Cape May National Wildlife Refuge; Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
The Purpose of and Need for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Cape May Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Two Mile Beach Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Purposes of Cape May 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Chapter 3. Summary Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Cape May Refuge
Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Biological Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Archaeological and Historical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Socioeconomic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Two Mile Beach Unit
Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Biological Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Archaeological and Historical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Socioeconomic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Chapter 4. Management Direction
Refuge Management Policies and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
The Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Cape May Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Goal 1. Protect and enhance Federal trust resources and other species and habitats of
special concern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Goal 2. Maintain and/or restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy,
functioning ecosystems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Goal 3. Establish a land protection program to support species, habitat and ecosystem goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Goal 4. Provide opportunities for high-quality compatible, wildlife-dependent public use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Two Mile Beach Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Goal 1. Protect and enhance Federal trust resources and other species and habitats of
special concern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Goal 2. Maintain and/or restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy,
functioning ecosystems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Chapter 5. Implementation and Monitoring
Funding and Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Step-down Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Monitoring and Adaptive Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Plan Amendment and Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Appendices
Appendix A. Relevant Legal Mandates and Land Acquisition Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Appendix B. Summary of Public Comments Received on the Draft CCP/EA and Their Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Appendix C. Summary of Public Comments Received on the Revised Draft CCP/EA and Their Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Appendix D. Finding of No Significant Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Appendix E. Species and Communities of Special Emphasis in the New Jersey Coast Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Appendix F. Pre-acquisition Compatibility Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Appendix G. Ecosystem Services and Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Appendix H. Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) Project List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Appendix I. Maintenance Management System (MMS) Project List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Appendix J. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Appendix K. Works Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Appendix L. List of Preparers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Appendix M. Land Protection Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 5
Maps
Map 1. Cape May National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Map 2. Two Mile Beach Unit of Cape May National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Map 3a. Refuge Expansion Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Map 3b. Refuge Expansion Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Map 4. Trapping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Map 5a. Habitat Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Map 5b. Habitat Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Map 6a. Big Game Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Map 6b. Big Game Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Map 7a. Upland Game Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Map 7b. Upland Game Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Map 8a. Migratory Game Bird Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Map 8b. Migratory Game Bird Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Map 9a. Wildlife Observation and Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Map 9b. Wildlife Observation and Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
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 Cape May Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 2. Staffing Plan for Cape May Refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
1
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
The Purpose of and Need for Action
Development of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) is vital to the future management of Cape May
National Wildlife Refuge (Cape May Refuge) and it's new Two Mile Beach Unit. The purpose of the CCP is
to provide strategic management direction over the next 15 years by:
• Providing a clear statement of desired future conditions for habitat, wildlife, visitor services, and
facilities;
• Providing a clear understanding of the reasons for management actions;
• Ensuring Refuge management reflects the policies and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge
System (Refuge System) and our other legal mandates;
• 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 Cape May 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.
Cape May Refuge
Cape May Refuge is located in Cape May County, and includes the Delaware Bay Division, the Great Cedar
Swamp Division, and the Two Mile Beach Unit. (See Map 1.) The Refuge was established in 1989. The
approved acquisition boundary for the Refuge encompasses 21,200 acres. As of September 26, 2002, the
Service owned 11,025 acres within the approved Refuge acquisition area.
In the past seven years, several studies or plans that involved the vicinity of the Refuge have been initiated
or completed. These studies demonstrate the importance of this area. The Refuge acquisition area is within
the New Jersey Coastal Area Facilities Review Act (CAFRA) zone and within the Service's Twin Capes
Project area (Cape May, NJ and Cape Charles, VA). It is partially within the Pinelands National Reserve,
the Great Egg Harbor National Scenic and Recreational River, and the Cape May Migratory Bird Stopover
Project. Delaware Bay wetlands within the Refuge are designated as Wetlands of International Importance
under the Ramsar Convention. There are only 17 designated Wetlands of International Importance in the
United States.
3
Two Mile Beach Unit
The United States Coast Guard declared a major portion of its Electronic Engineering Center (EECEN) in
Lower Township, Cape May County, excess to its needs in 1997. (See Map 2.) The northernmost 490 acres of
the former EECEN were transferred from the Coast Guard to the Service on October 22, 1999 as the Two
Mile Beach Unit of Cape May Refuge under the Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation
Purposes Act. Of the 490 acres, 221 acres are above mean high tide. Of these 221 acres, 90 acres are upland
habitat and 131 acres are wetland habitat. The Coast Guard retained the remaining 530 acres of the former
EECEN for its Long Range Aid to Navigation (LORAN) Support Unit (LSU) and the north dune antenna
tower. The LSU will remain in operation indefinitely.
The eighteen acre parcel of land bounded by LSU along the southern boundary line, Ocean Drive along the
northeastern boundary line and the Cape May Inlet along the western boundary line was purchased in
August 2003 and added to the Cape May Refuge as part of the Two Mile Beach Unit. The entire property is
considered wetland habitat.
Purposes of Cape May 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 Cape May Refuge are:
• "...use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds...."
The Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. §715d);
• "...the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife
resources...." The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. §742f(a)(4);
• "...the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide
and to help fulfill international obligations(regarding migratory birds)... " The Emergency Wetlands
Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. §3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583).
The purpose of Cape May Refuge's Two Mile Beach Unit is:
• "...particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program" The Transfer
of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act, 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C.
§667b-667d; 62 Stat. 240).
Refuge Vision
The following statement was developed to describe the desired future status of Cape May Refuge.
"Cape May National Wildlife Refuge will continue to contain some of the most important migratory
bird habitat in the National Wildlife Refuge System. It will continue to be focal points for the
protection, management, restoration, and enjoyment of migratory birds and other Federal Trust
Resources in coastal New Jersey. The Refuge will provide stop-over and wintering habitats of sufficient
size and quality to assist in maintaining migrating birds on the Atlantic Flyway.
5
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
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
6
further states that the national mission, coupled with the purpose(s) for which each Refuge was established,
will provide the principal management direction for each Refuge.
The mission of the Refuge System is:
"...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where
appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United
States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans." (National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-57)
The Refuge Improvement Act declares that all existing or proposed public uses must be "compatible" with
the purposes for which each refuge was established. Six wildlife-dependent public uses were highlighted in
the legislation as priorities to evaluate in CCPs. The six uses are: 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.
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 the project.
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. Cape May 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 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 Cape May 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 Cape
May 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 Cape May 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 one site within Cape May Refuge: Great
Cedar Swamp.
The Nature Conservancy Delaware Bay Project
The Nature Conservancy is a nonprofit conservation organization. Its mission is to preserve plants, animals
and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on earth by protecting lands and waters they
need to survive. The Nature Conservancy joins forces with communities and public and private
organizations to pioneer conservation programs around the world.
The Nature Conservancy has targeted the Delaware Bayshore for protection and has established the
Delaware Bayshore Ecosystem Project, which includes Cape May and Cumberland Counties in New Jersey.
Through the project the Nature Conservancy hopes to identify techniques to balance conservation needs
with the need to develop sustainable economic uses. The Conservancy hopes to improve stewardship of
private and public land. The Conservancy seeks to promote better coordination between public agencies,
private landowners, citizens and nonprofit organizations active in the area. The Conservancy stresses the
importance of biological diversity and the unique characteristics which enables the Delaware Bayshore to
serve as an important reservoir of our natural heritage.
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.
Cape May Refuge lies within both the Hudson River/New York Bight Ecosystem and the Delaware
River/Delmarva Coastal Ecosystem.
Hudson River/New York Bight Ecosystem Plan
The following resource priorities from this plan (USFWS, September 1994) are relevant to Cape May
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.
Delaware River/Delmarva Coastal Ecosystem
The following resource priorities for the Delaware River/Delmarva Coastal Ecosystem are relevant to Cape
May Refuge:
• Protect, restore and enhance migratory bird habitat and populations, with emphasis on the coastal
migration corridor.
• Protect, restore, and enhance wetland habitats, with emphasis on Service-owned wetlands and other
areas of exceptional value.
• Protect and enhance populations of threatened, endangered, and candidate species and their
habitats.
• Protect and enhance populations of inter-jurisdictional fish and their habitats.
• Protect, restore, and manage Trust Resources on Service-owned lands.
Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), Atlantic Coast Population, Revised Recovery
Plan
The primary objective of the revised recovery plan (USFWS, May 1996) is to remove the Atlantic coast
piping plover population from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants by:
• Achieving well-distributed increases in numbers and productivity of breeding pairs;
• Providing for long-term protection of breeding and wintering plovers and their habitat.
The Revised Recovery Plan describes detailed "Recovery Tasks" needed to meet the recovery objective,
including:
• Monitoring to identify limiting factors;
• Control of feral animals and predators;
• Erect exclosures for protection from predators.
Recovery Plans for Other Federally Listed or Recovered Threatened or Endangered
Species
Where the following federally listed threatened or endangered species occur on Cape May 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 Cape May Refuge began in the
summer of 1996. It was part of a joint effort including both Edwin B. 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 a series of eleven public scoping meetings were held in:
• Ocean County--the Townships of Brick, Dover, Lacey, Stafford, and the Boroughs of Long Beach
and Tuckerton;
• Atlantic Count--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 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. 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 Cape May 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, 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) and Refuge goals (beginning on page 31), the following
key issues for Cape May 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 that we provide furbearer trapping opportunities at Cape May
Refuge. They noted that trapping is a necessary and important wildlife management tool. Other people
objected to trapping.
Trapping is often used on National Wildlife Refuges to protect endangered and threatened species from
predators, to protect refuge infrastructure, and to maintain furbearer populations at levels consistent with
refuge objectives.
The protection and management of wildlife populations and habitats is the fundamental mission of the
Refuge System and Cape May 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 the meetings, in the workbook and at the workshop. The methods used to control these
species are also of great concern.
Cape May 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.
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). Deer and furbearer control activities are discussed below under Increased
opportunities for hunting 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.
Chemicals and pesticides from activities taking place on the Refuge or from off-refuge sources may impact
fish, wildlife and plants found on Cape May 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.
One of the major uses of pesticides in Cape May County is to control mosquitos. Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) is an overall strategy to reduce pesticide use. IPM for mosquito control includes Open
Marsh Water Management (OMWM). Because of OMWM done on the Refuge by the Cape May County
Mosquito Control Commission, no mosquito control pesticides have been used on the Refuge in several
years.
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 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 Cape May Refuge, deer hunting is allowed on most of the Refuge. Upland game hunting is not allowed.
Migratory game bird hunting is allowed in designated areas. Some people called for upland game hunting
opportunities on the Refuge. Others called for additional opportunities to hunt migratory game birds on the
Refuge.
Because hunting is one of the six priority general public uses of the Refuge System, it "...shall receive
priority consideration in refuge planning and management." (National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act). Refuge hunt programs must consider public safety, disturbance and other harm to wildlife, harm to
habitat, and conflicts between different user groups.
Increasing opportunities for fishing
Many people identified fishing on the Refuge as an important issue during the public scoping meetings, in
the workbook and at the workshop.
The Service does not have management or law enforcement authority over fishing from boats in tidal waters
within Refuge boundaries. Cape May Refuge is currently not open to fishing. Refuge beaches below mean
high tide are under the jurisdiction of the New Jersey Tidelands Council, with the exception of Cape May
Refuge's Two Mile Beach Unit.
16
Because fishing is one of the six priority general public uses of the Refuge System, it "...shall receive
priority consideration in refuge planning and management." (National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act). Refuge fishing programs must consider public safety, disturbance and other harm to wildlife, harm to
habitat, and conflicts between user groups.
Increasing opportunities for wildlife observation and photography
There was a great deal of interest expressed in expanding wildlife observation and photography
opportunities on the Refuges at the public scoping meetings, in the workbook and at the workshop.
The fact that Cape May peninsula is a world-renowned destination for bird watchers is reflected in the 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 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 the Refuge to place special emphasis in 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.
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 Cape May 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. The location of Cape May Refuge on
the peninsula makes it particularly important to the successful migration of birds in the Atlantic flyway.
Increasing resource protection and visitor safety
People identified resource protection and visitor safety as a concern during the public scoping meetings, in
the workbook and at the workshop.
17
New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the nation. Development in both Atlantic and Cape May
Counties has increased markedly since the birth of the Atlantic City casino industry in the 1980's. Refuge
law enforcement is not limited to wildlife related violations, but include a broad spectrum of violations, for
example, vandalism, trespass, and controlled substances. Posting new Refuge properties remains a constant
logistical problem. Public use is expected to increase rapidly as more of Atlantic City’s 35 million annual
visitors and the Cape May County millions of summer visitors discover Cape May Refuge.
The current staff of one full-time Park Ranger is insufficient to adequately patrol the Refuge and enforce
Refuge and other Federal regulations.
Improving Refuge buildings and facilities
The existing buildings and facilities at Cape May 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 their
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 the Service’s visibility in coastal New Jersey and improve the visitor
services, including providing opportunities for environmental education and interpretation.
Use of the existing buildings at the Two Mile Beach Unit
A number of groups expressed interest in using the former Coast Guard buildings located at the Two Mile
Beach Unit. There was also interest in seeing these buildings removed and restoring the habitat. The Two
Mile Beach Unit habitat is considered the best remaining piece of maritime forest found on the New Jersey
coast and an area critical to migrating birds. It is also within the 100-year floodplain.
In 2002 all but three buildings were demolished and the former building sites were restored to native
maritime habitat. The remaining buildings are planned to be used for a visitor contact/office complex, and
two maintenance facilities, one of which is currently being used by the Coast Guard.
Public access to the Two Mile Beach Unit
Some people expressed concern at the public scoping meetings, in the workbook and at the workshop, about
the possibility that the Service would close the beach during the piping plover breeding season.
Although the Coast Guard never officially sanctioned public access to the beach, they did allow people to
walk along the beach surf line and by that route to access the jetty at Cold Spring Inlet, a popular fishing
location. In the past, this beach has supported nesting piping plovers and the least tern. The Service
enforced an annual beach closure during the breeding season starting in 2000. Piping plovers and least
terns have nested on the beach since 2000 for the first time since 1994 and 1988, respectively.
Issues Outside the Scope of the CCP/EA
These issues do 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 will not be further addressed. The Service will, however,
pursue other courses of action, often in cooperation with other interested parties, to resolve them.
18
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 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 mosquitos 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.
19
Chapter 3. Summary Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Cape May Refuge
Physical Environment
Climate
Cape May National Wildlife Refuge (Cape May 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 255 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.
Geology, Topography and Soils
The Cape May Refuge is within the Outer Coastal Plain, which consists of sedimentary deposits dating from
the Tertiary Period. Elevations in Cape May County range between sea level and 55 feet above mean sea
level. The interior of Cape May County consists of low rolling hills and poorly drained depressions. The
ocean side of the County consists of broad tidal marsh areas fronted by barrier islands. There are well
developed sand dunes in some places on the ocean barrier islands and along the shore of Delaware Bay in
the southwestern part of the County.
The major soil series in the Great Cedar Swamp Division of Cape May Refuge are Barryland and Mullica-
Manahawkin Association and Transquaking-Appoquinimink-Mispillion-Pawcatuck Association. The major
soils series in the Delaware Bay Division are Barryland and Mullica-Manahawkin Association and
Transquaking-Appoquinimink-Mispillion-Pawcatuck Association, Downer-Ingleside-Swainton Association,
and Hammonton Association. The soil series on the Two Mile Beach Unit are Transquaking-
Appoquinimink-Mispillion-Pawcatuck Association and Urban land-Psamments-Beaches Association.
Hydrology
The Cape May Refuge is located within the New Jersey Coastal Plain with the underling aquifers consisting
of the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system and the Atlantic City 800-foot sand. The Cape May Peninsula is
surrounded on three sides by salt water and the groundwater recharge areas for the aquifers are not as
large as farther north along the coast. Because of these two factors, saltwater intrusion into the Choansey
aquifer is a substantial problem in the area. The City of Cape May has constructed a $5 million desalination
plant, because it can no longer extract suitable freshwater from some of its five wells. The plant's capacity is
two million gallons of water per day. The estimated operating and maintenance costs are $500,000 per year.
Cape May Refuge has both tidal and non-tidal surface waters. Non-tidal waters include marshes, bogs,
ponds, creeks, and seasonally flooded forests. Tidal waters include ponds, salt and fresh marshes, creeks
and old ditches, coves, bays, and inlets. Most of the salt marsh is tidally inundated daily, with the greatest
inundation occurring at new and full moons.
The Great Cedar Swamp Division is drained by Cedar Creek and Dennis Creek; the Delaware Bay Division
is drained by Bidwell Creek, Dias Creek, Green Creek, and Fishing Creek. These streams display low
20
runoff, about half the volume of other streams in the State, which indicates a high infiltration rate. The
Bidwell's Creek drainage basin has been identified by the County as one of the region's most important
groundwater recharge areas. Other major groundwater recharge areas in the County are near Cape May
Court House and Cold Spring.
Contaminants
The Service collected sediments, mummichogs, and fiddler crabs at 25 locations in and adjacent to the Cape
May Refuge in 1992 to determine baseline contamination. The 25 locations included all major drainages and
selected tidal creeks. The Service analyzed the sediments and mummichogs for trace metals,
organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's); the fiddler crabs were analyzed only for
organochlorines (USFWS, 1994b).
The sediment trace metal concentrations were considered to be typical for sediments in southern New
Jersey and probably represent site-specific background levels. Although low, the concentrations of arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc at one or more sample locations
exceeded sediment "effects range-low" levels developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and freshwater sediment "lowest effects" levels developed by the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment. Because sediment trace metal concentration levels did not exceed more severe effects levels,
the potential for adverse effects on benthic organisms exposed to the contaminants is low to non-existent.
The mean trace metal levels found in mummichogs and fiddler crabs were at the low end of ranges typically
observed in New Jersey. The maximum trace metal levels found in mummichogs and fiddler crabs appeared
to be well below levels of concern for fish and wildlife.
None of the twenty organochlorine tested for were detected in the sediment samples (average detection
limit = 0.04 ppm dry weight). The only organochlorine detected in the mummichogs and fiddler crabs were
the DDT breakdown products, DDD and DDE. The average combined DDD and DDE concentrations were
comparable to background levels for New Jersey. The maximum combined DDD and DDE level found (0.18
ppm wet weight in mummichogs and 1.04 ppm wet weight in fiddler crabs), however, were greater than the
background levels. Organochlorine concentration levels in Cape May Refuge area mummichog and fiddler
crab populations are low and are not expected to adversely affect the organisms or their immediate
predators.
Although low, the concentrations of DDD and DDE did not appear to decline significantly since 1989–the
last previous sampling. Although the use of the parent compound DDT ceased in the mid-1960's, it is
possible that weathered material continues to enter the estuarine ecosystem as previously contaminated
areas are disturbed through dredging or erosion.
Biological Environment
There is an extensive description of the plant and animal communities in the Cape May Refuge area in
"Significant Habitats and Habitat Complexes of the New York Bight Watershed" (USFWS, 1997). The most
important biological features of the locality include the estuaries associated with Delaware Bay and the
Atlantic coast, the transition between southern and northern species assemblages, and the unique and
critical role the peninsula plays as a staging area and corridor for bird migration.
21
Threatened, Endangered, Recovered and Rare Species
There are 12 species in and around Cape May Refuge that are Federally-listed endangered, threatened,
recovered, or species of concern, formerly called candidate species (Appendix E). The listed species for
which the most information is available are the peregrine falcon and bald eagle. Fall raptor surveys
conducted at Cape May Point by the Cape May Bird Observatory since 1976 have demonstrated a dramatic
increase in observations of both species. Over the past 10 years, peregrine falcon sightings have undergone
a five-fold increase, while bald eagle sightings have doubled.
Migrating and wintering eagles utilize the extensive marshes for hunting, and the wooded swamp and forest
edge habitats for roosting. The Dennis Creek Marsh is one of the most heavily used raptor sites in New
Jersey. The Great Cedar Swamp is an historic nesting site for bald eagles. Although eagles now only roost
in the swamp, the area is a potential nesting site.
A number of the other listed species have been documented on Cape May peninsula. There is a strong
potential for their occurrence on lands currently owned by the Refuge, or proposed for acquisition.
Vegetation and Habitat Types
About half of the Refuge land at the Cape May Refuge is wetland and about half is upland. Forests
(combining upland and wetland types) represent the largest single habitat type for the Refuge.
Most of the wetlands in the Cape May Refuge are dominated by woody vegetation (swamps) not emergent
vegetation (marshes). Salt marsh makes up about 15% of the Refuge land, forested wetlands make up 30%,
shrub/scrub wetlands and bogs make up about 4%, and open water makes up less than 1%.
Most of the salt marshes were either impounded earlier in the century to create meadows for salt hay
production or grid ditched for mosquito control. Most of the impounded areas have been reopened by tidal
action or human intervention.
Forested uplands make up about 42% of the Service-owned property at the Cape May Refuge. Upland
forests range from deciduous to coniferous dominated overstory composition, with tree species including:
pitch pine (Pinus rigida), oaks (e.g., white oak - Quercus alba, chestnut oak - Q. prinus, black oak - Q.
velutina, scarlet oak - Q. coccinea), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and sweet gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua). Fire played a prominent role in defining the composition and structure of upland plant
communities, both historically and prehistorically (Little, 1998). There are still some nearby State lands in
the Pine Barrens that receive regular fire treatment (both prescribed and wild), but fire on Refuge lands has
been suppressed for decades. Other upland habitats include shrub/scrub uplands which make up about 3%,
and grassland/old fields uplands which make up about 3%. Beaches make up less than 1% of the
Service-owned property.
Unique to the peninsula and present on the Cape May Refuge is the Cape May lowland swamp, a deciduous
forest swamp with an unusually high species diversity and found in headwaters areas.
Wildlife Resources
Migratory Birds: The Cape May Peninsula has long been renowned for its spectacular concentrations of
birds during the spring and fall migrations. Because of its unique configuration and geographic location
along the Atlantic Flyway, thousands of songbirds, raptors, and woodcock are funneled into Cape May
during the fall migration. Facing a 12-mile open water crossing, migrants may rest and feed in the area until
favorable winds allow them to either cross Delaware Bay or head back north, up and around the Bay. In
addition, the peninsula's extensive marshes attract large numbers of waterfowl, particularly wintering black
22
ducks, while the bay's narrow beaches attract major assemblages of shorebirds in the spring. Over 360
species of birds can be observed in Cape May County during the year.
The upland shore edge of Delaware Bay is well recognized as a critical fall migratory bird corridor. The
wetlands of the Delaware Bay Estuary, which include the Delaware Bay wetlands in the Cape May Refuge,
are classified as Wetlands of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention, one of only 17 sites so
designated in the United States.
The coastal wetlands of New Jersey, including the Delaware Bay marshes, are of international importance
to wintering waterfowl, annually wintering 34% of the entire Atlantic Flyway black duck (Anas rubripes)
population. During severe winters, black ducks rely heavily on freshwater fringe areas along the upland
edges of the marsh, where the relatively constant temperature of the upper reaches of small streams and
creeks cause them to remain ice-free when the remainder of the marsh has iced over. These marshes also
provide important black duck breeding habitat. Nesting surveys conducted by the New Jersey Division of
Fish and Wildlife have found high nest densities in the Delaware Bay Division.
In addition to black duck, Cape May Refuge also supports large numbers of other migrating waterfowl,
many of which remain throughout the winter: wood duck (Aix sponsa), blue-winged teal (Anas discors),
green-winged teal (A. crecca), American wigeon (A. americana), mallard (A. platyrhynchos), gadwall (A.
strepera), northern shoveler (A. clypeata), northern pintail (A. acuta), canvasback (Aythya valisineria),
greater scaup (A. marila), lesser scaup (A. affinis), bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), and Canada goose
(Branta canadensis).
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, and ponds.
The Delaware Bay shoreline is a major shorebird staging area in North America, second only to the Copper
River Delta in Alaska. Delaware Bay is a hemispherically important shorebird site. Hundreds of thousands
of shorebirds, nearly 80% of some populations, stop to rest and feed here during their spring migration from
South America to their breeding grounds in the Arctic. The arrival of over 20 species of shorebirds,
primarily red knots, ruddy turnstones, sanderlings, and semipalmated sandpipers coincides with the peak
horseshoe crab spawning season. Horseshoe crab eggs provide an abundant source of food for these
shorebirds to replenish their energy reserves.
There is substantial raptor migration through Cape May Refuge, with large numbers of 15 species observed.
Each year since 1976, an average of 75,000 hawks have been recorded by the Cape May Bird Observatory.
Because these birds are hesitant to cross wide expanses of water, most species migrate along the length of
the Bay coast, utilizing the Bayshore upland edge as a migratory corridor.
Notable raptor species include sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk (A. cooperii), red-tailed hawk,
broad-winged hawk, red-shouldered Hawk, northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), American kestrel (Falco
sparverius), and merlin (F. columbarius).
Large numbers of owls also migrate through the Cape May Refuge. Typical species include the common
barn-owl, northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus), and long-eared owl (Asio otus). The thick cedar
groves and woodlands of the expansion area are important to wintering populations of owls, including
long-eared owl, short-eared owl, and northern saw-whet owl.
23
American woodcock concentrate in large numbers on the Cape May peninsula during the fall migration. The
birds utilize the field/forest edge and old field habitats. Cape Charles, Virginia, is the only other area along
the Atlantic coast that concentrates woodcock in comparable numbers.
During the fall migration, nearly 100 species of songbirds pass through the County, utilizing a variety of
habitat types. An abundance of songbirds also breeds in the field/forest edge habitat of the cedar swamps
and salt marsh. Cape May Refuge also provides nesting habitat for regionally and nationally significant
species such as rails, Neotropical migrants, and raptors.
Mammals: Over 30 species of mammals occur on the Refuge, in assemblages characteristic of the Mid-
Atlantic 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), red-backed
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), least shrew (Cryptotis parva), and marsh rice rat (Oryzomys palustris).
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.
Reptiles and Amphibians: The reptiles and amphibians known to occur on the Refuge represent two major
assemblages – Pine Barrens and coastal estuarine environment. Important species from the Pine Barrens
group include wood turtles (C. insculpta), Cope's gray and pine barrens treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis and H.
andersonii), ambystomid salamaders (Ambystoma spp.). An important estuarine ecosystem species is the
northern diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys t. terrapin).
Fish: The estuarine habitat at Cape May Refuge hosts a wide variety of fish species. Some species, like the
mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitis), a common prey species for many larger fish and for wading birds,
depend on salt marsh as their primary habitat. Other species depend on the estuary for only a portion of
their life cycle. Important commercial and recreational finfish and shellfish species that utilize the estuary
during a portion of their life cycle include horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus), weakfish (Cyonscion
regalis), summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), black sea bass
(Centropristis striata), blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), and hardshell clam (Mercenaria mercenaria). The
horseshoe crab is particularly noteworthy. The Delaware Bay hosts the largest concentration of horseshoe
crabs, and many birds depend on horseshoe crab eggs for food. (See Migratory Birds above.)
Archaeological and Historical Environment
Prehistoric Period
The Cape May Refuge and the surrounding area was the subject of an archaeological field school sponsored
by Rutgers University and Stockton College from 1995 through 1998. Several prehistoric sites were
24
discovered, most notably a large site or group of sites on a tidal marsh island that is rapidly eroding. In
addition to the expected shellfish and mammal remains, a substantial amount of turtle bone from a variety of
species was identified here.
There is a proposal to study the paleoecology of the adjacent marshland, to determine the biological
resources available at the time the site was occupied. While the field school was not designed specifically as
a planning study to identify archaeological sites in the Refuge, its findings show that the highly varied and
changing mix of upland and wetland supported Native American populations in the area for an apparently
unbroken period covering the last 12,000 years.
Historic Period
Historic period settlement on the Refuge appears to have been limited. Most of the area was marshland,
woodland, or farmland, with little recorded settlement on Refuge property, and apparently few landing
areas to provide opportunities for maritime sites. A mill location on one of the streams within the Refuge is
one of the few recorded sites. There are no standing historic structures on the Refuge, however there is a
family cemetery.
Socioeconomic Environment
As is the case along the rest of the New Jersey coast, tourism is the number one industry in Cape May
County. Cape May County is ranked as the second best birding hotspot in all of North America (Konrad,
1996). A recent study estimated that the 100,000 birders who annually visit Cape May County bring more
than $31 million into the local economy (Kerlinger, 1997).
There is also a substantial commercial fishing industry in southern New Jersey. Fishing is the second
largest industry after tourism in Cape May County. There is an increase in shellfish aquaculture, especially
oysters. Bait fish, eel, and horseshoe crabs are also a major component of the industry.
Over the last 20 years, casino development in Atlantic City has spurred a large influx of people to Cape May
County. As farther north along the New Jersey coast, this has spurred a rapid construction of housing and
support infrastructure (e.g., roads, malls, plazas, and utility towers). The increase in human density and
associated uses have caused considerable strains on the ecosystem from the following factors:
1. Habitat loss - direct conversion of natural habitat types to developed types.
2. Habitat fragmentation - conversion of large contiguous tracts of natural habitat types to a mosaic of
discontinuous, smaller habitat type relicts; or erecting barriers that cause direct lethal impacts to
fish, wildlife and plants (e.g., roads, towers, dams).
3. Habitat degradation - partial deterioration of habitat due to pollution (siltation, nutrients,
pesticides, metals), exotic and pest species (phragmites, house cats), incompatible uses (all-terrain
vehicles, personal watercraft).
4. Water consumption - reducing subsurface and surface waters due to irrigation, home consumption,
and industrial applications.
In addition to these environmental-economic connections, there are others. A study conducted in Minnesota
determined that there is a statistically significant positive relationship between the amount of wetland acres
in an area and residential property values (Lupi, et al., 1991). The authors were not able to identify which
25
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?
Two Mile Beach Unit
Physical Environment
The "Draft Environmental Assessment for the Closure of Electronic Engineering Center (EECEN)"
(USCG, 1996) and the Environmental Baseline Survey Report EECEN (ABB, 1997) contain an extensive
description of the Physical, Biological, and Socioeconomic environments of the Electronic Engineering
Center.
Originally, the Two Mile Beach Unit (Unit) consisted of 491 acres, 221 of which are above the mean high tide
line. Of this acreage, upland habitat makes up 90 acres and wetland habitat the remaining 131. An
additional 18 acre parcel of wetland habitat joining the Two Mile Beach Unit was purchased in August 2003
as part of the Unit.
Almost all of Unit is within the 100-year flood plain; the entire Unit is within the 500-year flood plain. The
100-year flood, or intermediate regional tide, would have an elevation of 10.0 feet above mean sea level. The
500-year flood, or standard project tide, would have an elevation of 14.0 feet above mean sea level. The
September 1944 hurricane that struck New Jersey had a tide 8.0 feet above mean sea level.
In a 100-year flood, or intermediate regional tide, all of the Unit would be flooded, except for a narrow strip
along the top of the barrier dunes. In a 500-year flood, or standard project tide, all of the Unit, including the
protective barrier dunes, would be underwater. In either event virtually all the buildings at EECEN would
be destroyed or severally damaged (USCG, 1996).
Biological Environment
Threatened, Endangered, Recovered and Rare Species
The piping plover has historically used the beaches as nesting grounds, up to three nesting pairs recorded in
a given year. Peregrine falcons stop over before heading for the north coast of South America in the fall,
and the American bald eagle has been documented in the area.
Vegetation and Habitat Types
The lands above mean high tide consist of coastal beach and dune habitat and salt marsh habitat.
The beach community is composed of sparse vegetation, including American searocket (Cakile edentula),
coast-blite goosefoot (Chenopdium rebrum) and beach-heather (Hudsonia tomentosa). The beach dunes
are densely vegetated. The dominant dune vegetation includes beachgrass (Panicum amarum), bitter
panic grass (Panicum amarulum), American beachgrass (Ammophila breviligulata), American wormseed
(Chenopodium ambrosioides), and seaside goldenrod (Solidago sempervirens), bayberry (Myrica
pennsylvanica), and black cherry (Prunus serotina). The site is an excellent example of a maritime forest.
26
Common salt marsh species include saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), saltmarsh camphor-weed
(Pluchea purpuranscens), Carolina sealavender (Limonium carolinianum), salt-meadow grass (Spartina
patens), saltmarsh rush (Juncus gerardii), marsh elder (Iva fructescens), and common reed (Phragmites
australis).
Wildlife Resources
Migratory birds: Common species include mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), common merganser (Mergus
merganser), American coot (Fulica americana), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), herring gull (Larus
argentatus), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter
cooperii), red-tailed hawk, American kestrel (Falco sparverius), mourning dove (Zenaida macrourra),
eastern screech-owl (Otus asio), belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), northern flicker (Colaptes aurarus),
hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), and purple martin (Progne
subis).
Mammals: Many of the mammal species found in dune and tidal wetlands communities of Cape May County
occur on the Unit.
Reptiles and Amphibians: Reptile species common in the area include the eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina), diamond back terrapins, eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), and common garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis). Amphibian species common in the area include eastern newt (Notophthalmus
viridescens), grey treefrog (Hyla versicolor), and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana).
Fish: Fish occurring at Unit would be grouped into two major types: estuarine and near-shore marine. The
estuarine systems have already been described above under Cape May Refuge.
Archaeological and Historical Environment
Prehistoric Period
No archaeological surveys have been done at Unit, but the property has potential for prehistoric
archaeological sites, especially in areas of wetland edge environments. Several late prehistoric sites have
been found nearby in similar settings.
Historic Period
Although Cape May was settled by the middle of the 17th century, there is no record of historic occupation
of this property until 1870, when a lifesaving station was built on or near it. Many remains of shipwrecks
have been reported in the area, and there may be some evidence of these in the beachfront portion of the
property. There are no standing historic structures on this property. The Coast Guard facility was
established in the late 1940's, and its buildings are typical modern construction.
Socioeconomic Environment
See Socioeconomic Environment section for Cape May Refuge.
27
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 of1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
of 1997 (Refuge Improvement Act), is the key legislation on managing public uses and compatibility.
Before activities or uses are allowed on a National Wildlife Refuge, the uses must be found to be a
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 Cape May National Wildlife Refuge (Cape May 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
Cape May Refuge have been completed for the six priority general public uses of the System listed in the
Refuge Improvement Act, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental
education, and interpretation. (See Table 1on page 28.) The pre-acquisition compatibility determination for
Cape May 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 Cape May 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 29, Map 2 on page 4, and Maps 3a and b beginning on page
43.) 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 Cape May 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 Refuge would allow the
28
Table 1. Pre-acquisition Compatibility for Wildlife-dependent Recreational Activities at Cape May 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.
The Refuge will 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, the Refuge will 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 Cape May Refuge was established. To eliminate negative impacts, the Refuge will
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
The land protection efforts will be focused 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.
29
Land Acquisition Areas
The Service has identified 3,591 acres for acquisition to provide long-term protection to the numerous
species of shorebirds, neotropical migratory land birds, waterfowl, long-legged waders, woodcock, raptors,
finfish and shellfish, and threatened and endangered species that use Cape May Peninsula. (See Maps 3a
and b beginning on page 43 and Appendix M on page 129.) 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).
We will also work with interested agencies to identify additional areas needing protection and provide
technical assistance if needed.
Property Taxes, Refuge Revenue Sharing, Relocation, and Landowner Rights
The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of June 15, 1935, as amended, provides annual payments to taxing
authorities, based on acreage and value of Refuge lands located within their jurisdiction. In 2003, the
Service paid $132,957 to Cape May County communities.
Money for these payments comes from the sale of oil and gas leases, timber sales, grazing fees, and the sale
of other Refuge System resources and from Congressional appropriations. The Congressional
appropriations are intended to make up the difference between the net receipts from the Refuge Revenue
Sharing Fund and the total amount due to local taxing authorities. The actual Refuge Revenue Sharing
Payment does vary from year to year, because Congress may or may not appropriate sufficient funds to
make full payment. The actual payments made in 2003 were 48.48% 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).
30
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
Cape May 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.
31
The Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Cape May Refuge
Summary Statement
Under this CCP, staffing and funding levels at Cape May Refuge would be increased and the Refuge would
initiate new wildlife population, habitat, and ecosystem management activities; provide new compatible
wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities; increase land protection efforts; and construct new office and
visitor facilities to support the goals and objectives of the Refuge.
The Service 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 land protection efforts; and construct new office and visitor facilities to support the
goals and objectives of the Refuge.
The Refuge 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 provide neccesary
information in estimating the volume and impacts of public use, and in adapting the 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. 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 2. Expand our threatened and endangered species efforts on the Refuge.
Strategies a. Survey all Refuge lands for currently and potentially occurring threatened and
endangered species (Federal and State-listed).
b. Protect and manage newly discovered occurrences to maintain or expand those
populations.
32
c. Conduct a feasibility assessment for sites where a species does not currently occur,
but could potentially be restored. Attempt to restore species at sites with a
reasonable chance of success.
Objective 3. 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.
b. From the baseline surveys (including song bird point counts, frog call surveys, and
Monitoring Avian Production 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. 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.
g. Conduct a Wilderness Review of all Refuge by 2010 to determine if any Refuge
lands should be recommended for designation as part of the National Wilderness
Preservation System.
Objective 4. Expand efforts to protect and enhance other species and habitats of special concern.
33
Strategies a. Provide technical assistance to local communities and partners, on wildlife-related
issues (e.g., wildlife and habitat monitoring; contaminant spill planning/response).
b. Initiate efforts to restore colonial nesting birds. 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. Provide public trapping opportunities for raccoon, fox, muskrat, coyote and
beaver, under Refuge special use permits, on Refuge lands north of Highway 550.
(See Map 4 on page 45.)
Goal 2. Maintain and/or restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy, functioning
ecosystems.
Objective 1. Complete a step-down Habitat Management Plan for the Refuge by 2005.
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 and b
beginning on page 46.)
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;
• 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;
34
• 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 4,090 acres for Upland Forest by maintaining 3,775 acres of existing Upland
Forest, converting 238 acres of Upland Brush and 56 acres of Crop-Pasture to regrow, and
restoring 21 acres of Developed Land.
Objective 3. Maintain 2,346 acres as Wetland Forests. Additional research may indicate the need to
restore Atlantic White Cedar in current Wetland Forest sites.
Objective 4. Maintain 1,345 acres as Salt Marsh.
Objective 5. Maintain 343 acres as Wetland/Bog Brush, generally in a complex with Cedar Swamp
Forests.
Objective 6. Manage 167 acres as Grassland habitat (native grasses and forbs) by restoring five acres of
Developed Land, 159 acres of Crop-Pasture, two acres of Upland Forest, and one acre of
Upland Brush. Actively restore areas currently covered with grasses and forbs that are
dominated by exotic and invasive species to native species.
Objective 7. Manage 104 acres of early succession Brushy Uplands by maintaining 11 acres in a brushy
state through the use of mechanical or fire techniques, converting 71 acres of Crop-Pasture,
Sand-Gravel Pit or Developed Land to brush by allowing it to regrow, and setting back 22
acres of Upland Forest to a brushy state.
Objective 8. Maintain 61 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 9. Maintain 25 of existing Fresh Non-tidal Marsh.
Objective 10. Maintain or convert 37 acres to Dune-Beach habitat, the actual acreage will vary based on
the highly dynamic shoreline changes. Restore five acres of Developed Land and four acres
of Brush Upland to Dune-Beach habitat.
Objective 11. Allow eight acres of Upland Brush to succeed into Forest Island habitat in salt marshes and
bays of the estuary.
Objective 12. Maintain 402 acres of as Cedar Swamp Forest and restore seven acres of Sand-Gravel Pit
to Cedar Swamp Forest habitat.
35
Objective 13. One acre associated with offices and other Refuge facilities would remain Developed Land.
Landscape this area with native plants and maintain it to support Refuge activities and
reduce negative impacts on wildlife.
Objective 14. Complete revision of step-down Fire Management Plan and Burn Prescriptions in 2001 and
apply prescribed fire to all of the upland habitats. (Note: The step-down Fire Management
was completed and approved in May 2003.)
Strategies a. Upland Forest - burn once every 8-15 years to reduce hazardous fuel, overstory
stand density, 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.
Objective 15. Develop and implement an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program with control
strategies for phragmites and other exotic plant species by 2005.
Strategies a. Survey invasive and exotic species on the Refuge.
b. Establish a monitoring program, in concert with habitat monitoring, to assess
progress and identify additional problem species.
c. Research alternative methods of controlling certain species.
d. Offer technical assistance and support to restoration and control efforts on nearby
public and private lands.
Objective 16. Reduce use of pesticides on the Refuge.
Strategies a. Continue current reliance on Open Marsh Water Management on the Refuge to
control mosquitos. No pesticides have been used on the Refuge for the past five
years.
b. Complete renegotiation of the Cooperative Agreement with county mosquito
control agencies and the State regarding mosquito control activities on the Refuge.
Continue current mosquito control efforts on the Refuge until further planning
prescribes other actions.
c. Aggressively pursue alternatives to pesticide use.
d. Offer technical assistance on IPM strategies to local communities for controlling
common problem species.
36
Goal 3. Establish a land protection program to support species, habitat and ecosystem goals.
Objective 1. Acquire the remaining 10,175 acres of privately owned land within the currently approved
21,200 acre Refuge acquisition boundary. (See Maps 3a and b beginning on page 43.)
Strategies a. Continue buying from willing sellers and focus our land acquisition efforts on
developable upland properties first.
b. Obtain the $4.56 million in funding needed to acquire the remaining 7,600 acres of
land within the approved Refuge acquisition area (average cost of $600 per acre).
(The average annual Land and Water Conservation appropriation for this Refuge,
based on the five-year period, FY-1995/1999, is $1,200,000.)
c. Maintain present level of participation in off-Refuge land use planning efforts with
governmental and private partners (e.g., the Migratory Bird Stopover Project).
Objective 2. Work to protect 3,591 acres of wildlife habitat essential to the long-term ecological integrity
of the Refuge. (See Map 2 on page 4, Maps 3a and b beginning on page 43, and Appendix M
on page 135.)
Strategies a. Acquire 3,591 acres, which were defined in cooperation with the State, local
municipalities and our conservation partners.
b. Continue our policy of working with willing sellers.
c. Obtain the $8.6 million in funding needed to acquire all 3,591 acres (average cost of
$2,400 per acre). (This would require increasing the average annual Land and
Water Conservation Fund appropriation for the Refuge by about $550,000 for the
next fifteen years. For the five-year period, FY-1995/1999, the average annual
Land and Water Conservation funding for the Refuge was about $1.2 million.)
d. Expand our land planning efforts with municipalities, counties, and the State.
e. Expand our efforts to work with public and private landowners to implement
wildlife habitat protection and restoration off Service-owned land.
f. Seek to acquire the Coast Guard’s LORAN Support Unit (adjacent to the Two Mile
Beach Unit), should it become excess to its needs, and the adjacent 17-acre
privately owned parcel. (See Map 2 on page 4.) (Note: An additional 18 acre parcel
of wetland habitat joining the Two Mile Beach Unit was purchased in August 2003
as part of the Unit.)
Goal 4. Provide opportunities for high-quality compatible, wildlife-dependent public use.
Objective 1. Continue to provide compatible big game hunting opportunities on the Refuge. (See Maps
6a and b beginning on page 48.)
Strategies a. Continue to open almost all of the Refuge for all six of New Jersey’s deer seasons,
subject to Refuge and State regulations.
37
b. Continue to keep the two closed areas in Middle Township closed to all public uses.
c. Reduce big game hunting activities if we determine that incompatible levels of use
are occurring.
Objective 2. Provide new compatible upland game hunting opportunities on the Refuge by 2002. (See
Maps 7a and b beginning on page 50.)
Strategies a. Initiate the Refuge’s first upland game hunting opportunities on selected areas of
the Refuge.
• Open Refuge lands west of Highway 47 in the Delaware Bay Division for
hunting gray squirrel and cottontail rabbit.
• Open Refuge lands north of Highway 550 in the Great Cedar Swamp
Division for hunting gray squirrel, cottontail rabbit, and turkey.
b. 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.
c. Reduce upland game hunting activities if the Refuge determines that incompatible
levels of use are occurring.
Objective 3. Continue to provide compatible migratory bird hunting opportunities on the Refuge. (See
Maps 8a and b beginning on page 52.)
Strategies a. Continue to allow migratory game bird hunting west of NJ Route 47 in the
Delaware Bay Division.
Objective 4. Expand compatible migratory bird hunting opportunities on the Refuge by 2002. (See
Maps 8a and b beginning on page 52.)
Strategies a. Open all lands north of County Route 550 in the Great Cedar Swamp Division to
migratory game bird hunting, according to State and Refuge regulations.
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.
38
c. Reduce migratory game bird hunting activities if we determine that incompatible
levels of use are occurring.
Objective 5. Open the entire Refuge to compatible fishing and crabbing by 2002, so as to simplify the
regulations and provide maximum opportunities for the public to fish.
Strategies a. These activities are functionally limited to just a few freshwater ponds and various
tidally influenced creeks.
b. Reduce fishing and crabbing activities if the Refuge determines that incompatible
levels of use are occurring.
Objective 6. Continue to provide compatible wildlife observation and photography opportunities on the
Refuge. (See maps 9a and b beginning on page 54.)
Strategies a. Continue to provide Refuge-wide opportunities for wildlife observation and
interpretation, including those provided on the Woodcock Trail.
Objective 7. Expand compatible wildlife observation and photography opportunities on the Refuge. (See
Maps 9a and b beginning on page 54.)
Strategies a. Make the following planned improvements to ensure that the Refuge is much more
accessible and enjoyable to the visitor:
• a universally accessible trail with a rolled and compacted surface of stone
dust and numerous benches at the Refuge headquarters;
• a parking lot and kiosk in the area of Gracetown Road/Woodbine Blvd. in
Dennis Township in conjunction with the proposed 35-mile trail on the
former railroad bed running from Cape May to Manumuskin, Cumberland
County. A portion of this trail would run through the Refuge. This trail
would be open to hiking, bicycling, and horseback riding;
• improved hiking trails into the adjacent cedar swamp;
• a canoe landing and designated canoe route on Cedar Creek in Upper
Township, to provide opportunities for wildlife observation in areas
otherwise difficult to access;
• parking lots, kiosks, and other trail improvements at Peach Orchard Road
in Upper Township, and the Stocker and Schellinger tracts in Middle
Township, similar to what has already been done at the Woodcock Trail.
b. Reduce wildlife observation and photography activities if the Refuge determines
that incompatible levels of use are occurring.
Objective 8. Continue to provide compatible environmental education and interpretation opportunities
on and off the Refuge. (See maps 9a and b beginning on page 54.)
Strategies a. Continue to maintain interpretive signs and distribute Refuge brochures at
existing public use sites.
39
Objective 9. Expand compatible environmental education and interpretation opportunities both on and
off the Refuge. (See maps 9a and b beginning on page 54.)
Strategies a. Increase the Refuge’s participation in local special events, and efforts to reach
non-traditional audiences.
b. Place numerous interpretive signs along Refuge trails and in kiosks, some of which
would be periodically changed to describe seasonal events, such as the spring
shorebird/horseshoe crab phenomenon on Delaware Bay.
c. Schedule nature walks regularly, especially with the assistance of volunteers and
partner organizations.
d. Produce a variety of Refuge brochures, maps, and fact sheets, highlighting Refuge
programs and natural resources, Delaware Bay, and the south Jersey shore.
e. Develop teacher workshops and establish an outdoor classroom on the Refuge.
f. Establish a Friends Group and set up a Refuge Web site.
g. Reduce environmental education and interpretation activities if the Refuge
determines that incompatible levels of use are occurring.
Objective 10. Expand our resource protection and visitor safety efforts on the Refuge.
Strategies a. Hire one additional full-time and one additional seasonal Park Rangers to better
protect resources and visitors.
Objective 11. Provide new headquarters and visitor facilities on the Refuge.
Strategies a. Construct a new, larger office and visitor contact building at the Kimbles Beach
Road headquarters site, along with a new storage building and maintenance
building.
The Two Mile Beach Unit
Summary Statement
Under this CCP we would initiate a seasonal closure of the beach, above and below the mean high tide line,
to benefit:
• beach nesting birds such as piping plover, least tern, and black skimmer;
• migratory shorebirds during spring and fall migration periods.
The closure would take place from April 1 to September 30, during which time, beach access would be allowed
only during Refuge-scheduled bird/beach walks. This seasonal closure would be evaluated after two years to
determine its effectiveness and to implement changes if necessary.
40
Motor vehicles, and non-wildlife dependent uses such as swimming, sunbathing and surfing would be
prohibited at all times. We would evaluate the compatibility of surfing from October through March. The
beach would be open for walking and surf fishing from October through March, accessible from the north
boundary of the beach and at the location of the viewing platforms. Sand dunes would be closed to public
access except at designated crossing points.
A visitor center would be established in building A-14 and environmental education and interpretation
programs would be provided on a regular basis. We would also use building B-6 for Refuge administration,
and all other buildings or improvements on the property would be removed, except those required for the
Coast Guard LORAN Support Unit.
Goal 1. Protect and enhance Federal trust resources and other species and habitats of special
concern.
Objective 1. Develop and implement a management plan for beach nesting birds and migrant shorebirds,
including managing predators, and other techniques employed to attract and benefit beach
nesting birds.
Strategies a. Continue management actions to protect and enhance beach-nesting birds,
especially Federal and State-listed endangered and threatened species.
• Annually close beach to public access from April 1st to September30th.
• Manage furbearer populations through a Refuge trapping program, but do
not allow public trapping.
Objective 2. Inventory, map and monitor all species and habitats.
Strategies a. Initiate a comprehensive wildlife inventory program, including bird abundance and
distribution surveys, as well as surveys for reptiles, amphibians, small mammals,
and invertebrates.
b. Study and monitor beach and sand dune dynamics.
c. Conduct vegetation surveys and mapping to refine habitat management activities.
d. Utilize and incorporate GIS in all surveys and studies.
e. Initiate a cooperative agreement to provide technical assistance for habitat
management and wildlife surveys on Coast Guard lands at the Loran Support Unit
and Training Center.
Goal 2. Maintain and/or restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy, functioning
ecosystems.
Objective 1. Complete and implement a step-down Habitat Management Plan for the Unit by 2006, as
part of the Refuge Plan.
Strategies a. Emphasize stopover habitat for migratory birds, management for endangered
species, and restoration of the Dune-Beach and Salt Marsh habitat types.
41
b. Remove buildings and restore disturbed areas by planting native vegetation.
(Note: All buildings, except for the planned visitor contact/office facility, and two
maintenance facilities, were demolished and habitat restored in 2002.)
c. Restore other disturbed areas using native vegetation.
d. Consider planting, prescribed burning, mowing, control of exotic or invasive
species, or modifying the dune/beach structure in managing the Unit’s habitats.
Objective 2. Develop and implement an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program for the Unit by
2006, as part of the Refuge program.
Strategies a. Survey invasive species.
b. Consider mechanical, biological, and chemical control of phragmites, mosquitos,
and other invasive species.
Objective 3. Reduce use of pesticides on the Unit.
Strategies a. Consider mechanical, biological, and chemical control of undesirable species,
including phragmites and mosquitos.
Goal 3. Establish a land protection program to support of species, habitat and ecosystem goals.
Objective 1. Acquire appropriate adjacent lands as they become available. (See Map 2 on page 4.)
Strategies a. Continue our policy of buying from willing sellers.
b. Seek to acquire the Coast Guard s LORAN Support Unit (adjacent to the Two Mile
Beach Unit), should it become excess to its need, and the adjacent 17-acre privately
owned tract, both of which are within the Focus Areas. (Note: An additional 18 acre
parcel of wetland habitat joining the Two Mile Beach Unit was purchased in August
2003 as part of the Unit.)
Goal 4. Provide opportunities for high-quality compatible, wildlife-dependent public use.
Objective 1. Provide compatible fishing opportunities on the Unit.
Strategies a. Offer seasonal surf fishing opportunities, when beach is open for public access from
October 1 through March 31st.
b. Allow walk-in access only; no motor vehicles use on the beach.
c. Reduce fishing activities if the Refuge determines that incompatible levels of use
are occurring.
Objective 2. Provide compatible opportunities for wildlife observation and photography on the Unit.
Strategies a. Offer wildlife observation and photography opportunities on specific roads and
trails.
42
b. Offer wildlife observation and photography opportunities on the beach from October
through March.
c. Maintain selected trails and roads with improvements to provide visitors a quality
experience, including signs, kiosks, universally accessible trails, and platforms.
d. Establish a wildlife observation platform, possibly utilizing the existing former
radar platform.
e. Reduce wildlife observation and photography activities if the Refuge determines
that incompatible levels of use are occurring.
Objective 3. Provide compatible environmental education and interpretation opportunities on the Unit.
Strategies a. Take an active role in environmental education and interpretation.
b. Establish a visitor center, with displays, exhibits, and regular programs, in building
A-14 by 2004, operated by Refuge staff and volunteers.
c. Provide regular programs and guided nature walks, especially during peak bird
migration periods.
d. Have cooperating partners provide additional opportunities and programs.
e. Install various self-guiding interpretive signs and kiosks.
f. Reduce environmental education and interpretation activities if the Refuge
determines that incompatible levels of use are occurring.
Objective 4. Remove all unnecessary buildings and structural improvements on the Unit located within
the 100-year floodplain by 2007, in compliance with Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain
Management. (Note: All buildings, except for the planned visitor contact/office facility, and
two maintenance facilities, were demolished and habitat restored in 2002.)
Strategies a. Use existing Buildings A-14 and B-6 and any other improvements necessary for
Refuge maintenance, storage, law enforcement, administration, etc.
b. Renovate Building A-14, a new 5,000 square foot structure, to accommodate a visitor
center, with displays, exhibits, and regular programs, and some office space by 2004.
c. Remove all other buildings or improvements on the property, except those which
must be maintained to assure continued utilities access for the Coast Guard LORAN
Support Unit.
d. Explore the beneficial use of rubble resulting from the demolition of buildings and
structures.
Map 3a. Land Protection Focus Areas. Page 43
Map 3b. Land Protection Focus Areas. Page 44
Map 4. Trapping. Page 45
43
Map 5a. Habitat Management. Page 46
Map 5b. Habitat Management. Page 47
Map 6a. Big Game Hunting. Page 48
Map 6b. Big Game Hunting. Page 49
Map 7a. Upland Game Hunting. Page 50
Map 7b. Upland Game Hunting. Page 51
Map 8a. Migratory Game Bird Hunting. Page 52
Map 8b. Migratory Game Bird Hunting. Page 53
Map 9a. Wildlife Observation and Interpretation. Page 54
Map 9b. Wildlife Observation and Interpretation. Page 55
57
Chapter 5. Implementation and Monitoring
Funding and Staffing
A staff of four full time equivalents (FTEs) currently operates Cape May Refuge. This includes:
• Refuge Manager;
• Deputy Refuge Manager;
• Wildlife Biologist;
• Park Ranger.
To fully implement the extensive program of wildlife conservation and compatible wildlife-dependent
recreation found in this CCP, a staffing plan of 21 FTEs will be required (see Figure 2). This staffing plan,
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;
• $6.5 million for staffing and projects;
• $12.8 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.
Figure 2. Staffing plan for Cape May Refuge
58
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 have been revised, or are currently in process of being revised:
• Fire Management Plan (completed 2003);
• 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 2003);
• Integrated Pest Management Plan, including chapters for each problem species (scheduled for
2003);
• Priority Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Plan, including hunting and fishing (scheduled for 2001),
wildlife observation and photography (scheduled for 2002), environmental education and
interpretation (scheduled for 2002).
Monitoring and Adaptive Management
This CCP covers a 15-year period, through 2018. 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
59
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.
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.
60
This page intentionally left blank
61
Appendices
A. Relevant Legal Mandates.
B. Summarized Public C