Sachuest Point National

Wildlife Refuge

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Comprehensive

Conservation Plan

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Sachuest Point 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: Harlequin duck, USFWS photo

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

Darling, has become a symbol of the

National Wildlife Refuge System.

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

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

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

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

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

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

manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves

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

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

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

fishing and hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies.

Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management

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

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

program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget

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

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

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

Table of Contents

Sachuest Point 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 1-9

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 Management 3-8

Refuge Resources 3-9

Public Uses 3-14

Chapter 4, Management Direction 4-1

Refuge Complex Vision 4-2

Refuge Complex Goals (and Sachuest Point Refuge goals and objectives) 4-2

General Refuge Management 4-20

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. Sachuest Point Refuge 1-4

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

Map 4-1. Sachuest Point Refuge Habitat Improvements 4-13

Map 4-2. Sachuest Point Refuge Public Use 4-19
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-1

Harlequin duck off Sachuest Point

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 Mision, achieve refuge purposes and legal

mandates, and serve the American public.

Refuge Overview

Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge (Sachuest Point Refuge) is

located in the Town of Middletown, Newport County, Rhode Island,

about 23 miles southeast of Providence and 5 miles east of Newport

(see maps 1-1and 1-2). To the north and east, the Sakonnet River

bounds the refuge; to the south, the Atlantic Ocean; and to the west,

Sachuest Bay. Located immediately northwest are a Town of

Middletown campground, the Norman Bird Sanctuary, Gardiner

Pond (supplying water to Newport), and Second and Third Beaches,

owned and maintained by the Town of Middletown.

In 1970, The Audubon Society of Rhode Island donated 71 acres.

The U.S. Navy transferred 50 acres in 1976, and 107 acres in 1979.

An exchange of land between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) and the Town of Middletown brought the refuge total to

242 acres. The 2002 Land Protection Plan (Appendix E) expanded

the refuge acquisition boundary by 35 acres. These acres may now

be acquired fom willing sellers.

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 Sachuest Point Refuge is two-fold.

First, the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act

Chapter 1 

1-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex


(Refuge Improvement Act) requires that all national wildlife refuges

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

System. Second, the Refuge Complex lacks a master plan that

establishes priorities and ensures consistent, integrated management

among its five refuges.

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

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

national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries. By law,

Congress entrusts the following federal trust resources to the

Service for conservation and protection: migratory birds and fish,

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

marine mammals. The Service also enforces federal wildlife laws

and international treaties on importing and exporting wildlife, assists

with state fish and wildlife programs, and helps other countries

develop wildlife conservation programs.

The National Wildlife Refuge System and its Mission

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

waters set aside specifically for conserving wildlife and protecting

ecosystems. More than 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 theRefuge Improvement Act, establishing

a unifying mission for the Refuge System, and a new process for

determining compatible public use activities on refuges. 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 Purposes

The establishment purposes for Sachuest Point Refuge are:

“... for the development, management, advancement, conservation,

and protection of fish and wildlife resources,” and for

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

(2) protection of natural resources; and

(3) conservation of endangered or threatened species.”

– Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and Refuge Recreation Act of 1962

Chapter 1 

Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-5

“...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 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). Three priority focus areas in the

Refuge Complex are Trustom Pond, Ninigret Pond, and the

Pettaquamscutt (Narrow) River.

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

the Black Duck Joint Venture apply to managing the Refuge

Complex. The Black Duck Joint Venture has identified the coastal

salt marsh habitats along the mid-upper Atlantic coast as 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 PIF Program is developing a plan for the Southern New

England Physiographic Area, using existing data on habitat loss,

landbird population trends, and the vulnerability of species and

habitats to threats, to rank the conservation priority of landbird

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

from which population and habitat objectives and conservation

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

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

Chapter 1 

1-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Black duck. USFWS photo.
Chapter 1 

Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-7

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

when finished, to further guide management.

Connecticut River/Long Island Sound Ecosystem Priorities, 1997

During the last decade, we have emphasized ecosystem conservation,

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

affect the long-term conservation of natural resources. Implementing

an ecosystem approach to resource management is one of our top

national priorities. We have initiated new partnerships with private

landowners, state and federal agencies, corporations, conservation

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

country, typically using large river watersheds to define ecosystems.

Those teams work on developing goals and priorities for research and

management within each ecosystem.

The Refuge Complex lies within our Connecticut River/Long Island

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

Service personnel and representatives from six State Fish and

Wildlife Departments developed a Priority Resources Plan (July

1996) that identifies seven priorities, each involving numerous action

strategies, all of which are relevant to the Rhode Island refuges.

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.

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

■ Norman Bird Sanctuary

Chapter 1 

Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-9
Sachuest Point 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, nonprofit 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,

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
existing threats to their integrity, and their size and location.

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

September 1998. This newsletter summarized public comments from

meetings and workbooks, described policy guidelines for managing

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

for the Refuge Complex.

Once the key issues had firmed up, we developed alternative

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

strategies from public comment, from follow-up contacts with

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

Planning Update newsletter in May 1999, updating everyone on our

planning timelines and our decision to start a separate

Environmental Assessment for a 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 here.

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. Protecting

federally listed endangered and threatened species is integral to the

Chapter 2

Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-3
fundamental mission of the Refuge System. Other federal trust

species are also of primary concern, including migratory birds,

anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals.

Appendix A lists species and habitats of special management

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

rare natural communities known to occur in Rhode Island that are

federally listed as endangered or threatened, were candidates for

listing, or are otherwise of management concern. Combined with

location information, we used that list to identify additional land

protection needs and opportunities. We know very little about many

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

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

managing these species and habitats. Addressing this issue will help

achieve Goal 1: Protect and enhance federal trust resources and

other species and habitats of special concern.

2. Restoration and maintenance of coastal sandplain and

maritime natural communities, including grasslands and

shrublands (less than 60 years old). 

While it is true that the Northeast landscape was primarily forested

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

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

Grassland-dependent species responded in kind and became established.

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

shrublands, coastal maritime grasslands and shrublands, and

agricultural fields and pastures have been in rapid decline in New

England due to a combination of development, changes in agricultural

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

natural disturbance such as fire (Vickery 1997). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

These smaller areas are unsuitable for many focus species, including

once-common grassland birds such as grasshopper sparrow and

upland sandpiper. Grasshopper sparrows have declined by 69

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

(Vickery 1997). Our best available information suggests that

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

Smaller grassland habitat patches are much less productive for

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

nest, but becaused of increased predation and other factors,

productivity and survival is severely limited. 

Other grassland and shrubland species have declined dramatically as

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

are dependent on these habitat types.

Tremendous potential exists for refuge staff to become involved in

restoring habitat on private lands. Grassland and shrubland

restoration offers opportunities for our staff to provide technical

expertise to local communities. The alternatives in the draft

Chapter 2 

2-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
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.

3. Protection and restoration of wetlands. 

The well documented values of healthy wetlands include fish and

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

maintenance. Despite laws and regulations to protect them,

wetlands throughout Rhode Island have been rapidly declining since

the 1960’s through conversion to agriculture, residential and

industrial development. Rhode Island has developed more land in

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

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

near the remaining wetlands.

Estuarine wetlands consisting of tidal salt and brackish waters are of

particular concern. Invasive species are dominating refuge wetlands

and threatening their biodiversity. 

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

quality and the health and productivity of these wetlands. The

alternatives in the draft CCP/EA included different levels of

management for restoring wetlands and for cooperatively managing

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

Maintain and/or restore natural ecological communities to promote

healthy, functioning ecosystems.

4. 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 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

Chapter 2

Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-5
species that aggressively drive native waterfowl and shorebirds away

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

quality when they spend extended periods of time molting on coastal

ponds, and are sometimes aggressive towards humans. 

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

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

their populations exceed the range of natural fluctuation and the

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

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

excessive browse lines are evident on two refuges. Adjacent

landowners are also concerned about deer impacts on landscaping,

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

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

can adversely impact other native wildlife populations. Occurrences

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

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

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

mammals because they can carry rabies. These predators are

particularly troublesome when their populations exceed natural

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

include lethal removal, visual and audio deterrents, or destroying

eggs, nests, or den sites. 

The alternatives in the draft CCP/EA compared different strategies

for managing invasive species. Addressing this issue will help

achieve Goal 1: Protect and enhance Federal trust resources and

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

and/or restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy,

functioning ecosystems.

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.

Chapter 2 

2-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
As natural lands (those with sustainable native species populations

and intact ecological processes) become isolated and fragmented into

smaller pieces disconnected from other natural areas, their ability to

support a full complement of native species is adversely affected.

Cut off from larger populations, species and plant communities

within these natural areas face the problems of limited genetic

exchange, a decreased ability to support diverse populations, and lost

capacity to recruit new individuals. Ultimately, the number of native

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

this diminished ability of natural areas to support diverse species

with different habitat requirements that leads to a decline in

biodiversity. While some species can tolerate fragmentation as they

prefer “edge habitat,” many others, including “interior” dependent

species, require larger, contiguous natural areas or functional

corridors linking patches of natural habitat. This ability to protect

and sustain larger natural areas and corridors, coupled with the

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

maintaining biodiversity.

A landscape or ecosystem approach to protecting land is also critical

in the recovery of threatened and endangered species. Piping plover

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

certain nesting areas and typically return to them most years.

Shifting of pairs between nesting areas has been observed when

disturbances or habitat conditions affect their ability to nest. Barrier

beaches are dynamic ecosystems, and their nesting conditions can

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

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

the beach consists 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 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 evaluate 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.

Chapter 2

Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-7
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 Service Policy on Maintaining the Biological

Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health of the National

Wildlife Refuge System will require us to ascertain the natural

conditions for each refuge and identify the natural communities,

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

Opportunities to cooperate in collecting this information could be

developed once the priorities have been identified. 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 they are formally opened through the

compatibility determination process.

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

expeditiously as practicable, existing uses determined to be not

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

some have been occurring for years. Examples include jogging,

sunbathing and swimming, bicycling, and dog walking.

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.

Chapter 2 

2-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
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 Sachuest Point Refuge is currently open to hunting, but RI

DEM has expressed 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. Responses generally agree that the overabundance

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

vehicle-deer collisions, increased complaints about deer browsing on

commercial and residential landscape plantings, visible impacts on

native vegetation, and higher concern about contracting Lyme disease.

Those opposed to hunting cited concerns with public safety,

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

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

results from the likelihood that significant portions of the refuges,

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

activities during hunting. Some expressed the opinion that the

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

hunting is incongruous with that function.

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

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

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

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

restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy,

functioning ecosystems, and Goal 4: Provide opportunities for high

quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent public use with particular

emphasis on environmental education and interpretation.

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.

Chapter 2

Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-9
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.

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. The Sachuest Point Visitor Contact Facility has

structural problems and the current exhibits are inadequate. The

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

improved facilities to accommodate staff work space, increase the

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

services, including environmental education and interpretation.

Addressing this issue will help achieve Goal 5: Provide Refuge

Complex staffing, operations, and maintenance support to effectively

accomplish refuge goals and objectives.

Chapter 2 

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

Gull

USFWS photo

■ Geographic/Ecosystem Setting

■ Socioeconomic Setting

■ Refuge Complex Administration

■ Refuge Resources

■ Cultural Resources

■ Public Uses

Chapter 3

Refuge and Resource

Descriptions
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting

Landscape Formation

The movement of glaciers across New England created the land

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

occurred during the Wisconsin glacial period. Approximately 15,000

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

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

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

began its retreat, depositing pronounced land forms along its

outermost edge. The southern coast of Rhode Island, including

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

its southeastern frontal movement. The retreating glacier deposited

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

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

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

Nantucket and parts of Long Island.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and Rhode Island Sounds until it reached its present level

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

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

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

between the headlands and the ocean, forming coastal lagoons

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

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

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

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

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

The bedrock formations of southern Rhode Island include the

Blackstone series of metamorphic rock along its southern coastal

border (including most of Westerly, Charlestown and South

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

Narragansett and Middletown and parts of Westerly and

Charlestown), and Pennsylvanian sedimentary rock in most of south

central Rhode Island (including Richmond, much of South

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

refuges are fine sandy loams or silt loams.

Historical Influences on Landscape Vegetation

The upland forests of southern Rhode Island are classified by

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

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

practices promoted this forest type.

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

area. Documented evidence places the first intensive occupation of

Chapter 3 

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

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

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

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

vegetation probably did not occur.

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

settlements. Fortified villages are known to have existed in some

locations. Maize horticulture became prominent, which likely

resulted in small clearings. Larger clearings and burnings to control

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

first pronounced clearing of land along the coast for settlements,

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

by cutting and burning, which favored resprouting by hardwood

species like oak, hickory, and red maple.

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

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

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

charcoal below the historic farmers plow zone, approximately 10

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

their locations, suggest early Native Americans used fire extensively

and purposefully.

Although small areas of land were cleared and more or less

permanently settled by early Native Americans, it was European

settlement and expansion in the 1600’s that exponentially escalated

the conversion of forests to agriculture. The eighteenth century

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

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

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

percent of southern New England was converted to field and

pasture. Any woods remaining often were managed for firewood

(Jorgensen 1977).

A detailed report on the archeological history of the Refuge Complex

is available from the Refuge Complex office on request (Jacobson

USFWS).

Contemporary Influences on the Landscape

The major natural disturbances affecting the coastline today are

hurricanes and winter ice-storms. Hurricanes have the greatest

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

from the mainland by tidal wetlands and coastal salt ponds

characterizes a coastline influenced by frequent storms. Wind and

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

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

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

longshore currents, and rip currents are all mechanisms transporting

sediment along the barrier beaches (RI CRMC 1998).

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

predominant physical process shaping this landscape today.

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

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

Chapter 3

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

open ocean. The draft Salt Pond Region Special Area Management

Plan describes the geologic, wave, and wind action for coastal areas,

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).

Military installations directly impacted the landscapes that include

Ninigret Refuge and Sachuest Point Refuge . From the 1940’s

through the 1960’s, Ninigret Refuge was a U.S. Naval Auxiliary

Landing Field. More than 70 acres of tree and shrub vegetation

were cleared and maintained as asphalt runways and taxiways.

Adjacent areas maintained as grasslands were planted with nonnative species like larch and autumn olive. Between 1945 and 1973,

107 acres at the center of the Sachuest Point peninsula were used as

an Army Coastal Defense site and a Navy firing range. Around a

more recent Naval communications center, mowing and the use of

herbicides maintained the vegetation in a low shrub-grasslands

structure. A separate report on the history of the Sachuest Point

Naval facility, entitled “Historical Perspectives on Establishing

Sachuest Point Refuge “ (Walker 1995), is available upon request at

the Refuge Complex visitor center.

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

wetlands for development, converting uplands for residential use,

and spilling oil are other significant human impacts on the coastal

landscape. Recent studies indicate that the greatest threats to

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

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

establish the extent to which each of these factors influences Refuge

Complex ecosystems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

converted to residential areas (RI DEM 1996).

Chapter 3 

3-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
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 and 1990 U.S. Census).

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

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

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

Chapter 3

Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-5
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.

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)
The University of Rhode Island Department of Resource Economics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Between 1987 and 1997, the services industry increased by 37

percent, while the manufacturing industry decreased by 37 percent.

In all the communities surrounding the refuges, travel and tourism

and the services that support them contribute substantially to local

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

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

through October, with peak activity during the summer months.

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

destinations along the Rhode Island coast.

Current travel and tourism literature does not feature the Refuge

Complex. According to Ms. O’Neill, 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 coastal areas, 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.

Chapter 3

Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-7
Conversations with local realtors and appraisers helped us evaluate

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

and one realtor/appraiser confirmed that properties adjacent to

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

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

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

those properties sell. Properties with views protected by their

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

realtors estimated, but none with any certainty, that properties

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

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

adjacency to a refuge as an important advertising asset.

Public Willingness to Pay is a method for estimating the monetary

value of ecosystem goods and services by determining how much the

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

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

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

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

Rhode Islanders consistently and overwhelmingly vote for bond

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

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

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

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

for protecting open space (RI CRMC 1998).

Refuge Management

Staffing and Budget

Annual budget appropriations are

highly variable, and

commensurately affect our

staffing levels. Table 3-1

summarizes budget and staffing

levels from 1995 to 1999.

Fluctuations reflect funding for

special projects, moving costs for

new employees, or large

equipment purchases. Most of the

funding is earmarked; very little

discretionary funding is available.

Resource Protection and Visitor Safety

Law enforcement officers, with full authority to enforce federal

regulations, are required to ensure resource protection and visitor

safety. Three permanent refuge staff have been assigned collateral

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

operations, but those collateral duties draw staff time and resources

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

seasonal staff with law enforcement authority each year.

Chapter 3 

3-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Fiscal year

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Operations

$216,299

355,715

350,700

428,400

441,900

Maintenance

$85,700

23,900

97,700

171,000

28,000

Full time staff

7

7

8

8

9

Seasonal staff

3

3

4

4

2

Table 3-1. Refuge Complex staffing levels and budgets between 1995 - 1999.
During the past 5 years, formal notices of violation averaged 15 per

year. They typically involved vehicle and pedestrian trespass,

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

verbal warnings are also given each year, typically for inadvertently

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

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

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

documenting violations. Wardens also inform visitors of public use

policy and permitted activities.

Refuge Complex Office

The Refuge Complex office currently 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 and Soils

Formerly an island, Sachuest Point is now a prominent headland

separating Sachuest Bay to the west from Sakonnet River to the

east. The uplands are gently sloping and appear generally flat, but

dip sharply to the shoreline. The Refuge has the appearance of a

hammerhead, with Sachuest Point to the southeast and Flint Point to

the northwest (map 1-2).

Upland soils at Sachuest Point are a thin mantle of broken-down

outcropping bedrock, mixed with deposits of sand and silt, producing

loose, acidic soil of poor fertility. Underlying the soil are

Carboniferous Period rocks containing outcrops of Dighton

Conglomerate of the Rhode Island formation, volcanic schists, and

white quartz intrusions. Most soils are Newport and Pittstown silt

loams, very poorly drained and varying in slope from 0 to 15 percent.

Also present on the Refuge are areas of Newport very stony loams.

Rocky outcrops ring the perimeter of the Refuge, and several areas

of fill are located in the salt marsh on its northwest corner. 

Historical land use practices likely impacted the soils of the refuge,

although no seriously compacted soils or expanses of soil loss have

been noted. From the mid-1600’s until the early 1900’s, Sachuest

Point was used for farming, including sheep grazing. This continued

until World War II, when approximately 107 acres of the property

became an Army Coastal Defense site, including a Navy firing

range. More recently, the U.S. Navy operated a Naval Radio Station

Receiver Site there.

Chapter 3

Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-9
Hydrology 

Sachuest Point is apparently the remnant of a drumlin, and was at

one time an island separated from the mainland by shallow marshes.

Groundwater on Aquidneck Island generally moves east towards the

Sakonnet River, or west towards Narragansett Bay. The

groundwater moves from areas of recharge to areas of discharge,

unless intercepted by wells. Areas of discharge include springs and

seeps located along the bottom of streams, ponds, lakes, and

reservoirs.

Biological Resources

Salt marsh

Approximately 40 acres of Sachuest Point are salt marsh wetlands.

Remnants of a salt marsh are found on the northeast end of the

Refuge, but have been severely impacted by a former Town of

Middletown landfill and a road. The southern, largely freshwater

portion of the salt marsh has been overtaken by the invasive plant

Phragmites. In 1997, extensive baseline data was collected on the

Phragmites patch and adjacent vegetation community in anticipation

of salt marsh restoration (Roman, et al. 1997). The primary goal of the

restoration was to restore a natural tidal flow into the salt marsh and

thus, reduce the domination of Phragmites in the plant community.

Actual restoration work began in 1998 on the south side of the road

between Second and Third Beaches. Initial monitoring shows native

plants returning to areas where Phragmites was mechanically

scarified or exposed to a more natural tidal flow of salt water. Some

of the Phragmites is dying and showing signs of poor vigor. The

upper reaches of the salt marsh along Paradise Brook, however, are

still highly impacted by freshwater, as freshwater from the brook is

being pushed up the tidal channels during high tide. It will be more

difficult to control Phragmites there.

Vegetation

Table 3-2 displays the dominant land cover types for the refuge.

Compared with other locations in Rhode Island, vegetation on

Sachuest Point Refuge is relatively homogeneous, with an estimated

150 plant species. A detailed plant list for the Refuge is available

upon request from the Refuge Office (George 1999). Principal

vegetation types are shrubland, dominated by the invasive exotic,

Asian bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), and open fields dominated

by forbs like goldenrod. Small patches of switchgrass also occur

throughout the refuge.

Of the 150 estimated documented plant species for Sachuest Point

Refuge, an incredible 40 percent are invasive species covering

approximately 80 percent of the refuge. The issue of how to control

invasive plants is probably its most significant management concern.

So far, little control of invasive species has occurred.

Restoring salt marsh tidal flows in 1997 was the first real effort to

deal with Phragmites on this refuge. Informal monitoring has

indicated a reduction in the vigor and amount of Phragmites. 

Chapter 3 

3-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
In 1998, approximately 6,000

beetles (Garucerla spp.) were

released as a biological control

agent for purple loosestrife

(Lythrum salicaria), another

invasive wetland plant.

Monitoring continues on this

project.

Also in 1998, prescribed burning

was conducted on three acres of

upland to determine if this was a

viable tool for controlling Asian

bittersweet. Asian bittersweet is

present on virtually every acre of

upland. Results were poor, due

to lack of dry fuels. In 1999,

approximately 15 acres of Asian

bittersweet were hydroaxed and

mowed as an experimental

control technique to be

monitored. The results show

promise and will continue to be

monitored.

Threatened and Endangered

Species 

No State- or Federal-listed

threatened or endangered animal

species are known to breed in

the immediate area. A 1990

survey for the Federalendangered American burying

beetle at Sachuest Point Refuge

found other Nicrophorus species

there, but not the burying beetle.

Sachuest Point Refuge is a historic site for sea beach amaranth

(Amaranthus pumilus), a Federal-threatened plant species. No

State-listed plants are known.

Several State-listed wildlife species are known to forage in the area,

including northern harrier, great blue heron, snowy egret, great

egret, and glossy ibis. Sachuest Point Refuge was probably historical

nesting habitat for grasshopper sparrow and upland sandpiper, both

of which are State-listed. The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus),

formerly Federal-listed, sometimes uses the refuge for roosting or

foraging during migration. None of these species are known to

breed on the Refuge.

Birds

Bird diversity varies little among habitat types during the breeding

season. Abundant nesting species include red-winged blackbird,

yellow warbler, song sparrow, American robin, and common

yellowthroat. As shrubs have continued to dominate the landscape,

Chapter 3

Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-11

Table 3-2. Land cover at Sachuest Point Refuge, Newport County, Rhode Island

(source: aerial photo interpretation by J. Stone).

Cover-type

Cobble beach

Developed

Exposed rock

Native emergent wetland

Native forest upland

Native grass

Native shrub upland

Native shrub 

wetland

Non-native 

emergent wetland

Non-native forest upland

Non-native grass

Non-native shrub upland

Sand

Vegetated sand dunes

Water

Total

Acreage

5.0

16.1

4.8

9.5

0.4

17.4

70.3

1.2

28.1

0.4

10.1

64.8

6.6

13.3

8.1

256.1

Percentage

1.9%

6.3

1.9

3.7

0.2

6.3

27.5

0.5

11.0

0.2

4.0

25.3

2.6

5.2

3.2

100%
breeding bird communities have changed. Gray catbird, northern

oriole, brown thrasher, rufous-sided towhee, and American redstart

have been detected on recent breeding bird surveys, yet these same

species could not be found on the refuge 5 years ago. Island Rocks,

just off the eastern point, is habitat for common terns.

Few formal surveys for wintering or migratory landbirds have been

conducted for this refuge. Migrants vary yearly, but typically

include thousands of tree swallows, snow buntings, and various

warblers, thrushes, and vireos. Remaining grasslands and trails

provide foraging areas for a variety of wintering and migratory

raptors. No raptors currently nest on the refuge, but because of

Sachuest Point’s location, a large diversity of raptors are seen during

migration. Migrant raptors typically observed include peregrine

falcon, American kestrel, merlin, broad-winged hawk, osprey, redtailed hawk, sharp-shinned and Cooper’s hawks. 

The refuge shoreline is also an important place for migrating and

wintering shorebirds, including sanderlings, purple sandpipers,

dunlin, and semipalmated plovers. Disturbance of feeding

shorebirds along Second and Third Beaches is a concern, since very

little habitat for these species remains on Aquidneck Island.

Wintering songbirds include yellow-rumped warblers, white-throated

sparrows, and dark-eyed juncos. Sachuest Point is a reliable spot for

viewing wintering snowy and short-eared owls and northern harrier.

Wintering sea ducks are perhaps the most popular attraction for

visitors to the refuge. Sachuest Point boasts the second largest

winter population of eastern harlequin ducks on the Atlantic coast.

Only one site off the coast of Maine has a larger winter

concentration. Annual surveys at Sachuest Point Refuge indicate the

number of harlequin ducks fluctuates from 50 to a high of 107 from

October through March each year.

The harlequin duck is one of the least studied ducks in North

America, because it breeds and winters in some of the most

inaccessible and remote habitats in the northern hemisphere (Alaska

Deparment of Fish and Game 1994). Harlequin ducks congregate off

the eastern side of Sachuest Point, feeding and roosting near the

area known as Island Rocks. Since they expend considerable energy

feeding in rough waters, they can often be seen perching on rocks to

rest or sleep. They forage on a variety of intertidal invertebrates

gathered from rocks and ocean-bottom close to shore. 

Throughout their range, harlequin duck populations have increased

slightly over the last 10 years, but they remain endangered in

Canada. Recent attempts to list their Eastern States population were

determined unwarranted (USFWS 1998). Studies are now underway

to better understand habitat use and impacts at nesting locations in

Canada and at wintering locations along the eastern seaboard.

Table 3-3 summarizes peak numbers for the incredible diversity of

waterfowl observed off Sachuest Point over an eight year period.

Chapter 3 

3-12 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Chapter 3

Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-13

Table 3-3. Peak waterfowl numbers at Sachuest Point Refuge from 1992 to 1999.

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Mute swan 2 3 10 22145

Brant 75 20 34 7 58 3 20 3

Canada goose 40 2 1 - - 37 - -

American black duck 37 35 65 61 160 116 26 -

Mallard - - - - 4- 2-

Gadwall - - - - - - 16 11

American wigeon 2 - 2 - - 2 - -

Greater scaup 36 44 33 28 34 57 53 63

Lesser scaup - - - - - 80 - -

Common eider 207 77 1030 550 762 76 3011 312

King eider - - 1 - - 27 - -

Harlequin duck 64 77 77 82 82 84 107 105

Oldsquaw - - 3 - - 1 - 2

Black scoter - 57 300 58 28 29 21 32

Surf scoter - 101 167 88 102 319 368 53

White-winged scoter - 57 115 5 10 20 61 62

Common goldeneye 28 106 78 132 78 87 - 143

Barrow's goldeneye 111- - - - -

Bufflehead 7 29 26 38 62 44 117 165

Common merganser - - - - - - 27 97

Red-breated merganser 77 51 61 49 37 70 43 47

Ruddy duck 4 - 23 - - 30 - 43

Red breasted merganser

Mammals

Nine species of mammals have been observed on the refuge,

including white-tailed deer, raccoon, mink, striped skunk , eastern

cottontail, eastern meadow vole, and white-footed mouse. Overly

friendly red fox have been an issue on the Refuge, as visitors have

been observed feeding them. Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) are

frequently seen hauled out on rocks along the shoreline. 

Reptiles and Amphibians

No formal surveys of reptiles and amphibians have been conducted

on the Sachuest Point Refuge. Most sightings have been

opportunistic, and therefore represent an incomplete list of what is

found on the refuge. Eastern milk snake, northern brown snake, and

eastern garter snake have been observed on Refuge trails. Recently,

northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) were observed near the salt

marsh on the refuge. Spring peepers have been heard in the Refuge

wetlands; no salamanders or turtles have been documented.
Cultural Resources

No archaeological sites have been recorded on Sachuest Point, but

we consider the refuge a high probability site. No comprehensive

surveys have been conducted, but two prehistoric archeological sites

have been submitted to our Regional Historic Preservation Officer

for designation.

Public Uses

Estimated annual public use for Sachuest Point Refuge is 65,000

total visitor days. As stated earlier, there is no consistent process on

the Refuge Complex for collecting and documenting visitation data.

Estimating night surf fishing is particularly challenging.

Renovations to the visitor center will include exterior and interior

redesigns with significant improvements, especially to exhibits. The

impressive number of visitors offers great potential to educate and

inform them about the Refuge Complex and the Refuge System.

Volunteers primarily have staffed the center since the 1980’s. We plan

to station one permanent staff and at least one seasonal staff there to

establish a year-round presence and to meet the tremendous number

of requests for environmental education and interpretive programs.

Known public use activities vary seasonally, but include wildlifedependent activities such as nature observation and photography,

environmental education and interpretation, and salt water fishing.

Birdwatching is the year-round primary attraction. Salt water

fishing includes striped bass and bluefish in late summer and fall.

Other fish taken include flounder, tautog, and scup. The refuge is

not open to hunting.

Non-wildlife-dependent activities now occurring include dog walking,

jogging, swimming and sunbathing. Second Beach and Third Beach

are immediately adjacent to the refuge, and beach users often spill

over onto the refuge, sometimes unknowingly, since boundary signs

have a way of disappearing. Litter and random access to the

shoreline are constant issues.

In 1994, the Refuge Manager formally determined dog walking,

bicycling, jogging, swimming and using the beach were not

compatible with Refuge purposes. Because of the lack of a

permanent Service presence, enforcement against these

incompatible public uses has been inconsistent.

The Norman Bird Sanctuary is located adjacent to the Sachuest

Point Refuge. Refuge staff and volunteers work closely with the

Sanctuary, occasionally sharing volunteer hours. The Sanctuary

operates a summer camp, a visitor center, and provides nature walks

and family programs.

Trail System

Approximately 3 miles of trail exist on the refuge. Trails

maintenance includes extensive mowing, brushing, and repairing

erosion damage. One kiosk stands at the junction of several trail

heads just off the parking lot. The Flint Point trail, Island Rocks

trail, and the Sachuest Point trail each have one observation

Chapter 3 

3-14 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
platform. We plan to evaluate the Sachuest Point Refuge trail

system to determine whether all of its current trails are necessary.

The entrance road to the refuge will be improved with

Transportation Equity Act funding. 

Special Management Areas

Contaminants

The Town of Middletown operated a municipal landfill at Sachuest

Point from 1958 to 1973. The site then operated as a transfer station

until 1975. The 21-acre landfill was constructed in a coastal salt

marsh and barrier beach system between Second Beach and Third

Beach on the east side of Sachuest Point. It was listed on the

Federal Facilities Compliance Docket and published on February 12,

1988, in Federal Register Volume 53, Number 29 (CERCLIS No.

RI4143690010).

In 1994, Refuge staff completed a Preliminary Assessment of the

ecological and human health risks associated with the site, providing

the basis for EPA to score the site for inclusion in the EPA

Superfund Program National Priority List (NPL) for cleanup, as

required by CERCLA. The EPA determined that the site did score

high enough to be rated as an NPL site, but that its score did not

rank high enough to require EPA Superfund Program cleanup

oversight. Instead, EPA deferred oversight to the Division of Site

Remediation (RI DEM).

Because the site is located on a national wildlife refuge, we

voluntarily began the next phase of studies needed to determine the

extent and characteristics of contamination. In 1995, we contracted a

Site Investigation from Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation,

completed in April 1998. Its results indicated widespread

distribution of several chemical compounds within the landfill area,

including polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides,

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), petroleum hydrocarbons, and

metals. The contaminants detected and their concentration ranges

are typical of those commonly found at municipal landfills known to

have operated during the 1950’s and 1960’s. Lead is the contaminant

that most consistently exceeds RI DEM criteria, especially in the

surface soil.

We will close the site under RI DEM Site Remediation regulations.

In February 1999, Foster Wheeler completed a Remedial Action Work

Plan incorporating comments from RI DEM. A RI DEM-approved

Remedial Action Design is expected to be completed soon. We hope

to complete all work in 2003, assuming adequate funding is available.

Depending on the final, approved Remedial Action Design, we

estimate construction costs between $2 million and $4 million.

Chapter 3

Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-15
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-1

Redstart

USFWS photo

■ Refuge Complex Vision

■ Refuge Complex Goals

■ General Refuge Management

Chapter 4

Management Direction
Refuge Complex Vision

We developed this vision statement to provide a guiding philosophy

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

describes the desired future character of the Refuge Complex

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

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

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

priorities for each refuge in Rhode Island. 

“The Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex protects a

unique collection of thriving coastal sandplain, coastal maritime,

and beach strand communities, and represents some of the last

undeveloped seacoast in southern New England. Leading the way

in the protection and restoration of coastal wetlands, shrubland,

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

populations, and the recovery of endangered and threatened species.

These refuges offer research opportunities and provide an

outstanding showcase of habitat management for other

landowners.”

“The Refuge Complex is the premiere destination for visitors to

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

recreation. Hundreds of thousands of visitors are rewarded each

year with inspiring vistas and exceptional opportunities to view

wildlife in native habitats. Innovative environmental educational

and interpretive programs motivate visitors to 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,

Chapter 4

4-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Freshwater wetland. USFWS photo.
considerations, or a combination of these, which may be used to

achieve the objective. Objectives will be used directly in respective

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

achieve the desired outcome. 

Together, the goals and objectives are unifying elements of successful

refuge management. They identify and focus management priorities,

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

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

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

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

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

accomplish. We will write the plan using current resource

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

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

habitat types, species assemblages, or natural processes significant

to the Refuge Complex. It will identify habitat management actions

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

of our focus species. The objectives and strategies identified below

will all be incorporated into the HMP. 

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

Species and Habitat Inventory and Monitoring Plan in 2004.

Critical elements of the biological program to be inventoried or

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

will also describe inventory and monitoring procedures, determine

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

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

credible, adaptive refuge management. 

In addition, the Region is currently developing a 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

Protect and improve the 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

Chapter 4

Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-3
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 consistently on Sachuest Point Refuge, so

information is limited on whether it is a key staging area. 

Strategies:

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

update management strategies based on any newly identified

imperiled species (draft Shorebird Prioritization System 1999).

■ By 2005, determine if there are key staging 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 1.2

Promote resting and feeding of wintering harlequin ducks off

Sachuest Point,and to the extent possible, maintain public viewing

opportunities. 

Background: 

In 1998, the Service was petitioned to list the Eastern States

population of the harlequin duck due to concerns that population

levels were very low. While the Service determined listing was

“unwarranted” at this time, studies were initiated to better

understand habitat use and impacts at nesting locations in Canada,

and at wintering sites along the northern U.S. Atlantic coast. Just

off Sachuest Point Refuge each winter, up to 105 harlequin ducks

have congregated to feed and roost near Island Rocks. This

congregation is the second largest winter population off the U.S.

East Coast. Since they typically forage and rest in open water or on

offshore rocks, opportunities to manage on their behalf is limited.

Further, while on open water, they are not on refuge lands and any

undertaking would necessarily be a joint effort with RI DEM. 

This congregation of harlequin ducks attracts significant visitation

to the refuge, especially during October through March. The refuge

is well known by birding afficionados who come from all over to view

the birds so rarely seen from shore. 

Strategies:

■ Refuge staff or volunteers will continue weekly counts of harlequin

and other wintering sea ducks between September and April each

year. Refuge staff will develop standard protocol for counts by 2003.

■ In 2003, work cooperatively with RI DEM to regulate a shoreline

waterfowl (sea duck) hunting closure, including both refuge lands

(above high water mark) and state lands (below mean high water).

This action will enhance Sachuest Point Refuge as a Watchable

Wildlife Area for observing harlequin duck and will reduce conflicts

between shoreline sea duck hunters and other refuge visitors. 

■ By 2004, begin monitoring public use in association with harlequin

duck viewing, to determine if the amount or timing of refuge

visitors affects the activities of wintering harlequin duck.

Chapter 4

4-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Objective 1.3

Within two years of CCP completion, establish specific habitat

management objectives for those birds considered to be a high

conservation priority in the Partners In Flight Area 9 (PIF) Plan,

and for which the refuge could make an important contribution to

their conservation.

Background:

PIF Bird Conservation Plans are written for physiographic

provinces with an overall goal to ensure the long term maintenance

of healthy populations of landbirds. Rhode Island refuges lie within

PIF Area 9, Southern New England. 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. 

Although the final PIF Plan for Area 9 is not yet available, this CCP

incorporates habitat objectives for certain landbird species identified

in the draft PIF Plan (October 2000). These include 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 objectives in the near future.

Strategies:

■ Continue to conduct refuge-wide Breeding Bird Surveys on a 3- to

5- year interval, biweekly during the breeding season according to

established protocol.

■ 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 conjunction with development of the HMP, update refuge

cover-type maps, adhering to the National Vegetation

Classification Standards.

Objective 1.4

Protect and sustain all marsh, wading, and waterbird breeding

habitat on the refuge, especially maritime high marsh habitat

capable of supporting salt marsh sharp-tailed sparrows. 

Background:

According to the PIF Plan, maritime marsh habitat is the habitat most

in need of immediate conservation attention in this physiographic area

due to the large number of priority species and the tremendous

pressure from human development along the coastline. Substantial

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

predator populations, and invasive, exotic species. Reducing these

threats is the highest conservation concern to be addressed.

Restoration of high salt marsh is also a priority.

Chapter 4

Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-5
Strategy:

■ Use the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (once

completed) to update management and monitoring strategies for

species of conservation priority.

■ By 2003, conduct saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow surveys in

suitable habitat according to Regional protocol. 

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

according to Regional protocol, at all high probability sites.

Determine seasonal occupancy and nesting status. If occupied

habitat is located, develop a site plan. 

Objective 1.5

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 and Sachuest Point Refuge’s rocky shoreline. Neither of

these species are imperiled, but they are protected under the Marine

Mammal Protection Act. Neither refuge site has been monitored to

determine the extent and timing of use by seals, or whether activities

are occurring that may be discouraging full use by seals. 

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 1.6

Promote an appreciation of amphibian and reptile conservation,

and actively manage to protect and sustain current populations on

the refuge. 

Background: 

Increasingly, there are concerns about declining amphibian and

reptile populations throughout the United States. This is especially

troubling as amphibians are recognized as biological indicators of

ecosystem health. Recent studies conducted by the University of RI

have revealed that Ninigret and Trustom Pond refuges are very

important to the reptile and amphibian populations in southern

Rhode Island. The investigators suggest that one reason these

species are concentrated here is because the refuges offer contiguous

habitat in a landscape that is becomingly increasingly fragmented by

suburbanization (Paton, et al. 1998). We know very little about

amphibian and reptile populations on Sachuest Point Refuge. It is

desirable to know how amphibians and reptiles utilize refuge habitats

seasonally, in particular during the spring amphibian migrations, and

during the breeding seasons. 

In cooperation with the University of Rhode Island, we hope to

continue reptile and amphibian inventories on the refuges.

Chapter 4

4-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Strategies:

■ By 2003, conduct annual anuran call counts 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, work with conservation partners, RI DEM, and the

Friends Group to identify opportunities to reduce amphibian and

reptile road mortality during spring migration.

■ By 2005, evaluate and incorporate applicable recommendations

(pending) made by Partners for Amphibian and Reptile

Conservation (PARC) into refuge management, as warranted.

■ By 2005, implement monitoring plan for reptile and amphibian

concentration areas identified by inventories. 

Objective 1.7

Protect, reestablish, and sustain rare plant sites on the refuge.

Background:

The Service has established new policy which provides guidance for

maintaining and restoring, where appropriate, the biological

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuges (FWS

Manual, Chapter 3, part 601). One goal of the policy is to prevent

the further loss of natural biological features and natural processes

on refuges and within their respective landscapes. Included in this

goal is the focus on sustaining native species and natural

communities, such as those found under historic conditions, including

single plant species or communities that may now be rare. 

Sachuest Point Refuge is an historic site for sea beach amaranth

(Amaranthus pumilus), a Federal-listed threatened species, but has

not been observed in well over a decade. 

Strategies:

■ By 2006, survey and map all historic or potential rare plant sites

on the refuge. 

■ By 2008, with the Service’s New England Field Office, RI DEM,

and other partners, assess the potential for establishing or

restoring Federal and State listed, or former candidate, plant

species on the refuge. 

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,

Chapter 4

Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-7
distribution, and condition, to insure management actions are

sustaining biological integrity, diversity, and ecosystem health as

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

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

Inventory and Monitoring Plan will be completed in 2004. The

following strategies will be incorporated into this plan.

Strategies:

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

needs to better understand and document the biodiversity on the

refuge, especially the presence and distribution of species and

habitat types listed in Appendix A. 

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

incorporating 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

Within 15 years of CCP completion, maintain at least 100 acres as

native, coastal maritime grassland and shrubland (< 60 years old), to

provide nesting habitat for landbirds of conservation concern (PIF

Plan 10/00) such as bobolink, eastern meadowlark, and yellowbreasted chat. 

Background: 

Refuge staff are actively involved in restoring native, coastal

maritime grassland and shrubland (< 60 years old) on 42 refuge

acres. We are managing to restore native vegetation structure and

composition and to maintain the natural physical components and

processes associated with a coastal maritime community. The

current vegetative communities on the refuge are highly altered

from historic, natural conditions; they are drastically affected by past

land use practices and the epidemic of invasive species.

Approximately 40% of the plant species documented on the refuge

are invasive plants and they cover 80% of the refuge. Restoring this

refuge to native, maritime grassland and shrubland will improve the

biological integrity and diversity of the refuge.

While the objective emphasizes the importance of nesting habitat, the

grassland-shrubland mosaic will also provide important foraging and

resting habitat during landbird and Monarch butterfly migrations.

This is especially true with many of the shrub species producing

berries, a staple of many migrating birds. Sachuest Point Refuge

offers an opportunity for migrating birds to rest and accumulate fat

reserves, and provide protected areas for migrating butterflies.

Native, coastal maritime grassland species include, but are not

limited to, such plants as field goldenrods (Euthamia graminifolia

and E. tenuifolia), bitter milkwort (Polygala polygama), whitetopped aster (Asster paternus), rush (Juncus greenei). Native,

coastal maritime shrubland species include, but are not limited to,

such species as bayberry, sand rose (Rosa rogosa), beach plum

(Prunus maritima), wild rose (Rosa virginiana), shadbush,

arrowood , poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), eastern red cedar

(Juniperus virginiana), and highbush blueberry . 

Chapter 4

4-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
All actively restored habitat areas will be at least 40 acres in size.

Ideally we are working towards contiguous areas of 100 acres or

larger to provide the greatest benefit to the widest diversity of

grassland and shrubland dependent species. Restoration treatments

include the use of mechanical, prescribed fire, biological, and

chemical herbicide treatments. Mechanical treatments include

brushhogging or hydroaxing woody vegetation, and discing,

harrowing, plowing, packing, and drilling grassland fields. All

herbicides used are on an approved Service list, and their use on the

refuge is approved annually by the Regional Environmental

Contaminants Specialist. All prescribed fires adhere to stipulations

in the 1995 Fire EA.

Since the refuge habitats are in a highly altered landscape,

continuous evaluation of project effectiveness and an adaptive

management response is imperative.

Strategies:

■ Continue to monitor the 42-acre habitat restoration project.

Expand treatment area or change treatment method to insure

success, and if warranted by monitoring.

■ By 2004, develop and implement a plan to maintain an additional

40 acres (82 acres total) of native, coastal maritime grassland and

shrubland habitat (< 60 years old) on the refuge. Utilize

management tools identified above. All treatments will be detailed

in the HMP.

■ By 2005, hire a second maintenance worker for the Refuge Complex

to implement the habitat restoration programs for the refuges.

■ By 2010, evaluate restoration acres as potential regal fritillary

butterfly reintroduction sites in consultation with the Service’s

Ecological Services Division.

■ By 2015, maintain at least 100 acres of contiguous, native coastal

maritime shrubland and grassland habitats, with invasive species

dominating less than 50% of the area and with native species

established on over 50% of the area. Target native vegetative

species are identified above.

Objective 2.3

Augment refuge restoration projects and contribute to regional

grassland and shrubland landbird conservation efforts by working

with adjacent landowners.

Background: 

Native grasslands and shrublands (< 60 years old), and those species

dependent on them, have been dramatically declining throughout the

Northeast, especially large contiguous grasslands over 100 acres.

The Refuge Complex offers relatively few areas on which to maintain

large expanses of this habitat. As such, cooperative management on

adjacent ownerships enhances the restoration work on the refuge by

creating a larger complex for area-sensitive species requiring habitat

patches greater than 40 acres.

Chapter 4

Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-9
Strategies:

■ By 2008, implement a “cooperative extension” outreach program

and develop materials to provide technical support for interested

landowners and conservation partners. The program may also

include on-the-ground assistance.

Objective 2.4

Increase protection and restoration of beach strand habitats on the

refuge, and promote their protection throughout coastal Rhode Island. 

Background: 

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

imperiled habitat types on or adjacent to the Refuge Complex

because of the combined impacts of development and recreation.

Many species associated with this habitat type are either Federal or

State-listed as threatened or endangered due to the associated

impacts of human disturbance and habitat loss. Management of

these areas is extremely complex and controversial, especially when

it includes restrictions on beach use. 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).

Strategies:

■ Each year, evaluate any opportunities to acquire beach strand

property from willing sellers within our approved acquisition

boundary. Beach strand habitat proximal to other undeveloped

areas, or of a size and condition which allow us to maintain or

restore biological integrity, will continue to be the highest

acquisition priority.

■ By 2003, promote increased protection and stewardship of beach

strand habitat through an intensive outreach and education

campaign with the Friends Group and other partners targeting

beach front landowners, elected officials, and beach visitors.

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

they will also be shared amongst the other refuge programs.

Objective 2.5

Within 15 years of CCP completion, restore natural ecological

conditions to 50 acres of salt marsh wetlands on the refuge. 

Background: 

Wetlands are among the most productive ecosystems on earth, and

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

productivity. The tidal influence, including nutrient import, water

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

Healthy wetlands function in ways that benefit the natural ecosystem

and provide socio-economic values. Ecosystem values include the

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

waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and other migratory birds

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

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

plants and animals. Wetlands function in ways that filter sediments

and pollutants, produce oxygen, and support healthy microbiota for

Chapter 4

4-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
fish and wildlife. Socio-economic values include flood control, wave

damage protection, hunting, trapping, fishing and shellfishing,

aesthetics, education and research. 

As noted in objective 1.4 above, maritime marsh is the habitat in

most need of immediate conservation attention in this physiographic

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

pressure from human development along the coastline. While we

have identified restoration of only 50 acres on refuge lands, when

coupled with the partnership effort described in objective 3.1,

significant ecosystem and socio-economic benefits are expected.

Strategies:

■ Continue to work with USGS Biological Resources Division to

monitor the 15 acre tidal salt marsh restoration project on the

refuge. The project included realigning a culvert to restore tidal

flow to a creek and treatment of Phragmites. Refine or expand

project if warranted by monitoring.

■ Continue to coordinate with the EPA, or delegated authority, in

restoring the 21 acre CERCLIS site (the former Town of

Middletown landfill) on the refuge, at least 10 acres of which lie in

tidal salt marsh.

■ By 2008, develop site plan and implement restoration of an

additional 25 acres of Phragmites-dominated tidal salt marsh on

the refuge. Utilize the Corps of Engineer’s feasability study for

restoring the natural hydrologic flow to the area. This project may

be affected by the other wetlands projected noted above, as these

areas are adjacent and subject to the same hydrologic influences. 

Objective 2.6

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

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

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

of established plants.

Background:

Issue 4 in Chapter 1 describes the implications of invasive plants on

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

plant and animal species, degrade wetlands and other natural

communities, and reduce natural diversity and wildlife habitat

values. They outcompete native species and can readily dominate a

site. Early detection and consistent efforts at eradication are critical

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

Strategies:

■ By 2004, identify and map current distribution of invasive, nonnative plant species on the refuge.

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

eradicate recently established plants. Also of high priority are

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

exemplary vegetative communities” (March 1999 Invasive Plant

Control Initiative, Strategic Plan for the Connecticut River

Chapter 4

Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-11
Watershed/Long Island Sound).

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

refuge using chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire and biological

treatments as necessary. Strategies will be adapted based on

monitoring and new information. A maintenance worker will be

hired to administer treatments; this position will be shared among

the other Rhode Island refuges. 

Objective 2.7

Within two years of CCP completion, develop a deer management

plan for the Refuge Complex to address overabundant deer

populations and evaluate recreational hunting opportunities.

Background: 

Overabundant deer numbers are a concern on the refuge when they

degrade habitat through excessive browsing or threaten human

health and safety through increased vehicle collisions and incidences

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

effectively control a population unless they are managed throughout

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

activities, including their impacts on refuge habitats. However, the

RI DEM has reported that complaints from citizens have increased

in recent years about private property damage and worries of Lyme

disease and vehicle collisions. RI DEM recommends hunting as the

most effective tool to manage deer populations on the refuge. 

Strategies:

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

plan and environmental assessment for the Refuge Complex. The

plan will evaluate hunting to help manage deer numbers and

provide a priority public use opportunity. A separate public

involvement process will be initiated.

Chapter 4

4-12 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

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 resource at

risk throughout southern Rhode Island. 

Background:

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

Venture Plans, relevant Species Recovery Plans, and Ecosystem

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

quality coastal habitats to contribute to the conservation of federal

trust species. While land acquisition by the Service and other state,

federal, and local partners is a primary strategy for species

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

cooperation with private landowners to achieve conservation

objectives. Technical and resource support, outreach, and education

will all compliment land acquisition efforts. 

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

Strategies) described our method of identifying acquisition lands of

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

the planning process we determined that the Service is the logical

leader in coastal land and water quality protection along the South

Shore and on Block Island, with the existing refuges serving as

anchors. Refuge expansions will significantly increase protection of

the ecological values on current refuge lands, while also expanding

protection and restoration of significant coastal habitats. We

completed a Land Protection Plan for the Refuge Complex which

identifies specific tracts for Service acquisition. The LPP

incorporates the following acquisition priorities: 

• Has documented occurrences of federally listed endangered

or threatened species, or other priority federal trust

resources;

• Lies contiguous to existing refuge land, which could further

enhance or protect the integrity of refuges by assembling the

land base necessary to accomplish refuge goals;

• Connects refuge land with other protected lands withing the

South Shore and Block Island to help restore and promote

the ecological integrity of the coastal wetland and beach

strand complexes; and

• Protects and sustains important natural communities that

can be managed 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 partners in identifying land protection needs,

opportunities, and priorities in southern Rhode Island. 

■ Continue to help partners seek funding sources for their land

protection programs. 

■ Beginning in 2002, expand the refuge acquisition boundary for

Sachuest Point Refuge by the 35 acres approved in the Land

Chapter 4

4-14 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Protection Plan (LPP) (Appendix E). Pursue acquisition from

wiling sellers, in either fee purchase or conservation easement, as

identified in the LPP.

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, environmental education and interpretation, and

wildlife observation and photography. The Visitor Services Plan will

also accomplish the following:

■ Establish strategic goals and priorities for Visitor Services across

the Refuge Complex;

■ Identify target audiences and partnership opportunities for each

refuge;

■ Establish a methodology for determining visitor numbers,

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

and a means for assessing quality of visitor experiences;

■ Evaluate recreational fee opportunities; and

■ Establish an implementation schedule for priority Visitor 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,

wildlife-dependent activities. 

Objective 4.1

Provide high quality surf fishing opportunities along the refuge

shoreline, while minimizing impacts to natural resources.

Strategies:

■ Continue to allow surf fishing, including night fishing, from refuge

shorelines on the Atlantic Ocean and Sakonnet River, under State

regulations. Access is on foot using designated trails. 

■ In 2002, designate access points to the shoreline to minimize

erosion and to better enforce refuge regulations against littering

Chapter 4

Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-15
and bonfires. 

■ In 2002, develop and enforce a regulation requiring spear-fishing

gear to be unloaded and encased while on refuge land to avoid

intimidating other refuge visitors and to ensure their safety. 

■ In 2002, implement a fee permit system for fishing after sunset.

Permits will allow only anglers to park in the refuge parking lot

and access refuge lands between sunset and sunrise. This is a

solution to the problem of non-wildlife dependent activities (e.g.

bonfires, refuse dumping, parties, etc) occurring in the refuge

parking lot after sunset. 

■ In 2004, evaluate the effectiveness of the present system in

controlling non-wildlife dependent activities.

Objective 4.2

Increase opportunities for high quality interpretive experiences on

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

Sachuest Point Refuge’s particular contribution to protecting trust

resources and significant habitats. 

Strategies:

■ Continue to maintain the existing kiosks, updating information to

keep it relevant and current.

■ Continue to use volunteers and the Friends Group to help staff the

Visitor Center and conduct interpretive programs.

■ By 2004, complete renovation of Visitor Center and exhibitry.

■ By 2005, develop an interpretive program tiered to the Visitor

Services Plan, including development of an interpretive trail

describing the natural and cultural history of the area. Develop

two additional interpretive kiosks, and provide multi-lingual

literature to explain refuge resources and regulations.

■ By 2008, coordinate with the Town of Middletown to develop

interpretive signs, kiosks, and/or exhibits on Second and Third

Beaches, and an exhibit at Newport Visitor Center.

Objective 4.3

Improve opportunities for high quality wildlife observation and

photography on the refuge, while minimizing impacts to natural

resources.

Strategies:

■ Continue to maintain the existing Flint Point observation

platform.

■ In 2002, designate shoreline access points and enforce their use to

minimize erosion. Foot travel on the uplands will also be

restricted to designated trails. Foot travel, snowshoeing, and

cross-country skiing are allowed in support of priority public uses.

■ By 2004, modify or eliminate Trails 3 and 4 where determined to

be redundant with other trails and likely to impact future habitat

restoration project areas. Move impacted observation platforms

as necessary. 

■ By 2004, develop watchable wildlife pamphlets and species

checklists for the refuge.

Chapter 4

4-16 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
■ By 2008, reconstruct the trail to Flint Point to provide barrier-free

access to the observation platform. 

Objective 4.4

Increase opportunities for high quality environmental educational

experiences on the refuge, while minimizing impacts to natural

resources. 

Strategies:

■ Continue to work in partnership with staff from The Norman Bird

Sanctuary (NBS), which is located adjacent to the refuge, in

conducting environmental education on the refuge. By 2005,

develop a formal partnership with NBS to facilitate sharing of

resources and cooperate in developing curriculums.

■ By 2005, sponsor at least one “Teach the Teacher” workshop/year. 

■ Also by 2005, cooperate with towns of Middletown and Newport

and local schools to develop a curriculum-based program featuring

refuge resources. A volunteer environmental education corps will

be established to help implement programs. Develop two lowimpact outdoor education sites to interpret the grassland,

shrubland and wetlands restoration projects. 

Objective 4.5

Within two years of CCP completion, develop a deer management

plan for the Refuge Complex to address overabundant deer

populations and evaluate recreational hunting opportunities.

Background:

See objective 2.7.

Strategies:

■ In 2002, complete a deer management plan and environmental

assessment evaluating opportunities for deer hunting across the

Refuge Complex. A separate public involvement process will be

initiated. 

Objective 4.6

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

Background: 

Incompatible, non-wildlife dependent activities detract from our

ability to fulfill refuge purposes and often conflict with other

management priorities. None of these uses are necessary for the

safe, practical, or effective conduct of a priority public use, and in

fact, are often disruptive to priority public uses. Limited refuge

resources should not be expended to manage activities that do not

contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the

refuge’s wildlife or cultural resources, or to activities that do not

directly benefit these resources. 

Strategies:

■ Beginning in 2002, we will initiate an intensive outreach and

education effort to phase out dog walking and jogging on the refuge.

■ In 2002, we will establish a consistent Service presence by

Chapter 4

Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-17
assigning permanent staff to this station and by staffing the

Visitor Center.

■ In 2002, we will begin implementing a fee permit system for

fishing after official sunset. Only anglers with permits will be

allowed to park in the refuge parking lot and access the refuge

after sunset. The purpose is to reduce the continual problem of

non-wildlife activities (e.g. bonfires, refuge dumping, parties, etc)

occurring on the refuge after dark. 

■ In 2004, evaluate the effectiveness of the present system in

controlling non-wildlife dependent activities.

■ By 2004, increase resource protection and management of public

use by utilizing law enforcement personnel to provide more

consistent and thorough outreach and enforcement of refuge

regulations. In particular, the following activities will be targeted

on the refuge: dog walking, jogging, bicycling, swimming,

sunbathing, horseback riding, and bonfires.

Chapter 4

4-18 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 4

4-20 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

■ By 2004, hire at least one additional Law Enforcement Officer for

the Refuge Complex (see Chapter 5 - Staffing). 

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.

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:
Chapter 4

Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-21

■ 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).

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 Middletown

will continue. Future increases in payments will be commensurate
Chapter 4

4-22 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

with increases in the appraised fair market values of refuge lands,

new acquisitions of land, and new Congressional appropriations.

Contaminant Sites Remediation

The obvious concerns with human health and safety, and impacts to

wildlife from contaminants, requires timely and thorough

remediation of contaminated sites. Refuge Complex staff will

continue coordinating with the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management

(RI DEM), Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), or delegated

authorities, to finalize remediation plans and begin cleaning up the

CERCLIS site (the Town of Middletown’s former landfill). 

Controlling Mosquitos

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

Equine Encephalitis and West Nile virus have elevated public health

concerns about mosquito control in the Middle Atlantic States.

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

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

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

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

Regional Contaminants Specialist pre-approved those applications.

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

Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-23
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May, 2002 5-1

Laughing gull

USFWS photo

■ Refuge Complex Staffing

■ Refuge Complex Funding

■ Step-down Management Plans

■ Partnerships

■ Volunteer Program

■ Monitoring and Evaluation

■ Adaptive Management

■ Compatibility Determinations

■ Additional NEPA Analysis

■ Plan Amendment and Revision

Chapter 5

Implementation and

Monitoring
Refuge Complex Staffing

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

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

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

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

fully implement all five Refuge CCPs. Permanent staff serving all

five refuges may be stationed at the Refuge Headquarters in

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

Some permanent and temporary staff may be stationed seasonally on

Block Island Refuge. Appendix G identifies currently filled

positions, recommended new positions, and the overall supervisory

structure. The new positions identified will increase visitor services,

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

Refuge Complex Funding

Successful implementation of the CCPs for each refuge relies on our

ability to secure funding, personnel, infrastructure, and other

resources to accomplish the actions identified. Full implementation

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

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

construction projects, and individual resource program expansions.

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

Projects in the National Wildlife Refuge System’s Refuge Operations

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

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

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

current Maintenance Management System (MMS) database for the

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

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 acres, 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

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

endangered species and declining habitats, protection of open space,

and environmental education programs.

Refuge staff were particularly delighted by the establishment in 1998

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

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

supporting Refuge Complex goals within the community through

public education and interpretation, project funding, and volunteer

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

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

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

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

We will strengthen and formalize refuge partnerships to promote

coordinated management and facilitate sharing of resources. Our

partnership with the Friends Group is vitally important to us for

community relations and for support in implementing our resource

programs. Partnerships help us build support for the refuge,

facilitate the sharing of information, and supplement the efforts of

refuge staff. 

Strategies:

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

Friends Group to promote communication and evaluate

implementation of the MOU. We will continue to actively support

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

implementing outreach and environmental education programs,

which enhance our ability to meet refuge goals.

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

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

conservation organizations, to identify mutual goals, and

opportunities for cost sharing, technical exchange and

environmental education and interpretation.

Volunteer Program

Volunteers are vital to accomplishing all Refuge Complex goals. For

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

10,000 hours respectively, assisting in environmental education

programs, monitoring public use, maintaining facilities, and

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

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

Volunteers are also largely responsible for staffing the visitor contact

station at Trustom Pond Refuge. 

In 1999 we hired a permanent staff Volunteer Coordinator to

improve the quality of the program through better coordination,

supervision and training of volunteers, and to better integrate

volunteers into all refuge programs. The coordinator compiles and

distributes a quarterly newsletter to volunteers, refuge partners, and

interest groups, keeping them informed about management activities

and upcoming interpretive programs on the Refuge Complex.

Chapter 5

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

Periodic maintenance of existing facilities is critical to ensure safety

and accessibility for Refuge Complex staff and visitors. Existing

facilities include the Trustom Pond Refuge visitor contact station,

Refuge Complex maintenance compound, and numerous parking

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

not currently Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant;

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

Maintenance Management System (MMS) database list of

backlogged maintenance entries for the Refuge Complex.

We will also undertake the following strategies to improve the

visibility of the Service:

■ By 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

Chapter 5

Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May, 2002 5-5
evaluate management actions, through monitoring or research, to

reconsider whether their original assumptions and predictions are

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

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

understand and appreciate the adaptive nature of natural resource

management.

The Refuge Manager is responsible for changing management

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

Significant changes may warrant additional NEPA analysis; minor

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

project evaluation reports, or the annual refuge narratives.

Compatibility Determinations

Federal law and policy provide the direction and planning framework

to protect the Refuge System from incompatible or harmful human

activities and to insure that Americans can enjoy Refuge System

lands and waters. The National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife

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

managing public uses and compatibility. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

be authorized on a refuge when they are compatible and not

inconsistent with public safety. Except for consideration of

consistency with State laws and regulations as provided for in section

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

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

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

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

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

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

public use programs: wildlife observation and photography,

environmental education and interpretation, fishing, and hunting. A

pre-acquisition compatibility determination was also reviewed and

completed, and identifies which existing public uses would be allowed

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

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

determinations for trapping and waterfowl hunting for a public

review period. All comments were considered and utilized in the

revision. These new compatibility determinations are now final and

included in Appendix D. 

Additional compatibility determinations will be developed when

appropriate new uses are proposed. Compatibility determinations

Chapter 5

5-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
will be re-evaluated by the Refuge Manager when conditions under

which the use is permitted change significantly; when there is

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

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

determinations will be re-evaluated under the conditions noted

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

Additional detail on the compatibility determination process is in

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

effective November 17, 2000.

Additional NEPA Analysis

The National Environmental Policy Act requires a site-specific

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

Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May, 2002 5-7