E.B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge€¦ · Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge (EBFNWR) contains some of the most important migratory bird habitat in the National Wildlife

UNITED STATES FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge A Report on Wilderness Character Monitoring

Prepared by: Monica Patel December 16, 2011

Sunset on Holgate Peninsula, Brigantine National Wilderness Area - Photo Credit © Monica Patel 2011

Wilderness.net Webmaster

This document is part of the Wilderness Character Toolbox on http://www.wilderness.net/toolboxes/

[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 GEOGRAPHIC SETTING ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 ECOLOGICAL SETTING ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 HISTORY OF ESTABLISHING BRIGANTINE NATIONAL WILDERNESS AREA .................................................................................... 2 1.4 REFUGE PURPOSES .................................................................................................................................................................................. 4

SECTION 2: RESOURCES AND PROCESS ............................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 DOCUMENTS CONSULTED ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 EBFNWR STAFF CONSULTED .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.3 PROCESS USED FOR IDENTIFYING MEASURES .................................................................................................................................... 6

SECTION 3: FRAMEWORK FOR WILDERNESS CHARACTER MONITORING ........................................................... 7

3.1 QUALITIES ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 3.1.1 Untrammeled quality: .............................................................................................................................................................. 7 3.1.2 Natural quality: .......................................................................................................................................................................... 8 3.1.3 Undeveloped quality: ................................................................................................................................................................ 8 3.1.4 Opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality: ..................................................... 9

3.2 MONITORING QUESTIONS ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9 3.3 INDICATORS .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 9 3.4 MEASURES .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 10

SECTION 4: MEASURES SELECTED FOR 2011 WILDERNESS CHARACTER MONITORING ............................... 1

4.1 UNTRAMMELED QUALITY ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2 4.2 NATURAL QUALITY ................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 4.3 UNDEVELOPED QUALITY........................................................................................................................................................................ 14 4.4 OPPORTUNITIES FOR SOLITUDE OR PRIMITIVE AND UNCONFINED TYPE OF RECREATION QUALITY .......................................... 24

SECTION 5: MEASURES UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR 2011 WILDERNESS CHARACTER MONITORING .. 33

SECTION 6: MEASURES NOT SELECTED FOR 2011 WILDERNESS CHARACTER MONITORING ................... 41

SECTION 7: CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................... 42

APPENDIX A- PRIORITIZING MEASURES OF WILDERNESS CHARACTER ............................................................ 43

APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF MEASURES ........................................................................................................................ 48

APPENDIX C: NATIONAL VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION STANDARD ................................................................ 52

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge (EBFNWR) contains some of the most important

migratory bird habitat in the National Wildlife Refuge System. EBFNWR is one of the largest

landowners on the Atlantic coast for the protection, management, restoration, and enjoyment

of migratory birds and other Federal Trust Resources in coastal New Jersey. EBFNWR provides

stopover habitats of sufficient size and quality for migrating and wintering birds on the Atlantic

Flyway. Congress designated 6,603 acres of EBFNWR as the Brigantine National Wilderness

Area on January 3, 1975 (P.L. 93-632) under the Wilderness Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-577), the

highest level of protection afforded to federal land. In order to preserve wilderness character

and uphold the legislative mandate of the Wilderness Act, an evaluation of current conditions

and a plan for monitoring long-term trends in wilderness are essential.

The approach provided herein follows wilderness character monitoring guidance developed by

an interagency team, representing the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Park

Service (NPS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This national

strategy is described in the 2008 “Keeping It Wild: An Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trends in

Wilderness Character across the National Wilderness Preservation System” publication

(Landres, et al 2008).

This document describes a wilderness character monitoring program for Brigantine National

Wilderness Area. Field surveys, refuge management policies, and documented uses are

incorporated into this guide for managers and future monitoring efforts. Additionally,

comments from former and current EBFNWR staff, other USFWS staff, and other federal agency

staff have been incorporated into this guide.

First, a brief background of Brigantine National Wilderness Area and EBFNWR purposes is

presented. Second, the process used to develop the monitoring framework is explained. Third,

a suite of measures are proposed in order to conduct an initial wilderness character baseline

assessment and subsequent monitoring. Fourth, a list of all measures ultimately not chosen for

inclusion are discussed, along with concluding thoughts on the proposed monitoring program.

In effect, this document describes the wilderness character monitoring program for Brigantine

National Wilderness Area of Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge.

Wilderness Character Monitoring DRAFT

1 | P a g e

SECTION 1: BACKGROUND 1.1 Geographic Setting Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge (EBFNWR) contains 47,144 acres located in Atlantic, Burlington, and Ocean counties of New Jersey and consists of two divisions: the Brigantine Division and the Barnegat Division. EBFNWR extends along more than 50 miles of the shore. EBFNWR 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 and Bird Conservation Act. Brigantine National Wilderness Area (Brigantine Wilderness) was established in 1975, before the combining of the two refuges. The Reedy Creek Unit was established in 1991, and is administered as part of Barnegat Division. The approved acquisition boundary of EBFNWR encompasses more than 56,600 acres. According to the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (2004) for FWNR, as of September 30, 1999 the Fish & Wildlife Service owned or leased 44,302 acres within the approved EBFNWR acquisition area.

1.2 Ecological Setting EBFNWR is situated within a traditional nesting, migration, and wintering area for waterfowl, marsh birds, and shorebirds. It is the major wintering area for the Atlantic brant (Branta bernicla hrota) and the American black duck (Anas rubripes). Special emphasis is also placed on protection and habitat management for the endangered and threatened bird species which nest here. EBFNWR is part of the Hudson River/New York Bight Ecosystem.

The topography of EBFNWR is typical of the coastal marshes of New Jersey, where uplands taper gradually to a wide band of salt marsh, terminating in open, shallow bays. More than 80 percent of EBFNWR is tidal salt meadow and marsh, interspersed with shallow coves and bays. These are important resting and feeding habitats, as abundant marsh plants provide food and cover for water birds and other wildlife. The tidal waters serve as nurseries, spawning and feeding grounds for fish and shellfish, which are important in the diets of many wildlife species.

Almost 5,000 acres of EBFNWR are woodlands dominated by such tree species as pitch pine (Pinus rigida), oaks (e.g., white oak -Quercus alba, chestnut oak – Q. prinus, black oak – Q. velutina, scarlet oak – Q. coccinea), and Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides). Fields are maintained in the midst of these wooded communities to provide habitat for grassland-nesting birds, and to increase habitat diversity. A wide variety of upland wildlife species, including songbirds, American woodcock (Scolopax minor), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and eastern box turtle (Terrapene c. carolina), frequent these upland areas.

Holgate and Little Beach are two units of the Brigantine Wilderness, which are two of the very few remaining undeveloped barrier beaches in New Jersey. Holgate and Little Beach units provide essential nesting and feeding habitat for the rare piping plover (Charadrius melodus), black skimmer (Rynchops niger) and least tern (Sternula antillarum). These birds, along with other beach-nesting species, have suffered drastic population declines as human beach developments and recreational uses have eliminated the habitat they need. EBFNWR is one of their last strongholds.


2 | P a g e

Little Beach Island is only undeveloped barrier islands along the New Jersey coast, five miles offshore from the mainland, and also comprises a complex of marsh islands, all separated from the mainland by Little Bay and by numerous smaller tidal bays, creeks, thoroughfares, and rivers. It protects an estuarine environment of unspoiled marsh islands, tidal streams, and potholes from coastal storms. The crescent-shaped island consists of wave and wind-sorted fine yellow sand with shallow lenses of dark silt in protected coves. Egg Island, Elder Island, Salt Island, Pullen Island, and the unnamed islands are all emergent tidal marsh islands totaling about 4,090 acres, stretching north and south the length of Little Beach Island and westward nearly to the Intracoastal Waterway. These marsh islands are firm, deep, dark-colored, silt-clay and muck.

The marsh islands are all dominated by salt marsh grasses (Spartina patens and Spartina alternifolia) with lesser densities of other grasses and sedges. No woody vegetation exists on the flat marsh islands, which average one or two feet above mean sea level.

EBFNWR wetlands are designated as Wetlands of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention, the second to be designated in the United States. There are only 26 designated Wetlands of International Importance in the United States. EBFNWR 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. Several species, including the black duck, remain through summer to nest and raise their young. EBFNWR and neighboring areas have the greatest densities of American black duck and Atlantic brant populations. The surveys that quantify these two species are not delineated according to wilderness boundaries and therefore no specific data are available on these species for the Brigantine Wilderness.

In 1978, Congress designated the Brigantine Wilderness 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, soil, water quality, visibility, odors, and cultural and archaeological resources.

Despite this protection, air pollution is impacting Brigantine Wilderness. The area lies in a highly industrialized airshed, with 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).

1.3 History of Establishing Brigantine National Wilderness Area On April 24, 1970, the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge was announced in the Federal Register (Volume 35, No. 80) as having met the basic criteria and qualifying for a detailed wilderness study. The wilderness study was conducted prior to the combining of Brigantine and Barnegat National Wildlife Refuges.

The 4,250-acre complex of Little Beach Island, Egg Island, Salt Island, Pullen Island, Elder Island, and approximately 12 associated unnamed marsh islands were found to meet requirements of the Wilderness Act of 1964. The wilderness boundaries of these islands are mean high water. On February 6, 1973, Senator Clifford Case (NJ) introduced the S. 777 bill to designate this 4,250-acre area as Brigantine National Wilderness Area. Senator Case emphasized that 4,250


3 | P a g e

acres was minimum area and he intended to consider the possibility of proposing additional acres. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs

The House Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, held hearings on H.R. 5422 and Related Bills, regarding the designation of wilderness areas. In these hearings, Congressman Charles W. Sandman, Jr. (NJ), Senator Case (NJ) Senator Williams (NJ), and a number of witnesses recommended the proposed Brigantine Wilderness be increased to 16,800 acres. That proposal included 256 acres of Holgate Peninsula, Shad Island, and the marshlands on the mainland.

On July 8, 1973, Senator Case introduced an amendment to S. 777 bill to expand wilderness designation to 16,800 acres. The only area not proposed for wilderness designation was 4,000 acres of the refuge that contained two artificial impoundments. In his news release on this amendment, Senator Case describes the then current situation at Holgate. “Access to the beach area is controlled by Long Beach Township. The only vehicles that are permitted are beach buggies that can travel only on the wet sand area, no further than 25 feet above mean high tide.” Senator Case went on to say, “The fact that the bird population of the peninsula has increased dramatically in the last two years demonstrates, I believe, that public uses of the beaches has not been, and need not be, detrimental to administering the area as a wilderness.”

On April 11, 1974, the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs reported out H.R. 12884, to designate certain federal lands as wilderness areas, and recommended that the bill be passed by the full House. H.R. 12884 consolidated into one proposal numerous wilderness bills pending before the Committee. The bill reported out of the Committee included the Administration’s 4,250-acre Brigantine Wilderness Proposal, which consisted of 17 islands, as well as other areas. Holgate Peninsula was included because the intent of the Wilderness Act was not to preserve areas which cannot be used by man and it possessed all necessary characteristics for wilderness. Out of the marshlands on the mainland, only 1,988 acres on the south of Mullica River was included. According to EBFNWR historical documents, it is unclear as to why the remaining 16,800 acres were not included.

On November 18, 1974, The Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs reported out S. 600, to designate certain federal lands as wilderness areas, including the proposed 6,603 acre Brigantine Wilderness. The Committee report specifically stated that the amended bill included the 256-acre Holgate Peninsula.

Congress designated 6,603 acres of EBFNWR as the Brigantine National Wilderness Area on January 3, 1975 to be managed under the Wilderness Act of 1964. It is significant ecologically and geologically in that it is an unspoiled barrier-beach island with its complex of marsh-estuarine islands still undeveloped and unspoiled. The entire area is surrounded by water and forms an ecological complex representative of the rapidly disappearing estuarine-barrier beach islands and marshes along the Atlantic Coast. This is a unique feature in itself in a setting so centrally located within megalopolis of the northeast coast.


4 | P a g e

1.4 Refuge Purposes This section highlights legal mandates, Service policy, and Refuge purposes which directly influenced development of this Wilderness Character Monitoring strategy.

The purposes of EBFNWR 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).

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.”

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is:

“…to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of 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 Improvement Act 1997, Public Law 105-57).

The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act established a unifying mission for the Refuge System. The Act states that above all else, wildlife comes first in the National Wildlife Refuge System. It does so by establishing that wildlife conservation is the principle 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 Wilderness Act mandates that certain federal lands be maintained in a natural, undeveloped state in order to “secure 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 “for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character” (P.L. 88-577, September 1964).


5 | P a g e

SECTION 2: RESOURCES AND PROCESS This section provides detail on the resources and process utilized during the development of the suite of measures for wilderness character monitoring.

2.1 Documents Consulted The following is a list of paper and electronic resources references during the process of identifying activities within wilderness and developing measures for wilderness character monitoring at EBFNWR: Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge Annual Narratives

Bureau of Land Management. Measuring Attributes of Wilderness Character: BLM Implementation Guide

Version 1.4. [Electronic]

Historical paper documents 1970’s – 2000’s *Print+

Landres, P., et al. 2008. Keeping It Wild: An Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trend in Wilderness Character

across the National Wilderness Preservation System. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-212. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. [Print]

Landres, P., et al. 2009, June. Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness

Character. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-80. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. [Electronic]

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978, June. Wilderness Management Plan for Brigantine National Wildlife

Refuge National Wilderness Areas. [Print]

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000, July. Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental

Assessment for Edwin B. Forsythe and Cape May National Wildlife Refuges. [Print]

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004, June. Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Edwin B. Forsythe National

Wildlife Refuge. [Electronic]

2.2 EBFNWR Staff Consulted The following is a list of names and titles of the staff I spoke with to help identify measures:

Virginia Rettig, Refuge Project Leader Steve Atzert, Former Project Leader Brian Braudis, Former Deputy Refuge Manager Vincent Turner, Wildlife Biologist Paul Castelli, Wildlife Biologist William Crouch, Coastal Wetlands Biologist Chris Pancila, Law Enforcement Officer


6 | P a g e

2.3 Process Used for Identifying Measures This section provides a detailed description of the process during a seven-week period that was undertaken to develop the Wilderness Character Monitoring program for Brigantine National Wilderness Area. Throughout the process, the monitoring framework presented in “Keeping It Wild” was a pivotal tool in guiding these efforts.

During the first week, interviews were conducted with current and former EBFNWR staff (refer to EBFNWR Staff Consulted) to gain a history of the wilderness and identify past and current issues and activities occurring within the wilderness. Conversations with EBFNWR staff also helped to identify documents and other resources that provided additional background and information on the wilderness. Field visits with Lead Biologist (Paul Castelli), as well as an opportunity to fly over the refuge, provided first-hand experience within the wilderness. Information from EBFNWR staff and first-hand observations of the wilderness provided an initial list of potential measures that required follow-up and more research.

The onset of the second week began with delving into historical documents, which provide insight into the establishment of EBFNWR and the designation of Brigantine National Wilderness Area. These documents also provided a wealth of information on the contentious issues regarding motor vehicle use on Holgate Unit of the wilderness. Select documents deemed highly relevant and important were photocopied and filed for easy reference. Furthermore, EBFNWR’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan (2000 and 2004), Wilderness Management Plan, and Wilderness Proposal were reviewed to understand the Refuge goals, monitoring activities, and other relevant information in order to obtain broad-scope knowledge of EBFNWR. This information served three objectives: supplemented previous information obtained from EBFNWR staff; highlighted additional issues and/or activities within wilderness; and guided follow-up questions for specific EBFNWR staff.

Follow-up interviews with EBFNWR staff were conducted whenever possible and often times conversations continued throughout the process. The initial list of potential measures, including a short description, was reviewed by the Lead Biologist (Paul Castelli). Measures were deemed appropriate or inappropriate, and either kept or dropped for further development. Additional measures for potential inclusion were discussed and added.

This list was further expanded to include detailed descriptions of the measures during the third and fourth weeks. During this period, data was collected and conversations with EBFNWR staff continued to provide feedback on the measures. A large part consisted of meeting with the Atlantic County and Ocean County to collect data on mosquito control activity within wilderness.

During the fifth week, a first draft of the Final Report on Wilderness Character Monitoring was completed and submitted to Lead Biologist (Paul Castelli) for review. The Coastal Wetlands Biologist (William Couch) and Wildlife Biologist (Vincent Turner) were consulted for an informal review of specific measures. After going through the feedback, changes were made where necessary and appropriate and the second draft was submitted for review to all the biologists, Project Leader, and Law Enforcement Officer. A brief update on the project during a Refuge


7 | P a g e

staff meeting provided some background and encouraged staff to respond with feedback on the second draft of the report.

The final week consisted of receiving feedback from Refuge staff, updating the final report with changes, and gathering data for measures. The finalized measures and associated data were entered into the Microsoft Access database. A presentation on the monitoring program for the Brigantine National Wilderness Area was given to the Refuge staff.

SECTION 3: FRAMEWORK FOR WILDERNESS CHARACTER MONITORING The Wilderness Act mandates the “preservation of wilderness character.” Congressional intent for the meaning of wilderness character is expressed in the Definition of Wilderness, Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act. The “Keeping It Wild” publication derived four tangible qualities of wilderness directly from this legal description in order to support wilderness stewardship: untrammeled, natural, undeveloped, and opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. In addition to these four tangible qualities, there are also important intangible aspects of wilderness character that would be difficult or even impossible to quantify or monitor.

This monitoring framework is based on hierarchically dividing wilderness character into successively finer elements. These elements, starting from wilderness character, are:

3.1 Qualities Qualities are the primary elements of wilderness character that link directly to the statutory language of the Wilderness Act. In this framework, all qualities are necessary to assess trends in wilderness character:

3.1.1 Untrammeled quality: The Wilderness Act states that wilderness is “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man,” and “generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature.” In short, wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from modern human control or manipulation. This quality is degraded by modern human activities or actions that control or manipulate the components or processes of ecological systems inside the wilderness.

The word “untrammeled” means “allowed to run free”; synonyms includes unrestrained, unmanipulated, unrestricted, unhindered, unimpeded, and wild. This quality stresses a freedom from modern human control or manipulation and is compromised even when the wilderness is “manipulated” to sustain or improve another wilderness quality (such as the use of herbicides to rid the landscape of invasive weeds). Any modern human action (e.g., EBFNWR staff, non-EBFNWR agencies, contractors, citizens), that alters the wilderness is considered trammeling, which makes restraint a necessary tool in wilderness stewardship.

The purpose of monitoring the untrammeled quality is to track the intentionality of a decision to take an action rather than track the consequence of that decision. Under


8 | P a g e

this quality, actions are the “unit of analysis” or the information that is recorded for assessing trends. An “action” is defined for this monitoring as an act or a series of acts that are purposefully taken to manipulate the biophysical environment. Furthermore, actions that manipulate the biophysical environment may be taken in the short-term and therefore degrade the untrammeled quality with the long-term future desire to improve another quality. For example, the treatment of invasive non-native plant species in the short-term degrades the untrammeled quality with the long-term future goal to improve the natural quality. The action taken to manipulate the biophysical will be monitored under the untrammeled quality and the intentional or unintentional effects of the action will be monitored under the natural quality.

3.1.2 Natural quality:

The Wilderness Act states that wilderness should be free from the effects of “an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization” and that the “earth and its community of life…is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.” In short, wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of modern civilization. This quality is degraded by intended or unintended effects of modern people on the ecological systems inside the wilderness since the area was designated.

This quality calls for the protection of native species’ communities and the structure and function of ecological systems within wilderness, and should be managed so they are substantially free from the effects of modern civilization. All ecological systems change over time and vary from one place to another, and this monitoring is not intended to maintain static or unchanging natural conditions in wilderness. Trends in the indicators should be considered only “red flags” that suggest the need for research and more intensive monitoring to verify the change and understand its cause.

While the untrammeled quality monitors the actions that manipulate or control wilderness ecological systems, the natural quality tracks the effects of these and other actions on the community of life in wilderness.

3.1.3 Undeveloped quality:

The Wilderness Act states that wilderness is “an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation,” “where man himself is a visitor who does not remain” and “with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.” This quality is degraded by the presence of structures, installations, habitations, and by the use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport that increases people’s ability to occupy or modify the environment.

Non-recreation developments (such as administrative sites, water-control structures, or fixed instrumentation) are monitored under the undeveloped quality. Recreation-focused developments (such as tails, campsites, shelters, or toilets) are monitored under the solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality because of the strong connection to recreational experiences. This distinction is also made to avoid double-counting recreational developments under both qualities.


9 | P a g e

Cultural or heritage resources within a wilderness may be an important part of wilderness character. These resources are the remains of patterned human activities that occurred in the past and include prehistoric sites, historical sites and structures, cultural landscapes, traditional use areas, and traditional cultural properties. These resources are included under the undeveloped quality rather than one of the other qualities because they primarily represent human relationships with the land prior to modern wilderness designation.

3.1.4 Opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality: The Wilderness Act states that wilderness has “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.” This quality is about the opportunity for people to experience wilderness; it is not directly about visitor experience per se. This quality is degraded by settings that reduce those opportunities, such as visitor encounters, signs of modern civilization, recreation facilities, and management restrictions on visitor behavior.

The meaning of solitude is viewed holistically, encompassing attributes such as separation from people and civilization, inspiration (an awakening of the senses, connection with the beauty of nature and the large community of life), and a sense of timelessness (allowing one to let go of day-to-day obligations, go at one’s own pace, and spend time reflecting).

Primitive recreation has largely been interpreted as travel by non-motorized and non-mechanical means (e.g., by horse, foot, or canoe) that reinforce the connection to our ancestors and our American heritage. However, primitive recreation also encompasses reliance on personal skills to travel and camp in an area, rather than reliance on facilities or outside help. Unconfined encompasses attributes such as self-discovery, exploration, and freedom from societal or managerial controls. Primitive and unconfined environments together provide ideal opportunities for the physical and mental challenges associated with adventure, real consequences for mistakes, and personal growth that result from facing and overcoming obstacles.

Monitoring this quality focuses exclusively on assessing how the opportunity for people to experience wilderness is changing, not on how visitor experiences are changing.

3.2 Monitoring questions Monitoring questions are major elements under each quality that are significantly different from one another. Monitoring questions frame this monitoring to answer particular management questions. In this context, monitoring questions are similar to monitoring goals. These monitoring questions are specific to each quality and are provided in a table at the beginning of each quality in Section 4.

3.3 Indicators Indicators are distinct and important elements within each monitoring question. In nearly all cases, there is more than one indicator under a monitoring question. These indicators are specific to each monitoring question and are provided in a table at the beginning of each quality in Section 4.


10 | P a g e

3.4 Measures Measures are specific aspects of wilderness on which data are collected to assess trend of an indicator. In nearly all cases, there is more than one measure to provide each agency a range of options for assessing trend in the indicator. These measures are specific to each indicator and are provided in a table at the beginning of each quality in Section 4. Additionally, all measures will be discussed in detail.

This hierarchical set of qualities, monitoring questions, indicators, and measures allows national assessments of trends while still allowing flexibility for individual agencies and wildernesses to monitor the specific elements of wilderness character most meaningful to them. The Wilderness Act (P.L. 88-577, Section 7) requires the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to jointly report on the status of the National Wilderness Preservation System including descriptions of the areas, regulations in effect, and other pertinent information, together with any recommendations. This mandate necessitates individual wildernesses to monitor and assess wilderness character and report to the national level.

With the aim to perform a proper assessment, baseline conditions must be set as a reference point against which change over time is measured and evaluated. Ideally, all baseline data would have been collected at time of designation. However, few existing wildernesses actually have this information. Therefore, data from the initial condition assessment may be substituted. In the case of Brigantine National Wilderness Area, the initial condition assessment year is 2011.


1 | P a g e

SECTION 4: MEASURES SELECTED FOR 2011 WILDERNESS CHARACTER MONITORING The purpose of this section is to provide the suite of measures selected to monitor wilderness character in 2011 for Brigantine National Wilderness Area. Measures still under development are discussed in Section 5 of this report. Measures considered and ultimately dropped are discussed in Section 6.

This section has four sub-sections, corresponding to the four qualities (untrammeled, natural, undeveloped, and opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation). At the beginning of each sub-section, a table summarizes the monitoring question(s), indicators, measures, and frequency of reporting for each quality. Following each table are detailed attributes for each of the measures for each quality. The following outlines the general format and definitions of the attributes that will be utilized to discuss each measure.

Definitions of Attributes of Measures

Indicator An indicator is defined as a distinct and important element within each monitoring question. The indicator corresponding with each measure is specified in this section to provide context.

Measure A measure is defined as a specific aspect of wilderness on which data are collected to assess trend of an indicator. The measure being discussed is listed in this section.

Context The context describes why the measure is appropriate for the refuge and any context for understanding or interpreting trend in the measure (e.g., why a measure might always show a degrading trend and the refuge cannot do anything about it, or why a measure shows a degrading trend but this is due to a purposeful decision to improve something else).

Relevance of Measure to Indicator

(High/Medium/Low)

The relevance of the measure to the indicator discusses the relationship between the measure presented and the indicator. The level of relevance will be ranked as high, medium, or low.

Data Source(s) The data source or sources provides information on where or with whom the data is located for reference. If the data source changes over time, this field should be updated with appropriate information.

Data Collection Process The data collection process is the process used to compile or gather the data with as much detail as possible.

What constitutes a significant change?

A significant change provides information on what a “significant” change in the data is and how this was identified. Additional information is provided on whether the significant change will improve or degrade the quality or stay stable. A significant change can be defined as any change, a percent change, or other appropriate units.

Data Adequacy:

(High/Medium/Low)

The data adequacy discusses the degree of confidence in the quality of the data. Data adequacy is ranked as high, medium, or low.

2011 Data:

The 2011 data refers to the data being reported for the baseline year.


2 | P a g e

4.1 Untrammeled Quality This sub-section provides an overview of all the monitoring questions, indicators, measures, and frequency of reporting for the untrammeled quality (see Table 4.1 below). For the untrammeled quality, there are five total measures. The attributes of each of these measures are described as well.

Table 4.1

Untrammeled Quality of EBFNWR Wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from modern human control or manipulation

Monitoring Question

Indicator Measure Freq. of

Reporting

What are the trends in actions that control or manipulate the “earth and its community of life” inside wilderness.

Actions authorized by the USFWS that manipulate the biophysical environment

[1-1] Number of actions to manipulate plant, wildlife, insects, fish, pathogens, soil, water, or fires

Annually

[1-2] Number of natural fire starts that received a suppression response within wilderness

Annually

[1-3] Number of person-hours treating invasive plant species

Annually

[1-4] Number of mosquito control treatments Annually

Actions not authorized by the USFWS that manipulate the biophysical environment

[1-5] Number of unauthorized actions by agencies, citizen groups, or individuals that manipulate plant, wildlife, insects, fish, pathogens, soil, water, or fire

Annually


3 | P a g e

MEASURE [1-1]

Indicator Actions authorized by USFWS EBFNWR that manipulate the biophysical environment.

Measure Number of authorized actions to manipulate plant, wildlife, insects, fish, pathogens, soil, water, or fire

Context This measure excludes actions related to any of the other measures under this indicator to avoid double counting (e.g., treatment of invasive plant species, mosquito spraying, etc.). It also excludes unauthorized actions, which will be accounted for separately.

An “action” is defined for this monitoring as an act or a series of acts that are purposefully taken to manipulate the biophysical environment. Examples include banding of wildlife and removal of species. An action may be purposeful, such as resource protection, minimizing invasive species, safety reasons, etc.

Banding of birds does occur, although it has not occurred this year within wilderness. The primary birds banded are ducks, including black ducks and mallards. Also, there are species removed from Holgate and Little Beach units within wilderness due to predation concerns on endangered beach nesting birds. These include foxes, raccoons, and opossums. The removal is done by an independent private contractor on Little Beach unit and a USDA contractor for Holgate unit.

Relevance of Measure to Indicator (H/M/L)

HIGH- This measure has high relevance to the indicator because it monitors the large-scale or significant actions that manipulate the biophysical environment. Additionally, this measure serves to capture any unforeseen actions that may be taken in the future.

Data Source(s) Virginia Rettig (EBFNWR Project Leader), Paul Castelli (Wildlife Biologist), Vincent Turner (Wildlife Biologist), Bill Couch (Coastal Wetlands Biologist, and Chris Pancila (LE Officer)

Data Collection Process Each separate authorized action is counted and tallied annually. Annually is defined as January 1 – December 31 of the current year. An “action” is defined for this monitoring as an act or a series of acts that are purposefully taken to manipulate the biophysical environment. A “location” is defined as any spatial unit of area that is appropriate for the action being counted.

If: Then:

Single action, single location 1 action

Single action, multiple locations Multiple actions

Multiple actions, single location Multiple actions

Multiple actions, multiple locations Multiple actions

Action in one fiscal year 1 action

Action in multiple fiscal years Multiple actions

What constitutes a Significant Change?

The 2011 data recorded below is the baseline for the wilderness character monitoring plan. Any increase in the number of authorized actions within wilderness results in a degradation to the untrammeled quality. Any decrease in the number of authorized actions within wilderness results in an improvement to the untrammeled quality.


4 | P a g e

Data Adequacy (H/M/L) HIGH – The quality of the data was collected with a high degree of confidence and is representative of the number of authorized actions within wilderness. All EBFNWR staff conducting any activity within wilderness area was consulted to gather data on this measure in 2011.

2011 Data:

Type of Action(s): Wilderness unit # of Action(s):

# foxes removed Holgate 4

# foxes removed Little Beach 3

# of raccoons removed Holgate 1

# of raccoons removed Little Beach 4

# of opossums removed Holgate 1

Total # of Action(s): 13


5 | P a g e

MEASURE [1-2]


Measure Number of naturally ignited fire starts that received a suppression response within wilderness

Context Natural fires are extremely rare and infrequent occurrences in this wilderness area. Only fires that were naturally ignited are included in this measure and therefore fires that were human-caused are not included. This measure is included here because the influences of climatic changes in the future are uncertain and natural fire may become a more prevalent.


HIGH - This measure is highly relevant to the indicator because it tracks fire suppression actions that manipulate the fire within wilderness.


Data Collection Process Count each number of naturally-ignited fires that received a suppression response within wilderness annually. Annually is defined as January 1 - December 31 of the current year. If fire is suppressed outside of wilderness boundaries it is not counted since the suppression itself does not occur within the wilderness boundary.


The 2011 data recorded below is the baseline for the wilderness character monitoring plan. Fire is not an ecological driver in this coastal ecosystem and therefore natural fire is a rare occurrence. Any change in the number of suppression responses would be a significant change in this context.

Any increase in the number of suppression responses within wilderness results in a degradation to the untrammeled quality. Any decrease in the number of suppression responses within wilderness results in an improvement to the untrammeled quality.

Data Adequacy (H/M/L) HIGH - The quality of the data was collected with a high degree of confidence. EBFNWR staff was consulted to gather data on this measure in 2011.

2011 Data: # of suppression response(s) # of location(s) Count:

0 0 0

Total # of suppression response(s): 0


6 | P a g e

MEASURE [1-3]


Measure Number of person-hours treating invasive plant species

Context Treating invasive plant species is one of the authorized manipulations occurring within wilderness that can easily be measured. The untrammeled quality is degraded if the number of person-hours treating invasive plant species increases. This measure will show a degrading trend due to a purposeful decision to minimize the impacts of invasive plant species on non-invasive native plant communities.

Currently, Asiatic sand sedge (Carex kobomugi) is the only invasive non-native plant species being treated in the wilderness area. Asiatic sand sedge is a colonizer of beach environments and can potentially out-compete native beach grass species. Dunes dominated by Asiatic sand sedge are also more vulnerable to wind blowouts and storm erosion. It can extend behind the dunes and form thick mats, which discourages piping plover habitat. It was first detected on Holgate Peninsula of the Wilderness in 2009.

Field surveys in 2011 identified 11 separate patches, totalling less than 2 acres, on Holgate Peninsula (0 locations on Little Beach Island). The brand name Habitat® herbicide, for which Imazapyr is the active ingredient, was applied to 9 of the 11 patches in October 2011. The remaining two patches (which were nearer to the beach front) had been covered with sand during Hurricane Irene in August 2011. Treatments were done in the fall for two reasons: One, the recommended control strategy is to treat areas at the end of the growing season when plants are actively transporting nutrients to the root systems; and two, beach bird nesting season is finished and the staff have vehicle access to the site (after September 1).


HIGH - This measure is highly relevant to the indicator because it tracks the authorized significant actions that manipulate the plants within wilderness.

Data Source(s) Bill Couch (Coastal Wetlands Biologist); Reference Memo Invasive/Exotic Plant Control Program Summary dated 11/14/2011

Data Collection Process Tally the total number of person-hours (number of person(s) treating invasive plant species multiplied by the number of hours). Person-hours to survey the area is not included in this measure because there is no action taken to treat invasive plant species.


The 2011 data recorded below is the baseline for the wilderness character monitoring plan. Any increase in the number of person-hours results in a degradation to the untrammeled quality. Any decrease in the number of person-hours results in an improvement to the untrammeled quality.

Data Adequacy (H/M/L) HIGH – Coastal Biologist personally treated the Asiatic sand sedge and estimated the amount of hours that he actively sprayed the invasive non-native plant species.

2011 Data:

# of Person(s) # of Hours # of person-hours

1 2 2

Total # of person hour(s): 2


7 | P a g e

MEASURE [1-4]


Measure Number of mosquito control treatments

Context Aerially mosquito spraying is a major activity that manipulates the biophysical environment within wilderness. Special Use Permits are provided to Atlantic, Ocean, and Burlington counties’ Mosquito Commissions. The actual spraying occurs as early as April to as late as October, depending on mosquito breeding.

This measure uses the number of treatments, since it best captures the action taken to manipulate the biophysical environment. Furthermore, an area may receive multiple treatments during the course of the year and therefore captured by this measure.


HIGH – This measure is highly relevant to the indicator because it tracks the manipulation of the biophysical environment that occurs related to mosquito control spraying within wilderness.

Data Source(s) Records are kept with the Mosquito Commissions and EBFNWR receives reports.

Commission Contact E-mail Phone

Atlantic Cty Bill Reinert [email protected] 609.645.5948

Ocean Cty Rich Candelleti [email protected] 609.698.8271

Burlington Cty Erin Nooney [email protected] 609.265.5564

Data Collection Process This measure is the total mosquito spray treatments that a location receives. “Location” is defined as the unit designated by FWNR Wilderness units. Follow the guidelines below:

If: Then:

Single treatment, single location 1 action

Single treatment, multiple locations Multiple actions


The 2011 data recorded below is the baseline for the wilderness character monitoring plan. Any increase in the number of treatments within wilderness results in a degradation to the untrammeled quality. Any decrease in the number of treatments results in an improvement to the untrammeled quality.

Data Adequacy (H/M/L) HIGH – The confidence in data quality if high and is representative of the number of mosquito control treatments within wilderness. The number of treatments are recorded by the Mosquito Commissions and reported to the EBFNWR.

2011 Data: Wilderness unit County # Treatments

Mullica-Motts* Atlantic; Burlington (Blood Point) 10

Little Beach** Atlantic 0

Holgate Ocean 14

Total: 24

*Mullica-Motts unit refers to marsh islands south of Mullica River and north of Motts Creek

**Little Beach unit refers to Little Beach Island and the marsh islands behind it.


8 | P a g e

MEASURE [1-5]

Indicator Actions not authorized by USFWS EBFNWR that manipulate the biophysical environment.

Measure Number of unauthorized actions by agencies, citizen groups, or individuals that manipulate plant, wildlife, insects, fish, pathogens, soil, water, or fire

Context Unauthorized actions are actions taken by individuals or groups without authorization from USFWS that impact the biophysical environment. This measure tracks unauthorized actions rather than violations because some actions may not be citable yet still be unauthorized actions that trammel the wilderness. Examples of unauthorized actions include poaching/trapping of endangered species, releasing of species, arson fire starts, and large-scale trash-dumping within wilderness. Additionally, this measure allows flexibility to monitor any unauthorized actions as they may arise in the future.


HIGH - This measure is relevant to the indicator because it tracks large-scale unauthorized actions manipulating the biophysical environment.


Data Collection Process Each separate authorized action is counted and tallied annually. Annually is defined as January 1 – December 31 of the current year. A “location” is defined as any spatial unit of area that is appropriate for the action being counted.

If: Then:

Single action, single location 1 action

Single action, multiple locations Multiple actions

Multiple actions, single location Multiple actions

Multiple actions, multiple locations Multiple actions

Action in one fiscal year 1 action

Action in multiple fiscal years Multiple actions


The 2011 data recorded below is the baseline for the wilderness character monitoring plan. Any increase in the number of unauthorized actions within wilderness results in a degradation to the untrammeled quality. Any decrease in the number of unauthorized actions within wilderness results in an improvement to the untrammeled quality.

Data Adequacy (H/M/L) HIGH- The quality of the data was collected with a high degree of confidence and is representative of the number of unauthorized actions within wilderness.

2011 Data: Type of Action(s): # of Location(s) # of Action(s):

No actions in 2011 0

Total # of Action(s): 0


9 | P a g e

4.2 Natural Quality This sub-section provides an overview of all the monitoring questions, indicators, measures, and frequency of reporting for the natural quality (see Table 4.2 below). For the natural quality, there are six total measures. The attributes of each of these measures are described as well.

Table 4.2

Natural Quality of EBFNWR Wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of modern civilization.

Monitoring Question

Indicator Measure Freq. of

Reporting

What are the trends in terrestrial, aquatic, and atmospheric natural resources inside wilderness?

Plants and wildlife species and communities

[2-1] Number of extirpated indigenous species

Every 5 yrs

[2-2] Acres of invasive non-indigenous plant species Every 5 yrs

Physical resources

[2-3] Visibility based on average deciview and sum of anthropogenic fine nitrate and sulfate

Every 5 yrs

[2-4] Ozone air pollution based on concentration of N100 episodic and W126 chronic ozone exposure affecting sensitive plants

Every 5 yrs

[2-5] Acid deposition based on concentration of sulfur and nitrogen in wet deposition

Every 5 yrs

Biophysical processes

[2-6] Mean sea level rise rate Annually


10 | P a g e

MEASURE [2-1]

Indicator Plants and wildlife species and communities

Measure Number of extirpated indigenous species

Context The extirpation of indigenous species from a wilderness profoundly affects public understanding and experience of that area. This measure assesses trend based on the known history of an area from the time of European contact to the present day. If wildlife species were extirpated before wilderness designation and later restored to a wilderness, this would be an improvement in the natural quality.

There are two subspecies of the Northern tiger beetle, Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis and C.d. media. Genetic studies on the two subspecies and their status are being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) laboratory in Leetown, West Virginia. Currently C.d. dorsalis is considered extirpated and any Cicindela dorsalis beetles found are considered to be the media subspecies.

Relevance of Measure

to Indicator (H/M/L)

HIGH - This measure is relevant to the indicator because it monitors the loss or extirpation of indigenous species from a wilderness.

Data Source(s) Paul Castelli (Wildlife Biologist), Vincent Turner (Wildlife Biologist), Bill Couch (Coastal Wetlands Biologist); Wendy Walsh (New Jersey Field Office); Mike Drummond (Virginia Field Office)

Data Collection Process Each extirpated indigenous species is counted once every 5 years. Biologists from NWR and Field Offices are consulted for their knowledge of extirpated indigenous species of the wilderness.


The 2011 data recorded below is the baseline for the wilderness character monitoring plan. Any increase in the number of extirpated indigenous species results in a degradation to the natural quality. Any decrease in the number of extirpated indigenous species results in an improvement to the natural quality.

Data Adequacy (H/M/L)

HIGH – The quality of the data was collected with a high degree of confidence and is representative of the number of extirpated indigenous species within wilderness.

2011 Data: The subspecies of the Northeastern tiger beetle, Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis, is considered extirpated from Holgate and Little Beach Island.

Extirpated species: Scientific name:

Northeastern tiger beetle Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis


11 | P a g e

MEASURE [2-2]


Measure Acres of invasive non-indigenous plant species

Context The Wilderness Area may serve as a place where populations of sensitive plant and wildlife species can find some measure of protection. A decrease in this value over time could be caused by actions not under the control of a wilderness manager, but are impacts to naturalness nonetheless.

Currently, Asiatic sand sedge (Carex kobomugi) is the only significant invasive non-native plant species in the wilderness area. Asiatic sand sedge is a colonizer of beach environments and can potentially out-compete native American beach grass. Dunes dominated by Asiatic sand sedge are also more vulnerable to wind blowouts and storm erosion. It can extend behind the dunes and form thick mats, which discourages piping plover habitat.

Common reed, also known as Phragmites, is present in insignificant amounts on the wilderness; it has not been determined whether it is the native species or one of the non-native varieties. In the event the present common reed is the invasive non-native species, it is not a concern at this time. Phragmites is confined to freshwater, and therefore not able to colonize as extensively in this ecosystem; therefore it is less of a threat. For the purposes of this measure, Phragmites will not be included as an invasive non-indigenous species at this time.



HIGH - This measure is relevant to the indicator because it monitors selected invasive and non-native plant species that impact the natural quality of wilderness.

Data Source(s) Bill Couch (Coastal Wetlands Biologist)

Data Collection Process Seasonal interns surveyed Holgate Peninsula and Little Beach Island in 2011 and created GPS points to mark areas where there was Asiatic sand sedge growth. Bill Crouch revisited the GPS points to treat the species. The area was not mapped by GPS, but rather an educated estimate was made by Bill Couch. The year 2011 is the onset of this project.

What constitutes a

Significant Change?

The 2011 data recorded below is the baseline for the wilderness character monitoring plan. Any increase in the acres of invasive non-indigenous plant species within wilderness results in a degradation to the untrammeled quality. Any decrease results in an improvement to the untrammeled quality.

Data Adequacy (H/M/L) HIGH – The quality of the data was collected with a high degree of confidence.

2011 Data: Common Name Scientific Name # of Acres

Asiatic sand sedge Carex kobomugi 2

Total acres: 2


12 | P a g e

MEASURE [2-3]

Indicator Physical resources

Measure Visibility based on average deciview and sum of anthropogenic fine nitrate and sulfate

Context Deciview is a cumulative haziness index used to express light extinction. Basically, deciview is the visibility a wilderness visitor would experience. Fine nitrate and sulfate directly indicate degradation of visibility conditions. The natural quality is degraded if visibility declines.

Data Source(s) USFWS National Air Quality office will provide this data.

MEASURE [2-4]


Measure Ozone air pollution based on concentration of N100 episodic and W126 chronic ozone exposure affecting sensitive plants

Context Ozone and its precursor emissions (nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds) can travel long distances, resulting in elevated ozone levels in wilderness. Episodic ozone is the number of hours when the measured ozone concentration is greater than or equal to 100 parts per billion. Chronic ozone is the seasonal ozone exposure to vegetation over the entire growing season. The natural quality is degraded if ozone increases.


MEASURE [2-5]


Measure Acid deposition based on concentration of sulfur and nitrogen in wet deposition

Context The concentration of sulfur and nitrogen in rain and snow is a major contributor to acid deposition, adversely affecting algae, aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, fish, soil microorganisms, plants, and trees. The natural quality is degraded if acid deposition increases.



13 | P a g e

MEASURE [2-6]

Indicator Biophysical processes

Measure Mean sea level trend as a measure of global climate change

Context Sea level rise impacts this wilderness area and the coastal refuge at large. The barrier islands are migrating in response to sea level rise. On Little Beach Island, dead trees now stand on the beach rather than behind the sand dunes. Salt marshes are also impacted by the rate of sea level rise. A multitude of effects associated with sea level rise (e.g. salt water intrusion, storm surge impact) are impacting the wilderness.



HIGH - This measure highly relevant to the indicator because it monitors impacts associated with global climate change, tracking the alteration or disruption of natural biophysical processes inside wilderness.

Data Source(s) NOAA Mean Sea Level Trend for Atlantic City (8534720), New Jersey, is the closest station. The Atlantic City gage is seven miles away from Little Beach unit, and approximately nine miles away from the Holgate and Mullica-Motts units. Refer to: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8534720 (Accessed on December 6, 2011)

Data Collection Process The NOAA Mean Sea Level Trend was referenced. The mean sea level trend and a plot (from 1900 to 2010) showed the monthly mean sea level without the regular seasonal fluctuations due to coastal ocean temperatures, salinities, winds, atmospheric pressures, and ocean currents.

What constitutes a

Significant Change?

The 2011 data recorded below is the baseline for the wilderness character monitoring plan. If the mean sea level trend is greater than the rate of salt marsh accretion, then it results in degradation to the untrammeled quality. If the mean sea level trend is equal to or lower than the rate of salt marsh accretion, then it results in an improvement to the untrammeled quality.

Data Adequacy (H/M/L) HIGH- The quality of data was collected with a high degree of confidence and is based on the Atlantic City station that is monitored by NOAA.

2011 Data The mean sea level trend is 3.99 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.18 mm/yr.

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8534720


14 | P a g e

4.3 Undeveloped Quality This sub-section provides an overview of all the monitoring questions, indicators, measures, and frequency of reporting for the undeveloped quality (see Table 4.3 below). For the undeveloped quality, there are seven total measures. The attributes of each of these measures are described as well.

Table 4.3

Undeveloped Quality of EBFNWR Wilderness retains its primeval character and influence, and is essentially without permanent improvement or modern

human occupation.

Monitoring Question

Indicator Measure Freq. of Reporting

What are the trends in non-recreational development inside wilderness?

Non-recreational structures, installations, and developments

[3-1] Index of authorized physical development

Every 5 yrs

[3-2] Number of unauthorized (user-created) physical development

Every 5 yrs

Inholdings [3-3] Number of inholdings within wilderness Every 5 yrs

What are the trends in mechanization inside wilderness?

Use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport

[3-4] Type and amount of administrative and non-emergency use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport

Annually

[3-5] Type and amount of emergency use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport

Annually

[3-6] Type and amount of motor vehicle, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport use not authorized by Refuge manager

Annually

What are the trends in cultural resources inside wilderness?

Loss of statutorily protected cultural resources

[3-7] Number and severity of disturbances to cultural resources

Every 5 yrs


15 | P a g e

MEASURE [3-1]

Indicator Non-recreational structures, installations, and developments.

Measure Index of authorized physical development

Context This measure includes all structures, installations, and other developments that are primarily non-recreational combined with a relative weighting of the level of impact on the undeveloped quality of each of these. This includes structures and installations that were built before wilderness designation, as well as temporary developments and those used for monitoring trends in wilderness character. Any development or structure added to Wilderness will be reflected as an increase in this measure.



HIGH – This measure is highly relevant to the indicator because it directly monitors the number of structures, installations, or other developments inside wilderness that are primarily non-recreational.

Data Source(s) Little Beach Island structure removal project records (Vincent Turner, Wildlife Biologist); Refuge staff; field observations

Data Collection Process

The number of structures removed from the Little Beach Island unit was gathered from the Wildlife Biologist. An overall survey of the Wilderness to detect physical development was conducted using Google™ Earth. Any detected physical developments will be ground-truthed. Refuge staff will also be consulted to identify and/or verify physical developments.

Each physical development is multiplied by a relative weight. The relative weighting of the level of impact on the undeveloped quality of each structure is as follows:

Level of Impact Weighting

Low- causes a small impact to social environment and little to no impact on biophysical environment (e.g., small sign posts, pilings)

1

Moderate- causes a moderate impact to social and biophysical environments (e.g., large sign posts, osprey towers, telephone poles)

2

High- causes a large impact to the social and biophysical environments (e.g., buildings)

3

What constitutes a

Significant Change?

The 2011 data recorded below is the baseline for the wilderness character monitoring plan. Any increase in the number of authorized physical developments within wilderness results in a degradation to the undeveloped quality. Any decrease in the number of authorized physical developments within wilderness results in an improvement to the undeveloped quality.


HIGH – The quality of the data was collected with a high degree of confidence and is representative of the number of authorized actions within wilderness.

2011 Data: Type of Structure

Wilderness unit # Structure(s) Weight Points

Telephone pole*

Little Beach unit (Little Beach Island)

80 2 160

Building* Little Beach unit (Little Beach Island)

1 (1,500 sq. ft)

3 3

Pilings* Little Beach unit (Little Beach Island)

316 1 316


16 | P a g e

Poles** Little Beach unit (Little Beach Island)

2 1 2

Osprey tower

Holgate unit (Holgate beach) 1 2 2

Telephone pole

Little Beach unit (salt marsh island, Great Thoroughfare intersection Brigantine channel)

3 2 6

Cabin remnants

Mullica-Motts unit (north-end Little Graveling Creek)

1 1 1

Boat Mullica-Motts unit (mouth of Nacote Creek)

1 1 1

Boat Little Beach unit (Dog Island) 1 1 1

Pilings Mullica-Motts unit (6 locations) 25 1 25

Total Points: 517

*These structures were removed from Little Beach Island unit during fall 2011 (Invoice #43, Resurgence Demolition & Environmental, LLC), but will be included under this measure. These structures will be deducted next monitoring cycle. This is to show the short-term degradation incurred by using mechanized equipment for the long-term improvement in the undeveloped quality by removing the physical developments. **Two poles on both sides of the creek (coordinates: 39 28’24”N, 74 21’10”W).


17 | P a g e

MEASURE [3-2]

Indicator Non-recreational structures, installations, and developments.

Measure Index of unauthorized (user-created) physical development

Context This measure includes all user-created structures, installations, and other developments that have not been authorized by USFWS combined with a relative weighting of the level of impact on the undeveloped quality of each of these.

Examples include fences, water-control structures, trails or pathways to access inholdings, fixed instrumentation sites, or boardwalks. Similar to the previous measure, this measure does not include developments associated with recreation, which is measured separately under solitude or primitive and unconfined type of recreation quality. The undeveloped quality is degraded if the number of unauthorized (user-created) physical development increased.

Currently, there are no unauthorized (user-created) physical developments in Wilderness. This measure is included to capture any future unauthorized (user-created) developments.


to Indicator (H/M/L))

HIGH – This measure is highly relevant to the indicator because it directly monitors the number of structures, installations, or other developments inside wilderness that are primarily non-recreational.

Data Source(s) Biologists, LE Officer, aerial photographs from Google™ Earth.

Data Collection Process An overall survey of the Wilderness to detect unauthorized (user-created) physical development was conducted using Google™ Earth. Any detected physical developments will be ground-truthed. Refuge staff will also be consulted to identify and/or verify physical developments. Each physical development is multiplied by a relative weight. The relative weighting of the level of impact on the undeveloped quality of each structure is as follows:

Level of Impact Weighting

Low- causes a small impact to social environment and little to no impact on biophysical environment (e.g., small sign posts, pilings)

1

Moderate- causes a moderate impact to social and biophysical environments (e.g., osprey towers, telephone poles)

2

High- causes a large impact to the social and biophysical environments (e.g., water-control structures, buildings)

3

What constitutes a

Significant Change?

The 2011 data recorded below is the baseline for the wilderness character monitoring plan. Any increase in the number of unauthorized physical developments within wilderness results in a degradation to the undeveloped quality. Any decrease in the number of unauthorized physical developments within wilderness results in an improvement to the undeveloped quality.

Data Adequacy (H/M/L) HIGH – The quality of the data was collected with a high degree of confidence. Refuge staff working in and/or patrolling Wilderness area will be able to identify any authorized developments, since this is not permitted on Refuge land.

2011 Data: Type of Structure Location # Structure(s) Weighting Points

No structures 0 0 0

Total Points: 0


18 | P a g e

MEASURE [3-3]

Indicator Inholdings

Measure Number of inholdings property (including life-use rights)

Context An “inholding” refers to any non-federal land within the boundary of a wilderness. It does not include cherry-stemmed parcels or external edge-holdings that may be acquired in the future.

Since inholdings interior to designated wilderness are not given the same protections as the wilderness lands around them, these lands can be developed for various purposes at the discretion of the landowner, and thereby can potentially have a large impact on the surrounding wilderness.



HIGH – This measure is highly relevant to the indicator because it tracks trends in inholdings, which is the intent of the indicator.

Data Source(s) Project Leader (Virginia Rettig)

Data Collection Process This measure would be composed of the number of inholding property.

What constitutes a

Significant Change?

The 2011 data recorded below is the baseline for the wilderness character monitoring plan. Any increase in the acres of inholding property within wilderness results in a degradation to the undeveloped quality. Any decrease in the acres of inholding property within wilderness results in an improvement to the undeveloped quality.

Data Adequacy (H/M/L) HIGH – The quality of the data was collected with a high degree of confidence because the location with respect to the wilderness boundary and acreage of the inholding is known. Inholding properties are recorded with EBFNWR property maps.

2011 Data Type Location # of properties

Inholding (life-use rights) Little Beach unit 1

Total acres: 1


19 | P a g e

MEASURE [3-4] Indicator Use of motor vehicle, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport

Measure Type and amount of administrative and non-emergency use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport

Context “Motor vehicles” refers to machines used to transport people or material across or over land, water, or air, and which are powered by the use of a motor, engine, or other nonliving power source. This includes, but is not limited to, ATVs, motor boats, and aircraft that either land or drop off or pick up people or material (i.e., not aircraft that merely fly over the wilderness).

“Motorized equipment” refers to machines that are not used for transportation but are powered by a motor, engine, or other nonliving source. This includes, but is not limited to, machines such as chain saws and generators. It does not include small hand-carried devices such as shavers, wristwatches, flashlights, cameras, stoves, or other similar small equipment.

“Mechanical transport” refers to any contrivance for moving people or material in or over land, water, or air, having moving parts, that provides a mechanical advantage to the user, and that is powered by a living or non-motorized power source. This includes, but is not limited to, sailboats, hand gliders, parachutes, bicycles, game carriers, carts, and wagons. It does not include wheelchairs when used as necessary medical appliances. It also does not include skis, snowshoe, rafts, canoes, sleds, travois, or similar primitive devices without moving parts.

There are instances where the Minimum Requirement Decision Guide (MRDG) analysis identifies motor vehicle, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport as the minimum tool. There are also instances where EBFNWR staff may utilize these types of mechanized tools without engaging in the MRDG process. EBFNWR will determine whether this is an authorized or unauthorized use, and record it accordingly. The undeveloped quality is degraded if the type and amount of administrative and non-emergency mechanized use increased.


HIGH – This measure is highly relevant to the indicator because it tracks the actual administrative and non-emergency use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport within the Wilderness.

Data Source(s) Biologists, Project Leader, LE Officer, and Atlantic, Ocean, Burlington County Mosquito Commissions

Data Collection Process This measure is the sum of the number of motor vehicles, pieces of motorized equipment, and mechanical transport authorized multiplied by the number of days authorized for each piece of equipment.


The 2011 data recorded below is the baseline for the wilderness character monitoring plan. Any increase in the amount of mechanized use results in a degradation to the undeveloped quality. Any decrease in the amount of mechanized use within wilderness results in an improvement to the undeveloped quality.


HIGH – The quality of the data was collected with a high degree of confidence.


20 | P a g e

2011 Data Atlantic and Ocean County Mosquito Commissions land their aircraft within the wilderness to conduct mosquito inspections during the mosquito season (~April to Sept/Oct). Burlington County does not land within the wilderness.

Action/ Project

# motor vehicle

Days per

motor vehicle

# mech Trans.

Days per

mech. Trans.

# motor equip.

Days per

motor equip.

Score MRA* Agency**

Mosquito spraying

1 16 0 0 0 0 16 Not

completed

Atlantic County Mosquito Commission

Mosquito spraying

1 58 0 0 0 0 58 Not

completed

Ocean County Mosquito Commission

Little Beach Project***

2 10 0 0 3 10 50

Total Score: 124

*MRA: reference to the authorizing minimum requirements analysis **Agency: the agency authorized to use the equipment ***Little Beach Project: Chestnut Run Excavating and Tree Service were the contractors that removed the structures (John Pucci – 609-645-9530; [email protected]). A request was made on Dec. 6, 2011 to get a list of equipment/vehicles used and the number of days, but this was not provided by the time the data was entered into the database (Dec. 16, 2011). The data entered into the database for this project is based on the professional knowledge of Vincent Turner was used as a coarse estimation. Motor vehicle used: ATV; Motorized equipment: chainsaws and low-pressure excavator. The project lasted two weeks. Until more specific data is not collected from the contractor, this will be reported.

mailto:[email protected]


21 | P a g e

MEASURE [3-5]

Indicator Use of motor vehicle, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport

Measure Type and amount of emergency use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport

Context Refer to Measure [3-4] for definitions of motor vehicle, motorized equipment, and mechanical transport.

“Emergency” refers to an event that presents an imminent threat to human health and safety, or other event that causes another threat as may be addressed by law, regulation, or policy.



HIGH – This measure is highly relevant to the indicator because it tracks the actual use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport during emergencies within the Wilderness.

Data Source(s) Project Leader; LE Officer

Data Collection Process This measure is the sum of the number of motor vehicles, pieces of motorized equipment, and mechanical transport multiplied by the number of days each piece of equipment was used to respond to each emergency. For the purpose of this protocol, each day of one incident is counted separately.

What constitutes a

Significant Change?


Data Adequacy (H/M/L) HIGH – The quality of data was collected with a high degree of confidence because all emergency use will be reported to EBFNWR.

2011 Data Emergency Date

# motor vehicles

Days per

motor vehicle

# non-

mech. Trans.

Days per

mech. Trans.

# motor equip.

Days per

motor equip.

Score

None 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Score: 0


22 | P a g e

MEASURE [3-6]

Indicator Use of motor vehicle, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport

Measure Type and amount of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport use not authorized by USFWS EBFNWR

Context Refer to Measure [3-4] for definitions of motor vehicle, motorized equipment, and mechanical transport.

This measure includes all such uses that were not authorized by USFWS, typically actions by individuals and citizen groups. If actions taken by other Federal or state agencies occur without authorizations of USFWS, they are also included in this measure.

Due to the nature of these violations, it is difficult to capture all unauthorized use and depends heavily on the level of patrolling occurring within wilderness. The majority of these violations are the use of motor vehicles on Holgate unit above the mean high water line. Currently, there is also no monitoring that can provide information on the amount of motor vehicle use on the Holgate unit. This will be considered for future monitoring.



HIGH – This measure is highly relevant to the indicator because it tracks the unauthorized use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport within the Wilderness.

Data Source(s) LE Officer, Project Leader, Biologists

Data Collection Process This measure is the sum of the number of motor vehicles, pieces of motorized equipment, and mechanical transport multiplied by the number of days each piece of equipment was used.

What constitutes a

Significant Change?



2011 Data Unauthorized

Use Date

# motor vehicles

Days per

motor vehicle

# non-

mech. Trans.

Days per

mech. Trans.

# motor equip.

Days per

motor equip.

Score

None 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Score: 0


23 | P a g e

MEASURE [3-7]

Indicator Loss of statutorily protected cultural resources

Measure Number of disturbances to cultural resources

Context This measure would track the number of cultural or heritage site that is disturbed or vandalized. This disturbance or loss could be authorized (for example, purposeful removal to accomplish specific planning direction), unauthorized (for example, pot hunting), or natural (for example, from soil erosion). This measure will be included even if there are no cultural resources present within wilderness to be disturbed, for national reporting purposes.



This measure is relevant to the indicator because it monitors evidence of disturbances or loss of cultural resources that are protected by law and agency policy.

Data Source(s) Project Leader, Biologists, LE Officer

Data Collection Process Count the number of disturbances to cultural resources

What constitutes a

Significant Change?

The 2011 data recorded below is the baseline for the wilderness character monitoring plan. Any increase in the number of disturbances to cultural resources within wilderness results in a degradation to the undeveloped quality. Any decrease in the number of disturbances to cultural resources within wilderness results in an improvement to the undeveloped quality.

Data Adequacy (H/M/L) HIGH – The quality of the data was collected with a high degree of confidence because EBFNWR would document any disturbances to cultural or archaeological resources within the wilderness boundary.

2011 Data There are no known cultural or archeological resources within wilderness and therefore these resources are not disturbed.

Disturbance Location Description of Disturbance

None None

Total: 0


24 | P a g e

4.4 Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation Quality This sub-section provides an overview of all the monitoring questions, indicators, measures, and frequency of reporting for the solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality (see Table 4.4 below). For the solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality, there are seven total measures. The attributes of each of these measures are described as well.

Table 4.4

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation at EBFNWR Wilderness provides outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation.

Monitoring Question Indicator Measure Freq. of

Reporting

What are the trends for outstanding opportunities for solitude within wilderness?

Remoteness from sights and sounds of people inside the wilderness

[4-1] Number of aircraft landing sites Every 5 yrs

Remoteness from occupied and modified areas outside the wilderness

[4-2] Miles of beach travel route adjacent to wilderness

Every 5 yrs

[4-3] Number of mosquito spraying hours Annually

What are the trends in outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation inside wilderness?

Facilities that decrease self-reliant recreation

[4-4] Type and number of agency-provided recreation facilities

Every 5 yrs

[4-5] Type and number of user-created recreation facilities

Every 5 yrs

Management restrictions on visitor behavior

[4-6] Number and extent of management restrictions

Every 5 yrs

[4-7] Percent of wilderness closed to public access year-round

Every 5 yrs


25 | P a g e

MEASURE [4-1]

Indicator Remoteness from sights and sounds of people inside the wilderness

Measure Number of aircraft landing sites

Context The only occasions when aircraft land on wilderness is during mosquito inspections of these areas. These inspections are carried out by Atlantic, Ocean, and Burlington County Mosquito Commissions, for which Special Use Permits are issued. The aircraft landing sites are not developed, but are designated sites that are utilized during the mosquito spraying season, usually from late April to October.

The intent of the measure is to track the amount and type of access inside wilderness that reduces opportunities for solitude. Since aircraft are constricted to these designated landing sites, this measure is a coarse estimator of the reduced opportunities for solitude. For example, if the number of aircraft landing sites increases, this will expand the area where opportunities for solitude are reduced.



HIGH - This measure is highly relevant to the indicator because it tracks the amount of actual and potential visitation that diminishes opportunities for solitude.

Data Source(s) Aircraft landing sites are recorded with the Mosquito Commissions and reported to EBFNWR


Atlantic Cty Bill Reinert [email protected] 609.645.5948

Ocean Cty Rich Candelleti [email protected] 609.698.8271

Burlington Cty Erin Nooney [email protected] 609.265.5564

Data Collection Process Count the number of aircraft landing sites.

What constitutes a

Significant Change?

The 2011 data recorded below is the baseline for the wilderness character monitoring plan. Any increase in the number of aircraft landing sites within wilderness results in a degradation to the solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality. Any decrease in the number of aircraft landing sites within wilderness results in an improvement to the solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality.

Data Adequacy (H/M/L) HIGH – HIGH – The quality of the data was collected with a high degree of confidence because these landing sites are reported to and approved by EBFNWR before SUPs are issued.

2011 Data Mosquito Commission Wilderness unit # landing sites

Atlantic County Mullica-Motts 6

Ocean County Holgate 1

Burlington County Blood Point 0

Total: 7


26 | P a g e

MEASURE [4-2]

Indicator Remoteness from sights and sounds of people outside the wilderness

Measure Miles of beach travel route adjacent to wilderness (i.e., below mean high water)

Context The Holgate unit of the wilderness only extends to the mean high water (MHW) line; the State of New Jersey has jurisdiction from the MHW seaward. The State allows motor vehicles to drive on the beach, whereas EBFNWR does not. This has been a contentious issue over the years. In the past, the whole area was closed to all motor vehicle use, but the closure was lifted due to political pressures. As of now, there is a compromise agreement whereby motor vehicles are allowed to drive below MHW, but there are instances where users drive above the MHW line.

As the barrier beach migrates in response to sea level rise and other natural processes, the number of miles will also change over time.

The intent of this indicator is to capture conditions outside the wilderness that impact opportunities for solitude. In this case the entire Holgate unit is impacted by the use of motor vehicles; therefore this measure is concerned with the miles of adjacent travel routes. Currently, there are no other areas that have a similar situation, but would be included if conditions changed in the future.



HIGH – This measure is highly relevant to the indicator because it tracks selected conditions occurring on lands adjacent to the wilderness that affect visitor’s opportunities for solitude.

Data Source(s) GoogleTM Earth

Data Collection Process Using GoogleTM Earth, a path is delineated below MHW line, defined as the wet-dry line for the purpose of this measure. The path will delineate the travel route where motor vehicles drive on the beach. The total miles will be reported.

What constitutes a

Significant Change?

The 2011 data recorded below is the baseline for the wilderness character monitoring plan. Any increase in the miles of beach travel routes adjacent to

wilderness results in a degradation to the solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality. Any decrease in the miles of beach travel routes adjacent to wilderness results in an improvement to the solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality.

Data Adequacy (H/M/L) HIGH – The confidence in data quality is high because the number of miles are delineated using GoogleTM Earth.

2011 Data Wilderness unit # of miles

Holgate 3.71

Total: 3.71


27 | P a g e

MEASURE [4-3]


Measure Hours of aircraft flying over wilderness

Context A major activity within wilderness is aerial spraying for mosquito control. Opportunities for solitude are reduced due to the sight and sound of the aircraft, as well as potentially being sprayed as a visitor. Water bird surveys are also done using aircraft over the wilderness. The intent of this measure is to determine the number of hours that the aircraft is flying or spraying (in the case of mosquito control).



This measure is relevant to the indicator because it monitors agency-provided recreation facilities that degrade the perceived opportunity for primitive and unconfined recreation.

Data Source(s) Wildlife Biologist (Paul Castelli) – number of hours of aircraft flying over wilderness for water bird surveys.

The following data sources for flying and spraying for mosquito control:


Atlantic County Bill Reinert [email protected] 609.645.5948

Ocean County Rich Candelleti [email protected] 609.698.8271

Burlington County Erin Nooney [email protected] 609.265.5564

Data Collection Process Atlantic County Mosquito Commission recorded the start and end times of flying and/or spraying time. This includes areas that are immediately adjacent to the wilderness and if the aircraft required a trip to procure additional pesticide chemical. Although it is not possible to tease out the exact time the aircraft spent directly over wilderness, this duration is determined to impact the opportunities for solitude.

Ocean County Mosquito Commission does not record the exact start and end times of flying and/or spraying time. Instead, an estimate of time spent flying and/or spraying the wilderness is ascertained from the Commission.

Burlington County Mosquito Commission records the exact start and end times of flying and/or spraying time.

The number of total hours from all three commissions is tallied for this measure. When there are more than one aircraft during these times (i.e., Atlantic and Ocean counties have two aircrafts – one aircraft that sprays and one aircraft that monitors), the number of hours will be multiplied by the number of aircrafts. This shows the higher impact than that of one aircraft.

Total number of hours related to water bird surveys is still in the process of being collected.

What constitutes a

Significant Change?

The 2011 data recorded below is the baseline for the wilderness character monitoring

plan. Any increase in the number of hours results in a degradation to the solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality. Any decrease in the number of hours within wilderness results in an improvement to the solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality.

Data Adequacy (H/M/L) HIGH – The quality of data was collected with a high degree of confidence.

2011 Data Project Mosquito Commission

Wilderness Unit # Aircraft Hrs/ aircraft

Hrs

Mosquito Atlantic County Mullica-Motts 2 18.50 37


28 | P a g e

control

Mosquito control

Ocean County Holgate 2 4.67 9.34

Mosquito control

Burlington County

Blood Point 1 1.27 1.27

Water bird surveys

Have not collected this data

Total: 47.61

MEASURE [4-4]

Indicator Facilities that decrease self-reliant recreation

Measure Type and number of agency-provided recreation facilities

Context Recreation facilities provided by management that reduce the feeling of primitive recreation are monitored. These include shelters, trails, trail markers, toilets, docks, bridges, and other facilities that make the experience more comfortable or easy. Other developments unrelated to the immediate recreation experience (e.g., scientific installations) are monitored under the undeveloped quality.

Even though visitors may enjoy such facilities, and in some cases they may be authorized by law, they are inconsistent with primitive recreation.



This measure is relevant to the indicator because it monitors agency-provided recreation facilities that degrade the perceived opportunity for primitive and unconfined recreation.

Data Source(s) Refuge staff is consulted on any agency-provided recreation facilities.

Data Collection Process Each structure or feature is weighted equally and the sum of all the facilities is calculated.

What constitutes a

Significant Change?

The 2011 data recorded below is the baseline for the wilderness character monitoring plan. Any increase in the number of agency-provided recreation

facilities within wilderness results in a degradation to the solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality. Any decrease in the number of agency-provided recreation facilities within wilderness results in an improvement to the solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality.

Data Adequacy (H/M/L) HIGH – The confidence in the data quality is high because EBFNWR staff is knowledgeable of the agency-provided recreation facilities within wilderness.

2011 Data There are no agency-provided recreation facilities in 2011.

Type of facility Wilderness unit # of facilities

None None 0

Total: 0


29 | P a g e

MEASURE [4-5]

Indicator Facilities that decrease self-reliant recreation

Measure Type and number of user-created recreation facilities

Context Recreation facilities built or installed by users that reduce the feeling of primitive recreation are monitored. Examples include docks, bridges, boardwalks, and trails.



This measure is relevant to the indicator because it monitors user-created recreation facilities that degrade the perceived opportunity for primitive and unconfined recreation.

Data Source(s) Refuge staff is consulted on any user-created recreation facilities.

Data Collection Process Each structure or feature is weighted equally and the sum of all the facilities is calculated.

What constitutes a

Significant Change?

The 2011 data recorded below is the baseline for the wilderness character monitoring plan. Recreation facilities built or installed by users that reduce the feeling of primitive recreation are monitored. Examples include docks, bridges, boardwalks, and trails.


2011 Data There are no user-created recreation facilities in 2011.

Type of facility Wilderness unit # of facilities

None None 0

Total: 0


30 | P a g e

MEASURE [4-6]

Indicator Management restrictions on visitor behavior

Measure Visitor restrictions Index

Context Visitors’ opportunities to experience freedom from management are significantly affected by the number and type of regulations in place. These regulations are aligned with management policies and in most cases serve to protect the resources of EBFNWR, including the Wilderness Area.

The categories tracked encompass the range of management actions likely to affect visitor’s feelings of confinement. A decrease in the level of restriction represents an improvement in the opportunity for unconfined recreation. An increase in the level of restriction represents a decline in the opportunity for unconfined recreation.



HIGH - This measure is relevant to the indicator because it monitors restrictions that USFWS places on visitor behavior inside wilderness.

Data Source(s) EBFNWR policies

Data Collection Process Initially, a score is given within each category of regulation according to guidelines presented in table below. If a wilderness has more than one type of regulation within a given category, the score will be assigned that corresponds to the most restrictive regulation in place. A higher score indicators a greater degree of restriction on visitor behavior. A score of 0 indicated no regulation within the category; a score of 1 indicates some restriction but retention of some individual choice; a score of 2 indicators that no choice is permitted; and a score of 3 is reserved for the most restrictive regulations.

Category Type of Restriction Score

Camping No restriction 0

Designated site or mandatory setback 1

Total prohibition 2

Campfires No restriction 0

Any mandatory setback (e.g. designated site) 1

Total prohibition 2

Fees No fees 0

Fees charged of selected user type 1

Fees charged of all visitors 2

Permits No permit or registration 0

Voluntary self-registration 1

Mandatory, non-limiting permit or registration

2

Mandatory, use limited 3

Length of stay No restrictions on length of stay 0

Length of stay limited 1

Group size limits No restriction 0

Group size limits in place 1

Leash requirement No restriction 0

Dogs required to be on leash 1


31 | P a g e

Dogs prohibited 2

Water fowl hunting restrictions

No restriction 0

Designated season 1

Total prohibition 2

After the score is assigned for each category of regulation, these scores will be weighted to reflect the geographic coverage of the regulation as follows: 1 – the regulation applies to a subarea of wilderness 2 – the regulation applies to an entire wilderness

What constitutes a

Significant Change?

The 2011 data recorded below is the baseline for the wilderness character monitoring plan. Any increase in the visitor restrictions index within wilderness

results in a degradation to the solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality. Any decrease in the visitor restrictions index within wilderness results in an improvement to the solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality.

Data Adequacy (H/M/L) HIGH – The quality of the data was collected with a high degree of confidence

2011 Data Type of regulation Score Geographic weight Total Score

Camping 2 2 4

Campfire 2 2 4

Fees 0 2 0

Permits 0 2 0

Length of stay 1 1 1

Group size limits 0 2 0

Leash requirement 1 2 2

Hunting restrictions 1 2 2

Index Total: 13


32 | P a g e

MEASURE [4-7]

Indicator Management restrictions on visitor behavior

Measure Percent of wilderness closed to public access year-round

Context Visitors’ opportunities to experience freedom from management are significantly affected by the number and type of regulations in place. There are areas of wilderness closed to public access, which is a restriction places on visitor behavior. This measure focuses on the percent of wilderness closed to public access year round. There are some areas closed to public access seasonally for resource protection (e.g., Holgate beach is closed April – September for beach bird nesting).



HIGH - This measure is relevant to the indicator because it monitors restrictions that USFWS places on visitor behavior inside wilderness.

Data Source(s) National Vegetation Classification GIS data

Data Collection Process Using the GIS feature class from the National Vegetation Classification data (done in 2008-2009), the number of total acres of each wilderness unit and the total number of acres closed to public assess year-round is calculated. The acres of each wilderness unit are quantified by the NVC shapefile area of each unit. Since the only area currently not closed year-round is the beach face of Holgate unit, which was quantified as the vegetation classification of “open water” and “beach strand”. The areas of these two categories are summed to get an acreage for area closed year round to public access. A percentage of the wilderness that is closed year-round to public access is calculated.

The percent is used here to eliminate any changes in acreages associated with natural processes. In other words, the Holgate unit can increase/decrease in acreage due to sediment budgets and natural processes but the percent closed to public access will not change.

What constitutes a

Significant Change?

The 2011 data recorded below is the baseline for the wilderness character monitoring plan. Any increase in the percent of wilderness closed to public

access year-round results in a degradation to the solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality. Any decrease in the percent of wilderness closed to public access year-round results in an improvement to the solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality.

Data Adequacy (H/M/L) HIGH – There is high confidence in data quality because acreages are calculated using ArcGIS and areas closed to public access are confirmed with Refuge staff.

2011 Data The beach face of Holgate unit is the only area opened from September 1- April 1 to public access, and therefore not closed year-round. The other areas are

closed and only open for hunting during the hunting seasons, which required appropriate hunting permits. Overall 97% of the wilderness is closed year-round.

Wilderness unit Acres closed (year-round) Total Acres

Holgate 354.40 534.94

Mullica-Motts marsh islands 1711.93 1711.93

Little Beach unit 4286.37 4286.37

Percent closed (year-round): = 63572.7/6533.23 97%


33 | P a g e

SECTION 5: MEASURES UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR 2011 WILDERNESS CHARACTER MONITORING The purpose of this section is to present measures that were not included in the 2011 Brigantine Wilderness Character Monitoring program, but are important measures that may be included in the future. The following eight measures will be developed and ultimately incorporated into the monitoring program, if appropriate and feasible.

Potential Measures under Development

Quality Indicator Measure Freq. of

Reporting

Natural Plants and wildlife species and communities

[5.1.1] Number of individuals, nesting pairs, and/or productivity of barrier island focal species

Every 5 yrs

[5.1.2] Number of individuals, nesting pairs, and/or productivity of salt marsh focal species

Every 5 yrs

Biophysical processes [5.1.3] Rate of salt marsh accretion Every 5 yrs

[5.1.4] Change in timing of plant greening Every 5 yrs

Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation

Remoteness from sights and sounds of people inside wilderness

[5.1.5] Amount of adjacent visitor use Every 5 yrs

Remoteness from sights and sounds of people outside wilderness

[5.1.6] Night sky visibility Every 5 yrs

[5.1.7] Extent and magnitude of intrusions on natural soundscape

Every 5 yrs

[5.1.8] Viewshed Every 5 yrs


34 | P a g e

MEASURE 5.1.1


Measure Number of individuals, nesting pairs, and/or productivity of barrier island focal species

Context The Wilderness Area may serve as a place where populations of sensitive plant and wildlife species can find some measure of protection. A decrease in this value over time could be caused by actions not under the control of a wilderness manager, but are impacts to naturalness nonetheless.

The following table lists EBFNWR barrier island focal species that will be included in this measure.

Common name: Scientific name:

Piping plover Charadrius melodus

Least tern Sterna antillarum

American oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus

Red Knot Calidris canutus

Sanderling Calidris alba

Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus

Seabeach amaranth Amaranthus pumilus



HIGH - This measure is relevant to the indicator because it tracks the productivity of focal wildlife and plant species.

Data Source(s) Wildlife Biologist (Paul Castelli), Wilderness Biologist (Vincent Turner), Coastal Wetlands Biologist (Bill Crouch)

Data Collection Process The data collection process is still in progress.


35 | P a g e

MEASURE 5.1.2


Measure Number of individuals, nesting pairs, and/or productivity of salt marsh focal species

Context The Wilderness Area may serve as a place where populations of sensitive plant and wildlife species can find some measure of protection. A decrease in this value over time could be caused by actions not under the control of a wilderness manager, but are impacts to naturalness nonetheless. The following table lists EBFNWR salt marsh focal species that will be included in this measure.

Common name: Scientific name:

American black duck Anas rubripes

American Oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus

Atlantic brant Branta berniclia

Clapper rail Rallus longirostris

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus

Saltmarsh sparrow Ammodramus caudacutus

Semipalmated sandpiper Calidris pusilla

Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus

Snowy egret Egretta thula

Whimbrel Numenius phaepus

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus

Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus

Northern diamondback terrapin Malaclemys t. terrapin



HIGH - This measure is relevant to the indicator because it tracks the productivity of sensitive wildlife and plant species.

Data Source(s) Wildlife Biologist (Paul Castelli), Wilderness Biologist (Vincent Turner), Coastal Wetlands Biologist (Bill Crouch)

Data Collection Process There are four monitoring programs concerning salt marsh bird species: Breeding Population Index, Mid-winter surveys, SHARP, and Secretive marsh bird surveys. SHARP Avian Point-Count/Callback Surveys: Each survey consists of a 5-minute passive period point count and a broadcast sequence where all birds seen and/or heard using habitat are recorded. The passive period is followed by broadcasting of a series of secretive marsh bird calls, in which a 30-second call is broadcast into the marsh, followed by a 30-second window of silence. This broadcast is repeated for each secretive marsh bird species included on the broadcast sequence. Broadcast sequences vary from area to area. One survey should be conducted May 1- May 31, June 1- June 25, and June 26-July 15. Surveys are conducted in the morning, starting 30 minutes before sunrise and ending between 10 and 11 am.


36 | P a g e

MEASURE 5.1.3


Measure Rate of salt marsh accretion and elevation change as measured by Surface Elevation Table (SET)

Context Tidal salt marshes are threatened by predicated acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise. If the marsh cannot accrete sediment at a similar rate as sea level rise, the plants will gradually drown and die. Eventually the marsh will convert to subtidal shallow open water habitat through soil subsidence and erosion.

Surface elevation change is monitored with the surface elevation table (SET) and vertical accretion is measured using artificial soil marker horizons.

Using data collects with the SET-marker horizon approach, EBFNWR can determine if surface elevation is keeping pace with sea-level rise.

The SET was designed for making high-resolution measures of small-scale changes in elevation of loose, unconsolidated sediments in shallow water and mudflat habitats.

Relevance to Indicator

(High/Medium/Low)

HIGH - This measure is highly relevant to the indicator because it monitors impacts associated with global climate change, tracking the alteration or disruption of natural biophysical processes inside wilderness.

MEASURE 5.1.4


Measure Change in timing of plant greening

Context This measure is still being developed.



HIGH - This measure is highly relevant to the indicator because it monitors impacts associated with global climate change, tracking the alteration or disruption of natural biophysical processes inside wilderness.

Data Source(s) Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Data Collection Process MODIS is a key instrument aboard the Terra and Aqua satellites. Terra MODIS and Aqua MODIS are viewing the entire Earth’s surface every 1 to 2 days, acquiring data in 36 spectral bands, or groups of wavelengths. These data improve the understanding of global dynamics and processes occurring on the land, in the oceans, and in the lower atmosphere. MODIS is playing a vital role in the development of validated, global, interactive Earth system models able to predict global change accurately enough to inform conservation efforts and management. Refer to MODIS website: http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/about/


37 | P a g e

MEASURE 5.1.5

Indicator Remoteness from sights and sounds of people inside the wilderness

Measure Amount of adjacent visitor use

Context Visitor use of the Wilderness Area is defined as any visitation above the wilderness boundary defined as the mean high water (MHW) line. For example, a visitor on a motorized boat below the MHW line is not considered a wilderness visitor. If the visitor pulls his/her boat onto the salt marsh so that the boat is below the mean high water line, he/she is still not considered a wilderness visitor. It is only when he/she steps above the mean high water line that he/she is a wilderness visitor. Under this definition, wilderness visitation is limited and therefore will not be measured at this time.

Most people access and/or experience wilderness by motorboats, which is outside the wilderness boundary. This will be defined as adjacent visitor use. EBFNWR recognizes the greater impact of adjacent visitation on wilderness character since it is an open coastal landscape. Adjacent visitation, although outside the jurisdictional wilderness boundary, impacts wilderness character by degrading the solitude quality.

The purpose of this measure is to capture the impact of adjacent visitation and will focus on motor boats and jet skis.




Data Source(s) This will be determined once the protocol is finalized.

Data Collection Process This serves as an initial data collection process and will be further developed. The frequency will be determined in the near future and is heavily dependent on funding.

Observational sites will be randomly selected for each of the wilderness units (i.e., Holgate, Little Beach, marsh islands behind Little Beach, and Mullica-Motts marsh islands). An observer will record the number of visitors they encounter during the established length of time. They will also note the mode of transportation (e.g., motor boat, kayak). Motorized type of visitation has a greater impact than non-motorized type of visitation, and therefore will be weighted to show a higher impact on opportunities for solitude. If a group is encountered, the number of individuals within the group will also be noted; also weighted to shower a higher impact.


38 | P a g e

MEASURE 5.1.6


Measure Night sky visibility averaged over the wilderness

Context Night sky visibility contributes to the important social values in wilderness of humility and being part of something larger, and strongly contributes to the wilderness character of an area. Wilderness managers cannot reduce all light pollution affecting a wilderness, but managers can take actions at administrative sites and work with local communities. This quality would be degraded if night sky visibility decreases.

This measure will establish baseline readings for the quality (darkness) of the night skies over Brigantine Wilderness. A Sky Quality Meter with Lens (SQM_L) will be used to take measurements of the sky’s darkness in “magnitudes per square arc second” (M/arcsec2), which refers to the brightness in magnitude spread over an arcsecond of the sky.



HIGH – This measure is highly relevant to the indicator because it tracks selected conditions occurring on lands adjacent to the wilderness that affect visitor’s opportunities for solitude. Light pollution from adjacent lands is such a condition impacting the quality of night sky visibility.

Data Source(s) Wildlife Biologist (Paul Castelli); Sky Quality Meter readings

Data Collection Process Readings will be taken four times a year (once each season) preferably on new moon nights when the conditions are good-excellent, as determined by the “Clear Sky Chart” for Stockton College Observatory and Holgate Long Beach Island sites. Readings will be taken at least one hour after evening astronomical dusk ends and at least one hour before morning astronomical dusk begins. If readings cannot be taken on new moon nights, readings can still be taken after more than an hour after the moon sets.

Surveyor(s) take readings on X randomly selected, pre-established sites. Eight readings will be recorded for each site, with the lowest and highest values discarded and the remaining six averaged for a final reading for the site. A reading is taken with the SQM_L sensor pointing directly at the zenith (the point on the sky directly overhead) and without direct glare from any nearby nighttime lighting.

Initial readings will be compared to empirical data to determine necessary sample size, frequency of sampling, and comparison to measures available on the Internet.

What constitutes a

Significant Change?

Any decrease in night sky visibility within wilderness results in a degradation to the

solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality. Any increase in nigh sky visibility within wilderness results in an improvement to the solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality.

Data Adequacy (H/M/L) HIGH – The quality of the data was collected with a high degree of confidence. The sites are randomly selected and the Sky Quality Meter readings will be repeatable over time.

2011 Data Date Site ID Average M/arcsec2

Average M/arcsec2 over entire wilderness:


39 | P a g e

MEASURE 5.1.7


Measure Extent and magnitude of intrusions on the natural soundscape

Context This measure tracks anthropogenic sounds that degrade the natural soundscape, such as the intensity and frequency of sounds from airplane overflights, motorized equipment, or motorized vehicles.




Potential Data Collection Process

The protocol for this measure is still under development. There are some preliminary options as to how to collect data for this measure. These options require additional research and development.

Option 1: Source identification and On-site listening – Observer data logging provides a way to discern timing and duration of different sound sources. During observing logging sessions, acoustic technicians or Refuge staff will note the sounds they hear over a one-hour period. The National Park Service (NPS) Natural Sounds Program uses a palm pilot program that logs the sound source, and time and duration of the event. Acoustic data can be collected for all seasons, but two seasons (summer and winter) are usually adequate.

(Refer to NPS Natural Sounds Program website:

http://www.nature.nps.gov/naturalsounds/im/index.cfm)

Option 2: Automated acoustic monitors collect continuous one-second sound levels. Grand Teton National Park utilized automated acoustic monitors developed by Skip Ambrose, Sandhill Company (Castle, Utah) and Mike Donaldson, Far North Aquatics (Fairbanks, AK). According to the Natural Soundscape Monitoring Program Report No.200601, (http://www.nps.gov/yell/parkmgmt/upload/final_soundscape.pdf), the national park utilized numerous instruments to collect and analyze data.

http://www.nature.nps.gov/naturalsounds/im/index.cfm

http://www.nps.gov/yell/parkmgmt/upload/final_soundscape.pdf


40 | P a g e

MEAUSURE 5.1.8


Measure Extent and magnitude of intrusions on viewshed

Context This measure tracks anthropogenic sounds that degrade the natural soundscape, such as the Atlantic City skyline and surrounding developed communities.




Potential Data Collection Process

The protocol for this measure is still under development. There are some preliminary options as to how to collect data for this measure. These options require additional research and development.

Option 1: Experimental software that shows degrees of probability of viewing something, and then reclassifying these probabilities into the 1 to 256 scale used to build spatial model, with 1 being not visible and 256 having 100% probability of being visible. The first analysis was done at Death Valley by James Tricker ([email protected]), who did the spatial modeling. Software is in developmental stages and requires careful calibration. The quality of the output will be dependent on factors such as resolution, accuracy of viewshed features, etc.

Option 2: ArcGIS has built-in viewshed feature using the Spatial Analyst toolbar. Viewshed identifies the cells in an input raster that can be seen from one or more observation points or lines. Each cell in the output raster receives a value that indicates how many observer points can be seen from each location. If you have only one observer point, each cell that can see the observer point is given a value of one. All cells that cannot see the observer point are given a value of zero. The observer points feature class can contain point or lines. The nodes and vertices of lines will be used as observation points. This option is time intensive to run and results are binary. More information can be found on ArcGIS Desktop Help (search Viewshed).

Option 2: The measure would be the “percent of area inside wilderness where sights and sounds of modern civilization outside the wilderness are apparent.” Random points within wilderness would be selected and a systematic evaluation on the percent of intrusions on the viewshed would be conducted. This would be repeated for all random points.

mailto:[email protected]


41 | P a g e

SECTION 6: MEASURES NOT SELECTED FOR 2011 WILDERNESS CHARACTER MONITORING This section comprises a list of the measures that were considered but ultimately not chosen to include in the Wilderness Character Monitoring program for Brigantine National Wilderness Area.

Measures Dropped Quality Indicator Measure Comments

Untrammeled Actions authorized by USFWS that manipulate the biophysical environment

Number of lakes or water bodies stocked with fish

Brigantine National Wilderness Area does not include any lakes or water bodies, since the boundary is defined to be above mean high tide.

Natural Biophysical processes

Change in shoreline position as a measure for global climate change

One-dimensional shoreline position surveys and two-dimensional beach profile (only Holgate unit) surveys are conducted on the Little Beach and Holgate units of wilderness. This measure is dropped because there are a multitude of factors and confounding effects that make it difficult to use this measure as a way to track the extent and magnitude of global climate change.

Undeveloped Use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport

Number of motor vehicles driving above MHT on Holgate unit

This measure was dropped because 1) difficult to determine the MHT because it is highly dynamic and 2) it would require staff or volunteer solely dedicated to the Holgate unit to monitor the number of motor vehicles driving onto wilderness

Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation

Remoteness from sights and sounds of people inside the wilderness

Amount of visitor use

Visitor use of the Wilderness Area is defined as any visitation above the wilderness boundary defined as the mean high water (MHW) line. Therefore wilderness visitation is limited and does not impact opportunities for solitude in comparison to visitor use surrounding the wilderness.

Most people access and/or experience wilderness by motorboats, which is outside the wilderness boundary. This will addressed in Measure 5.1.4 Adjacent Visitor Use

Number of trail contacts

There are no trails or established routes of travel within the wilderness. Most of the visitation occurs outside the wilderness boundary. This will be addressed in Measure 5.1.4 Adjacent Visitor Use

Number of campsites

There are no campsites currently within wilderness, nor does EBFNWR anticipate introducing campsites in the future.


42 | P a g e

SECTION 7: CONCLUSION The 2011 Wilderness Character Monitoring program for Brigantine National Wilderness Area consists of 25 finalized measures. The protocols and data for all these measures have been entered into the Microsoft Access© database application created by the USFWS Inventory and Monitoring Program. This database can be located on the public drive of EBFNWR under the ‘Wilderness’ folder, along with the final report and supporting documents.

Additionally, there are eight measures under development. Four of these measures have a high probability of being included into the monitoring program for the following year. These include the measures regarding night sky visibility, salt marsh elevation tables, barrier island focal species, and salt marsh focal species. The protocol for night sky visibility and salt marsh elevation table are developed and only requires time and resources to collect data. For the latter two measures, the data is already being collected for the refuge, but the protocol is still under development.

The four other measures under development require research and development to set the foundation before collecting data. These include change in timing of plant greening, adjacent visitor use, intrusions on soundscapes, and intrusions on the viewshed. In order to develop these measures and collect data, funding is necessary. A grant proposal has been submitted for this purpose. It is uncertain at this juncture whether the proposal will receive funding.

The selected measures provide a comprehensive approach to monitor wilderness character over time. FNWR is committed to developing additional measures and continuing to collect data. FNWR foresees the development of a Wilderness Stewardship Plan in the future.

Wilderness Character Monitoring DRAFT- APPENDIX D

43 | P a g e

APPENDIX A- Prioritizing Measures of Wilderness Character In each row, write the indicator and potential measure in the left column. Use the following criteria and ranking guide to create an overall score for each measure. Those measures with the highest overall scores should be the highest priority for assessing trends in wilderness character.

A. Level of importance (the measure is highly relevant to the quality and indicator of wilderness character, and is highly useful for managing the wilderness): High = 3 points, Medium = 2 points, Low = 1 point

B. Level of vulnerability (measures an attribute of wilderness character that currently is at risk, or might likely be at risk over 10-15 years): High = 3 points, Medium = 2 points, Low = 1 point

C. Degree of reliability (the measure can be monitored accurately with a high degree of confidence, and would yield the same result if measured by different people at different times): High = 3 points, Medium = 2 points, Low = 1 point

D. Degree of reasonableness (the measure is related to an existing effort or could be monitored without significant additional effort): High = 1 point, Low = 0 point

UNTRAMMELED QUALITY: Criteria for Prioritizing Potential Measures

Potential Measure A.

Importance B.

Vulnerability C.

Reliability D.

Reasonableness

OVERALL SCORE PRIORITY LEVEL

Indicator: Actions authorized that manipulate the biophysical environment Measure: Number of actions to manipulate plants, animals, pathogens, soil, water, or fire

3 2 3 1 9 MEDIUM

Indicator: Actions authorized that manipulate the biophysical environment Measure: Percent of natural fire starts that received a suppression response

2 1 3 1 7 LOW

Indicator: Actions authorized that manipulate the biophysical environment Measure: Number of lakes and other water bodies stocked with fish

2 1 3 1 7 LOW

Indicator: Actions authorized that manipulate the biophysical environment Measure: Number of person-hours treating invasive plant species

2 1 3 1 7 LOW


44 | P a g e

Indicator: Actions authorized that manipulate the biophysical environment Measure: Number of mosquito control treatments

3 3 3 1 10 HIGH

Indicator: Actions unauthorized that manipulate the biophysical environment Measure: Number of unauthorized actions that manipulate plant, wildlife, insects, fish, pathogens, soil, water or fire

3 3 3 1 10 HIGH

NATURAL QUALITY: Criteria for Prioritizing Potential Measures


Importance B.

Vulnerability C.

Reliability D.

Reasonableness


Indicator: Plants and animal species and communities Measure: Number of extirpated native wildlife species

2 2 3 1 8 MEDIUM

Indicator: Plants and animal species and communities Measure: Acres of invasive non-indigenous species

3 3 3 1 10 HIGH

Indicator: Physical resources Measure: Visibility based on average deciview and sum of anthropogenic fine nitrate and sulfate

Monitored at the National level HIGH

Indicator: Physical resources Measure: Ozone air pollution based on concentration of N100 episodic and W126 chronic ozone exposure affecting sensitive plants


Indicator: Physical resources Measure: Acid deposition based on concentration of sulfur and nitrogen in wet deposition


Indicator: Biophysical processes Measure: Mean sea level rise

2 3 3 1 9 HIGH


45 | P a g e

UNDEVELOPED QUALITY: Criteria for Prioritizing Potential Measures


Importance B.

Vulnerability C.

Reliability D.

Reasonableness


Indicator: Non-recreational structures, installations, and developments Measure: Index of authorized physical development

3

2 3 1 9 HIGH

Indicator: Non-recreational structures, installations, and developments Measure: Index of unauthorized (user-created) physical developments

2 1 3 1 7 LOW

Indicator: Inholdings Measure: Area of inholdings within wilderness

1 1 3 1 6 LOW

Indicator: Use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport Measure: Type and amount of administrative and non-emergency use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport

3 1 3 1 8 MEDIUM

Indicator: Use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport Measure: Type and amount of emergency use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport

3 2 3 1 9 HIGH

Indicator: Use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport Measure: Type and amount of motor vehicle, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport use not authorized by Federal land manager

3 3 2 0 8 MEDIUM

Indicator: Loss of statutorily protected cultural resources Measure: Number and severity of disturbances to cultural resources

1 1 3 1 6 LOW


46 | P a g e

OPPORTUNITIES FOR SOLITUDE OR PRIMITIVE AND UNCONFINED TYPE OF RECREATION QUALITY : Criteria for Prioritizing Potential Measures


Importance B.

Vulnerability C.

Reliability D.

Reasonableness


Indicator: Remoteness from sights and sounds of people inside the wilderness Measure: Number of aircraft landing sites

3 2 3 1 9 HIGH

Indicator: Remoteness from sights and sounds of people outside the wilderness Measure: Miles of beach travel routes adjacent to wilderness

3 3 3 1 10 HIGH

Indicator: Remoteness from occupied and modified areas outside the wilderness Measure: Hours of aircraft flying and/or spraying for mosquito control

3 2 3 1 9 HIGH

Indicator: Facilities that decrease self-reliant recreation Measure: Type and number of agency-provided recreation facilities

2 1 3 1 7 MEDIUM

Indicator: Facilities that decrease self-reliant recreation Measure: Type and number of user-created recreation facilities

2 3 3 1 9 HIGH

Indicator: Management restrictions on visitor behavior Measure: Visitor restrictions index

3 2 3 1 9 HIGH

Indicator: Management restrictions on visitor behavior Measure: Percent of wilderness closed to public access year-round

3 2 3 1 9 HIGH


47 | P a g e


48 | P a g e

APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF MEASURES

Measure Priority (H, M, L)

Detailed Description of the Data Source(s) and How the Data Were Gathered

Untrammeled Quality [1-1] Number of actions to manipulate plant, wildlife, insects, fish, pathogens, soil, water, or fire

Source: Staff knowledge: Project Leader, Biologists, and LE Officer Process: Consulted Refuge staff on any type of action(s) that manipulate the biophysical environment. Each separate action is counted and tallied annually. Annually is defined as January 1 – December 31 of the current year. An “action” is defined for this monitoring as an act or a series of acts that are purposefully taken to manipulate the biophysical environment. A “location” is defined as any spatial unit of area that is appropriate for the action being counted. [Single action, single location = 1 action; Multiple action, single location = multiple actions; Multiple action, multiple locations = multiple actions; Action in one fiscal year = 1 action; Action in multiple fiscal years = multiple actions]

[1-2] Number of naturally ignited fire starts that received a suppression response within wilderness

Source: Staff knowledge: Project Leader, Biologists, LE Officer Process: Count each number of naturally-ignited fires that received a suppression response within wilderness annually. Annually is defined as January 1 - December 31 of the current year. If fire is suppressed outside of wilderness boundaries it is not counted since the suppression itself does not occur within the wilderness boundary.

[1-3] Number of person-hours treating invasive plant species

Source: Coastal Wetlands Biologist (Bill Crouch); Reference Memo Invasive/Exotic Plant Control Program Summary dated 11/14/2011 Process: Tally the total number of person-hours (number of person(s) treating invasive plant species multiplied by the number of hours). Person-hours to survey the area is not included in this measure because there is no action taken to treat invasive plant species.

[1-4] Number of mosquito control treatments

Source: Records are kept with the Mosquito Commissions and FNWR receives reports. Process: This measure is the total mosquito spray treatments that a location receives. “Location” is defined as the unit designated by FWNR Wilderness units. Follow the guidelines: If, Single treatment, single location, Then 1 action; If Single treatment, multiple locations, Then multiple actions.

[1-5] Number of unauthorized actions to manipulate plant, wildlife, insects, fish, pathogens, soil, water, or fire

Source: Staff knowledge: Law Enforcement Officer, Incident Reports; Biologists, Project Leader Process: Each separate authorized action is counted and tallied annually. Annually is defined as January 1 – December 31 of the current year. A “location” is defined as any spatial unit of area that is

appropriate for the action being counted. [Single action, single

location = 1 action; Multiple action, single location = multiple actions; Multiple action, multiple locations = multiple actions; Action in one fiscal year = 1 action; Action in multiple fiscal years = multiple actions]. This includes unauthorized species takings, species releases, and large-scale trash-dumping within wilderness. This does not include minor infractions such as littering, small-scale vandalism, or insignificant trespassing.


49 | P a g e

Natural Quality [2-1] Number of extirpated indigenous species

Source: FNWR Biologists; New Jersey Field Office, Wendy Walsh; Virginia Field Office, Mike Drummond Process: Each extirpated indigenous species is counted once every 5 years. Biologists from NWR and Field Offices are consulted for their knowledge of extirpated indigenous species of the wilderness.

[2-2] Acres of invasive non-indigenous plant species

Source: Coastal Wetlands Biologist (Bill Crouch) Process: Seasonal interns surveyed Holgate Peninsula and Little Beach Island in 2011 and created GPS points to mark areas where there was Asiatic sand sedge growth. Bill Crouch revisited the GPS points to treat the species. The area was not mapped by GPS, but rather an educated estimate was made by Bill Couch. The year 2011 is the onset of this project.

[2-3] Visibility based on average deciview and sum of anthropogenic fine nitrate and sulfate

Source: Monitored at the national level

[2-4] Ozone air pollution based on concentration of N100 episodic and W126 chronic ozone exposure affecting sensitive plants


[2-5] Acid deposition based on concentration of sulfur and nitrogen in wet deposition


[2-6] Mean sea level trend as a measure of global climate change

Source: NOAA Mean Sea Level Trend for Atlantic City (8534720), New Jersey, is the closest station. The Atlantic City gage is seven miles away from Little Beach unit, and approximately nine miles away from the Holgate and Mullica-Motts units. Process: The NOAA Mean Sea Level Trend was referenced. The mean sea level trend and a plot (from 1900 to 2010) showed the monthly mean sea level without the regular seasonal fluctuations due to coastal ocean temperatures, salinities, winds, atmospheric pressures, and ocean currents.

Undeveloped Quality [3-1] Index of authorized physical development

Source: Little Beach Island structure removal project records (Vincent Turner, Wildlife Biologist); Refuge staff; field observations Process: Each physical development is multiplied by a relative weight. The relative weighting of the level of impact on the undeveloped quality of each structure is as follows: A weight of 1 = Low- causes a small impact to social environment and little to no impact on biophysical environment (e.g., small sign posts, pilings); a weight of 2 = Moderate- causes a moderate impact to social and biophysical environments (e.g., large sign posts, osprey towers, telephone poles); and a weight of 3 = High- causes a large impact to the social and biophysical environments (e.g., buildings)


50 | P a g e

[3-2] Index of unauthorized (user-created) physical development

Source: Biologists, LE Officer, aerial photographs from Google™ Earth. Process: An overall survey of the Wilderness to detect unauthorized (user-created) physical development was conducted using Google™ Earth. Any detected physical developments will be ground-truthed. Refuge staff will also be consulted to identify and/or verify physical developments. Each physical development is multiplied by a relative weight. The relative weighting of the level of impact on the undeveloped quality of each structure is as follows: A weight of 1 = Low- causes a small impact to social environment and little to no impact on biophysical environment (e.g., small sign posts, pilings); a weight of 2 = Moderate- causes a moderate impact to social and biophysical environments (e.g., large sign posts, osprey towers, telephone poles); and a weight of 3 = High- causes a large impact to the social and biophysical environments (e.g., buildings)

[3-3] Number of inholdings within wilderness

Source: Project Leader (Virginia Rettig) Process: Count the number of inholdings within wilderness every 5 years.

[3-4] Type and amount of administrative and non-emergency use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport

Source: Biologists, Project Leader, LE Officer, and Atlantic, Ocean, Burlington County Mosquito Commissions Process: This measure is the sum of the number of motor vehicles, pieces of motorized equipment, and mechanical transport authorized multiplied by the number of days authorized for each piece of equipment.

[3-5] Type and amount of emergency use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport

Source: Project Leader; LE Officer Process: This measure is the sum of the number of motor vehicles, pieces of motorized equipment, and mechanical transport multiplied by the number of days each piece of equipment was used to respond to each emergency. For the purpose of this protocol, each day of one incident is counted separately.

[3-6] Type and amount of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport use not authorized by U.S. FWS

Source: LE Officer, Project Leader, Biologists Process: This measure is the sum of the number of motor vehicles, pieces of motorized equipment, and mechanical transport multiplied by the number of days each piece of equipment was used.

[3-7] Number and severity of disturbances to cultural resources

Source: Project Leader, Biologists, LE Officer Process: Count the number of disturbances to cultural resources

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Quality [4-1] Number of aircraft landing sites

Source: Aircraft landing sites are recorded with the Mosquito Commissions and reported to FNWR Process: Count the number of aircraft landing sites.

[4-2] Miles of beach travel route adjacent to wilderness (i.e., below mean high water)

Source: GoogleTM

Earth Process: Using Google

TM Earth, a path is delineated below MHW line,

defined as the wet-dry line for the purpose of this measure. The path will delineate the travel route where motor vehicles drive on the beach. The total miles will be reported.


51 | P a g e

[4-3] Hours of aircraft flying over wilderness

Source: Wildlife Biologist (Paul Castelli) – number of hours of aircraft flying over wilderness for water bird surveys. Atlantic County, Ocean County, and Burlington Counties for number of hours of aircraft flying over wilderness for mosquito control. Process: The number of total hours from all three commissions is tallied for this measure. When there are more than one aircraft during these times (i.e., Atlantic and Ocean counties have two aircrafts – one aircraft that sprays and one aircraft that monitors), the number of hours will be multiplied by the number of aircrafts. This shows the higher impact than that of one aircraft. Total number of hours related to water bird surveys is still in the process of being collected.

[4-4] Type and number of agency-provided recreation facilities

Source: Refuge staff is consulted on any agency-provided recreation facilities. Process: Each structure or feature is weighted equally and the sum of all the facilities is calculated.

[4-5] Type and number of user-created recreation facilities

Source: Refuge staff is consulted on any user-created recreation facilities. Process: Each structure or feature is weighted equally and the sum of all the facilities is calculated.

[4-6] Visitor restrictions Index

Source: FNWR policies Process: Initially, a score is given within each category of regulation according to guidelines presented in table below. If a wilderness has more than one type of regulation within a given category, the score will be assigned that corresponds to the most restrictive regulation in place. A higher score indicators a greater degree of restriction on visitor behavior. A score of 0 indicated no regulation within the category; a score of 1 indicates some restriction but retention of some individual choice; a score of 2 indicators that no choice is permitted; and a score of 3 is reserved for the most restrictive regulations.

[4-7] Percent of wilderness closed to public access year-round

Source: GoogleTM

Earth Process: Using Google

TM Earth, the number of total acres of each

wilderness unit and the total number of acres closed to public assess year-round is calculated. A percentage of the wilderness that is closed year-round to public access is calculated. The percent is used here to eliminate any changes in acreages associated with natural processes. In other words, the Holgate unit can increase/decrease in acreage due to sediment budgets and natural processes but the percent closed to public access will not change.


52 | P a g e

APPENDIX C: National Vegetation Classification Standard Brigantine National Wilderness Area Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge

BACKGROUND: The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) contracted with James W. Sewall Company and NatureServe in early 2008 to determine and map the plant communities within the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge (FNWR), in coastal New Jersey. The vegetation map was created using a combination of aerial photo interpretation and on-the-ground field assessment. The vegetation communities at FNWR were classified using the National Vegetation Classification Standard (NVC) and completed in 2009.

PURPOSE: The purpose is to provide information of the NVC specifically for the three units of the Brigantine National Wilderness Area: Holgate Unit, Little Beach Unit, and Mullica-Motts Unit. Although the NVC was completed in 2009 and the areas, as well as the vegetation communities, have changed over time, the NVC still provides valuable information.

METHODOLOGY: The GIS data of the NVC personal geodatabase feature class was clipped to the three units of FWNR’s Brigantine National Wilderness Area: Holgate Unit, Little Beach Unit, and Mullica-Motts Unit. Using AcrGIS version 10, acreage of each vegetation classification for the entire Wilderness Area was calculated. Similarly, the acreage of each vegetation classification for each Wilderness Area units was also calculated.

PRODUCTS: Table 1 Summary of NVC for Brigantine National Wilderness Area Table 2 Summary of NVC for Holgate Unit of Brigantine National Wilderness Area Table 3 Summary of NVC for Little Beach Unit of Brigantine National Wilderness Area Table 4 Summary of NVC for Mullica-Motts Unit of Brigantine National Wilderness Area Table 5 Index of NVC categories and associated vegetation species Figure 1 Map of NVC for Holgate Unit of Brigantine National Wilderness Area Figure 2 Map of NVC for Little Beach Unit of Brigantine National Wilderness Area Figure 3 Map of NVC for Mullica-Motts Unit of Brigantine National Wilderness Area


53 | P a g e

Table 1. Summary of National Vegetation Classification

Of Brigantine National Wilderness Area Vegetation Class Acres Percentage

(%) Beach Strand 297.68 4.6%

Eastern Tidal Salt Shrub 89.35 1.4%

Mid-Atlantic Coast Backdune Grassland 81.83 1.3%

North Atlantic Coast Estuarine Intertidal Mudflats 10.24 0.2%

North Atlantic High Salt Marsh 636.09 9.7%

North Atlantic Low Salt Marsh 3477.28 53.2%

North Atlantic Low Salt Marsh (short form) 661.92 10.1%

Northern Bayberry Dune Shrubland 278.43 4.3%

Northern Beachgrass Dune 47.39 0.7%

Northern Tall Martime Shrubland 79.58 1.2%

Open Water 536.75 8.2%

Overwash Dune Grassland 24.99 0.4%

Reed Tidal Marsh 8.22 0.1%

Salt Panne 303.47 4.6%

Total Acres 6,533.23 100%


Of Holgate Unit Wilderness Unit Vegetation Classification Acres

Percentage (%)

Holgate Beach Strand 138.53 25.9%

Holgate Eastern Tidal Salt Shrub 11.56 2.2%

Holgate Mid-Atlantic Coast Backdune Grassland 41.56 7.8%

Holgate North Atlantic High Salt Marsh 9.32 1.7%

Holgate North Atlantic Low Salt Marsh 13.72 2.6%

Holgate North Atlantic Low Salt Marsh (short form) 144.00 26.9%

Holgate Northern Bayberry Dune Shrubland 100.40 18.8%

Holgate Northern Beachgrass Dune 23.34 4.4%

Holgate Open Water 42.01 7.9%

Holgate Overwash Dune Grassland 7.52 1.4%

Holgate Reed Tidal Marsh 1.74 0.3%

Holgate Salt Panne 1.23 0.2%

Total Acres 534.94 100%


54 | P a g e


Of Little Beach Unit Wilderness Unit Vegetation Classification Acres

Percentage (%)

Little Beach Beach Strand 159.15 3.7%

Little Beach Eastern Tidal Salt Shrub 77.79 1.8%

Little Beach Mid-Atlantic Coast Backdune Grassland 40.27 0.9%

Little Beach North Atlantic Coast Estuarine Intertidal Mudflats 10.24 0.2%

Little Beach North Atlantic High Salt Marsh 57.47 1.3%

Little Beach North Atlantic Low Salt Marsh 2630.64 61.4%

Little Beach North Atlantic Low Salt Marsh (short form) 517.91 12.1%

Little Beach Northern Bayberry Dune Shrubland 178.03 4.2%

Little Beach Northern Beachgrass Dune 24.04 0.6%

Little Beach Northern Tall Martime Shrubland 79.58 1.9%

Little Beach Open Water 276.12 6.4%

Little Beach Overwash Dune Grassland 17.47 0.4%

Little Beach Reed Tidal Marsh 3.27 0.1%

Little Beach Salt Panne 214.39 3.7%



Of Mullica-Motts Unit

Wilderness Unit Vegetation Classification Acres

Percentage (%)

Mullica-Motts North Atlantic High Salt Marsh 569.31 33.3%

Mullica-Motts North Atlantic Low Salt Marsh 832.93 48.7%

Mullica-Motts Open Water 218.62 12.8%

Mullica-Motts Reed Tidal Marsh 3.22 0.2%



55 | P a g e

Figure 1


56 | P a g e

Figure 2


57 | P a g e

Figure 3


58 | P a g e

Table 5. Index of National Vegetation Classification Classes

NVC class Vegetation Group Associated vegetation

Beach Strand Sparse vegetation Cakile edentula ssp. Edentula - Chamaesyce polygonifolia

North Atlantic Coast Estuarine Intertidal Mudflats Sparse vegetation Intertidal mudflats

Eastern Tidal Salt Shrub Salt shrub Iva frutescens / spartina patens

Mid-Atlantic Coast Backdune Grassland Dune vegetation Morella (penslyvanica, cerifera), Schizachyrium littorale - Eupatorium hyssopifolium Shrub Herbaceous vegetation

Northern Bayberry Dune Shrubland Dune vegetation Morella penslyvanica - Prunus maritima shrubland

Northern Beachgrass Dune Dune vegetation Ammophila breviligulata - Lathyrus japonica Herbaceous vegetation

Overwash Dune Grassland Dune vegetation Spartina patens- Schoenoplectus pungens - Solidago sempervirens Herbaceous vegetation

Salt Panne Salt marsh Salicornia (virginica, bigelovii, maritima) - Spartina alterniflora Herbaceous vegetation

North Atlantic High Salt Marsh Salt marsh Spartina patens - Distichlis spicata - (Juncus gerardii) herbaceous vegetation

North Atlantic Low Salt Marsh Salt marsh spartina alterniflora / (Ascophyllum nodosum) Acadian/Virginian Zone herbaceous vegetation

North Atlantic Low Salt Marsh (short form) Salt marsh spartina alterniflora/ Distichlis spicata Tidal Herbaceous Vegetation

Reed Tidal Marsh Brackish marshes Phragmites australis Tidal Herbaceous vegetation

Northern Tall Martime Shrubland Maritime Forest & Shrublands

Amelanchier canadensis - Viburnum spp. - Morella pensylvanica

Open Water No vegetation No vegetation