Block Island National

Wildlife Refuge

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Comprehensive

Conservation Plan

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Block Island National 

Wildlife Refuge

Prepared by:

Nancy McGarigal, Refuge Planner

Northeast Regional Office, Division of Planning

300 Westgate Center Drive

Hadley, MA 01035

(413) 253-8562

Local contact:

Charlie Vandemoer, Refuge Manager

3769 D Old Post Road

Charlestown, RI 02813

(401) 364-9124

Cover photo: American burying beetle, Chris Raithel, RI DEM

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

Darling, has become a symbol of the

National Wildlife Refuge System.

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

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

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

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

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

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

manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves

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

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

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

fishing and hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies.

Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management

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

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

program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget

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

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

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

Table of Contents

Block Island National Wildlife Refuge CCP

Chapter 1, Introduction and Background 1-1

Refuge Overview 1-2

Purpose of and Need for a CCP 1-2

Mission 1-5

Refuge Purpose 1-5

National and Regional Mandates Guiding this CCP 1-6

Existing Partnerships 1-10

Chapter 2, Planning Process 2-1

The CCP Process 2-2

Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities 2-3

Chapter 3, Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-1

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting 3-2

Socio-economic Setting 3-5

Refuge Complex Administration 3-8

Refuge Resources 3-9

Public Uses 3-15

Chapter 4, Management Direction 4-1

Refuge Complex Vision 4-2

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

General Refuge Management 4-19

Chapter 5, Implementation and Monitoring 5-1

Refuge Complex Staffing 5-2

Refuge Complex Funding 5-2

Step-Down Management Planning 5-2

Partnerships 5-3

Volunteer Program 5-4

Maintaining Existing Facilities 5-5

Monitoring and Evaluation 5-5

Adaptive Management 5-5

Compatibility Determinations 5-6

Additional NEPA Analysis 5-7

Plan Amendment and Revision 5-7

Maps

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

Map 1-2. Block Island Refuge 1-4

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

Map 4-1. Block Island Refuge Public Use/Habitat Improvements 4-18
Block Island Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-1

North Light on Block Island

USFWS photo

■ Refuge Overview

■ Purpose of and Need for a CCP

■ Mission

■ Refuge Purpose

■ National and Regional Mandates Guiding this CCP

■ Existing Partnerships

Chapter 1

Introduction and Background
Introduction

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

planning process that began in February 1998. Numerous meetings

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

identify and evaluate management alternatives. A draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

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

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

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

Refuge System Mission, achieve refuge purposes and legal mandates,

and serve the American public.

Refuge Overview

Established in 1973, Block Island National Wildlife Refuge (Block

Island Refuge) is located approximately 12 miles off the mainland on

Block Island, Town of New Shoreham (see maps 1-1 and 1-2). The

transfer of 28.7 acres from the U.S. Coast Guard created the refuge.

The refuge now includes 103 acres in either fee title or conservation

easement. The Land Protection Plan (Appendix E) expanded the

refuge acquisition boundary by 95 acres; the refuge may now acquire

a total of 156 acres from willing sellers within the newly expanded

boundary.

Thirty percent of Block Island is currently in conservation status,

including lands owned or administered by the Service, The Nature

Conservancy, Block Island Land Trust, Block Island Conservancy,

Town of New Shoreham, Audubon Society of Rhode Island, and

individual private land owners. In 1989, New Shoreham passed a

referendum that transfers 3 percent of property taxes into a land

acquisition fund administered by the Block Island Land Trust.

The Purpose of and Need for a CCP

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

this CCP is to provide strategic management direction over the next

15 years, by...

■ Providing a clear statement of desired future conditions for

habitat, wildlife, visitor services, and facilities;

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

understanding of the reasons for management actions;

■ Ensuring refuge management reflects the policies and goals of the

Refuge System and legal mandates;

■ Ensuring the compatibility of current and future public use;

■ Providing long-term continuity and direction for refuge

management; and

■ Providing direction for staffing, operations, maintenance, and

developing budget requests.

The need to develop a CCP for Block Island Refuge is two-fold.

First, the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act

(Refuge Improvement Act) requires that all national wildlife refuges

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

Chapter 1 

1-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex


Chapter 1 

Block Island Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-5

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

priorities and ensures consistent, integrated management among the

five refuges in the Rhode Island Refuge Complex.

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

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

wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries. By law, Congress entrusts

the following federal trust resources to the Service for conservation and

protection: migratory birds and fish, endangered species, interjurisdictional fish, wetlands, and certain marine mammals. The Service

also enforces federal wildlife laws and international treaties on

importing and exporting wildlife, assists with state fish and wildlife

programs, and helps other countries develop wildlife conservation

programs.

The National Wildlife Refuge System and its Mission

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

waters set aside specifically for conserving wildlife and protecting

ecosystems. More than 534 national wildlife refuges, in every state

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

Over 34 million visitors annually hunt, fish, observe and photograph

wildlife, or participate in environmental education and interpretive

activities on refuges. 

In 1997, Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act, establishing a unifying mission for the Refuge

System, and a new process for determining compatible public use

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

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

System must focus on wildlife conservation. It further states that

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

which each refuge was established, will provide management

direction for each refuge.

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

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

wildlife-dependent public uses as priorities that all CCPs must

evaluate: environmental education and interpretation, fishing,

hunting, and wildlife observation and photography. Each refuge

manager determines the compatibility of an activity by evaluating its

potential impact on refuge resources, insuring that the activity

supports the Refuge System mission, and ensuring that the activity

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

Refuge Purpose

The establishment purposes for Block Island Refuge are:

“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management

purpose, for migratory birds,” and for

“(1) incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational development;

(2) protection of natural resources; and

(3) conservation of endangered or threatened species.”

– Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 and 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962

“...working with others, to

conserve, protect and

enhance fish wildlife, and

plants and their habitats

for the continuing benefit

of the American people.”

– Mission, U.S. Fish &

Wildlife Service

“...to administer a

national network of lands

and waters for the 

conservation, 

management, and where

appropriate, restoration

of the fish, wildlife, and

plant resources and their 

habitats within the

United States for the 

benefit of present and

future generations of

Americans.”

– Refuge System Mission,

Refuge Improvement Act;

Public Law 105-57
National and Regional Mandates Guiding this CCP

This section highlights Service policy, legal mandates, and existing

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

directly influenced development of this CCP.

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

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

and regulations on conserving and protecting natural and cultural

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

Service Manual and Refuge Manual contain Service policies and

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

CCP/EA was written to fulfill compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (May 14, 1986)

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

and Mexico to restore waterfowl populations by protecting,

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

and three species Joint Ventures: Arctic Goose, Black Duck, and Sea

Duck. Partnerships among federal, state and provincial

governments, tribal nations, local businesses, conservation

organizations, and individual citizens protect that habitat. The

Refuge Complex lies within the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, which

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

wetlands and adjacent uplands for protection in Rhode Island

(Atlantic Coast Joint Venture 1988).

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

the Black Duck Joint Venture apply to managing the Refuge

Complex. The Black Duck Joint Venture has identified the coastal

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

important wintering habitat.

Partners In Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: 

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

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

international coalition of government agencies, conservation

organizations, academic institutions, private industry, and other

citizens dedicated to reversing the downward trends of declining

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

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

scientifically based Landbird Conservation Plans. The goal of each

PIF Landbird Conservation Plan is to ensure long term maintenance

of healthy populations of native landbirds. 

The PIFProgram is developing a plan for the Southern New

England Physiographic Area, using existing data on habitat loss,

landbird population trends, and the vulnerability of species and

habitats to threats, to rank the conservation priority of landbird

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

from which population and habitat objectives and conservation

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

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

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

when finished, to further guide management.

Chapter 1 

1-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Black duck. USFWS photo.
Chapter 1 

Block Island Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-7

Northeast Areas Study: Significant Coastal Habitats of Southern

New England And Portions of Long Island, New York (USFWS 1991)

Recognizing the biological and economic importance of the coast’s

living resources and natural values to the region and the Nation, in

1990 Congress funded a study to identify coastal areas in southern

New England and Long Island whose fish and wildlife habitat need

protection and whose natural diversity needs preservation. The

Northeast Coastal Study identifies species of regional importance,

and describes regionally significant habitat complexes. It specifically

describes significant or unique habitat, threats to sustaining the

habitat complex, and considerations for conserving and protecting it.

We utilized this study in the development of our land protection

strategies. The study identified Block Island as a regionally

significant habitat complex.

Connecticut River/Long Island Sound Ecosystem Priorities, 1997

During the last decade, we have emphasized ecosystem conservation,

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

affect the long-term conservation of natural resources. Implementing

an ecosystem approach to resource management is one of our top

national priorities. We have initiated new partnerships with private

landowners, state and federal agencies, corporations, conservation

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

country, typically using large river watersheds to define ecosystems.

Those teams work on developing goals and priorities for research and

management within each ecosystem.

The Refuge Complex lies within our Connecticut River/Long Island

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

Service personnel and representatives from six State Fish and Wildlife

Departments developed a Priority Resources Plan (July 1996) that

identifies seven priorities, each involving numerous action strategies.

1. Protect, restore, and enhance listed and candidate

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

coastal sandplain habitat, and Connecticut River species.

2. Protect, restore, and enhance anadromous and interjurisdictional

migratory fish populations...with special emphasis on Atlantic

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

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

on grassland and forest interior species.

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

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

coastal areas and major rivers.

5. Protect, restore, and enhance wetland habitats. 

6. Manage refuge lands to protect, restore, and enhance native

communities and trust resources.

7. Develop a public that values the fish and wildlife

resources...understands events and issues related to these

resources, and acts to promote fish and wildlife conservation.
Chapter 1 

1-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), Atlantic Coast Population,

Revised Recovery Plan, 1996

The piping plover is the only federally-listed endangered or

threatened species that currently breeds on refuge lands within the

Rhode Island Refuge Complex. In 2001 on Block Island, piping

plover nested on a contiguous stretch of beach immediately adjacent

to the refuge. The primary objective of the revised recovery

program is to remove the Atlantic coast piping plover population

from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants by: 

■ Achieving well-distributed increases in numbers and productivity

of breeding pairs; and

■ Providing for long-term protection of breeding and wintering

plovers and their habitats.

The Revised Recovery Plan describes detailed “Recovery Tasks”

needed to meet the recovery objective. The Rhode Island Refuge

Complex is specifically mentioned in the following tasks:

■ Draw down or create coastal ponds where feasible to make more

feeding habitat available.

■ Reduce disturbance of breeding plovers from humans and pets.

■ Develop mechanisms to provide long-term protection of plovers

and their habitat. 

The Recovery Plan incorporates management guidelines for

recreational activities in piping plover breeding habitat, which were

developed by our Ecological Services Division in 1994. While not

regulatory, these recommendations continue to serve as our best

professional advice for complying with the Endangered Species Act.

We utilized these same guidelines in developing management actions.

American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) 

Recovery Plan, 1991

The American burying beetle is a federally endngered species that is

known to breed on southern Block Island, but no breeding behavior

has yet been observed on Block Island Refuge. One female was

recorded on the Beane tract, but was not seen on subsequent visits.

No extensive surveys have been conducted on the refuge; interest

has focused on southern Block Island, where the core population is

assumed to breed. Since the island supports the only known natural

population east of the Mississippi River, any opportunity to protect

or enhance habitat for this species is a priority.

The Recovery Plan objective is “...[to] reduce the immediacy of the

threat of extinction to the American burying beetle, and the longer

range objective is to improve its status so that it can be reclassified

from endangered to threatened.” It outlines nine specific Recovery

Tasks for managing the existing populations, searching for new

populations, re-introducing populations, conducting natural history

studies, and starting an environmental education program.

Chapter 1 

Block Island Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-9

Piping plover. USFWS photo.
Regional Wetlands Concept Plan – Emergency Wetlands Resources

Act 9 (USFWS 1990)

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act to

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

the Department of Interior to develop a National Wetlands Priority

Conservation Plan identifying the location and types of wetlands that

should receive priority for acquisition by federal and state agencies

using Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations. In 1990,

the Service’s Northeast Region completed a Regional Wetlands

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

warranting consideration for acquisition due to wetland values.

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

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

Protecting Our Land Resources: 

A Land Acquisition and Protection Plan, Rhode Island Department

of Environmental Management, May 1996

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

Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) in

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

the integrity of natural resources essential to the environmental,

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

framework provides strategies to permanently protect five critical

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

natural heritage and biodiversity. It includes evaluation criteria for

selecting and prioritizing lands.

Existing partnerships

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

volunteers, we receive significant help from the following partners:

■ Southern New England/New York Bight Coastal Ecosystems

Office (FWS)

■ Ecological Services, New England Field Office (FWS)

■ Friends of the National Wildlife Refuges of Rhode Island

■ Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM)

■ The Nature Conservancy, Rhode Island and Block Island Offices

■ University of Rhode Island, Department of Natural Resources

Science (URI)

■ Audubon Society of Rhode Island

■ Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council (RI CRMC)

■ Local land trusts

■ Narragansett Indian Tribal Council

■ Town of New Shoreham

■ Block Island Conservancy

Chapter 1 

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

Public Open House on CCP, Rhode Island

USFWS photo

■ The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

■ Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities

Chapter 2

Planning Process
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

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

for each national wildlife refuge, our Northeast Regional Office

began the planning process for the Refuge Complex in February

1998. Figure 2-1 displays the steps of the planning process and how

they incorporate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

requirements.

First, we focused on collecting information on natural resources and

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

and preliminary goals, including issues associated with each of its

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

organizations and individuals, to ensure we would be contacting a

diverse sample of the interested public.

Recognizing that not everyone could attend the open houses planned

for April and May 1998, we developed Issues Workbooks in March, to

encourage even more people to provide their written comments on

topics related to managing the Refuge Complex. We offered the

workbooks to everyone on our mailing list, including adjacent

landowners, and made workbooks available at refuge headquarters,

local libraries, and on the Internet from the Region 5 Home Page

(http://www.northeast.fws.gov). We received 150 completed workbooks.

Those responses and public input at our meetings have influenced our

formulating issues and developing alternatives on resource protection

and public use.

In April and May 1998, we began

a series of public meetings: five

open houses in the communities of

Middletown, South Kingstown,

Charlestown, and Block Island

invited public comments on goals

and issues. We advertised the

meetings through news releases,

radio broadcasts, and notices to

our mailing list. From 15 to 40

people attended each meeting.

We also organized 15

informational meetings with state

and federal agencies, non-profit

conservation groups, town

planners, conservation

commissions, and sporting clubs.

Public responses suggested more

than 50 additional areas where

lands warranted protection,

typically along the coast. We

evaluated those lands for their

potential as national wildlife

refuges, using criteria such as the

presence of threatened,

endangered, or other trust species

and their habitats, the presence of

wetlands, our ability to manage or

restore the areas, existing threats

to their integrity, and their size

and location.

Chapter 2 

2-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

A. Preplanning:

Plan the Plan

E. Prepare Draft 

Plan & NEPA 

Document

NEPA

• purpose and need

NEPA

• prepare & distribute draft CCP 

and NEPA documentation

• public comment & review

H. Review & 

Revise Plan

NEPA

• NEPA compliance & 

public involvement 

when applicable

NEPA

• notify the public

• involve the public

• scope the issues

B. Initiate Public 

Involvement& 

Scoping

NEPA

• NEPA compliance & public 

 involvement when applicable

C. Review Vision 

Statement & Goals, 

& Determine 

Significant Issues

NEPA

• identify significant issues

F. Prepare & 

Adopt Final Plan

NEPA

• respond to public comment

• identify preferred alternative

• prepare & distribute final CCP 

and NEPA documentation

• prepare & distribute FONSI 

for EA or ROD for EIS

NEPA

• reasonable range of alternatives

• No Action alternative

• assess environmental effects

• the Proposed Action

D. Develop & 

Analyze 

Alternatives

G. Implement 

Plan, Monitor, & 

Evaluate

The Comprehensive 

Conservation 

Planning Process & 

NEPA Compliance

Figure 2-1. NEPA and the CCP Process
We distributed a planning update to everyone on our mailing list in

September 1998. This newsletter summarized public comments from

meetings and workbooks, described policy guidelines for managing

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

for the Refuge Complex.

Once the key issues had firmed up, we developed alternative

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

strategies from public comment, from follow-up contacts with

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

Planning Update newsletter in May 1999, updating everyone on our

planning timelines and our decision to start a separate

Environmental Assessment for the visitor center/headquarters. 

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

comment period. We held public hearings and open houses in

February of 2001. A summary of public comments is included in

Appendix B. The land acquisition component of this planning

process is contained in the Land Protection Plan (Appendix E).

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

including the completion of detailed step down plans. Monitoring

will reveal whether resource objectives are being met, and whether

we need to change strategies. We will modify the CCP documents

and associated management activities as needed, following the

procedures outlined in Service policy and NEPA requirements. This

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

Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities 

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

planning team discussions, we developed a list of issues, concerns,

opportunities, or any other items requiring a management decision.

Then we sorted them into two categories: “Key issues,” and “Issues

and concerns considered outside the scope of this analysis”.

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

comparing the different management alternatives that were analyzed

in the draft CCP/EA.

Some issues and concerns were outside the scope of this analysis.

These were identified in the draft CCP/EA, but we will not further

address them further in this final CCP.

Key Issues

Public and partner meetings and further team discussions produced

the following key issues:

1. Protection of endangered and threatened species and other

species and habitats of special concern. 

This is the most important issue facing the Refuge Complex.

Protecting federally listed endangered and threatened species is

integral to the mission of the Refuge System, and is a common

purpose for which each of the five refuges was established. Other

federal trust species of primary concern include: migratory birds,

anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals.

Chapter 2

Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-3
In the forefront of this issue is management for piping plover, a

federally listed species (threatened). Piping plover nest on the

beaches at Trustom Pond Refuge and Ninigret Refuge, and on the

Narrow River estuary near Chafee Refuge. Block Island Refuge has

potential nesting habitat; so far, nesting attempts there have been

unsuccessful.

Threats from coastal development, disturbance by humans and pets,

and predation are the major factors contributing to the species

decline (Piping Plover Atlantic Coast Population, Revised Recovery

Plan, 1996). Protecting piping plover presently requires an intensive

effort by refuge staff who monitor plover nesting, manage public use

and access on beaches, control predators at nest sites, and provide

environmental education and interpretation about the natural history

of piping plover and barrier beach protection.

Consistently each year, predators are one of the most significant

factors affecting chick survival in Rhode Island. Also, since 1993,

humans have caused three incidents of piping plover nest

destruction: two were acts of vandalism directed at destroying nests

and eggs; the third may have resulted from joy-riding on the beach.

Campers often leave trash, which attracts predators to a nesting

area, and often unleash their dogs, who chase adult plover off nests.

Some responses raised the continuing issue of restricting public

beach use. Some feel we could do more to provide for piping

plover by restoring habitat, or by working with the Rhode Island

Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) to close beach

intertidal areas.

Service staff help coordinate piping plover monitoring on nine

beaches in southern Rhode Island, as well as on the refuges. This

requires tremendous time and resources, both presently limited.

Funding for plover work along the South Shore is inconsistent from

year to year, and totally dependent on non-Service funding sources,

typically foundation grants. However, the benefits derived are

clearly evident in increased nesting attempts and productivity on

many sites. The alternatives compared different strategies for

protecting piping plover and managing important habitat areas on

the South Shore.

Other federally listed species discussed are the seabeach amaranth

(threatened), and sandplain gerardia (endangered), two plant species

that may be considered for future reintroduction. The American

burying beetle (endangered), which is known to breed on southern

on Block Island, has yet to be found breeding on refuge land.

Current levels of refuge management also emphasize other federal

trust resources: Neotropical migratory birds, waterfowl, and colonial

wading birds. 

Appendix A lists species and habitats of special management

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

rare natural communities known to occur in Rhode Island that are

federally listed as endangered or threatened, were candidates for

listing, or are otherwise of management concern. Combined with

location information, we used that list to identify additional land

protection needs and opportunities. We know very little about many

Chapter 2 

2-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
of these species’ presence on or use of refuge habitats. The

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

managing these species and habitats. Addressing this issue will

help achieve Goal 1: Protect and enhance federal trust resources

and other species and habitats of special concern.

2. Restoration and maintenance of coastal sandplain

natural communities, including grasslands and

shrublands (less than 60 years old). 

While it is true that the Northeast landscape was primarily

forested prior to rapid agricultural settlement in the 1800’s,

grasslands quickly became a dominant part of the landscape in

the 19th century. Grassland-dependent species responded in kind

and became established. Over the last several decades, however,

coastal sandplain grasslands and shrublands, coastal maritime

grasslands and shrublands, and agricultural fields and pastures,

have been in rapid decline in New England due to a combination

of development, changes in agricultural technology, succession to

forest as farms were abandoned, and lack of a natural disturbance

such as fire (Vickery 1997). 

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

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

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

if current sprawl patterns continue (Common Ground 2000). As a

result, few large, contiguous grasslands and shrublands are left;

only smaller, fragmented, and isolated habitat patches remain

(<75 acres). 

These smaller areas are unsuitable for many focus species,

including once-common grassland birds such as grasshopper

sparrow and upland sandpiper. Grasshopper sparrows have

declined by 69 percent in the past 25 years, according to Breeding

Bird Survey data (Vickery 1997). Our best available information

suggests that grasslands should ideally be managed in 100 acre or

larger patches. Smaller grassland habitat patches are much less

productive for grassland birds, and could serve as “sinks”, where

species try to nest, but because of increased predation and other

factors, productivity and survival is severely limited. 

Other grassland and shrubland species have declined

dramatically as well. Many of Rhode Island’s State-listed plant

and animal species are dependent on these habitat types.

Tremendous potential exists for refuge staff to become involved in

restoring habitat on private lands. Grassland and shrubland

restoration offers opportunities for our staff to provide technical

expertise to local communities. The alternatives in the draft

CCP/EA compared different levels of restoring and maintaining

these habitats and providing technical assistance to private

landowners. Addressing this issue will help achieve Goal 2:

Maintain and/or restore natural ecological communities to

promote healthy, functioning ecosystems.

Chapter 2

Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-5
3. Protection and restoration of the beach strand ecological

community. 

Beach strand habitat is in critically short supply due to its loss and

degradation by development and shoreline de-stabilization.

Meanwhile, the demand for recreational uses in these areas

intensifies. The result is an alarmingly high rate of habitat loss and

the decline of virtually all beach strand plant and animal species.

Federally listed species such as the piping plover, roseate tern,

northeastern beach tiger beetle, and seabeach amaranth depend on

this habitat. The draft CCP/EA alternatives included different

strategies for protecting it. Addressing this issue will help achieve

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

promote healthy, functioning ecosystems.

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

wildlife species. 

Each of the five refuges has an extensive distribution of invasive

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

plant and animal species, degrade wetlands and other natural

communities, and reduce natural diversity and wildlife habitat

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

and nutrient resources. Once established, getting rid of invasive

plants is expensive and labor-intensive. Unfortunately, their

characteristic abilities to establish easily, reproduce prolifically, and

disperse readily, make eradication difficult. Many of these plants

cause measurable economic impacts, particularly in agricultural

fields. Preventing new invasions is extremely important for

maintaining biodiversity and native plant populations. The control of

existing, affected areas will require extensive partnerships with

adjacent landowners, state, and local governments.

Thirteen invasive plant species affecting the natural communities

within the Refuge Complex are considered of high management

concern. The most prevalent are Phragmites, purple loosestrife,

Asian bittersweet, autumn olive, and Japanese honeysuckle. Other

species such as Japanese knotweed and multiflora rose are increasing

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

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

or suspected to be, adversely affecting natural diversity. Issues

surface when these species directly impact federal trust species or

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

species that aggressively drive native waterfowl and shorebirds away

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

quality when they spend extended periods of time molting on coastal

ponds, and are sometimes aggressive towards humans. 

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

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

their populations exceed the range of natural fluctuation and the

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

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

excessive browse lines are evident on two refuges. Adjacent

landowners are also concerned about deer impacts on landscaping,

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

Chapter 2 

2-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Red fox, gull, and some small mammals are voracious predators that

can adversely impact other native wildlife populations. Occurrences

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

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

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

mammals because they can carry rabies. These predators are

particularly troublesome when their populations exceed natural

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

include lethal removal, visual and audio deterrents, or destroying

eggs, nests, or den sites. 

The draft CCP/EA alternatives compared different strategies for

managing invasive species. Addressing this issue will help achieve

Goal 1: Protect and enhance Federal trust resources and other

species and habitats of special concern, and Goal 2: Maintain and/or

restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy,

functioning ecosystems.

5. Protection of biologically significant areas through

acquisition and/or cooperative management. 

Public meetings, partner meetings, and workbook responses

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

and wildlife habitat in southern Rhode Island. That support runs

across the State, as Rhode Islanders consistently vote ballot measures

to maintain open space and protect fish and wildlife habitats. Many

people mentioned that their support stems from their concern over the

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

development in non-urban areas of Rhode Island has increased

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

populated State in the country. One estimate predicts that current

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

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

Conservancy has noted that the conservation actions taken during the

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

Island towns (The Nature Conservancy 2000).

This dramatic increase in development has changed land use patterns

and practices, significantly modifying natural landscapes. As natural

lands (those with sustainable native species populations and intact

ecological processes) become isolated and fragmented into smaller

pieces disconnected from other natural areas, their ability to support

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

larger populations, species and plant communities within these

natural areas face the problems of limited genetic exchange, a

decreased ability to support diverse populations, and lost capacity to

recruit new individuals. Ultimately, the number of native species

declines and exotic species gain a stronghold. 

It is precisely this diminished ability of natural areas to support

diverse species with different habitat requirements that leads to a

decline in biodiversity. While some species can tolerate fragmentation

as they prefer “edge habitat,” many others, including “interior”

dependent species, require larger, contiguous natural areas or

functional corridors linking patches of natural habitat. This ability to

protect and sustain larger natural areas and corridors, coupled with

the protection of unique or rare species or communities, is critical to

maintaining biodiversity.

Chapter 2

Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-7
A landscape or ecosystem approach to protecting land is also critical

in the recovery of threatened and endangered species. Piping plover

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

certain nesting areas and typically return to them most years.

Shifting of pairs between nesting areas has been observed when

disturbances or habitat conditions affect their ability to nest. Barrier

beaches are dynamic ecosystems, and their nesting conditions can

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

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

the beach consisted entirely of cobble with virtually no sand for

nesting. The piping plover pairs there in 1999 appear to have shifted

to the Ninigret Conservation Area. Without consideration of these

shifts in habitat use across a landscape, management for these

species would be ineffective.

Some individuals preferred that the Service acquire and manage

federal trust resources, and that the Refuge Complex continue to

acquire these sites. Others emphasized partnerships to

cooperatively protect and manage important habitats not currently

on refuge land. Still others recommended a combination of Service

acquisition and cooperative management to provide the greatest

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

workbooks, many responses suggested specific areas needing

protection, particularly wetlands threatened by development. Some

individuals we spoke with especially supported our acquiring land

occupied by endangered or threatened species.

The alternatives in the Draft CCP/EA offered various levels of Service

land acquisition, ranging from lands within the currently approved

acquisition boundaries only, to a considerable expansion of each

refuge’s acquisition boundary. They also evaluated our increased

involvement in cooperative land protection off-refuge. Addressing this

issue will help achieve Goal 3: Establish a land protection program that

fully supports accomplishment of species, habitat, and ecosystem goals.

6. Assurance of access to credible information about resources

regarding the Refuge Complex to ensure management

decisions are based on the best available science. 

We need to determine and prioritize what information reasonably

could be collected to facilitate decision-making using the best

available science. In particular, many individuals expressed concern

over the lack of information available to fully evaluate impacts to

wildlife and habitats from excessive public use. Others questioned

the effectiveness of management actions that have not been

adequately monitored and evaluated. Several university researchers

and other partners encouraged our staff to prioritize baseline

inventory needs, establish monitoring protocols to better evaluate

management actions, and identify information needed to determine

each refuge’s contribution to the ecosystem.

Implementing the Service’s Policy on Maintaining the Biological

Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health of the National

Wildlife Refuge System will require us to ascertain the natural

conditions for each refuge and identify the natural communities,

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

Opportunities to cooperate in collecting this information could be

Chapter 2 

2-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
developed once the priorities have been identified. Addressing this

issue will help achieve all the Goals identified for the Refuge Complex.

7. Management of public use and access. 

The Refuge Improvement Act and Service policy require our

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

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

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

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

determination process.

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

expeditiously as practicable, existing uses determined to be not

compatible. Non-wildlife-dependent uses exist on most of the

refuges, and some have been occurring for years. 

Public meetings input and workbook responses make it clear that

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

than 90 percent ranked environmental education and interpretation

and wildlife observation and photography very high as desirable

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

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

entire spectrum from those wanting to open up refuges to nonwildlife-dependent activities, to those who want to close refuges to all

public use to maintain an undisturbed sanctuary for wildlife.

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

combinations of wildlife-dependent public use. Addressing this issue

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

compatible, wildlife-dependent public use with particular emphasis

on environmental education and interpretation.

8. Hunting

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

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

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

biologists, and by individuals both for and against expanding hunting

opportunities on the Refuge Complex. Those in support primarily

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

Chafee Refuge and Ninigret Refuge, and pheasant hunting on Block

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

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

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

None of Block Island Refuge is open to hunting, but RI DEM has

expressed its interest in any new opportunities for hunting because

rapid residential development in Rhode Island is confining public

hunting opportunities to fewer and fewer areas.

The Service views managed or administrative hunts in areas where

there are overabundant deer populations as an effective tool for

regulating them. The overabundance of deer is a concern in Rhode

Island, reflected in increased numbers of vehicle-deer collisions,

increased complaints about deer browsing on commercial and

residential landscape plantings, visible impacts on native vegetation,

and higher concern about contracting Lyme disease. 

Chapter 2

Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-9
Those opposed to hunting cited concerns with public safety,

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

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

results from the likelihood that significant portions of the refuges,

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

activities during hunting. Some expressed the opinion that the

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

hunting is incongruous with that function.

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

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

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

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

restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy,

functioning ecosystems, and Goal 4: Provide opportunities for high

quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent public use with particular

emphasis on environmental education and interpretation.

9. Opportunities for environmental education. 

Responses so frequently mentioned increasing environmental

educational opportunities across the Refuge Complex that our

planning team decided it warranted special recognition. More than 90

percent of the workbook responses ranked environmental education

and interpretation as one of their top three interests. The alternatives

in the draft CCP/EA compared different levels of environmental

educational opportunities and the different levels of partnerships so

integral to implementing them on each of the five refuges. Addressing

this issue will help achieve Goal 4: Provide opportunities for high

quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent public use with particular

emphasis on environmental education and interpretation.

10. Provision of staffing, operations, and maintenance

support sufficient to accomplish goals and objectives. 

The Refuge Complex lacks adequate funding and personnel to

provide the programs and services desired by the public and to

effectively meet the goals for this CCP. The alternatives in the draft

CCP/EA compared different funding and staffing levels based on

their proposed management strategies for dealing with the issues.

Addressing this issue will help achieve Goal 5: Provide Refuge

Complex staffing, operations, and maintenance support to effectively

accomplish refuge goals and objectives.

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

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

meetings and in the workbooks. Many people felt strongly about the

need for more refuge staff to be present during peak visitation to

increase resource protection and improve visitor services. Other

recommendations to increase visibility included more visitor contact

stations, increasing wildlife interpretation and environmental

educational opportunities, a better location for a headquarters office,

developing a Refuge Complex visitor center, improving existing

visitor facilities (e.g., kiosks, interpretive signs on trails, etc.),

increasing support for a volunteer program, and increasing

community involvement.

Chapter 2 

2-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Some people expressed an interest in seeing refuge staff enforce

public use policy more consistently. Others argued it was

unnecessary for Service personnel to be armed while patrolling

beaches. The alternatives in the draft CCP/EA compared different

levels of promoting our visibility and providing these services.

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

restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy,

functioning ecosystems, and Goal 4: Provide opportunities for high

quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent public use with particular

emphasis on environmental education and interpretation.

12. Need for improved facilities. 

The Refuge Complex lacks a facilities plan establishing current and

future needs for staff operations and visitor services. Many of its

current facilities are inadequate. Its headquarters does not have

enough office space to accommodate even current staff, and the visitor

services area is limited to one rack of literature in the reception area.

Alternatives in the draft CCP/EA compared opportunities for new or

improved facilities to accommodate staff work space, increase the

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

services, including environmental education and interpretation.

Addressing this issue will help achieve Goal 5: Provide Refuge

Complex staffing, operations, and maintenance support to effectively

accomplish refuge goals and objectives.

Chapter 2

Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-11
Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-1

Piping plover

USFWS photo

■ Geographic/Ecosystem Setting

■ Socioeconomic Setting

■ Refuge Complex Administration

■ Refuge Resources

■ Cultural Resources

■ Public Uses

Chapter 3

Refuge and Resource

Descriptions
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting

Landscape Formation

The movement of glaciers across New England created the land

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

occurred during the Wisconsin glacial period. Approximately 15,000

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

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

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

began its retreat, depositing pronounced land forms along its

outermost edge. The southern coast of Rhode Island, including

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

its southeastern frontal movement. The retreating glacier deposited

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

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

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

Nantucket and parts of Long Island.

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

the Charlestown or Watch Hill moraine, stretching east to west

parallel to U.S. Route 1. Glacial action also created other features in

today’s landscape: recessional moraines, outwash plains, kettle hole

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

Prominent headlands like Sachuest Point are composed of glacial till,

a mixture of silt-sized grains to boulder-sized deposits from the

melting glacier.

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

and Rhode Island Sounds until it reached its present level

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

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

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

between the headlands and the ocean, forming coastal lagoons

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

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

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

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

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

The bedrock formations of southern Rhode Island include the

Blackstone series of metamorphic rock along its southern coastal

border (including most of Westerly, Charlestown and South

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

Narragansett and Middletown and parts of Westerly and

Charlestown), and Pennsylvanian sedimentary rock in most of south

central Rhode Island (including Richmond, much of South

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

refuges are fine sandy loams or silt loams.

Historical Influences on Landscape Vegetation

The upland forests of southern Rhode Island are classified by

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

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

practices promoted this forest type.

Chapter 3 

3-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
As early as 12,000 years ago, Native Americans began occupying the

area. Documented evidence places the first intensive occupation of

the salt pond region during the late Archaic period (5,000 to 3,000

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

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

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

vegetation probably did not occur.

During the Woodland Period (3,000 - 450 years ago), larger, semipermanent or recurrently occupied camps became coastal

settlements. Fortified villages are known to have existed in some

locations. Maize horticulture became prominent, which likely

resulted in small clearings. Larger clearings and burnings to control

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

first pronounced clearing of land along the coast for settlements,

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

by cutting and burning, which favored resprouting by hardwood

species like oak, hickory, and red maple.

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

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

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

charcoal below the historic farmers plow zone, approximately 10

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

their locations, suggest early Native Americans used fire extensively

and purposefully.

Although small areas of land were cleared and more or less

permanently settled by early Native Americans, it was European

settlement and expansion in the 1600’s that exponentially escalated

the conversion of forests to agriculture. The eighteenth century

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

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

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

percent of southern New England was converted to field and

pasture. Any woods remaining often were managed for firewood

(Jorgensen 1977).

Block Island is similar in its prehistory to the mainland, except that

occupation most likely began in the Middle Archaic period (7,000 to

5,000 BP). Human impact on the island’s vegetation began with

Native American settlement and accelerated during the 1600’s, with

“...European practices of land clearing for pasture and agriculture

and the construction of fishing ports and associated villages”

(USFWS 1999). Town records indicate the dominant species of trees

on the island before extensive land clearing included white oak

(Quercus alba), black oak (Quercus velutina), hickory (Carya spp.),

and eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). Beech (Fagus

grandifolia), tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica), red maple (Acer rubrum) and

sassafras (Sassafras albidum) were present, but less common

(Hammond 1998). A detailed report on the archeological history of

the Refuge Complex is available from the Refuge Complex office on

request (Jacobson USFWS).

Chapter 3

Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-3
Contemporary Influences on the Landscape

The major natural disturbances affecting the coastline today are

hurricanes and winter ice-storms. Hurricanes have the greatest

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

from the mainland by tidal wetlands and coastal salt ponds

characterizes a coastline influenced by frequent storms. Wind and

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

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

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

longshore currents, and rip currents are all mechanisms transporting

sediment along the barrier beaches (RI CRMC 1998).

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

predominant physical process shaping this landscape today.

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

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

more destructive to the south shore, because of its exposure to the

open ocean. The draft Salt Pond Region Special Area Management

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

Shore, including details on how sediment movement constantly

reshapes this dynamic landscape (RI CRMC 1998).

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

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

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

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

magnitude are suspected to have occurred only four other times in

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

hurricanes are less powerful but more frequent than the hurricane of

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

in 1991 each left its mark on the coastline.

Human influences on sustaining the form and function of coastal

landscapes and ecosystems over the long term are predominantly

negative. Attempts to stabilize the beach system by constructing

jetties or breach ways and planting beach grass have greatly

affected the natural dynamics of this system by interrupting the

natural flow of waves and sediment. In fact, the breach ways

connecting the ponds to the ocean and one pond to another are the

single greatest human impact on the ecology of coastal ponds (RI

CRMC 1984).

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

wetlands for development, converting uplands for residential use,

and spilling oil are other significant human impacts on the coastal

landscape. Recent studies indicate that the greatest threats to

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

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

establish the extent to which each of these factors influences Refuge

Complex ecosystems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 3 

3-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
in size, which are difficult to manage as forest and are rapidly being

converted to residential areas (RI DEM 1996).

Ecosystem Delineations

The Service emphasizes an ecosystem approach to conservation,

typically using large river watersheds to define ecosystems. Rhode

Island falls within our Connecticut River/Long Island Sound

Ecosystem (Map 1-3).

Another commonly used delineation of ecosystems was developed by

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

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

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

subsection. Each level defines in greater detail its geomorphology,

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

human use. Each of these resource attributes has implications for

resource management. For example, opportunities to restore native

grasslands may be limited by soil types, potential vegetation, and the

extent of human impacts on the natural environment. Rhode Island

falls within the Humid Temperate Domain, Hot Continental Division,

Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province, and Lower New England Section.

Climate

Cold winters and warm summers with a moderating ocean influence

characterize Rhode Island’s climate. Winter temperatures average

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

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

precipitation averages 44 to 48 inches, evenly distributed

throughout the year. Thunderstorms occur throughout the summer

(USFWS 1989).

Air Quality

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

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

geographic areas. Examples of criteria air pollutants are smog

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

monoxide. Class I areas allow very little additional deterioration of

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

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

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

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the entire

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

resulted in stricter automobile emissions standards designed to

reduce emissions by 24 percent between 1990 and 1999.

Socio-economic Factors

The Refuge Complex lies close to some of the largest population

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 3

Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-5
According to those estimates, the population of Rhode Island is about

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

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

which includes Ninigret Refuge , Trustom Pond Refuge , and Chafee

Refuge , has the fastest growing population and the highest number

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

population figures between 1990 and 1996 increased 7.4 percent, 4.6

percent, and 5.3 percent respectively in Charlestown, Narragansett,

and South Kingstown, while Middletown’s population decreased by

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

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

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

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

The Refuge Complex directly contributes to the economies of

Charlestown, South Kingstown, Narragansett, Middletown, and New

Shoreham through refuge revenue sharing payments. The Federal

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

sharing directly to cities and towns each year, based on the fair

market value of refuge lands. The revenue sharing formula calculates

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

the maximum amount payable each year. An appraisal updated every

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

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

of the maximum amount Congress appropriates that year (rarely the

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

those towns for the fiscal year 2000.

The University of Rhode Island Department of Resource Economics

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

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

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

Chapter 3 

3-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

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

Fiscal year 2000 Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments

paid to towns

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Charlestown

(Ninigret Refuge)

South Kingstown

(Chafee & Trustom

Pond Refuges)

New Shoreham

(Block Island

Refuge)

Narragansett

(Chafee Refuge)

Middletown

(Sachuest Point

Refuge)

Dollars (thousands)
average. Also in 1997, Rhode Island’s services industry, which

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

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

Between 1987 and 1997, the services industry increased by 37

percent, while the manufacturing industry decreased by 37 percent.

In all the communities surrounding the refuges, travel and tourism

and the services that support them contribute substantially to local

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

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

through October, with peak activity during the summer months.

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

destinations along the Rhode Island coast.

Current travel and tourism literature does not feature the Refuge

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

tourist destinations, although many visitors discover them during

their visit and enjoy the scenery and open space they provide. They

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

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

Tourism Council is trying to showcase a greater mix of outdoor

recreational opportunities in South County, the Refuge Complex will

figure more prominently in future promotional material.

The greatest contribution by the Refuge Complex to the local

economy comes from the values attributed to the preservation of

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

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

and Public Willingness to Pay.

Cost of Community Services compares the cost per dollar of revenue

generated by residential or commercial development to that of

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

residential development expands the tax base, but the costs of

increased infrastructure and public services (schools, utilities,

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

the other hand, undeveloped land requires few town services and

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

of revenue generated by commercial land typically falls between

those of residential and open space.

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

Commonwealth Research Group (1995) evaluated community

revenues and expenses associated with open space vs. residential

and commercial development. All available information on the New

England States shows that open space and commercial development

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

residential land.

Conversations with local realtors and appraisers helped us evaluate

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

and one realtor/appraiser confirmed that properties adjacent to

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

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

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

those properties sell. Properties with views protected by their

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

Chapter 3

Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-7
Chapter 3 

3-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

realtors estimated, but none with any certainty, that properties

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

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

adjacency to a refuge as an important advertising asset.

Public Willingness to Pay is a method for estimating the monetary

value of ecosystem goods and services by determining how much the

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

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

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

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

Rhode Islanders consistently and overwhelmingly vote for bond

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

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

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

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

for protecting open space (RI CRMC 1998).

Refuge Complex Administration

Staffing and Budget

Annual budget appropriations

are highly variable, and

commensurately affect our

staffing levels. Table 3-1

summarizes Refuge Complex

budget and staffing levels from

1995 to 2000. Fluctuations reflect

funding for special projects,

moving costs for new employees,

or large equipment purchases.

Most of the funding is

earmarked; very little

discretionary funding is available.

Resource Protection and Visitor Safety

Law enforcement officers, with full authority to enforce federal

regulations, are required to ensure resource protection and visitor

safety. Three permanent refuge staff have been assigned collateral

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

operations, but those collateral duties draw staff time and resources

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

seasonal staff with law enforcement authority each year.

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

year. They typically involved vehicle and pedestrian trespass,

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

verbal warnings are also given each year, typically for inadvertently

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

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

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

documenting violations. Wardens also inform visitors of public use

policy and permitted activities.

Fiscal year

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Operations

$216,299

355,715

350,700

428,400

441,900

Maintenance

$85,700

23,900

97,700

171,000

28,000

Full time staff

7

7

8

8

9

Seasonal staff

3

3

4

4

2

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

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

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

Division of Ecological Services Southern New England/New York

Bight Coastal Ecosystem Program five-member staff, an Atlantic

Coast Joint Venture staff person, and Friends of the National

Wildlife Refuges of Rhode Island.

An environmental assessment was written in 2000, which determined

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

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

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

construction to begin in 2003.

Refuge Resources

Physical Resources 

Topography, Soils and Hydrology

Glaciers deposited approximately 60 feet of New Shoreham drift,

forming the island’s hilly, morainal topography. Up to 3 feet of winddeposited silt loess overlies glacial till deposits. Parts of Sandy Point

were formed by finely sorted alluvial sands and wave and tidal

shifting and deposition.

Terrain on the northern parcel, around the North Light lighthouse, is

rolling dunes and swales averaging 5- to 10-percent slopes; soils are

primarily sand. Beane Point is a 21-acre upland with <5-percent slopes

composed of Paxton, very stony-fine sandy loams. The 13-acre NevuusGreenburg tract and O’Toole tract are primarily upland with <10-

percent slopes also composed of Paxton, very stony-fine sandy loams.

Block Island’s groundwater supply depends entirely on rainfall, with

kettle ponds and wetlands perched on compacted, clay soils. The

Nevuus-Greenberg tract contains two very small ponds; otherwise,

no freshwater lakes or ponds lie on refuge property. Adjacent to

refuge lands, however, are several small freshwater ponds, and the

brackish Sachem Pond and saline Great Salt Pond. More than 365

ponds and emergent wetlands on the island provide a critical

resource for many species.

Biological Resources

Block Island is unique from many perspectives, not least of which are

its biological resources. In 1991, The Nature Conservancy selected

Block Island as one of its 12 initial “Last Great Places” in the

western hemisphere, primarily due to its ecological significance.

Our report, “Northeast Coastal Areas Study”(1991) noted the unique

natural resources on Block Island:

“...one of the most important migratory bird habitats on the East

Coast... [as it]...provides a critical link or stepping stone in the

migration of many birds, particularly raptors and passerines,

between southern New England and eastern Long Island, and points

north and south.”

Chapter 3

Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-9
The Nature Conservancy considers Block Island an internationally

significant biodiversity reserve due to the presence of rare and

endemic species and habitats, and because of the concentrations and

diversity of songbirds, shorebirds, and raptors that migrate through

the area. At least 15 rare, threatened, or endangered federal or

state listed species, including birds, insects, mammals, and plants,

reproduce on the island. Many additional rare birds pass through

the island during migration.

Vegetation

Table 3-2 presents the dominant vegetation types and acreage for

Block Island Refuge. Block Island Refuge is primarily upland,

except for beach habitat at Cow Cove, Sandy Point, West Beach, and

Beane Point.

Beach habitat includes bare

sand, beach grass (Ammophila

brevigulata), poison ivy (Rhus

radicans), bayberry (Myrica

pennsylvanica), wild rose (Rosa

rugosa), and beach plum

(Prunus maritima). Upland

shrub habitat includes northern

arrowwood (Viburnum

recognitum), pokeweed

(Phytolacca americana),

Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus

quinquefolia), and bayberry. A

list of plant species is available

upon request from the refuge

office (George 1999).

Japanese black pine (Pinus

thunbergii) has been planted

extensively along eastern

seashores since the 1940’s

because of its remarkable ability

to withstand salt spray. But the

future of the black pines on

Block Island is uncertain. A

mixture of bayberry and non-native Japanese black pine with a

poison ivy understory dominates Beane Point. Those black pines

provide important nesting habitat for a colony of wading birds,

namely, black-crowned and yellow-crowned night-herons.

Approximately 25 percent of the black pine on Beane Point has

already been lost to an infestation of the black turpentine beetle

(Dendroctonus terebrans). No attempts to treat the beetle have

been made.

Native pitch pine (Pinus rigida) is also susceptible to black

turpentine beetles and thus, is not a good replacement tree.

Correspondence with Cornell University Cooperative Extension and

Cape Cod Cooperative Extension suggest that chemical control of

black turpentine beetle is not an option because of the proximity to

water. At present, no native tree species resistant to the black

turpentine beetle and tolerant of saline, shoreline environmental

conditions is known.

Chapter 3 

3-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Dominant 

cover-type

Agriculture

Beaches

Brushland

Developed

Forest Upland

Sandy Areas 

(not beaches)

Water

Wetlands (not classified)

Total

Acreage

0.4

7.8

20.8

5.6

16.8

34.6

2.2

3.3

91.5

Percentage

0.5%

8.5

22.8

6.1

18.3

37.8

2.4

3.6

100

Table 3-2. Land use/land cover at Block Island National Wildlife Refuge,

Washington County, RI. (source: RI GIS)
Both the Nevuus-Greenberg and O’Toole tracts are characterized as

shrub vegetation dominated by bayberry, arrowwood, winterberry,

and chokecherry. The O’Toole property has a higher proportion of

dry upland shrub.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Two federally listed species are known to breed on Block Island: the

American burying beetle (endangered) and piping plover (threatened).

The Service has completed recovery plans for both species.

Block Island harbors one of only a handful of American burying

beetle populations, and the only natural population known east of the

Mississippi River. This beetle is the largest of the North American

carrion beetles, whose numbers have so drastically declined that

they were federally-listed as endangered in 1989. As part of an

attempt to establish more beetle populations in the east, the Service

began a reintroduction effort in the early 1990’s. They released

captive-raised beetles on Penikese and Nantucket Islands in

Massachusetts, historical habitat for the species. The western

populations occur in a limited distribution in western Arkansas,

eastern Oklahoma, western Kansas, central Nebraska, and southern

South Dakota. Beetles have also been translocated from Arkansas to

southeastern Ohio in an effort to re-establish the species there.

Unfortunately, the American burying beetle remains absent from

more than 90% of its historic range (Amaral 2000). 

Surveys in recent years found the majority of the Block Island

burying beetle breeding population in the grassland habitat on the

southern end of the island. However, beetles have twice been

documented on or adjacent to refuge land, including near Beane

Point and just north of Great Salt Pond. In 1998, the town-owned

fields just south of Sachem Pond were surveyed and American

burying beetle were captured in low numbers. The beetles are highly

mobile on the island, and in fact, could be found foraging in any of its

fields today (Amaral 1999).

Beetles on the refuge are likely foraging primarily on dead pheasant

chicks, and occasionally on dead gull and black-crowned night-heron

chicks. Carrion availability may be the single greatest factor

determining where the species can survive. Annual surveys and

monitoring of the breeding population have concentrated on the

southern portion of the island. Its northern portion, including the

refuge, have not been surveyed as intensively.

In 1991, biologists placed the carcass of a herring gull chick on the

Beane Point portion of the refuge, and later found an adult female

burying beetle preparing the carcass (Amaral 1999). No other

burying beetle observations on the refuge have been recorded. In

general, the lack of suitable prey items, poor soils for burying prey

items, and lack of grasslands underlie the inferior suitability of the

north end (Kozol, et al. 1986). However, our New England Field

Office recommends further evaluating areas of suitable soil on the

north end before dismissing it as poor habitat (Amaral 1999).

Piping plovers attempting to nest near Sandy Point in 1996 laid eggs

that never hatched. Field examination revealed the eggs had

hardened, as if the birds had been off the nest for an extended

Chapter 3

Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-11
Chapter 3 

3-12 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

period. In 1997, a pair of piping plover initiated nesting behavior, but

never laid eggs. Piping plover briefly seen in the area in 1998 did not

attempt nesting. None were seen in 1999. In 2000, a pair fledged

two young on a town beach south of Beane Point. In 2001, a pair

attempted nesting 3 times near the refuge. In 2002, a pair attempted

to nest on Mason’s Beach. No one has yet determined why plovers

are unsuccessful here, although human disturbance and gull

predation are possible contributing factors. The remoteness of

potential source populations may also hinder reestablishment of

breeding plovers in this nesting area.

Most of the suitable beach habitat for plover lies between Settlers

Rock and the Sandy Point Tip. Other than a small stretch of refuge

beach, most is owned by the Town of New Shoreham. Under a

cooperative management strategy with the Town, areas of the beach

between the North Light and Sandy Point will be symbolically fenced

if piping plover are seen exhibiting courtship behavior. We will erect

nest exclosures around any suspected nest sites. The staff of The

Nature Conservancy-Block Island help monitor this beach during the

breeding season. 

Symbolic fencing consists of intervisible, 5’- to 6’ high metal posts

spaced approximately 100’ apart. Each post holds a sign that reads

“Bird Nesting Area.” No physical barriers connect the posts. Nest

exclosures are welded 2”x4” wire-mesh cages 10’ in diameter that are

placed over nests (typically just a scrape in the sand). Exclosures

are topped with 1” black plastic mesh, and some sections have yellow

nylon rope connecting their posts. The wire mesh allows plover to

enter and exit, but excludes most predators.

A group of two to four immature bald eagles has been observed near

ponds through the past five summers, feeding on waterfowl and fish;

one roost site near Middle Pond’s west shore has been documented.

More monitoring is needed to document habitat use by these birds.

The 1994 Recovery Plan for the northeastern beach tiger beetle

(threatened) identifies Block Island as a low potential reintroduction

site (USFWS 1993). This species has not been documented in Rhode

Island since the 1950’s, but was known historically on Block Island’s

Crescent Beach. The nearest population of northeastern beach tiger

beetles is near Westport, MA. According to Susanna vonOettingen of

our New England Field Office, there are no plans to reintroduce the

northeastern beach tiger beetle outside of Massachusetts for

approximately 10 years. A source population to begin reintroduction

has not been established. Also, the highest priority reintroduction

site in Rhode Island would likely be the Weekapaug, Misquamicut,

and Napatree Point areas, where the beaches generally are wider

(vonOettingen 1998).

Some State-listed species also occur on the refuge. Thirty-seven

black-crowned night-heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) (endangered RI)

nests were documented in a colony on Beane Point in 1998, an

increase from the 29 nests counted in 1996 and 1997. This population

has been documented on Block Island since 1976; however, they did

not move to the Beane Point location until 1985. Prior to this, the

rookery was located on the south side of West Beach road and briefly

on the south shore of Sachem Pond. In both of these settings, the

rookery was in shrub habitat (Ferren and Myer 1998, Raithel pers
Chapter 3

Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-13

com 2000). Nesting with the black-crowned night-herons are one

pair of great egrets (Casmerodius albus) and one pair of snowy

egrets (Egretta thula) (endangered RI). A few yellow-crowned

night-herons (Nycticorax violacea) (endangered RI) nest nearby.

This is the only heron colony known on the island. As stated earlier,

these birds are nesting in a dying stand of Japanese black pine.

Adjacent landowners have informed us that, before nesting in the

black pine, the black-crowned night-herons used to nest in shadbush

on the island. This has implications for evaluating how to replace the

nesting structure provided by the black pine.

Three to five American oystercatchers (Haematopus palliatus)

(endangered RI) also nest on Beane Point and occasionally have been

found near Sandy Point. Sea beach knotweed (Polygonum glaucum)

(endangered RI) is sometimes found near Sandy Point.

Block Island is the only place in Rhode Island where northern

harriers (Circus cyaneus) (endangered RI) nest. A total of 15 nests

occur on the island; up to six nests occur near refuge lands, but none

have been documented on the refuge. Block Island is also one of

only two places in the world where barn owls (Tyto alba –

endangered, RI) nest in sea cliff cavities rather than in human-made

structures or inland cliff crevices; however, none of the four known

cliff sites are on refuge lands. No other nests are known for barn

owls in Rhode Island.

Reptiles and Amphibians

Green frog (Rana clamitans), peepers (Psuedacris crucifer), and

red-spotted newts (Notophthalumus v. viridescens) occur in the

island’s scattered freshwater ponds. Reptiles include common

snapping turtle (Chelydra s. serpentina), spotted turtle (Clemmys

guttata), eastern painted turtle (Chrysemys p. picta), northern

water snake (Nerodia sipedon), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis

s. sirtalis), northern brown snake (Storeria d. dekayi), and an

occasional diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin). No

surveys have been conducted on the refuge. There is speculation

that some of these may be distinct subspecies, since they have been

separated from mainland populations for at least 8,000 years.

Birds

With the exception of the gull colony and heron rookery, very little

survey data exists on bird species and their abundance specific to

Block Island Refuge.

The refuge gull colony, the largest in the State, has been surveyed

since 1981 (Comings 2000). RI DEM, Refuge staff and The Nature

Conservancy on Block Island have been monitoring the colony

because of a concern the gulls could impact other native species

through increased predation or physical displacement as they

dominate nesting sites. Gulls are known to prey on piping plover

chicks, and thus pose a threat to management for that species.

Figure 3-2 shows that overall gull populations have been gradually

decreasing. Closing the landfill on West Beach and switching to a

transfer station in 1990 probably contributed to this decline.

Although it is important to note that gull populations are down
Chapter 3 

3-14 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

statewide, great black-backed gulls are systematically displacing

herring gulls (Raithel 1999). In recent years, the black-backed gulls

have forced herring gulls into the less hospitable shrub habitat for

nesting. Unfortunately, black-backed gulls pose a greater threat to

other native birds because they are a more aggressive predator than

herring gulls.

While no formal surveys have been conducted for songbirds on

refuge lands, The Nature Conservancy has two permanent banding

stations on Clayhead Preserve on the northern end of the island.

More than 6,000 birds representing 95 species are banded in a given

year. This banding provides valuable information on the diversity of

species breeding and migrating on the northern tip of the island.

The habitat consists of shrub-scrub pine and kettle ponds.

Block Island is internationally famous among birders for its

spectacular fall songbird migration. Data reveals that the island

provides crucial habitat for both spring and fall migratory shorebirds

and songbirds. Its northern tip, in particular, consistently supports

large concentrations of fall migrants. Thousands of Neotropical

migrants, representing 70 species, have been documented. Of

interest is the fact that the vast majority of these fall migrants are

juveniles. Studies indicate that juvenile birds are severely

dehydrated by the time they reach Block Island, and that its

approximately 365 small ponds and abundance of fruit-bearing

shrubs provide life-saving rehydration. Many typically omnivorous

migrants forage exclusively on berries while on Block Island (Parrish

1999). Northern arrowwood, northern bayberry, and pokeweed

were the predominate fruit-bearing shrubs used by birds. Shrub

habitat also provides resting shelter for migrating birds.

In his 3-year study of frugivory in landbirds on Block Island, Parrish

noted that fruit-bearing shrubs important to migratory birds are

superabundant on Block Island, evidenced by: (1) the fact birds

never removed entire fruit crops; (2) interspecific and intraspecific

aggression were uncommon; and (3) estimates of fruit removal

ranged from 25 percent to 40 percent at individual sites.

Figure 3-2. Number of active gull nests at Block Island Refuge for select years between 1981 - 1998. (Data for 1993 represents

only a partial count of the colony. No surveys were done for intervening years.)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1988 1990 1993 1994 1995 1998

Great black-backed

Herring

*

Great black-backed gulls

Herring gulls
Chapter 3

Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-15

Shorebirds pass through in large numbers during midsummer and

early fall. Typically, 40 different shorebird species have been

observed using the mudflats and saltmarshes and wrack lines on

open beach, including piping plover and whimbrel (Comings 2000).

Mammals

Block Island is unique regarding mammals, because no native,

terrestrial mammalian predators reportedly occur on the island.

Feral cats and Norway rats are the biggest threat to small mammals,

bird eggs, and chicks. No predator control measures have been

implemented on the refuge.

Seals occasionally haul out on the refuge shoreline near Sandy Point;

however, no formal surveys have been conducted. The Block Island

meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus provectus) is considered

endemic to Block Island. Other small mammals include the whitefooted mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), introduced muskrat (Ondatra

zibethicus), house mouse (Mus musculus), and Norway rat (Rattus

norvegicus). Since no surveys of bats have been conducted, we do

not know what species, if any, use the refuge.

The overabundant population of white-tailed deer has been an

important issue in recent years because deer are not native to the

island, and there are no natural predators to control the population.

The Town of New Shoreham and RI DEM administer a hunt

program to substantially reduce the deer herd on portions of the

island. Huntable acreage is limited on the island, due to limited

access on private and public lands. Deer numbers on the refuge are

not known, and hunting is not currently permitted on the refuge, but

will be evaluated as described in chapter 4. 

Cultural Resources

When English settlers first encountered Native Americans on Block

Island in 1661, they described two large, permanent villages of 60

wigwams each and 100 acres of agricultural fields. Within the year,

the settlers had surveyed and divided the island into lots. There are

accounts of the settlers’ enslavement of Native Americans to

expedite clearing and construction. Native Americans disappeared

from the census in 1875 (USFWS 1999).

No prehistoric sites have been recorded on Block Island Refuge, and

we have not conducted any formal archaeological surveys. We

consider the entire refuge highly sensitive for archeological deposits.

The North Light lighthouse, formerly on the refuge but now on town

property, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Archeologists have examined a 19th-20th century fishing village site

on refuge property that has been impacted by coastal erosion and

dune migration.

Public Use

We do not maintain a Service presence on Block Island, although

refuge staff recognize the need for at least one seasonal employee to

be stationed on the island during peak summer season. The

opportunities for public contact are extensive, and include

environmental education and interpretation.
Based on informal visitor counts (The Nature Conservancy 1998), we

estimate annual public use on Block Island Refuge between Settlers

Rock and Sandy Point Beaches at 40,000 total visitor days. No

formal counts have been done. The Refuge Complex has not

established a systematic strategy for collecting and documenting

visitor use.

Principal wildlife-dependent public use on refuge lands includes surf

fishing, wildlife observation, environmental education, and

photography. We opened the refuge to surf fishing under State

regulations through a Federal Register Notice in 1998 (50 CFR 32).

That notice did not specify any geographic limits for surf fishing, and

thus, the Beane Point tract was inadvertently included. With the

exception of surf fishing, the Beane Point, O’Toole, and NevuusGreenberg tracts are not officially open to any other public use.

In 1994, refuge staff completed a compatibility determination for

wildlife observation and interpretation, formally establishing these

activities as compatible uses on the northern tract, near Sandy Point.

That determination also found dog-walking a non-compatible use.

Because of the lack of Service presence on the island, very little

public use enforcement has occured in the past.

No public-use infrastructure is maintained by refuge staff. A short

section of an unofficial, 5-mile hiking trail in the West Beach area

crosses refuge lands. The North Light lighthouse, maintained by the

town but surrounded by the refuge, is one of the most popular visitor

destinations on northern Block Island. Access to the lighthouse

crosses approximately 500 feet of refuge beach via a right-of-way.

Vehicles use this right-of-way to access both the lighthouse and surf

fishing sites.

Cooperative management of public use on the northern portion of

Block Island strives to protect nesting piping plover. The Town of

New Shoreham closed Sandy Point Beach from the lighthouse to the

Point in 1996 and 1997, in conjunction with closures on the refuge

beach after nesting piping plover had been observed. In 1998 and

1999, no nesting behavior was observed, and neither the town

property nor the refuge beach was closed.

Chapter 3 

3-16 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-1

Redstart

USFWS photo

■ Refuge Complex Vision

■ Refuge Complex Goals

■ General Refuge Management

Chapter 4

Management Direction
Refuge Complex Vision

We developed this vision statement to provide a guiding philosophy

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

describes the desired future character of the Refuge Complex

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

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

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

priorities for each refuge in Rhode Island. 

“The Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex protects a

unique collection of thriving coastal sandplain, coastal maritime,

and beach strand communities, and represents some of the last

undeveloped seacoast in southern New England. Leading the way in

the protection and restoration of coastal wetlands, shrubland, and

grassland habitats, the Refuge Complex contributes to the long-term

conservation of migratory and resident native wildlife populations,

and the recovery of endangered and threatened species. These

refuges offer research opportunities and provide an outstanding

showcase of habitat management for other landowners.”

“The Refuge Complex is the premiere destination for visitors to

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

recreation. Hundreds of thousands of visitors are rewarded each

year with inspiring vistas and exceptional opportunities to view

wildlife in native habitats. Innovative environmental educational

and interpretive programs motivate visitors to engage in better

stewardship of coastal resources.”

“Through partnerships and extensive outreach efforts, Refuge

Complex staff are committed to accomplishing refuge goals and

significantly contributing to the Mission of the National Wildlife

Refuge System. This commitment will strengthen with the future,

revitalizing the southern New England ecosystem for generations

to come.”

Refuge Complex Goals

Our planning team developed the following goals for the Refuge

Complex after reviewing applicable laws and policies, regional plans,

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

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

and national and regional mandates. 

Our Refuge Complex goals are intentionally broad, descriptive

statements of purpose. They highlight specific elements of our vision

statement and provide the foundation for our management emphasis.

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

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

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

Objectives are incremental steps to be taken toward achieving a goal

and define the management emphasis in measurable terms, where

possible. Some of our objectives relate directly to habitat

management, while others strive to meet population targets tied to

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

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

considerations, or a combination of these, which may be used to

Chapter 4

4-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
achieve the objective. Objectives will be used directly in respective

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

achieve the desired outcome. 

Together, the goals and objectives are unifying elements of successful

refuge management. They identify and focus management priorities,

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

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

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

in 2003 of a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for the Refuge

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

accomplish. We will write the plan using current resource

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

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

habitat types, species assemblages, or natural processes significant

to the Refuge Complex. It will identify habitat management actions

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

of our focus species. The objectives and strategies identified below

will all be incorporated into the HMP. 

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

Species and Habitat Inventory and Monitoring Plan in 2004.

Critical elements of the biological program to be inventoried or

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

will also describe inventory and monitoring procedures, determine

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

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

credible, adaptive refuge management. 

In addition, the Region is currently developing a Regional National

Wildlife Refuge System Strategic Resources Plan (SRP). This plan

will establish Regional goals and objectives for species and habitats

based on landscape-scale analyses. Each refuge staff will then

determine their respective refuge’s contribution to implementing

these objectives. As such, once the SRP is completed, the objectives

and strategies outlined below may be modified.

The following goals, objectives, and strategies provide management

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

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

Refuge Complex staff.

Goal 1: Protect and enhance federal trust resources and other

species and habitats of special concern. 

Objective 1.1

Sustain at least a 5-year average of 1.5 fledged chicks/pair per year

(1996 Revised Piping Plover Recovery Plan) on at least one site on

northern Block Island, with priority given to reestablishing

successful nesting on the refuge.

Background: 

The 1996 Revised Recovery Plan for the Atlantic Coast Population of

Piping Plover describes the species status, habitat requirements, and

limiting factors. The major factors contributing to the species’

decline is the loss and degradation of habitat due to development and

shoreline stabilization. The recovery objective is to remove the

Chapter 4

Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-3
species from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and

Plants by: 1) achieving well-distributed increases in numbers and

productivity of breeding pairs, and 2) providing for long-term

protection of breeding and wintering plovers and their habitat.

Objective 1.1 directly supports Recovery Criteria #1 and #3, which

relate to maintaining a wide distribution of breeding pairs, and a

consistent productivity and fledging rate. In general, we hope to

achieve this by increasing the amount and duration of protection and

monitoring of nesting sites, and through habitat improvements, as

outlined below.

In addition, the Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan for

Southern New England (Physiographic Area 9; draft Oct 2000) (PIF

Plan) lists several implementation strategies and management

guidelines to achieve habitat objectives, including: monitoring and

research, actively deterring predators, preventing human

disturbance at nesting sites, and public education. All of these are

incorporated as strategies or guidelines in Objectives 1.1 to 1.4 below. 

No nesting has been documented on refuge lands within the last 5

years; however, nesting has been attempted on lands immediately

adjacent to the refuge. While refuge lands will continue to be

managed to promote nesting activity on the refuge, achievement of

this objective necessitates a cooperative management strategy with

adjacent landowners on the northern part of Block Island. 

Strategies:

■ Each year prior to the piping plover nesting season, continue to

coordinate with and seek support from the Service’s Ecological

Services Division, RI DEM, and the U.S. Coast Guard. 

■ Each year, continue to monitor for piping plover in suitable habitat

on refuge lands beginning in early April. Install symbolic fencing

around potential territories (above the mean high water mark) to

exclude public access when courtship behavior is observed. Place

predator exclosure fencing around nest sites. Fencing will remain

in place until birds have fledged (typically by August 15).

Monitoring and management actions will meet or exceed the

Service’s 1994 Guidelines for Managing Recreational Activities in

Piping Plover Breeding Habitat on the U.S. Atlantic Coast To

Avoid Take Under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act

(Appendix G in the 1996 Recovery Plan). 

■ In 2003, annually close refuge beaches above the mean high water

line to vehicles from April 1 to September 15 to reduce

disturbance to nesting and migrating shorebirds and to reduce

physical impacts to the barrier beach. 

■ By 2003, hire a biological technician, to be stationed locally, who

will work with The Nature Conservancy to monitor suitable plover

habitat, potential habitat, and public use activities in the Block

Island Focus Area. This technician may also support other

biological program activities. 

■ By 2003, refuge staff will monitor gull populations, in cooperation

with ongoing RI DEM and The Nature Conservancy surveys, to

ascertain whether gulls are limiting plover nesting. 

■ By 2003, formalize the current verbal agreement with Town of

Chapter 4

4-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
New Shoreham, through use of a cooperative agreement, to insure

continued implementation of town beach restrictions on public use

when active piping plover nesting occurs. While developing this

agreement, consider whether symbolic fencing could be placed on

town lands on an experimental basis, in order to enhance potential

nesting habitat on the adjacent refuge. 

■ By 2004, hire a Rhode Island Piping Plover Coordinator* who will

provide visibility and oversight to the Refuge Complex and South

Shore piping plover programs, and facilitate interagency funding

and cooperative management of off-Refuge nesting areas.

*The Rhode Island Piping Plover Coordinator will a) coordinate

outreach and education; b) complete cooperative agreements with

private landowners (see above); c) coordinate with towns to develop

contingency plans (see below); d)coordinate piping plover research

on the refuges; e) hire seasonal biological technicians; f) seek

outside funding to help support the South Shore program; g)

coordinate habitat evaluations and monitoring (e.g. determine

nesting carrying capacities, habitat parameters to monitor, and

predator trapping effectiveness).

Objective 1.2

Each year, minimize predation of piping plover at nesting sites in

support of nest productivity and fledging objectives.

Background: 

According to the 1996 Recovery Plan and experience at Rhode Island

nesting sites, predation is a major factor limiting piping plover

reproductive and fledging success. Predation is highly site-specific,

but evidence indicates that human activities are exacerbating natural

predation levels by influencing the types, numbers, and activity

patterns of predators. As a result, we are managing human activities

as described in Objectived 1.1 and 1.3, and also trying to influence

predator behavior at nesting sites. Our predator management

includes the use of non-lethal strategies (e.g. visual deterrents, scare

tactics, fenced exclosures), as well as the removal of animals. 

Strategies:

■ Continue to document statistics (productivity, fledging rates, nest

losses, predation, etc.) in annual piping plover reports, and share

information with Recovery Team Coordinator.

■ Continue to minimize direct predation of piping plover at each

nesting site through the use of exclosures and other non-lethal

deterrents, in combination with the removal of animals where it is

warranted and feasible. Utilize recommended techniques in

“Best Management Practices for Trapping Furbearers,” a

technical report to be completed by the Fur Resources Committee

of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,

when available.

■ By 2005, evaluate predation statistics on managed piping plover

nesting sites to determine the effectiveness of predator

management efforts at each nesting site. Adapt management

accordingly.

Chapter 4

Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-5
Objective 1.3

Within three years of CCP completion, develop a piping plover

outreach and education program specifically targeting people using

Rhode Island beaches. 

Strategies:

■ Continue annual coordination with the Friends Group to provide

oversight, conduct public outreach and education, and help secure

non-Service funding for the Piping Plover Program.

■ Continue development of a barrier beach education kit for

teachers. 

■ In 2003, develop an education and outreach plan for the piping

plover program, which will include:

• Identification of target audiences (e.g. beach front

landowners, elected officials, tourists, and local school

children);

• Distribution of literature with RI DEM beach use permits,

and at beach access focal points;

• A major exhibit at the new Visitor Center; and,

• An educational program integrated with local school

curriculums.

■ Work with the Friends Group and other partners to develop and

implement the plan and secure funding for its initiatives.

■ By 2004, hire at least two additional seasonal Park Aides for the

Refuge Complex to conduct outreach and education on refuge

lands and in the communities directly affected by piping plover

management.

Objective 1.4

Within three years of CCP completion, determine the site specific

factors affecting Block Island piping plover nesting success and

undertake actions recommended or accepted by the piping plover

scientific community.

Strategies:

■ Each year, the Refuge Biologist will coordinate with the Piping

Plover Recovery Team and other scientists to obtain new research

results and share the effectiveness of management techniques.

■ By 2004, work with partners to identify piping plover research needs

for the Refuge Complex, with highest priority given to determining

those factors most influencing chick survival on the refuges.

■ By 2005, obtain funding to initiate the highest priority project.

Objective 1.5

Within five years of CCP completion, evaluate the suitability of refuge

lands to support and sustain breeding American burying beetle. 

Background:

The endangered American burying beetle breeds on southern Block

Island, but has yet to be documented breeding on the northern end

of the island. It has, however, been observed foraging on the refuge

Chapter 4

4-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
and adjacent lands. To date, the northern end of the island has not

been surveyed intensively for breeding habitat, and there is some

question as to whether or not breeding habitat exists there. The

Service’s New England Field Office recommends further evaluations

before dismissing the north end as poor habitat. High quality

habitat would consist of abundant prey (e.g. pheasant, gull or heron

chicks), suitable soils for burying prey, and grassland vegetation.

Efforts to protect waterbirds (see below) will also benefit the

American burying beetle through increased availability of carrion. 

Strategies:

■ By 2003, actively participate in ongoing annual monitoring of

American burying beetles on southern Block Island, led by RI

DEM, The Nature Conservancy, and our New England Field Office.

■ By 2008, work with these partners to assess opportunities on the

refuge to manage for burying beetle breeding habitat and expand

the distribution of the island’s population. If determined feasible

and consistent with other biological objectives, initiate habitat

projects on up to 50 acres. 

■ As lands are acquired by the Service, evaluate their potential

suitability for breeding habitat.

Objective 1.6

Within five years of CCP completion, determine if specific

management actions are warranted to sustain bald eagle roosting

habitat on northern Block Island.

Background: 

Over the past five summers, up to four immature bald eagles have

been observed roosting on pond shorelines in northern Block Island,

according to observations from The Nature Conservancy staff. They

are attracted to the ponds to feed on waterfowl and fish. Of

particular interest is the consistent observations on Middle Pond’s

west shore. More monitoring is needed to determine whether there

is an established roost site that would benefit from additional

management or protection. 

Strategies:

■ By 2003, a seasonal biological technician (recommended above for

piping plover) will annually monitor roosting eagles observed on

refuge lands on Middle Pond. Also, coordinate with The Nature

Conservancy to identify other high use areas, and potential

threats to roosting eagles, such as human disturbance and/or

habitat degradation. 

■ By 2005, develop site management and monitoring plans, if such

plans are warranted by consistent bald eagle use of refuge lands.

Objective 1.7

Within three years of CCP completion, determine if specific

management actions are warranted to protect and sustain the

wading bird rookery on the refuge.

Background: 

Since approximately 1985, a heron and egret rookery has been

established in a Japanese black pine stand on refuge land at Beane

Chapter 4

Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-7
Point. Between 1976 and 1985, these birds apparently nested in

nearby shrub habitat, possibly shadbush. Up to 37 black-crowned

night herons nests, one snowy egret nest, and a few yellow-crowned

night herons nests were documented in 1998, All of these species are

State-listed as endangered. Also nesting in the rookery are great

egrets. This is the only known heron colony on the island. The

Japanese black pine stand appears to be dying. 

Black- and yellow-crowned night heron, great egret, and snowy egret

are all species of conservation priority in the Partners in Flight Plan

for Area 9 (PIF Area 9). 

Strategies:

■ By 2003, utilize a seasonal biological technician (also recommended

above) to participate in annual monitoring of the refuge rookery

site on Beane Point. Monitoring is currently conducted by RI

DEM and The Nature Conservancy. 

■ In 2003, work with these partners to identify threats to the

rookery and evaluate the condition of the pine stand supporting

the nests. Determine what could be done to at least maintain the

existing nesting capability. Evaluate whether to replant native

vegetation. Identify and maintain prospective new sites so

rookeries can reestablish or expand. 

■ Use the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (once

completed) to update management and monitoring strategies for

these heron and egret species

Objective 1.8

Within two years of CCP completion, establish specific habitat

management objectives for those birds considered by PIF to be a

high conservation priority in PIF Area 9, Southern New England,

and for which the refuge could make an important contribution to

their conservation. 

Background:

Partners in Flight (PIF) Bird Conservation Plans are written for

physiographic provinces with an overall goal to ensure the long term

maintenance of healthy populations of landbirds. These plans

identify species and habitats most in need of conservation, describe

desired habitat conditions for these species, develop biological

objectives, and recommend conservation actions. This plan covers

objectives and recommendations for breeding, migration, and

wintering habitats. Rhode Island Refuges lie within PIF Area 9,

Southern New England. This PIF Plan is still in draft. 

Although a final PIF plan is not completed, this CCP incorporates

habitat objectives for certain landbird species identified as high

conservation priority in the draft PIF Area 9 plan (Oct 2000). These

include piping plover, shrub- and grassland-dependent coastal

Neotropical migrants, and maritime marshland species. Using

information from the surveys identified below, and the completed

PIF plan, we will be able to refine our landbird management

objectives in the near future.

Chapter 4

4-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Strategies:

■ In 2003, utilize the “Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation

Plan for Southern New England (Area 9)” (draft Oct 2000), and

the Regional Strategic Resources Plan (in preparation) to identify

and prioritize those landbirds of highest management concern on

the refuge, and assess how current management practices are

impacting them. Determine which of these landbirds should be a

focus for future management on the refuge, and write landbird

objectives for the HMP.

■ In 2003, initiate an annual monitoring strategy for American

oystercatcher nesting sites on Beane Point; identify potential

threats and incorporate management recommendations into HMP.

■ In conjunction with HMP, update refuge cover type maps in a GIS

database, adhering to the National Vegetation Classification

Standards.

Objective 1.9

Protect and improve habitat quality for shorebirds at feeding and

staging areas on the refuge. 

Background: 

Shorebirds annually migrate hundreds or thousands of miles

between breeding and wintering grounds, often in one or a few longdistance non-stop flights. As such, migration staging areas, where

birds rest and accumulate fat reserves before and during flight, are

vitally important to many shorebird populations. Along the east

coast, beaches are key locations. Long-term declines of shorebird

numbers at migration staging areas along the Massachusetts coast

have been attributed to conflicts between shorebirds and heavy

human recreational use. Monitoring shorebirds during migration has

not occurred on Block Island Refuge, so information is limited on

whether it is a key staging area for shorebirds. 

Strategies:

■ Use the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (once completed) to

update management and monitoring strategies based on any

newly identified imperiled species (draft Shorebird Prioritization

System 1999).

■ By 2005, determine if there are any key staging and feeding areas

on the refuge, if so, map in a GIS database. 

■ By 2006, determine potential threats and disturbances for key areas

and implement a plan to reduce their impact. Use outreach and

education and, if necessary, restrictions on public use and access.

Objective 1.10

Within five years of CCP completion, determine if specific

management actions are warranted to insure seals are protected at

refuge haul out areas.

Background:

There are no significant concentrations of seals known on the refuge.

Generally, small groups of two to six seals will haul-out together.

Both harbor and gray seals are observed on Block Island Refuge’s

Beane Point. Neither of these species are imperiled, but they are

protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

Chapter 4

Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-9
Strategies:

■ Beginning in 2005, work with partners to survey seal haul-out

areas on the Refuge Complex and determine if human disturbance

is a threat. Reduce human disturbance through public outreach

efforts, and restrict access, if necessary.

Objective 1.11

Promote an appreciation of amphibian and reptile conservation, and

actively manage to protect and sustain current populations on the

refuge. 

Background: 

Recent studies conducted by the University of RI (URI) have

revealed that Ninigret and Trustom Pond refuges are very important

to the reptile and amphibian population in the South County area. In

fact, the highest density of two amphibian species known for Rhode

Island occur on these refuges. We suspect Block Island refuge could

be making an important contribution to the reptile and amphibian

populations on the island. We need more information on species’

presence, and their seasonal use of the refuge, before recommending

management actions. 

Strategies:

■ In 2003, conduct annual anuran call count surveys according to

Regional protocol.

■ By 2005, develop environmental education and interpretation

programs to promote the significance of the refuges to Rhode

Island’s herptofauna.

■ By 2005, evaluate and incorporate recommendations (pending)

made by Partners for Amphibian and Reptile Conservation

(PARC) as warranted into refuge management.

■ By 2005, implement an inventory and monitoring plan for

amphibians and reptiles of conservation concern predicted for the

refuge. 

Objective 1.12

Within 15 years of CCP completion, evaluate whether refuge lands

can contribute to the recovery of the northeastern tiger beetle

through reintroduction efforts initiated by the Service’s Ecological

Services Division, New England Field Office. 

Background:

A Recovery Plan for the Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle

(Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis) was completed in September 1994.

This species, which was described in the early 1900’s as occurring in

“great swarms”, along beaches from Martha’s Vineyard to New

Jersey, is now only known in the northeast at two sites in

Massachusetts. This beetle has been extirpated from the rest of

Massachusetts, and all of Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York

(Long Island) and New Jersey. This beetle is very vulnerable to

disturbance while in its larval stage, which lasts two years. The

larvae live in vertical burrows, generally in the beach intertidal zone,

where they are sensitive to destruction by high levels of pedestrian

traffic, vehicles, and other factors which alter the beach dynamic

such as coastal development and beach stabilization structures.

Chapter 4

4-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Population growth seems to be hampered by a lack of both

undisturbed beaches and of nearby populations to provide a source

for colonizing new sites. 

Several sites in Rhode Island were identified as historic and extant

sites for this beetle in the recovery plan, and, while subject to

change, their future restoration and reintroduction potential was also

identified. Sites for Rhode Island include Napatree Point (lowmedium potential), Block Island (low potential), Narragansett Pier

(low to no potential), Roger Williams Park (low to no potential), and

Newport (low to no potential). 

Strategies: 

■ By 2015, coordinate with the New England Field Office and RI

DEM to determine the feasibility of reintroducing the beetles on

the Rhode Island Refuge Complex or elsewhere along the South

Shore of Rhode Island. 

■ By 2016, develop site management and monitoring plans for

prospective reintroduction sites on the Refuge Complex.

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

promote healthy, functioning ecosystems

Objective 2.1

Within three years of CCP completion, design and implement a

baseline inventory on refuge lands to determine the occurrence of

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

serve as a basis for future management decisions. 

Background: 

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

knowledge of important refuge resources, including their presence,

distribution and condition, to insure management actions are

sustaining biological integrity, biological diversity, and ecosystem health

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

Strategies:

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

needs to better understand and document the biodiversity on the

refuge, especially the presence and distribution of species and

habitat types listed in Appendix A. Incorporate these priorities

into the HMP.

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

incorporating the results into the CENSUS database, or other

regional databases with GIS capabilities, to facilitate future

analyses. Revise digital cover type maps as warranted. 

Objective 2.2

Increase protection and restoration of 10 acres of beach strand

habitat on the refuge, and promote the stewardship of these critical

areas throughout coastal Rhode Island. 

Background: 

Beach strand (also known as barrier beach) is perhaps the most

imperiled habitat type on or adjacent to the refuges because of the

combined impacts of development and recreation. Many species

Chapter 4

Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-11
associated with this habitat type are either Federal- or State-listed as

threatened or endangered. Protection, restoration, and enhancement

of beach strand habitat and dependent species was identified as the

number one priority in the Connecticut River/Long Island Sound

Ecosystem Team Plan (July 1996). Management of these areas is

extremely complex and controversial, especially when it includes

restrictions on beach use. Block Island Refuge includes

approximately 10 acres of beach strand habitat, with the potential for

more to be acquired within the approved refuge acquisition boundary. 

Strategies:

■ In 2003, close refuge beaches above the mean high water line to

vehicles from April 1 to September 15 to ensure protection of

nesting and migratory shorebirds, and to reduce physical impacts

to beaches and dunes. The seasonal closure would not preclude

emergency vehicles or use of the legal rights-of-way for the North

Light Commission to access the North Light for maintenance and

to provide access for visitors with impaired mobility. 

■ By 2003, in combination with piping plover outreach and

education, promote increased protection and stewardship of beach

strand habitat through an intensive outreach and education

campaign with the Friends of the Refuges and other partners to

target beach front landowners, elected officials, and beach visitors. 

■ By 2003, use two seasonal park aides to implement the project,

who will be shared across the Refuge Complex.

■ In 2003, cooperate with the Town of New Shoreham, Block Island

Land Trust, Block Island Conservancy, The Nature Conservancy,

and Audubon Society of Rhode Island to develop a cooperative

resource protection and public use and access plan for northern

Block Island. The plan will identify strategies to protect sensitive

areas (shorebird and waterbird nesting areas and native dune

vegetation) while also providing for public use and access. It will

also identify infrastructure desired to support compatible activities

and evaluate a permit system and/or designated access and travel

ways. Implementation will require a formal cooperative

agreement among all partners. This plan will be incorporated

into the Refuge Complex’s Visitor Services Plan, to be completed

in 2004.

Objective 2.3

Within five years of CCP completion, establish the extent of nonnative, invasive plants on the refuge, the probability of new

invasions, and treatment needs. 

Background:

Issue 5 in Chapter 1 describes the implications of invasive plants

becoming established on refuges. These plants are a threat because

they displace native plant and animal species, degrade wetlands and

other natural communities, and reduce natural diversity and wildlife

habitat values. They outcompete native species and can readily

dominate a site. Early detection and consistent efforts at eradication

are critical to maintain control over affected areas, or to prevent new

invasions. We are not currently aware of significant populations of

invasive plants on Block Island Refuge; however, complete surveys

have never been done. More information is needed before

determining whether management actions are warranted.

Chapter 4

4-12 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Strategies:

■ By 2004, treat invasive plants on the refuge pond just northof

West Beach Rd. Also, identify and map the current distribution of

non-native, invasive plant species elsewhere on the refuge.

■ By 2005, establish an annual monitoring program if mapping reveals

a major concern. Prioritize treatment sites to prevent new invasions

or eradicate recently established plants. Highest priority will be to

treat Federal or State-listed threatened, endangered, or rare plant

sites or “pristine rare and exemplary vegetative communities”

(March 1999 Invasive Plant Control Initiative, Strategic Plan for the

Connecticut River Watershed/Long Island Sound). A maintenance

worker will be hired to administer treatments; the position will be

shared among all five Rhode Island refuges. 

Objective 2.4

In 2002, complete a deer management plan for the Refuge Complex

to address overabundant deer populations and evaluate recreational

hunting opportunities.

Background: 

Overabundant deer numbers are a concern on the refuge when they

degrade habitat through excessive browsing or threaten human

health and safety through increased vehicle collisions and incidences

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

effectively control a population unless they are managed throughout

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

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

DEM has reported that complaints from citizens have increased in

recent years about private property damage, worries of Lyme

disease, and vehicle collisions. RI DEM recommends hunting as the

most effective tool to manage deer populations on the refuge. 

Strategy:

■ In 2002, cooperate with RI DEM and the Town of New Shoreham to

develop a deer management plan and environmental assessment for

the Refuge Complex. The plan will evaluate hunting to help

manage deer numbers and provide a priority public use opportunity.

A separate public involvement process will be initiated. 

Goal 3: Establish a land protection program that fully supports

accomplishment of species, habitat, and ecosystem goals.

Objective 3.1

Actively strive towards permanent protection of all trust resources

at risk on Block Island. 

Background: 

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

Venture Plans, relevant Species Recovery Plans, and Ecosystem

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

quality coastal habitats to contribute to the conservation of federal

trust species. While land acquisition by the Service and other state,

federal, and local partners is a primary strategy for species

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

cooperation with private landowners to achieve conservation

Chapter 4

Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-13
Chapter 4

4-14 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

objectives. Technical and resource support, outreach, and education

will all compliment land acquisition efforts. 

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

Strategies) described our method of identifying acquisition lands of

high conservation priority in coastal Rhode Island. During the

planning process we determined that the Service is the logical leader

in coastal land and water quality protection along the South Shore

and on Block Island, with the existing refuges serving as anchors.

Refuge expansions will significantly increase protection of the

ecological values on current refuge lands, while also expanding

protection and restoration of significant coastal habitats. We

completed a Land Protection Plan for the Refuge Complex

(Appendix E) which identifies specific tracts for Service acquisition.

The LPP incorporates the following acquisition priorities: 

• Has documented occurrences of federally listed endangered

or threatened species, or other priority federal trust

resources;

• Lies contiguous to existing refuge land, which could further

enhance or protect the integrity of refuges by assembling the

land base necessary to accomplish refuge goals;

• Connects refuge land with other protected lands withing the

South Shore and Block Island to help restore and promote

the ecological integrity of the coastal wetland and beach

strand complexes; and

• Protects and sustains important natural communities that

can be managed tin cooperation with other conservation

partners in a manner that will contribute toward refuge goals

and the conservation of federal trust resources. 

Strategies:

■ Continue to assist conservation partners in identifying land

protection needs, opportunities, and priorities on Block Island. 

■ Continue to help partners seek funding sources for their land

protection programs.

■ Beginning in 2002, expand the refuge acquisition boundary for

Block Island Refuge by the acres approved in the Land Protection

Plan (LPP; Appendix E). Initiate acquisition from willing sellers,

in either fee purchase or conservation easement, as identified in

the LPP, of 156 acres of high quality habitat. 

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

education and interpretation.

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

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

a coordinated strategy for implementing quality visitor services

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

where they are compatible with protecting wildlife resources:

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and
Chapter 4

Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-15

environmental education and interpretation. The Visitors Services

Plan will also accomplish the following:

■ Establish strategic goals and priorities for Visitor Services across

the Refuge Complex;

■ Identify target audiences and partnership opportunities for

each refuge;

■ Establish a methodology for determining visitor numbers,

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

and a means for assessing quality of visitor experiences;

■ Evaluate recreational fee opportunities; and

■ Establish an implementation schedule for priority Visitor

Service’s projects.

We will hire four outdoor recreation planners to implement the

Visitor Services Plan and staff the planned Refuge Complex Visitor

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

opportunities to provide compatible, priority public uses will be

pursued, following guidance in the Pre-Acquisition Compatibility

Determination (Appendix D). 

The objectives below are designed to enhance existing, compatible

refuge activities.

Objective 4.1

Each year, provide high quality surf fishing opportunities along the

refuge shoreline, while minimizing impacts to natural resources. 

Strategies:

■ Continue to allow surf fishing year round on the refuge in

accordance with State regulations. Some areas on the refuge may

be closed to protect piping plover nesting sites, but generally, the

refuge will remain open to surf fishing. 

■ In 2003, close refuge beaches above the mean high water line to

vehicles from April 1 to September 15 to ensure protection of

nesting and migratory shorebirds, and to reduce physical impacts

to beaches and dunes. The seasonal closure would not preclude

emergency vehicles or use of the legal rights-of-way for the North

Light Commission to access the North Light for maintenance and

to provide access for visitors with impaired mobility. 

■ In 2003, cooperate with the Town of New Shoreham, Block Island

Land Trust, Block Island Conservancy, The Nature Conservancy,

and Audubon Society of Rhode Island to develop a cooperative

resource protection and public use and access plan for northern

Block Island. The plan will identify strategies to protect sensitive

areas (shorebird and waterbird nesting areas and native dune

vegetation) while also providing for public use and access. It will

also identify infrastructure desired to support compatible activities

and evaluate a permit system and/or designated access and travel

ways. Implementation will require a formal cooperative agreement

among all partners. This plan will be incorporated into the Refuge

Complex’s Visitor Services Plan, to be completed in 2004.
Chapter 4

4-16 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

■ By 2005, implement a monitoring plan on Beane Point in vicinity of

the colonial wading bird and shorebird nesting site to evaluate

disturbance by anglers during the nesting season (approximately

May 1 to August 1). If necessary, public access will be adapted in

response to monitoring results.

Objective 4.2

Increase opportunities for high quality interpretive experiences on

the refuge, which raise visitors’ awareness of the Refuge System and

Block Island Refuge’s particular contribution to protecting trust

resources and significant habitats. 

Strategies:

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

the Visitor Services Plan, and consistent with the cooperative

public use and access plan. Evaluate interpretive opportunities in

town center, on the ferry, or at the ferry landing.

Objective 4.3

Improve opportunities for high quality wildlife observation and

photography on the refuge, while minimizing impacts to natural

resources.

Strategies:

■ In 2002, formally allow access to the refuge for year round wildlife

observation and photography. Restrict access to certain areas if

piping plover are observed showing courtship behavior, as

indicated in Objective 1.1. 

■ In 2004, manage public activities consistent with the cooperative

resource protection and public use and access plan developed with

partners for northern Block Island. 

■ By 2005, implement a monitoring plan on Beane Point in vicinity of

the colonial wading bird and shorebird nesting site to evaluate

disturbance by refuge visitors during the nesting season

(approximately May 1 to August 1). If necessary, public access will

be adapted in response to monitoring results.

■ Also by 2005, hire a seasonal Park Aid to provide guided walks;

this position will be shared among other Rhode Island Refuges. 

Objective 4.4

Increase opportunities for high quality environmental educational

experiences on the refuge, while minimizing impacts to natural

resources. 

Strategies:

■ Continue to support The Nature Conservancy’s environmental

education programs on refuge land.

■ In 2003, initiate a formal partnership with The Nature

Conservancy to facilitate sharing of resources and assist in

curriculum development and implementation. A seasonal Park Aid

will be hired for assistance (also recommended above). The Beane

Point facility will be used as a classroom laboratory, and/ or

housing for educators, researchers, or seasonal employees. 
Chapter 4

Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-17

■ All proposed environmental education group activities at Beane

Point will avoid the sensitive nesting wading bird and shorebird

areas, generally from May 1 - August 1.

Objective 4.5

Within one year of CCP completion, evaluate opportunities for deer

hunting on the refuge.

Strategies:

■ In 2002, complete a deer management plan and environmental

assessment evaluating opportunities for deer hunting. A separate

public involvement process will be initiated. (Also refer to

objective 2.4) 

Objective 4.6

Within three years of CCP completion, determine if incompatible,

non-wildlife dependent public uses occur on the refuge and whether

management actions are needed.

Background: 

Incompatible, non-wildlife dependent activities detract from our

ability to fulfill refuge purposes and often conflict with priority

public uses and other management programs. Limited refuge

resources should not be expended to manage activities that do not

contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the

refuge’s wildlife or cultural resources, or to activities that do not

directly benefit these resources. 

■ In 2003, increase visibility of the Service, and provide increased

resource protection and management of public use, by establishing

a consistent Service presence during peak summer visitation on

the refuge. 

■ In 2004, implement a monitoring program to document public use

(e.g. seasonality, numbers, types of activities) in an effort to

determine whether incompatible activities are occurring on refuge

lands and having an impact on natural resources. Utilize the

seasonal staff recommended above in other objectives. 

■ By 2005, in conjunction with monitoring results and priorities

established in the Visitor Services Plan, eliminate incompatible

activities.

■ By 2005, develop a cooperative agreement with the Town of New

Shoreham to share law enforcement duties.

Goal 5: Provide refuge staffing, operations, and maintenance

support to effectively accomplish refuge goals and objectives.

Staffing, operations, and maintenance needs are addressed in

Chapter 5.
4-18 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Chapter 4

Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-19

General Refuge Management Direction

The following management direction applies to all of the refuge goals

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

Service policy or legal mandates. 

Maintaining Biological Integrity, Diversity, and 

Environmental Health

The Service finalized its policy on Maintaining the Biological

Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health of the National

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

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

existing levels of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental

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

degraded elements of integrity, diversity, and environmental health

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

implement the policy on refuges, refuge managers are directed to

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

and biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health; what

conditions constitute biological integrity, diversity, and environmental

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

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

section 3.9) 

The objectives and strategies laid out in this CCP generally improve

the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the

refuge. Management actions emphasize maintaining current species

and habitat diversity, recovering endangered and threatened species,

and restoring natural ecosystem processes and functions.

Implementation of the CCP will increase our understanding of the

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

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

adaptive management will provide continuous improvement toward

meeting this policy’s intent. 

Protecting and Managing Cultural Resources

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

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

National Historic Preservation Act before disturbing any ground.

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

Preservation Records survey, literature survey, or field survey.

In addition to basic compliance requirements, we will undertake the

following projects to better protect and interpret cultural resources

on the refuge:

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

Complex to increase the available data on cultural resources. 

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

with the Narragansett Indian Tribal Council to facilitate

cooperation on environmental education and interpretation, to

improve our understanding of the context of natural resources,

and to increase site identification and protection. 

■ By 2006, train at least one law enforcement officer on the refuge in

regulations associated with the Archeological Resources

Protection Act (ARPA).
Chapter 4

4-20 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Tribal Coordination

Increasing communication with the Narragansett Indian Tribal

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

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

working relationship that includes cooperating in environmental

education and interpretation and protecting cultural resources.

Coastal Resources Management Council Coordination

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

amended) requires the Service to work with the State Coastal

Resources Management Council (CRMC) to insure refuge

programs and activities are consistent to the maximum extent

practicable with the enforceable policies adopted by the state. The

CRMC’s concurrence with the Service’s Federal Consistency

Determination on the CCP was predicated on meeting the following

management direction:

1) Provide Separate Consistency Determinations for Major

Construction Projects. Major construction projects such as

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

determines may effect coastal resources, will require separate

federal consistency determinations for each project.

2) Annual Coordination Meetings. Refuge Complex and CRMC

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

projects which the Service has determined may effect coastal

resources. These meetings will cover proposals for the

forthcoming calendar year. The objective of these meetings will be

to provide CRMC staff with available details on what is being

proposed and to address their concerns. It is mutually

understood that some projects may not be fully developed at the

time of meeting. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments

Annual refuge revenue sharing payments to the Town of New

Shoreham will continue. Future increases in payments will be

commensurate with increases in the appraised fair market values of

refuge lands, new acquisitions of land, and new Congressional

appropriations.

Controlling Mosquitos

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

Equine Encephalitis and West Nile virus have elevated public health

concerns about mosquito control in the Middle Atlantic States.

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

has occurred only on the mainland refuges at the direct request of

the State’s Mosquito Abatement Office. During the last 5 years, we

used two very localized applications of the larvicide Bti on two

problem breeding sites. Our Regional Contaminants Specialist preapproved those applications.
Chapter 4

Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-21

In general, we will not use larvicides on the Refuge Complex to control

mosquitos. However, in cooperation with neighboring towns and the

Mosquito Abatement Office, we will consider applying larvicides on a

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

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

has begun preparation for an environmental impact statement. This

may result in Service policy or Regional guidelines being developed

and incorporated into this CCP in the future. 

Permitting Special Use (including Research)

Requests for special use permits will be evaluated by the Refuge

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

determined appropriate and compatible through a compatibility

determination. At a minimum, all commercial activities and all

research projects require a special use permit. Research projects that

will improve and strengthen natural resource management decisions

on the Refuge Complex will generally be approved. The Refuge

Manager will encourage partnerships with local universities and

colleges to facilitate research that will help evaluate CCP objectives

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

The Refuge Manager may also consider research not directly related

to refuge objectives, but which contributes to the broader

enhancement, protection, or management of native species and

biological diversity within the region. 

Each refuge will maintain a list of research needs to provide

prospective researchers or organizations upon request. The Refuge

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

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

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

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

and with RI DEM.

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

submit a detailed research proposal following Service policy in the

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

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

for determining when a project should cease, and publication or

other final reporting requirements. The Regional Refuge Biologists,

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

and comment on research proposals.

Some projects, such as depredation and banding studies, require

additional Service permits. These projects will not be approved until

all Service permits and Endangered Species Act consultation

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

refuge, projects which require permanent or semi-permanent

structures will not be allowed, except for extenuating circumstances

unforseen at this time. 
Chapter 4

4-22 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Block Island Refuge CCP – May, 2002 5-1

Laughing gull

USFWS photo

■ Refuge Complex Staffing

■ Refuge Complex Funding

■ Step-down Management Plans

■ Partnerships

■ Volunteer Program

■ Maintaining Existing Facilities

■ Monitoring and Evaluation

■ Adaptive Management

■ Compatibility Determinations

■ Additional NEPA Analysis

■ Plan Amendment and Revision

Chapter 5

Implementation and

Monitoring
Refuge Complex Staffing

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

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

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

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

fully implement all five Refuge CCPs. Permanent staff serving all

five refuges may be stationed at the Refuge Headquarters in

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

Some permanent and temporary staff may be stationed seasonally on

Block Island Refuge. Appendix G identifies currently filled

positions, recommended new positions, and the overall supervisory

structure. The new positions identified will increase visitor services,

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

Refuge Complex Funding

Successful implementation of the CCPs for each refuge relies on our

ability to secure funding, personnel, infrastructure, and other

resources to accomplish the actions identified. Full implementation

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

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

construction projects, and individual resource program expansions.

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

Projects in the National Wildlife Refuge System’s Refuge Operations

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

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

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

current Maintenance Management System (MMS) database for the

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

maintaenance needs for the Refuge Complex. 

Land acquisition costs are identified separately. The Land

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

acquisition boundary by 2,681, increasing the total unacquired

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

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

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

may be protected through conservation easements or acquired

through donation or land exchange. 

Step-Down Management Plans

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

Step-Down Management Plans generally required on most refuges.

Step-down plans describe specific management actions a refuge will

follow to achieve objectives or implement management strategies.

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

schedule. Some require additional NEPA analysis, public

involvement, and compatibility determinations before they can be

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

Chapter 5

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

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

annual burn plans

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

be incorporated into the Habitat Management Plan for the Refuge

Complex in 2003

■ Continuity of Operations Plan, 1998 (Refuge Complex)

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

Integrated Predator Management and Trapping Plans for the

Refuge Complex

These plans are now in draft form or being prepared:

■ Safety Program and Operations Plan (Refuge Complex)

■ Law Enforcement Plan (Refuge Complex)

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

revisions as indicated: 

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

Habitat Management Plan by 2003

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

for the Refuge Complex in 2003

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

by 2005

■ Croplands Management Plan (Trustom Pond Refuge); incorporate

into Habitat Management Plan for Refuge Complex in 2003

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

the indicated dates:

■ Refuge Complex Habitat Management Plan (highest priority step

down plan) in 2003

■ Refuge Complex Hunt Plan in 2003

■ Refuge Complex Species and Habitat Inventory and Monitoring

Plan in 2004

■ Integrated Predator Management Plan in 2004

■ Refuge Complex Visitor Services Plan in 2004

■ Fishing Plan by 2005

■ Trapping Plan by 2004

Partnerships

The Refuge Complex staff is proud of its long history of

partnerships. More than 45 partnerships have supported the

refuges, including four universities and colleges, numerous

departments within Rhode Island State government, town

administrations, conservation commissions, school districts,

conservation groups and land trusts, environmental education

centers, historic preservation groups, adjacent landowners, and

other federal agencies. These partnerships have resulted in

Chapter 5

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

endangered species and declining habitats, protection of open space,

and environmental education programs.

Refuge staff were particularly delighted by the establishment in 1998

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

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

supporting Refuge Complex goals within the community through

public education and interpretation, project funding, and volunteer

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

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

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

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

We will strengthen and formalize refuge partnerships to promote

coordinated management and facilitate sharing of resources. Our

partnership with the Friends Group is vitally important to us for

community relations and for support in implementing our resource

programs. Partnerships help us build support for the refuge,

facilitate the sharing of information, and supplement the efforts of

refuge staff. 

Strategies:

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

Friends Group to promote communication and evaluate

implementation of the MOU. We will continue to actively support

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

implementing outreach and environmental education programs,

which enhance our ability to meet refuge goals.

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

as the Town of New Shoreham, Block Island Land Trust, Block

Island Conservancy, The Nature Conservancy on Block Island, to

identify mutual goals, and opportunities for cost sharing, technical

exchange, and environmental education and interpretation.

Volunteer Program

Volunteers are vital to accomplishing all Refuge Complex goals. For

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

10,000 hours respectively, assisting in environmental education

programs, monitoring public use, maintaining facilities, and

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

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

Volunteers are also largely responsible for staffing the visitor contact

station at Trustom Pond Refuge. 

In 1999 we hired a permanent staff Volunteer Coordinator to

improve the quality of the program through better coordination,

supervision and training of volunteers, and to better integrate

volunteers into all refuge programs. The coordinator compiles and

distributes a quarterly newsletter to volunteers, refuge partners, and

interest groups, keeping them informed about management activities

and upcoming interpretive programs on the Refuge Complex.

Chapter 5

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

Periodic maintenance of existing facilities is critical to ensure safety

and accessibility for Refuge Complex staff and visitors. Existing

facilities include the Trustom Pond Refuge visitor contact station,

Refuge Complex maintenance compound, and numerous parking

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

not currently Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant;

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

Maintenance Management System (MMS) database list of

backlogged maintenance entries for the Refuge Complex.

We will also undertake the following strategies to improve the

visibility of the Service:

■ By 2005, complete construction of the Visitor

Center/Headquarters for the Refuge Complex, implementing

recommendations for interior facility design from the August 1999

Project Identification Document. At least one Visitor Services

Specialist will be hired to administer the new facility.

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

Monitoring and Evaluation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

objectives?” Effectiveness monitoring evaluates an individual action,

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

more analytical in evaluating management effects on species,

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

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

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

individual project, or cooperator plans, or through the research

program. The Species and Habitat Inventory and Monitoring Plan,

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

identified in the Habitat Management Plan.

Adaptive Management

This CCP is a dynamic document. A strategy of adaptive

management will keep it relevant and current. Through scientific

research, inventories and monitoring, and our management

experiences, we will gain new information which may alter our

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

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

change as our knowledge base improves.

Objectives and strategies must be adaptable in responding to new

information and spatial and temporal changes. We will continually

evaluate management actions, through monitoring or research, to

Chapter 5

Block Island Refuge CCP – May, 2002 5-5
reconsider whether their original assumptions and predictions are still

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

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

appreciate the adaptive nature of natural resource management.

The Refuge Manager is responsible for changing management

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

Significant changes may warrant additional NEPA analysis; minor

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

project evaluation reports, or the annual refuge narratives.

Compatibility Determinations

Federal law and policy provide the direction and planning framework

to protect the Refuge System from incompatible or harmful human

activities and to insure that Americans can enjoy Refuge System

lands and waters. The National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife

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

managing public uses and compatibility. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

be authorized on a refuge when they are compatible and not

inconsistent with public safety. Except for consideration of

consistency with State laws and regulations as provided for in section

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

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

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

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

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

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

public use programs: wildlife observation and photography,

environmental education and interpretation, fishing, and hunting. A

pre-acquisition compatibility determination was also reviewed and

completed, and identifies which existing public uses would be allowed

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

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

determinations for trapping and waterfowl hunting for a public

review period. All comments were considered and utilized in the

revision. These new compatibility determinations are now final and

included in Appendix D. 

Additional compatibility determinations will be developed when

appropriate new uses are proposed. Compatibility determinations

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

Chapter 5

5-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
which the use is permitted change significantly; when there is

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

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

determinations will be re-evaluated under the conditions noted

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

Additional detail on the compatibility determination process is in

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

effective November 17, 2000.

Additional NEPA Analysis

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

to be disclosed in either an EA or Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS).

Most of the actions and associated impacts in this plan were

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

NEPA, and will not require additional environmental analysis.

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

examples that fall into this category: protecting piping plover,

restoring area-defined grasslands and wetlands, implementing

priority wildlife-dependent public use programs (except deer

hunting), acquiring land, and controlling invasive plants.

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

site-specific analysis requirements of NEPA. Examples of actions

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

center and headquarters, new deer hunting opportunities, and future

habitat restoration projects not fully developed or delineated in this

document. Monitoring, evaluation, and research can generally be

increased without additional NEPA analysis. 

Plan Amendment and Revision

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

are being met and management actions are being implemented.

Ongoing monitoring and evaluation will be an important part of this

process. Monitoring results or new information may indicate the

need to change our strategies. 

The Service’s planning policy (FWS Manual, Part 602, Chapters 1, 3,

and 4) states that CCPs should be reviewed at least annually to decide

if they require any revisions (Chapter 3, part 3.4 (8)). Revisions will be

necessary if significant new information becomes available, ecological

conditions change, major refuge expansions occur, or when we identify

the need to do so during a program review. At a minimum, CCPs will

be fully revised every 15 years. We will modify the CCP documents

and associated management activities as needed, following the

procedures outlined in Service policy and NEPA requirements. Minor

revisions that meet the criteria for categorical exclusions (550 FW

3.3C) will only require an Environmental Action Statement. 

Chapter 5

Block Island Refuge CCP – May, 2002 5-7