrain vehicles, personal watercraft). 

4. Water consumption - reducing subsurface a

surface waters due to irrigation, home 

consumption, and industrial applications.

There is a substantial commercial fishing industry in 

southern New Jersey. For example, fishing is the second 

largest industry after tourism in Cape May County. 

Important species include: finned fish, clams, mussels, 

and crabs. There is an increase in shellfish aquaculture, 

especially oysters. Bait fish, eel, and horseshoe crabs are 

also a major component of the industry. 

In addition to the above more apparent environmental 

economic connections, there are others. A study 

conducted in Minnesota determined that there is a 

statistically significant positive relationship betwee

amount of wetland acres in an area and residential

property values (Lupi, et al., 1991). The authors w

able to identify which values were captured (i.e., op

space, view, habitat, etc). A study conducted in Ma

outlines the economic benefits of open space to loca

communities (American Farmland Trust, 1992). 

Beyond the economic factors in land use planning t
III Affected Environment 

 

III - 8 Jersey Coast Refuges

are ethical considerations. Is the land a commodity that 

belongs to us? Or is land a community to which we 

belong? Are we the masters of the land or are we 

stewards of the land? 
 Affected Environment 

 III

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment - July 2000 III - 9

Cape May National Wildlife Refuge

Physical Environment

Climate and Air Quality

Both the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

(Forsythe Refuge) and Cape May National Wildlife 

Refuge (Cape May Refuge) are within the New Jersey 

coastal weather station zone (Sandy Hook, Long Branch, 

Atlantic City, and Cape May weather stations). The 

ocean moderates the State's continental climate within 

the coastal weather zone. The average monthly 

temperature is 35EF in January, the coldest month of the 

year, and 75EF in July, the hottest month of the year. 

The growing season for the Refuges ranges from 

245 days, at the north end of Forsythe Refuge, to 

255 days at the southern end of Cape May Refuge. The 

growing season is the period of the year in which the 

average temperature is 43EF or more. The average 

annual precipitation in the coastal zone is 42.6 inches. 

Precipitation is distributed fairly evenly through the 

year, with slightly more in July and August, and less in 

February. 

Geology, Topography and Soils

Elevations in Cape May County range between sea level 

and 55 feet above mean sea level. The interior of Cape 

May County consists of low rolling hills and poorly 

drained depressions. The ocean side of the County 

consists of broad tidal marsh areas fronted by barrier 

islands. There are well developed sand dunes in some 

places on the ocean barrier islands and along the shore of 

Delaware Bay in the southwestern part of the County. 

The major soil series in the Great Cedar Swamp Division 

of Cape May Refuge are Pocomoke-Muck association and 

Tidal Marsh association. The major soils series in the 

Delaware Bay Division are Hammonton-Woodstown-Klej 

association, Pocomoke-Muck association, DownerSassafras-Fort Mott association, and Tidal Marsh 

association. 

Hydrology

The aquifers that underlie Forsythe Refuge also un

Cape May Refuge. However, there are major differ

 First, the Cape May Peninsula is surrounded on th

sides by salt water. Second, the groundwater recha

areas for the aquifers are not as large as farther no

along the coast. Because of these two factors, saltw

intrusion into the Cohansey aquifer is a substantia

greater problem than further north. The City of Ca

May has constructed a $5 million desalination plan

because it can no longer extract suitable freshwater

some of its five wells. The plant=s capacity is two m

gallons of water per day. The estimated operating 

maintenance costs are $500,000 per year. 

Like Forsythe Refuge, Cape May Refuge has both t

and non-tidal surface waters. Non-tidal waters inc

marshes, bogs, ponds, creeks, and seasonally floode

forests. Tidal waters include ponds, salt and fresh 

marshes, creeks and old ditches, coves, bays, and in

Most of the salt marsh is tidally inundated daily, w

greatest inundation occurring at new and full moon

The Great Cedar Swamp Division is drained by Ced

Creek and Dennis Creek; the Delaware Bay Divisio

drained by Bidwell Creek, Dias Creek, Green Creek

Fishing Creek. These streams display low runoff, a

half the volume of other streams in the State, which

indicates a high infiltration rate. The Bidwell's Cre

drainage basin has been identified by the County a

of the region's most important groundwater recharg

areas. Other major groundwater recharge areas in

County are near Cape May Court House and Cold S

Contaminants

The Service collected sediments, mummichogs, and

fiddler crabs at 25 locations in and adjacent to the C

May Refuge in 1992 to determine baseline contamin

 The 25 locations included all major drainages and 

selected tidal creeks. The Service analyzed the sed

and mummichogs for trace metals, organochlorine 

pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's); th

fiddler crabs were analyzed only for organochlorine

(USFWS, 1994b). 

The sediment trace metal concentrations were considered 

to be typical for sediments in southern New Jersey and 

probably represent site-specific background levels. 

Although low, the concentrations of arsenic, beryllium, 

cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, 

and zinc at one or more sample locations exceeded 

sediment "effects range-low" levels developed by the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and 

freshwater sediment "lowest effects" levels developed by 

the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Because

sediment trace metal concentration levels did not e

more severe effects levels, the potential for adverse

effects on benthic organisms exposed to the contam

is low to non-existent. The mean trace metal levels

in mummichogs and fiddler crabs were at the low e

ranges typically observed in New Jersey. The maxi

trace metal levels found in mummichogs and fiddle

crabs appeared to be well below levels of concern fo
III Affected Environment 

 

III - 10 Jersey Coast Refuges

and wildlife. 

None of the twenty organochlorine tested for were 

detected in the sediment samples (average detection limit 

= 0.04 ppm dry weight). The only organochlorine 

detected in the mummichogs and fiddler crabs were the 

DDT breakdown products, DDD and DDE. The average 

combined DDD and DDE concentrations were comparable 

to background levels for New Jersey. The maximum 

combined DDD and DDE level found (0.18 ppm wet 

weight in mummichogs and 1.04 ppm wet weight in 

fiddler crabs), however, were greater than the 

background levels. Organochlorine concentration levels 

in Cape May Refuge area mummichog and fiddler crab 

populations are low and are not expected to adversely 

affect the organisms or their immediate predators. 

Although low, the concentrations of DDD and DDE did 

not appear to decline significantly since 1989Bthe last 

previous sampling. Although the use of the parent 

compound DDT ceased in the mid-1960's, it is possible 

that weathered material continues to enter the estuarine 

ecosystem as previously contaminated areas are 

disturbed through dredging or erosion. 

Biological Environment

There is an extensive description of the plant and animal 

communities in the Cape May Refuge area in "Significant 

Habitats and Habitat Complexes of the New York Bight 

Watershed" (USFWS, 1997). The most important 

biological features of the locality include the estuaries 

associated with Delaware Bay and the Atlantic coast, the 

transition between southern and northern species 

assemblages, and the unique and critical role the 

peninsula plays as a staging area and corridor for bird 

migration. 

Threatened, Endangered, Recovered and Rare Species

There are 12 species in and around Cape May Refuge 

that are Federally-listed endangered, threatened, 

recovered, or species of concern, formerly called candidate 

species (Appendix H). The listed species for which the 

most information is available are the peregrine falcon 

and bald eagle. Fall raptor surveys conducted at Cape 

May Point by the Cape May Bird Observatory since 1976 

have demonstrated a dramatic increase in observations of 

both species. Over the past 10 years, peregrine falcon 

sightings have undergone a five-fold increase, while bald 

eagle sightings have doubled. 

Migrating and wintering eagles utilize the extensive 

marshes for hunting, and the wooded swamp and forest 

edge habitats for roosting. The Dennis Creek Marsh is 

one of the most heavily used raptor sites in New Jersey. 

The Great Cedar Swamp is an historic nesting site for 

bald eagles. Although eagles now only roost in the 

swamp, the area is a potential nesting site. 

A number of the other listed species have been 

documented on Cape May peninsula. There is a strong 

potential for their occurrence on lands currently owned 

by the Refuge, or proposed for acquisition. 

Vegetation and Habitat Types

About half of the Refuge land at the Cape May Refuge is 

wetland and about half is upland. Forests (combining 

upland and wetland types) represent the largest single 

habitat type for the Refuge. 

Unlike the Forsythe Refuge, most of the wetlands in the 

Cape May Refuge are dominated by woody vegetation 

(swamps) not emergent vegetation (marshes). Salt 

marsh makes up about 15% of the Refuge land, forested 

wetlands make up 30%, shrub/scrub wetlands and bogs 

make up about 4%, and open water makes up less than 

1%. 

Most of the salt marshes were either impounded earlier 

in the century to create meadows for salt hay production 

or grid ditched for mosquito control. Most of the 

impounded areas have been reopened by tidal action or 

human intervention. 

Forested uplands make up about 42% of the Serviceowned property at the Cape May Refuge. Upland forests 

range from deciduous to coniferous dominated overstory 

composition, with tree species including: pitch pine 

(Pinus rigida), oaks (e.g., white oak - Quercus alba, 

chestnut oak - Q. prinus, black oak - Q. velutina, scarlet 

oak - Q. coccinea), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and 

sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua). Fire played a 

prominent role in defining the composition and structure 

of upland plant communities, both historically and 

prehistorically (Little, 1998). There are still some nearby 

State lands in the Pine Barrens that receive regular fire 

treatment (both prescribed and wild), but fire on Refuge 

lands has been suppressed for decades. Other upland 

habitats include shrub/scrub uplands which make up 

about 3%, and grassland/old fields uplands which make 

up about 3%. Beaches make up less than 1% of the 

Service-owned property. 

There is one major vegetative community present in the 

Cape May Refuge area that is not found in the Forsythe 

Refuge area: the Cape May lowland swamp. Unique to 

the peninsula, it is a deciduous forest swamp with an 

unusually high species diversity and found in headwaters 

areas. 

Wildlife Resources
 Affected Environment 

 III

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment - July 2000 III - 11

Migratory Birds: The Cape May Peninsula has long been 

renowned for its spectacular concentrations of birds 

during the spring and fall migrations. Because of its 

unique configuration and geographic location along the 

Atlantic Flyway, thousands of songbirds, raptors, and 

woodcock are funneled into Cape May during the fall 

migration. Facing a 12-mile open water crossing, 

migrants may rest and feed in the area until favorable 

winds allow them to either cross Delaware Bay or head 

back north, up and around the Bay. In addition, the 

peninsula's extensive marshes attract large numbers of 

waterfowl, particularly wintering black ducks, while the 

bay's narrow beaches attract major assemblages of 

shorebirds in the spring. Over 360 species of birds can be 

observed in Cape May County during the year. 

The upland shore edge of Delaware Bay is well 

recognized as a critical fall migratory bird corridor. The 

wetlands of the Delaware Bay Estuary, which include the 

Delaware Bay wetlands in the Cape May Refuge, are 

classified as Wetlands of International Importance under 

the RAMSAR Convention, one of only 17 sites so 

designated in the United States. 

The coastal wetlands of New Jersey, including the 

Delaware Bay marshes, are of international importance 

to wintering waterfowl, annually wintering 34% of the 

entire Atlantic Flyway black duck (Anas rubripes) 

population. During severe winters, black ducks rely 

heavily on freshwater fringe areas along the upland 

edges of the marsh, where the relatively constant 

temperature of the upper reaches of small streams and 

creeks cause them to remain ice-free when the remainder 

of the marsh has iced over. These marshes also provide 

important black duck breeding habitat. Nesting surveys 

conducted by the New Jersey Division of Fish, Game, and 

Wildlife have found high nest densities in the Delaware 

Bay Division. 

In addition to black duck, Cape May Refuge also supports 

large numbers of other migrating waterfowl, many of 

which remain throughout the winter: wood duck (Aix 

sponsa), blue-winged teal (Anas discors), green-winged 

teal (A. crecca), American wigeon (A. americana), mallard 

(A. platyrhynchos), gadwall (A. strepera), northern 

shoveler (A. clypeata), northern pintail (A. acuta), 

canvasback (Aythya valisineria), greater scaup 

(A. marila), lesser scaup (A. affinis), bufflehead 

(Bucephala albeola), and Canada goose 

(Branta canadensis).. 

Marsh and waterbird use at the Cape May Refuge is 

similar to that at Forsythe Refuge. 

The Delaware Bay shoreline is a major shorebird st

areas in North America, second only to the Copper 

Delta in Alaska. Delaware Bay is a hemisphericall

important shorebird site. Hundreds of thousands o

shorebirds, nearly 80% of some populations, stop to

and feed here during their spring migration from S

America to their breeding grounds in the Arctic. Th

arrival of over 20 species of shorebirds, primarily re

knots, ruddy turnstones, sanderlings, and semipalm

sandpipers coincides with the peak horseshoe crab 

spawning season. Horseshoe crab eggs provide an 

abundant source of food for these shorebirds to repl

their energy reserves. 

There is substantial raptor migration through Cape

Refuge, with large numbers of 15 species observed. 

year since 1976, an average of 75,000 hawks have b

recorded by the Cape May Bird Observatory. Becau

these birds are hesitant to cross wide expanses of w

most species migrate along the length of the Bay co

utilizing the Bayshore upland edge as a migratory 

corridor. 

Notable raptor species include sharp-shinned hawk

Cooper's hawk (A. cooperii), red-tailed hawk, broad

winged hawk, red-shouldered Hawk, northern harr

(Circus cyaneus), American kestrel (Falco sparveriu

and merlin (F. columbarius). 

Large numbers of owls also migrate through the Ca

May Refuge. Typical species include the common b

owl, northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus), an

long-eared owl (Asio otus). The thick cedar groves a

woodlands of the expansion area are important to 

wintering populations of owls, including long-eared

short-eared owl, and northern saw-whet owl. 

American woodcock concentrate in large numbers o

Cape May peninsula during the fall migration. The

utilize the field/forest edge and old field habitats. C

Charles, Virginia, is the only other area along the 

Atlantic coast that concentrates woodcock in compa

numbers. 

During the fall migration, nearly 100 species of son

pass through the County, utilizing a variety of habi

types. An abundance of songbirds also breeds in th

field/forest edge habitat of the cedar swamps and sa

marsh. Cape May Refuge also provides nesting hab

for regionally and nationally significant species suc

rails, Neotropical migrants, and raptors. 

Mammals: The mammals occupying Cape May Refuge 

would be nearly identical to those described for Forsythe 

Refuge. The one possible exception may be the marsh 

rice rat (Oryzomys palustris). At the northern extreme of 

its range along the Delaware Bay, it may not occur 

farther north on the Atlantic Coast. At both Refug

several species of bats occur in forested habitat typ

during the summer breeding season. Forest openin
III Affected Environment 

 

III - 12 Jersey Coast Refuges

common foraging areas for this group. A number of other 

migrating bat species probably pass through southern 

New Jersey during migration, while others would use 

caves for hibernacula (not found locally). Very little 

research has been done on bats in this ecosystem. 

Reptiles and Amphibians: The reptiles and amphibians 

known to occur on the Refuge represent two major 

assemblages B Pine Barrens and coastal estuarine 

environment. Important species from the Pine Barrens 

group include wood turtles (C. insculpta), Cope's gray and 

pine barrens treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis and H. 

andersonii), ambystomid salamaders (Ambystoma spp.). 

An important estuarine ecosystem species is the northern 

diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys t. terrapin). 

Fish: The estuarine habitat at Cape May Refuge is 

similar to that at Forsythe Refuge, and hosts many of the 

same species of fish. Some species, like the mummichog 

(Fundulus heteroclitis), a common prey species for many 

larger fish and for wading birds, depend on salt marsh as 

their primary habitat. Other species depend on the 

estuary for only a portion of their life cycle. Important 

commercial and recreational finfish and shellfish species 

that utilize the estuary during a portion of their life cycle 

include horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus), weakfish 

(Cyonscion regalis), summer flounder (Paralichthys 

dentatus), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), black sea bass 

(Centropristis striata), blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), 

and hardshell clam (Mercenaria mercenaria). The 

horseshoe crab is particularly noteworthy. The Delaware 

Bay hosts the largest concentration of horseshoe crabs, 

and many birds depend on horseshoe crab eggs for food. 

(See Migratory Birds above.) 

Archaeological and Historical Environment

Prehistoric Period

The Cape May Refuge and the surrounding area was the 

subject of an archaeological field school sponsored by 

Rutgers University and Stockton College from 1995 

through 1998. Several prehistoric sites were discovered, 

most notably a large site or group of sites on a tidal 

marsh island that is rapidly eroding. In addition to the 

expected shellfish and mammal remains, a substantial 

amount of turtle bone from a variety of species was 

identified here. 

There is a proposal to study the paleoecology of the 

adjacent marshland, to determine the biological resources 

available at the time the site was occupied. While the 

field school was not designed specifically as a planning 

study to identify archaeological sites in the Refuge, its 

findings show that the highly varied and changing mix of 

upland and wetland supported Native American 

populations in the area for an apparently unbroken 

period covering the last 12,000 years. 

Historic Period

Historic period settlement on the Refuge appears to have 

been limited. Most of the area was marshland, woodland, 

or farmland, with little recorded settlement on Refuge 

property, and apparently few landing areas to provide 

opportunities for maritime sites. A mill location on one of 

the streams within the Refuge is one of the few recorded 

sites. There are no standing historic structures on the 

Refuge, however there is a family cemetery. 

Socioeconomic Environment

As is the case along the rest of the New Jersey coast, 

tourism is the number one industry in Cape May County. 

 Cape May County is ranked as the second best birding 

hotspot in all of North America (Konrad, 1996). A recent 

study estimated that the 100,000 birders who annually 

visit Cape May County bring more than $31 million into 

the local economy (Kerlinger, 1997). 

There is also a substantial commercial fishing industry in 

southern New Jersey. Fishing is the second largest 

industry after tourism in Cape May County. There is an 

increase in shellfish aquaculture, especially oysters. Bait 

fish, eel, and horseshoe crabs are also a major component 

of the industry. 

Over the last 20 years, casino development in Atlantic 

City has spurred a large influx of people to Cape May 

County. As farther north along the New Jersey coast, 

this has spurred a rapid construction of housing and 

support infrastructure (e.g., roads, malls, plazas, and 

utility towers). The increase in human density and 

associated uses have caused considerable strains on the 

ecosystem from the following factors: 

1. Habitat loss - direct conversion of natural habitat 

types to developed types. 

2. Habitat fragmentation - conversion of large 

contiguous tracts of natural habitat types to a 

mosaic of discontinuous, smaller habitat type 

relicts; or erecting barriers that cause direct 

lethal impacts to fish, wildlife and plants (e.g., 

roads, towers, dams). 

3. Habitat degradation - partial deterioration of 

habitat due to pollution (siltation, nutrients, 

pesticides, metals), exotic and pest species 

(phragmites, house cats), incompatible uses (allterrain vehicles, personal watercraft). 
 Affected Environment 

 III

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment - July 2000 III - 13

4. Water consumption - reducing subsurface and 

surface waters due to irrigation, home 

consumption, and industrial applications. 

In addition to these environmental-economic connections, 

there are others. A study conducted in Minnesota 

determined that there is a statistically significant 

positive relationship between the amount of wetland 

acres in an area and residential property values (Lupi, et 

al., 1991). The authors were not able to identify which 

values were captured (i.e., open space, view, habitat, etc). 

 A study conducted in Maine outlines the economic 

benefits of open space to local communities (American 

Farmland Trust, 1992). 

Beyond the economic factors in land use planning there 

are ethical considerations. Is the land a commodity that 

belongs to us? Or is land a community to which we 

belong? Are we the masters of the land or are we 

stewards of the land? 
III Affected Environment 

 

III - 14 Jersey Coast Refuges

Two-mile Beach Unit

Physical Environment

The "Draft Environmental Assessment for the Closure of 

Electronic Engineering Center (EECEN)" (USCG, 1996) 

and the Environmental Baseline Survey Report EECEN 

(ABB, 1997) contain an extensive description of the 

Physical, Biological, and Socioeconomic environments of 

the Electronic Engineering Center. 

The Two Mile Beach Unit (Unit) occupies 491 acres, 

221 of which are above the mean high tide line. Of the 

221 acres above the mean high tide line, upland habitat 

makes up 90 acres, and wetland habitat the remaining 

131. 

Almost all of Unit is within the 100-year flood plain; the 

entire Unit is within the 500-year flood plain. The 

100-year flood, or intermediate regional tide, would have 

an elevation of 10.0 feet above mean sea level. The 

500-year flood, or standard project tide, would have an 

elevation of 14.0 feet above mean sea level. The 

September 1944 hurricane that struck New Jersey had a 

tide 8.0 feet above mean sea level. 

In a 100-year flood, or intermediate regional tide, all of 

the Unit would be flooded, except for a narrow strip along 

the top of the barrier dunes. In a 500-year flood, or 

standard project tide, all of the Unit, including the 

protective barrier dunes, would be underwater. In either 

event virtually all the buildings at EECEN would be 

destroyed or severally damaged (USCG, 1996). 

Biological Environment

The Unit is recognized for its biodiversity. 

Threatened, Endangered, Recovered and Rare Species

The piping plover has historically used the beaches as 

nesting grounds, up to three nesting pairs recorded in a 

given year. Peregrine falcons stop over before heading for 

the north coast of South America in the fall, and the 

American bald eagle has been documented in the area. 

Vegetation and Habitat Types

The lands above mean high tide consist of coastal beach 

and dune habitat and salt marsh habitat. 

The beach community is composed of sparse vegetation, 

including American searocket (Cakile edentula), coastblite goosefoot (Chenopdium rebrum) and beach-heather 

(Hudsonia tomentosa). The beach dunes are densely 

vegetated. The dominant dune vegetation includes 

beachgrass (Panicum amarum), bitter panic grass 

(Panicum amarulum), American beachgrass (Ammophila 

breviligulata), American wormseed (Chenopodium 

ambrosioides), and seaside goldenrod (Solidago 

sempervirens), bayberry (Myrica pennsylvanica), and 

black cherry (Prunus serotina). The site is an excellent 

example of a maritime forest. 

Common salt marsh species include saltmarsh cordgrass 

(Spartina alterniflora), saltmarsh camphor-weed 

(Pluchea purpuranscens), Carolina sealavender 

(Limonium carolinianum), salt-meadow grass (Spartina 

patens), saltmarsh rush (Juncus gerardii), marsh elder 

(Iva fructescens), and common reed (Phragmites 

australis). 

Wildlife Resources

Migratory birds: Common species include mallard (Anas 

platyrhynchos), common merganser (Mergus merganser), 

American coot (Fulica americana), killdeer (Charadrius 

vociferus), herring gull (Larus argentatus), turkey 

vulture (Cathartes aura), northern harrier (Circus 

cyaneus), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), red-tailed 

hawk, American kestrel (Falco sparverius), mourning 

dove (Zenaida macrourra), eastern screech-owl (Otus 

asio), belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), northern flicker 

(Colaptes aurarus), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), 

downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), and purple 

martin (Progne subis). 

Mammals: Many of the mammal species found in dune 

and tidal wetlands communities of Cape May County 

occur on the Unit. 

Reptiles and Amphibians: Reptile species common in the 

area include the eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), 

diamond back terrapins, eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus 

undulatus), and common garter snake (Thamnophis 

sirtalis). Amphibian species common in the area include 

eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), grey treefrog 

(Hyla versicolor), and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana). 

Fish: Fish occurring at Unit would be grouped into two 

major types: estuarine and near-shore marine. The 

estuarine systems have already been described above 

under Forsythe Refuge and Cape May Refuge. 

Archaeological and Historical Environment

Prehistoric Period
 Affected Environment 

 III

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment - July 2000 III - 15

No archaeological surveys have been done at Unit, but 

the property has potential for prehistoric archaeological 

sites, especially in areas of wetland edge environments. 

Several late prehistoric sites have been found nearby in 

similar settings. 

Historic Period

Although Cape May was settled by the middle of the 17th 

century, there is no record of historic occupation of this 

property until 1870, when a lifesaving station was built 

on or near it. Many remains of shipwrecks have been 

reported in the area, and there may be some evidence of 

these in the beachfront portion of the property. There are 

no standing historic structures on this property. The 

Coast Guard facility was established in the late 1940's, 

and its buildings are typical modern construction. 

Socioeconomic Environment

See Socioeconomic Environment section for Cape May 

Refuge.
III Affected Environment 

 

III - 16 Jersey Coast Refuges
IV Environmental Consequences 

 

IV - 2 Jersey Coast Refuges

This section assesses the physical, biological, and 

socioeconomic environmental impacts of implementing the 

Alternatives in Chapter II on the Jersey Coast Refuges 

and on the Affected Environment described in Chapter 

III. These first two pages describe general consequences 

common to all Alternatives, while the following sections 

discuss consequences as they relate to the specific actions 

and strategies of the Alternatives described in Chapter II. 

Physical Environment

Climate

None of the Alternatives would measurably impact the 

climatic conditions within the New Jersey coastal weather 

station zone (Sandy Hook, Long Branch, Atlantic City, 

and Cape May weather stations). All of the Alternatives 

would impact the micro-climatic conditions within the 

Refuge acquisition areas and the immediate surroundings 

(e.g., vegetated undeveloped lands would moderate local 

temperatures compared to developed lands). 

Air Quality

All of the Alternatives would positively impact the air 

quality in Ocean, Burlington, Atlantic, and Cape May 

Counties, because the Brigantine Wilderness Area is a 

Class I Air Quality area. The Clean Air Act provides for 

special emissions control regulations in areas surrounding 

Class I Air Quality areas. Furthermore, all the 

Alternatives would maintain or improve the air quality in 

the municipalities in which Refuge property is located, in 

direct relationship to the extent of the areas protected 

from development. 

Not protecting the air quality of the Brigantine 

Wilderness Area, would likely threaten or destroy unique 

floral, faunal and scenic values. 

Geology, Topography, and Soils

The Alternatives would not substantially impact these 

environmental features, except that the Alternatives 

would protect, in perpetuity, soil formation processes on 

lands the Refuge acquires. Some disturbances to surface 

soils and topography will occur at those locations selected 

for administrative, maintenance and visitor facilities, 

including visitor center, visitor contact stations, trails, 

platforms, and other structures. 

Hydrology

Each Alternative would protect the natural hydrology of 

the affected areas. Alternative A would provide the least 

protection, while Alternatives B and C would provide the 

most protection. Each Alternative would prevent 

substantial upland acreage from being developed through 

land acquisition and through planning assistance to local 

governments and other conservation partners. They 

would maintain groundwater recharge areas, and prevent 

groundwater withdrawal, factors important for protecting 

wetlands and long-term water supply for those dependant 

on wells for their water supply. The upland and wetlands 

protected through the Alternatives would maintain 

natural catchments to hold and absorb surface waters, 

thereby minimizing flooding. 

Water Quality

All the Alternatives would substantially impact the water 

quality in individual streams and possibly in the bodies of 

water into which these streams flow, for example, 

Barnegat Bay, Little Egg Harbor, Great Bay, Great Egg 

Harbor, and Delaware Bay. These positive impacts would 

result from the protection of ground water recharge areas, 

runoff prevention, sediment retention and by minimizing 

non-point source pollution. Positive impacts would also 

result from maintaining the ecosystem functions of 

disturbance regulation, water regulation, and waste 

treatment. 

Biological Environment

Threatened and Endangered Species

Each Alternative would protect sites important to these 

species. Alternative A would provide the least protection, 

while Alternatives B and C both have the potential to 

provide the most protection. 

Vegetation and Habitat

Each Alternative would prevent the conversion of 

agricultural and forest/shrub upland and wetlands to 

developed land. They would provide additional protection 

to wetlands beyond the protection afforded by existing 

wetlands regulations. They would also protect landscape 

characteristics such as habitat connectivity. Alternative 

A would provide the least protection, while Alternatives B 

and C both have the potential to provide the most 

protection, and contribute the greatest to habitat quality 

and the ecological integrity of the landscape. 

Wildlife Resources

Each Alternative would protect habitat types important to 

migratory birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, 

and invertebrates. Alternative A 

would protect the least amount of habitat, while 

Alternatives B and C would protect the most. 
 Environmental 

Consequences IV

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 

 IV - 3 

Archaeological and Historical Environment

All the Alternatives would protect archaeological and 

historical resources that may occur on land the Refuge 

acquires. They would not only protect archeological and 

historical resources from vandalism, but also during the 

planning and construction of all administrative, 

maintenance and visitor facilities. 

All the Alternatives would allow interpretation of human 

interaction with the Refuge environment over the last 

12,000 years, and provide data on the nature and degree 

of change that have occurred to that environment. 

Socioeconomic Environment

All the Alternatives would reduce the amount of 

developable land in townships where the Service acquires 

developable property for the Refuges. This would increase 

the value of the remaining developable land. 

The Alternatives would channel development to less 

environmentally sensitive areas, which would likely help 

townships reduce infrastructure costs related to any new 

development. They would also help assure the 

sustainable economic viability of the area, and promote 

the values which attract people to the Jersey Shore in the 

first place. 

Alternatives B and C would increase compatible wildlifedependent recreational opportunities (hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, environmental 

education and interpretation) in the area. These 

Alternatives would also stimulate ecotourism, potentially 

increasing tourism expenditures. 

Under some of the Alternatives certain newly acquired 

Refuge lands would be closed to all wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses, i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, environmental education 

and interpretation. This does not necessarily mean, 

however, that this would result in a net loss of 

opportunities in the area. While some private land 

owners allow the public to use their lands, others may not 

allow public access or only allow certain individuals to use 

their property. Thus, most lands we acquire may never 

have been open to the public. If we open these lands to 

public access it may very well represent a net increase in 

wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities in the area. 

All the Alternatives would decrease gross property tax 

revenues to townships in which the Service acquires 

developable property for the Refuges. However, the 

impact on net property tax revenues may be positive. Net 

property tax revenue equals the increase in gross property 

tax revenues from development, less the increase in

to the municipality for services and infrastructure n

for the development. 

All the Alternatives would increase Refuge Revenue

Sharing Payments to townships in which the Servic

acquires lands for the Refuge. 

The Refuge System contributes directly and indirect

human welfare through a number of ecosystem serv

and functions. Appendix F lists 17 ecosystem servic

functions to which the System substantially contrib

The global economic value of the ecosystem is estim

at $33 trillion (Costanza et al., 1997). 
IV Environmental Consequences 

 

IV - 4 Jersey Coast Refuges

Alternative A -The No Action Alternative

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Habitat and Wildlife Populations

Only the Refuge impoundments, representing 4% of the 

Refuge, would be actively managed. For the remaining 

96% of the Refuge, the current habitat mix and 

configuration would continue. 

Many forest blocks would remain fragmented or have 

convoluted edges. These conditions reduce the value of 

forests to forest interior migratory bird species and reduce 

ecosystem functioning. For example, Red-shouldered 

hawks and barred owls= which breed only in large forest 

tracts would not benefit, while Red-tailed hawks and 

great horned owls would benefit. Furthermore, brownheaded cowbirds (Molothrus ater), a forest edge species 

that parasitizes song bird nests, would continue to 

depress breeding success of forest interior passerine bird 

species. 

Many of the upland habitat types (e.g., forest, grassland) 

were heavily influenced by fire. Because fire has been 

suppressed for many years, many plants and animal 

species would be reduced or absent from these habitats 

under this Alternative. Fire suppression has also caused 

the build-up of high stand densities in the upland forests, 

with the accumulation of heavy fuel loads. This condition, 

with the regular drought during the summer poses a risk 

for an extreme wildfire situation, with corresponding 

potential for loss of property, human safety, and severe 

impact to upland habitats on the Refuge. 

Grassland habitat would succeed to shrub/scrub habitat 

and shrub/scrub habitat would succeed to sapling habitat. 

 This would benefit wildlife species associated with these 

habitats, but would not benefit wildlife species dependant 

on the grassland habitats. Wildlife species associated 

with large extensive grassland habitat would also not 

benefit. 

Some threatened and endangered species, such as piping 

plover and swamp pink, would benefit from Refuge 

management activities. There would be no active 

management for other threatened and endangered 

species. New surveys and management for endangered 

species and rare communities would not be implemented. 

Rare species and communities would likely be lost due to 

habitat changes from succession, invasive exotic species, 

or Refuge impoundment management. 

The current biological monitoring program would provide 

only minimal information on the highest priority species. 

The lack of information would mean that the Refuge 

would not know what impact management actions, or lack 

thereof, would have on wildlife populations and habitat. 

The expected impacts would include not knowing when 

some species decline, when habitat alterations favoring 

some target species but negatively impacting more critical 

species (e.g., endangered species) occur, and how we could 

improve our management techniques. The lack of 

information would also lessen our ability to operate the 

Refuge as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(Refuge System), and work with our partners in southern 

New Jersey. 

 

The current trapping program would continue under this 

Alternative. Raccoon and red fox populations would be 

maintained at levels needed to achieve ground-nesting 

bird production objectives within the Refuge 

impoundments. Muskrat populations would be managed 

to reduce the risks of marsh "eat-outs" and structural 

damage to impoundment dikes. This would not have an 

impact on Refuge-wide populations of muskrat. At the 

Holgate Unit and Little Beach Island, raccoon and fox 

populations would be maintained at levels needed to 

achieve sensitive species production objectives, especially 

piping plovers and colonial nesting birds. These predators 

have historically adversely impacted piping plover 

breeding success at the Holgate Unit and Little Beach 

Island. See discussion of the impacts of driving on the 

beach under Wilderness Management beginning on page 

IV-6. 

Invasive and Overabundant Species

The only invasive plant species the Refuge would manage 

is phragmites. Only a small part of the phragmites area 

would be managed. The phragmites areas treated would 

revert to native plant species. These native plants would 

produce greater seed and invertebrate biomass. These 

foods are very important to waterfowl and other migrating 

and wintering birds. 

 

Hundreds of acres dominated by other invasive plant 

species would not be treated under this Alternative. 

Consequently, those acres would not provide viable 

habitat for many native plant and animal species. 

Resident Canada goose and greater snow goose damage in 

the Brigantine impoundments and surrounding salt 

marshes would be managed. There would be some level of 

disturbance to other species during the days and locations 

of the special resident Canada goose and greater snow 

goose hunts. 
 Environmental 

Consequences IV

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental AssessmentB July 2000 

IV - 5 

The special hunts would close the Wildlife Drive at 

the Brigantine Division to other wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses on the 12 to 15 days that the hunts 

are held. If current special hunts do not adequately 

control the damages, other strategies would be 

adopted in line with the Service=s resident Canada 

goose and snow goose initiatives. (See Control of 

resident Canada geese and Control of white geese 

on page I-17.) 

 

Pesticide Use

About 150 acres of the Refuge per year would be 

treated with the herbicide Rodeo to control 

phragmites. An additional 300 acres would continue 

to be managed for phragmites control by tidal 

inundation. 

State and County mosquito control agencies would 

treat areas of the Refuge with insecticides under an 

existing Service and State cooperative agreement. 

Non-target species may be affected, and control of 

mosquitoes (larvae or adults) may result in 

temporary depressions in food availability to other 

wildlife. Sufficient staff time is not available to 

administer the program following Service 

guidelines. Mosquito control activities during 1999 

resulted in the application of more than 1,000 

pounds of pesticides on Refuge lands. This would 

continue under the No Action Alternative, subject to 

the results of the NEPA compliance efforts. (See 

Mosquito control on page I-17.) 

Big Game Hunting

The risk of excess deer numbers and damage from 

over browsing would be managed in and around the 

portions of the Refuge open to deer hunting. Over 

browsing would remove the shrub layer in forests 

and would cause the loss of associated animal 

species dependant on that habitat component. It 

would also reduce or eliminate recruitment of forest 

canopy species, especially Atlantic white cedar and 

other preferred species. For example, Atlantic white 

cedar is a species targeted for habitat restoration, 

and also a species preferred by deer as winter 

browse. Controlling deer numbers manages the 

risks of damage to agricultural crops and landscape 

plants off-Refuge. It also manages the risk of 

vehicle damage and human injury from collisions 

between deer and vehicles. 

 

Upland Game Hunting

This Alternative provides no upland game hunting 

opportunities on the Refuge. While this represents 

a potential lost hunting opportunity, the absence of 

hunters would reduce disturbances to migratory 

birds and other wildlife thus providing more viewing 

opportunities. Upland game hunting opportunities 

are provided off Refuge at State wildlife 

management areas. Currently, there are five New 

Jersey State Wildlife Management Areas totaling 

over 74,000 acres within Ocean and Atlantic 

Counties that offer upland game hunting seasons. 

Migratory Game Bird Hunting

The size and locations of areas for hunting have 

been designed to balance opportunities for hunting 

while still maintaining substantial areas as 

sanctuary for all species of wildlife. The total 

acreage is within the 40% limit prescribed by the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act and the Fish and 

Wildlife Improvement Act. 

The wetland habitats protected and managed at the 

Refuge provide critical resting and feeding areas to 

migrating/wintering waterfowl and other waterbird 

species on the Atlantic Flyway. Hunter presence out 

on the wetlands causes disturbances to waterfowl 

and non-game species. Many factors affect the 

extent of this disturbance, but since the majority of 

the wetlands would remain an inviolate sanctuary, 

the overall impact would be minimal. 

There would also be the potential for occasional 

conflicts between Refuge activities, including 

management actions and wildlife-related recreation 

on Refuge lands or navigable waterways. 

Fishing 

This Alternative would directly impact a small 

percentage of the Refuge=s freshwater or saltwater 

shoreline. The physical environmental consequences 

would include soil compaction, shoreline erosion 

(with associated water turbidity), and littering. 

Biological environmental consequences would 

include reduced plant productivity in near-shore 

water due to the increased turbidity, and reduced 

use by certain migratory bird species. This 

Alternative would also continue to provide free 

shoreline fishing and crabbing access for local 

residents and visitors who may not own, or have 

access to, a boat. 

 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

 

The Refuge=s major public use facility is its eightmile Wildlife Drive. The Drive is a broad, hardpacked dirt road atop a dike which surrounds and 
IV Environmental Consequences 

 

IV - 6 Jersey Coast Refuges

separates 1,400 acres of managed freshwater and 

brackish-water wetlands from the tidal saltmarsh. 

These impoundments are used extensively by birds 

year-round. Because of the exceptional wildlife 

viewing opportunities this situation offers, an 

average of 200,000 visits are made to the Drive each 

year, concentrated mainly in the spring and fall. 

The impact on wildlife of so many visitors is limited 

by two major factors: 

1. The configuration of the Drive only allows 

visitors to drive around the periphery of the 

impoundments, thus allowing wildlife to 

have sole use of undisturbed habitat toward 

the center. 

2. Vehicles on the Drive serve as photo blinds, 

and most visitors remain in their vehicles 

for much of their visit. 

Some disturbance does occur along the 

impoundment edges when visitors step out of their 

vehicles to get a better look at wildlife; and 

thousands of visitors also bicycle, walk, or jog on the 

drive each year, as weather and biting fly conditions 

allow. 

Because visitors to the Drive come from near and 

far, they bring millions of dollars into the local 

communities each year. 

While the Wildlife Drive is famous and draws large 

numbers of visitors, there are currently only a 

handful of other sites on the Refuge which are 

developed for wildlife observation. The small 

number of wildlife viewing sites is a limiting factor, 

in terms of providing opportunities for visitors to 

enhance their appreciation and support for wildlife 

by first-hand viewing experience. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

 

About 5,000 students per year visit the Refuge=s 

auditorium, Wildlife Drive and interpretive trails. 

On the Drive, the impact of the students on wildlife 

and habitat are greatly reduced by the fact that the 

students generally remain in a vehicle, which acts 

as a photo blind. Impacts of school classes visiting 

other Refuge sites (normally closed to the public) 

have been limited by conditions specified in Refuge 

special use permits. There are currently no outdoor 

classroom sites designed to provide a hands-on 

experience to students. 

Environmental education promotes understanding 

of our connections with the natural world, and good 

stewardship of our natural resources. As the Refuge 

continues to expand, and environmental impacts of 

adjacent burgeoning human development also 

increase, it becomes clear that current levels of 

Refuge environmental education are not adequate to 

meet the exploding local need to raise environmental 

consciousness. 

Wilderness Management

This Alternative does not affect the current spring 

and summer closure of the Holgate Unit and Little 

Beach Island to all public use during the piping 

plover breeding season (April through August). 

The continued illegal use of motor vehicles 

(commonly referred to as ORVs or off road vehicles) 

above the mean high tide line from September 

through March under this Alternative would 

adversely impact the physical and biological 

environment of the Holgate Unit. It is only a 

question of how severe the impact and how long the 

resource would take to recover. Ongoing motor 

vehicle use has resulted in increased litter, threats 

to wildlife, and loss of solitude and the sense of 

remoteness that a wilderness area is supposed to 

provide. 

Dunes and dune vegetation are the community types 

most vulnerable to motor vehicle traffic, followed by 

salt marshes, dune/marsh interface, sand flats, 

backshore, foreshore, and intertidal areas (Godfrey, 

Leatherman, and Buckley, 1978; Leatherman and 

Godfrey, 1979). The areas traveled by motor 

vehicles on Holgate would be classed as foreshore, 

backshore, and intertidal. During a 24-hour period 

in September, the number of vehicle trips on 

Holgate is estimated at 50 on a weekday and 180 on 

a weekend day. In October/November, the number 

of vehicle trips is lower, 40 on weekday and 150 on a 

weekend day; and lowest from December through 

March, 5 on a weekday and 20 on a weekend day. 

From April through August, the beach is closed to 

the public and access is restricted to maintenance, 

wildlife management, and law enforcement patrols. 

Motor vehicle use on the beach can cause erosion 

(Anders and Leatherman, 1987; Baccus and Horton, 

1980). This happens through direct seaward 

movement of sand and indirectly by wind (disruption 

of salt crust, raised surfaces along track edge). 

Accelerated seaward movement of beach sand likely 

negatively affects the development of future dunes 

(between the berm and backshore areas) and 

increases the vulnerability of existing dunes to 

storms. 
 Environmental 

Consequences IV

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental AssessmentB July 2000 

IV - 7 

Motor vehicles also cause compaction in sand (as 

much as 20cm below the surface). Impacts can incur 

after just a few vehicle passages (10-50). The area of 

the beach least impacted appears to be the intertidal 

zone, which is also the quickest to recover because of 

its highly dynamic nature. Compaction by vehicles 

on the seaward side of the foredune would kill 

subsurface roots of dune beach grass, resulting in 

the loss of stabilizing vegetation and erosion of sand 

rather than accretion (Anders and Leatherman, 

1987; Behrens et al., 1976). 

Wrack or drift lines are critical to ecological 

processes on barrier islands, and can be heavily 

impacted by less than ten passes of motor vehicles 

(Zaremba, Godfrey, and Leatherman, 1979; 

Zaremba, Leatherman, and Godfrey, 1980). Wrack 

lines are areas on the beach where vegetation and 

other organic debris are deposited by high tides, 

especially storm and lunar tides. The wrack line 

can be in the intertidal zone during normal high 

tides, or well up on the beach during storm tides 

(fore and back shore areas). Some of the organic 

material may be fed on directly by birds, or may 

attract insects and amphipods, which are fed on by 

birds. The wrack line also includes live plant 

fragments that are important to the establishment 

of dune plant species. Plant growth from the wrack 

line captures blowing sand particles, contributing to 

dune formation. Fungi and bacteria quickly 

breakdown the material, providing nutrients to the 

beach and adjacent waters. Motor vehicles destroy 

wrack with just a few passes (less than 10), breaking 

up the organic debris and killing regenerating 

plants. 

Beach erosion and accretion would also occur from 

natural events. Frequent storms can cause 

significant erosion, especially between September 

and March, when hurricanes and nor=easters 

prevail. 

Motor vehicles may have a significant impact on 

migrating and staging shorebirds during the fall 

months (Godfrey, Leatherman, and Buckley, 1978; 

Pfister, Harrington and Lavine, 1992; Morton 1996). 

 The impacts may directly disturb resting or feeding 

birds, or indirectly impact birds by reducing their 

food resources. The water=s edge in the intertidal 

zone and wrack lines are important foraging habitat 

for shorebirds. 

Beach habitats are particularly important during 

rising tides. Human disturbance affects birds by 

causing increased energy expenditures (especially 

flight response), lower energy intake (reduced 

foraging effort, foraging in poorer sites), or direct 

displacement. In terms of behavioral disturbance to 

birds, vehicles have been documented to have less of 

an impact on bird behavior (e.g., causing flight) than 

walking people, or people with pets. However, if 

people are getting out of vehicles, they may still 

cause that disruption. 

This Alternative has no foreseeable archaeological or 

historical resource consequences at the Holgate 

Unit, because there are no known archaeological or 

historical resources in the area. This Alternative 

has no archaeological or historical consequences at 

the Little Beach Island, because the area is closed to 

all public uses. There is a historic foundation of a 

former Coast Guard Station on Little Beach Island. 

This Alternative has socioeconomic resource 

consequences. At Holgate we would allow the 

continued use of motorized vehicles in the 

Wilderness Area, which is a violation of the 

Wilderness Act of 1964 and Executive Order 11644. 

The Wilderness Act does not allow the Secretary of 

the Interior to permit the continued use of any 

motorized vehicles, even where the use existed 

before a Wilderness was established, except for the 

continued use of aircraft and motorboats. 

The use of motorized vehicles elevates the number of 

anglers and other wildlife dependent visitors who 

use the area. The use of motorized vehicles does not 

provide a A...community of life ... untrammeled by 

man ...@ and A... outstanding opportunities for 

solitude or primitive ... recreation;@ which are 

characteristics of wilderness defined in Section 2(c) 

of the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

In 1988, the Holgate Peninsula was closed from 

early April to September to both pedestrian and 

motor vehicle traffic to protect piping plovers. 

Under this Alternative the seasonal closure would 

continue, with no additional anticipated social or 

economic impacts. The seasonal closure did impact 

surf fishermen along Holgate beach, as most of Long 

Beach Island=s beaches were already closed to motor 

vehicle traffic between May and September to 

accommodate seasonal beach use for swimming and 

sunbathing. Furthermore, the seasonal closure 

prevented recreational fishing opportunities at 

Holgate for species like summer flounder, which are 

primarily targeted in the months of July and 

August, and thus the closure reduced fishing 

opportunities for some anglers. 
IV Environmental Consequences 

 

IV - 8 Jersey Coast Refuges

Bait and tackle shops throughout the island appear 

to have suffered some loss in revenues from the 

seasonal closure, and one shop nearest to the Refuge 

entrance reported losing 30 % or more of its 

revenues in the first few years after the closure. In 

addition, several other motels and restaurants 

which specifically catered to anglers also reported a 

loss in revenues. However, the 1998 Industrial 

Economics report concluded that all these 

businesses survived the seasonal closure and 

remained viable. See Appendix G for a more 

detailed socioeconomic analysis of motor vehicle use 

at Holgate. 

Land Protection

As of September 30, 1999, the Service owned, or had 

conservation easements on, 44,302 acres within the 

currently approved Refuge acquisition boundaries. 

This Alternative would result in the Service 

acquiring the remaining 12,300 acres of land within 

the currently approved Refuge acquisition 

boundaries, if the lands are not developed prior to 

acquisition. At the current rate of Service land 

acquisition and the current rates of 

residential/commercial development, the Service is 

unlikely to be able to acquire all the remaining land 

within the currently approved Refuge acquisition 

boundaries, before they are developed. 

If the Service purchases all the lands within the 

currently approved boundaries, large contiguous 

blocks of salt marsh and some upland/wetland 

margins would be protected. However, extensive 

parts of watersheds (uplands, upland/wetland 

margins, stream corridors and headwaters) would 

remain unprotected. Since the salt marshes are 

downstream from these other areas, development of 

those areas would cause biological isolation from 

other conservation lands, and cause degraded air 

and water quality that would directly impact Refuge 

lands and the air and water quality of surrounding 

areas. 

Even with the limitations discussed above, this 

Alternative would have substantial, and mostly 

positive, long-term physical, biological, and 

socioeconomic environmental consequences for 

Jersey coastal communities from Brick Township, 

Ocean Co. to Galloway Township, Atlantic Co. 

This Alternative would also protect archaeological 

and historical resources from demolition once the 

Service acquires the properties in which they are 

located. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing payments to municipalities 

within which the Service acquires property would 

increase as the remaining lands within the currently 

approved Refuge acquisition boundaries are 

acquired. The current full payment value of Refuge 

Revenue Sharing for the Refuge is $336,000. With 

the acquisition of the additional 12,300 acres of land 

within the currently approved Refuge acquisition 

boundaries the full payment value of Refuge 

Revenue Sharing would increase by $147,000. 

Resource Protection and Visitor Safety 

Under this Alternative, damage to Refuge property 

and vandalism to archaeological and historical 

resources would continue. Other illegal activities 

would continue, including habitat damage from 

illegal timber harvest, all terrain vehicle 

(ATV)trespass, and illegal harvest of wildlife 

species. All of these activities currently occur within 

the Refuge and have the potential of increasing as 

more lands are acquired and adjacent development 

continues. There would be no change in the current 

law enforcement staffing level. 

Refuge Buildings and Facilities

The current Brigantine Division office, visitor 

center, and storage and maintenance area directly 

impacts about eight to ten acres. The current 

Barnegat Division field office, storage and 

maintenance area directly impacts about one acre. 

The impacts are related to building-created 

impervious areas, graveled entrance roads, parking 

lots and maintenance areas, and lawn areas. These 

features reduce the habitat quality for most Federal 

trust resources, but increase the habitat quality for 

some grassland-associated Federal trust resources, 

for example, blue birds and purple martins. 
 Environmental 

Consequences IV

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental AssessmentB July 2000 

IV - 9 

Alternative A - The No Action 

Alternative 

Cape May National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Habitat and Wildlife Populations

This Alternative would result in a continuation of 

the current habitat and wildlife management 

programs on the Refuge. Consequently 93% of the 

Refuge habitats would not be actively managed. 

Approximately 7% (646 acres) of Refuge upland 

habitat is targeted for conversion to grassland, 

upland brush and forest by natural succession. 

These habitat types, in their current state, do not 

reflect an ideal arrangement for biodiversity in the 

landscape. Many of the forest blocks are fragmented 

or have convoluted edges, resulting in reduced forest 

interior character. Consequently, forest interior 

species and ecosystem functions are lost. For 

example, nesting Red-shouldered hawks and barred 

owls depend on extensive forest character and, in an 

environment fragmented by humans, may be 

displaced by great horned owls or red-tailed hawks. 

Similarly, brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater), 

a forest edge species that parasitizes songbird nests, 

can greatly diminish nest success of forest interior 

species in fragmented forests. 

Many of the upland habitat types (e.g., forest, 

grassland) were heavily influenced by fire. Because 

fire has been suppressed for many years, many 

plants and animal species would be reduced or 

absent from these habitats under this Alternative. 

Fire suppression has also caused the build-up of 

high stand densities in the upland forests, with the 

accumulation of heavy fuel loads. This condition, 

with the regular drought during the summer poses a 

risk for an extreme wildfire situation, with 

corresponding potential for loss of property, human 

safety, and severe impact to upland habitats on the 

Refuge. 

Grassland habitat would succeed to shrub/scrub 

habitat and shrub/scrub habitat would succeed to 

sapling habitat. This would benefit wildlife species 

associated with these habitats, but would not benefit 

wildlife species dependant on the grassland 

habitats. Wildlife species associated with large 

extensive grassland habitat would also not benefit. 

New surveys and management for endangered 

species and rare communities cannot be fully 

realized under this Alternative. It is probable that 

rare species and communities would be lost due to 

habitat changes from succession, invasive exotic 

species, or habitat alteration without the staff's 

knowing the consequences. 

The current biological monitoring program provides 

only minimal information on the highest priority 

species. There is not sufficient staff time and dollars 

to complete baseline surveys, vegetation maps, and 

research programs addressing critical management 

issues. The lack of information means the Refuge 

does not know what impact management actions, or 

lack thereof, would have on wildlife populations and 

habitat. The expected impacts would include not 

knowing when some species decline, when habitat 

alterations favoring some target species but 

negatively impacting more critical species (e.g., 

endangered species) occur, and how we could 

improve our management techniques. The lack of 

information may also lessen our ability to operate 

the Refuge as part of the Refuge System, and work 

with our partners in southern New Jersey. 

 

The Refuge would remain closed to trapping under 

this Alternative. Without control of predator 

species, increased impacts to migratory bird 

populations can be expected, along with elevated 

risks to public health and safety from rabies, 

distemper and other animal transmitted diseases. 

Any economic benefits from the use of furs and other 

furbearer products would be denied. This action, or 

lack thereof, would prevent the potential for both 

conflicts between user groups and disturbance to 

wildlife. 

 

Invasive and Overabundant Species 

Not controlling invasive species on several hundred 

acres where they are known to occur has a clear 

biological consequence. Those acres would not be 

able to provide habitat for native plant species and 

dependant wildlife, without action being taken. 

Without control, more native habitat would be lost 

to invasive species, which lowers habitat quality and 

threatens biological integrity of ecosystems. 

Pesticide Use 

 

This Alternative would result in virtually no use of 

pesticides by Refuge staff. 
IV Environmental Consequences 

 

IV - 10 Jersey Coast Refuges

The Refuge would continue to allow mosquito 

control agencies to use pesticides to control 

mosquitoes under a Statewide cooperative 

agreement. The use of larvicides and adulticides 

would result in pesticide entering the ecosystem 

from Refuge lands. Non-target species may be 

affected, and control of mosquitoes (larvae or adults) 

may result in temporary depressions in food 

availability to other wildlife. Because of previous 

Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM), no 

pesticides were used from 1997 through 1999 for 

mosquito control. New lands may require additional 

treatment with OMWM or pesticides, subject to the 

results of the Service=s NEPA compliance efforts. 

(See Mosquito control on page I-17.) 

 

Big Game Hunting 

Development continues around Cape May Refuge, 

increasing deer dependence on Refuge habitats. 

Increased development also limits hunting 

opportunities, thereby reducing a practical means of 

regulating deer populations. The Refuge deer hunt 

may become more important in the future for 

maintaining local deer numbers at levels compatible 

with the habitat. As coastal development and 

associated habitat fragmentation increase, Refuge 

land would become more important for food and 

cover for a number of wildlife species. 

The risk of excess deer numbers and damage from 

over browsing would be managed in and around the 

portions of the Refuge open to deer hunting. Over 

browsing would remove the shrub layer in forests 

and would cause the loss of associated animal 

species dependant on that habitat component. Over 

browsing would also reduce or eliminate 

recruitment of forest canopy species, especially 

Atlantic white cedar and other preferred species. 

For example, Atlantic white cedar is a species 

targeted for habitat restoration, and also a species 

preferred by deer as winter browse. Controlling 

deer numbers manages the risks of damage to 

agricultural crops and landscape plants off-Refuge. 

It also manages the risk of vehicle damage and 

human injury from collisions between deer and 

vehicles.

Upland Game Hunting

Under this Alternative the Refuge would remain 

closed to upland game hunting. This would provide 

no new opportunities for the public. This action 

would also prevent the potential for both conflicts 

between user groups and disturbance to wildlife. 

There would be no benefit to the local economy. 

Migratory Game Bird Hunting

With no change in the current migratory bird 

hunting program, this Alternative would continue to 

provide opportunities for hunters on a large area of 

the Refuge, a means for harvest of a renewable 

resource, and local economic benefits. Hunter 

presence causes disturbances to waterfowl and nongame species. Many factors affect the extent of this 

disturbance, but since only a portion of the Refuge is 

open for the hunting of migratory game birds, 

sanctuary areas are provided for waterfowl and 

other wildlife. 

There would also be the potential for occasional 

conflicts between Refuge activities, including 

management actions and wildlife-related recreation 

on Refuge lands or navigable waterways. 

Fishing

Under this Alternative the Refuge would remain 

closed to fishing. No new opportunities would be 

provided for the public. This would prevent the 

potential for disturbance to wildlife. There would 

also be no benefit to the local economy. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Few facilities for wildlife observation and 

photography have been developed on the Refuge, 

limiting visitor opportunities for enhancing their 

appreciation and support for wildlife. Under this 

Alternative no new trails would be completed nor 

would existing trails or woodland roads be improved. 

 By not initiating extensive improvements to 

facilitate these activities, there would be fewer 

disturbances to the flora and fauna through 

construction, maintenance, and the associated 

impacts of public use. This Alternative would 

provide minimal benefit to the local economy. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Under this Alternative, no new opportunities would 

be created. Visitor use for these activities would 

remain limited by difficult access. By not initiating 

extensive improvements to facilitate these activities, 

there would be fewer disturbances to the flora and 

fauna through construction, maintenance, and the 

associated impacts of public use. This Alternative 

provides minimal benefit to the local economy. 

 

Wilderness Management 

There is no designated Wilderness at Cape May 

Refuge. A Wilderness Review of all Refuge lands, 
 Environmental 

Consequences IV

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental AssessmentB July 2000 

IV - 11 

including the Two Mile Beach Unit, would be 

conducted as part of the revision of the Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) in 2015. 

 

Land Protection

As of October 22, 1999, the Service owned 10,001 

acres within the currently approved Refuge 

acquisition boundaries. 

This Alternative would result in the Service 

acquiring the remaining 7,600 acres of land within 

the currently approved boundaries, if the lands are 

not developed prior to acquisition. At the current 

rate of Service land acquisition and the current 

rates of residential/commercial development, the 

Service is unlikely to be able to acquire all the 

remaining land within the currently approved 

Refuge acquisition boundaries, before they are 

developed. 

 

If the Service purchases only lands within the 

currently approved boundaries, substantial parts of 

various watersheds would remain unprotected. 

Since the Refuge-owned property would be 

downstream from these other areas, development of 

those areas would have negative effects that would 

directly impact Refuge lands and the air and water 

quality of surrounding jurisdictions. Continued 

development would also isolate wildlife populations 

and habitats protected by the Refuge from other 

conservation lands. 

Even with the limitations discussed above this 

Alternative would have substantial positive longterm physical, biological, and socioeconomic benefits 

for Cape May County communities. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing payments to municipalities 

within which the Service acquires property would 

increase as the remaining lands within the currently 

approved Refuge acquisition boundaries are 

acquired. The current full payment value of Refuge 

Revenue Sharing for the Refuge is $129,000. With 

the acquisition of the additional 7,600 acres of land 

within the currently approved Refuge acquisition 

boundaries the full payment value of Refuge 

Revenue Sharing would increase by $34,200. 

Resource Protection and Visitor Safety 

 

This Alternative would cause no change in the 

current law enforcement staffing level. Complaints 

and information on illegal activities obtained from 

the public often receive little or no action because of 

limited law enforcement staff. Damage to Refuge 

property and vandalism to archaeological and 

historical resources would continue. Additionally, 

other illegal activities would continue including 

habitat damage from illegal timber harvest, ATV 

trespass, dumping, and the illegal harvest of wildlife 

species. All of these activities are currently ongoing 

within Refuge boundaries and have the potential of 

increasing as more lands are acquired and 

development continues. 

Urban development lies in close proximity to much 

of the Refuge. This is especially true adjacent to the 

newly acquired Two Mile Beach Unit in Lower 

Township. High rise condominiums lie immediately 

adjacent to the north boundary, and increase the 

potential for additional law enforcement violations, 

including trespassing and property damage. 

Refuge Buildings and Facilities

The current Cape May Refuge office, visitor contact 

and storage area directly impacts about one acre. 

The impacts are related to building-created 

impervious area, graveled entrance roads, parking 

lots, and lawn areas. These features reduce the 

habitat quality for most Federal trust resources, but 

increase the habitat quality for some grassland 

associated Federal trust resources, for example, blue 

birds. 
IV Environmental Consequences 

 

IV - 12 Jersey Coast Refuges

Alternative A - The No Action 

Alternative

Two Mile Beach Unit

Habitat and Wildlife Populations

The current types and distribution of habitat would 

not be managed, but would be subject to natural 

processes. While some of the wildlife may benefit 

from this approach, other species or plant 

communities may not realize the benefits of habitat 

enhancements. Further study would not be 

initiated to determine the ideal management 

program. New surveys and management for 

endangered species and rare communities cannot be 

fully realized under this Alternative. It is probable 

that rare species and communities would be lost due 

to habitat changes from succession, invasive exotic 

species, or habitat alteration, without the staff 

knowing the consequences. 

The lack of baseline data and monitoring activities 

means the Refuge would not know what impact 

management actions, or lack thereof, would have on 

wildlife populations and habitat. The expected 

impacts would include not knowing when some 

species decline and when habitat alteration favoring 

some species negatively impacts more important 

species (e.g., endangered species). The lack of 

information may also lessen the Refuge=s ability to 

function as part of the Refuge System, and work 

with our partners in southern New Jersey. There 

would also be negative impacts on some wildlife 

species, especially rare and endangered species, due 

to the lack of any program for managing undesirable 

or overabundant wildlife. 

There would also be no trapping under this 

Alternative. A continuation of high predator 

populations would likely have negative impacts on 

beach nesting birds, possibly precluding the piping 

plover from nesting again on former breeding areas 

at Two Mile Beach. 

Invasive Species

Under this Alternative, no new programs would be 

initiated for the monitoring and/or control of 

invasive species. In this case, the establishment and 

increase of invasive species may negatively impact 

native wildlife and plant communities. Invasive 

species already known to occur include phragmites 

and other exotic grasses. Management of these 

species would not be initiated. 

Pesticide Use

No pesticides are currently used. Under this 

Alternative, an integrated pest management plan 

(IPM) would not be initiated. The net result would 

be that alternatives to pesticides would receive less 

consideration, should the need arise. 

Beach Access

This Alternative would keep the beach closed to all 

public use. This would be a significant change from 

the past, as the Coast Guard had allowed the public 

to walk on the beach. While a variety of wildlife 

would benefit from a relatively undisturbed 

environment, the public would lose an opportunity 

for wildlife observation, photography, fishing, 

education, and interpretation. A consequence would 

be the disruption of some previous public uses and 

expectations. There would likely be reduced local 

public interest and support for the Refuge. This 

Alternative would also likely reduce economic 

benefits to the local area as visitors may look 

elsewhere for these opportunities. 

Hunting

Hunting is not under consideration per agreement 

with the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard has 
 Environmental 

Consequences IV

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental AssessmentB July 2000 

IV - 13 

prohibited hunting as part of the management 

agreement with the Service in order to protect their 

LORAN Station tower and transmission equipment. 

 This action is undertaken in the interest of national 

security. While a variety of wildlife would benefit 

from a relatively undisturbed environment, there 

would be no hunting opportunities and no associated 

benefits to the local economy. 

Fishing

Fishing would not be permitted under this 

Alternative resulting in the loss of opportunity to 

surf fish or beach seine. Shorebird populations 

would experience less disturbances and their resting 

and feeding would be uninhibited. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Under this Alternative there would be no 

opportunity for wildlife observation and 

photography. While a variety of wildlife would 

benefit from a relatively undisturbed environment, 

the public would lose opportunities for these 

activities. A consequence would be the disruption of 

some previous public uses on the beach. There 

would likely be reduced local public support for the 

Refuge. This action would not benefit the local 

economy and would likely reduce economic benefits 

to the area, as residents and visiting tourists may 

look elsewhere for these opportunities. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Under this Alternative there would be no 

environmental education and interpretation 

programs. While a variety of wildlife would benefit 

from a relatively undisturbed environment, the 

public would lose opportunities for these activities. 

The Refuge would not realize its full educational 

and public service potential, and there would be no 

economic benefits to the local area as visitors may 

look elsewhere for these opportunities. 

Refuge Buildings and Facilities

Under this Alternative the Refuge would put no 

funding or effort into maintaining and/or utilizing 

any of the buildings. All of the buildings would be 

allowed to deteriorate, and would eventually require 

demolition. There would be maximum revegetation 

of all disturbed/developed areas and the maximum 

increase of the quantity, but not the quality, of 

wildlife habitat. Under this Alternative, the Refuge 

and local community would realize no beneficial use 

of the existing buildings for either management or 

environmental education purposes, and there would 

be no local economic gain. 
IV Environmental Consequences 

 

IV - 14 Jersey Coast Refuges

Alternative B B The Service=s Proposed 

Action

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Habitat and Wildlife Populations

The habitat restoration and maintenance program on 

Refuge lands would be completed under a 15-year time 

frame, and result in a fundamental improvement in 

ecosystem quality. More acres of phragmites and other 

exotics, such as Japanese honeysuckle, (Lonicera 

japonica), would be controlled (see also Invasive and 

Overabundant Species). Grasslands, which include a high 

proportion of introduced species, would be converted to 

native species of grasses and forbs. The size and location 

of these grasslands would favor use by declining bird 

species in nesting, migration, and wintering periods. 

Wetland communities, especially salt marshes, cedar 

swamps and bogs, would be restored. Removal of manmade restrictions to fish passage would restore 

interjurisdictional fish habitat to upstream areas (e.g., 

Cedar Run Creek). If successful, restoration of previously 

ditched salt marshes would enhance habitat quality for 

many species of waterfowl and marsh birds. The 

impoundments would be actively managed with close 

monitoring of water levels, plant and invertebrate 

production, and wildlife use to develop the best 

management prescription to meet wildlife objectives. 

Implementing controlled burns in upland habitats for fuel 

load reduction would have the dual benefits of reducing 

risks from wildfires and establishing conditions that favor 

native species. The upland forests historically and 

prehistorically encountered fires at much higher 

frequencies (estimates range from once every three years 

to once every 15 years). Should wildfire occur after 

reducing fuel loads and stand density through prescribed 

burns and mechanical treatments, the fire would be much 

easier to contain, and less likely to escalate to an extreme 

fire situation. Restoring natural fire frequency through 

prescribed burns would favor native species, help control 

invasive species, and provide a habitat structure that is 

now rare in the mid-Atlantic coastal plain (oak-pine 

savannah). 

Prescribed burns would be conducted in a way that 

minimizes adverse impacts to the physical, biological, and 

human environments. Burn prescriptions would be 

developed to allow personnel to keep the fire contained 

within the defined boundaries, smoke to dissipate at 

appropriate altitudes, and safe and healthy conditions for 

personnel and the public, while meeting the objectives of 

fuel load reduction and physical alterations to the habitat. 

 Prescriptions may require clearing or cutting of overstory 

and understory trees/shrubs and plowing a fire line. 

Plowed lines would be filled after completion of the burn. 

Nearby publics would be notified of scheduled burns. 

While there are short-term impacts to air quality and the 

physical and biological components of the environment, 

prescribed burns would be necessary to meet Refuge goals 

and to reduce the risks of wildlife in an urban/wildland 

environment. Further detail on wildfire suppression and 

prescribed burns will be developed in the Fire 

Management Plan. 

The habitat distribution envisioned in the habitat 

management plan would result in the maximum benefit to 

forest interior, grassland, shrub/scrub, and wetland 

species. 

Indirect benefits of an increase in wildlife species number 

and diversity may include increased public visitation 

(hunters, birders, and photographers) and the subsequent 

additional positive socioeconomic outcome. Also, an 

increase in academia interest and visitation to view 

restoration projects would occur. The Refuge would serve 

as a demonstration and research site for academia and 

land management agencies. 

The inventory of rare species and communities would 

result in a map of existing and potential sites for 

restoration. The Refuge would also draft a strategy to 

protect and manage those sites, and begin its 

implementation. Additional populations of State and 

Federally listed bog species (e.g., swamp pink, bog 

asphodel, pine barrens tree frog) would be identified, 

protected, and if appropriate, enhanced. Experimental 

restoration of other rare species may result in new 

populations, which may include the seabeach amaranth 

and Northeastern beach tiger beetle. 

Colonial nesting birds would benefit from restoration of 

dredge spoil sites to suitable nesting habitat. If required, 

additional efforts would be employed to initiate site use by 

birds (e.g., black skimmers or terns). Nest structures 

provided for raptor species would result in expanded 

recruitment to populations of peregrine falcons, osprey, 

and barn owls. 

Expanded baseline surveys and long-term monitoring 

programs would improve the quality and evaluation of 

management actions, and provide information for 

partners and education of the public. Researching longterm impacts on wildlife resources from mosquito control 

(both pesticide use and Open Marsh Water Management) 

and the myriad types and amounts of public use would 

ensure that decisions in these controversial areas are 

based upon the best data. Research would also be tied to 

periodic monitoring of public use (type, amount, and 
 Environmental 

Consequences IV

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental AssessmentB July 2000 

IV - 15 

distribution) and coincident impact on wildlife and 

habitat. Development of a computer archive of research 

results, publications, and monitoring data would minimize 

loss of data, and ensure cost-efficient access to 

information by staff, partners, and the public. 

The Refuge would provide assistance on habitat planning 

and restoration to nearby landowners, to improve 

environmental quality locally, and slow degradation of the 

landscape. 

This Alternative would increase opportunities for the 

public to trap selected furbearer species ( muskrat, mink, 

opossum, raccoon, fox, beaver, and coyote) in order to 

manage these species consistent with Refuge objectives. 

Approximately 1,309 acres of new habitat would be 

opened to trapping by Refuge special use permit, when 

acquired. While this may have the potential to increase 

disturbance of other wildlife species because trappers 

would be operating in more areas of the Refuge, the small 

number of trappers involved would tend to make their 

impact negligible. The abundance of these species would 

be seasonally and locally reduced consistent with Refuge 

management objectives. It is unlikely that there would be 

any negative impact to their overall populations. 

Invasive and Overabundant Species 

Flora surveys focusing on invasive species would identify 

their biological impacts on native plants and wildlife, and 

help prioritize where to focus control efforts. 

Implementation of the control strategy across the Refuge 

would result in restoration of hundreds of acres back to 

native plant and animal species that comprise the 

ecological communities and biodiversity in the landscape. 

Many other invertebrate and vertebrate wildlife species 

would respond positively to the increased habitat 

available. The techniques used for invasive species 

control would follow an Integrated Pest Management 

(IPM) approach, resulting in minimal use of pesticides 

and more effective control with the least amount of impact 

on native plant and animal species. Control efforts for 

invasive species on the Refuge would be coordinated with 

nearby landowners, to whom we would also provide 

technical assistance to prevent recolonization from sites 

off of the Refuge, improve habitat on private lands, and 

minimize use of pesticides. 

 

There would be no change in consequences due to control 

of snow and resident Canada geese because the actions 

would be the same as those described in Alterative A. 

Pesticide Use 

The Refuge would periodically use pesticides to cont

other invasive or overabundant species, in addition 

current applications for phragmites. The Refuge=s u

an IPM approach specifies use of techniques other t

pesticides whenever possible, and when pesticides a

used, the least amount and most specific type would

employed. Some quantity of pesticide would be intr

into the ecosystem, with an expectation of some imp

non-target species. Any Service activities dealing w

mosquito control would be subject to the results of o

NEPA compliance efforts. (See Mosquito control on

I-17.) 

Big Game Hunting

Rapid development continues around the Refuge, 

increasing the local deer population=s dependence on

Refuge habitats. Increased development also reduce

hunting opportunities, thereby reducing a practical 

of regulating deer populations. The Refuge deer hun

become more important in the future in controlling 

deer numbers at levels consistent with the available

habitat. As coastal development and its associated 

habitat fragmentation increase, Refuge land would 

become increasingly important for food and cover fo

number of wildlife species. 

Opening new areas to deer hunting would help keep

within the carrying capacity of their habitat. Deer w

be managed to minimize the potential for serious ha

alteration or degradation and density dependent dis

The risk of excess deer numbers and damage from o

browsing would be managed in and around the port

the Refuge open to deer hunting. Over browsing wo

remove the shrub layer in forests and would cause t

of associated animal species dependant on that habi

component. It would also reduce or eliminate recrui

of forest canopy species, especially Atlantic white ce

and other preferred species. For example, Atlantic w

cedar is a species targeted for habitat restoration, a

also a species preferred by deer as winter browse. 

Controlling deer numbers manages the risks of dam

agricultural crops and landscape plants off-Refuge. 

manages the risk of vehicle damage and human inju

from collisions between deer and vehicles. 

Opening additional areas to deer hunting would inc

recreational opportunities, and flexibility in managi

deer populations. Increasing Refuge big game hunt

opportunities would likely result in an increase in th

of hunting licences, supplies and equipment in the l

area. 
IV Environmental Consequences 

 

IV - 16 Jersey Coast Refuges

Among the items to be considered before opening 

additional areas to big game hunting is the negative 

impacts to other non-target species of wildlife and their 

habitats. In general, human activity causes disturbance 

to wildlife and wildlife habitat at varying degrees 

depending on the type of human activity, intensity of 

activity, timing of the activity, number of activities 

occurring simultaneously, and sensitivity of wildlife 

species. However, the short-term negative impacts of 

allowing additional deer hunting opportunities, including 

physiological and behavioral changes to various wildlife 

species, would be offset by the long-term benefits of 

reducing habitat destruction caused from over browsing 

by deer. 

For the first time, hunting sites for persons with 

disabilities would be available on the Refuge. We would 

expand our hunting opportunities to specifically address 

hunters with disabilities by offering an area that would 

best accommodate and address their needs. We would 

work cooperatively with various government and nongovernmental organizations to define the requirements 

and accommodations needed for hunters with disabilities.

Upland Game Hunting

This Alternative would provide new opportunities for one 

of the priority general public uses specified in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997. Providing Refuge upland game hunting 

opportunities would likely result in a small increase in the 

sale of hunting licences, supplies and equipment in the 

area. 

This Alternative may increase disturbance to other 

wildlife species caused by an increase in the number of 

visitors and the time they are allowed within the Refuge. 

However, these negative impacts are expected to be 

minimal because there would be only a small increase in 

the time and areas available for upland game hunting. 

The abundance of upland game species would be 

seasonally and locally reduced, however, there would be 

no negative impact to their overall populations. 

Migratory Game Bird Hunting

This Alternative provides additional areas and techniques 

for migratory game bird hunting on the Refuge. The size 

and locations of areas for hunting have been designed to 

balance opportunities for hunting while still maintaining 

substantial areas as sanctuary for all species of wildlife. 

The total acreage is within the 40% limit prescribed by 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Act and the Fish and 

Wildlife Improvement Act. 

The additional areas proposed for hunting may be 

beneficial in reducing the impact of feeding resident 

Canada geese and snow geese on the salt marshes and 

impoundments. 

 

A negative consequence of increased hunting 

opportunities is the indirect (non-hunting) impact to 

wildlife species and their habitats caused by the increased 

number of hunters accessing the Refuge. The wetland 

habitats protected and managed at the Refuge provide 

critical resting and feeding areas to migrating/wintering 

waterfowl and other waterbird species on the Atlantic 

Flyway. A recent literature review conducted by 

Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge personnel (USFWS, 

1998) has shown that disturbance caused by hunting can: 

# modify the distribution and use of various 

habitats by birds; 

# affect their activity budget and reduce their 

foraging time and consequently their ability to 

store fat reserves necessary both for migration 

and breeding; 

# disrupt pair and family bonds and contribute to 

increased hunting mortality. 

Also, though this Alternative increases areas and 

redefines techniques for migratory bird hunting, a large 

percentage of the Refuge would remain closed and provide 

needed sanctuary for migrating waterfowl. 

There is also the potential for occasional conflicts between 

Refuge activities, including management actions and 

wildlife-related recreation on Refuge lands or navigable 

waterways. 

As with big and upland game hunting, increased hunting 

opportunities would increase the number of licenses and 

duck stamps sold, as well as increase the amount of 

locally purchased hunting supplies.

Fishing 

This Alternative would slightly increase the percentage of 

the Refuge=s freshwater and saltwater shore line directly 

impacted by anglers. The physical environmental 

consequences would include soil compaction, shoreline 

erosion, with associated water turbidity, and littering. 

Biological environmental consequences would include 

reduced plant productivity in near shore water, due to the 

increased turbidity, and reduced use by certain migratory 

bird species. This Alternative would have no 

archaeological and historical resource consequences, 

because we know of no archaeological and historical 

resources in the new fishing areas. We would conduct 
 Environmental 

Consequences IV

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental AssessmentB July 2000 

IV - 17 

site specific archaeological and historical resource surveys 

before undertaking any construction. 

This Alternative would help the local economy by 

increasing the number of licenses and fishing supplies 

purchased locally. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography

While increased disturbance to wildlife and habitat would 

be associated with expanded wildlife observation sites and 

numbers of visitors, precautions to minimize such impacts 

would be taken. Gabrielson and Smith (1995) note that 

wildlife is less likely to have a defensive response to 

humans in their habitat if the humans are in a 

predictable location (i.e., on a trail). To minimize 

disturbance to wildlife, they recommend the development 

of permanent trails for such activities as wildlife 

observation. All proposed new Refuge wildlife observation 

areas would have trails, and/or an observation platform B

permanent locations at which wildlife can anticipate 

human visitors. In addition, these visitor facilities would 

be located and designed to minimize disturbance to 

wildlife. Designs to minimize impacts might include 

designation of special viewing areas (Boyle and Samson 

1985), creation of observation/photo blinds (Klein 1993) or 

other, more natural visual and noise screens (i.e., 

vegetation), or creation of buffer zones (Rodgers and 

Smith 1997). The Refuge would also provide visitors with 

information on how to reduce their impacts. 

Monitoring would determine wildlife observer impacts. 

Site surveys of wildlife species and habitat would be 

conducted before and after development and opening of 

new public use areas (i.e., nature trails). In addition, 

Refuge wildlife observation facilities which are already in 

use would be brought into the impacts assessment 

process. (See also Habitat and Wildlife Populations on 

page IV-14.) Initial species and habitat surveys would be 

conducted at the Wildlife Drive and associated trails, 

Reedy Creek, Holgate, and the Barnegat impoundment 

observation platform. Periodic monitoring would 

continue on all Refuge wildlife observation sites over time, 

to determine long-term impacts of public use. If impacts 

were determined to be too high in some areas or seasons, 

actions would be taken to reduce those impacts. Such 

actions might include limiting uses or visitor numbers. 

Potential conflicts between wildlife observers, wildlife 

photographers and other Refuge user groups would 

continue to be minimized by partitioning activities in 

different locations or time periods. 

An increase in wildlife observation opportunities on

Refuge would result in enhanced visitor appreciatio

support, which can indirectly benefit wildlife both on

off Refuge. 

Creation of new wildlife observation and photograph

sites on the Refuge would draw members of local 

communities, as well as visitors from elsewhere. An

increase in Refuge visitation can benefit local 

communities by bringing in ecotourism dollars. As n

in Alternative A, a study conducted by the New Jers

Audubon Society at Forsythe National Wildlife Refu

1993-94 indicated that Abirding@ visitors to our Wild

Drive brought $4.01 million to local communities th

year alone! That study indicated that the average D

visitor brought $25 - $41 to the local economy. Whil

do not anticipate that other, newly designated wildl

observation sites on the Refuge would become as 

renowned or visited as the Wildlife Drive, we anticip

that they would attract new visitors and the concom

ecotourism dollars associated with them. The Servi

its publication ABanking on Nature,@ estimates that

average, Anonconsumptive@ recreational visitors to 

National Wildlife Refuges in the northeast spend $2

person per day in neighboring communities.

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Environmental education and interpretation are cri

tools for the protection of our nation=s wildlife and h

resources. By placing new emphasis on these tools a

Refuge, we anticipate that the number of students 

reached through on-Refuge visits would increase fro

5,000 to 10,000 annually. These students would als

receive a richer environmental education experience

because of the expanded curricula and additional co

with Refuge staff. Their on-Refuge impacts would b

tempered by several factors. Sensitive areas would 

closed, or designated for limited access only. Increa

access would not be allowed in areas of high bird 

concentrations, such as colonial nesting and roostin

 New Refuge initiatives would include: 

# development of new children=s wildlife learn

materials; 

# partnerships with the local education comm

# offering of Refuge teacher training opportun

# the development of AOutdoor classrooms@ at which 

students can learn to appreciate the natural world 

through hands-on experience (at sites which

be monitored for impacts). 
IV Environmental Consequences 

 

IV - 18 Jersey Coast Refuges

Since people of every age are involved in and affected by 

the ever-increasing environmental issues of today, the 

Refuge=s environmental education and interpretation 

efforts for adults would also be increased. Providing 

information about such issues as how people can help 

wildlife in their communities, or how to minimize wildlifewatching impacts, can create meaningful support for 

wildlife both on and off the Refuge. 

Wilderness Management

This Alternative does not affect the current spring and 

summer closure of the Holgate Unit and Little Beach 

Island. These areas are seasonally closed (April through 

August) to all public use to protect piping plover breeding 

areas. 

This Alternative would eliminate all motorized traffic 

year-round above mean high tide (the designated 

Wilderness Area known as the Holgate Unit) on the beach 

of the Holgate Peninsula. Relegating motor vehicles 

(commonly referred to as ORVs or off road vehicles) to use 

by the public below mean high tide would sharply reduce 

the impact they have on the physical and biological 

environment of the Holgate Unit. 

The Borough of Barnegat Light, located on Long Beach 

Island, has prohibited all motorized access on Borough 

beaches for over 20 years. The ordinance only applies to 

Borough property, which extends to the mean high water 

line. However, there have been no enforcement problems 

due to the public accessing the State-owned intertidal 

zone. According to information obtained from the 

Borough=s administrative office, motorized access on the 

State-owned intertidal zone has never been requested and 

has never occurred. This ordinance was established to 

protect the Borough=s natural beaches. Additionally, the 

Borough of Barnegat Light does not rake the wrack lines 

that form on the beach. Of the four Boroughs of Long 

Beach Island, including Long Beach Township, only 

Barnegat Light allows the wrack line to remain 

undisturbed. Scientific studies have shown that wrack 

lines are critical to the ecological processes on barrier 

islands. 

The Borough operates a tractor trolley during the summer 

months (May-August) to ferry people to the northern tip of 

Long Beach Island and back. The trolley operates daily 

during the hours of 10:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. Occasionally, 

the Borough has extended the operation into October and 

November to accommodate surf-fishing enthusiasts. 

Dune formation at the Holgate Unit would be more rapid 

without motor vehicle traffic above mean high tide, and, 

with better vegetation growth, would be more resistant to 

storm damage. Without vehicles on the beach, Holgate 

would also become viable for restoration of the Federally 

threatened seabeach amaranth (USFWS 1996), which 

could occur in the backshore zone. 

The intertidal zone (between low and high tide) is the part 

of the beach environment most resistant to the physical 

disturbance caused by motor vehicles, and because of its 

dynamic nature, quickly recovers. However, there would 

still be biological consequences of motor vehicle use below 

mean high tide in the State-owned riparian lands. First, 

several species of migrating/wintering shorebirds forage 

in the intertidal zone. While each motor vehicle traveling 

down Holgate would disturb birds using the intertidal 

area, a variety of studies indicate vehicle passage disturbs 

birds the least. The Federally threatened Northeastern 

beach tiger beetle historically occurred at Holgate. The 

larval stage of the beetle is found in the intertidal zone, 

and is vulnerable to motor vehicles. Holgate is identified 

in the Recovery Plan (USFWS, September 1994) as a 

restoration site, but remains unviable for that purpose 

while vehicle use occurs on the beach and intertidal zone. 

If there is an overall reduction of vehicle use in the 

intertidal zone with this Alternative, this site may become 

viable for restoration of the beetle. 

At the Holgate Unit, this Alternative would eliminate the 

violation of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and Executive 

Order 11644, which prohibit the use of motorized vehicles 

in Wilderness Areas. Restricting the use of motorized 

vehicles to the State-owned riparian land (below mean 

high tide) would reduce the amount of time such vehicles 

could be on the Holgate Peninsula, especially around the 

new moon and full moon. This restriction would tend to 

reduce the number of anglers and other wildlife 

dependent visitors who use the area. Establishing a boat 

taxi concession to ferry surf anglers and visitors from the 

bayside of Long Beach Island to the tip of the Holgate 

Peninsula would compensate for some of this reduction. 

Surf angling via foot or boat access would allow for a 

nature-oriented experience in a more remote setting. The 

prohibition of motorized vehicle use in the Wilderness 

would increase the probability of providing a 

A...community of life ... untrammeled by man...@ and A... 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive ... 

recreation;@ which are wilderness characteristics defined 

by Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

At Little Beach Island, this Alternative would allow surf 

fishing and other wildlife-dependent recreation during the 

fall and winter through Refuge special use permits. This 

new access opportunity would partially compensate for 

the reduced motorized vehicle access for surf anglers and 

other wildlife dependent visitors on the Holgate 

Peninsula. 

The proposed year-round closure of the Holgate Unit 

above mean high tide to public use of motor vehicles, 
 Environmental 

Consequences IV

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental AssessmentB July 2000 

IV - 19 

under the directives and principles of the Wilderness Act, 

can be expected to cause localized negative economic 

impacts to the Long Beach community. It is assumed that 

most people would not want to purchase a beach access 

permit and risk driving their vehicles below mean high 

tide in order to fish for a very limited period of time. 

Although the closure is not expected to negatively impact 

the overall Long Beach Island economy, individual 

businesses such as bait and tackle shops located near the 

southern end of Long Beach Island, would most likely 

suffer some economic losses under a year-round motor 

vehicle closure of the Holgate Unit. 

The full extent of the economic impact on bait and tackle 

shops from the proposed year-round closure would really 

depend on: how many motorized anglers seek alternative 

fishing sites off the Island, how many anglers used the 

proposed boat ferry system, and whether the closure 

impacts participation in the annual Fall Long Beach 

Island Fishing Tournament. Overall, the reduction in 

expenditures at some Long Beach bait and tackle shops 

may be substantial under this Alternative and some 

businesses catering primarily to surf fishermen may 

suffer unsustainable economic losses to their operations. 

 

Under this Alternative, restaurants and lodging 

businesses may experience a small decline in overall 

revenues. As with most Long Beach Island businesses, 

restaurants and motels on the Island primarily depend 

upon the summer season for revenues. However, some 

restaurants and motels do remain open during the fall 

season, and a limited amount of businesses remain open 

year round. Under the proposed closure these businesses 

can be expected to see some slight decrease in revenues if 

motorized fishermen choose alternative fishing sites off 

the Island. Because the Island still offers motor vehicle 

access to other beaches in the Township and fishing would 

continue during the fall, the impacts are expected to be 

minor. 

Along with bait and tackle shops, it is anticipated that 

motorized surf fishing anglers would be the most directly 

impacted user group under the proposed closure. The 

year-round closure above mean high tide is expected to 

limit fishing opportunities for motorized anglers, 

especially those that primarily fished at Holgate beach, 

where some of the best surf fishing occurs. Under th

proposed closure above mean high tide, anglers choo

to continue fishing on Long Beach Island would still

able to access long stretches of the beach elsewhere 

Township. Current Long Beach Island motor vehicl

regulations would allow fishermen to access nearly 

miles of beach from the entrance to the Holgate Uni

north to Loveladies, if they secure the proper beach 

permits. Anglers would also still be able to access th

Holgate Peninsula on foot or by driving their ORVs 

the beach below the mean high tide line. 

Although motorized anglers may still be able to acce

long stretches of the beach in the Township under th

proposed closure, most would likely choose not to us

Holgate Peninsula and forego the opportunity to 

experience driving their motor vehicles along an 

undeveloped beachfront in a Wilderness Area. The 

size and scope of such impacts would really be depen

on the availability of alternative fishing sites for 

motorized anglers and their willingness to travel to 

sites. 

Long Beach Township may also be impacted by the 

Proposed Action. To reach the Holgate Unit with a 

vehicle, anglers must purchase a beach buggy perm

Long Beach Township in order to cross Township la

The pass has no official standing within the Holgate

The same permit is required to access other beache

the Island. Permit data collected from Long Beach 

Township identified that a total of 734 beach buggy 

permits were issued in 1999. Permits were issued u

two categories, either for the full season or for limite

such as during the fall fishing tournaments. Full se

permits cost $50, and a limited use fall permit sold f

$25. In 1999, Long Beach Township issued 630 full 

season permits and 104 fall permits. Overall, beach

buggy permit sales brought in approximately $34,00

direct revenues to Long Beach Township in 1999. G

that many of the beach buggy permits were issued t

anglers specifically to reach the Holgate Unit, it is l

that the Township=s revenue from beach buggy sales

would decrease under the proposed closure. Conver

some of the other local jurisdictions may sell more o

permits. 

Under the Proposed Action, access to the southern tip of 

the Holgate Peninsula may be allowed through a boat 

ferry system. Originating out of Long Beach Island, a 

boat ferry system would be expected to bring positive 

economic returns to the local economy. Ferry system 

concessionaires are currently in use at several National 

Wildlife Refuges nationwide to access Wilderness Areas, 

including Cape Romain Refuge in South Carolina and 

Monomoy Refuge in Massachusetts. A boat ferry system 

would allow surf anglers to continue to access the be

fishing areas on Holgate for a fixed cost. Many angl

may choose to use the boat ferry system to fish in a 

Wilderness Area without crowds and noise from mo

vehicles. The ferry system would also allow that seg

of the public who do not have suitable motor vehicle

opportunity to access a remote beach environment.
IV Environmental Consequences 

 

IV - 20 Jersey Coast Refuges

A boat ferry system may also promote an ecotourism 

business on the Island as birders and naturalists seek 

remote areas to experience nature. The Holgate Unit is 

an ideal place to view fall migrations of shore birds and 

marine life, and the Service encourages wildlife viewing 

on the Refuge System. Interest in ecotourism is growing 

and access to Holgate beach would provide an excellent 

opportunity to create new Long Beach Island ecotourism 

businesses. It is difficult to predict the level of revenues 

that would be associated with establishing such a 

business, but with promotions from organizations like the 

local Chamber of Commerce the returns could be 

significant. See Appendix G for a complete socioeconomic 

analysis of motor vehicle use at Holgate. 

Land Protection

This Alternative would result in the Service acquiring 

11,500 acres of land identified in 12 focus areas, in 

addition to the remaining 12,300 acres within the 

currently approved Refuge acquisition boundaries. 

Acquisition costs for the proposed 11,500 acres of focus 

areas are estimated at $60 - $80 million. 

 

Because of increasing development pressure throughout 

the New Jersey coastal region, and Barnegat Bay in 

particular, public meeting participants emphasized the 

need for continued land acquisition and protection. 

Acquisition within the 12 focus areas would protect the 

watershed areas upstream from lands already owned, 

several additional sites with rare species, and corridors 

connecting Refuge lands with nearby conservation areas. 

Lands acquired under this Alternative would provide 

better protection for entire watersheds and their 

processes, ensure water quality and quantity for wetlands, 

provide more contiguous habitat for migrating birds, and 

allow for better conservation reserves for populations of 

non-migratory species (i.e., larger populations and 

linkages between populations). 

Additional land acquisition would enable improved 

management and water quality protection for waters 

feeding into the Refuges and the Barnegat Bay ecosystem. 

 Refuge land acquisition boundaries would be modified 

periodically to protect threatened and endangered species 

and watershed areas. Sustaining the output of ecosystem 

goods and services is the key to sustainable wildlife 

resources, sustainable economic activities, and a healthy 

human population. 

Increased land protection through planning and 

acquisition would result in a variety of economic benefits 

to Townships, Boroughs, and Counties along the Jersey 

Coast. Avoiding sprawl and planned smart growth 

would reduce the amount of direct and indirect expenses 

related to development. Acquisition of potentially 

developable lands would increase the value of remaining 

developable lands by increasing demand and preserving 

local ecosystem values. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing payments to municipalities 

within which the Service acquires property would increase 

as we acquired the 11,500 acres of lands within the 12 

focus areas. If all of this land were acquired, the full 

payment value of Refuge Revenue Sharing payments to 

the municipalities would increase by $450,000 to $600,000 

per year. It should also be noted that Refuge lands 

require very few local services. 

This Alternative would produce increases in: 

# revenues from expanded visitor use; 

# Service expenditures for equipment and supplies 

needed for Refuge management; 

# Service expenditures resulting from expanding 

Refuge staffing.

Resource Protection and Visitor Safety 

Of the three Alternatives, Alternative B would provide the 

greatest level of resource protection and visitor safety. 

Wildlife and their habitats, and archaeological and 

historical sites would be afforded the maximum 

protection. The Refuge is located in the most densely 

populated State in the nation and receives over 300,000 

visitors annually. Commercial and residential 

development is evident and increasing immediately 

adjacent to current boundaries. Increasing law 

enforcement efforts can pro-actively deal with resource 

protection and visitor safety issues before they become 

violations. Also, increasing the Refuge law enforcement 

staffing level conveys to our neighbors, visitors and local 

communities, the Services dedication to protection of 

natural resources and improved visitor safety. 

Refuge visitors and adjoining private landowners would 

receive a benefit from additional law enforcement staff 

because of reduced response time to complaints, which 

would improve the Service=s public image. 

Refuge Buildings and Facilities

New office and visitor facilities at the Brigantine Division 

would directly impact about eight to ten acres, and three 

to four acres at the Barnegat Division. The impacts are 

related to building-created impervious area, graveled 

entrance roads, parking lots and maintenance areas, and 

lawn areas. The removal of some older buildings and 

facilities would reduce the net increase in directly 
 Environmental 

Consequences IV

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental AssessmentB July 2000 

IV - 21 

impacted acres. Landscaping for wildlife using native 

plant species would further reduce the impact. 

There are six potential sites under consideration for the 

new Refuge headquarters office and visitor facility at the 

Brigantine Division. These include: 

# the current headquarters area in Galloway 

Township; 

# the Arboretum Tract area in Galloway Township; 

# the King=s Highway area in Galloway Township; 

# the Nacote Creek/Chestnut Neck area in Port 

Republic; 

# the Sim=s Mansion area in Bass River Township; 

# the Werbler Tract area in Little Egg Harbor 

Township. 

The site proposed for a new Refuge office and visitor 

facility at the Barnegat Division is located in 

commercially zoned property on the west side of U. S. 

Route 9 in Ocean Township, Ocean Co. Any construction 

would require a Site Analysis and associated NEPA 

compliance documents. 

The expanded visitor facilities at the Brigantine Division 

headquarters and the Barnegat Divison office would boost 

the local economy in the long term by increasing visitation 

to the areas. We estimate that a new, larger visitor center 

at the Brigantine Division would attract about 250,000 

visitors per year. A Brigantine Division visitor center 

located near the Garden State Parkway would attract 

even more visitors, provided that educational programs, 

exhibits, and learning activities were offered. 

We estimate that a visitor facility at the Barnegat 

Division would attract about 5,000 visitors per year. 

Higher visitor use would increase the amount of tra

the vicinity of the Refuge office and visitor facilities

which may impact local air quality. The Service wou

mitigate impacts on biological resources that could n

avoided. New facilities would be sited based on: 

# buildable area; 

# wetland buffers; 

# buffers to neighbors; 

# impact on open space; 

# existing sewer and water service; 

# proximity to major road; 

# site impacts of building or parking areas; 

# changes to the neighborhood; 

# view and access to trails and other visitor 

resources. 

The Refuge would consult with the local jurisdiction

during planning and construction. 

Hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching together 

generated over $254 billion in total economic output

1996 (American Sportfishing Association 1998; and 

Southwick Associates, 1998). The Service=s 1996 fis

hunting, and wildlife associated recreation survey 

reported participation by over 77 million people, wh

spent over $29 billion on associated travel and equip

Over 62 million participated in some form of wildlif

observation or photography, or planting of beneficia

shrubs. 

An independent study of the economic impact of 

ecotourism and demographic studies of ecotourists, 

conducted from October 1993 to September 1994 at the 

Refuge, revealed that nearly one-half of the visitors were 

from out of State, and 39.4% stayed more than one day in 

the area. Visitors averaged 2.1 days in the area, and 

spent about $273 on their entire trip to and from the 

Refuge. This totaled $26.76 million, with associated 

economic benefits to local communities from lodging, food, 

gas, and related purchases (Kerlinger, 1995). Several 

other studies have shown the economic value of birding 

and other ecotourism in other locations, including Cape 

May (Kerlinger and Weidner, 1988; Kerlinger, 1994; 

Kerlinger, 1997; USFWS 1997). 

A more recent Service publication, Banking on Natu

Economic Benefits to local communities of National

Wildlife Refuge Visitation, July 1997, reports that v

generated over $400 million of sales in regional econ

in 1995. In conjunction with this spending, more th

10,000 people were employed and $162.9 million in 

was generated. 
IV Environmental Consequences 

 

IV - 22 Jersey Coast Refuges
 Environmental 

Consequences IV

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental AssessmentB July 2000 

IV - 23 

Alternative B B The Service=s 

Proposed Action 

Cape May National Wildlife Refuge

Habitat and Wildlife Populations

The habitat restoration and maintenance program 

on Refuge lands would be completed under a 15-year 

time frame, resulting in a fundamental 

improvement in ecosystem quality. Increased 

acreage of phragmites and other exotics, such as 

Japanese honeysuckle, (Lonicera japonica), would be 

controlled (see also Invasive and Overabundant 

Species). Grasslands, which often include a high 

proportion of introduced species, would be converted 

to native species of grasses and forbs. The size and 

location of these grasslands would favor use by 

declining bird species in nesting, migration, and 

wintering periods. 

Wetland communities, especially salt marshes, 

cedar swamps and bogs, would be restored. 

Removal of man-made restrictions to fish passage 

would restore interjurisdictional fish habitat to 

upstream areas. Restoration of previously ditched 

salt marshes would enhance habitat quality for 

many species of waterfowl and marsh birds. 

Implementing controlled burns in upland habitats 

for fuel load reduction would have the dual benefits 

of reducing risks from wildfires and establishing 

conditions that favor native species. The upland 

forests historically and prehistorically encountered 

fires at much higher frequencies (estimates range 

from once every three years to once every 15 years). 

 Should wildfire occur after reducing fuel loads and 

stand density through prescribed burns and 

mechanical treatments, the fire would be much 

easier to contain, and less likely to escalate to an 

extreme fire situation. Restoring natural fire 

frequency through prescribed burns would favor 

native species, help control invasive species, and 

provide a habitat structure that is now rare in the 

mid-Atlantic coastal plain (oak-pine savannah). 

Prescribed burns would be conducted in a way that 

minimizes adverse impacts to the physical, 

biological, and human environments. Burn 

prescriptions would be developed to allow personnel 

to keep the fire contained within the defined 

boundaries, smoke to dissipate at appropriate 

altitudes, and safe and healthy conditions for 

personnel and the public, while meeting the 

objectives of fuel load reduction and physical 

alterations to the habitat. Prescriptions may 

require clearing or cutting of overstory and 

understory trees/shrubs and plowing a fire line. 

Plowed lines would be filled after completion of the 

burn. Nearby publics would be notified of scheduled 

burns. While there are short-term impacts to air 

quality and the physical and biological components 

of the environment, prescribed burns would be 

necessary to meet Refuge goals and to reduce the 

risks of wildlife in an urban/wildland environment. 

Further detail on wildfire suppression and 

prescribed burns will be developed in the Fire 

Management Plan. 

The habitat distribution envisioned in the habitat 

management plan would result in the maximum 

benefit to forest interior, grassland, shrub/scrub, 

dune/beach, and wetland species. 

Indirect benefits of an increase in wildlife species 

number and diversity may include increased public 

visitation (hunters, birders, and photographers) and 

the subsequent additional positive socioeconomic 

outcome. Also, an increase in academia interest and 

visitation to view restoration projects may occur. 

The Refuge would serve as a demonstration and 

research site for academia and land management 

agencies. 

The inventory of rare species and communities 

would result in a map of existing and potential 

restoration sites. Cape May Refuge would also draft 

a strategy for protection and management of those 

sites, and begin its implementation. Additional 

populations of State and Federally listed bog species 

(e.g., swamp pink, bog asphodel, pine barrens tree 

frog) would be identified, protected, and if 

appropriate enhanced. Experimental restoration of 

other rare species may result in new populations, 

which may include such species as seabeach 

amaranth in dune/beach communities. 

Nest structures provided for raptor species would 

result in expanded recruitment to populations of 

osprey, barred and barn owls. 

Expanded baseline surveys and long-term 

monitoring programs would improve the quality, 

defensibility, and evaluation of management actions, 

and provide information for partners and education 

of the public. Researching long-term impacts on 

wildlife resources from mosquito control (both 

pesticide use and Open Marsh Water Management) 

and the myriad types and amounts of public use 
IV Environmental Consequences 

 

IV - 24 Jersey Coast Refuges

would ensure decisions in these controversial areas 

are based upon the best data. Research would be 

coordinated with periodic monitoring of public use 

(type, amount, and distribution) and coincident 

impact on wildlife and habitat. Development of a 

computer archive of research results, publications, 

and monitoring data would minimize loss of data, 

and ensure cost-efficient access to information by 

staff, partners, and the public. 

We would provide assistance on habitat planning 

and restoration to nearby landowners, both within 

and outside Refuge boundaries, to improve 

environmental quality locally, and slow degradation 

of the landscape. 

Areas north of Route 550 would be opened to 

trapping for management of furbearer populations 

(e.g. muskrat, raccoon, and fox), by Refuge special 

use permit. This action would provide public use 

opportunities, a means for harvest of a renewable 

resource, and local economic benefits. There would 

be the potential for conflicts between user groups as 

the Refuge would remain open for other activities 

during the trapping season. There is also the 

potential for these activities to cause some 

disturbance to other wildlife species. Though the 

abundance of these species may be seasonally and 

locally reduced, it is unlikely that there would be 

any negative impact to their overall populations. 

Invasive and Overabundant Species 

Surveys of invasive species would identify their 

biological impacts on native plants and wildlife, and 

help prioritize sites for control efforts. 

Implementation of the control strategy across the 

Refuge would result in restoration of hundreds of 

acres back to native plant species and communities. 

 Many other invertebrate and vertebrate wildlife 

species would respond positively to the increased 

habitat available. The techniques used for invasive 

species control would follow an Integrated Pest 

Management(IPM) approach, resulting in minimal 

use of pesticides and more effective control. Control 

efforts for invasive species on the Refuge would be 

coordinated with nearby landowners to prevent 

recolonization from sites off of the Refuge and 

improve habitat on private lands. 

Pesticide Use 

The Refuge may periodically use pesticides to 

control invasive or overabundant species. The 

Refuge=s use of an Integrated Pest Management 

(IPM) approach specifies using techniques other 

than pesticides whenever possible, and when 

pesticides are used, the least amount and most 

specific type would be employed. Some quantity of 

pesticide would be introduced into the ecosystem, 

with an expectation of some impact on non-target 

species. Any Service activities dealing with 

mosquito control would be subject to the results of 

our NEPA compliance efforts. (See Mosquito 

control on page I-17.) 

Big Game Hunting 

The consequences of implementing this Alternative 

would be the same as Alternative A.

Upland Game Hunting

Under this Alternative selected areas of the Refuge 

would be opened for upland game hunting. This 

would provide new recreational opportunities, a 

means for harvest of a renewable resource, and local 

economic benefits. There is the potential for 

conflicts between user groups as the Refuge would 

remain open for other activities during the hunting 

seasons. There is also the potential for these 

activities to cause some disturbance to other wildlife 

species. Providing upland game hunting 

opportunities would likely result in an increase in 

the sale of hunting licences, supplies and equipment 

in the area. 

The abundance of upland game species would be 

seasonally and locally reduced, however, there would 

be no negative impact to their overall populations. 

Migratory Game Bird Hunting

This Alternative provides additional areas and 

techniques for migratory game bird hunting on the 

Refuge. The size and locations of areas for hunting 

have been designed to balance opportunities for 

hunting while still maintaining substantial areas as 

sanctuary for all species of wildlife. The total 

acreage is within the 40 % limit prescribed by the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act and the Fish and 

Wildlife Improvement Act. 

A negative consequence of increased hunting 

opportunities is the indirect (non-hunting) impact to 

wildlife species and their habitats caused by the 

increased number of hunters accessing the Refuge. 

The wetland habitats protected and managed at the 

Refuge provide critical resting and feeding areas to 

migrating/wintering waterfowl and other waterbird 

species on the Atlantic Flyway. A recent literature 

review conducted by Stillwater National Wildlife 

Refuge personnel (USFWS, 1998) has shown that 

disturbance caused by hunting can: 
 Environmental 

Consequences IV

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental AssessmentB July 2000 

IV - 25 

# modify the distribution and use of various 

habitats by birds; 

# affect their activity budget and reduce their 

foraging time and consequently their ability 

to store fat reserves necessary both for 

migration and breeding; 

# disrupt pair and family bonds and 

contribute to increased hunting mortality. 

Also, though this Alternative increases areas and 

redefines techniques for migratory bird hunting, a 

large percentage of the Refuge would remain closed 

and provide needed sanctuary for migrating 

waterfowl. 

There is also the potential for occasional conflicts 

between Refuge activities, including management 

actions and wildlife-related recreation on Refuge 

lands or navigable waterways. 

As with big and upland game hunting, increased 

hunting opportunities would increase the number of 

licenses and duck stamps sold, as well as increase 

the amount of locally purchased hunting supplies. 

Fishing 

Under this Alternative the Refuge would be opened 

for fishing and crabbing, although opportunities 

would be functionally limited to just a few manmade 

ponds and tidal creeks. This would provide new 

recreational opportunities, a means for harvest of a 

renewable resource, and local economic benefits. 

There is also the potential for these activities to 

cause some disturbance to other wildlife species. 

Refuge staff would re-evaluate fishing access if 

demand or use were to approach levels potentially 

harmful to habitat or wildlife. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Under this Alternative the Refuge would make 

considerable improvements to existing trails to 

facilitate public use and provide a quality 

experience. Increased opportunities for wildlife 

observation and photography may have some impact 

to the physical and biological resources in varying 

degrees, depending on the number of visitors and 

the season. Impacts may include temporary 

disturbance to wildlife in the immediate area and 

trampling of vegetation along trail edges. These 

improvements would increase visitor use but not at 

the expense of the natural environment. 

Opportunities for wildlife observation and 

photography should benefit the local economy. Ecotourism is already a significant factor in Cape May 

County and this effort would complement that 

market. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Under this Alternative the Refuge would provide 

increased opportunities for these activities. Visitor 

use would increase somewhat over current 

conditions, which would have some impact on 

wildlife and habitat. However, all of these efforts 

would be done in such a manner as to minimize 

negative impacts. Impacts attributed to 

environmental education activities would be 

mitigated by the benefits of educating the public 

about Refuge resources and the environment. This 

action would benefit the local economy by increasing 

eco-tourism.

Wilderness Management 

There is no designated Wilderness at Cape May 

Refuge. A Wilderness Review of all Refuge lands, 

including the Two Mile Beach Unit, would be 

conducted by 2010. 

Land Protection

This Alternative would result in the Service 

acquiring 3,600 acres of land within the focus areas, 

in addition to 7,600 acres of land within the current, 

approved Refuge acquisition boundaries. 

 

Because of development pressure in Cape May 

County, public meeting participants heavily 

emphasized the need for continued land acquisition 

and protection. The focus areas would protect the 

watershed areas upstream from lands already 

owned, several additional sites with rare species, 

and corridors connecting Refuge lands with nearby 

conservation areas. 

Lands acquired under this Alternative would 

provide better protection for entire watersheds and 

their processes, ensure water quality and quantity 

for wetlands, and provide more contiguous habitat 

for migrating birds and genetic exchange between 

populations of non-migrating species. 

Additional land acquisition would enable improved 

management and water quality protection for waters 

feeding into the Refuge and the Deleware Bay 

ecosystem. Land acquisition boundaries would be 

modified periodically to protect threatened and 
IV Environmental Consequences 

 

IV - 26 Jersey Coast Refuges

endangered species and watershed areas. 

Sustaining the output of ecosystem goods and 

services is the key to sustainable wildlife resources, 

sustainable economic activities, and a healthy 

human population. 

Increased land protection through planning and 

acquisition would result in a variety of economic 

benefits to townships, boroughs, and counties. The 

avoidance of sprawl and smart growth would reduce 

the amount of direct and indirect expenses related to 

development. Acquisition of potentially developable 

lands would increase the value of remaining 

developable lands by increasing demand and 

preserving local ecosystem values. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing payments to municipalities 

within which the Service acquires property would 

increase as the Service acquires the 3,600 acres of 

lands within the focus areas. If all of this land were 

acquired, the full payment value of Refuge Revenue 

Sharing payments to the municipalities would 

increase by$64,800 per year. It should also be noted 

that Refuge lands require very few local services. 

This Alternative would: 

# increase revenues from expanded visitor 

use; 

# increase Service expenditures for 

equipment and supplies; 

# increase Service expenditures for 

expanding Refuge staffing. 

Resource Protection and Visitor Safety 

Of the three Alternatives, Alternative B would 

provide the greatest level of resource protection and 

visitor safety. Wildlife and their habitats, and 

archaeological and historical sites would be afforded 

the maximum protection. The Refuge is located in 

the most densely populated State in the nation and 

hosts over 10,000 visitors annually. Commercial 

and residential development is evident and 

increasing immediately adjacent to current 

boundaries. Increasing law enforcement efforts can 

pro-actively deal with resource protection and 

visitor safety issues before they become violations. 

Also, increasing the Refuge law enforcement staffing 

level conveys to our neighbors, visitors and local 

communities, the Services dedication to protection of 

natural resources and improved visitor safety. 

Refuge Buildings and Facilities

New enlarged office and visitor contact facilities and 

storage and maintenance facilities proposed in this 

Alternative would directly impact an additional two 

to four acres. The impacts are related to buildingcreated impervious area, graveled entrance roads, 

parking lots, and lawn areas. Landscaping for 

wildlife using native plant species would reduce the 

overall impact of developed facilities. 

A new larger office and visitor contact facility at the 

Cape May Refuge headquarters would boost the 

local economy in the long-term by increasing 

visitation to the area. We estimate that the visitor 

contact facility would attract about 5,000 to 10,000 

visitors per year. We estimate that most of this 

increase would be during the spring and fall seasons. 

The increased visitor use would increase the amount 

of traffic in the vicinity of the Refuge headquarters 

area, which may impact local air quality. The 

Refuge would consult with the local jurisdiction 

during planning and construction. 
 Environmental 

Consequences IV

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental AssessmentB July 2000 

IV - 27 

Alternative B - The Service=s 

Proposed Action

Two Mile Beach Unit

Habitat and Wildlife Populations

Under this Alternative we would have an active and 

comprehensive biological program providing benefits 

to migratory birds, beach nesting birds, endangered 

species, and the native plant communities. Native 

flora and fauna would benefit from management and 

enhancements. Numerous surveys would provide 

valuable data for planning and decision making. We 

would draft a strategy for management and begin 

implementation. One area of emphasis would be to 

develop a management plan for beach nesting birds. 

 These efforts would require significant 

commitments of staff time and funding. 

Under this Alternative furbearer trapping by the 

public would not be permitted. Trapping would be 

done by contract for predator control only, to benefit 

beach-nesting birds. This action provides no public 

use opportunities or benefits to the local economy. 

The abundance of these species would be seasonally 

and locally reduced consistent with Refuge 

management objectives. It is unlikely that there 

would be any negative impact to their overall 

populations. 

Invasive and Overabundant Species

This Alternative includes greater monitoring and 

control of invasive species utilizing an Integrated 

Pest Management (IPM)plan, providing benefits to 

rare and endangered species and to the native 

habitat types. Without this action, there may be 

negative impacts to the native flora and fauna.

Pesticide Use

Under this Alternative an Integrated Pest 

Management (IPM)plan would be developed which 

places greater emphasis on alternative means of 

pest control such as Open Marsh Water 

Management (OMWM), mechanical cutting , 

biological control, burning, etc. This Alternative 

would reduce the amounts of chemicals applied to 

the local environment. Any Service activities 

dealing with mosquito control would be subject to 

the results of our NEPA compliance efforts. (See

Mosquito control on page I-17.) 

Beach Access

This Alternative would open the beach to fishing and 

wildlife observation and photography from October 

to March. Access would be by foot only. From April 

to September the beach would be closed to all public 

use, and the area would remain available for 

undisturbed migratory bird breeding, nesting, 

feeding, preening, and loafing. There would be 

direct benefits for these birds as they are provided a 

rare stretch of barrier island beach free from human 

disturbance. While there would be wildlife benefits 

during this period, the public would lose access to 

the beach. A consequence would be the seasonal 

disruption of some previous public uses of the beach, 

as mentioned under Alternative A. 

This action would likely reduce economic benefits to 

the local area during the summer as visitors may 

look elsewhere for these opportunities. Access to 

the Cold Spring Jetty would likely be lost also, as 

the Coast Guard does not permit public access off 

Ocean Drive or along the canal. These 

consequences, positive and negative, would be felt 

for the duration of the two-year closure. Should 

birds begin to nest on the beach, we would continue 

the seasonal closure, if not, we would re-evaluate the 

closure, taking into account other threatened and 

endangered species. If the closure were to be 

discontinued, there would be a loss of available, 

undisturbed beach habitat. 

Beach access would be permitted from October 1 

through March 31 of each year. As visitor numbers 

are relatively small at this time of year, negative 

impacts would be insignificant. This provides 

opportunities for public access and would benefit the 

local economy. No vehicles would be permitted at 

any time, which would benefit a variety of plants, 

wildlife, including invertebrates, and beach 

dynamics. 

Hunting

The consequences of implementing this Alternative 

would be the same as Alternative A. 

Fishing

Under this Alternative, surf fishing would be 

allowed from October 1 through March 31. This 

action provides fishing opportunities not previously 

available, with some benefits to the local economy. 

Trash and litter are often a problem where fishing is 

allowed, however, as visitor numbers are relatively 
IV Environmental Consequences 

 

IV - 28 Jersey Coast Refuges

small at this time of year, negative impacts would be 

insignificant.

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Under this Alternative the area would be open for 

wildlife observation and photography. There would 

be improvements to accommodate public access and 

insure a quality experience to the visitor. All such 

uses would occur on existing service roads, trails, 

and parking lots. There would be no new habitat 

alteration or disturbance as additional roads, trails 

or parking lots would not be provided. This 

Alternative proposes an observation platform, which 

would impact a small area. Increased opportunities 

for wildlife observation and photography would 

impact physical and biological resources in varying 

degrees, depending on the number of visitors and 

the season. Impacts would include temporary 

disturbance to wildlife in the immediate area and 

trampling of vegetation along trail edges. These 

improvements would increase visitor use but not at 

the expense of the natural environment. Sensitive 

areas, such as the dunes, would be closed to guard 

against negative impacts. Opportunities for wildlife 

observation and photography would benefit the local 

economy. Eco-tourism is already a significant factor 

in Cape May County and this effort would 

complement that market. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Under this Alternative we would be actively 

involved in environmental education and 

interpretation by providing a new visitor center, 

trails, kiosk, signs, regular programs, and guided 

walks. Visitor use would increase, which would 

have some impacts on wildlife and habitat. 

However, all of these efforts would be done in such a 

manner as to minimize negative impacts as much as 

possible. This action would benefit the local 

economy. Eco-tourism is already a significant factor 

in Cape May County and this effort would 

compliment that market. 

Refuge Buildings and Facilities

We would utilize buildings A-14 and B-6 and other 

improvements as needed for management purposes, 

including establishment of a visitor center in 

building A-14. The removal of non-essential 

buildings and other facilities, and actively 

vegetating with native plants would substantially 

improve the site as a coastal dune community. 

Breeding and stopover habitat for migratory birds 

would increase. The removal of impervious surfaces 

would also benefit the surface and groundwater 

hydrology. The utilization of buildings A-14 and B-6 

for Refuge purposes would reduce the potential 

maximum habitat gains. The use of buildings for 

management and interpretation/education needs 

would benefit the local economy.
 Environmental 

Consequences IV

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental AssessmentB July 2000 

IV - 29 
IV Environmental Consequences 

 

IV - 30 Jersey Coast Refuges

Alternative B - The Service=s 

Proposed Action 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts of the 

Service=s Proposed Action

Unavoidable adverse impacts are projected from the 

changes in levels of management activities as 

described in the Service=s Proposed Action, relative 

to the No-Action Alternative. 

Construction of visitor facilities and increased 

visitation would affect local air and water quality 

and natural vegetation, through vehicle emissions, 

localized damage to vegetation, soil compaction, and 

erosion. Enhanced visitation would also mean 

additional disturbances to both resident and 

migratory wildlife. Increased visitation for wildlifedependent recreation and educational and 

interpretative programs may mean less Refuge 

acreage for hunting, or, potentially, more 

restrictions for public safety purposes. 

Phasing out non-wildlife-dependent uses will 

substantially reduce or eliminate there negative 

impacts on the experiences of other Refuge visitors 

and the environment. This will likely result in 

more conflicts between the Service and local user 

groups and commercial establishments. 

Enforcement of the Wilderness Act at the Holgate 

Unit would adversely impact surf fishermen and 

motorized vehicle operations above mean high tide 

line. Some bait and tackle shops in Long Beach 

Township would also lose revenues due to the 

closure. Over time, ecotourist attraction to a 

wilderness experience may be expected to offset any 

monetary loss from surf fishing. 

Additional hunting or trapping could result in 

increased conflicts with other user groups opposed 

to those activities. Wildlife harvest through hunting 

and trapping will reduce certain species population 

numbers, so that other species of management 

concern may increase or recover. Such management 

actions are necessary to carry out our wildlife 

resource protection mandates. 

The development potential of the protected land 

would be precluded. Thus, the local economy could be 

adversely affected from increased monetary gain from 

development that is not exploited. Also, local 

governments would not receive the fiscal benefits of 

increased property tax receipts. However, this type 

of impact is expected to be minor. (See Short-Term 

Use Versus Long-Term Productivity below.) The 

Service is committed to working only with willing 

sellers. People would not be willing to forego rewards 

from future development potential if the value of the 

property, adjusted to account for risk and inflation, is 

greater than the value they receive by forfeiting their 

development rights. Therefore, it can be assumed 

that property owners who give up their development 

rights do not expect the development potential of 

their lands to increase greatly, or are simply more 

interested in land conservation than any monetary 

gains. 

Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term 

Productivity

Short-term and long-term effects describe the 

relationship between local short-term uses of the 

human environment and maintenance of long-term 

productivity of the environment. 

Short-term economic effects would be felt in the 

immediate impact from land purchases. There would 

be short-term impacts on tax collections for the year 

in which a property is acquired. In the long-term 

however, land protection would reduce municipal 

services cost, i.e., the infrastructure development of 

roads, sewers, schools, police and fire protection, and 

utilities, while providing essential habitat for wildlife 

and outdoor recreation. Loss in taxes would be at 

least partially offset by the annual Refuge Revenue 

Sharing payments. 

In the long-run, local economies would be impacted 

positively by increased spending on environmental 

programs. The programs would attract visitors and 

positively impact tourism and wildlife-dependent 

recreation in the coastal region. In the long-term, 

most of the adverse effects would be mitigated or 

offset by the positive impact from increased open 

space, and an increase in quality habitat for plants 

and animals. 

All impacts on biological resources are expected to 

be long-term and beneficial. Threatened and 

endangered species occurrence sites would receive 

highest priority for protection. Important stopover, 

feeding and breeding habitat for migrant birds, 

identified by Service and private conservation 

organization studies, would be targeted for 

acquisition. Aquatic species, wide-ranging species 

and species which require active management would 

benefit from habitat improvements, restoration and 
 Environmental 

Consequences IV

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental AssessmentB July 2000 

IV - 31 

land protection actions outlined in this plan. 

Technical assistance, environmental education, 

Partners-In-Flight grants and Challenge Cost Share 

Program grants would enhance area sensitive 

species on dedicated open space, privately owned 

lands and Refuge lands. Additional invasive species 

control would occur over a significant area of the 

Refuges allowing native species to reclaim habitat. 

Interjurisdictional fish populations would, in the 

long-term, hopefully stabilize and begin recovery as 

a result of quantity and quality of habitat as well as 

water quality improvements from protection and 

restoration of riparian habitat. 

The development of visitor center facilities, trails, 

observation platforms or kiosks, visitor and 

educational facilities, and wetland restoration 

projects would result in both short-term and longterm physical impacts on soil and vegetation. These 

impacts would be localized and confined to the 

immediate construction sites. Increased attention to 

environmental education and recreation programs 

would result in more audiences being involved with 

environmental education and wildlife-dependent 

recreation, and a more positive land ethic of 

stewardship within the coastal communities and 

those immediately adjacent. 

Long-term beneficial effects include the increased 

productivity of threatened and endangered species, 

waterfowl, shorebirds, and songbirds, and a myriad 

of other species dependent upon Refuge habitat. 

The public would also gain long-term opportunities 

for wildlife-dependent recreation and education on 

some Refuge tracts. 

Short-term use of Refuge lands includes wetlands 

restoration and enhancement, hunting, trapping, 

fishing, exotic plants control, management for 

selected species, wildlife inventories, fish stocking, 

water quality monitoring, forest regeneration, 

prescribed burning, and the construction of 

administration and public use facilities. These 

activities would be implemented with the primary 

goal of assuring the sustained productivity of Refuge 

resources. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitments of Resources to the 

Service=s Proposed Action

Irreversible commitments of resources are those 

which cannot be reversed. For example, the use of 

non-renewable resources is irreversible: mineral and 

fossil fuel consumption are not renewable and 

therefore not available for future use. The depletion 

of old-growth forests is also irreversible. An 

irreversible commitment of resources results when an 

area is altered in such a way that it cannot be 

returned to its natural condition for an extended 

period of time. 

Irretrievable commitments of resources occur when a 

 renewable resource is allocated to a given use and 

cannot be recovered without significant effort. 

The cost associated with land acquisition for the 

Refuges would be irreversible. Refuge land 

acquisition removes acreage from private ownership, 

and any potential development benefits associated 

with it. However, such land, once placed in public 

ownership under the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, provides a new set of wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses which benefits a much broader 

group of people. The concept of "public lands" 

precludes individual freedom to use those lands 

according to individual desires. Traditional public 

uses may change, since public uses on a Refuge must 

be shown to be compatible with the purposes for 

which land is acquired. Structural improvements 

that are purchased with any land may be declared 

surplus to Government needs, and sold or demolished 

on site. Federal ownership may affect surrounding 

land-use patterns, local economies, and municipal tax 

revenues. Generally, these changes are positive: 

residential homes and property located adjacent to 

Refuge lands increases in value, landscapes are 

protected, revenue to local service businesses 

increases, and costs to municipalities for services 

decreases. 

Management of the Refuges and lands acquired 

would result in an irreversible and irretrievable 

commitment of funding for operations, 

administration, and management. Funding and 

personnel commitments by the Service to purchasing 

and managing Refuge lands and facilities render 

those resources unavailable for other Service 

programs and projects. The more public use 

activities and facilities provided, the greater the 

operating and maintenance cost involved. 

Any wetland restoration projects would be considered 

irreversible. Following restoration, the Clean Water 

Act and, in some cases, State statutes would make it 

very difficult to reconvert wetlands on a National 

Wildlife Refuge to a drained condition. 

Irreversible loss of Refuge habitat, as part of the 

Service=s Proposed Action, would occur at 
IV Environmental Consequences 

 

IV - 32 Jersey Coast Refuges

construction sites of new facilities. These 

irreversible impacts of visitor use facilities and 

improvements would be mitigated somewhat by 

their function in confining the major impacts of 

visitors to relatively few, selected areas. 

Animal and plant populations are renewable in 

different degrees. Construction sites, and some 

habitat management practices, may irretrievably 

damage natural communities, at least for a period of 

time. Wildlife taken through hunting, trapping, 

fishing, and species control, or for research programs, 

would no longer be available for wildlife observation 

and photography. These activities, however, would 

be managed in such a way that the health and 

viability of wildlife populations would not be 

threatened. 

Areas with new visitor and office centers, trails, and 

those providing wildlife observation opportunities 

may not be available for hunting, trapping, and 

fishing. Opportunities for these public uses would 

be irretrievably lost for as long as those areas are 

designated for wildlife observation or other public 

educational and recreational activities. 

 

 

Cumulative Impacts of the Service=s 

Proposed Action 

Cumulative impacts are those effects on the 

environment, including socioeconomic, resulting 

from one or more actions or the incremental 

consequences of an alternative when added to other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. 

For purposes of this discussion, these other actions 

may be generated by various entities, including 

other Federal or State agencies, county or town 

governmental entities, non-government 

organizations, and private individuals. Each of 

these major groups will continue to undertake 

actions relating to land use and fish and wildlife 

resources independent of Refuge operations that will 

affect these natural resources through the decades 

ahead. Some actions may result in beneficial effects 

upon our natural resources, and some may bring 

about negative impacts. Many types of recreational 

opportunities exist at the Refuges. We anticipate 

that the demand and popularity of these programs 

will continue to grow in the coming years. 

Coastal populations are said to be increasing at a 

rate three times the national average with 

corresponding population growth estimated at 1.3 

million per year. In 1960, it was estimated that 

90 million people lived in the coastal zone. By 1991, 

the coastal zone population had attained 115 million 

people, and in the year 2010, the number of people 

living near the coast is projected to reach 

130 million. Over the next 25 years, coastal stresses 

will increase precipitously due to human 

modifications of the environment. Although 

restoration and protection are also expected to 

increase, combined human influences upon the land, 

atmosphere, and sea will probably outrace our coastal 

preservation. 

As New Jersey coastal communities continue to 

expand, they will exert increasing pressures and 

demands on the Refuges, Barnegat Bay, Delaware 

Bay, and coastal natural resources. The coastal zone 

environment is heavily influenced by air and water 

inputs from both near shore and inland sources. As a 

result essential resources are failing not only 

nationally, but throughout the world and the quality 

of our food sources, water and air is being eroded. 

These changes are cumulative and are occurring in 

coastal regions throughout the United States. 

Pollution sources include septic systems, animal 

waste, urban runoff, construction, agricultural 

chemicals, logging, mining, hazardous material spills, 

sand and gravel extractions, junk yards, landfills, 

litter and debris. These pollution sources are 

generated by human populations and are cumulative 

over time. Threats to the Refuges' fish and wildlife 

resources will come primarily from outside the 

Refuges' boundaries, through increased boating, 

nonpoint source pollution runoff, nutrient loading, 

and habitat fragmentation. 

In order to ensure that the quality of the Refuges 

environment is maintained, and people experience a 

quality visit, it will be necessary to adjust visit rates 

and numbers on a frequent basis, or seasonally, as 

the situation dictates. Visits may be restricted to 

specific sites and well marked trails. Old or 

abandoned cartroads and footpaths would be 

upgraded, in place of new construction, where 

possible. 

The Barnegat Bay and Delaware Bay watersheds 

have numerous State, local and private organizations 

active in the protection of wildlife and habitats. 

Service actions as part of the Proposed Action would 

add significantly to the positive impacts on biological 

resources by others, and would at least help to offset 

the continuing large-scale land losses. 

Existing environmental education providers would 

continue to undertake actions relating to 

environmental education independent of the Services=
 Environmental 

Consequences IV

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental AssessmentB July 2000 

IV - 33 

operations that would affect these resources over the 

life of this plan. These groups may coordinate their 

efforts with the Service through cooperative 

programs, technical assistance, or grants from the 

Challenge Cost Share Program. 

Fishing and hunter education are annually 

supported in part by Federal grant money 

administered by the Service under the APittmanRobinson@ and ADingell-Johnson@ laws. New Jersey 

would continue to receive annual funding for these 

activities. 
IV Environmental Consequences 

 

IV - 34 Jersey Coast Refuges

Alternative C

Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge

Habitat and Wildlife Populations

This Alternative would result in the development 

and implementation of an ecological 

community/species based habitat management plan 

for the Refuge. Much greater attention would be 

given to plant species composition and ecological 

gradients in describing, targeting, and 

implementing habitat types (equivalent to 

community and association levels under the 

National Vegetation Classification System - NVCS). 

 Meeting habitat needs of other trust resources (e.g., 

migrating birds) would not be sacrificed in 

emphasizing habitat management at such a detailed 

level. We would also provide assistance on habitat 

planning and restoration to nearby landowners, both 

within and outside the Refuge, to improve 

environmental quality locally, and slow degradation 

of the landscape. Off-Refuge assistance would also 

be conducted at an NVCS community level. 

This Alternative would further assist the Refuge in 

achieving the Service=s ecosystem approach to 

resource management. The meaning of ecosystem 

management and what this approach would 

accomplish are articulated by many Federal 

agencies in relation to their mission. Variation in 

the definition of ecosystems among the agencies has 

led, in some cases, to considerably different 

interpretations of ecological units. A standard 

community classification system provides a 

consistent basis for the characterization of the 

biological components of different ecosystem units 

across the physical and administrative landscape. 

Thus a standard classification system contributes to 

the formation of more precisely defined and less 

variable ecosystem units. It also allows for the 

comparison of units that are defined and managed 

by different land management agencies within and 

between regions. 

Implementation of this Alternative would be very 

costly in terms of additional staff and monies. The 

Refuge would work closely with partners including 

the Federal Geographic Data Committee to develop 

standards for future refinements of the 

classifications. 

Other aspects of this Alternative would be the same 

as Alternative B. 

All Refuge lands would be opened to furbearer 

trapping under Refuge special use permit. Only 

selected State-regulated trapping species would be 

legal for harvest. Not all of New Jersey=s trapping 

species occur, or should occur, on the Refuge. By 

increasing trapping opportunities, the annual 

number of licenses and the amount of supplies 

purchased would increase. Additional opportunities 

would also be provided for trappers to harvest a 

renewable resource. A negative aspect of the 

increased trapping opportunities may be disturbance 

to other wildlife species caused by an increase in the 

number of trappers and the time they are allowed 

within the Refuge. Some non-target species would 

also likely be taken.

Invasive and Overabundant Species

The consequences of implementing this Alternative 

would be the same as Alternative B. 

Pesticide Use 

The consequences of implementing this Alternative 

would be the same as Alternative B.

Big Game Hunting

In addition to the initiation of the universally 

accessible hunt mentioned in Alternative B, we would 

open all Refuge lands within the Statewide deer 

management zones to big game hunting. 

Opening new areas to deer hunting would help keep 

deer populations within the carrying capacity of their 

habitat. Deer would be managed to minimize the 

potential for serious habitat alteration or degradation 

and density dependent diseases. Opening additional 

areas to deer hunting would increase the recreational 

opportunity, economic benefit, and provide greater 

flexibility in managing deer populations. 

An aspect to be considered before opening the entire 

Refuge to big game hunting under the lengthy 

Statewide season is the negative impacts to other 

non-target species of wildlife and their habitats. In 

general, human activity causes disturbance to 

wildlife and wildlife habitat at varying degrees 

depending on the type of human activity, intensity of 

activity, timing of the activity, number of activities 

occurring simultaneously and wildlife species 

impacted. This Alternative would provide no area on 

the Refuge for use by wildlife as a sanctuary, would 

impose undue stress on all wildlife species inhabiting 

the Refuge, and increase the potential for conflicts 

between deer hunters and other Refuge users.
 Environmental 

Consequences IV

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental AssessmentB July 2000 

IV - 35 

Upland Game Hunting

This Alternative provides greater opportunities for 

upland game hunting by increasing the amount of
IV Environmental Consequences 

 

IV - 36 Jersey Coast Refuges

Refuge land open for those activities. Conflicts 

between user groups of deer hunters and upland 

game hunters would be eliminated by spatially 

scheduling the times each user group can access the 

areas. This Alternative would provide an even 

greater increase in recreational opportunity and 

economic benefit as well as increase the number of 

hunting licenses and hunting supplies purchased. 

Increased hunting opportunities also provide 

additional wildlife dependent recreational 

opportunities for sport hunters to harvest a 

renewable natural resource. 

An aspect to be considered before opening the entire 

Refuge to upland game hunting, under the lengthy 

Statewide season, is the negative impacts to other 

non-target species of wildlife and their habitats. In 

general, human activity causes disturbance to 

wildlife and wildlife habitat at varying degrees 

depending on the type, intensity and timing of the 

activity, the number of activities occurring 

simultaneously, and the wildlife species impacted. 

This Alternative provides no area of the Refuge for 

use by wildlife as a sanctuary and would impose 

undue stress on all wildlife species inhabiting the 

Refuge. 

Migratory Game Bird Hunting

This Alternative would open the entire Refuge to 

migratory game bird hunting. Because it would 

exceed the 40% rule, it would violate the 

stipulations of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. 

 The Act specifies that lands purchased for the 

purpose of providing an inviolate sanctuary for 

migrating birds are limited to only 40% of those 

lands open to hunting. Although the Fish and 

Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (amendment to 

section 6 of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966) provides for opening 

more than 40% of refuge lands to hunting for a given 

species, it must be determined that hunting will be 

beneficial for that species. It is unlikely that 

hunting would be found to be beneficial to 

waterfowl, except for resident Canada and snow 

geese (addressed under separate initiatives). 

Consequently, this Alternative would violate 

Federal law. 

Increased migratory game bird hunting across the 

entire Refuge would increase short-term disturbance 

to birds and other wildlife found in the hunted 

areas. A recent literature review conducted by 

Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge personnel 

(USFWS, 1998) has shown that disturbance caused 

by hunting can: 

# modify the distribution and use of various 

habitats by birds; 

 # affect their activity budget and reduce their 

foraging time and consequently their ability 

to store fat reserves necessary both for 

migration and breeding; 

# disrupt pair and family bonds and 

contribute to increased hunting mortality. 

Depending on the extent and distribution of hunting 

pressure, it would virtually eliminate the ability of 

the Refuge to serve as stopover or wintering habitat 

to migrating waterbirds, not just waterfowl. It may 

cause migratory birds to leave the Refuge 

prematurely, undermining the intent of providing 

stopover habitat and viewing opportunities for 

wildlife observation, photography, and hunting. 

There is also the potential for occasional conflicts 

between Refuge activities, including management 

actions and wildlife-related recreation on Refuge 

lands or navigable waterways. 

Providing increased hunting opportunities on the 

Refuge would increase the number of licenses and 

duck stamps sold, as well as increase the amount of 

locally purchased hunting supplies. 

Fishing

This Alternative would open all the Refuge=s 

freshwater and saltwater shoreline to fishing. The 

physical environmental consequences would include 

soil compaction, shoreline erosion, with associated 

water turbidity, and littering. Biological 

environmental consequences would include reduced 

productivity of plants in near shore water, due to 

the increased turbidity, and reduced use by certain 

migratory bird species. Over time, Refuge 

shorelines may become littered with fishing debris, 

such as hooks and fishing line. These items are 

hazardous to wildlife. Although we could calculate 

the increased amount of shoreline that would be 

directly impacted by this Alternative, it is very 

difficult to estimate what the physical, biological, 

and socioeconomic impact in the additional areas 

would be. Also, it would be difficult to estimate the 

amount of increased public use that would result 

from this Alternative. There are so many tidal 

creeks and ditches in the salt marsh, that much of 

the saltwater shore line is only accessible by boat.

Wildlife Observation and Photography
 Environmental 

Consequences IV

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental AssessmentB July 2000 

IV - 37 

This Alternative would allow Refuge-wide 

opportunities for wildlife observation and 

photography. Such a policy would negatively 

impact the wildlife which depend on the Refuge, and 

would also reduce the quality of the visitor 

experience. 

While wildlife observation and photography are 

appropriate and welcome activities on the Refuge, 

wildlife observers and photographers can have 

negative impacts on wildlife and habitat. In order to 

minimize such impacts, careful public use planning 

must occur. 

Refuge-wide visitor access would seriously limit the 

Refuge=s capability to properly plan for those 

impacts, as follows: 

# Refuge-wide visitor access would eliminate 

the possibility of the selecting/designing 

wildlife observation sites/trails to minimize 

impacts on wildlife or habitat (see also 

Alternative B); 

# Assessment of visitor impacts would be 

hampered because there would be no 

defined public use areas to monitor. 

Without monitoring, any negative visitor 

impacts, which might occur, would go 

undetected and therefore would continue to 

the detriment of wildlife and habitat; 

# With no limits on visitor access, the Refuge 

would be unable to provide sanctuary from 

human disturbance to the wildlife within its 

borders. This becomes especially important 

in seasons when wildlife is already at risk, 

such as during nesting, migration, or hostile 

winter conditions; 

# Unlimited access for wildlife observation 

would put wildlife observers/photographers 

in conflict with other Refuge user groups, 

such as hunters. 

Wildlife observation and photography activities can 

negatively impact wildlife by altering wildlife 

behavior, reproduction, distribution and habitat 

(Purdy et al. 1987, Knight and Cole 1995). Wildlife 

observers actively seek out wildlife, which may 

result in encounters that are more frequent and 

longer in duration than non-wildlife dependent 

activities. 

Knight and Cole (1995) point out some of the 

problems which wildlife observers inadvertently 

create for wildlife. ANature viewing by its very 

definition has great potential to negatively affect 

wildlife. Avid wildlife viewers intentionally seek out 

rare or spectacular species. Some ... strive for the 

most viewing opportunities in the least amount of 

time. ... Because these activities may occur during 

sensitive times of the year (e.g., nesting), and 

because they often involve close approaches to 

wildlife for purposes of identification or 

photography, the potential for negative effects is 

large@. Boyle and Samson (1985) concluded that 

human visits to passerine and waterfowl nests could 

increase the chances of nest losses through 

predation, as adults are flushed away from the nest 

 (Dwernychuk and Boag 1972, Bart 1977, Lenington 

1979). 

Research has shown that colonial nesting birds are 

particularly susceptible to human disturbance, since 

breeding populations concentrate in small areas. 

Trampling has been recorded (Johnson and Sloan 

1976), as has nest abandonment (Hunt 1972, Ellison 

and Cleary 1978), and nesting water bird relocation 

to less preferred habitat, in response to human 

disturbance (Erwin 1980). 

Glinski (1976) notes that human visits to active 

raptor nests cause adults to waste energy circling 

the nest tree and calling at the intruders. He 

indicates that use of taped vocalizations used by 

some wildlife observers can Adisrupt the circadian 

rhythms that dictate performance of territorial 

calling and displaying during certain times of the 

day,@ thus prompting abnormal responses which not 

only waste the birds= energy, but also increase 

susceptibility of both nestlings and adults to 

predation. 

Approach by people can cause water birds such as 

sanderlings to avoid critical foraging habitat, reduce 

the birds= foraging time as they seek to avoid the 

approaching humans, or even switch to feeding at 

night (Burger and Gochfield 1991). 

Klein (1993) in a study at Ding Darling National 

Wildlife Refuge, noted that approaching wildlife on 

foot was the most disruptive aspect of all of the 

Refuge=s usual public uses, which included nature 

observation, photography, fishing, crabbing, shell 

collecting, boating, fitness, or driving. 

As noted above, expansion of wildlife observation 

and photography opportunities on Forsythe 

National Wildlife Refuge is welcome. The Refuge is 

surrounded by growing communities, and is also 
IV Environmental Consequences 

 

IV - 38 Jersey Coast Refuges

well known for the wildlife viewing opportunities 

available at its Wildlife Drive. As new areas are 

opened for wildlife observation and photography, an 

increase in visitation is anticipated. In order to 

make this change work for the wildlife, which 

depend on the Refuge and which we are mandated 

to conserve for future generations, such expansion 

must be carefully planned, executed, and monitored. 

As noted earlier, such planning, execution, and 

monitoring cannot occur under Alternative C.

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Environmental education opportunities on the 

Refuge would be greatly enhanced by expanded 

interpretive efforts of Refuge staff and volunteers, 

development of new partnerships with the education 

community, creation of new on-site outdoor 

classrooms, and increases in Refuge and wildlife 

educational media for both adults and children. 

The other consequences of implementing this 

Alternative would be the same as Alternative B.

Wilderness Management

This Alternative does not affect the current spring 

and summer closure of the Holgate Unit and Little 

Beach Island to all public use to protect piping 

plover breeding areas. 

It would result in the least negative impact to the 

physical and biological environment of Holgate due 

to the complete absence of motor vehicles. 

Experimental restoration of the northeastern beach 

tiger beetle would become a viable option. The 

opportunities for the public to experience solitude in 

a primitive, unconfined Wilderness Area would be 

greatly enhanced. 

This Alternative would have no archaeological and 

historical resource consequences at the Holgate 

Unit, because there are no archaeological and 

historical resources in the area. It would also have 

no archaeological and historical resource 

consequences at the Little Beach Island, because the 

site of the former Coast Guard Station would remain 

closed to the public. 

At the Holgate Unit, it would eliminate the violation 

of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and Executive Order 

11644, which prohibit the use of motorized vehicles 

in Wilderness Areas. If successful, it would also 

eliminate the use of motorized vehicles in the 

State-owned riparian land (land below mean high 

tide) below the Wilderness Area boundary. These 

two actions would stop all motor vehicle access on 

the Holgate Peninsula. This restriction would 

substantially reduce the number of anglers and 

other wildlife-dependent visitors that use the area. 

A boat taxi concession to ferry surf anglers and 

others on the bayside of Long Beach Island to the 

southern tip of the Holgate Peninsula would 

compensate for some of this reduction. Surf angling 

via foot or boat access would allow for a natureoriented experience in a more remote setting. The 

prohibition of motorized vehicle use in the 

Wilderness would increase the probability of 

providing a A...community of life ... untrammeled by 

man...@ and A... outstanding opportunities for 

solitude or primitive ... recreation;@ which are 

wilderness characteristics defined by Section 2(c) of 

the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

At Little Beach Island, this Alternative would allow 

surf fishing and other wildlife-dependent recreation 

during the fall and winter under Refuge special use 

permit. This opportunity would partially 

compensate for eliminating motor vehicle access for 

surf anglers and other wildlife dependent visitors at 

the Holgate Unit. 

The socioeconomic consequences of closing Holgate 

beach to motor vehicles would be the same as 

Alternative B. 

Land Protection 

The consequences of implementing this Alternative 

would be the same as Alternative B. 

Resource Protection and Visitor Safety 

Additional law enforcement personnel would result 

in increased protection to Refuge visitors and trust 

resources. Refuge visitors and adjoining private 

landowners would receive a benefit from additional 

law enforcement staff because of reduced response 

time to complaints, which would help improve the 

Service=s public image. 

Refuge Buildings and Facilities 

The consequences of implementing this Alternative 

would be the same as Alternative B. 
 Environmental 

Consequences IV

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental AssessmentB July 2000 

IV - 39 

Alternative C 

Cape May National Wildlife Refuge

Habitat and Wildlife Populations

This Alternative would result in the development 

and implementation of an ecological 

community/species based habitat management plan 

for the Refuge. Much greater attention would be 

given to plant species composition and ecological 

gradients in describing, targeting, and 

implementing habitat types (equivalent to 

community and association levels under the 

National Vegetation Classification System - NVCS). 

 Meeting habitat needs of other trust resources (e.g., 

migrating birds) would not be sacrificed in 

emphasizing habitat management at such a detailed 

level. The Refuge would also provide assistance on 

habitat planning and restoration to nearby 

landowners, both within and outside the Refuge, to 

improve environmental quality locally, and slow 

degradation of the landscape. Off-Refuge assistance 

would also be conducted at an NVCS community 

level. 

This Alternative would also assist in the Refuge 

achieving the Service=s adopted ecosystem approach 

to resource management. 

Implementation of this Alternative would be very 

costly in terms of additional staff and monies. The 

Refuge would work closely with partners including 

the Federal Geographic Data Committee to develop 

standards for future refinements of the 

classifications. 

Under this Alternative the entire Refuge would be 

open to trapping. This would provide the maximum 

level of new trapping opportunities, a means for 

harvest of a renewable resource, and local economic 

benefits. There is the potential for this activity to 

cause some disturbance to other wildlife species and 

also the potential for conflicts between user groups. 

 

Other consequences would be the same as those 

listed under Alternative B. 

Invasive and Overabundant Species 

The consequences of implementing this Alternative 

would be the same as Alternative B. 

Pesticide Use 

The consequences of implementing this Alternative 

would be the same as Alternative B.

Big Game Hunting 

The consequences of implementing this Alternative 

would be the same as Alternative A.

Upland Game Hunting

Under this Alternative, the entire Refuge would be 

open to upland game hunting. This would provide 

the maximum level of new upland game hunting 

opportunities, a means for harvest of a renewable 

resource, and local economic benefits. Under this 

action there is the potential for increased conflicts 

between user groups, as the Refuge would remain 

open for other activities during the hunting seasons. 

 There is also the potential for these activities to 

cause some disturbance to other wildlife species, 

especially migratory birds. Existing sanctuary 

areas established for waterfowl and other wildlife 

would be lost. 

Migratory Game Bird Hunting

This Alternative would open the entire Refuge to 

migratory game bird hunting. It would not violate 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (section 5 

amendment, the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act 

of 1978). Because the Refuge was established in 

1989, and setup A... as an inviolate sanctuary, or for 

any other management purpose,...@, it is not subject 

to the 40% restriction in migratory game bird 

hunting that is required of Forsythe Refuge. 

However, the implementation of hunting is subject 

to a compatibility determination, as are all public 

uses. 

Increased migratory game bird hunting across the 

entire Refuge would increase short-term 

disturbance to birds and other wildlife found in the 

hunted areas. A recent literature review conducted 

by Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge personnel 

(USFWS, 1998) has shown that disturbance caused 

by hunting can: 

# modify the distribution and use of various 

habitats by birds; 

 # affect their activity budget and reduce their 

foraging time and consequently their ability 

to store fat reserves necessary both for 

migration and breeding; 
IV Environmental Consequences 

 

IV - 40 Jersey Coast Refuges

# disrupt pair and family bonds and 

contribute to increased hunting mortality. 

Depending on the extent and distribution of hunting 

pressure, it could virtually eliminate the ability of 

the Refuge to serve as stopover or wintering habitat 

to migrating waterbirds, not just waterfowl. It may 

cause migratory birds to leave the Refuge 

prematurely, undermining the intent of providing 

stopover habitat and viewing opportunities for 

wildlife observation, photography, and hunting. 

There is also the potential for occasional conflicts 

between Refuge activities, including management 

actions and wildlife-related recreation on Refuge 

lands or navigable waterways. 

Providing increased hunting opportunities on the 

Refuge would increase the number of licenses and 

duck stamps sold, as well as increase the amount of 

locally purchased hunting supplies. 

Fishing

The consequences of implementing this Alternative 

would be the same as Alternative B.

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Under this Alternative the Refuge would make 

considerably fewer improvements to existing trails 

to facilitate public use. There would be some 

increase in opportunities for wildlife observation 

and photography, which may have some impact to 

the physical and biological resources, depending on 

the number of visitors and the season. Impacts may 

include temporary disturbance to wildlife in the 

immediate area and trampling of vegetation along 

trail edges. These improvements would increase 

visitor use but not at the expense of the natural 

environment. These opportunities for wildlife 

observation and photography would benefit the local 

economy. Eco-tourism is already a significant factor 

in Cape May County and this effort would 

compliment that market.

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Under this Alternative the Refuge would take a less 

active role in these activities, resulting in fewer 

opportunities for the public. Visitors would rely 

more on self-guiding trails and signs, and on 

occasional programs provided by partners. The 

Refuge would attract fewer visitors than under 

Alternative B. There would be some increase in 

visitor use over current conditions, which would 

have some impact to the wildlife and the habitat. 

However, all of these efforts would be done in such a 

manner as to minimize negative impacts as much as 

possible. Any impacts attributed to environmental 

education activities would be mitigated by the 

benefits of educating the public about Refuge 

resources and the environment. This action would 

benefit the local economy. Eco-tourism is already a 

significant factor in Cape May County and this 

effort would compliment that market.

Wilderness Management 

The consequences of implementing this Alternative 

would be the same as Alternative A.

Land Protection 

The consequences of implementing this Alternative 

would be the same as Alternative B.

Resource Protection and Visitor Safety 

The consequences of implementing this Alternative 

would be the same as Alternative B. 

Refuge Buildings and Facilities 

Enlarging and renovating the existing office and 

visitor contact facility and constructing the new 

storage and maintenance facilities proposed in this 

Alternative would directly impact the existing 

headquarters site and an additional two acres. The 

impacts are related to building-created impervious 

area, graveled entrance roads, parking lots, and 

lawn areas. 

A new ly remodeled and larger office and visitor 

contact facility at the Cape May Refuge 

headquarters site would boost the local economy in 

the long-term by increasing visitation to the area. 

We estimate that the visitor contact facility would 

attract about 3,000 to 7,000 visitors per year, most 

of which would be during the spring and fall 

seasons. 

The increased visitor use would increase the amount 

of traffic in the vicinity of the Refuge headquarters 

area, which may impact local air quality. The 

Service would mitigate impacts on biological 

resources that could not be avoided. The Refuge 

would consult with the local jurisdiction during 

planning and construction. 

 

 

 

 
 Environmental 

Consequences IV

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental AssessmentB July 2000 

IV - 41 

Alternative C 

Two Mile Beach Unit

Habitat and Wildlife Populations 

Under this Alternative we would have a less active 

biological program as compared to Alternative B. 

While there would still be benefits to the flora and 

fauna, the Unit would not reach its full potential 

regarding restoration and management of coastal 

habitats. Fewer wildlife surveys would result in a 

poorer understanding of the areas wildlife and plant 

communities. Predators would be controlled to 

benefit beach-nesting birds, and public trapping 

would be permitted under Refuge special use 

permit. Disturbance to wildlife and conflicts 

between user groups would be potential impacts. 

Invasive and Overabundant Species

The consequences of implementing this Alternative 

would be the same as Alternative B.

Pesticide Use 

The consequences of implementing this Alternative 

would be the same as Alternative B.

Beach Access

Under this Alternative the beach would be open to 

year-round pedestrian access, including surf fishing. 

 This would provide maximum opportunities for the 

public to walk on the beach. It would also disturb 

migratory birds that utilize the beach and would 

eliminate a sanctuary area during the busy summer 

tourist season when thousands of people are on local 

beaches. Continued heavy pedestrian traffic on the 

beach would likely preclude the threatened piping 

plover or least tern from once again nesting in the 

Unit. Maximum public access would benefit the 

local economy.

Hunting

The consequences of implementing this Alternative 

would be the same as Alternative A. 

Fishing

Under this Alternative surf fishing and 

fishing/crabbing would be allowed year-round on 

both the beach and in the back bay wetlands. This 

would provide maximum opportunities to the public 

for the pursuit of these activities. It would also 

disturb migratory birds and eliminate a sanctuary 

area during the busy summer tourist season when 

thousands of people are on local beaches. 

Fishing/crabbing in the back bay wetlands would 

disturb an area frequented by waterfowl, wading 

birds, shorebirds, and osprey. Visitor use of this 

wetland would create new footpaths and increase 

litter. Maximum fishing access would benefit the 

local economy. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Under this Alternative fewer improvements would 

be provided and maintained for wildlife observation 

and photography uses. All such uses would occur 

on existing service roads, trails, and parking lots 

without improvements. There would be no new 

habitat alteration or disturbance as additional 

roads, trails or parking lots would not be created. 

The Unit would attract fewer visitors than under 

Alternative B. The increased opportunities for 

wildlife observation and photography would impact 

the physical and biological resources in varying 

degrees, depending on the number of visitors and 

the season. Impacts would include temporary 

disturbance to wildlife in the immediate area and 

trampling of vegetation along trail edges. These 

improvements would increase visitor use but not at 

the expense of the natural environment. Sensitive 

areas, such as the dunes, would be closed to guard 

against negative impacts. Opportunities for wildlife 

observation and photography would benefit the local 

economy. Eco-tourism is already a significant factor 

in Cape May County and this effort would 

compliment that market. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Under this Alternative would provide few new 

opportunities for the public. Visitors would rely 

more on self-guiding trails and signs, and on 

occasional programs provided by partners. The Unit 

would attract fewer visitors than under Alternative 

B. Visitor use would increase over current 

conditions, which would have some impacts to the 

wildlife and the habitat. However, all of these 

efforts would be done in such a manner as to 

minimize negative impacts as much as possible. 

Any impacts attributed to environmental education 

activities would be mitigated by the benefits of 

educating the public about Refuge resources. This 

action would benefit the local economy. Eco-tourism 
IV Environmental Consequences 

 

IV - 42 Jersey Coast Refuges

is already a significant factor in Cape May County 

and this effort would compliment that market. 

Refuge Buildings and Facilities 

Under this Alternative the Service would utilize 

fewer buildings and improvements for management 

purposes. We would only use building B-6 and any 

other improvements needed for management 

purposes, and one or two buildings would likely be 

made available to our partners. The removal of nonessential buildings and other facilities would 

improve the site as a coastal dune community. 

Breeding and stopover habitat for migratory birds 

would increase. The removal of impervious surfaces 

would also benefit the surface and groundwater 

hydrology. The utilization of some buildings would 

reduce the potential maximum habitat gains. Use of 

selected buildings for management purposes and by 

our partners would benefit the local economy. 
 Environmental 

Consequences IV

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental AssessmentB July 2000 

IV - 43 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
IV Environmental Consequences 

 

IV - 44 Jersey Coast Refuges
V Consultation and Coordination with Others 

 

V - 2 Jersey Coast Refuges

Consultation and Coordination with Others

In November and December 1996 the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service) held a series of 11 public 

meetings in: 

$ Ocean County, the Townships of Brick, Dover, 

Lacey, Stafford, and the Boroughs of Long Beach 

and Tuckerton; 

$ Atlantic County, the Township of Galloway; 

$ Cape May County, the Townships of Upper, 

Dennis, Middle, and Lower. 

We announced the location, dates, and times for these 

meetings in local newspapers and through special 

mailings. We also briefed local members of Congress on 

the upcoming meetings. More than 280 people attended 

the meetings, which were held to let people know what the 

Service was doing to manage the Jersey Coast Refuges, 

and to elicit their input on topics of interest to them. 

We also distributed an AIssues Workbook@ (see Appendix 

C) to help collect the public=s ideas, concerns, and 

suggestions on important issues associated with managing 

the Jersey Coast Refuges. We distributed the workbook to 

everyone on our mailing list, those who attended the 

public meetings, and anyone who subsequently requested 

one. Nearly 1,000 copies were distributed. Through the 

workbook, we asked for public input on the issues and 

possible action options, the things people valued most 

about the New Jersey coast, their vision for the future, 

and the Service=s role in helping to conserve, protect, and 

enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats. More than 

150 copies of the workbook were completed and returned. 

In February 1997 we distributed a APlanning Update@ (see 

Appendix D) which summarized the responses received in 

the AIssues Workbook@. Responses from the workbooks 

and meetings were influential in helping us formulate the 

 issues related to resource protection and public use. 

In April 1997 we also held an Alternatives Workshop. 

Twenty-five individuals, representing local and State 

conservation agencies and organizations, participated in 

the daylong workshop. The participants reviewed and 

discussed the issues and concerns identified in the AIssues 

Workbook@ and were asked to answer three questions: 

1) What should be done? 

2) Where should it be done? 

3) Who should help the Service do it? 

Input obtained from the public meetings, workbooks and 

workshop was used to prepare a Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

(CCP/EA). This Draft CCP/EA was released for 45 days of 

public review and comment in May 1999. Over 200 people 

attended the three public meetings held in July at the 

following locations: Middle Township Building in Cape 

May County; Galloway Township Library in Atlantic 

County; and Stafford Township Municipal Building in 

Ocean County. 

We also received over 1,600 individual comment letters. 

There were a great many duplicate comments received, 

since many people sent copies to both the Forsythe Refuge 

headquarters in Oceanville, New Jersey and our Regional 

Office in Hadley, Massachusetts. A summary of the public 

comments received and the disposition of the concerns 

expressed in those comments can be found in Appendix E. 

 This summary also notes where we have changed the 

Draft CCP/EA or why we did not make such changes. 

This Revised Draft CCP/EA is being released for 30 days 

of public review and comment. The Service will also hold 

a formal public hearing at 7:00 PM on July 19, 2000. The 

hearing will provide an opportunity for all interested 

parties to present oral or written testimony on the Revised 

Draft before a hearing officer and court reporter. Those 

wishing to do so will be able to sign up to speak when they 

enter the hearing room. This formal public hearing will 

be held at: 

Absegami High School 

201 South Wrangleboro Road 

Galloway Township, Atlantic County, New Jersey 

The location, date, and time for this hearing will also be 

noted in the cover letter accompanying this Revised Draft 

CCP/EA when it is distributed to the public, announced in 

local newspapers, and in a formal Notice of Availability 

printed in the Federal Register. 

This Revised Draft CCP/EA has been made available for 

your review and comments. Comments and ideas received 

during the review period will be taken into consideration 

when preparing our final document. All written 

comments should be sent by either traditional or 

electronic mail no later than August 4, 2000 to: 

The Jersey Coast Refuges Planning Team 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

300 Westgate Center Drive 

Hadley, MA 01035-9589 

FW5RW_CCP@fws.gov 

 
 Consultation and Coordination with Others 

 III

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment, July 2000 V - 3

List of Preparers

Members of the Jersey Coast Refuges Planning Team 

 

Mr. William Archambault 

NEPA Coordinator 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

300 Westgate Center Drive 

Hadley, Massachusetts 01035-9589 

Mr. Stephen Atzert 

Refuge Manager 

Edwin B. Forsythe and Cape May NWR 

Great Creek Road 

Oceanville, New Jersey 08231 

Ms. Allison Banks 

Wildlife Biologist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (RE) 

134 Union Boulevard 

Lakewood, Colorado 80228 

Mr. Tracy Casselman 

Deputy Refuge Manager 

Edwin B. Forsythe and Cape May NWR 

Great Creek Road 

Oceanville, New Jersey 08231 

Mr. Gilbert Chase 

Wildlife Biologist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

300 Westgate Center Drive 

Hadley, Massachusetts 01035-9589 

Mr. Kevin Gormley 

Law Enforcement Officer 

Edwin B. Forsythe NWR 

70 Collinstown Road 

Barnegat, New Jersey 08005 

Mr. Jeffrey King 

Barnegat Division Manager 

Edwin B. Forsythe NWR 

PO Box 544, 70 Collinstown Rd. 

Barnegat, New Jersey 08005 

Mr. Leon Latino 

Assistant Planner 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

300 Westgate Center Drive 

Hadley, Massachusetts 01035-9589 

Mr. Bruce Luebke 

Assistant Refuge Manager 

Cape May NWR 

Kimbles Beach Road 

Cape May Court House, New Jersey 08210 

Mr. Norman Olson 

Chief, Planning, Visitor Services, and Cultural Resources 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

300 Westgate Center Drive 

Hadley, Massachusetts 01035-9589 

Mr. Anthony Petrongolo 

Chief, Bureau of Land Management 

New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife 

P.O. Box 400 

Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0400 

Ms. Linda Rubenstein 

Outdoor Recreation Planner 

Edwin B. Forsythe NWR 

Great Creek Road 

Oceanville, New Jersey 08231 

Mr. Paul Steblein 

Wildlife Biologist 

Edwin B. Forsythe NWR 

Great Creek Road 

Oceanville, New Jersey 08231 

Mr. Vincent Turner 

Wildlife Biologist 

Edwin B. Forsythe NWR 

70 Collinstown Road 

Barnegat, New Jersey 08005 

Ms. Mary Varteresian 

Wildlife Biologist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

300 Westgate Center Drive 

Hadley, Massachusetts 01035-9589 
V Consultation and Coordination with Others 

 

V - 4 Jersey Coast Refuges
A2 Jersey Coast Refuges

Appendix A: Principles of Wilderness Management 

Principles of Wilderness Management

This set of guiding principles is based on Wilderness Act direction and the wilderness management policies of 

the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, National park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

1. Manage Wilderness as a distinct resource with inseparable parts. 

2. Manage activities within Wilderness, including special provisions, with minimum impact on the 

Wilderness resource. 

3. Allow natural processes to operate freely within Wilderness. 

4. Attain the highest level of primeval character. 

5. Provide for human values and benefits while preserving wilderness character. 

6. Reduce physical and social impacts of human use in Wilderness through education, minimum 

regulation, and by favoring wilderness-dependent activities. 

7. Restore wilderness character by removing existing structures and terminating uses and activities 

not compatible with Wilderness. 

8. Accomplish necessary wilderness management work with the minimum tool, resorting to 

mechanized or motorized equipment only when its use clearly is the least damaging to the 

Wilderness resource. 

9. Plan and manage Wilderness with public involvement and interdisciplinary science. 

10. Harmonize land management activities adjacent to Wilderness to provide a transition from 

pavement to primeval. 

National Advanced Wilderness Management Training for Line Officers 

Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center
Appendix B: Relevant Legal Mandates and Land Acquisition Legislation 

 

B2 Jersey Coast Refuges

Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986 

 

This Act authorized the purchase of wetlands from Land 

and Water Conservation Fund moneys, removing a prior 

prohibition on such acquisitions. The Act also requires 

the Secretary to establish a National Wetlands Priority 

Conservation Plan, requires the States to include 

wetlands in their Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation 

Plans, and transfers to the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Fund amount equal to import duties on arms and 

ammunition. 

 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 

Stat. 884), as amended

Public Law 93-205, approved December 28, 1973, repealed 

the Endangered Species Conservation Act of December 5, 

1969 (P.L. 91-135, 83 Stat. 275). The 1969 act had 

amended the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 

October 15, 1966 (P.L. 89-669, 80 Stat. 926). 

The 1973 Endangered Species Act provided for the 

conservation of ecosystems upon which threatened and 

endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants depend, 

both through Federal action and by encouraging the 

establishment of State programs. The Act: 

# Authorizes the determination and listing of species 

as endangered and threatened; 

# Prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and 

transport of endangered species; 

# Provides authority to acquire land for the 

conservation of listed species, using land and water 

conservation funds; 

# Authorizes establishment of cooperative agreements 

and grants-in-aid to States that establish and 

maintain active and adequate programs for 

endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 

# Authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal 

penalties for violating the Act or regulations; and 

# Authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone 

furnishing information leading to arrest and 

conviction for any violation of the Act of any 

regulation issued thereunder. 

Environmental Education Act of 1990 (20 U.S.C. 

5501-5510; 104 Stat. 3325)

 

Public Law 101-619, signed November 16, 1990, 

established the Office of Environmental Education within 

the Environmental Protection Agency to develop and 

administer a Federal environmental education program. 

Responsibilities of the Office include developing and 

supporting programs to improve understanding of the 

natural and developed environment, and the relationships 

between humans and their environment; supporting the 

dissemination of educational materials; developing and 

supporting training programs and environmental 

education seminars; managing a Federal grant program; 

and administering an environmental internship and 

fellowship program. The Office is required to develop and 

support environmental programs in consultation with 

other Federal natural resource management agencies, 

including the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management

The purpose of this Executive Order, signed May 24, 1977, 

is to prevent Federal agencies from contributing to the 

Aadverse impacts associated with occupancy and 

modification of floodplains@ and the Adirect or indirect 

support of floodplain development.@ In the course of 

fulfilling their respective authorities, Federal agencies 

Ashall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to 

minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health 

and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and 

beneficial values served by floodplains. 

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978

This act was passed to improve the administration of fish 

and wildlife programs and amends several earlier laws, 

including the Refuge Recreation Act, the National Wildlife 

Refuge Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act 

of 1956. It authorizes the Secretary to accept gifts and 

bequests of real and personal property on behalf of the 

United States. It also authorizes the use of volunteers on 

Service projects and appropriations to carry out volunteer 

programs. 

Historic Preservation Acts 

There are various laws for the preservation of historic 

sites and objects.

Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 431 - 433): The Act of June 8, 

1906, (34 Stat. 225) authorizes the President to designate 

as National Monuments objects or areas of historic or 

scientific interest on lands owned or controlled by the 

United States. The Act required that a permit be 

obtained for examination of ruins, excavation of 

archaeological sites and the gathering of objects of 

antiquity on lands under the jurisdiction of the 

Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, and Army, and 

provided penalties for violations. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa - 470ll): Public Law 96-95, approved October 31, 1979, (93 
 

Appendix B

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 B3 

Stat. 721) largely supplanted the resource protection 

provisions of the Antiquities Act for archaeological items. 

This Act established detailed requirements for issuance of 

permits for any excavation for or removal of archaeological 

resources from Federal or Indian lands. It also 

established civil and criminal penalties for the 

unauthorized excavation, removal, or damage of any such 

resources; for any trafficking in such resources removed 

from Federal or Indian land in violation of any provision 

of Federal law; and for interstate and foreign commerce in 

such resources acquired, transported or received in 

violation of any State or local law. 

Public Law 100-588, approved November 3, 1988, (102 

Stat. 2983) lowered the threshold value of artifacts 

triggering the felony provisions of the Act from $5,000 to 

$500, made attempting to commit an action prohibited by 

the Act a violation, and required the land managing 

agencies to establish public awareness programs 

regarding the value of archaeological resources to the 

Nation. 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 

469-469c): Public Law 86-523, approved June 27, 1960, (74 

Stat. 220) as amended by Public Law 93-291, approved 

May 24, 1974, (88 Stat. 174) to carry out the policy 

established by the Historic Sites Act (see below), directed 

Federal agencies to notify the Secretary of the Interior 

whenever they find a Federal or Federally assisted, 

licensed or permitted project may cause loss or destruction 

of significant scientific, prehistoric or archaeologic data. 

The Act authorized use of appropriated, donated and/or 

transferred funds for the recovery, protection and 

preservation of such data. 

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 

461-462, 464-467): The Act of August 21, 1935, (49 Stat. 

666) popularly known as the Historic Sites Act, as 

amended by Public Law 89-249, approved October 9, 1965, 

(79 Stat. 971) declared it a national policy to preserve 

historic sites and objects of national significance, 

including those located on refuges. It provided procedures 

for designation, acquisition, administration and protection 

of such sites. Among other things, National Historic and 

Natural Landmarks are designated under authority of 

this Act. As of January, 1989, 31 national wildlife refuges 

contained such sites. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 

470-470b, 470c-470n): Public Law 89-665, approved 

October 15, 1966, (80 Stat. 915) and repeatedly amended, 

provided for preservation of significant historical features 

(buildings, objects and sites) through a grant-in-aid 

program to the States. It established a National Re

of Historic Places and a program of matching grants

under the existing National Trust for Historic 

Preservation (16 U.S.C. 468-468d). 

The Act established an Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation, which was made a permanent indepen

agency in Public Law 94-422, approved September 2

1976 (90 Stat. 1319). That Act also created the Hist

Preservation Fund. Federal agencies are directed to

into account the effects of their actions on items or s

listed or eligible for listing in the National Register.

As of January, 1989, 91 historic sites on national wi

refuges have been placed on the National Register.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1948 

This act provides funding through receipts from the

surplus federal land, appropriations from oil and ga

receipts from the outer continental shelf, and other 

sources of for land acquisition under several authori

Appropriations from the fund may be used for match

grants to states for outdoor recreation projects and f

land acquisition by various federal agencies, includi

Fish and Wildlife Service.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C.

715d, 715e,715f-715r) 

This Act established the Migratory Bird Conservatio

Commission which consists of the Secretaries of the

Interior (chairman), Agriculture, and Transportatio

members from the House of Representatives, and an

officio member from the state in which a project is lo

 The Commission approves acquisition of land and w

or interests therein, and sets the priorities for acqui

of lands by the Secretary for sanctuaries or for other

management purposes. Under this Act, to acquire l

or interests therein, the state concerned must conse

such acquisition by legislation. Such legislation has

enacted by most states. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp A

U.S.C. 718-718j, 48 Stat. 452), as amended

The "Duck Stamp Act," as this March 16, 1934, auth

is commonly called, requires each waterfowl hunter 

years of age or older to possess a valid Federal hunt

stamp. Receipts from the sale of the stamp are depo

in a special Treasury account known as the Migrato

Bird Conservation Fund and are not subject to 

appropriations. 

National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 

12401; 104 Stat. 3127)

Public Law 101-610, signed November 16, 1990, 

authorizes several programs to engage citizens of th

in full- and/or part-time projects designed to combat
Appendix B: Relevant Legal Mandates and Land Acquisition Legislation 

 

B4 Jersey Coast Refuges

illiteracy and poverty, provide job skills, enhance 

educational skills, and fulfill environmental needs. 

Several provisions are of particular interest to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

American Conservation and Youth Service Corps B As a 

Federal grant program established under Subtitle C of the 

law, the Corps offers an opportunity for young adults 

between the ages of 16-25, or in the case of summer 

programs, 15-21, to engage in approved human and 

natural resources projects which benefit the public or are 

carried out on Federal or Indian lands. 

To be eligible for assistance, natural resources programs 

will focus on improvement of wildlife habitat and 

recreational areas, fish culture, fishery assistance, 

erosion, wetlands protection, pollution control and similar 

projects. A stipend of not more than 100 percent of the 

poverty level will be paid to participants. A Commission 

established to administer the Youth Service Corps will 

make grants to States, the Secretaries of Agriculture and 

Interior and the Director of ACTION to carry out these 

responsibilities. 

National and Community Service Act B Will make grants 

to States for the creation of full-time and/or part-time 

programs for citizens over 17 years of age. Programs 

must be designed to fill unmet educational, human, 

environmental, and public safety needs. Initially, 

participants will receive post-employment benefits of up to 

$1000 per year for part-time and $2500 for full-time 

participants. 

Thousand Points of Light B Creates a non-profit Points of 

Light Foundation to administer programs to encourage 

citizens and institutions to volunteer in order to solve 

critical social issues, and to discover new leaders and 

develop institutions committed to serving others. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190, 

42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 852) as 

amended by P.L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, 89 Stat. 258, and P.L. 

94-83, August 9, 1975, 89 Stat. 424).

Title I of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) requires that all Federal agencies prepare 

detailed environmental impact statements for "every 

recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and 

other major Federal actions significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment." 

The 1969 statute stipulated the factors to be considered in 

environmental impact statements, and required that 

Federal agencies employ an interdisciplinary approach in 

related decision-making and develop means to ensure that 

unquantified environmental values are given appropriate 

consideration, along with economic and technical 

considerations. 

Title II of this statute requires annual reports on 

environmental quality from the President to the Congress, 

and established a Council on Environmental Quality in 

the Executive Office of the President with specific duties 

and functions. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 

1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) as amended 

This Act defines the National Wildlife Refuge System as 

including wildlife refuges, areas for protection and 

conservation of fish and wildlife which are threatened 

with extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife 

management areas, and waterfowl production areas. The 

Secretary is authorized to permit any use of an area 

provided such use is compatible with the major purposes 

for which such area was established. The purchase 

consideration for rights-of-way go into the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund for the acquisition of lands. By 

regulation, up to 40% of an area acquired for a migratory 

bird sanctuary may be opened to migratory bird hunting 

unless the Secretary finds that the taking of any species of 

migratory game birds in more than 40% of such area 

would be beneficial to the species. The Act requires an 

Act of Congress for the divestiture of lands in the system, 

except (1) lands acquired with Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission funds, and (2) lands can be 

removed from the system by land exchange, or if brought 

into the system by a cooperative agreement, then 

pursuant to the terms of the agreement. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997

Public Law 105-57, amends the National Wildlife System 

Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee), providing guidance for 

management and public use of the Refuge System. The 

Act mandates that the Refuge System be consistently 

directed and managed as a national system of lands and 

waters devoted to wildlife conservation and management. 

The Act establishes priorities for recreational uses of the 

Refuge System. Six wildlife-dependent uses are 

specifically named in the Act: hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation. These activities are to be 

promoted on the Refuge System, while all non-wildlife 

dependant uses are subject to compatibility 

determinations. A compatible use is one which, in the 

sound professional judgement of the Refuge Manger, will 

not materially interfere with or detract from fulfillment of 

the Refuge System Mission or refuge purpose(s). 

As stated in the Act, AThe mission of the System is to 

administer a national network of lands and waters for the 
 

Appendix B

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 B5 

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 Act also requires development of a comprehensive 

conservation plan for each refuge and management of 

each refuge consistent with the plan. When writing CCP, 

planning for expanded or new refuges, and when making 

management decisions, the Act requires effective 

coordination with other Federal agencies, state fish and 

wildlife or conservation agencies, and refuge neighbors. A 

refuge must also provide opportunities for public 

involvement when making a compatibility determination 

or developing a CCP. 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act (103 Stat. 

1968; 16 U.S.C. 4401-4412)

Public Law 101-233, enacted December 13, 1989, provides 

funding and administrative direction for implementation 

of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and 

the Tripartite Agreement on wetlands between Canada, 

U.S. and Mexico. 

The Act converts the Pittman-Robertson account into a 

trust fund, with the interest available without 

appropriation through the year 2006 to carry out the 

programs authorized by the Act, along with an 

authorization for annual appropriation of $15 million plus 

an amount equal to the fines and forfeitures collected 

under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

Available funds may be expended, upon approval of the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, for payment of 

not to exceed 50 percent of the United States share of the 

cost of wetlands conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, 

or the United States (or 100 percent of the cost of projects 

on Federal lands). At least 50 percent and no more than 

70 percent of the funds received are to go to Canada and 

Mexico each year. 

Public Law 98-293 - approved May 22, 1984 (98. Stat. 207)

Renamed the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge and 

Barnegat National Wildlife Refuge, collectively, as the 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge, in memory of 

the late Congressman Forsythe of New jersey, ranking 

member of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries 

Committee for many years. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962

This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

administer refuges, hatcheries, and other conservat

areas for recreational use, when such uses do not in

with the area=s primary purposes. It authorizes 

construction and maintenance of recreational facilit

and the acquisition of land for incidental fish and wi

oriented recreational development or protection of n

resources. It also authorizes the charging of fees for

public uses. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s)

Section 401 of the Act of June 15, 1935, (49 Stat. 383

provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes, u

revenues derived from the sale of products from refu

Public Law 88-523, approved August 30, 1964, (78 S

701) made major revisions by requiring that all rev

received from refuge products, such as animals, timb

and minerals, or from leases or other privileges, be 

deposited in a special Treasury account and net rece

distributed to counties for public schools and roads.

Public Law 93-509, approved December 3, 1974, (88 

1603) required that moneys remaining in the fund a

payments be transferred to the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund for land acquisition under provis

of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. 

Public Law 95-469, approved October 17, 1978, (92 S

1319) expanded the revenue sharing system to inclu

National Fish Hatcheries and Service research stati

It also included in the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fun

receipts from the sale of salmonid carcasses. Payme

counties were established as: 

1) on acquired land, the greatest amount calcula

the basis of 75 cents per acre, three-fourths of on

percent of the appraised value, or 25 percent of t

receipts produced from the land; and 

2) on land withdrawn from the public domain, 25

percent of net receipts and basic payments unde

Public Law 94-565 (31 U.S.C. 1601-1607, 90 Sta

2662), payment in lieu of taxes on public lands.

This amendment also authorized appropriations to make 

up any difference between the amount in the Fund and 

the amount scheduled for payment in any year. The 

stipulation that payments be used for schools and roads 

was removed, but counties were required to pass 

payments along to other units of local government within 

the county which suffer losses in revenues due to th

establishment of Service areas. 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794 )as amend

Title 5 of P.L. 93-112 (87 Stat. 355), signed October 
Appendix B: Relevant Legal Mandates and Land Acquisition Legislation 

 

B6 Jersey Coast Refuges

1973, prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicap 

under any program or activity receiving Federal financial 

assistance. 

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife 

Conservation purposes Act of 1948

This Act provides that upon determination by the 

Administrator of the General Services Administration, 

real property no longer needed by a Federal agency can be 

transferred, without reimbursement, to the Secretary of 

the Interior if the land has particular value for migratory 

birds, or to a State agency for other wildlife conservation 

purposes. 

Wilderness Act of 1964

Public Law 88-577, approved September 3, 1964, 

directed the Secretary of the Interior, within 10 years, 

to review every roadless area of 5,000 or more acres 

and every roadless island (regardless of size) within 

National Wildlife Refuge and National Park Systems 

for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation 

System. 

 

 

 
Appendix E: Summarized Public Comments 

 

E2 Jersey Coast Refuges

Summary of public comments received on 

the draft CCP/EA and their disposition

The draft CCP/EA was released for 45 days of public 

review and comment in June 1999. Over 170 people 

attended the three public meetings held in July at 

the following location: Middle Township Building in 

Cape May County; Galloway Township Library in 

Atlantic County; and Stafford Township Municipal 

Building in Ocean County. We also received over 

1,600 individual comment letters. There were a 

great many duplicate comments received, since 

many people sent copies to both the Forsythe Refuge 

headquarters in Oceanville, New Jersey and our 

Regional Office in Hadley, Massachusetts. A 

summary of the public comments received and the 

disposition of the concerns expressed in those 

comments follows. 

Comment: Most commenters thought that the 

proposed closure of Holgate beach to motorized 

vehicles was outside our authority. They questioned 

whether we had the authority to close the beach 

based upon the States ownership and jurisdiction of 

riparian lands below the mean high tide line. 

Response: The Holgate Peninsula above mean high 

tide has been owned by the Service since June 30, 

1960, and was designated part of the Brigantine 

Wilderness Area under Public Law 93-632 on 

January 3, 1975. We not only have the authority to 

close Holgate beach above mean high tide to 

motorized vehicles, but are specifically directed to do 

so by the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

The land below mean high tide in New Jersey is 

owned by the State. In the Draft CCP/EA, we 

proposed coordinating the closure with the New 

Jersey Tidelands Council. During the three public 

meetings held on the Draft document, we specifically 

stated that it was our intent to request a license 

from the Tidelands Council to close Holgate beach 

below the mean high tide line as well. This request 

has been dropped from Alternative B, our Proposed 

Action in the Revised Draft CCP/EA. 

Comment: Several commenters questioned whether 

we had the authority to close Holgate beach to 

motorized vehicles under the provisions of the 

Wilderness Act. Others stated that the original 

designation of Holgate as a Wilderness Area was 

inconsistent with the mandate and intent of the Act. 

 They believed the high volume of boat traffic and 

close proximity of Holgate to a major urban area like 

Atlantic City would make it difficult, if not 

impossible, for Refuge visitors to obtain a 

Awilderness experience,@ as defined by the Act. 

Response: We not only have the authority to close 

the Wilderness Area at Holgate, including all the 

land above mean high tide, to motorized vehicles, 

but we are specifically directed to do so by the 

Wilderness Act of 1964. When Congress designated 

our lands on Holgate Peninsula as part of the 

Brigantine Wilderness Area, they determined that 

this designation was consistent with the mandate 

and intent of the Wilderness Act of 1964. While 

circumstances in the vicinity may make it difficult, if 

not impossible, for Refuge visitors to obtain a 

Awilderness experience,@ as defined by the Act, this 

does not give us the authority to disregard the Act=s 

specific prohibition against motorized vehicle use 

within wilderness areas. 

Comment: Many commenters also noted that 

closing Holgate beach to motorized vehicles would 

significantly reduce fishing opportunities on 

Forsythe Refuge. They felt this action would be 

inconsistent with our mandates under the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 

which identifies fishing as one of six wildlifedependent priority public uses of the Refuge System 

that should be given priority consideration over 

other uses of refuges. 

Response: While closing the area above mean high 

tide to motorized vehicles will reduce the fishing 

opportunities currently available on the Holgate 

Peninsula, it will not close the area to fishing. Those 

interested in fishing the Peninsula would still be 

able to do so on foot or by driving and parking their 

motorized vehicles below the mean high tide line. In 

fact, the potential introduction of a water ferry to 

the tip of the Peninsula, as included in Alternative 

B, our Proposed Action in the Revised Draft 

CCP/EA, would provide new opportunities to fish the 

Holgate for those who do not own suitable motorized 

vehicles or boats. 

Comment: Other commenters supported the closure 

of Holgate beach to motorized vehicles. They were 

primarily concerned that the current vehicular use 

of the beach caused water, air and noise pollution. 

Furthermore, they believed that motorized uses 

were not appropriate in designated Wilderness 

Areas. 
 

Appendix E

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental AssessmentB July 2000 E3 

Response: We agree, and have included the proposed 

year-round closure of the Holgate Peninsula above 

mean high tide to motorized vehicles in Alternative 

B, our Proposed Action in the revised Draft CCP/EA. 

Comment: Many commenters requested that both 

Forsythe and Cape May Refuges provide more 

environmental education opportunities and improve 

public access by providing additional interpretive 

trails. They also requested that additional userfriendly maps and signs be placed throughout the 

Refuges. 

Response: We agree. In Alternative B, our Proposed 

Action in the Revised Draft CCP/EA, we have 

substantially expanded our environmental education 

offerings and increased the amount of interpretation 

that we would provide, including additional 

interpretative trails and signage. 

Comment: Several commenters were concerned that 

the proposed location of the new Barnegat Division 

office and visitor contact station would not provide 

the public with a suitable wildlife-oriented 

experience because of the commercial nature of the 

area. 

Response: While we concur with those commenter=s 

observations regarding the commercial nature of the 

area in question, we selected this site along U.S. 

Route 9 because we own the land and wished to keep 

our new structure within an area that was already 

developed and had good access to a major traffic 

corridor. This will allow us to protect the habitats 

within the Refuge from further fragmentation, while 

allowing us better access to a larger segment of the 

public. From this location we will be able to direct 

our visitors to the many trails and other facilities 

found in more remote parts of the Refuge. 

Comment: Many commenters requested that atlarge or Refuge-wide hunting be allowed at both 

Forsythe and Cape May Refuges in all areas deemed 

appropriate. They were concerned about the 

diminishing number of areas around the Refuges 

that provided hunting opportunities for the public. 

In particular, several people requested that upland 

game hunting opportunities be provided. They 

referenced the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, which includes hunting as 

one of six wildlife-dependent priority public uses of 

the Refuge System that should be given priority 

consideration over other uses of the refuges. A few 

people commented that hunting was not an 

appropriate use on a National Wildlife Refuge. 

Response: In response to the concerns of these 

commenters, we added a third alternative, 

Alternative C, in the Revised Draft CCP/EA. This 

Alternative would provide opportunities for Refugewide hunting at both Refuges. At Forsythe we 

would expand deer hunting opportunities by 

including the State fall and winter bow and regular 

six-day firearms seasons, and open most of the 

Refuge to both upland game and migratory game 

bird hunting. At Cape May we would provide 

opportunities for upland game and migratory game 

bird hunting Refuge-wide. The entire Refuge is 

already open for deer hunting. Additional 

opportunities for hunting would also be provided on 

newly acquired lands at both Refuges. 

Alternative B, our Proposed Action in the revised 

Draft CCP/EA, while not providing Refuge-wide 

hunting, would significantly increase hunting 

opportunities at both Refuges. At Forsythe we 

would expand the area currently opened to permit 

deer hunting and initiate a universally accessible 

permit deer hunt, initiate upland game hunting in 

the Oak Island Unit of the Brigantine Division, and 

expand the area open to migratory game bird 

hunting. At Cape May we would open about 45% of 

the Refuge to upland game hunting and expand the 

current migratory game bird hunting area into that 

same 45% of the Refuge. The entire Refuge is 

already open for deer hunting. Additional 

opportunities for hunting would also be provided on 

newly acquired lands at both Refuges. 

While hunting must be given priority consideration 

over other public uses, it does not take priority over 

the other five wildlife-dependent priority public uses 

(fishing, wildlife observation and photography, 

environmental education and interpretation) 

identified in the Improvement Act. We believe that 

Alternative B, our Proposed Action in the Revised 

Draft CCP/EA, would help us best achieve Refuge 

purposes, vision and goals; fulfill the Refuge System 

mission; maintain and, where appropriate, restore 

the biological integrity, diversity and environmental 

health of both Refuges and the System; address the 

key issues and mandates; and is consistent with the 

principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 

Comment: The State of New Jersey, Division of Fish 

and Wildlife, requested that additional acreage 

within both Forsythe and Cape May Refuges be 

opened up to provide opportunities for hunting. 
Appendix E: Summarized Public Comments 

 

E4 Jersey Coast Refuges

They believed the Service=s safety concerns could be 

addressed by requiring that all hunters be in 

compliance with State fish and game regulations. 

Response: Alternative B, our Proposed Action in the 

Revised Draft CCP/EA, would significantly increase 

hunting opportunities at both Refuges. At Forsythe 

we would expand the area currently opened to 

permit deer hunting and initiate a universally 

accessible permit deer hunt, initiate upland game 

hunting in the Oak Island Unit of the Brigantine 

Division, and expand the area open to migratory 

game bird hunting. At Cape May we would open 

about 45% of the Refuge to upland game hunting 

and expand the current migratory game bird 

hunting area into that same 45% of the Refuge. The 

entire Refuge is already open for deer hunting. 

Additional opportunities for hunting would also be 

provided on newly acquired lands at both Refuges. 

Comment: Other commenters requested additional 

trapping opportunities at both Forsythe and Cape 

May Refuges. They identified trapping as a 

necessary and important wildlife management tool. 

Response: We agree that trapping is an important 

wildlife management tool. It is often used on 

refuges to control predators and to manage 

populations of small mammals that impact refuge 

habitats and facilities such as dikes. Alternative B, 

our Proposed Action in the Revised Draft CCP/EA, 

includes additional opportunities for trapping at 

both Forysthe and Cape May Refuges. At Forsythe 

we would expand the areas open to trapping and at 

Cape May we would open about 25% of the Refuge to 

trapping of muskrat, raccoon and fox. 

Comment: Many commenters supported our land 

protection proposals and wanted us to continue to 

acquire additional properties located near or around 

both Forsythe and Cape May Refuges. They 

supported our efforts to both increase habitat 

protection and provide additional public use 

opportunities. 

Response: Under Alternative B, our Proposed Action 

in the Revised Draft CCP/EA, we would acquire 

12,300 acres of privately owned lands within our 

currently approved acquisition boundaries at 

Forsythe Refuge, and 7,600 acres of privately owned 

lands within our currently approved acquisition 

boundaries at Cape May Refuge. We also have 

identified 17,000 acres of focus areas at Forsythe 

Refuge, 11,500 acres of which we are proposing to 

acquire, and 4,900 acres of focus areas at Cape May 

Refuge, 3,600 acres of which we are proposing to 

acquire. These lands are located outside our current 

approved Refuge acquisition boundaries and 

represent lands with habitats that are important to 

a number of federal trust species. They also 

encompass watersheds that are important to protect 

from future development to ensure that we have 

adequate water quantity and quality for Refuge 

wetlands and provide habitat corridors for the 

movement of wildlife between various state, local 

and federal conservation lands. 

Comment: Several commenters thought that the 

proposed two-year beach closure during the nesting 

season at the new Two Mile Beach Unit was 

unnecessary. They were concerned that the closure 

threatened their long-standing use of the beach, 

including being able to walk the beach to reach Cape 

May Inlet. Several suggested that fencing could be 

placed above the mean high tide line as a protective 

measure and that the proposed beach closure should 

only be enforced if birds actually began to nest at the 

site. 

Response: In light of our mandates as a Federal 

Land Management Agency, we believe it is 

important that the beach be available for 

undisturbed breeding, nesting, feeding, preening, 

and loafing by an assortment of migratory birds. 

Under the provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997, compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreational use and all other 

compatible uses are secondary to the A... 

conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources 

and their habitat...@ We do not believe that placing 

fencing above the mean high tide line will 

adequately protect these birds, as the adults and 

young do much of their feeding at the wrack, or daily 

high tide line. Nor do we believe that closing the 

beach only if birds actually began to nest at the site 

is adequate. 

The U.S. Coast Guard LORAN Support Unit is 

prepared to follow our lead on closing that portion of 

the beach still under their jurisdiction. They also 

are prepared to close public access to the jetty on the 

north side of the Cape May Inlet. 

Under Alternative B, our Proposed Action in the 

Revised Draft CCP/EA, we would allow pedestrian 

access to the beach from about October 1 through 

March 31 each year. No vehicles would be allowed 

on the beach at any time. We would also allow 
 

Appendix E

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental AssessmentB July 2000 E5 

pedestrian access to other parts of the Two Mile 

Beach Unit all year. 

Comment: Several commenters expressed a desire 

to see the existing buildings at the new Two Mile 

Beach Unit used for a variety of purposes such as 

housing for researchers or as a fishing clubhouse. 

Others commented that the we should demolish all 

the existing buildings and then restore the land to 

native vegetation. 

Response: Under Alternative B, our Proposed Action 

in the Revised Draft CCP/EA, we would maintain 

two existing buildings for Refuge office, storage and 

maintenance purposes, and one for use as a visitor 

center with displays, exhibits, and regular 

programs. We would remove all other buildings on 

the site, all of which are located within the one 

hundred year floodplain, in compliance with the 

directives of Executive Order 11988, Floodplain 

Management. This will allow us to restore the heart 

of the upland habitat at the Two Mile Beach Unit, in 

compliance with our mandate under the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 

which calls for the A... conservation, management, 

and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, 

wildlife, and plant resources and their habitat...@ 

 

 

 

 
Appendix E: Summarized Public Comments 

 

E6 Jersey Coast Refuges

 
Appendix F: Ecosystem Values 

Ecosystem services and functions (Costanza, et al. 1997)

Numbe

r

Ecosystem 

Service*

Ecosystem Functions Examples

1 Gas regulation Regulation of atmospheric chemical 

composition. 

CO2/O2 balance, O3 for UVB protection, and 

SOX levels 

2 Climate regulation Regulation of global temperature, 

precipitation, and other biological 

mediated climatic processes at global 

or local levels. 

Greenhouse gas regulations, DMS 

production affecting cloud formation. 

3 Disturbance 

regulation 

Capacitance, damping and integrity of 

ecosystem response to environmental 

fluctuations. 

Storm protection, flood control, drought 

recovery and other aspects of habitat 

response to environment variability mainly 

controlled by vegetation structure. 

4 Water regulation Regulation of hydrological flows. Provisioning of water for agricultural (such 

as irrigation) or industrial (such as milling) 

processes or transportation. 

5 Water supply Storage and retention of water. Provisioning of water by watersheds, 

reservoirs, and aquifers. 

6 Erosion control & 

sediment retention 

Retention of soil within an ecosystem. Prevention of loss of soil by wind, runoff, or 

other removal processes, storage of silt in 

lakes and wetlands. 

7 Soil formation Soil formation processes. Weathering of rock and the accumulation of 

organic material. 

8 Nutrient cycling Storage, internal cycling, processing 

and acquisition of nutrients. 

Nitrogen fixation, N.P. and other elemental 

or nutrient cycles. 

9 Waste treatment Recovery of mobile nutrients & 

removal or breakdown of excess or 

xenic nutrients & compounds. 

Waste treatment, pollution control, 

detoxification. 

10 Pollination Movement of floral gametes. Provisioning of pollinators for the 

reproduction of plant populations. 

11 Biological control Trophic-dynamic regulations of 

populations. 

Keystone predator control of prey species, 

reduction of herbivory by top predators. 

12 Refugia Habitat for resident and transient 

populations. 

Nurseries, habitat for migratory species, 

regional habitats for locally harvested 

species or overwintering grounds. 

13 Food production That portion of gross primary 

production extractable as food. 

Production of fish, game, crops, nuts, fruits 

by hunting, gathering, subsistence farming 

or fishing. 

14 Raw materials That portion of gross primary 

production extractable as raw 

materials. 

The production of lumber, fuel or fodder. 

15 Genetic resources Sources of unique biological materials 

and products. 

Medicine, products for materials science, 

genes of resistence to plant pathogens and 

crop pests, ornamental species (pets and 

horticultural varieties of plants). 

16 Recreation Providing opportunities for 

recreational activities. 

Ecotourism, sport fishing, and other outdoor 

recreational activities. 

17 Cultural Providing opportunities for noncommercial uses. Aesthetic, artistic, educational, spiritual, 

and/or scientific values of ecosystems.
F3 Jersey Coast Refuges
Appendix G: Socioeconomic Analysis of ORV Use at Holgate 

 

G2 Jersey Coast Refuges

Background

The Holgate Unit of the Edwin B. Forsythe National 

Wildlife Refuge compromises 2.75 miles of Long 

Beach Island, including long expanses of 

undeveloped barrier beach. One of the most popular 

recreational activities occurring at Holgate beach is 

marine recreational surf fishing. Because there is 

no road access in the Holgate Unit, surf fishing 

along the beach has primarily been undertaken with 

the use of off-road vehicles (ORVs). Recreational 

surf fishing with ORVs is a popular pastime along 

the New Jersey coast and many ORV surf fishermen 

have formed private organizations to support their 

cause. ORV fishermen invest a substantial amount 

of resources in their recreational activity and 

frequently custom outfit their vehicles and purchase 

expensive fishing gear. For many participants, surf 

fishing with the use of an ORV is considered their 

most important recreational activity. Surf fishing at 

Holgate is particularly good at the southern point of 

the Unit where the waters of Great Bay and Egg 

Harbor meet the Atlantic. Stripe bass and bluefish 

are the most targeted species in the spring and fall, 

and in the summer flounders inhabit the shallow 

waters found around the bay. Surf fishing activity 

at Holgate beach typically peaks in the fall when 

large schools of bluefish and striped bass pass by the 

beach migrating south for the winter. 

The total value placed on ORV beach access at 

Holgate can be divided into actual expenditures 

incurred by ORV anglers and non-monetary benefits 

associated with angler satisfaction. While ORV 

anglers will incur expenditures when fishing at 

Holgate beach, they do not pay for the actual fish 

they catch, nor do they incur a specific cost for the 

enjoyment of fishing itself, which may include 

experiences such as socializing with fellow 

fishermen and being able to enjoy solitude while 

fishing on a remote beach. The non-monetary 

benefits associated with ORV surf fishing make 

estimating the specific economic value of fishing at 

Holgate a difficult task. Furthermore, the 

willingness to pay for a surf fishing excursion with 

an ORV will vary between fisherman, based on each 

anglers gratification with the experience. 

Many ORV anglers who surf fish along Holgate 

beach may consider the overall fishing experience to 

contribute to their general well being by affording 

them the opportunity for relaxation, experiencing 

nature, and gathering with friends. In a marine 

recreational fishing survey funded by the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), anglers were 

asked to rate the primary reasons they spend time 

fishing. In the Mid-Atlantic region which includes 

the New Jersey coast, anglers in the survey rated 

the opportunity to enjoy nature and the outdoors as 

their principal reason for fishing, followed by the 

opportunity to relax and escape from their daily 

routine, to spend quality time with friends and 

family, and to experience the excitement or 

challenge of sport fishing. While catching fish to eat 

was rated somewhat important to anglers, findings 

from the survey generally concur with previous 

studies that found non-catch reasons are rated 

significantly higher by almost all respondents. 

Catch was rated very important to only about a 

third of the anglers surveyed. Putting a specific 

economic value on these non-monetary traits is 

extremely difficult, and will not be attempted in this 

analysis. 

Typical angler expenditures associated with an ORV 

surf fishing trip to Holgate beach would include the 

purchases of bait, gear, ice, and meals. 

Furthermore, travel expenses incurred from the trip 

would include costs like fuel, tolls, travel fares and 

parking fees. A percentage of nonlocal ORV anglers 

fishing at Holgate beach may need overnight 

accommodations and would incur the additional 

costs associated with lodging. All of these 

expenditures can be assumed to have positive 

impacts on the local Long Beach Island community, 

in particular those businesses found along the route 

ORV users travel to reach Holgate beach. 

Impacts from the 1988 Seasonal Closure

In 1988, the Holgate Unit was closed from early 

April to September to both pedestrian and ORV 

traffic to protect piping plovers, a listed species 

under the Endangered Species Act. An economic 

analysis completed in 1998, concluded that the 

seasonal beach closure had negligible impact on the 

overall economy of the island, which amounts to 

about $500 million a year (Industrial Economics, 

1998). However, the seasonal closure appears to 

have affected the beach usage patterns of some 

residents and visitors with consequent effects on the 

Islands economic welfare including potential losses 

in municipal revenues from beach buggy licenses, 

and lost revenues to some businesses, especially at 

the south end of the island near the entrance to the 

Holgate Unit. 

The seasonal closure particularly affected summer 

surf anglers as most of Long Beach Island=s beaches 

were already closed to ORV traffic between May and 

September to accommodate seasonal beach use for 
 

Appendix G

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 G3 

swimming and sunbathing. In response to the 

seasonal closure it is assumed that some anglers 

sought alternative fishing sites off-island which 

resulted in negative economic effects on businesses 

that catered to these ORV surf fishing anglers. 

Furthermore, the seasonal closure prevented 

recreational fishing opportunities at Holgate for 

popular species like summer flounder, which are 

primarily targeted in the months of July and August 

and thus the closure reduced fishing opportunities 

for some anglers. Bait and tackle shops throughout 

the island appeared to have suffered some loss in 

revenues from the seasonal closure, and one shop 

nearest to the entrance to the Holgate Unit reported 

losing 30 percent or more of its overall revenues in 

the first few years after the closure. In addition, 

several other motels and restaurants which 

specifically catered to anglers also reported a loss in 

revenues. However, the report concluded that all 

these businesses survived the seasonal closure and 

remained viable. 

Impacts from Alternative B, the Service=s 

Proposed Action 

The proposed year-round Holgate Unit closure (i.e., 

those lands above mean high tide) to ORVs, under 

the directives and principles of the Wilderness Act, 

can be expected to cause localized negative economic 

impacts to the Long Beach community. This 

Alternative would eliminate all motorized traffic 

year-round above mean high tide (the designated 

Wilderness Area know as the Holgate Unit) on the 

Holgate Peninsula. Although the closure is not 

expected to negatively impact the overall Long 

Beach Island economy, individual businesses such as 

bait and tackle shops will most likely suffer 

additional economic losses under a year-round ORV 

beach closure at Holgate. Along with bait and tackle 

shops it is anticipated that ORV surf fishing anglers 

will be the most directly impacted user group under 

the proposed closure. As stated above, many of the 

impacts ORV anglers incur will be non-monetary 

social impacts and putting a specific value on those 

losses or estimating the extent of the impact is a 

difficult task. 

As with the 1988 seasonal closure, the direct 

negative economic impacts associated with the yearround ORV beach closure above mean high tide will 

most likely be localized to the communities in Long 

Beach Island, in particular those nearest the 

entrance to the Holgate Unit, such as Long Beach 

Township. To reach the Holgate Unit with an ORV, 

anglers must cross Long Beach Township lands. In 

order to do this, they must purchase a Township 

beach buggy permit. In 1999, permit data collected 

from the Township identified that a total of 734 

beach buggy permits were issued that year. Permits 

were issued under two categories, either for the full 

season or for limited use during the fall fishing 

tournaments. Full season permits cost $50.00, and a 

limited use permit sold for $25.00. In 1999, the 

Township issued 630 full season permits and 104 fall 

permits. Overall, beach buggy permit sales brought 

around $34,0000 in direct revenues to Long Beach 

Township in 1999. 

Given that the majority of ORV beach buggy permits 

were issued to anglers specifically to access the 

Holgate Unit, it is likely that the Township=s 

revenue from beach buggy sales would decrease 

under the Proposed Action. While Long Beach 

Township will see a reduction in overall ORV permit 

revenues, other Long Beach Island communities, 

such as Harvey Cedars and Surf City may see 

increases in their permit sales. It is also assumed 

that other New Jersey beachfront communities that 

offer ORV access for surf fishing may experience a 

slight increase in revenues from angler expenditures 

on beach buggy permits. 

To identify the areas from which ORV anglers were 

traveling, the beach buggy permits were divided into 

local and non-local categories. Non-local was 

determined to be any ORV permittee that listed 

their primary residence as a location more than two 

hours from Long Beach Island using an average 

vehicle travel time. Using that criteria, it was 

determined that 466 of the 734 ORV permits issued 

by the Township in 1999 were for non-local anglers, 

while 268 of the permits were for local anglers. 

Although some local ORV anglers may have been 

identified as non-local by this criteria, it is difficult 

to determine whether an individual=s fishing trip 

would originate from Long Beach Island, or their 

primary residence. Many anglers identified as nonlocal may own or rent seasonal housing on Long 

Beach Island changing their travel patterns and 

travel expenditures. 

Impacts to Bait and Tackle Shops

As an industry directly dependent upon recreational 

fishing, bait and tackle shops located on Long Beach 

Island can be expected to incur economic losses from 

the proposed year-round beach closure to ORVs. 

Bait and Tackle shops located closest to the entrance 

to the Holgate Unit will most likely suffer the 

largest losses, with impacts being reduced as time 
Appendix G: Socioeconomic Analysis of ORV Use at Holgate 

 

G4 Jersey Coast Refuges

and distance from the Unit increases. A typical surf 

fishing excursion requires a significant amount of 

gear and supplies such as rods, tackle, ice, and bait, 

and without the assistance of an ORV, it is 

anticipated many surf fishing anglers will seek 

alternative fishing sites and forgo a trip to Holgate 

beach. 

Some bait and tackle shops reported an overall 

revenue decline of up to 30% under the seasonal 

beach closure of 1988. The economic impacts of the 

proposed year-round ORV beach closure are 

expected to be greater. This is especially true given 

that it restricts ORV fishing access at the Holgate 

Unit to the area of the beach below mean high tide 

during the peak fall surf fishing period of 

September, October and November when anglers 

target large schools of migrating bluefish and 

stripped bass. Most anglers acquire bait, ice and 

limited fishing tackle the day of the actual fishing 

excursion. It is expected that many anglers 

frequenting these businesses on Long Beach Island, 

particularly those near the entrance to the Holgate 

Unit, will use alternative bait and tackle shops once 

the closure is implemented. 

The full extent of the economic impact on bait and 

tackle shops from the Proposed Action will really 

depend on how many ORV anglers seek alternative 

fishing sites off the Island, and whether the closure 

impacts participation in the annual Fall Long Beach 

Island Fishing Tournament. While it is anticipated 

that fishing effort at Holgate beach will be reduced 

under this Alternative, the majority of ORV anglers 

currently using Holgate beach are expected to 

continue fishing at alternative fishing sites. 

Predicting what level of fishing effort will actually 

shift off the Island is not possible at this time. 

Because it will still be possible for ORV anglers to 

access nearly 16 miles of beachfront along the 

Island, many anglers may continue to fish other 

sites on the Island and continue to frequent local 

bait and tackle businesses. 

Given that most anglers choose their fishing sites 

based upon criteria such as better catch rates and 

convenience, predicting which coastal communities 

may see a shift in fishing effort is difficult to predict. 

 Also, many anglers and fishing tournament 

participants who use ORVs may change their fishing 

practices and continue to fish on the Island without 

accessing the beach with an ORV. Barnegat Light, 

found at the far north end of the Island, is a good 

example of a very popular fishing site where all ORV 

access above the mean high tide line is already 

prohibited. While some ORV anglers may decide to 

give up recreational surf fishing overall, that 

percentage is expected to be small and most anglers 

directly impacted by the ORV beach closure will 

continue to fish. 

Overall, the reduction in income at a few Long 

Beach Island bait and tackle shops may be 

substantial under this Alternative. It is possible 

that businesses catering primarily to surf fishermen 

may suffer unsustainable economic losses to their 

operations. 

Fall Fishing Tournament 

On Long Beach Island, the Southern Ocean County 

Chamber of Commerce sponsors an annual six week 

fall surf fishing tournament, typically running from 

October 2-November 14. The tournament is 

promoted by both the Chamber of Commerce and 

local media and the event brings in anglers and 

spectators from within and outside of the Long 

Beach Island area. The tournament encompasses all 

of Long Beach Island, including the Holgate 

Peninsula located at the southern end of the Island. 

 

Holgate beach currently provides ORV anglers with 

access to some of the best fishing sites along the 

Island, and without ORV access to Holgate it is 

possible that participation in the fall tournament 

may decline. Local businesses, like bait and tackle 

shops, depend on revenues generated from the fall 

tournament, and any impact on the tournaments 

level of participation would impact these business=s 

overall revenues. The fall tournament is structured 

to maintain fishing activity during the entire six 

week tournament, and a variety of cash prizes for 

the largest bluefish and striped bass landed are 

presented daily. Both local and nonlocal anglers 

participate in the event, with around 600 anglers 

annually entering the tournament and paying the 

$25 registration fee, in addition to any ORV beach 

access permit fees. 

Predicting what percentage of ORV anglers may 

choose not to enter the tournament or fish elsewhere 

is difficult because Long Beach Island does offer 

alternative fishing sites, almost all with ORV beach 

access. A slight decline in angler participation in 

the tournament will likely occur under the ORV 

beach closure at Holgate. A reduction in angler 

participation would also slightly reduce Chamber of 

Commerce revenues associated with the entrance 

fees. It is expected that the tournament will 

continue and anglers will shift their fishing effort 
 

Appendix G

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 G5 

elsewhere or access the Holgate Peninsula either on 

foot or by driving their ORVs down the beach below 

the mean high tide line. Many other coastal 

communities along the New Jersey coast also 

sponsor fall surf fishing tournaments offering 

anglers alternative tournament options. Because 

other communities offer tournament options, it is 

expected that a certain percentage of the revenues 

and expenditures brought into Long Beach Island by 

the fall fishing tournament will be shifted to other 

bait and tackle shops located in those communities. 

 

Social Impacts to ORV Surf Fishing 

Anglers 

One of the most difficult impacts to predict under 

the year-round ORV closure are non-monetary social 

impacts to ORV surf fishing anglers. As discussed 

above, recreational fishing provides anglers with 

social benefits such as quality time with friends and 

relaxation opportunities. Putting a monetary value 

on these types of experiences is hard to calculate. 

Some anglers consider the best fishing on the island 

to be located within the Holgate Unit, and prior to 

the 1988 summer closure for piping plovers, a large 

number of ORV fishermen fished the waters near 

the tip of the island during the summer months 

(Industrial Economics, 1998). When the 1988 

seasonal closure was implemented, it was 

determined that a significant number of serious 

anglers abandoned the Island to fish at sites such as 

Brigantine Island and Island Beach State Park. 

The year-round ORV closure will further limit 

fishing opportunities on the Island for ORV anglers. 

 In particular, the closure will impact ORV anglers 

who primarily focused their fishing activity at 

Holgate beach. Under the proposed ORV closure, 

anglers choosing to continue fishing on Long Beach 

Island with ORVs would still be able to access long 

stretches of the beach on the Island. Current Long 

Beach Island ORV regulations would allow 

fishermen to access 16 miles of beach from the 

entrance to the Holgate Unit north to Loveladies, if 

they secure the proper beach access permits. 

Although ORV anglers may still be able to access the 

Holgate beach during low tide under the proposed 

closure, most will likely choose not to use the 

Holgate Peninsula and forgo the opportunity to 

experience driving their ORVs along an undeveloped 

wilderness beachfront. 

ORV fishermen who only occasionally fished at 

Holgate and who have easy access to alterative 

fishing sites will incur fewer impacts under this 

Alternative. Anglers who have primary fished 

Holgate beach, will experience a more significant 

disruption and loss of quality fishing time. The 

unique physical nature of Holgate beach offers miles 

of undeveloped beachfront along the New Jersey 

coast and finding an alternative site which offers 

ORV anglers the same wilderness fishing experience 

will be extremely difficult, if not impossible. The 

heavy residential and commercial development 

along the New Jersey=s coast has greatly reduced the 

opportunity for ORV fishermen to access areas 

lacking significant beachfront development. While 

areas such as Chicoteague National Wildlife Refuge 

in Virginia and the Outer Banks of North Carolina 

may still afford such remote fishing opportunities 

with ORVs, closing Holgate beach to ORVs will 

greatly reduce such fishing opportunities for ORV 

anglers in New Jersey. Overall, it is expected that 

ORV anglers will suffer some negative social 

impacts through reductions in fishing opportunities. 

 The size and scope of such impacts will really be 

dependent on the availability of alternative ORV 

fishing sites and the willingness of ORV fishermen 

to travel to those sites. 

Impacts to Restaurants and Lodging 

Long Beach Island is a seasonal based economy 

totally dependent upon summer tourism. Long 

Beach Island has a permanent population of about 

8,600 which swells to over 50,000 on peak weekends 

in the summer months. The island supports 31 

hotels and motels plus seven bed and breakfast inns 

and about 5,000 condominiums and other rental 

units. In addition, the guide for APlaces to Eat@ on 

the Island lists 39 restaurants and other eating 

establishments on the island (Southern Ocean 

County Chamber of Commerce, 1997). 

According to a recent economic study, the summer 

season, which runs from late May to Labor Day 

weekend, accounts for nearly 80 percent or more of 

the annual revenues for most hotels and motels 

located on the Island (Industrial Economics, 1998). 

Because the Island community is a seasonal based 

economy, many businesses will have already closed 

for the season by the time fall surf fishing begins. 

Furthermore, many ORV anglers do not begin 

fishing at Holgate until later in the fall depending 

on when migrating schools of bluefish and striped 

bass arrive. 

In 1988, the seasonal closure of Holgate beach for 

piping plovers appeared to have little effect on the 
Appendix G: Socioeconomic Analysis of ORV Use at Holgate 

 

G6 Jersey Coast Refuges

overall lodging business. Assuming that most 

revenues are collected during the summer season, it 

is expected that closing the Holgate Unit year-round 

to ORVs will have only minor negative economic 

impacts on these businesses. Because a summer 

closure of Holgate beach was already in place, only 

those businesses which remained open after the 

summer season can be expected to incur any impacts 

from the year-round closure. Furthermore, the loss 

in revenues is expected to be minor as only a limited 

number of ORV anglers actually seek overnight 

lodging. The lighter traffic conditions during the 

fall fishing season and the willingness of ORV 

anglers to drive long distances also reduces the 

impact on lodging as many anglers will commute 

rather than seek overnight accommodations. 

Long Beach Island restaurants also depend upon the 

summer season for their primary revenues. 

However, some restaurants on the Island do remain 

open longer during the fall season and a limited 

amount of restaurants remain open year-round. 

Under the proposed ORV closure these businesses 

can be expected to see some slight decrease in 

overall revenues if ORV fishermen choose 

alternative fishing sites off the Island. Because the 

Island still offers ORV access and fishing will 

continue during the fall, the impacts are expected to 

be minor. Furthermore, many ORV fishermen 

bring their meals with them on fishing trips and this 

tendency further reduces their dependence and 

impact on local businesses. 

Although the overall economic impact of the yearround closure is expected to be minimal, localized 

impacts may be more severe. The 1998 economic 

study did identify that some businesses which 

rented primarily to anglers suffered up to a 10% 

overall revenue reduction under the seasonal closure 

(Industrial Economics, 1998). Assuming these 

businesses also rented to ORV anglers in the fall, it 

is expected that they will see some further decline in 

their annual revenues under the Proposed Action. 

Furthermore, it is possible that some businesses 

which were kept open after the Labor Day weekend 

primarily to cater to ORV anglers will now close 

operations earlier. As with the bait and tackle 

shops, the extent of the impact will be reduced as 

the motels and restaurants are located farther from 

the entrance to the Holgate Unit. Overall, while 

some businesses may experience minor reductions in 

revenues, only off season businesses focused 

primarily of capturing the surf fishing expenditures 

should see any noticeable declines. 

Impacts from Boat Ferry Service

Under the Service=s Proposed Action, alternative 

access to the Holgate Unit may be allowed through a 

boat operated ferry system. Originating out of Long 

Beach Island, a boat ferry system would be expected 

to bring positive economic returns to the local 

economy. Ferry system concessionaires are 

currently in use at several National Wildlife Refuges 

nationwide to access Wilderness Areas, including 

Cape Romain Refuge in South Carolina and 

Monomoy Refuge in Massachusetts. A boat ferry 

system would allow surf anglers to continue to 

access the best fishing sites on Holgate beach for a 

fixed cost. Many anglers may choose to use the ferry 

system to fish in a Wilderness Area without crowds 

and noise from motorized vehicles. The ferry system 

would also allow that segment of the public who do 

not have suitable motor vehicles the opportunity to 

access a remote beach environment. 

A boat ferry operation may also help promote an 

ecotourism business on the Island as birders and 

naturalists seek remote areas to experience nature. 

The Holgate Unit is an ideal place to view fall 

migrations of shore birds and marine life, and the 

Service encourages wildlife viewing on the Refuge 

System. Interest in ecotourism is growing and 

access to Holgate beach would provide an excellent 

opportunity to create a Long Beach Island 

ecotourism business. It is difficult to predict the 

level of revenues that would be associated with 

establishing ecotourist based business, but with 

promotions from organizations like the local 

Chamber of Commerce the returns could be 

significant. 

 

 
Appendix H: Species and Habitats of Special Concern 

 

H2 Jersey Coast Refuges

Species and communities of special emphasis in 

the Jersey Coast landscape from Significant 

Habitats and Habitat Complexes of the New York 

Bight Watershed (USFWS, 1997)

The list is not all-inclusive; it includes species found in the 

watersheds during part of their life cycle, and selected 

under the following criteria: 

1. Federally listed as threatened or endangered; 

2. migratory bird, especially declining species, Neotropical 

migrants, colonial waterbirds, shorebirds, or waterfowl; 

3. marine mammal; 

4. Sea turtle; 

5. interjurisdictional fish; 

6. State-listed as threatened, endangered, or special 

concern. 

Complete species lists are being compiled by staff at the 

Refuge, and are available for review for vertebrates. They 

will be published in one or more of the step-down plans. 

Codes used in lists of species of special 

emphasis

Global Element Ranks (from The Nature Conservancy)

G1- Critically imperiled globally because of extreme 

rarity (typically 5 or fewer occurrences or very 

few remaining individuals or acres) or because of 

some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to 

extinction. 

G2 - Imperiled globally because of rarity (6 to 20 

occurrences or few remaining individuals or 

acres) or because of some factor(s) making it very 

vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. 

G3 - Rare or uncommon but not imperiled. Either very 

rare and local throughout its range or found 

locally (even abundantly at some of its locations) 

in a restricted range (e.g., a single western state, 

a physiographic region in the East) or because of 

other factors making it vulnerable to extinction 

throughout its range; in terms of occurrences, in 

the range of 21 to 100. 

G4 - Not rare and apparently secure globally, though 

it might be quite rare in parts of its range, 

especially at the periphery; cause for long-term 

concern. (Usually more than 100 occurrences.) 

G5 - Demonstrably secure globally; widespread and 

abundant, though it may be quite rare in parts of 

its range, especially at the periphery. 

GH - Of historical occurrence throughout its range, - 

possibly extinct i.e., formerly part of the 

established biota with the expectation that it may 

be rediscovered (e.g., Bachman's warbler). 

GU - Possibly in peril range-wide, but status 

uncertain; need more information. 

GX - Believed to be extinct throughout its range (e.g., 

passenger pigeon) with virtually no likelihood 

that it will be rediscovered. 

G#G# Range of ranks; insufficient information to rank 

more precisely. 

G?- Not yet ranked. 

G#T# For infraspecific taxa; the G rank applies to the 

full species and the T rank applies to the 

infraspecific taxon. 

G#Q Taxonomic status is questionable. 

State Element Ranks (from Nature Conservancy and/or 

State Heritage Programs)

Numeric Rank: Based primarily on the number of 

occurrences of the species in the state. 

S1 - Critically imperiled in state (usually 5 or fewer 

occurrences); especially vulnerable to extirpation 

in the state. 

S2 - Imperiled in state (usually 6 to 20 occurrences). 

S3 - Rare or uncommon in state (usually 21 to 100 

occurrences). 

S4 - Widespread, abundant, and apparently secure in 

the state, but with cause for long-term concern 

(usually more than 100 occurrences). 

S5 - Widespread, abundant and demonstrably secure 

in state. 

S? - Not yet ranked in the state. 

SU - Unrankable or uncertain status due to lack of 

information; possibly in peril 

SE - Exotic: an exotic established in the state. 

SA - Accidental or casual in state (infrequent and far 

outside usual range). 

SH - Historical: species occurred historically in the 

state (with the expectation that it may be extant 

and rediscovered), generally not having been 

verified in the past 20 years. 

SX - Apparently extirpated from state. 

SN or SZN - Regularly occurring, usually migratory and 

typically non-breeding, species for which no 

significant or effective habitat conservation 

measures can be taken in the state; no definable 
 

Appendix H

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment - July 2000 H3

occurrences. 
Appendix H: Species and Habitats of Special Concern 

 

H4 Jersey Coast Refuges

For species with distinct breeding (B) and non-breeding (N) 

populations, a breeding status SRANK can be coupled with its 

complementary non-breeding SRANK, separated by a comma, 

e.g., S2B, S3N or S1B, SHN. 

SR - Reported from state, but without persuasive 

documentation; species may be misidentified. 

SRF - Reported falsely; erroneously reported as occurring in 

the state and error has persisted in the literature. 

SP Potentially occurs in the state, but no occurrences 

reported. 

.1 Species documented from a single location. 

Federal Status or Authority

E - Formally listed as Endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973. 

T - Formally listed as Threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973. 

PE - Proposed Endangered. 

PT - Proposed Threatened. 

C1 - Taxa for which the Service currently has on file 

substantial information on biological vulnerability and 

threat(s) to support the appropriateness of proposing to 

list them as endangered or threatened species. 

C1* - Taxa which may be possibly extinct (although 

persuasive documentation of extinction has not been 

made). 

Species of Concern

Federal species of concern includes those species formerly 

considered C2 candidates as described below. Although these C2 

and C3 candidates are no longer officially considered for listing 

under the Endangered Species Act, the former candidate status 

is important historical information and is retained for this 

report. 

C2 - Taxa for which the information now in the possession of 

the Service indicates that proposing to list them as 

endangered or threatened species is possibly 

appropriate, but for which substantial data on biological 

vulnerability and threat(s) are not currently known or 

on file to support the immediate preparation of rules. 

C3 - Taxa that are no longer being considered for listing as 

threatened or endangered species. Such taxa are 

further coded to indicate three subcategories, depending 

on the reason(s) for removal from consideration. 

3A - Taxa for which the Service has persuasive evidence of 

extinction. 

3B - Names that, on the basis of current taxonomic 

understanding, do not represent taxa meeting the Act's 

definition of "species." 

3C - Taxa that have proven to be more abundant or 

widespread than was previously believed. 

SA - Similarity of appearance of species. 

Other Federal Authorities 

I - Interjurisdictional Fish - Move between state and local 

jurisdictions (e.g., anadromous) 

MB - Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

New Jersey Legal Status

D - Declining species: a species that has exhibited a 

continued decline in population numbers over the years. 

E - Endangered species: an species whose prospects for 

survival within the state are in immediate danger due to one 

or many factors - loss of habitat, over-exploitation, predation, 

competition, disease. An endangered species requires 

immediate assistance or extinction will probably follow. 

T - Threatened species: a species that may become 

endangered if conditions surrounding the species begin or 

continue to deteriorate. 

EX - Extirpated species: a species that formerly occurred in 

New Jersey, but is not now known to exist within the state. 

I - Introduced species: a species not native to New Jersey 

that could not have established itself here without the 

assistance of man. 

INC - Increasing species: a species whose population has 

exhibited a significant increase, beyond the normal range of 

its life cycle, over a long time period. 

P - Peripheral: a species whose occurrence in New Jersey is 

at the extreme edge of its present natural range. 

S - Stable species: a species whose population is not 

undergoing any long-term increase or decrease within its 

natural cycle. 

U - Undetermined species: a species about which there is 

not enough information available to determine the status. 

LP - Pinelands: a species listed by the Pinelands 

Commission as endangered or threatened within their legal 

jurisdiction. 

Species and Community Presence in geographic macrosites that 

comprise Edwin B. Forsythe and Cape May National Wildlife 

Refuges. The Refuge lands are partitioned into six macrosites or 

geographically distinct ecosystems. They include: pine barrens; 

Barnegat Bay, Great Bay and Mullica River, Brigantine Bay, 

Great Egg Harbor Bay and River, Cape May Peninsula. 
 

Appendix H

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment - July 2000 H5

Detailed descriptions of these habitat macrosites can be found in 

Significant Habitats and Habitat Complexes of the New 

York Bight Watershed (USFWS Coastal Ecosystem Program, 

1997). Presence is marked with the following codes: 

 

+ - Known to be present 

H - Occurred prior to 1970, not known to be present now 

? - Status unsure

Jersey Coast Refuges Macrosites

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Global Federal NJ 

Rank

NJ 

Stat.

Pine 

Barren 

Barn. 

Bay 

Gr. Bay 

Mullica 

R. 

Brig. 

Bay 

Gr. 

Egg 

Cape 

May

ANIMALS 

INVERTEBRATES 

MOLLUSCA 

Argopecten irradians bay scallop + + + + 

Crassostrea virginica eastern oyster + + + + 

Mercenaria mercenaria northern quahog + + + + + 

Mulinia lateralis dwarf surfclam + + + 

Mya arenaria softshell clam + + + + 

Mytilus edulis blue mussel + + + + 

Spisula solidissima Atlantic surfclam + 

Illex illecebrosus northern shortfin squid + 

Loligo pealei longfin squid + 

ARTHROPODA 

INSECTA 

ODONATA (Dragonflies and Damselflies):

Aeshna clepsydra mottled darner G4 S? + 

Anax longipes comet darner G5 S2? + + 

Celithemis martha Martha spotted skimmer G4 S3S4 + + 

Celithemis verna double-ringed pennant G5 S1? + + 

Enallagma pictum painted bluet G4 S3? + + 

Enallagma recurvatum barrens bluet damselfly G3 3C S3 + + 

Libellula axilena dark-bordered skimmer G5 S1? + + 

Nehalennia intergricollis round-necked damselfly G5 + + 

Somatochlora provocans treetop emerald skimmer G3G4 S2S4 + + 

Sympetrum ambiguum blue-faced meadowfly G5 S1? + + 

COLEOPTERA (Beetles):

Cicindela d. dorsalis northeastern beach tiger 

beetle 

G4T1T

2 

T SH E H 

Cicindela dorsalis media white tiger beetle G4T4 S1S2 + 

LEPIDOPTERA (Butterflies and Moths):

Asterocampa clyton tawny emperor G5 S4 + 

Atrytonopsis hianna dusted skipper G4 S4 + 

Boloria selene myrina silver-bordered fritillary G5T5 S2S3 + 

Euphyes conspicua black dash G4 C? + 

Fixsenia favonius ontario northern hairstreak G4T4 NA? ? 
Appendix H: Species and Habitats of Special Concern 

 

H6 Jersey Coast Refuges

Jersey Coast Refuges Macrosites

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Global Federal NJ 

Rank

NJ 

Stat.

Pine 

Barren

Barn. 

Bay 

Gr. Bay 

Mullica 

R. 

Brig. 

Bay 

Gr. 

Egg 

Cape 

May

Hesperia attalus slossonae seminole skipper G4T3 S2S3 + 

Incisalia henrici Henry's elfin G5 S3S4 + 

Incisalia irus frosted elfin G4 SU + + 

Mitoura hesseli Hessel's hairstreak G3G4 3C S3S4 + + 

Neonympha areolata 

septentrionalis 

Lakehurst satyr G5T3T4Q S3 + 

Panoquina panoquin salt marsh skipper G5 S5 + 

Parrhasius m-album white m hairstreak G5 C? + 

Pieris protodice checkered white G5 SH + 

Problema bulenta rare skipper G2G3 C2 S2 + + + + 

Agrotis buchholzi Buchholz's dart G2G3 C2 S2 + 

Apharetra purpurea a noctuid moth G4Q S? + 

Callopistria granitosa granitosa fern moth G4G5 S2S3 + 

Catocala herodias gerhardi pine barrens underwing G3T3 S3 + 

Catocala jair ssp. 2 jair underwing G4T4 S3 U + 

Catocala p. pretiosa precious underwing G4T2T

3 

C2 S2S3 + + + 

Chytonix sensilis a noctuid moth G4 S1S3 + 

Crambus daeckellus Daecke's pyralid moth G1G3 C2 S1S3 + 

Datana ranaeceps a hand-maid moth G4 S3S4 + 

Faronta rubripennis pink streak G3G4 SU + 

Heterocampa varia a notodontid moth G3G4 S3 + 

Hypomecis buchholzaria Buchholz's gray G3G4 S3 + 

Idaea violacearia a geometrid moth G4 S1S3 + 

Itame sp. 1 spanworm (geometrid 

moth) 

G3Q S3 + 

Lithophane lemmeri Lemmer's pinion moth G3G4 C2 S2 + + 

Merolonche dolli Doll's merolonche G3 C2 S1S3 + 

Meropleon cosmion a noctuid moth G4 S1S2 + 

Metarranthis pilosaria coastal swamp 

metarranthis 

G3G4 S3S4 + 

Papaipema appassionata pitcher plant borer moth G4 S2S3 + 

Papaipema stenocelis chain fern borer moth G4 S3 + 

Ptichodis bistrigata southern ptichodis GU S1S3 + 

Spartiniphaga carterae Carter's noctuid moth G2G3 C2 S2 + 

Zale sp. 1 pine barrens zale G3Q S3 + 

Zanclognatha sp.1 a noctuid moth GUQ S3 + 

CRUSTACEA 

Callinectes sapidus blue crab + + + + + 

MEROSTOMATA 

Limulus polyphemus horseshoe crab + + + + + 

VERTEBRATES 

FISH 

ELASMOBRANCHIOMORPHI (Cartilaginous Fishes):

Mustelus canis smooth dogfish G? + + 

Raja eglanteria clearnose skate + + 

Raja erinacea little skate + + 

Raja ocellata winter skate + + 

OSTEICHTHYES (Bony Fishes): 

Ammodytes americanus American sandlance G? + + + + 

Anguilla rostrata American eel G5 I S5 + + + + + + 
 

Appendix H

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment - July 2000 H7

Jersey Coast Refuges Macrosites

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Global Federal NJ 

Rank

NJ 

Stat.

Pine 

Barren 

Barn. 

Bay 

Gr. Bay 

Mullica 

R. 

Brig. 

Bay 

Gr. 

Egg 

Cape 

May

Aphredoderus sayanus pirate perch G5 S4 + 

Menidia beryllina inland silverside G5 S4S5 + + + 

Menidia menidia Atlantic silverside G5 + + + + + 

Opsanus tau oyster toadfish + + + + 

Strongylura marina Atlantic needlefish G5 I + + 

Paralichthys dentatus summer flounder G? + + + 

Scophthalmus aquosus windowpane G? + + + + 

Acantharchus pomotis mud sunfish G5 S4 + 

Enneacanthus obesus banded sunfish G5 S4 + 

Alosa aestivalis blueback herring G5 I S5 + + + + 

Alosa mediocris hickory shad G5 I S3 W + + 

Alosa pseudoharengus alewife G5 I S5 + + + + 

Alosa sapidissima American shad G5 I S3S4 W + ? 

Brevoortia tyrannus Atlantic menhaden G? I + + + + + 

Clupea harengus Atlantic herring G? I + + + + 

Myoxcephalus aenaeus grubby sculpin G? + 

Notemigonus crysoleucas golden shiner G5 S5 + + 

Notropis hudsonius spottail shiner G5 S5 + + 

Fundulus diaphanus banded killifish G5 S5 + + + + 

Fundulus heteroclitus mummichog G5 S5 + + + + + 

Fundulus luciae spotfin killifish G3G4 S3 + + 

Anchoa hepsetus striped anchovy + + + 

Anchoa mitchilli bay anchovy G5 I + + + + + 

Esox americanus americanus redfin pickerel G5 S5 + + 

Merluccius bilinearis silver hake G? I + 

Pollachius virens pollack G? + + + 

Urophycis chuss red hake G? I + + 

Apeltes quadracus fourspine stickleback G5 S4 + + + + 

Gobiosoma bosci naked goby G5 + + + 

Gobiosoma ginsburgi seaboard goby G? + + + 

Ameiurus catus white catfish G5 S5 + + 

Ameiurus natalis yellow bullhead G5 S5 + 

Ameriurus nebulosus brown bullhead G5 S5 + + 

Tautoga onitis tautog G? + + + 

Tautogolabrus adspersus cunner G? + + + 

Mugil cephalus striped mullet G5 I + + + 

Morone americana white perch G5 S5 + + + + 

Morone saxatilis striped bass G5 I S4 W + + + 

Perca flavescens yellow perch G5 S5 + + + 

Pleuronectes americanus winter flounder G5? I + + + + + 

Pomatomus saltatrix bluefish G? I + + + + + 

Salvelinus fontinalis brook trout G5 S3 + 

Cynoscion regalis weakfish G? I + + + + + 

Leiostomas xanthurus spot G5 I + + + + + 

Menticirrhus saxatilis northern kingfish G? I + + + 

Micropogonias undulatus Atlantic croaker G5 + + + 

Scomber scombrus Atlantic mackerel G? + + 

Centropristis striata black sea bass G? I + + 

Trinectes maculatus hogchoker G5 + + + 

Stenotomus chrysops scup G? + + + 

Peprilus triacanthus butterfish G? + + + 

Syngnathus fuscus northern pipefish G? + + + + 

Prionotus carolinus northern searobin G? I + + + 

Prionotus evolans striped searobin G? I + + 

Umbra pygmaea eastern mudminnow G5 S5 + 
Appendix H: Species and Habitats of Special Concern 

 

H8 Jersey Coast Refuges

Jersey Coast Refuges Macrosites

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Global Federal NJ 

Rank

NJ 

Stat.

Pine 

Barren

Barn. 

Bay 

Gr. Bay 

Mullica 

R. 

Brig. 

Bay 

Gr. 

Egg 

Cape 

May

AMPHIBIANS 

Acris c. crepitans northern cricket frog G5 S3 U + 

Hyla andersonii pine barrens treefrog G4 3C S3 E + + + 

Hyla chrysoscelis Cope's gray treefrog G5 S2 E + 

Rana sphenocephala southern leopard frog G5 S5 S + 

Scaphiopus h. holbrookii eastern spadefoot G5 S4 D + 

Ambystoma maculatum spotted salamander G5 S3 D + 

Ambystoma t. tigrinum eastern tiger salamander G5 S2 E + + + + 

Hemidactylium scutatum four-toed salamander G5 S3 D + 

Pseudotriton m. montanus eastern mud salamander G5 S1 T + ? 

REPTILES 

Eumeces fasciatus five-lined skink G5 S3 U + 

Crotalus horridus timber rattlesnake G5 S2 E + 

Elaphe guttata corn snake G5 S1 E + 

Heterodon platirhinos eastern hognose snake G5 S5 D + 

Pituophis m. melanoleucus northern pine snake G5T4 C2 S3 T + + + + + + 

Caretta caretta loggerhead sea turtle G3 T SN E + 

Clemmys guttata spotted turtle G5 S5 + 

Clemmys insculpta wood turtle G4 S3 T + 

Clemmys muhlenbergii bog turtle G3 C1 S2 E + 

Malaclemys t. terrapin northern diamondback 

terrapin 

G5T5 C2 SU + + + + + 

Terrapene c. carolina eastern box turtle G5 S5 S + 

BIRDS 

Gavia immer common loon G5 MB SN S M 

Gavia stellata red-throated loon G5 MB SN S M/W

Podiceps auritus horned grebe G5 MB SN S M/W

Podilymbus podiceps pied-billed grebe G5 MB S1 E/S + B?/M B/W 

Pelicanus occidentalis brown pelican G4 MB S1 INC B? S 

Phalacrocorax auritus double-crested cormorant G5 MB SN INC M S/M 

Ardea herodias great blue heron G5 MB S2 T/S B M S/M B?/M/

W 

Botaurus lentiginosus American bittern G4 MB S3 T/S B S/M ? 

Bubulcus ibis cattle egret G5 MB S3 INC/I

NC 

B B/M B/M B/M 

Casmerodius albus great egret G5 MB S3 S/S B B B/M B/M B/M 

Egretta caerulea little blue heron G5 MB S3 T/S B B/M B/M B/M 

Egretta thula snowy egret G5 MB S3 S/S B B B/M B/M B/M 

Egretta tricolor tricolored heron G5 MB S3 INC/S B B/M B/M B/M 

Ixobrychus exilis least bittern G5 MB S3 D/S B? B?/M ? B/M 

Nycticorax violaceus yellow-crowned nightheron G5 MB S2 T/T B? B? B/M B/M B/M 

Nycticorax nycticorax black-crowned nightheron G5 MB S3 D/S B B B/M B/M B/M 

Plegadis falcinellus glossy ibis G5 MB S3 D/S B B B/M B/M B/M 

Cygnus columbianus tundra swan G5 MB SN S M/W M/W M M/W M 

Branta canadensis Canada goose G5 MB S5 B/M/W B/M/

W 

B/M/W B/M/

W 

B/M/

W 

B/M/

W 

Branta bernicla brant G5 MB SN M/W M/W M/W M/W M/W

Chen caerulescens snow goose G5 MB SN M/W M/W M/W M/W

Aix sponsa wood duck G5 MB S5 B B/M B/M 

Anas acuta northern pintail G5 MB SN M/W M/W B/M/ M/W M/W
 

Appendix H

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment - July 2000 H9

Jersey Coast Refuges Macrosites

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Global Federal NJ 

Rank

NJ 

Stat.

Pine 

Barren 

Barn. 

Bay 

Gr. Bay 

Mullica 

R. 

Brig. 

Bay 

Gr. 

Egg 

Cape 

May

W 

Anas americana American wigeon G5 MB SN M/W M/W B/M/

W 

M/W M/W

Anas clypeata northern shoveler G5 MB SN M/W M/W B/M/

W 

M/W M/W

Anas crecca green-winged teal G5 MB SN B? M/W M/W B/M/

W 

M/W M/W

Anas discors blue-winged teal G5 MB S5 B B?/M B/M M/W M 

Anas platyrhynchos mallard G5 MB S5 B B/M/

W 

B/M/W B/M/

W 

B/M/

W 

B/M/

W 

Anas rubripes American black duck G4 MB S4 B B/M/

W 

B/M/W B/M/

W 

B/M/

W 

B/M/

W 

Anas strepera gadwall G5 MB S5 B/M B B/M/

W 

B?/M/

W 

B/M/

W 

Aythya valisineria canvasback G5 MB SN M/W M/W M/W M/W M/W

Aythya americana redhead G5 MB SN M/W 

Aythya collaris ring-necked duck G5 MB SN M/W M/W 

Aythya marila greater scaup G5 MB SN M/W M/W M/W M/W M/W

Aythya affinis lesser scaup G5 MB SN M/W? M/W M/W

Bucephala clangula common goldeneye G5 MB SN M/W M/W

Bucephala albeola bufflehead G5 MB SN M/W M/W M/W M/W

Clangula hyemalis oldsquaw G5 MB SN M/W M/W M/W M/W M/W

Lophodytes cucullatus hooded merganser G5 MB SN M/W M M/W M/W

Melanitta nigra black scoter G5 MB SN M/W M/W M/W

Melanitta fusca white-winged scoter G5 MB SN M/W M/W

Melanitta perspicillata surf scoter G5 MB SN M/W M/W M/W

Mergus merganser common merganser G5 MB S4 M/W M/W

Mergus serrator red-breasted merganser G5 MB SN M/W M/W M/W M/W M/W

Oxyura jamaicensis ruddy duck G5 MB SN M/W B/M/W 

Accipiter cooperii Cooper's hawk G4 MB S2 E + M 

Accipter striatus sharp-shinned hawk G5 MB S1 U/U M M 

Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk G5 MB S2 E/T B/M 

Buteo platypterus broad-winged hawk G5 MB S4 S/S B B B/M B/M 

Circus cyaneus northern harrier G5 MB S2 E/U B/M/

W 

B/M/W S/W B/M/

W 

B/M/

W 

Falco columbarius merlin G4 MB SN S M W M 

Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon G3 MB S1 E B/M B/M/W B/W B/W B/M 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle G3G4 MB S1 E M/W? W S/W B?/M/

W 

Pandion haliaetus osprey G5 MB S3 T/T B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W 

Fulica americana American coot G5 MB S1 D M/W B?/M/W W 

Gallinula chloropus common moorhen G5 MB S4 B? B 

Laterallus jamaicensis black rail G4? MB S3 T B B? ? B 

Porzana carolina sora G5 MB S4 B B B? ? M 

Rallus elegans king rail G4G5 MB S3 U/U ? 

Rallus limicola Virginia rail G5 MB S4 B B B B? ? B 

Rallus longirostris clapper rail G5 MB S5 B/M B/M B/M B/M B/M 

Charadrius melodus piping plover G3 MB S1 E B/M B?/M B/M B? B/M 

Charadrius semipalmatus semipalmated plover G5 MB S? S M M M M 

Pluvialis dominica lesser golden-plover G5 MB SN S/S M 

Pluvialis squatarola black-bellied plover G5 MB SN S/S M M M M 

Haematopus palliatus American oystercatcher G5 MB S4 INC/S B? M M M 

Arenaria interpres ruddy turnstone G5 MB SN S M M M 

Bartramia longicauda upland sandpiper G5 MB S1 E B 

Calidris alba sanderling G5 MB SN D M M M/W

Calidris alpina dunlin G5 MB SN INC M M M/W
Appendix H: Species and Habitats of Special Concern 

 

H10 Jersey Coast Refuges

Jersey Coast Refuges Macrosites

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Global Federal NJ 

Rank

NJ 

Stat.

Pine 

Barren

Barn. 

Bay 

Gr. Bay 

Mullica 

R. 

Brig. 

Bay 

Gr. 

Egg 

Cape 

May

Calidris canutus red knot G5 MB SN D M M M 

Calidris fuscicollis white-rumped sandpiper G5 MB SN S M M 

Calidris himantopus stilt sandpiper G5 MB SN INC M 

Calidris maritima purple sandpiper G5 MB SN INC W W 

Calidris maura western sandpiper G5 MB SN S M 

Calidris minutilla least sandpiper G5 MB SN S M 

Calidris pusilla semipalmated sandpiper G5 MB SN S M M M M 

Catoptrophorus 

semipalmatus 

willet G5 MB S4 INC/S B/M B/M B/M B/M 

Limnodromus griseus short-billed dowitcher G5 MB SN S M 

Limosa fedoa marbled godwit G5 MB SN D M 

Limosa haemastica Hudsonian godwit G5 MB SN D M 

Numenius phaeopus whimbrel G5 MB SN S M M 

Scolopax minor American woodcock G5 MB S5 B/W 

Tringa flavipes lesser yellowlegs G5 MB SN S B/M B/M B/M B/M B/M 

Tringa melanoleuca greater yellowlegs G5 MB SN S M M M M M 

Larus philadelphia Bonaparte's gull G5 MB SN S M 

Rynchops niger black skimmer G5 MB S2 E B/M B B/M B/M 

Sterna antillarum least tern G4 MB S2 E + B/M B?/M B/M B?/M B/M 

Sterna dougallii roseate tern G5 MB S1 E B? 

Sterna forsteri Forster's tern G5 MB S3 INC/S B B/M B B/M 

Sterna hirundo common tern G5 MB S3 D/S B B B/M B/M B/M 

Sterna nilotica gull-billed tern G5 MB S3 S B B? B/M B/M 

Coccyzus americanus yellow-billed cuckoo G5 MB S4 S/S B B B B B 

Coccyzus erthropthalmus black-billed cuckoo G5 MB S4 S/S B B B B 

Asio flammeus short-eared owl G5 MB S1 E/U W W 

Strix varia barred owl G5 MB S3 T/T B B B? S/W B/W 

Tyto alba common barn-owl G5 MB S4 S/S B B/M/

W 

Caprimulgus carolinensis chuck-will's-widow G5 MB S4 INC/S B B B 

Caprimulgus vociferus whip-poor-will G5 MB S4 D/S B B B B B B/M 

Chordeiles minor common nighthawk G5 MB S4 S/S B B M 

Archilochus colubris ruby-throated 

hummingbird 

G5 MB S4 D/S B B B B/M 

Chaetura pelagica chimney swift G5 MB S5 S/S B? B B B B 

Dryocopus pileatus pileated woodpecker G5 MB S4 S/S B? 

Melanerpes erythrocephalus red-headed woodpecker G5 MB S3 T/T B B 

Sphyrapicus varius yellow-bellied sapsucker G5 MB SN S M M 

Contopus virens eastern wood-pewee G5 MB S4 S/S B B B B B/M 

Empidonax minimus least flycatcher G5 MB S4 S/S M 

Empidonax traillii willow flycatcher G5 MB S4 INC/S B B B 

Empidonax virescens acadian flycatcher G5 MB S4 INC/S B B B B 

Myiarchus crinitus great crested flycatcher G5 MB S4 S/S B B B B/M 

Tyrannus tyrannus eastern kingbird G5 MB S5 D/D B B B B B/M 

Eremophila alpestris horned lark G5 MB S3 D/S B B B B 

Hirundo pyrrhonota cliff swallow G5 MB S2 T/S M 

Progne subis purple martin G5 MB S4 D/S B B B B B/M 

Riparia riparia bank swallow G5 MB S4 S/S M 

Steldidopteryx serripennis northern rough-winged 

swallow 

G5 MB S4 S/S B? B 

Certhia americana brown creeper G5 MB S4 S/S B M/W

Cistothorus platensis sedge wren G5 MB S1 E B? B? 

Cistothorus palustris marsh wren G5 MB S4 D/S B B B/M B/M B/W 

Catharus fuscescens veery G5 MB S4 S/S M 

Catharus guttatus hermit thrush G5 MB S4 S/S B M/W
 

Appendix H

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment - July 2000 H11

Jersey Coast Refuges Macrosites

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Global Federal NJ 

Rank

NJ 

Stat.

Pine 

Barren 

Barn. 

Bay 

Gr. Bay 

Mullica 

R. 

Brig. 

Bay 

Gr. 

Egg 

Cape 

May

Catharus ustulatus Swainson's thrush G5 MB SN S M 

Hylocichla mustelina wood thrush G5 MB S5 S/S B B B B B B 

Polioptila caerulea blue-gray gnatcatcher G5 MB S4 INC/S B? B B B/M 

Sialia sialis eastern bluebird G5 MB S4 S B B B B/M 

Dumetella carolinensis gray catbird G5 MB S5 S/S B B B B/M 

Vireo flavifrons yellow-throated vireo G5 MB S4 S/S B? M 

Vireo griseus white-eyed vireo G5 MB S4 D/S B B B B B B 

Vireo solitarius solitary vireo G5 MB S3 S/S M 

Dendroica caerulescens black-throated blue 

warbler 

G5 MB S4 S/S M 

Dendroica cerulea cerulean warbler G4 MB S3 S/S B? 

Dendroica coronata yellow-rumped warbler G5 MB S4 S/S M/W M/W M/W M/W M/W M 

Dendroica discolor prairie warbler G5 MB S5 S/S B M B B/M 

Dendroica dominica yellow-throated warbler G5 MB S4 S/S B? B B/M 

Dendroica fusca blackburnian warbler G5 MB S4 S/S M 

Dendroica magnolia magnolia warbler G5 MB S4 S/S M M 

Dendroica palmarum palm warbler G5 MB SN S M 

Dendroica pensylvanica chestnut-sided warbler G5 MB S4 S/S M 

Dendroica pinus pine warbler G5 MB S4 S/S B B B 

Dendroica striata blackpoll warbler G5 MB SN S M M 

Dendroica virens black-throated green 

warbler 

G5 MB SN S B M 

Helmitheros vermivorus worm-eating warbler G5 MB S4 S/S B 

Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat G5 MB S4 D/S B B B 

Mniotilta varia black-and-white warbler G5 MB S4 S/S B B B B/M B/M 

Oporornis formosus Kentucky warbler G5 MB S4 S/S B B B 

Parula americana northern parula G5 MB S3 P/S B B B/M 

Protonotaria citrea prothonotary warbler G5 MB S3 INC/S B B B B 

Seiurus aurocapillus ovenbird G5 MB S5 S/S B B B B B B/M 

Seiurus motacilla Louisiana waterthrush G5 MB S4 S/S B B/M 

Seiurus noveboracensis northern waterthrush G5 MB S4 S/S M M 

Setophaga ruticilla American redstart G5 MB S5 S/S B B B B/M 

Vermivora pinus blue-winged warbler G5 MB S4 INC/S B B B B/M 

Vermivora ruficapilla Nashville warbler G5 MB S3 S/S M 

Wilsonia canadensis Canada warbler G5 MB S4 S/S M M 

Wilsonia citrina hooded warbler G5 MB S4 D/S B B B B 

Piranga olivacea scarlet tanager G5 MB S4 S B B B B B/M 

Piranga rubra summer tanager G5 MB S4 S B? B B 

Pheucticus ludovicianus rose-breasted grosbeak G5 MB S4 S/S M 

Ammodramus caudacutus sharp-tailed sparrow G5 MB S4 S/S B B B/M B B/M 

Ammodramus maritimus seaside sparrow G4 MB S4 S/S B B B/M B B/M 

Ammodramus savannarum grasshopper sparrow G4 MB S2 T/T B B B B?/M

Junco hyemalis dark-eyed junco G5 MB S4 S/S M/W M/W M/W M/W M/W M/W

Melospiza georgiana swamp sparrow G5 MB S4 S/S M/W

Passerculus sandwichensis savannah sparrow G5 MB S2 T/T B B B/M/

W 

Pipilo erythrophthalmus rufous-sided towhee G5 MB S5 S/S M/W M/W

Pooecetes gramineus vesper sparrow G5 MB S2 E B M/W

Zonotrichia albicollis white-throated sparrow G5 MB SN S/S M/W M/W M/W M/W M/W M/W

Dolichonyx oryzivorus bobolink G5 MB S2 T/T + M 

Icterus spurius northern oriole G5 MB S5 S/S B B B B B/M 

Sturnella magna eastern meadowlark G5 MB S4 D/S B B M/W B/M/

W 

Carduelis pinus pine siskin G5 MB SN S W M/W

Carpodacus purpureus purple finch G5 MB S4 S/S M 
Appendix H: Species and Habitats of Special Concern 

 

H12 Jersey Coast Refuges

Jersey Coast Refuges Macrosites

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Global Federal NJ 

Rank

NJ 

Stat.

Pine 

Barren

Barn. 

Bay 

Gr. Bay 

Mullica 

R. 

Brig. 

Bay 

Gr. 

Egg 

Cape 

May

MAMMALS 

Synaptomys cooperi southern bog lemming G5 S2 U + 

Balaenoptera physalus finback whale G2 E SN E + 

Delphinus delphis common dolphin G5 SN U + 

Lagenorhynchus acutus Atlantic white-sided 

dolphin 

G4 + 

Megaptera novaeangliae humpback whale G3 E SA E + 

Stenella coeruleoalba striped dolphin G5 SN U + 

Tursiops truncatus bottle-nosed dolphin G5 SN S + 

Lutra canadensis river otter G5 S4 + + 

VASCULAR PLANTS 

PTERIDOPHYTES (Ferns and Fern Allies)

Lygodium palmatum climbing fern G4 S2 LP + 

Schizaea pusilla curly-grass fern G3 3C S3 LP + + + + 

GYMNOSPERMS (Cone-bearing Plants)

Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic white cedar G4 S5 + + + + 

ANGIOSPERMS (Flowering Plants):

MONOCOTYLEDONEAE (Monocots): 

Sagittaria australis southern arrowhead G5 S1 E H? 

Sagittaria subulata strap-leaf arrowhead G4 S2 + + 

Sagittaria teres quill-leaf arrowhead G3 S1 E + + 

Orontium aquaticum golden club G5 S4 + 

Carex barrattii Barratt's sedge G4 3C S4 LP + 

Carex mitchelliana Mitchell's sedge G3G4 S2 + + + 

Carex polymorpha variable sedge G2G3 C2 S1 E H? 

Carex rostrata beaked-sedge G5 S2 H? 

Cyperus lancastriensis Lancaster flatsedge G5 S2 E H? 

Cyperus polystachyos var. 

texensis 

coast flatsedge G5T5 S1 E H? + + 

Cyperus schweinitzii Schweinitz's flatsedge G5 SE + 

Eleocharis brittonii Britton's spikerush G4G5 S1.1 E + 

Eleocharis equisetoides knotted spikerush G4 SH E(LP) + 

Eleocharis melanocarpa black-fruited spikerush G4 S1 E + 

Eleocharis quadrangulata angled spikerush G4 S2 + 

Eleocharis tortilis twisted spikerush G5 S1 E + 

Eriophorum tenellum rough cottongrass G5 S1 E H? 

Fuirena squarrosa hairy umbrella-sedge G4G5 S3 + 

Rhynchospora filifolia thread-leaved beaked rush G5 S1 E H? + 

Rhynchospora globularis grass-like beaked rush G5 S1 E H? + 

Rhynchospora inundata horned beaked rush G4 S2 LP + + 

Rhynchospora knieskernii Knieskern's beaked rush G1 T S1 E(LP) + 

Rhynchospora microcephala small-headed beaked rush G? S1 E + + + 

Rhynchospora pallida pale beaked rush G3 S3 + 

Rhynchospora rariflora rare-flowering beaked 

rush 

G5 S1 E + 

Rhynchospora scirpoides 

(=Psilocarya scirpoides) 

long-beaked bald-rush G4 S2 + 

Scirpus longii Long's bulrush G2 C2 S2 E(LP) + 

Scleria minor slender nutrush G4 S4 LP + 

Scleria pauciflora var. few-flowered nutrush G5T4T5 S2 + 
 

Appendix H

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment - July 2000 H13

Jersey Coast Refuges Macrosites

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Global Federal NJ 

Rank

NJ 

Stat.

Pine 

Barren 

Barn. 

Bay 

Gr. Bay 

Mullica 

R. 

Brig. 

Bay 

Gr. 

Egg 

Cape 

May

caroliniana 

Scleria reticularis var. 

pubescens 

nutrush G5TU S4 +'?' 

Eriocaulon parkeri Parker's pipewort G3 3C S2 + + + 

Juncus caesariensis New Jersey rush G2 C2 S2 E 

(LP) 

+ + 

Juncus coriaceus leathery rush G5 S1 E + 

Juncus torreyi Torrey's rush G5 SU H? + 

Helonias bullata swamp pink G3 T S3 E(LP) + + + 

Melanthium virginicum Virginia bunchflower G5 S1 E H? 

Narthecium americanum bog asphodel G2 C1 S2 E(LP) + + 

Tofieldia racemosa false asphodel G5 S1 E(LP) + 

Uvularia puberula var. 

nitida 

pine barren bellwort G5T3 S2 E + 

Zigadenus leimanthoides death-camus G4Q S1 E + 

Arethusa bulbosa swamp pink G4 S2 + + 

Listera australis southern twayblade G4 S2 LP + + + + 

Platanthera cristata crested yellow orchid G5 S3 LP + 

Platanthera flava var. 

herbiola 

tubercled rein orchid G4T4Q 3C S2 + 

Platanthera integra yellow fringeless orchid G4 3C S1 E(LP) + 

Platanthera nivea snowy orchid G5 SH E + 

Spiranthes laciniata lace-lip ladies'-tresses G4G5 S1 E + + 

Spiranthes odorata fragrant ladies'-tresses G5 S2 H? + + + 

Tipularia discolor cranefly orchid G4G5 S3 + 

Aristida basiramea var. 

curtissii 

Curtis' three-awned grass G5T4T5 S2 + 

Calamagrostis pickeringii Pickering's reedgrass G4 S1 E + 

Calamovilfa brevipilis pine barren reedgrass G4 3C S4 LP + ? 

Coelorachis rugosa wrinkled jointgrass G5 S1 E + + 

Dichanthelium aciculare bristling witchgrass G4G5 S1 E + 

Dichanthelium 

scabriusculum 

sheathed witchgrass G4 S2 + 

Dichanthelium wrightianum Wright's witchgrass G4 S2 + 

Gymnopogon brevifolius short-leaved skeleton 

grass 

G5 S1 E + 

Muhlenbergia capillaris long-awned smoke grass G5 S1 E H? 

Muhlenbergia torreyana pine barren smoke grass G3 3C S3 LP + + 

Panicum hirstii Hirst's panic grass G1 C2 S1 E(LP) + 

Sacciolepis striata American cupscale G5 S1 E + 

Sphenopholis pensylvanica swamp oats G4 S3 + 

Xyris caroliniana sand yellow-eyed grass G4G5 S1 E(LP) + 

Xyris fimbriata fringed yellow-eyed grass G5 S1 E + 

Xyris jupicai Richard's yellow-eyed 

grass 

G5 SH + 

Xyris montana northern yellow-eyed 

grass 

G4 S1 E + 

DICOTYLEDONEAE (Dicots): 

Sesuvium maritimum seabeach purslane G5 S2 + + 

Amaranthus pumilus seabeach amaranth G2 T SH E H? H? 

Eryngium aquaticum marsh rattlesnake master G4 S3 + 

Hydrocotyle verticillata water-pennywort G5 S2 + 

Asclepias lanceolata smooth orange milkweed G5 S2 + + 

Aster radula swamp or low rough aster G5 S1 E + + 

Boltonia asteroides var. boltonia G5T? S1 E H? + 
Appendix H: Species and Habitats of Special Concern 

 

H14 Jersey Coast Refuges

Jersey Coast Refuges Macrosites

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Global Federal NJ 

Rank

NJ 

Stat.

Pine 

Barren

Barn. 

Bay 

Gr. Bay 

Mullica 

R. 

Brig. 

Bay 

Gr. 

Egg 

Cape 

May

glastifolia 

Cacalia atriplicifolia pale indian plantain G4G5 S1 E H? 

Chrysopsis (=Pityopsis) 

falcata 

sickle-leaved golden aster G3G4 S3 LP + 

Cirsium virginianum Virginia thistle G3G4 S1 E + 

Coreopsis rosea pink or rose tickseed G3 S2 LP + 

Eupatorium resinosum pine barren boneset G3 C2 S2 E(LP) + + ? 

Gnaphalium helleri Heller's everlasting G4G5 SH E H? 

Kuhnia eupatorioides false boneset G5 S1 E H? 

Pluchea foetida stinking fleabane G5 S1 E + 

Solidago elliottii coastal goldenrod G5 S3 + 

Solidago tarda late goldenrod G? S3 + 

Onosmodium virginianum Virginia false-gromwell G4 S1 E + 

Lobelia boykinii Boykin's lobelia G2 C2 S1 E(LP) + 

Lobelia canbyi Canby's lobelia G4 S3 LP + 

Honckenya peploides seabeach sandwort G5 S2 + + 

Chenopodium rubrum red goosefoot G5 S1 E + 

Hypericum adpressum creeping St. John's-wort G2G3 C2 S2 E + 

Cuscuta cephalanthi button-bush dodder G5 S1 E H? 

Cuscuta polygonorum smartweed dodder G5 S2 + 

Stylisma pickeringii var. 

pickeringii 

Pickering's morning-glory G4T2T

3 

C2 S1 E(LP) + 

Diospyros virginiana persimmon G5 S5 + 

Corema conradii broom crowberry G4 S1 E(LP) + 

Crotonopsis elliptica elliptical rushfoil G5 S2 LP + 

Euphorbia purpurea glade spurge G3 C2 S1 E + 

Aeschynomene virginica sensitive joint-vetch G2 T S1 E(LP) + + 

Clitoria mariana butterfly pea G5 S1 E H? + 

Desmodium sessilifolium sessile-leaved tick-trefoil G5 S1 E + 

Desmodium strictum pineland tick-trefoil G4 S2 LP + + 

Galactia volubilis downey milk-pea G5 SH E + 

Stylosanthes biflora pencil flower G5 S3 H? 

Quercus nigra water oak G5 S1 E + 

Gentiana autumnalis pine barren gentian G3 3C S3 LP + + 

Myriophyllum tenellum slender water-milfoil G5 S1 E H? 

Utricularia biflora two-flowered bladderwort G5 S1 E + 

Utricularia olivacea dwarf white bladderwort G4 S1 E(LP) + 

Utricularia purpurea purple bladderwort G5 S3 LP + + 

Utricularia resupinata reversed bladderwort G4 S1 E(LP) + + 

Linum intercursum sandplain flax G4G5 S1 E + + 

Ammannia latifolia Koehn's tooth-cup G5 S1 E + 

Rotala ramosior tooth-cup G5 S3 + 

Rhexia aristosa awned meadowbeauty G3 C2 S1 E(LP) + + 

Nymphoides cordata floating heart G5 S3 LP + 

Ludwigia hirtella hairy ludwigia G5 S2 LP + + 

Oenothera humifusa sea-side evening-primrose G5 S1 E + + + 

Oenothera oakesiana Oakes' evening-primrose G4?Q S2 + 

Plantago maritima ssp. 

juncoides 

seaside plantain G5T5 S2 + 

Polygonum densiflorum stout smartweed G5 S1 E + 

Polygonum glaucum seabeach knotweed G3 S1 E + 

Polygonum setaceum var. 

injectum 

swamp smartweed G5T4 S2? ? 

Glaux maritima seabeach milkwort G5 SH E + 

Hottonia inflata featherfoil G4 S1 E + 
 

Appendix H

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment - July 2000 H15

Jersey Coast Refuges Macrosites

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Global Federal NJ 

Rank

NJ 

Stat.

Pine 

Barren 

Barn. 

Bay 

Gr. Bay 

Mullica 

R. 

Brig. 

Bay 

Gr. 

Egg 

Cape 

May

Prunus angustifolia chickasaw plum G5 S2 E H? 

Diodia virginiana larger buttonweed G5 S1 E + 

Galium hispidulum coast bedstraw G5 S1 E + 

Oldenlandia uniflora 

(=Hedyotis uniflora) 

clustered bluets G5 S3 + + 

Populus heterophylla swamp cottonwood G5 S2 + 

Schwalbea americana chaffseed G2 E S1 E(LP) + 

Phoradendron serotinum mistletoe G5 S2 LP + + 

COMMUNITIES and ECOSYSTEMS

MARINE WETLAND COMMUNITIES

Marine Subtidal Aquatic Bed G5 SU + + + + 

Marine Intertidal Gravel/Sand Beach G5 SU + + 

ESTUARINE WETLAND COMMUNITIES

Freshwater Subtidal Aquatic Bed G4 SU + + 

Tidal River G4 + + + 

Low Salt Marsh G5 S5 + + + + + 

High Salt Marsh G5 S5 + + + + + 

Salt Panne G5 S5 + + + + + 

Brackish Intertidal Shore G3G4 + 

Brackish Intertidal Mudflats G3G4 + 

Brackish Tidal Marsh G4 S2? + + + 

Freshwater Intertidal Shore G3G4 + 

Freshwater Intertidal Mudflats G3G4 + 

Freshwater Tidal Marsh G3G4 S3? ? + + + 

Freshwater Tidal Swamp G2G3 S1S2 + 

Coastal Plain Pond (lacustrine) G3G4 + 

PALUSTRINE WETLANDS 

Pine Barrens Shrub Swamp (palustrine) G5 S5 + 

Coastal Plain Vernal Pond G3? S2S3 + + 

Pine Barren Savanna G2 S2S3 + 

Pitch Pine Lowland Forest (palustrine) G3 S3 + 

Cape May Lowland Swamp G1 S1? + 

Coastal Plain Atlantic White Cedar Swamp G3G4 S4? + + + + + 

Red Maple-Hardwood Swamp G5 S5 + + 

TERRESTRIAL/UPLAND COMMUNITIES

Maritime Dunes G4 + + + 

Coastal Dune Shrubland G4 S2? + + + 

Coastal Dune Woodland G2G3 S1 + 

Pine Plains G1 S1 + 

Pitch Pine-Scrub Oak Barrens G2 + 

Pitch Pine-Oak-Heath Woodland G3G4 + 

ANIMAL CONCENTRATION AREAS

Anadromous Fish Concentration + + 

Bald Eagle Wintering Site G? S? + + + + 

Coastal Heron Rookery GU S3 + + + + + 

Migratory Shorebird Concentration Site G? S? + + + + + 

Waterbird Nesting Colony + + + + + 

Raptor Concentration Area + 

Waterfowl Concentration Area + + + + 0
Appendix H: Species and Habitats of Special Concern 

 

H16 Jersey Coast Refuges
Appendix K, RONS Project List 

 

K2 Jersey Coast Refuges

Terms used in this appendix:

Startup cost: The project=s estimated expenses for the first year (in year 2000 dollars X 1000) 

Recurring cost: The project=s estimated expenses for the second and following years (in year 2000 dollars X 

1000) 

15-year Total Cost: Estimated expenses for all projects over the 15-year duration of this CCP 

Staff (FTEs): Full Time staffing Equivalent (one FTE is one person working full time for one year; seasonal 

staff are calculated as 0.5 FTE.) 

Average FTE: The average additional FTEs required over the 15-year duration of this CCP, taking into to 

consideration that some projects have shorter durations (less than 15 years) 

Table K-1. Funding and staffing required for RONS projects under Alternative B, the Service=s Proposed 

Action.

Startup 

Costs 

($000) 

 

Recurring 

Costs 

($000) 

 

15-year 

Total Cost 

($000) 

 

Average 

FTE 

 

 Edwin B. Forsythe Subtotal 

 

14,479 3,668 54,184 25.3 

 Cape May Subtotal 

 

1,685 511 6,449 13.8 

 Jersey Coast Refuges Grand Total 

 

16,165

 

4,179

 

60,633

 

39.1 

Table K-2. RONS projects for Forsythe Refuge under Alternative B, the Service=s Proposed Action.

Start 

Year 

 

Project Title: 

E.B. Forsythe NWR 

 

Startup 

Cost 

($000) 

 

Recurring 

Cost 

($000) 

 

15-year 

Total Cost 

($000) 

 

Staffing 

(FTEs) 

 

 

 Duration

(years) 

 

 

2001 Grassland Restoration and 

Management 84.7 6.1 169.5 0.3 15

2001 Restoration/Management of Early 

Succession Habitats 21.3 3.3 67.6 0.3 15

2001 Saltmarsh Restoration 1,222.0 1,222.0 18,330.6 1 15

2001 Upland Forest Restoration and 

Management 60.7 60.7 911.2 0.5 15

2001 Invasive Species Control 23.6 23.6 354.0 0.5 15

2001 Waterfowl Monitoring and 

Management 59.0 52.0 787.0 1 15

2001 Invasive/Native Plant Species 

Survey 

114.0 94.0 208.0 1 2

2001 Develop Vegetation/Habitat Map 128.0 106.0 552.0 1 5

2001 Develop Wildlife/Refuge Database 

and Archive 132.0 126.0 1,896.0 1 15

2001 ConductTechnical Outreach on Land 

Protection/Management 114.0 104.0 1,570.0 1 15
 

 Appendix K

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 K3 

Start 

Year 

 

Project Title: 

E.B. Forsythe NWR 

 

Startup 

Cost 

($000) 

 

Recurring 

Cost 

($000) 

 

15-year 

Total Cost 

($000) 

 

Staffing 

(FTEs) 

 

 

 Duration

(years) 

 

2001 Post & Patrol Newly Acquired 

Refuge Lands and Hunting Areas 

107 82.0 1255.0 2 15

2001 Establish Holgate Boat Taxi 

Concessionaire 30 36.0 534.0 1.2 15

2001 Survey & Post Boundary of Holgate 

Wilderness Area 189 70.0 1169.0 2 15

2001 Assess Impact of Mosquito Control 

on Wildlife 50.0 30.0 470.0 0.5 15

2001 Conduct Endangered Species 

Survey, Restoration, & Management 100.0 70.0 1,080.0 1 15

2001 Expand Deer Management Zone 58 20.0 20.0 300.0 0.5 15

2001 

Enhance & Maintain New 

Observation Platform at Barnegat 

Impoundment 

20.0 2.5 55.0 0.1 15

2001 Develop Outreach and Public 

Education Program 65.7 55.7 845.5 1 15

2001 Open Fishing Area along 

Parkertown Road 15.0 3.7 66.8 0.1 15

2001 Develop Brigantine Wilderness Area 8.9 3.7 42.2 0.1 10

2001 Develop Holgate Wilderness Area 

brochure 8.9 3.7 42.2 0.1 10

2001 Reformat and print Forsythe Bird 

List 8.6 5.4 84.2 0.1 15

2001 Reformat and print Forsythe 

Wildlife Drive 8.6 5.4 84.2 0.1 15

2001 Reprint General Forsythe NWR

Brochure 8.8 6.4 98.4 0.1 15

2002 Study on Barrier Island Ecology & 

Impact of Public Use 70.0 50.0 270.0 0 5

2002 

Construct Univ. Accessible 

Observation Platform at 

Experimental Pool 

30.0 7.5 127.5 0.1 14

2002 Develop People's Impacts on Wildlife 6.4 3.2 25.6 0.1 7

2003 Small Vertebrate Survey (Mammals, 

Reptiles, Amphibians) 108.0 91.0 472.0 1 5

2003 Construct Observation Boardwalk at 

Holgate 25 6.3 100.6 0.1 13

2003 

Study Impact of Development on 

Water Quality/Quantity and 

Wetlands 

70.0 50.0 670.0 1 13

2003 Construct Univ. Accessible 

Saltwater Fishing Pier, Mullica R. 38.0 9.5 152.0 0.2 13
Appendix K, RONS Project List 

 

K4 Jersey Coast Refuges

Start 

Year 

 

Project Title: 

E.B. Forsythe NWR 

 

Startup 

Cost 

($000) 

 

Recurring 

Cost 

($000) 

 

15-year 

Total Cost 

($000) 

 

Staffing 

(FTEs) 

 

 

 Duration

(years) 

 

2003 Construct New Office with Visitor 

Contact Facility at Barnegat 

250.0 62.5 1,000.0 1.5 13

2003 Construct Trail and Kiosk at 

Four-Mile Branch Bog 35.0 8.8 140.0 0.2 13

2004 Nesting Bird Survey 95.0 89.0 451.0 1 5

2004 Complete second half of the DeCamp 

Trail 30.0 7.5 112.5 0.2 12

2004 Conduct nature tours & on-site 

support on the Wildlife Drive 30.0 26.0 316.0 0.7 12

2004 Conduct nature tours & on-site 

support at Holgate Wilderness 30.0 26.0 316.0 0.7 12

2005 Fish & Aquatic Invertebrate Survey 149.0 127.0 657.0 3 5

2005 Develop Holgate Observation 

Platform with Long Beach Township 10 2.5 35.0 0.1 11

2005 Construct Seasonal Observation 

Deck at Bonnet Island 25.0 6.2 87.0 0.1 11

2005 Develop Outdoor Classroom Sites 20.0 5.0 70.0 0.1 11

2005 Develop and Implement Teacher 

Training Workshops 22.2 8.0 102.2 0.3 11

2005 Purchase and Develop Wildlife 

Learning Materials for Children 23.1 7.0 93.1 0.2 11

2005 

Construct New Office and Visitor 

Center at Brigantine (Construction 

Funds) 

10,000.0 500.0 15,000.0 2 11

2006 Monitor Public Use Activity and 

Impact 50.0 30.0 320.0 0.5 10

2006 Develop Forsythe video 30.0 30.0 1

2007 Study Pre-Colonial Ecology of 

Southeast Jersey Landscape 70.0 50.0 270.0 0 5

2007 Implement changes in Migratory 

Game Bird Hunting 20.0 20.0 180.0 0.5 9

2007 Develop Universally Accessible Deer 

Hunt Sites in DMZ 56 5.0 0.2 7.0 9

2007 Conduct nature tours & on-site 

support at Reedy Creek 30.0 26.0 238.0 0.7 9

2007 Help teachers develop class wildlife 

and habitat projects 15.0 15.0 135.0 0.5 9

2007 Construct Office and Visitor Center 

at Reedy Creek 250.0 62.5 750.0 1 9

2008 Habitat Use by Migrating/Wintering 

Birds of Prey Study 149.0 127.0 657.0 1 5

2008 Refurbish existing Fire Lane Trails 

(done Start-up) 10.0 2.5 27.5 0.1 8
 

 Appendix K

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 K5 

Start 

Year 

 

Project Title: 

E.B. Forsythe NWR 

 

Startup 

Cost 

($000) 

 

Recurring 

Cost 

($000) 

 

15-year 

Total Cost 

($000) 

 

Staffing 

(FTEs) 

 

 

 Duration

(years) 

 

2008 Refurbish Primitive Trail at Murry 

Grove 

25.0 6.2 68.8 0.1 8

2008 

Develop Parking for 

Canoers/Kayakers on Westecunk 

Creek 

17.5 4.4 48.3 0.1 8

2008 Develop Forsythe Refuge Visitor 

Opportunities 6.4 3.0 18.4 0.1 5

2008 Produce Canoers/Kayakers Guide to 

Forsythe NWR 10.0 3.0 13.0 0.1 2

2009 Construct Universally accessible 

Freshwater Fishing Site 36.0 9.0 90.0 0.2 7

2010 Refurbish Primitive Trail at Cedar 

Run Bog 40.0 10.0 90.0 0.2 6

2012 

Develop Parking for 

Canoers/Kayakers on Cedar Run 

Creek 

17.5 4.4 30.7 0.1 4

2012 Develop Forsythe Amphibians and 

Reptiles 6.4 3.0 9.4 0.1 2

2014 Refurbish Primitive Trail at 

Collinstown Road 25.0 6.2 31.2 0.1 2

2014 Develop Forsythe Mammals 6.4 3.0 9.4 0.1 2

Forsythe Subtotal

 

$14,479

 

$3,668

 

$54,184 

 

34.5

 

 

Table K-2. RONS projects for Cape May Refuge under Alternative B, the Service=s Proposed Action.

Start 

Year 

 

Project Title: 

Cape May NWR 

 

Startup 

Cost 

($000) 

 

Recurring 

Cost 

($000) 

 

15-year 

Total Cost 

($000) 

 

Staffing 

(FTEs) 

 

 

Duration

(years) 

 

 

2001 Grassland Restoration and 

Management 50.4 5.7 129.9 0.3 15

2001 Restoration/Management of Early 

Succession Habitats 9.7 1.8 35.3 0.3 15

2001 Saltmarsh Restoration 73.3 73.3 1100.2 1 15

2001 Upland Forest Restoration and 

Management 46.1 46.1 692.2 0.5 15

2001 Invasive Species Control 11.8 11.8 177.0 0.5 15

2001 Invasive/Native Plant Species 

Survey 

51.0 48.0 99.0 1 2

2001 Develop & Maintain Wildlife/Refuge 

Database/Archive 50.0 46.0 694.0 1 15

2001 Conduct Endangered Species 

Survey, Restoration, & Management 70.0 60.0 910.0 1 15
Appendix K, RONS Project List 

 

K6 Jersey Coast Refuges

Start 

Year 

 

Project Title: 

Cape May NWR 

 

Startup 

Cost 

($000) 

 

Recurring 

Cost 

($000) 

 

15-year 

Total Cost 

($000) 

 

Staffing 

(FTEs) 

 

 

Duration

(years) 

 

2001 Allow Upland Game hunting W of 

Rte 47 and N of Rte 550 20.0 20.0 300.0 0.3 15

2001 Develop Universally Accessible Trail 

at Headquarters 15.0 3.8 68.2 0.1 15

2001 Develop Interpretive Signage on 

Human Impacts to Wildlife 20.0 20.0 0.2 1

2001 Reprint General Cape May NWR 3.0 3.0 45.0 15

2001 Post & Patrol Newly Acquired 

Refuge Lands 83.0 58.0 895.0 1.5 15

2002 Nesting Bird Survey 53.0 49.0 249.0 1 5

2002 Develop Vegetation/Habitat Map 52.0 48.0 244.0 0.5 5

2002 Develop Parking and Kiosk for 

35-mile State Trail 20.0 5.0 85.0 0.1 14

2002 Conduct Outreach and Education 

With Public 60.0 60.0 840.0 1 14

2002 Develop Teacher Training 

Workshops 22.0 22.0 308.0 0.2 14

2002 Enlarge Office Building and Develop 

a Visitor Contact Station 100.0 25.0 425.0 0.5 14

2003 Habitat Use by Migrating/Wintering 

Birds 90.0 57.0 318.0 1 5

2003 Conduct Technical Outreach on 

Land Protection & Management 52.0 48.0 628.0 1 13

2003 Monitor Migrating Shore, Song, and 

Sea Bird Populations 83.0 69.0 911.0 1 13

2003 Develop Interpretive Information on 

Shorebird Migration 10.0 10.0 0.2 1

2003 Print brochure People's Impact on 

Wildlife 1.1 1.1 14.3 13

2004 Small Vertebrate Survey (Mammals, 

Reptiles, Amphibians) 57.0 49.0 253.0 1 5

2004 Develop Schedule Nature Tours 30.0 30.0 360.0 0.7 12

2004 Construct Storage Building 100.0 25.0 375.0 0.5 12

2004 Produce Birds of Cape May NWR 4.2 3.3 40.5 0.1 12

2005 Produce trail map brochures for 5 

new trails 6.0 3.0 36.0 0.1 11

2005 Remove seven buildings from 

Two-mile Beach Unit 625.0 625.0 1 1

2006 Monitor Public Use Activity and 

Impact 50.0 30.0 320.0 0.5 10

2006 Restore 60 acres of Barrier Island 

Habitat 120.0 20.0 160.0 0.3 3
 

 Appendix K

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 K7 

Start 

Year 

 

Project Title: 

Cape May NWR 

 

Startup 

Cost 

($000) 

 

Recurring 

Cost 

($000) 

 

15-year 

Total Cost 

($000) 

 

Staffing 

(FTEs) 

 

 

Duration

(years) 

 

2007 Develop Atlantic White Cedar Trail 

in Dennis Township 

25.0 6.3 75.4 0.1 9

2007 Construct Maintenance Shop 250.0 62.5 750.0 1 9

2008 Construct Trail, Parking and Kiosk 

at Peach Orchard Rd 25.0 6.3 69.1 0.1 8

2009 Develop Parking Lot and Kiosk at 

Stocker Tract 25.0 6.3 62.8 0.1 7

2012 Initiate Permit Trapping North of 

Route 550 20.0 20.0 80.0 0.3 4

2012 Allow At-Large Fishing 40.0 40.0 160.0 0.3 4

2012 Develop New Trail, Parking Lot and 

Kiosk 25.0 6.3 43.9 0.1 4

2013 Develop Canoe Trail at Cedar Creek 25.0 6.3 37.6 0.1 3

Cape May Subtotal

 

$1,685.3 $511.2 $6,449.2 

 

19.5

 
Appendix L: Glossary 

 

L2 Jersey Coast Refuges

alternative B a reasonable way to fix the identified 

problem or satisfy the stated need (40 CFR 1500.2) 

[see also management alternative below]. 

amphidromous fish B fish that can migrate from 

fresh water to the sea, or vice versa, not for the 

purpose of breeding, but at other times during the 

life cycle of the fish. 

anadromous B fish that spend a large proportion of 

their life cycle in the ocean and return to freshwater 

to breed. 

aquatic barrier B any obstruction to fish passage. 

aquatic B growing in, living in, or dependent upon 

water. 

 

biological integrity B composition, structure, and 

function at the genetic, organism, and community 

levels consistent with natural conditions, and the 

biological processes that shape genomes, organisms, 

and communities. 

 

biological or natural diversity B the abundance, 

variety, and genetic constitution of animals and 

plants in nature. Also referred to as Abiodiversity.@

breeding habitat B habitat used by migratory birds 

or other animals during the breeding season. 

buffer zones B protective land borders around 

critical habitats or water bodies that reduce runoff 

and nonpoint source pollution loading; areas created 

or sustained to lessen the negative effects of land 

development on animals and plants and their 

habitats. 

candidate species B those species for which the 

Service has on file sufficient information on 

biological vulnerability and threats to propose them 

for listing. 

carrying capacity-the size of the population that can 

be sustained by a given environment. 

catadromous fish B fish that spend most of their 

lives in fresh water but migrate to sea to reproduce. 

Categorical Exclusion (CE, CX, CATEX, CATX) - a 

category of actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on the human 

environment and have been found to have no such 

effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 

(40 CFR 1508.4). 

CFR B Code of Federal Regulations. 

Challenge Cost Share Program B a grant program 

administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service 

providing matching funds for projects supporting 

natural resource education, management, 

restoration and protection on Service lands, other 

public lands and on private lands. 

 

community - the area or locality in which a group of 

people resides and shares the same government. 

community type B a particular assemblage of plants 

and animals, named for the characteristic plants. 

compatible use B an allowed use that will not 

materially interfere with, or detract from, the 

purposes for which the unit was established (Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.4). 

compatibility determination B a compatibility 

determination is required for a wildlife-dependant 

recreational use or any other public use of a refuge. 

A compatible use is one which, in the sound 

professional judgement of the Refuge Manager, will 

not materially interfere with or detract from 

fulfillment of the Refuge System Mission or refuge 

purpose(s) 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) B a 

document that describes the desired future 

conditions of a refuge or planning unit and provides 

long-range guidance and management direction to 

achieve the purposes of the refuge, help fulfill the 

mission of the System, maintain and, where 

appropriate, restore the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of each refuge 

and the System, and meet other mandates. 

concern B see issue. 

conservation B the management of natural resources 

to prevent loss or waste. Management actions may 

include preservation, restoration, and enhancement. 

conservation agreements B written agreements 

reached among two or more parties for the purpose 

of ensuring the survival and welfare of unlisted 

species of fish and wildlife and/or their habitats, or 

to achieve other specified conservation goals. 

Participants voluntarily commit to implementing 

specific actions that will remove or reduce the 

threats to these species. 

conservation easement B a legal agreement between 

a landowner and a land trust (a private, nonprofit 
 

Appendix L

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment - July 2000 L3 

conservation organization) or government agency 

that permanently limits a property's uses in order to 

protect its conservation values. 
Appendix L: Glossary 

 

L4 Jersey Coast Refuges

cooperative agreement B the legal instrument used 

when the principal purpose of the transaction is the 

transfer of money, property, services or anything of 

value to a recipient in order to accomplish a public 

purpose authorized by Federal statute and 

substantial involvement between the Service and 

the recipient is anticipated. 

cultural resources B evidence of historic or 

prehistoric human activity, such as buildings, 

artifacts, archaeological sites, documents, or oral or 

written history. 

cultural resource inventory B a professionally 

conducted study designed to locate and evaluate 

evidence of cultural resources present within a 

defined geographic area. Inventories may involve 

various levels, including background literature 

search, comprehensive field examination to identify 

all exposed physical manifestations of cultural 

resources, or sample inventory to project site 

distribution and density over a larger area. 

Evaluation of identified cultural resources to 

determine eligibility for the National Register 

follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4 (Service 

Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

cultural resource overview B a comprehensive 

document prepared for a field office that discusses, 

among other things, its prehistory and cultural 

history, the nature and extent of known cultural 

resources, previous research, management 

objectives, resource management conflicts or issues, 

and a general statement on how program objectives 

should be met and conflicts resolved. An overview 

should reference or incorporate information form a 

field offices background or literature search 

described in Section VIII. of the Cultural Resource 

Management Handbook (Service Manual 614 FW 

1.7). 

database B a collection of data arranged for ease and 

speed of analysis and retrieval, usually 

computerized. 

diadromous B fish that migrate from freshwater to 

saltwater or the reverse: a generic term that 

includes anadromous, catadromous and 

amphidromous fishes. 

digitizing B the process of converting information 

from paper maps into geographically referenced 

electronic files for a geographic information system 

(GIS). 

easement B an agreement by which a landowner 

gives up or sells one of the rights on his/her 

property. For example, a landowner may donate a 

right of way across his/her property to allow 

community members access. 

ecosystem B a biological community together with its 

environment, functioning as a unit. For 

administrative purposes, the Service has designated 

53 ecosystems covering the United States and its 

possessions. These ecosystems generally correspond 

with watershed boundaries and vary in their sizes 

and ecological complexity. 

ecotourism B a type of tourism that maintains and 

preserves natural resources as a basis for promoting 

economic growth and development resulting from 

visitation to an area. 

ecosystem approach B a way of looking at 

socio-economic and environmental information based 

on ecosystem boundaries, rather than town, city, or 

county boundaries. 

ecosystem-based management B an approach to 

making decisions based on the characteristics of the 

ecosystem in which a person or thing belongs. This 

concept takes into consideration interactions 

between the plants, animals, and physical 

characteristics of the environment when making 

decisions about land use or living resource issues. 

ecosystem services - the benefits human populations 

derive, directly or indirectly, from ecosystem 

functions (e.g., gas regulation, disturbance 

regulation, soil formation, pollination, raw 

materials). 

emergent wetland B wetlands dominated by erect, 

rooted, herbaceous plants. 

endangered species B a federally protected species 

which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

environmental education B education aimed at 

producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable 

concerning the biophysical environment and its 

associated problems, aware of how to help solve 

these problems, and motivated to work toward their 

solution (Stapp et al. 1969). 

Environmental Assessment (EA) B A concise public 

document, prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the 

purpose and need for an action, alternatives to such 

action, and provides sufficient evidence and analysis 

of impacts to determine whether to prepare an 
 

Appendix L

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment - July 2000 L5 

environmental impact statement or finding of no 

significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) B A detailed 

written statement required by section 102(2)(C) of 

the National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing 

the environmental impacts of a proposed action, 

adverse effects of the project that cannot be avoided, 

alternative courses of action, short-tern uses of the 

environment versus the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity, and any 

irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

resources (40 CFR 1508.11). 

estuaries B deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent 

tidal wetlands that are usually semi-enclosed by 

land but have open, partly obstructed, or sporadic 

access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water 

is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff 

from the land. 

estuarine wetlands B "The Estuarine system 

consists of deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent 

tidal wetlands that are usually semienclosed by land 

but have open, partly obstructed, or sporadic access 

to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at 

least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from 

the land." (Cowardin et al. 1979) 

exemplary community type B an outstanding 

example of a particular community type. 

extirpated B no longer occurring in a given 

geographic area. 

federal land B public land owned by the Federal 

government, including lands such as National 

Forests, National Parks and National Wildlife 

Refuges. 

federally listed species B a species listed under the 

federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, either as endangered, threatened or 

species at risk (formerly candidate species). 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) B A 

document prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, supported by an 

environmental assessment, that briefly presents 

why a Federal action will have no significant effect 

on the human environment and for which an 

environmental impact statement, therefore, will not 

be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13). 

forbs B A flowering plant, excluding grasses, sedges, 

and rushes, that does not have a woody stem and 

dies back to the ground at the end of the growing 

season. 

forested land B land dominated by trees. For the 

purposes of the impacts analysis in this document, 

all forested land was assumed to have the potential 

to be occasionally harvested, and forested land 

owned by timber companies was assumed to be 

harvested on a more intensive, regular schedule. 

forested wetlands B wetlands dominated by trees. 

geographic information system (GIS) B a 

computerized system used to compile, store, analyze 

and display geographically referenced information. 

Can be used to overlay information layers containing 

the distributions of a variety of biological and 

physical features. 

goal B descriptive, open-ended, and often broad 

statement of desired future conditions that conveys 

a purpose but does not define measurable units.

grant agreement B the legal instrument used when 

the principal purpose of the transaction is the 

transfer of money, property, services or anything of 

value to a recipient in order to accomplish a public 

purpose of support or stimulation authorized by 

Federal statute and substantial involvement 

between the Service and the recipient is not 

anticipated. 

habitat fragmentation B breaking up of a specific 

habitat into smaller unconnected areas. A habitat 

area that is too small may not provide enough space 

to maintain a breeding population of the species in 

question. 

 

habitat conservation B the protection of an animal or 

plant's habitat to ensure that the use of that habitat 

by the animal or plant is not altered or reduced. 

habitat B the place where a particular type of plant 

or animal lives. An organism's habitat must provide 

all of the basic requirements for life and should be 

free of harmful contaminants. 

hydrologic or flow regime B characteristic 

fluctuations in river flows. 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) - sustainable 

approach to managing pests by combining biological, 

cultural, physical, and chemical tools in a way that 

minimizes economic, health, and environmental 

risks. 
Appendix L: Glossary 

 

L6 Jersey Coast Refuges

interjurisdictional fish B populations of fish that are 

managed by two or more states or national or tribal 

governments because of the scope of their geographic 

distributions or migrations. 

interpretive facilities B structures that provides 

information about an event, place or thing by a 

variety of means including printed materials, 

audiovisuals or multimedia materials. Examples of 

these would be kiosks which offer printed materials 

and audiovisuals, signs and trailheads. 

interpretive materials B any tool used to provide or 

clarify information, explain events or things, or 

serve to increase awareness and understanding of 

the events or things. Examples of these would be: 

(1) printed materials such as brochures, maps or 

curriculum materials; (2) audio/visual materials 

such as videotapes, films, slides, or audio tapes; and 

(3) interactive multimedia materials, such as cdBrom 

and other computer technology. 

invasive exotic species B non-native species which 

have been introduced into an ecosystem, and, 

because of their aggressive growth habits and lack of 

natural predators, displace native species. 

grassroots conservation organization B any group of 

concerned citizens who come together to actively 

address a conservation need. 

habitat macrosites - an area important because of 

the presence of rare species, ecological communities, 

and functioning ecosystems. 

issue B any unsettled matter that requires a 

management decision; e.g., a Service initiative, an 

opportunity, a management problem, a threat to the 

resources of the unit, a conflict in uses, a public 

concerns, or the presence of an undesirable resource 

condition. Issues should be documented, described, 

and analyzed in the CCP even if resolution cannot be 

accomplished during the planning process (Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.4). See also: key issue. 

key issue B an issue meeting the following three 

criteria: 

1. Falls within the jurisdiction of the Service; 

2. Can be addressed by a reasonable range of 

alternatives; 

3. Influences the outcome of the project. 

land trusts B organizations dedicated to conserving 

land by purchasing land, receiving donations of 

lands, or accepting conservation easements from 

landowners. 

limiting factor B an environmental limitation that 

prevents further population growth. 

local agencies B generally referring to municipal 

governments, regional planning commissions or 

conservation groups. 

long term protection B mechanisms such as fee title 

acquisition, conservation easements or binding 

agreements with landowners that ensure land use 

and land management practices will remain 

compatible with maintenance of the species 

population at the site. 

management alternative B a set of objectives and the 

strategies needed to accomplish each objective 

(Service Manual 602 FW 1.4). 

management concern B see issue. 

management opportunity B see issue. 

management plan B a plan that guides future land 

management practices on a tract of land. In the 

context of this environmental impact statement, 

management plans would be designed to produce 

additional wildlife habitat along with the primary 

products, such as timber or agricultural crops. See 

cooperative agreement. 

management strategy B a general approach to meet 

unit objectives. A strategy may be broad, or it may 

be detailed enough to guide implementation through 

specific actions, tasks, and projects (Service Manual 

602 FW 1.4). 

migratory game birds - birds regulated under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and state laws, that are 

legally hunted, includes ducks, geese, woodcock, 

rails. 

minimum tool rule - Apply only the minimum 

impact policy, device, force, regulation, or practice to 

bring about a desired result. Achieve results using 

the most Alight-handed@ approach (Hendee, 1990). 

 

mission statement B succinct statement of the unit's 

purpose and reason for being (Region 7 Planning 
 

Appendix L

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment - July 2000 L7 

Staff). 

mitigation B actions taken to compensate for the 

negative effects of a particular project. Wetland 

mitigation usually takes the form of restoration or 

enhancement of a previously damaged wetland or 

creation of a new wetland. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)

B requires all agencies, including the Service, to 

examine the environmental impacts of their actions, 

incorporate environmental information, and use 

public participation in the planning and 

implementation of all actions. Federal agencies 

must integrate NEPA with other planning 

requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA 

documents to facilitate better environmental 

decision making (from 40 CFR 1500). 

National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) B AA designated 

area of land, water, or an interest in land or water 

within the System, but does not include 

Coordination Areas.@ Find a complete listing of all 

units of the System in the current Annual Report of 

Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) B

all lands and waters and interests therein 

administered by the Service as wildlife refuges, 

wildlife ranges, wildlife management areas, 

waterfowl production areas, and other areas for the 

protection and conservation of fish and wildlife, 

including those that are threatened with extinction. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission (mission) 

B AThe mission of the System is 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.@

native plant B a plant that has grown in the region 

since the last glaciation and occurred before 

European settlement. 

 

non-consumptive, wildlife-oriented recreation B 

photographing or observing plants, fish and other 

wildlife. 

non-point source pollution B nutrients or toxic 

substances that enter water from dispersed and 

uncontrolled sites. 

nonforested wetlands B wetlands dominated by 

shrubs or emergent vegetation. 

Notice of Intent (NOI) B a notice that an 

environmental impact statement will be prepared 

and considered (40 CFR 1508.22). Published in the 

Federal Register. 

Objective B a concise statement of what we want to 

achieve, how much we want to achieve, when and 

where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible 

for the work. Objectives derive from goals and 

provide the basis for determining strategies, 

monitoring refuge accomplishments, and evaluating 

the success of strategies. Make objectives 

attainable, time-specific, and measurable. 

 

occurrence site B a discrete area where a population 

of a rare species lives or a rare plant community 

type grows. 

old field B an area that was formerly cultivated or 

grazed and where woody vegetation has begun to 

invade. If left undisturbed, it will eventually 

succeed into a forest. Many old fields occur at sites 

marginally suitable for crop production or pasturing. 

 Old fields are highly variable in the Northeast, 

depending on soil, land use history, and 

management. 

Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM) - a 

mosquito control technique that improves habitat 

conditions in salt marshes for mosquito-eating fish 

by creating ponds that will maintain the fish 

between lunar tides. 

palustrine wetlands B "The Palustrine system 

includes all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, 

shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or 

lichens, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal 

areas where salinity due to oceanBderived salts is 

below 0%." (Cowardin et al. 1979) 

Partners for Wildlife Program B a voluntary habitat 

restoration program undertaken by the Fish and 

Wildlife Service in cooperation with other 

governmental agencies, public and private 

organizations, and private landowners to improve 

and protect fish and wildlife habitat on private lands 

while leaving the land in private ownership. 

partnership B a contract or agreement entered into 

by two or more individuals, groups of individuals, 

organizations or agencies in which each agrees to 

furnish a part of the capital or some inBkind service, 

i.e., labor, for a mutually beneficial enterprise. 
Appendix L: Glossary 

 

L8 Jersey Coast Refuges

population monitoring B assessments of the 

characteristics of populations to ascertain their 

status and establish trends related to their 

abundance, condition, distribution, or other 

characteristics. 

prescribed fire B the application of fire to wildland 

fuels to achieve identified land use objectives 

(Service Manual 621 FW 1.7), either from natural or 

intentional ignition. 

 

priority public uses B see wildlife-dependant 

recreational uses.

 

private land B land that is owned by a private 

individual, group of individuals, or nonB

governmental organization. 

private landowner B any individual, group of 

individuals or nonBgovernmental organization that 

owns land. 

private organization B any nonBgovernmental 

organization. 

 

Proposed Action B activities for which an 

Environmental Assessment is being written; the 

alternative containing the actions and strategies 

recommended by the planning team. The proposed 

action is, for all practical purposes, the draft CCP for 

the refuge. 

protection B mechanisms such as fee title 

acquisition, conservation easements or binding 

agreements with landowners that ensure land use 

and land management practices will remain 

compatible with maintenance of the species 

population at the site. 

public B individuals, organizations, and groups; 

officials of Federal, State, and local government 

agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may 

include anyone outside the core planning team. It 

includes those who may or may not have indicated 

an interest in the Service issues and those who do or 

do not realize that Service decisions may affect 

them. 

public involvement B a process that offers impacted 

and interested individuals and organizations an 

opportunity to become informed about, and to 

express their opinions on Service actions and 

policies. In the process, these views are studied 

thoroughly and thoughtful consideration of public 

views is given in shaping decisions for refuge 

management. 

public involvement plan B broad long term guidance 

for involving the public in the comprehensive 

planning process. 

public land B land that is owned by the local, state, 

or Federal government. 

rare species B species identified in Appendix 3B6 as 

Species of Special Emphasis due to their uncommon 

occurrence within the watershed. 

rare community types B plant community types 

classified as rare by any of the four state Natural 

Heritage Programs. As used in this environmental 

impact statement, is inclusive of the exemplary 

community types. The types are listed in Appendix 

3-4. 

Record of Decision (ROD) B a concise public record of 

decision prepared by the Federal agency, pursuant 

to NEPA, that contains a statement of the decision, 

identification of all alternatives considered, 

identification of the environmentally preferable 

alternative, a statement as to whether all practical 

means to avoid or minimize environmental harm 

from the alternative selected have been adopted 

(and if not, why they were not), and a summary of 

monitoring and enforcement where applicable for 

any mitigat CFR 1505.2). 

refuge goals B descriptive, open-ended and often 

broad statements of desired future conditions that 

convey a purpose but do not define measurable units 

(Writing Refuge Management Goals and Objectives: 

 A Handbook). 

refuge purposes B the purposes specified in or 

derived from the law, proclamation, executive order, 

agreement, public land order, donation document, or 

administrative memorandum establishing, 

authorizing, or expanding a refuge, a refuge unit, or 

refuge subunit, and any subsequent modification of 

the original establishing authority for additional 

conservation purposes (Service Manual 602 FW 1.4). 

 

refuge lands B those lands in which the Service 

holds full interest in fee title, or partial interest such 

as easements. 

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) B the 

Refuge Operating Needs System is a national 
 

Appendix L

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment - July 2000 L9 

database which contains the unfunded operational 

needs of each refuge. We include projects required 

to implement approved plans, and meet goals, 

objectives, and legal mandates. 

restoration B the artificial manipulation of a habitat 

to restore it to something close to its natural state. 

Involves taking a degraded grassland and reestablishing habitat for native plants and animals. 

Restoration usually involves the planting of native 

grasses and forbs, and may include shrub removal 

and prescribed burning. 

runoff B water from rain, melted snow, or 

agricultural or landscape irrigation that flows over 

the land surface into a water body. 

Service presence B the existence of the Service 

through its programs and facilities which it directs 

or shares with other organizations; the public 

awareness of the Service as a sole or cooperative 

provider of programs and facilities. 

species of concern B Species present in the 

watershed for whom the Refuge has a special 

management interest. The following criteria were 

used to identify Aspecies of concern@: 

1. Federally listed as threatened or 

endangered; 

2. migratory bird, especially declining species, 

Neotropical migrants, colonial waterbirds, 

shorebirds, or waterfowl; 

3. marine mammal; 

4. sea turtle; 

5. interjurisdictional fish; 

6. State-listed as threatened, endangered, or 

special concern.. 

state land B public land owned by a state such as 

state parks or state wildlife management areas. 

step-down management plans B step-down 

management plans describe management strategies 

and implementation schedules. Step-down 

management plans are a series of plans dealing with 

specific management subjects (e.g., croplands, 

wilderness, and fire) (Service Manual 602 FW 1.4). 

stopover habitat B habitat used during bird 

migration for rest and feeding. 

strategy B a specific action, tool, technique, or 

combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to 

meet unit objectives. 

threatened species B a federally protected species 

which is likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

tributary B a stream or river that flows into a larger 

stream, river or lake. 

trust resource B one that through law or 

administrative act is held in trust for the people by 

the government. A federal trust resource is one for 

which trust responsibility is given in part to the 

federal government through federal legislation or 

administrative act. Generally, federal trust 

resources are those considered to be of national or 

international importance no matter where they 

occur, such as endangered species and species such 

as migratory birds and fish that regularly move 

across state lines. In addition to species, trust 

resources include cultural resources protected 

through federal historic preservation laws, nationally 

important and threatened habitats, notably wetlands, 

navigable waters, and public lands such as state parks and 

National Wildlife Refuges. 

unfragmented habitat B large blocks of unbroken 

habitat of a particular type. 

unit objective B desired conditions which must be 

accomplished to realize a desired outcome. 

Objectives are the basis for determining 

management strategies, monitoring refuge 

accomplishments, and measuring the success of the 

strategies. Objectives should be attainable and 

time-specific and may be stated quantitatively or 

qualitatively (Service Manual 602 FW 1.4). 

universally accessible B a universally accessible 

recreation site is designed to accommodate people 

with physical disabilities. Interpretive materials at 

such a sight would be accessible to the visually 

impaired. 

upland B dry ground; other than wetlands. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission B our mission 

is to work with others to Aconserve, protect, and 

enhance fish and wildlife, and their habitat for the 

continuing benefit of the American people.@
Appendix L: Glossary 

 

L10 Jersey Coast Refuges

vernal pool B depressions holding water for a 

temporary period in the spring and used by a variety 

of amphibians for egg laying. 

vision statement B concise statement of what the 

unit could be in the next 10 to 15 years (Region 7 

Planning Staff). 

visitor center B a permanently staffed building 

offering exhibits and interpretive information to the 

visiting public. Some visitor centers are co-located 

with refuge offices, other include additional facilities 

such as classrooms or wildlife viewing areas. 

visitor contact station B compared to a visitor center, 

a contact station is a smaller facility which may not 

be permanently staffed. 

watchable wildlife B all wildlife is watchable. A 

watchable wildlife program is a strategy to help 

maintain viable populations of all native fish and 

wildlife species by building an effective, wellB

informed constituency for conservation. Watchable 

wildlife programs are tools by which wildlife 

conservation goals can be met while at the same 

time fulfilling public demand for wildlife 

recreational activities (other than sport hunting, 

trapping or sport fishing). 

watershed B the geographic area within which 

water drains into a particular river, stream or body 

of water. A watershed includes both the land and 

the body of water into which the land drains. 

wet meadow B meadows located in moist low-lying 

areas, most often dominated by large colonies of reed 

canary grass. They are often created by collapsed 

beaver dams and exposed old pond bottoms. Salt 

marsh meadows are subject to daily coastal tides.

 

wetlands B The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 

definition of wetlands states that "Wetlands are 

lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic 

systems where the water table is usually at or near 

the surface or the land is covered by shallow water." 

(Cowardin et al 1979) 

wilderness - The legal definition is found in the Wilderness 

Act of 1964 Section 2c (P.L. 88-577): AA wilderness, in 

contrast with those areas where man and his own works 

dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area 

where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled 

by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not 

remain.@ This legal definition places wilderness on the 

Auntrammeled@ or Aprimeval@ end of the environmental 

modification spectrum. Wilderness is roadless lands, legally 

classified as component areas of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System, and managed so as to protect its 

qualities of naturalness, solitude and opportunity for 

primitive types of recreation (Hendee, 1990). 

wilderness management - Government and citizen activity 

to identifyBwithin the constraints of the Wilderness 

ActBgoals and objectives for classified wildernesses and the 

planning, implementation, and administration of policies and 

management actions to achieve them. Involves the 

application of guidelines and principles to achieve 

established goals and objectives, including management of 

human use and influences to preserve naturalness and 

solitude (Hendee, 1990). 

wildlife-dependent recreational use B AA use of a 

refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, or environmental 

education and interpretation.@ These are the six 

priority public uses of the System as established in 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act, as amended. Wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses, other than the six priority public uses, are 

those that depend on the presence of wildlife. We 

also will consider these other uses in the preparation 

of refuge CCPs, however, the six priority public uses 

always will take precedence.

wildlife management B the practice of manipulating 

wildlife populations, either directly through 

regulating the numbers, ages, and sex ratios 

harvested, or indirectly by providing favorable 

habitat conditions and alleviating limiting factors. 
 

Appendix L

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment - July 2000

 L11 
Appendix L: Glossary 

 

L12 Jersey Coast Refuges

 

 

 

 

 

 
Appendix M: Works Cited 

 

M2 Jersey Coast Refuges

ABB Environmental Services, Inc. Environmental 

Baseline Survey, Electronic Engineering Center, 

Wildwoo, New Jersey.

Bart, J. 1977. Impact of Human Visitations on Avian 

Nesting Success, Living Bird 16:186-192. 

Boyd, H.P. and R.W. Rust. Intraspecific and geographical 

variations in Cicindela dorsalis, Say (Coleoptera: 

Cicindelidae) Coleoptera Bulletin 36:221-39. 

Boyle, S. A. and F. B. Samson. 1985. Effects of Nonconsumptive Recreation on Wildlife: A Review. Wildl. 

Soc. Bull. 13:110-116. 

Burger, J., and M. Gochfeld. 1991. Human Disturbance 

and Birds: Tolerance and Response Distances of 

Resident and Migrant Species in India. Environ. 

Conserv. 18:158-165. 

Costanza, Robert, Ralph d'Arge, Rudolf de Groot, Stephen 

Faber, Monica Grasso, Bruce Hannon, Karin Limberg, 

Shahid Naeem, Robert O'Neill, Jose Paruelo, Robert 

Raskin, Paul Sutton, and Marjan van den Belt. 1997. 

The Value of the World's Ecosystem Services and 

Natural Capital. Nature, Vol. 387. 

Davis, Donald D. 1995. Evaluation of Ambient Ozone 

Injury on the Foliage of Vegetation in the Edwin B. 

Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge Brigantine, NJ. 

College of Agricultural Sciences, Penn State Univ. 

Dwernychuk, L.W. and D.A. Boag. 1972. How vegetative 

cover protects duck nesting from egg-eating birds. J. 

Wildl. Manage. 39:955-958. 

Ellison, L.N. and L. Cleary. 1978. Effects of human 

disturbance on breeding of double-crested cormorants. 

Auk 95:510-517. 

Glinski, R.L. 1976. Birdwatching Etiquette: The need for a 

developing philosophy. Am. Bird 30(3):655-657. 

Harrington, Brian and Nancy Drilling. 1996 

"Investigations of Effects of Disturbance to Migratory 

Shorebirds at Migration Stopover Sites on the U.S. 

Atlantic Coast: A Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Region 5" Nongame Program Contract No.14-

48-0005-94-9110 1996. 

Hendee, John C., George H. Stankey and Robert C. Lucas. 

 1990. Wilderness Management. North American 

Press, Goldern, Colorado, 546 pp. 

Honigfeld, Harriet B. 1997. Charting a Course for the 

Delaware Bay Watershed, New Jersey Conservation 

Foundation, 156 pp. 

Hunt, G.L., Jr. 1972. Influence of food distribution and 

human disturbance on the reproductive success of 

herring gulls. Ecology 53:1051-1061. 

Industrial Economics, Incorporated. 1998. An Economic 

Analysis of Piping Plover Recovery Activities on the 

Atlantic Coast,. 

Johnson, R.F., Jr. and N.F. Sloan. 1976. The effects of 

human disturbance on the white pelican colony at 

Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota. 

Inland Bird-Banding News 48:163-170,. 

Kerlinger, Paul. 1993-1994. The Economic Impact of 

Birding Ecotourism On Communities Surrounding 

Eight National Wildlife Refuges. 

Kerlinger, Paul. 1995. The Economic Impact of 

Ecotourism on the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife 

Refuge Area, New Jersey, 1993-1994. 

Kerlinger, Paul.1997. The Economics of Birding at Cape 

May, New Jersey. 

Kerlinger, Paul and David Wiedner. 1988. The Economics 

of Birding at Cape May, New Jersey, in Proceedings of 

the 2nd Ecotourism Symposium. 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to 

human disturbances. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:3139. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to 

recreationists. Pages 71-79 in (R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Gutzwiller, ed.) Wildlife Recreationists: Co-existence 

through management and research. Island Press, 

Washington, DC, 372 pp. 

Konrad, Paul M. 1996. Wildbirds Top 50 Birding 

Locations: The Best Birding Locations Await You 

Throughout North America. Wildbird. 

Korschgen, Carl E. and Robert B. Dahlgren. 1992. 

Waterfowl Management Handbook, 13.2.15, Human 

Disturbances of Waterfowl: Causes, Effects, and 

Management . 

Land Trust Alliance. 1994. Economic benefits of land 

protection, Land Trust Alliance InfoPak Services, 

Washington, DC. 

Lenington, S. 1979. Predators and blackbirds: the 

Auncertainty principle@ in field biology. Auk 96:190-

192. 
 

Appendix M

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment, July 2000

 M3

Little, Silas. 1998. Fire and plant succession in the New 

Jersey pine barrens. Pages 297-314 in R.T.T. Forman, 

ed.) Pine barrens: ecosystem and landscape. Rutgers 

Univ. Press, New Brunswick, NJ, 601 pp. 

Lupi, Jr., Frank, Theodore Graham-Tomasi, and Steven J. 

Toff. 1991. A Hedonic Approach to Urban Wetland 

Valuation. Department of Agricultural and Applied 

Economics, University of Minnesota. 

Miller, Stephen. 1992. The Economic Benefits of Open 

Space. Islesboro Islands Trust, Maine. 

National Park Service. 1991, January. Great Egg Harbor 

River. Final Study Report, 139 pp. 

National Park Service. 1993, November. Maurice River 

and its Tributaries Wild and Scenic River Study. Final 

Study Report, 108 pp. 

National Park Service. 1998, April. Draft Comprehensive 

Management Plan for the Great Egg Harbor National 

Scenic and Recreational River. 119 pp. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 

1997. New Jersey Coastal Report: A Framework 

Document for a Coastal Management Partnership, 125 

pp. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 

1998. New Jersey State Development and 

Redevelopment Plan. 

Niles, Lawrence and James C. Sciascia. 1993. A 

Landscape Model for Rare Species Protection, New 

Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 

Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife, unpublished. 

Purdy, K.G., G.R. Goft, D.J. Decker, G.A. Pomerantz, 

and N.A. Connelly. 1987. A guide to managing human 

activity on National Wildlife Refuges. Office of 

Information Transfer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Ft. Collins, CO, 57 pp. 

Robichaud-Collins, Beryl and Karl H. Anderson. 1994. 

Plant Communities of New Jersey: A Study in 

Landscape Diversity, 289 pp. 

Rodgers, J.A., Jr., and H.T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone 

distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds 

from human disturbance in Florida. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 

25(1):139-145. 

Southwestern New Jersey Tourism Summit. 1999. 2nd

Annual 1999 Tourism Review. 

The Trust for Public Land. 1995. The Century Plan:

Study of One Hundred Conservation Sites in the 

Barnegat Bay Watershed. 

The Trust for Public Land. 1997. Beyond The Centu

Plan: Biological Studies and Land Conservation 

Barnegat Bay Watershed. 

U.S. Coast Guard. 1996. Draft Environmental Asses

for the Closure of Electronic Engineering Center

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. The 

Delaware Estuary, Discover its Secrets: 

A Management Plan for the Delaware Estuary, 3

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. North America

Waterfowl Management Plan: Atlantic Coast Joi

Venture. 106 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988, May. Refuge 

Management Analyses: Objectives and Managem

Approaches at Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildl

Refuge. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990, October. Regio

Wetlands Concept Plan - Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act, Northeast Region. 18 pp. & appen

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992, December. Cap

National Wildlife Refuge, Station Management P

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993, May. Final Pub

Use Plan, Cape May National Wildlife Refuge. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994, March. An 

Ecosystem Approach to Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994, August. Evalu

of Contaminants in Sediments and Forage Organ

Cape May National Wildlife Refuge. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994, September. 

Northeastern beach tiger beetle (Cincindela dors

dorsalis) recovery plan, 49 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994, September. Hu

River/New York Bight Ecosystem Plan. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996, May. Piping pl

(Charadrius melodus) Atlantic Coast Population 

Revised Recovery Plan. 246 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996, November. Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) recovery plan.
Appendix M: Works Cited 

 

M4 Jersey Coast Refuges

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Significant Habitats 

and Habitat Complexes of the New York Bight 

Watershed. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997, May. Banking on 

Nature: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities 

of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. 188 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Literature Review: 

Effects of Human Disturbance on Wildlife-Dependent 

Recreation Relevant to Stillwater National Wildlife 

Refuge. Unpublished report. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998, August. Draft 

Baseline Contaminants Study of the Edwin B. 

Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999, March. Fulfilling the 

Promise, the National Wildlife Refuge System: Visions 

for Wildlife, Habitat, People, and Leadership. 94 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999, April. Partners in 

flight land conservation plan: mid-Atlantic coastal 

plain (physiographic area #44). Draft plan, 83 pp. 

Wilson, John. 1998. Archaeologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Hadley, MA, written communication. 

Windisch, Andrew. 1992. Best Remaining Natural 

Community and Rare Species Sites of New Jersey's 

Cape May Peninsula and Vicinity. New Jersey Chapter 

of the Nature Conservancy. 
Appendix N: Interim Compatibility Determinations 

 

N2 Jersey Coast Refuges

INTERIM 

 COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

 

EXISTING WILDLIFE-DEPENDENT USES OF REFUGE LANDS 

WITHIN NEW REFUGE ACQUISITION AREAS 

 

STATION NAME: Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

DATE(S) ESTABLISHED: Brigantine NWR - Jan. 24, 1939; 

Barnegat NWR - June 21, 1967; 

Edwin B. Forsythe NWR - May 22, 1984 - by combining the former 

Brigantine and Barnegat NWR's. 

ESTABLISHING AND ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES: 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge was created on May 22, 1984 by combining the former Brigantine 

and Barnegat National Wildlife Refuges (98 Stat. 207). The Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge was 

established on January 24, 1939 by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission under the authority of the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act, to preserve estuarine habitats important to Atlantic brant (Branta berniclia) 

and to provide nesting habitats for black ducks (Anas rubripes) and rails. The Barnegat National Wildlife 

Refuge was established on June 21, 1967, under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, for 

preservation of estuarine feeding and resting habitat for ducks and brant. The State of New Jersey enabling 

legislation is New Jersey Statutes, Annotated, Title 23, Chapter 4, Section 23:4-56. 

PURPOSE(S) FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED: 

For lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715r), as amended, the purpose 

of the acquisition is "...for uses as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds." Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715d). 

For lands acquired under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742(a) 754), as amended, the purpose of 

the acquisition is "... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources..." (16 U.S.C. 742 (a)(4)) "... 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..." Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1)). 

For lands acquired under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901(b)) "...the 

conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help 

fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions ....@ Emergency 

Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583).For lands within the Brigantine Wilderness 

Area, "...to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring 

resource of wilderness." (78 Stat. 890:16 U.S.C. 1121 (note), 1131-1136, Wilderness Act of 1964). 

OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES: 

1. Antiquities Act of 1906 (34 STAT 225). 

2. Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715r; 45 STAT 1222). 

3. Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k 1-4; 76 STAT 653). 

4. National Wildlife Refuge Administrative Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd - 668ee; 80 STAT 927), as 

amended. 

5. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq; 83 STAT 852). 

6. National Wildlife Refuge System Regulations in the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR)50 

Subchapter C. 
 

Appendix L

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment, July 2000 N3

7. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; 87 STAT 884), as amended. 

8. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. 

9. Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1121(note), 1131-1136). 

10. Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq), as amended. 

11. National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P. L. 105-57). 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE: 

Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation are 

defined as wildlife-dependent recreational uses by The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997. This interim compatibility statement addresses only these uses. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE: 

The current levels of the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses defined in The National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation) in the proposed refuge expansion areas do not appear to be having 

any negative impacts on the habitat or wildlife within the areas. 

DETERMINATION: 

This use is compatible X . 

This use is not compatible . 

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY: 

The parcel needs to be posted. 

JUSTIFICATION: 

See Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

NEPA COMPLIANCE: 

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT X 1994 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FONSI X 1994 

The 1994 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI) are the most recently 

approved documents for expanding the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge. The Environmental 

Assessment and FONSI being prepared for the Jersey Coastal Refuges, scheduled to be completed in 2000, will 

supercede the 1994 documents. 

REFUGE MANAGER: ________________________ DATE:_________ 

REVIEWED BY: ______________________________ DATE:_________ 
Appendix N: Interim Compatibility Determinations 

 

N4 Jersey Coast Refuges

INTERIM 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

 

EXISTING WILDLIFE-DEPENDENT USES OF REFUGE LANDS 

WITHIN NEW REFUGE ACQUISITION AREAS 

 

STATION NAME: Cape May National Wildlife Refuge 

DATE(S) ESTABLISHED: January 20, 1989 

ESTABLISHING AND ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES: 

The Cape May National Wildlife Refuge was created on January 20, 1989 administratively under authority of 

the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j; 70 stat 1119), as amended. 

PURPOSE(S) FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED: 

For lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715r), as amended, the purpose 

of the acquisition is "...for uses as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds." Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715d). 

For lands acquired under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742(a) 754), as amended, the purpose of 

the acquisition is "... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources..." (16 U.S.C. 742 (a)(4)) "... 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..." Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1)). 

For lands acquired under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901(b)) "...the 

conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help 

fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions ....@ Emergency 

Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583). 

OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES: 

1. Antiquities Act of 1906 (34 STAT 225). 

2. Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715r; 45 STAT 1222). 

3. Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k 1-4; 76 STAT 653). 

4. National Wildlife Refuge Administrative Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd - 668ee; 80 STAT 927), as 

amended. 

5. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq; 83 STAT 852). 

6. National Wildlife Refuge System Regulations in the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR)50 

Subchapter C. 

7. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; 87 STAT 884), as amended. 

8. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. 

9. Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1121(note), 1131-1136). 

10. Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq), as amended. 

11. National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P. L. 105-57). 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE: 

Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation 

are defined as wildlife-dependent recreational uses by The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 
 

Appendix L

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment, July 2000 N5

Act of 1997. This interim compatibility statement addresses only these uses. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE: 

The current levels of the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses defined in The National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation) in the proposed refuge expansion areas do not appear to be 

having any negative impacts on the habitat or wildlife within the areas. 

DETERMINATION: 

This use is compatible X . 

This use is not compatible . 

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY: 

The parcel needs to be posted. 

JUSTIFICATION: 

See Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

NEPA COMPLIANCE: 

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT X 1988 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FONSI X 1989 

The above Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI) are the most 

documents for establishing the Cape May National Wildlife Refuge. The Environmental Assessment and 

FONSI being prepared for the Jersey Coastal Refuges, scheduled to be completed in 2000, will supercede 

the above documents. 

REFUGE MANAGER: ________________________ DATE:_________ 

REVIEWED BY: _____________________________ DATE:_________ 
Appendix N: Interim Compatibility Determinations 

 

N6 Jersey Coast Refuges
II Alternatives 

 

II - 74 Jersey Coast Refuges

The following Actions and Strategies Matrix compares management Alternatives for the key issues identified in 

Chapter I. Actions and strategies identified under each of the three Alternatives are not additive, Alternatives 

B & C do not include the actions in Alternative A, unless otherwise indicated.

Table 2-2. Actions and Strategies Matrix for Forsythe Refuge.

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge

Issue or concern 

 

Alternative A (the 

No Action 

Alternative) 

 

Alternative B (the Service=s 

Proposed Action) 

 

Alternative C 

 

How would we 

manage habitats 

and wildlife 

populations?

Continue to protect & 

monitor piping plover & 

swamp pink (federallylisted species) 

Complete a step-down 

habitat management 

plan for the Refuge 

Continue maintaining 

Barnegat & Brigantine 

 impoundments 

Continue current 

population baseline 

surveys 

Establish monitoring 

program for water 

quality & 

contaminants 

Continue providing 

minimal on-site support 

for current research 

projects 

Continue using 

trapping to control 

furbearer populations 

in problem areas 

Same as Alternative A, except: 

Survey areas for potential threatened 

& endangered species; actively 

restore good candidates (e.g. sea beach 

amaranth) 

Implement physiographic/species 

based habitat management 

prescription on all Refuge lands 

Conduct prescribed burns in upland 

forests, upland brush & grasslands 

Develop & implement cooperative 

private lands habitat restoration & 

management plan 

Conduct baseline surveys & 

monitoring on: plants, invertebrates, 

mammals, amphibians, raptors, fish, 

& waterbirds 

Implement species monitoring before 

& after major projects; expand use of 

GIS to document & model species & 

habitat 

Increase on-site support for current 

research & initiate new research on: 

impact of mosquito control techniques 

on wildlife; impact of public use on 

wildlife; beach/shoreline dynamics; 

impact of water quality & quantity on 

wetland resources; & pre-colonial 

ecology of area 

Develop computer archive of data& 

publications for staff, public, & 

partners 

Provide technical assistance to local 

communities on contaminant spill 

planning & response & other wildliferelated activities 

Restore colonial nesting birds on 

barrier & bay islands 

In addition to Alternative 

B: 

Develop community-level 

habitat map 

Develop & implement 

community/species-based 

habitat management plan 

Develop & implement 

cooperative private lands 

habitat restoration plan 

Through partnerships, 

increase nesting structures 

for peregrine falcon, osprey, 

& barn owls 

Evaluate stream/river 

blockages impeding 

spawning runs for 

interjurisdictional fish 

Open all Refuge lands to 

public trapping 
 

Alternatives II

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 II - 75 

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge

Issue or concern 

 

Alternative A (the 

No Action 

Alternative) 

 

Alternative B (the Service=s 

Proposed Action) 

 

Alternative C 

Identify spawning & nursery habitat 

for anadromous & interjusrisdictional 

fish 

Expand trapping areas to better 

manage furbearer populations 

How would we 

manage invasive 

and overabundant 

species?

Continue program to 

control approximately 

150 acres of 

Phragmites/year 

Continue special public 

hunting program to 

control populations of 

snow geese & resident 

Canada geese 

Conduct nest disruption 

of resident Canada 

geese 

Survey invasive/exotic species 

Implement Integrated Pest 

Management (IPM) program for 

Phragmites & six other invasive plant 

species 

Provide technical assistance to 

adjacent land owners on invasive 

species control 

Research alternative methods of 

controlling invasive species 

Use more aggressive control 

techniques for overabundant goose 

population 

Same as Alternative B 

How would we 

manage pesticide 

use?

Continue current levels 

of pesticide use for 

phragmites & mosquito 

control 

Expand Integrated Pest Management 

(IPM) program, minimizing pesticide 

use 

Same as Alternative B 

What big game 

hunting 

opportunities would 

we provide?

Continue current 

hunting programs in 

Deer Management 

Zones (DMZ) 56, 57 & 

58 

In addition to Alternative A: 

Initiate a universally accessible hunt 

in DMZ 56 during the permit shotgun 

or muzzle loader seasons 

Expand deer hunting opportunities in 

DMZ 58 to include: Forked River 

Game Farm; former AT&T property; 

selected properties east of Route 9; 

Middle Branch of Forked River; & 

Cedar Run Creek 

In addition to Alternative 

B: 

Open DMZ 57 & 58 to sixday firearm, fall & winter 

bow seasons 

What upland game 

hunting 

opportunities would 

we provide? 

Continue to keep 

Refuge closed to upland 

game hunting 

Establish an upland game hunting 

area at Oak Island 

In addition to Alternative 

B: 

Open all Refuge lands to 

upland game hunting 

What migratory 

game bird hunting 

opportunities would 

we provide?

Continue current 

waterfowl, rail, & 

moorhen hunting in 

designated units 

In addition to Alternative A: 

At the Brigantine Division allow foot 

access to Unit 5 

At the Barnegat Division allow jump 

shooting from Jeremy Point to Cedar 

Run Creek in Unit A; eliminate foot 

access & jump shooting from Cedar 

In addition to Alternative 

B: 

Open all Refuge lands to 

migratory game bird 

hunting 
II Alternatives 

 

II - 76 Jersey Coast Refuges

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge

Issue or concern 

 

Alternative A (the 

No Action 

Alternative) 

 

Alternative B (the Service=s 

Proposed Action) 

 

Alternative C 

Run Creek to Beach Haven in Unit A; 

& allow jump shooting & eliminate 

site requirements in Unit C 

Designate new hunting areas at: 

Reedy Creek; Stouts Creek; Forked 

River Game Farm; AT&T tract; & 

Cedar Run Creek 

What fishing 

opportunities would 

we provide?

Continue to operate 

boat launching ramp & 

parking area at Scotts 

Landing 

Continue to provide 

fishing opportunities at: 

Lily Lake; Graveling 

Point; Holgate 

(seasonal); Scott=s 

landing; Bridge to 

Nowhere; Dock Creek 

Road; Parkertown 

Road; Cedar Run 

Creek; Dock Road; & 

Stafford Avenue. 

Revise Refuge fishing 

plan 

In addition to Alternative A: 

Develop a Refuge fishing guide 

By 2002, provide a universally 

accessible saltwater fishing & 

crabbing pier on the Mullica River 

By 2003, upgrade 3 saltwater fishing 

& crabbing sites: Parker Run, Cedar 

Run Creek, & Cedar Creek 

By 2004, provide a universally 

accessible freshwater fishing pier at 

Cedar Run Creek 

Fishing opportunities in the 

Brigantine Wilderness Area are 

discussed under How would we 

manage the Brigantine Wilderness 

Area?

In addition to Alternative 

B: 

Allow fishing from all shore 

locations outside of the 

Holgate Unit, Little Beach 

Island & the Wildlife Drive 

What wildlife 

observation and 

photography 

opportunities would 

we provide?

Continue to provide 

opportunities at: 

Wildlife Drive, 

associated foot paths & 

observation tower; 

Reedy Creek Trail; 

Barnegat Impoundment 

observation deck; & 

Seasonal access at 

Holgate Beach. 

Monitor walking & 

bicycling activities on 

the Wildlife Drive 

Continue to maintain 

interpretive signs& 

provide brochures at 

existing Refuge public 

use sites 

In addition to Alternative A: 

Create new foot trails, with 

appropriate parking areas, kiosks & 

interpretive signs at: Four Mile 

Branch Bogs by 2003; Stouts Creek 

by 2006; Cedar Run Bog by 2010; & 

Collinstown Rd by 2014 

By 2004, complete Reedy Creek Trail 

& add observation platform 

Construct universally accessible 

observation platform at Bonnet Island 

by 2005 & off of Wildlife Drive, 

overlooking the experimental pool by 

2007 

Develop parking for canoers & 

kayakers, with appropriate kiosks, at 

Westecunk Creek by 2008 & Cedar 

Run Creek by 2012 

Wildlife observation & photography 

opportunities in the Brigantine 

Wilderness Area are discussed under 

In addition to Alternative 

B: 

Open all Refuge lands to 

wildlife observation & 

photography, except those 

involving endangered 

species recovery efforts 
 

Alternatives II

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 II - 77 

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge

Issue or concern 

 

Alternative A (the 

No Action 

Alternative) 

 

Alternative B (the Service=s 

Proposed Action) 

 

Alternative C 

How would we manage the Brigantine 

Wilderness Area?

What environmental 

education and 

interpretation 

opportunities would 

we provide?

Continue current 

programs & projects: 

New displays at the 

renovated auditorium; 

5,000 students visit 

annually with teachers; 

Provide class visit 

planning & 

informational 

assistance as needed; 

Issue special use 

permits for class 

activities such as 

seining or collecting 

samples as requested; 

Upon request, show 

videos in auditorium for 

organized groups; 

Friends of Forsythe 

provide occasional 

interpretive tours of the 

Wildlife Drive; 

Distribute 3 Refuge 

brochures; & 

Continue to maintain 

interpretive signs& 

provide brochures at 

existing Refuge public 

use sites. 

In addition to Alternative A: 

Conduct outreach related to 

environmental education 

opportunities at the newly renovated 

auditorium 

Reach out to local community groups, 

especially those that are not the 

Refuge=s typical audience 

Increase interface with education 

community, including provision of 

teacher training, & help develop 

wildlife classroom projects 

Increase interpretive signs & available 

information 

Increase interpretive outreach to 

hunters & anglers 

Develop environmental education 

partnerships, introductory Refuge 

video for all age groups, wildlife 

learning materials for children, 5 new 

Refuge brochures, & 2 outdoor 

classroom sites 

Work with partners to address 

personal watercraft impacts through 

outreach & education 

Expand interpretive focus to include 

human impacts on wildlife 

Add scheduled seasonal nature tours 

on the Wildlife Drive, at Holgate & 

Reedy Creek with the help of partners 

& Friends of Forsythe 

In addition to Alternative 

B: 

Participate in development 

of a watershed-wide, 

cooperative outreach group 

How would we 

manage the 

Brigantine 

Wilderness Area?

Continue to seasonally 

allow motor vehicles to 

illegally drive & park 

above the mean high 

tide line at Holgate 

Continue to offer 

seasonal surf fishing 

opportunities at 

Holgate 

Continue to close all of 

the Holgate Peninsula 

Prohibit motor vehicles use above the 

mean high tide line at Holgate yearround & post mean high tide line 

Continue offering seasonal surf 

fishing, wildlife observation & 

photography opportunities at Holgate 

from September thru March with 

access by foot only 

Initiate efforts to establish a boat 

concession to seasonally ferry anglers 

& other Refuge visitors to the 

Same as Alternative B, 

except: 

Seek a license from the NJ 

Tidelands Council to close 

the State-owned intertidal 

zone at Holgate to motor 

vehicles, eliminating the 

need to post mean high tide 

line 

In cooperation with Town 

provide observation 
II Alternatives 

 

II - 78 Jersey Coast Refuges

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge

Issue or concern 

 

Alternative A (the 

No Action 

Alternative) 

 

Alternative B (the Service=s 

Proposed Action) 

 

Alternative C 

to public access from 

April thru August 

during the piping 

plover breeding season 

Continue to keep Little 

Beach Island closed to 

all public access yearround 

Continue to allow 

migratory game bird 

hunting on designated 

salt marshes 

Continue to allow motor 

vehicles to assist in 

rescuing stranded 

marine mammals 

Continue to use motor 

vehicles for law 

enforcement at Holgate 

Beach 

Continue programs to 

monitor air quality & 

precipitation chemistry 

Conduct a Wilderness 

Review as part of the 

revision of the Refuge 

CCP in 2015 

southern tip of the Holgate Peninsula 

Continue to close all of the Holgate 

Peninsula & Little Beach Island to 

public access from April through 

August during the piping plover 

breeding season 

Open Little Beach Island to surf 

fishing, wildlife observation & 

photography seasonally by Refuge 

special use permit 

Encourage seasonal use of less 

sensitive areas of the Wilderness 

through guided tours or Refuge special 

use permit 

Continue to allow migratory game 

bird hunting on designated salt 

marshes 

Apply Aminimal tools@ concept to 

management activities such as: 

invasive species control, boundary 

posting, assisting stranded marine 

mammals, etc. 

Continue current air quality 

monitoring programs & add mercury 

monitoring in partnership with NJ 

DEP 

Develop partnerships with NJ DEP, 

local chambers of commerce, & others 

emphasizing wilderness values 

Conduct outreach to increase 

awareness of the Wilderness Area, 

using TV, calendars, posters, 

presentations, etc. 

By 2005 develop a Wilderness 

Management Plan, & by 2010 conduct 

a Wilderness Review of all Refuge 

lands acquired since 1972 

(Also see How would we manage 

habitats and wildlife populations? for 

other management activities) 

platform immediately north 

of Holgate Unit 

Perform most beach 

maintenance & 

management activities by 

boat 

What would be our 

land protection 

strategy?

Continue efforts to 

acquire 12,300 acres of 

privately owned lands 

within approved Refuge 

acquisition boundaries 

from willing sellers 

In addition to Alternative A: 

Acquire 11,500 acres within 

designated Focus Areas outside 

existing approved Refuge acquisition 

boundaries 

Same as Alternative B 
 

Alternatives II

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 II - 79 

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge

Issue or concern 

 

Alternative A (the 

No Action 

Alternative) 

 

Alternative B (the Service=s 

Proposed Action) 

 

Alternative C 

Continue current level 

of land protection 

planning with 

government & private 

partners 

Increase land protection planning 

efforts with partners 

Expand off Refuge habitat protection 

& restoration efforts with other public 

& private landowners 

How would we 

ensure resource 

protection and 

visitor safety?

Continue current law 

enforcement efforts 

with 1 seasonal & 2 

full-time Park Rangers 

In addition to Alternative A: 

Hire 3 new full-time Park Rangers 

Same as Alternative B 

What buildings and 

facilities would be 

used or constructed 

for Refuge 

operations?

Continue to use 

existing Refuge 

buildings 

Conduct a Site Requirement Analysis 

Construct new headquarters & visitor 

center building(s) at the Brigantine 

Division to replace existing buildings 

Construct new Barnegat Division 

Office & visitor contact building(s) to 

replace existing field office 

Construct new Reedy Creek Unit 

office & visitor contact building(s) 

Same as Alternative B 

What would be the 

future staffing 

needs at Forsythe 

Refuge?

Current staffing level: 

1 Project Leader 

1 Deputy Project 

Leader 

1 Supervisory Refuge 

Operations Specialist 

1 Refuge Operations 

Specialist 

2 Biologists 

1 Outdoor Recreation 

Planner 

2 Maintenance Workers 

1 Lead Administrative 

Office Assistant 

1 Office Automation 

Assistant 

2 Park Rangers 

1 Seasonal Park Ranger 

In addition to Alternative A: 

2 Safety Officers/Refuge Operations 

Specialists 

2 Biologists 

1 Forester/Fire Management Officer 

4 Biological Technicians 

6 Maintenance Workers 

1 Office Automation Assistants 

1 Outreach Specialist 

1 Computer Specialist 

3 Park Rangers 

1 Outdoor Recreation Planners 

2 Recreational Assistants 

1 Secretary 

In addition to Alternative 

A: 

3 Safety Officers/Refuge 

Operations Specialists 

5 Biologists 

4 Biological Technicians 

6 Maintenance Workers 

3 Office Automation 

Assistants 

3 Park Rangers 

3 Outdoor Recreation 

Planners 
II Alternatives 

 

II - 80 Jersey Coast Refuges

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge

Issue or concern 

 

Alternative A (the 

No Action 

Alternative) 

 

Alternative B (the Service=s 

Proposed Action) 

 

Alternative C 

1 Volunteer 

Coordinator 

1 SCEP (Student 

Career Experience 

Program) 

1 Crew Leader 

total FTEs = 17 

total FTEs (A + B)= 42 

total FTEs (A + C)= 44 

What would be the 

future funding 

needs at Forsythe 

Refuge for the next 

15 years?

Staffing & Projects: 

$15.3 million 

Land Protection: 

$19.7 million 

Staffing & Projects: 

$54.2 million 

Land Protection: 

$57.7 million 

Staffing & Projects: 

$60 million 

Land Protection 

$57.7 million 
 

Alternatives II

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 II - 81 

Table 2-3. Actions and Strategies Matrix for Cape May Refuge. 

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Cape May National Wildlife Refuge

Issue or concern 

 

Alternative A (the No 

Action Alternative) 

 

Alternative B (the Service=s Proposed 

Action) 

 

Alternative C 

 

How would we 

manage habitat and 

wildlife populations?

Complete a step-down 

habitat management 

plan for the Refuge 

Maintain open land 

through cooperative 

mowing 

Continue current baseline 

population surveys 

Establish monitoring 

program for water quality 

& contaminants 

Continue providing 

minimal on-site support 

for current research 

projects 

The Refuge would remain 

closed to public trapping 

Same as Alternative A, except: 

Survey all areas for potential threatened 

& endangered species & actively restore 

good candidates (e.g. sea beach amaranth) 

Implement physiographic/species based 

habitat management prescription on all 

Refuge lands 

Conduct prescribed burns in upland 

forests, upland brush & grasslands 

Develop & implement cooperative private 

lands habitat restoration plan 

Conduct comprehensive baseline flora & 

fauna surveys & long term monitoring 

Implement species monitoring before & 

after major projects; expand use of GIS to 

document & model species & habitat 

Initiate research on: impact of mosquito 

control techniques on wildlife; impact of 

public use on wildlife; beach/shoreline 

dynamics; impacts of water 

quality/quantity on wetland resources; & 

pre-colonial ecology of the area 

Develop computer archive of data & 

publications for staff, public, & partners 

Provide technical assistance to local 

communities on contaminant spill 

planning & response & other wildliferelated activities 

Open area north of Route 550 to trapping 

In addition to 

Alternative B: 

Develop an ecological 

community-level 

habitat map 

Develop & implement 

community/species 

based habitat 

management plan 

Develop & implement 

cooperative private 

lands habitat 

restoration plan 

Through 

partnerships, 

increase nesting 

structures for osprey, 

barred & barn owls 

Open entire Refuge to 

trapping 

How would we 

manage invasive 

and overabundant 

species?

No effort would be made 

to control invasive species 

Survey invasive & exotic species on the 

Refuge 

Implement Integrated Pest Management 

(IPM) program, including long term 

monitoring, on phragmites & other exotic 

plant species 

Research alternative methods of 

controlling problematic species 

Same as Alternative 

B 

How would we 

manage pesticide 

use?

Continue current levels of 

pesticide use for mosquito 

control 

Implement Integrated Pest Management 

(IPM) strategy minimizing pesticide use 

Provide technical assistance on IPM 

Same as Alternative 

B 
II Alternatives 

 

II - 82 Jersey Coast Refuges

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Cape May National Wildlife Refuge

Issue or concern 

 

Alternative A (the No 

Action Alternative) 

 

Alternative B (the Service=s Proposed 

Action) 

 

Alternative C 

strategies to local communities to control 

common problem species 

What big game 

hunting 

opportunities would 

we provide?

Continue current Refugewide deer hunt program Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative 

A 

What upland game 

hunting 

opportunities would 

we provide? 

Continue to keep Refuge 

closed to upland game 

hunting 

In the Delaware Bay Unit open areas 

West of NJ Route 47 to upland game 

hunting 

In the Great Cedar Swamp Division open 

areas North of County Route 550 to 

upland game & turkey hunting 

Open entire Refuge to 

upland game hunting 

What migratory 

game bird hunting 

opportunities would 

we provide?

Continue current 

migratory game bird 

hunting program in the 

Delaware Bay Unit West 

of NJ Route 47 

In addition to Alternative A: 

In the Great Cedar Swamp Division open 

areas North of County Route 550 to 

migratory game bird hunting 

Open entire Refuge to 

migratory game bird 

hunting 

What fishing 

opportunities would 

we provide?

The entire Refuge would 

remain closed to fishing 

Open the entire Refuge to fishing & 

crabbing 

Same as Alternative 

B 

What wildlife 

observation and 

photography 

opportunities would 

we provide?

Continue to provide 

Refuge-wide opportunities 

for wildlife observation & 

photography 

Woodcock Trail would 

remain the only 

completed trail on the 

Refuge 

In addition to Alternative A: 

Develop universally accessible trail at the 

Refuge Headquarters 

Provide a parking lot & kiosk in the area 

of Gracetown Road as part of the proposed 

35 mile ARails to Trails@ project running 

from Cape May to Manumuskin in 

Cumberland County 

The ARails to Trails@ unimproved trail 

running through the Refuge would be 

open to hikers, bikers, & horses, with a 

side trail into the adjacent cedar swamp 

Develop parking lot, kiosk, & other trail 

improvements at Schellinger & Stocker 

tracts, & at Peach Orchard Road 

Establish a canoe landing & designated 

canoe route on Cedar Creek 

Develop universally 

accessible trail at the 

Refuge headquarters 

Provide a parking lot 

& kiosk in the area of 

Gracetown Road as 

part of the proposed 

35 mile ARails to 

Trails@ project 

running from Cape 

May to Manumuskin 

in Cumberland 

County 

The ARails to Trails@

unimproved trail 

running through the 

Refuge would be open 

to hikers, bikers, & 

horses, with a side 

trail into the adjacent 

cedar swamp 

What 

environmental 

education and 

interpretation 

opportunities would 

we provide?

Occasional programs 

provided at the Refuge in 

cooperation with partners 

& at special events 

Continue distribution of 

Refuge brochure 

Continue to maintain 

In addition to Alternative A: 

Increase Refuge participation in local 

events, focusing on non-traditional groups 

Increase interpretive signage on Refuge 

trails & kiosks 

Schedule regular nature walks, assisted 

Provide more selfguiding opportunities 

on the Refuge 

Place interpretive 

signage on Refuge 

trails & in kiosks 

Produce new Refuge 
 

Alternatives II

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 II - 83 

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Cape May National Wildlife Refuge

Issue or concern 

 

Alternative A (the No 

Action Alternative) 

 

Alternative B (the Service=s Proposed 

Action) 

 

Alternative C 

interpretive signs & 

provide brochures at 

existing Refuge public use 

sites 

by partners 

Increase variety of Refuge brochures, 

maps, & handouts 

Develop teacher workshops & an outdoor 

classroom established 

Develop a Friends of Cape May Refuge 

group 

Develop web site for environmental 

education at Cape May Refuge 

brochures, maps & 

fact sheets for 

distribution at kiosks 

& remote locations 

When would we 

conduct a 

Wilderness Review 

of the Refuge?

Conduct a Wilderness 

Review for all Refuge 

lands as part of the 

revision of the CCP in 

2015 

By 2010, conduct a Wilderness Review for 

all Refuge lands 

Same as Alternative 

A 

What would be our 

land protection 

strategy?

Continue efforts to 

acquire 7,600 acres of 

inholdings within 

approved Refuge 

acquisition boundaries 

from willing sellers 

Continue current level of 

land protection planning 

with government & 

private partners 

In addition to Alternative A: 

Acquire 3,600 within the 4,900 acre Focus 

Areas that have been identified 

Expand landscape level land protection 

planning efforts with partners 

Expand off Refuge habitat protection & 

restoration efforts with other public & 

private landowners 

Acquire the Coast Guard=s LORAN 

Support Unit (adjacent to the Two Mile 

Beach Unit), should it become excess 

property 

Same as Alternative 

B 

How would we 

ensure resource 

protection and 

visitor safety?

Continue current law 

enforcement efforts with 1 

full-time & 1 seasonal 

Park Rangers 

In addition to Alternative A: 

Hire 1 new full-time & 1 new seasonal 

Park Rangers 

Same as Alternative 

B 

What buildings and 

facilities would be 

used or constructed 

for Refuge 

operations?

Continue to use existing 

Refuge buildings at the 

Kimbles Beach Road 

headquarters site 

Construct a new, larger office & visitor 

contact building at the Kimbles Beach 

Road headquarters site, along with new 

maintenance & storage buildings 

Enlarge & remodel 

existing Refuge office 

at the Kimbles Beach 

Road headquarters 

site & build new 

maintenance & 

storage buildings 

What would be the 

future staffing needs 

at Cape May Refuge 

(including the Two 

Mile Beach Unit)?

Current staffing level: 

1 Supervisory Refuge 

Operations Specialist 

1 Park Ranger 

1 Seasonal Park Ranger 

In addition to Alternative A:: 

1 Project Leader 

1 Deputy Project Leader 

2 Biologists 

In addition to 

Alternative A: 

1 Project Leader 

1 Deputy Project 

Leader 

3 Biologists 
II Alternatives 

 

II - 84 Jersey Coast Refuges

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Cape May National Wildlife Refuge

Issue or concern 

 

Alternative A (the No 

Action Alternative) 

 

Alternative B (the Service=s Proposed 

Action) 

 

Alternative C 

total FTEs = 3 

2 Biological Technicians 

2 Outdoor Recreation Planners 

1 Outdoor Recreational Assistant 

2 Maintenance Workers 

1 Lead Administrative Support Assistant 

1 Park Ranger 

1 Forester/Fire Management Officer 

1 Secretary/Receptionist 

1 Seasonal Park Ranger 

1 SCEP (Student Career Experience 

Program) 

1 Tractor Operator 

total FTEs ( A + B) = 21

2 Biological 

Technicians 

2 Outdoor Recreation 

Planners 

1 Outdoor 

Recreational 

Assistant 

3 Maintenance 

Workers 

1 Lead 

Administrative 

Support Assistant 

1 Computer Specialist 

1 Park Ranger 

1 Forester/Fire 

Management Officer 

1 Forestry Technician 

1 Secretary - 

Receptionist 

2 Seasonal Park 

Rangers 

2 SCEPs (Student 

Career Experience 

Program) 

1 Tractor Operator 

total FTEs (A+C) = 27

What would be the 

future funding 

needs at Cape May 

Refuge (including 

the Two Mile Beach 

Unit) for the next 15 

years?

Staffing & Projects: 

$1.9 million 

Land protection: 

$4.6 million 

Staffing & Projects: 

$6.5 million 

Land Protection: 

$23.8 million 

Staffing & Projects: 

$6.9 million 

Land Protection: 

$23.8 million 

 
 

Alternatives II

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 II - 85 

Table 2-4. Actions and Strategies Matrix for the Two Mile Beach Unit of Cape May Refuge.

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Two Mile Beach Unit at Cape May National Wildlife Refuge

Issue or concern 

 

Alternative A (the 

No Action 

Alternative) 

 

Alternative B (the Service=s 

Proposed Action) 

 

Alternative C 

 

How would we manage 

habitat and wildlife 

populations?

There would be no 

active management or 

restoration of habitats 

or wildlife populations 

No wildlife surveys 

would be conducted 

No public trapping of 

furbearers would be 

allowed 

Restore disturbed areas using 

native vegetation 

Develop & implement a habitat 

management plan 

Develop & implement 

management plan for beach 

nesting birds & migrant 

shorebirds 

Conduct wildlife surveys 

Initiate comprehensive surveys of 

flora & fauna 

Study & monitor beach & sand 

dune dynamics 

Restore threatened & endangered 

species 

Develop agreement with Coast 

Guard for resource management 

at Loran Support Unit & Training 

Center to extend wildlife 

management program 

No public trapping of furbearers 

would be allowed 

Allow natural succession of 

disturbed areas 

Conduct baseline surveys of 

migratory birds & beach 

nesting birds 

Conduct baseline 

vegetation surveys 

Public trapping to manage 

furbearer populations 

How would we manage 

invasive and 

overabundant species?

There would be no 

active management of 

invasive species 

Survey invasive species & 

implement an Integrated Pest 

Management (IPM) plan to 

control undesirable species 

Same as Alternative B 

How would we manage 

pesticide use?

No pesticides would be 

used 

Implement IPM strategy, 

minimizing pesticide use 

Same as Alternative B 

What access 

opportunities would we 

provide to the beach?

No public access 

allowed 

Public access from October thru 

March 

Public access allowed yearround 

What hunting 

opportunities would we 

provide?

No hunting would be 

allowed 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A 

What fishing 

opportunities would we 

provide?

No fishing would be 

allowed 

Allow seasonal surf fishing on the 

beach from October thru March, 

foot access only 

Allow year-round surf 

fishing on the beach, & 

fishing & crabbing in back 

bay wetlands, foot access 

only 

Allow commercial bait 

fishing by Refuge special 
II Alternatives 

 

II - 86 Jersey Coast Refuges

Actions and Strategies Matrix, Two Mile Beach Unit at Cape May National Wildlife Refuge

Issue or concern Alternative A (the 

No Action 

Alternative) 

 

Alternative B (the Service=s 

Proposed Action) 

 

Alternative C 

 

use permit 

What wildlife observation 

and photography 

opportunities would we 

provide? 

Public access would be 

prohibited 

Maintain selected trails & roads, 

with improvements such as signs, 

kiosks, platforms & universal 

accessibility 

Allow seasonal wildlife 

observation & photography on 

beach form October thru March 

Consider the possibility of 

utilizing the former radar 

platform for wildlife observation 

Maintain selected trails & 

roads, with no 

improvements 

What environmental 

education and 

interpretation 

opportunities would we 

provide? 

Public access would be 

prohibited 

Establish Refuge visitor center 

with displays, exhibits & regular 

programs in building A-14 

Provide regular programs & 

guided nature walks, especially 

during peak bird migration 

periods 

Install signs & kiosks for selfguided interpretation 

Install self-guiding 

interpretive signs & kiosks 

Occasional programs & 

guided nature walks 

provided by partners 

Establish visitor contact 

station, staffed by partners 

What buildings would we 

use?

None of the existing 

buildings would be 

used or maintained 

Buildings & other 

improvements not 

needed by the Coast 

Guard would be 

removed as they 

become pubic safety 

hazzards 

Utilize buildings A-14, B-6, & any 

other improvements necessary for 

Refuge management 

Establish Refuge Visitor Center in 

building A-14 

Remove all other buildings & 

improvements not needed by the 

Coast Guard 

Utilize building B-6 & any 

other improvements 

necessary for Refuge 

management 

Provide selected buildings 

for use by missioncompatible partner(s) 

Establish Refuge visitor 

contact station, staffed by 

partners 

Remove all other buildings 

& improvements not 

needed by the Coast Guard 
 

Alternatives II

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 II - 87 
Appendix A

Principles of Wilderness Management

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 A1 
Appendix B

Relevant Legal Mandates and Land Acquisition Legislation

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 
 B1

Appendix C

Issues Workbook
Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 C1 

Appendix D

Planning Update
Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 D1 
Appendix E

Summarized Public Comments

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 E1 
Appendix F

Ecosystem Values

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 F1 
Appendix G

Socioeconomic Analysis of Off-road Vehicle Use at Holgate Beach

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 G1 
Appendix H

Species and Habitats of Special Concern

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 H1
Appendix I

Staffing Charts

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 I1 
Appendix J

MMS Project List

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 J1 
Appendix K

RONS Project List

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 K1
Appendix L

Glossary

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 L1 
Appendix M

Works Cited

Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 M1
Appendix N

Interim Compatibility Determinations

 Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan & Environmental Assessment B July 2000 N1