Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
The Purpose of and Need for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Forsythe Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Purposes of Forsythe Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Refuge Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
National and Regional Mandates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Other Legal and Policy Mandates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Relevant Ecosystem and Species Recovery Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Chapter 2. Planning Process
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Planning Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Issues Outside the Scope of the CCP/EA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Chapter 3. Summary Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Biological Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Archaeological and Historical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Socioeconomic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Chapter 4. Management Direction
Refuge Management Policies and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
The Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Goal 1. Protect and enhance Federal trust resources and other species and habitats of special concern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Goal 2. Maintain and/or restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy, functioning ecosystems. . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Goal 3. Establish a land protection program to support species, habitat and ecosystem goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Goal 4. Provide opportunities for high-quality compatible, wildlife-dependent public use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Chapter 5. Implementation and Monitoring
Funding and Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Step-down Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Monitoring and Adaptive Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Volunteer Opportunities and Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Plan Amendment and Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Appendices
Appendix A. Relevant Legal Mandates and Land Acquisition Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Appendix B. Summary of Public Comments Received on the Draft CCP/EA and Their Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Appendix C. Summary of Public Comments Received on the Revised Draft CCP/EA and Their Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Appendix D. Finding of No Significant Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Appendix E. Species and Communities of Special Emphasis in the New Jersey Coast Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Appendix F. Pre-acquisition Compatibility Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Appendix G. Ecosystem Services and Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Appendix H. Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) Project List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Appendix I. Maintenance Management System (MMS) Project List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Appendix J. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Appendix K. Works Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Appendix L. List of Preparers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Appendix M. Land Protection Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Maps
Map 1. Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Map 2. Brigantine National Wilderness Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Map 3a. Refuge Expansion Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Map 3b. Refuge Expansion Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Map 3c. Refuge Expansion Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Map 3d. Refuge Expansion Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Map 4a. Trapping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Map 4b. Trapping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Map 4c. Trapping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Map 4d. Trapping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Map 5a. Habitat Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Map 5b. Habitat Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Map 5c. Habitat Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Map 5d. Habitat Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Map 6a. Big Game Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Map 6b. Big Game Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Map 6c. Big Game Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Map 7. Upland Game Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Map 8a. Migratory Game Bird Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Map 8b. Migratory Game Bird Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Map 8c. Migratory Game Bird Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Map 8d. Migratory Game Bird Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Map 9a. Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Map 9b. Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Map 10a. Wildlife Observation and Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Map 10b. Wildlife Observation and Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Map 10c. Wildlife Observation and Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Map 10d. Wildlife Observation and Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Map 11b. Office and Visitor Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Map 11c. Office and Visitor Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process and NEPA Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 1. Pre-acquisition Compatibility for Wildlife-dependent Recreational Activities at Forsythe Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure 2. Staffing Plan for Forsythe Refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
This page intentionally left blank
1
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
The Purpose of and Need for this Plan
Development of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) is vital to the future management of the Edwin
B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge (Forsythe Refuge). The purpose of the CCP is to provide strategic
management direction over the next 15 years by:
a. Providing a clear statement of desired future conditions for habitat, wildlife, visitor services, and
facilities;
b. Providing a clear understanding of the reasons for management actions;
c. Ensuring Refuge management reflects the policies and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge
System (Refuge System) and our other legal mandates;
d. Ensuring the compatibility of current and future public use;
e. Providing long-term continuity and direction for Refuge management;
f. Providing direction for staffing, operations, maintenance, and the development of budget requests.
The need to develop a CCP is two-fold. First, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997 (Refuge Improvement Act) requires that all National Wildlife Refuges have a CCP in place within 15
years to help fulfill the new mission of the Refuge System.
Second, there is currently no master plan establishing priorities and ensuring consistent and integrated
management for Forsythe Refuge . A vision statement and goals, objectives, and management strategies
are needed to effectively manage natural resources. Persistent issues related to non-wildlife dependent
public use, beach access, wilderness management, and management for threatened and endangered species
must be resolved with public and partner involvement.
Forsythe Refuge
Forsythe Refuge is located in Atlantic, Burlington, and Ocean Counties, and consists of two divisions: the
Brigantine Division and the Barnegat Division. (See Map 1.) The Refuge extends along more than 50 miles
of the coast. This Refuge was renamed in 1984 in memory of the late conservationist Congressman from
New Jersey, Edwin B. Forsythe, through a Congressional Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 537). The resolution
combined the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge and the Barnegat National Wildlife Refuge. Those
Refuges were established in 1939 and 1967, respectively, under provisions of the Migratory Bird
Conservation Act. The Reedy Creek Unit was established in 1991, and is administered as part of Barnegat
Division. The approved acquisition boundary of the Refuge encompasses more than 56,600 acres. As of
September 30, 1999, the Service owned or leased 44,302 acres within the approved Refuge acquisition area.
Refuge wetlands are designated as Wetlands of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention.
There are only 17 designated Wetlands of International Importance in the United States. Refuge lands and
waters provide important resting and feeding habitat for tens of thousands of ducks and geese, wading
birds, and shorebirds during their spring and fall migrations.
3
Congress designated 6,600 acres of the Refuge as the Brigantine Wilderness on January 3, 1975 (P.L.
93-632) to be managed under the Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C. 1121 (note), 1131-1136).
Map 2 shows the Refuge Wilderness Areas. This designation has far-ranging impacts on the management of
these portions of the Refuge.
Purposes of Forsythe Refuge
Lands within the Refuge System are acquired and managed under a variety of authorities. These
authorities usually have one or more purposes for which land can be transferred or acquired. Appendix A
lists the authorities for acquisition and management of National Wildlife Refuges.
The purposes of Forsythe Refuge are:
• For lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. §715-715r), as amended,
"...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds...."
(16 U.S.C. §715d);
• "...the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife
resources...." Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. §742f(a)(4));
• "...the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they
provide and to help fulfill international obligations (regarding migratory birds)... " Emergency
Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. §3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583);
• "...to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring
resource of wilderness." The Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 890:16 U.S.C. 1121 (note), 1131-1136).
Refuge Vision
The following statement was developed to describe the desired future status of Forsythe Refuge.
"Edwin B. Forsythe Refuge will continue to contain some of the most important migratory bird habitat
in the National Wildlife Refuge System. It will continue to be a focal point for the protection,
management, restoration, and enjoyment of migratory birds and other Federal Trust Resources in
coastal New Jersey. The Refuge will provide a true wilderness experience on pristine barrier islands
and salt marshes, that are premiere examples of these ecological communities and untrammeled by
man. It will also provide stop-over and wintering habitats of sufficient size and quality to assist in
maintaining migrating birds on the Atlantic Flyway.
The Refuge will expand its role in land protection efforts by acquiring additional habitat along the
coast and inland watersheds, and working with all interested parties to promote conservation efforts on
non-refuge lands. The Refuge will preserve important plant and animal populations, ecological
communities, and the integrity of the landscape by protecting lands from development, restoring fire to
the upland habitats, and restoring wetlands. It will play a critical role in preserving biodiversity
locally, regionally and within the Refuge System.
The Refuge will build alliances with State, county and local governments, other organizations and
local communities to promote the ecological integrity of the landscape, ecotourism and the historical
5
and cultural attractions of the region. The Refuge will provide wildlife-dependent recreational
opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and
interpretation on Refuge lands. The Refuge will help assure the sustainable economic viability of the
area, and supplement and promote the values which attracted people and wildlife to the Jersey Shore in
the first place."
National and Regional Mandates
This section presents hierarchically, from the national-level to the local-level, highlights of legal mandates,
Service policy, and existing resource plans which directly influenced development of this CCP.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its Mission
National Wildlife Refuges are managed by the Service, part of the Department of the Interior. The mission
of the Service is:
"...working with others, to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for
the continuing benefit of the American people."
National resources entrusted to the Service for conservation and protection are: migratory birds,
endangered species, interjurisdictional fish, wetlands, and certain marine mammals. The Service also
manages the Refuge System and national fish hatcheries, enforces federal wildlife laws and international
treaties on importing and exporting wildlife, assists with state fish and wildlife programs, and helps other
countries develop wildlife conservation programs.
The National Wildlife Refuge System and its Mission
The Refuge System is the world's largest collection of lands and waters set aside specifically for the
conservation of wildlife and ecosystem protection. Over 520 National Wildlife Refuges are part of the
national network today. Refuges occur in every state and a number of U.S. Territories, encompassing over
92 million acres nationwide. Over 34 million visitors annually hunt, fish, observe and photograph wildlife, or
participate in environmental education and interpretive activities on Refuges.
In 1997, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Refuge Improvement Act) was passed.
This legislation established a unifying mission for the Refuge System, a new process for determining
compatible activities on Refuges, and the requirement to prepare CCPs for each Refuge. The Act states
that above all else, wildlife comes first in the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Act does this by
establishing that wildlife conservation is the principal mission of the Refuge System; by requiring that we
maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of each refuge and the Refuge System;
and by mandating that we monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants on each refuge. The Act
further states that the national mission, coupled with the purpose(s) for which each Refuge was established,
will provide the principal management direction for each Refuge.
The mission of the Refuge System is:
"...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where
appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United
States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans." (National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-57)
6
The Refuge Improvement Act declares that all existing or proposed public uses must be "compatible" with
the purposes for which each refuge was established. Six wildlife-dependent public uses were highlighted in
the legislation as priorities to evaluate in CCPs. The six uses are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, environmental education and interpretation. "Compatibility" is determined by the Refuge
Manager after evaluating the activities' potential impact on Refuge resources.
The Wilderness Act
The Wilderness Act mandates that certain federal lands be maintained in a natural, undeveloped state in
order to "preserve for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring
resource of wilderness." The Act instructs federal agencies to manage Wilderness Areas in a manner which
"preserves the wilderness character of the area," and provides "outstanding opportunities for solitude,
primitive and unconfined recreation." In 1975, Congress designated 6,600 acres on Forsythe Refuge as the
Brigantine National Wilderness Area. (See Map 2 on page 4.)
Other Legal and Policy Mandates
While the Refuge System Mission and the purposes for which each refuge was established provide the
foundation for management, National Wildlife Refuges are also governed by other federal laws, executive
orders, treaties, interstate compacts, and regulations pertaining to the conservation and protection of
natural and cultural resources. Appendix A provides a summary of some of the most important federal laws
related to management of National Wildlife Refuges.
Service policies providing guidance on planning and the day-to-day management of a Refuge are contained
within the Refuge System Manual and the Service Manual.
Fulfilling the Promise, The National Wildlife Refuge System: Visions for Wildlife
and Habitat, People, and Leadership
This report (USFWS, March 1999) resulted from the first-ever Refuge System Conference held in
Keystone, Colorado in October 1998, and attended by every Refuge manager in the country, other Service
employees, and leading conservation organizations. The report contains 42 recommendations dealing with
Wildlife and Habitat, People, and Leadership. This CCP deals with all three of these major topics, and we
have looked to the 42 recommendations for guidance throughout its preparation.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan: Atlantic Coast Joint Venture
This Plan (USFWS, 1986) documents the strategy among the United States, Canada, and Mexico to restore
waterfowl populations through habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement. The Plan includes ten
regional habitat "Joint Ventures" that are partnerships involving federal, state and provincial governments,
tribal nations, local businesses, conservation organizations, and individual citizens. Forsythe Refuge lies
within the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture. Seven focus areas, totaling more than 90,400 acres, have been
identified for protection in New Jersey. Both wetlands and adjacent uplands are part of the focus areas.
The 23,400 acre Brigantine-Barnegat Wetlands focus area is within the Forsythe Refuge.
The goal for the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture is:
"Protect and manage priority wetland habitats for migration, wintering, and production of waterfowl,
with special consideration to black ducks, and to benefit other wildlife in the joint venture area."
7
In addition to the ten regional habitat joint ventures, there are two species joint ventures: Arctic Goose and
Black Duck. Since black ducks winter in New Jersey, the goals and objectives of the Black Duck Joint
Venture apply to management of the Forsythe Refuge. The coastal salt marsh habitats along the mid-upper
Atlantic coast have been identified by the Black Duck Joint Venture as the most important habitat for
wintering black duck.
Partners In Flight Land Bird Conservation Plan: Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain
(Physiographic Area #44)
The Partners in Flight Program is developing a plan for the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Area
(USFWS, April 1999). Habitat loss, land bird population trends, and vulnerability of species and habitats to
threats are all factors used in the priority ranking of species. Further, the plan will identify focal species for
each habitat type from which population and habitat objectives and conservation actions will be determined.
This list of focal species, objectives and conservation actions will help direct land bird management on
Forsythe Refuge.
The draft plan ranks species and habitats on the basis of overall conservation priority. The following first
tier priority land birds breed on the Refuge:
• piping plover;
• salt marsh sharp-tailed sparrow;
• seaside sparrow;
• American black duck;
• eastern wood-pewee;
• clapper rail;
• American oystercatcher.
The first-tier is "high overall (global) priority," which indicates high vulnerability of a species throughout its
range.
Furthermore, more than 15 additional second-tier priority land birds breed on Forsythe Refuge. The
second-tier is "high physiographic area priority."
Also, seven of the eight priority habitat types identified in the plan are found currently or historically on the
Refuge:
• pine savannah;
• barrier and bay islands;
• salt marsh;
• forested wetland;
• mixed upland forest;
8
• early succession old field and shrub/scrub;
• fresh/brackish emergent wetland.
Regional Wetlands Concept Plan - Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, Northeast
Region
In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act to promote the conservation of our
nation's wetlands. The Act directed the Department of the Interior to develop a National Wetlands Priority
Conservation Plan identifying the location and types of wetlands that should receive priority attention for
acquisition by federal and state agencies using Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations. In 1990,
the Service's Northeast Region completed a Regional Wetlands Concept Plan (USFWS, October 1990) to
provide more specific information about wetlands resources in the Northeast. The Regional Plan identifies a
total of 850 wetland sites that warrant consideration for acquisition, and also identifies wetland values,
functions, and potential threats for each site. The Plan identifies three sites within Forsythe Refuge:
Brigantine/Barnegat Wetlands, Manahawkin Lake, and Reedy Creek.
Trust for Public Land Century Plan
The Trust for Public Land is a national nonprofit conservation organization dedicated to preserving land of
recreational, ecological, and cultural value for public enjoyment. Its primary mission is to protect open
space for public benefit. The Trust's Barnegat Bay Initiative is a long-term protection strategy involving
land acquisition, public education and scientific research on the regions remaining outstanding natural
resources. Its goal is to collaborate with other non-profit and civic groups and local, state and federal
government agencies to establish a powerful and united coalition working to preserve the Barnegat Bay
watershed. Barnegat Bay is within the National Estuary Program
The Century Plan (Trust for Public Lands, 1995) is a guide for future action to preserve the Barnegat Bay
watershed in Ocean County, New Jersey and heighten public awareness about the Bay's landscape and
ecological importance. It lists 100 unique conservation and public access sites that are of long-term
importance to protecting the Bay as an ecosystem and treasured public resource. Of the 100 sites,
approximately 50 percent are currently partially or totally within the approved acquisition boundary for the
Forsythe Refuge.
Relevant Ecosystem and Species Recovery Plans
Throughout the last decade, the Service has been putting more emphasis into defining and protecting entire
ecosystems. To this end, the Service has initiated new partnerships with private landowners, state and
federal agencies, corporations, conservation groups, and volunteers. Implementing an Ecosystem Approach
to Fish and Wildlife Conservation is a top national priority for the Service. Fifty-two Ecosystem teams were
formed across the country, typically using large river watersheds to define ecosystems. Individual
Ecosystem Teams are comprised of both the Service and our partners, who work together to develop goals
and priorities for research and management.
Forsythe Refuge lies within the Hudson River/New York Bight Ecosystem.
Hudson River/New York Bight Ecosystem Plan
The following resource priorities from this plan (USFWS, September 1994) are relevant to Forsythe
Refuge:
9
• Protect and restore migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and species of special
concern associated with native grasslands and forest habitats.
• Protect, restore and enhance populations of beach-dependent plants and animals, with emphasis on
threatened and endangered species, and species of special concern.
• Increase populations of colonial nesting water birds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and inter-jurisdictional
fish requiring shallow water, salt marshes, adjacent uplands, and coastal lagoons and rivers.
Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), Atlantic Coast Population, Revised Recovery
Plan
The primary objective of the revised recovery plan (USFWS, May 1996) is to remove the Atlantic coast
piping plover population from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants by:
• Achieving well-distributed increases in numbers and productivity of breeding pairs;
• Providing for long-term protection of breeding and wintering plovers and their habitat.
The Revised Recovery Plan describes detailed "Recovery Tasks" needed to meet the recovery objective.
Forsythe Refuge is specifically mentioned in the following task:
• Monitoring to identify limiting factors;
• Control of feral animals and predators;
• Erect exclosures for protection from predators.
Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle (Cincindela dorsalis dorsalis), Recovery Plan
The recovery objective of this plan (USFWS, September 1994) is to remove the Northeastern Beach Tiger
Beetle from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Recovery for the Northeastern beach tiger beetle will require reestablishing the species across its former
range along the Atlantic Coast and protecting it within the Chesapeake Bay region. The Plan describes the
Holgate Unit as part of the Northeastern beach tiger beetle historical range, and as having "medium
restoration potential". According to the Plan, the Holgate Unit would be an excellent restoration site, if
off-road vehicles were prohibited from the intertidal zone.
Recovery Plans for Other Federally Listed or Recovered Threatened or Endangered
Species
Where the following federally listed threatened or endangered species occur on Forsythe Refuge, we will
follow the management goals and strategies laid out in their respective recovery plans: peregrine falcon,
bald eagle, seabeach amaranth, and swamp pink. This list will change as new species are listed, delisted, or
discovered on Refuge lands.
10
This page intentionally left blank
11
Chapter 2. Planning Process
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
The effort to prepare a Comprehensive Conservation Plan(CCP) for Forsythe Refuge began in the summer
of 1996. It was part of a joint effort including both Forsythe and Cape May National Wildlife Refuges,
collectively know as the Jersey Coast Refuges. The Service's action followed President Clinton's signing of
Executive Order 12996, on the Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge
System. In recognition of the Order's four guiding principles, the Service focused its planning efforts on:
• Conserving and enhancing the quality and diversity of fish and wildlife habitat within the Refuges;
• Providing opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities involving hunting,
fishing, wildlife-observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation;
• Establishing partnerships with other Federal agencies, State agencies, tribes, organizations,
industry and the general public;
• Increasing opportunities for public involvement in the planning of refuge land protection and
management activities.
This effort continued and was enhanced following passage of the Refuge Improvement Act in 1997.
The Act states that the Service shall:
• Propose a CCP for each refuge or related complex of refuges;
• Publish a notice of opportunity for public comment in the Federal Register on each proposed CCP;
• Issue a final CCP for each refuge consistent with the provisions of this Act and, to the extent
practicable, consistent with fish and wildlife conservation plans of the State in which the refuge is
located;
• Not less frequently than 15 years after the date of issuance of a CCP, and every 15 years thereafter,
revise the CCP as may be necessary.
Initially, we focused on collecting information on natural resources and public use. In addition, we
developed a vision statement and preliminary goals for the Jersey Coast Refuges, as well as the preliminary
issues to be addressed in this planning effort. A mailing list of organizations and individuals was also
compiled to insure that we were contacting a wide array of interested publics.
In November and December 1996 we held a series of 11 public scoping meetings in:
• Ocean County--the Townships of Brick, Dover, Lacey, Stafford, and the Boroughs of Long Beach
and Tuckerton;
• Atlantic County--the Township of Galloway;
• Cape May County--the Townships of Upper, Dennis, Middle, and Lower.
12
We announced the location, dates, and times for these meetings in local newspapers and through special
mailings. We also briefed local members of Congress on the upcoming meetings. More than 280 people
attended the meetings, which were held to let people know what the Service was doing to manage the Jersey
Coast Refuges, and to elicit their input on topics of interest to them.
We also distributed an "Issues Workbook" to help collect the public's ideas, concerns, and suggestions on
important issues associated with managing the Jersey Coast Refuges. We distributed the workbook to
everyone on our mailing list, those who attended the public meetings, and anyone who subsequently
requested one. Nearly 1,000 copies were distributed. Through the workbook, we asked for public input on
the issues and possible action options, the things people valued most about the New Jersey coast, their
vision for the future, and the Service's role in helping to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and
their habitats. More than 150 copies of the workbook were completed and returned.
In February 1997 we distributed a "Planning Update" which summarized the responses received in the
"Issues Workbook". Responses from the workbooks and meetings were influential in helping us formulate
the issues related to resource protection and public use.
In April 1997 we also held an Alternatives Workshop. Twenty-five individuals, representing local and State
conservation agencies and organizations, participated in the daylong workshop. The participants reviewed
and discussed the issues and concerns identified in the "Issues Workbook" and were asked to answer three
questions:
1) What should be done?
2) Where should it be done?
3) Who should help the Service do it?
Input obtained from the public meetings, workbooks and workshop was used to identify a reasonable range
of alternatives and prepare a Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
(CCP/EA) in compliance with the National Environmental policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). This Draft CCP/EA
was released for 45 days of public review and comment in May 1999. Over 200 people attended the three
public meetings held in July 1999 at the following locations: Middle Township Municipal Building in Cape
May County; Galloway Township Library in Atlantic County; and Stafford Township Municipal Building in
Ocean County.
We also received over 1,600 individual comment letters. There were a great many duplicate comments
received, since many people sent copies to both the Forsythe Refuge headquarters in Oceanville, New
Jersey and our Regional Office in Hadley, Massachusetts. A summary of the public comments received and
the disposition of the concerns expressed in those comments can be found in Appendix B. This summary
also notes where we have changed the draft CCP/EA or why we did not make such changes.
On July 2, 2000 a Revised Draft CCP/EA for the Jersey Coast Refuges was released for 30 days of public
review and comment. A formal public hearing was held July 19, at the Absegami High School in Galloway
Township, Atlantic County, New Jersey. Some 80 people were in attendance. The majority of the speakers,
including a legislative staff member representing Congressman Jim Saxton, were opposed to the proposed
year-round beach closure to motor vehicles at the Holgate Unit of Forsythe Refuge. Most also spoke in
opposition to the proposed seasonal beach closure at the Two Mile Beach Unit of Cape May National
Wildlife Refuge.
During the comment period we received over 1,700 written comments. Of these, 1,159 opposed and 543
supported the proposed beach closures. Many of the latter comments also urged that we petition the State
13
Tidelands Council to close the State owned intertidal area (i.e., the lands below the mean high tide line) on
the Holgate Peninsula to motorized vehicle use. Following the 30-day public review period, we compiled and
responded to the comments received. A summary of the public comments received and the disposition of the
concerns expressed in those comments can be found in Appendix C.
This CCP, reflecting the Service's Proposed Action for Forsythe Refuge found in the Revised Draft
CCP/EA, is supported by a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), which may be found in Appendix D.
With the signing of this FONSI by our Regional Director in September 2002, implementation of the CCP
can begin. This CCP will be monitored annually and revised when necessary.
Figure 1 describes the steps of the Service's CCP process and how it is integrated with the NEPA process.
Planning Issues
Together with the Refuge Vision Statement (page 3), Refuge goals (beginning on page 35), the following key
issues for Forsythe Refuge, and the range of options on how to resolve them, formed the basis for the
preparation of the Draft CCP/EA.
Managing habitats and wildlife populations
This issue was identified as being very important by the public at our scoping meetings, in the workbook and
at the workshop. A number of different management activities were suggested, including: habitat
manipulation and restoration (e.g., burning, water level control, planting, mowing), wildlife population
management, baseline surveys of wildlife species and ecological communities, population and habitat
monitoring, and research. Other activities suggested include working with partners on cooperative efforts
for habitat restoration and management on private lands.
Some members of the public requested increased opportunities for furbearer trapping at Forsythe Refuge.
They noted that trapping is a necessary and important wildlife management tool. Other people objected to
trapping.
Trapping is often used on National Wildlife Refuges to protect endangered and threatened species from
predators, to protect refuge infrastructure, and to maintain furbearer populations at levels consistent with
refuge objectives.
The protection and management of wildlife populations and habitats is the fundamental mission of the
Refuge System and Forsythe Refuge. Special emphasis is placed on federal trust resources, including:
endangered species, migratory birds, interjurisdictional fish, marine mammals, and wetlands.
Controlling invasive and overabundant species
Dealing with this issue is not only a national initiative for the Service, but was also deemed very important
by the public at our scoping meetings, in the workbook and at the workshop. The methods used to control
these species are also of great concern.
Forsythe Refuge has significant problems involving invasive species, which impact native species directly,
displacing or killing individuals, destroying habitats, and disrupting ecological communities. Invasive
species requiring control are mostly exotics not native to the New Jersey landscape (e.g., Japanese
14
Figure 1. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process and NEPA Compliance.
15
honeysuckle, European bittersweet, autumn olive).
Wildlife species may be deemed overabundant for various management objectives. Overabundant species
(e.g., white-tailed deer), may degrade habitat quality or the overall integrity of an ecological community, or,
in the case of species like raccoon, displace or prey upon other species that are actively being restored.
Other species (e.g., mosquitos), because of their numbers, may pose a human health risk, (Mosquito
control, page 18). Overabundant snow geese and resident Canada geese are a management concern for
the Refuge and for some landowners. Current goose control activities are discussed under this issue, but
more aggressive techniques for goose control will be covered in separate documents (Control of
resident Canada geese, page 18 and Control of white geese, page 19). Deer and furbearer
control activities are discussed under Increased opportunities for hunting, page 15 and
Managing habitats and wildlife populations, page 13.
The effects of pesticides on fish, wildlife and plants
The public identified the presence of pesticides and chemicals in the environment as an important issue at
our scoping meetings, in the workbook and at the workshop. Chemicals and pesticides from activities taking
place on the Refuge or from off-refuge sources may impact fish, wildlife and plants found on Forsythe
Refuge. Such chemicals may be transported to the Refuge by wind, water or other mechanisms, or picked
up off-refuge by fish and wildlife during their migrations. Many people encouraged us to minimize our use
of chemicals and pesticides on the Refuge.
The principle use of pesticides on the Refuge is to control mosquitos and invasive species. For example,
during 1999, more than 1,000 pounds of pesticide were used to control mosquitos. Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) provides an overall strategy to reduce pesticide use and promote other techniques to
control problem species. For mosquitos, this includes Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM)
(modifying mosquito breeding habitat to favor mosquito-eating fish). Another technique for suppressing
phragmites, an invasive species, would be tidal inundation, instead of using herbicides.
Increasing opportunities for hunting
Many people identified hunting on the Refuge as an important issue during the public scoping meetings, in
the workbook and at the workshop. Some voiced concern over the Service's policy of restricting access to
lands at the Refuge that were historically available for hunting. Others felt that hunting should not be
permitted on the Refuge, often citing safety concerns and impacts on wildlife.
Hunting has long been a traditional activity in coastal New Jersey. Local residents have hunted much of the
land within the current and proposed boundaries of the Refuge in the past.
At Forsythe Refuge, deer hunting is allowed in designated areas by permit only. Upland game hunting is
not allowed. Migratory game bird hunting is allowed in designated areas. Some people called for additional
deer hunting opportunities during the six-day firearm season. Some people called for upland game hunting
opportunities on the Refuge. Others called for additional opportunities to hunt migratory game birds on the
Refuge, or did not agree with the Refuge's policy of restricting hunting to only 40% of its lands.
Because hunting is one of the six priority general public uses of the Refuge System, it "...shall receive
priority consideration in refuge planning and management." (National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act). Refuge hunt programs must consider public safety, disturbance and other harm to wildlife, harm to
habitat, and conflicts between different user groups.
16
Increasing opportunities for fishing
Many people identified fishing on the Refuge as an important issue during the public scoping meetings, in
the workbook and at the workshop.
While extensive fishing does occur within Refuge boundaries, the Service does not have management or law
enforcement authority over fishing from boats in tidal waters within those boundaries. Fishing
opportunities on lands managed by the Refuge are limited. At Forsythe Refuge some opportunities are
provided at several existing access sites. Refuge beaches below mean high tide are under the jurisdiction of
the New Jersey Tidelands Council.
Because fishing is one of the six priority general public uses of the Refuge System, it "...shall receive
priority consideration in refuge planning and management." (National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act). Refuge fishing programs must consider public safety, disturbance and other harm to wildlife, harm to
habitat, and conflicts between user groups.
Increasing opportunities for wildlife observation and photography
There was a great deal of interest expressed in expanding wildlife observation and photography
opportunities on the Refuge at the public scoping meetings, in the workbook and at the workshop. This high
interest is reflected in the fact that many visitors to the Refuge come to observe the wildlife we manage.
The fact that Forsythe Refuge is a world-renowned destination for bird watchers is reflected in our high
number of visitors and the diversity of their hometowns. As hundreds of thousands of migratory birds use
the Refuge each year, so tens of thousands of visitors come each month to observe them.
Because wildlife observation and photography are two of the six priority general public uses of the Refuge
System, they "...shall receive priority consideration in refuge planning and management." (National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act). Refuge wildlife observation and photography programs must consider
public safety, disturbance and other harm to wildlife, harm to habitat, and conflicts between different user
groups.
Increasing opportunities for environmental education and interpretation
There was more interest in expanding environmental education and interpretation opportunities at the
Refuge than any of the other priority public uses. In fact, there was great interest in increasing our
outreach efforts to local schools and communities as well. Quite often people expressed an interest in
promoting more environmentally friendly recreational activities while expressing concern for minimizing
impacts on the resources. Many encouraged us to place special emphasis in our education and interpretation
efforts on: the impacts of public use on wildlife and how those impacts can be reduced; how the public can
help wildlife both at the Refuge and in their own back yards; and the importance of refuges in conserving
wildlife and their habitats.
Because environmental education and interpretation are two of the six priority general public uses of the
Refuge System, they "...shall receive priority consideration in refuge planning and management." (National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act). Refuge environmental education and interpretation programs
must consider public safety, disturbance and other harm to wildlife, harm to habitat, and conflicts between
different user groups.
17
Protecting and managing wilderness resources
In 1975 Congress designated 6,603 acres of the Forsythe Refuge as Wilderness. Undeveloped barrier
beaches and dunes at Holgate and on Little Beach Island, and undisturbed salt marshes were included.
There are stringent requirements specified in the Wilderness Act and in Service policy for protecting and
managing these areas. These include the highest requirements for clean air, using minimum tools for
management, and letting natural processes prevail. The protection and management of Wilderness often
includes such actions as monitoring the ecological communities, research, education and outreach,
enforcement of Refuge regulations, reviewing the potential impacts of both on- and off-site activities on
wilderness values, and the restoration of native species or natural communities. The single most contentious
issue associated with the public review of both the Draft and Revised Draft CCP/EA was the use of
motorized vehicles for surf fishing at Holgate, in violation of the provisions of the Wilderness Act.
Increasing opportunities for land protection
During the public scoping meetings, in the workbooks and at the workshop, people expressed a great deal of
support for the protection of additional fish and wildlife habitat, and suggested that this occur not only
through an expanded land acquisition program at the Refuge, but also by working cooperatively with others
to protect non-refuge lands as well. There is considerable interest in increasing land protection efforts at
the Refuge, especially lands supporting federal trust species.
Increasing resource protection and visitor safety
People identified resource protection and visitor safety as a concern during the public scoping meetings, in
the workbook and at the workshop.
New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the nation. In addition, Ocean County was the fastest
developing county in the United States during the 1970's and the 1980's. Development in Atlantic County
has increased markedly since the birth of the Atlantic City casino industry in the 1980's. As a result, law
enforcement incidents encountered on Forsythe Refuge are no longer limited to wildlife related violations.
Officers now respond to incidents involving vandalism, assault, breaking and entering, speeding, possession
of illegal drugs, and the cultivation of marijuana. The Refuge currently en compasses 43,000 acres, along 50
miles of the New Jersey Shore. Marking the expanding Refuge boundaries remains a constant logistical
problem. Total annual public use surpasses 300,000 visitors. It is expected to increase rapidly as more of
Atlantic City's 35 million annual visitors and the millions of Jersey Shore summer visitors discover Forsythe
Refuge.
The current staffing level of two full-time Park Rangers is insufficient to adequately patrol and enforce
Refuge and other federal regulations. These officers find it increasingly difficult to respond to public
reports of potential violations.
Improving Refuge buildings and facilities
The existing buildings and facilities at Forsythe Refuge are woefully inadequate and need to be replaced.
This is especially important if the Refuge is to adequately accommodate work space for not only current
staff, but also any future increases in staffing levels that would be required to implement the actions and
strategies in the Refuge CCP. Additional laboratory and equipment storage space is also needed.
New facilities would help increase our visibility in coastal New Jersey and improve our visitor services,
including providing opportunities for environmental education and interpretation. The 150,000 people, who
18
currently use the wildlife drive at Forsythe Refuge, are provided few opportunities to learn about the
Service or its programs during their visit to the Refuge.
Issues Outside the Scope of the CCP/EA
These issues did not fall within the scope of The Purpose of and Need for Action and the Decision to be
Made in the CCP/EA. Issues within this category were not addressed. The Service will, however, pursue
other courses of action, often in cooperation with other interested parties, to resolve them.
Protecting sensitive areas from personal water craft use
Many people expressed concern over the use of personal water craft at the public scoping meetings, in the
workbook and at the workshop.
Personal water craft use in the State-managed waters surrounding or adjacent to lands of the Forsythe
Refuge has risen dramatically. The Refuge does not have jurisdiction over these activities in these waters.
Personal water craft have made previously inaccessible Refuge areas susceptible to adverse habitat and
wildlife impacts. Their use has increased wildlife-human interactions, involving disruption of roosting,
foraging, and nesting birds over large areas of the Refuge.
The Service will increase its education and outreach efforts regarding the responsible use of personal water
craft, and will work closely with the State to seek solutions for resolving this perplexing problem.
Mosquito control
Several species of mosquitoes found in coastal New Jersey are important vectors of potentially lethal
diseases, including Eastern Equine Encephalitis and West Nile Virus. The Service is striving to responsibly
address risks to public health and safety and to protect trust resources from mosquito borne diseases and
the impacts of pesticides on wildlife and the ecosystem. The Service and the mosquito control agencies in
New Jersey and Delaware are working to develop new strategies for mosquito control, with appropriate
NEPA compliance. The public will have the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed strategies
before they are finalized.
Control of resident Canada geese
Resident Canada geese are having a growing impact on communities across the country. Increasing urban
and suburban development in the United States has resulted in the creation of ideal goose habitat conditions
including park-like areas with short grass adjacent to small bodies of water.
These habitat conditions have enticed rapidly growing numbers of locally breeding geese to live here year
round. These resident goose populations are increasingly coming into conflict with human activities in many
parts of the country. Large flocks of resident geese have serious impacts, on both wildlife and people: geese
grazing in large numbers cause major habitat destruction, reducing the amount of critical forage available
for migratory geese and other waterfowl during migration; high concentrations of goose droppings in lakes
can cause excessive algae growth, leading to fish kills; high concentrations of goose droppings can also
create health hazards to humans; and resident geese can denude lawns of vegetation.
To help address this problem, the Service issued special Canada goose permits to states in the summer of
1999. The permits are designed to give states greater flexibility and opportunity to design management
19
programs to control specific resident Canada goose populations. The permit program was designed as a
short-term program until a comprehensive long-term management strategy can be developed and
implemented.
The Service is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to lay out alternatives for dealing with
all the resident Canada goose problems. The EIS will be completed in 2001.
Control of white geese
Populations of white geese – a term that encompasses greater and lesser snow geese and Ross' geese – have
increased dramatically in the last 30 years. The species of primary concern in Forsythe Refuge area is the
greater snow goose.
Numbers of lesser snow geese and Ross' geese have grown from 300,000 birds in 1969 to more than 3
million birds today. Numbers of greater snow geese have grown from fewer than 50,000 in the late 1960's to
about 800,000 today.
As a result, the geese have destroyed and damaged vast areas of their sensitive Arctic breeding grounds as
well as local migration stopover areas. This negatively impacts not only the geese, but for all the plants and
the other animals in these areas.
The Service is preparing an EIS to lay out alternatives for dealing with all the white goose population
problems. The EIS will be completed in May 2001.
20
This page intentionally left blank
21
Chapter 3. Summary Refuge and Resource Description
Physical Environment
Climate
Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge (Forsythe Refuge) is within the New Jersey coastal weather station zone
(Sandy Hook, Long Branch, Atlantic City, and Cape May weather stations). The ocean moderates the
State's continental climate within the coastal weather zone. The average monthly temperature is 35°F in
January, the coldest month of the year, and 75°F in July, the hottest month of the year. The growing season
for the Refuge is 245 days. The growing season is the period of the year in which the average temperature is
43°F or more. The average annual precipitation in the coastal zone is 42.6 inches. Precipitation is
distributed fairly evenly through the year, with slightly more in July and August, and less in February.
Air Quality
New Jersey is the most densely populated State in the country. The State also has the highest densities of
roads and traffic. These factors impact air quality. The greatest adverse impact seems to be elevated levels
of low-altitude ozone in the State. The ozone levels exceed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
thresholds set for the State. Investigations at the Brigantine Division of Forsythe Refuge indicate that the
low-altitude ozone levels at that site are high, with resultant damage to vegetation (Davis, 1995).
In 1978, Congress designated the Brigantine Wilderness Area (Wilderness Area) as a Class I air quality
area, giving it special protection under the Clean Air Act. Congress charged the Service with the
responsibility of protecting the air quality and air quality related values (AQRVs) of the area from manmade
pollution. AQRVs include vegetation, wildlife, soils, water quality, visibility, odors, and cultural and
archaeological resources.
Despite this protection, air pollution is impacting the Wilderness Area. The area lies in a highly
industrialized airshed, with air pollution coming from many sources, including industry, automobiles, and
power plants. Surveys conducted from 1993 to 1996 indicated that certain plant species exhibited typical
symptoms of ozone injury (e.g., stippling and chlorosis).
In addition to these documented effects, there is concern that other effects may be occurring. Rainfall
throughout the area is acidic; rainfall pH at sampling locations in New Jersey is often less than 5.0. As is the
case in most of the eastern US, visibility in the Wilderness Area is affected by pollution-caused haze. Also,
inshore waters of the Wilderness Area may be at risk from atmospheric nitrogen pollution. Research along
the Atlantic Coast has demonstrated that atmospheric nitrogen (primarily from power plant and automobile
emissions) has contributed to nutrient level increases of inshore waters, with subsequent algae blooms, loss
of seagrass beds, and deterioration of fish and wildlife habitat.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) operates continuous sulfur dioxide and
ozone monitors at the Nacote Creek Station at the west side of Forsythe Refuge. The ozone monitor has
recorded various violations of the National Air Quality Standards for ozone (the entire State of New Jersey
is a “non-attainment area” for ozone).
In addition, the Service monitors air quality at the Wilderness Area through two national programs. The
Service monitors atmospheric pollutants in rain as part of the National Atmospheric Deposition Program
(NADP; the “acid rain” program). The Service monitors fine particles as part of the Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) Program.
22
The Service and NJDEP cooperate in the emission permitting process to protect air quality in the
Brigantine Wilderness.
Geology, Topography and Soils
The Forsythe Refuge is within the Outer Coastal Plain, which consists of sedimentary deposits dating from
the Tertiary period.
Elevations on the Refuge range up to 50 feet above mean sea level. Topography is nearly level to gently
sloping. Uplands slope gradually to a wide band of salt marsh to shallow bays. These bays are separated
from the ocean by barrier islands or spits.
The major soil series in the Barnegat Division are: Sulfaquents-Sulfihemists association and Manahawkin-
Atsion-Berryland association. Major soil series in the Brigantine Division are Tidal Marsh-Coastal Beach
association and Downer-Hammonton-Sassafras association.
Hydrology
The major aquifer underlying the Refuge is the Kirkwood-Cohansey system, which dates from the Miocene
and Pliocene Epochs. The Kirkwood Formation is chiefly sand, silt, and clay. The Cohansey Sand is chiefly
unconsolidated quartz sand with some gravel and many clay beds. This system provides most of the potable
water to the area.
Pleistocene and Recent Age deposits overlie the Kirkwood-Cohansey formations and contain sand, gravel,
silt, peat, and organic muck. Some shallow wells from these formations may be tapped locally for domestic
use. Several aquifers underlie the Kirkwood-Cohansey system and are tapped to a lesser extent for public
and domestic supply.
The Refuge has both tidal and non-tidal surface waters. Non-tidal waters include marshes, bogs, ponds,
creeks, artificial impoundments, and seasonally flooded forests. Tidal waters include ponds, salt and fresh
marshes, creeks and old ditches, coves, bays, river channels, and inlets. Most of the salt marsh is tidally
flooded daily, with the greatest inundation occurring at new and full moons.
The Barnegat Division is drained by Reedy Creek, Sloop Creek, Clamming Creek, Maple Creek, Stouts
Creek, Bridge Creek, Forked River, Oyster Creek, Double Creek, Gunning River, Cedar Creek, Mill Creek,
Cedar Run, Dinner Point Creek, Westecunk Creek, Parker Run, Jesse Run and Salp Creek.
The Brigantine Division is drained by the Mullica River, Roundabout Creek, Ballenger's Creek, Bass River,
Nacote Creek, Motts Creek, Oyster Creek, Landing Creek, Rubes Creek, and Doughty Creek.
Contaminants
The Service collected sediments, mummichogs, and fiddler crabs in and adjacent to Forsythe Refuge in 1996
to determine baseline contamination. Sediments were collected at 25 locations; mummichogs and fiddler
crabs from 10 of the 25 locations. The samples were analyzed for trace metals, organochlorine pesticides,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's), and butyltin compounds (USFWS, 1998).
The Service analyzed the samples for 19 trace metals: aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron,
cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium,
strontium, vanadium, and zinc. All of these trace metals were detected in the sediment samples. None of
23
the sediment samples contained metal concentrations that exceeded severe toxic effects guidelines for
sediment.
Many sediment trace metal concentrations exceeded lower toxic effects guidelines, but these concentrations
were not notably greater than background levels within New Jersey. Fiddler crabs contained higher mean
metal concentrations than mummichogs for all detected metals except zinc.
There was no strong relationship between the sediment concentrations of metals and those in crabs.
Inorganic contaminant concentrations in Refuge biota were not notably greater than reference levels and
were less than levels measured in areas known to be polluted. The whole body concentrations of inorganic
contaminants in both fish and crabs were not sufficient to cause acute or sublethal effects to piscivorous
birds and predatory fish.
Several organic contaminants, dichlorodiphenyl-dichloroethane (DDD), dichlorodiphenyl-dichloroethylene
(DDE), total PCB's, and PCB 77, were detected in measurable quantities in all sediment samples. Levels of
several organic contaminants, particularly the metabolites of DDT (DDD and DDE) were greater than
available reference concentrations from other areas within southern New Jersey. Some of the highest
sediment concentrations of these organic contaminants were detected at sampling stations located just
downstream of inactive cranberry bogs. One bog yielded a DDD concentration of significant ecotoxicological
concern. A few other sampling stations also contained levels of DDE and total chlordane that exceeded
severe toxic effect sediment guidelines.
Detectable levels of p,p1-DDD, p,p1-DDE, dieldrin, heptachlor epoxide, oxychlordane, and total PCB's were
found in all crab and fish samples analyzed. Unlike the inorganic contaminant result, crabs did not have
higher organic contaminant levels than fish. Organic contaminant concentrations in Refuge biota were not
notably greater than reference levels and were less than levels measured in areas known to be polluted.
Body burdens of organic contaminants in mummichogs did not indicate that these fish should be suffering
physiological impairment. The whole body concentrations of organic contaminants in both fish and crabs
were not sufficient to cause acute or sublethal effects to piscivorous birds and predatory fish.
Overall, the contaminant levels in sediment and biota from the Forsythe Refuge, with some exceptions, were
found to be low and of little concern with regard to the potential for adverse effects on resident biota or their
predators. Exceptions were limited to seven sampling stations where the concentrations of DDD, DDE, or
total chlordane exceeded severe toxic effects sediment guidelines. Two of these stations were located at the
surface water outfalls of inactive cranberry bogs. Unfortunately, biota were not collected from these two
stations. It is reasonable to suspect even greater concentrations of organic contaminants exist inside the
cranberry bogs themselves. These inactive cranberry bogs may be a serious threat to Federal trust
resources foraging there. In addition, these cranberry bogs may be a risk to Refuge visitors, if the areas
were open to the public.
Biological Environment
Forsythe Refuge plant and animal communities are described in "Significant Habitats and Habitat
Complexes of the New York Bight Watershed" (USFWS, 1997). The key biological value of the Refuge is
the coastal estuaries and associated watershed. The Refuge hosts a number of rare species and
communities. Many birds depend upon the habitat during migration and commercial fish species depend on
the waters for a portion of their life cycle.
24
Threatened, Endangered, Recovered and Rare Species
In and around Forsythe Refuge, there are 14 animal species Federally-listed as endangered, threatened,
recovered, or species of concern, formerly called candidate species (Appendix E). We actively manage for
the piping plover (Charadrius melodus), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus).
Piping plovers nest on the protected Wilderness Areas of the Holgate Unit and on Little Beach Island.
Generally 19-37 pairs nest at the two areas. These breeding pairs represent about 29 percent of New
Jersey breeding population.
Peregrine falcons use the Forsythe Refuge throughout the year. Two nesting pairs use artificial nesting
structures on the Refuge. The peregrine falcon has successfully nested on the Refuge since 1980. The
Refuge is also important for wintering peregrines.
Bald eagles regularly use the Refuge wetlands to forage while migrating through or wintering in the area.
During the nesting season, most use is along the Mullica River, but occasionally eagles forage over Refuge
impoundments and adjacent salt marsh. During the winter eagles regularly forage in the impoundments
and salt marshes of the Brigantine Division.
Vegetation and Habitat Types
About 82% of the Refuge land is wetland, and 18% is upland. Salt marsh makes up about 78% of the Refuge
land. This is the largest single land use/habitat type within the Refuge. The dominant salt marsh species
are salt marsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) and salt-meadow grass (Spartina patens). Most of the salt
marsh was grid-ditched during the first part of this century for mosquito control. Approximately 6,000 acres
of salt marsh is unditched, and was designated as wilderness under the Wilderness Act. The salt marsh is
interlaced with small tidal streams, mudflats, and ponds or pannes.
Forested wetlands make up about 4% of the Refuge land. The dominant overstory trees in this habitat are
red maple (Acer rubrum), oaks (Quercus spp.), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), and occasional stands of Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides). Bogs and brush-dominated
wetlands are interspersed through the forested wetlands. The cedar swamps and bogs are
classified as sensitive ecological communities, with several rare plant species (e.g., bog asphodel -
Narthecium americanum and swamp pink - Helonias bullata).
Forested uplands make up about 13% of the Refuge land. Upland forests range from deciduous to
coniferous dominated overstory composition, with tree species including: pitch pine (Pinus rigida), oaks
(e.g., white oak - Quercus alba, chestnut oak - Q. prinus, black oak - Q. velutina, scarlet oak - Q. coccinea),
black cherry (Prunus serotina), and sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua). Fire played a prominent role in
defining the composition and structure of upland plant communities, both historically and prehistorically
(Little, 1998). There are still some nearby State lands in the Pine Barrens that receive regular fire
treatment (both prescribed and wild), but fire on Refuge lands has been suppressed for decades.
Grassland uplands make up about 3% of the Refuge land. These grasslands contain forbs and grasses
interspersed with sassafras (Sassafras albidum), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and winged
sumac (Rhus copalina). Current grasslands are comprised of both native and exotic species.
Beaches and vegetated dunes make up about 2% of the Refuge land. These habitats are critical for species
unique to those communities. Most of the Refuge's shrub/scrub habitat is located on islands. Additional
shrub/scrub habitats (upland brush) are found on the mainland, and represent early successional stages of
25
upland forest. The Holgate Unit and Little Beach Island, which are part of the Brigantine Wilderness Area,
represent these community types.
Open water habitat types of the Refuge include bays, streams, rivers and small ponds or reservoirs. These
shallow waters are critical elements of the coastal ecosystem. However, only the small ponds and reservoirs
are owned by the Refuge. All navigable waterways and inter-tidal areas (between mean high and low tide)
fall within the jurisdiction of the State of New Jersey. Ownership notwithstanding, open waterways found
throughout the lands owned by the Refuge have a major influence on the ecological functions of those
communities.
Three large, managed impoundments are an important feature of the Brigantine Division. The Northwest
Pool and the Southwest Pool, about 500 and 300 acres respectively, are fed by Doughty Creek and springs.
These two pools are managed as a freshwater impoundment and moist-soil unit. The East Pool (536 acres),
receives water from the two west pools and tide gates. This pool is managed as a brackish impoundment.
Other freshwater bodies in the Brigantine Division include: the spring-fed Experimental Pool, Lily Lake (a
22-acre reservoir upstream from the impoundments on Doughty Creek), and two ponds that were former
borrow pits. Several freshwater impoundments and one brackish impoundment (totaling about 350 acres)
are located in the Barnegat Division.
Wildlife Resources
Migratory Birds: Migratory birds use the Refuge in three different ways. First, many thousands of birds of
all kinds use the Refuge as stopover habitat during the spring and fall migrations. Second, a wide variety
and, in some cases, very large portions of populations depend upon the Refuge for wintering habitat.
Finally, a rich variety and number of birds breed on the Refuge.
The coastal wetlands of New Jersey are of international importance to wintering waterfowl. In 1991, 39% of
the Atlantic Flyway American black duck (Anas rubripes) population, 67 % of the Atlantic brant (Branta
bernicla) population, and 34% of the greater snow goose (Chen caerulescens) population were recorded in
New Jersey during the Service’s mid-winter inventory.
The wetlands of the Forsythe Refuge are classified as Wetlands of International Importance under the
Ramsar Convention, one of only seventeen sites so designated in the United States. During a December 6,
1991, aerial survey of the Refuge, 85,570 waterfowl were observed. The highest waterfowl concentrations at
the Refuge do not occur until late December. Weekly waterfowl counts conducted at the Brigantine Division
Impoundments indicate waterfowl populations nearly double from early in the month, so it is possible nearly
180,000 birds use the Refuge during the peak period.
Many marsh and water birds use the Refuge. The most common include great blue heron (Ardea herodias),
great egret (Casmerodious albus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax
nycticorax), glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus) and cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis). Herons and egrets nest on or
near the Refuge, frequently foraging in the salt marshes, streams, ponds, and impoundments. Until
recently, least terns and black skimmers nested in substantial numbers on Holgate and other barrier/bay
islands.
Shorebird use of the Refuge peaks during the spring migration. The most common species are: sanderling
(Calidris alba), semi-palmated sandpiper (Calidris pusilla), dunlin (Calidris alpina), semi-palmated plovers
(Charadrius semipalmatus), short-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus), willet (Catoptrophorus
semipalmatus), greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca), lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes), black-bellied
plover (Pluvialis squatarola), least sandpiper (Caladris minutilla), ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres),
26
red knot (Caladris canutus), whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus), spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularia) and
pectoral sandpiper (Calidris melanotos).
Many raptors breed on the Forsythe Refuge, including: red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), turkey
vulture (Cathartes aura), sharp-shinned hawks (Accipiter striatus), broad-winged hawks (Buteo
platypterus), red-shouldered hawks (Buteo lineatus), northern harriers (Circus cyaneus), great horned owls
(Bubo virginianus), common barn owls (Tyto alba), barred owls (Strix varia), and short-eared owls (Asio
flammeus). Many other raptors may be seen during migration; some of them winter at the Refuge.
Many songbirds species use the Refuge for nesting and to rest or feed during migration. The most
important nesting species are those dependent upon the marshes and coastal island habitats, for example,
seaside sparrow (Ammodranus maritimus), marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris), and sedge wren
(Cistothorus platensis). A large number of birds nesting on or migrating through the Refuge are
Neotropical migrants (wintering in Central and South America). As a group, Neotropical migrants have
shown recent population declines due to habitat loss and deterioration in wintering areas and along
migration corridors.
Mammals: Over 30 species of mammals occur on the Refuge, in assemblages characteristic of the 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), and least shrew (Cryptotis parva).
Several species of bats occur in forested habitat types during the summer breeding season. Forest openings
are common foraging areas for this group. A number of other migrating bat species probably pass through
southern New Jersey during migration, while others would use caves for hibernacula (not found locally).
Very little research has been done on bats in the vicinity.
Several mammals have substantial impacts on the habitat and populations managed on the Refuge. High
densities of white-tailed deer have negatively affected the structure and composition of plant communities.
High densities of muskrats, have compromised the integrity of dikes needed to retain and manipulate water
in impoundment.
Many species of nesting, migrating, or wintering raptors dependent on the availability of small mammal
populations in all cover types.
Reptiles and Amphibians: Nineteen species of reptiles and amphibians occur on the Refuge. These species
fall into two major groups -- Pine Barrens and coastal estuarine environment. Important species from the
Pine Barrens group include wood turtles (C. insculpta), Cope's gray and pine barrens treefrog (Hyla
chrysoscelis and H. andersonii), ambystomid salamaders (Ambystoma spp.). The most important estuarine
environment species is the northern diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys t. terrapin).
27
Fish: The salt marshes, streams, ponds, bays, and rivers that comprise the estuaries of the Refuge are
critical to a rich variety of fish, shell fish, and crabs. These species are the foundation for sport and
commercial fisheries, as well as food base for many birds and mammals. Most of the species are found in
navigable waterways, areas the Service does not own.
Invertebrates: A wide variety and number of invertebrates, both terrestrial and aquatic, are of biological
importance. Invertebrates are not well documented from this area, unless they are economically important.
Tiger beetles and lepidopterans, some rare, are frequently observed. There is a long history of aggressive
mosquito control, which has impacted other species.
Archaeological and Historical Environment
Prehistoric Period
Human occupation of the New Jersey coast began with the arrival of Native American hunter-gatherer
bands, approximately 10,000 B.C. Only a few archaeological sites earlier than about 5000 B.C. have been
found in the area, probably partly due to a major rise in sea level due to Pleistocene glacial melting. The
coastline of that time is now lies submerged in the Atlantic Ocean, and former freshwater river valleys are
now salt marsh. An artifact collection from the area of Cape May Refuge is one of the few signs of
settlement in this period.
Human population on the coast seems to have increased somewhat after 5000 B.C., as the climate became
notably warmer. The locations and contents of archaeological sites reflect a more diverse mix of hunting and
gathering of upland, wetland, and aquatic resources that varied with the seasons. Sea level change became
much more gradual by about 2000 B.C., and the extensive coastal wetlands that developed provided rich
hunting, shellfishing, and plant gathering environments. This greater resource reliability supported a
larger and more stable human population. Small scale hoe agriculture, pottery, and the bow and arrow are
notable developments found at sites dating after about 1000 B.C.
Except for a handful of studies prior to Refuge construction projects, Forsythe Refuge lands have never
been surveyed for archaeological sites. Prehistoric site potential is high, but site discovery is complicated by
major changes in sea level over the last 12,000 years. Much of the Refuge is tidal marsh, and archaeological
sites in this setting are especially difficult to locate and study. In exposed areas, they have often been lost to
erosion. The upland portions of the Refuge have generally high potential for prehistoric sites, as much of
this land adjoins wetland resources used by their inhabitants.
Historic Period
Permanent settlement of the Forsythe Refuge area by Euro-Americans began in the second quarter of the
18th century. This was preceded by a long period of contact with Native American Lenape through offshore
fishing and the fur trade. By the middle of the century, the Lenape were severely diminished by European
diseases and had lost nearly all of their former lands. Many emigrated to northwest New Jersey and the
Ohio Valley during this period.
Colonial towns on the New Jersey shore were generally established at estuaries with suitable harbors for
fishing and trade, such as the Mullica River. The New York Road linked these communities along the shore.
Ore from bogs and charcoal from the pine barrens provided raw materials for an ironworks at Batsto that
produced munitions for the American Revolution. A British raid in 1778 burnt the community of Chestnut
Neck and all the vessels in the harbor, including some privateers, but did not achieve its secondary goal of
destroying the ironworks. Limited by shallow and small harbors, these shore communities experienced slow
28
economic and population growth during the 19th century. Fishing, shellfishing, and agriculture remained
the primary economic activities for most families. The later development of Atlantic City, Cape May, and
other resorts had little effect on the surrounding areas without beachfront. This factor has done much to
preserve the rural character of the Refuge vicinity.
Upland areas on Forsythe Refuge generally consist of former farmland associated with historic period
settlement. Much of the Brigantine Division, for example, was part of a large early 19th century farm based
on Brigantine Island. Therefore, historic period archaeological resources are unlikely except in a few
settings, such as present or former landing areas. Some remains of wharves for these landings, and possibly
sunken small craft, may exist in the marshes. A lifesaving station site near Brigantine City is one of the few
documented historic archaeological sites at the Refuge.
There are currently no standing historic structures on the Refuge, but the Forked River Game Farm,
proposed for acquisition from the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, has several structures that will
require review of their eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
Socioeconomic Environment
The Forsythe Refuge receives over 300,000 visitors per year. The predominant public uses of the Refuge
are hunting, fishing, clamming, crabbing, wildlife observation, environmental education, and boating. The
dikes surrounding the impoundments at the Brigantine Division serve as an 8-mile auto tour for the public.
The Brigantine impoundment area accounts for about one-half of the Refuge visitors. The impoundment
area is renowned as one of the premier birding sites in North America. A recent study shows that birders
alone, who make up about 75% of the auto tour visitors, annually add about $4.01 million to the local
economy (Kerlinger, 1995).
Wildlife-dependent public use at the Refuge is consistent with the primary industry for the region–tourism.
The New Jersey shore has long been a major tourist destination. Boating, fishing, hunting, shellfishing, and
beach-related pursuits are typical for tourists. Most of the tourists come from major nearby metropolitan
centers: Philadelphia, Newark, and New York City.
Over the last 20 years, the development of casinos and related industries has created a large influx of people.
This has spurred the rapid construction of housing and support infrastructure (e.g., roads, malls, plazas,
utility towers and corridors). The increase in human density and associated uses have caused considerable
strains on the ecosystem from the following factors:
1. Habitat loss - direct conversion of natural habitat types to developed types.
2. Habitat fragmentation - conversion of large contiguous tracts of natural habitat types to a mosaic of
discontinuous, smaller habitat type relicts; or erecting barriers that cause direct lethal impacts to
fish, wildlife and plants (e.g., roads, towers, dams).
3. Habitat degradation - partial deterioration of habitat due to pollution (siltation, nutrients, pesticides,
metals), exotic and pest species (phragmites, house cats), incompatible uses (all-terrain vehicles,
personal watercraft).
4. Water consumption - reducing subsurface and surface waters due to irrigation, home consumption,
and industrial applications.
29
There is a substantial commercial fishing industry in southern New Jersey. Important species include:
finned fish, clams, mussels, and crabs. There is an increase in shellfish aquaculture, especially oysters. Bait
fish, eel, and horseshoe crabs are also a major component of the industry.
In addition to the above more apparent environmental economic connections, there are others. A study
conducted in Minnesota determined that there is a statistically significant positive relationship between the
amount of wetland acres in an area and residential property values (Lupi, et al., 1991). The authors were not
able to identify which values were captured (i.e., open space, view, habitat, etc). A study conducted in Maine
outlines the economic benefits of open space to local communities (American Farmland Trust, 1992).
Beyond the economic factors in land use planning there are ethical considerations. Is the land a commodity
that belongs to us? Or is land a community to which we belong? Are we the masters of the land or are we
stewards of the land?
30
This page intentionally left blank
31
Chapter 4. Management Direction
Refuge Management Policies and Guidelines
Compatibility Determinations
Federal law, regulation and policy provide the direction and planning framework to protect the National
Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) from incompatible or harmful human activities and to insure that
current and future Americans can enjoy Refuge System lands and waters. The National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
of 1997 (Refuge Improvement Act), is the key legislation on managing public uses and compatibility.
Before activities or uses are allowed on a National Wildlife Refuge, the uses must be found to be a
"compatible use." A compatible use is a use, "...that will not materially interfere with or detract from the
fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge." "Wildlife-dependent
recreational uses may be authorized on a refuge when they are compatible and not inconsistent with public
safety. Except for consideration of consistency with State laws and regulations as provided for in section
(m), no other determinations or findings are required to be made by the refuge official under this Act or the
Refuge Recreation Act for wildlife-dependent recreation to occur." (Refuge Improvement Act)
A number of compatibility determinations have been prepared over the years covering a variety of uses
currently taking place on Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge (Forsythe Refuge). These
compatibility determinations remain in effect and are being re-certified as part of this effort to prepare a
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Refuge.
Pre-acquisition Compatibility Determinations
A pre-acquisition compatibility determination assesses the compatibility of an existing priority general
public use during the period from the time we first acquires a parcel of land to when a formal long-term
management plan for the parcel is prepared and adopted. Pre-acquisition compatibility determinations for
Forsythe Refuge have been completed for the six priority general public uses of the System listed in the
Refuge Improvement Act, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education
and interpretation. (See Table 1.) The pre-acquisition compatibility determination for Forsythe Refuge
may be found in Appendix F. The Act defines these six priority general public uses as "wildlife-dependent
recreation" and "wildlife-dependent recreational use."
The pre-acquisition compatibility determinations for Forsythe Refuge cover the existing priority general
public uses occurring within the Land Protection Focus Areas (Focus Areas) described in this CCP. (See
Land Protection Focus Areas on page 33 and Maps 3a, b, c, and d beginning on page 51.) These
Focus Areas are lands that have been added to the approved Refuge acquisition boundary.
Several of the six priority general public uses occur on lands within these Focus Areas. The current levels of
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation taking
place on these lands do not seem to be negatively impacting fish, wildlife, or plant resources.
Current levels of the six priority general public uses occurring within these Focus Areas would be
compatible with the mission of the Refuge System and the purposes for which Forsythe Refuge was
established. The Focus Areas have little estuarine habitat important to the Atlantic Brant, black ducks or
rails, or important estuarine feeding and resting habitat for ducks or brant. The Refuges would allow the
32
Table 1. Pre-acquisition Compatibility for Wildlife-dependent Recreational Activities at Forsythe Refuge.
Wildlife-dependent Recreational Activities Existing Use? Compatible Use? Use Allowed?
Hunting Yes Yes Yes
Fishing from bank Yes Yes Yes
Fishing from boat Yes Yes Yes
Wildlife Observation Yes Yes Yes
Wildlife Photography Yes Yes Yes
Environmental Education No Yes Yes
Interpretation No Yes Yes
current levels of hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and wildlife photography to continue in the interim.
We would monitor impacts of these uses and adjust levels and locations as appropriate through the adoption
of long-term management plans.
Walking, hiking and bicycling done for exercise and enjoyment of the outdoors occur on lands within these
Focus Areas. To eliminate conflicts between user groups, we would terminate bicycling on property within
the Focus Areas as soon as the Service acquired and posted a property within these areas. Walking and
hiking would be allowed to continue at their current levels in the interim. We would monitor impacts of
these uses and adjust levels and locations as appropriate through the adoption of long-term management
plans.
All terrain vehicle (ATV), dirt bike, and mountain bike riding occurs on some lands in these Focus Areas.
These activities negatively impact physical and biological resources, and are therefore not compatible with
the purposes for which ForsytheRefuge was established. To eliminate negative impacts, we would
terminate these activities on property within the Focus Areas as soon as the Service acquired and posted a
property within these areas.
Potential Land Protection Methods
We will focus our land protection efforts on lands adjacent to Service-owned lands within existing Refuge
boundaries, and also to larger contiguous tracts. Funding for land acquisition will come from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund and the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. Known hazardous waste sites or
contaminated areas will be excluded from consideration. All land transactions are subject to contaminant
surveys.
The Service's land acquisition policy is to obtain the minimum interest necessary to satisfy Refuge
objectives. Conservation easements can sometimes be used in this context, when they can be shown to be a
cost-effective method of protection. In general, any conservation easement must preclude destruction or
degradation of habitat, and allow Refuge staff to adequately manage uses of the area for the benefit of
wildlife. Because development rights must be included, the cost of purchasing conservation easements often
approaches that of fee title purchase, thus rendering this method less practical. Nevertheless, donations of
easements or voluntary deed restrictions prohibiting habitat destruction would be encouraged. In addition,
the Service could negotiate management agreements with local and State agencies, and accept conservation
easements on upland tracts.
33
Land Acquisition Areas
We have identified 3,348 acres for acquisition to provide long-term protection to the numerous species of
shorebirds, neotropical migratory landbirds, waterfowl, long-legged waders, raptors, finfish and shellfish,
and threatened and endangered species. (See Maps 3a, b, c, and d beginning on page 51 and Appendix M on
page 165.) Our objectives are to protect:
• Known sites of threatened or endangered species and communities;
• Areas important to the ecological health of lands already owned (ensure intact ecosystem processes,
such as, protecting the quality and quantity of water for wetlands, providing habitat corridors
between existing conservation lands, or sufficient size of contiguous areas to protect viable
populations);
• Areas important for priority wildlife species (e.g., critical stopover habitat for migrating birds);
• Areas identified as priority sites for protection by other conservation organizations;
• Areas still viable for conservation protection (i.e., not already developed).
Property Taxes, Refuge Revenue Sharing, Relocation, and Landowner Rights
The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of June 15, 1935, as amended, provides annual payments to taxing
authorities, based on acreage and value of Refuge lands located within their jurisdiction. In 2000, the
Service paid, $106,651 to Ocean County communities, $8,049 to Burlington County communities, and $74,335
to Atlantic County communities.
Money for these payments comes from the sale of oil and gas leases, timber sales, grazing fees, and the sale
of other Refuge System resources and from Congressional appropriations. The Congressional
appropriations are intended to make up the difference between the net receipts from the Refuge Revenue
Sharing Fund and the total amount due to local taxing authorities. The actual Refuge Revenue Sharing
Payment does vary from year to year, because Congress may or may not appropriate sufficient funds to
make full payment. The actual payments made in 2000 were 57.9% of full payment.
The Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments are based on one of three different formulas, whichever results in
the highest payment to the local taxing authority. In New Jersey, the payments are based on three-quarters
of one percent of the appraised fair market value. The purchase price of a property is considered its fair
market value until the property is reappraised. The Service reappraises the value of Refuge lands every five
years.
On wetlands and formerly farmland-assessed properties in New Jersey, the full entitlement Refuge
Revenue Sharing Payments sometimes exceed the real estate tax. However, Refuge Revenue Sharing
payments are more often less than the real estate tax.
The fact that Refuges put little demand on the infrastructure of a municipality, must be considered in
assessing the financial impact on the municipality. For example, there is no extra demand placed on the
school system, roads, utilities, police and fire protection, etc. There is a substantial body of literature that
shows that development, especially residential development, actually costs a community more in schools,
roads, sewers and other services than the tax revenue generated by the development (Land Trust Alliance,
1994).
34
The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended,
provides certain relocation benefits to home owners, businessmen, and farm operators who are displaced as
a result of Federal land acquisition. The law provides benefits to eligible owners and tenants for
reimbursement of reasonable moving expenses, replacement of housing payments under certain conditions,
relocation assistance services, and reimbursement of certain expenses incurred in selling real property to
the Government.
The owner of land adjacent to Refuge land or within an approved Refuge acquisition boundary or a Refuge
Focus Area, retains any and all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of private land ownership. This
includes the right of access, hunting, vehicle use, control of trespass, right to sell to any party, and the
obligation to pay real estate taxes. The Refuge controls uses only on the properties it owns.
Ecosystem Services
Refuge lands provide substantial value to society through ecosystem services. These services (e.g., nutrient
cycling, erosion control and sediment retention, water supply) represent benefits human populations derive,
directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions. Ecosystem services consist of the flow of material and
energy from natural capital stocks (i.e., vegetation, minerals, the atmosphere) which combine with
manufactured and human capital services to produce human welfare. Ecosystem services and the natural
capital stocks that produce them are critical to the functioning of the earth's life support system. Appendix
G lists 17 ecosystem services, the related ecosystem functions, and examples of how society benefits from
them.
Accessibility
Forsythe Refuge will operate its programs or activities so that when viewed in its entirety, it is readily
accessible to and useable by disabled persons. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, requires that
programs and facilities be, to the highest degree feasible, readily accessible to and useable by all persons
who have a disability.
Protection and Management of Cultural Resources
The Service has a legal responsibility to consider the effects its actions have on archeological and historic
resources. In implementing this CCP, the Service will comply with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act before conducting any ground disturbing activities. Compliance may require any or all of
the following: State Historic Preservation Records survey, literature survey, or field survey.
The Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Summary Statement
Under this CCP, all lands above mean high tide in the Holgate Unit of the Brigantine Wilderness Area are
closed to motor vehicle use year-round in compliance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act. We are also
initiating efforts to establish a seasonal boat concession to ferry anglers and other Refuge visitors to the
southern tip of the Holgate Peninsula.
We will seek to increase Refuge staffing and funding levels and initiate new wildlife population, habitat, and
ecosystem management activities; provide new compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities;
increase our land protection efforts; and construct new office and visitor facilities to support the goals and
objectives of the Refuge.
35
We will place special emphasis on the six priority general public uses defined in the Refuge Improvement
Act, i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation.
Public use surveys, along with wildlife and habitat monitoring, will help us estimate the volume and impacts
of public use, and adapt our management strategies for that use.
Refuge Goals, Objectives and Strategies
This section presents long-term guidance for the Refuge in the form of goals, objectives and strategies.
Refuge goals are qualitative statements that define what the Refuge must be to satisfy the Refuge purposes,
legal mandates, and the needs of citizens and agencies having a vital interest in what and how the Refuge
performs. These goals highlight specific elements of our vision statement which will be emphasized in future
management. Objectives provide quantitative bench marks that indicate progress toward achieving Refuge
purposes and goals. Strategies are specific actions or projects that will lead to the accomplishment of our
objectives.
Goal 1. Protect and enhance Federal trust resources and other species and habitats of special
concern.
Objective 1. Continue managing the Refuge to support 25 nesting pairs of piping plovers at Holgate and
25 nesting pairs at Little Beach Island (total of 50 nesting pairs).
Strategies a. Continue closing all of the Holgate Peninsula and Little Beach Island, above and
below the mean high tide line, to all public access during the piping plover breeding
season (April through August). The piping plover is Federally-listed as threatened
and State-listed as endangered. The southern tip of the Holgate may also be closed
beyond September 1, to protect late-nesting black skimmers.
b. Protect and monitor the piping plover (Federally listed threatened species).
c. Continue management activities including:
• identifying nests;
• establishing exclosures to protect nests;
• trapping mammalian predators in piping plover areas (e.g., raccoon, red
fox and feral cats) (Map 4d on page 58);
• monitoring plover numbers on a regular basis.
Objective 2. Manage the Refuge to protect the swamp pink, a Federally listed threatened species.
Strategies a. Protect and monitor the swamp pink.
b. Implement management techniques to improve habitat quality or increase
population size or vigor.
Objective 3. Expand our efforts to protect other endangered and threatened species on the Refuge.
Strategies a. Survey all Refuge lands for currently and potentially occurring threatened and
endangered species (Federal and State-listed).
36
b. Protect and manage any newly discovered occurrences to maintain or expand those
populations.
c. Conduct a feasibility assessment for sites where a listed species does not currently
occur, but could potentially be restored. Attempt to restore species at restoration
sites with a reasonable chance for success.
Objective 4. Manage the Brigantine Wilderness Area so as to protect and preserve its wilderness values.
(See Map 2 on page 4.)
Strategies a. By October 1, 2002, close all lands above mean high tide in the Holgate Unit to
motor vehicle (also referred to as off-road vehicles or ORVs) use year-round.
b. Seasonal motor vehicle use (September through March) would continue under
State law, only in the adjacent State-owned riparian lands, below mean high tide.
The riparian lands are not part of the Refuge or the Wilderness Area.
c. Given the fact that the mean high tide line is difficult to identify on the ground, we
will use the berm crest and/or wet sand/dry sand lines, which are more readily
identifiable, as proxies on the beach at the Holgate Unit for the Wilderness
boundary. All motorized vehicles will need to stay below the berm crest and wet
sand/dry sand lines while they are on the Holgate Unit to avoid violating the
Brigantine Wilderness Area. Educational efforts to familiarize anglers and refuge
visitors with this new policy will be implemented beginning October 1, 2002.
d. Encourage greater use of the Wilderness Area by other Refuge visitors, in
appropriate seasons and locations, through guided tours or Refuge special use
permits. Restrict access to highly sensitive areas.
e. Scrutinize all planned management actions to determine of they are necessary to
protect wilderness resources and determine the "minimum tool" needed to carry
them out. We would not use a tool simply because it is the most comfortable,
convenient, or least expensive.
f. Continue National Atmospheric Monitoring Program (NADP) and Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring programs.
In addition, we would add air-borne mercury monitoring in partnership with the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), and provide
technical assistance to local communities on air quality issues and Class I air space.
g. Develop a detailed step-down Wilderness Management Plan for the existing
Brigantine Wilderness Area by 2005.
h. By 2010 conduct a Wilderness Review of all lands acquired since 1972 to determine
what additional lands, if any, should be recommended for designation as part of the
National Wilderness Preservation System.
Objective 5. Inventory, map and monitor Refuge wildlife and habitats.
Strategies a. Conduct comprehensive baseline flora and fauna surveys of plants, invertebrates,
fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.
37
b. From the baseline surveys (including song bird point counts, frog call surveys, and
Monitoring Avian Production and Survivorship banding stations), establish a
long-term monitoring program (e.g., sample a group for five years, every 15 years).
c. Implement species monitoring before and after major habitat management
projects, and expand use of Geography Information Systems (GIS) to document
and model species and habitat.
d. Develop a computer archive of data and publications to ensure access to
information for staff, partners, and the public.
e. Use the results of baseline surveys, project evaluation surveys, and monitoring to
develop, evaluate, and revise management objectives for wildlife populations,
habitat, and public use.
f. Set aside Little Beach Island and adjacent salt marshes as a representative natural
barrier island complex. A study would be undertaken to determine what species
should be represented on the Island, yet are absent because of past human
disturbance. Those plant and animal species would then be restored so that the
Island could act as a colonizing source to New Jersey's other barrier islands.
Research would also be conducted to determine the impact of beach use on
beach/dune dynamics, comparing Holgate and Little Beach Island.
g. Encourage research not only by identifying needs, but in co-developing research
proposals and pursuing funding through Service and non-Service sources. New
research would include the:
• impact of mosquito control techniques, such as pesticide applications and
Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM), on habitat and wildlife;
• impact of different kinds and levels of public use on habitat and wildlife;
• impact of public use on the dynamics of beach and shoreline environment;
• impact of watershed development on water quality/quantity and wetland
resources;
• impact of restoring pre-colonial ecology of the southern New Jersey
coastal landscape (e.g., role of fire, plant and animal community
composition);
• assessment of ecological integrity of the landscape based upon proposed
land protection and management.
Objective 6. Expand efforts to protect and enhance other species and habitats of special concern.
Strategies a. Provide technical assistance to local communities and partners, on wildlife-related
issues (e.g., wildlife and habitat monitoring; contaminant spill planning/response).
38
b. Initiate efforts to restore colonial nesting birds to barrier and bay islands. Initiate
research, if necessary, to determine limiting factors to successful restoration of
bird colonies.
c. Initiate efforts to identify and manage critical habitat on the Refuge for
interjurisdictional fish. This would be covered in a step-down Wildlife Population
Management Plan.
d. Continue current trapping efforts under contract and Refuge special use permits
(Maps 4a, b, c and d, beginning on page 55) to:
• protect Refuge infrastructure (e.g., muskrats that burrow in Refuge
dikes);
• maintain furbearer populations at levels consistent with objectives for
Refuge and surrounding habitat would be continued.
e. Expand public trapping opportunities for raccoon, fox, muskrat, coyote and beaver,
under Refuge special use permits (Maps 4a, b, and c beginning on page 55), to
better manage furbearer populations in the:
• Reedy Creek area in Brick Township;
• Stouts Creek area in Lacey Township;
• Four Mile Branch Bogs area in Stafford Township.
Goal 2. Maintain and/or restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy, functioning
ecosystems.
Objective 1. Complete the revision of the step-down Habitat Management Plan for the Refuge by 2002.
Strategies a. Use existing preliminary habitat prescriptions for all currently owned Refuge lands
as the basis for the step-down plan. These prescriptions were developed to provide
habitat management objectives that characterize a desired physiognomic condition
(major vegetative structure, e.g., forest, grassland, brush, marsh) and hydrologic
regime (e.g., upland, tidal wetland, non-tidal wetland). (See Maps 5a, b, c and d
beginning on page 59.)
b. Consider habitat requirements for endangered or other high priority trust
resources (e.g., piping plover) and ecological communities with special emphasis
(e.g., Atlantic white cedar swamps) in establishing site specific prescriptions.
c. Implement the following guiding principles in developing specific habitat
prescriptions:
• restore salt marshes to pre-grid-ditched hydrology;
• maximize grasslands or fields for open land character;
39
• maximize forests for interior character;
• maintain scrub/shrub between forest and grassland to create soft
boundaries;
• buffer sensitive areas;
• use only native plant species and local genotypes in restoration projects;
• favor low maintenance habitat strategies, taking advantage of driving
systems processes;
• use pre-colonial baseline to define native species, community composition,
and landscape configuration;
• use natural regeneration to convert or restore habitat types, unless there
are no seed sources, there are threats from exotic species, or physical
stabilization is required.
d. Develop and implement a private lands habitat restoration plan in cooperation with
other agencies and organizations that have private lands programs, such as the
Service's Ecological Services Division, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Natural Resource Conservation Service and Forest Service.
Objective 2. Manage 27,956 acres as Salt Marsh by maintaining 5,547 acres of existing pristine
unditched marsh that is part of the Brigantine Wilderness Area, restoring 22,388 acres of
parallel grid-ditched marsh to pre-ditching hydrology, and restoring 12 acres of Dredged
Lagoon, three acres of Developed land, and two acres of Upland Brush.
Objective 3. Manage 5,659 acres of Upland Forest by maintaining 4,841acres of existing Upland Forest,
converting 733 acres from Upland Brush and 30 acres from Crop-Pasture by allowing them
to regrow, and restoring 49 acres of Developed land, three acres of Dredged Lagoon, and a
three acre Sand-Gravel Pit.
Objective 4. Maintain 1,685 acres of existing marsh in the Brigantine and Barnegat Impoundment
Systems. Actively manipulate water levels and flow throughout the year to produce mud
flats, deep water (with submerged aquatic vegetation), moist soil (with annual wetland
plants), and salt marsh. Obtain additional resources needed to replace obsolete water
control structures and continue rehabilitation of the dikes.
Objective 5. Maintain 589 acres as barrier island Dune-Beach habitat; the actual acreage would vary
based on the highly dynamic shoreline changes. Most of the acreage lies within the
Brigantine Wilderness Area (Holgate Unit and Little Beach Island), and, with the exception
of control for exotic species, would be left largely to natural processes. Create 11 acres of
barrier island Dune-Beach habitat from a Dredge Spoil site.
Objective 6. Maintain 581 acres of existing Wetland Forests and restore 2 acres from a Sand-Gravel Pit.
Additional research may support Atlantic White Cedar restoration in current Wetland
Forest sites.
40
Objective 7. Maintain 197 acres of existing Wetland/Bog Brush, generally in a complex with Cedar
Swamp Forests. Restore one 36 acre site, Cedar Run Bog, a former diked cranberry bog,
to its pre-diked shoreline and open fish passage.
Objective 8. Manage 196 acres of early succession Brushy Uplands by maintaining 112 acres in a brushy
state through use of mechanical or fire techniques, converting 34 acres of Crop-Pasture or
Developed Land to brush by allowing it to regrow, and setting back 50 acres of Upland
Forest to a brushy state.
Objective 9. Manage 178 acres of Grassland habitat (native grasses and forbs) by restoring 139 acres of
Developed Lands (includes dikes of impoundments), 24 acres of Crop-Pasture, 15 acres of
Dredge Spoil Site, and 15 acres of Upland Brush. Actively restore areas currently covered
with grasses and forbs that are dominated by exotic and invasive species, to native species.
Objective 10. Maintain 118 acres in salt marshes and bays of the estuary as Forest Island, and
rehabilitate 93 acres of Dredge Spoil sites.
Objective 11. Maintain 96 acres as Open Fresh Water, with a priority to remove any fish passage
obstructions. Monitor non-Refuge navigable waters for water quality and fish and wildlife
use in cooperation with the State.
Objective 12. Maintain 45 acres of existing Fresh Non-tidal Marsh.
Objective 13. Maintain 24 acres of existing Pitch-Pine Lowland Forest.
Objective 14. Maintain 239 acres of existing Cedar Swamp Forest and restore 20 acres of Sand-Gravel
Pit.
Objective 15. Seventeen acres associated with offices and other Refuge facilities would remain Developed
Land. Landscape these areas with native plants to support Refuge activities and reduce
negative impacts on wildlife.
Objective 16. Maintain 15 acres of existing Dredged Lagoon unless further study indicates that it could
be converted to another cover type, such as Salt Marsh, in a legal and ecologically sound
manner.
Objective 17. Complete the revision of the step-down Fire Management Plan and Burn Prescriptions in
2001 and apply prescribed fire to all of the upland habitats.
Strategies a. Upland Forest - burn once every 8-15 years to reduce hazardous fuel, overstory
stand density, and understory density, increase heath or grass/forb density, and
control invasive species.
b. Upland Brush - burn once every 5-15 years to reduce hazardous fuel, set back
succession, and control invasive species.
c. Grassland - burn once every 1-3 years to reduce hazardous fuel, set back succession
(woody growth), and control invasive species.
d. Refine burn frequency and prescriptions through research and monitoring.
41
Objective 18. Develop and implement an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program with control
strategies for phragmites and at least six other problem species by 2003.
Strategies a. Continue a combination of herbicide use, prescribed burning, mowing and water
level management to remove approximately 150 acres of phragmites per year in
Refuge impoundments.
b. Survey invasive and overabundant species on the Refuge.
c. Establish a monitoring program, in concert with habitat monitoring, to assess
progress and identify additional problem species.
d. Research alternative methods of controlling certain species.
e. Offer technical assistance and support on invasive species control efforts on nearby
public and private lands.
f. Continue public hunting to control populations of snow geese and resident Canada
geese. Continue nest disruption efforts on the Refuge to limit production of
resident Canada geese. Continue these activities until further planning prescribes
other actions.
Objective 19. Reduce use of pesticides on the Refuge.
Strategies a. Continue current levels of pesticide use for phragmites and mosquito control, which
largely follow an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach, until acceptable
substitutes are identified.
b. Complete renegotiation of the Cooperative Agreement with county mosquito
control agencies and the State regarding mosquito control activities on the Refuge.
c. Aggressively pursue alternatives to pesticide use.
d. Offer technical assistance on IPM strategies to local communities for controlling
common problem species.
Goal 3. Establish a land protection program to support species, habitat and ecosystem goals.
Objective 1. Acquire the remaining 12,300 acres of privately owned land within the currently approved
56,600 acre Refuge acquisition boundary. The approved Refuge acquisition area includes
the 535-acre New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife’s Forked River State Game Farm in
Lacey Township. (See Maps 3a, b, c and d beginning on page 51.)
Strategies a. Continue buying from willing sellers and focusing our land acquisition efforts on
developable upland properties first.
b. Obtain the $19.7 million in funding needed to acquire the remaining 12,300 acres of
land within the approved Refuge acquisition area (average cost of $1,600 per acre).
(The average annual Land and Water Conservation appropriation for this Refuge,
based on the five-year period, FY-1995/1999, is $1,700,000.)
42
c. Maintain the present level of participation in off-Refuge land use planning efforts
with governmental and private partners (e.g., the Barnegat Bay National Estuary
Program and the Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve).
Objective 2. Work to protect 3,348 acres of wildlife habitat essential to the long-term ecological integrity
of the Refuge. (See Maps 3a, b, c and d beginning on page 51 and Appendix M on page 165.)
Strategies a. Acquire 3,348 acres, which were defined in cooperation with the State, local
municipalities and our conservation partners.
b. Obtain the $11 million in funding needed to acquire all 3,348 acres (average cost of
$3,300 per acre). (This would require increasing the average annual Land and
Water Conservation Fund appropriation for Forsythe Refuge by about $800,000
for the next fifteen years. For the five-year period, FY-1995/1999, the average
annual Land and Water Conservation funding for this Refuge was about $1.7
million.)
c. Expand our land planning efforts with municipalities, counties, and the State.
d. Expand our efforts to work with public and private landowners to implement
wildlife habitat protection and restoration off Service-owned land.
Goal 4. Provide opportunities for high-quality compatible, wildlife-dependent public use.
Objective 1. Continue to provide compatible deer hunting opportunities, by permit, in the following Deer
Management Zones (DMZs) ( Maps 6a, b, and c beginning on page 63.):
a. DMZ 56 in Atlantic County, south of Stoney Hill Road (20 permits for shotgun
season);
b. DMZ 57 in Atlantic County, north of Stoney Hill Road (35 permits for shotgun
season, 35 permits for bow season, and 35 permits for muzzle loader season);
c. DMZ 58 in Burlington and Ocean Counties (50 permits for shotgun season, 35
permits for bow season, and 40 permits for muzzle loader season).
Objective 2. Expand compatible big game hunting opportunities on the Refuge by 2003. (See Maps 6a,
b, and c beginning on page 63.)
Strategies a. Initiate a universally accessible hunt in DMZ 56 during the permit shotgun or
permit muzzle loader seasons.
b. Expand deer hunting opportunities in DMZ 58 to include:
• Forked River Game Farm, Lacey Township;
• Former AT&T property, Lacey Township;
43
• Selected properties east of US Route 9, Eagleswood, Stafford, and
Barnegat Townships;
• Middle Branch of Forked River, Lacey Township (permit bow season
only);
• Cedar Run Creek between the Garden State Parkway and Route 9, in
Stafford Township (permit bow season only).
c. Weigh the following factors in expanding big game hunting opportunities:
• the size and configuration of new Refuge-owned properties;
• the availability of public access;
• safety considerations including the State mandated 450-foot safety zone
around buildings and playgrounds.
d. Reduce big game hunting activities if we determine that incompatible levels of use
are occurring.
Objective 3. Provide compatible game hunting opportunities on the Refuge by 2005.
Strategies a. Initiate the Refuge's first upland game hunting opportunities in the Oak Island
Unit of the Brigantine Division, Bass River Township, Ocean County. (See Map 7
on page 66.)
b. Establish a parking and sign-in area at the old McDonald house site, located on
Route 9 in New Gretna.
c. Weigh the following factors in expanding upland game hunting opportunities:
• the size and configuration of new Refuge-owned properties;
• the availability of public access;
• safety considerations including the State mandated 450-foot safety zone
around buildings and playgrounds.
d. Reduce upland game hunting activities if we determine that incompatible levels of
use are occurring.
Objective 4. Continue to provide compatible migratory bird hunting opportunities on the Refuge.
Strategies a. Continue current waterfowl, rail and moorhen hunting opportunities in designated
hunt units on about 40% of Refuge lands. (See Maps 8a, b, c, and d beginning on
page 67.)
b. Continue to allow migratory game bird hunting in salt marshes that are in
designated migratory game bird hunt units within the Brigantine Wilderness Area.
44
c. Make the following changes in current migratory game bird hunting opportunities:
• allow foot access to Brigantine Division Unit 5, Little Egg Harbor
Township;
• allow jump shooting in Barnegat Division Unit A, from Jeremy Point in
Little Egg Harbor Township to Cedar Run Creek in Eagleswood
Township;
• eliminate foot access and jump shooting in part of Barnegat Division Unit
A from Cedar Run Creek in Eagleswood Township, to Beach Haven West
in Stafford Township;
• allow jump shooting and eliminate site requirements in the Barnegat
Division Unit C, Clam Island.
d. Make detailed maps of the migratory game bird hunting units available at Refuge
headquarters.
Objective 5. Expand compatible migratory game bird hunting opportunities on the Refuge by 2003.
Strategies a. Open additional areas for waterfowl hunting within the following areas (Maps 8a, b,
c and d beginning on page 67):
• Reedy Creek in Brick Township;
• Stouts Creek property in Lacey Township;
• Forked River Game Farm in Lacey Township;
• Former AT&T property, in Lacey Township;
• Cedar Run Creek, between Route 9 and the Garden State Parkway, in
Stafford Township.
b. Weigh the following factors in expanding migratory game bird hunting
opportunities
• the size and configuration of new Refuge-owned properties;
• the availability of public access;
• safety considerations including the State mandated 450-foot safety zone
around buildings and playgrounds.
c. Reduce migratory bird hunting activities if we determine that incompatible levels
of use are occurring.
Objective 6. Continue to provide compatible fishing opportunities on the Refuge. (See Maps 9a and b
beginning on page 71.)
45
Strategies a. Operate the boat launching ramp and car parking at Scotts Landing (Atlantic
County, Galloway Township).
b. Provide freshwater fishing opportunities at Lilly Lake (Atlantic County, Galloway
Township), including bank fishing from the south shore and boat fishing. Boats
may not have internal combustion engines.
c. Upgrade saltwater fishing and crabbing opportunities at:
• Cedar Creek, Stafford Avenue, Stafford Township, Ocean County;
• Cedar Run, Cedar Run Dock Road, Eagleswood Township, Ocean County;
• Parker Run, Dock Street, Little Egg Harbor Township, Ocean County.
d. Motorized vehicles are not permitted beyond designated parking areas at any of
these locations.
Objective 7. Expand compatible fishing opportunities on the Refuge. (See Maps 9a and b beginning on
page 71.)
Strategies a. Provide the following new fishing opportunities:
• universally accessible saltwater fishing and crabbing opportunities on the
Mullica River (Atlantic County, City of Port Republic) off U. S. Route 9 by
2005;
• upgrade the saltwater fishing & crabbing opportunities at Cedar Creek,
Cedar Run Creek and Parker Run by 2006;
• a universally accessible freshwater fishing pier at Cedar Run Bog (Ocean
County, Stafford Township) west of U. S. Route 9 by 2007.
b. Develop a Refuge fishing guide.
c. We will investigate the possibility of establishing an experimental shuttle service
which would take anglers and other refuge visitors from a convenient location to
the tip of the Holgate Unit from September through mid-November.
d. Open Little Beach Island (Atlantic County, Galloway Township) through Refuge
special use permits to seasonal (September through March) surf fishing. Use these
special use permits to limit the numbers and impacts of visitors to the island.
Seasonal surf fishing at Little Beach Island is authorized under the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 50, section 32.49.
e. Offer seasonal saltwater surf fishing opportunities within the Brigantine
Wilderness Area at the Holgate Unit when the beach is open to public access from
September through March. Access either by foot, both above and below mean high
tide, or