John H. Chafee National

Wildlife Refuge

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Comprehensive

Conservation Plan

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

John H. Chafee National 

Wildlife Refuge

Prepared by:

Nancy McGarigal, Refuge Planner

Northeast Regional Office, Division of Planning

300 Westgate Center Drive

Hadley, MA 01035

(413) 253-8562

Local contact:

Charlie Vandemoer, Refuge Manager

3769 D Old Post Road

Charlestown, RI 02813

(401) 364-9124

Cover photo: Black duck, USFWS photo

May 2002
This goose, designed by J.N. “Ding”

Darling, has become a symbol of the

National Wildlife Refuge System.

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is the principal federal agency responsible for

conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for the

continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 93-million acre

National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of more than 500 national wildlife refuges

and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 65 national fish hatcheries

and 78 ecological services field stations. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws,

manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves

and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species Act,

and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the

Federal Aid program which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on

fishing and hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies.

Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management

decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge

purposes; and, identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail

program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget

allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program

prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases,

operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.

Table of Contents

John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge CCP

Chapter 1, Introduction and Background 1-1

Refuge Overview 1-2

Purpose of and Need for a CCP 1-2

Mission 1-5

Refuge Purpose 1-6

National and Regional Mandates Guiding this CCP 1-6

Existing Partnerships 1-10

Chapter 2, Planning Process 2-1

The CCP Process 2-2

Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities 2-3

Chapter 3, Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-1

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting 3-2

Socio-economic Setting 3-5

Refuge Complex Administration 3-8

Refuge Resources 3-9

Public Uses 3-11

Chapter 4, Management Direction 4-1

Refuge Complex Vision 4-2

Refuge Complex Goals (and Chafee Refuge goals and objectives) 4-2

General Refuge Management 4-15

Chapter 5, Implementation and Monitoring 5-1

Refuge Complex Staffing 5-2

Refuge Complex Funding 5-2

Step-Down Management Planning 5-2

Partnerships 5-3

Volunteer Program 5-4

Maintaining Existing Facilities 5-5

Monitoring and Evaluation 5-5

Adaptive Management 5-5

Compatibility Determinations 5-6

Additional NEPA Analysis 5-7

Plan Amendment and Revision 5-7

Maps

Map 1-1. Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex 1-3

Map 1-2. Chafee Refuge 1-4

Map 1-3. Connecticut River/Long Island Sound Ecosystem 1-8

Map 4-1. Chafee Refuge Public Use/Habitat Improvements 4-10
Chafee Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-1

Wood ducks

USFWS photo

■ Refuge Overview

■ Purpose of and Need for a CCP

■ Mission

■ Refuge Purpose

■ National and Regional Mandates Guiding this CCP

■ Existing Partnerships

Chapter 1

Introduction and Background
Introduction

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) is the culmination of a

planning process that began in February 1998. Numerous meetings

with the public, the state, and conservation partners were held to

identify and evaluate management alternatives. A draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

(CCP/EA) was distributed in December 2000. This CCP presents

the management goals, objectives, and strategies that we believe will

best achieve our vision for the refuge, contribute to the National

Wildlife Refuge System Mission, achieve refuge purposes and legal

mandates, and serve the American public.

Refuge Overview

Originally established as Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife

Refuge, John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge (Chafee Refuge) is

the newest addition to the Refuge Complex. The refuge is located in

the Towns of South Kingstown and Narragansett, Washington

County, RI, and centered in the community of Middlebridge (see

maps 1-1 and 1-2). The refuge is mainly surrounded by private land.

Most of its parcels border the Narrow River, a navigable public

waterway. 

In 1988, Senator John H. Chafee proposed legislation designating

600 acres of Pettaquamscutt Cove and its associated uplands for the

protection of black ducks, shorebirds, and other waterfowl. In 1996,

another bill revised the refuge acquisition boundary to include the

128-acre “Foddering Farm Acres,” purchased in 1997. In 1999,

Congress recognized Senator John H. Chafee’s significant

contributions to natural resource protection by renaming

Pettaquamscutt Cove Refuge the “John H. Chafee at Pettaquamscutt

Cove National Wildlfie Refuge”. The 2002 Land Protection Plan

(Appendix E) expanded the acquisition boundary by 878 acres. The

refuge currently owns 329 acres within a 1,342-acre refuge

acquisition boundary.

The Purpose of and Need for a CCP

Developing a CCP is vital to refuge management. The purpose of

the CCP is to provide strategic management direction over the next

15 years, by...

■ Providing a clear statement of desired future conditions for

habitat, wildlife, visitor services, and facilities;

■ Providing refuge neighbors, visitors, and partners with a clear

understanding of the reasons for management actions;

■ Ensuring refuge management reflects the policies and goals of the

Refuge System and legal mandates;

■ Ensuring the compatibility of current and future public use;

■ Providing long-term continuity and direction for refuge

management; and

■ Providing direction for staffing, operations, maintenance, and

developing budget requests.

Chapter 1 

1-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 1 
Chapter 1 

Chafee Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-5

The need to develop a CCP for Chafee Refuge is two-fold. First, the

1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Refuge

Improvement Act) requires that all national wildlife refuges have a

CCP in place by 2012 to help fulfill the mission of the Refuge

System. Second, the refuge lacks a master plan that establishes

priorities and ensures consistent, integrated management among the

five refuges in the Rhode Island Refuge Complex.

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

The Service, part of the Department of the Interior, manages

national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries. By law,

Congress entrusts the following federal trust resources to the

Service for conservation and protection: migratory birds and fish,

endangered species, inter-jurisdictional fish, wetlands, and certain

marine mammals. The Service also enforces federal wildlife laws

and international treaties on importing and exporting wildlife, assists

with state fish and wildlife programs, and helps other countries

develop wildlife conservation programs.

The National Wildlife Refuge System and its Mission

The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and

waters set aside specifically for conserving wildlife and protecting

ecosystems. More than 525 national wildlife refuges, in every state

and a number of U.S. Territories, protect more than 93 million acres.

More than 34 million visitors annually hunt, fish, observe and

photograph wildlife, or participate in environmental education and

interpretive activities on refuges. 

In 1997, Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act, establishing a unifying mission for the Refuge

System, and a new process for determining compatible public use

activities on refuges. It also requires that we prepare a CCP for

each refuge. The act states that, first and foremost, the Refuge

System must focus on wildlife conservation. It further states that

the mission of the Refuge System, coupled with the purpose(s) for

which each refuge was established, will provide the foundation for

management direction for each refuge.

On public use, the act declares that all existing or proposed public

uses must be compatible with each refuge’s purpose. It highlights six

wildlife-dependent public uses as priorities that all CCPs must

evaluate: environmental education and interpretation, fishing,

hunting, and wildlife observation and photography. Each refuge

manager determines the compatibility of an activity by evaluating its

potential impact on refuge resources, insuring that the activity

supports the Refuge System mission, and ensuring that the activity

does not materially detract from or interfere with the refuge purpose.

“...working with others, to

conserve, protect and

enhance fish wildlife, and

plants and their habitats

for the continuing benefit

of the American people.”

– Mission, U.S. Fish &

Wildlife Service

“...to administer a

national network of lands

and waters for the 

conservation, 

management, and where

appropriate, restoration

of the fish, wildlife, and

plant resources and their 

habitats within the

United States for the 

benefit of present and

future generations of

Americans.”

– Refuge System Mission,

Refuge Improvement Act;

Public Law 105-57
Chapter 1 

1-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Refuge Purpose

The establishment purposes for Chafee Refuge are:

(1) To protect and enhance the populations of black duck and other

waterfowl, geese, shorebirds, terns, wading birds, and other

wildlife using the refuge;

(2) To provide for the conservation and management of fish and

wildlife within the refuge;

(3) To fulfill international treaty obligations of the U.S. respecting

fish and wildlife;

(4) To provide opportunities for scientific research, environmental

education, and wildlife-oriented recreation.

– 102 Stat. 3177, Nov. 5, 1988 (Public Law 100-610)

National and Regional Mandates Guiding this CCP

This section highlights Service policy, legal mandates, and existing

resource plans, arranged from the national to the local level, that

directly influenced development of this CCP.

The Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the USFWS lists the

various federal laws, Executive Orders, treaties, interstate compacts,

and regulations on conserving and protecting natural and cultural

resources (online at http://laws.fws.gov/lawsdigest/indx.html). The

Service Manual and Refuge Manual contain Service policies and

guidance on planning and day-to-day refuge management. The draft

CCP/EA was written to fulfill compliance with National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (May 14, 1986)

This plan outlines the strategy among the United States, Canada,

and Mexico to restore waterfowl populations by protecting,

restoring, and enhancing habitat within 11 U.S. Joint Venture

Regional Areas and three species Joint Ventures: Arctic Goose,

Black Duck, and Sea Duck. Partnerships among federal, state and

provincial governments, tribal nations, local businesses, conservation

organizations, and individual citizens protect that habitat. The

Refuge Complex lies within the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, which

has identified 13 priority focus areas totaling 3,226 acres of both

wetlands and adjacent uplands for protection in Rhode Island

(Atlantic Coast Joint Venture 1988). Three priority focus areas in the

Refuge Complex are Trustom Pond, Ninigret Pond, and the

Pettaquamscutt (Narrow) River.

Since black ducks winter in Rhode Island, the goals and objectives of

the Black Duck Joint Venture apply to managing the Refuge

Complex. The Black Duck Joint Venture has identified the coastal

salt marsh habitats along the mid-upper Atlantic coast as very

important wintering habitat.

Black duck. USFWS photo.
Partners In Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: Physiographic 

Area 9, Southern New England (draft, October 2000)

In 1990, Partners in Flight (PIF) was conceived as a voluntary,

international coalition of government agencies, conservation

organizations, academic institutions, private industry, and other

citizens dedicated to reversing the downward trends of declining

species and “keeping common birds common.” The foundation of

PIF’s long-term strategy for bird conservation is a series of

scientifically based Landbird Conservation Plans. The goal of each

PIF Landbird Conservation Plan is to ensure long term maintenance

of healthy populations of native landbirds. 

The Partners in Flight Program is developing a plan for the

Southern New England Physiographic Area, using existing data on

habitat loss, landbird population trends, and the vulnerability of

species and habitats to threats, to rank the conservation priority of

landbird species. The plan will identify focal species for each habitat

type from which population and habitat objectives and conservation

actions will be determined. We utilized this draft document for the

list of priority species to consider in management. A revised draft of

the plan was released in October 2000, and we will use the final plan,

when finished, to further guide management.

Connecticut River/Long Island Sound Ecosystem Priorities, 1997

During the last decade, we have emphasized ecosystem conservation,

particularly the role of refuges within ecosystems, and their ability to

affect the long-term conservation of natural resources. Implementing

an ecosystem approach to resource management is one of our top

national priorities. We have initiated new partnerships with private

landowners, state and federal agencies, corporations, conservation

groups, and volunteers, to form 52 ecosystem teams across the

country, typically using large river watersheds to define ecosystems.

Those teams work on developing goals and priorities for research and

management within each ecosystem.

The Refuge Complex lies within our Connecticut River/Long Island

Sound Ecosystem (Map 1-3). A team composed of Fish and Wildlife

Service personnel and representatives from six State Fish and Wildlife

Departments developed a Priority Resources Plan (July 1996) that

identifies seven priorities, each involving numerous action strategies.

1. Protect, restore, and enhance listed and candidate

populations...with special emphasis on beach strand species,

coastal sandplain habitat, and Connecticut River species.

2. Protect, restore, and enhance anadromous and interjurisdictional

migratory fish populations...with special emphasis on Atlantic

salmon, American shad, shortnose sturgeon, and river herring.

3. Reverse the decline of migrant landbirds...with special emphasis

on grassland and forest interior species.

4. Protect, restore, and enhance populations of colonial nesting

waterbirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl...with special emphasis on

coastal areas and major rivers.

5. Protect, restore, and enhance wetland habitats. 

Chapter 1 

Chafee Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-7
1-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
6. Manage refuge lands to protect, restore, and enhance native

communities and trust resources.

7. Develop a public that values the fish and wildlife

resources...understands events and issues related to these

resources, and acts to promote fish and wildlife conservation.

Regional Wetlands Concept Plan – Emergency Wetlands Resources

Act 9 (USFWS 1990)

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act to

promote the conservation of our nation’s wetlands. The Act directed

the Department of Interior to develop a National Wetlands Priority

Conservation Plan identifying the location and types of wetlands that

should receive priority for acquisition by federal and state agencies

using Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations. In 1990,

the Service’s Northeast Region completed a Regional Wetlands

Concept Plan identifying a total of 850 wetland sites in the Region

warranting consideration for acquisition due to wetland values.

Wetland values, functions, and potential threats for each site were

cited; 24 sites within the State of Rhode Island were listed.

Protecting Our Land Resources: 

A Land Acquisition and Protection Plan, Rhode Island Department

of Environmental Management, May 1996

The purpose of this State plan is to assist agencies within the Rhode

Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) in

protecting land to support their primary mission, “...protection of

the integrity of natural resources essential to the environmental,

economic and social welfare of the citizens of Rhode Island.” Its

framework provides strategies to permanently protect five critical

State resources: agriculture, forestry, drinking water, recreation, and

natural heritage and biodiversity. It includes evaluation criteria for

selecting and prioritizing lands.

Special Area Management Plan – Narrow River, November 1998

This plan details management strategies for implementing the

program standards of the State of Rhode Island Coastal Resources

Management Council (CRMC) in the Narrow River Watershed. The

Narrow River SAMP defines these objectives relevant to our CCP:

1. Provide for a balance of compatible uses, consistent with the

CRMC responsibility for preserving, protecting, and restoring

coastal resources.

2. Provide a regional plan for the Narrow River that recognizes that

the watershed functions as an ecosystem.

3. Identify ways nitrogen can be reduced in the watershed through

new technologies.

4. Revise and update existing policies and standards as well as

recommendations to municipalities and federal and state agencies.

5. Update all maps using the Rhode Island Geographic Information

System, and modify SAMP boundaries as needed to manage for

erosion and water quality pollution.

6. Identify and prioritize future research agendas for the region.

Chapter 1 

Chafee Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-9
Chapter 1 

1-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Existing partnerships

Throughout this CCP, we use the term “partners”. In addition to our

volunteers, we receive significant help from the following partners:

■ Southern New England/New York Bight Coastal Ecosystems

Office (FWS)

■ Ecological Services, New England Field Office (FWS)

■ Friends of the National Wildlife Refuges of Rhode Island

■ Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM)

■ The Nature Conservancy, Rhode Island and Block Island Offices

■ University of Rhode Island, Department of Natural Resources

Science (URI)

■ Audubon Society of Rhode Island

■ Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council (RI CRMC)

■ Local land trusts

■ Narragansett Indian Tribal Council
Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-1

Public Open House presenting CCP, Rhode Island

USFWS photo

■ The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

■ Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities

Chapter 2

Planning Process
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

Given the mandate in the Refuge Improvement Act to develop a CCP

for each national wildlife refuge, our Northeast Regional Office

identified nine refuges for initial planning during 1998 and 1999. We

began the planning process for the Refuge Complex when its

planning team of Regional Office and Refuge Complex staff first

convened in February 1998. Figure 2-1 displays the steps of the

planning process and how they incorporate NEPA requirements.

First, we focused on collecting information on natural resources and

public use at the Refuge Complex, and developed its long-term vision

and preliminary goals, including issues associated with each of its

refuges. Next, we compiled a mailing list of more than 2,000

organizations and individuals, to ensure we would be contacting a

diverse sample of the interested public.

Recognizing that not everyone could attend the Open Houses

planned for April and May 1998, we developed Issues Workbooks in

March, to encourage even more people to provide their written

comments on topics related to managing the Refuge Complex. We

offered the workbooks to everyone on our mailing list, including

adjacent landowners, and made workbooks available at refuge

headquarters, local libraries, and on the Internet from the Region 5

home page (http://www.northeast.fws.gov). We received 150

completed workbooks. Those responses and public input at our

meetings have influenced our formulating issues and developing

alternatives on resource protection and public use.

In April and May 1998, we began a

series of public meetings: five

Open Houses in the communities

of Middletown, South Kingstown,

Charlestown, and Block Island

invited public comments on goals

and issues. We advertised the

meetings through news releases,

radio broadcasts, and notices to

our mailing list. From 15 to 40

people attended each meeting. We

also organized 15 informational

meetings with state and federal

agencies, non-profit conservation

groups, town planners,

conservation commissions, and

sporting clubs.

Public responses suggested more

than 50 additional areas where

lands warranted protection,

typically along the coast. We

evaluated those lands for their

potential as national wildlife

refuges, using criteria such as the

presence of threatened,

endangered, or other trust species

and their habitats, the presence of

wetlands, our ability to manage or

Chapter 2 

2-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

A. Preplanning:

Plan the Plan

E. Prepare Draft 

Plan & NEPA 

Document

NEPA

• purpose and need

NEPA

• prepare & distribute draft CCP 

and NEPA documentation

• public comment & review

H. Review & 

Revise Plan

NEPA

• NEPA compliance & 

public involvement 

when applicable

NEPA

• notify the public

• involve the public

• scope the issues

B. Initiate Public 

Involvement& 

Scoping

NEPA

• NEPA compliance & public 

 involvement when applicable

C. Review Vision 

Statement & Goals, 

& Determine 

Significant Issues

NEPA

• identify significant issues

F. Prepare & 

Adopt Final Plan

NEPA

• respond to public comment

• identify preferred alternative

• prepare & distribute final CCP 

and NEPA documentation

• prepare & distribute FONSI 

for EA or ROD for EIS

NEPA

• reasonable range of alternatives

• No Action alternative

• assess environmental effects

• the Proposed Action

D. Develop & 

Analyze 

Alternatives

G. Implement 

Plan, Monitor, & 

Evaluate

The Comprehensive 

Conservation 

Planning Process & 

NEPA Compliance

Figure 2-1. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the CCP Process
restore the areas, existing threats to their integrity, and their size

and location.

We distributed a Planning Update to everyone on our mailing list in

September 1998. This newsletter summarized public comments from

meetings and workbooks, described policy guidelines for managing

public use on refuges, and identified the long-term vision and goals

for the Refuge Complex.

Once the key issues had firmed up, we developed alternative

strategies by May 1999 to resolve each one. We derived the

strategies from public comment, from follow-up contacts with

partners, or from the planning team. We distributed a second

Planning Update newsletter in May 1999, updating everyone on our

planning timelines and our decision to start a separate

Environmental Assessment for the visitor center/headquarters. 

We released a draft CCP/EA in December of 2000 for a 51-day

comment period. We held public hearings and open houses in

February of 2001. A summary of public comments and our response

to them is included in Appendix B. The land acquisition component of

the process is in the Land Protection Plan, Appendix E.

Each year, we will evaluate our accomplishments under this CCP,

including the completion of more detailed step down plans.

Monitoring or new information results may indicate the need to

change our strategies. We will modify the CCP documents and

associated management activities as needed, following the

procedures outlined in Service policy and NEPA requirements. This

CCP will be fully revised every 15 years, or sooner if necessary.

Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities 

From the Issues Workbooks, public and focus group meetings, and

planning team discussions, we developed for each refuge a list of

issues, concerns, opportunities, or any other items requiring a

management decision. Then we sorted them into two categories:

“Key issues,” and “Issues and concerns considered outside the scope

of this analysis”.

Key issues, along with the goals, formed the basis for developing and

comparing the draft CCP/EA alternatives. Issues outside the scope

of our analysis were described in the draft CCP/EA, but will not be

addressed further in this final CCP.

Key Issues

Public and partner meetings and further team discussions produced

the key issues briefly described below. 

1. Protection of endangered and threatened species and other

species and habitats of special concern. 

This is the most important issue facing the refuge. Protecting

federally listed endangered and threatened species is integral to the

mission of the Refuge System. Other federal trust species are also of

primary concern, including migratory birds, anadromous fish, and

certain marine mammals.

Chapter 2

Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-3
Appendix A lists species and habitats of special management

concern. The list includes the status of all plants, wildlife, fish, and

rare natural communities known to occur in Rhode Island that are

federally listed as endangered or threatened, were candidates for

listing, or are otherwise of management concern. Combined with

location information, we used that list to identify additional land

protection needs and opportunities. We know very little about many

of these species’ presence on or use of refuge habitats. The

alternatives in the draft CCP/EA differed in their strategies for

managing these species and habitats. Addressing this issue will help

achieve Goal 1: Protect and enhance federal trust resources and

other species and habitats of special concern.

2. Restoration and maintenance of coastal sandplain natural

communities, including grasslands and shrublands (less than

60 years old). 

While it is true that the Northeast landscape was primarily forested

prior to rapid agricultural settlement in the 1800’s, grasslands quickly

became a dominant part of the landscape in the 19th century.

Grassland-dependent species responded in kind and became established.

Over the last several decades, however, coastal sandplain grasslands and

shrublands, coastal maritime grasslands and shrublands, and

agricultural fields and pastures, have been in rapid decline in New

England due to a combination of development, changes in agricultural

technology, succession to forest as farms were abandoned, and lack of a

natural disturbance such as fire (Vickery 1997). 

In Rhode Island, the State’s farmland dropped nearly 50 percent

between 1964 and 1997, from 103,801 to 55,256 acres. An additional

3,100 acres of farmland will be lost in the next 20 years if current

sprawl patterns continue (Common Ground 2000). As a result, few

large, contiguous grasslands and shrublands are left; only smaller,

fragmented, and isolated habitat patches remain (<75 acres). 

These smaller areas are unsuitable for many focus species, including

once-common grassland birds such as grasshopper sparrow and

upland sandpiper. Grasshopper sparrows have declined by 69

percent in the past 25 years, according to Breeding Bird Survey data

(Vickery 1997). Our best available information suggests that

grasslands should ideally be managed in 100 acre or larger patches.

Smaller grassland habitat patches are much less productive for

grassland birds, and could serve as “sinks”, where species try to

nest, but becaused of increased predation and other factors,

productivity and survival is severely limited. 

Other grassland and shrubland species have declined dramatically as

well. Many of Rhode Island’s State-listed plant and animal species

are dependent on these habitat types.

Tremendous potential exists for refuge staff to become involved in

restoring habitat on private lands. Grassland and shrubland

restoration offers opportunities for our staff to provide technical

expertise to local communities. The alternatives in the draft CCP/EA

compared different levels of restoring and maintaining these habitats

and providing technical assistance to private landowners. Addressing

this issue will help achieve Goal 2: Maintain and/or restore natural

ecological communities to promote healthy, functioning ecosystems.

Chapter 2 

2-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
3. Protection and restoration of wetlands. 

The well documented values of healthy wetlands include fish and

wildlife habitat, flood protection, erosion control, and water quality

maintenance. Despite laws and regulations to protect them,

wetlands throughout Rhode Island have been rapidly declining since

the 1960’s through conversion to agriculture, residential and

industrial development. Rhode Island has developed more land in

the last 34 years than in its first 325 years (Common Ground

May/June 2000). Most recent sprawl occurs outside the urban areas,

near the remaining wetlands.

Estuarine wetlands consisting of tidal salt and brackish waters are of

particular concern. Invasive species are dominating refuge wetlands

and threatening their biodiversity. 

Non-point pollution and sources off-refuge are impacting water

quality and the health and productivity of these wetlands. The

alternatives in the draft CCP/EA compared different levels of

management for restoring wetlands and for cooperatively managing

entire watersheds. Addressing this issue will help achieve Goal 2:

Maintain and/or restore natural ecological communities to promote

healthy, functioning ecosystems.

4. Maintenance of water quality in the Narrow River.

The Narrow River provides many values beneficial to a diverse array

of wildlife and to the surrounding communities. Many wildlife

species use the estuary and adjacent wetlands as a primary food

source, a migratory rest stop, and as breeding, nesting, and

spawning grounds.

The quality of both groundwater and surface water continues to

deteriorate as a result of residential and commercial development

within the watershed and the associated contribution of non-point

pollutants such as individual septic systems. Since 1959, the Narrow

River has failed to meet State standards for coliform bacteria, and

parts of the river have been closed to shell fishing since 1979. Its

degraded water quality threatens wetland habitats in Chafee Refuge,

constraining their ability to fulfill the refuge purpose. The alternatives

in the draft CCP/EA evaluated different levels of involvement in

cooperatively managing and protecting the watershed. Addressing

this issue will help achieve Goal 2: Maintain and/or restore natural

ecological communities to promote healthy, functioning ecosystems.

5. Control of invasive, non-native, or overabundant plant and

wildlife species. 

Each of the five refuges has an extensive distribution of invasive

plant species. These plants are a threat because they displace native

plant and animal species, degrade wetlands and other natural

communities, and reduce natural diversity and wildlife habitat

values. They outcompete native species by dominating light, water,

and nutrient resources. Once established, getting rid of invasive

plants is expensive and labor-intensive. Unfortunately, their

characteristic abilities to establish easily, reproduce prolifically, and

disperse readily, make eradication difficult. 

Chapter 2

Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-5
Many of these plants cause measurable economic impacts, particularly

in agricultural fields. Preventing new invasions is extremely

important for maintaining biodiversity and native plant populations.

The control of existing, affected areas will require extensive

partnerships with adjacent landowners, state, and local governments.

Thirteen invasive plant species affecting the natural communities

within the Refuge Complex are considered of high management

concern. The most prevalent are Phragmites, purple loosestrife,

Asian bittersweet, autumn olive, and Japanese honeysuckle. Other

species such as Japanese knotweed and multiflora rose are increasing

on the Refuge Complex, and likely to become an issue soon. 

Several wildlife species occur on the Refuge Complex that are known,

or suspected to be, adversely affecting natural diversity. Issues

surface when these species directly impact federal trust species or

degrade natural communities. Mute swans are non-native, invasive

species that aggressively drive native waterfowl and shorebirds away

from nesting areas, compete with them for food, degrade water

quality when they spend extended periods of time molting on coastal

ponds, and are sometimes aggressive towards humans. 

Native species such as deer, red fox, gull, and small predatory

mammals such as mink, skunk, and weasel can be a problem when

their populations exceed the range of natural fluctuation and the

ability of the habitat to support them. Excessive numbers of deer are

a threat to rare plant communities on the Refuge Complex, and

excessive browse lines are evident on two refuges. Adjacent

landowners are also concerned about deer impacts on landscaping,

the increase in vehicle-deer collisions, and the threat of Lyme disease. 

Red fox, gull, and some small mammals are voracious predators that

can adversely impact other native wildlife populations. Occurrences

have been documented of herring and black-backed gull, red fox, and

weasel preying on piping plover and least tern, a State-listed species

(threatened). Fox easily habituate to humans, and were being handfed at Sachuest Point Refuge. Many people fear fox and other

mammals because they can carry rabies. These predators are

particularly troublesome when their populations exceed natural

levels. Control measures for each species are controversial, and may

include lethal removal, visual and audio deterrents, or destroying

eggs, nests, or den sites. 

The alternatives in the draft CCP/EA compared different strategies

for managing invasive species. Addressing this issue will help

achieve Goal 1: Protect and enhance Federal trust resources and

other species and habitats of special concern, and Goal 2: Maintain

and/or restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy,

functioning ecosystems.

6. Protection of biologically significant areas through

acquisition and/or cooperative management. 

Public meetings, partner meetings, and workbook responses

expressed a great deal of support for the protection of additional fish

and wildlife habitat in southern Rhode Island. That support runs

across the State, as Rhode Islanders consistently vote ballot measures

Chapter 2 

2-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
to maintain open space and protect fish and wildlife habitats. Many

people mentioned that their support stems from their concern over the

rapid pace of development on the South Shore. As we stated earlier,

development in non-urban areas of Rhode Island has increased

dramatically over the last 30 years. It is now the second most densely

populated State in the country. One estimate predicts that current

sprawl patterns will ensure the loss of all its rural areas before 2100

(Common Ground 2000). The Rhode Island office of The Nature

Conservancy has noted that the conservation actions taken during the

next 5 to 10 years will be the most important for the majority of Rhode

Island towns (The Nature Conservancy 2000).

This dramatic increase in development has changed land use patterns

and practices, significantly modifying natural landscapes. As natural

lands (those with sustainable native species populations and intact

ecological processes) become isolated and fragmented into smaller

pieces disconnected from other natural areas, their ability to support

a full complement of native species is adversely affected. Cut off from

larger populations, species and plant communities within these

natural areas face the problems of limited genetic exchange, a

decreased ability to support diverse populations, and lost capacity to

recruit new individuals. Ultimately, the number of native species

declines and exotic species gain a stronghold. It is precisely this

diminished ability of natural areas to support diverse species with

different habitat requirements that leads to a decline in biodiversity.

While some species can tolerate fragmentation as they prefer “edge

habitat,” many others, including “interior” dependent species, require

larger, contiguous natural areas or functional corridors linking

patches of natural habitat. This ability to protect and sustain larger

natural areas and corridors, coupled with the protection of unique or

rare species or communities, is critical to maintaining biodiversity.

A landscape or ecosystem approach to protecting land is also critical

in the recovery of threatened and endangered species. Piping plover

serve to illustrate this point. They have a fairly strong fidelity to

certain nesting areas and typically return to them most years.

Shifting of pairs between nesting areas has been observed when

disturbances or habitat conditions affect their ability to nest. Barrier

beaches are dynamic ecosystems, and their nesting conditions can

change dramatically from year to year. While 1999 was a good

nesting year on Moonstone Beach (Trustom Pond Refuge), in 2000,

the beach consisted entirely of cobble with virtually no sand for

nesting. The piping plover pairs from 1999 appeared to have shifted

to the Ninigret Conservation Area. Without consideration of these

shifts in habitat use across a landscape, management for these

species would be ineffective.

Some individuals preferred that the Service acquire and manage

federal trust resources, and that the Refuge Complex continue to

acquire these sites. Others emphasized partnerships to

cooperatively protect and manage important habitats not currently

on refuge land. Still others recommended a combination of Service

acquisition and cooperative management to provide the greatest

long-term benefit to resources. At public meetings and in our

workbooks, many responses suggested specific areas needing

protection, particularly wetlands threatened by development. Some

individuals we spoke with especially supported our acquiring land

occupied by endangered or threatened species.

Chapter 2

Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-7
The alternatives in the draft CCP/EA offered various levels of

Service land acquisition, ranging from lands within the currently

approved acquisition boundaries only, to a considerable expansion of

each refuge’s acquisition boundary. They also evaluated our

increased involvement in cooperative land protection off-refuge.

Addressing this issue will help achieve Goal 3: Establish a land

protection program that fully supports accomplishment of species,

habitat, and ecosystem goals.

7. Assurance of access to credible information about resources

regarding the Refuge Complex to ensure management

decisions are based on the best available science. 

We need to determine and prioritize what information reasonably

could be collected to facilitate decision-making using the best

available science. In particular, many individuals expressed concern

over the lack of information available to fully evaluate impacts to

wildlife and habitats from excessive public use. Others questioned

the effectiveness of management actions that have not been

adequately monitored and evaluated. Several university researchers

and other partners encouraged our staff to prioritize baseline

inventory needs, establish monitoring protocols to better evaluate

management actions, and identify information needed to determine

each refuge’s contribution to the ecosystem.

Implementing the Service’s Policy on Maintaining the Biological

Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health of the National

Wildlife Refuge System will require us to ascertain the natural

conditions for each refuge and identify the natural communities,

species, and ecological processes that are rare, declining, or unique.

Opportunities to cooperate in collecting this information could be

developed once the priorities have been identified. The alternatives

in the draft CCP/EA offered different levels of pursuing this

information. Addressing this issue will help achieve all the Goals

identified for the Refuge Complex.

8. Management of public use and access. 

The Refuge Improvement Act and Service policy require our

enhanced consideration of opportunities for six priority wildlifedependent uses (see above). Some level of each occurs on the Refuge

Complex. Only those uses that are compatible with a refuge’s

purpose may be allowed. According to Service policy, all refuges are

closed to any use until it is formally opened through the compatibility

determination process.

The act also directs refuges to terminate immediately or phase out as

expeditiously as practicable, existing uses determined to be not

compatible. Non-wildlife-dependent uses exist on all the refuges, and

some have been occurring for years. Examples include jogging,

sunbathing and swimming, bicycling, and dog walking.

Input from public meetings and workbook responses make it clear

that public use on refuges is extremely important to most people.

More than 90 percent ranked environmental education and

interpretation and wildlife observation and photography very high as

desirable public uses. Rarely, however, was there consensus on other

public uses or just how much of each type to allow. Public opinion

Chapter 2 

2-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
spans the entire spectrum from those wanting to open up refuges to

non-wildlife-dependent activities, to those who want to close refuges

to all public use to maintain an undisturbed sanctuary for wildlife.

The alternatives in the draft CCP/EA compared different levels and

combinations of wildlife-dependent public use. Addressing this issue

will help achieve Goal 4: Provide opportunities for high quality,

compatible, wildlife-dependent public use with particular emphasis

on environmental education and interpretation.

9. Hunting. 

Hunting surfaced late in the scoping process as a key issue, perhaps

because, initially, few viewed it as a possibility on the Refuge

Complex. This issue was raised by Service personnel, by RI DEM

biologists, and by individuals both for and against expanding hunting

opportunities on the Refuge Complex. Those in support primarily

are interested in deer hunting on all refuges, waterfowl hunting on

Chafee Refuge and Ninigret Refuge, and pheasant hunting on Block

Island. Advocates of hunting refer to its inclusion as one of the six

priority public uses that “...shall receive priority consideration in

refuge planning and management” (1997 Refuge Improvement Act).

The Service views managed or administrative hunts in areas where

there are overabundant deer populations as an effective tool for

regulating them. Responses generally agree that the overabundance

of deer is a concern in Rhode Island, reflected in increased numbers of

vehicle-deer collisions, increased complaints about deer browsing on

commercial and residential landscape plantings, visible impacts on

native vegetation, and higher concern about contracting Lyme disease.

Those opposed to hunting cited concerns with public safety,

disturbance and harm to other wildlife species, and the impact to

visitors engaged in the other five priority public uses. The latter

results from the likelihood that significant portions of the refuges,

due to their small sizes and configurations, would be closed to other

activities during hunting. Some expressed the opinion that the

refuges should function as a sanctuary for all native species, and that

hunting is incongruous with that function.

The alternatives in the draft CCP/EA offered varying levels of

hunting opportunities, from no hunting at all, to opening four refuges

during State-regulated seasons for deer, waterfowl, and pheasant.

Addressing this issue will help achieve both Goal 2: Maintain and/or

restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy,

functioning ecosystems, and Goal 4: Provide opportunities for high

quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent public use with particular

emphasis on environmental education and interpretation.

10. Opportunities for environmental education. 

Responses so frequently mentioned increasing environmental

educational opportunities across the Refuge Complex that our

planning team decided it warranted special recognition. More than 90

percent of the workbook responses ranked environmental education

Chapter 2

Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-9
and interpretation as one of their top three interests. The alternatives in the

draft CCP/EA compared different levels of environmental educational

opportunities and the different levels of partnerships so integral to

implementing them on each of the five refuges. Addressing this issue will help

achieve Goal 4: Provide opportunities for high quality, compatible, wildlifedependent public use with particular emphasis on environmental education and

interpretation.

11. Provision of staffing, operations, and maintenance support

sufficient to accomplish goals and objectives. 

The Refuge Complex lacks adequate funding and personnel to provide the

programs and services desired by the public and to effectively meet the goals

for this CCP. The alternatives in the draft CCP/EA compared different

funding and staffing levels based on their proposed management strategies for

dealing with the issues. Addressing this issue will help achieve Goal 5: Provide

Refuge Complex staffing, operations, and maintenance support to effectively

accomplish refuge goals and objectives.

12. Increasing the visibility of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Our lack of visibility on refuges was brought up repeatedly at public meetings

and in the workbooks. Many people felt strongly about the need for more

refuge staff to be present during peak visitation to increase resource

protection and improve visitor services. Other recommendations to increase

visibility included more visitor contact stations, increasing wildlife

interpretation and environmental educational opportunities, a better location

for a headquarters office, developing a Refuge Complex visitor center,

improving existing visitor facilities (e.g., kiosks, interpretive signs on trails,

etc.), increasing support for a volunteer program, and increasing community

involvement.

Some people expressed an interest in seeing refuge staff enforce public use

policy more consistently. Others argued it was unnecessary for Service

personnel to be armed while patrolling beaches. The alternatives in the draft

CCP/EA compared different levels of promoting our visibility and providing

these services. Addressing this issue will help achieve both Goal 2: Maintain

and/or restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy, functioning

ecosystems, and Goal 4: Provide opportunities for high quality, compatible,

wildlife-dependent public use with particular emphasis on environmental

education and interpretation.

13. Need for improved facilities. 

The Refuge Complex lacks a facilities plan establishing current and future needs

for staff operations and visitor services. Many of its current facilities are

inadequate. Its headquarters does not have enough office space to accommodate

even current staff, and the visitor services area is limited to one rack of

literature in the reception area. The alternatives in the draft CCP/EA compared

opportunities for new or improved facilities to accommodate staff work space,

increase the visibility of the Service and the Refuge Complex, and improve

visitor services, including environmental education and interpretation.

Addressing this issue will help achieve Goal 5: Provide Refuge Complex staffing,

operations, and maintenance support to effectively accomplish refuge goals and

objectives.

Chapter 2 

2-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-1

Piping plover

USFWS photo

■ Geographic/Ecosystem Setting

■ Socioeconomic Setting

■ Refuge Complex Administration

■ Refuge Resources

■ Cultural Resources

■ Public Uses

Chapter 3

Refuge and Resource

Descriptions
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting

Landscape Formation

The movement of glaciers across New England created the land

forms seen in Rhode Island today. The last of those great ice sheets

occurred during the Wisconsin glacial period. Approximately 15,000

- 20,000 years ago, the glacier was in a state of equilibrium, where

the melting rate of ice equaled the glacial rate of movement (Bell

1985). As the climate warmed 12,000 - 15,000 years ago, the glacier

began its retreat, depositing pronounced land forms along its

outermost edge. The southern coast of Rhode Island, including

Block Island, is the farthest point the Wisconsin glacier reached in

its southeastern frontal movement. The retreating glacier deposited

rocks pushed by the front of its ice sheet in piles called moraines.

These terminal or end moraines formed sinuous ridges up to 200 feet

high. Block Island is part of the terminal moraine that includes

Nantucket and parts of Long Island.

A second prominent moraine lies inland, the low ridge referred to as

the Charlestown or Watch Hill moraine, stretching east to west parallel

to U.S. Route 1. Glacial action also created other features in today’s

landscape: recessional moraines, outwash plains, kettle hole ponds,

glacial lake deposits, deltas, and submerged gravel shoals. Prominent

headlands like Sachuest Point are composed of glacial till, a mixture of

silt-sized grains to boulder-sized deposits by the melting glacier.

Melting ice sheets caused the sea to rise rapidly across Block Island

and Rhode Island Sounds until it reached its present level

approximately 4,000 years ago. Wave action parallel to the shore

continued to erode glacial deposits, creating the barrier spits. As the

spits formed, they almost entirely sealed off the low-lying areas

between the headlands and the ocean, forming coastal lagoons

connected to the sea by narrow inlets. These became the coastal salt

ponds we see today. Through the 1700’s, all of the coastal salt ponds

had direct, seasonally open connections to the ocean (RI CRMC

1984). The effects of erosion through time have shifted the salt

ponds and barrier spits gradually landward (RI CRMC 1998).

The bedrock formations of southern Rhode Island include the

Blackstone series of metamorphic rock along its southern coastal

border (including most of Westerly, Charlestown and South

Kingstown), granite rock of various ages (including most of

Narragansett and Middletown and parts of Westerly and

Charlestown), and Pennsylvanian sedimentary rock in most of south

central Rhode Island (including Richmond, much of South

Kingstown, and most of Hopkinton). Most of the soils around the

refuges are fine sandy loams or silt loams.

Historical Influences on Landscape Vegetation

The upland forests of southern Rhode Island are classified by

Kuchler (1964) as oak-hickory forest; while most of northern Rhode

Island is classified as oak-pitch pine forest. Historic land use

practices promoted this forest type.

As early as 12,000 years ago, Native Americans began occupying the

area. Documented evidence places the first intensive occupation of

Chapter 3 

3-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
the salt pond region during the late Archaic period (5,000 to 3,000

years ago). Native American camps from more than 4,000 years ago

are known to have existed at one location along the shore of Ninigret

Pond. However, societies of that time were primarily huntergatherer with little agriculture; broad changes to landscape

vegetation probably did not occur.

During the Woodland Period 3000-450 years ago, larger, semipermanent or recurrently occupied camps became coastal

settlements. Fortified villages are known to have existed in some

locations. Maize horticulture became prominent, which likely

resulted in small clearings. Larger clearings and burnings to control

the movement of deer and upland birds may have occurred, and the

first pronounced clearing of land along the coast for settlements,

game management, and agriculture. Much of this land was cleared

by cutting and burning, which favored resprouting by hardwood

species like oak, hickory, and red maple.

The role fire may have played in shaping landscape vegetation is not

well known. Evidence of fire has been observed in charcoal layers at

Ninigret Refuge. Soil cores dug at most points on the refuge reveal

charcoal below the historic farmers plow zone, approximately 10

inches soil depth. The dates attributed to these fires, coupled with

their locations, suggest early Native Americans used fire extensively

and purposefully.

Although small areas of land were cleared and more or less

permanently settled by early Native Americans, it was European

settlement and expansion in the 1600’s that exponentially escalated

the conversion of forests to agriculture. The eighteenth century

Rhode Island plantation era “...required massive land clearing of the

forests that had dominated the landscapes for the last 8,000 years”

(USFWS 1999). During the mid-nineteenth century, an estimated 85

percent of southern New England was converted to field and

pasture. Any woods remaining often were managed for firewood

(Jorgensen 1977).

A detailed report on the archeological history of the Refuge

Complex is available from the Refuge Complex office on request

(Jacobson USFWS).

Contemporary Influences on the Landscape

The major natural disturbances affecting the coastline today are

hurricanes and winter ice-storms. Hurricanes have the greatest

impact, by far. The straight border of barrier beaches separated

from the mainland by tidal wetlands and coastal salt ponds

characterizes a coastline influenced by frequent storms. Wind and

waves pick up loose sand and sediment and move it along the

shoreline or back out to sea, allowing occasional overwash of barrier

beaches and breaching of coastal ponds. Overwash, tidal currents,

longshore currents, and rip currents are all mechanisms transporting

sediment along the barrier beaches (RI CRMC 1998).

Fall and winter storms combining wind, rain, and waves are the

predominant physical process shaping this landscape today.

“Nor’easters” are well known along the New England coast in

winter, winds generated offshore from the southeast, can actually be

Chapter 3

Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-3
more destructive to the south shore, because of its exposure to the

open ocean. The draft Salt Pond Region Special Area Management

Plan describes the geologic, wave, and wind action for the South

Shore, including details on how sediment movement constantly

reshapes this dynamic landscape (RI CRMC 1998).

The Great New England Hurricane of 1938 was the most recent 100-

year storm, one of immense power along the coast. Not only did

winds reach speeds up to 240 miles per hour, but also a spring high

tide created a storm surge between 10 and 15 feet. Storms of this

magnitude are suspected to have occurred only four other times in

recorded history: 1635, 1683, 1815, and 1821 (Bell 1985). Smaller

hurricanes are less powerful but more frequent than the hurricane of

1938. Hurricanes in 1944, 1954, 1955, 1960, 1976, and Hurricane Bob

in 1991 each left its mark on the coastline.

Human influences on sustaining the form and function of coastal

landscapes and ecosystems over the long term are predominantly

negative. Attempts to stabilize the beach system by constructing

jetties or breach ways and planting beach grass have greatly affected

the natural dynamics of this system by interrupting the natural flow

of waves and sediment. In fact, the breach ways connecting the

ponds to the ocean and one pond to another are the single greatest

human impact on the ecology of coastal ponds (RI CRMC 1984).

Introducing non-native, invasive plants, diverting or draining coastal

wetlands for development, converting uplands for residential use,

and spilling oil are other significant human impacts on the coastal

landscape. Recent studies indicate that the greatest threats to

Rhode Island’s estuaries and coastal salt ponds are septic systems

and road runoff (RI DEM 1996). More studies are needed to

establish the extent to which each of these factors influences Refuge

Complex ecosystems.

On Rhode Island’s upland landscape, a combination of management

and natural succession has allowed forests to make a comeback. The

State Division of Forest Environment estimates that 300,000 acres of

privately owned forest plus 45,000 acres of State-managed forest

make up 45 percent of the State’s land area. Their estimate places

80 percent of the privately owned forest in tracts from 1 to 10 acres

in size, which are difficult to manage as forest and are rapidly being

converted to residential areas (RI DEM 1996).

Ecosystem Delineations

The Service emphasizes an ecosystem approach to conservation,

typically using large river watersheds to define ecosystems. Rhode

Island falls within our Connecticut River/Long Island Sound

Ecosystem (map 1-3).

Another commonly used delineation of ecosystems was developed by

Bailey (USDA 1978, expanded 1995). These ecologically based map

units often are used in landscape-level analyses. An ecoregion is first

divided into a domain, then a division, a province, a section, and a

subsection. Each level defines in greater detail its geomorphology,

geology, soil, climate, potential vegetation, surface water, and current

human use. Each of these resource attributes has implications for

resource management. For example, opportunities to restore native

Chapter 3 

3-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
grasslands may be limited by soil types, potential vegetation, and the

extent of human impacts on the natural environment. Rhode Island

falls within the Humid Temperate Domain, Hot Continental Division,

Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province, and Lower New England Section.

Climate

Cold winters and warm summers with a moderating ocean influence

characterize Rhode Island’s climate. Winter temperatures average

30o F, with lowest temperatures ranging between -10o F and -20o F.

Summer temperatures average 70o F, and peak in the 90s. Annual

precipitation averages 44 to 48 inches, evenly distributed

throughout the year. Thunderstorms occur throughout the summer

(USFWS 1989).

Air Quality

The Clean Air Act establishes Class I, II, and III areas with limits on

the amount of “criteria air pollutants” that can exist in pre-defined

geographic areas. Examples of criteria air pollutants are smog

(primarily ground-level ozone), particulate matter, and carbon

monoxide. Class I areas allow very little additional deterioration of

air quality (e.g. Wilderness Areas); Class II areas allow for more

deterioration; and Class III areas allow even more. All of Rhode

Island is currently classified as a Class II area. The U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the entire

State a serious non-attainment area for ozone. That designation

resulted in stricter automobile emissions standards designed to

reduce emissions by 24 percent between 1990 and 1999.

Socio-economic Factors

The Refuge Complex lies close to some of the largest population

centers on the east coast. The New York City metropolitan area,

population 8.5 million, is 2.5 hours to the southeast. Metropolitan

Boston, population 3.2 million, is 2 hours to the north. Hartford, with

a population of 140,000, is 1.5 hours to the northwest, and

Providence, population 161,000, is 45 minutes to the north (U.S.

Census Bureau 1996 estimates and 1990 U.S. Census).

According to those estimates, the population of Rhode Island is about

1 million; 94 percent live in metropolitan areas (cf. the national

average of 80 percent) and 6 percent in rural areas. South County,

which includes Ninigret Refuge , Trustom Pond Refuge , and Chafee

Refuge , has the fastest growing population and the highest number

of building permits issued annually (RI CRMC 1998). South County

population figures between 1990 and 1996 increased 7.4 percent, 4.6

percent, and 5.3 percent respectively in Charlestown, Narragansett,

and South Kingstown, while Middletown’s population decreased by

1.4 percent. The Town of New Shoreham, which includes Block

Island, had a population increase of 10.8 percent. The population for

the entire state of Rhode Island decreased by 1.3 percent over the

same period (http://www.riedc.com).

The Refuge Complex directly contributes to the economies of

Charlestown, South Kingstown, Narragansett, Middletown, and New

Shoreham through refuge revenue sharing payments. The Federal

Government does not pay property tax; it does pay refuge revenue

Chapter 3

Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-5
sharing directly to cities and towns each year, based on the fair

market value of refuge lands. The revenue sharing formula calculates

three-quarters of 1 percent of the fair market value of refuge lands as

the maximum amount payable each year. An appraisal updated every

five years keeps their fair market value current. The actual amount

of revenue sharing paid each year varies, depending on what portion

of the maximum amount Congress appropriates that year (rarely the

maximum). Figure 3-1 depicts refuge revenue sharing payments to

those towns for the fiscal year 2000.

The University of Rhode Island Department of Resource Economics

(Spring 1997) reports that travel and tourism is the State’s fastest

growing industry. In 1996, it generated $1.7 billion. The number of

visitors to the State in 1997 increased at a rate twice the national

average. Also in 1997, Rhode Island’s services industry, which

includes those in health, business, and education, comprised the

largest wage and salary employment at 34 percent (RI EDC 1997).

Between 1987 and 1997, the services industry increased by 37

percent, while the manufacturing industry decreased by 37 percent.

In all the communities surrounding the refuges, travel and tourism

and the services that support them contribute substantially to local

economies. According to Ann O’Neill, President of the South County

Tourism Council (O’Neill 1999), the tourist season lasts from April

through October, with peak activity during the summer months.

Responses to our workbooks confirm that beaches and waterassociated recreation are the primary attractions for visitors with

destinations along the Rhode Island coast.

Current travel and tourism literature does not feature the Refuge

Complex. According to Ms. O’Neill, its refuges are not well known as

tourist destinations, although many visitors discover them during

Chapter 3 

3-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Figure 3-1. Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments made to towns in 2000.

Fiscal year 2000 Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments

paid to towns

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Charlestown

(Ninigret Refuge)

South Kingstown

(Chafee & Trustom

Pond Refuges)

New Shoreham

(Block Island

Refuge)

Narragansett

(Chafee Refuge)

Middletown

(Sachuest Point

Refuge)

Dollars (thousands)
their visit and enjoy the scenery and open space they provide. They

are small enough to explore in one day, and generally do not prompt

an additional night’s lodging. Ms. O’Neill stated that, since the

Tourism Council is trying to showcase a greater mix of outdoor

recreational opportunities in South County, the Refuge Complex will

figure more prominently in future promotional material.

The greatest contribution by the Refuge Complex to the local

economy comes from the values attributed to the preservation of

open space (NPS 1992). We represent those values using three

indicators, below: Cost of Community Services; Property Values;

and Public Willingness to Pay.

Cost of Community Services compares the cost per dollar of revenue

generated by residential or commercial development to that of

revenue generated by an open space designation. On the one hand,

residential development expands the tax base, but the costs of

increased infrastructure and public services (schools, utilities,

emergency services, etc.) often offset any increase in revenue. On

the other hand, undeveloped land requires few town services and

places little pressure on the local infrastructure. The cost per dollar

of revenue generated by commercial land typically falls between

those of residential and open space.

The American Farmland Trust (1989, 1992, and 1993) and the

Commonwealth Research Group (1995) evaluated community

revenues and expenses associated with open space vs. residential

and commercial development. All available information on the New

England States shows that open space and commercial development

produced more revenues than costs, while the opposite was true for

residential land.

Conversations with local realtors and appraisers helped us evaluate

the refuges’ influence on property values. Two South County realtors

and one realtor/appraiser confirmed that properties adjacent to

refuges generally are valued higher (Gross, et al. 1998). That value is

realized through increased sales price/acre in properties adjacent to a

refuge, compared to otherwise similar properties, and by how quickly

those properties sell. Properties with views protected by their

proximity to a refuge exhibit an even greater difference. All the

realtors estimated, but none with any certainty, that properties

adjacent to refuges may realize from 1- to 4-percent increases in

property value. All the realtors we spoke with use a property’s

adjacency to a refuge as an important advertising asset.

Public Willingness to Pay is a method for estimating the monetary

value of ecosystem goods and services by determining how much the

public would be willing to pay, either in taxes, fees, or opportunity

costs, to preserve ecosystem values. In Rhode Island, where coastal

ecosystems are threatened by development-at-large, we have used

Willingness to Pay to estimate the value of open space preservation.

Rhode Islanders consistently and overwhelmingly vote for bond

measures to protect open space. Local and State-wide bond

measures passed in 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1989, invested more than

$100 million in acquiring land for recreation and open space. A

State-wide bond in 1998 passed an additional $15 million specifically

for protecting open space (RI CRMC 1998).

Chapter 3

Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-7
Refuge Complex Administration

Staffing and Budget

Annual budget appropriations are

highly variable, and

commensurately affect our

staffing levels. Table 3-1

summarizes budget and staffing

levels from 1995 to 1999.

Fluctuations reflect funding for

special projects, moving costs for

new employees, or large

equipment purchases. Most of the

funding is earmarked; very little

discretionary funding is available.

Resource Protection and Visitor Safety

Law enforcement officers, with full authority to enforce federal

regulations, are required to ensure resource protection and visitor

safety. Three permanent refuge staff have been assigned collateral

duties for law enforcement at any time during the course of refuge

operations, but those collateral duties draw staff time and resources

away from other important programs. We typically hire up to three

seasonal staff with law enforcement authority each year.

During the past 5 years, formal notices of violation averaged 15 per

year. They typically involved vehicle and pedestrian trespass,

vandalism, and waterfowl hunting in closed areas. Well over 100

verbal warnings are also given each year, typically for inadvertently

walking or driving in closed areas, littering, walking dogs in a closed

area or off-leash, bicycling in closed areas, and digging plants. In

1993, a Trail Warden program began using volunteers to assist in

documenting violations. Wardens also inform visitors of public use

policy and permitted activities.

Refuge Complex Office

The Refuge Complex office lies in the Shoreline Plaza strip mall in

Charlestown. In addition to housing our staff, it also houses our

Division of Ecological Services Southern New England/New York

Bight Coastal Ecosystem Program five-member staff, an Atlantic

Coast Joint Venture staff person, and Friends of the National

Wildlife Refuges of Rhode Island.

An environmental assessment was written in 2000, which determined

a new location for a Refuge Headquarters and Visitor Center. The

new building will be located on Deer Run Road (off Route 1) in

Charlestown, RI. The building is currently being designed, with

construction to begin in 2003.

Chapter 3 

3-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Fiscal year

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Operations

$216,299

355,715

350,700

428,400

441,900

Maintenance

$85,700

23,900

97,700

171,000

28,000

Full time staff

7

7

8

8

9

Seasonal staff

3

3

4

4

2

Table 3-1. Refuge Complex staffing levels and budgets between 1995 - 1999.
Refuge Resources

Physical Resources

Topography and Hydrology

The Narrow River, which forms Pettaquamscutt Cove, has a

geologically complex origin. In general, the tidal river and

surrounding uplands are remnants of an ancient river valley carved

out by glaciation approximately 10,000 years ago. Technically, the

Narrow River is an estuary or a lagoon (RI CRMC 1998).

The eastern side of Chafee Refuge slopes sharply down to the

Narrow River, with 15-percent (or greater) slopes along Tower Hill

Road. Terrain on the eastern side slopes more gradually, averaging

5 to10 percent. In Pettaquamscutt Cove, the relief is low and near

sea level. Bedrock is very close to the surface, the soil layer is thin,

and depth to the water table is usually less than 3 feet (RI CRMC

1998). The channel between Narragansett Bay and Pettaquamscutt

Cove is called “The Narrows.”

Narrow River Watershed: A significant source of information on the

Narrow River watershed is the Narrow River Special Area

Management Plan, Public Review Document (RI CRMC 1998).

Water quality in the Narrow River, including Pettaquamscutt Cove,

has been a long-standing issue. The University of Rhode Island

Watershed Watch program has been conducting at least bi-weekly

water quality monitoring since 1992. Three of their monitoring

stations (NR-8, NR-9, and NR-10) lie immediately adjacent to the

refuge. Water quality has long been a focus issue for the Narrow

River Preservation Association. Numerous other water quality

studies have been conducted in the Narrow River watershed and are

referenced in the Special Area Management Plan.

Beginning in 1959, the Narrow River has failed to meet state

standards for total coliform bacteria levels. By 1994, the entire

expanse of the Narrow River had been closed to shell fishing (RI

CRMC 1998) and remains closed today.

Excessive nitrogen loading is another concern for the Narrow River;

however, no State standards for nitrogen exist. Improperly

functioning household septic systems are a major, documented

source of both nitrogen and bacteria. Nitrogen and bacteria leach

into groundwater, potentially affecting both private and public

supplies of drinking water. This is significant, since up to 75 percent

of the freshwater flowing into the system originates as groundwater

(RI CRMC 1998).

Storm water runoff, commercial and residential fertilizer

applications, and petroleum hydrocarbons from boating are all

implicated in the water quality problems in the Narrow River (RI

CRMC 1998). These sources will continue to increase with

development in the watershed. At present, 65 percent of the

watershed remains undeveloped, but it lies in one of the fastest

growing areas of the State. The 35 percent of the watershed that has

been developed is primarily residential. Approximately 14 percent of

the watershed is designated open space, including the refuge.

Chapter 3

Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-9
Biological Resources

Vegetation

Table 3-2 displays the various cover types dominating Chafee Refuge.

In the tidal salt marsh portions

of the refuge, the dominant

vegetation types are salt meadow

grass (Spartina patens), salt

marsh cordgrass (Spartina

alterniflora), spike grass

(Distichlis spicata), saltwort

(Salicornia sp.), and sea

lavender (Limonium nashii).

Several islands in the salt marsh

are composed of black oak

(Quercus velutina), with a poison

ivy (Rhus radicans) understory.

The uplands adjacent to the west

side of the river are primarily

forested by black oak and red

maple, while the uplands on its

east side are dominated by red

maple. A detailed plant list is

available from the Refuge Office

upon request (George 1999).

Threatened and Endangered

Species

Piping plover, a federally listed

species (threatened), and least tern, a State-listed species (threatened),

nest at the mouth of the Narrow River, but have a limited presence on

the refuge. No other animals that are federal- or State-listed as

threatened or endangered are found within the watershed.

The State endangered sea pink plant (Sabatia stellaris) is known in

the vicinity of the refuge along the Narrow River, but no surveys

have been conducted to verify its presence on the refuge.

Birds

Formal surveys will need to be done in the future, especially

waterfowl surveys. Although the refuge was established primarily to

protect wintering populations of black ducks, we in fact know very

little about black duck populations and their use of the refuge. Other

waterfowl that commonly winter in the Narrow River watershed are

mallards, canvasbacks, bufflehead, mergansers, Canada geese, and

the non-native mute swan.

Completion of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan

(1986) elevated concern about black ducks. The plan identifies them

as a species of “immediate, international concern,” and considers the

protection of essential migrating and wintering habitats paramount.

The Black Duck Atlantic Coast Joint Venture Plan identifies the

Narrow River estuary (which the plan refers to as “the

Pettaquamscutt River”) as the largest of 13 black duck focus areas in

Chapter 3 

3-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Cover-type

Agricultural

Brushland

Developed

Forest upland

Water

Emergent 

wetland

Forest wetland

Scrub-scrub 

wetland

Upland

Total

Acreage

8.2

6.5

7.6

115.3

3.7

79.1

74.8

22.8

1.8

319.8

Percentage

2.6%

2.0

2.4

36.1

1.1

24.7

23.4

7.1

0.6

100%

Table 3-2. Land use/land cover at Chafee Refuge, Washington County, RI. (source:

RIGIS)
Rhode Island. Annual midwinter black duck population trend

surveys across Rhode Island have confirmed a steady, and marked,

decline in numbers since the 1950’s. Based on that trend

information, black duck populations have declined by an estimated 83

percent in Rhode Island between 1950 and 1998 (USFWS 1998).

Other common salt marsh species found on the refuge include sharptailed sparrows and red-winged blackbirds. Snowy egrets are often

found foraging in tidal channels and salt marsh pools. There is at

least one osprey nest in the watershed and as many as three pairs

forage there. 

The uplands contain a diversity of nesting and migratory songbirds,

including common yellowthroat, eastern pewee, gray catbird,

common grackle, American redstart, blue-winged warbler, and whiteeyed vireo.

Invertebrates, Reptiles, Amphibians, and Mammals 

No surveys have been conducted for these species on refuge lands.

The Narrow River Special Area Management Plan lists vertebrate

species common to the Narrow River estuary.

Fish 

Seventy-five species of fish have been documented to use the Narrow

River at some point in their life history; 28 fish species and 5

shellfish species use the lower section of the river adjacent to the

refuge (RI CRMC 1998). Appendix A identifies trust fish species

using the watershed. The Narrow River provides the largest

alewife run of any river in Rhode Island (RI CRMC 1998).

Cultural Resources

No archeological sites have been recorded on the refuge, but it is

considered highly sensitive for both prehistoric and historic

archeological resources.

Public Use

We have not monitored public use at Chafee Refuge; we estimate the

number of visitors at 5,000 annually. Saltwater fishing was officially

opened on the refuge, in accordance with State laws, through a

Federal Register Notice in 1998 (50 CFR 32). The refuge has not

been officially opened to any other public use. In general,

monitoring and enforcement of public use policy is difficult because

the entire refuge boundary has not been posted. Visitors and refuge

staff alike are not always certain whether they are on refuge lands.

Although Chafee Refuge has not been opened officially to any

activity but fishing, the refuge still gets visitors. Known public use

activities vary seasonally, but include wildlife-dependent activities

such as birding, nature observation and photography, and

recreational fishing. 

Chapter 3

Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-11
There are only a few vantage points within Pettaquamscutt Cove, and

the most accessible ones are on private land. Popular viewing spots

are the Town of Narragansett nature trail at the south end of the

Cove near South County Museum, the Middle Bridge pull-out, and

the Sprague bridge on Route 1A where it crosses the neck of the

Narrow River inlet. Two waterfowl hunting blinds adjacent to refuge

lands in the cove may cause some activities incidental to hunting (e.g.,

retrieving birds) on refuge lands, but none have been documented.

Non-wildlife-dependent activities suspected of impacting the refuge

include canoeing, kayaking, and using motor boats and jet skis.

Motorized water craft operating in State waters within the cove

likely contribute to shoreline erosion and disturb wildlife.

The refuge has no public use facilities. Incidental use occurs on

several unimproved trails that access the shoreline. Several

residents adjacent to Chafee Refuge have a legal easement to go

across the refuge from their properties to the Narrow River. Ideally,

refuge staff would like to consolidate these easements into a location

that will reduce impact to sensitive areas along the shoreline.

The RI Department of Transportation is developing a South County

Bike Path along 7.2 miles of the old Narragansett Pier Railroad,

which crosses the refuge. The bike path will connect the towns of

South Kingstown and Narragansett, and will be designed to

accommodate cyclists, in-line skaters, walkers, joggers, and

skateboarders. A swath up to 40 feet wide will be cleared for the 12-

foot wide asphalt path. Its design is based on an expected peak of

400 users a day.

The Town of South Kingstown owns most of the old railroad right-ofway. The first segment connects Kingston train station to Peace

Dale; the second segment connects Peace Dale to Wakefield; the

third segment links Wakefield to Narragansett; and the fourth links

Sprague Park to the Narragansett coast.

The proposed location of the third segment crosses approximately

600 feet of refuge land. Refuge staff and the RI DOT are now

discussing design alternatives to minimize impacts to refuge lands.

They have not yet reached a conclusion.

Chapter 3 

3-12 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-1

Redstart

USFWS photo

■ Refuge Complex Vision

■ Refuge Complex Goals

■ General Refuge Management

Chapter 4

Management Direction
Refuge Complex Vision

We developed this vision statement to provide a guiding philosophy

and sense of purpose for the five refuge CCPs. It qualitatively

describes the desired future character of the Refuge Complex

through 2015 and beyond. We wrote in the present tense to provide

a more motivating, positive, and compelling statement of purpose. It

has guided, and will continue to guide, program emphases and

priorities for each refuge in Rhode Island. 

“The Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex protects a

unique collection of thriving coastal sandplain, coastal maritime,

and beach strand communities, and represents some of the last

undeveloped seacoast in southern New England. Leading the way

in the protection and restoration of coastal wetlands, shrubland,

and grassland habitats, the Refuge Complex contributes to the longterm conservation of migratory and resident native wildlife

populations, and the recovery of endangered and threatened species.

These refuges offer research opportunities and provide an

outstanding showcase of habitat management for other

landowners.”

“The Refuge Complex is the premiere destination for visitors to

coastal Rhode Island to engage in high quality, wildlife-dependent

recreation. Hundreds of thousands of visitors are rewarded each

year with inspiring vistas and exceptional opportunities to view

wildlife in native habitats. Innovative environmental educational

and interpretive programs motivate visitors to become better

stewards of coastal resources.”

“Through partnerships and extensive outreach efforts, Refuge

Complex staff are committed to accomplishing refuge goals and

significantly contributing to the Mission of the National Wildlife

Refuge System. This commitment will strengthen with the future,

revitalizing the southern New England ecosystem for generations

to come.”

Refuge Complex Goals

Our planning team developed the following goals for the Refuge

Complex after reviewing applicable laws and policies, regional plans,

the Refuge Complex vision statement, the purpose of each refuge,

and public comments. All the goals fully comply with Service policy

and national and regional mandates. 

Our Refuge Complex goals are intentionally broad, descriptive

statements of purpose. They highlight specific elements of our vision

statement and provide the foundation for our management emphasis.

We identified Goal 1 as the top priority for the Refuge Complex;

Goals 2-5 are not presented in any particular order. 

Each goal is further refined by a series of objective statements.

Objectives are incremental steps to be taken toward achieving a goal

and define the management emphasis in measurable terms, where

possible. Some of our objectives relate directly to habitat

management, while others strive to meet population targets tied to

species’ recovery plans, or state or regional species plans. The

strategies for each objective are specific actions, tools, techniques,

Chapter 4

4-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
considerations, or a combination of these, which may be used to

achieve the objective. Objectives will be used directly in respective

step-down plans, while strategies may be revised or modified to

achieve the desired outcome. 

Together, the goals and objectives are unifying elements of successful

refuge management. They identify and focus management priorities,

provide a context for resolving issues, and offer a critical link between

refuge purpose(s), and the National Wildlife Refuge System Mission. 

Integral to all the objectives under Goal 1 and Goal 2 is development

in 2003 of a habitat management plan (HMP) for the Refuge

Complex. This will be the highest priority step-down plan to

accomplish. We will write the plan using current resource

information, but will update it based on new information, as needed.

The purpose of the HMP will be to prevent the loss or degradation of

habitat types, species assemblages, or natural processes significant

to the Refuge Complex. It will identify habitat management actions

that, to the extent practicable, restore and sustain viable populations

of our focus species. The objectives and strategies identified below

will all be incorporated into the HMP. 

Once the HMP is developed, the Refuge Complex will develop a

Species and Habitat Inventory and Monitoring Plan in 2004.

Critical elements of the biological program to be inventoried or

monitored will be identified, prioritized, and scheduled. This plan

will also describe inventory and monitoring procedures, determine

where data will be stored, and identify the interim and final reports

to include. It will provide a critical connection between the HMP and

credible, adaptive refuge management. 

In addition, the Region is currently developing a strategic resources

plan (SRP). This plan will establish Regional goals and objectives for

species and habitats based on landscape-scale analyses. Each refuge

staff will then determine their respective refuge’s contribution to

implementing these objectives. Once the SRP is completed, the

objectives and strategies outlined below may be modified.

The following goals, objectives, and strategies provide management

direction for the refuge over the next 15 years. Unless otherwise

noted, all work will be accomplished by the Service, primarily by

Refuge Complex staff.

Goal 1: Protect and enhance federal trust resources and other

species and habitats of special concern. 

Objective 1.1

Maintain high quality wintering and nesting habitat for American

black duck and other native, migratory waterfowl on Chafee Refuge

through management of public use and the control of invasive, nonnative plant and animal species. 

Background:

Chafee Refuge was established primarily to protect and enhance the

populations of black ducks and other waterfowl. The 1986 North

American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) identified the

American black duck as a priority species of “immediate international

concern.” This plan considers the protection of essential migrating

Chapter 4

Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-3
and wintering habitat vitally important. The NAWMP’s Atlantic

Coast Joint Venture Plan identifies the Narrow River estuary,

including Chafee Refuge, as the largest of 13 Black Duck Focus Areas

in Rhode Island. Mid-winter waterfowl counts on the Narrow River,

conducted annually by the State since the late 1950’s, continue to

document some of the highest concentrations of wintering black duck

in Rhode Island. Bufflehead, hooded and common merganser, and

canvasback mid-winter numbers are also high for the State.

Unfortunately, the waterfowl habitat is threatened by invasions of

non-native plants and animals such as Phragmites and mute swan,

poor water quality, and by increased recreational pressures.

Invasive species are a threat because they displace native plants and

animals, reduce natural diversity, and degrade habitat conditions for

our focus species. Poor water quality, as evidenced by increased

coliform bacteria and nitrogen levels, impacts food resources for

waterfowl in the river. The increased recreational pressure may be

directly impacting black duck and other native waterfowl, especially

when it occurs during nesting and brooding seasons. 

Treatments to control invasive species and improve water quality are

expensive and labor intensive and will require extensive partnerships

with adjacent landowners, State and Federal agencies, and the local

governments. The 1998 Narrow River Special Area Management

Plan (SAMP) identifies specific actions for addressing these issues

through interagency cooperation (also refer to objectives 2.3 and 2.4).

The Service will specifically work with RI DEM to develop

recommendations to improve habitat quality for black duck and other

native, wintering and nesting waterfowl. 

Strategies:

■ By 2003, treat at least 5 acres per year of Phragmites or other

invasive wetland plants on the refuge through mechanical,

chemical, or biological treatments to improve habitat for black

duck and other waterfowl (also see objective 2.3).

■ In 2003, work with RI DEM and respective towns to develop a

Pettaquamscutt Cove (lower Narrow River) waterfowl

management area plan. Evaluate and designate waterfowl resting

areas, habitat restoration opportunities, and hunting

opportunities. Establish management actions to attain zero

productivity of mute swan. 

Objective 1.2

Within two years of CCP completion, establish specific habitat

management objectives for those birds considered by Partners In

Flight (PIF) to be a high conservation priority in PIF Area 9,

Southern New England, and for which the refuge could make an

important contribution to their conservation. 

Background:

PIF Bird Conservation Plans are written for physiographic

provinces with an overall goal to ensure the long term maintenance

of healthy populations of landbirds. These plans identify species and

habitats most in need of conservation, describe desired habitat

conditions for these species, develop biological objectives, and

recommend conservation actions. Rhode Island Refuges lie within

PIF Area 9. 

Chapter 4

4-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Although the final PIF Area 9 plan is not yet available, this CCP

incorporates habitat objectives for certain landbird species identified

in the draft PIF plan (Oct 2000) which occur on the refuge (also see

objective 1.3). Using information from the surveys identified below,

and the completed PIF plan, we will be able to refine our refuge

landbird management objectives in the near future.

Of particular note is the refuge staff’s involvement in monitoring a

piping plover (Federal-listed as threatened) nesting area on Town of

Narragansett lands. The nesting area is located at the end of the

Narragansett Town Beach, where a wide sandy area has formed at

the mouth of the Narrow River. Piping plover have been

documented nesting in this area since 1997. Also associated at this

site are least tern (State-listed as threatened). Refuge staff monitor

this site along with nine other piping plover nesting sites on RI’s

South Shore. For more information on Service involvement in the

South Shore Piping Plover Program, refer to the Trustom Pond

Refuge CCP (May 2002). 

Strategies:

■ Each year, continue to cooperate with RI DEM, the Service’s

Ecological Services Program Office, and the Town of

Narragansett in the monitoring of the Narrow River piping plover

and least tern nest sites. Monitoring and management actions

will meet or exceed the Service’s 1994 Guidelines for Managing

Recreational Activities in Piping Plover Breeding Habitat on the

U.S. Atlantic Coast To Avoid take Under Section 9 of the

Endangered Species Act (Appendix G in the 1996 Piping Plover

Recovery Plan). 

■ In 2003, utilize the PIF Area 9 Plan, and the regional strategic

resources plan (in preparation), to identify and prioritize those

landbirds of highest management concern on the refuge, and assess

how current management practices are impacting them. Determine

which of these landbirds should be a focus for future management

on the refuge, and write landbird objectives for the HMP.

■ In conjunction with developing the HMP, update refuge cover type

maps in a GIS database, adhering to National Vegetation

Classification protocol.

■ Utilize the Shorebird Conservation Plan (once completed) to

develop management and monitoring strategies for shorebirds

based on any newly identified imperiled species (draft Shorebird

Prioritization System 1999). 

Objective 1.3

Protect and sustain marsh, wading and water bird breeding habitat

on the refuge, especially maritime high salt marsh capable of

supporting salt marsh sharp-tailed sparrow.

Background: 

According to the PIF Area 9 Plan, maritime marsh is the habitat in

most need of immediate conservation attention in this physiographic

area, due to the large number of priority species and the tremendous

pressure from human development along the coastline. Substantial

threats also exist in the form of human disturbance, pollution,

Chapter 4

Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-5
increasing predator populations, and invasive, exotic species.

Reducing these threats is the highest conservation concern to be

addressed in the PIF plan. Active restoration of high salt marsh is

also a priority. 

No bird surveys have been conducted on the refuge. However, the

1998 Narrow River SAMP identifies the presence of breeding sharptailed sparrow, Virginia and clapper rail, and green heron in the area.

Great blue, little blue, and black-crowned night heron, American

bittern, great and snowy egret, and sora rail are all noted in the

SAMP as present during migration or winter. 

Strategies:

■ In 2003, begin to conduct salt-marsh sharp-tailed sparrow surveys

in suitable habitat according to Regional protocol.

■ Use the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (once

completed) to identify management and monitoring strategies for

species of conservation priority.

■ By 2005, initiate an inventory for all marsh and wading birds,

according to Regional protocol, at all high probability sites.

Determine seasonal occupancy and nesting status. If occupied

habitat is located, develop a site plan. 

Goal 2: Maintain and/or restore natural ecological communities to

promote healthy, functioning ecosystems.

Objective 2.1

Within three years of CCP completion, design and implement a

baseline inventory on refuge lands to determine the occurrence of

species and habitats of management concern (Appendix A), and to

serve as a basis for future management decisions. 

Background: 

To keep the HMP relevant, we will need to improve our general

knowledge of important refuge resources, including their presence,

distribution, and condition, to insure management actions are effective

in sustaining biological integrity, diversity, and ecosystem health as

required by Service policy (FWS Manual, Chapter 3, part 601). 

As stated in the introduction for this chapter, a Species and Habitat

Inventory and Monitoring Plan will be completed in 2004. The

following strategies will be incorporated into this plan.

Strategies:

■ By 2004, develop a priority list of baseline biological inventory

needs to better understand and document the biodiversity on the

refuge, especially the presence and distribution of species and

habitat types listed in Appendix A.

■ In 2004, begin inventories on the highest priority projects,

incorporating the results into the CENSUS database, or other

regional databases with GIS capabilities, to facilitate future

analyses. Revise digital cover type maps as warranted. 

Chapter 4

4-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Objective 2.2

Within 15 years of CCP completion, restore natural ecological

conditions to the 74 acres of salt-marsh and other emergent wetlands

on the refuge. 

Background: 

Wetlands are among the most productive ecosystems on earth, and

salt marsh wetlands rank among the highest of wetlands, in terms of

productivity. The tidal influence, including nutrient import, water

abundance, and vegetative growth, all contribute to this productivity.

Healthy wetlands function in ways that benefit the natural ecosystem

and provide socio-economic values. Ecosystem values include the

fact that certain fish, shellfish, birds, and mammals are wetlanddependent, spending their entire lives in these wetlands. Many

waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and other migratory birds

utilize wetlands for feeding or resting, or to breed and raise their

young. Wetlands are also essential habitats for many rare species of

plants and animals. Wetlands function in ways that filter sediments

and pollutants, produce oxygen, and support healthy microbiota for

fish and wildlife. Socio-economic values include flood control, wave

damage protection, hunting, trapping, fishing and shellfishing,

aesthetics, education and research. 

As noted in objective 1.3 above, maritime marsh is the habitat in

most need of immediate conservation attention in this physiographic

area due to the large number of priority species and the tremendous

pressure from human development along the coastline. While we

have identified restoration of only 74 acres on refuge lands, when

coupled with the partnership effort described in objective 2.4,

significant ecosystem and socio-economic benefits are expected.

Strategies:

■ By 2005, conduct inventory of wetland vegetation on the refuge

according to Regional protocol. Develop digital map to serve as

a baseline for future inventories and monitoring. Identify

threats to refuge wetlands, including pollution sources, invasive

plants, impediments to natural hydrology, and impacts from

recreational activities.

■ By 2006, work with partners to identify, prioritize, and begin to

implement wetlands restoration project on the refuge.

Objective 2.3

Within three years of CCP completion, treat at least 5 acres/year

dominated by invasive, non-native plants to (1) enhance native

habitat, (2) eliminate new invasions, and (3) control the spread of

established plants. 

Background:

Issue 5 in Chapter 1 describes the implications of invasive plants on

the refuges. These plants are a threat because they displace native

plant and animal species, degrade wetlands and other natural

communities, and reduce natural diversity and wildlife habitat

values. They outcompete native species and can readily dominate a

site. Early detection and consistent efforts at eradication are critical

to maintain control over affected areas, or to prevent new invasions. 

Chapter 4

Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-7
Strategies:

■ By 2004, identify and map current distribution of non-native,

invasive plant species on the refuge.

■ By 2005, prioritize treatment sites to prevent new invasions or

eradicate recently established plants. Also of high priority are

threatened, endangered, or rare plant sites or “pristine rare and

exemplary vegetative communities” (March 1999 Invasive Plant

Control Initiative, Strategic Plan for the Connecticut River

Watershed/Long Island Sound).

■ By 2005, establish a program to treat at least 5 acres/year of

invasive, non-native species on the refuge, using chemical,

mechanical, prescribed fire and biological treatments as necessary.

Strategies will be adapted based on monitoring and new

information. A maintenance worker will be hired to administer

treatments; the position will be shared among the five Rhode

Island refuges.

Objective 2.4

Work in partnership to promote stewardship of the Lower Narrow

River Watershed, including Pettaquamscutt Cove, and improve water

quality, anadromous fish habitat, and other wetlands values by

identifying and reducing pollution sources. 

Background: 

The Narrow River, including Pettaquamscutt Cove, is an incredibly

important natural resource benefitting both wildlife and people in

the South County area. At least 75 species of fish are supported by

the area at some point during their life history. The Narrow River

provides the largest alewife run of any Rhode Island river (RI

CRMC 1998). Other resource and socio-economic values attributed

to wetlands are described in objective 2. 2. Unfortunately, water

quality in the Narrow River continues to fall below state standards

with development and recreational pressures remaining high. 

Because areas below mean high water are the jurisdiction of the

State, the Service has only an indirect influence on the water and

tidal shoreline. It is primarily the Coastal Zone Management

Council (CRMC) that has regulatory authority. Through

development of SAMPs, the CRMC coordinates with other inland

regulatory authorities to take a comprehensive approach to

management of the watershed. In their1998 Narrow River SAMP,

the CRMC recommended an interagency working group of nonprofit, State, Federal, and municipal representatives. This group

would formulate a comprehensive plan for the watershed based on

existing scientific data. The plan would describe best management

practices to address storm drain outfalls, identify habitat restoration

possibilities, identify important fish habitats, and recommend actions

to curtail bacteria and nitrogen sources not addressed by existing

regulations. Along with other actions noted below, the Service will

become an active participant in this working group.

Strategies:

■ In 2003, work with RI DEM, RI CRMC, and the Towns of

Narragansett and South Kingstown to create a “no wake” zone in

Pettaquamscutt Cove and the lower Narrow River to reduce

erosion and destruction of salt marshes on the refuge. 

Chapter 4

4-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
■ By 2005, work toward watershed-based solutions to the water quality

problems impacting the Narrow River. We will become actively

involved in an interagency working group, as recommended in RI

CRMC’s 1998 Narrow River SAMP. This interagency working group

will be organized to develop a comprehensive plan for the Narrow

River watershed and to set research and management priorities. 

■ Also by 2005, refuge staff will become involved in the South

County Watershed Partnership to promote protection and

stewardship of watersheds influencing the refuges.

■ By 2006, identify watershed restoration projects for refuge lands;

also described in objective 2.2 and 2.3.

Objective 2.5

Within 15 years of CCP implementation, eliminate mute swan

productivity on the refuge, and significantly reduce the presence of

adults year-round. 

Background: 

Non-native, invasive mute swan on the refuge adversely effect water

quality on coastal ponds. Mute swan also impact our ability to

maintain native species biodiversity, as they aggressively drive native

waterfowl and shorebirds away from nesting sites and compete with

them for food resources. 

Strategies:

■ In 2002, we will begin to implement the Service’s policy (Memo

FWS/MBMO/98-00043; based on Flyway Council recommendations)

to significantly reduce or eliminate mute swans on the refuge.

Strategies will be adapted as needed to pursue zero productivity.

Each year, addling eggs will continue. Adult populations will be

controlled using lethal and non-lethal techniques, particularly when

habitat degradation is a concern, or if native species are displaced.

Objective 2.6

Within two years of CCP completion, develop a deer management

plan for the Refuge Complex to address overabundant deer

populations and evaluate recreational hunting opportunities.

Background: 

Overabundant deer numbers are a concern on the refuge when they

degrade habitat through excessive browsing or threaten human

health and safety through increased vehicle collisions and incidences

of Lyme disease. Since deer are highly mobile, it is difficult to

effectively control a population unless they are managed throughout

most or all of their range. The refuge has not closely monitored deer

activities, including their impacts to refuge habitats. However, RI

DEM has reported that complaints from citizens have increased in

recent years about private property damage, worries of Lyme

disease, and vehicle collisions. RI DEM recommends deer hunting

as the most effective tool to manage deer populations on the refuge. 

Strategies:

■ In 2002, cooperate with RI DEM to develop a deer management

plan and environmental assessment for the Refuge Complex. The

plan will evaluate hunting to help manage deer numbers and

provide a priority public use opportunity. A separate public

involvement process will be initiated. 

Chapter 4

Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-9

Goal 3: Establish a land protection program that fully supports

accomplishment of species, habitat, and ecosystem goals.

Objective 3.1

Actively strive towards permanent protection of all trust resources

at risk throughout southern Rhode Island. 

Background: 

Consistently mentioned in the PIF Area 9 Plan, the NAWMP, joint

venture plans, relevant species recovery plans, and ecosystem plans

is the need to protect, restore, and enhance additional high quality

coastal habitats to contribute to the conservation of federal trust

species. While land acquisition by the Service and other State,

Federal, and local partners is a primary strategy for species

conservation, each of these plans also recognizes the need to work in

cooperation with private landowners to achieve conservation

objectives. Technical and resource support, outreach, and education

will all compliment land acquisition efforts. 

The Draft CCP/EA (Chapter 3: Developing Land Protection Strategies)

described our method of identifying acquisition lands of high

conservation priority on Rhode Island’s South Shore. During the

planning process we determined that the Service is the logical leader in

coastal land and water quality protection along the South Shore and on

Block Island, with the existing refuges serving as anchors. Refuge

expansions will significantly increase protection of the ecological values

on current refuge lands, while also expanding protection and restoration

of significant coastal habitats. We completed a Land Protection Plan

for the Refuge Complex which identifies specific tracts for Service

acquisition. The LPP incorporates the following acquisition priorities: 

• Has documented occurrences of federally listed endangered or

threatened species, or other priority federal trust resources;

• Lies contiguous to existing refuge land, which could further

enhance or protect the integrity of refuges by assembling the

land base necessary to accomplish refuge goals;

• Connects refuge land with other protected lands withing the

South Shore and Block Island to help restore and promote

the ecological integrity of the coastal wetland and beach

strand complexes; and

• Protects and sustains important natural communities that

can be managed in cooperation with other conservation

partners in a manner that will contribute toward refuge goals

and the conservation of federal trust resources. 

Strategies:

■ Continue to assist conservation partners in identifying land

protection needs, opportunities, and priorities in southern

Rhode Island.

■ Continue to help partners seek funding sources for their land

protection programs.

■ Beginning in 2002, expand the refuge acquisition boundary for

Chafee Refuge according to the Land Protection Plan (Appendix

E). Initiate acquisition from willing sellers, in either fee purchase

or conservation easement, of 1,013 acres of high quality habitat. 

Chapter 4

Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-11
Goal 4: Provide opportunities for high quality, compatible, wildlifedependent public use with particular emphasis on environmental

education and interpretation.

Integral to all of our public use objectives is development of a Visitor

Services Plan in 2004 for the Refuge Complex. This plan will provide

a coordinated strategy for implementing quality visitor services

programs. We will emphasize the following six priority, wildlifedependent uses identified in the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act

where they are compatible with protecting wildlife resources:

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental

education and interpretation. The visitor services plan will also

accomplish the following:

■ Establish strategic goals and priorities for visitor services across

the Refuge Complex;

■ Identify target audiences and partnership opportunities for each

refuge;

■ Establish a methodology for determining visitor numbers,

capacity limits, limits on visitor impacts to wildlife and habitats,

and a means for assessing quality of visitor experiences;

■ Evaluate recreational fee opportunities; and

■ Establish an implementation schedule for priority visitor

services projects.

We will hire four outdoor recreation planners to implement the

visitor services plan and staff the planned Refuge Complex Visitor

Center (see Chapter 5- Staffing). As new lands are acquired,

opportunities to provide compatible, priority public uses will be

pursued according to the Pre-Acquisition Compatibility

Determination (Appendix D).

The objectives below are designed to enhance opportunities for

compatible, wildlife-dependent refuge activities. 

Objective 4.1

Within two years of CCP completion, provide high quality waterfowl

hunting opportunities in the Pettaquamscutt Cove area of the refuge,

and evaluate opportunities for deer hunting across the refuge. 

Strategies:

■ In 2002, complete a deer management plan and environmental

assessment evaluating opportunities for deer hunting. A separate

public involvement process will be initiated. (Also refer to

objective 2.6)

■ By 2003, develop hunt plan and fulfill other Service requirements

to open Chafee Refuge to waterfowl hunting, including associated

dog retrieval, for the fall 2003 season. Hunting will be

administered according to state and local regulations, and will be

by boat access only. Additional refuge regulations may be

determined necessary during development of the hunt plan. The

hunt program will be administered in cooperation with RI DEM. 

Chapter 4

4-12 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Objective 4.2

Provide high quality fishing opportunities along the refuge shoreline,

while minimizing impacts to natural resources.

Strategies:

■ Continue to allow fishing from boats and the shoreline, but by

2005, designate a trail to provide overland access to shoreline

fishing areas; minimize further bank erosion and trampling of

marsh habitat and other sensitive areas; and avoid trespassing on

private lands.

■ By 2007, construct at least one barrier-free fishing platform on

refuge lands, if technically feasible. Otherwise, consider

cooperative project with RI DEM or adjacent landowners on

private or state lands near the refuge. 

Objective 4.3

Increase opportunities for high quality interpretive experiences on

the refuge, which raise visitor awareness of the Refuge System and

Chafee Refuge’s particular contribution to protecting trust resources

and significant habitats.

Strategies:

■ Continue to respond to requests for interpretive programs using

refuge staff and volunteers.

■ By 2003, ensure that RI DOT constructs interpretive kiosk on refuge

along South County Bike Trail according to refuge stipulations. 

■ By 2005, develop an interpretive program for the refuge tiered to the

visitor services plan. Evaluate the opportunities to cooperate on an

interpretive exhibit at South County Museum and construct an

interpretive kiosk, pullout and accessible overlook at Middle Bridge.

■ By 2006, evaluate opportunities for constructing an interpretive

kiosk and accessible trail and overlook at Bridgeport Commons. 

■ By 2006, designate an interpretive canoe and kayak trail along the

refuge shoreline.

Objective 4.4

Improve opportunities for compatible, high quality wildlife

observation and photography on the refuge, while minimizing

impacts to natural resources.

Strategies:

■ By 2005, cooperate with the Town of Narragansett, adjacent

landowners, and RI DOT to evaluate opportunities to construct an

accessible pullout and overlook at Middle Bridge. 

■ By 2006, develop literature on seasonal wildlife observation and

photography opportunities in the lower Narrow River. 

■ Also by 2006, evaluate opportunities for constructing an

accessible observation overlook and trail at Bridgeport Commons.

The final trail would be located to avoid sensitive areas, minimize

erosion and avoid trespassing on private lands.

■ Foot travel, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, canoes and

kayaks are approved means of access to engage in priority public

use activities. 

Chapter 4

Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-13
Objective 4.5

Create new opportunities for compatible, high quality environmental

educational experiences on the refuge, while minimizing impacts to

natural resources. 

Strategies:

■ By 2004, sponsor at least one “Teach the Teacher” workshop, and

continue as an annual program.

■ By 2005, with partners, develop an environmental education

program tiered to the visitors services plan. Work with local

schools to develop an outdoor-based curriculum featuring the

Narrow River estuary and Pettaquamscutt Cove. 

■ Also by 2005, develop a formal partnership with South County

Museum to conduct curriculum based environmental education

programs.

Objective 4.6

Within three years of CCP completion, eliminate incompatible, nonwildlife dependent public uses on the refuge.

Background: 

Incompatible, non-wildlife dependent activities detract from our ability

to fulfill refuge purposes and often conflict with priority public uses.

None of these uses are necessary for the safe, practical, or effective

conduct of a priority public use, and in fact, are often disruptive to

priority public uses. Limited refuge resources should not be expended

to manage activities that do not contribute to the public’s

understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s wildlife or cultural

resources, or to activities that do not directly benefit these resources. 

Strategies:

■ By 2004, increase resource protection and management of public use

by utilizing law enforcement personnel to provide more consistent

and thorough outreach and enforcement of refuge regulations. 

■ By 2004, hire at least one additional law enforcement officer for

the Refuge Complex.

Goal 5: Provide refuge staffing, operations, and maintenance

support to effectively accomplish refuge goals and objectives.

Staffing, operations, and maintenance needs are addressed in

Chapter 5.

Chapter 4

4-14 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
General Refuge Management Direction

The following management direction applies to all of the refuge goals

and across all program areas. Some of this direction is required by

Service policy or legal mandates. 

Maintaining Biological Integrity, Diversity, and 

Environmental Health

The Service finalized its policy on Maintaining the Biological

Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health of the National

Wildlife Refuge System in January 2001 (FWS manual, Part 601,

Chapter 3). This policy directs us, first and foremost, to maintain

existing levels of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental

health on refuges. Secondarily, we will restore lost or severely

degraded elements of integrity, diversity, and environmental health

on refuges where it is feasible and supports refuge purpose(s). To

implement the policy on refuges, refuge managers are directed to

determine: each refuge’s relationship between refuge purpose(s)

and biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health; what

conditions constitute biological integrity, diversity, and environmental

health; how to maintain existing levels of all three; and how, and

when to appropriately restore lost elements of all three (Chapter 3,

section 3.9) 

The objectives and strategies laid out in this CCP generally improve

the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the

refuge. Management actions emphasize maintaining current species

and habitat diversity, recovering endangered and threatened species,

and restoring natural ecosystem processes and functions.

Implementation of the CCP will increase our understanding of the

refuge’s current resources, sustainable natural conditions, and the

effects of our management actions. In addition, our strategy of

adaptive management will provide continuous improvement toward

meeting this policy’s intent. 

Protecting and Managing Cultural Resources

By law, we must consider the effects of our actions on archeological

and historic resources. We will comply with Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act before disturbing any ground.

Compliance may require any or all of the following: a State historic

preservation records survey, literature survey, or field survey.

In addition to basic compliance requirements, we will undertake the

following projects to better protect and interpret cultural resources

on the refuge:

■ By 2005, initiate a cultural resources overview of the Refuge

Complex to increase the available data on cultural resources. 

■ Also by 2005, develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

with the Narragansett Indian Tribal Council to facilitate

cooperation on environmental education and interpretation, to

improve our understanding of the context of natural resources,

and to increase site identification and protection. 

Chapter 4

Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-15
■ By 2006, train at least one law enforcement officer on the refuge in

regulations associated with the Archeological Resources

Protection Act (ARPA).

Tribal Coordination

Increasing communication with the Narragansett Indian Tribal

Council is very important for the Refuge Complex. As noted above,

we plan to develop an MOU by 2005 to establish a mutually beneficial

working relationship that includes cooperating in environmental

education and interpretation and protecting cultural resources.

Coastal Resources Management Council Coordination

The federal Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. §1451, as

amended) requires the Service to work with the State Coastal

Resources Management Council (CRMC) to insure refuge

programs and activities are consistent to the maximum extent

practicable with the enforceable policies adopted by the state. The

CRMC’s concurrence with the Service’s Federal Consistency

Determination on the CCP was predicated on meeting the following

management direction:

1) Provide separate consistency determinations for major

construction projects. Major construction projects such as

buildings, parking lots, roads, and boardwalks, which the Service

determines may effect coastal resources, will require separate

federal consistency determinations for each project.

2) Annual coordination meetings. Refuge Complex and CRMC

staff will meet at least once annually to review general plans and

projects which the Service has determined may effect coastal

resources. These meetings will cover proposals for the

forthcoming calendar year. The objective of these meetings will be

to provide CRMC staff with available details on what is being

proposed and to address their concerns. It is mutually understood

that some projects may not be fully developed at the time of

meeting. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments

Annual refuge revenue sharing payments to the Towns of South

Kingstown and Narragansett will continue. Future increases in

payments will be commensurate with increases in the appraised fair

market values of refuge lands, new acquisitions of land, and new

Congressional appropriations.

Controlling Mosquitos

Within the past few years, incidences of mosquito-borne Eastern

Equine Encephalitis and West Nile virus have elevated public health

concerns about mosquito control in the Middle Atlantic States.

Mosquito control has been very limited on the Refuge Complex, and

has occurred only at the direct request of the State’s Mosquito

Abatement Office. During the last 5 years, we used two very localized

applications of the larvicide Bti on two problem breeding sites. Our

regional contaminants specialist pre-approved those applications.

Chapter 4

4-16 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
In general, we will not use larvicides on the Refuge Complex to control

mosquitos. However, in cooperation with neighboring towns and the

Mosquito Abatement Office, we will consider applying larvicides on a

case-by-case basis, particularly when there is an elevated public health

risk. The Service is now evaluating this issue on a regional basis, and

has begun preparation for an environmental impact statement. This

may result in Service policy or Regional guidelines being developed

and incorporated into this CCP in the future. 

Permitting Special Use (including Research)

Requests for special use permits will be evaluated by the refuge

manager on a case-by-case. All permitted activities must be

determined appropriate and compatible through a compatibility

determination. At a minimum, all commercial activities and all

research projects require a special use permit. Research projects that

will improve and strengthen natural resource management decisions

on the Refuge Complex will generally be approved. The refuge

manager will encourage partnerships with local universities and

colleges to facilitate research that will help evaluate CCP objectives

and strategies, or the assumptions on which they are based. 

The refuge manager may also consider research not directly related

to refuge objectives, but which contributes to the broader

enhancement, protection, or management of native species and

biological diversity within the region. 

Each refuge will maintain a list of research needs to provide

prospective researchers or organizations upon request. The refuge

manager will determine on a case-by-case basis whether they can

directly support a project through funding, in-kind services (e.g.

housing or use of other facilities), field assistance, or through sharing

data and records. Research results will be shared within the Service,

and with RI DEM.

All researchers on refuges, current and future, are required to

submit a detailed research proposal following Service policy in the

FWS Refuge Manual, Chapter 4 Section 6. Special use permits must

also identify a schedule for progress reports (at least annual), criteria

for determining when a project should cease, and publication or

other final reporting requirements. The regional refuge biologists,

other Service divisions, and state agencies will be asked to review

and comment on research proposals.

Some projects, such as depredation and banding studies, require

additional Service permits. These projects will not be approved until

all Service permits and Endangered Species Act consultation

requirements are met. Also, to maintain the natural landscape of the

refuge, projects which require permanent or semi-permanent

structures will not be allowed, except for extenuating circumstances

unforseen at this time. 

Chapter 4

Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-17
Chafee Refuge CCP – May, 2002 5-1

Freshwater wetland

USFWS photo

■ Refuge Complex Staffing

■ Refuge Complex Funding

■ Step-down Management Plans

■ Partnerships

■ Volunteer Program

■ Monitoring and Evaluation

■ Adaptive Management

■ Compatibility Determinations

■ Additional NEPA Analysis

■ Plan Amendment and Revision

Chapter 5

Implementation and

Monitoring
Refuge Complex Staffing

The five Rhode Island Refuges are managed as a Refuge Complex,

with centrally stationed staff taking on duties at multiple refuges. A

total of 26 full time personnel, one Student-to-Career Experience

Program (SCEP ) trainee, and 17 seasonal personnel, are needed to

fully implement all five Refuge CCPs. Permanent staff serving all

five refuges may be stationed at the Refuge Headquarters in

Charlestown, RI, or at Sachuest Point Refuge in Middletown, RI.

Some permanent and temporary staff may be stationed seasonally on

Block Island Refuge. Appendix G identifies currently filled

positions, recommended new positions, and the overall supervisory

structure. The new positions identified will increase visitor services,

biological expertise, and visibility of the Service on refuge lands.

Refuge Complex Funding

Successful implementation of the CCPs for each refuge relies on our

ability to secure funding, personnel, infrastructure, and other

resources to accomplish the actions identified. Full implementation

of the actions and strategies in all five Refuge Complex CCPs would

incur one-time costs of $8.9 million. This includes staffing, major

construction projects, and individual resource program expansions.

Most of these projects have been identified as Tier 1 or Tier 2

Projects in the National Wildlife Refuge System’s Refuge Operations

Needs System database (RONS). Appendix F lists RONS projects

and their recurring costs, such as salaries, following the first year.

Also presented in Appendix F is a list of projects in the Service’s

current Maintenance Management System (MMS) database for the

Refuge Complex. Currently, the MMS database lists $3.85 million in

maintenance needs for the Refuge Complex. 

Land acquisition costs are identified separately. The Land

Protection Plan (LPP, Appendix E) expanded the Refuge Complex

acquisition boundary by 2,681, increasing the total unacquired

acreage to 3,130. We estimate the value of these lands to be $83

million at current, fair-market prices. In all probability, the Refuge

Complex will protect these lands at a lower cost, as some parcels

may be protected through conservation easements or acquired

through donation or land exchange. 

Step-Down Management Plans

The Refuge System Manual (Part 4 Chapter 3) lists more than 25

Step-Down Management Plans generally required on most refuges.

Step-down plans describe specific management actions a refuge will

follow to achieve objectives or implement management strategies.

Some require annual revision, others are revised on a 5- to 10-year

schedule. Some require additional NEPA analysis, public

involvement, and compatibility determinations before they can be

implemented. A status list of Rhode Island Refuge Complex stepdown plans follows.

Chapter 5

5-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
These plans are current : 

■ Fire Management Plan, 1995 (Refuge Complex); updated with

annual burn plans

■ Grasslands Management Plan, 1994 (Trustom Pond Refuge); will

be incorporated into the Habitat Management Plan for the Refuge

Complex in 2003

■ Continuity of Operations Plan, 1998 (Refuge Complex)

■ Animal Control Plan, 1995 (Refuge Complex); will be updated with

Integrated Predator Management and Trapping Plans for the

Refuge Complex

These plans are now in draft form or being prepared:

■ Safety Program and Operations Plan (Refuge Complex)

■ Law Enforcement Plan (Refuge Complex)

These plans exist, but we consider them out-of-date and needing

revisions as indicated: 

■ Water Management Plan (Trustom Pond Refuge); incorporate into

Habitat Management Plan by 2003

■ Hunting Plan (Trustom Pond Refuge); incorporate into Hunt Plan

for the Refuge Complex in 2003

■ Sign Plan (Refuge Complex); expand to Facilities and Sign Plan

by 2005

■ Croplands Management Plan (Trustom Pond Refuge); incorporate

into Habitat Management Plan for Refuge Complex in 2003

These step-down plans need to be initiated and will be completed by

the indicated dates:

■ Refuge Complex Habitat Management Plan (highest priority step

down plan) in 2003

■ Refuge Complex Hunt Plan in 2003

■ Refuge Complex Species and Habitat Inventory and Monitoring

Plan in 2004

■ Integrated Predator Management Plan in 2004

■ Refuge Complex Visitor Services Plan in 2004

■ Fishing Plan by 2005

■ Trapping Plan by 2004

Partnerships

The Refuge Complex staff is proud of its long history of

partnerships. More than 45 partnerships have supported the

refuges, including four universities and colleges, numerous

departments within Rhode Island State government, town

administrations, conservation commissions, school districts,

conservation groups and land trusts, environmental education

centers, historic preservation groups, adjacent landowners, and

other federal agencies. These partnerships have resulted in

Chapter 5

Chafee Refuge CCP – May, 2002 5-3
biological research, cooperative management of threatened and

endangered species and declining habitats, protection of open space,

and environmental education programs.

Refuge staff were particularly delighted by the establishment in 1998

of a “Friends of the National Wildlife Refuges of Rhode Island”

group. The Friends are a non-profit advocacy group dedicated to

supporting Refuge Complex goals within the community through

public education and interpretation, project funding, and volunteer

coordination. Their mission is “...[to be] devoted to the conservation

and development of needed healthy habitat for flora and fauna at the

National Wildlife Refuges of Rhode Island and to the provision of a

safe, accessible ecological experience for our visitors....”

We will strengthen and formalize refuge partnerships to promote

coordinated management and facilitate sharing of resources. Our

partnership with the Friends Group is vitally important to us for

community relations and for support in implementing our resource

programs. Partnerships help us build support for the refuge,

facilitate the sharing of information, and supplement the efforts of

refuge staff. 

Strategies:

■ By 2003, we will conduct at least semi-annual meetings with the

Friends Group to promote communication and evaluate

implementation of the MOU. We will continue to actively support

and promote the Friends Group’s vital efforts in funding and

implementing outreach and environmental education programs,

which enhance our ability to meet refuge goals.

■ By 2005, develop formal agreements with current partners, such

as the South County Tourism Council, local land trusts, and

conservation organizations, to identify mutual goals, and

opportunities for cost sharing, technical exchange and

environmental education and interpretation.

Volunteer Program

Volunteers are vital to accomplishing all Refuge Complex goals. For

example, in fiscal years 2000 and 2001, volunteers donated 9,332 and

10,000 hours respectively, assisting in environmental education

programs, monitoring public use, maintaining facilities, and

managing habitats. This translates to more than $110,000 worth of

services contributed to the refuges in 2000 and $117,900 in 2001.

Volunteers are also largely responsible for staffing the visitor contact

station at Trustom Pond Refuge. 

In 1999 we hired a permanent staff Volunteer Coordinator to

improve the quality of the program through better coordination,

supervision and training of volunteers, and to better integrate

volunteers into all refuge programs. The coordinator compiles and

distributes a quarterly newsletter to volunteers, refuge partners, and

interest groups, keeping them informed about management activities

and upcoming interpretive programs on the Refuge Complex.

Chapter 5

5-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Maintaining Existing Facilities

Periodic maintenance of existing facilities is critical to ensure safety

and accessibility for Refuge Complex staff and visitors. Existing

facilities include the Trustom Pond Refuge visitor contact station,

Refuge Complex maintenance compound, and numerous parking

areas, observation platforms, and trails. Many of these facilities are

not currently Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant;

upgrading is needed. Appendix F displays the fiscal year (FY) 2000

Maintenance Management System (MMS) database list of

backlogged maintenance entries for the Refuge Complex.

We will also undertake the following strategies to improve the

visibility of the Service:

■ By 2003, meet with RI DOT to modify existing U.S. Route 1

directional signs. At a minimum, propose changes to the existing

sign directing visitors “To Moonstone Beach”.

■ By 2005, complete construction of the Visitor

Center/Headquarters for the Refuge Complex, implementing

recommendations for interior facility design from the August 1999

Project Identification Document. At least one Visitor Services

Specialist will be hired to administer the new facility.

■ By 2005, complete a Refuge Complex Facilities and Sign Plan.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and Evaluation for this CCP will occur at two levels. The

first level, which we refer to as implementation monitoring, responds

to the question, “Did we do what we said we would do, when we said

we would do it?” Annual implementation monitoring will be achieved

by using the checklist in Appendix H for the Refuge Complex. 

The second level of monitoring, which we refer to as effectiveness

monitoring, responds to the question, “Are the actions we proposed

effective in achieving the results we had hoped for?” Or, in other

words, “Are the actions leading us toward our vision, goals, and

objectives?” Effectiveness monitoring evaluates an individual action,

a suite of actions, or an entire resource program. This approach is

more analytical in evaluating management effects on species,

populations, habitats, refuge visitors, ecosystem integrity, or the

socio-economic environment. More often, the criteria to monitor and

evaluate these management effects will be established in step-down,

individual project, or cooperator plans, or through the research

program. The Species and Habitat Inventory and Monitoring Plan,

to be completed in 2004, will be based on the needs and priorities

identified in the Habitat Management Plan.

Adaptive Management

This CCP is a dynamic document. A strategy of adaptive

management will keep it relevant and current. Through scientific

research, inventories and monitoring, and our management

experiences, we will gain new information which may alter our

course of action. We acknowledge that our information on species,

habitats, and ecosystems is incomplete, provisional, and subject to

change as our knowledge base improves.

Chapter 5

Chafee Refuge CCP – May, 2002 5-5
Objectives and strategies must be adaptable in responding to new

information and spatial and temporal changes. We will continually

evaluate management actions, through monitoring or research, to

reconsider whether their original assumptions and predictions are

still valid. In this way, management becomes an active process of

learning “what really works”. It is important that the public

understand and appreciate the adaptive nature of natural resource

management.

The Refuge Manager is responsible for changing management

actions or objectives if they do not produce the desired conditions.

Significant changes may warrant additional NEPA analysis; minor

changes will not, but will be documented in annual monitoring,

project evaluation reports, or the annual refuge narratives.

Compatibility Determinations

Federal law and policy provide the direction and planning framework

to protect the Refuge System from incompatible or harmful human

activities and to insure that Americans can enjoy Refuge System

lands and waters. The National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, is the key legislation on

managing public uses and compatibility. 

Before activities or uses are allowed on a National Wildlife Refuge,

we must determine that each is a “compatible use.” A compatible

use is a use that, based on the sound professional judgement of the

Refuge Manager, “ ...will not materially interfere with or detract

from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the

purposes of the refuge.” “Wildlife-dependent recreational uses may

be authorized on a refuge when they are compatible and not

inconsistent with public safety. Except for consideration of

consistency with State laws and regulations as provided for in section

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

the refuge official under this Act or the Refuge Recreation Act for

wildlife-dependent recreation to occur.” (Refuge Improvement Act)

Compatibility determinations were distributed (in the draft CCP/EA)

for a 51 day public review in early 2001. These determinations have

since been approved, and will allow the continuation of the following

public use programs: wildlife observation and photography,

environmental education and interpretation, fishing, and hunting. A

pre-acquisition compatibility determination was also reviewed and

completed, and identifies which existing public uses would be allowed

to continue on new properties acquired by the Refuge complex. Since

releasing the draft CCP/EA, we have also distributed compatibility

determinations for trapping and waterfowl hunting for a public

review period. All comments were considered and utilized in the

revision. These new compatibility determinations are now final and

included in Appendix D. 

Chapter 5

5-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Additional compatibility determinations will be developed when

appropriate new uses are proposed. Compatibility determinations

will be re-evaluated by the Refuge Manager when conditions under

which the use is permitted change significantly; when there is

significant new information on effects of the use; or at least every 10

years for non-priority public uses. Priority public use compatibility

determinations will be re-evaluated under the conditions noted

above, or at least every 15 years with revision of the CCP.

Additional detail on the compatibility determination process is in

Parts 25, 26, and 29 of Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,

effective November 17, 2000.

Additional NEPA Analysis

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires a sitespecific analysis of impacts for all federal actions. These impacts are

to be disclosed in either an EA or Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS).

Most of the actions and associated impacts in this plan were

described in enough detail in the draft CCP/EA to comply with

NEPA, and will not require additional environmental analysis.

Although this is not an all-inclusive list, the following programs are

examples that fall into this category: protecting piping plover,

restoring area-defined grasslands and wetlands, implementing

priority wildlife-dependent public use programs (except deer

hunting), acquiring land, and controlling invasive plants.

Other actions are not described in enough detail to comply with the

site-specific analysis requirements of NEPA. Examples of actions

that will require a separate EA include: construction of a new visitor

center and headquarters, new deer hunting opportunities, and future

wetlands restoration projects not fully developed or delineated in

this document. Monitoring, evaluation, and research can generally

be increased without additional NEPA analysis. 

Plan Amendment and Revision

Periodic review of the CCP will be required to ensure that objectives

are being met and management actions are being implemented.

Ongoing monitoring and evaluation will be an important part of this

process. Monitoring results or new information may indicate the

need to change our strategies. 

The Service’s planning policy (FWS Manual, Part 602, Chapters 1, 3,

and 4) states that CCPs should be reviewed at least annually to decide

if they require any revisions (Chapter 3, part 3.4 (8)). Revisions will be

necessary if significant new information becomes available, ecological

conditions change, major refuge expansions occur, or when we identify

the need to do so during a program review. At a minimum, CCPs will

be fully revised every 15 years. We will modify the CCP documents

and associated management activities as needed, following the

procedures outlined in Service policy and NEPA requirements. Minor

revisions that meet the criteria for categorical exclusions (550 FW

3.3C) will only require an Environmental Action Statement. 

Chapter 5

Chafee Refuge CCP – May, 2002 5-7