Rhode Island National

Wildlife Refuge Complex

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendices
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs – May 2002

Table of Contents

■ Glossary

■ Literature Cited

■ Appendix A, Trust Resources and Other Species and Habitats of 

Management Concern

■ Appendix B, Response to Public Comments on Draft CCP/EA 

■ Appendix C, Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 

■ Appendix D, Compatibility Determinations

■ Appendix E, Land Protection Plan

■ Appendix F, RONS and MMS Project Lists

■ Appendix G, Staffing Chart

■ Appendix H, Plan Monitoring

■ Appendix I, List of Preparers

■ Appendix J, Section 7 (Endangered Species Act) Consultation

■ Appendix K, State Historic Preservation Office Consultation
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 1

 Glossary

Glossary

Glossary
2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Glossary

adaptive ecosystem management- Use of the findings

of ecology to manage natural resources, not for

maximum commodity production (a traditional

industrial forest), or for preservation of current

conditions (a traditional reserve), but for the

perpetuation of patterns and processes that allow the

ecosystem to persist. This management style stresses

experimentation, collaboration, and re-evaluation.

adaptive management- responding to changing

ecological conditions so as to not exceed productivity

limits of a specific place. For example, when crop

growth slows, a good farmer learns to recognize

ecological signs that tell either to add more manure or

to allow a field to lie fallow. Adaptive management

becomes impossible when managers are forced to meet

the demands of outsiders who are not under local

ecological constraints (from Dodson et al., 1998).

alternative – a reasonable way to fix the identified

problem or satisfy the stated need (40 CFR 1500.2) [see

also management alternative below].

amphidromous fish – fish that can migrate from fresh

water to the sea, or vice versa, not for the purpose of

breeding, but at other times during the life cycle of the

fish.

anadromous – fish that spend a large proportion of

their life cycle in the ocean and return to freshwater to

breed.

appropriate use – a proposed or existing use of a

national wildlife refuge that (1) supports the Refuge

System Mission, the major purposes, goals or objectives

of the refuge; (2) is necessary for the safe and effective

conduct of a priority general public use on the refuge;

(3) is otherwise determined under Service Manual

Chapter 605 FW 1 (draft), by the Refuge Manager and

Refuge Supervisor to be appropriate.

aquatic barrier – any obstruction to fish passage.

aquatic – growing in, living in, or dependent upon

water.

barrier free – improved area designed to be accessible

to people with physical disabilities.

benthos – organisms that live on or in the bottom of a

body of water.

biological integrity – biotic composition, structure, and

function at the genetic, organism, and community levels

consistent with natural conditions, and the biological

processes that shape genomes, organisms, and

communities.

biological or natural diversity – the abundance,

variety, and genetic constitution of animals and plants in

nature. Also referred to as “biodiversity.”

breeding habitat – habitat used by migratory birds or

other animals during the breeding season.

buffer zones – protective land borders around critical

habitats or water bodies that reduce runoff and

nonpoint source pollution loading; areas created or

sustained to lessen the negative effects of land

development on animals and plants and their habitats.

candidate species – those species for which the Service

has on file sufficient information on biological

vulnerability and threats to propose them for listing.

carrying capacity-the size of the population that can be

sustained by a given environment.

catadromous fish – fish that spend most of their lives

in fresh water but migrate to sea to reproduce.

Categorical Exclusion (CE, CX, CATEX, CATX) - a

category of actions that do not individually or

cumulatively have a significant effect on the human

environment and have been found to have no such effect

in procedures adopted by a Federal agency pursuant to

the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.4).

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations.

Challenge Cost Share Program – a grant program

administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service providing

matching funds for projects supporting natural

resource education, management, restoration and

protection on Service lands, other public lands and on

private lands.

community - the area or locality in which a group of

people resides and shares the same government.

community type – a particular assemblage of plants

and animals, named for the characteristic plants.

compatible use – an allowed use that will not materially

interfere with, or detract from, the purposes for which

the unit was established (Service Manual 602 FW 1.4).

compatibility determination – a compatibility

determination is required for a wildlife-dependant

recreational use or any other public use of a refuge. A

compatible use is one which, in the sound professional

judgement of the Refuge Manager, will not materially

interfere with or detract from fulfillment of the Refuge

System Mission or refuge purpose(s)
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 3

 Glossary

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) – a

document that describes the desired future conditions

of a refuge or planning unit and provides long-range

guidance and management direction to achieve the

purposes of the refuge, help fulfill the mission of the

System, maintain and, where appropriate, restore the

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health

of each refuge and the System, and meet other

mandates.

concern – see issue.

conservation – the management of natural resources to

prevent loss or waste. Management actions may

include preservation, restoration, and enhancement.

conservation agreements – written agreements

reached among two or more parties for the purpose of

ensuring the survival and welfare of unlisted species of

fish and wildlife and/or their habitats, or to achieve

other specified conservation goals. Participants

voluntarily commit to implementing specific actions that

will remove or reduce the threats to these species.

conservation easement – a legal agreement between a

landowner and a land trust (a private, nonprofit

conservation organization) or government agency that

permanently limits a property’s uses in order to protect

its conservation values.

cool-season grass – introduced grass for crop and

pastureland that grows in spring and fall and is

dormant during hot summer months.

cooperative agreement – the legal instrument used

when the principal purpose of the transaction is the

transfer of money, property, services or anything of

value to a recipient in order to accomplish a public

purpose authorized by Federal statute and substantial

involvement between the Service and the recipient is

anticipated.

cultural resources – evidence of historic or prehistoric

human activity, such as buildings, artifacts,

archaeological sites, documents, or oral or written

history.

cultural resource inventory – a professionally

conducted study designed to locate and evaluate

evidence of cultural resources present within a defined

geographic area. Inventories may involve various

levels, including background literature search,

comprehensive field examination to identify all exposed

physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample

inventory to project site distribution and density over a

larger area. Evaluation of identified cultural resources

to determine eligibility for the National Register

follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4 (Service

Manual 614 FW 1.7).

cultural resource overview – a comprehensive

document prepared for a field office that discusses,

among other things, its prehistory and cultural history,

the nature and extent of known cultural resources,

previous research, management objectives, resource

management conflicts or issues, and a general

statement on how program objectives should be met

and conflicts resolved. An overview should reference or

incorporate information form a field offices background

or literature search described in Section VIII. of the

Cultural Resource Management Handbook (Service

Manual 614 FW 1.7).

database – a collection of data arranged for ease and

speed of analysis and retrieval, usually computerized.

diadromous – fish that migrate from freshwater to

saltwater or the reverse: a generic term that includes

anadromous, catadromous and amphidromous fishes.

digitizing – the process of converting information from

paper maps into geographically referenced electronic

files for a geographic information system (GIS).

early successional stage - a vegetated area that is in

the primary stages of ecological succession.

easement – an agreement by which a landowner gives

up or sells one of the rights on his/her property. For

example, a landowner may donate a right of way across

his/her property to allow community members access.

ecological integrity – the integration of biological

integrity, natural biological diversity, and environmental

health; the replication of natural conditions.

ecological succession - the orderly progression of an

area through time from one vegetative community to

another in the absence of disturbance. For example, an

area may proceed from a grass-forb, through a shrubscrub, to a mixed hardwood forest.

ecosystem – a biological community together with its

environment, functioning as a unit. For administrative

purposes, the Service has designated 53 ecosystems

covering the United States and its possessions. These

ecosystems generally correspond with watershed

boundaries and vary in their sizes and ecological

complexity.

ecotourism – a type of tourism that maintains and

preserves natural resources as a basis for promoting

economic growth and development resulting from

visitation to an area.

ecosystem approach – a way of looking at

socio-economic and environmental information based on

ecosystem boundaries, rather than town, city, or county

boundaries.
4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Glossary

ecosystem-based management – an approach to

making decisions based on the characteristics of the

ecosystem in which a person or thing belongs. This

concept takes into consideration interactions between

the plants, animals, and physical characteristics of the

environment when making decisions about land use or

living resource issues.

ecosystem services - the benefits human populations

derive, directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions

(e.g., gas regulation, disturbance regulation, soil

formation, pollination, raw materials).

emergent wetland – wetlands dominated by erect,

rooted, herbaceous plants.

endangered species – a federally protected species

which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a

significant portion of its range.

environmental education – education aimed at

producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable concerning

the biophysical environment and its associated

problems, aware of how to help solve these problems,

and motivated to work toward their solution (Stapp et

al. 1969).

environmental health – abiotic composition, structure,

and functioning of the environment consistent with

natural conditions, including the natural abiotic

processes that shape environment.

Environmental Assessment (EA) – A concise public

document, prepared in compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the

purpose and need for an action, alternatives to such

action, and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of

impacts to determine whether to prepare an

environmental impact statement or finding of no

significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9).

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – A detailed

written statement required by section 102(2)(C) of the

National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the

environmental impacts of a proposed action, adverse

effects of the project that cannot be avoided, alternative

courses of action, short-tern uses of the environment

versus the maintenance and enhancement of long-term

productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable

commitment of resources (40 CFR 1508.11).

estuaries – deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal

wetlands that are usually semi-enclosed by land but

have open, partly obstructed, or sporadic access to the

open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least

occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land.

estuarine wetlands – “The Estuarine system consists

of deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands

that are usually semienclosed by land but have open,

partly obstructed, or sporadic access to the open ocean,

and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted

by freshwater runoff from the land.” (Cowardin et al.

1979)

exemplary community type – an outstanding example

of a particular community type.

extirpated – no longer occurring in a given geographic

area.

federal land – public land owned by the Federal

government, including lands such as National Forests,

National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges.

federally listed species – a species listed under the

federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended,

either as endangered, threatened or species at risk

(formerly candidate species).

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) – A

document prepared in compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act, supported by an

environmental assessment, that briefly presents why a

Federal action will have no significant effect on the

human environment and for which an environmental

impact statement, therefore, will not be prepared

(40 CFR 1508.13).

focus areas – Within each Areas of Biological

Significance, focus areas further delineate

concentrations or “hot spots” for species and habitats of

special concern (see Appendix A).

forbs – A flowering plant, excluding grasses, sedges,

and rushes, that does not have a woody stem and dies

back to the ground at the end of the growing season.

forested land – land dominated by trees. For the

purposes of the impacts analysis in this document, all

forested land was assumed to have the potential to be

occasionally harvested, and forested land owned by

timber companies was assumed to be harvested on a

more intensive, regular schedule.

forested wetlands – wetlands dominated by trees.

frugivory – feeding on fruit.

Geographic Information System (GIS) – a

computerized system used to compile, store, analyze

and display geographically referenced information.

Can be used to overlay information layers containing

the distributions of a variety of biological and physical

features.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 5

 Glossary

goal – descriptive, open-ended, and often broad

statement of desired future conditions that conveys a

purpose but does not define measurable units.

grant agreement – the legal instrument used when the

principal purpose of the transaction is the transfer of

money, property, services or anything of value to a

recipient in order to accomplish a public purpose of

support or stimulation authorized by Federal statute

and substantial involvement between the Service and

the recipient is not anticipated.

grassroots conservation organization– any group of

concerned citizens who come together to actively

address a conservation need

habitat fragmentation – breaking up of a specific

habitat into smaller unconnected areas. A habitat area

that is too small may not provide enough space to

maintain a breeding population of the species in

question.

habitat conservation – the protection of an animal or

plant’s habitat to ensure that the use of that habitat by

the animal or plant is not altered or reduced.

habitat – the place where a particular type of plant or

animal lives. An organism’s habitat must provide all of

the basic requirements for life and should be free of

harmful contaminants.

hydrologic or flow regime – characteristic fluctuations

in river flows.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) - sustainable

approach to managing pests by combining biological,

cultural, physical, and chemical tools in a way that

minimizes economic, health, and environmental risks.

interjurisdictional fish – populations of fish that are

managed by two or more states or national or tribal

governments because of the scope of their geographic

distributions or migrations.

interpretive facilities – structures that provides

information about an event, place or thing by a variety

of means including printed materials, audiovisuals or

multimedia materials. Examples of these would be

kiosks which offer printed materials and audiovisuals,

signs and trailheads.

interpretive materials – any tool used to provide or

clarify information, explain events or things, or serve to

increase awareness and understanding of the events or

things. Examples of these would be: (1) printed

materials such as brochures, maps or curriculum

materials; (2) audio/visual materials such as videotapes,

films, slides, or audio tapes; and (3) interactive

multimedia materials, such as cd–rom and other

computer technology.

invasive species – non-native species which have been

introduced into an ecosystem, and, because of their

aggressive growth habits and lack of natural predators,

displace native species.

habitat macrosites - an area important because of the

presence of rare species, ecological communities, and

functioning ecosystems.

intervisible posts – as used here, the ability to see the

standing posts immediately before and immediately

after your position. You are not necessarily able to see

the whole boundary from one position.

issue – any unsettled matter that requires a

management decision; e.g., a Service initiative, an

opportunity, a management problem, a threat to the

resources of the unit, a conflict in uses, a public concern,

or the presence of an undesirable resource condition.

Issues should be documented, described, and analyzed

in the CCP even if resolution cannot be accomplished

during the planning process (Service Manual 602 FW

1.4). See also: key issue.

key issue – an issue meeting the following three

criteria:

1. Falls within the jurisdiction of the Service;

2. Can be addressed by a reasonable range of

alternatives;

3. Influences the outcome of the project.

land trusts – organizations dedicated to conserving

land by purchasing land, receiving donations of lands, or

accepting conservation easements from landowners.

limiting factor – an environmental limitation that

prevents further population growth.

local agencies – generally referring to municipal

governments, regional planning commissions or

conservation groups.
6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Glossary

long term protection – mechanisms such as fee title

acquisition, conservation easements or binding

agreements with landowners that ensure land use and

land management practices will remain compatible with

maintenance of the species population at the site.

management alternative – a set of objectives and the

strategies needed to accomplish each objective (Service

Manual 602 FW 1.4).

management concern – see issue.

management opportunity – see issue.

management plan – a plan that guides future land

management practices on a tract of land. In the context

of this environmental impact statement, management

plans would be designed to produce additional wildlife

habitat along with the primary products, such as timber

or agricultural crops. See cooperative agreement.

management strategy – a general approach to meet

unit objectives. A strategy may be broad, or it may be

detailed enough to guide implementation through

specific actions, tasks, and projects (Service Manual 602

FW 1.4).

migratory game birds - birds regulated under the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and state laws, that are

legally hunted, includes ducks, geese, woodcock, rails.

migratory nongame birds of management concern –

those species of nongame birds that (a) are believed to

have undergone significant population declines; (b) have

small or restricted populations; or (c) are dependent

upon restricted or vulnerable habitats.

mission statement – succinct statement of the unit’s

purpose and reason for being (Region 7 Planning

Staff).

mitigation – actions taken to compensate for the

negative effects of a particular project. Wetland

mitigation usually takes the form of restoration or

enhancement of a previously damaged wetland or

creation of a new wetland.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)

– requires all agencies, including the Service, to

examine the environmental impacts of their actions,

incorporate environmental information, and use public

participation in the planning and implementation of all

actions. Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with

other planning requirements, and prepare appropriate

NEPA documents to facilitate better environmental

decision making (from 40 CFR 1500).

National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) – “A designated

area of land, water, or an interest in land or water

within the System, but does not include Coordination

Areas.” Find a complete listing of all units of the

System in the current Annual Report of Lands Under

Control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) –

all lands and waters and interests therein administered

by the Service as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges,

wildlife management areas, waterfowl production areas,

and other areas for the protection and conservation of

fish and wildlife, including those that are threatened

with extinction.

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission (mission)

– “The mission of the System is to administer a

national network of lands and waters for the

conservation, management and, where appropriate,

restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and

their habitats within the United States for the benefit of

present and future generations of Americans.”

native plant – a plant that has grown in the region

since the last glaciation and occurred before European

settlement.

natural conditions – conditions thought to exists from

the end of the Medieval Warm Period to the advent of

the industrial era (approximately 950 AD to 1800 AD),

based upon scientific study and sound professional

judgement.

non-consumptive, wildlife-oriented recreation –

photographing or observing plants, fish and other

wildlife.

non-point source pollution – nutrients or toxic

substances that enter water from dispersed and

uncontrolled sites.

nonforested wetlands – wetlands dominated by shrubs

or emergent vegetation.

Notice of Intent (NOI) – a notice that an

environmental impact statement will be prepared and

considered (40 CFR 1508.22). Published in the F ederal

Register.

objective – a concise statement of what we want to

achieve, how much we want to achieve, when and where

we want to achieve it, and who is responsible for the

work. Objectives derive from goals and provide the

basis for determining strategies, monitoring refuge

accomplishments, and evaluating the success of

strategies. Make objectives attainable, time-specific,

and measurable.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 7

 Glossary

occurrence site – a discrete area where a population of

a rare species lives or a rare plant community type

grows.

old field – an area that was formerly cultivated or

grazed and where woody vegetation has begun to

invade. If left undisturbed, it will eventually succeed

into a forest. Many old fields occur at sites marginally

suitable for crop production or pasturing. Old fields are

highly variable in the Northeast, depending on soil, land

use history, and management.

Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM) - a

mosquito control technique that improves habitat

conditions in salt marshes for mosquito-eating fish by

creating ponds that will maintain the fish between lunar

tides.

outreach – (from the Service’s National Outreach

Strategy) Outreach is a two-way communication

between the Service and the public to establish mutual

understanding, promote involvement, and influence

attitudes and actions, with the goal of improving jjoint

stewardship of our natural resources.

palustrine wetlands – “The Palustrine system includes

all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs,

persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens, and

all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas where salinity

due to ocean–derived salts is below 0%.” (Cowardin et

al. 1979)

Partners for Wildlife Program – a voluntary habitat

restoration program undertaken by the Fish and

Wildlife Service in cooperation with other governmental

agencies, public and private organizations, and private

landowners to improve and protect fish and wildlife

habitat on private lands while leaving the land in private

ownership.

partnership – a contract or agreement entered into by

two or more individuals, groups of individuals,

organizations or agencies in which each agrees to

furnish a part of the capital or some in–kind service, i.e.,

labor, for a mutually beneficial enterprise.

population monitoring – assessments of the

characteristics of populations to ascertain their status

and establish trends related to their abundance,

condition, distribution, or other characteristics.

prescribed fire – the application of fire to wildland fuels

to achieve identified land use objectives (Service

Manual 621 FW 1.7), either from natural or intentional

ignition.

priority public uses – see wildlife-dependant

recreational uses.

private land – land that is owned by a private

individual, group of individuals, or non– governmental

organization.

private landowner – any individual, group of

individuals or non–governmental organization that owns

land.

private organization – any non–governmental

organization.

Proposed Action (or Alternative) – activities for which

an Environmental Assessment is being written; the

alternative containing the actions and strategies

recommended by the planning team. The proposed

action is, for all practical purposes, the draft CCP for

the refuge.

protection – mechanisms such as fee title acquisition,

conservation easements or binding agreements with

landowners that ensure land use and land management

practices will remain compatible with maintenance of

the species population at the site.

public – individuals, organizations, and groups; officials

of Federal, State, and local government agencies;

Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may include

anyone outside the core planning team. It includes

those who may or may not have indicated an interest in

the Service issues and those who do or do not realize

that Service decisions may affect them.

public involvement – a process that offers impacted

and interested individuals and organizations an

opportunity to become informed about, and to express

their opinions on Service actions and policies. In the

process, these views are studied thoroughly and

thoughtful consideration of public views is given in

shaping decisions for refuge management.

public involvement plan – long term guidance for

involving the public in the CCP process.

public land – land that is owned by the local, state, or

Federal government.

rare species – species identified in Appendix 3–6 as

Species of Special Emphasis due to their uncommon

occurrence within the watershed.

rare community types – plant community types

classified as rare by any of the four state Natural

Heritage Programs. As used in this environmental

impact statement, is inclusive of the exemplary

community types. The types are listed in Appendix A.
8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Glossary

Record of Decision (ROD) – a concise public record of

decision prepared by the Federal agency, pursuant to

NEPA, that contains a statement of the decision,

identification of all alternatives considered,

identification of the environmentally preferable

alternative, a statement as to whether all practical

means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from

the alternative selected have been adopted (and if not,

why they were not), and a summary of monitoring and

enforcement where applicable for any mitigat CFR

1505.2).

refuge goals – descriptive, open-ended and often broad

statements of desired future conditions that convey a

purpose but do not define measurable units (Writing

Refuge Management Goals and Objectives: A

Handbook).

refuge purposes – the purposes specified in or derived

from the law, proclamation, executive order, agreement,

public land order, donation document, or administrative

memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a

refuge, a refuge unit, or refuge subunit, and any

subsequent modification of the original establishing

authority for additional conservation purposes (Service

Manual 602 FW 1.4).

refuge lands – those lands in which the Service holds

full interest in fee title, or partial interest such as

easements.

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) – the

Refuge Operating Needs System is a national database

which contains the unfunded operational needs of each

refuge. We include projects required to implement

approved plans, and meet goals, objectives, and legal

mandates.

restoration – the artificial manipulation of a habitat to

restore it to something close to its natural state.

Involves taking a degraded grassland and reestablishing habitat for native plants and animals.

Restoration usually involves the planting of native

grasses and forbs, and may include shrub removal and

prescribed burning.

runoff – water from rain, melted snow, or agricultural

or landscape irrigation that flows over the land surface

into a water body.

Service presence – the existence of the Service through

its programs and facilities which it directs or shares

with other organizations; the public awareness of the

Service as a sole or cooperative provider of programs

and facilities.

species of concern – Species present in the watershed

for whom the Refuge has a special management

interest. The following criteria were used to identify

“species of concern”:

1. Federally listed as threatened or endangered;

 2. migratory birds, especially declining species,

 Neotropical migrants, colonial waterbirds,

 shorebirds, or waterfowl;

3. certain marine mammals;

4. sea turtle;

5. interjurisdictional fish;

6. State-listed as threatened, endangered, or

special concern

state land – public land owned by a state such as state

parks or state wildlife management areas.

step-down management plans – step-down

management plans describe management strategies

and implementation schedules. Step-down management

plans are a series of plans dealing with specific

management subjects (e.g., croplands, wilderness, and

fire) (Service Manual 602 FW 1.4).

stopover habitat – habitat used during bird migration

for rest and feeding.

strategy – a specific action, tool, technique, or

combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to

meet unit objectives.

succession – an orderly sequence of changes in plant

species and community structure over time, leading to a

hypothesized stable climax community.

threatened species – a federally protected species

which is likely to become an endangered species within

the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant

portion of its range.

tiering – the coverage of general matters in broader

environmental impact statements with subsequent

narrower statements of environmental analysis,

incorporating by reference, the general discussions and

concentrating on specific issues (40 CFR 1508.28).

tributary – a stream or river that flows into a larger

stream, river or lake.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 9

 Glossary

trust resource – one that through law or administrative

act is held in trust for the people by the government. A

federal trust resource is one for which trust

responsibility is given in part to the federal government

through federal legislation or administrative act.

Generally, federal trust resources are those considered

to be of national or international importance no matter

where they occur, such as endangered species and

species such as migratory birds and fish that regularly

move across state lines. In addition to species, trust

resources include cultural resources protected through

federal historic preservation laws, nationally important

and threatened habitats, notably wetlands, navigable

waters, and public lands such as state parks and

National Wildlife Refuges.

unfragmented habitat – large blocks of unbroken

habitat of a particular type.

unit objective – desired conditions which must be

accomplished to realize a desired outcome. Objectives

are the basis for determining management strategies,

monitoring refuge accomplishments, and measuring the

success of the strategies. Objectives should be

attainable and time-specific and may be stated

quantitatively or qualitatively (Service Manual 602 FW

1.4).

upland – dry ground; other than wetlands.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission – our mission

is to work with others to “conserve, protect, and

enhance fish and wildlife, and their habitat for the

continuing benefit of the American people.”

vegetation association – a plant community type

having definitive floristic composition and existing in

similar physical environments.

vernal pool – depressions holding water for a

temporary period in the spring and used by a variety of

amphibians for egg laying.

viable population: a population that will continue to

occur in the area for the foreseeable future. In

population modeling, minimum viable population (MVP)

is the smallest number of individuals that are needed to

maintain a species population in the long term.

vision statement – concise statement of what the unit

could be in the next 10 to 15 years (Region 7 Planning

Staff) .

visitor center – a permanently staffed building offering

exhibits and interpretive information to the visiting

public. Some visitor centers are co-located with refuge

offices, other include additional facilities such as

classrooms or wildlife viewing areas.

visitor contact station – compared to a visitor center, a

contact station is a smaller facility which may not be

permanently staffed.

warm-season grass – native prairie grass that puts on

the most growth during summer when cool-season

grasses are dormant.

watchable wildlife – all wildlife is watchable. A

watchable wildlife program is a strategy to help maintain

viable populations of all native fish and wildlife species by

building an effective, well– informed constituency for

conservation. Watchable wildlife programs are tools by

which wildlife conservation goals can be met while at the

same time fulfilling public demand for wildlife

recreational activities (other than sport hunting, trapping

or sport fishing).

watershed – the geographic area within which water

drains into a particular river, stream or body of water. A

watershed includes both the land and the body of water

into which the land drains.

wet meadow – meadows located in moist low-lying

areas, most often dominated by large colonies of reed

canary grass. They are often created by collapsed

beaver dams and exposed old pond bottoms. Salt marsh

meadows are subject to daily coastal tides.

wetlands – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s

definition of wetlands states that “Wetlands are lands

transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems

where the water table is usually at or near the surface or

the land is covered by shallow water.” (Cowardin et al

1979)

wildlife-dependent recreational use – “A use of a

refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and

photography, or environmental education and

interpretation.” These are the six priority public uses of

the System as established in the National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act, as amended.

Wildlife-dependent recreational uses, other than the six

priority public uses, are those that depend on the

presence of wildlife. We also will consider these other

uses in the preparation of refuge CCPs, however, the six

priority public uses always will take precedence.

wildlife management – the practice of manipulating

wildlife populations, either directly through regulating

the numbers, ages, and sex ratios harvested, or indirectly

by providing favorable habitat conditions and alleviating

limiting factors.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs – May 2002 1

Literature Cited

Literature Cited
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Wildlife

Notebook Series, http://www.state.ak.us. 3 pp.

Allin, Charles. 2000. Personal communications. RI

DEM. South Kingstown, RI.

Amaral, Michael J. 1999 and 2000. Personal

communications. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s New

England Field Office. Concord, NH. 

Anders, Fred J. and Stephen P. Leatherman. 1987.

Disturbance of beach sediment by off-road vehicles.

Environ. Geol. Water Sci.; vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 183-189. 

Anders, Fred J. and Stephen P. Leatherman. 1987.

Effects of off-road vehicles on coastal foredunes at Fire

Island, New York, USA. Env. Management Vol. 11 No 1

pp. 45-52. 

Anderson, G.D., S. Edwards. 1983. The Coastal Ponds

Survey: Some Preliminary Results. Univ. of RI,

Department of Resource Economics. Unpub. Rept.

17pp.

Andres, G., R. Flores, L. Longo, P. Paton, S. Stevens.

1999. Amphibian Community Structure at the Rhode

Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Univ. of RI,

Kingston, RI & U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,

Charlestown, RI. 21pp.

Askins R.A. 1993. Populations Trends in Grassland,

Shrubland, and Forest Birds in Eastern North America.

Current Ornithology 11:1-34.

Askins R.A. 1997. History of Grasslands in the

Northeastern United States: Implications for Bird

Conservation. Pp. 119-136 in Grasslands of

Northeastern North America (Peter D. Vickery and

Peter W. Dunwiddie, eds.). Massachusetts Audubon

Society, Lincoln, MA.

Bailey, R.G. 1994. Description of the Ecoregions of the

United States. 2d ed. Forest Service, U.S. Dept of

Agriculture. Misc Publ. No. 1391 (rev) 

Behrens, E.W., P.D. Carangelo, and H.S. Finkelstein.

1976. Effect of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on

backshore vegetation and dune development. Final

report to Office of Natural Science, Southwest Region,

National Park Service. 69 pp.

Bell, M. 1985. The Face of Connecticut. State Geological

and Natural History Survey of Connecticut. Hartford, CT.

Cohen, J.B. 1998. Greater Scaup as Bioindicators of

Contaminants in Long Island Sound. Univ. of Conn.

M.S. Thesis. 168pp.

Comings, Scott. 1999 and 2000. Personal

Communications. The Nature Conservancy on Block

Island. Block Island, RI.

Commonwealth Research Group, Inc. Cost of

Community Services in Southern New England.

Southern New England Forest Consortium, Inc.,

Boston, MA. 102pp.

Curtin, Charles G. 1993. The Evolution of the U.S.

National Wildlife Refuge System and the Doctrine of

Compatibility. Conservation Biology, 7(1):29-37.

Defenders of Wildlife. 1998. Science-Based

Stewardship: Recommendations for Implementing the

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act.

Washington, D.C. 26pp.

Dunwiddie, P.W., W.A. Patterson III, J.L. Rudnicky, and

R.E. Zaremba. 1997. Effects of burning and mowing

from 1982 to 1993. Pp. 85-98 in Grasslands of

Northeastern North America (Peter D. Vickery and

Peter W. Dunwiddie, eds.). Massachusetts Audubon

Society, Lincoln, MA.

Eddleman, W.R. 1993. Monitoring Avian Productivity

and Survivorship Site Additions, Ninigret National

Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish & Wildl. Serv. Unpub.

Rept.17pp.

Ferren, R.L. and James E. Myers. 1998. Rhode

Island’s Maritime Nesting Birds.

Fish, S., N. Talancy, and C. Thompson. 1999. Rhode

Island Piping Plover Restoration Project. Rhode Island

NWR Complex, P.O. Box 307, Charlestown, RI. 50pp.

Flores, R. 1998. Continuity Document for Rhode Island

National Wildlife Refuge Complex. U.S. Fish & Wildl.

Serv., RI NWR Complex, Charlestown, RI. Unpub.

Rept. 

Flores, R. 1998. Trustom Pond Grasslands Report. U.S.

Fish & Wildl. Serv., RI NWR Complex, Unpub. Rept. 

Flores, R. 1998. Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge

Grasslands Program Progress Report. U.S. Fish &

Wildl. Serv., RI NWR Complex, Unpub. Rept. 

Flores, R. 1998. Wetland Restoration Plan for Ninigret

NWR Runway Areas. U.S. Fish & Wildl. Serv., RI

NWR Complex, Unpub. Rept. 

Fish, S., C. Thompson, W. Edwards. 1998. Rhode

Island Piping Plover Restoration Project: 1998. RI

NWR Refuge Complex, Charlestown, RI. 39pp.

Literature Cited

2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
George, Gilbert G. 1999. Rhode Island Botanical

Survey Check List of the Native and Naturalized

Plants, Shrubs and Trees of Rhode Island by Counties,

Cities and Towns, Edition 8. Unpub. 315pp.

Godfrey, Paul J., Stephen P. Leatherman and P.A.

Buckley. 1978. Impact of off-road vehicles on coastal

ecosystems. Pages 581-600 in Proceedings of the

Symposium on Technical, Environmental Socioeconomic

and Regulatory Aspects of Coastal Zone Planning and

Management. San Francisco, California. 

Goldin, Meryl Rose. 1993. Effects of Human

Disturbance and Off-Road Vehicles on Piping Plover

Reproductive Success and Behavior at Breezy Point,

Gateway National Recreation Area, NY, Department of

Forestry and Wildlife Management. 128 pp.

Goldin, Meryl Rose. and Jonathan V. Regosin. 1998.

Chick Behavior, Habitat Use, and Reproductive Success

of Piping Plovers at Goosewing Beach, RhodeIsland. J.

Field Ornithol., 69(2): p. 228-234

Harlin, M.M. and B. Thorne-Miller. 1978. Report to Sea

Grant, Univ. of RI.

Harlin, M.M. and V.J. Masson, and R.E.Flores. 1995.

Distribution and Abundance of Submerged Aquatic

Vegetation in Trustom Pond, Rhode Island. Dept. of

Biol. Sci., Univ. of R.I. Unpubl. Rept. 28pp.

Harrington, B. and N. Drilling. 1996. Investigations of

Effects of Disturbance to Migratory Shorebirds at

Migration Stopover Sites on the U.S. Atlantic coast.

U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Rept. Region 5. 89 pp.

Hecht, Anne. 1999. Review of Piping Plover Habitat -

Rhode Island Refuge Complex. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Weir Hill Road, Sudbury, MA 01776. Unpubl.

Memo.

Hecht, Anne. 2000. Memo to Atlantic Coast Piping

Plover Field Stations with preliminary 1999 results of

piping plover populations and productivity. U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Weir Hill Road, Sudbury, MA

01776. Unpubl. Memo, January 24, 2000. 

Henshaw, C.F. 1995. Natural Wonders of Connecticut &

Rhode Island. Country Roads Press, Castine, ME.

Hoopes, E.M., C.R. Griffin, and S.M. Melvin. 1989.

Effects of human recreation on piping plover foraging

ecology and chick survival at Ninigret NWR Final

Report. USFWS. 23 pp.

Hoopes, E.M. 1993. Relationships Between Human

Recreation and Piping Plover Foraging Ecology and

Chick Survival, University of Massachusetts, Department

of Forestry and Wildlife Management. 106 pp.

Hoover, S.E. and M.R. Conover. 1998. Effectiveness of

volatile irritants at reducing consumption of eggs by

captive coyotes. J. of Wildl. Mgt. 62:399-405.

Jacobson, Victoria. 1999. Cultural Resource Overview

for the Rhode Island Refuge System, USFWS,

Northeast Region, Unpubl. Report.

Johnson, D. H., L. D. Igl, J. A. Dechant, M. L. Sondreal,

C. M. Goldade, M. P. Nenneman, and B. R. Euliss. 1998.

Effects of management practices on grassland birds:

Grasshopper sparrow. Northern Prairie Wildlife

Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 12 pages.

Johnston, D.W. and E.P. Odum. 1956. Breeding bird

populations in relation to plant succession on the

Piedmont of Georgia. Ecology 37:50-62.

Jorgensen, N. 1977. A Guide to New England’s

Landscape. The Globe Pequot Press, Chester, CT. 200 pp.

Killingbeck K.T. and B. Deegan. 1996. Vegetation

analysis and site characteristics of a rare plant

community. Univ. of Rhode Is. Biol. Sc. Dept. Unpubl.

Rept. 18pp.

Killingbeck K.T. and B. Deegan, and R.E. Flores. 1999.

Rare plant abundance in an endangered species “hot

spot”. New England Naturalist. In press.

Kozol, A., M.P. Scott, and J.F.A. Traniello. 1986.

Distribution and natural history of the American

burying beetle, (Nicrophorus americanus) on Block

Island, Rhode Island. Unpubl. Rept. Dept. of Biol.

Boston University. 17pp. 

Kuchler, A.W. 1964. Potential natural vegetation in the

conterminous U.S. American Geographical Society

Publication 36. 116 p.

Leatherman, Stephen and Paul Godfrey. 1979. The

impact of off-road vehicles on coastal ecosystems in Cape

Cod National Seashore. An overview. National Park

Service Cooperative Research Unit, report No. 34. 34 pp. 

Lee, V., P. Pogue. 1993. Public Access to the Rhode

Island Coast. A selective guide to parks, wildlife

refuges, beaches, fishing sites, boat ramps, pathways,

and views along Rhode Island’s coast. University of

Rhode Island Publications Office, Kingston, RI. 72pp.

Literature Cited

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs – May 2002 3
Loegering, J.P., J.D. Fraser. 1995. Factors affecting

piping plover chick survival in different brood-rearing

habitats. The Journal of Wildlife Management,

Bethesda, MD. 59(4): p. 646 - 655.

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. 1996.

Conservation plan for piping plovers in Massachusetts.

Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Westborough, MA. 35 pp.

Melvin, S.M., A. Hecht, and C.R. Griffin. 1994. Piping

Plover Mortalities Caused by Off-Road Vehicles on

Atlantic Coast Beaches. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 22(3): p. 409-414.

Melvin, S.M., C.R. Griffin and L.H. MacIvor. 1991.

Recovery Strategies for Piping Plovers in Managed

Coastal Landscapes. Coastal Management, Vol. 19: p.

21-34.

Melvin, S.M., 1990. Effects of Research Activity on

Piping Plover Nest Predation. J. Wildl. Manage.

54(3):p. 443-447.

Melvin, S.M., 1992. Predator Exclosures: A Technique

to Reduce Predation at Piping Plover Nest. Wildl. Soc.

Bull. 20(2): p. 143-148.

Moore, F. R. , and S. A. Gauthreaux JR., and P. K.

Kerlinger, and T. R. Simons. 1995. Pp. 121-144 in

Ecology and Management of Neotropical Migratory

Birds (T. E. Martin and D. M. Finch, eds.). Oxford

University Press, New York, NY. 

Morenon, E.P, Robinson, P. and J. McDonough. 1983.

An archaeological assessment of the Trustom Pond

National Wildlife Refuge. Rhode Island College,

Providence, RI. 93 pages.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

Rhode Island Department of Environmental

Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, and U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Restoration plan and

environmental assessment for the January 19, 1996

North Cape oil spill. Draft Environmental Assessment. 

National Park Service. 1992. Economic Impacts of

Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenways. The Rivers,

Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program of the

National Park Service. Washington, D.C. 

Nature Conservancy, The. 1997. Queen River

Watershed Conservation Plan. TNC Rhode Island Field

Office, Providence, RI. 26pp.

Nature Conservancy, The. 1997. Rhode Island

Preserves. An illustrated guide to The Nature

Conservancy’s Rhode Island preserves, as well as some

of the land the Conservancy has helped other

conservation agencies to protect. 36pp.

Nature Conservancy, The. 1998. Upper Wood River

Conservation Plan. TNC Rhode Island Field Office,

Providence, RI. 17pp.

Nature Conservancy, The. 1998. Southern Pawcatuk

Conservation Plan. TNC Rhode Island Field Office,

Providence, RI. 23pp.

North American Waterfowl Committee. 1988. North

American Waterfowl Management Plan. 32 pp.

Office of Technology Assessment. 1995. Technologies

to Benefit Shoreline Property and Rare Species

Habitat: An Atlantic Coast Example. Unpub. 46 pp.

Oneill, Anne. 1999. Personal communications. South

County Economic Tourism Bureau. Charlestown, RI.

Parrish, Jeffrey D. 1999. Patterns of frugivory and

energetic condition in Nearctic landbirds during

autumn migration. The Condor 99: 681-697.

Partners in Flight. 1998. Landbird Conservation Plan:

Physiographic Area 9: Southern New England (draft,

unfinished). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

Paton, P. 1996. Monitoring avian productivity and

survivorship site additions, Ninigret National Wildlife

Refuge. U.S. Fish & Wildl. Serv. Unpub. Rept. 17pp.

Paton, P. 1994. Monitoring avian productivity and

survivorship site additions, Ninigret National Wildlife

Refuge. U.S. Fish & Wildl. Serv. Unpub. Rept.17pp.

Paton, P. 1997. Monitoring avian productivity and

survivorship site additions, Ninigret National Wildlife

Refuge. U.S. Fish & Wildl. Serv. Unpub. Rept.17pp.

Paton, P. 1998. Monitoring avian productivity and

survivorship site additions, Ninigret National Wildlife

Refuge. U.S. Fish & Wildl. Serv. Unpub. Report. 17pp.

Pawcatuk Watershed Partnership. 1997. The Pawcatuk

Watershed Report. EPA, Narragansett, RI.

Porter, Ellen M., Environmental Specialist. 1999.

Personal communication, Regional Planners

Conference, Denver, CO.

Literature Cited

4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Raithel, Christopher. 1999 and 2000. Personal

Communications. Rhode Island Department of

Environmental Management, Division of Fish and

Wildlife. Charlestown, RI.

Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council.

1995. Narrow River Special Area Management Plan,

Public Review Document. Wakefield, Rhode Island.

186 pp.

Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council.

1998. Salt Pond Region Special Area Management Plan

Public Review Document. 199 pp.

Rhode Island Department of Administration and Rhode

Island Department of Environmental Management. 1992.

Ocean State Outdoors: Rhode Island’s Comprehensive

Outdoor Recreation Plan. Providence, RI.

Rhode Island Department of Environmental

Management, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1981. A

Strategic Plan for the Restoration of Atlantic Salmon to

the Pawcatuck River, Rhode Island. Division of Fish

and Wildlife. Unpub. Report.

Rhode Island Department of Environmental

Management. 1996. Protecting our Land Resources.

Division of Planning and Development. 37 pp.

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 1999.

Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge Least Tern

Management Report. Rhode Island NWR Complex,

P.O. Box 307, Charlestown, RI. 5 pp.

Rhode Island State Historic Preservation Commission,

1974. A historic, architectural and archeological

investigation of the former Charlestown Naval Air

Station and vicinity. Rhode Island Historic

Preservation Commission, 150 Benefit St. Providence

RI 02903. 28pp.

Roland, C., R. Woodruff. 1962. History of nesting gulls

and terns in Rhode Island 1899-1961. Narragansett

Naturalist.

Roman, C.T., C.L. LaBash, Raposa, K., and G.

MacPhee. 1997. Restoration of the Sachuest Point salt

marsh (Middletown, RI): Pre-restoration ecological

baseline information. Univ. of Rhode Island. Graduate

School of Oceanography. 155 pp.

Savage, Harlin. 1996-97. The Periled Piping Plover.

Defenders - The Conservation Magazine of Defenders

of Wildlife. p. 6-15. 

Schneider, K.J. and D.M. Pence, eds. Migratory

nongame birds of management concern in the

Northeast. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish and Wildl. Serv.,

Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 400pp.

Trust for Public Lands. 1998. Local Parks, Local

Financing, Vols I & II. San Francisco, CA.

Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge. 1999. Piping

Plover Management Report. Ninigret NWR, Route 1A,

Shoreline Plaza, P.O. Box 307, Charlestown, RI. 25pp.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Population estimates. 

http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/popest 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 1991. Informal consultation

regarding disposition of the Beane Property. Unpubl.

Rept. 10pp.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 1998. Notice of one-year

petition finding to list the Harlequin Duck

(Histrionicus histrionicus) in Eastern North America

as endangered or threatened. Federal Register vol 63

No. 88 p. 25177-25178.

University of Rhode Island. 1996. Elevation profiling

of eight barrier beaches on Rhode Island’s South Shore:

September 1995 to August 1996. Graduate School of

Oceanography. Unpubl. Rept. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Environment

Assessment. Trustom Pond NWR. South Kingstown,

RI. 73pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Environment

Assessment. Trustom Pond NWR. South Kingstown,

RI. 45pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. National

Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands of Rhode Island. Boston,

MA. 77pp. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Atlantic Coast

Joint Venture. 107 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Regional

Wetlands Concept Plan, Emergency Wetlands

Resources Act. Northeast Region. Newton Corner, MA.

100pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Piping plover

Management for 1990, A Compatibility Determination

at Trustom Pond NWR. Charlestown, RI. 45pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Northeast

Coastal Areas Study: Significant Coastal Habitats of

Southern New England and Portions of Long Island,

New York. Charlestown, RI. 249pp.

Literature Cited

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs – May 2002 5
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. American

Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) Recovery

Plan. NE Field Office, Concord, NH. 72pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Preliminary

Assessment for Sachuest Point. Unpubl. Rept. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. An ecosystem

approach to fish and wildlife conservation. 14pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Northeastern

Beach Tiger Beetle (Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis)

Recovery Plan. Hadley, MA 45pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Piping Plover

(Charadrius melodius) Revised Recovery Plan. Hadley,

MA 45pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Environmental

Assessment for Habitat Restoration Project. Ninigret

NWR, Charlestown, RI. 25pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Banking on

Nature: The Enconomic Benefits to Local Communities

of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. 118pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Administrative

finding on a petition to list the Eastern North American

population of the harlequin duck. Intern. Rpt. 15 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Beach Strand,

Habitat at Risk. Service pamphlet.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. The Connecticut

River Watershed/Long Island Sound Invasive Plant

Control Initiative Strategic Plan. Turners Falls, MA.

15 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Report on

Archeological and Cultural History of Rhode Island

Refuges. Victoria Jacobson. Hadley, MA. 15 pp.

Vaske, J.J., D.W. Rimmer, and R.D. Deblinger. 1994.

The Impact of Different Predator Exclosures on Piping

Plover Nest Abandonment. J. Field Ornithol.,

65(2):201-209.

Vickery, P.D. 1988. Distribution and population status of

harlequin ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus) wintering

in eastern north America. Wil. Bull. 100(1):119-126. 

Vickery, P.D. 1993. Habitat selection of grassland birds

in Maine. Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Maine, Orono.

Vickery, P.D., M. L. Hunter, and S.M. Melvin. 1994.

Effects of habitat area on the distribution of grassland

birds in Maine. Conservation Biology 8(4):1087-1097.

Vickery, P.D., A. Jones. 1997. Conserving Grassland

Birds: Managing agricultural lands including hayfields,

crop fields, and pastures for grassland birds.

Massachusetts Audubon Society. Lincoln, MA. 17 pages.

Vickery, P. D., A. Jones. 1997. Conserving Grassland

Birds: Managing large grasslands including

conservation lands, airports, and landfills over 75 acres

for grassland birds. Massachusetts Audubon Society.

Lincoln, MA. 17 pages.

Vickery, P.D., A. Jones. 1997. Conserving Grassland

Birds: Managing small grasslands including

conservation lands, corporate headquarters, recreation

fields, and small landfills for grassland birds. Lincoln,

MA. 16 pages.

Vickery, P.D., A. Jones. 1997. Distribution and

Population Status of Grassland Birds in Massachusetts.

Pp. 187-200 in Grasslands of Northeastern North

America (Peter D. Vickery and Peter W. Dunwiddie,

eds.). Massachusetts Audubon Society, Lincoln, MA.

von Oettingen, Susanna L. 1998. Personal

communications. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service New

England Field Office. Concord, NH. 

Walker, Ret. Colonel A. 1995. Historical Perspectives

on Establishing Sachuest Point NWR, Middletown, RI.

Unpublished Report.

Wallace, M. 1995. Monitoring avian productivity and

survivorship site additions, Ninigret National Wildlife

Refuge. USFWS. Unpub. Report. 17 pp.

Whitmore, R.C. 1981. Structural characteristics of

grasshopper sparrow habitat. J. Wildl. Manage. 45:(3)

811-814.

Zaremba, Robert E., Paul J. Godfrey, and Stephen P.

Leatherman. 1979. The ecological effects of off-road

vehicles on the beach/backshore (drift line) zone in Cape

Cod national Seashore, Massachusetts. Univ. Mass.

National Park Service Cooperative Research Unit,

report No. 29. 67 pp. 

Zaremba, Robert E., Stephen P. Leatherman, and Paul

J. Godfrey. 1980. Effects of off-road vehicles on barrier

beach processes: Nauset Spit, Cape Cod National

Seashore. Proc. Second Conf. Sci. Res. Natl. Parks;

9:240-248.

Literature Cited

6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Appendix A

Trust Resources and Other

Species and Habitats of

Management Concern

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs – February 2002 A-1
Appendix A 

A-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Codes used in Species List

Global Element Ranks (from The Nature Conservancy)

G1 – Critically Imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (typically 5 or

fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals or acres) or because of

some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extinction.

G2 – Imperiled globally because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or few

remaining individuals or acres) or because of some factor(s) making it very

vulnerable to extinction throughout its range.

G3 – Rare or uncommon but not imperiled. Either very rare and local

throughout its range or found locally (even abundantly at some of its locations) in a restricted range (e.g., a single western state, a physiographic

region in the East) or because of other factors making it vulnerable to

extinction throughout its range; in terms of occurrences, in the range of 21

to 100.

G4 – Not rare and apparently secure globally, though it might be quite rare

in parts of its range, especially at the periphery; cause for long-term concern. (Usually more than 100 occurrences.)

G5 – Demonstrably secure globally; widespread and abundant, though it

may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery.

GH – Of historical occurrence throughout its range, - possibly extinct - i.e.,

formerly part of the established biota with the expectation that it may be

rediscovered (e.g., Bachman’s warbler).

GU – Possibly in peril range-wide, but status uncertain; need more information. 

GX – Believed to be extinct throughout its range (e.g., Passenger pigeon)

with virtually no likelihood that it will be rediscovered.

G#G# – Range ranks; insufficient information to rank more precisely.

G? – Not yet ranked.

G#T# – For infraspecific taxa; the G rank applies to the full species and the

T rank applies to the infraspecific taxon.

G#Q – Taxonomic status is questionable.
Trust Resources and Species and Habitats of Concern Appendix A 

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs – May 2002 A-3

Federal Status or Authority

E – Formally listed as Endangered under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973

T – Formally listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973

PE – Proposed Endangered

PT – Proposed Threatened

C1 – Taxa for which the Service currently has on file substantial information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support the appropriateness of proposing to list them as endangered or threatened species

SA – Similarity of appearance of species

State Status

FE – Federally Endangered (see above)

FT – Federally Threatened (see above)

E – State Endangered. Native species in imminent danger of extirpation

from Rhode Island. These taxa meet one or more of the following criteria: (1) a species currently under review for listing by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service as Federally endangered or threatened; (2) a species with

1-2 known or estimated total populations in the state; (3) a species apparently globally rare or threatened, and estimated to occur as approximately 100 or fewer populations range-wide.

T – State Threatened. Native species which area likely to become state

endangered in the future if current trends in habitat loss or other detrimental factors remain unchanged. These taxa meet one or more of the

following criteria: (1) a species with 3-5 known or estimated populations in

the state; (2) a species with more than 5 known or estimated populations

in the state, but exhibiting particular vulnerability to habitat loss.

C – Concern. Native species which do not apply under the above categories but are additionally listed due to various factors or rarity and/or

vulnerability; or, species which may warrant listing in higher categories

but status information is presently not well known.

SH – Native species which have been documented for the state during the

last 100 years but for which current occurrences are unknown. When

known, the year of the last documented occurrence is included.
Appendix A 

A-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

State Element Ranks 

(from the Nature Conservancy and/or State Heritage Programs)

Numeric Rank: Based primarily on the number of occurrences of the 

species in the state.

S1 – Critically imperiled in state (usually 5 or fewer occurrences); especially vulnerable to extirpation in the state.

S2 – Imperiled in state (usually 6 to 20 occurrences).

S3 – Rare or uncommon in state (usually 21 to 100 occurrences).

S4 – Widespread, abundant and apparently secure in the state, but with

cause for long-term concern (usually more than 100 occurrences).

S5 – Widespread, abundant and demonstrably secure in state.

S? – Not yet ranked in the state.

SU – Unrankable or uncertain status due to lack of information; possibly

in peril

SE – Exotic: an exotic established in the state.

SA – Accidental or casual in state (infrequent and far outside usual

range).

SH – Historical: species occurred historically in the state (with the expectation that it may be extant and rediscovered), generally not having been

verified in the past 20 years.

SX – Apparently extirpated from state.

SN or SZN – Regularly occurring, usually migratory and typically nonbreeding, species for which no significant or effective habitat conservation

measures can be taken in the state; no definable occurrences.

For species with distinct breeding (B) and non-breeding (N) populations,

a breeding status SRANK can be coupled with its complementary nonbreeding SRANK, separated by a comma, e.g. S2B, S3N or S1B, SHN.

SR – Reported from state, but without persuasive documentation; species

may be misidentified.

SRF – Reported falsely; erroneously reported as occurring in the state

and error has persisted in the literature.

SP – Potentially occurs in the state, but no occurrences reported.

.1 – Species documented from a single location
Trust Resources and Species and Habitats of Concern Appendix A 

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs – May 2002 A-5

Occurence/Occasional Use (Seasonal Use)

Codes indicating the status of a species population within a specific habitat complex or other area.

+ Known to occur in the area; seasonal use not specified

H - Known to occur historically in the area but not since 1970

B - Breeds in the area

M - Migrates through the area and has identifiable migratory 

stopover or staging areas within the watershed

W - Overwinters in the area

P - Primarily pelagic

I - Introduced or re-introduced

Refuges

Indicates occurrence of the species on existing National Wildlife Refuges 

in Rhode Island. A = all Rhode Island Refuges, B = Block Island, 

N = Ninigret, C = Chafee, T = Trustom Pond, S = Sachuest Point.

Seasonal Relative Abundance Codes (b,s,S,F,W) 

from the Birds of the National Wildlife Refuges of Rhode Island. 

Season: b=breeding, s=spring, S=summer, F=Fall, W=Winter. 

Relative abundance: a = abundant, c = common, u = uncommon, 

o = occasional, r = rare.

Population/ Breeding Bird Atlas (BBA)

Known occurences or populations in Rhode Island, from Natural 

Hertitage Program. For breeding birds, figure indicates number of prob

able or confirmed breeding bird atlas blocks in the state.
Appendix A 

A-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Scientific Name Common

Name(s) Global Federal R IRank

R I

Status Sea. Use Refuges b s S F W Pop./BBA Source/Justification

ANIMALS

INVERTEBRATES

ARTHROPODA

INSECTA

ODONATA

(Dragonflies and

Damselflies):

Williamsonia

lintneri

ringed

boghaunter G2 C2 S2 C former candidate/globallyimperiled

Enallagma pictum scarlet bluet G3 globally rare

Enallagma

recurvatum

barrens bluet

damselfly G3 3C S2 C former candidate/globallyrare

COLEOPTERA (Beetles):

Cicindela d.

dorsalis

northeastern

beach tiger

beetle

G4T1T2 T SX SH(197

8 )

fed. listed/globally

imperiled

Nicrophorus

americanus

American

burying beetle G1 E S1 FE fed. listed/globallycritically imperiled

Lordithon niger black lordithon

rove beetle G1 C2 S1 C former candidate/globallycritically imperiled

LEPIDOPTERA (Butterflies and Moths):

Speyeria idalia regal fritillary

butterfly G3 C2 SX SH(1990 )

former candidate/globally

rare

Mitoura hesseli Hessel's

hairstreak G3G4 3C S2S3 C former candidate

MEROSTOMATA

Limulus

polyphemus horseshoe crab

R5 Refuge List/important

forage species for

shorebirds

VERTEBRATES

REPTILES

TESTUDINES (Turtles):

Caretta caretta loggerhead sea

turtle G3 T S? FT fed. listed,/globally rare,occurs in RI waters

Chelonia mydas green sea turtle G3 T S? FT fed. listed,/globally rare,

occurs in RI waters

Dermochelys

coriacea

leatherback sea

turtle G3 E S? FE fed. listed,/globally rare,occurs in RI waters

Lepidochelys

kempii

Kemp's ridley

sea turtle G1 E S? FE fed. listed,/globally rare,occurs in RI waters

Malaclemys t.

terrapin

northern

diamondback

terrapin

G5T5 C2 S1 ST former candidate
Trust Resources and Species and Habitats of Concern Appendix A 

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs – May 2002 A-7

Scientific Name Common

Name(s) Global Federal R IRank

R I

Status Sea. Use Refuges b s S F W Pop./BBA Source/Justification

FISH

Catadromous

Anguilla rostrata American eel G5 catadromous/R5 Refuge

List

Anadromous

Alosa aestivalis blueback

herring G5 anadromous/R5 Refuge

List

Alosa

pseudoharengus alewife G5 anadromous/R5 Refuge

List

Alosa sapidissima American shad G5 anadromous/R5 Refuge

List

Morone saxatilis striped bass G5 anadromous/R5 Refuge

List

Salmo salar Atlantic Salmon G5 anadromous/R5 Refuge

List

Marine & Estuarine Interjuris. Fish

Paralichthys

dentatus

summer

flounder G? interjurisdictional/R5Refuge List

Tautoga onitis tautog G? interjurisdictional/R5

Refuge List

Pleuronectes

americanus winter flounder G5? interjurisdictional/R5Refuge List

Pomatomus

saltatrix bluefish G? interjurisdictional/R5Refuge List

Cynoscion regalis weakfish G? interjurisdictional/R5

Refuge List

BIRDS

GAVIIFORMES (Loons):

Gavia immer common loon G5 M / W A c o c c non-game bird man.

concern

CICONIIFORMES

(Herons, Ibises, and

Storks):

Botaurus

lentiginosus

American

bittern G4 S1B,SIN B/M/W N,T,S y u u u o 2 non-game bird man.concern

Ixobrychus exilis least bittern G5 S2B,S2

N B/M T,N,S y o o o 5 non-game bird man.concern

ANSERIFORMES (Waterfowl):

Podiceps auritus horned grebe G5 M / W A c o u c NAWCA priority

Podilymbus

podiceps

pied-billed

grebe G5 B / M / W A y c o c u non-game bird man.concern

Branta bernicla brant G5 M / W A u u u NAWCA priority/NAS

Watchlist

Aix sponsa wood duck G5 B / M / W ? T,N,C y u u u r 4 8 NAWCA priority
Appendix A 

A-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Scientific Name Common

Name(s) Global Federal R IRank

R I

Status Sea. Use Refuges b s S F W Pop./BBA Source/Justification

Anas acuta northern pintail G5 M / W T u u o NAWCA high priority/R5

Refuge List

Anas

platyrhynchos mallard G5 B / M / W A y c c a c 7 9 NAWCA high priority

Anas rubripes American black

duck G4 B / M / W A y c c c a 4 2

NAWCA high priority/R5

Refuge List/NAS

Watchlist/PIF SNE

globally important

Aythya collaris ring-necked

duck G5 M / W N,T,C u u o NAWCA priority

Aythya valisineria canvasback G5 M / W A c o c o NAWCA priority

Aythya americana redhead G5 M / W A u u o NAWCA priority

Aythya marila greater scaup G5 M / W A c o c c R5 Refuge List

Aythya affinis lesser scaup G5 M / W A o o o R5 Refuge List

Histrionicus

histrionicus harlequin duck G5 M / W S u u u former candidate

Somateria

mollissima common eider G5 B ? / M / W A u u u NAWCA priority

Melanitta nigra black scoter G5 M / W A c o c c R5 Refuge List

Melanitta fusca white-winged

scoter G5 M / W A c o c c R5 Refuge List

Melanitta

perspicillata surf scoter G5 M / W A c o c c R5 Refuge List

FALCONIFORMES

(Diurnal Birds of

Prey):

Accipiter gentilis northern

goshawk G5 S1B,S2N C M/W A r r r 3 former candidate

Buteo lineatus red-shouldered

hawk G5 S1B,S1N M A o o o 12 non-game bird man.concern

Circus cyaneus northern

harrier G5 SIB,S3N B/M/W A u u u o 3 non-game bird man.concern

Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon G3 SZN ? M A r r o former fed. listed

Haliaeetus

leucocephalus bald eagle G3G4 T S1N FT M A r o r fed. listed

GRUIFORMES

(Rails, Cranes and

Allies):

Rallus longirostris clapper rail G5 B / M N r r r r NAWCA priority/declining
Trust Resources and Species and Habitats of Concern Appendix A 

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs – May 2002 A-9

Scientific Name Common

Name(s) Global Federal R IRank

R I

Status Sea. Use Refuges b s S F W Pop./BBA Source/Justification

CHARADRIIFORMES

(Shorebirds, Gulls

and Alcids):

Charadrius

melodus piping plover G3 T S1B,S1N FT B / M T,N y o u o 7 fed. listed

Charadrius

vociferus killdeer G5 B / M A y u u u o 5 5 ISS declining/R5 RefugeList

Pluvialis dominica lesser goldenplover G5 M A r r o NAWCA priority

Bartramia

longicauda upland sandpiper G5 S1B,S1N B/M A r r r 3

non-game bird man.

concern/PIF SNE

regionally important

Calidris alba sanderling G5 M / W A c u c c ISS declining/R5 Refuge

List

Calidris canutus red knot G5 M A o o r ISS declining/R5 Refuge

List/NAS Watchlist

Calidris fuscicollis white-rumped

sandpiper G5 M A o o a NAWCA priority

Calidris

himantopus stilt sandpiper G5 M A r o r NAS Watchlist

Calidris maritima purple

sandpiper G5 M / W A c o c ISS declining/R5 RefugeList

Calidris minutilla least sandpiper G5 M A a a c ISS declining/R5 Refuge

List

Calidris pusilla semipalmated

sandpiper G5 M A a a u ISS declining/R5 RefugeList

Catoptrophorus

semipalmatus willet G5 S1B,S3N C B/M A r r 1 NAS Watchlist

Limnodromus

griseus

short-billed

dowitcher G5 M A c c u ISS declining/R5 RefugeList/NAS Watchlist

Limosa haemastica Hudsonian godwit G5 M ? NAWCA priority

Numenius

phaeopus whimbrel G5 M A o o ISS declining/R5 RefugeList

Phalaropus

tricolor

Wilson's

phalarope G5 M A r r NAWCA priority

Tryngites

subruficolis

buff-breasted

sandpiper G4 M A r r NAS Watchlist

Pluvialis

squatarola

black-bellied

plover G5 M A c u c o ISS declining/R5 RefugeList

Scolopax minor American

woodcock G5 B / M N,T y u u u r 3 5

ISS declining/R5 Refuge

List/PIF SNE globally

important

Sterna antillarum least tern G4 S2B,S2

N ST B / M A y u c u 1 1 state listed species, nestingmanaged on refuge

Sterna dougallii roseate tern G5 E SHB,S2

N FE B ? / M A u u u 3 fed. listed

Sterna hirundo common tern G5 B / M A y u c u 2 3 non-game bird man.

concern

CUCULIFORMES (Cuckoos and Allies):

Coccyzus

erythropthalmus

black-billed

cuckoo G5 B / M A y u u u 4 4 PIF SNE regionallyimportant
Appendix A 

A-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Scientific Name Common

Name(s) Global Federal R IRank

R I

Status Sea. Use Refuges b s S F W Pop./BBA Source/Justification

STRIGIFORMES (Owls):

Asio flammeus short-eared owl G5 M / W A u u o non-game bird man.

concern/NAS Watchlist

PICIFORMES (Woodpeckers and Allies):

Colaptes punctigula northern flicker G5 B / M / W N,T,S,C y c c c u 1 1 8 non-game bird man.

concern

Melanerpes

erythrocephalus

red-headed

woodpecker G5 S1B,S1N B/M T,N r r NAS Watchlist/PIF SNEglobally important

PASSERIFORMES (Perching Birds):

Contopus virens eastern woodpewee G5 B / M N,T y u o u 7 2 PIF SNE regionally

important

Catharus

fuscescens veery G5 B / M N,T,C y o o o 8 6 non-game bird man.concern

Hylocichla

mustelina wood thrush G5 B / M N,T,C y u c u 9 7 NAS Watchlist/PIF SNEglobally important

Vireo flavifrons yellow-throated

vireo G5 B / M ? NAWCA Priority

Dendroica

caerulescens

black-throated

blue warbler G5 S1B,S3N SE B / M A r r o NAS Watchlist/PIF SNEglobally important

Dendroica cerulea cerulean

warbler G4 S1B,S2N ST B / M 2

former candidate/NAS

Watchlist/PIF SNE

globally important

Dendroica discolor prairie warbler G5 B / M A y u u u 8 0 NAS Watchlist/PIF SNE

globally important

Helmitheros

vermivorus

worm-eating

warbler G5 S2B,SZN C B/M A r r 8

non-game bird man.

concern/NAS

Watchlist/PIF SNE

globally important

Protonotaria citrea prothonotary

warbler G5 S1B,S1N C B/M A r NAS Watchlist

Seiurus motacilla Louisiana

waterthrush G5 B / M 1 9

non-game bird man.

concern/PIF SNE

regionally important

Vermivora

chrysoptera

golden-winged

warbler G4 SXB,S2N SH M A r r r

non-game bird man.

concern/NAS

Watchlist/PIF SNE

globally important

Vermivora pinus blue-winged

warbler G5 B / M A y c c u 8 0

non-game bird man.

concern/PIF SNE

regionally important

Wilsonia

canadensis Canada warbler G5 B / M A y o o o 1 9 PIF SNE globally important

Icteria virens yellow-breasted

chat G5 B / M A r r r species off concern at RIrefuges

Spizella pusilla field sparrow G5 B / M N,T,C,S y u u u o 7 2

non-game bird man.

concern/PIF SNE

regionally important

Ammodramus

caudacutus

saltmarsh sharptailed sparrow G5 B / M A y o u u 2 6 NAS Watchlist/PIF SNE

globally important

Ammodramus

henslowii

Henslow's

sparrow

G4 SX SH(194

0 )

former candidate/PIF SNE

globally important

Ammodramus

maritimus seaside sparrow G4 S2B,SZN B/M A y o u u 10 NAS Watchlist/PIF SNEglobally important

Ammodramus

nelsoni

Nelson's sharptailed sparrow G5 M NAS Watchlist
Trust Resources and Species and Habitats of Concern Appendix A 

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs – May 2002 A-11

Scientific Name Common

Name(s) Global Federal R IRank

R I

Status Sea. Use Refuges b s S F W Pop./BBA Source/Justification

Ammodramus

savannarum

grasshopper

sparrow

G4 S1B,S1

N B/M N,T r r r 4 non-game bird man.concern

Dolichonyx

oryzivorus bobolink G5 B / M T,S,N y u c u 3 0

non-game bird man.

concern/NAS

Watchlist/PIF SNE

globally important

Sturnella magna eastern

meadowlark G5 B / M / W S,T,N,C y c c c u 3 3 non-game bird man.concern

Pheucticus

ludovicianus

rose-breasted

grosbeak G5 B / M A o o 5 3 PIF SNE regional priority

MAMMALS

Terrestrial mammals

Sylvilagus

transitionalis

New England

cottontail rabbit G4 S2 C R former candidate

Microtus

pennsylvanicus

provectus

Block Island

meadow vole G5T1 G5T2Q R former candidate

Whales

Balaenoptera

physalus finback whale G2 E P / M fed. listed species in RIwaters

Eubalaena glacialis northern right

whale G2 E P / M fed. listed species in RIwaters

Megaptera

novaeangliae humpback whale G3 E P / M fed. listed species in RIwaters

Seals

Halichoerus

grypus gray seal G4 W marine mammal occurringon refuge

Phoca groenlandica harp seal G5 W marine mammal occurring

on refuge

Phoca vitulina harbor seal G5 W marine mammal occurring

on refuge

VASCULAR PLANTS

ANGIOSPERMS (Flowering Plants):

Carex polymorpha variable sedge G3 S1 SE 1 former candidate

Scirpus longii Long's bulrush G2 S1 SE 1 former candidate

Scleria pauciflora

var. caroliniana

few-flowered

nutrush G5 S1 ST 3 NEPCoP regionally rare,occurs on refuge

Scleria

triglomerata whip nutrush G5 S1 ST 2 NEPCoP regionally rare,occurs on refuge

Isotria medeoloides small whorled

pogonia G2G3 E S1 FE 1 fed. listed

Platanthera

ciliaris

yellow fringed

orchid G5 S1 SE 1 NEPCoP regionally rare,occurs on refuge
Appendix A 

A-12 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Scientific Name Common

Name(s) Global Federal R IRank

R I

Status Sea. Use Refuges b s S F W Pop./BBA Source/Justification

Amaranthus

pumilus

seabeach

amaranth G2 T SH SH 0(1897) fed. listed

Polygonum

glaucum

seabeach

knotweed G3 S1 3 NEPCoP regionally rare,occurs on refuge

Cardamine longii Long's

bittercress G3G4Q S1 SE 1 former candidate

Eupatorium

leucolepis var.

novae-angliae

New England

boneset G5T1 S1 SE 5 former candidate

Liatris scariosa

var. novae-angliae

New England

blazing-star G5?T3 S1 SE 4 former candidate

Helianthemum

dumosum bushy rockrose G3 S1 SE 4 former candidate

Hypericum

adpressum

creeping St.

John's-wort G2G3 S2 ST 4 former candidate

Agalinis acuta sandplain

gerardia G1 E S1 FE 1 fed. listed

NATURAL COMMUNITIES

Coastal Salt

Pond/Marsh G4 S3

Southern New

England Salt

Marsh

G5 S4

Sea Level Fen G2G3 S1

Coastal Sand

Dune Community G5 S3

Morainic

Grassland G2 S1

New England

Coastal Plain

Pondshore

G3 S2

New England

Pitch Pine Scrub

Oak Barren

G2 S1

ANIMAL CONCENTRATION AREAS

Anadromous Fish

Concentration

Migratory

Shorebird

Concentration

Area

Seal Haulout

Area

Waterbird

Nesting Colony

Waterfowl

Concentration

Area

Refuge: occurrence of birds on the Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuges from Birds of the National Wildlife Refuges of Rhode Island, 1996.

Refuge locations: N=Ninigret, B=Block Island, T=Trustom Pond, C=Chafee Refuge, S=Sachuest Point, A = found on all Rhode Island Refuges

b=breeding, s = spring, S= summer, F=fall, W= winter; relative abundance: a=abundant, c=common, u=uncommon, o=occasional, r=rare;

Pop./BBA =known occurences or populations in state from Natural Heritage Program; for breeding birds = number of probable or confirmed breeding bird atlas blocks in state.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 B-1

Response to Public Comments on Draft CCP/EA Appendix B

Appendix B

Response to Public

Comments on Draft CCP/EA

(December 2001)
B-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix B

Summary of, and the Service’s Response to, Public Comments Received on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA) for the Rhode Island National

Wildlife Refuge Complex.

December 2001

Introduction

In December 2000, we completed the Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA). The Draft CCP/EA outlined four alternative scenarios for

managing the five National Wildlife Refuges in Rhode Island over the next 15 years. We identified Alternative B as

the “Service’s Proposed Action” in this document. The Draft CCP/EA was released for 51 days of public review

during January 10 to March 2, 2001.

We have evaluated all written and oral correspondence received during the public comment period. This document is

our response to the substantive comments we received and shows how our Proposed Action alternative has changed

as a result. Based on the analysis in the Draft CCP/EA, and our evaluation of public comments, we have modified

the original Service’s Proposed Action to include the following four changes:

 We propose to complete a deer management plan and accompanying environmental assessment (EA) for the

Refuge Complex by the end of calendar year 2002. We would specifically evaluate public deer hunting as one

alternative for managing deer populations and as a means of supporting a priority public use. This is a

change from Alternative B in that it will be a consolidated plan for all five refuges, and would be done sooner

than originally planned.

 We propose to expand the acquisition boundaries of each refuge as identified in the Land Protection Plan

(LPP) for the Refuge Complex. The LPP is a refinement of the land protection proposal presented in

Alternative B, and was developed after consideration of public and partner comments on the Draft CCP/EA

and recent changes in land status. It identifies the specific parcels proposed for Service acquisition, their

priority, and the protection option recommended. The LPP is currently undergoing a 30-day comment

period by the landowners within the proposed acquisition boundary. Once this review is complete and any

needed changes are incorporated, it will be reviewed and approved by our Director.

 We propose to allow waterfowl hunting on the John H. Chafee Refuge according to state and refuge regulations beginning in the fall 2003 season. This opportunity was evaluated in Alternative D of the Draft CCP/

EA. Based on public and partner comments, we propose this opportunity in support of a priority public use

that is also an historic and traditional use in this area.

 We propose to develop a cooperative resource protection and public use plan with our Block Island partners

by the end of calendar year 2003. This is sooner than originally planned in Alternative B, and is in response

to our island partners’ concern about potential land use changes in the near future. Further, our proposals in

Alternative B for infrastructure to support wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and

interpretation would be postponed and re-evaluated after completing the cooperative plan.

Our Regional Director will issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on our revised proposed action, after

our Director reviews and approves the Land Protection Plan (see “Land Ownership” discussion below), and after the

public has an opportunity to comment on two new compatibility determinations for management trapping and

waterfowl hunting. The FONSI is the decision document, completing the planning phase of the CCP process, and

allowing us to begin the implementation phase.

Summary of Comments Received

We received a total of 447 public responses by way of oral testimony at public hearings or through submission of

written or electronic documents.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 B-3

Response to Public Comments on Draft CCP/EA Appendix B

We held three formal public hearings as follows:

February 6, 2001, Middletown High School, Middletown, RI

February 7, 2001, South Kingstown High School, South Kingstown, RI

February 8, 2001, Block Island School, New Shoreham (Block Island), RI.

A total of 45 people presented oral testimony at the public hearings; 16 at Middletown, 17 at South Kingstown and 12

at Block Island. Some of these people submitted their testimony in writing as well. Other written responses also

came in the form of letters and electronic mail.

We received 4 written responses from local and State Governments, including:

Town of Charlestown

Town of Narragansett

Town of New Shoreham

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Division of Fish and Wildlife

(RI DEM)

We received 11 written responses from local and national conservation and recreation organizations, including:

Animal Protection Institute

Audubon Society of Rhode Island

Block Island Conservancy

Federated Rhode Island Sportsmen’s Club, Inc.

Friends of the National Wildlife Refuges of Rhode Island (2 responses)(Friends Group)

Mid Island Surfcasters

National Trappers Association, Inc.

Newport County Salt Water Fishing Club, Inc.

North Light Commission

South Kingstown Bridle Lanes Association

The South Kingstown Bridle Lanes Association letter included a petition with 76 signatures.

We received 373 written responses from individuals, including:

243 written letters

130 electronic mailings

One of the letters we received was a petition signed by 14 South County residents. A second letter was sent by the

Chairman of the Arnolda Improvement Corporation (AIC) on behalf of the AIC, FWA Heirs Inc., and the Marshneck

Gun Club. Advocates of waterfowl hunting on Chafee Refuge comprised the majority of correspondence from

individuals with a total of 324 letters received via electronic and regular mail. Some of these individuals spoke at the

public hearing and also submitted their statements in writing.

In the following discussion, we identify the issues raised and our response to those issues. We make some references

to the full-text version of the “Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Draft Comprehensive Conservation

Plan and Environmental Assessment, December 2000.” To receive a copy of the full-text version you have several

options. It can be accessed on the Services National Library website at http://training.fws.gov/ccp.htm, or obtained

in either CD or hard copy format from the Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex office.

The contact information is as follows:

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Charlie Vandemoer, Refuge Manager

P.O. Box 307, 3769 D Old Post Road

Charlestown, RI 02813

Phone: (401) 364-9124

Fax: (401) 364-0170

Email: R5RW_RINWR@fws.gov
B-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix B

Priority Public Uses

Hunting – General

Comments

The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Division of Fish and Wildlife (RI DEM), the National

Trappers Association, Inc., the Federated Rhode Island Sportsmen’s Club, Inc., Mid Island Surfcasters, and many

individuals were critical of the Service’s Proposed Action in the Draft CCP/EA because of the lack of hunting

opportunities on the Refuge Complex. The RI DEM states, “Hunting on the Refuges is an issue of significant

importance to the RI DEM.” Their view is that hunting supports a priority public use and is an effective management tool to control overabundant species. The National Trappers Association, Inc. stated that the Draft CCP/EA

showed extreme bias against hunting and that restrictions on hunting are extremely detrimental to the ecosystem.

The RI DEM and Mid Island Surfcasters specifically mentioned their support for Alternative D which would open

up the refuges to hunting after completion of an environmental assessment (EA), Federal Register Notice, and a

Hunt Plan. The RI DEM offered their assistance in preparing these documents and implementing hunt programs,

and encouraged the Service to begin the process as soon as possible. Many individuals were generally concerned

about the lack of hunting opportunities on the Refuge Complex or with the closing of certain refuge lands to hunting.

Opposition to hunting on the Refuge Complex was expressed by the Animal Protection Institute, the Friends Group,

and several individuals. The Friends Group feels that the refuges are too small to support public hunting safely, and

that hunting for population management (e.g., deer hunting) should only be carried out by professional hunters. The

Animal Protection Institute is opposed to killing wildlife for commercial or recreational purposes on national wildlife

refuges. This organization states that hunting is inconsistent with Service policies on wildlife conservation, and

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. They also expressed concern with the lack of wildlife

population data to guide decisions on management. Some individuals were opposed to hunting for ethical reasons or

due to a concern that refuge hunting areas would be too close to private residences, creating a safety hazard. Other

individuals expressed concern that because of the relatively small refuge acreages, a hunt program would necessarily

preclude other priority public uses from occurring at the same time.

Response

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge Improvement Act) lists hunting as one of six

priority, wildlife-dependent public uses to receive enhanced and preferential consideration in refuge planning and

management. In addition to hunting, other priority uses include fishing, wildlife observation and photography,

environmental education and interpretation. Our mandate is to provide high-quality opportunities for these priority

uses where they are compatible with respective refuge purposes, goals, and other management priorities.

The Refuge Improvement Act does not establish a hierarchy among the six priority uses; rather, Refuge Managers

are strongly encouraged to strive for a balanced program and avoid favoring one priority use over another unless

warranted by public interest and demand, or because there are limited opportunities on other local land ownerships,

or because of inadequate resources to commit to maintaining a high quality program. The Refuge Improvement Act

recognizes that not every priority use can be accommodated on every refuge.

Currently, the only part of the Refuge Complex open to hunting is a 20-acre upland parcel on Trustom Pond Refuge,

off Matunuck Schoolhouse Road, open to migratory bird hunting. Other hunting programs have not been

implemented on the Refuge Complex for reasons discussed in the Draft CCP/EA (Chapter 3, page 3-30). These

reasons include: a limited contiguous land base (Chafee and Block Island refuges); proximity of human habitation

and facilities (Chafee, Ninigret and Trustom Pond refuges); a deed restriction prohibiting hunting on 151 acres

(Trustom Pond Refuge); impenetrable vegetation precluding access to huntable species (Sachuest Point Refuge);

little information on wildlife populations (all refuges); impacts on other priority public uses (all refuges); and a lack

of staffing and funding to develop and manage a high quality program (all refuges).

Some of these concerns, such as a small land base, proximity to residences, lack of population and habitat

information, and limited staffing, would be mitigated in the future with implementation of the actions and strategies

in our Proposed Action. These would include increases in land acquisition, staffing, and inventory and monitoring of

habitat conditions.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 B-5

Response to Public Comments on Draft CCP/EA Appendix B

In response to public comments favoring hunting and RI DEM requests for a deer hunting program on the refuges,

our new Proposed Action includes development in 2002 of a Refuge Complex Deer Management Plan and

accompanying environmental assessment (EA). This plan would cover all five Rhode Island Refuges, and would be

completed in cooperation with RI DEM. It would evaluate alternatives for managing deer on the Refuge Complex,

including opportunities for a public hunt program. Refuge areas that meet certain criteria would be evaluated

further to determine if they could support a high quality public hunt. The criteria would include, but not be limited

to, the following: 1) an area of sufficient size to insure public safety; 2) an area that can be partitioned in time or

space so as not to significantly affect other priority public uses; 3) an area that provides reasonable opportunities for

a successful hunt; 4) an area that is consistent with or complements other hunted areas in town; and 5) available

information suggests a huntable deer population exists.

Development of the Refuge Complex Deer Management Plan would include public review and comment, after which,

the Regional Director would decide which alternative to implement. If the selected alternative includes a public

hunt, a Refuge Complex Hunt Plan would be prepared and annually updated, and Refuge specific hunt regulations

would be published in the Federal Register.

Waterfowl Hunting

Comments

We received 324 letters and electronic mail from individuals stating “...opposition to the proposed closure of Chafee

Refuge to hunting in general, and waterfowl hunting in particular. The Lower Narrow River and Pettaquamscutt

Cove has always been historically open to waterfowl hunting.” This same letter was submitted by the Federated

Rhode Island Sportsman’s Club, Inc. The letter references the Refuge Improvement Act which identified hunting

as a priority public use on national wildlife refuges. RI DEM noted these same concerns and also indicated the

Proposed Action in the Draft CCP/EA had “conflicting statements” on whether or not waterfowl hunting would

actually occur on Chafee Refuge. They point out that, in describing Alternative B, we discuss the need to develop a

waterfowl management plan to address waterfowl resting habitat, “...while also continuing opportunities for

hunting,” but when describing the priority public uses we would allow on the refuge, hunting was not proposed. One

individual expressed concern that we should do more to improve the habitat for wintering waterfowl at Chafee

Refuge because a “no hunting rest area” for waterfowl, “...does nothing to increase the winter carrying capacity of

waterfowl,” nor does it “...have any effect on Black Duck populations or winter survival.”

RI DEM also stated that our proposed waterfowl hunting on Ninigret Refuge in Coon Cove is overstated since the

presence of the invasive plant Phragmites has degraded the site. They recommend removing the Phragmites,

allowing the marsh to restore, and then allow access by boat to a hunting blind on shoreline.

Several individuals wrote that all refuges should be open to waterfowl hunting.

Response

We welcome this opportunity to clarify the misinformation over waterfowl hunting in the Pettaquamscutt Cove area,

including Chafee Refuge. We believe some of the confusion was generated over a map we presented in the Draft

CCP/EA (Chapter 3, Map 3-17, page 3-76) which may have falsely indicated to some readers the Service has

authority over tidal waters. In Rhode Island, the Service has no jurisdiction or management authority over lands

below mean high water; lands below mean high water fall within the jurisdiction of the State of Rhode Island. In

light of this, the vast majority of waterfowl hunting in the lower Narrow River and Pettaquamscutt Cove occurs on

state lands under state regulations administered by RI DEM.

Chafee Refuge, that is, lands above mean high water in the various small tracts depicted on Map 1-6 (Chapter 1,

page 1-21)has never been open to hunting since its establishment in 1988 for the reasons noted above in the general

hunting discussion. However, in response to the extensive public comments received, our new Proposed Action

includes opening Chafee Refuge to waterfowl hunting under state and refuge regulations in the fall of 2003. This

opportunity is fully compatible with refuge purposes, goals, and objectives and would complement the waterfowl

hunting tradition on adjacent state waters. A Hunt Plan would be developed, and updated annually, and we would

publish specific refuge regulations in the Federal Register by 2003.
B-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix B

The recommendation to RI DEM and respective towns to work with us cooperatively in developing a

Pettaquamscutt Cove Waterfowl Management Area Plan in 2003 is still part of our Proposed Action. This plan

would regard Pettaquamscutt Cove as a single management unit within which to evaluate and designate waterfowl

resting habitat, identify waterfowl habitat restoration opportunities, and maintain waterfowl hunting opportunities.

Through development of this area management plan, and consideration of proposed future land acquisition and

protection by all parties, the Service would be better able to identify opportunities to improve habitat quality for

waterfowl and maintain a high quality waterfowl hunting experience on refuge lands.

On Ninigret Refuge, we believe there is an opportunity for a high quality waterfowl hunting in Coon Cove once we

implement Phragmites control work to restore the marsh and improve the quality of habitat for waterfowl. We

would incorporate this area into the Hunt Plan once the site is improved.

On Trustom Pond Refuge, our Proposed Action maintains the existing migratory bird hunt on the 20-acre upland off

Matunuck Schoolhouse Road, which is primarily a resident goose hunt. The pond would remain closed to waterfowl

hunting.

Sachuest Point would remain closed to waterfowl hunting in our Proposed Action as only marginal opportunities

exist above mean high water, and the impacts on other, established priority public uses, such as wildlife observation,

are too great. Thousands of birders come to observe wintering harlequin duck from the refuge shoreline during the

same time state lands are open to sea duck hunting. Our Proposed Action recommends to RI DEM implementation

of a shoreline waterfowl hunting closure at Sachuest Point on the state lands below mean high water to further

enhance this rare opportunity to view harlequin ducks.

On Block Island Refuge, waterfowl hunting opportunities would be addressed in the cooperative resource protection

and public use and access plan to be developed with our Block Island partners in 2003 (see Wildlife Observation for

Block Island below).

Fishing

Comments

We received several comments supporting the existing fishing programs at Sachuest Point, Chafee, and Block Island

refuges. The Newport County Salt Water Fishing Club and several individuals expressed concern with restrictions

on night and spear fishing at Sachuest Point Refuge.

The Animal Protection Institute, Inc., is opposed to the commercial and recreational killing of wildlife, including fish,

on refuges and they, “...believe it is inappropriate to allow such activities on public lands established to protect

wildlife.” We received one comment from an individual who stated that fishing should not be allowed because

anglers scare wildlife.

Response

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to clear up misinformation. On Sachuest Point Refuge, our Proposed Action

would continue to allow surf fishing, including night fishing, year round. In addition, we would continue to allow

access for spear fishing in state waters, but require these anglers to unload and encase their spears while walking

across refuge land. We are proposing to designate access points off the headland to the water to minimize vegetation

trampling and erosion. Also, our Proposed Action includes implementing a permit system for fishing beginning in

2002. After sunset, the Refuge would be closed except to anglers with permits. We are evaluating whether to use an

electronic gate to preclude all other access, thereby addressing nighttime vandalism and trespass problems from the

non-fishing public. We plan to monitor fishing activities on refuge lands to insure high quality opportunities are

provided.

Chafee Refuge would continue to be open to salt water fishing year round. We would, however, be designating access

points to the refuge shoreline to minimize impacts to marsh habitat, reduce shoreline erosion, and to help keep

anglers off private lands.

Opportunities for surf fishing on Trustom Pond Refuge’s Moonstone Beach would not change. It would remain open

to surf fishing from September 16 to March 31 with access on foot only. The closure period (April 1 to September 15)

represents the nesting and migration season for the federally threatened piping plover and other shorebirds. Vehicles would continue to be restricted from Moonstone Beach year round.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 B-7

Response to Public Comments on Draft CCP/EA Appendix B

On Block Island Refuge, our Proposed Action would continue to allow surf fishing year round; however, vehicle

access would not be allowed on refuge lands in the vicinity of Sandy Point, that is, above the mean high water line,

from April 1 to September 15 each year. As discussed in the Draft CCP/EA, this change is designed to help promote

use by piping plover and other shorebirds during the nesting and migration seasons, and to reduce the physical

impacts to the beach and dune structure. Public uses on other Block Island Refuge lands would be monitored to

determine whether they are compatible with refuge purposes and goals.

Subject to those actions discussed in the Draft CCP/EA (Chapter 3, page 3-43), other actions which could affect

fishing opportunities may be implemented as warranted to enhance protection of piping plover and to insure compliance with the Endangered Species Act. For example, additional access restrictions may be imposed in some areas

should a piping plover nest be discovered. Necessarily, management for piping plover requires a strategy of adaptive

management in response to new information.

Other comments related to beach access on Block Island Refuge are discussed below.

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Comments

Several commenters supported the proposed trail improvements at Sachuest Point and Chafee refuges. Others

opposed certain actions proposed for Sachuest Point Refuge. A few people, citing a need for shorter loop hikes for

the elderly, wanted both Trail #3 and Trail #4 on Sachuest Point to remain. The Friends Group, along with a few

commenters, wanted us to consider keeping Trail #3 and the Flint Point observation tower in place. They commented that maintaining Trail #3 would accommodate “less mobile” visitors.

Many of the Block Island residents we heard from expressed concern with the proposals for observation and photography platforms and kiosks on the refuge. They believe these structures would significantly detract from the

natural setting.

Several people requested that cross country skiing and snowshoeing be allowed.

Response

On Sachuest Point Refuge, our Proposed Action would eliminate Trails #3 and #4, restoring them to native coastal

maritime habitat. However, in order to respond to those individuals wanting a shorter loop, by 2004 we would

evaluate construction of a shorter loop between Trail#1 and Trail #2. Our objective is to increase the amount of area

in contiguous, undisturbed natural habitat to benefit nesting and migratory birds, while continuing to provide high

quality wildlife observation and photography opportunities. Some research studies indicate that if people are kept to

the edge of important habitat, outside of the interior or core habitat areas, their presence is less likely to adversely

impact wildlife use of the area. This would be a consideration as we evaluate a shorter loop.

With regards to the Flint Point observation platform on Trail #1, we apologize for the confusion. It was inadvertently left off the Alternative B, Proposed Action map, Map 3-18 (Chapter 3, page 3-77). We do not intend to remove

this platform. In addition, our Proposed Action would move a platform from one of the trails to be eliminated to

Trail #2, in order to maintain this viewing opportunity.

On Block Island Refuge, our Proposed Action is to delay any wildlife observation, photography, or interpretive

projects until we complete the cooperative resource protection and public use plan for northern Block Island in 2003

with our partners. This plan would identify strategies for protecting natural resources while allowing public use and

access. In addition, we would cooperatively identify the infrastructure desired to support compatible activities. Our

original proposal included projects such as a kiosk, observation platform, interpretive trails, and parking area. Until

the plan is completed, however, the only structures we will maintain are Service boundary signs and, in the event

that a pair of piping plover nest, the signing and fencing needed to insure their protection.

With regards to cross-country skiing and snowshoeing on all refuges, our Proposed Action would allow these activities where they occur in support of winter wildlife observation, photography, or environmental education or interpretive programs.
B-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix B

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Comments

Letters from the Town of Narragansett, the Town of Charlestown, and the Friends Group supported our proposed

environmental education and interpretation programs. Many individuals supported our proposed increases as well.

Response

Environmental education and interpretation are priority wildlife-dependent public uses that directly contribute to

achieving the Service’s Mission and our Refuge Complex goals and objectives. Our Proposed Action would include a

significant expansion of environmental education and interpretive programs on each of the five refuges. Full implementation of our proposal would be contingent on adequate budget and staffing.

Endangered and Threatened Species Protection

Comments

Some commenters voiced support for our endangered and threatened species protection efforts. The Animal Protection Institute strongly supports the protection of endangered and threatened species but urges the Service to

consider “effective long term management strategies that are both humane and biologically sound.” Specifically,

they question the efficacy of our lethal predator control techniques used in protecting piping plover.

A few commenters expressed opposition with the continued closure of Moonstone Beach on Trustom Pond Refuge to

protect nesting piping plover when it was not readily apparent that the restriction on public use was positively

impacting species recovery. One individual commented that other factors, such as predators, weather and beach

dynamics, and oil spills are considerably more responsible for causing piping plover nest failure than human disturbance. Another individual offered a different seasonal closure for consideration, similar to that proposed in Alternative C.

Some Block Island residents question our management for piping plover on Block Island Refuge. One commenter

stated that because piping plover have not nested there in years, “...it is possible we are making great efforts to

protect that which doesn’t want to be there.”

Another commenter requested more detail on how we would manage for the Federally endangered American burying beetle on Block Island.

Response

Our Proposed Action would continue to manage populations of endangered and threatened species as mandated by

the National Wildlife Refuge System Mission, the Endangered Species Act, and as outlined in respective Species

Recovery Plans. Specifically, management for the Federally threatened piping plover would continue to be a

priority for the Refuge Complex. Our Proposed Action includes the management actions and strategies for piping

plover that were identified in Alternative B in the Draft CCP/EA. We would continue to work closely with the Piping

Plover Recovery Team and species experts to insure that we are using the best available science. With so many

factors impacting nesting success (e.g. habitat loss, habitat degradation, predation, storms, human disturbance, etc.),

management for this species requires that we utilize an integrated and adaptive management approach employing

many tools and techniques.

For example, we would continue to actively restore breeding, foraging and migration habitat, and manage public use

to improve the overall habitat quality for piping plover and least tern. We would also continue a multi-faceted

approach to managing the predators impacting piping plover and least tern. Besides removal of individual problem

animals, we would continue erecting predator exclosures around nests, reducing litter and other predator attractants, and employing non-lethal predator aversion techniques. Further, we would expand our public education and

outreach campaign to promote stewardship of coastal resources, including piping plover habitat.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 B-9

Response to Public Comments on Draft CCP/EA Appendix B

The public access restriction on Trustom Pond’s Moonstone Beach and the seasonal closure to vehicles on Block

Island that are included in our Proposed Action were developed in cooperation with the Piping Plover Recovery

Team. We continue to believe these actions are a vital and necessary component of an integrated management

approach for protecting piping plover along coastal Rhode Island, and are effective management tools. On Block

Island Refuge, we admit we do not fully understand why piping plover use has been inconsistent. We identified

several possible factors in the Draft CCP/EA (Chapter 2, page 2-18). However, we are encouraged by the nesting

attempt on Sandy Point tip this summer and the successful nesting which occurred just south of the refuge in 2000.

With regards to the American burying beetle, our Proposed Action does not specifically identify habitat management

area on current refuge lands as we have not completed a habitat suitability analysis. Our proposal is to evaluate all

new land acquisitions, in cooperation with the Service’s New England Field Office and RI DEM, for their potential to

be managed as American burying beetle habitat. Suitable habitat consists of grassland and other early successional

vegetation, the presence of suitable prey species, such as gull and pheasant chicks, and soil types that allow beetles

to bury prey. Active management may include maintaining the vegetation in grasslands through either mowing,

brushing or burning; however, no action would be anticipated in the foreseeable future.

Non-Priority Public Uses

Jogging

Comments

We received comments for and against allowing jogging on the Refuge Complex. By far, the greatest interest was on

jogging at Sachuest Point Refuge. Some people argued that slow jogging is very similar to walking, making enforcement of a “no jogging” policy somewhat ridiculous. Others maintained that jogging is a compatible,

wildlife-dependent public use. Many individuals commented that they have never witnessed wildlife or other visitors

disturbed by their jogging.

Some commenters, including the Friends Group, endorsed our proposal to eliminate jogging on refuges and supported our commitment to phase-out other non-wildlife dependent uses. The Friends Group does not view jogging as

a wildlife-dependent public use, and feels that it would have an adverse impact on wildlife and on other visitors

participating in wildlife-dependent activities.

Response

Jogging is not a priority public use identified in the Refuge Improvement Act nor is it an activity that is necessary to

support the safe, practical, and effective conduct of a priority public use. We acknowledge the public’s desire to jog

for recreation and fitness in a natural setting, but this activity is not dependent on the presence of fish and wildlife,

nor dependent on the expectation of encountering fish and wildlife.

On a small refuge such as Sachuest Point, space on trails and in the parking lot is limited. Volunteers who daily

monitor public use on Sachuest Point Refuge estimate that an average of 25% of the refuge’s visitors come to jog,

with increases on weekends during good weather. With our current estimate of 65,000 annual visitors, 25% amounts

to 16,250 jogger visits annually. Many joggers park at the refuge; some jog in groups, some jog with dogs on leash,

others jog with dogs off-leash. There are days when the refuge parking lot is full with more vehicles associated with

people participating in non-wildlife dependent activities such as jogging, dog walking, swimming and sunbathing,

than visitors engaged in wildlife-dependent activities. This level of use will interfere with our proposal to expand

priority public use programs such as environmental education and interpretation, wildlife observation and photography. While some joggers maintain they have not noticed a disturbance to wildlife or other visitors from their activity,

our concern is the cumulative impact from consistent, virtually year round use, by thousands of joggers. In addition,

our Proposed Action would modify trails to promote barrier-free accessibility. Visitors with impaired mobility should

not have to concern themselves with avoiding joggers, thus detracting from their wildlife observation experience.

Furthermore, as our proposed priority public use programs increase visitation by an estimated 15%, there is a

greater potential for conflict in the future.

Maintaining high quality, priority public use programs includes minimizing conflicts with other uses; when we must

choose between providing a non-wildlife dependent use or maintaining the quality of an existing priority use, we

must choose the latter. We cannot expand our facilities without sacrificing important wildlife habitat and stretching
B-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix B

other resources such as funding and staff time. While it is true that it will sometimes be difficult to distinguish

between a “slow jogger” and a walker engaged in wildlife observation, we do not believe this is a reason to allow

jogging. Jogging is an activity more appropriately conducted on private lands, or on other public lands not specifically dedicated for wildlife conservation.

On Block Island Refuge, we have little information on public uses. Our Proposed Action includes monitoring all

public uses to determine whether they are compatible with meeting refuge purposes and goals. In addition, we

would address opportunities in the resource protection and public use and access plan to be developed with our Block

Island partners in 2003.

Dog Walking

Comments

Many people wrote us indicating their desire to continue walking their dogs in a refuge’s natural setting. Virtually

all the comments focused on Sachuest Point Refuge, while two mentioned Block Island Refuge. Most comment

letters argued that leashed dogs would not bother wildlife or other refuge visitors. Some commenters at our public

meetings felt that we were “punishing the many for the actions of the few” by banning dogs on the refuge. Instead,

these commenters felt we could be increasing enforcement to catch the people who walk dogs unleashed or do not

clean up their waste. Many commenters also noted that there are very few safe, enjoyable places to walk dogs in the

Town of Middletown.

Several commenters supported eliminating dogs from the refuges because they can intimidate visitors and because

dogs off-leash can disturb wildlife.

Response

All of the Rhode Island refuges were established with purposes related to protecting, managing, and conserving

native wildlife. The 1997 Refuge Improvement Act mandates that wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first

on refuges. The Refuge Improvement Act further stipulates that all activities occurring on refuges should be

compatible with wildlife conservation and the specific purposes for which a refuge was established. This is an

important distinction from other public lands and recreation areas; refuges have a narrow management focus and are

not multi-purpose lands. Six public uses were identified in the Refuge Improvement Act as the priorities for receiving enhanced consideration on refuges. Dog walking is not one of the six priority public uses, nor are dogs (except

seeing or hearing dogs) necessary to support the safe, practical, and effective conduct of the priority public use

programs we would be implementing on the refuges.

On Sachuest Point Refuge, where this use is monitored by volunteers, dog walkers number in the thousands annually.

Dogs running off leash and piles of dog waste left on trails or tossed in the shrubs are consistent problems, not

isolated incidences. We receive regular complaints from visitors about unleashed dogs running up to them and their

having to step around dog waste on trails. These visitors are intimidated by dogs and disgusted by the waste, and

their experience is negatively impacted by these encounters. Further, our Proposed Action would modify trails to

promote barrier-free accessability, and we have concerns with dogs on these same trails, especially loose dogs, where

visitors with impaired mobility would be encouraged to observe wildlife. While we could lessen these impacts by

constantly enforcing the use of leashes and requiring that dog waste be discarded off refuge lands, this would require

us to dedicate considerable personnel time to enforcing compliance of an activity that does not support one of our

priority public uses. This additional expenditure of resources would negatively impact our ability to meet Refuge

Complex goals and objectives.

As stated above under jogging, on Block Island Refuge, our Proposed Action includes monitoring all public uses to

determine whether they are compatible with meeting refuge purposes and goals. In addition, we would address

opportunities in the resource protection and public use and access plan to be developed with our Block Island

partners in 2003.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 B-11

Response to Public Comments on Draft CCP/EA Appendix B

Swimming and Sunbathing

Comments

Four individuals requested swimming opportunities at Trustom Pond, Sachuest Point, and Block Island Refuges. A

few people felt that swimming was compatible with refuge activities, and one stated that swimming at a refuge can be

a wildlife-dependent activity.

Response

There are no swimming opportunities available on refuge lands, that is, above the mean high water line. The opportunities for swimming in the Atlantic Ocean and Narrow River are occurring in state waters, off refuge lands.

Trustom Salt Pond is the only significant water body on refuge lands and it will remain closed to swimming year

round to protect piping plover, shorebirds, and waterfowl. Other beach-related issues are discussed under Beach

Access below.

Sunbathing presents a different concern as it generally occurs above the mean high water line on refuge lands.

Sunbathing is not a priority public use; it is also not dependent on the presence of fish and wildlife, nor dependent on

the expectation of encountering fish and wildlife. We distinguish sunbathers from those visitors who are otherwise

engaged in wildlife observation or photography and decide to rest on the beach. Sunbathers are identified by their

blankets, chairs, coolers, windscreens, and/or radios and the hours spent on the beach. Where groups of sunbathers

lie, most wildlife will totally avoid this area and are often displaced to lower quality habitats; especially affected are

wildlife with preferred foraging habitat along the shoreline. Given our mandate and the purpose for which these

refuges were established, we view activities such as sunbathing, which displace wildlife to more marginal habitats, as

inappropriate on lands dedicated to wildlife conservation.

Horseback Riding

Comments

The South Kingston Bridle Lanes Association want Trustom Pond and Ninigret refuges open to horseback riding.

They believe that, “...limited equestrian activities in the Trustom Pond and Ninigret areas could be a compatible,

non-invasive public use if planned and executed in a responsible and organized manner.” They reference a Moonstone Beach ride on state lands below the mean high water line sponsored each winter by their organization which

they feel is appropriate and wildlife-dependent. They would like the Service to consider opportunities for horseback

riding as new lands are acquired into the Refuge System.

Response

As we have mentioned above, and the South Kingstown Bridle Lanes emphasize in their letter, the Service has no

jurisdiction on lands and waters in Rhode Island below the mean high water line. As described, their ride on Moonstone Beach is on state lands.

Our Proposed Action would continue to restrict horseback riding on refuge trails. This activity does not promote

wildlife conservation, is not one of our six priority public uses, nor is it necessary to support the safe, practical, and

effective conduct of a priority public use on Rhode Island refuges. While we appreciate the desire to horseback ride

in a natural setting, we do not believe it is in the American public’s best interest to expend limited resources on

managing an activity that does not support a priority use. Further, this activity only provides an opportunity for a

relatively small segment of the local public. The refuge resources needed to manage horseback riding would directly

impact our ability to provide high quality priority use programs.

Notwithstanding all of the above, our refuge trails were not designed to accommodate horses. Our trails are not wide

enough, nor long enough, for riders and walkers to avoid each other, nor are trails designed to withstand the impact

of horses. This is especially true in wetter areas. Our Proposed Action would modify refuge trails to promote

barrier-free accessibility, and to accommodate increased environmental education and interpretive programs. These

visitors should not have to contend with horses. Another issue with horse use is the waste left on trails. It is welldocumented that horse waste introduces seeds from non-native and invasive vegetation. Further, the horse waste is
B-12 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix B

unsightly and detracts from other visitors’ experiences when they have to step around to avoid it.

With our projected 15% increase in visitation due to increased priority public use programs, conflicts between horse

use and refuge programs seem inevitable. We do not believe we should be supporting activities unless they promote

our wildlife conservation mission and contribute to high quality, priority public use programs available to a broad

spectrum of the American public.

Bicycling and Multiple Use Trails

Comments

A letter signed by 14 South County residents urged us to consider opportunities for “passive outdoor recreation

green way trails” allowing such activities as dog walking, jogging, cross-country skiing, mountain biking, horseback

riding, and hiking. There are South County-wide proposals for a green way trail system linking conservation lands

by various owners. These residents suggest that as we cooperate with partners in land protection, areas that include

proposed green way trails “...might better be integrated into the plans of more flexible conservation agencies’

acquisitions...” which would allow these activities. Other comment letters suggested similar multi-use trails linking

to larger trail networks. Also, the Town of Narragansett suggested a walking trail linking to a larger trail from

Chafee Refuge.

Response

Our Proposed Action would continue to restrict most of these multiple-use activities on current refuge trails because

of the reasons discussed above for jogging, dog walking, and horseback riding. The only exception is a 600-ft section

of the multiple-use South County Bike Path, yet to be constructed, along the outer edge of Chafee Refuge. We would

allow this section of trail on refuge because a) it is part of a state trail network; b) we have an established partnership

with RI DOT; c) the trail lies on an existing railroad bed where no important habitat will be modified, d) the adjacent

wetlands preclude off trail use; and e) because RI DOT has agreed to construct an interpretive kiosk where it

traverses the refuge. While we have not included any other exceptions on existing refuge lands in our Proposed

Action, we acknowledge there could be extenuating circumstances on lands we acquire in the future which would

have us reconsider this decision. These would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as they arise.

Our Proposed Action would allow cross-country skiing and snowshoeing on refuge trails as methods of access to

support wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation during the winter months.

Trapping

Comments

We received a few comments supporting trapping for predator control. The National Trappers Association, Inc.

views trapping as a traditional, priority public use. They are critical of our Proposed Action for not providing an

open trapping program since they view trapping as important for balancing species with available habitats, reducing

human/animal conflicts, and providing a recreational opportunity. They comment that “...unless trapping is proven to

be detrimental to the management of the refuges covered by this EA, or is proven to be unsafe practice, these

legitimate uses should (or must) be included.”

The Animal Protection Institute stated opposition to trapping with the opinion that “...management of NWR’s should

emphasize wildlife preservation, habitat protection, and native habitat restoration over public uses, especially

consumptive uses.” They believe trapping is inhumane and does not offer a long term solution for protecting endangered species. Other individuals expressed opposition for ethical reasons, stating all animals should be accommodated on refuge land.

Response

Trapping is not one of the six priority public uses identified in the Refuge Improvement Act; it was not included with

hunting as one commenter suggested. Our Proposed Action would maintain our current trapping program which
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 B-13

Response to Public Comments on Draft CCP/EA Appendix B

includes trapping as needed for management purposes using state licensed trappers, or Refuge Complex staff, to

control predators impacting Federal trust resources, or to resolve a human health and safety issue, or to protect

property and facilities. A recreational trapping program would not be implemented. Our current trapping program

centers on predator management for the Federally threatened piping plover. The 1996 Revised Recovery Plan for

the Piping Plover specifically mentions trapping as one of several important predator management tools to be used in

combination with non-lethal tools to further recovery efforts. Because predators continue to be one of the most

significant factors affecting chick loss on Rhode Island refuges, we have found that trapping is one of the most

effective ways to reduce direct mortality of chicks. We would evaluate the effectiveness of trapping as part of the

annual evaluation of our piping plover program.

Beach Access

Comments

While many letters indicated support for beach restrictions to protect wildlife and habitat, several letters expressed

opposition specifically to the beach closure at Trustom Pond Refuge’s Moonstone Beach and to the seasonal vehicle

restriction on Block Island Refuge.

With regards to Moonstone Beach, commenters feel that it is a uniquely beautiful place that people should be allowed

to access year-round, regardless of piping plover activities.

Many more comments related to beach access on Block Island Refuge. While some residents support the proposed

seasonal closure to beach driving on refuge land, other residents do not want the restriction imposed. Some people

questioned our authority to restrict vehicle access around the entire northern tip of Block Island, from Settlers Rock

around Sandy Point tip to West Beach. One commenter suggested that impacts from beach driving on the refuge is

no worse than impacts from the thousands of pedestrian visitors. Others feel that beach driving is necessary to

encourage traditional uses such as surf fishing, and that operators can act responsibly if we establish sensible

guidelines. Some residents suggested issues with beach driving could be minimized if the Town of New Shoreham

would enforce the Coastal Resources Management Council permit system for beach driving.

The Town of New Shoreham, the Chief of Police, Emergency Rescue Workers, and the North Light Commission,

each expressed the need to maintain emergency vehicle access from Settlers Rock around the tip to West Beach.

They also state that if we reduce recreational vehicle traffic on the established sand route, the integrity of the route

will diminish and hinder emergency vehicle access.

The North Light Commission was also concerned with precluding vehicle access for maintenance of the North Light

lighthouse and precluding access to the lighthouse for visitors with impaired mobility. Several other letters wanted

us to continue to allow vehicle access for a researcher engaged in a long term gull study along West Beach.

Additional concerns regarding beach access on Block Island Refuge include residents concerned about maintaining

their legal right to harvest seaweed and recognition for existing rights-of-way. The Town of New Shoreham questioned whether the Service has a legal rights-of-way to access Beane Point from the north. Last, many Block Island

residents commented that our estimate of 200,000 visitors annually walking the beach across the refuge to the North

Light or Sandy Point tip was vastly overestimated.

Response

We developed the existing seasonal public use restriction on Trustom Pond’s Moonstone Beach and the proposed

seasonal closure to vehicles on Block Island Refuge in cooperation with the Piping Plover Recovery Team. These

closures are consistent with the 1996 Revised Recovery Plan for the Piping Plover, the latest Recovery Team recommendations, and our National Wildlife Refuge System mandate to put wildlife conservation first. We continue to

believe these actions are a vital and necessary component of an integrated management approach for protecting the

Federally threatened piping plover along coastal Rhode Island. In addition, we are attempting to minimize impacts

to dune structure and vegetation with these restrictions.

On Block Island, we would like to clarify that our authority to restrict vehicular access is limited to lands above mean

high water on the tracts identified as refuge on Map 1-4, Chapter 1, page 1-17. The map we printed for our Proposed

Action in the Draft CCP/EA misled people into thinking the Service had authority to restrict access along the entire
B-14 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix B

area from Settlers Rock around Sandy Point tip and down West Beach. We apologize for the confusion. We only

have authority to impose this restriction on refuge lands. Our proposed seasonal restriction is for vehicles only, and

would not impact visitors engaged in surf fishing, wildlife observation, and other priority public uses who access by

foot. However, it is important to recognize that additional restrictions may be imposed if breeding piping plover are

observed in the area. Activities this summer present an example of what may occur. After a nest was discovered on

Sandy Point tip in June 2001, an area around the nest was roped off to protect the adults incubating eggs until we

discovered the eggs were lost to predation and the nest was abandoned. The area roped off will vary depending on

nest location and proximity to human activities.

Our Proposed Action would continue to allow emergency vehicle access from any roads or travel ways on refuge land.

We would also continue to respect the legally established rights-of-way for the North Light Commission to access the

North Light for maintenance and to provide access for visitors with impaired mobility. We would also continue to

allow the gull research project, but only under authority of an approved Special Use Permit. Our proposal would

continue to honor all legitimate, legal rights-of-way or legal rights to harvest or use coastal resources on refuge land

that was assumed with the transfer of deed and land title. We would need to review the documentation associated

with these rights on a case-by-case basis. The resource protection and public use and access plan to be developed

with our Block Island partners in 2003 would also provide an opportunity to identify and review specific claims.

Our estimate in the Draft CCP/EA of 200,000 visitors to Block Island Refuge was extrapolated from a count of

vehicles visiting the parking lot at Settlers Rock during a two-month period. We agree with the commenters that a

more reasonable estimate of 40,000 people annually make the traverse across refuge land, with primary destinations

to the North Light and Sandy Point tip.

Habitat Restoration Projects

Comments

We received a number of comments supporting native coastal sandplain and coastal maritime habitat restoration. RI

DEM supports our restoration work, except on 145 acres at Trustom Pond Refuge. They feel these acres should be

retained in agriculture to benefit wintering waterfowl, namely Canada geese. They contend switching to native

grasslands and shrublands is forcing Canada geese to feed off refuge on golf courses, turf farms, and industrial areas

causing property damage. Further, they feel the small size of the restoration area will only minimally benefit breeding grassland birds.

The RI DEM and a few other commenters supported efforts to improve water quality and reduce shoreline erosion.

Several people also specifically supported our proposal to RI DEM to implement a “no wake zone” in Pettaquamscutt

Cove to minimize shoreline erosion.

Response

Our Proposed Action is to continue with the 447 acres of native, coastal grassland and shrubland habitat restoration

projects on Ninigret, Trustom Pond, and Sachuest Point refuges. With regards to the 145 acres on Trustom Pond

Refuge, our goal is to restore a monotypic hayfield to native coastal sandplain habitat and create a habitat mosaic of

grasslands and shrublands that benefits a wide variety of migratory birds, rather than just Canada geese. Our intent

is to improve habitat for such species as American woodcock, field sparrow, eastern bluebird, eastern meadowlark,

savannah sparrow, bobolink, and northern harrier. We acknowledge that resident Canada geese are a problem

throughout Rhode Island, but do not believe we should continue to maintain hayfields for a problem species on

refuge lands dedicated to promoting native biodiversity. We would be happy to discuss other possible solutions with

RI DEM, and respective towns and property owners, in order to cooperatively address the resident Canada goose

problem in the South County area.

Our Proposed Action includes several projects aimed at improving water quality; each were described in detail in

Alternative B in the Draft CCP/EA. On refuge lands, we are striving to minimize shoreline erosion, buffer wetland

systems with natural vegetation, reduce invasive Phragmites, and restore natural hydrology to wetland areas.

However, the biggest benefit would come from our land acquisition program, which strives to protect coastal salt

ponds, estuaries, stream banks, and shoreline from development.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 B-15

Response to Public Comments on Draft CCP/EA Appendix B

We have no authority to create a no-wake zone in the Pettaquamscutt Cove and the lower Narrow River. Rather, we

are making a recommendation to RI DEM to consider such a measure to reduce shoreline erosion and disturbance to

visitors and wildlife alike.

Management of Invasive, Non-native, or Overabundant Plants and Animals

Comments

Some commenters requested we control overabundant populations of gulls, mosquitos, and ticks.

Response

We do not generally manage these species on the Rhode Island Refuges. We would continue to monitor the gull

populations in certain areas, and we would control gulls that pose a threat to the Federally threatened piping plover

and the least tern colonies. While the gulls in Rhode Island are native species, they can be voracious predators. The

1996 Revised Recovery Plan for the Piping Plover states that, “Gulls should be prevented from establishing and

expanding their nesting colonies at plover nesting areas, and existing gull colonies at plover nesting sites should be

removed.” However, we are not proposing any specific gull reduction measures at this time because, in some areas,

the gull populations have already been declining.

Our Proposed Action for mosquito control is to consider applying larvicides on a case-by-case basis when the Mosquito Abatement Office demonstrates an elevated public health risk or public health emergency. If the State of

Rhode Island declares a public health emergency, we would need to issue a Special Use Permit prior to treatment on

refuge lands. In general, we do not use or advocate larvicides because of the risk to non-target species, such as other

invertebrates and migratory birds.

We would not directly manage tick populations per se, but would evaluate opportunities to reduce the threat of Lyme

disease through deer management. Our Proposed Action includes a Refuge Complex Deer Management Plan, to be

completed in 2002, which would assess alternatives for managing the Refuge Complex’s deer population.

Land Ownership and Future Acquisition

Comments

Many commenters, including the Town of Narragansett, the Town of Charlestown, the Friends Group, the Audubon

Society of Rhode Island, and South County Bridle Lanes Association, supported increased land acquisition efforts by

the Service. Some of these commenters preferred the more ambitious Service land acquisition component of Alternative C in the Draft CCP/EA. Alternative C included acquisition of an additional 11,500 acres, while the Service’s

Proposed Action (Alternative B) includes acquisition of an additional 3,200 acres.

A few commenters, including RI DEM, preferred the more limited land acquisition component of Alternative A

(Current Management), which included 735 acres. Subsequent conversations with RI DEM identified their support

for Alternative A was primarily based on concerns the Service may restrict hunting and fishing on newly acquired

lands. One commenter did not support any further land acquisition by the Service.

Several Block Island residents specifically requested clarification on ownership of the Sandy Point tip on the north

end of Block Island. They also wondered if refuge lands were surveyed and accurately posted.

Response

Our Proposed Action for future Service land acquisition is presented in detail in the recently completed draft Land

Protection Plan (LPP) (November 2001). The LPP is a refinement of our Proposed Action in the Draft CCP/EA. It

was developed after consideration of public comments and updates on land protection activities by other entities in

South County. We established our proposed acquisition areas using discreet and well-defined boundaries, and after

consideration of impacts on administrative resources. After a 30-day public review and comment period by the

landowners within the proposed acquisition boundary, the LPP will be submitted to our Director for review and

approval.
B-16 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix B

In summary, we are seeking approval on the following expansions for each Rhode Island Refuge:

Refuge Acres

Block Island 95

John H. Chafee 1,004

Ninigret 497

Sachuet Point 300

Trustom Pond 1,290

Total 3,186

The Pre-Acquisition Compatibility Determination presented in Appendix E of the Draft CCP/EA established our

intent with managing priority public uses on newly acquired refuge lands. We stated that existing, public, priority,

wildlife-dependent uses would be allowed to continue on an interim basis assuming the following conditions are met:

1) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to human health or safety.

2) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to natural or cultural resources.

3) The use is consistent with management of existing Rhode Island Refuge Complex lands; in particular,

existing Refuge Complex regulations would not be compromised.

4) The newly acquired lands represent a meaningful unit within which to manage the activity.

5) There are no anticipated conflicts between or among priority public uses.

As individual tracts are acquired by the Service, we would determine which existing priority uses would be allowed.

Compatibility Determinations for priority public uses would be reviewed and updated every 15 years, or as soon as

conditions change significantly, or when there is significant new information regarding the effects of the use, or with

revision of the CCP, whichever comes first.

With regards to Sandy Point tip, our records indicate that approximately 4 acres were retained by the Coast Guard.

This has been confirmed through our contacts with the Executive Officer for Realty and Environmental Compliance

and the Unit Commander in Providence. We have indicated to them the Service’s interest in acquisition of the

property. This property is adjacent to Block Island Refuge and part of a contiguous piece of suitable habitat for

breeding piping plover and other shorebirds. We believe this property should be protected for the long term and

managed in conjunction with the refuge to benefit these species.

Administration and Facilities

Comments

A few commenters mentioned Refuge Complex staffing needs and supported our proposals for new staff positions.

Among those supporting increased staffing were RI DEM and the Friends Group. Some commenters mentioned the

need for increased law enforcement related to public uses such as dog walking, but did not specifically mention

staffing increases. One commenter opposed increases in staffing.

We received a few suggestions for parking lot relocation or expansion at Sachuest Point Refuge. One commenter

recommended gravel parking lots instead of asphalt because gravel is more aesthetically pleasing, provides a more

pervious surface, has less runoff, there is less pollution during construction, and there is a cost savings.

On Block Island, several residents were opposed to new structures, including observation platforms and parking lots

being built on Block Island Refuge. The Town of New Shoreham expressed concerns with whether the Beane Point

facility conforms to local building and health requirements.

Two commenters called for an increased maintenance budget for the Refuge Complex.

Response

One purpose of the CCP is to layout and prioritize future projects over the next 15 years and identify the budget and

staffing needed to support them. We believe we have accomplished this in the Draft CCP/EA using the best informa-
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 B-17

Response to Public Comments on Draft CCP/EA Appendix B

tion we have available today. Costs for projects, including staffing and maintenance needs, are based on our current

knowledge of the scope of each project. As we stated several times in the Draft CCP/EA, full implementation of our

Proposed Action requires access to the funding and staffing identified.

Funding from the 1997 Transportation Equity Act supported an upgrade to the parking lot at Ninigret Refuge, and

will allow us to design and construct a new Administrative Office and Visitor Center in Charlestown, and renovate

the Visitor Center at Sachuest Point Refuge. The parking area at Sachuest Point Refuge was reconstructed in the

early 1990’s. While space there is limited at times, we do not plan another modification. The decision to use asphalt

or gravel as a surface for parking lots and travelways is made on a case-by-case basis after consideration of anticipated traffic, safety, maintenance needed, drainage requirements, and environmental impacts. Each of these needs to

be considered before we determine the most effective and cost efficient surface.

With regards to specific projects on Block Island, please refer to the Wildlife Observation and Photography discussion above. We would work with our Block Island partners to complete a resource protection and public use and

access plan in 2003. Our goal is to collaborate on decisions for protecting resources, while allowing public uses, on all

public and conservation lands on northern Block Island. This process would identify any infrastructure needed to

implement common objectives for the area. Regarding the Beane Point facility, the renovations recently undertaken

conform to federal requirements for this type of structure. Federal facilities on federal land are not bound by local

building codes. However, the refuge is voluntarily working with the Town of New Shoreham Building Inspector who

is cooperating in an advisory capacity with Refuge staff as we complete renovations.

Miscellaneous Comments

Comments

We received several comments that were either outside the scope of the Draft CCP/EA or outside of our authority to

implement them. For example, several people expressed concerns with the landfill capping project on Sachuest Point

Refuge. Other people commented on our recommendation to RI DEM to consider moving the State’s Ninigret

Conservation campground to another area on state land, away from piping plover habitat. Several people expressed

support for our recommendation to the RI DEM to implement a no-wake zone in the lower Narrow River and

Pettaquamscutt Cove. One person wrote us with a proposal to consider breaching Sachem Pond on Block Island to

restore tidal flow and improve the ecology of the area.

Response

The former Town of Middletown landfill project at Sachuest Point Refuge is a Superfund site. As such, a separate

process outside the scope of the Draft CCP/EA was initiated. With the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as

the lead agency, our Denver Engineering Office worked with the EPA, RI DEM, and the Town of Middletown to

develop an implementation plan. Public meetings were held in the Town of Middletown. The remediation plan for

the landfill site is complete and can be viewed at the Town Manager’s Office, Town of Middletown.

With regards to the state campground and the no-wake zone on the Narrow River, we will be meeting with RI DEM

to discuss these recommendations and others we received during this public comment period.

Sachem Pond on Block Island is not on refuge land, and therefore, is not under the jurisdiction of the Service. We

would be pleased to share information and our expertise from our experiences with mainland salt pond breaching on

Trustom Pond Refuge. In addition, we will forward this recommendation onto the Town of New Shoreham and RI

DEM.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 C-1

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Appendix C

Appendix C

Finding of No Significant

Impact (FONSI)
C-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix C

Finding of No Significant Impact

Rhode Island National Wildlife Complex

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

The Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Refuge Complex) is made up of Block Island, Ninigret, John

H. Chafee at Pettaquamscutt Cove, Sachuest Point, and Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuges. The Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge

Complex (December 2000) (CCP/EA) evaluated four management alternatives, carefully considering their impacts

on the environment, their potential contribution to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and refuge

purposes and goals. A brief summary of these four alternatives follows.

Alternative A: This is the No Action Alternative required by the Council of Environmental Quality’s regulations on

implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. Under this alternative, there would be no change

from our current resource management programs on refuge lands. We would continue to protect piping

plover nesting habitat and restore native, coastal shrublands, grasslands, and wetlands. Our six, priority

public use programs would be maintained at existing levels. We would also maintain our current, approved

land acquisition boundaries for each of the five refuges. There are 449 total acres not yet acquired within

approved refuge boundaries.

Alternative B: This alternative was the Service’s Proposed Action in the Draft CCP/EA. Under this alternative, we

would increase protection and management for endangered, threatened, and other species of concern,

increase restoration of native coastal shrublands, grasslands, and wetlands, and increase biological inventories and monitoring. The quality of our six, priority public use programs would improve, coupled with a

notable expansion of new opportunities in each program. In addition, Alternative B would expand all refuge

boundaries, increasing our current land acquisition goal by 3,200 acres.

Alternative C: This alternative would also increase protection, management, restoration, monitoring and inventories

of species and habitats, similar to Alternative B. Under Alternative C, refuge staff would take the lead in

accomplishing interagency, watershed-based planning initiatives, piping plover recovery team tasks relevant

to Rhode Island, and ecosystem team priorities. This emphasis would require that a considerable amount of

staff resources be dedicated to larger, landscape-level planning efforts. The quality of environmental

education programs on the refuges would improve, with a significant increase in opportunities. Other

priority public use programs would be maintained at current levels. Selection of this alternative would

expand all refuge boundaries, increasing our current land acquisition goal by 11,500 acres.

Alternative D: This alternative would maintain current resource management programs, and maintain current,

approved land acquisition boundaries similar to Alternative A. This alternative is distinguished from the

others by the allocation of resources dedicated to expanding all six priority public use programs. All five

refuges would implement significant increases in the quality and quantity of public use programs.

The Draft CCP/EA was distributed for a 51 day public review period during January and February 2000. An

additional 30 day public review period occurred during December 2001 for two new compatibility determinations for

trapping and waterfowl hunting. After consideration of all public comments, I determined this Environmental

Assessment was sufficient to support my findings.

Based on the analysis provided in the Environmental Assessment and the comments received from the public, I have

selected Alternative B ( the Service’s Proposed Action in the Draft CCP/EA), with the following four modifications:

• We will complete a deer management plan and accompanying environmental assessment (EA) for the

Refuge Complex by the end of calendar year 2002. We will specifically evaluate public deer hunting as one

alternative for managing deer populations and as a means of supporting a priority public use. This is a

change from Alternative B in that it will be a consolidated plan for all five refuges, and would be done sooner

than originally planned.

• We will expand the acquisition boundaries of each refuge as identified in the Land Protection Plan (LPP) for

the Refuge Complex, which has been reviewed and approved by our Director. The LPP is a refinement of
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 C-3

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Appendix C

the land protection proposal presented in Alternative B, and was developed after consideration of public and

partner comments on the Draft CCP/EA, the draft LPP, and recent changes in land status. The LPP

provides specific information on 2,681 acres approved for Service acquisition from willing sellers. The LPP

identifies the specific parcels of interest to the Service, their priority, and the protection option recommended. We will also continue to pursue acquisition of the 449 acres not yet acquired within the original

refuge acquisition boundaries.

• We will allow waterfowl hunting on the John H. Chafee Refuge according to state and refuge regulations

beginning in the fall 2003 season. This opportunity was evaluated in Alternative D of the Draft CCP/EA.

Based on public and partner comments, we will provide this opportunity in support of a priority public use

that is also an historic and traditional use in this area.

• We will develop a cooperative resource protection and public use plan with our Block Island partners by the

end of calendar year 2003. This is sooner than originally planned in Alternative B, and is in response to our

island partners’ concern about potential land use changes in the near future. Further, our proposals in

Alternative B for infrastructure to support wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and

interpretation on Block Island Refuge will be postponed and re-evaluated after completing the cooperative

plan.

I have selected Alternative B, with the modifications noted above, because it helps fulfill the mission of the National

Wildlife Refuge System; best achieves refuge purposes, vision and goals; maintains and, where appropriate, restores

the ecological integrity of each refuge; addresses the significant issues identified during the planning process; and is

consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management.

I find that the implementation of modified Alternative B will not have a significant impact on the quality of the

human environment in accordance with Section 102 (2) (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act. As such, I have

concluded that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required, and this Finding of No Significant Impact is

appropriate.
C-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix C
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 D-1

Compatibility Determinations Appendix D

Appendix D

Compatibility Determinations

 Wildlife observation and photography, and

environmental education and interpretation

 Waterfowl hunting

 Fishing

 Trapping

 Pre-acquisition compatibility determination for hunting

and fishing

 Pre-acquisition compatibility determination for wildlife

observation and photography, environmental education

and interpretation
D-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix D

Compatibility Determination

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Uses

Wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation.

Refuge names, establishing and acquisition authorities, and purposes

Each National Wildlife Refuge is established under specific legislation or administrative authority .

Similarly, each refuge has one or more specific legal purposes for which it was established. The

establishing legislation or authority and the purposes for each refuge in the Rhode Island National

Wildlife Refuge Complex (Refuge Complex) are given below.

Block Island National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 2 November 1973

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Block Island National Wildlife Refuge (Block Island Refuge) was

established under 16 U.S. Code 667b, Public Law 80 - 537, an Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain

Real Property for Wildlife, or other Purposes.

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: Lands acquired under 16 U.S. code 667b, Public Law 80-537

were for. . . “particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program.”

Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 12 August 1970

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge (Ninigret Refuge) was

established under 16 U.S. Code 667b, Public Law 80 - 537, an Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain

Real Property for Wildlife, or Other Purposes. Additions to the refuge were acquired under the

Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715d.

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: Lands acquired under 16 U.S. code 667b, Public Law 80-537

were established for their. . . “particular value in carrying out the national Migratory Bird Management

Program.” Additional lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. ss 715d)

were. . . “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.”

John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge at Pettaquamscutt Cove

Date Established: 5 November 1988 (originally established as Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge (Chafee Refuge) was

established under an Amendment to the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (102 Stat. 3177) and the

National Wildlife Refuge Administrative Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 668dd - 668ee; 80 STAT 927).

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: The purposes for which the refuge was established and

managed for are: “(1) to protect and enhance the populations of black ducks 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 the international treaty obligations of

the United States respecting fish and wildlife; and (4) to provide opportunities for scientific research,

environmental education, and fish and wildlife-oriented recreation” (102 Stat. 3177).

Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 3 November 1970

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge (Sachuest Point Refuge)

was established under the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956.

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: Sachuest Point Refuge was established “...for the

development, management, advancement, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources” and
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 D-3

Compatibility Determinations Appendix D

for “(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development; (2) protection of natural resources,

and (3) conservation of endangered or threatened species” (Refuge Recreation Act of 1962).

Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 15 August 1974

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: The Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge (Trustom Pond

Refuge) was established under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 USC 715-715R

and by the Refuge Recreation Act, 16 USC c - 1.

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: For lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation

Act, as amended, the purpose of the acquisition is “. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other

management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) and for

“. . . (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development; (2) the protection of natural

resources; and (3) the conservation of endangered or threatened species. . .” as authorized by the Refuge

Recreation Act, 16 USC. c - 1.

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

The Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is “to administer a national network of lands and

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of

Americans.”

Description of Uses

Are the uses priority public uses?

Yes. Wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation were

specifically identified as priority, wildlife-dependent recreational uses by the National Wildlife Refuge

System Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge Improvement Act; P.L. 105-57).

Environmental Education

Where would the use be conducted?

On-refuge environmental education activities would occur on Block Island, Ninigret, Chafee, Sachuest

Point, and Trustom Pond refuges, generally within 50 meters of existing trails and other developments

such as outdoor classrooms and viewing platforms. Off-refuge programs will occur in local school

classrooms or other local community facilities.

Certain areas on refuges may be closed to public access at the Refuge Manager’s discretion to protect

sensitive habitats or species of concern, minimize conflicts with other refuge activities, or due to human

health and safety concerns.

When would the use be conducted?

Environmental education will occur year-round during daylight hours when the refuge is open; however,

most of the field programs will be associated with the fall and spring school year terms.

How would the use be conducted on each of the refuges?

The environmental education program will have three components: on-refuge activities, community

outreach, and technical assistance to adjacent landowners. Community outreach and technical assistance

will not occur on refuge lands and are further described in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

and Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA) for the Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

(December 2000). On-refuge activities will primarily include teacher- or staff-guided field trips exploring

topics requested by teachers, “Teach-the Teacher” workshops, or more structured curriculum-based

programs specifically designed for use on the refuges. Participants will observe nature from designated

refuge trails and viewing platforms, or engage in activities at existing and future outdoor classroom sites.
D-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix D

Additionally, activities will utilize interpretive infrastructures such as kiosks, sign panels, visitor contact

Stations, and the future Refuge Complex Visitors Center/Administrative Facility (see Interpretation

section).

We will develop a Visitor Services Plan for the entire Refuge Complex by 2004, which will provide more

detailed, strategic guidance for the environmental education program by setting objectives, strategies,

and evaluation criteria. It will include timelines and priorities for accomplishing the program outlined in

refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans. We will enlist partners to help us identify objectives for the

environmental education program, and participate in the design, implementation, and monitoring of

specific, curriculum-based programs. A good example is the existing partnership with the Friends Group

who design, fund, and implement an endangered and threatened species and barrier beach education

program.

All activities will avoid sensitive areas prone to disturbance (e.g. sensitive vegetation areas) or

degradation (e.g. soil compaction), and will be designed to minimize impacts to nesting birds or other

breeding wildlife. Access to activities will be on foot, snowshoe, or cross-country skies. Access by kayak

and canoe will be appropriate for Chafee and Ninigret refuges.

Environmental Education – Block Island Refuge:

Refuge Complex staff have not conducted environmental education programs on Block Island Refuge to

date. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) on Block Island has an established program with a part-time

educator leading occasional trips with schoolchildren on the refuge. An unknown number of teacher-led

school group trips also occur on the refuge.

We will initiate a formal partnership with TNC to conduct environmental education programs on the

refuge. This will facilitate the sharing of resources, and assist in curriculum development and

implementation. We will also support an environmental education program on the refuge by utilizing the

Beane Point facility as a classroom laboratory or for housing seasonal educators. Activities at Beane

Point and on refuge beaches will avoid disturbance to nesting and roosting shorebirds and wading birds.

Environmental Education – Ninigret Refuge:

Currently, much of the refuge’s environmental education is conducted by the Frosty Drew Nature Center

under a Memorandum of Agreement. Frosty Drew is a private, non-profit education facility located

adjacent to the refuge in Charlestown’s Ninigret Park. The Center’s interpretive and environmental

education programs consist of outdoor classroom activities held throughout the year for school and scout

groups; regularly scheduled public nature tours; and a nature day camp (“Nature Week”) for children

during the summer.

All environmental education programs on the refuge are conducted by naturalists from this organization

and knowledgeable members of the Refuge Complex’s volunteer cadre. During the last several years,

approximately 2,500 students from local schools have participated in outdoor classroom activities. Group

numbers average 42 students per class, but instructors will take up to 50 students. Typically, the Frosty

Drew programs use the refuge only for access to Ninigret Pond, where they dip-net and explore salt pond

ecology.

The partnership has worked very well and we have not witnessed any adverse impacts to wildlife or

habitat. We will continue the cooperative venture with Frosty Drew. We will also develop two low-impact

outdoor classroom sites, which will interpret the on-going native habitat restoration work (asphalt runway

removal project) and salt pond ecology, and develop resource education stations along the existing “Trail

Through Time,” which traverses the refuge. We will organize a Volunteer Environmental Education

Corps (shared with Trustom Pond Refuge) to help with program implementation and monitoring.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 D-5

Compatibility Determinations Appendix D

Environmental Education – Chafee Refuge:

Refuge Complex staff have not conducted environmental education programs on Chafee Refuge to date.

However, we consider this refuge to have outstanding potential, especially with support from local

conservation partners such as: the Narrow River Preservation Association, the Narrow River Land

Trust, the South County Land Trust, South County Museum, the University of Rhode Island, and

numerous public and private schools. Environmental education would compliment ecotourism-related

uses, as well as kayaking and canoeing, which are becoming increasingly popular in the waters on and

adjacent to the refuge.

We will cooperate with RI DEM to educate the public on the impacts to native saltmarsh vegetation and

wildlife from excessive motorboat and jet ski speeds near the refuge shoreline. Additionally, we will

cooperate with local schools and partners to develop an outdoor education curriculum featuring the

Narrow River estuary and Pettaquamscutt Cove. We will also develop a formal partnership with the

South County Museum to conduct environmental education programs in the area. We will utilize the

road in the former Bridgeport Commons subdivision for access, and are evaluating the potential to

construct at least one new accessible trail. The final trail location will be designed to avoid sensitive areas

and minimize shoreline erosion. No other infrastructure is planned at this time.

Environmental Education – Sachuest Point Refuge:

Environmental education activities at Sachuest Point Refuge include numerous visits by school groups led

by either teachers or Refuge staff, or programs conducted by the private, non-profit Norman Bird

Sanctuary. Up to 650 students/year have been accommodated. All activities utilize the existing threemile trail system.

The environmental education program will be greatly enhanced with the planned renovation of the Visitor

Center which will increase its effectiveness as an educational facility. Renovations will include improved

exhibits and classroom meeting space. We will also develop a formal partnership with the Norman Bird

Sanctuary to share resources and cooperatively develop and implement environmental education

programs on the refuge. Finally, we will cooperate with local Middletown and Newport schools to develop

curriculum-based programs (featuring refuge resources), and establish a Sachuest Point Volunteer

Environmental Education Corps. We will develop two low-impact outdoor education sites: one will focus

on native upland vegetation restoration, and the second on wetlands restoration. Both sites will be

located to minimize disturbance to wildlife and sensitive habitats.

Environmental Education – Trustom Pond Refuge:

Environmental education activities at Trustom Pond Refuge currently include teacher-led school visits or

programs led by Refuge staff and volunteers. Up to 17 classes per year have been hosted on the refuge.

An outdoor education site on Moonstone Beach educates beach visitors and school children about

endangered and threatened species and barrier beach management. The program will continue to be

improved, thanks to the efforts of the Friends Group. A second outdoor education site is a very popular

school destination site. This site consists of a dock on the old “farm pond.” Students sample aquatic plant

and invertebrate communities with dip nets from the dock. These programs have been ongoing and we

have not witnessed any impacts to wildlife or habitats. Access to environmental educational activities

occurs on existing roads or trails. Two additional outdoor education sites will feature native habitat

management and coastal salt pond ecology. Both sites will be located to minimize disturbance to wildlife

and sensitive habitats.

As mentioned under Ninigret Refuge, we plan to organize a Volunteer Environmental Education Corps to

help with program implementation and monitoring.

Why is the use being proposed on each of the refuges?

The 1997 Refuge Improvement Act states that priority, wildlife-dependent public uses should receive

enhanced consideration in planning and be facilitated on refuges to the extent they are compatible.
D-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix D

During public meetings and review for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental

Assessment (December 2000), environmental education was identified as the most desirable priority

public use to provide on refuges. Environmental education activities promote public understanding and

appreciation of the role of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the individual refuges, in the

conservation of wildlife, plants, and cultural resources. These programs provide an opportunity to share

the missions of the Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System. Another important goal of the

program is to teach young people how to take personal responsibility for environmental stewardship

throughout their lives. These programs will help us achieve refuge purposes and management objectives,

as stated in the final Comprehensive Conservation Plans for each refuge.

Environmental Interpretation

Where would the use be conducted?

On-refuge environmental interpretation activities would occur on Block Island, Ninigret, Chafee,

Sachuest Point, and Trustom Pond Refuges, generally on designated trails or at developments such as

kiosks and viewing platforms. In addition, the planned Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Visitor Center/Administrative Facility (RI VC) and the renovations at the Sachuest Point Visitor Center

will enhance the interpretive programs for the Refuge Complex and serve as “interpretive centers of

excellence”. Off-refuge programs will occur in school classrooms, at campgrounds, or in local community

facilities.

Certain areas on refuges may be closed to public access at the Refuge Manager’s discretion to protect

sensitive habitats or species of concern, minimize conflicts with other refuge activities, or due to human

health and safety concerns.

When would the use be conducted?

Interpretive activities will be conducted year-round, primarily during daylight hours when the refuge is

open. Occasional staff- or volunteer-led night programs will occur during the year. Interpretive activities

will be stepped up during the summer months, when the refuges receive peak visitation.

How would the use be conducted?

Environmental interpretation activities on-refuges will be both self-guided and staff or volunteer-led.

Activities will occur on designated trails or at developed sites. Kiosks at refuge trailheads, refuge trail

guides and brochures, and interpretive panels at observation platforms will facilitate self-guided tours on

trails. Staff and volunteer-led programs will be more diverse and allow for more interaction with visitors.

A seasonally-staffed visitor contact station on Trustom Pond Refuge will continue to be maintained and

another will be constructed on Ninigret Refuge to provide information to visitors. Access to activities will

be by foot, snowshoe, or cross-country skis. Access by kayak and canoe will be allowed for Chafee and

Ninigret refuges.

As with the environmental education programs, we will be developing a Visitor Services Plan by 2004 to

further provide detailed, strategic direction for the environmental interpretation program and identify

partnership opportunities.

Environmental Interpretation – Block Island Refuge:

In 2002, we plan to coordinate with the Town of New Shoreham and other Block Island conservation

partners to develop a public use and access plan for all public and conservation lands on north Block

Island. The plan will identify opportunities for a trail network and locations and determine where

interpretive infrastructure is best suited. At this time, no infrastructure is planned for refuge lands.

Environmental Interpretation – Ninigret Refuge:

Interpretation of habitat and wildlife values will continue at the trailhead and two parking lot kiosks.

The main parking area (off Route 1) has recently been improved to accommodate more visitors and buses,

and will be maintained. Self-guided brochures and species checklists are available at the kiosks. The
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 D-7

Compatibility Determinations Appendix D

3.8-mile, handicapped-accessible “Trail Through Time”, once completed, will have interpretive stations

along its length. Interpretive panels will be improved at the one existing observation platform and will

be developed for the two planned observation platforms. A seasonally-staffed visitor contact station will

be constructed to facilitate visitor contacts and distribute information.

Refuge staff and volunteers will continue to lead interpretive programs on the refuge, at the nearby

Burlingame State Park campground, in classrooms, and at other local community facilities upon request.

Environmental Interpretation – Chafee Refuge:

No interpretive opportunities currently exist at Chafee Refuge; however, we plan to develop several selfguided opportunities. We are evaluating opportunities to construct a kiosk and accessible trail and

observation platform at Bridgeport Commons. Cooperating with RI DOT and the Town of Narragansett,

we hope to construct an interpretive kiosk and pullout overlook at Middlebridge. We intend to develop

canoe and kayak interpretive, self-guided trail guides. Also, we will coordinate with RI DOT’s

construction of an interpretive kiosk on the South County Bike Trail where it traverses the refuge.

Finally, we plan to partner with the South County Museum to develop refuge interpretive programs

featuring the Narrow River.

Refuge staff and volunteers will lead interpretive programs on the refuge, in local classrooms, or in

cooperation with the South County Museum.

Environmental Interpretation – Sachuest Point Refuge:

The Sachuest Point Visitor Center is currently being renovated, including development of new

interpretive exhibits. Interpretative information will continue to be posted at the one existing kiosk off

the parking lot. As part of an expanded interpretive program, we will develop a self-guided tour on the

existing trail system interpreting habitat management, natural history, and cultural resources. At least 3/

4 mile of the trail system will be renovated to provide handicapped-accessibility. We would also develop 2

additional interpretive kiosks at strategic points along the trails; provide interpretive information at two

observation platforms; improve signage; create “watchable wildlife” pamphlets, and develop multi lingual

literature. Off-refuge, we will coordinate with the Town of Middletown to develop interpretive signs,

kiosks, or exhibits on the Town’s Second and Third beaches and plan an exhibit for the Newport Visitor

Center.

We will continue to provide staff and volunteer-led interpretive programs on the refuge throughout the

year. As mentioned above under environmental education, we will continue our partnership with the

Norman Bird Sanctuary, cooperating in refuge interpretive programs.

Environmental Interpretation – Trustom Pond Refuge:

A seasonally-staffed visitor contact station and kiosk are established on Trustom Pond Refuge at the main

trail head to facilitate visitor contacts and provide interpretive materials. Self-guided trail brochures and

species checklists are available at this location. The easternmost branch of the trail will be renovated to

provide handicapped-access to the Pond. Interpretive panels will be improved and/or developed at the

three existing observation platforms. Refuge staff and volunteers will continue to lead interpretive

programs on the refuge, in local classrooms, or at local community facilities upon request. We will

improve the existing kiosk at the Moonstone Beach parking area.

Why is this use being proposed on the refuges?

The 1997 Refuge Improvement Act states that priority, wildlife-dependent public uses should receive

enhanced consideration in planning and be facilitated on refuges to the extent they are compatible. The

overarching purpose of the program is to connect visitors with refuge resources and develop enjoyment,

understanding, and appreciation for natural and cultural resources. Visitors will gain an understanding of

the missions of the Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the contribution of the Rhode

Island refuges to this system. Similar to the environmental education program, another goal is to
D-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix D

develop a sense of stewardship leading to actions and attitudes that reflect concern and respect for

natural and cultural resources. These programs will help us achieve refuge purposes and management

objectives, as stated in final Comprehensive Conservation Plans.

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Where would the use be conducted?

Wildlife observation and photography would be conducted from Block Island, Ninigret, Chafee, Sachuest

Point, and Trustom Pond refuges on designated trails and developed sites, such as observation platforms

and photo blinds (see below).

Certain areas on refuges may be closed to public access at the Refuge Manager’s discretion to protect

sensitive habitats or species of concern, minimize conflicts with other refuge activities, or due to human

health and safety concerns. Some restricted areas are described below for each refuge.

When would the use be conducted?

Activities would occur year-round during daylight hours when the refuge is open. Some activities may be

allowed after dark under special use permit, or in conjunction with Refuge staff or volunteer-led programs.

How would the use be conducted?

In general, wildlife observation and recreational photography activities will be self-guided on designated

trails. Access will be by foot, snow shoe, or cross-country skis. Four wheel drive vehicles are allowed only

on Block Island and Ninigret refuge barrier beaches, and only outside of seabird nesting season. Parking

is to occur in designated parking areas. No dogs, horses, or bicycles will be allowed on the refuges.

Canoe and kayak access is allowed for Chafee and Ninigret refuges. Exceptions to these conditions will

be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and will require a special use permit at the discretion of the Refuge

Manager. Commercial photography requires a special use permit; news photography may require a

special use permit at the discretion of the Refuge Manager.

Wildlife Observation and Photography – Block Island Refuge:

Much of the existing refuge is beach with no designated trails. The public use and access plan, to be

developed in 2002 with partners on Block Island, will identify and designate trails through upland areas

and sand dunes. The need for other infrastructure (e.g. viewing platforms, photo blinds) will be determined in this plan as well. In general, access will be by foot. Four wheel drive vehicles are allowed on the

refuge beach outside of a seasonal closure period for nesting and migrating shorebirds from April 1 to

September 15. Other refuge areas may be seasonally restricted if the federally threatened piping plover

is observed displaying courtship behavior, or to protect sensitive nesting and roosting areas. The access

to Beane Point may be restricted seasonally from approximately May 1 to August 1, to minimize disturbance to nesting wading birds and shorebirds.

Wildlife Observation and Photography – Ninigret Refuge:

Wildlife observation and photography will continue along the refuge’s “Trail Through Time” or along the

barrier beach unit. Infrastructure along the trail to support these activities includes the one existing and

two planned observation platforms. Bicycling, which had been allowed on the former asphalt runways,

will no longer be allowed on the refuge.

The refuge’s 22-acre barrier beach parcel is generally access on foot. Four wheel drive vehicles are

allowed on the refuge outside of the seasonal closure period (April 1st to September 15th). Nesting areas

are marked on the ground each year, and protective fencing is erected to minimize disturbance.

Wildlife Observation and Photography – Chafee Refuge:

Currently, there is no infrastructure for wildlife observation and photography. We hope to cooperate with

the Town of Narragansett and RI DOT to construct a handicapped accessible observation platform at
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 D-9

Compatibility Determinations Appendix D

Middle Bridge. We are also evaluating opportunities to construct a second observation platform at

Bridgeport Commons to facilitate wildlife viewing and photography. We will utilize the road in the former

Bridgeport Commons subdivision for access, and are evaluating the potential to construct at least one

new accessible trail. The final trail location will be designed to avoid sensitive areas and minimize shoreline erosion. Access will be on foot or by canoe and kayak. No other infrastructure is planned.

Wildlife Observation and Photography – Sachuest Point Refuge:

Wildlife observation and photography will continue on three miles of designated trail leading to two

observation platforms overlooking the ocean. We will be designating access points down to the water to

minimize bank erosion off the headland. We plan to reduce the redundancy in the trail system and will be

eliminating portions of Trails 3 and 4 in the future. Additional refuge opportunities are provided on

refuge beaches when visitors walk up from the Town of Middletown’s Second and Third Beaches; access

to these refuge beaches will continue to be on foot only.

Wildlife Observation and Photography – Trustom Pond Refuge:

Wildlife observation and photography will continue on the 3.5 miles of designated trails leading to three

observation platforms (two along the shore of Trustom Pond and one on the half-acre farm pond). The

parking lot at the visitor contact station will be maintained for trail access. We plan to construct two

photo blinds along the pond shore to provide more opportunities for high quality photography. We will be

evaluating the redundancy in the trail system and may be eliminating portions of trails in the future. We

will also be reconstructing the eastern-most portion of the trail to allow for barrier-free access to the

pond.

The Moonstone Beach area of the refuge is open to foot travel only. Above mean high water the refuge is

restricted from public access from April 1st to September 15th to protect nesting and migrating piping

plover, least tern, and other shorebirds. The closure area is marked on the ground. Parking for Moonstone Beach will continue to be provided and administered by the Town of South Kingstown.

Why is this use being proposed?

The 1997 Refuge Improvement Act states that priority, wildlife-dependent public uses should receive

enhanced consideration in planning and be facilitated on refuges to the extent they are compatible. The

wildlife observation and photography programs promote refuge purposes and management objectives

through activities that increase public knowledge and understanding of wildlife and the importance of

habitat protection and management. Wildlife observation and photography are two of the six priority,

wildlife-dependent recreational uses for the Refuge System. Through these activities, visitors will gain an

understanding of the missions of the Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the contribution of the Rhode Island refuges to this system.
D-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix D

Availability of Resources

Environmental Education and Interpretation, Wildlife Observation and Photography

Refuge Complex Funding Analysis

New Construction Estimated Costs

Rhode Island Refuge Complex Visitor Center $2,000,000*

Sachuest Point Visitor Center Exhibitry $ 100,000

Middlebridge Center (Chafee Refuge) $ 50,000

New trail (Chafee Refuge) $ 10,000

Outdoor Education Sites - 6 new $ 18,000

(2 Ninigret, 2 Sachuest Point, 2 Trustom Pond)

Kiosks - 4 new (2 Chafee, 2 Sachuest Point) $ 12,000

Observation platforms - 3 new, handicapped accessible $ 30,000**

(2 Ninigret, 1 Chafee)

Photography Blinds - 2 new $ 6,000

 Total: $ 2,226,000

* A separate Environmental Assessment was completed for this project (Rhode Island National Wildlife

Refuge Complex, Visitor Center/Administrative Facility, Environmental Assessment, January 2001). The

project has been approved for construction, and received special funding through the 1997 Transportation

Equity Act (TEA-21). Funds reflect the Visitor Contact portion of the center.

** One of these projects may involve an existing platform to a new location at Sachuest Point Refuge.

Predicted Maintenance of Facilities Estimated Costs

One-time costs:

Beane Point Facility Renovation (Block Island Refuge) $ 200,000 +

Sachuest Point Visitor Center Renovation $ 1,309,000 +

Renovating existing trails for handicapped accessibility $ 100,000

Total: $ 1,609,000 (one time costs)

Recurring, annual costs:

Regular maintenance of visitor centers: $ 25,000

Regular maintenance of kiosks, platforms, education sites, $ 15,000

photo blinds, visitor contact facilities, trails, restrooms

Equipment, vehicles, and supplies (incl. brochures/trail guides) $ 22,000

Total annual recurring costs: $ 67,000

+ Project has been initiated, primarily funded through Service MMS funds.

New Staffing

The following new positions would be dedicated to planning, implementing, and monitoring the public use

programs on the refuge complex, including administration of the Refuge Complex Visitor Center and the

Sachuest Point Visitor Center.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 D-11

Compatibility Determinations Appendix D

Annual Salary

One full-time (1.0 FTE) GS-12 Outdoor Recreation Planner (Refuge Complex Program Supervisor):

$55,000

One full-time (1.0 FTE) GS-11 Outdoor Recreation Planner (Field Programs): $46,000

One full-time (1.0 FTE) GS-9 Outdoor Recreation Planner (Visitor Center): $38,000

One full-time (1.0 FTE) GS-5/7 Administrative Assistant (Visitor Center Support): $31,000

One full-time (1.0 FTE) WG-5 Maintenance Worker $33,000

The existing refuge positions of Outreach Specialist and Volunteer Coordinator each dedicate approximately (0.5 FTE) to these public use programs.

Anticipated Impacts of Proposed Actions

On-site activities, particularly group activities, may result in short term impacts by disturbing and displacing wildlife or trampling vegetation. Incidences of littering, vegetation removal, and vandalism may

increase as a result of the projected increase in visitation. However, with use restricted to designated

trails and other refuge structures, we predict the impacts will be confined to small areas and in areas

already affected. We will be reducing the sources of past impacts on wildlife and habitats from dogs,

horses, and bicycles, as these will no longer be allowed. Overall, we expect the adverse impacts to be

short term and confined to small areas. It is important to note that we have not observed significant

resource degradation, long-term consequences, or cumulative effects on any of the refuges with established programs; however, we will develop site specific monitoring criteria to ensure these will not occur.

Activities will be modified or curtailed if this is the case. All of the activities are consistent with final

Comprehensive Conservation Plans.

New structures will be located with consideration of the long term consequences and cumulative impacts

to wildlife and habitats. With the exception of the Rhode Island Refuge Complex Visitor Center, most of

the new structures proposed (e.g. kiosks, observation platforms, photography blinds) would each result in

habitat losses of less than 1/4 acre. The environmental impacts of the planned Visitor Center/Administrative Office facility were described and analyzed in a separate environmental assessment.

Public Review and Comment

Public review and comments were solicited in conjunction with the planning process for the Draft Rhode

Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCP/EA, December 2000 . A compatibility determination for

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation

was distributed to the public as an appendix to the draft CCP/EA, complying with the National Environmental Policy Act and Service policies on writing compatibility determinations and comprehensive conservation plans. The draft CCP/EA, along with a compatibility determination for all priority public uses, was

released for a 51 day comment period during January and February 2001.

In December 2001, we completed and distributed a document titled “Summary of, and the Service’s

Response to, Public Comments Received on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA) for the Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex.” This document

provides a comprehensive summary of comments and our disposition of those comments. The majority of

comments regarding wildlife observation and photography and environmental education and interpretation were in support of Alternative B, our Proposed Action. Some concerns were expressed by Block

Island residents who did not approve of the proposed infrastructure for Block Island Refuge. In response, as we have noted above, we will be working with our island partners in 2003 to develop a public

use and access plan for all of northern Block Island. There were other concerns expressed regarding our

proposal to eliminate redundant trails at Sachuest Point Refuge. Our response reiterated our objective to

increase the amount of area in contiguous, undisturbed natural habitat to benefit nesting and migratory
D-12 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix D

birds, while also continuing to maintain wildlife observation and photography opportunities. We pointed

out that we would continue to maintain Trails #1, #2, and #5, which provide access along the entire

perimeter of the peninsula.

Determination

The uses are compatible X .

The uses are not compatible .

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

Activities will be held on designated sites where only minimal direct and short term impacts are predicted, and adverse long term, cumulative impacts are not anticipated. Annual monitoring of sites and

programs will be conducted to assess whether objectives are being met and to prevent long-term site

degradation. If evidence of unacceptable impacts appear, the programs would be modified or curtailed as

deemed necessary by the Refuge Manager.

Certain areas on refuges may be closed to public access at any time at the Refuge Manager’s discretion to

protect sensitive habitats, species of concern, minimize conflicts with other refuge activities, or due to

human health and safety concerns.

Off-trail use or use during a refuge’s closed hours requires a special use permit unless the activity is in

conjunction with a Refuge staff- or volunteer-led program.

Commercial photography activities require a special use permit.

Four wheel drive vehicles are only allowed on Block Island and Ningret refuge barrier beaches, and only

outside of the seasonal closure for seabird nesting (April 1 - September 15). All other access to the

refuges is by foot, snowshoes, or cross country ski.

Justification

Environmental education and interpretation, wildlife observation and photography are priority, wildlifedependent public uses identified by the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act. By definition, these activities

have been determined appropriate by law and, when compatible, are to be facilitated on refuges. These

programs support the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System by promoting an understanding

and appreciation of natural and cultural resources and their management within a national system of

refuges. Our programs will reach out to all segments of the public to expand support for the refuge

system. Individual refuge programs will be consistent with, and fully support, the goals and objectives in

refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 D-13

Compatibility Determinations Appendix D

References

Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biol. Conserv. 21: 231-241.

Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern United

States. Env. Cons. 13(2): 123-130.

Burger, J. and J. Galli. 1987. Factors affecting distribution of gulls (Larus spp.) on two New Jersey

coastal bays. Env. Cons. 14(1): 59-64.

Cassirer, E.F., A. Breault, P. Clarkson, D.L. Genter, R.I. Goudie, B. Hunt, S.C. Lata, G.H. Mittelhouser,

M. McCollough, G. Schirato, and R.L. Wallen. 1993. Status of Harlequin Ducks (Histrionicus

histrionicus) in North America. Rept. of the Harlequin Duck Working Group. 83pp

Dufus, D.A. and P.A. Dearden. 1990. Non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recreation: a conceptual frame

work. Bio. Cons. 53: 213-231.

Goff, G.R., D.J. Decker, and G. Pomerantz. 1988. A diagnostic tool for analyzing visitor impacts on

wildlife refuges: A basis for a systematic approach to visitor management. Trans. Northeast Sect.

Wildl. Soc. 45: 82.

Gregory, M.R. 1991. The hazards of persistent marine pollution: Drift plastics and conservation islands.

J. Royal Soc. New Zealand. 21(2):83-100.

Klein, M.L. 1989. Effects of high levels of human visitation on foraging waterbirds at J.N. “Ding”

Darling National Wildlife Refuge. Final research report. Florida Coop. Fish Wildl. Res. Unit,

Univ. Florida, Gainsville, Florida. FCFWRU Work Order No. 42. vii+103.

Kuss, F.R. and C.N. Hall. 1991. Ground flora trampling studies: Five years after closure. Environ.

Manage. 15(5): 715-727.

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:31-39.
D-14 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix D

Compatibility Determination

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Use

Waterfowl hunting.

Refuge names, establishing and acquisition authorities, and purposes

Each National Wildlife Refuge is established under specific legislation or administrative authority .

Similarly, each refuge has one or more specific legal purposes for which it was established. The establishing legislation or authority and the purposes for each refuge in the Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge

Complex (Refuge Complex) are given below.

Block Island National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 2 November 1973

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Block Island National Wildlife Refuge (Block Island Refuge) was

established under 16 U.S. Code 667b, Public Law 80 - 537, an Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain

Real Property for Wildlife, or other Purposes.

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: Lands acquired under 16 U.S. code 667b, Public Law 80-537

were for. . . “particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program.”

Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 12 August 1970

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge (Ninigret Refuge) was

established under 16 U.S. Code 667b, Public Law 80 - 537, an Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain

Real Property for Wildlife, or Other Purposes. Additions to the refuge were acquired under the

Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715d.

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: Lands acquired under 16 U.S. code 667b, Public Law 80-537

were established for their. . . “particular value in carrying out the national Migratory Bird Management

Program.” Additional lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. ss 715d)

were. . . “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.”

John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge at Pettaquamscutt Cove

Date Established: 5 November 1988 (originally established as Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge (Chafee Refuge) was

established under an Amendment to the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (102 Stat. 3177) and the

National Wildlife Refuge Administrative Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 668dd - 668ee; 80 STAT 927).

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: The purposes for which the refuge was established and

managed for are: “(1) to protect and enhance the populations of black ducks 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 the international treaty obligations of

the United States respecting fish and wildlife; and (4) to provide opportunities for scientific research,

environmental education, and fish and wildlife-oriented recreation” (102 Stat. 3177).

Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 3 November 1970

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge (Sachuest Point Refuge)

was established under the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956.

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: Sachuest Point Refuge was established “...for the

development, management, advancement, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources” and
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 D-15

Compatibility Determinations Appendix D

for “(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development; (2) protection of natural resources,

and (3) conservation of endangered or threatened species” (Refuge Recreation Act of 1962).

Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 15 August 1974

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: The Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge (Trustom Pond

Refuge) was established under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 USC 715-715R

and by the Refuge Recreation Act, 16 USC c - 1.

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: For lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation

Act, as amended, the purpose of the acquisition is “. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other

management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) and for

“. . . (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development; (2) the protection of natural

resources; and (3) the conservation of endangered or threatened species. . .” as authorized by the Refuge

Recreation Act, 16 USC. c - 1.

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

The Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is “to administer a national network of lands and

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of

Americans.”

Description of Uses

Is the use a priority public uses?

Hunting is identified as a priority, wildlife-dependent recreational use by the National Wildlife Refuge

System Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge Improvement Act; P.L. 105-57).

Where would the use be conducted?

 Ninigret Refuge, on the barrier beach marshlands and in the vicinity of Coon Cove;

 Chafee Refuge, in Pettaquamscutt Cove; and

 Trustom Pond Refuge, on a 20 acre upland field.

When would the use be conducted?

Hunting would occur according to state regulated seasons.

Why is the use being proposed?

Waterfowl hunting helps us achieve refuge purposes and management goals and objectives, as outlined in

refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans. In addition, waterfowl hunting in these areas is an historic,

traditional and sustainable activity.

How would the use be conducted?

The activity includes waterfowl hunting , as well as access across refuge lands to hunting opportunities on

state waters. All hunting would adhere to state regulations for seasons, bag limits, species, and methods

of taking. Additional refuge regulations may be determined necessary during development of the required Hunt Plan.

Ninigret Refuge

Currently, no hunting is allowed on the refuge. However, hunting is a popular activity on the adjacent

Ninigret Pond, which is state waters. We are proposing to allow waterfowl hunting and associated dog

retrieval, by boat only, in the marshes along the barrier beach parcel. Following restoration of wetland

habitat at Coons Cove, we will provide for waterfowl hunting at this site as well. We would administer

this hunting opportunity in cooperation with RI DEM.
D-16 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix D

Chafee Refuge

Currently, no hunting is allowed on this refuge. We are proposing a waterfowl hunt and associated dog

retrieval, by boat access only, in Pettaquamscutt Cove. We would administer this hunting opportunity in

cooperation with RI DEM.

Trustom Pond Refuge

Currently, hunting of Canada geese occurs on 20 acres of refuge upland grasslands (cool season grasslands). Bag limits and seasons are determined by Federal and State regulations, which allow two split

seasons for geese. Hunter parking is provided on the refuge and access to the upland fields is by foot

only. We would administer this hunting opportunity in cooperation with RI DEM.

Availability of Resources

Annual costs required to administer and manage waterfowl hunting activities:

Maintenance of Parking Areas $ 500

Law Enforcement $ 7,000(Seasonal LEO)

Signs / Pamphlets $ 1,000

Administration $ 1,000

TOTAL $ 9,500

Some costs would be significantly reduced due to cooperative management with the State. Law enforcement officers from the Complex would have limited involvement.

Anticipated Impacts of Waterfowl Hunting

Migratory birds are managed on a flyway basis. Hunting regulations are established in each state based

on flyway data. Current numbers of such birds would be reduced, within allowable limits, as determined

by State and Federal agencies. Direct disturbance to non-target birds would likely occur from hunting,

but would be short term. For example, noise from shotguns would cause some birds to flush and go

elsewhere. These impacts are of a temporary nature and would also be reduced by the presence of

adjacent refuge habitat where hunting does not occur, and where birds can feed and rest relatively undisturbed.

Public Review and Comment

In the Draft Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment (December 2000), a compatibility determination was written which included all six

of the priority public uses. After a 51 day public review, and consideration of comments received, we

made modifications to several of these programs, including hunting. We are issuing this new, separate

compatibility determination for hunting as required by Service policy and because we have decided to

offer new waterfowl hunting opportunities on Chafee and Ninigret refuges.

A draft of this Compatibility Determination was made available for public review from December 20, 2001

through January 11, 2002, in conjunction with issuance of our response to public comments on the CCP.

All persons on our mailing list received a copy, press releases invited comments, and the draft CD was

available for public review at our Charlestown Office. We received comments from four respondents both

in support of, and opposed to, waterfowl hunting.

One respondent was concerned about the potential high rate of crippling losses as a result of wounded

animals. It is likely that, as refuges are opened to hunting, we will require hunter report cards to assess

take and crippling losses.

Two respondents expressed support for waterfowl hunting as proposed. Another respondent objected to

the potential for loud noise and gunfire, potential disturbance to waterfowl and other wildlife, and was
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 D-17

Compatibility Determinations Appendix D

opposed to recreational hunting on wildlife refuges. Hunting is one of the six priority public uses on

national wildlife refuges. Areas slated for hunting either already have hunting adjacent to them or are the

required distance from residences.

The Town of Narragansett pointed out that it is illegal to discharge firearms within the City limit. Our

hunt programs will not allow hunting with firearms within the City limits.

Determination

The use is compatible X .

The use is not compatible .

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

All hunting will adhere to state and local (Town and City ordinances) regulations for hunting seasons,

species, bag and possession limits, and method of take. Additional refuge regulations may be identified

during development of the Hunt Plan.

Justification

Hunting does not materially interfere with or detract from the Mission of the System, and contributes to

refuge purposes and management goals and objectives. Hunting is another priority wildlife-oriented

activity that provides outstanding recreational benefit to the public and promotes an appreciation of

wildlife and the outdoors. Hunting is also a valid means of population control, and can serve to keep

populations of wildlife in check. In particular, the hunting program at Trustom Pond Refuge will contribute to the reduction of local resident Canada geese and reduce the public nuisance of these birds. Waterfowl hunting at these refuges will help us to manage populations of resident Canada geese, contributing

to the Mission of the Refuge System and the purposes for which these refuges were established. The

resources needed to administer this program are well within the means of the refuge to do so.
D-18 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix D

References

Allin, C.C. 1980. Canada geese in Rhode Island. Rhode Island Dept. of Env. Manage. Div. Fish and

Wildl. Pam. no:12. 46pp.

Atlantic Waterfowl Council. 1981. Canada goose subcommittee nuisance goose flock evaluation and

management plan. AWC minutes 10pp.

Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biol. Conserv. 21: 231-241.

Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern United

States. Env. Cons. 13(2): 123-130.

Hestbeck, J.B., D.H. Rusch, and R.A. Malecki. 1990. Estimating population parameters for geese. Trans.

N.A. Wildl. Nat. Res Conf. 55:350-373.

Hindman, L.J., and F. Ferrigno. 1990. Atlantic flyway goose population status and management. Trans.

N.A. Wildl. Nat. Res Conf. 55:293-311.

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:31-39.

Pfister, C., B.A. Harrington, and M. Lavine. 1992. The impact of human disturbance on shorebirds at a

migration staging area. Bio. Cons. 60: 115-126.

Trost, R.E. and R.A. Malecki. 1985. Population trends in Atlantic flyway Canada geese: implications for

management. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13:502-508.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Refuge Manual. Wash. D.C.: U.S. Govt. Print. Off

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Hunting Plan for Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge. Ninigret

NWR. Charlestown, RI. 39pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Midwinter waterfowl survey-Atlantic Flyway. in press. 10pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of

1997. Public Law 105-57-OCT. 9, 1997.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 D-19

Compatibility Determinations Appendix D

Compatibility Determination

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Uses

Fishing

Refuge names, establishing and acquisition authorities, and purposes

Each National Wildlife Refuge is established under specific legislation or administrative authority .

Similarly, each refuge has one or more specific legal purposes for which it was established. The establishing legislation or authority and the purposes for each refuge in the Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge

Complex (Refuge Complex) are given below.

Block Island National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 2 November 1973

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Block Island National Wildlife Refuge (Block Island Refuge) was

established under 16 U.S. Code 667b, Public Law 80 - 537, an Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain

Real Property for Wildlife, or other Purposes.

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: Lands acquired under 16 U.S. code 667b, Public Law 80-537

were for. . . “particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program.”

Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 12 August 1970

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge (Ninigret Refuge) was

established under 16 U.S. Code 667b, Public Law 80 - 537, an Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain

Real Property for Wildlife, or Other Purposes. Additions to the refuge were acquired under the

Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715d.

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: Lands acquired under 16 U.S. code 667b, Public Law 80-537

were established for their. . . “particular value in carrying out the national Migratory Bird Management

Program.” Additional lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. ss 715d)

were. . . “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.”

John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge at Pettaquamscutt Cove

Date Established: 5 November 1988 (originally established as Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge (Chafee Refuge) was

established under an Amendment to the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (102 Stat. 3177) and the

National Wildlife Refuge Administrative Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 668dd - 668ee; 80 STAT 927).

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: The purposes for which the refuge was established and

managed for are: “(1) to protect and enhance the populations of black ducks 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 the international treaty obligations of

the United States respecting fish and wildlife; and (4) to provide opportunities for scientific research,

environmental education, and fish and wildlife-oriented recreation” (102 Stat. 3177).

Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 3 November 1970

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge (Sachuest Point Refuge)

was established under the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956.

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: Sachuest Point Refuge was established “...for the

development, management, advancement, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources” and
D-20 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix D

for “(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development; (2) protection of natural resources,

and (3) conservation of endangered or threatened species” (Refuge Recreation Act of 1962).

Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 15 August 1974

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: The Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge (Trustom Pond

Refuge) was established under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 USC 715-715R

and by the Refuge Recreation Act, 16 USC c - 1.

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: For lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation

Act, as amended, the purpose of the acquisition is “. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other

management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) and for

“. . . (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development; (2) the protection of natural

resources; and (3) the conservation of endangered or threatened species. . .” as authorized by the Refuge

Recreation Act, 16 USC. c - 1.

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

The Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is “to administer a national network of lands and

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of

Americans.”

ternational treaty obligations of the United States respecting fish and wildlife; and (4) to provide

opportunities for scientific research, environmental education, and fish and wildlife-oriented recreation”

(102 Stat. 3177).

Description of Fishing

Is the use a priority public use?

Yes. Fishing was identified as a priority, wildlife-dependent recreational use by the National Wildlife

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge Improvement Act; P.L. 105-57).

What is the use?

Surf fishing and river shoreline fishing from refuge lands into state waters, and access to spear fishing,

crabbing and shellfishing (both commercial and recreational), which also occur in state waters. There is

no fresh water fishing on any of the Rhode Island Complex Refuges.

Where would the use be conducted?

Block Island, Ninigret, Chafee, Sachuest Point, and Trustom Pond Refuges (see below).

When would the use be conducted?

The refuges are open to fishing year round, but most activity occurs during Spring, Summer, and Fall.

The only exception to the year round activity is Trustom Pond Refuge’s Moonstone Beach which is closed

to all access above mean high water from April 1 to September 15 to protect the federally threatened

piping plover and state-threatened least tern during their nesting seasons. Other fishing areas may be

closed in the future at the Refuge Manager’s discretion in order to minimize long term, cumulative

impacts to wildlife and habitats, or to protect human health and safety.

Night fishing will continue at Sachuest Point Refuge only. The other refuges are only open to fishing

from sunrise to sunset.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 D-21

Compatibility Determinations Appendix D

Why is the use being proposed?

Fishing is a priority, wildlife dependent public use, and is a traditional, sustainable activity in coastal

Rhode Island. A high quality fishing program helps us achieve refuge purposes and management

objectives as determined by each refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

How would the use be conducted?

All recreational and commercial fishing is in accordance with state regulations, with additional refuge

specific requirements noted below. All access to fishing sites will be on foot or by boat, except as noted for

Block Island and Ninigret refuges. In general, we will not support fishing derbies or contests from

refuge lands, but the Refuge Manager retains authority to reconsider on a case-by-case basis.

Block Island Refuge

Access to surf fishing is on foot, by boat, or seasonally by four wheel drive vehicles. We will close refuge

lands above the mean high water mark to vehicle access from April 1 to September 15 to protect nesting

and migrating shorebirds and to reduce impacts to the beach ecosystem. The beach will remain open to

foot travel subject to management requirements to protect Threatened or Endangered Species and

species of concern. In 2003, we will prepare a public use and access plan with our island partners for all of

northern Block Island. Other fishing opportunities may be evaluated in this plan. Significant changes to

what is proposed herein will require a new compatibility determination.

Ninigret Refuge

Access to surf fishing occurs on the barrier beach parcel and is on foot, by boat, or by four wheel drive

vehicle. A sand road behind the dunes crosses approximately 1,200 feet of refuge land and is open year

round to vehicles. Many people utilize this sand road to access fishing sites on state and refuge beaches

or to access the Charlestown breachway, which lies off refuge. The refuge beach and adjacent state

Ninigret Conservation Area beach are seasonally closed to vehicles from April 1 to September 15 to

protect nesting piping plover.

On the mainland portion of the refuge, recreational salt water fishing and shellfish harvesting occur in

Ninigret Pond, accessed over refuge lands on foot on designated trails. Commercial harvesters are

known to cross the refuge to access the pond, in particular, to gain access to Foster’s Cove.

We will continue to allow access for recreational and commercial shellfishing in Ninigret Pond on

designated trails only, and in accordance with state regulations. People engaged in commercial

shellfishing will be required to obtain a special use permit. Shoreline fishing in Ninigret Pond will be

allowed at certain established access points on the refuge to prevent wildlife disturbance and shoreline

erosion.

Chafee Refuge

Saltwater fishing occurs in the Narrow River by boat, and, to a limited extent, on land from accessible

shoreline areas (Middlebridge Road). While the waters of Narrow River are currently closed to shellfish

harvesting, the potential for this use in the future exists.

The refuge will allow fishing from boats or from the shoreline, but only from designated access points

located to minimize further bank erosion and impacts on the refuge saltmarsh. We intend to work with

RI DEM on an outreach campaign to educate the public on the impact of excessive motorboat and jet ski

speed on refuge shorelines, marshlands, and wildlife.

Sachuest Point Refuge

Surf fishing occurs along the refuge shoreline in the Atlantic Ocean and the Sakonnet River. Target

species include striped bass, bluefish, tautog, and scup. Species like striped bass and bluefish are
D-22 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix D

migratory and fishing pressure is linked to the “opportunistic” presence of fish, whereas scup and tautog

are resident to the area and fishing pressure is fairly constant from spring through the fall.

Surf fishing is allowed 24 hours a day on the refuge, in accordance with state regulations. A new refuge

regulation will require spear guns to be unloaded and encased while being transported across the refuge.

Shoreline access points will be designated and established to reduce erosion impacts and better enforce

restrictions. We will also produce new interpretive and regulatory literature in other languages to

accommodate the cultural diversity of anglers using Sachuest Point.

The Refuge will implement a fishing permit program to maintain fishing opportunities while minimizing

inappropriate refuge nighttime uses Additionally, we plan to initiate a study to evaluate the impacts to

refuge wildlife from night time fishing, with particular interest in the effects of the night spot lights used

by anglers.

Because of a significant and adverse litter problem on shorelines used primarily by fishermen, an

aggressive litter control program will be instituted. If the litter problem is not abated, restrictions on

shorelines open for fishing may be instituted.

Trustom Pond Refuge

Surf fishing occurs seasonally in the Atlantic Ocean from the refuge’s barrier beach shoreline. As noted

above, the refuge beach is closed from April 1 to September 15 to protect nesting piping plover and least

tern. Trustom Salt Pond will remain closed to fishing year round. No additional infrastructure is

proposed.

Availability of Resources

Funding/annual costs required to administer and manage fishing activities

Maintenance (recurring)

shoreline access points $ 500/yr

Administration

Law Enforcement $ 7,000/yr (0.65 FTE seasonal)

Signs/pamphlets (regulatory, multi-cultural) $ 500/yr

Monitoring of Program and Administration

of Special Use Permits/Permit System $ 1,000/yr (0.1 FTE of GS 9)

Research: Night Fishing @ Sachuest Point $ 30,000

TOTAL $ 30,000 one time

$ 9,000/recurring annually

Collections from fishing permits on the Sachuest Point NWR will partially offset some costs.

Anticipated Impacts

Fishing activities may impact refuges when anglers trample vegetation, create unauthorized trails, or

cause erosion of the shorelines. Some disturbance to roosting and feeding shorebirds probably occurs

(Burger 1981), but is considered minimal. Discarded fishing line and other fishing litter can entangle

migratory birds and marine mammals and cause injury and death (Gregory 1991). Additionally, litter

impacts the visual experience of refuge visitors (Marion and Lime 1986). Several enforcement issues

involving fishing also impact the refuge, including: illegal taking of fish (undersized, over limit), littering,

illegal fires at night, and disorderly conduct. Many ethnic groups use the refuges to fish, Sachuest Point

in particular, but may not be able to read the current regulatory signs printed in English, further

exacerbating the above-mentioned problems. In the past, the small refuge staff has been unable to
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 D-23

Compatibility Determinations Appendix D

consistently monitor activities and enforce refuge regulations, especially the night fishing at Sachuest

Point refuge, but recent staff additions should minimize this concern in the future.

We expect a net beneficial impact from providing high quality fishing opportunities as fishing is a very

popular, historic, and traditional public use in Rhode Island.

Public Review and Comment

Public review and comments were solicited in conjunction with the planning process for the Draft Rhode

Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Plan and Environmental Assessment (CCP/

EA) (December 2000). A compatibility determination for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and

photography, and environmental education and interpretation was distributed to the public as an

appendix to the draft CCP/EA, complying with the National Environmental Policy Act and Service

policies on writing compatibility determinations and comprehensive conservation plans. These were

released for a 51-day comment period in January and February 2001. No comments were received in

opposition to fishing.

Determination

The use is compatible X .

The use is not compatible .

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

Sachuest Point Refuge will be staffed year-round to adequately manage a quality fishing program and

enforce refuge regulations. A new refuge regulation will be developed to ensure that spear fishing gear is

encased and unloaded while carried across the refuge. Also at Sachuest Point, regulatory signs and

fishing program information will be printed in languages of the various ethnic groups using the refuge to

explain refuge policy and fishing regulations.

An aggressive program of information, signing, and enforcement will be implemented to address the

litter problem. Yearly progress assessments will be required and will be used to help determine whether

additional restrictions on public uses including fishing will be necessary to address the litter issues.

A fishing permit system will be instituted to gain control over inappropriate refuge uses and to insure

high quality fishing opportunities will be maintained.

Trustom Salt Pond will remain closed to fishing. Moonstone Beach on Trustom Pond refuge will remain

closed to all public access each year from April 1 to September 15 to protect nesting piping plover and

least tern.

Ninigret Refuge’s barrier beach and Block Island refuge beaches will be closed to four wheel drive

vehicles from April 1 to September 15 to protect nesting piping plover and other shorebirds and to reduce

impacts to the dune structure and vegetation.

Fishing access points to all refuge shorelines will be designated to reduce unauthorized trail use and

prevent against erosion. Monitoring will be conducted on all refuges to insure that fishing remains

compatible to the refuge purposes and to determine whether modifications in fishing management are

necessary. All commercial fishing will require a special use permit.

Justification

Fishing is a priority wildlife-dependent activity that provides substantial recreational benefits to the

public. Surf fishing and shellfishing are traditional forms of outdoor recreation in Rhode Island. This

activity does not materially interfere with or detract from the Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge

System. Further, providing fishing opportunities supports refuge purposes and management objectives

in refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans.
D-24 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix D
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 D-25

Compatibility Determinations Appendix D

References

Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biol. Conserv. 21: 231-241.

Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern United

States. Env. Cons. 13(2): 123-130.

Burger, J. and J. Galli. 1987. Factors affecting distribution of gulls (Larus spp.) on two New Jersey

coastal bays. Env. Cons. 14(1): 59-64.

Goff, G.R., D.J. Decker, and G. Pomerantz. 1988. A diagnostic tool for analyzing visitor impacts on

wildlife refuges: A basis for a systematic approach to visitor management. Trans. Northeast Sect.

Wildl. Soc. 45: 82.

Gregory, M.R. 1991. The hazards of persistent marine pollution: Drift plastics and conservation islands.

J. Royal Soc. New Zealand. 21(2):83-100.

Klein, M.L. 1989. Effects of high levels of human visitation on foraging waterbirds at J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge. Final research report. Florida Coop. Fish Wildl. Res. Unit, Univ.

Florida, Gainsville, Florida. FCFWRU Work Order No. 42. vii+103.

Kuss, F.R. and C.N. Hall. 1991. Ground flora trampling studies: Five years after closure. Environ.

Manage. 15(5): 715-727.

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:31-39.

Marion, J.L. and D.W. Lime. 1986. Recreational resource impacts: visitor perceptions and management

responses. pp 229-235. Kulhavy, D.L. and R.N. Conner, eds. in Wilderness and natural areas in the

eastern United States: a management challenge. Center for Applied Studies, Austin State Univ.

Nacogdoches, TX. 416pp.

Pfister, C., B.A. Harrington, and M. Lavine. 1992. The impact of human disturbance on shorebirds at a

migration staging area. Bio. Cons. 60: 115-126.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Refuge Manual. Wash. D.C.: U.S. Govt. Print. Off

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Fisheries USA. The Recreational Fisheries Policy of the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Wash. D.C. 11pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of

1997. Public Law 105-57-OCT. 9, 1997.
D-26 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix D

Compatibility Determination

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Use

Trapping

Refuge names, establishing and acquisition authorities, and purposes

Each National Wildlife Refuge is established under specific legislation or administrative authority .

Similarly, each refuge has one or more specific legal purposes for which it was established. The establishing legislation or authority and the purposes for each refuge in the Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge

Complex (Refuge Complex) are given below.

Block Island National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 2 November 1973

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Block Island National Wildlife Refuge (Block Island Refuge) was

established under 16 U.S. Code 667b, Public Law 80 - 537, an Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain

Real Property for Wildlife, or other Purposes.

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: Lands acquired under 16 U.S. code 667b, Public Law 80-537

were for. . . “particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program.”

Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 12 August 1970

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge (Ninigret Refuge) was

established under 16 U.S. Code 667b, Public Law 80 - 537, an Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain

Real Property for Wildlife, or Other Purposes. Additions to the refuge were acquired under the

Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715d.

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: Lands acquired under 16 U.S. code 667b, Public Law 80-537

were established for their. . . “particular value in carrying out the national Migratory Bird Management

Program.” Additional lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. ss 715d)

were. . . “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.”

John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge at Pettaquamscutt Cove

Date Established: 5 November 1988 (originally established as Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge (Chafee Refuge) was

established under an Amendment to the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (102 Stat. 3177) and the

National Wildlife Refuge Administrative Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 668dd - 668ee; 80 STAT 927).

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: The purposes for which the refuge was established and

managed for are: “(1) to protect and enhance the populations of black ducks 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 the international treaty obligations of

the United States respecting fish and wildlife; and (4) to provide opportunities for scientific research,

environmental education, and fish and wildlife-oriented recreation” (102 Stat. 3177).

Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 3 November 1970

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge (Sachuest Point Refuge)

was established under the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956.

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: Sachuest Point Refuge was established “...for the

development, management, advancement, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources” and

for “(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development; (2) protection of natural resources,

and (3) conservation of endangered or threatened species” (Refuge Recreation Act of 1962).
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 D-27

Compatibility Determinations Appendix D

Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 15 August 1974

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: The Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge (Trustom Pond

Refuge) was established under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 USC 715-715R

and by the Refuge Recreation Act, 16 USC c - 1.

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: For lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation

Act, as amended, the purpose of the acquisition is “. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other

management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) and for

“. . . (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development; (2) the protection of natural

resources; and (3) the conservation of endangered or threatened species. . .” as authorized by the Refuge

Recreation Act, 16 USC. c - 1.

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

The Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is “to administer a national network of lands and

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of

Americans.”

Description of Use

What is the use? Is the use a priority public use?

The Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex will initiate and maintain a trapping program to:

a) remove animals adversely affecting the productivity of endangered and threatened species and

migratory birds;

b) minimize furbearer damage to physical facilities including dikes, refuge water control structures,

roads, and other facilities;

c) minimize the competition with or interaction among wildlife populations and species which conflict

with refuge objectives; and,

d) minimize the occurrence of high animal population densities which have the potential to transmit

contagious diseases to humans, furbearer populations, other wildlife species, or domestic animals.

Trapping is not identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 as a priority

public use.

Where would the use be conducted?

Trapping will occur on all five refuges within the Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex. In

support of the piping plover and least tern management programs, trapping will occur on the beaches,

foredunes and backdunes at Trustom Pond, Ninigret, and Block Island refuges. Other trapping activities

will occur in areas where furbearers have exceeded desirable population levels or are causing damage to

dikes, refuge water control structures, roads, and other facilities. The specific areas to be trapped will be

delineated in a Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex Furbearer Management Plan.

When would the use be conducted?

Trapping will occur during the state furbearer trapping season, generally November 1 through January

31, inclusive, each year, or during the beaver season, generally December 1 through March 15, inclusive,

each year. However, there may be situations requiring trapping outside of these state seasons when

necessary to protect public health and safety or significant refuge structures. Trapping associated with

the piping plover and least tern programs would occur just prior to and during these species’ nesting

seasons, approximately March through August of each year. The refuge will coordinate with the Rhode

Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) prior to allowing trapping to occur outside

the normal state trapping seasons.
D-28 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix D

How would the use be conducted?

State-licensed trappers will operate under a refuge special use permit following refuge regulations.

Refuge regulations will include the state specifications for trap type. We will require traps to be checked

daily. Trappers will contact the refuge at least once each month to report harvest numbers and species.

When necessary to insure management objectives are met, we will arrange for individual state-licensed

trappers to remove problem animals. We will coordinate with RI DEM prior to each trapping season.

The specific refuge trapping regulations and the procedures that will be used to conduct the refuge

trapping program will be listed and explained in the Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Furbearer Management Plan.

All trapping will occur in accordance with state regulations, except:

 when necessary to protect species of special management concern; or

 when necessary to protect public health and safety, or refuge facilities.

Why is the use being proposed?

Trapping helps us achieve refuge purposes and management objectives, specifically those which direct us

to manage for increased productivity of threatened or endangered species or migratory birds. Predation

on adults and chicks has consistently been a major problem at our piping plover and tern restoration

sites, and trapping has been an effective tool for managing their predators. Trapping is recommended in

the 1996 Revised Recovery Plan for Piping Plover as part of an integrated and diverse strategy for

protecting piping plover populations.

Rhode Island state law prohibits the relocation of wildlife. Problem animals can not be tranquilized or

live-trapped and moved elsewhere. Trapping is one management tool for dealing with problem animals

on-site.

Allowing state-licensed trappers to operate leaves our refuge staff with more time to accomplish other

high priority tasks. Also, experienced commercial trappers will be more effective and efficient as they

bring knowledge and skill in trapping, which our refuge staff may lack.

Availability of Resources

Keeping the Rhode Island Refuges open to trapping for management purposes would not affect our

Refuge Complex budget. Over the past five years, the Refuge Complex has spent an average of $500/

year on its trapping program with generally one trapper operating each year.

There are no special equipment, facilities, or improvements needed to implement this trapping program;

nor will there be any maintenance costs. In the future, we expect only minor administrative costs associated with trapping. For example, we may find it necessary to advertise trapping opportunities in order to

attract interest. Some staff time may be devoted to contacting trappers, writing permits, inspecting

permits, and monitoring trapping results. We expect that conducting these activities will require less

than one-tenth of a work-year for one staff member (0.1 FTE). We expect significant savings in staff time

and equipment costs by having experienced state-licensed trappers remove nuisance animals - work that

otherwise would need to be done by refuge staff.

Anticipated Impacts of Proposed Actions

Trapping activities will cause minor disturbance to wildlife not targeted for removal. The set- up and

checking of traps may result in short term, very local disturbances to wildlife in the area. With experienced trappers, however, we expect no or negligible losses to non-target species. For those species

targeted for removal, the extent of trapping we are proposing will not eliminate local populations, but will

help control population growth and problem individuals.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 D-29

Compatibility Determinations Appendix D

We expect a net beneficial impact to species of concern that we are trying to protect, as trapping their

predators should contribute to lower mortality rates and higher productivity and fledgling rates. In

addition, trapping to remove individual nuisance animals will provide us flexibility in protecting the health

and safety of visitors, and refuge structures and facilities.

Public Review and Comment

In the draft CCP/EA (December 2000), trapping was identified as a preferred management strategy for

protecting populations of piping plover and least tern. This document was distributed for public review

and comment over 51 days in January and February 2001.

In addition, a draft of this Compatibility Determination (CD) was made available for public review from

December 20, 2001 through January 11, 2002, in conjunction with issuance of our response to public

comments on the CCP. All persons on our mailing list received a copy, press releases invited comments,

and the draft CD was available for public review at our Charlestown Office. Comments were received

both in support of and opposed to trapping.

We received five written letters regarding trapping. Three respondents favored the trapping proposal to

protect facilities, public health, and trust resources. One of these respondents suggested entering into a

co-operative monitoring program for mink to determine population status. The Service will not enter into

a long term mink study since it is outside the realm of the trapping effort (no mink are trapped in the area

requested for a study), and higher priority tasks on the Complex compete for the limited staff and funding available.

The fourth respondent was favorable for trapping, but felt that trapping should be used to enhance

waterfowl production. The Service will not consider trapping solely to enhance waterfowl production.

The Refuges in the Complex are migratory bird refuges, primarily providing nesting and feeding habitat;

very little nesting occurs on refuge lands.

The fifth respondent expresses “significant concerns” regarding trapping. They felt that trapping was to

be the sole practice in protecting nesting piping plover, and urged the Service to use other means to

protect plovers, such as fencing. The Service does make extensive use of fencing for piping plover and

least tern protection. Fencing is very effective in protecting nesting areas, and we will continue to use this

tool. Trapping will only be used when deemed necessary, and in conjunction with other management tools.

The respondent also raised concern with the use of leg-hold traps and the potential for non-target animals

to be effected. The trapping program requires the use of licensed trappers who will follow state regulations and approved methods for trapping.

Another concern dealt with the requirement, in most cases, to check traps daily. We have modified the

CD to require daily checks of all traps.

In regards to trapping for protection of facilities, the respondent encouraged the Service to use other

methods (such as “beaver deceivers” or “beaver baffles”) to solve the problem in non-lethal means. The

Service has modified the CD to indicate that trapping will be pursued only after assessing whether

reasonable alternatives exist to solve the issue using non-lethal means.

Determination

The use is compatible X .

The use is not compatible .
D-30 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix D

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

Trapping will only be conducted under a special use permit to achieve a specific management purpose,

such as to protect species of management concern, to protect refuge facilities and resources, or to reduce

risks to public health and safety. Reasonable and feasible non-lethal means will be considered before

implementing trapping efforts. Traps will be checked at least once on a 24 hour basis. Trappers will

contact the refuge at least once every month during the trapping season to report harvest numbers and

species.

Justification

Trapping does not materially interfere with or detract from the Mission of the Refuge System, and

contributes to refuge purposes of the Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex by protecting

endangered and threatened species, migratory birds and wildlife populations. In addition, trapping

contributes to the refuge purposes by limiting damage to dikes, refuge water control structures, roads,

and other facilities, by minimizing the competition between wildlife populations and species which conflict

with refuge objectives, and by reducing high population densities which have the potential to transmit

contagious diseases to humans, furbearers, other wildlife species, or domestic animals.

References

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodius) Revised Recovery Plan.

Hadley, MA. 45 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Hadley, MA.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 D-31

Compatibility Determinations Appendix D

Pre-Acquisition Compatibility Determination

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

(For use on lands approved for acquisition, but not yet acquired

into the Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex)

Uses

Hunting and fishing.

Refuge names, establishing and acquisition authorities, and purposes

Each National Wildlife Refuge is established under specific legislation or administrative authority .

Similarly, each refuge has one or more specific legal purposes for which it was established. The establishing legislation or authority and the purposes for each refuge in the Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge

Complex (Refuge Complex) are given below.

Block Island National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 2 November 1973

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Block Island National Wildlife Refuge (Block Island Refuge) was

established under 16 U.S. Code 667b, Public Law 80 - 537, an Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain

Real Property for Wildlife, or other Purposes.

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: Lands acquired under 16 U.S. code 667b, Public Law 80-537

were for. . . “particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program.”

Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 12 August 1970

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge (Ninigret Refuge) was

established under 16 U.S. Code 667b, Public Law 80 - 537, an Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain

Real Property for Wildlife, or Other Purposes. Additions to the refuge were acquired under the

Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715d.

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: Lands acquired under 16 U.S. code 667b, Public Law 80-537

were established for their. . . “particular value in carrying out the national Migratory Bird Management

Program.” Additional lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. ss 715d)

were. . . “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.”

John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge at Pettaquamscutt Cove

Date Established: 5 November 1988 (originally established as Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge (Chafee Refuge) was

established under an Amendment to the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (102 Stat. 3177) and the

National Wildlife Refuge Administrative Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 668dd - 668ee; 80 STAT 927).

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: The purposes for which the refuge was established and

managed for are: “(1) to protect and enhance the populations of black ducks 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 the international treaty obligations of

the United States respecting fish and wildlife; and (4) to provide opportunities for scientific research,

environmental education, and fish and wildlife-oriented recreation” (102 Stat. 3177).

Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 3 November 1970

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge (Sachuest Point Refuge)

was established under the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956.
D-32 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix D

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: Sachuest Point Refuge was established “...for the

development, management, advancement, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources”

and for “(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development; (2) protection of natural

resources, and (3) conservation of endangered or threatened species” (Refuge Recreation Act of 1962).

Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 15 August 1974

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: The Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge (Trustom Pond

Refuge) was established under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 USC 715-715R

and by the Refuge Recreation Act, 16 USC c - 1.

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: For lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation

Act, as amended, the purpose of the acquisition is “. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other

management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) and for

“. . . (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development; (2) the protection of natural

resources; and (3) the conservation of endangered or threatened species. . .” as authorized by the Refuge

Recreation Act, 16 USC. c - 1.

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

The Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is “to administer a national network of lands and

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations

of Americans.”

Description of Use

What is the use?

This pre-acquisition compatibility determination serves as our “statement of intent” to allow hunting

and fishing to continue, where they are pre-existing and owner-authorized, on lands approved for Service acquisition, but not yet acquired. The specific parcels covered by this compatibility determination

have been identified in the final Land Protection Plan (LPP) for the Rhode Island National Wildlife

Refuge Complex, April 2002.

Within the refuge acquisition boundary, most of the parcels are privately owned and currently unimproved, and we are aware of only a few existing public use opportunities. As we pursue acquisition of

individual parcels we will be able to verify whether others exist. We are aware of the following wildlifedependent public uses on refuge parcels identified for acquisition:

 Block Island Refuge:deer hunting, upland game hunting, and surf fishing

 Ninigret Refuge: waterfowl hunting, deer hunting, and fishing

 Chafee Refuge: fishing and waterfowl hunting

 Sachuest Point Refuge:surf fishing

 Trustom Pond Refuge: surf fishing, Canada goose hunting, deer hunting.

Are the uses priority public uses?

Yes, hunting and fishing were identified as priority, wildlife-dependent public uses by the National

Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge Improvement Act, P.L. 105-57).

Where would the use be conducted?

The LPP identifies new acquisition boundaries for all five refuges in the Refuge Complex. The LPP also

delineates the specific parcels, using town tax records, approved for acquisition by the Service for each

refuge. Parcels will be acquired from willing sellers only, as funding allows.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 D-33

Compatibility Determinations Appendix D

When would the use be conducted?

All opportunities would be implemented consistent with the compatibility determinations already in place

for existing refuge lands. Compatibility determinations for these priority public uses were recently

updated and approved in conjunction with the preparation of Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs)

for each of the five refuges in the Refuge Complex. In general, refuges are open from sunrise to sunset

for these activities; the only exception is night fishing at Sachuest Point Refuge. Hunting and fishing

activities would be subject to state seasons and specific refuge regulations.

How would the use be conducted?

All opportunities would be implemented consistent with the compatibility determinations already in place

for existing refuge lands, refuge regulations, and applicable State and local laws.

Why is the use being proposed?

These priority public uses may already be occurring on privately owned lands, with the owners permission. These uses are also identified as priority uses by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

Availability of Resources

No additional Refuge resources would be devoted to these uses; that is, no additional infrastructure

would be developed to accommodate these new areas until compatibility determinations are revised in

response to new information or until we revise individual step-down management plans. Any proposed

expenditures for improving public use opportunities in these areas would be identified as projects in a

Visitor Services Plan. Acquisition and posting of these parcels will occur regardless of their potential for

wildlife-dependent public use.

Anticipated Impacts of Proposed Actions

We expect only minimal impacts from continuing to allow these priority public uses, similar to those

impacts described in the compatibility determinations for existing refuge lands.

Public Review and Comment

As part of the CCP/EA process for the Rhode Island Refuge Complex, this compatibility determination

has undergone extensive public review, including a 51 day public comment period, following release of the

draft CCP/EA in January 2001. We did not receive any comments specifically pertaining to this preacquisition compatibility determination, only general comments about the need to continue to provide

priority public uses to the extent possible on existing refuge lands.

Determination

The uses are compatible X .

The uses are not compatible .

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

The following conditions must all be met before allowing existing, priority, wildlife-dependent public use

to continue on an interim basis on newly acquired lands:

1) There are no indirect, direct, or cumulative threats anticipated to human health or safety;

2) There are no indirect, direct, or cumulative threats anticipated to natural or cultural resources;

3) The use is consistent with management of existing Rhode Island Refuge Complex lands; existing

 Refuge regulations would not be compromised;
D-34 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix D

4) The newly acquired lands represent a meaningful unit within which to manage the activity;

5) There are no anticipated, irresolvable conflicts between or among priority public uses; and,

6) The land is acquired by the Service and the boundaries are posted.

The Refuge Manager will evaluated parcels of land for these conditions before they are acquired. Existing uses may be allowed if these conditions are found to exist; all refuge regulations would apply to the

newly acquired lands.

This pre-acquisition compatibility determination is in effect until the currently approved compatibility

determinations for the Refuge Complex are revised. A compatibility determination will be revised when

conditions under which the use was first allowed change significantly, or if there is significant new information regarding the effects of the use, or with revision of a CCP. There may also be changes warranted

when the Visitor Services Plan is completed. However, at any time, the Refuge Manager retains the

authority to modify or cancel any public uses in order to insure compatibility with refuge purposes or to

insure the conditions above are met. Significant changes to these compatibility determinations will

require another public review period.

Justification

Existing priority, wildlife-dependant recreational uses should be allowed to continue on newly acquired

tracts of land as they have been determined appropriate by the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act and, when

compatible, are to be facilitated on refuges. These programs support the mission of the National Wildlife

Refuge System by promoting an understanding and appreciation of natural and cultural resources and

their management within a national system of refuges. Our programs will reach out to all segments of the

public to expand support for the refuge system. Individual refuge programs will be consistent with, and

fully support, the goals and objectives in refuge CCPs.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 D-35

Compatibility Determinations Appendix D

Pre-Acquisition Compatibility Determination

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

(For use on lands approved for acquisition, but not yet acquired

into the Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex)

Uses

Wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation.

Refuge names, establishing and acquisition authorities, and purposes

Each National Wildlife Refuge is established under specific legislation or administrative authority .

Similarly, each refuge has one or more specific legal purposes for which it was established. The establishing legislation or authority and the purposes for each refuge in the Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge

Complex (Refuge Complex) are given below.

Block Island National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 2 November 1973

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Block Island National Wildlife Refuge (Block Island Refuge) was

established under 16 U.S. Code 667b, Public Law 80 - 537, an Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain

Real Property for Wildlife, or other Purposes.

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: Lands acquired under 16 U.S. code 667b, Public Law 80-537

were for. . . “particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program.”

Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 12 August 1970

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge (Ninigret Refuge) was

established under 16 U.S. Code 667b, Public Law 80 - 537, an Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain

Real Property for Wildlife, or Other Purposes. Additions to the refuge were acquired under the

Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715d.

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: Lands acquired under 16 U.S. code 667b, Public Law 80-537

were established for their. . . “particular value in carrying out the national Migratory Bird Management

Program.” Additional lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. ss 715d)

were. . . “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.”

John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge at Pettaquamscutt Cove

Date Established: 5 November 1988 (originally established as Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge (Chafee Refuge) was

established under an Amendment to the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (102 Stat. 3177) and the

National Wildlife Refuge Administrative Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 668dd - 668ee; 80 STAT 927).

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: The purposes for which the refuge was established and

managed for are: “(1) to protect and enhance the populations of black ducks 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 the international treaty obligations of

the United States respecting fish and wildlife; and (4) to provide opportunities for scientific research,

environmental education, and fish and wildlife-oriented recreation” (102 Stat. 3177).

Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 3 November 1970

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge (Sachuest Point Refuge)

was established under the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956.
D-36 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix D

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: Sachuest Point Refuge was established “...for the

development, management, advancement, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources” and

for “(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development; (2) protection of natural resources,

and (3) conservation of endangered or threatened species” (Refuge Recreation Act of 1962).

Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 15 August 1974

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: The Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge (Trustom Pond

Refuge) was established under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 USC 715-715R

and by the Refuge Recreation Act, 16 USC c - 1.

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was established: For lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation

Act, as amended, the purpose of the acquisition is “. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other

management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) and for

“. . . (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development; (2) the protection of natural

resources; and (3) the conservation of endangered or threatened species. . .” as authorized by the Refuge

Recreation Act, 16 USC. c - 1.

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

The Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is “to administer a national network of lands and

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of

Americans.”

Description of Use

What is the use?

This pre-acquisition compatibility determination serves as our “statement of intent” to allow wildlife

observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation activities to continue, where

they are pre-existing and owner-authorized, on lands approved for Service acquisition, but not yet acquired. The specific parcels covered by this compatibility determination have been identified in the final

Land Protection Plan (LPP) for the Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex, April 2002.

Within the refuge acquisition boundary, most of the parcels are privately owned and currently unimproved, and we are aware of only a few existing public use opportunities. As we pursue acquisition of

individual parcels we will be able to verify whether others exist. We are aware of the following wildlifedependent public uses on refuge parcels identified for acquisition:

 Block Island Refuge: environmental education, wildlife observation, photography

 Ninigret Refuge: wildlife observation, photography

 Sachuest Point Refuge: wildlife observation, photography, environmental education

 Trustom Pond Refuge: wildlife observation, photography.

Are the uses priority public uses?

Yes, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation were identified as priority, wildlife-dependent public uses by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997

(Refuge Improvement Act, P.L. 105-57).

Where would the use be conducted?

The LPP identifies new acquisition boundaries for all five refuges in the Refuge Complex. The LPP also

delineates the specific parcels, using town tax records, approved for acquisition by the Service for each

refuge. Parcels will be acquired from willing sellers only, as funding allows.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 D-37

Compatibility Determinations Appendix D

When would the use be conducted?

All opportunities would be implemented consistent with the compatibility determinations already in place

for existing refuge lands. Compatibility determinations for these priority public uses were recently

updated and approved in conjunction with the preparation of Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs)

for each of the five refuges in the Refuge Complex. In general, refuges are open from sunrise to sunset

for these activities; the only exceptions would be pre-approved environmental education and interpretive

programs. Environmental education and interpretation, and wildlife observation and photography

activities would occur year-round.

How would the use be conducted?

All opportunities would be implemented consistent with the compatibility determinations already in place

for existing refuge lands, refuge regulations, and applicable State and local laws.

Why is the use being proposed?

These priority public uses may already be occurring on privately owned lands, with the owners permission. These uses are also identified as priority uses by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

Availability of Resources

No additional Refuge resources would be devoted to these uses; that is, no additional infrastructure

would be developed to accommodate these new areas until compatibility determinations are revised in

response to new information or until we revise individual step-down management plans. Any proposed

expenditures for improving public use opportunities in these areas would be identified as projects in a

Visitor Services Plan. Acquisition and posting of these parcels will occur regardless of their potential for

wildlife-dependent public use.

Anticipated Impacts of Proposed Actions

We expect only minimal impacts from continuing to allow these priority public uses, similar to those

impacts described in the compatibility determinations for existing refuge lands.

Public Review and Comment

As part of the CCP/EA process for the Rhode Island Refuge Complex, this compatibility determination

has undergone extensive public review, including a 51 day public comment period, following release of the

draft CCP/EA in January 2001. We did not receive any comments specifically pertaining to this preacquisition compatibility determination, only general comments about the need to continue to provide

priority public uses to the extent possible on existing refuge lands.

Determination

The uses are compatible X .

The uses are not compatible .

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

The following conditions must all be met before allowing existing, priority, wildlife-dependent public use

to continue on an interim basis on newly acquired lands:

1) There are no indirect, direct, or cumulative threats anticipated to human health or safety;

2) There are no indirect, direct, or cumulative threats anticipated to natural or cultural resources;
D-38 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix D

3) The use is consistent with management of existing Rhode Island Refuge Complex lands; existing

Refuge regulations would not be compromised;

4) The newly acquired lands represent a meaningful unit within which to manage the activity;

5) There are no anticipated, irresolvable conflicts between or among priority public uses; and,

6) The land is acquired by the Service and the boundaries are posted.

The Refuge Manager will evaluated parcels of land for these conditions before they are acquired. Existing uses may be allowed if these conditions are found to exist; all refuge regulations would apply to the

newly acquired lands.

This pre-acquisition compatibility determination is in effect until the currently approved compatibility

determinations for the Refuge Complex are revised. A compatibility determination will be revised when

conditions under which the use was first allowed change significantly, or if there is significant new information regarding the effects of the use, or with revision of a CCP. There may also be changes warranted

when the Visitor Services Plan is completed. However, at any time, the Refuge Manager retains the

authority to modify or cancel any public uses in order to insure compatibility with refuge purposes or to

insure the conditions above are met. Significant changes to these compatibility determinations will

require another public review period.

Justification

Existing priority, wildlife-dependant recreational uses should be allowed to continue on newly acquired

tracts of land as they have been determined appropriate by the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act and, when

compatible, are to be facilitated on refuges. These programs support the mission of the National Wildlife

Refuge System by promoting an understanding and appreciation of natural and cultural resources and

their management within a national system of refuges. Our programs will reach out to all segments of the

public to expand support for the refuge system. Individual refuge programs will be consistent with, and

fully support, the goals and objectives in refuge CCPs.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 E-1

Land Protection Plan Appendix E

Appendix E

Land Protection Plan
E-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix E

I. Introduction

This final Land Protection Plan (LPP) specifically

identifies land whose high natural resource values

merit our consideration for inclusion within the Rhode

Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex, as part of

the National Wildlife Refuge System administered by

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, we, our).

As we acquire those lands, we would manage them for

their wildlife resources, emphasizing the protection of

Federal trust resources, such as endangered and

threatened species and migratory birds, and for their

nationally significant natural resources, such as

wetlands. The objectives of this final LPP are

• To inform the public about the resource protection

needs, specific location, size, and priority of the

land we proposed to acquire in “Alternative B:

The Service’s Proposed Action” of our draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and

Environmental Assessment (draft CCP/EA).1

• To inform landowners whose parcels lie within our

proposed new acquisition boundaries of the Rhode

Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex about

our policies, priorities, options, and methods for

protecting land.

• To inform landowners about our long-standing

policy of acquiring land only from willing sellers.

[No action will occur on any land if its owner is

not interested in selling it to us.]

The maps in appendix A show the land we own now,

the boundaries of our proposed new acquisition, and

the parcels within this proposed boundary. Tables that

correspond to the maps identify each parcel, its tax

map number, its acreage, whether it is publicly or

privately owned, and our priority and recommended

option for acquiring it.

Final Land Protection Plan

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

II. Project Description

This final LPP describes in detail our strategies for

protecting land within the new acquisition boundaries

at the five national wildlife refuges in the Refuge

Complex.

• Block Island National Wildlife Refuge

• John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge at

Pettaquamscutt Cove

• Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge

• Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge

• Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge

Block Island National Wildlife Refuge

Block Island Refuge is located in the Town of New

Shoreham on Block Island, about 12 miles off the

mainland. A transfer of 28.7 acres from the U.S. Coast

Guard established the refuge in 1973. Since then, we

have added other lands under the authority of the Fish

and Wildlife Act of 1956. The refuge now holds

84.6 acres in fee title and 17.6 acres in conservation

easement. Excluding lands covered by this LPP, our

approved acquisition boundary contains another 61

acres that are still privately owned.

Block Island Refuge is unique in the richness of its

biological resources. The Nature Conservancy

considers Block Island, including the refuge, an

internationally significant biodiversity reserve due to

its endemic rare plant and animal species and

significant concentrations of migratory birds. Our

Regional Office also has identified the island as one of

the most important migratory bird habitats on the East

Coast, as it provides an essential link with Monomoy

Island, Nomans Land Island, and Long Island.

Annual bird surveys on The Nature Conservancy’s

land adjacent to the refuge have documented more

than 250 species of waterfowl, raptors, shorebirds, and

Neotropical landbirds during migration, including all

of the focus species in the Partners In Flight Bird

Conservation Plan for Area 9, and 11 priority species of

the North American Waterfowl Conservation

Management Plan. The federally listed endangered

American burying beetle has been documented on the

1

USFWS Region 5 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge

Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and

Environmental Assessment (Hadley, Massachusetts: December

2000
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 E-3

Land Protection Plan Appendix E

refuge, and the federally listed threatened piping

plover has nested on a beach contiguous with the

refuge.

Maps BI 1–4 identify the specific parcels that

compose a 95-acre expansion of Block Island Refuge.

This represents a refinement of what we propose in

“Alternative B: The Service’s Proposed Action” of our

draft CCP/EA. These 95 acres would dramatically

increase our contribution to an existing, and effective,

land conservation partnership on the island (see

appendix A). As we focus on Federal trust resources,

those acres would increase long-term protection for

• Piping plover breeding and foraging habitat,

• American burying beetle foraging and potential

breeding habitat,

• Neotropical migratory landbird and waterfowl

foraging and migration habitat,

• Bald eagle roosting and foraging habitat,

• Shorebird and wading bird breeding and foraging

habitat, including a green heron rookery.

As we focus on other nationally significant natural

resources, we also would protect in perpetuity coastal

freshwater pond, saltmarsh wetland, and beach strand

habitats.

John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge at

Pettaquamscutt Cove

The Chafee Refuge lies in the Towns of South

Kingstown and Narragansett. Most of its parcels

border the Narrow River; others border Point Judith

Pond; almost all are surrounded by private land. The

North American Waterfowl Joint Venture Plan for

Black Ducks identifies Pettaquamscutt Cove as a black

duck wintering area that warrants long-term

protection. The refuge now owns 329 acres in fee title.

Excluding lands covered by this LPP, our current,

approved acquisition boundary contains another 135

acres that are still privately owned.

Originally established in 1988 as Pettaquamscutt Cove

NWR, Congress renamed the refuge in 1999 to honor

the late Senator John H. Chafee for his contribution to

protecting nationally significant natural resources.

Senator Chafee proposed the legislation that created

the refuge by designating 600 acres of Pettaquamscutt

Cove and its associated uplands for the protection of

black ducks, shorebirds, and other waterfowl. In

1996, the refuge acquisition boundary was

legislatively revised to include 128 acres, locally

known as the Foddering Farm Acres, on Point Judith

Pond, which we purchased in 1997.

Maps CH 1–4 identify the specific parcels that

compose a 878-acre expansion of Chafee Refuge.

This represents a refinement of what we propose in

“Alternative B: The Service’s Proposed Action” of our

draft CCP/EA. These 878 acres would provide more

long-term protection to saltmarsh and forested

wetlands habitat used by a wide variety of resident and

migratory waterfowl, such as black ducks, shorebirds,

and wading birds, as well as a black-crowned nightheron rookery.

As we focus on nationally significant natural

resources, we also would protect in perpetuity crucial

lands in the Narrow River and Point Judith Pond

watershed that provide important Neotropical landbird

migration and breeding habitat, such as forested

wetlands, vernal pools, and adjacent uplands. Most of

the Partners In Flight Area 9 focal species have been

documented in the area, and also would benefit from

our protecting more land.

Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge

Ninigret Refuge, established in 1970, is located in the

Town of Charlestown, Rhode Island, 30 miles south of

Providence. Transfers of land from the U.S. Navy to

the Service created and expanded the refuge:

27.5 acres of Ninigret Pond barrier beach in 1970;

316.4 acres of the Naval Landing Field in 1979; and

60 acres in 1982. Excluding lands covered by this

LPP, we currently own 701 acres in fee title, which is

all the land within the current, approved refuge

acquisition boundary.

Ninigret Refuge comprises two different parcels: the

mainland parcel and the barrier beach parcel. The

mainland parcel comprises 674 acres: a 182-acre

contiguous mosaic of forest, shrub lands and wetlands

that includes 3 miles of Ninigret Pond shoreline;

200 acres, the former Naval facility, where we are

restoring native coastal sandplain grasslands and shrub

lands; and 292 acres we recently acquired in two

parcels of upland mature deciduous forest north of

U.S. Route 1. These provide breeding and migration

habitat for forest interior dwelling birds, and also

protect the Ninigret Pond watershed.

The 27.5-acre barrier beach parcel lies between

Ninigret Pond and Block Island Sound. In cooperation
E-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix E

with the State of Rhode Island Ninigret Conservation

Area, we manage the parcel to provide nesting and

foraging habitat for piping plovers.

Maps NI 1–4 identify the specific parcels that compose

a 390-acre expansion of Ninigret Refuge. This

represents a refinement of what we propose in

“Alternative B: The Service’s Proposed Action” of our

draft CCP/EA. These 390 acres would provide more

long-term protection of saltmarsh habitat, which is

used by a wide variety of resident and migratory

waterfowl and shorebirds. We also would protect in

perpetuity crucial lands in the Ninigret Pond

watershed, such as forested uplands, vernal pools, and

wetlands that provide important Neotropical landbird

migration and breeding habitat. Most of the Partners

In Flight Area 9 focal species have been documented in

the area, and would benefit from our protecting more

land.

Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge

Sachuest Point Refuge is located in the Town of

Middletown, Rhode Island, about 23 miles southeast of

Providence and 5 miles east of Newport. A 71-acre

donation from The Audubon Society of Rhode Island

established the refuge in 1970. The U.S. Navy

transferred 50 acres in 1976 and 107 acres in 1979. An

exchange of land between the Service and the Town of

Middletown brought the refuge total to 242 acres.

Excluding lands covered by this LPP, the Service

currently owns in fee title all the land within the

current, approved refuge acquisition boundary.

Sachuest Point is an important stopover in the area for

landbirds and shorebirds during migration. Its

physical presence as an undeveloped peninsula jutting

into the Sakonnet River and Rhode Island Sound and

its abundance of fruit-bearing shrubs readily attract

migratory birds, who stop to forage, rest, or obtain

shelter from storms.

Maps SP 1–4 identify the specific parcels that compose

a 35-acre expansion of Sachuest Point Refuge. This

represents a refinement of what we propose in

“Alternative B: The Service’s Proposed Action” of our

draft CCP/EA. Grassland and shrub land communities

are disappearing rapidly from Aquidneck Island,

particularly near the refuge. These 35 acres would

provide additional long-term management of native

coastal maritime grasslands and shrub lands important

to migratory landbirds, who depend on them for

breeding, foraging, and migration habitat. Most of the

Partners In Flight Area 9 focal species associated with

other habitat types have been documented in the area

as well, and would benefit from our protecting more

land. We also would protect in perpetuity nationally

significant natural resources, such as coastal

freshwater, saltmarsh wetland, and beach strand

habitats. These support a wide variety of resident and

migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds.

Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge

Trustom Pond Refuge is located in the Town of South

Kingstown. A 365-acre donation by Mrs. Ann Kenyon

Morse established the refuge in 1974. In 1980, our

approved Environmental Assessment expanded the

acquisition boundary to 1,000 acres. In 1982, The

Audubon Society of Rhode Island donated the

151-acre Moonstone Beach Bird Sanctuary. The

refuge now includes 651 acres in fee title, and 136 acres

of conservation easement. Excluding lands covered

by this LPP, our current, approved acquisition

boundary includes another 253 acres that are still

privately owned.

The variety of both uplands and wetlands on Trustom

Pond Refuge supports more than 280 bird species,

41 mammal species, 10 fish species, and 20 reptile and

amphibian species. Wildlife management on the

refuge has focused primarily on migratory birds,

especially waterfowl and shorebirds. Another focus is

restoring native coastal sandplain grasslands and shrub

lands to benefit Partners In Flight Area 9 focal species

that nest in those habitats. The centerpiece of the

refuge is a 160-acre coastal salt pond, which provides

important migrating and wintering habitat for at least

31 species of waterfowl, including black duck, and

20 species of shorebirds. Between the pond and Block

Island Sound lies Moonstone Beach, which we

manage to protect nesting piping plovers and the

State-listed threatened least tern.

Maps TP 1–4 identify the specific parcels that

compose a 1,283-acre expansion of Trustom Pond

Refuge. This represents a refinement of what we

propose in “Alternative B: The Service’s Proposed

Action” of our draft CCP/EA. These 1,283 acres

would provide additional long-term management of

high quality coastal sandplain grasslands and shrub

lands important to certain migratory landbirds for

breeding, foraging, and migration. We also would

protect in perpetuity lands crucial to the Trustom Salt
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 E-5

Land Protection Plan Appendix E

Pond watershed, such as forested uplands, vernal

pools, and wetlands, which also provide important

Neotropical bird migration and breeding habitat. Most

of the Partners In Flight Area 9 focal species have been

documented in the area as well; they also would

benefit from our protecting additional land.

III. Status of Resources to be Protected

The southern coastline of Rhode Island, including the

refuges and their adjacent lands is, perhaps, the most

imperiled by the threat of development in the midAtlantic United States. Recent assessments by the

local planning department indicate “build-out” will

occur in some portions of the area as soon as 20 years,

with “natural areas” at a premium much sooner than

that. The housing market has maintained a steady

increase at 16 percent. In response to that high

demand, real estate agents and developers are selling

houses that are not yet built. The economy of Rhode

Island remains strong, despite a nation-wide

slowdown.

Poor water quality already threatens refuge habitats.

Trustom Pond, the only undeveloped salt pond in

Rhode Island, now has water quality problems from

storm water runoff, inefficient septic systems in

nearby residential areas, chemical applications on

lawns and, to a lesser extent, from agricultural

practices. These same issues adversely affect the

other refuges, as well. This is evidenced by the State’s

having closed shell-fishing on the Narrow River,

including Pettaquamscutt Cove, in Ninigret Pond, and

in Great Salt Pond on Block Island, due to poor water

quality, in particular, high levels of fecal coliform

bacteria.

As lands near the refuges are developed, parcels with

the highest wildlife resource values, such as shorelines

and coastal beaches, frequently are targeted first for

development. Even when they are not developed,

these areas tend to fall under tremendous pressure

from human recreational activities, which reduces

habitat quality for many species. The continuing

dramatic loss of farm land to development has resulted

in a permanent loss of grassland habitat. That loss has

caused the suite of species associated with this habitat

to undergo one of the most widespread and persistent

population declines of any bird group. Similarly,

development is significantly impacting the availability

of large contiguous mature forest habitat vital to many

species of forest interior dwelling birds. Areas that

remain forested tend to be smaller blocks of habitat

that are susceptible to edge effects, including higher

predation pressures and nest parasitism.

IV. Proposed Action and Objectives

When we developed our draft CCP/EA, we identified

land protection focus areas, typically along watershed

boundaries, which contain high Federal trust resource

values in and around the refuges. In certain high

priority areas within those focus areas, we

recommended Service land acquisition. As we

developed this final LPP, we looked at those focus

areas in greater detail, further evaluated Federal trust

resource values, and established new refuge

acquisition boundaries that were more discrete and

discernible than watershed lines, and were more

susceptible to efficient administration and effective

resource management.

We used town tax parcel maps as a basis for our

acquisition mapping. Those tax maps contain several

areas that are platted as small lots or subdivisions,

complete with streets and rights-of-way, which do not

actually exist on the ground. We are not interested in

acquiring developed subdivisions; in fact, virtually all

of the parcels we identified for Service acquisition are

undeveloped. The parcels we identify in this final LPP

for Service acquisition support the following land

protection priorities of our draft CCP/EA.

• Protect known sites of threatened or endangered

species and rare natural communities;

• Protect areas important to the ecological integrity

and health of existing refuge lands; that is,

assemble the land base needed to ensure that

ecosystem processes and functions are intact

(e.g., areas needed to protect the quality and

quantity of water for wetlands);

• Protect areas that provide important habitat

corridors among or between refuge lands and

other conservation lands, or lands that assemble a

sufficient contiguous area to support viable

populations of priority species; and,

• Protect specific areas identified as important

natural communities or important sites for priority

species (e.g., critical stopover habitat for migrating

birds, bald eagle roosting sites, or wading bird

rookeries).
E-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix E

We propose to protect 2,681 acres by purchasing land

in fee simple and by purchasing conservation

easements (see “Protection Options” below). Table 1,

below, breaks down that total by refuge, by option.

See appendix A for the details on each parcel in each

refuge. Each of the five final CCP’s (one for each

refuge) will incorporate our approved final LPP as a

management action in support of land protection goals

and objectives.

V. Protection Options

The following list identifies what protection options

are available to us. We considered and evaluated each

option before developing our proposed action,

presented in detail in appendix A. Our policy in

acquiring land is to acquire only the minimal interest

necessary to meet each refuge’s goals and objectives,

and to acquire land only from willing sellers in a

manner that meets their needs. We believe our

proposed action is a cost-effective way of providing

the minimal level of protection needed for project

objectives, given the information now available to us.

As parcels become available in the future, however,

changes in the protection option for a specific parcel

may be warranted to ensure we are using the option

that best fits the situation at that time.

Option 1.—No Service Action; Management or

Acquisition by Others

Under Option 1, we would maintain present refuge

acquisition boundaries; we would not expand the

refuges or protect additional habitat. Our draft CCP/

EA evaluates this option as “Alternative A: No Action

(Current Management).” We did not recommend

Alternative A because:

• It would not adequately protect Federal trust

resources within and adjacent to the refuges;

• It was not supported by the majority of the public;

and

• Most of the lands it identified as needing

protection likely would have been developed.

Option 2.—Non–Purchase Protection

Under Option 2, we would work with other

conservation organizations and agencies, such as The

Nature Conservancy, Audubon Society of Rhode

Island, Rhode Island Department of Environmental

Management, and local land trusts, to support their

land protection and management programs of mutual

interest and benefit to the Service.

Although each of those groups affords land some level

of protection, they often do not have the financial or

administrative resources to buy all those lands, nor can

they actively manage the parcels as needed to protect

our priority species. Without our contribution to land

protection, many lands identified would likely be

developed for residential homes and support services.

These groups, and the public, have stated that Service

acquisition and management is vital to ensuring the

long-term protection of coastal Rhode Island natural

resources.

Our proposed action (appendix A) assumes these

groups will continue to buy lands important for

recreation or to protect open space. However, our

proposal also includes Service acquisition of those

lands with significant Federal trust resource value in

coastal Rhode Island.

 Table 1. New refuge acreage by purchase option

Refuge 1 Acres Fee Simple Easement

Block Island 95 51% 49%

Chafee 878 100% 0%

Ninigret 390 100% 0%

Sachuest Point 35 100% 0%

Trustom Pond 1,283 81% 19%

Total 2,681

1

Percentages are approximate, and may change.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 E-7

Land Protection Plan Appendix E

Option 3.—Less–than–fee Acquisition

Under Option 3, we would protect and manage land by

purchasing only a partial interest, typically in the form

of a conservation easement. This option keeps the

parcel in private ownership, while allowing us some

control over land use. We would have to determine,

on a case-by-case basis, and negotiate with each

landowner the extent of the rights we would be

interested in buying. Those may vary, depending on

the configuration and location of the parcel, the

current extent of development, the nature of wildlife

activities in the immediate vicinity, the needs of the

landowner, and other considerations.

In general, any less-than-fee acquisition would

maintain the land in its current configuration with no

further subdivision. Where we identify conservation

easements in appendix A, we would be interested

primarily in purchasing development rights.

Easements are most appropriate for use where:

 Only minimal management of the resource is

needed, such as in places where the

management objective is to allow deciduous f

orests to mature and provide habitat for

migratory and resident songbirds;

 Current land use regulations limit the potential

for adverse management practices;

 The protection strategy calls for the creation

and maintenance of a watershed protection

area that can be accommodated with passive

management; or

 Only a portion of the parcel contains lands of

interest to the Service.

Option 4.—Fee Acquisition

Under Option 4, we would acquire parcels in fee title

from willing sellers, thereby purchasing all rights of

ownership. This option provides us the utmost

flexibility in managing priority lands, and ensuring the

protection in perpetuity of nationally significant trust

resources.

Generally, the lands we would buy require more than

passive management (e.g., controlling invasive

species, mowing or prescribed burning, planting, or

managing the six priority public uses). We propose fee

acquisition in appendix A only when adequate land

protection was not assured under other ownerships,

active land management was required, or we predicted

the landowner would be unwilling to sell a partial

interest like a conservation easement.

We also would like to point out that it may become

necessary in the future to convert a conservation

easement to fee acquisition. For example, when an

owner is interested in selling the remainder of interest

in the land; when changes to zoning or land use

regulation compromise resource values; or, when our

management objectives change so that more active

habitat or public use management is desirable. We

will evaluate this need on a case-by-case basis.

VI. Acquisition Methods

We may use four methods of acquiring either a full or

a partial interest in the parcels identified for Service

acquisition: (1) fee purchase (e.g., complete title, or a

partial interest like a conservation easement), (2) donations, (3) exchanges, and (4) transfers. In rare circumstances, we also may use a fifth method, known as

“friendly condemnation.”

The Service, like other Federal agencies, has the

power of eminent domain. However, because of our

long-standing policy to acquire land only from willing

sellers, we may use friendly condemnations at the

request of a willing seller. For example, when the

Service and a willing seller cannot agree on property

value, at the landowner’s request, we may use friendly

condemnation to determine fair market value. Or,

where we cannot determine the rightful owner of a

property, we may use friendly condemnation to clear

title. We expect to use friendly condemnations very

infrequently.

Fee Purchase

Our preferred method is to buy a full or partial interest

in land from willing sellers in fee simple, as our

funding permits. At this time, in fact, we expect to

acquire all available parcels by using fee purchase.

Fee simple ownership assures the permanent protection of resources, and allows the complete control

necessary for management activities, such as restoring

disturbed or eroded areas, managing habitat, protecting endangered or threatened species, and providing

and managing public access.
E-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix E

A landowner also may choose to sell land to the

Service in fee simple and retain the right to occupy an

existing residence. This is referred to as a “life-use

reservation.” As their name implies, life-use reservations apply to the seller’s lifetime, but they can also

apply for a specific number of years. At the time we

acquire the parcel, we would discount from the

appraised value of the buildings and land the term of

the reservation. The occupant would be responsible

for the upkeep on the reserved premises. We would

own the land, and make revenue-sharing payments to

the local taxing authority.

Much of our funding to buy land comes from the Land

and Water Conservation Fund, which is derived from

certain user fees, proceeds from the disposal of surplus

Federal property, the Federal motor boat fuels tax, and

oil and gas lease revenues. About 90 percent of that

fund now derives from Outer Continental Shelf oil and

gas leases. The Federal Government receives 40 percent of that fund to acquire and develop nationally

significant lands. Another source of funding to

purchase land is the Migratory Bird Conservation

Fund, which derives from Federal Duck Stamp

revenue. We plan to use both funds to buy either full

or partial interests in the land identified in appendix A.

Donation

We generally encourage donations in fee title or

conservation easement within the approved areas,

assuming management concerns, such as contaminants, are not a major issue. We are not currently

aware of any opportunities to accept donations of

parcels within our proposed boundary, but would

evaluate them on a case-by-case basis as they arise.

Exchange

We have the authority to exchange land in Service

ownership for other land that has greater habitat or

wildlife value. Inherent in this concept is the requirement to get dollar-for-dollar value, with, occasionally,

an equalization payment. Exchanges are attractive

because they usually do not increase Federal land

holdings or require purchase funds; however, they also

may be very labor-intensive, and take a long time to

complete. An opportunity to exchange 2 acres with the

Town of Charlestown may arise, but we have not fully

developed that proposal.

Transfer

We also have accepted transfer of a great deal of land

that the military has declared excess, including parcels

at Ninigret Refuge and Sachuest Point Refuge. Transfers also may occur in the future, but we are not

currently aware of any opportunities to acquire land by

this method. The 4-acre U.S. Coast Guard parcel at the

northern tip of Block Island is one example with

future potential. Should the Coast Guard declare the

parcel excess to their needs, we would attempt to

acquire it, because it offers habitat valuable for

seabirds, including nesting habitat for the federally

listed threatened piping plover. As other transfer

opportunities arise within our proposed boundary, we

will evaluate them on a case-by-case basis.

VII. Coordination

Throughout our draft CCP/EA planning process, we

solicited and carefully considered public comments on

Service land acquisition. We worked with the Rhode

Island Department of Environmental Management,

five municipalities, local land trusts, and national

conservation organizations who are directly involved

in land protection strategies in coastal Rhode Island.

Their continuing work will preserve a great deal of

quality habitat around our proposed expansion areas.

We distributed the draft CCP/EA for a 51-day public

review and comment period. We obtained comments

through letters, e-mail, public Open Houses, formal

public hearings, and partner and agency meetings. We

received very few comments opposed to more Service

acquisition; most responses favored it. In fact, many

responses favored more Service acquisition than this

final LPP proposes.

We distributed the draft LPP to all affected landowners, our conservation partners, State of Rhode Island

and local agency and town offices, and the

Narragansett Indian Tribal Office, for a 30-day

comment period. Appendix B provides a summary of

the comments we received on the draft LPP. Virtually

all respondents expressed support for the proposed

action. Appendix C is a letter of support for our

proposed action from the Connecticut River/Long

Island Sound Ecosystem Team.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 E-9

Land Protection Plan Appendix E

VIII. Socioeconomic and Cultural Impacts

We do not predict any significant adverse socioeconomic or cultural impacts. We believe a net positive

benefit to the communities in coastal Rhode Island

will result. Towns will benefit from increased refuge

revenue sharing payments, savings on the cost of

community services, increased property values,

increased watershed protection, maintenance of scenic

values, and increased revenues to local businesses

from refuge visitors. Our draft CCP/EA describes

those benefits in detail.

Rhode Island voters consistently have voted to support

additional land protection. During our public involvement for the draft CCP/EA, they were enthusiastic

about Service land acquisition. Many people encouraged us to develop a larger proposal. The dramatic

increase in development along the South Shore over

the past decade has local residents concerned about the

ability to maintain a natural landscape. Acquisition by

the Service, while aimed at protecting trust resources,

watersheds, and other natural resource values, would

also maintain the natural features residents care about.

The only concern we heard expressed about Service

land acquisition was the likelihood of its reducing

public access. Although it is true that we would

eliminate non-wildlife-dependent activities, we would

continue to promote the six priority wildlife-dependent

uses of the Refuge System, including hunting, fishing,

wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation, where they are

compatible with the management purposes of each

refuge.

Refuge lands would increase protection for cultural

resources in the area. Service ownership would protect

known cultural sites against vandalism, and would

protect as yet unidentified or undeveloped cultural

sites from disturbance or destruction. Our interpretive

and environmental education programs will continue

to promote public understanding and appreciation of

the area’s rich cultural resources.
E-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix E

Appendix A. Parcel Maps and Tables

The maps in this appendix show the land we own now, the boundaries of our proposed new acquisition, and the

parcels we plan to acquire. Tables that correspond to those maps identify each parcel, its tax map number, its

acreage, whether it is publicly or privately owned, and our priority and recommended option for acquiring it.

We have grouped the parcels onto Group A, B, and C maps of each refuge solely to enlarge their display. Those

groupings do not connote priority rankings. We plan to acquire either full or partial interest in all the parcels by

fee purchase from willing sellers. Expanded definitions of each table column head follow.

Refuge

lists all five Rhode Island refuges

Group

our grouping of individual parcels on refuge maps to enlarge their display. Each refuge has a Group A, Group B, and

Group C map. Groupings do not connote priority rankings.

Service Parcel ID

our numerical identifier for each parcel on each refuge. Service ID numbers may not be sequential, as some tracts

were deleted during revisions between draft and final LPPs causing interruptions in the numbering sequence.

Tax Parcel ID

taxing authority tax parcel identification number.

Ownership

whether the parcel is privately or publicly owned. “Private” includes individuals, corporations, etc. “Public”

includes Federal, State, or town ownership.

Acres

estimated for each parcel from our Geographic Information System (GIS) database. This estimate may not match

exactly town tax records; some parcels lack detailed information.

Priority 1

highest protection need and value. It includes lands that have a very high biological and trust resource value; are at

the highest risk of loss to development within 10 years; lie close to existing refuge lands and would consolidate and

protect the integrity of our trust resources; have a crucial role in providing for connectivity among habitats and

natural communities; and best safeguard watershed values.

Priority 2

very high protection need and value. It includes lands that have high biological and trust resource values; are at less

immediate risk of loss to development than priority 1 lands, but could be lost within 10 years; are a vital link in the

overall strategy for resource protection, but may not lie directly adjacent to refuge lands; provide important

watershed protection values to other lands proposed for protection; or provide protection directly to existing refuge

lands.

Priority 3

high protection need and value. It includes lands which have high biological and trust resource values; are at risk of

potential loss to development, but not necessarily within 10 years; would contribute to watershed protection;

consolidate ownership to provide for effective management; or provide protection to existing refuge lands.

Protection Option

whether we would acquire fee title or conservation easement (see discussion in “Protection Option”). As stated

above, we have identified here what we believe, given the information now available, is the minimal level of Service

interest needed for project objectives that is also cost-effective. However, as parcels become available in the future,

changes may be warranted to ensure we are using the option that best fits the situation at that time.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 E-11

Land Protection Plan Appendix E

Maps and tables are presented in the following order:

1. Block Island National Wildlife Refuge

2. John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge at Pettaquamscutt Cove

3. Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge

4. Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge

5. Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge
E-12 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix E
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 E-13

Land Protection Plan Appendix E
E-14 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix E
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 E-15

Land Protection Plan Appendix E
E-16 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix E

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex Land Protection Plan

Block Island National Wildlife Refuge

REFUGE GROUP SERVICE PARCEL ID OWNERSHIP ACRES*

PRIORITY PROTECTION OPTION

Block Island A 1 public 9.15 1 Fee Simple

Block Island B 2 private 40.28 1 Conservation Easement

Block Island B 3 public 1.57 1 Fee Simple

Block Island C 4 private 13.06 1 Fee Simple

Block Island C 5 private 1.92 1 Fee Simple

Block Island C 6 private 2.15 1 Fee Simple

Block Island C 7 private 1.86 1 Fee Simple

Block Island C 8 private 0.48 1 Fee Simple

Block Island C 9private 3.61 1 Fee Simple

Block Island C 10 private 4.45 1 Fee Simple

Block Island C 11 private 1.25 1 Fee Simple

Block Island C 12 private 1.96 1 Conservation Easement

Block Island C 13 private 1.86 1 Conservation Easement

Block Island C 14 private 1.791 Conservation Easement

Block Island C 15 private 9.15 1 Fee Simple

* Acres generated from US Fish & Wildlife Service Geographic Information System data, not from town tax records.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 E-17

Land Protection Plan Appendix E
E-18 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix E
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 E-19

Land Protection Plan Appendix E
E-20 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix E
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 E-21

Land Protection Plan Appendix E

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex Land Protection Plan

John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge

REFUGE Group SERVICE OWNERSHIP ACRES* PRIORITY PROTECTION

PARCEL ID OPTION

Chafee A 1 private 36.98 1 Fee Simple

Chafee A 6 public 2.41 1 Fee Simple

Chafee A 8 public 4.92 1 Fee Simple

Chafee A 14 private 0.73 1 Fee Simple

Chafee B 29private 33.54 1 Fee Simple

Chafee B 35 private 0.41 1 Fee Simple

Chafee B 36 private 0.33 1 Fee Simple

Chafee B 37 private 0.33 1 Fee Simple

Chafee B 40 private 0.31 1 Fee Simple

Chafee B 42 private 0.32 1 Fee Simple

Chafee B 48 private 0.31 1 Fee Simple

Chafee B 49private 0.26 1 Fee Simple

Chafee B 50 private 0.27 2 Fee Simple

Chafee B 52 private 0.34 2 Fee Simple

Chafee B 53 private 10.27 1 Fee Simple

Chafee B 54 unknown 19.39 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 99 private 52.19 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 101 private 38.65 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 114 private 10.33 2 Fee Simple

Chafee C 119private 6.04 2 Fee Simple

Chafee C 136 private 6.093 Fee Simple

Chafee C 137 private 37.81 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 138 private 29.46 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 139private 7.03 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 140 private 209.35 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 141 private 0.99 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 142 private 1.53 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 143 private 0.60 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 144 private 0.791 Fee Simple

Chafee C 145 private 1.87 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 146 private 0.57 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 147 private 3.84 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 148 unknown 1.87 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 150 private 5.32 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 152 unknown 2.94 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 154 private 0.91 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 155 unknown 2.06 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 156 unknown 2.11 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 157 unknown 2.13 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 158 unknown 4.01 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 161 unknown 41.97 2 Fee Simple

*Acres generated from USFWS Geographic Information System data, not from town tax records
E-22 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix E

REFUGE Group SERVICE OWNERSHIP ACRES* PRIORITY PROTECTION

PARCEL ID OPTION

Chafee C 164 private 1.26 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 165 private 0.13 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 167 private 0.64 3 Fee Simple

Chafee C 169private 1.14 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 171 private 1.51 3 Fee Simple

Chafee C 173 private 2.44 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 174 private 58.27 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 177 private 1.84 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 178 unknown 1.16 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 180 private 0.24 2 Fee Simple

Chafee C 181 private 0.20 2 Fee Simple

Chafee C 182 private 0.20 2 Fee Simple

Chafee C 183 private 2.01 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 185 private 0.23 2 Fee Simple

Chafee C 186 private 0.20 2 Fee Simple

Chafee C 188 private 0.23 2 Fee Simple

Chafee C 189private 0.22 2 Fee Simple

Chafee C 190 private 0.31 2 Fee Simple

Chafee C 191 private 0.24 2 Fee Simple

Chafee C 192 private 2.05 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 193 private 0.62 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 194 private 0.98 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 195 private 0.27 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 196 private 0.34 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 197 private 0.85 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 198 private 0.56 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 199 private 0.71 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 200 private 1.62 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 201 private 1.22 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 202 private 0.96 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 203 private 0.91 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 204 private 0.47 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 205 private 0.90 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 206 private 0.52 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 207 private 0.82 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 208 private 0.491 Fee Simple

Chafee C 210 private 0.591 Fee Simple

Chafee C 212 private 5.48 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 213 private 2.35 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 215 private 2.93 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 217 private 0.33 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 218 private 31.17 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 219private 37.52 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 220 private 52.75 1 Fee Simple

*Acres generated from USFWS Geographic Information System data, not from town tax records
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 E-23

Land Protection Plan Appendix E

REFUGE Group SERVICE OWNERSHIP ACRES* PRIORITY PROTECTION

PARCEL ID OPTION

Chafee C 221 private 1.07 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 222 private 0.62 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 223 private 0.55 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 224 private 0.34 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 225 private 0.53 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 226 private 0.30 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 227 private 1.01 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 228 private 0.35 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 229private 6.70 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 230 private 2.93 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 231 private 17.55 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 232 private 4.00 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 233 private 27.34 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 234 unknown 2.891 Fee Simple

Chafee C 235 unknown 0.46 1 Fee Simple

Chafee C 236 private 0.591 Fee Simple

*Acres generated from USFWS Geographic Information System data, not from town tax records
E-24 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix E
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 E-25

Land Protection Plan Appendix E
E-26 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix E
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 E-27

Land Protection Plan Appendix E
E-28 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix E

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex Land Protection Plan

Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge

REFUGE Group SERVICE OWNERSHIP ACRES* PRIORITY PROTECTION

PARCEL ID OPTION

Ninigret A 1 private 97.33 1 Fee Simple

Ninigret A 2 private 1.23 3 Fee Simple

Ninigret A 3 private 1.05 3 Fee Simple

Ninigret A 4 private 1.07 3 Fee Simple

Ninigret A 5 private 0.91 3 Fee Simple

Ninigret A 6 private 14.97 1 Fee Simple

Ninigret A 7 private 0.99 3 Fee Simple

Ninigret A 8 unknown 0.15 3 Fee Simple

Ninigret A 9private 1.14 3 Fee Simple

Ninigret A 10 unknown 0.17 3 Fee Simple

Ninigret A 11 private 1.14 3 Fee Simple

Ninigret A 12 private 1.17 3 Fee Simple

Ninigret A 13 private 125.20 1 Fee Simple

Ninigret A 14 private 1.18 3 Fee Simple

Ninigret A 15 private 1.17 3 Fee Simple

Ninigret A 16 unknown 0.31 1 Fee Simple

Ninigret A 17 private 0.71 3 Fee Simple

Ninigret A 18 private 45.25 1 Fee Simple

Ninigret A 19private 1.58 3 Fee Simple

Ninigret A 20 private 0.93 3 Fee Simple

Ninigret A 21 private 0.94 3 Fee Simple

Ninigret A 22 private 0.98 3 Fee Simple

Ninigret A 23 private 0.98 3 Fee Simple

Ninigret A 24 private 1.17 3 Fee Simple

Ninigret A 25 private 1.34 3 Fee Simple

Ninigret A 26 private 1.12 3 Fee Simple

Ninigret A 27 private 16.13 1 Fee Simple

Ninigret B 29private 0.45 1 Fee Simple

Ninigret B 30 private 1.04 1 Fee Simple

Ninigret B 32 public 2.80 1 Fee Simple

Ninigret B 43 private 1.30 1 Fee Simple

Ninigret B 44 private 0.47 1 Fee Simple

Ninigret B 45 private 0.491 Fee Simple

Ninigret B 46 private 0.31 1 Fee Simple

Ninigret B 47 private 0.35 1 Fee Simple

Ninigret B 48 private 0.82 1 Fee Simple

Ninigret B 49private 0.53 1 Fee Simple

Ninigret B 50 private 0.98 1 Fee Simple

Ninigret B 51 private 0.91 1 Fee Simple

Ninigret B 52 private 1.37 1 Fee Simple

Ninigret C 53 private 1.06 1 Fee Simple

Ninigret C 54 private 1.61 1 Fee Simple

* Acres generated from US Fish & Wildlife Service Geographic Information System data, not from town tax records.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 E-29

Land Protection Plan Appendix E

REFUGE Group SERVICE OWNERSHIP ACRES* PRIORITY PROTECTION

PARCEL ID OPTION

Ninigret C 56 private 3.06 1 Fee Simple

Ninigret C 58 public 2.64 1 Fee Simple

Ninigret C 59private 3.72 1 Fee Simple

Ninigret C 61 public 2.88 1 Fee Simple

Ninigret C 68 private 26.34 1 Fee Simple

Ninigret C 72 private 9.50 1 Fee Simple

Ninigret C 73 private 7.15 1 Fee Simple

* Acres generated from US Fish & Wildlife Service Geographic Information System data, not from town tax records.
E-30 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix E
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 E-31

Land Protection Plan Appendix E
E-32 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix E

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex Land Protection Plan

Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge

REFUGE SERVICE OWNERSHIP ACRES* PRIORITY PROTECTION

PARCEL ID OPTION

Sachuest Point 53 private 19.21 1 Fee Simple

Sachuest Point 54 private 0.35 1 Fee Simple

Sachuest Point 55 private 0.05 1 Fee Simple

Sachuest Point 56 private 0.22 1 Fee Simple

Sachuest Point 57 private 0.03 1 Fee Simple

Sachuest Point 58 private 4.27 1 Fee Simple

Sachuest Point 59private 1.07 1 Fee Simple

Sachuest Point 60 public 7.47 1 Fee Simple

Sachuest Point 62 private 1.82 1 Fee Simple
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 E-33

Land Protection Plan Appendix E
E-34 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix E
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 E-35

Land Protection Plan Appendix E
E-36 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix E
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 E-37

Land Protection Plan Appendix E

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex Land Protection Plan

Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge

REFUGE Group SERVICE OWNERSHIP ACRES* PRIORITY PROTECTION

PARCEL ID OPTION

Trustom Pond A 1 private 15.07 2 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond A 2 private 4.62 1 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond A 3 private 4.66 2 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond A 4 private 26.72 1 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond A 5 private 4.88 3 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond A 6 private 2.05 3 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond A 7 private 5.37 1 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond A 8 private 3.17 3 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond A 9private 10.58 1 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond A 10 private 80.50 1 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond A 11 unknown 4.07 1 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond A 12 private 9.28 3 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond A 13 private 5.96 3 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond A 14 private 14.293 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond A 15 private 0.50 3 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond A 16 private 8.493 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond A 17 private 7.40 1 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond A 18 unknown 13.20 1 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond A 19private 12.00 1 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond A 20 private 45.23 1 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond A 21 private 9.70 1 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond A 22 private 6.43 2 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond A 23 private 5.72 2 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond A 24 private 5.61 2 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond A 25 private 11.66 1 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond A 26 private 0.693 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond B 27 private 0.60 3 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond B 29private 6.65 2 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond A 30 private 8.73 1 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond B 31 private 0.50 3 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond B 32 private 24.61 1 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond B 33 private 55.96 1 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond A 34 private 0.493 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond B 35 private 1.67 3 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond A 36 private 0.93 3 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond B 37 private 3.75 3 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond A 38 private 8.65 3 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond B 39private 61.16 1 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond A 40 private 46.23 1 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond B 41 private 1.81 3 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond B 42 private 5.84 2 Fee Simple

* Acres generated from US Fish & Wildlife Service Geographic Information System data, not from town tax records.
E-38 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix E

REFUGE Group SERVICE OWNERSHIP ACRES* PRIORITY PROTECTION

PARCEL ID OPTION

Trustom Pond C 134 private 1.38 3 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 135 private 0.94 3 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 136 private 5.75 2 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 137 private 3.23 3 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 138 private 5.04 1 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond C 139private 8.94 1 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 140 private 3.25 1 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond C 141 private 5.33 1 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond C 142 private 27.891 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 143 private 3.58 3 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond C 144 private 3.26 3 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond C 145 private 4.25 1 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond C 146 private 9.31 1 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 147 private 13.37 1 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 148 private 7.97 2 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 149private 7.51 2 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 150 private 3.67 2 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond C 151 private 8.86 1 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 152 private 1.90 3 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond C 153 private 2.093 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond C 154 private 4.18 1 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond C 155 private 5.88 1 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond C 156 private 9.48 1 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 157 private 4.67 3 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 158 private 2.25 3 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 159private 1.46 1 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 160 private 2.86 3 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 161 private 5.36 1 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 164 unknown 24.10 1 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 165 private 3.73 3 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 169private 3.76 3 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 171 private 9.38 1 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 175 private 2.25 3 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 176 private 2.92 3 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 177 private 2.07 3 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 178 private 2.02 3 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 179private 5.091 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 180 private 13.18 1 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 181 private 6.78 1 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 182 private 4.24 1 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 183 private 1.20 3 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond C 184 private 0.80 3 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond C 185 private 0.81 3 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond C 186 private 0.82 3 Conservation Easement

Trustom Pond C 187 unknown 2.48 1 Conservation Easement

* Acres generated from US Fish & Wildlife Service Geographic Information System data, not from town tax records.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 E-39

Land Protection Plan Appendix E

REFUGE Group SERVICE OWNERSHIP ACRES* PRIORITY PROTECTION

PARCEL ID OPTION

Trustom Pond C 188 private 1.891 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 189private 6.591 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 190 private 0.28 1 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 191 private 6.81 1 Fee Simple

Trustom Pond C 192 private 0.99 1 Fee Simple

* Acres generated from US Fish & Wildlife Service Geographic Information System data, not from town tax records.
E-40 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix E

Appendix B. Summary of Public Comments on

Draft Land Protection Plan

This summary includes the responses from affected landowners and other interested parties to the draft Land

Protection Plan (LPP) for the Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Refuge Complex). We distributed 370 copies of the draft LPP for a 30-day comment period, targeting all affected landowners, our conservation partners, Congressional Offices, State of Rhode Island local agency offices, respective town offices, and the

Narragansett Indian Tribal Office. This comment period occurred from November 13, 2001 through December

13, 2001. The purpose was to provide an opportunity to express concerns or comments to the Service regarding

the draft LPP proposed action. Comments were directed to Charlie Vandemoer, the Refuge Manager for the

Refuge Complex.

We received a total of 41 responses; four were e-mails; two were written letters; and 35 were phone conversations. Of the 41 responses, 37 were from affected landowners within proposed national wildlife refuge (Refuge)

acquisition boundaries. The remaining four were from conservation organizations or municipalities.

Of the 37 landowners, all but three expressed an interest in Service acquisition of some or all of their property,

either in fee simple or as a conservation easement. Of the three, two called to simply ask questions about the plan

and how it might effect their use of their property. Only one respondent, the Norman Bird Sanctuary, suggested

we consider removing their lands from the proposed acquisition boundary for Sachuest Point Refuge.

One landowner recommended we add a small parcel they owned, just outside our proposed acquisition boundary

for Trustom Pond Refuge, but contiguous with a second parcel they owned within our proposed boundary. They

stated they would only consider selling both parcels together in one deal. Another affected Trustom Pond landowner suggested removal of a subdivision from the proposed acquisition boundary, while recommending the

addition of larger lots immediately adjacent to the refuge instead. Two other affected landowners within the

Trustom Pond Refuge proposed boundary provided suggestions on how to approach their neighbors for acquisition of their properties by the Service.

Of the four responses from other organizations and municipalities, one (Town of New Shoreham) had a question

regarding property boundaries near Sandy Point on the northern tip of Block Island. Two other respondents asked

for clarification or additional copies of the plan. The Narrow River Preservation Association wrote a letter

supporting the draft LPP and suggested expansion of the proposed boundary on the John H. Chafee Refuge. The

Town of South Kingstown wrote a letter supporting the draft LPP and encouraging the Service’s efforts to protect

critical resource areas within the Region. The Block Island Times wrote a newspaper article on the draft LPP,

which is best described as a neutral position.

In summary, virtually all of the public responses to the draft LPP proposed action were positive, supporting an

expanded land acquisition program for each of the five Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuges.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 E-41

Land Protection Plan Appendix E

Appendix C. Statement of Support from

Connecticut River/Long Island Sound Ecosystem Team
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 F-1

 RONS & MMS Appendix F

Appendix F

Refuge Operations Needs

System (RONS) and

Maintenance Management

System (MMS) Project Lists
F-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix F
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 F-3

 RONS & MMS Appendix F
F-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix F
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 F-5

 RONS & MMS Appendix F
F-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix F
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs – May 2002 G-1

Appendix G

Staffing Chart
Refuge Manager

GS-0485-13

Assistant Refuge Manager

GS-0485-11

Administrative Officer #

GS-0341-9

Secretary #

GS-0326-5

*Administrative Support 

GS-0326-5

*Biologist

GS-0486-11

*Resource Specialist

(Invasive)

GS-0486-11

*Outdoor Rec. Planner

GS-0023-9

*Park Ranger

GS-0025-9

*Administrative Support

GS-0326-5

Stationed at

Sachuest Point

Refuge

Deputy Refuge Manager

GS-0485-12

*Resource Specialist

(Contaminants)

GS-0486-11

Wildlife Biologist

GS-0486-11

Outdoor Rec. Planner

GS-0023-11

*Park

Ranger

GS-0025-7

Outdoor Rec. Planner

(Visitor Center)

GS-0023-9

Refuge Operations

Specialist

GS-0485-9

Maintenance Mechanic

WG-4749-10

SCEP

GS-0499-4

*Resource Specialist

(Grasslands)

GS-0486-11

*Biologist

GS-0486-11

*Biologist

GS-0486-9

*Park

Ranger

GS-0025-7

*Maintenance Worker

WG-4749-8

Maintenance Worker

WG-4749-7

Maintenance Helper

WG-4749-4

ORP/Volunteer

Coordinator

GS-0023-9

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

(supervisory structure is tentative)

* Essential staff (Tier 1 in RONS)

# Positions shared with SNEP and RIFO

26 Permanent, full-time employees

1 SCEP

17 Seasonals
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs – May 2002 H-1

Appendix H

Plan Monitoring
Appendix H

H-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Protection of piping

plover

Refuge Biologist will coordinate with Piping Plover Recovery Team, RI DEM, and other

scientists to share research and management techniques and results current

Protection of piping

plover

Actively manage nesting sites on Ninigret, Trustom Pond, and Block Island Refuges.

Erect fencing as proposed. Monitor active nest sites throughout nesting season.

Implement restrictions on public use at nesting sites. Monitor off-Refuge nesting

beaches along the South Shore.

current

Least tern protection Continue use of wire fence at Trustom Pond site, but adapt design to target smaller

mammals (mink and weasel) current

Management of mute

swan

Implement the Service's policy (Memo FWS/MBMO/98-00043; based on Flyway

Council recommendations) to prevent the establishment of or to eliminate mute

swans. Adapt strategies as needed to pursue zero productivity on the Refuge

Complex

2002

Management of deer

populations Complete deer management plan and EA for the Refuge Complex. 2002

Piping plover protection Close Block Island Refuge to vehicles above mean high tide line from April 1 to Sept.

15 each year. 2003

Piping plover protection Hire at least 5 seasonal personnel, including Biotechs, Law Enforcement, and

Outreach/Education staff 2003

Piping plover protection Work with RI DEM to move State campground near Ninigret Refuge away from plover

breeding habitat 2003

Harlequin duck

protection

Work with RI DEM to regulate a shoreline hunting closure. Standardize protocol for

weekly harlequin duck counts. 2003

Landbird management

Evaluate recommendations in final Partners in Flight Plan, identify species of concern

for Refuge, and develop management strategies to include in Habitat Management

Plan; initiate salt masrch sharp-tailed sparrow surveys in suitable habitat.

2003

Piping plover protection Reassess nesting carrying capacity (Ninigret & Trustom Pond Refuges) 2003

Piping plover protection Begin cooperative monitoring of gull colony to ascertain whether gulls are limiting

piping plover nesting on Block Island 2003

Piping plover protection

Formalize agreement with the Town of New Shoreham (Block Island Refuge) to

ensure that beach would remain closed to ORVs during plover nesting, if active plover

nests are located.

2003

Protect and restore

American burying

beetle population

(Block Island Focus Area)

Participate in annual efforts to monitor American burying beetle on southern Block

Island (led by RI DEM, The Nature Conservancy, and the Service's New England Field

Office)

2003

Protect and restore

beach strand

communities

Work with partners to initiate an intensive outreach campaign targeting beach front

landowners and designed to increase protection of barrier beach habitat and piping

plover nesting areas (2 seasonal Park Aids would be needed to implement this

project)

2003

Monitoring and

protection of species of

concern on Block Island

Hire a seasonal biological technician to monitor roosting eagles, nesting piping plover,

colonial waterbirds, and American burying beetle populations. Also, identify threats

or opportunities for land acquisition.

2003

Maintain productive

waterfowl habitat Treat at least 5 acres/year of invasive wetland plants 2003

Maintain high quality

habitat for species of

concern

Develop a Refuge Complex Habitat Management Plan 2003

Manage for high quality

waterfowl habitat

With RI DEM and respective towns, develop a Waterfowl Management Plan for

Pettaquamscutt Cove and the Lower Narrow River. 2003

Issue/Action Project Target initiation date

Species and Habitat Management
Plan Monitoring Appendix H

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs – May 2002 H-3

Species and Habitat Management (continued)

Block Island Focus Area

resource management

Cooperate with Block Island partners in developing a Cooperative Resource

Protection Plan and Public Use and Access Plan. 2003

Protect wetlands on

Chafee Refuge

Chafee Refuge: work with RI DEM to create a "no wake zone" in Pettaquamscutt

Cove to minimize impacts to the salt marshes and shoreline. 2003

Piping plover protection Develop written cooperative agreements with at least 5 South Shore landowners

with existing plover nesting sites 2004

Piping plover protection Develop education & outreach plan for plover program 2004

Piping plover protection Prioritize plover-related research needs 2004

Collect baseline

biological information

Establish a priority list of baseline biological inventory needs to better understand and

document the biodiversity on the Refuge Complex. Priorities: determine the

distribution of species and habitat types listed in Appendix A, and survey the aquatic

resources in Trustom Pond. (Use Regional CENSUS database or other regional

database with GIS capabilities). Begin highest priority inventories.

2004

Piping plover protection Hire a Rhode Island Piping Plover Coordinator 2004

Management of

harlequin duck at

Sachuest Point Refuge

Monitor public use to determine impacts of shoreline public use activities on ducks. 2004

Restore grassland and

shrubland habitat

Complete restoration of 385 total acres between Ninigret, Trustom Pond, and

Sachuest Point Refuges. Develop and implement a maintenance and monitoring

schedule for these projects. Evaluate and document opportunities for restoring

sandplain gerardia, bushy rockrose, and New England blazing star in restored areas.

2004

Restore grassland and

shrubland habitat Restore additional 15 acres of grassland on private land near Trustom Pond Refuge 2004

Restore grassland and

shrubland habitat

Develop and implement a plan to maintain an additional 40 acres of early

successional shrub and grasslands habitat on Sachuest Point Refuge. 2004

Invasive plant species

management

Identify and map current distribution of invasive plant species on the Refuge

Complex. 2004

Monitoring and

Inventory Plan Develop a Refuge Complex Species and Habitat Inventory and Monitoring Plan 2004

Management of rare

plant habitats Ninigret Refuge: develop a Site Plan and monitoring program for rare plant sites 2005

Piping plover protection Implement highest priority research project. 2005

Bald Eagle

management Develop site plans if eagle usage on Block Island warrants management 2005

Protection of marsh and

wading bird habitat

Inventory high probability sites on the Refuge Complex; determine seasonal

occupancy and use. 2005

Protection of shorebird

concentration areas

Map key staging and feeding areas in South Shore ABS. Develop and implement a

Monitoring Plan. Within a year, resolve threats to key shorebird areas. 2005

Protection of

amphibians and reptiles

Develop environmental education and interpretation programs. Work with Friends

and volunteers to reduce amphibian and reptile road mortality during spring

migration.

2005

Issue/Action Project Target initiation date
Appendix H

H-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Species and Habitat Management (continued)

Protection of

amphibians and reptiles

Implement Inventory and Monitoring Plan for amphibians and reptile concentration

areas on the Refuge Complex. 2005

Protection of seal haulout areasDetermine if human disturbance is a threat. If necessary, reduce human disturbance

through public outreach efforts or restricted access. 2005

Management of rare

plant habitats Trustom Pond Refuge: develop a Site Plan for rare plant sites. 2005

Promote grassland

restoration through

outreach and education

Establish native grassland interpretive/demonstration areas on both Ninigret and

Trustom Pond Refuges, develop exhibit at new Visitor Center, and conduct

interpretive programs using volunteers and staff.

2005

Improve ecological

integrity of Trustom and

Cards Ponds

With partners and adjacent landowners, develop an ecosystem-based approach to

managing Trustom and Cards Ponds. The plan would include monitoring and

inventory efforts for species of management concern, invasive plants and animals, and

submerged aquatic vegetation.

2005

Manage invasive plant

species

Prioritize treatment acres to prevent new invasions or eradicate plants recently

established where they don't have a stronghold yet; hire maintenance worker to

implement treatments.

2005

Manage invasive plant

species

Treat at least 25 acres/year of invasive exotic species, including at least 5 acres of

wetlands plants, using chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire and biological

treatments. Hire maintenance worker licensed for herbicide use.

2005

Protect water quality of

Narrow River

Watershed/Pett Cove

Become actively involved in interagency partnership recommended in the 1998

Coastal Resources Management Council, Narrow River Special Area Management

Plan. Group would develop a comprehensive plan for the Narrow River watershed

and set research and management priorities.

2005

Protect water quality of

Narrow River

Watershed/Pett Cove

Work with RI DEM, CRMC, and Towns of Narragansett and South Kingstown to create

a "no wake' zone in Pettaquamscutt Cove to reduce erosion and destruction of salt

marshes.

2005

Manage rare plant

habitats Survey and map rare plant sites on Chafee, Sachuest Point, and Block Island refuges. 2006

Piping plover

management

Coordinate with private landowners and towns to develop contigency plans for

unexpected events in piping plover areas (e.g., oil spills or pioneering of new sites on

recreational beaches).

2007

American Burying Beetle

restoration

Assess opportunities for expanding distribution of beetles in Block Island Focus Area;

follow up with habitat management plans if warranted. 2008

Amphibians and reptiles Complete baseline inventory for amphibians and reptiles on Trustom Pond, Ninigret,

and Sachuest Point Refuges 2008

Restore wetlands on

Sachuest Point and

Ninigret refuges

Develop Site Plans and initiate restoration of additional wetland projects: 25 acres at

Sachuest Point and 70 acres at Ninigret Refuge. 2008

Restore grassland

communities & promote

restoration through

education, outreach,

and interpretation

Establish "cooperative extension" outreach program and materials to provide

technical support for interested landowners. 2008

Manage of rare plant

habitats

Assess potential for establishing or restoring seabeach amaranth, sandplain gerardia,

small whorled pagonia, bushy rockrose, New England blazing star, and other former

candidate plant species.

2008

Potential reintroduction

of northeastern beach

tiger beetles in South

Shore ABS

Cooperate with USFWS New England Field Office and RI DEM to evaluate habitat

potential for reintroduction within South Shore ABS; within two years, develop site

management and monitoring plans, if warranted.

2010

Potential reintroduction

of regal fritillary butterfly

Cooperate with USFWS New England Field Office and RI DEM to evaluate grassland

restoration projects for butterfly reintroduction. 2010

Issue/Action Project Target initiation date
Plan Monitoring Appendix H

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs – May 2002 H-5

Public Use

Hunting opportunities Trustom Pond Refuge: continue with 20 acre upland field hunt for waterfowl. current

Curriculum-based

environmental

education

Sponsor Teach the Teacher workshops at Ninigret and Trustom Pond Refuges. current

Service visibility Establish a consistent Service presence on Sachuest Point Refuge by assigning

permanent staff to the station. 2002

Fishing opportunities

Sachuest Point Refuge: develop a regulation requiring spear fishing gear to be

unloaded and encased while on Refuge land. Monitor this activity to evaluate its

impact on other wildlife-dependent uses. Implement permit system for night fishing.

2003

Hunting opportunities Ninigret Refuge: allow RI DEM to administer waterfowl hunt on the marshland in the

barrier beach parcel. Open Coon Cove, when area is restored, to support hunting. 2003

Hunting opportunities Open Chafee Refuge to waterfowl hunting, administered in cooperation with RI DEM. 2003

Fishing opportunities

Ninigret Refuge: designate access trails to shoreline for fishing on Ninigret Pond to

minimize impact on habitat. Actively enforce restrictions. Require commercial shell

fishermen to operate under special use permit.

2003

Wildlife observation and

photography

opportunities

Ninigret Refuge: complete construction of "Trail Through Time" 2003

Wildlife observation and

photography

opportunities

Trustom Pond: reduce unnecessary trails and restrict public use to trails only. 2003

Curriculum-based

environmental

education opportunities

Block Island Refuge: initiate formal partnership with The Nature Conservancy to

facilitate sharing of resources, and assist in curriculum development and

implementation. Hire a seasonal Park Aid for assistance. Use Beane Point as a

classroom laboratory or housing for educators.

2003

Interpretive

opportunities

Chafee Refuge: ensure that RI DEM constructs interpretive kiosk along South County

Bike Trail according to Refuge stipulations. 2003

Manage non-wildlife

dependent activities

Hire an additional 2 law enforcement officers to work on the Refuge Complex to

eliminate inappropriate, incompatible activities 2004

Improve visitor services

Complete a Visitor Services Plan for the Refuge Complex to establish strategic goals

and priorities. Hire 4 new outdoor recreation planners to implement programs and

staff visitor center.

2004

Interpretive

opportunities Complete renovation of Sachuest Point Visitor Center. 2004

Curriculum-based

environmental

education opportunities

Ninigret Refuge: update existing MOA with Frosty Drew to ensure compatibility with

Refuge Complex Visitor Services Plan. Also, evaluate compatibility of for-profit

operations.

2004

Wildlife observation and

photography

opportunities

Sachuest Point Refuge: eliminate redundancy in trails. Designate and enforce

shoreline access points 2004

Curriculum-based

environmental

education opportunities

Sponsor "Teach the Teacher" workshops at Sachuest Point Refuge. 2005

Manage non-wildlife

dependent activities

Block Island Refuge: develop cooperative agreement with Town of New Shoreham

law enforcement 2005

Manage non-wildlife

dependent activities

Chafee Refuge: develop a strategy to consolidate shoreline access easement of

adjacent landowners. 2005

Issue/Action Project Target initiation date
Appendix H

H-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Public Use (continued)

Manage non-wildlife

dependent activities

Chafee Refuge: cooperate with the Town of Narragansett and RI DOT to construct

barrier-free observation platforms at Middle Bridge. Construct a second platform at

Bridgeport Commons. Designate an interpretive kayak/canoe trail.

2005

Wildlife observation and

photography and

interpretive

opportunities

Trustom Pond Refuge: make Otter Point Trail and platform barrier-free. Develop

watchable wildlife pamphlet, species checklist, and self-guided trail maps. 2005

Improve public use

partnerships

Develop formal cooperative agreements with current partners to identify cost sharing,

technical exchange, environmental education and interpretive opportunities. 2005

Curriculum-based

environmental

education

Chafee Refuge: cooperate with local schools and partners to develop a classroom

curriculum featuring the Narrow River estuary and Pettaquamscutt Cove. 2005

Curriculum-based

environmental

education

Sachuest Point Refuge: Develop formal partnership with Norman Bird Sanctuary to

facilitate sharing of resources. Cooperate with towns of Middletown and Newport

and local schools to develop programs featuring Refuge resources.

2005

Curriculum-based

environmental

education

Ninigret Refuge: establish classroom sites featuring grassland restoration and salt pond

ecology. Develop a volunteer EE Corps to help implement programs at Ninigret and

Trustom Pond Refuges.

2005

Curriculum-based

environmental

education

Trustom Pond Refuge: work with partners to develop an environmental education

program featuring Pond and restoration work 2005

Interpretive

opportunities

Develop interpretive programs based on Refuge Complex Visitor Services Plan

objectives. 2005

Interpretive

opportunities

Construct interpretive exhibit and kiosk at the South County Museum, near Chafee

Refuge. Develop interpretive materials to support programs. 2005

Visitor facilities

Complete construction of Visitor Center/Headquarters for Refuge Complex.

Implement recommendations for interior facility design from August 1999 Project

Identification Document.

2005

Wildlife observation and

photography

opportunities

Sachuest Point Refuge: develop additional interpretive kiosks, improve signage, and

create "watchable wildlife" pamphlets and multi-lingual literature. 2005

Fishing opportunities

Ninigret Refuge: if determined feasible, construct up to two additional observation

platforms and/or viewing blinds at grassland restoration project area, and on Ninigret

Pond at Foster Cove.

2005

Fishing opportunities

Chafee Refuge: allow fishing from boats and shoreline, but designate access points to

shore to reduce impact to marsh. Within 2 years, construct barrier-free fishing structure,

if feasible.

2005

Wildlife observation and

photography

opportunities

Chafee Refuge: designate interpretive canoe and kayak routes. Consider use of

guided trips using a concessionaire. 2006

Visibility of Service Chafee Refuge: finish posting all Refuge boundaries; complete posting of all new

acquisitions on the Refuge Complex. 2006

Wildlife observation and

photography

Sachuest Point Refuge: reconstruct Flint Point Trail and platform to provide barrier-free

access. Develop watchable wildlife pamphlets, species checklists, and self-guided trail

maps

2008

Wildlife observation and

photography Trustom Pond Refuge: evaluate opportunity to construct two photo blinds 2008

Visitor facilities Construct a visitor contact facility on Ninigret Refuge. 2008

Issue/Action Project Target initiation date
Plan Monitoring Appendix H

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs – May 2002 H-7

Refuge Complex Administration

Ensure clean-up of

contaminant sites

Sachuest Point Refuge: Implement site closure plan for Middletown landfill, if

completed 2002

Cultivate relationship

with Friends group

Conduct semi-annual meetings with the Friends group to promote communication

and evaluate implementation of the MOU 2002

Improve signs Meet with RI DOT to modify existing U.S. Route 1 directional signs. 2003

Improve road and entry

signs Complete a Refuge Complex Facilities and Sign Plan 2005

Ensure protection of

cultural resources on the

Refuge Complex

Initiate a cultural resource overview of Refuge Complex. Conduct field investigations

of Ninigret and Trustom Pond Refuges. Record sites in a GIS database. Train at least

one law enforcement officer in regulations associated with Archeological Resources

Protection Act (ARPA)

2005

Ensure protection of

cultural resources on the

Refuge Complex

Develop an MOU with the Narragansett Tribal Council to cooperate on site

interpretation and protection. 2005

Ensure clean up of

contaminated sites Obtain Refuge project funding to clean up military debris at Ninigret Refuge 2005

Issue/Action Project Target initiation date

Land Protection

Expand land protection

program

With partners, begin active cooperative land protection and acquisition according to

the Land Protection Plan. 2002

Issue/Action Project Target initiation date
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs – May 2002 I-1

Nancy McGarigal, Regional Planner

Planning team leader

Education: BS Forestry and Wildlife

Experience: 16 years U.S. Forest Service, Wildlife Biologist

5 years USFWS

Phone: 413/253 8562

Email: nancy_mcgarigal@fws.gov

Leon Latino, Assistant Planner

Education: BS Environmental Science,

BA Anthropology

Experience: 4 years USFWS

Phone: 413/253 8663

Email: leon_latino@fws.gov

Charlie Vandemoer, Refuge Manager

Education: BS Wildlife Science

AAS Wildlife Law Enforcement

Experience: 4 years USFWS

19 years U.S. Forest Service, Wildlife Biologist

Phone: 401/364 9124

Email: charlie_vandemoer@fws.gov

Appendix I

List of Preparers

Planner Nancy McGarigal at a CCP Open House

USFWS photo

Core Planning Team
Charlie Hebert, Environmental Contaminant Specialist 

(former Refuge Manager)

Region 1 – Portland, OR

Education: BS Forest Management

MS Wildlife Management

Experience: 22 years USFWS

Phone: 503/231 6223

Email: charlie_hebert@fws.gov

Gary Andres, Assistant Refuge Manager

Education: BA Government/Natural Resource Management

Experience: 14 years USFWS

Phone: 401/364 9124

Email: gary_andres@fws.gov

Nancy Pau, Endangered Species Biologist

(former Land Acquisition Planner)

Region 1, Sacramento, CA

Education: BS Natural Resources,

Experience: 4 years USFWS

Phone: 916/414 6494

Email: nancy_pau@fws.gov

Andrew MacLachlan, Wildlife Biologist/GIS Specialist

Assisted in developing land protection strategies

Education: MS Zoology

Experience: 5 years field work and environmental education

1 year Audubon Society, Refuge Manager

4 years URI and State of RI

10 years USFWS

Phone: 401/364 9124

Email: andrew_maclachlan@fws.gov

Andrew Milliken, Atlantic Coast Joint Venture Coordinator

Education: BA Northern Studies/Biology

MS Biological Oceanography

Experience: 3 years NY State

3 years URI

2 years USEPA

9 years USFWS

Phone: 413/253 8269

Email: andrew_milliken@fws.gov

Appendix I

I-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Core Planning Team

Assisting in Land

Protection Strategies
Norma Kline, Refuge Biologist

Education: BS Political Science

MS Biology

Experience: 3.5 years EPA Ecologist

1.5 years Natural Heritage Ecologist

5 years consulting ecologist

3 year USFWS

Phone: 401/364 9124

Email: norma_kline@fws.gov

Janis Nepshinsky, Outdoor Recreation Planner

Education: BS Environmental Technology 

MS Environmental Engineering 

Experience: 15 years St. Johns River Water Management District 

1.5 years Department of Defense, Environmental 

Health Technician

3.5 years Hobe Sound Nature Center, Director

7 years USFWS

Phone: 401/364 9124

Email: janis_nepshinsky@fws.gov

Susan Fuller, Biologist/GIS specialist

Education: BS & MS Wildlife and Fisheries Biology

Experience: 4 years USFWS

Phone: 508/253 8533

Email: sue_fuller@fws.gov

Greg Thompson, Biologist/GIS specialist

Education: BS Wildlife and Fisheries Biology

Experience: 10 years USFWS

Phone: 508/253 8587

Email: greg_thompson@fws.gov

Victoria Jacobson, Archeaologist

Cultural resources overview

Education: BA Anthropology

MA Archeaology

Experience: 3 years USFWS

3 years Project Archeaologist

10 years archeaological field work

Phone: 413/253 8531

Email: victoria_jacobson@fws.gov

List of Preparers Appendix I

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs – May 2002 I-3

Other USFWS personnel

contributing to or

consulting on the plan
Janith D. Taylor, Regional Biologist, Refuges and Wildlife

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

336 Nimble Hill Road

Newington, NH 03801

Education: BS Wildlife Biology

Experience: 1 year USFS

20 years USFWS

Phone: 603/431 5581

Email: jan_taylor@fws.gov

Anne Hecht, Endangered Species Biologist

Consulted on piping plover alternatives

Education: BA philosophy

MF forestry

Experience: 4 years USFS

18 years USFWS

Phone: 978/443 4325

Email: anne_hecht@fws.gov

Northeast Regional Office

Refuges and Wildlife

300 Westgate Center

Hadley, MA 01035

Phone: 413/253 8200

Fax: 413/253 8468

Rhode Island Refuge Complex Headquarters 

Route 1A, Shoreline Plaza

PO Box 307

Charlestown, RI 02813

Phone: 401/364 9124

Fax: 401/364 0170

Ecological Services Southern New England – New York Bight

Coastal Ecosystems Program

Route 1A, Shoreline Plaza

PO Box 307

Charlestown, RI 02813

Phone: 401/364 9124

Fax: 401/364 0170

Appendix I

I-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Other USFWS personnel

contributing to or

consulting on the plan

Addresses
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 J-1

 Section 7 (Endangered Species Act) Consultation Appendix J

Appendix J

Section 7 (Endangered

Species Act) Consultation
J-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix J

Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation

Originating Person: Nancy McGarigal, Refuge Planner, Regional Office

Telephone Number: (413) 253-8562

Date: 27 December 2001

Region: Northeast (R5)

Service Activity (Program): Refuges and Wildlife, Division of Planning, will soon complete

Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) for the five national wildlife refuges in the Rhode Island

National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Management goals, objectives, actions and strategies for the CCPs

are outlined in the Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Draft Comprehensive Conservation

Plan/Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA), December 2000. We are proposing to implement

Alternative B in the Draft CCP/EA, with the modifications identified in the attached Finding of No

Significant Impact (FONSI) and final Land Protection Plan.

Pertinent Species and Habitat:

Listed species and/or critical habitat within the action area:

1) Piping plover (Charadrius melodus): Breeding sites occur on the Refuge Complex

(Ninigret and Trustom Pond refuges) and along the South Shore of Rhode Island on private and state

lands cooperatively managed by the Service. No critical habitat has been designated for the Atlantic

Coast piping plover population.

2) American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus): Breeding occurs on southern Block Island;

foraging beetles have been documented on refuge lands on northern Block Island. No critical habitat

has been designated for the American burying beetle.

3) Northeastern beach tiger beetle (Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis): There are no populations known for the

Rhode Island Refuge Complex as it is presumed extirpated from Rhode Island. Block Island and areas

along the South Shore, however, were identified in the Recovery Plan as possible reintroduction sites.

No critical habitat has been designated for the Northeastern beach tiger beetle.

4) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus): There are no known breeding sites known on the Refuge

Complex although consistent observations of immature eagles occurs during late spring and summer

on Block Island refuge and adjacent lands. No critical habitat has been designated for the bald eagle.

There are no federal Proposed or Candidate species or their habitats within the project area.

Geographic area or station name and action:

The Rhode Island Refuge Complex includes Block Island, Ninigret, John H. Chafee (Chafee),

Sachuest Point, and Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuges. We also propose expanding each

refuge as documented in the attached Final Land Protection Plan.
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 J-3

 Section 7 (Endangered Species Act) Consultation Appendix J

Location (attach map):

The Draft CCP/EA shows a vicinity map on page 1-5, a Connecticut River/ Long Island Sound

Ecosystem map on page 1-11, and individual Refuge maps on page 1-17 (Block Island Refuge),

page 1-19 (Ninigret Refuge), page 1-21 (Chafee Refuge), page 1-23 (Sachuest Point Refuge),

and page 1-25 (Trustom Pond Refuge). The final Land Protection Plan provides maps of each of

the proposed refuge expansion areas.

Ecoregion Number and Name:

221A, Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Oceanic) Province, Lower New England Section

County and State:

Washington County, Rhode Island (Block Island, Chafee, Ninigret and Trustom Pond Refuges)

Newport County, Rhode Island (Sachuest Point Refuge)

Latitude and Longitude

(See maps mentioned above)

Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town:

Block Island Refuge is within the Town of New Shoreham, Rhode Island

Ninigret Refuge is within the Town of Charlestown, Rhode Island

Chafee Refuge is within the Towns of Narragansett and South Kingstown, Rhode Island

Sachuest Point is within the Town of Middletown

Trustom Pond is within the Town of South Kingstown

Species/habitat occurrence:

1) Piping plover (Charadrius melodus): Population status, habitat descriptions, past and current

management activities for the Refuge Complex and the South Shore off-refuge management

program occur on the following pages of the Draft CCP/EA:

Block Island: page 2-18 to 2-19

Ninigret: page 2-29

Chafee: page 2-36

Trustom Pond: pages 2-50 to 2-52

South Shore Plover Program (cooperative management off-refuge lands):pages 2-53 to 2-54

2) American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus): Population status, habitat description, past

and current management activities for Block Island occur on the following page of the Draft

CCP/EA:

Block Island: page 2-18
J-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix J

3) Northeastern beach tiger beetle (Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis): There are no populations known

for the Rhode Island Refuge Complex; however, Block Island and the South Shore area were

identified in the Recovery Plan as possible reintroduction sites. This is referenced in the Draft

CCP/EA on the following page:

Block Island: page 2-19

4) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus): There are no known breeding populations on the Refuge

Complex. Descriptions of foraging and roosting activities occur on the following pages in the

Draft CCP/EA:

Block Island: page 2-19

Ninigret: page 2-29

Trustom Pond: page 2-50

Description of proposed action:

Proposed actions affecting the above-mentioned species, or the habitats they depend on, are

included under Alternative B – the Service’s Proposed Action, in the Draft CCP/EA, with

modifications identified in the FONSI and final Land Protection Plan. Specific actions are

discussed in the Draft CCP/EA, Chapter 3: Alternatives, for each species as follows:

Piping plover: pages 3-42 through 3-45, page 3-49, pages 3-54 and 3-55, and in Table 3-2

on pages 3-126 through 3-129.

American burying beetle: page 3-46, and in Table 3-2 on page 3-129.

Northeastern beach tiger beetle: page 3-47, and in Table 3-2 on page 3-129

Bald eagle: page 3-46 and 3-47, and in Table 3-2 on page 3-129

Determination of effects:

Effects of proposed Refuge management on endangered species is discussed in the Draft CCP/

EA, Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences. The consequences of implementing Alternative B

are presented for respective species on the following pages:

Piping plover: Block Island (page 4-14 and 4-15, 4-19 through 4-21);

Ninigret (pages 4-37 and 4-38); Trustom Pond (pages 4-73 and 4-79).

American burying beetle: Block Island (page 4-19, 4-21 and 4-22)

Northeastern beach tiger beetle: None described

Bald eagle: Block Island (page 4-20)
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 J-5

 Section 7 (Endangered Species Act) Consultation Appendix J
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 K-1

State Historic Preservation Office Consultation Appendix K

Appendix K

State Historic Preservation

Office Consultation
K-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix K
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs May 2002 K-3

State Historic Preservation Office Consultation Appendix K
K-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Appendix K