Edwin B. Forsythe 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 

June 2004 

Prepared by 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 5 

Division of Planning 

300 Westgate Center Drive 

Hadley, MA 01035 

Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

P.O. Box 72, Great Creek Road 

Oceanville, NJ 08231 

Approved: ------L~~~';L----- Date: _t:----L/_c+-r&_ttJ_y_ 

Implementation of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan and its management actions 

and programs have been assessed consistent with requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) was signed by Regional Director Mamie Parker on September 30, 2002. 

Director Steve Williams approved the Land Protection Plan on September 26, 2002. This 

final printing signifies completion of the administrative record for Edwin B. Forsythe 

National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 
Submitted by: 

Steve 'Atzert 

Refuge Manager 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5 

Date 

E. B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Concur: 

"'\2 Dick Dyer ~ \;:]30 ~. Refuge Supervisor 

Regional Chief 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

~ 

1~...rN? ! 0 7 ;;).~\"I Da e 
Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

The Purpose of and Need for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Forsythe Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Purposes of Forsythe Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Refuge Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

National and Regional Mandates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Other Legal and Policy Mandates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Relevant Ecosystem and Species Recovery Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Chapter 2. Planning Process

The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Planning Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Issues Outside the Scope of the CCP/EA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Chapter 3. Summary Refuge and Resource Descriptions

Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Biological Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Archaeological and Historical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Socioeconomic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Chapter 4. Management Direction

Refuge Management Policies and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Goal 1. Protect and enhance Federal trust resources and other species and habitats of special concern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Goal 2. Maintain and/or restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy, functioning ecosystems. . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Goal 3. Establish a land protection program to support species, habitat and ecosystem goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Goal 4. Provide opportunities for high-quality compatible, wildlife-dependent public use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Chapter 5. Implementation and Monitoring

Funding and Staffing ..................................................................... 81

Step-down Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Monitoring and Adaptive Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Volunteer Opportunities and Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Plan Amendment and Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Appendices

Appendix A. Relevant Legal Mandates and Land Acquisition Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Appendix B. Summary of Public Comments Received on the Draft CCP/EA and Their Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Appendix C. Summary of Public Comments Received on the Revised Draft CCP/EA and Their Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Appendix D. Finding of No Significant Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Appendix E. Species and Communities of Special Emphasis in the New Jersey Coast Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Appendix F. Pre-acquisition Compatibility Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Appendix G. Ecosystem Services and Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Appendix H. Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) Project List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Appendix I. Maintenance Management System (MMS) Project List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Appendix J. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Appendix K. Works Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Appendix L. List of Preparers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Appendix M. Land Protection Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Maps

Map 1. Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Map 2. Brigantine National Wilderness Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Map 3a. Refuge Expansion Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Map 3b. Refuge Expansion Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Map 3c. Refuge Expansion Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Map 3d. Refuge Expansion Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Map 4a. Trapping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Map 4b. Trapping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Map 4c. Trapping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Map 4d. Trapping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Map 5a. Habitat Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Map 5b. Habitat Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Map 5c. Habitat Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Map 5d. Habitat Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Map 6a. Big Game Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Map 6b. Big Game Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Map 6c. Big Game Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Map 7. Upland Game Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Map 8a. Migratory Game Bird Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Map 8b. Migratory Game Bird Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Map 8c. Migratory Game Bird Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Map 8d. Migratory Game Bird Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Map 9a. Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Map 9b. Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Map 10a. Wildlife Observation and Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Map 10b. Wildlife Observation and Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Map 10c. Wildlife Observation and Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Map 10d. Wildlife Observation and Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Map 11b. Office and Visitor Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Map 11c. Office and Visitor Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process and NEPA Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table 1. Pre-acquisition Compatibility for Wildlife-dependent Recreational Activities at Forsythe Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 2. Staffing Plan for Forsythe Refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
This page intentionally left blank
1

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

The Purpose of and Need for this Plan

Development of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) is vital to the future management of the Edwin

B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge (Forsythe Refuge). The purpose of the CCP is to provide strategic

management direction over the next 15 years by:

a. Providing a clear statement of desired future conditions for habitat, wildlife, visitor services, and

facilities;

b. Providing a clear understanding of the reasons for management actions;

c. Ensuring Refuge management reflects the policies and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge

System (Refuge System) and our other legal mandates;

d. Ensuring the compatibility of current and future public use;

e. Providing long-term continuity and direction for Refuge management;

f. Providing direction for staffing, operations, maintenance, and the development of budget requests.

 

The need to develop a CCP 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 Forsythe Refuge . 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.

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.) 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. 
1 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Data Sources: 

USGS 1:100,000 counties. 

USFWS refuge boundaries. 

Cape May City 

for Jersey Coast Refuges 

Coos9rvation Plan, 

/ . / \ .' 

>,./ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

Shading represents both owned land 

and areas approved for acquisition. 

2 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

I 

I 

Lak~wood 

• 

0123456Miles 

r:::lOiiiiii _1iiiiiI 

o 

~ 

1 2 3 4 5 6 KHometers 

N 

+ 
3

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 2 shows the Refuge Wilderness Areas. This designation has far-ranging impacts on the management of

these portions of the Refuge. 

Purposes of Forsythe Refuge

Lands within the Refuge System are acquired and managed under a variety of authorities. These

authorities usually have one or more purposes for which land can be transferred or acquired. Appendix A

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).

Refuge Vision

The following statement was developed to describe the desired future status of Forsythe Refuge. 

"Edwin B. Forsythe Refuge will continue to contain some of the most important migratory bird habitat

in the National Wildlife Refuge System. It will continue to be a focal point for the protection,

management, restoration, and enjoyment of migratory birds and other Federal Trust Resources in

coastal New Jersey. The 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. It will also provide stop-over and wintering habitats of sufficient size and quality to assist in

maintaining migrating birds on the Atlantic Flyway. 

The Refuge will expand its role 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 Refuge 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 restoring wetlands. It will play a critical role in preserving biodiversity

locally, regionally and within the Refuge System.

The Refuge 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
Map 2 

Brigantine National Wilderness Area 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Brigantine Division, Atlantic, and Ocean Counties, New Jersey 

Data Sources: 

USGS, 1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey- other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & other refuge information. 

Map prepared fO!" Jersey Coast Refuges 

Comprehensive Conserva~on Plan, 

January 2001. 

Not to be used for legal or other purposes. 

Great Bay 

o 

o 2 

~ 

c::c, 

2 3 

3 4 5 

no .... uJ 

4 

4 Miles --, 

Kilometers 

Wilderness Areas 

~ Wilderness Areas 

N Primary Route 

N Secondary Route 

N Road or Street 

N Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

USFWS - Owned Land 

Other Conserved Land 

N 

+ 
5

 and cultural attractions of the region. The Refuge will provide wildlife-dependent recreational

opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and

interpretation on Refuge lands. The Refuge 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." 

National and Regional Mandates

This section presents hierarchically, from the national-level to the local-level, highlights of legal mandates,

Service policy, and existing resource plans which directly influenced development of this CCP. 

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, wildlife and plants 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 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (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. The Act does this 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. The Act

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)
6

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: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and

photography, environmental education and interpretation. "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 2 on page 4.)

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 A 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

and Habitat, People, and Leadership

This report (USFWS, March 1999) resulted from the first-ever Refuge System 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 deals with all three of these major topics, and we

have looked to the 42 recommendations for guidance throughout its preparation.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan: Atlantic Coast Joint Venture 

This Plan (USFWS, 1986) documents the strategy among 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. Forsythe Refuge lies

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."
7

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 Forsythe Refuge. 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: Mid-Atlantic 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

Forsythe Refuge.

The draft plan ranks species and habitats on the basis of overall conservation priority. The following first

tier priority land birds breed on the Refuge: 

 

• 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 Forsythe Refuge. The

second-tier is "high physiographic area priority."

 

Also, seven of the eight priority habitat types identified in the plan are found currently or historically on the

Refuge: 

• pine savannah;

• barrier and bay islands;

• salt marsh;

• forested wetland;

• mixed upland forest;
8

• early succession old field and 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 three sites within Forsythe Refuge:

Brigantine/Barnegat Wetlands, Manahawkin Lake, and Reedy Creek.

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 (Trust for Public Lands, 1995) 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 Approach

to Fish and Wildlife Conservation 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 the Service and our partners, who work together to develop goals

and priorities for research and management. 

Forsythe Refuge lies within the Hudson River/New York Bight Ecosystem.

Hudson River/New York Bight Ecosystem Plan

The following resource priorities from this plan (USFWS, September 1994) are relevant to Forsythe

Refuge:
9

• 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-jurisdictional

fish requiring shallow water, salt marshes, adjacent uplands, and coastal lagoons and rivers.

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.

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 Forsythe Refuge, 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.
10

This page intentionally left blank
11

Chapter 2. Planning Process

The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

The effort to prepare a Comprehensive Conservation Plan(CCP) for Forsythe Refuge began in the summer

of 1996. It was part of a joint effort including both Forsythe and Cape May National Wildlife Refuges,

collectively know as the Jersey Coast Refuges. 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, 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 scoping 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.
12

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" 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" 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 Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

(CCP/EA) in compliance with the National Environmental policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 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 1999 at the following locations: Middle Township Municipal 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 B. This summary

also notes where we have changed the draft CCP/EA or why we did not make such changes.

On July 2, 2000 a Revised Draft CCP/EA for the Jersey Coast Refuges was released for 30 days of public

review and comment. A formal public hearing was held July 19, at the Absegami High School in Galloway

Township, Atlantic County, New Jersey. Some 80 people were in attendance. The majority of the speakers,

including a legislative staff member representing Congressman Jim Saxton, were opposed to the proposed

year-round beach closure to motor vehicles at the Holgate Unit of Forsythe Refuge. Most also spoke in

opposition to the proposed seasonal beach closure at the Two Mile Beach Unit of Cape May National

Wildlife Refuge.

During the comment period we received over 1,700 written comments. Of these, 1,159 opposed and 543

supported the proposed beach closures. Many of the latter comments also urged that we petition the State
13

Tidelands Council to close the State owned intertidal area (i.e., the lands below the mean high tide line) on

the Holgate Peninsula to motorized vehicle use. Following the 30-day public review period, we compiled and

responded to the comments received. A summary of the public comments received and the disposition of the

concerns expressed in those comments can be found in Appendix C. 

This CCP, reflecting the Service's Proposed Action for Forsythe Refuge found in the Revised Draft

CCP/EA, is supported by a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), which may be found in Appendix D. 

With the signing of this FONSI by our Regional Director in September 2002, implementation of the CCP

can begin. This CCP will be monitored annually and revised when necessary. 

Figure 1 describes the steps of the Service's CCP process and how it is integrated with the NEPA process.

Planning Issues

Together with the Refuge Vision Statement (page 3), Refuge goals (beginning on page 35), the following key

issues for Forsythe Refuge, and the range of options on how to resolve them, formed the basis for the

preparation of the Draft CCP/EA. 

Managing habitats and wildlife populations

This issue was identified as being very important by the public at our scoping 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. 

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 Forsythe Refuge. 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 scoping meetings, in the workbook and at the workshop. The methods used to control

these species are also of great concern.

Forsythe Refuge has 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 
14

Figure 1. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process and NEPA Compliance.

H. Review & 

Revise Plan 

INEm. 

• l\lEPA CI:mpI:iW1"{!, & 

publ' ill\ Ivcmcnf 

\\1x.'fl <I1~l it.' l* 

G. implement 

Plan, Monitor, & 

Evaluate 

Nl" 

• ~1£PA rollljlli 3J~ ' & Ii c 

m>'d>'mXIJI " fa! JAlIiClll;le 

l 

E Prepare & 

Adopt Final Plan 

A. Pre-planning: 

Plan the Plan 

1-* 

The Comprehensive 

Conservation 

Planning Process & 

NEPA Compliance 

B. T nitiate Public 

Tnvolvement& 

Scoping 

EH\ 

• [\I. :ti. ~ tl~ l:ublic 

• in\'oh' the putiic • .st:U]Je 11£ i.,slIe" 

C. Revje~ Vision 

Statement & Goals, 

& Determine 

Signllkant issues 

)\'EPt\ 

• idettil\ ~gnirlCant is."Ue.S 

J. 
15

honeysuckle, European bittersweet, autumn olive). 

Wildlife species may be deemed overabundant for various management objectives. Overabundant species

(e.g., white-tailed deer), may degrade habitat quality or the overall integrity of an ecological community, or,

in the case of species like raccoon, displace or prey upon other species that are actively being restored. 

Other species (e.g., mosquitos), because of their numbers, may pose a human health risk, (Mosquito

control, page 18). 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 (Control of

resident Canada geese, page 18 and Control of white geese, page 19). Deer and furbearer

control activities are discussed under Increased opportunities for hunting, page 15 and

Managing habitats and wildlife populations, page 13. 

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 at

our scoping meetings, in the workbook and at the workshop. Chemicals and pesticides from activities taking

place on the Refuge or from off-refuge sources may impact fish, wildlife and plants found on Forsythe

Refuge. Such chemicals may be transported to the Refuge 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 Refuge. 

The principle use of pesticides on the Refuge is to control mosquitos and invasive species. For example,

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). 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 Refuge as an important issue during the public scoping meetings, in

the workbook and at the workshop. Some voiced concern over the Service's policy of restricting access to

lands at the Refuge that were historically available for hunting. Others felt that hunting should not be

permitted on the Refuge, 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 Refuge 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. 

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. 
16

Increasing opportunities for fishing

Many people identified fishing on the Refuge as an important issue during the public scoping 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 Refuge are limited. At Forsythe Refuge some opportunities are

provided at several existing access sites. Refuge beaches below mean high tide are under the jurisdiction of

the New Jersey Tidelands Council.

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 Refuge at the public scoping meetings, in the workbook and at the workshop. This high

interest is reflected in the fact that many visitors to the Refuge come to observe the wildlife we manage. 

The fact that Forsythe Refuge is a world-renowned destination 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 Refuge 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

Refuge 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. 
17

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 off-site activities on

wilderness values, and the restoration of native species or natural communities. The single most contentious

issue associated with the public review of both the Draft and Revised 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 scoping meetings, 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 Refuge, but also by working cooperatively with others

to protect non-refuge lands as well. There is considerable interest in increasing land protection efforts at

the Refuge, especially lands supporting federal trust species.

Increasing resource protection and visitor safety

People identified resource protection and visitor safety as a concern during the public scoping 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 the 1980's. Development in Atlantic County

has increased markedly since the birth of the Atlantic City casino industry in the 1980's. As a result, law

enforcement incidents encountered on Forsythe Refuge 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. The Refuge currently en compasses 43,000 acres, along 50

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 Forsythe

Refuge. 

The current staffing level of two 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 Forsythe Refuge are woefully inadequate and need to be replaced. 

This is especially important if the Refuge is to adequately accommodate work space for not only current

staff, but also any future increases in staffing levels that would be required to implement the actions and

strategies in the Refuge CCP. Additional laboratory and equipment storage space is also needed. 

New facilities would help increase our visibility in coastal New Jersey and improve our visitor services,

including providing opportunities for environmental education and interpretation. The 150,000 people, who
18

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.

Issues Outside the Scope of the CCP/EA

These issues did not fall within the scope of The Purpose of and Need for Action and the Decision to be

Made in the CCP/EA. Issues within this category were not addressed. 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 scoping meetings, in the

workbook and at the workshop.

Personal water craft use in the State-managed waters surrounding or adjacent to lands of the Forsythe

Refuge 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 Refuge.

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
19

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 – 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 Forsythe 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.
20

This page intentionally left blank
21

Chapter 3. Summary Refuge and Resource Description

Physical Environment

Climate

Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge (Forsythe Refuge) is 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 35°F in

January, the coldest month of the year, and 75°F in July, the hottest month of the year. The growing season

for the Refuge is 245 days. The growing season is the period of the year in which the average temperature is

43°F 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 “non-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 “acid rain” program). The Service monitors fine particles as part of the Interagency

Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) Program.
22

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

The major aquifer underlying the Refuge is the Kirkwood-Cohansey 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 Kirkwood-Cohansey 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
23

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

were not notably greater than background levels within New Jersey. Fiddler crabs contained higher mean

metal concentrations than mummichogs for all detected metals except zinc. 

There was no strong relationship between the sediment concentrations of metals and those in crabs. 

Inorganic contaminant concentrations in Refuge biota were not notably greater than reference levels and

were less than levels measured in areas known to be polluted. The whole body concentrations of inorganic

contaminants in both fish and crabs were not sufficient to cause acute or sublethal effects to piscivorous

birds and predatory fish. 

Several organic contaminants, dichlorodiphenyl-dichloroethane (DDD), dichlorodiphenyl-dichloroethylene

(DDE), total PCB's, and PCB 77, were detected in measurable quantities in all sediment samples. Levels of

several organic contaminants, particularly the metabolites of DDT (DDD and DDE) were greater than

available reference concentrations from other areas within southern New Jersey. Some of the highest

sediment concentrations of these organic contaminants were detected at sampling stations located just

downstream of inactive cranberry bogs. One bog yielded a DDD concentration of significant ecotoxicological

concern. A few other sampling stations also contained levels of DDE and total chlordane that exceeded

severe toxic effect sediment guidelines. 

Detectable levels of p,p1

-DDD, p,p1-DDE, dieldrin, heptachlor epoxide, oxychlordane, and total PCB's were

found in all crab and fish samples analyzed. Unlike the inorganic contaminant result, crabs did not have

higher organic contaminant levels than fish. Organic contaminant concentrations in Refuge biota were not

notably greater than reference levels and were less than levels measured in areas known to be polluted. 

Body burdens of organic contaminants in mummichogs did not indicate that these fish should be suffering

physiological impairment. The whole body concentrations of organic contaminants in both fish and crabs

were not sufficient to cause acute or sublethal effects to piscivorous birds and predatory fish. 

Overall, the contaminant levels in sediment and biota from the Forsythe Refuge, with some exceptions, were

found to be low and of little concern with regard to the potential for adverse effects on resident biota or their

predators. Exceptions were limited to seven sampling stations where the concentrations of DDD, DDE, or

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

Forsythe 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 the Refuge is

the coastal estuaries and associated watershed. The Refuge 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. 
24

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 E). 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 is wetland, and 18% is upland. Salt marsh makes up about 78% of the Refuge

land. 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 grid-ditched 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. 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 brushdominated 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. 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. 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. 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
25

upland forest. The Holgate Unit and Little Beach Island, which are part of the Brigantine Wilderness Area,

represent these community types.

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 so designated in the United States. During a December 6,

1991, aerial survey of the Refuge, 85,570 waterfowl were observed. The highest waterfowl concentrations at

the Refuge do not occur until late December. Weekly waterfowl counts conducted at the Brigantine Division

Impoundments indicate waterfowl populations nearly double from early in the month, so it is possible nearly

180,000 birds use the Refuge during the peak period.

Many marsh and water birds use the Refuge. The most common include great blue heron (Ardea herodias),

great egret (Casmerodious albus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax

nycticorax), glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus) and cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis). Herons and egrets nest on or

near the Refuge, frequently foraging in the salt marshes, streams, ponds, and impoundments. Until

recently, least terns and black skimmers nested in substantial numbers on Holgate and other barrier/bay

islands. 

Shorebird use of the Refuge peaks during the spring migration. The most common species are: sanderling

(Calidris alba), semi-palmated sandpiper (Calidris pusilla), dunlin (Calidris alpina), semi-palmated plovers

(Charadrius semipalmatus), short-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus), willet (Catoptrophorus

semipalmatus), greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca), lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes), black-bellied

plover (Pluvialis squatarola), least sandpiper (Caladris minutilla), ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres),
26

red knot (Caladris canutus), whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus), spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularia) and

pectoral sandpiper (Calidris melanotos).

Many raptors breed on the Forsythe Refuge, including: red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), turkey

vulture (Cathartes aura), sharp-shinned hawks (Accipiter striatus), broad-winged hawks (Buteo

platypterus), red-shouldered hawks (Buteo lineatus), northern harriers (Circus cyaneus), great horned owls

(Bubo virginianus), common barn owls (Tyto alba), barred owls (Strix varia), 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, Neotropical migrants have

shown recent population declines due to habitat loss and deterioration in wintering areas and along

migration corridors.

Mammals: Over 30 species of mammals occur on the Refuge, in assemblages characteristic of the MidAtlantic coastal communities. Forest species include red fox (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 species of bats occur in forested habitat types during the summer breeding season. Forest openings

are 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 the vicinity.

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).
27

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 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
28

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. The

dikes surrounding the impoundments at the Brigantine Division serve as an 8-mile auto tour for the public. 

The Brigantine impoundment area accounts for about one-half of the Refuge visitors. The impoundment

area is renowned as one of the premier birding sites in North America. A recent study shows that birders

alone, who make up about 75% of the auto tour visitors, annually add about $4.01 million to the local

economy (Kerlinger, 1995).

Wildlife-dependent public use at the Refuge is consistent with the primary industry for the region–tourism. 

The New Jersey shore has long been a major tourist destination. Boating, fishing, hunting, shellfishing, and

beach-related pursuits are typical for tourists. Most of the tourists come from major nearby metropolitan

centers: Philadelphia, Newark, and New York City.

Over the last 20 years, the development of casinos and related industries has created a large influx of people. 

This has spurred the rapid construction of housing and support infrastructure (e.g., roads, malls, plazas,

utility towers and corridors). 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 (all-terrain vehicles,

personal watercraft).

4. Water consumption - reducing subsurface and surface waters due to irrigation, home consumption,

and industrial applications.
29

There is a substantial commercial fishing industry in southern New Jersey. 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 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? 
30

This page intentionally left blank
31

Chapter 4. Management Direction

Refuge Management Policies and Guidelines

Compatibility Determinations

Federal law, regulation 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

current and future Americans can enjoy Refuge System lands and waters. The National Wildlife Refuge

System Administration Act of 1966, 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

"compatible use." A compatible use is a use, "...that will not materially interfere with or detract from the

fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge." "Wildlife-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 Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge (Forsythe Refuge). These

compatibility determinations remain in effect and are being re-certified as part of this effort to prepare a

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Refuge.

Pre-acquisition Compatibility Determinations

A pre-acquisition compatibility determination assesses the compatibility of an existing priority general

public use during the period from the time we first acquires a parcel of land to when a formal long-term

management plan for the parcel is prepared and adopted. Pre-acquisition compatibility determinations for

Forsythe Refuge have been completed for the six priority general public uses of the System listed in the

Refuge Improvement Act, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education

and interpretation. (See Table 1.) The pre-acquisition compatibility determination for Forsythe Refuge

may be found in Appendix F. The Act defines these six priority general public uses as "wildlife-dependent

recreation" and "wildlife-dependent recreational use." 

The pre-acquisition compatibility determinations for Forsythe Refuge cover the existing priority general

public uses occurring within the Land Protection Focus Areas (Focus Areas) described in this CCP. (See

Land Protection Focus Areas on page 33 and Maps 3a, b, c, and d beginning on page 51.) These

Focus Areas are lands that have been added to the approved Refuge acquisition boundary. 

Several of the six priority general public uses occur on lands within these 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 occurring within these Focus Areas would be

compatible with the mission of the Refuge System and the purposes for which Forsythe Refuge was

established. The 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
32

Table 1. Pre-acquisition Compatibility for Wildlife-dependent Recreational Activities at Forsythe Refuge.

Wildlife-dependent Recreational Activities Existing Use? Compatible Use? 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

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 these

Focus Areas. To eliminate conflicts between user groups, we would terminate bicycling on property within

the 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 these Focus Areas.

These activities negatively impact physical and biological resources, and are therefore not compatible with

the purposes for which ForsytheRefuge was established. To eliminate negative impacts, we would

terminate these activities on property within the Focus Areas as soon as the Service acquired and posted a

property within these areas.

Potential Land Protection Methods

We will focus our land protection efforts on lands adjacent to Service-owned lands within existing Refuge

boundaries, and also to larger contiguous tracts. Funding for land acquisition will come from the Land and

Water Conservation Fund and the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. Known hazardous waste sites or

contaminated areas will be excluded from consideration. All land transactions are subject to contaminant

surveys. 

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. 
33

Land Acquisition Areas

We have identified 3,348 acres for acquisition to provide long-term protection to the numerous species of

shorebirds, neotropical migratory landbirds, waterfowl, long-legged waders, raptors, finfish and shellfish,

and threatened and endangered species. (See Maps 3a, b, c, and d beginning on page 51 and Appendix M on

page 165.) Our objectives are to protect:

• 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).

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 2000, the

Service paid, $106,651 to Ocean County communities, $8,049 to Burlington County communities, and $74,335

to Atlantic 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 2000 were 57.9% 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).
34

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 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.

Ecosystem Services

Refuge lands provide substantial value to society through ecosystem services. These services (e.g., 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

G lists 17 ecosystem services, the related ecosystem functions, and examples of how society benefits from

them.

Accessibility

Forsythe 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. In implementing this CCP, 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.

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Summary Statement

Under this CCP, all lands above mean high tide in the Holgate Unit of the Brigantine Wilderness Area are

closed to motor vehicle use year-round in compliance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act. We are also

initiating efforts to establish a seasonal boat concession to ferry anglers and other Refuge visitors to the

southern tip of the Holgate Peninsula. 

We will seek to increase Refuge staffing and funding levels and 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.
35

We will place special emphasis 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, will help us estimate the volume and impacts

of public use, and adapt our management strategies for that use. 

Refuge Goals, Objectives and Strategies

This section presents long-term guidance for the Refuge in the form of goals, objectives and strategies. 

Refuge goals are qualitative statements that define what the Refuge must be to satisfy the Refuge purposes,

legal mandates, and the needs of citizens and agencies having a vital interest in what and how the Refuge

performs. These goals highlight specific elements of our vision statement which will be emphasized in future

management. Objectives provide quantitative bench marks that indicate progress toward achieving Refuge

purposes and goals. Strategies are specific actions or projects that will lead to the accomplishment of our

objectives.

Goal 1. Protect and enhance Federal trust resources and other species and habitats of special

concern.

Objective 1. Continue managing the Refuge to support 25 nesting pairs of piping plovers at Holgate and

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

Strategies a. Continue closing 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. 

b. Protect and monitor the piping plover (Federally listed threatened species). 

c. Continue management activities including:

• identifying nests;

• establishing exclosures to protect nests;

• trapping mammalian predators in piping plover areas (e.g., raccoon, red

fox and feral cats) (Map 4d on page 58); 

• monitoring plover numbers on a regular basis. 

Objective 2. Manage the Refuge to protect the swamp pink, a Federally listed threatened species.

Strategies a. Protect and monitor the swamp pink.

b. Implement management techniques to improve habitat quality or increase

population size or vigor.

 

Objective 3. Expand our efforts to protect other endangered and threatened species on the Refuge.

Strategies a. Survey all Refuge lands for currently and potentially occurring threatened and

endangered species (Federal and State-listed). 
36

b. Protect and manage any newly discovered occurrences to maintain or expand those

populations. 

c. Conduct a feasibility assessment for sites where a listed species does not currently

occur, but could potentially be restored. Attempt to restore species at restoration

sites with a reasonable chance for success.

Objective 4. Manage the Brigantine Wilderness Area so as to protect and preserve its wilderness values. 

(See Map 2 on page 4.)

Strategies a. By October 1, 2002, close all lands above mean high tide in the Holgate Unit to

motor vehicle (also referred to as off-road vehicles or ORVs) use year-round.

b. Seasonal motor vehicle use (September through March) would continue under

State law, only in the adjacent State-owned riparian lands, below mean high tide. 

The riparian lands are not part of the Refuge or the Wilderness Area.

c. Given the fact that the mean high tide line is difficult to identify on the ground, we

will use the berm crest and/or wet sand/dry sand lines, which are more readily

identifiable, as proxies on the beach at the Holgate Unit for the Wilderness

boundary. All motorized vehicles will need to stay below the berm crest and wet

sand/dry sand lines while they are on the Holgate Unit to avoid violating the

Brigantine Wilderness Area. Educational efforts to familiarize anglers and refuge

visitors with this new policy will be implemented beginning October 1, 2002.

d. Encourage greater use of the Wilderness Area by other Refuge visitors, in

appropriate seasons and locations, through guided tours or Refuge special use

permits. Restrict access to highly sensitive areas.

e. Scrutinize all planned management actions to determine of they are necessary to

protect wilderness resources and determine the "minimum tool" needed to carry

them out. We would not use a tool simply because it is the most comfortable,

convenient, or least expensive.

f. Continue National Atmospheric Monitoring Program (NADP) and Interagency

Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring programs. 

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.

g. Develop a detailed step-down Wilderness Management Plan for the existing

Brigantine Wilderness Area by 2005. 

h. By 2010 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.

Objective 5. Inventory, map and monitor Refuge wildlife and habitats. 

Strategies a. Conduct comprehensive baseline flora and fauna surveys of plants, invertebrates,

fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. 
37

b. From the baseline surveys (including song bird point counts, frog call surveys, and

Monitoring Avian Production and Survivorship banding stations), establish a

long-term monitoring program (e.g., sample a group for five years, every 15 years). 

c. 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. 

d. Develop a computer archive of data and publications to ensure access to

information for staff, partners, and the public. 

e. 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.

f. 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.

g. Encourage research not only by identifying needs, but in co-developing research

proposals and pursuing funding through Service and non-Service sources. New

research would include the: 

• impact of mosquito control techniques, such as pesticide applications and

Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM), on habitat and wildlife;

• impact of different kinds and levels of public use on habitat and wildlife;

• impact of public use on the dynamics of beach and shoreline environment;

• impact of watershed development on water quality/quantity and wetland

resources;

• impact of restoring 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. 

Objective 6. Expand efforts to protect and enhance other species and habitats of special concern.

Strategies a. Provide technical assistance to local communities and partners, on wildlife-related

issues (e.g., wildlife and habitat monitoring; contaminant spill planning/response).
38

b. Initiate efforts to restore colonial nesting birds to barrier and bay islands. Initiate

research, if necessary, to determine limiting factors to successful restoration of

bird colonies.

c. 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.

d. Continue current trapping efforts under contract and Refuge special use permits

(Maps 4a, b, c and d, beginning on page 55) to:

• protect Refuge infrastructure (e.g., muskrats that burrow in Refuge

dikes);

• maintain furbearer populations at levels consistent with objectives for

Refuge and surrounding habitat would be continued.

e. Expand public trapping opportunities for raccoon, fox, muskrat, coyote and beaver,

under Refuge special use permits (Maps 4a, b, and c beginning on page 55), to

better manage furbearer populations in the:

• Reedy Creek area in Brick Township;

• Stouts Creek area in Lacey Township;

• Four Mile Branch Bogs area in Stafford Township.

Goal 2. Maintain and/or restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy, functioning

ecosystems.

Objective 1. Complete the revision of the step-down Habitat Management Plan for the Refuge by 2002.

Strategies a. Use existing preliminary habitat prescriptions for all currently owned Refuge lands

as the basis for the step-down plan. These prescriptions were 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). (See Maps 5a, b, c and d

beginning on page 59.)

b. Consider 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) in establishing site specific prescriptions.

c. Implement the following guiding principles in developing specific habitat

prescriptions:

• restore salt marshes to pre-grid-ditched hydrology;

• maximize grasslands or fields for open land character;
39

• maximize forests for interior character;

• maintain scrub/shrub between forest and grassland to create soft

boundaries;

• buffer sensitive areas;

• use only native plant species and local genotypes in restoration projects;

• favor low maintenance habitat strategies, taking advantage of driving

systems processes;

• use pre-colonial baseline to define native species, community composition,

and landscape configuration;

• use natural regeneration to convert or restore habitat types, unless there

are no seed sources, there are threats from exotic species, or physical

stabilization is required.

d. 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 and Forest Service.

Objective 2. Manage 27,956 acres as Salt Marsh by maintaining 5,547 acres of existing pristine

unditched marsh that is part of the Brigantine Wilderness Area, restoring 22,388 acres of

parallel grid-ditched marsh to pre-ditching hydrology, and restoring 12 acres of Dredged

Lagoon, three acres of Developed land, and two acres of Upland Brush.

Objective 3. Manage 5,659 acres of Upland Forest by maintaining 4,841acres of existing Upland Forest,

converting 733 acres from Upland Brush and 30 acres from Crop-Pasture by allowing them

to regrow, and restoring 49 acres of Developed land, three acres of Dredged Lagoon, and a

three acre Sand-Gravel Pit.

Objective 4. Maintain 1,685 acres of existing marsh in the Brigantine and Barnegat Impoundment

Systems. Actively manipulate water levels and flow throughout the year to produce mud

flats, deep water (with submerged aquatic vegetation), moist soil (with annual wetland

plants), and salt marsh. Obtain additional resources needed to replace obsolete water

control structures and continue rehabilitation of the dikes.

Objective 5. Maintain 589 acres 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. Create 11 acres of 

barrier island Dune-Beach habitat from a Dredge Spoil site.

Objective 6. Maintain 581 acres of existing Wetland Forests and restore 2 acres from a Sand-Gravel Pit. 

Additional research may support Atlantic White Cedar restoration in current Wetland

Forest sites.
40

Objective 7. Maintain 197 acres of existing Wetland/Bog Brush, generally in a complex with Cedar

Swamp Forests. Restore one 36 acre site, Cedar Run Bog, a former diked cranberry bog,

to its pre-diked shoreline and open fish passage.

Objective 8. Manage 196 acres of early succession Brushy Uplands by maintaining 112 acres in a brushy

state through use of mechanical or fire techniques, converting 34 acres of Crop-Pasture or

Developed Land to brush by allowing it to regrow, and setting back 50 acres of Upland

Forest to a brushy state.

Objective 9. Manage 178 acres of Grassland habitat (native grasses and forbs) by restoring 139 acres of

Developed Lands (includes dikes of impoundments), 24 acres of Crop-Pasture, 15 acres of

Dredge Spoil Site, and 15 acres of Upland Brush. Actively restore areas currently covered

with grasses and forbs that are dominated by exotic and invasive species, to native species.

Objective 10. Maintain 118 acres in salt marshes and bays of the estuary as Forest Island, and

rehabilitate 93 acres of Dredge Spoil sites.

Objective 11. Maintain 96 acres as Open Fresh Water, with a priority to remove any fish passage

obstructions. Monitor non-Refuge navigable waters for water quality and fish and wildlife

use in cooperation with the State.

Objective 12. Maintain 45 acres of existing Fresh Non-tidal Marsh.

Objective 13. Maintain 24 acres of existing Pitch-Pine Lowland Forest.

Objective 14. Maintain 239 acres of existing Cedar Swamp Forest and restore 20 acres of Sand-Gravel

Pit.

Objective 15. Seventeen acres associated with offices and other Refuge facilities would remain Developed

Land. Landscape these areas with native plants to support Refuge activities and reduce

negative impacts on wildlife.

Objective 16. Maintain 15 acres of existing Dredged Lagoon unless further study indicates that it could

be converted to another cover type, such as Salt Marsh, in a legal and ecologically sound

manner.

Objective 17. Complete the revision of the step-down Fire Management Plan and Burn Prescriptions in

2001 and apply prescribed fire to all of the upland habitats.

Strategies a. Upland Forest - burn once every 8-15 years to reduce hazardous fuel, overstory

stand density, and understory density, increase heath or grass/forb density, and

control invasive species.

b. Upland Brush - burn once every 5-15 years to reduce hazardous fuel, set back

succession, and control invasive species.

c. Grassland - burn once every 1-3 years to reduce hazardous fuel, set back succession

(woody growth), and control invasive species.

d. Refine burn frequency and prescriptions through research and monitoring.
41

Objective 18. Develop and implement an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program with control

strategies for phragmites and at least six other problem species by 2003. 

Strategies a. Continue a combination of herbicide use, prescribed burning, mowing and water

level management to remove approximately 150 acres of phragmites per year in

Refuge impoundments. 

b. Survey invasive and overabundant species on the Refuge.

c. Establish a monitoring program, in concert with habitat monitoring, to assess

progress and identify additional problem species. 

d. Research alternative methods of controlling certain species.

e. Offer technical assistance and support on invasive species control efforts on nearby

public and private lands.

f. Continue public hunting to control populations of snow geese and resident Canada

geese. Continue nest disruption efforts on the Refuge to limit production of

resident Canada geese. Continue these activities until further planning prescribes

other actions.

Objective 19. Reduce use of pesticides on the Refuge.

Strategies a. Continue current levels of pesticide use for phragmites and mosquito control, which

largely follow an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach, until acceptable

substitutes are identified. 

b. Complete renegotiation of the Cooperative Agreement with county mosquito

control agencies and the State regarding mosquito control activities on the Refuge.

c. Aggressively pursue alternatives to pesticide use. 

d. Offer technical assistance on IPM strategies to local communities for controlling

common problem species.

Goal 3. Establish a land protection program to support species, habitat and ecosystem goals.

Objective 1. Acquire the remaining 12,300 acres of privately owned land within the currently approved

56,600 acre Refuge acquisition boundary. The approved Refuge acquisition area includes

the 535-acre New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife’s Forked River State Game Farm in

Lacey Township. (See Maps 3a, b, c and d beginning on page 51.) 

Strategies a. Continue buying from willing sellers and focusing our land acquisition efforts on

developable upland properties first.

b. Obtain the $19.7 million in funding needed to acquire the remaining 12,300 acres of

land within the approved Refuge acquisition area (average cost of $1,600 per acre). 

(The average annual Land and Water Conservation appropriation for this Refuge,

based on the five-year period, FY-1995/1999, is $1,700,000.)
42

c. 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).

Objective 2. Work to protect 3,348 acres of wildlife habitat essential to the long-term ecological integrity

of the Refuge. (See Maps 3a, b, c and d beginning on page 51 and Appendix M on page 165.)

Strategies a. Acquire 3,348 acres, which were defined in cooperation with the State, local

municipalities and our conservation partners.

b. Obtain the $11 million in funding needed to acquire all 3,348 acres (average cost of

$3,300 per acre). (This would require increasing the average annual Land and

Water Conservation Fund appropriation for Forsythe Refuge by about $800,000

for the next fifteen years. For the five-year period, FY-1995/1999, the average

annual Land and Water Conservation funding for this Refuge was about $1.7

million.)

c. Expand our land planning efforts with municipalities, counties, and the State.

d. Expand our efforts to work with public and private landowners to implement

wildlife habitat protection and restoration off Service-owned land. 

Goal 4. Provide opportunities for high-quality compatible, wildlife-dependent public use.

Objective 1. Continue to provide compatible deer hunting opportunities, by permit, in the following Deer

Management Zones (DMZs) ( Maps 6a, b, and c beginning on page 63.):

a. DMZ 56 in Atlantic County, south of Stoney Hill Road (20 permits for shotgun

season);

b. DMZ 57 in Atlantic County, north of Stoney Hill Road (35 permits for shotgun

season, 35 permits for bow season, and 35 permits for muzzle loader season);

c. DMZ 58 in Burlington and Ocean Counties (50 permits for shotgun season, 35

permits for bow season, and 40 permits for muzzle loader season).

Objective 2. Expand compatible big game hunting opportunities on the Refuge by 2003. (See Maps 6a,

b, and c beginning on page 63.)

Strategies a. Initiate a universally accessible hunt in DMZ 56 during the permit shotgun or

permit muzzle loader seasons.

b. Expand deer hunting opportunities in DMZ 58 to include:

• Forked River Game Farm, Lacey Township;

• Former AT&T property, Lacey Township;
43

• 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).

c. Weigh the following factors in expanding big game hunting opportunities: 

• the size and configuration of new Refuge-owned properties;

• the availability of public access;

• safety considerations including the State mandated 450-foot safety zone

around buildings and playgrounds. 

d. Reduce big game hunting activities if we determine that incompatible levels of use

are occurring.

Objective 3. Provide compatible game hunting opportunities on the Refuge by 2005.

Strategies a. 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 7

on page 66.)

b. Establish a parking and sign-in area at the old McDonald house site, located on

Route 9 in New Gretna.

c. Weigh the following factors in expanding upland game hunting opportunities: 

• the size and configuration of new Refuge-owned properties;

• the availability of public access;

• safety considerations including the State mandated 450-foot safety zone

around buildings and playgrounds. 

d. Reduce upland game hunting activities if we determine that incompatible levels of

use are occurring.

Objective 4. Continue to provide compatible migratory bird hunting opportunities on the Refuge.

Strategies a. Continue current waterfowl, rail and moorhen hunting opportunities in designated

hunt units on about 40% of Refuge lands. (See Maps 8a, b, c, and d beginning on

page 67.)

b. Continue to allow migratory game bird hunting in salt marshes that are in

designated migratory game bird hunt units within the Brigantine Wilderness Area. 
44

c. Make the following changes in current 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.

d. Make detailed maps of the migratory game bird hunting units available at Refuge

headquarters.

Objective 5. Expand compatible migratory game bird hunting opportunities on the Refuge by 2003.

Strategies a. Open additional areas for waterfowl hunting within the following areas (Maps 8a, b,

c and d beginning on page 67):

• 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.

b. Weigh the following factors in expanding migratory game bird hunting

opportunities 

• the size and configuration of new Refuge-owned properties;

• the availability of public access;

• safety considerations including the State mandated 450-foot safety zone

around buildings and playgrounds. 

c. Reduce migratory bird hunting activities if we determine that incompatible levels

of use are occurring.

Objective 6. Continue to provide compatible fishing opportunities on the Refuge. (See Maps 9a and b

beginning on page 71.)
45

Strategies a. Operate the boat launching ramp and car parking at Scotts Landing (Atlantic

County, Galloway Township).

b. Provide freshwater fishing opportunities at Lilly Lake (Atlantic County, Galloway

Township), including bank fishing from the south shore and boat fishing. Boats

may not have internal combustion engines.

c. Upgrade saltwater fishing and crabbing opportunities at:

• Cedar Creek, Stafford Avenue, Stafford Township, Ocean County;

• Cedar Run, Cedar Run Dock Road, Eagleswood Township, Ocean County;

• Parker Run, Dock Street, Little Egg Harbor Township, Ocean County.

d. Motorized vehicles are not permitted beyond designated parking areas at any of

these locations.

Objective 7. Expand compatible fishing opportunities on the Refuge. (See Maps 9a and b beginning on

page 71.)

Strategies a. Provide the following new fishing opportunities:

• universally accessible saltwater fishing and crabbing opportunities on the

Mullica River (Atlantic County, City of Port Republic) off U. S. Route 9 by

2005;

• upgrade the saltwater fishing & crabbing opportunities at Cedar Creek,

Cedar Run Creek and Parker Run by 2006;

• a universally accessible freshwater fishing pier at Cedar Run Bog (Ocean

County, Stafford Township) west of U. S. Route 9 by 2007. 

b. Develop a Refuge fishing guide.

c. We will investigate the possibility of establishing an experimental shuttle service

which would take anglers and other refuge visitors from a convenient location to

the tip of the Holgate Unit from September through mid-November. 

d. Open Little Beach Island (Atlantic County, Galloway Township) through Refuge

special use permits to seasonal (September through March) surf fishing. 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. 

e. Offer seasonal saltwater surf fishing opportunities within the Brigantine

Wilderness Area at the Holgate Unit when the beach is open to public access from

September through March. Access either by foot, both above and below mean high

tide, or by motorized vehicle driving only below mean high tide.

f. Reduce fishing activities if we determine that incompatible levels of use are

occurring.
46

Objective 8. Continue to provide compatible wildlife observation and photography opportunities on the

Refuge. (See Maps 10a, b, c and d beginning on page 73.)

Strategies a. 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 impoundments;

• seasonally (from September through March) at the Holgate Unit of the

Brigantine Wilderness Area. 

b. Allow Refuge visitors to bicycle and walk on the Wildlife Drive. 

c. Monitor and periodically review these activities to determine if they are negatively

impacting wildlife resources or create conflicts with other users. Curtail these

activities ff it is determined that impacts or conflicts are occurring.

Objective 9. Expand compatible wildlife observation and photography opportunities on the Refuge. (See

Maps 10a, b, c and d beginning on page 73.)

a. Open new foot trails, with appropriate parking areas, entrance kiosks, and

interpretive wayside signs at the following locations:

• Four Mile Branch Bogs, Stafford Township by 2005;

• Stouts Creek (Murray Grove), Lacy Township by 2008;

• Cedar Run Bog, Stafford Township by 2010;

• Collinstown Road, Barnegat Township by 2014.

b. Provide new wildlife observation and photography opportunities as follows:

• complete the existing trail and add an observation platform at the Reedy

Creek Trail in Brick Township by 2007;

• construct universally accessible observation platforms, with appropriate

parking areas, at Bonnet Island, Stafford Township by 2006, & off the

Wildlife Drive, overlooking the Experimental Pool by 2003;

• develop parking sites & kiosks for canoeists & kayakers at Westecunk

Creek by 2008 & Cedar Run Creek by 2012.

c. Offer seasonal wildlife observation and photography opportunities at the Holgate

Unit of the Brigantine Wilderness Area, 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. 
47

d. Open Little Beach Island (Atlantic County, Galloway Township) through Refuge

special use permits to seasonal (September through March) wildlife observation

and photography. We would use these special use permits to limit the numbers and

impacts of visitors to the island.

e. Reduce wildlife observation and photography activities if we determine that

incompatible levels of use are occurring.

Objective 10. Continue to provide compatible environmental education and interpretation opportunities

both on and off the Refuge. (See Maps 10a, b, c and d beginning on page 73.) 

Strategies a. Complete the renovation of the Refuge auditorium, and installation of new displays.

b. Provide class visit planning and informational assistance as needed.

c. Provide Refuge special use permits to environmental education classes for such

activities as seining or collecting soil, water, or vegetation samples.

d. The newly developed Friends of Forsythe would give occasional group tours of the

wildlife drive, when requested in advance.

e. Maintain the interpretive signs and provide Refuge brochures at all of our existing

Refuge public use sites.

Objective 11. Expand compatible environmental education and interpretation opportunities both on and

off the Refuge. (See Maps 10a, b, c and d beginning on page 73.) 

Strategies a. Increase our participation in local environmental education and outreach events.

b. Develop and initiate outreach to groups and organizations with which the Service

has not typically interacted. 

c. 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 in our outreach efforts and environmental

education.

d. Increase the availability of interpretive opportunities and information:

• in new and existing public use areas;

• develop two outdoor classroom sites along the Wildlife Drive;

• provide teacher workshops;

• develop a Refuge video;

• develop wildlife learning materials for children;

• develop materials focusing on hunters and anglers;
48

• develop five new Refuge brochures;

• increase involvement and partnership with the educational community;

• add scheduled seasonal nature tours at the Wildlife Drive, the Holgate

Unit of the Brigantine Wilderness Area, and Reedy Creek (with the help of

partners such as Friends of Forsythe).

e. Develop partnerships with the New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection, local chambers of commerce, and others to emphasize the values of

wilderness and:

• increase the public's understanding and appreciation of the Brigantine

Wilderness Area;

• identify new compatible uses for the area;

• identify other alternatives to enhance the Wilderness quality and value to

local communities of the Brigantine Wilderness Area. 

f. Conduct outreach to increase awareness of the Brigantine Wilderness Area, using

TV, calendars, posters, presentations, etc..

g. Reduce environmental education and interpretation activities if we determine that

incompatible levels of use are occurring.

Objective 12. Increase our resource protection and visitor safety efforts on the Refuge.

Strategies a. Hire three new full-time Park Rangers, in addition to our current law enforcement

staff, to better protect resources and visitors.

Objective 13. Provide new headquarters and visitor facilities on the Refuge. (See Maps 11a, b, and c

beginning on page 77.)

Strategies a. Construct new Refuge headquarters office and visitor center building(s) at the

Brigantine Division by 2008. Provide office space for Refuge employees, as well as

for the Service's New Jersey Field Office and Law Enforcement employees. 

Consider providing office space for personnel from our conservation partners (e.g.,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries

Service, New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, etc.). 

b. Conduct a Site Requirement Analysis. We have identified several potential sites

for the new facility at the Brigantine Division (see Map 11c on page 79), including:

• 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;
49

• the Sim's Mansion area in Bass River Township;

• the Werbler Tract area in Little Egg Harbor Township. 

c. The final decision on the location and construction of a new headquarters office and

visitor center building(s) will be evaluated in a separate NEPA document at a later

date. Criteria for site selection include:

• 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. 

d. Construct a new office and visitor contact building for the Barnegat Division along

U.S. Route 9 in Ocean Township, Ocean County by 2008. The proposed site for the

new facility is shown in Map 11b on page 78.
50

Map 3a. Land Protection Focus Areas. Page 51

Map 3b. Land Protection Focus Areas. Page 52

Map 3c. Land Protection Focus Areas. Page 53

Map 3d. Land Protection Focus Areas. Page 54

Map 4a. Trapping. Page 55

Map 4b. Trapping. Page 56

Map 4c. Trapping. Page 57

Map 4d. Trapping. Page 58

Map 5a. Habitat Management. Page 59

Map 5b. Habitat Management. Page 60

Map 5c. Habitat Management. Page 61

Map 5d. Habitat Management. Page 62

Map 6a. Big Game Hunting. Page 63

Map 6b. Big Game Hunting. Page 64

Map 6c. Big Game Hunting. Page 65

Map 7. Upland Game Hunting. Page 66

Map 8a. Migratory Game Bird Hunting. Page 67

Map 8b. Migratory Game Bird Hunting. Page 68

Map 8c. Migratory Game Bird Hunting. Page 69

Map 8d. Migratory Game Bird Hunting. Page 70

Map 9a. Fishing. Page 71

Map 9b. Fishing. Page 72

Map 10a. Wildlife Observation and Interpretation. Page 73

Map 10b. Wildlife Observation and Interpretation. Page 74

Map 10c. Wildlife Observation and Interpretation. Page 75

Map 10d. Wildlife Observation and Interpretation. Page 76

Map 11b. Office and Visitor Facilities. Page 78

Map 11c. Office and Visitor Facilities. Page 79
Proposed Refuge Expansion Areas 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Barnegat Division, Ocean County, New Jersey, Group A 

Map3a 

~7/.J. Propos~d Refuge 

.£' / Ld ExpanSIon Areas 

Data Sources: 

USGS -1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & other refuge infonnation. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

Comprehensive ConservaUon Plan, 

November 2001. 

This map is for planning purposes only. 

2 3 4 Miles 

0i--...... i... __ 21--........ 3 __ ;,j4 ..............,. T Kilometers 

51 

IV 

N 

IV 

N 

Primary Route 

Secondary Route 

Road or Street 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

USFWS - Owned Land 

Other Conserved Land 
3b 

Proposed Refuge Expansion Areas 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Data Sources: 

USGS -1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge information. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

Comprehensive ConservaUon Plan, 

Novomber 2001. 

This map is for planning purposes only. 

o 

Little Egg 

Harbor 

Trn.lInB 

t1 

2 3 4 Miles 

52 

Primary Route 

Secondary Route 

Road or Street 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

USFWS ~ Owned Land 

N 

+ 
Proposed Refuge Expansion Areas 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Map3c 

Brigantine Division, Atlantic, Burlington and Ocean Counties, New Jersey, Group C 

Proposed Refuge 

Expansion Areas 

Primary Roule 

Secondary Route 

Road or Street 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

USFWS - Owned Land 

Data Sources: 

USGS -1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge information. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 

November 2001. 

This map is for planning purposes only. 

Great Bay 

2 

o 2 3 

53 

3 

4 5 

3 

4 Miles -- -- ) 

Kilometers 

Little Egg 

Harbor 

N 

+ 
Map 3d 

Proposed Refuge Expansion Areas 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Proposed Refuge 

Expansion Areas 

Primary Route 

Secondary Route 

Road or Street 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

USFWS - Owned Land 

other Conserved land 

Data Sources: 

USGS -1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge information. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 

November 2001. 

This map is for planning purposes only. 

Reeds Bay 

0;.,---_, ............ ioo ___ ~2 ............ ~3 ____ .. 4< Miles 

0~L .... ..;, __ ~2 .... ...;,:3 __ ;;;4 ...... ...; __ r Kilometers 

54 

N 

+ 
Data Sources: 

Trapping Areas 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Barnegat Division, Ocean County, New.TI!Y·sl!V 

Mantoloking 

Lavallette 

Seaside Heights 

Brigantine 

Division 

Trapping Areas 

~ Proposed Trapping Areas 

[/77J Proposed When Acquired 

[L/--.LI Trapping Areas 

AI 

N 

N 

N 

Primary Route 

Secondary Route 

Road or Street 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

USFWS - OWned land 

other Conserved Land 

N 

4a 

USGS ~ 1:100,000 roads & hydro. New Jersey - other protected lands. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge information. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

Comprehensive Conservafion Plan, 

January 2001. 

This map is for planning purposes only. 

o 

L 

2 3 4 Miles 

O;... ...... I.. __ 2~ ...... 31-__ 4;:.. ........ ..I_J Kilometers + 

55 
Map4b 

Trapping Areas 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Barnegat Division, Ocean County, New Jersey 

Trapping Areas 

Data Sources: USGS -1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge information. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

Comprehensive Cons8!Vation Plan, 

January 2001. 

This map is for planning purposes only. 

O~L~ ............ ..;. ____ ~2;.. ......... ..;;3 ____ ;;I4 Miles 

o 2 3 4 5 Kilometers i=..;..;......,Oiiiii= ....... ......"".,;...........;~J 

56 

At 

N 

N 

N 

Existing Trapping Areas 

Proposed Trapping Areas 

Proposed When Acquired 

Trapping Areas 

Primary Route 

Secondary Route 

Road or Street 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

USFWS - Owned Land 

other Conserved Land 

N 

+ 
Map4c 

Trapping Areas 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Barnegat Division, Ocean County, New Jersey ~------------,,~ 

Data Sources: 

Little Egg 

Harbor 

USGS -1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge information. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

Comprehensivo Conservaljon Plan, 

January 2001. 

This map Is for planning purposes only. 

t 

"Q) 

0 

.~ 

;; 

~!;j 

ff' 

if 

0 2 

Ln_ i-o ......... oooiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJ ............. 3;;,.;...,...,...,-.i4 Miles 

0 2 3 

L. i--...... oioiiiiiiiiiioij. ...... ...;ioooiiiiiiiiii4,;.. ...... .;-5 Kilometers 

57 

Brigantine 

Division 

Trapping Areas 

- Existing Trapping Areas 

- Proposed Trapping Areas 

~ Proposed When Acquired 

Trapping Areas 

At Primary Route 

N Secondary Route 

N Road or Street 

N Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

USFWS - Owned land 

Other Conserved Land 
Map4d 

Trapping Areas 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Brigantine Division, Atlantic, Burlington, and Ocean Counties, New Jersey 

Great Bay 

Data Sources: 

Trapping Areas 

Existing Trapping Areas 

Primary Route 

Secondary Route 

Road or Street 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

USFWS - Owned Land 

N USGS -1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge information. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

Compreh&nsive Conservation Plan, 

January 2001. 

This map is for planning purposes only. 

o 2 

o 2 3 + 

3 4 Miles . . ~'" "'~'7 

4 5 Kilometers 

.J 

58 
Map5a 

Habitat Management 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Data Sources: 

USGS, 1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge information. 

Map prepared for Jersey COast Refuges 

Comprehensive ConselVation Plan, 

January 2001. 

This map is for planning purposes only. 

Barnegat Division, Ocean County, New Jersey 

Mantoloking 

Target Habitat Types 

Y/:2l SaltMarsh 

~ Wetland Impoundment 

§ 

- DuneJBeach 

& D Grassland 

Cj 

.(i: - Brush, Wetland or 80g 

~ B:8:8 Brush, Upland ~tj 

~ ~ Forest, Wetland 

- Forest, Upland 

1J::i~ Lavallette & IV Primary Route 

£0 N Secondary Route 

f N Streams 

'9 N Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

Other Conserved land 

Seaside Heights 

0;.'--.... -i. ........ .;2;.. .... 31.. ........ 4.;..•.•.•.. -1 ___ 7 Kilometers 

= N 

,""1.1"''''''''.'.'" +." ~ '" 

° 2 3 4 Miles 

59 
5b 

Data Sources: 

USGS -1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protected land, 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge information. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 

JanusI)' 2001. 

this map is for planning purposes only. 

Habitat Management 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Barnegat Division, Ocean County, New Jersey 

Target Habitat Types 

? 1_ ........ ..;,, ____ oi2i--.. --I3 •...•.•..•...•..• -............ --i Miles 

O-;..... ioo __ ;o..2 .... ;;3 __ .,;4 .... ...i5 Kilometers , S 

60 

E22J 

I:U%J 

-

[~:;] 

~ 

~ 

~ 

-

At 

N 

N 

N 

Salt Marsh 

Wetland Impoundment 

DunefBeach 

Grassland 

Brush, Wetland or Bog 

Brush, Upland 

Forest, Wetland 

Forest, Upland 

Primary Route 

Secondary Route 

Streams 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

Other Conserved Land 

N 

+ 
Map5c 

Habitat Management 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Target Habitat Types 

E222 Salt Marsh 

~~ Wetland Impoundment 

~ Dune/Beach 

L._:---=--J Grassland 

lW0J Brush, Wetland or Bog 

~ Brush, Upland 

~ Forest, Wetland 

_ Forest, Upland 

AI 

N 

N 

N 

Primary Route 

Secondary Route 

Streams 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

Hnrn,>(T/ltDivision, Ocean County, New Jersey 

~W-~------------~--~ 

Little Egg 

Harbor 

rnegat 

"'.:!'iI'~..t ivision 

AtlanticCI Brigantine 

Division 

Data Sources: USGS. 1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protected land. USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge information. 

Map prepared fO( Jersey Coast Refuges 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 

January 2001. 

This map is for planning purposes only. 

O-;.. ............ ioo ___ -.i2 ............ ...;;3 ____ .. 4 Miles L ] 

N 

o 2 3 4 5 Kilometers i~ .. ~~ ____ ~~~ __ ~~~J 

61 
5d 

Habitat Management 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Brigantine Division, Atlantic, Burlington and Ocean Counties, New Jersey 

a 

Data Sources: 

USGS -1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge information. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 

January 2001. 

This map is for planning purposes only. 

Great Bay 

'iI~ 

C0 

o "i .. _ ...... ..;. ____ ,;2ic ......... ...;3;.. ____ 4 Miles 

O~E ...... ..;. __ .;2 ...... ""'i3 __ ;;J4;... ..... ~T Kilometers 

62 

Habitat Management 

Types 

E7.zJ S,I( M,mh 

mJ Wetland Impoundment 

~ Dune/Beach 

[~:L:J Grassland 

WM! Brush, Wetland or Bog 

t22l Brush, Upland 

~ Forest, Weiland 

ItHml Forest, Upland 

Primary Route 

Secondary Route 

Streams 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 
Data Sources: 

USGS -1:100,000 roads & hydro. New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge information. 

Map prepared for J9!'Soy Coast Refuges 

Comprehensive ConservatJon Plan, 

Janua!)'2001. 

This map is for planning purposes ooly. 

Map6a 

Big Game Hunting Areas 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Barnegat Division, Ocean County, New Jersey 

o 

I. 

2 

2 

63 

3 

3 4 

4 Miles 

J 

5 Kilometers ____ I 

Big Game 

Hunting Areas 

AI 

N 

N 

N 

Existing Hunting Areas 

Proposed Hunting Areas 

Proposed When Acquired 

Hunting Areas 

Primary Route 

Secondary Route 

Road or Street 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

USFWS - Owned Land 

Other Conserved Land 

Barnegat 

Division 

, 

AtlanticCI Brigantine 

Division 

N 
6b 

Big Game Hunting Areas 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Barnegat Division, Ocean County, New Jersey 

~~-----------. 

Data Sources: 

Little Egg 

Harbor 

USGS -1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge infonnation. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 

January 2001. 

This map is for planning purposes only. 

.?' 

" • 

0 2 

E22_. 1-........ ..:. ____ ~;... ........ 3;:. ___ .~~~.-... ~.i Miles 

0 2 3 

L ;.. .... .;. __ ,;. .... ..;i. __ 4;;... ~~~~ 0\_7 Kilometers 

64 

Brigantine 

Division 

Big Game 

Hunting Areas 

-

-~ 

At 

N 

N 

N 

Existing Hunting Areas 

Proposed Hunting Areas 

Proposed When Acquired 

Hunting Areas 

Primary Route 

Secondary Route 

Road or Street 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

USFWS - Owned land 

Other Conserved Land 
Big Game Hunting Areas 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

6c 

i3rifTal7tirle Division, Atlantic, and Ocean Counties, New -'pr'.~Pl) 

Data Sources: USGS -1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge information. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

COmprehensIve Conservation Plan, 

Janu8!)' 2001. 

This map is for planning purposes only. 

o 

L 

o 

I. 

2 

2 3 

65 

Great Bay 

3 4 Mites 

4 5 Kilometers 

__ .M".W'.'; 

Primary Route 

Secondary Route 

Road or Street 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

USFWS ~ Owned Land 

Other Conserved land 

N 

+ 
Map? 

Upland Game Hunting Areas 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Brigantine Division, Atlantic, Burlington and Ocean Counties, New Jersey 

Data Sources: 

USGS -1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protected land, 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge infonnalion. 

Mapprepared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 

January 2001. This map Is for plannirtg purposes only. 

o 2 

2 

66 

Great Bay 

3 4 Miles -- -- --- ? 

3 4 5 Kilometers 

.. J 

Proposed Hunting Areas 

Proposed When Acquired 

Hunting Areas 

Primary Route 

Secondary Route 

Road or Street 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

USFWS • Owned Land 

other Conserved land 

N 

+ 
Map8a 

Migratory Game Bird Hunting Areas 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Data Sources: 

USGS -1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge infonnation. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

Comprehensive CO!1servaUon Plan, 

January 2001. 

This map Is for planning purposes only. 

Barnegat Division, Ocean County, New Jersey 

O;.. ............ ~ ___ ~2 ............ ..;;3 ____ ·iiiI_ i Miles 

0io'--...... ...;. __ oi2;.. ...... 3;;. __ 41... ... ~2 Kilometers 

67 

Mantoloking 

Lavallette 

Seaside Heights 

Migratory Game Bird 

Hunting Areas 

~ 

~ 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Proposed Hunting Areas 

Proposed When Acquired 

Hunting Areas 

Primary Roule 

Secondary Route 

Road or Street 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

USFWS - Owned Land 

Other Conserved Land 

N 

+ 
Map8b 

Migratory Game Bird Hunting Areas 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Barnegat Division, Ocean County, New Jersey 

Migratory Game 

Hunting Areas 

Data Sources: 

USGS· 1:100,000 roads & hydro. New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge information. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coast Roll.Iges 

Comprehensive Cooservalion Plan, 

January 2001. 

This map is for planning purposes only. 

o 

= 

2 

2 3 

3 4 5 _____ .. ___ J 

68 

4 Miles 

Kilometers 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Existing Hunting Areas 

Proposed Huntlng Areas 

Proposed When Acquired 

Hunting Areas 

Primary Route 

Secondary Route 

Road or Street 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

USFWS - Owned Land 

Other Conserved Land 

N 

+ 
Map8c 

Migratory Game Bird Hunting Areas 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Hnrn,?(7fltDivision, Ocean County, New !p .. 'om) 

~~------------~--~ 

Data Sources: 

Little Egg 

Harbor 

USGS -1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge infonnation. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 

January 2001. 

this map Is for ~annlng purposes only. 

o 

o 2 

2 3 

3 4 5 

--' 

69 

4 Miles 

Kilometers 

Brigantine 

Division 

Migratory Game 

Hunting Areas 

_ Existing Hunting Areas 

~ Proposed Hunting Areas 

IV 

N 

N 

N 

Primary Route 

Secondary Route 

Road or Street 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

USFWS - Owned Land 

Other Conserved Land 

N 

+ 
Map8d 

Migratory Game Bird Hunting Areas 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Data Sources: 

USGS -1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge bOundaries & 

other refuge information. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 

January 2001. 

This map is for planning purposes only. 

Division, Atlantic, Burlington and Ocean Counties, New Jersey ~:;'-~~-1 

Great Bay 

0 2 3 

C 

0 2 3 4 5 

70 

4 Miles J 

Kilometers 

Little Egg 

Harbor 

Migratory Game 

Hunting Areas 

IiIIII Existing Hunting Areas 

fI1IjJj Proposed Hunting Areas 

Primary Route 

Secondary Route 

Road or Street 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

USFWS - Owned Land 

N 

+ 
Map9a 

Fishing Access Sites 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Data Sources: 

USGS -1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge information. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 

January 2001. 

This map is for planning purposes only. 

Barnegat Division, Ocean County, New Jersey 

Little Egg 

Harbor 

o 

o 

L 

2 

2 

3 

71 

3 4 Miles ~ ! 

4 5 Kilometers 

~"'_Mj 

Fishing Access Sites 

t;\ Existing Fishing 

'=I Access Siles 

AI 

N 

N 

N 

Existing Fishing Access 

Siles to be Upgraded 

Primary Route 

Secondary Route 

Road or Street 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

USFWS • Owned Land 

Other Conserved Land 
Map9b 

Fishing Access Sites 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

>n",fi1<OODivision, Atlantic, Burlington and Ocean Counties, New Jersey 

Data Sources: 

USGS -1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge information. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

Comprehensive COI'1servafion Plan, 

January 2[)01. 

This map is for planning purposes only. 

o 

L_ 

o 

E 

Great Bay 

2 

2 

72 

3 

3 4 

<!j~ 

C0 

4 

) 

Miles 

5 Kilometers 

,= 

Little Egg 

Harbor 

~hI,-,;r Barnegat 

Division 

Brigantine 

Division 

Fishing Access Sites 

t;\ Existing Fishing 

\:!J Access Sites 

At 

N 

N 

N 

Proposed Fishing 

Access Sites 

Primary Route 

Secondary Route 

Road or Street 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

USFWS - Owned Land 

Other Conserved land 

''''l.Ir:."'lI''J' +N ~ 
10a 

Wildlife Observation and Interpretation Sites 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Data Sources: 

USGS -1:100,000 roads & hydro. New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge information. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 

January 2001. 

This map is for planning purposes only. 

l5arnl?Q"(uDivision, Ocean County, New Jersey 

Wildlife Observation 

and Interpretation Sites 

o Existing Sites 

[!] Proposed Sites 

Primary Route 

Secondary Route 

Road or Street 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

USFWS - Owned land 

Other Conserved Land 

Mantoloking 

Lavallette 

0i--...... ..j~ ___ .:i2 ........ 00\i3 ____ ;;I.i Miles 

o 2 3 4 5 Kilometers 

!....L =iio=-il= ........... =-..i 

73 

Brigantine 

Division 
Map 10b 

Wildlife Observation and Interpretation Sites 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Data Sources: 

USGS -1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge infonnation. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 

January2001. 

This map Is for planrling purposes only. 

Barnegat Division, Ocean County, New Jersey 

0 ............ ""lioo ___ ~2 ............ ..;;3 ____ .. 4 Miles 

E 

O;'L .. _ ...... ioo __ 2;;.. ...... ;,i3 __ .,,;4 ...... ..;J Kilometers 

74 

Brigantine 

Division 

Wildlife Observation 

and Interpretation Sites 

o Existing Sites 

[!] Proposed Sites 

AI 

N 

N 

N 

Primary Route 

Secondary Route 

Road or Street 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

USFWS - Owned Land 

Other Conserved Land 

N 

+ 
Map 10c 

Wildlife Observation and Interpretation Sites 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Barnegat Division, Ocean County, New Jersey ~~------------.-~ 

Data Sources: 

Little Egg 

Harbor 

USGS -1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge information. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

ComprehenSive Conservation Plan, 

January 2001. 

This map Is for planning purposes only. 

O;.EEEEE ...... io.i ___ .;;.2 ............ 'i3 ___ iii~_--j Miles 

O;.c_~ ... ....;io._.;2 ...... .;3;;-._o;;;,/4;... ... ~5 Kilometers 

75 

Wildlife Observation 

Interpretation Sites 

[!] Proposed Sites 

Primary Route 

Secondary Route 

Road or Street 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

USFWS - Owned land 

Other Conserved Land 

N 

+ 
Map 10d 

Wildlife Observation and Interpretation Sites 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Brigantine Division, Atlantic, Burlington and Ocean Counties, New Jersey 

Data Sources: USGS -1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge information. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 

January 2001. 

Not to be used for legal or other purposes. 

0 

'--

2 ---" .. -,- ._ .. 

0 2 3 L,~. 

76 

Great Bay 

3 4 Miles 

= 

4 5 Kilometers 

Wildlife Observation 

Interpretation Sites 

o Existing Sites 

[!] Proposed Sites 

Primary Route 

Secondary Route 

Road or Street 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

USFWS - Owned Land 

other Conserved land 

N 

+ 
77 
Map 11b 

Office and Visitor Facilities 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Office and 

Visitor Facilities '* Existing Office 

[!] Proposed Site 

N 

N 

IV 

N 

Primary Route 

Secondary Route 

Road or Street 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 1,... USFWS" OWned Land 

Data Sources: USGS -1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS • refuge boundaries & 

other refuge information. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coas! Refuges 

COmprehensive Conservation Plan, 

January 2001. 

This map Is for planning purposes only. 

Barnegat Division, Ocean County, New .IPr.~?'1! 

o 2 3 4 Miles 

J 

o 2 3 4 5 Kilometers 

--' 

78 

Brigantine 

Division 
Map 11c 

Office and Visitor Facilities 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Brigantine Division, Atlantic, Burlington and Ocean Counties, New Jersey 

Great Bay 

Reeds Bay 

Data Sources: 

'Vb 

c:::::, 

Office and 

Visitor Facilities 

Existing Office and 

Visitor Facility 

Proposed Sites 

Primary Route 

Secondary Route 

Road or Street 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

USFWS - Owned land 

Other Conserved Land 

N 

D 

USGS - 1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge information. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 

January 2001. 

Not to be used for legal or other purposes. 

o 

[ -.---

o 

'---

2 

2 

3 + 

3 4 Miles ~~~ ~ •• _ ..... m ... ] 

4 5 Kilometers __ 3 

79 
80

This page intentionally left blank
81

Figure 2. Staffing plan for Forsythe Refuge

Chapter 5. Implementation and Monitoring

Funding and Staffing

A staff of 16 full time equivalents (FTEs) currently operates Forsythe Refuge. This includes:

• Project Leader;

• Deputy Project Leader;

• Supervisory Refuge Operations Specialist;

• Refuge Operations Specialist;

• two Biologists;

• Outdoor Recreation Planner;

• two Maintenance Workers;

• Lead Administrative Office Assistant;

• Office Automation Assistant;

• two Park Rangers;

• Seasonal Park Ranger;

• Volunteer Coordinator;

• SCEP (Student Career Experience Program).

To fully implement the extensive program of wildlife conservation and compatible wildlife-dependent

recreation found in this CCP, a staffing plan of 41 FTEs will be required (see Figure 2). This staffing plan, 
82

together with funding for our land protection efforts, will allow us to achieve the objectives and strategies

set forth in this CCP. Full funding of the CCP over the next 15 years will require;

• $54.2 million for staffing and projects;

• $30.7 million for land protection. 

Projects required to implement the CCP are listed in the Appendices. Appendix H contains the Refuge

Operation Needs System (RONS) which documents requests to Congress for funding and staffing needed to

carry out projects above the existing base budget. Amounts shown include a start-up cost for the first year,

the recurring cost for following years, and a 15-year total cost. Staffing is shown in FTEs (one FTE is one

person working full time for one year). Appendix I contains the Maintenance Management System (MMS)

which documents the equipment, buildings, and other existing property that require repair or replacement.

The rate at which the Refuge achieves its full potential of contributing locally, regionally, and nationally to

wildlife conservation and providing opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is totally

dependent upon receiving adequate funding and staffing.

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 National

Environmental Policy Act (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. 

The following step-down management plans are currently being revised: 

• Habitat Management Plan (to be completed in 2005).

The following step-down management plans are either in need of revision or do not exist:

• Wildlife Population Management Plan, including trapping (scheduled for 2006);

• Integrated Pest Management Plan, including chapters for each problem species (scheduled for

2006);

• Wilderness Management Plan (scheduled for 2005);

• Priority Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Plan, including hunting and fishing (scheduled for 2005),

wildlife observation and photography (scheduled for 2005), environmental education and

interpretation (scheduled for 2005).
83

Monitoring and Adaptive Management

This CCP covers a 15-year period, through 2015. 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 will 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 will 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 will reduce these activities if we determine that incompatible

levels of public use were occurring.

Collection of baseline data on all wildlife populations and habitats will be implemented. This data will update

existing records of wildlife species using the Refuge, their habitat requirements, and seasonal use patterns. 

This data will also be used to evaluate the effects of public use and habitat management programs on wildlife

populations.

Refuge habitat management programs will 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 will allow staff to set more specific and better management objectives, more rigorously evaluate

management objectives, and ultimately, make better management decisions.

Volunteer Opportunities and Educational Programs

As Forsythe Refuge continues 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 CCP. 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 “Community Tree Planting project”

and another 90 onetime volunteers gave 360 hours of service on “Make a Difference Day”. 

Volunteers are essential to the ongoing and planned operation and maintenance of Forsythe Refuge. 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
84

maintenance projects.

Plan Amendment and Revision

Periodic review of the CCP will be required to ensure that objectives are being met and strategies are being

implemented. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation will be an important part of this process. 

The Plan will be reviewed annually to determine the need for revision. A revision would occur if significant

new information were to become available, ecological conditions changed, major Refuge expansion occurs, or

we identify the need to do so during Plan review. This should occur every 15 years or sooner, if necessary. 

Revisions to the Plan will be subject to additional NEPA compliance and an opportunity for public review

and comment.
85

Appendices

A. Relevant Legal Mandates.

B. Summarized Public Comments, July 1999.

C. Summarized Public Comments, July 2000.

D. NEPA Compliance.

E. Species of Concern.

F. Pre-acquisition Compatibility Determinations.

G. Ecosystem Values.

H. RONS Project List.

I. MMS Project list.

J. Glossary.

K. Works Cited.

L. List of Preparers.
86

This page intentionally left blank
87

Appendix A

Relevant Legal Mandates and Land Acquisition Legislation

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;

# 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.
88

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management

The purpose of this Executive Order, signed May 24, 1977, is to prevent Federal agencies from contributing

to the “adverse impacts associated with occupancy and modification of floodplains” and the “direct or

indirect support of floodplain development.” In the course of fulfilling their respective authorities, Federal

agencies “shall 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 (16 U.S.C. 7421, 92 Stat. 3110)

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 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,
89

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 Register 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

independent agency in Public Law 94-422, approved September 28, 1976 (90 Stat. 1319). That Act also

created the Historic Preservation Fund. Federal agencies are directed to take into account the effects of

their actions on items or sites listed or eligible for listing in the National Register.

As of January, 1989, 91 historic sites on national wildlife refuges have been placed on the National Register.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1964 

Public Law 88-578, approved September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 897), provides funding through receipts from the

sale of surplus federal land, appropriations from oil and gas receipts from the outer continental shelf, and

other sources of for land acquisition under several authorities. Appropriations from the fund may be used

for matching grants to states for outdoor recreation projects and for land acquisition by various federal

agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e,715f-715r)

This Act established the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission which consists of the Secretaries of the

Interior (chairman), Agriculture, and Transportation, two members from the House of Representatives, and

an ex-officio member from the state in which a project is located. The Commission approves acquisition of

land and water, or interests therein, and sets the priorities for acquisition of lands by the Secretary for

sanctuaries or for other management purposes. Under this Act, to acquire lands, or interests therein, the

state concerned must consent to such acquisition by legislation. Such legislation has been enacted by most

states.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718-718j, 48 Stat.

452), as amended

The "Duck Stamp Act," as this March 16, 1934, authority is commonly called, requires each waterfowl hunter

16 years of age or older to possess a valid Federal hunting stamp. Receipts from the sale of the stamp are

deposited in a special Treasury account known as the Migratory 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 the U.S.

in full- and/or part-time projects designed to combat 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 – 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
90

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 – 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.

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. 668dd668ee) 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
91

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 nonwildlife 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, “The 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.”

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 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 (16 U.S.C. 460K-4; 76 Stat. 653)

This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation

areas for recreational use, when such uses do not interfere with the area’s primary purposes. It authorizes

construction and maintenance of recreational facilities and the acquisition of land for incidental fish and

wildlife oriented recreational development or protection of natural 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,

using revenues derived from the sale of products from refuges.
92

Public Law 88-523, approved August 30, 1964, (78 Stat. 701) made major revisions by requiring that all

revenues received from refuge products, such as animals, timber and minerals, or from leases or other

privileges, be deposited in a special Treasury account and net receipts distributed to counties for public

schools and roads.

Public Law 93-509, approved December 3, 1974, (88 Stat. 1603) required that moneys remaining in the fund

after payments be transferred to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for land acquisition under

provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

Public Law 95-469, approved October 17, 1978, (92 Stat. 1319) expanded the revenue sharing system to

include National Fish Hatcheries and Service research stations. It also included in the Refuge Revenue

Sharing Fund receipts from the sale of salmonid carcasses. Payments to counties were established as:

1) on acquired land, the greatest amount calculated on the basis of 75 cents per acre, three-fourths of one

percent of the appraised value, or 25 percent of the net receipts produced from the land; and

2) on land withdrawn from the public domain, 25 percent of net receipts and basic payments under

Public Law 94-565 (31 U.S.C. 1601-1607, 90 Stat. 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 the establishment of Service areas.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794 )as amended

Title 5 of P.L. 93-112 (87 Stat. 355), signed October 1, 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 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136, 78 Stat. 890)

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.
93

Appendix B

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 “wilderness 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 “wilderness 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
94

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.

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
95

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

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.
96

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 “...

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 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 “... conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish,

wildlife, and plant resources and their habitat...” 
97

Appendix C

Summary of Public Comments Received on the Revised Draft CCP/EA

and Their Disposition

Comments received during the public review period for the Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation

Plan and Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA) were considered during preparation of the Decision

Document, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Comments were received from elected officials,

Federal agencies, State and local governments, national conservation and recreation organizations, regional

and State organizations, and local residents, as well as out-of-state residents.

The Revised Draft CCP/EA was released for 30 days of public review and comment July 5 through August

4, 2000. A formal public hearing was held July 19, at the Absegami High School in Galloway Township,

Atlantic County, New Jersey. Some 80 people were in attendance. The majority of the speakers, including a

legislative staff member representing Congressman Jim Saxton, were opposed to the proposed year-round

beach closure to motor vehicles at the Holgate Unit of Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge. Most also spoke

in opposition to the proposed seasonal beach closure at the Two Mile Beach Unit of Cape May National

Wildlife Refuge.

During the comment period we received over 1,700 written comments on the document. Of these, 1,159

opposed and 543 supported the proposed beach closures. Many of the latter comments also urged that we

petition the State Tidelands Council to close the State owned intertidal area (i.e., the lands below the mean

high tide line) on the Holgate Peninsula to motorized vehicle use.

Those opposed to the proposed beach closures included:

New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife;

County of Ocean Board of Chosen Freeholders;

Township of Lower;

Township of Long Beach;

Township of Manchester;

Borough of Beach Haven;

Chamber of Commerce of Southern Ocean County;

Atlantic Surfers;

Eastern Surfing Association/New Jersey District;

Mid-Island Surfcasters;

New Jersey Anglers Association;

Jersey Coast Shark Anglers;

Recreational Fishing Alliance; 

New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs;

United Mobile Sportfishermen.

Those supporting the proposed beach closures included:

New Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club;

Atlantic Audubon Society;

New Jersey Audubon Society;

New Jersey Conservation Foundation;

Wetlands Institute;
98

Coalition Against Toxics;

Northwest Ecosystem Alliance;

Wilderness Watch;

Lower Township Environmental Commission.

Others commenting on the document included:

New Jersey Trappers Association;

New Jersey Environmental Federation;

Animal Protection Institute;

New Jersey Waterfowlers Association;

Middle Township Beach Association;

Alliance for a Living Ocean.

A summary of the public comments received and the disposition of the concerns expressed in those

comments follows.

Comment: The Army Corps of Engineers commented that proposed activities in navigable waters will

require a Department of Army permit pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404

of the Clean Water Act.

Response: The Service will comply with the Acts, and submit the required permit application(s) and

environmental documents prior to any actual construction work.

Comment: The New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife (NJDFW), while supportive of our plans to

promote piping plover breeding at the Two Mile Beach Unit, does not believe that there is sufficient

justification to extend this closure through the shorebird migration season. They believe an April 1-August

15 closure would be sufficient to safeguard piping plover breeding.

Response: The Service funded a research study by the New Jersey Audubon Society’s Cape May Bird

Observatory in fiscal year 2000 to look at all shorebirds use of the entire beach area. Observations were

made twice a week along predetermined transects from mid-August to mid-October on three adjoining

beaches, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) LORAN Support Unit, the Service Two Mile Beach Unit,

both closed to all public use, and the private property to the north which was open to public use. Our current

beach closure through September 31, accommodates late nesting birds, such as, the black skimmer and least

tern, as well as migrating shorebirds. Based on the results of the study the Service will make a decision on

whether to reduce or maintain our closure period. 

Comment: The NJDFW also encouraged us to allow access to the jetty for fishing utilizing the existing

parking facilities. This has been permitted in the past by the Coast Guard and will not jeopardize beach

nesting birds.

Response: Jetty access is controlled by the Coast Guard and the Service has no authority on Coast Guard

land.

Comment: The NJDFW also emphasized that prohibitions on deer hunting at Forsythe make it difficult to

adequately manage deer herds on this area without resulting negative impacts on a variety of habitats,

particularly Atlantic white cedar swamp.
99

Response: A substantial portion of Forsythe Refuge is currently open to deer hunting in Deer Management

Zones 56, 57, and 58. We work cooperatively with the Division’s deer management program staff to ensure a

healthy herd, to protect critical habitat, and to provide a quality hunt experience. Annual meetings are held

between Refuge and Division representatives.

Comment: The NJDFW also noted that when converting to GIS, the boundary of Deer Management Zone

57 was changed, eliminating some salt marsh areas. They recommend that the original boundary be

restored.

Response: Deer Management Zone 57 will include all the salt marsh area that was previously included.

Comment: The NJDFW also strongly urged that opportunities to harvest resident Canada and snow goose

be expanded to the maximum extent practicable to reduce the negative habitat and societal impacts

resulting from the current overabundance of these species. They also proposed an annual review of

waterfowl hunting areas with Division staff and sportsmen representatives to discuss boundary issues, the

40% prohibition on pre-1978 acquisition, addition of new refuge lands and other waterfowl related issues.

Response: Over the past four years we have expanded opportunities to hunt resident Canada and snow

geese to the maximum. Opening no more than 40% of a refuge, established as an inviolate sanctuary, to

waterfowl hunt is a provision of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. It applies to all the refuge property

within the pre-1978 approved acquisition boundary. We can open more than 40 percent of the refuge

property within the pre-1978 approved refuge boundary, only if the Secretary determines that such an

action would be beneficial to the species hunted. The 40 percent limitation is intended to ensure that

sufficient undisturbed area is available for waterfowl species can carry out their life cycles and sustain their

population numbers. 

Comment: A majority of commenters, including the State and local governments and many organizations,

opposed our proposal to restrict year-round motorized vehicle access above the mean high tide line on the

Holgate Unit of Forsythe Refuge.

Response: We are mandated to comply with the provisions of the Wilderness Act. The Act clearly states in

Section 4(c) that, “Except as specifically provided for in this Act.......there shall be no temporary road, no use

of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical

transport, and no structures or installations within any such area.” There is an exception in Section 4(d)(1)

of the Act which states that “Within wilderness areas designated by this Act the use of aircraft or

motorboats (emphasis added), where these uses have already become established, may be permitted to

continue subject to such restrictions as the Secretary ....... deems desirable.” There is no exception to permit

the continuation of previously established motor vehicle use. We simply do not have the authority to be

more liberal than the law itself. 

Comment: The Southern Ocean County Chamber of Commerce noted that without beach buggy access,

older anglers and those with disabilities would not be able to participate in the sport of surf fishing. A

“seasonal boat concession,” promised as part of the Alternative B and C proposals, might at least begin to

address this concern, but only if the ferry service is in place and operational before the access ban is

implemented, and only if “seasonal” includes late fall, and only if the ferry service was operated from

predawn to late nights, when–as any angler knows–the fish are biting. To run a shuttle service from nine-tofive is pretty much useless.
100

Response: The Wilderness Act prohibits the use of “mechanical means of transport”. However, the

Americans with Disabilities Act states in Section 507(c)(1) that “In General–Congress reaffirms that nothing

in the Wilderness Act is to be construed as prohibiting the use of a wheelchair in a wilderness area by an

individual whose disability requires use of a wheelchair and consistent with the Wilderness Act no agency is

required to provide any form of special treatment or accommodation or to construct any facilities or modify

any conditions of lands within wilderness to facilitate such use.” We believe that our proposed “seasonal

boat concession” will help make the Holgate Unit more accessible to those with disabilities, including those

using wheelchairs, and all other users as well. Once a final decision has been made, we plan to pursue efforts

to provide a concession, assuming it is still part of our final decision. If so, we would work to have the

concession in place by the fall of 2001. Once in place, the concession would respond to market demands in

terms of its operations.

Comment: The Chamber also stated that it fervently believed that the state-owned portion of the beach--

below the mean high tide line--should remain open to beach buggies when nesting migratory birds are not

present.

Response: During the fall and winter, control of motor vehicle access in the state-owned riparian zone below

mean high tide at Holgate is determined by the State Tidelands Council under all three alternatives in the

Comprehensive Conservation Plan..

Comment: Numerous commenters expressed concern that our proposed closure of the beach above mean

high tide at the Holgate Unit to motorized vehicles would seriously impact the Chamber’s entire six-week

Surf Fishing Tournament, which along with the Chowderfest and Beach Wheels festival, enlivens the

Island’s economy after the traditional vacation season has ended.

Response: We acknowledge that our proposed beach closure may have some impact on the tournament. 

While we encourage fishing, one of our six priority public uses, the Wilderness Act does not allow us to

permit the use of motorized vehicles in wilderness areas, including in support of fishing. We believe that our

proposed “seasonal ferry concession” would be able to continue to provide Tournament anglers access to the

tip of the Holgate Peninsula. 

Comment: A number of commenters questioned the availability of scientific data to prove that the seasonal

beach closure at the Two Mile Beach Unit of Cape May Refuge would benefit the piping plover. 

Response: It is well documented in scientific literature that if human disturbance or presence is eliminated,

birds will recolonize/reclaim habitat. There are studies that show that bird respond negatively to human

walkers. These studies also note that disturbance by humans and pets often reduces the functional stability

of habitat and causes direct and indirect mortality of eggs and chicks. Predation has also been identified as

a major factor limiting piping plover reproductive success at many Atlantic Coast sites, and substantial

evidence shows that human activities are affecting types, numbers, and activity patterns of predators,

thereby exacerbating natural predation. This past summer, after Service closed the Two Mile Beach Unit

and the USCG closed the adjoining LORAN Support Unit, plovers nested for the first time since 1994. 

Least terns nested for the first time since 1988. American oystercatchers also nested. These nests were all

located on the Coast Guard LORAN Support Unit beach, where the nesting habitat is better. Our portion of

the beach did provide undisturbed critical feeding areas for significant numbers of shorebirds. Piping plover

also fed on our beach. There was frequent activity by up to eight adult plovers observed early in the season,

but they did not actually nest on the Refuge.
101

Comment: The Mayor of the Township of Lower stated that the Two Mile Beach Unit of Cape May Refuge

did have walking activities, sunbathing activities, fishing activities before becoming a National Wildlife

Refuge. Very little concern was given to the piping plover however the plover allegedly nested there.

Response: Lt. Cmdr. Charles Schue III, the Coast Guard base commander, is quoted as stating (Atlantic

City Press, July 2, 2000, Richard Degener, Reporter) that “it always has been illegal to walk on the Coast

Guard beach or jetty.” He said’ “We didn’t have enough security to enforce it. This is a closed base with no

public access.” The Two Mile Beach Unit was part of the USCG LORAN Support Unit until October 1999. 

No piping plover nesting occurred on the Coast Guard property after 1994.

Comment: The Mayor also believed that the coexistence of the piping plover and the needs of recreational

users can be met as they are within the Township of Lower at the Cape May Meadows project administered

by the Nature Conservancy. Sunbathing, fishing, and walking on the beach area is permitted while the

piping plover continues to exist in this area.

Response: Although piping plovers do nest at the Nature Conservancy’s Cape May Meadows, the fledging

rate per nesting pairs the last three years, 1998, 1999 and 2000, has been 0.43, 0.25, and 0.25, respectively. 

Population modeling for the piping plovers show that the fledging rate per nesting pair needs to be at least

1.50 for the species to avoid extinction. This indicates that the Cape May Meadows is not providing the

habitat the piping plover needs to continue to exist.

Comment: The Mayor also asked if the Fish and Wildlife Service performed a compatibility study in the

Cape May Meadows, or on the newly acquired Cape May Refuge.

Response: The Service has no jurisdiction over the Cape May Meadows Preserve. Compatibility

determinations are prepared only for lands that are part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The

National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997, states in Section (d)(3)(A)(i) that “On lands added to the System after March 25,

1996, the Secretary shall identify, prior to acquisition, withdrawal, transfer, reclassification, or donation of

any such lands, existing compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses (emphasis added) that the

Secretary determines shall be permitted to continue on an interim basis pending completion of the

comprehensive conservation plan for the refuge.” Section 5(2) of the Act states that ”The terms wildlifedependent recreation and wildlife-dependent recreational use mean a use of a refuge involving hunting,

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation.” The Act also

states that “The 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 (emphasis added) within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of

Americans.” This basic “wildlife first” tenant of the Act takes precedence over the six priority wildlifedependent recreational uses. The formal transfer of the Two Mile Beach Unit from the Coast Guard to the

Service occurred during the preparation of our Revised Draft CCP/EA. In the Revised Draft we are in

effect determining that fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and

interpretation are indeed compatible uses on the Unit, subject to our proposed seasonal beach closure.

Comment: The Mayor also noted that he was informed when attempting to procure one of the existing

buildings at the Two Mile Beach Unit for fire protection that all the buildings would be, with the exception

of one or two, demolished. This does not make sense to him.

Response: The maintenance and upkeep of these buildings represent a significant cost and those not

required for the management and operation of the Unit would be demolished in our Proposed Action,
102

Alternative B.

Comment: Several commenters, including the Animal Protection Institute, opposed providing trapping

opportunities on Forsythe and Cape May Refuges. The Animal Protection Institute believes that trapping

is an ineffective “management tool” that does not “control” populations. While they strongly support our

efforts to protect threatened and endangered species, they believe we have relied too heavily on lethal

predator removal as the primary method of addressing threatened and endangered species recovery efforts

on refuges. They argue that protection of these species can, and should be, accomplished using effective,

long-term management strategies that are both humane and socially acceptable.

Response: We believe that trapping is an important wildlife management tool. It is 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, includes additional opportunities for trapping at both

Forsythe 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. All trapping is by

refuge issued special use permit only. On average, only six trapping permits are issued each year at

Forsythe Refuge. We use Department of Agriculture Animal Damage Control trappers at both the Holgate

Unit of Forsythe Refuge and the Two Mile Beach Unit of Cape May Refuge to help control predators in our

piping plover recovery efforts. Predation has been identified as a major factor limiting piping plover

reproductive success at many Atlantic Coast sites. We also use fencing for exclosures, which has generally

proved to be successful. However, on occasion we have documented cases where predators, especially fox,

have learned to key in on fenced exclosures, dig under them, and destroy the nests they were intended to

protect. Any feral animals that are caught are turned over to township animal damage control officials. Our

trapping program complies with State law and we believe that trapped animals are humanely dealt with. 

The relocation of any predatory wildlife is illegal in New Jersey. 

Comment: Several commenters, including the New Jersey Trappers Association and the New Jersey

Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, asked us to consider providing more trapping opportunities on these

public lands.

Response: Alternative B, our Proposed Action, includes additional opportunities for trapping at both

Forsythe 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. There are currently

16 trapping units at Forsythe Refuge. On average, only two thirds of these are trapped under refuge special

use permit. 

Comment: The Wetlands Institute strongly encouraged us to develop collaborative research and

management programs on the Jersey Coast Refuges to assist in our conservation efforts. The New Jersey

Chapter of the Sierra Club also requested that the final CCP contain a detailed analysis of the best available

data regarding the refuge and relevant nearby areas.

Response: Our Proposed Action, Alternative B, includes actions involving baseline surveys and monitoring

of Refuge resources, expanded use of geographic information systems to document and model species and

habitats, increased on-site support for current research efforts and initiating new research on both Forsythe

and Cape May Refuges.

Comment: Many commenters, including the Atlantic Audubon Society, New Jersey Audubon Society, New

Jersey Conservation Foundation, and Coalition Against Toxics, supported our efforts to impose a year-
103

round motorized vehicle closure, above mean high tide, at the Holgate Unit. Many also encouraged us to

proceed with efforts to petition the State Tidelands Council to close the state-owned riparian lands adjacent

to the wilderness area as well.

Response: We have decided not to petition the State Tidelands Council to close the state-owned riparian

lands to motorized vehicle use during the fall and winter. Should the State ever decide to exercise its right

to do so, we would certainly applaud and support that decision.

Comment: A number of commenters, including New Jersey Audubon Society and the New Jersey

Environmental Federation, supported our efforts to develop Integrated Pest Management Plans for both

Forsythe and Cape May Refuges. They often expressed concern over the possible use of chemicals to

control mosquitos and invasive species, such as phragmites.

Response: Through the use of an Integrated Pest Management Plan we hope to significantly reduce our use

of pesticides and herbicides. 

Comment: The New Jersey Audubon Society recommended that we consider the expansion of the Cape

May Refuge by purchasing100 acres of critical wildlife habitat located immediately south of the former

Coast Guard Electronics base and across the Cape May Inlet (known as East Cape May or Sewell Point).

Response: We believe that it would be more appropriate for the New Jersey State Department of

Environmental Protection to protect this property. They have been actively involved with this property for

a number of years. 

Comment: A number of commenters, including the Animal Protection Institute, were opposed to providing

opportunities for hunting on the Jersey Coast Refuges.

Response: Hunting is one of the six priority public uses of National Wildlife Refuges identified in the

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997. In the Act Congress clearly instructed us to “ensure that opportunities are

provided within the System for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses” and “ensure that priority

general public uses of the System receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses in planning

and management within the System”. The Act further states that we are to “provide increased

opportunities for families to experience compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, particularly opportunities

for parents and their children to safely engage in traditional outdoor activities, such as fishing and hunting”. 

The State Division of Fish and Wildlife regularly conducts studies of resident game species and establishes

bag limits and season lengths that ensure sustainability of the species. We, in cooperation with the States,

Canada and Mexico, monitor migratory bird populations in order to make management decisions on seasons

and bag limits. In the case of over abundant species such as white-tailed deer, resident Canada and snow

geese, the damage these species do to habitat is well documented. The complaints from the public on the

impacts of resident geese to private property have been increasing in recent years and involves not only a

question of habitat destruction, but public health and safety as well. In these particular cases we believe

hunting is an important management tool.

 

Comment: The New Jersey Waterfowlers Association expressed a hope for expanded opportunities to hunt

waterfowl on the Refuges. They also seek increased use, not only for the hunter, but also for birdwatchers,

fishermen, boaters and photographers.
104

Response: Our Proposed Action, Alternative B, greatly expands opportunities for hunting, including

waterfowl hunting, at both Forsythe and Cape May Refuges. It also expands opportunities for fishing,

wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation at both Refuges. These

are the six priority public uses of the National Wildlife System identified in the National Wildlife Refuge

System Administration Act, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

Comment: A number of commenters believed that surfing should be established as a compatible use and

permitted to the same extent as the six priority public uses established in the National Wildlife Refuge

System Improvement Act.

Response: Surfing was not identified as a wildlife-dependent use in that Act; therefore, it cannot be given

the same priority as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and

interpretation, the six priority public uses identified in the Act. We believe there are other areas along the

Jersey Coast which can accommodate this recreational activity. We do intend to conduct a compatibility

review of surfing as soon as our current Draft Policy on Compatibility is finalized.

Comment: Numerous commenters stated that they would like us to pursue acquisition of the remainder of

the Two Mile Beach parcel should the U.S. Coast Guard ever decide to pull out.

Response: Under our Proposed Action, Alternative B, we have stated that “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.”

Comment: The Mid-Island Surfcasters noted that despite the fact that E.O. 12962 directed the U.S. Fish &

Wildlife Service to work aggressively to minimize conflicts between recreational fisheries and the

Endangered Species Act, there has been no effort by the Service to make accommodation for fishermen’s

needs at Holgate.

Response: Our proposed seasonal closure to motorized vehicles above mean high tide at the Holgate Unit is

solely based on the authority of the Wilderness Act, not the Endangered Species Act. While we encourage

fishing, one of our six priority public uses, the Wilderness Act does not allow us to permit the use of

motorized vehicles in wilderness areas, including in support of fishing. Anglers on foot would still have

seasonal access to the beach at the Holgate Unit from September through March. We believe that our

proposed “seasonal ferry concession” would also continue to provide anglers access to the tip of the Holgate

Peninsula. 

Comment: The Surfcasters also stated that the “Guidelines for Managing Recreational Activities in Piping

Plover Breeding habitat on the Atlantic Coast to Avoid Take Under Section 9 of the Endangered Species

Act” (dated April 15, 1994) issued by the Service is ignored. The Guidelines required beach closure to

vehicles only when the plover chicks have hatched, not the entire period from April through September. 

They consider this a hostile act of no benefit to the birds and an unnecessary sacrifice by the sport

fisherman.

Response: Our proposed seasonal closure to motorized vehicles above mean high tide at the Holgate Unit is

solely based on the authority of the Wilderness Act, not the Endangered Species Act. The summer closure

of the Holgate Unit from April through August, which has been in place to protect the piping plover since

1988, would not be effected by this action and would remain in place. Anglers on foot would still have

seasonal access to the beach at the Holgate Unit from September through March. We believe that our
105

proposed “seasonal ferry concession” would also continue to provide anglers access to the tip of the Holgate

Peninsula. 

Comment: The Surfcasters also noted that Alternatives B and C triple the refuge staff, more than triple the

budget, propose to acquire all the remainder of land within the legislated boundary of the refuges and more

outside the boundary and propose excessive construction of facilities which they deemed boondoggles in

order to substantiate the need for bloated staff.

Response: The proposed actions under Alternatives B and C reflect the comments and issues raised during

the public scoping meetings which focused on the need for additional public recreational opportunities. In

order to provide these opportunities additional facilities, staffing, and related funding is required. Not only

has the public requested additional opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,

environmental education and interpretation, but the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, as

amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 instructs us to provide 

additional opportunities as well. Section (a)(4)(H) of the Act tells us to “Provide increased opportunities for

families to experience compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, particularly opportunities for parents and

their children to safely engage in traditional outdoor activities, such as fishing and hunting.”

Comment: The Surfcasters also noted that we said that we are directed by the Wilderness Act that existing

vehicle use at Holgate is in violation of the Act. They believe this is a false claim for Holgate as the use preexisted Holgate wilderness.

Response: Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act specifically prohibits certain uses in designated wilderness

areas such as the Holgate Unit. It states that “....there shall be no temporary roads, no use of motor

vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanized transport,

and no structure or installation within such area.” Section 4(d)(1) further states that “Within wilderness

areas designated by this Act the use of aircraft or motorboats, where these uses have already become

established, may be permitted to continue subject to such restrictions as the Secretary .... deems desirable.” 

There are no provisions in the Act that would allow for the use of motor vehicles by the public, whether the

use was a pre-existing one or not. The Service cannot be less restrictive than the law itself.

Comment: The Surfcasters also felt that Appendix A (the summary of public comment) fails to explain why

the provision of 50CFR35.5 (b) is ignored and is suspiciously silent concerning it. Clearly, they noted, the

omission is intended to bolster the false claim that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is required by the Act to

end the vehicle access at Holgate.

Response: The Regulation, 50CFR35 Subpart A 35.5 is in error. Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act

specifically prohibits certain uses in designated wilderness areas such as the Holgate Unit. It states that

“....there shall be no temporary roads, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no

landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanized transport, and no structure or installation within such area.” 

Section 4(d)(1) further states that “Within wilderness areas designated by this Act the use of aircraft or

motorboats, where these uses have already become established, may be permitted to continue subject to

such restrictions as the Secretary .... deems desirable.” There are no provisions in the Act that would allow

for the use of motor vehicles by the public, whether the use was a pre-existing one or not. The Service

cannot be less restrictive than the law itself. We are taking steps to see that this regulation is amended and

the error corrected.

Comment: The Mid-Island Surfcasters and other commenters felt that the idea of a possible concession
106

ferry to transport fishermen to the Holgate Unit point was not a viable alternative.

Response: We can cite several examples of highly successful ferry system concessions in use at several

Atlantic Coast National Wildlife Refuges to access Wilderness Areas, including Cape Romain Refuge in

South Carolina and Monomoy Refuge in Massachusetts. The ferry system at Monomoy supports a very

successful stripped bass and bluefish sport fishery, as well as very popular access for birders. We believe

that such a system could be established to serve the Holgate Unit as well. Once a final decision has been

made, we plan to pursue efforts to provide a concession, assuming it is still part of our final decision. If so,

we would work to have the concession in place by the fall of 2001. Once in place, the concession would

respond to market demands in terms of its operations.

Comment: A number of commenters felt there was a disparity between the alternatives regarding beach

access at the Two Mile Beach Unit. This was especially true regarding Alternative C, which called for a

year-round beach closure at the Holgate Unit, while allowing year-round public access at the Two Mile

Beach Unit. Alternative A called for continued seasonal access at the Holgate Unit, while keeping the beach

at the Two Mile Beach Unit closed year-round. They believed we were unfairly limiting their choices to

opening one beach while closing the other beach. Some felt that we were deliberately trying to divide the

public in this respect.

Response: This is not true. Alternative A in all National Environmental Policy Act documents is always the

“no action alternative, the continuation of existing practices. Furthermore, all possible conditions of beach

access are reflected in the range of alternatives we displayed. We are not necessarily limited to these three

alternatives in making our final decision. We could take various components of each alternative to structure

a new forth alternative. For example, we could take the Forsythe component of Alternative A, the Cape

May component of Alternative B, and the Two Mile Beach Unit component of Alternative C, to form a new

alternative as our final decision. Some commenters did exactly that when stating that they liked this part of

one Alternative and that part of another Alternative. 

Comment: Some commenters felt that the plans for both Forsythe and Cape May Refuges fell far short of

the provisions set forth in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 relative to

providing opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities at both refuges. They

believed that bird watching, fishing, waterfowl and upland game hunting, trapping, environmental education,

wildlife observation and photography should be permitted wherever possible. 

Response: In our professional judgement, our Proposed Action, Alternative B, provides a good range of

compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities on both refuges, while allowing us to still meet our

conservation mandates under the Act.

Comment: The Jersey Coast Shark Anglers questioned why the planning team for the Jersey Coast

Refuges was located in another state. They also questioned how people who don’t live in New Jersey or use

the Jersey Coast Refuges can possibly make decisions for the local residents.

Response: The Planning Team for the Jersey Coast Refuges project was made up of Refuge staff who are

local residents, a representative of the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, and planning staff from our

Regional Office in Hadley, Massachusetts. Our Regional Office planning staff provides support services to

all of refuges in our 13 state Northeastern Region as they prepare Comprehensive Conservation Plans. 

Since the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System are national in scope and

represents a public trust network of conservation lands, any citizen or resident of the United States has the

right to comment on any plan or policy regarding an individual refuge or the system as a whole. These
107

lands, which include the Jersey Coast Refuges, belong to all the American people, not just local residents.

Comment: Several commenters noted that properties acquired for National Wildlife Refuges should remain

open to traditional compatible wildlife-related public recreational activities pending completion of refuge

management plans, unless demonstrated negative impacts of these uses are present.

Response: Section 668dd(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the National Wildlife refuge Administration Act, as amended by the

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, states that “On lands added to the System after

March 25, 1996, the Secretary shall identify, prior to acquisition, withdrawal, transfer, reclassification, or

donation of any such lands, existing compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses that the Secretary

determines shall be permitted to continue on an interim basis pending completion of the comprehensive

conservation plan for the refuge.” Section 5(2) of the Act states that “The terms wildlife-dependent

recreation and wildlife-dependent recreational use mean a use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife

observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation.” Appendix N of our Revised

Draft CCP/EA for the Jersey Coast Refuges contains Interim Compatibility Determinations for both

Forsythe and Cape May Refuges. These Interim Determinations indicate that any such uses occurring on

lands proposed for acquisition in the document would be considered to be compatible and allowed to continue

until plans for those new lands had been completed. 

Comment: A number of commenters protested our change in policy, which would prohibit beach buggy use

at Holgate. They saw no valid reason to mandate changes at this time in the Holgate vehicle policy merely

because of the 1964 Wilderness Act general regulations regarding motor vehicles. They felt that instead of

following the guidelines and policies of the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 related to

compatible wildlife-related public uses, our plan goes out of its way to prohibit a compatible wildlife-related

public use (in this case beach buggies at Holgate) which was successfully mitigated years ago and generally

accepted by all over the years.

Response: We are mandated to comply with the provisions of the Wilderness Act. The Act clearly states in

Section 4(c) that “Except as specifically provided for in this Act.......there shall be no temporary road, no use

of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical

transport, and no structures or installations within any such area.” The only exception appears in Section

4(d)(1) which states that ”Within wilderness areas designated by this Act the use of aircraft or motorboats,

where these uses have already become established, may be permitted to continue subject to such

restrictions as the Secretary ....... deems desirable.” The national Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act

of 1997 identifies only six wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Fishing is a wildlife-dependent recreational

use; motorized vehicle use is not a wildlife-dependent recreational use. Therefore, motor vehicle use could

never be determined to be a compatible wildlife-dependent use. We simply do not have the authority to be

allow uses specifically prohibited by the Wilderness Act or any other law. The Service has clearly been

remiss in not fully complying with the spirit and requirements of the Act by not prohibiting the use of motor

vehicles above mean high tide within the Holgate Unit. Our Proposed Action, Alternative B, seeks to correct

this situation.

Comment: Some commenters noted that we have been using the State of New Jersey lands which

surrounds the Wilderness to police the area. They stated this as a fact, since they believed that there is no

access in the Wilderness for our vehicles as well.

Response: Like all citizens of New Jersey we have the right to drive our vehicles within the State owned

riparian zone below mean high tide. We also have the authority under the Wilderness Act to utilize the area

in the Holgate Unit above mean high tide for administrative purposes. Section 4(c) of the Act states that
108

“......except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose

of this Act (emphasis added) (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of

persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or

motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation

within any such area.” On page II-60 of the Revised Draft CCP/EA we also note that in our administration

of the Holgate Unit “We would scrutinize all planned management actions to determine if they are

necessary to protect wilderness resources and determine the “minimum tool” needed to carry them out. We

would not use a tool simply because it is the most comfortable, convenient, or least expensive.” Use of a

motorized vehicle may not always be the “minimum tool” necessary to get our job done. In the Principles of

Wilderness Management found in Appendix A of the Revised Draft CCP/EA, the eighth Principle states

that we must “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.”

Comment: One commenter felt that the Two-Mile Beach Unit did not benefit from the preliminary planning

effort (contacting organizations and individuals to solicit comments and suggestions on natural resources

and public uses) that was conducted for Forsythe and Cape May Refuges.

Response: The Two-Mile Beach Unit was addressed as part of a series of public scoping meetings held in

November and December 1996. Meetings were held in the Townships of Upper, Dennis, Middle and Lower

in Cape May County. We also distributed an Issues Workbook before these meetings were held and

distributed a Planning Update following the meetings. In April of 1997 we also held an Alternatives

Workshop to help us in the development of our alternatives. During these meetings and through the

workbooks we received many public comments on the Two Mile Beach Unit, which was still under the

jurisdiction of the Coast Guard at that time.

Comment: Many commenters felt that the Holgate closure was not necessary to protect the piping plover.

Response: Our proposed seasonal closure to motorized vehicle use above mean high tide at the Holgate

Unit is solely based on the authority of the Wilderness Act, not the Endangered Species Act. The summer

closure of the Holgate Unit from April through August, which has been in place to protect the piping plover

since 1988, would not be effected by this action and would remain in place. 

Comment: A number of commenters, including the Middletown Beach Association, expressed concern over

our plans to allow hunting between the Delaware Bay and Route 47.

Response: We acknowledge these concerns and all hunting will be conducted in full compliance with State

hunting regulations. We will physically post the 450 foot safety zones in the area involved.

Comment: Many commenters noted that fishing opportunities would be greatly reduced by our Holgate

closure. They felt that this violated our charge under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement

Act of 1997 to provide opportunities for the six priority general public uses, which include fishing.

Response: While we acknowledge that some opportunities would be lost at the Holgate Unit by anglers

depending on the use of motorized vehicles, anglers on foot would still have seasonal access to the beach at

the Holgate Unit from September through March. We believe that our proposed “seasonal ferry

concession” would also continue to provide anglers access to the tip of the Holgate Peninsula. Our Proposed

Action, Alternative B, also provides additional fishing opportunities on both Forsythe and Cape May
109

Refuges.
110
111

Appendix D

Finding of No Significant Impact

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

National Wildlife Refuges, including the Two Mile Beach Unit)

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Three management alternatives for the Jersey Coast Refuges were presented and evaluated as to their

effectiveness in achieving Refuge purposes and their impact on the human environment in the

Environmental Assessment. Based on this analysis, I have selected Alternative B (the Service’s Proposed

Action) to be enacted on the Refuges. 

One of the actions the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) will take under this Alternative is to close all lands

above mean high tide in the Holgate Unit of the Brigantine Wilderness Area to motor vehicles year-round in

compliance with the Wilderness Act. The year-round closure of the Holgate Unit will be fully implemented

October 1, 2002. 

The following modifications will be made to Alternative B:

1. Given the fact that the mean high tide line is difficult to identify on the ground, we will use the berm

crest and/or wet sand/dry sand lines, which are more readily identifiable, as proxies on the beach at

the Holgate Unit for the Wilderness boundary. All motorized vehicles will need to stay below the

berm crest and wet sand/dry sand lines while they are on the Holgate Unit to avoid violating the

Brigantine Wilderness Area. Educational efforts to familiarize anglers and refuge visitors with this

new policy will be implemented beginning October 1, 2002.

2. We will investigate the possibility of establishing an experimental shuttle service which would take

anglers and other refuge visitors from a convenient location to the tip of the Holgate Unit from

September through mid-November. 

3. The land protection efforts for both Refuges will be implemented in accordance with the Forsythe

and Cape May Refuge Land Protection Plans (LPPs) which have been reviewed and commented on

by the affected land owners, and have been approved in compliance with Service policy and the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

For Forsythe Refuge, the Revised Draft CCP/EA identified Land Protection Focus Areas 

encompassing approximately 17,000 acre, of which the Service proposed to acquire 11,500 acres. In

preparing the Refuge LPP we removed all lands that were either being developed or had already

been developed, reducing our acquisition target to 3,348 acres. 

For Cape May Refuge, the Revised Draft CCP/EA identified Land Protection Focus Areas

encompassing approximately 4,900 acre, of which the Service proposed to acquire 3,600 acres. In

preparing the Refuge LPP we reevaluated our acquisition target within the Focus Areas and

decreased it to 3,591 acres. This was done to insure that we provided long-term protection to the

numerous species of shorebirds, neotropical migratory landbirds, waterfowl, long-legged waders,

woodcock, raptors, finfish, shellfish, and threatened and endangered species that use Cape May

Peninsula. 
112

These new land protection acreage figures are reflected in the Final Comprehensive Conservation

Plan for each Refuge. Accordingly, 3,348 acres have been added to the approved boundary of

Forsythe Refuge and 3,591 acres have been added to the approved boundary of Cape May Refuge.

Alternative B was selected because it best achieves Refuge purposes, vision and goals; helps fulfill the

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; maintains and, where appropriate, restores the ecological

integrity of both Refuges and the Refuge System; addresses the significant issues and mandates; and is

consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management.

I find that the implementation of Alternative B will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human

environment in accordance with Section 102 (2) (c) of NEPA and conclude that an environmental impact

statement is not required.

____________________________________________ ______________________

Regional Director, Region 5 Date

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Hadley, Massachusetts
113 

Appendix E 

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 mperiled 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. 
114 

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 occurrences. 

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 
115 

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
116 

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 Forsythe National Wildlife 

Refuge. The Refuge lands are partitioned into five macrosites or geographically distinct ecosystems. They 

include: pine barrens; Barnegat Bay; Great Bay and Mullica River; Brigantine Bay; and Great Egg Harbor 

Bay and River. Detailed descriptions of these habitat macrosite 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 

Forsythe Refuge Macrosites
117 

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Global Federal NJ 

Rank

NJ 

Stat.

Pine 

Barren 

Barn. 

Bay 

Gr. Bay 

Mullica 

R. 

Brig. 

Bay 

Gr. 

Egg 

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? 

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 + 
118 

Forsythe Refuge Macrosites

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Global Federal NJ 

Rank

NJ 

Stat.

Pine 

Barren 

Barn. 

Bay 

Gr. Bay 

Mullica 

R. 

Brig. 

Bay 

Gr. 

Egg 

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 + + + + + 

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 + 
119 

Forsythe Refuge Macrosites

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Global Federal NJ 

Rank

NJ 

Stat.

Pine 

Barren 

Barn. 

Bay 

Gr. Bay 

Mullica 

R. 

Brig. 

Bay 

Gr. 

Egg 

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 + 

AMPHIBIANS 

Acris c. crepitans northern cricket frog G5 S3 U + 
120 

Forsythe Refuge Macrosites

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Global Federal NJ 

Rank

NJ 

Stat.

Pine 

Barren 

Barn. 

Bay 

Gr. Bay 

Mullica 

R. 

Brig. 

Bay 

Gr. 

Egg 

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 

Gavia stellata red-throated loon G5 MB SN S 

Podiceps auritus horned grebe G5 MB SN S 

Podilymbus podiceps pied-billed grebe G5 MB S1 E/S + B?/M 

Pelicanus occidentalis brown pelican G4 MB S1 INC B? 

Phalacrocorax auritus double-crested cormorant G5 MB SN INC M 

Ardea herodias great blue heron G5 MB S2 T/S B M S/M 

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 

Casmerodius albus great egret G5 MB S3 S/S B B B/M B/M 

Egretta caerulea little blue heron G5 MB S3 T/S B B/M B/M 

Egretta thula snowy egret G5 MB S3 S/S B B B/M B/M 

Egretta tricolor tricolored heron G5 MB S3 INC/S B B/M B/M 

Ixobrychus exilis least bittern G5 MB S3 D/S B? B?/M ? 

Nycticorax violaceus yellow-crowned nightheron G5 MB S2 T/T B? B? B/M B/M 

Nycticorax nycticorax black-crowned nightheron G5 MB S3 D/S B B B/M B/M 

Plegadis falcinellus glossy ibis G5 MB S3 D/S B B B/M B/M 

Cygnus columbianus tundra swan G5 MB SN S M/W M/W M M/W

Branta canadensis Canada goose G5 MB S5 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

Chen caerulescens snow goose G5 MB SN M/W M/W M/W

Aix sponsa wood duck G5 MB S5 B B/M 
121 

Forsythe Refuge Macrosites

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Global Federal NJ 

Rank

NJ 

Stat.

Pine 

Barren 

Barn. 

Bay 

Gr. Bay 

Mullica 

R. 

Brig. 

Bay 

Gr. 

Egg 

Anas acuta northern pintail G5 MB SN M/W M/W B/M/

W 

M/W

Anas americana American wigeon G5 MB SN M/W M/W B/M/

W 

M/W

Anas clypeata northern shoveler G5 MB SN M/W M/W B/M/

W 

M/W

Anas crecca green-winged teal G5 MB SN B? M/W M/W B/M/

W 

M/W

Anas discors blue-winged teal G5 MB S5 B B?/M B/M M/W

Anas platyrhynchos mallard G5 MB S5 B 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 

Anas strepera gadwall G5 MB S5 B/M B B/M/

W 

B?/M/

W 

Aythya valisineria canvasback G5 MB SN 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

Aythya affinis lesser scaup G5 MB SN 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

Lophodytes cucullatus hooded merganser G5 MB SN M/W M M/W

Melanitta nigra black scoter G5 MB SN M/W M/W

Melanitta fusca white-winged scoter G5 MB SN M/W

Melanitta perspicillata surf scoter G5 MB SN 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

Oxyura jamaicensis ruddy duck G5 MB SN M/W B/M/W 

Accipiter cooperii Cooper's hawk G4 MB S2 E + 

Accipter striatus sharp-shinned hawk G5 MB S1 U/U M 

Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk G5 MB S2 E/T 

Buteo platypterus broad-winged hawk G5 MB S4 S/S B B B/M 

Circus cyaneus northern harrier G5 MB S2 E/U B/M/

W 

B/M/W S/W B/M/

W 

Falco columbarius merlin G4 MB SN S M W 

Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon G3 MB S1 E B/M B/M/W B/W B/W 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle G3G4 MB S1 E M/W? W S/W 

Pandion haliaetus osprey G5 MB S3 T/T B/W B/W B/W B/W 

Fulica americana American coot G5 MB S1 D M/W B?/M/W 

Gallinula chloropus common moorhen G5 MB S4 B? 

Laterallus jamaicensis black rail G4? MB S3 T B B? ? 

Porzana carolina sora G5 MB S4 B B B? ? 

Rallus elegans king rail G4G5 MB S3 U/U ? 

Rallus limicola Virginia rail G5 MB S4 B B B B? ? 

Rallus longirostris clapper rail G5 MB S5 B/M B/M B/M B/M 

Charadrius melodus piping plover G3 MB S1 E B/M B?/M B/M B? 

Charadrius semipalmatus semipalmated plover G5 MB S? S 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 
122 

Forsythe Refuge Macrosites

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Global Federal NJ 

Rank

NJ 

Stat.

Pine 

Barren 

Barn. 

Bay 

Gr. Bay 

Mullica 

R. 

Brig. 

Bay 

Gr. 

Egg 

Haematopus palliatus American oystercatcher G5 MB S4 INC/S B? M M 

Arenaria interpres ruddy turnstone G5 MB SN S M M 

Bartramia longicauda upland sandpiper G5 MB S1 E B 

Calidris alba sanderling G5 MB SN D M M 

Calidris alpina dunlin G5 MB SN INC M M 

Calidris canutus red knot G5 MB SN D M M 

Calidris fuscicollis white-rumped sandpiper G5 MB SN S M 

Calidris himantopus stilt sandpiper G5 MB SN INC M 

Calidris maritima purple sandpiper G5 MB SN INC 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 

Catoptrophorus 

semipalmatus 

willet G5 MB S4 INC/S 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 

Scolopax minor American woodcock G5 MB S5 

Tringa flavipes lesser yellowlegs G5 MB SN S B/M B/M B/M B/M 

Tringa melanoleuca greater yellowlegs G5 MB SN S M M M M 

Larus philadelphia Bonaparte's gull G5 MB SN S 

Rynchops niger black skimmer G5 MB S2 E B/M B B/M 

Sterna antillarum least tern G4 MB S2 E + 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 

Sterna hirundo common tern G5 MB S3 D/S B B B/M B/M 

Sterna nilotica gull-billed tern G5 MB S3 S B B? B/M 

Coccyzus americanus yellow-billed cuckoo G5 MB S4 S/S B B B B 

Coccyzus erthropthalmus black-billed cuckoo G5 MB S4 S/S B B B 

Asio flammeus short-eared owl G5 MB S1 E/U W 

Strix varia barred owl G5 MB S3 T/T B B B? S/W 

Tyto alba common barn-owl G5 MB S4 S/S B 

Caprimulgus carolinensis chuck-will's-widow G5 MB S4 INC/S B B 

Caprimulgus vociferus whip-poor-will G5 MB S4 D/S B B B B B 

Chordeiles minor common nighthawk G5 MB S4 S/S B B 

Archilochus colubris ruby-throated 

hummingbird 

G5 MB S4 D/S B B B 

Chaetura pelagica chimney swift G5 MB S5 S/S 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 

Sphyrapicus varius yellow-bellied sapsucker G5 MB SN S M 

Contopus virens eastern wood-pewee G5 MB S4 S/S B B B B 

Empidonax minimus least flycatcher G5 MB S4 S/S 

Empidonax traillii willow flycatcher G5 MB S4 INC/S B B 

Empidonax virescens acadian flycatcher G5 MB S4 INC/S B B B 

Myiarchus crinitus great crested flycatcher G5 MB S4 S/S B B B 

Tyrannus tyrannus eastern kingbird G5 MB S5 D/D B B B B 

Eremophila alpestris horned lark G5 MB S3 D/S B B B 

Hirundo pyrrhonota cliff swallow G5 MB S2 T/S 
123 

Forsythe Refuge Macrosites

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Global Federal NJ 

Rank

NJ 

Stat.

Pine 

Barren 

Barn. 

Bay 

Gr. Bay 

Mullica 

R. 

Brig. 

Bay 

Gr. 

Egg 

Progne subis purple martin G5 MB S4 D/S B B B B 

Riparia riparia bank swallow G5 MB S4 S/S 

Steldidopteryx serripennis northern rough-winged 

swallow 

G5 MB S4 S/S B? 

Certhia americana brown creeper G5 MB S4 S/S B 

Cistothorus platensis sedge wren G5 MB S1 E B? 

Cistothorus palustris marsh wren G5 MB S4 D/S B B B/M B/M 

Catharus fuscescens veery G5 MB S4 S/S 

Catharus guttatus hermit thrush G5 MB S4 S/S B 

Catharus ustulatus Swainson's thrush G5 MB SN S 

Hylocichla mustelina wood thrush G5 MB S5 S/S B B B B B 

Polioptila caerulea blue-gray gnatcatcher G5 MB S4 INC/S B? B B 

Sialia sialis eastern bluebird G5 MB S4 S B B B 

Dumetella carolinensis gray catbird G5 MB S5 S/S B B B 

Vireo flavifrons yellow-throated vireo G5 MB S4 S/S B? 

Vireo griseus white-eyed vireo G5 MB S4 D/S 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

Dendroica discolor prairie warbler G5 MB S5 S/S B M B 

Dendroica dominica yellow-throated warbler G5 MB S4 S/S B? B 

Dendroica fusca blackburnian warbler G5 MB S4 S/S 

Dendroica magnolia magnolia warbler G5 MB S4 S/S M 

Dendroica palmarum palm warbler G5 MB SN S 

Dendroica pensylvanica chestnut-sided warbler G5 MB S4 S/S 

Dendroica pinus pine warbler G5 MB S4 S/S B B B 

Dendroica striata blackpoll warbler G5 MB SN S M 

Dendroica virens black-throated green 

warbler 

G5 MB SN S B 

Helmitheros vermivorus worm-eating warbler G5 MB S4 S/S 

Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat G5 MB S4 D/S B B 

Mniotilta varia black-and-white warbler G5 MB S4 S/S B B B B/M 

Oporornis formosus Kentucky warbler G5 MB S4 S/S B B 

Parula americana northern parula G5 MB S3 P/S B B 

Protonotaria citrea prothonotary warbler G5 MB S3 INC/S B B B 

Seiurus aurocapillus ovenbird G5 MB S5 S/S B B B B B 

Seiurus motacilla Louisiana waterthrush G5 MB S4 S/S B 

Seiurus noveboracensis northern waterthrush G5 MB S4 S/S M 

Setophaga ruticilla American redstart G5 MB S5 S/S B B B 

Vermivora pinus blue-winged warbler G5 MB S4 INC/S B B B 

Vermivora ruficapilla Nashville warbler G5 MB S3 S/S 

Wilsonia canadensis Canada warbler G5 MB S4 S/S M 

Wilsonia citrina hooded warbler G5 MB S4 D/S B B B 

Piranga olivacea scarlet tanager G5 MB S4 S B B B B 

Piranga rubra summer tanager G5 MB S4 S B? B 

Pheucticus ludovicianus rose-breasted grosbeak G5 MB S4 S/S 

Ammodramus caudacutus sharp-tailed sparrow G5 MB S4 S/S B B B/M B 

Ammodramus maritimus seaside sparrow G4 MB S4 S/S B B B/M B 
124 

Forsythe Refuge Macrosites

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Global Federal NJ 

Rank

NJ 

Stat.

Pine 

Barren 

Barn. 

Bay 

Gr. Bay 

Mullica 

R. 

Brig. 

Bay 

Gr. 

Egg 

Ammodramus savannarum grasshopper sparrow G4 MB S2 T/T B B B 

Junco hyemalis dark-eyed junco G5 MB S4 S/S M/W M/W M/W M/W M/W

Melospiza georgiana swamp sparrow G5 MB S4 S/S 

Passerculus sandwichensis savannah sparrow G5 MB S2 T/T B B 

Pipilo erythrophthalmus rufous-sided towhee G5 MB S5 S/S M/W 

Pooecetes gramineus vesper sparrow G5 MB S2 E B 

Zonotrichia albicollis white-throated sparrow G5 MB SN S/S M/W M/W M/W M/W M/W

Dolichonyx oryzivorus bobolink G5 MB S2 T/T + 

Icterus spurius northern oriole G5 MB S5 S/S B B B B 

Sturnella magna eastern meadowlark G5 MB S4 D/S B B M/W 

Carduelis pinus pine siskin G5 MB SN S W 

Carpodacus purpureus purple finch G5 MB S4 S/S 

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 
125 

Forsythe Refuge Macrosites

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Global Federal NJ 

Rank

NJ 

Stat.

Pine 

Barren 

Barn. 

Bay 

Gr. Bay 

Mullica 

R. 

Brig. 

Bay 

Gr. 

Egg 

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. 

caroliniana 

few-flowered nutrush G5T4T5 S2 + 

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 + 
126 

Forsythe Refuge Macrosites

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Global Federal NJ 

Rank

NJ 

Stat.

Pine 

Barren 

Barn. 

Bay 

Gr. Bay 

Mullica 

R. 

Brig. 

Bay 

Gr. 

Egg 

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. 

glastifolia 

boltonia G5T? S1 E H? 

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? 
127 

Forsythe Refuge Macrosites

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Global Federal NJ 

Rank

NJ 

Stat.

Pine 

Barren 

Barn. 

Bay 

Gr. Bay 

Mullica 

R. 

Brig. 

Bay 

Gr. 

Egg 

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 

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? + + 
128 

Forsythe Refuge Macrosites

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Global Federal NJ 

Rank

NJ 

Stat.

Pine 

Barren 

Barn. 

Bay 

Gr. Bay 

Mullica 

R. 

Brig. 

Bay 

Gr. 

Egg 

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 + + + + 
129

Appendix F

Pre-Acquisition

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).
130

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 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) for expanding the

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge have been superceded by the July 2000 Revised Draft
Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge have been superceded by the July 2000 Revised Draft 

Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan and March 2001 FONSI prepared for 

the Jersey Coastal Refuges. 

REFUGEMANAGER:~~~~~_f>~·~~~~~~_ DATE: 04}07(2..oo'1 I 

REVIEWED BY: -----"::::=:~~'::!:!''''t....<:,:::'=--~~~--- DATE: c:'/I W-?ffU'/ 

131 
132

This page intentionally left blank
133

Appendix G

Ecosystem services and functions (Costanza, et al. 1997)

Number 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.
134

Number Ecosystem Service* Ecosystem Functions Examples

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.
135

Appendix H

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) Project List

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 H-1. Funding and staffing required for RONS projects for Forsythe Refuge.

Startup

Costs

($000)

Recurring

Costs

($000)

15-year

Total Cost

($000)

Average

FTE

Edwin B. Forsythe Total $14,479 $3,668 $54,184 34.5

Table H-2. RONS projects for Forsythe Refuge.

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
Start

Year

Project Title: 

E.B. Forsythe NWR

Startup

Cost

($000)

Recurring

Cost

($000)

15-year

Total Cost

($000)

Staffing

(FTEs)

 Duration

(years)

136

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

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
Start

Year

Project Title: 

E.B. Forsythe NWR

Startup

Cost

($000)

Recurring

Cost

($000)

15-year

Total Cost

($000)

Staffing

(FTEs)

 Duration

(years)

137

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

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
Start

Year

Project Title: 

E.B. Forsythe NWR

Startup

Cost

($000)

Recurring

Cost

($000)

15-year

Total Cost

($000)

Staffing

(FTEs)

 Duration

(years)

138

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

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
139

Appendix I

Maintenance Management System (MMS) Project List

The Maintenance Management System (MMS) was established in 1982 to enhance Service-wide efforts in

planning and budgeting for maintenance activities. The MMS database deals specifically with maintenance

planning and budgeting. It serves to facilitate and standardize the documentation of backlogged

maintenance needs - maintenance deficiencies which have gone uncorrected for 12 or more months since the

deficiency arose due to lack of funding. Backlogged maintenance needs can include:

Repair and Rehabilitation - Work needed as a result of physical deterioration or functional

obsolescence of buildings, other structures, facilities, or equipment. This category of maintenance may

include projects that are to modify facilities for new functions, or to make improvements or additions

(limited to 10% of GSF) to existing facilities to enhance their purpose or utility.

Facility and Equipment Replacement - Sometimes the most cost effective "repair" of a building,

other facility, or equipment item is the replacement of it. To be eligible for listing in this MMS database, the

proposed replacements must be of generally similar size and purpose. An ATV cannot replaced with a

pickup truck. A dilapidated barn cannot be replaced with a new pole shed if the pole shed's size exceeds the

barn's size by more than 110%.

Backlogged maintenance needs do not include:

New buildings, other facilities, or equipment - except when they are replacing dilapidated or

obsolete items of similar size and kind. New items and major capital improvements are documented in

Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) database.

Unfunded custodial maintenance needs - Routine or minor maintenance activities of a custodial

nature. Examples include grass mowing, snow removal, grounds maintenance, janitorial services, minor

plumbing, and light bulb or window glass replacement.

Habitat restoration, rehabilitation, or maintenance - MMS maintenance needs are restricted to

facilities, structures, and equipment.

Projects or items under $5,000 - Items under $5000 are covered by the stations annual maintenance

allocation.

Attached is a table of the current project backlog for the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge. The

listing includes a project description and estimated cost.
140

MMS - Project Listing

52510 Edwin B. Forsythe NWR

97105 Radio Equipment

Replace malfunctioning low-band systems with

narrow band system. This is dangerous when

staff required to work alone in remote areas of

the refuge especially during foul weather, out

$100 R S

$100

CostEst:

CumOblig:

Backlog:

SR: 1

NR:

RR:

FndSrc/FYGrp/Sfty

Fix type: Replace

<File Missing> <File Missing> 1 %Cplt: 0%

52510 Edwin B. Forsythe NWR

98005 Refuge Office siding

Replace deteriorated exterior T-111 siding on

the headquarters. Replacement of flashing and

painting included as necessary.

$60 R

$45

$15

CostEst:

CumOblig:

Backlog:

SR: 5

NR:

RR:

FndSrc/FYGrp/Sfty

Fix type: Repair/reha

<File Missing> <File Missing> 25 4037 %Cplt: 25%

52510 Edwin B. Forsythe NWR

99004 Restroom/Kiosk Parking

Repave walkways around the headquarters

building, restroom, kiosk areas and the parking

lot areas to allow ADA 504 access for handicap

visitors.

$30 R

$30

$0

CostEst:

CumOblig:

Backlog:

SR: 12

NR:

RR:

FndSrc/FYGrp/Sfty

Fix type: Repair/reha

<File Missing> <File Missing> 1 %Cplt: 0%

52510 Edwin B. Forsythe NWR

98006 Refuge Office/Shop Doors

Replace corroded doors and doorway frames in

several refuge facilities due to the coastal

salt air environment.

$10 R

$10

$0

CostEst:

CumOblig:

Backlog:

SR: 26

NR:

RR:

FndSrc/FYGrp/Sfty

Fix type: Repair/reha

<File Missing> <File Missing> 2 6890 %Cplt: 0%

RMIS - Maintenance Management System 12/28/2000
141

MMS - Project Listing

52510 Edwin B. Forsythe NWR

99003 Lily Lake Road

Pave the existing gravel road to bring it to a

safe standard for vehicle and staff personnel.

This road provide public access around the Lily

Lake. This road was determined as poor by the

$100 R S

$100

$0

CostEst:

CumOblig:

Backlog:

SR: 20

NR:

RR:

FndSrc/FYGrp/Sfty

Fix type: Repair/reha

<File Missing> <File Missing> 1 %Cplt: 0%

52510 Edwin B. Forsythe NWR

99002 Scotts Landing Road

Repave deteriorated Scotts Landing Road which

the pavement is cracked and broken up winter

climate of the northeast. This road is use to

access the public boat ramp area.

$100 R

$100

$0

CostEst:

CumOblig:

Backlog:

SR: 99

NR:

RR:

FndSrc/FYGrp/Sfty

Fix type: Repair/reha

<File Missing> <File Missing> 1 %Cplt: 0%

52512 Edwin B. Forsythe NWR - Barnegat Division

90227 16' Boat and Motor

Replace a leaking 16-foot boat and

non-functioning engine motor needed for

enforcement of endangered species, waterfowl,

and refuge regulations. Includes galvanized

$30 R

$30

$0

CostEst:

CumOblig:

Backlog:

SR: 46

NR:

RR:

FndSrc/FYGrp/Sfty

Fix type: Replace

<File Missing> <File Missing> 1 2 %Cplt: 0%

52512 Edwin B. Forsythe NWR - Barnegat Division

93040 17' Whaler and Trailer

Replace a leaking 17-foot boat, motor, and

trailer used for endangered species recovery

efforts and refuge operations.

$30 R

$30

$0

CostEst:

CumOblig:

Backlog:

SR: 18

NR:

RR:

FndSrc/FYGrp/Sfty

Fix type: Replace

<File Missing> <File Missing> 1 1 %Cplt: 0%

RMIS - Maintenance Management System 12/28/2000
142

MMS - Project Listing

52512 Edwin B. Forsythe NWR - Barnegat Division

90220 1957 12' Aluminum Boat

Replace old 1957 12-foot aluminum boat, motor

and trailer which are considered unsafe to

operate used for migratory birds, wildlife

programs and public use.

$20 R S

$20

$0

CostEst:

CumOblig:

Backlog:

SR: 39

NR:

RR:

FndSrc/FYGrp/Sfty

Fix type: Replace

<File Missing> <File Missing> 1 2 %Cplt: 0%

52512 Edwin B. Forsythe NWR - Barnegat Division

97204 Manahawkin Swamp Bridge

Demolish an abandoned wooden bridge to prevent

a public safety hazard. General condition is

poor. Live load capacity is dangerously low. No

truck restriction is recommended. Repair work

$10 R S

$0

$0

CostEst:

CumOblig:

Backlog:

SR: 500

NR:

RR:

FndSrc/FYGrp/Sfty

Fix type: Remove

<File Missing> <File Missing> 1 21 %Cplt: 100%

52511 Edwin B. Forsythe NWR - Brigantine Division

89033 East Pool Water Control

Replace a deteriorated concrete water control

structure with an aluminum structure and riser.

Take out a second old water control structure

and fill in to create natural setting.

$65 R

$65

$0

CostEst:

CumOblig:

Backlog:

SR: 4

NR:

RR:

FndSrc/FYGrp/Sfty

Fix type: Replace

<File Missing> <File Missing> 2 %Cplt: 0%

52511 Edwin B. Forsythe NWR - Brigantine Division

98508 Scotts Landing

A public boat ramp damage by vehicle ramming

into bulkhead, causing a fire. The bulkhead is

also undermined. Project involves replacing

bulkhead and dock, grading, and covering with

$60 R S

$60

$0

CostEst:

CumOblig:

Backlog:

SR: 6

NR:

RR:

FndSrc/FYGrp/Sfty

Fix type: Repair/reha

<File Missing> <File Missing> 1 44 %Cplt: 0%

RMIS - Maintenance Management System 12/28/2000
143

MMS - Project Listing

52511 Edwin B. Forsythe NWR - Brigantine Division

97104 Water Street/Shropshire

Remove and dispose of asbestos properly and

then demolish the abandoned houses and garages.

These facility have deteriorated to a point

beyond repair, have been vandalized and have

$35 R S

$35

$0

CostEst:

CumOblig:

Backlog:

SR: 7

NR:

RR:

FndSrc/FYGrp/Sfty

Fix type: Remove

<File Missing> <File Missing> 2 %Cplt: 0%

52511 Edwin B. Forsythe NWR - Brigantine Division

97101 1988 Ram and Van

Replace aging pickup truck (1988 Dodge Ram 8/99

- mileage 50,000) and Van (1992 Astro Van - 80,

000 miles) used to support wildlife and public

use programs.

$50 R

$50

$0

CostEst:

CumOblig:

Backlog:

SR: 8

NR:

RR:

FndSrc/FYGrp/Sfty

Fix type: Replace

<File Missing> <File Missing> 1 %Cplt: 0%

C

52511 Edwin B. Forsythe NWR - Brigantine Division

93006 Visitor Center Carpeting

Replace worn-out carpeting in the headquarters'

auditorium that has been stained and matted

down.

$16 R

$16

$0

CostEst:

CumOblig:

Backlog:

SR: 24

NR:

RR:

FndSrc/FYGrp/Sfty

Fix type: Repair/reha

<File Missing> <File Missing> 1 4037 %Cplt: 0%

52511 Edwin B. Forsythe NWR - Brigantine Division

98506 Rovins House 

Demolish an abandoned two-story concrete

masonry structure. Public dumping and mice

infestations have made this site a health

hazard to refuge employees and the visiting

$15 R S

$15

$0

CostEst:

CumOblig:

Backlog:

SR: 10

NR:

RR:

FndSrc/FYGrp/Sfty

Fix type: Remove

<File Missing> <File Missing> 1 %Cplt: 0%

RMIS - Maintenance Management System 12/28/2000
144

MMS - Project Listing

52511 Edwin B. Forsythe NWR - Brigantine Division

90110 Boston Whaler and Trailer

Replace a worn-out 16-foot boat and trailer

used for endangered species recovery efforts

and for enforcement of waterfowl hunting and

refuge regulations.

$30 R

$30

$0

CostEst:

CumOblig:

Backlog:

SR: 11

NR:

RR:

FndSrc/FYGrp/Sfty

Fix type: Replace

<File Missing> <File Missing> 1 1 %Cplt: 0%

52511 Edwin B. Forsythe NWR - Brigantine Division

97101 1989 Dakota

Replace aging pickup trucks (1989 Dodge Dakota

- 8/99 mileage 60,000) used to support wildlife

and public use programs.

$24 R

$24

$0

CostEst:

CumOblig:

Backlog:

SR: 14

NR:

RR:

FndSrc/FYGrp/Sfty

Fix type: Replace

<File Missing> <File Missing> 1 %Cplt: 0%

D

52511 Edwin B. Forsythe NWR - Brigantine Division

93365 Cabin Quarters#1 Asbestos

Completely rehabilitate cabin for leaky

showers, rotted floors, windows sweats, no

insulation, no egress to backyard, failed

septic system and asbestos in basement. These

$35 R S

$35

$0

CostEst:

CumOblig:

Backlog:

SR: 17

NR:

RR:

FndSrc/FYGrp/Sfty

Fix type: Remove

<File Missing> <File Missing> 1 %Cplt: 0%

C

52511 Edwin B. Forsythe NWR - Brigantine Division

93003 Workshop HVAC 

Replacing the shop HVAC the current syspem is

not adequate HVAC to remove the saw dust in the

shop generated health hazard to staff.

$25 R S

$25

$0

CostEst:

CumOblig:

Backlog:

SR: 25

NR:

RR:

FndSrc/FYGrp/Sfty

Fix type: Repair/reha

<File Missing> <File Missing> 1 2853 %Cplt: 0%

RMIS - Maintenance Management System 12/28/2000
145

MMS - Project Listing

52511 Edwin B. Forsythe NWR - Brigantine Division

90195 Radio Tower

Replace radio tower damaged by storms for a

reliable communication system since cell phones

do not work in certain areas of the refuge.

Radio communication is essential for the staff

$10 R S

$10

$0

CostEst:

CumOblig:

Backlog:

SR: 40

NR:

RR:

FndSrc/FYGrp/Sfty

Fix type: Replace

<File Missing> <File Missing> 1 %Cplt: 0%

52511 Edwin B. Forsythe NWR - Brigantine Division

93005 Boundary Signs and Posts

Repost boundary signs on ten thousand acres of

refuge. Currently many signs and posts are

missing. proper posting is necessary for the

public to identify refuge lands.

$10 R

$0

$10

CostEst:

CumOblig:

Backlog:

SR: 500

NR:

RR:

FndSrc/FYGrp/Sfty

Fix type: Replace

<File Missing> <File Missing> 1 %Cplt: 100%

52510 Edwin B. Forsythe NWR

20011 Shop Roof

Replace 2700 square foot of shingle roofing on

the maintance shop

$15 C

$15

$0

CostEst:

CumOblig:

Backlog:

40

999

417

SR:

NR:

RR:

9999

FndSrc/FYGrp/Sfty

Fix type: Replace

<File Missing> <File Missing> 1 2700 %Cplt: 0%

RMIS - Maintenance Management System 12/28/2000
146
147

Appendix J

Glossary

alternative – a reasonable way to fix the identified problem or satisfy the stated need (40 CFR 1500.2) [see

also management alternative below].

amphidromous fish – 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 – fish that spend a large proportion of their life cycle in the ocean and return to freshwater to

breed.

aquatic barrier – any obstruction to fish passage.

aquatic – growing in, living in, or dependent upon water.

biological integrity – 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 – the abundance, variety, and genetic constitution of animals and plants in

nature. Also referred to as “biodiversity.”

breeding habitat – habitat used by migratory birds or other animals during the breeding season. 

buffer zones – 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 – 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 – 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 – Code of Federal Regulations.

Challenge Grant Cost Share Program – 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.
148

community - the area or locality in which a group of people resides and shares the same government.

community type – a particular assemblage of plants and animals, named for the characteristic plants.

compatible use – 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 – 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) – 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 – see issue.

conservation – the management of natural resources to prevent loss or waste. Management actions may

include preservation, restoration, and enhancement.

conservation agreements – 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 – a legal agreement between a landowner and a land trust (a private, nonprofit

conservation organization) or government agency that permanently limits a property's uses in order to

protect its conservation values.

cooperative agreement – 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 – evidence of historic or prehistoric human activity, such as buildings, artifacts,

archaeological sites, documents, or oral or written history.

cultural resource inventory – 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 – 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
149

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 – a collection of data arranged for ease and speed of analysis and retrieval, usually computerized.

diadromous – fish that migrate from freshwater to saltwater or the reverse: a generic term that includes

anadromous, catadromous and amphidromous fishes.

digitizing – the process of converting information from paper maps into geographically referenced

electronic files for a geographic information system (GIS). 

easement – 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 – 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 – 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 – a way of looking at socio-economic and environmental information based on

ecosystem boundaries, rather than town, city, or county boundaries.

ecosystem-based management – 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 – wetlands dominated by erect, rooted, herbaceous plants. 

endangered species – a federally protected species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a

significant portion of its range. 

environmental education – 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) – 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

environmental impact statement or finding of no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9).

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – 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
150

environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible and

irretrievable commitment of resources (40 CFR 1508.11).

estuaries – 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 – "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 – an outstanding example of a particular community type. 

extirpated – no longer occurring in a given geographic area.

federal land – public land owned by the Federal government, including lands such as National Forests,

National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges.

federally listed species – 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) – 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 – 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 – 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 – wetlands dominated by trees.

geographic information system (GIS) – 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 – descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that conveys a

purpose but does not define measurable units.

grant agreement – 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 – 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.
151

habitat conservation – 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 – 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 – 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.

interjurisdictional fish – 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 – 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 – 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 cd–rom and other computer

technology.

invasive exotic species – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – organizations dedicated to conserving land by purchasing land, receiving donations of lands, or

accepting conservation easements from landowners.

limiting factor – an environmental limitation that prevents further population growth. 
152

local agencies – generally referring to municipal governments, regional planning commissions or

conservation groups.

long term protection – 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 – a set of objectives and the strategies needed to accomplish each objective

(Service Manual 602 FW 1.4).

management concern – see issue.

management opportunity – see issue.

management plan – 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 – 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 “light-handed” approach (Hendee, 1990).

mission statement – succinct statement of the unit's purpose and reason for being (Region 7 Planning

Staff).

mitigation – 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) – 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) – “A 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) – 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) – “The mission of the System is to administer a

national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration
153

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 – a plant that has grown in the region since the last glaciation and occurred before European

settlement.

non-consumptive, wildlife-oriented recreation – photographing or observing plants, fish and other

wildlife.

non-point source pollution – nutrients or toxic substances that enter water from dispersed and

uncontrolled sites.

nonforested wetlands – wetlands dominated by shrubs or emergent vegetation.

Notice of Intent (NOI) – a notice that an environmental impact statement will be prepared and considered

(40 CFR 1508.22). Published in the Federal Register.

Objective – 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 – a discrete area where a population of a rare species lives or a rare plant community type

grows.

old field – 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 – "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 ocean–derived salts is below 0%." (Cowardin et al. 1979)

Partners for Wildlife Program – 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 – 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 in–kind service, i.e.,

labor, for a mutually beneficial enterprise.

population monitoring – assessments of the characteristics of populations to ascertain their status and

establish trends related to their abundance, condition, distribution, or other characteristics.

prescribed fire – the application of fire to wildland fuels to achieve identified land use objectives (Service
154

Manual 621 FW 1.7), either from natural or intentional ignition.

priority public uses – see wildlife-dependant recreational uses.

private land – land that is owned by a private individual, group of individuals, or non– governmental

organization.

private landowner – any individual, group of individuals or non–governmental organization that owns land.

private organization – any non–governmental organization.

Proposed Action – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – broad long term guidance for involving the public in the comprehensive planning

process. 

public land – land that is owned by the local, state, or Federal government.

rare species – species identified in Appendix 3–6 as Species of Special Emphasis due to their uncommon

occurrence within the watershed.

rare community types – 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) – 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 – 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).
155

refuge purposes – 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 – those lands in which the Service holds full interest in fee title, or partial interest such as

easements. 

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) – the Refuge Operating Needs System is a national 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 – the artificial manipulation of a habitat to restore it to something close to its natural state. 

Involves taking a degraded grassland and re-establishing 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 – water from rain, melted snow, or agricultural or landscape irrigation that flows over the land

surface into a water body.

Service presence – 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 – Species present in the watershed for whom the Refuge has a special management

interest. The following criteria were used to identify “species 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 – public land owned by a state such as state parks or state wildlife management areas.

step-down management plans – 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 – habitat used during bird migration for rest and feeding.

strategy – a specific action, tool, technique, or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to meet

unit objectives.
156

threatened species – 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 – a stream or river that flows into a larger stream, river or lake.

trust resource – 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 – large blocks of unbroken habitat of a particular type.

unit objective – 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 – 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 – dry ground; other than wetlands.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission – our mission is to work with others to “conserve, protect, and enhance fish

and wildlife, and their habitat for the continuing benefit of the American people.”

vernal pool – depressions holding water for a temporary period in the spring and used by a variety of

amphibians for egg laying.

vision statement – concise statement of what the unit could be in the next 10 to 15 years (Region 7 Planning

Staff).

visitor center – 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 – compared to a visitor center, a contact station is a smaller facility which may not

be permanently staffed.

watchable wildlife – 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, well– 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 – 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 – meadows located in moist low-lying areas, most often dominated by large colonies of reed
157

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 – 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): “A

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 “untrammeled” or

“primeval” 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 identify–within the constraints of the

Wilderness Act–goals 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 – “A 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 – 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. 
158
159

Appendix K

Works Cited

ABB Environmental Services, Inc. 1997. Environmental Baseline Survey, Electronic Engineering Center,

Wildwood, 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 Non-consumptive 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,.
160

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 “uncertainty principle” in field biology. Auk 96:190-192.

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
161

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: A Study of One Hundred Conservation Sites in the

Barnegat Bay Watershed. 

The Trust for Public Land. 1997. Beyond The Century Plan: Biological Studies and Land Conservation of

the Barnegat Bay Watershed. 

U.S. Coast Guard. 1996. Draft Environmental Assessment 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, 300 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. North American Waterfowl Management Plan: Atlantic Coast Joint

Venture. 106 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988, May. Refuge Management Analyses: Objectives and Management

Approaches at Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990, October. Regional Wetlands Concept Plan - Emergency Wetlands

Resources Act, Northeast Region. 18 pp. & appendix. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992, December. Cape May National Wildlife Refuge, Station Management

Plan.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993, May. Final Public 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. Evaluation of Contaminants in Sediments and Forage

Organisms Cape May National Wildlife Refuge. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994, September. Northeastern beach tiger beetle (Cincindela dorsalis

dorsalis) recovery plan, 49 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994, September. Hudson River/New York Bight Ecosystem Plan.
162

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996, May. Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) Atlantic Coast Population

Revised Recovery Plan. 246 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996, November. Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) recovery plan.

59 pp.

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 WildlifeDependent 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.
163

Appendix L

List of Preparers

Members of the Jersey Coast Refuges Planning Team

Mr. William Archambault

Former 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

Former Wildlife Biologist

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (RE)

134 Union Boulevard

Lakewood, Colorado 80228

Mr. Tracy Casselman

Former 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

Former Barnegat Division Manager

Edwin B. Forsythe NWR

PO Box 544, 70 Collinstown Rd.

Barnegat, New Jersey 08005

Mr. Leon Latino

Former 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. Edward J. McCarthy

Volunteer

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

300 Westgate Center Drive

Hadley, Massachusetts 01035-9589

Mr. Norman Olson

Former Chief, Division of Planning

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

Former Outdoor Recreation Planner

Edwin B. Forsythe NWR

Great Creek Road

Oceanville, New Jersey 08231

Mr. Rick Schauffler

Biologist/GIS Specialist

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

300 Westgate Center Drive

Hadley, Massachusetts 01035-9589

Mr. Paul Steblein

Former 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
164

Ms. Mary Varteresian

Former Wildlife Biologist

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

300 Westgate Center Drive

Hadley, Massachusetts 01035-9589

Ms. Alison Whitlock

Former Wildlife Biologist

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

300 Westgate Center Drive

Hadley, Massachusetts 01035-9589
165

Appendix M

Land Protection Plan
166

This page intentionally left blank
Edwin B. Forsythe NWR 1

A. Introduction

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently completing its Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process for

the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). In the resulting Comprehensive Conservation Plan

(CCP), the “Action Alternative” that the Service has selected includes expanding the Edwin B. Forsythe NWR

acquisition area.

The Purpose of this Land Protection Plan (LPP) is to provide landowners and municipal, county and state officials

an outline of the Service’s policies, priorities and potential methods for protecting the land within these refuge

expansion areas.

B. Project Description

The Edwin B. Forsythe NWR is located in Ocean, Burlington and Atlantic Counties, New Jersey. The refuge

expansion areas include a mixture of marshes, forested wetlands, upland forests and upland fields. The refuge

expansion areas encompass 3,348 acres, including 792 acres in Lacey Township, 95 acres in Stafford Township,

635 acres in Eagleswood Township, 106 acres in Little Egg Harbor Township, 475 acres in the City of Port

Republic, and 1,245 acres in Galloway Township.

The refuge expansion areas are a subset of the Land Protection Focus Areas contained in the Revised Draft CCP. 

These Focus Areas encompass approximately 17,000 acres. In the Revised Draft CCP, the Service proposed to

acquire 11,500 of these 17,000 acres. We have since reduced the acquisition target to the 3,348 acres included in

the refuge expansion areas. The reasons for the substantial reduction in the amount of Service land acquisition are

outlined in section D.

C. Threats to Resources

Because of increasing development pressure throughout the central Jersey Coast, especially in the Barnegat Bay

region and Atlantic County, many citizens who attended the 11 public meetings held at the start of the CCP

process emphasized the need for expanding land acquisition. Barnegat Bay is a National Estuary Program area. 

The wetlands of the Edwin B. Forsythe NWR are one of seventeen Wetlands of International Importance

designated in the United States under the Ramsar Convention. The refuge is a unit of the Western Hemisphere

Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN). The Jacques Cousteau National Estuary Research Reserve overlays much

of the refuge.

D. Proposed Action and Objectives

The Service proposes to acquire 3,348 additional acres to provide long-term protection to the numerous species of

shorebirds, neotropical migratory landbirds, waterfowl, long-legged waders, raptors, finfish and shellfish, and

threatened and endangered species. The objectives are to protect:

1. Known sites of threatened or endangered species and communities;

2. Areas important to the ecological health of lands already owned (e.g., to ensure intact ecosystem

processes, protect the quality and quantity of water for wetlands, provide habitat corridors between

existing conservation lands, or create contiguous areas of sufficient size to protect viable populations);

3. Areas important for priority wildlife species (e.g., critical stopover habitat for migrating birds of concern);

4. Areas identified as priority sites for protection by other conservation organizations; and

5. Areas still viable for conservation protection (i.e., not already developed).
2 Land Protection Plan

The following are some of the reasons for the substantial reduction in the expanded refuge acquisition area. 

1. There are State Forest or Park or Wildlife Management Area properties within, or immediately adjacent to,

some of the lands within the Land Protection Focus Areas:

# Little Egg Harbor Township portion of the Westecunk Creek Land Protection Focus Area,

# Mill Branch/Tuckerton Creek Land Protection Focus Area

# Sims Property Land Protection Focus Area

(There are some State-owned properties within the expanded refuge area that the Service does propose to

purchase, for example, in the Eagleswood Township portion of the Westecunk Creek Focus Area and in the

Galloway Township portion of the Nacote Creek Focus Area.)

2. There are township open space properties and deed restricted properties within the Nacote Creek Land

Protection Focus Area.

3. Some of the Land Protection Focus Areas, either totally or in part, are no longer suitable for consideration as

refuge or other conservation types of property, because they are being developed or have already been developed:

# Berkeley Township portion of the South Cedar Creek Land Protection Focus Area,

# Waretown and Oyster Creeks Land Protection Focus Area,

# Pancoast Area Land Protection Focus Area,

# Otis Bog section of the Ballenger Creek and Otis Bog Creek Land Protection Focus Area, and

# Nacote Creek Land Protection Focus Area.

E. Protection Alternatives

This section describes and evaluates four land protection alternatives to protect the biological resources in the

Edwin B. Forsythe NWR Land Protection Focus Area shown on Maps 2-8a, 2-8b, 2-8c, and 2-8d in the Edwin B.

Forsythe and Cape May National Wildlife Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental

Assessment (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, July 2000). It is the Service’s policy to acquire only the minimum

interest necessary to meet the Refuge objectives.

1. No Action

Under the “No Action” alternative, the Service would rely on existing federal, State and local land use regulations

to preserve the wildlife values of the Land Protection Focus Areas. We would provide technical assistance on

federally regulated species, particularly through Section 7 consultation provided under the Endangered Species

Act. Under this alternative, most of the Land Protection Focus Areas would probably be developed for residential

homes and associated recreational facilities.

2. Acquisition and Management by Others

Under this alternative, the Service would encourage other organizations and agencies, such as the New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection, the Atlantic County and Ocean County Open Space Programs and the

New Jersey Conservation Foundation, to protect and manage resources within the Land Protection Focus Areas. 

The Service would provide technical or resource support as needed. Each of the above agencies or organizations

already owns lands within the Land Protection Focus Areas.
Edwin B. Forsythe NWR 3

3. Less than Fee Acquisitions

Under this alternative, the Service would protect and manage land through conservation easement. An easement

is ownership of certain rights to a property, for example, development rights. Easements can be purchased for a

set period of time or in perpetuity. This method of protection allows lands to remain in private ownership, while

allowing the Service control over the management of the land. Once purchased, an easement is a legal restriction

on the use of a property, and is binding even if the ownership changes. For this reason, conservation easements

generally decrease the value of the land and decrease tax revenue. 

To meet the refuge goal of providing long term protection to the biological resources, any conservation easement

the Service acquires must: 1) preclude destruction or degradation of habitat, and 2) allow the Service to

adequately manage use of the area. Usually, this means purchasing the development right to the property in

perpetuity. On the east coast, development rights often amount to 80 to 95% of the land cost. The Service will

use conservation easements where they are cost-efficient or where owners of important habitats do not wish to sell

in fee title.

4. Fee Acquisition

Under this alternative, the Service would protect the properties through acquisition of all interest in land. This

would ensure the long term protection of the resources and allow the Service to fully manage the habitats to

benefit Trust resources.

The Service makes Revenue Sharing payments on lands owned in fee. These annual payments to local

municipalities are intended to offset local tax losses resulting from federal land ownership. Revenue Sharing

payments can be as high as 3/4% of the appraised land value.

F. Acquisition Alternatives

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire full or partial interests in land via direct purchase, donation,

exchange, or transfer. A brief description of each method follows.

1. Purchase

This is the most direct means of obtaining fee title or an interest in land. The Service negotiates the sale of some

or all rights to a property from a willing seller. Lands are purchased with Land and Water Conservation Fund,

Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, or donated funds. In all acquisitions, the Service is required by Public Law

91-646, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, to offer fair

market value as determined by an approved appraisal that meets professional standards and federal requirements. 

The Act further entitles landowners, tenants, and others to certain payments related to relocation, if they are

displaced by a federal land acquisition program. These entitlements include housing differential, moving

expenses, and other incidental expenses associated with selling the property. These payments are in addition to

the purchase price of the property and are not taxable under federal tax laws. The Service provides relocation

advisory services to all persons displaced from their lands by acquisition for Refuge purposes.

2. Donation

A citizen or private organization may wish to make a gift of land or interests in land to the Service for wildlife

purposes. Aside from the cost factor, these acquisitions are no different from purchases. 
4 Land Protection Plan

3. Exchange

The Service may exchange lands under Service ownership for land having greater habitat or wildlife value. 

Inherent in the exchange concept is the requirement to get dollar value for dollar value. Exchanges are attractive

in that they usually do not increase federal land holdings or require funds for purchase, but they may be very labor

intensive and take a long time to complete.

4. Transfer

Lands may be transferred to the Service from another federal agency. There are no federally-owned properties

within the proposed refuge expansion areas.

5. Condemnation

As a federal agency, the Service does have the power of eminent domain. However, the Service has a strict policy

of acquiring land only from willing sellers, and condemnations are extremely rare. In certain circumstances,

where the Service and the willing seller cannot reach an agreement on the value of the property, or where the

rightful owner of a property cannot be determined, condemnation may be used to determine fair market value or

to clear title. In these “friendly condemnations,” the Service will only initiate the condemnation process at the

request of a willing seller or a town, as in the latter case.

G. Coordination

The Land Protection Focus Areas were developed through the CCP in consultation with federal and State

agencies, federal, State, County and local elected officials, private organizations, and private citizens. This

planning process started in August 1996. We held eleven public meetings on the CCP during the fall of 1996. 

We held an “Alternatives” workshop in April 1997. We released a Draft CCP and Environmental Assessment for

45 days of review and comment in the Spring of 1999, and released a Revised Draft CCP and Environmental

Assessment for 30 days of review and comment in Summer of 2000. A Finding of No Significant Impact

(FONSI) was released in February 2001.

The Draft Land Protection Plan was mailed to all the landowners within the proposed expansion area in December

2001. The Draft LPP was also mailed to each of the six municipalities (Lacey, Stafford, Eagleswood, Little Egg

Harbor, Port Republic, and Galloway) and the two counties (Atlantic and Ocean) containing the proposed refuge

expansion areas. 

During the 30-day public comment period, which ended January 21, 2002, eleven private landowners who owned

land within the proposed expansion area contacted the refuge office. All eleven persons expressed an interest in

selling their property to the Service. One private landowner within the proposed expansion area contacted the

refuge office one day after the close of the 30-day public comment period. He said that he was not interested in

selling his property to the Service now, but might be interested in donating the property to the Service in the

future.

The Refuge Manager spoke with officials in all six municipalities and the two counties concerning the Draft LPP.

The Refuge Manager spoke with the Lacey Township Administrator. There is a proposal to build an adult

community on a property within the proposed expansion area. The Administrator was concerned that the State

land use regulatory agency might use the inclusion of that property within the approved refuge acquisition area as

a reason to deny necessary State approvals for development. Service policy is to work only with willing sellers. 

Lands within an approved refuge acquisition boundary are subject only to the same Federal, State and local laws

and regulations as properties outside an approved refuge acquisition boundary. The National Wildlife Refuge

System does not use the inclusion of a property within an approved refuge acquisition area as a reason to oppose

development proposals for such a property, because it is Service policy to work with willing sellers. 
Edwin B. Forsythe NWR 5

The Refuge Manager spoke with the Stafford Township Director of Community Development. She expressed

approval of the new refuge acquisition boundary in that township. 

The Refuge Manager spoke with the Mayor of Eagleswood and the Administrator of Little Egg Harbor,

respectively. Neither individual expressed any concerns with the Draft LPP. The Refuge Manager faxed the

Draft LPP to the Port Republic City Committee. The Committee made no comments on the proposed expansion. 

The Refuge Manager spoke with the Assistant Administrator for Galloway Township. She noted that the amount

of the annual Refuge Revenue Sharing payments made to the township decreased from $70,444 for FY 1999 to

$29,363 for FY 2000. She indicated that the township might not be inclined to support refuge expansion, if such

a reduced level of Refuge Revenue Sharing payments were to continue. The actual amount of annual Refuge

Revenue Sharing depends on the amount of funding Congress appropriates out of the general treasury to

complement the revenues generated from the sale of products off of refuge lands.

The Refuge Manager spoke with officials in the both the Atlantic County and Ocean County planning

departments. The counties did express any concerns with the Draft LPP.

H. Socioeconomic and Cultural Aspects

As a result of this planning effort, the Service could acquire up to 3,348 acres of land within the Land Protection

Focus Areas. Service acquisition will protect the important watershed areas upstream from lands already owned,

as well as several additional sites with rare species, and corridors connecting Refuge lands with other nearby

conservation areas. This land will provide more contiguous habitats for migrating birds, and allow for better

conservation reserves for populations of non-migratory species. This acquisition will also enable improved

management and water quality protection for waters feeding into the Refuge and the Barnegat Bay ecosystem.

Improved land protection through planning and acquisition will result in a variety of economic benefits to local

and county governments. Avoiding sprawl and promoting smart growth will reduce the amount of direct and

indirect expenses related to development. Acquisition of potentially developable lands will increase the value of

remaining developable lands by increasing demand and preserving local ecosystem values. Sustaining the output

of ecosystem goods and services is the key to sustainable wildlife resources, sustainable economic activities, and a

healthy human population.

Refuge Revenue Sharing payments to municipalities within which the Service acquires property will increase as

the Service acquires the additional 3,348 acres. If the Service did acquire all this land (assuming an average

appraised value of $3,000 per acre), the full payment value of Refuge Revenue Sharing payments to local

municipalities would increase by $75,330 per year [3,348 acres X $3000/acres = $10,044,000 X .0075 (3/4% of

appraised value) = $75,330]. It should also be noted that refuge lands require very few local services.

Refuge lands will increase protection for cultural resources in the area. Service ownership will protect known

cultural resource sites against vandalism, and will protect unidentified and undeveloped cultural resource sites

from disturbance or destruction. Service interpretive programs will promote public appreciation for the area’s

natural and cultural resources.
6 Land Protection Plan

I. Acquisition Priorities

The Land Protection Focus Areas were based on the following criteria:

1. Known sites of threatened or endangered species and communities;

2. Areas important to the ecological health of lands already owned (e.g., to ensure intact ecosystem processes,

protect the quality and quantity of water for wetlands, provide habitat corridors between existing

conservation lands, or create contiguous areas of sufficient size to protect viable populations);

3. Areas important for priority wildlife species (e.g., critical stopover habitat for migrating birds of concern);

4. Areas identified as priority sites for protection by other conservation organizations; and

5. Areas still viable for conservation protection (i.e., not already developed).

Most of the properties within the 3,348-acre expanded refuge acquisition area are privately owned, but there are a

substantial number of publicly owned properties (township, county and state) as well. (See Table 1.) Within the

expanded refuge acquisition boundary, we identified three levels of acquisition priorities based on the above

criteria. These priorities do not reflect a landowner’s preference to sell the land. Since Service policy is to

acquire land only from willing sellers, the order of actual land acquisition will be based on availability, in the

priority order listed below. Table 1 lists parcels within the expanded refuge acquisition area by township tax lot

so that landowners can better understand the Service’s acquisition priorities and how the proposed Refuge

expansion may impact their lands.

Priority 1: There are 2,656 acres of priority 1 properties within the refuge expansion area. We would focus our

protection efforts on purchasing these properties first. These lands have very high biological and trust resource

value, and are crucial for providing connectivity among habitats and natural communities. These lands

consolidate and protect the integrity of our trust resources. These lands best safeguard watershed values. 

Priority 2: There are 361 acres of priority 2 properties within the refuge expansion area. These lands have high

biological and trust resource value. These lands are an important link in overall biological resource protection. 

These lands help protect proposed priority 1 refuge lands; or protect existing refuge lands. These lands contribute

to watershed protection.

Priority 3: There are 331 acres of priority 3 properties within the refuge expansion area. These lands have

somewhat lower biological and trust resource value. These lands would help consolidate ownership for more

effective management, or to protect existing refuge lands. These lands contribute to watershed protection.
Edwin B. Forsythe NWR 7

Parcel Maps and Tables

The maps in this appendix show the land we own now, the new acquisition boundaries, and the parcels we plan to

acquire. Following the maps, tables identify each parcel, its tax map number, its acreage, whether it is publicly or

privately owned, and our priority and recommended option for acquiring it.

We have grouped the parcels into Group A, B, and C maps solely to enlarge their display. Those groupings do

not connote priority rankings (see tables). We plan to acquire either full or partial interest in all the parcels by fee

purchase from willing sellers.

A set of tax maps from the townships in the proposed expansion areas follow the maps for each grouping.

Expanded definitions of each table column head follow.

Priority: ranked on a scale of one to three, with one being our highest priority acquisitions.

Block and Lot: taxing authority block and lot numbers.

Acres: estimated acreage from town tax maps. Portions of some parcels are included within the

current, approved acquisition boundary for Edwin B. Forsythe NWR. For these parcels, we

calculated only the expansion acreage.

Protection type: We have identified here what we believe, given the information now available, is the

minimal level of Service interest needed for project objectives that is also cost-effective.

However, as parcels become available in the future, changes may be warranted to ensure

we are using the option that best fits the situation at that time (see section E, Protection

Alternatives).

Acquisition type: purchase, donation, transfer, or exchange (see section F, Acquisition Alternatives).

Ownership: public or private. Public ownership describes parcels owned by municipalities, state

agencies, or federal agencies.
MAPA Proposed Refuge Expansion Areas 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Barnegat Division, Ocean County, New Jersey, Group A 

Data Sources: 

USGS - 1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protecte<lland. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refUge information. 

Map PfflPared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 

November2001. 

This map is for planning purposes only. 

2 3 4 Mifes 

O;..."""....; ___ ;;..2"""....;3~_,.,;4""""""~5 Kitometers 22222. ==:s 

Proposed Refuge 

Expansion Areas 

N Primary Route 

N Secondary Route 

1\1 Road or Street 

N Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

III USFWS - Owned land 

~~ Other Conserved land 

~ 

.......• ~ ;:Mt.,;f>'".. +N .. ... 
- [ 

! 

'.""'~ 

i 

i Group A Map 1 

l___ _ _______ .•. 
MAPS Proposed Refuge Expansion Areas 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

(irl111n B 

Primary Route 

Secondary Route 

Road or Street 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

lIB USFWS - Owned Land 

Data Sources: 

USGS -1:100,000 roads & hydro. New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge information. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 

November2001. 

This map Is for plannlng purposes only. 

Little Egg 

Harbor 

fI 

• O~E2 ................ ..:. ____ ~2;.... ............ ...;;3 ___ .•. =;;;;;;;i4 Miles 

0i--........ i;;;; __ 2;;... ........ 3;;,. __ ............ 4 ~J Kilometers 

N 

+ 
-

I 

, 

, 

I 

\ 

I 

I 

\ 

\ 

\ .. ~ 

I 

--

• l '! 

1 

. I I l ' I 

PI I 

GroupB 

I 

! 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I :' I 

Map 1 
,-,. <;;l:.~.; 

, I 

1/ , , I mi I 

" I 

fJ?.t/ • I 

, 

I 

I 

/ 

.. -.' 

'~ 

, \ l:t 

It .~! 

::: .. , i 

" --

SHEET 87 

~ 

! ~ 

~ , 

;~~ -~ .01 

'{ 

® 

Group B Map 2 
__ L 

\ 

~ 

f.' 

" 

/ / 

/ 

/ 

/y 

// 

SH~ET 87 

) 

QU"ELO 

SE~S IIIInJ6 

ott • ..,:nM.<>' 

SKEEf " 

,"-------_._.-

. • " ... 'C, 

SHEET 8) 

~';:'~.~!!!::t:F~,~.:.~",.~ ... """'" """,,,,O' __..... ... -""...,,,._-""-- ...... ,,~_..,,._ "'-.00_...",. .. • __ ..,,,,,,,,,,_, _ 

."",...,. .......... <t .. """""' .. ""-......_ ,--.-.. 

.. _._------

SHEeT 8:; 

8; 

: .;z;~t;:;: I 

. 

"'i~'i">h"'",,"" . ~o~ ",.,,..,>.'1 

OCEAN 

COUNTY 

.. ¢ 4' 

;;:;:;; .... 

TAX MAP 

TOWNSHIP OF LACEY OCEAN COUNTY NEW JERSEY .' 

SCALE I". '200' FEBRU/l.R'f 19$9 

JOHN F. WADE.P.L.s,.p'p~cr.A.. 

818 W.LACEY ROAD,FORKED RIVER,N.J. 

Map 3 

<') 

~ 

::8 

a:l 

0.. 

~ 

j 

",-

_______ -..J 
r~ 

I 

~""'"'~""_""<M''''''-'UJ» -- PARKWAY 

,

.,." ..". ........ ,..-- ~'~AT:E~~~ ..... -.""" ____ ro" 

.."'",, GAROEN /& • • ," 

" iI 

SwUT .. 

i 

, 

" 

/ ! 

tI f.: 

,,, 

'I 

,., 

~: 

., 

" " !SI " .. _ 

/1" 

:~~ 

Ii; 

[,I 

I~ " /; 

10 ...... 
J 

} 

P/l.TTERSOH AVE. 

... 

g~~F'~~ 1",1 )", ~ , r. 

I 

I 

I 

J, 

... vEii~ -, II " 

I 

I SH£ET " I 

I 

T@ON 

I 

---' 

"""'I " 1 

1 

II' I ~ 

1 "'-~ AVNIJ~ -, 1 

I 

" I 

I~ 1,,1 I~ I~ !"" 1:$; 

II:> S.L. , Igi la 

~K£ARH,( AVENUE 

SHeeT ~ 

SHf:£T " 

GARDEN STATE PARKWAY 

'o«iJi' ...-:to' ,.." _' ...... In' .. 

=:f~'::-. 

@i) 

,!OQ'1' e.L "'o.~. 

." n-

=~ 

ill; 

" ~.:O...:. 

=.u.oc:iO! 

~"'<Ol 

" 4UT,IICO 

.......,AC,IQI 

"" !IL()CK, "" 

,; .,,-----------, c-~ ~ . .. » k ~ '< "Q~. "L_ "./~""'.".\ ;' '"'''.f ", • ..' - " . 

,'.0 <:::,' 

'>~4~~~~;. '<'~. II "' ....... " ",,-, ,~ 

,,~ , 

",>'.., 

;'~~~ ., 

.. --.--~--.---- ._-

" ~66'c. 

" ~lIi; 

;ii<>"'" 1\ 

" ~\ 

r\ 

1,' 

~\ ' , . , ' 

: , ~ . !!.11 .. ",I ... 

, 

,';, 

'l:J: 

<" 

" 

" " , : , , 

, , , , 

----~ Stlt£T ~6 

~ 

'-lillY 

SHeer 8& 

f 

~ 

~'"'U''' ",," " ., .... .""" "''',." 000' • ..". ......... ~ -.0> 

_ ....... _ ........ ____ ...arm>0I 

>e<.eot...-""", ... ...,.. • .,...,.--- "'_ ...... .,. .. "..-0""-"""""."'-- YO........,.... "."..n __ ........ ...... -

<t>o_ ... "",,-_.......: .. 1IC-"'- -' 

_.- _ --- ................. ",. 

~~ =.0, 

TAX MAP 

TOWNSHIP OF LACEY OCEAN COUNTY NEW JERSEY SCALE 1'''200' FEBRUARY' 1989 

JOHN F. WADE .P.L.S ...... C.T.A. 

818 W. LACEY ROAO~ FORKED RIVER, No.1. 

Map 5 

-.--------

B V) 

g. 

:2: 

p:) 

P.. 

'" 2 

o 
~ 

.§ 

0\ 

, 

J '{ . , 

@JElI:1 ·8 ! I 

~ "ft! , 8 ~ J; ~ ~ ~ 11'1' 

~ ~ ~ { - ! 

~ z 

!f l{ 0 

:'1 

E H ji x 

, U !~ " f'1 

0 ;1 ~I U> 

-i 

" I Z .j , 

II I , 

GroupB Map6 
'-----MArCH---LiN(~-- . 

!. 

, 

\ ~ 

II 

\; 

i ~ 

~ 

'" 

\. 

BE"ACHVIEW 

@Y~ 

~ 

~ 

'H~n 

4 

2.4~Ao:. 

~<s-

~(k~ C!.; 

) 

r 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

\ 

I 

I 

I 

" I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

@ 

! 

I 

I 

''''''-0 

~1.OI 

:s.<:s..", 

... -..~-

-, 

, 

i 

----~~:!!.---'~--

- . \\U \ \ , '"' I, ~ I 

''''''r u 

! 

.: 

;~ 

" ~~tf· 

'(,1 

~"tLT 5) 

1

'·,1 

:l1:! ~~I -=:==-.~ = .~~ STAFFORD TOWNSHIP 

fl-9 

er b_~._ g~~ \.~Ibb' o~'W ·,1 ,t;d,.~ CRAIG F REMiNGTON L.S. .. i'!, '" ... REMINGTON a VERNICK ENGINEERS I 

B i: 9A1..L£N STREET TClMS'RIVER NEW JERSEY 

49 

\0 "

§-< 

::s 

~ 

P< 

" 0 

.... 

" 

--' 
'l 

, 

~ .~ 

r.:\ 

Ie) 

@ u. 

® u .... 

'@ 1.4 .... 

.. -\) __ '~/ 

'0'0"'''' 

l' 

@ 

(;\ 

\:::) 

'O\© .. \ .:'~l .':.; 

"' 

@ .. ® u. 

'~'~" -"'" ... -~ - ~-. 

@ 

~'~ ";'1 

\5J 

@ .,. '; 

'0 

@ , ( 20 u. 

® © 

'! "a' 

...wt: .. ood-"~ 

;-£::::; ,"0'_\';"," 

, 

.0 

~~(.(.' 

, 

/ 

// 

\. 

,,0-'''' 

,,> 

0) 

" 

• _.- _ ...... 

---_-"., _a."....''UOI<I"zrtl,D:.. 

"'''''~ .... a_ ' 

:d~;~;l':~~ 

~~~ 11 

.JI 

. '" STAFFORD ~~ TOWNSHIP I

",. OCEAN COUNTY NEW JERSEY ~ SCALE 1'. 100' OEta.eER 1$67 

58 

,I' CRAIG F REMINGTON L S. !Ii REMINGTON a VERNICK ENG1NEERS • 9 ALLEN STREET, TOMS RIVER, NEW JERSEY 

58 

~ 

~ 

:::s 

III 

0.. 

2 

o 
MAPC Proposed Refuge Expansion Areas 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Brigantine Division, Atlantic, Burlington and Ocean Counties, New Jersey, Group C 

N Primary Route 

N Secondary Route 

/\I Road or Street 

N Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

III USFWS ~ Owned land 

Data Sources: 

USGS -1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge Information. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

Comprohenslve COI'lservalion Plan, 

November 2001. 

This map is fO!" planning purposes OIlly. 

Great Bay 

Oi-l ............ ~ ___ iioi2;.... ............ 5;3 ____ 4.Miles 

O"""' .... ...;; __ ~2 ........ .;3;.._oi4"""' .... ...55 Kilometers 

Little Egg 

Harbor 

N 

+ 
~,:. 

':: .. ,I-~-'=--------'-::~ 

i,' 

.'.,:. 

/ '/ 

' ... 

' .. ~ :::C •. ,' •• '.'~"< /,,~: .. '."': 

" 

':,"); 

. ,I' 'I.,; 

""; 

" I 

..I' 

, 

Map 1 
----------

+ 1+ 

I-

• 

+ 

---------- Groupe Map2 

Ol 

I L ______ _ ------------ -
~ I 

-------------- --.------

Group C Map 3 

, 

, 

; 

, 

-------~-- --------- --~---------- --~ - - ---------.------- -.- --------

I 
MAPD Proposed Refuge Expansion Areas 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

Proposed Refuge 

Expansion Areas 

Primary Route 

Secondary Route 

Road or Street 

Approved Refuge 

Acquisition Boundary 

~ USFWS - Owned land 

other Conserved Land 

Data Sources: 

USGS - 1:100,000 roads & hydro. 

New Jersey - other protected land. 

USFWS - refuge boundaries & 

other refuge infollTlation. 

Map prepared for Jersey Coast Refuges 

Comprehensive Conse!Vation Plan, 

November 2001. 

This map is for planning purposes only. 

0joooo,!",!",!",!"i;;;;;; ___ iiiii2~,!",!",!"..;;3 ____ .. 4 Miles 

0io-o,!",!"oi;.; __ ;2;",!",!"~3i;;;;;; __ 4.;..,!,,,!,,~ .. Kilometers 

N 

+ 
\ 

Group D Map 1 
1If---"Alll<"----'"'-'L-'--_ /~:; f / / ./ / '-~-"~":" 

1 

~~~r:===~~ __ --~~~I~--------------~ 

I ,,"'''''~~ /' " 

I 

~,,;< .... ~ /' 

... ,,....:;~~... ,/" -,.' 

6 11.33Ac. 

to. 82 AC.FPA 

... -:,. ." ./ V;· I ,,~ ... , / .: ..... --... : ....... , ..., ./" /., "'~ /~ 9 ./ ,', ' ·1 N\ //' .~. \' fCl t"~;" 6.;9~:.~~A 'I --.c' 'W ,? !oJ ",-- .... ',,, 

~ /" /;-,0"1, \, "'\ 

-' --_. !O " ---'-, Q" 

",;;r ,._._-' -' .... ~: ~~'-. 9.S2Ac.Ff'A 

~2.t2Ac. ; ; 

oJ> 

~ 

~I /' 'f .~\,... ../i·' , ~' /", .. ".' ... - -.. .. ::.<. ,0'" .~ L __ /-- 1.0'" . ~~ .. ,4" 

I ...-------1 '16.01 

'-

,; 

Ii ,/ 

, 

'~. 

1.03 []J 

-- 816 #' 15 

d ~ / ~.,.~, 1 14 13 Sl 12 #~ ~ ".,., , •• ", .... 

" .. ~.. /l'«' ..... "' \ " ... ,' ,Y'/. 102 

-"-', : ~ i , ..... T(O i 

J

'I' '''''') : '! \ . 5 i .:;l OO.Ad!)] 

~ IlA,<';i 

:; 

!; ''0' 

-~ I 

HudSl "!""t9 ~ ~ " 

",' .. "01 

63 

SIy"t:,. 

" ,,' 

./ 

__ " •. 'f P p..---

-_.-.-') 

/ ..... , , 

CO_--) 

.. --_.-// 

i 

'.', 

,--------_ . ../_ .. -

\,) -.'---"" ~~~~~:~, '::::;::;." ='i ',"> I 

1.04 

!'" 

II i 

':! 

E~ ,,,,,' 

!< .'" 

/' 

\,-

,) 

.-M-·-·-·-....,'\-

- \" /\~:~~- " -'''/' 

Ii 

11 

[]] , .... ..-' 

~~ ,'~. '.,', 

~ 

\ 

.~~ 

.;.~ 

. .;~'~' 

\ .. 

~" 

" 

'" 

, .. ~; 

,.y ~'<,. 

CO ,,> 

v·' " 

INSET DETAIL-THIS SHEET 

SCALE liNCH. ~O FEE T 

~~~;:~7~;<1' jll'.:ItJ;;.... .. ~- ..... ;:.:,.'.' ':~,'~~.1Jl!Jw.',,?,.,A~? 

TAX MAP 

CITY OF PORT REPUBLIC AYl~~Y'C COUNTY N(W .l£R&EY 

SCAlE ,"ZOO' HOVU~B[R ",lIn8 

IIE~"''''W F. ~IOW1DS,JA. PEaU 

217 WEST ..... ,N Sf/lHT 

... AYS LANDING , N~W .ltRSET 08330 

. ~;'.~.~::::';'.::.:..i.'."'~' «.'~" .. ,~ ",:i, • .., 

'" 

-

g. 

::B 

Q 

0.. 

:::l 

o 

~ 

o 

Z_i 
II 

I 

~I gl 

~I 

~I 

I 

I 

. SHEET to 

Wo' ......... _ ...... _ .. _ .... 

j 

('\J 

\ 

\ 

1 \ /(,. \" 

/ ' , , / :-\'\ ,\ 

I / \, \'\J Ii" .. , \ l " , \ ! 

i ! 

J( 

2:- --

:. 

I 

I 

Ii. I 

" / " " " J -< 

( ~ 

Group D Map Ib 
• 

~ 0 

X I . 0 • 

· X 

0 

0 

El " 

" ,,/ 

• >' j 

i I:;~ 

rn .. 

\ -ij 

t >. 

MATCHES 

'~tf" .. u.< .. " 

SHEET " 

.~., 

GALLOWAT TOWNSHIP-ATLANT!C COUNTY 

_z-

~ t 

P 

F 

.' I 

Group D Map Ie 
-

_z-

: 

{ 

./ 

GALLOWAY TOWNSHIP __ ATLANTIC COUNTY 

- . Group D Map ld J 
· .._-, 

Group D Map 2 

rI 

I 

I 

, 

:. j I 

~ i~J '-~-~-- --

'-0 

J 

! 

, 

~ 

~ ~ 

; 

~ 

~ , 

~ 

, 

.. 

~~ 

~ 

/ 

/' ~ , 

, 

! J , . . " ~ 

~ 
r 

i 

/ .r. 

// 

"..-:) 

v 

(\) 

Group D Map2b ()) 
Lacey Township

Priority Block Lot Acres Protection type Acquisition type Ownership

2 859 11 12.17 Fee Simple Purchase public

2 859 12 4.14 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 1900 2 44.11 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 1900 2.01 24.92 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 1900 3 30.49 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 1900 4 7.06 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 1900 5 30.30 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 1900 6 27.82 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 1900 13 47.00 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 1900 15 2.32 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 1901 9 16.88 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 1901 10 16.72 Fee Simple Purchase private

3 1901 11.01 50.51 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 1901 13.01 94.97 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 1901 14 71.34 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 1901 15 29.81 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 1901 16 5.07 Fee Simple Purchase public

3 1901 18 229.64 Fee Simple Purchase private

3 1901 21 46.37 Fee Simple Purchase private

Lacey Township Total: 791.64

Stafford Township

Priority Block Lot Acres Protection type Acquisition type Ownership

2 51 6 49.30 Fee Simple Purchase private

2 51 7 0.50 Fee Simple Purchase private

2 51 11 1.40 Fee Simple Purchase private

2 51 12 1.40 Fee Simple Purchase private

2 51 13 1.84 Fee Simple Purchase private

2 51 13.01 0.70 Fee Simple Purchase private

2 51 14 3.10 Fee Simple Purchase private

2 51 15 1.84 Fee Simple Purchase private

2 51 16 1.10 Fee Simple Purchase private

2 51 17 1.40 Fee Simple Purchase private

2 51 18 1.70 Fee Simple Purchase private

2 51 19 3.70 Fee Simple Purchase private

2 51 20 6.70 Fee Simple Purchase private

2 51 21 1.80 Fee Simple Purchase private

2 51 58 0.10 Fee Simple Purchase private

2 51 59 1.00 Fee Simple Purchase private

2 51 60 0.30 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 52 1 17.26 Fee Simple Purchase public

Stafford Township Total: 95.14
Eagleswood Township

Priority Block Lot Acres Protection type Acquisition type Ownership

1 39 29.01 7.00 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39 29.02 28.00 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39 29.04 11.10 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39 33 13.41 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39 35 5.00 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 39 36 64.10 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 39 37 77.00 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 39 38 24.33 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 39 39 2.95 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39 40 3.45 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39 41 9.00 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39 41AQ 13.00 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39 42 3.00 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39 42.01 0.05 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39 42.02 0.50 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 39 43 17.50 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39 44 2.50 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39 45 5.31 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39 46 3.30 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39 46.01 4.00 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39 47 28.15 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 39 48.01 6.39 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39 49 20.00 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 39 50 7.00 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 39 51 5.00 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 39 52 3.98 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 39 52.01 7.41 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39 53 38.00 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39.01 2 0.16 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39.01 3 0.15 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39.01 4 0.15 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39.01 5 0.15 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39.01 6 0.15 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39.01 7 0.15 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39.01 8 0.18 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39.01 9 0.20 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39.01 10 2.20 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 39.01 11 42.15 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 42 12 8.92 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 42 12.01 1.00 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 42 13 13.20 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 42 13.01 1.80 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 42 15 6.50 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 42 15.01 4.00 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 42 15.02 17.50 Fee Simple Purchase private
Eagleswood Township (continued)

Priority Block Lot Acres Protection type Acquisition type Ownership

1 42 15.03 10.98 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 42 15.04 3.10 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 42 15.05 2.00 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 42 15.06 3.40 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 42 16 0.10 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 42 17 0.90 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 42 18 4.05 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 42 19 5.00 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 42 20 19.40 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 42 21 2.30 Fee Simple Exchange/Purchase public

1 42 22 9.87 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 42 23 7.37 Fee Simple Exchange/Purchase public

1 42 24 2.54 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 42 25 27.49 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 42 26 4.16 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 42 27Q 23.00 Fee Simple Purchase private

Eagleswood Total: 634.65

Little Egg Harbor Township

Priority Block Lot Acres Protection type Acquisition type Ownership

1 325 3 61.58 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 325 7.02 44.49 Fee Simple Purchase private

Little Egg Harbor Total: 106.07

Port Republic

Priority Block Lot Acres Protection type Acquisition type Ownership

1 11 2 3.35 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 11 5 39.00 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 11 11 12.68 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 11 16.01 81.50 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 11 16.02 20.75 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 11 16.03 4.00 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 11 22 3.29 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 11 23 2.09 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 11 28 1.19 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 11 29 1.21 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 11 30 8.61 Fee Simple Purchase private

2 11 32 1.17 Fee Simple Purchase private

2 11 35.01 11.00 Fee Simple Purchase private
Port Republic (continued)

Priority Block Lot Acres Protection type Acquisition type Ownership

1 11 36 7.87 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 11 37 8.20 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 11 53Q 40.78 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 11 62 58.83 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 11 63 36.75 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 11 65 11.10 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 11 66 5.00 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 36 1 112.70 Fee Simple Purchase public

Port Republic Total: 471.07

Galloway Township

Priority Block Lot Acres Protection type Acquisition type Ownership

1 1167.01 10.01 170.00 Fee Simple Purchase public

2 1168 9 18.30 Fee Simple Purchase private

2 1168 10 13.50 Fee Simple Purchase private

2 1168 13 223.00 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 1178 1.03 32.59 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 1178 1.04 9.92 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 1178 2 10.00 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 1178 3 42.30 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 1178 6 12.80 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 1179.01 1 40.10 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 1179.01 2 1.03 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 1179.01 3 12.10 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 1179.01 4.01 136.38 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 1204.01 8 11.50 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 1204.01 10 34.50 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 1204.01 11 34.90 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 1204.01 12 9.40 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 1204.01 13 11.00 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 1204.01 14 6.60 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 1204.01 15 4.60 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 1204.01 16 8.40 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 1204.01 17 9.90 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 1204.01 20 38.00 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 1204.01 21.01 55.26 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 1204.01 21.02 14.88 Fee Simple Purchase private

1 1204.01 22.01 74.54 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 1204.01 22.02 20.75 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 1204.01 23 142.67 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 1204.01 25 23.90 Fee Simple Purchase public

1 1204.01 26.02 22.52 Fee Simple Purchase private

Galloway Total: 1245.34