Appendix A

Trust Resources and Other

Species and Habitats of

Management Concern

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 A-1
Appendix A 

A-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Codes used in Species List

Global Element Ranks (from The Nature Conservancy)

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

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

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

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

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

vulnerable to extinction throughout its range.

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

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

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

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

to 100.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

with virtually no likelihood that it will be rediscovered.

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

G? – Not yet ranked.

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

T rank applies to the infraspecific taxon.

G#Q – Taxonomic status is questionable.
Appendix A 

Draft CCP/EA Executive Summary– December, 2000 A-3

Federal Status or Authority

E – Formally listed as Endangered under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973

T – Formally listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973

PE – Proposed Endangered

PT – Proposed Threatened

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

SA – Similarity of appearance of species

State Status

FE – Federally Endangered (see above)

FT – Federally Threatened (see above)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

but status information is presently not well known.

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

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

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

A-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

State Element Ranks 

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

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

species in the state.

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

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

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

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

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

S5 – Widespread, abundant and demonstrably secure in state.

S? – Not yet ranked in the state.

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

in peril

SE – Exotic: an exotic established in the state.

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

range).

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

verified in the past 20 years.

SX – Apparently extirpated from state.

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

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

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

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

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

may be misidentified.

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

and error has persisted in the literature.

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

.1 – Species documented from a single location
Appendix A 

Draft CCP/EA Executive Summary– December, 2000 A-5

Occurence/Occasional Use (Seasonal Use)

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

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

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

B - Breeds in the area

M - Migrates through the area and has identifiable migratory 

stopover or staging areas within the watershed

W - Overwinters in the area

P - Primarily pelagic

I - Introduced or re-introduced

Refuges

Indicates occurrence of the species on existing National Wildlife Refuges 

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

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

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

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

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

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

o = occasional, r = rare.

Population/ Breeding Bird Atlas (BBA)

Known occurences or populations in Rhode Island, from Natural 

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

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

A-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Scientific Name Common

Name(s) Global Federal R IRank

R I

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

ANIMALS

INVERTEBRATES

ARTHROPODA

INSECTA

ODONATA

(Dragonflies and

Damselflies):

Williamsonia

lintneri

ringed

boghaunter G2 C2 S2 C former candidate/globallyimperiled

Enallagma pictum scarlet bluet G3 globally rare

Enallagma

recurvatum

barrens bluet

damselfly G3 3C S2 C former candidate/globallyrare

COLEOPTERA (Beetles):

Cicindela d.

dorsalis

northeastern

beach tiger

beetle

G4T1T2 T SX SH(197

8 )

fed. listed/globally

imperiled

Nicrophorus

americanus

American

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

Lordithon niger black lordithon

rove beetle G1 C2 S1 C former candidate/globallycritically imperiled

LEPIDOPTERA (Butterflies and Moths):

Speyeria idalia regal fritillary

butterfly G3 C2 SX SH(1990 )

former candidate/globally

rare

Mitoura hesseli Hessel's

hairstreak G3G4 3C S2S3 C former candidate

MEROSTOMATA

Limulus

polyphemus horseshoe crab

R5 Refuge List/important

forage species for

shorebirds

VERTEBRATES

REPTILES

TESTUDINES (Turtles):

Caretta caretta loggerhead sea

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

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

occurs in RI waters

Dermochelys

coriacea

leatherback sea

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

Lepidochelys

kempii

Kemp's ridley

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

Malaclemys t.

terrapin

northern

diamondback

terrapin

G5T5 C2 S1 ST former candidate
Appendix A 

Draft CCP/EA Executive Summary– December, 2000 A-7

Scientific Name Common

Name(s) Global Federal R IRank

R I

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

FISH

Catadromous

Anguilla rostrata American eel G5 catadromous/R5 Refuge

List

Anadromous

Alosa aestivalis blueback

herring G5 anadromous/R5 Refuge

List

Alosa

pseudoharengus alewife G5 anadromous/R5 Refuge

List

Alosa sapidissima American shad G5 anadromous/R5 Refuge

List

Morone saxatilis striped bass G5 anadromous/R5 Refuge

List

Salmo salar Atlantic Salmon G5 anadromous/R5 Refuge

List

Marine & Estuarine Interjuris. Fish

Paralichthys

dentatus

summer

flounder G? interjurisdictional/R5Refuge List

Tautoga onitis tautog G? interjurisdictional/R5

Refuge List

Pleuronectes

americanus winter flounder G5? interjurisdictional/R5Refuge List

Pomatomus

saltatrix bluefish G? interjurisdictional/R5Refuge List

Cynoscion regalis weakfish G? interjurisdictional/R5

Refuge List

BIRDS

GAVIIFORMES (Loons):

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

concern

CICONIIFORMES

(Herons, Ibises, and

Storks):

Botaurus

lentiginosus

American

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

Ixobrychus exilis least bittern G5 S2B,S2

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

ANSERIFORMES (Waterfowl):

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

Podilymbus

podiceps

pied-billed

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

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

Watchlist

Aix sponsa wood duck G5 B/M/W? T,N,C y u u u r 48 NAWCA priority
Appendix A 

A-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Scientific Name Common

Name(s) Global Federal R IRank

R I

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

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

Refuge List

Anas

platyrhynchos mallard G5 B/M/W A y c c a c 79 NAWCA high priority

Anas rubripes American black

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

NAWCA high priority/R5

Refuge List/NAS

Watchlist/PIF SNE

globally important

Aythya collaris ring-necked

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

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

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

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

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

Histrionicus

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

Somateria

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

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

Melanitta fusca white-winged

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

Melanitta

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

FALCONIFORMES

(Diurnal Birds of

Prey):

Accipiter gentilis northern

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

Buteo lineatus red-shouldered

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

Circus cyaneus northern

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

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

Haliaeetus

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

GRUIFORMES

(Rails, Cranes and

Allies):

Rallus longirostris clapper rail G5 B / M N r r r r NAWCA priority/declining
Appendix A 

Draft CCP/EA Executive Summary– December, 2000 A-9

Scientific Name Common

Name(s) Global Federal R IRank

R I

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

CHARADRIIFORMES

(Shorebirds, Gulls

and Alcids):

Charadrius

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

Charadrius

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

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

Bartramia

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

non-game bird man.

concern/PIF SNE

regionally important

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

List

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

List/NAS Watchlist

Calidris fuscicollis white-rumped

sandpiper G5 M A o o a NAWCA priority

Calidris

himantopus stilt sandpiper G5 M A r o r NAS Watchlist

Calidris maritima purple

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

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

List

Calidris pusilla semipalmated

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

Catoptrophorus

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

Limnodromus

griseus

short-billed

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

Limosa haemastica Hudsonian godwit G5 M ? NAWCA priority

Numenius

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

Phalaropus

tricolor

Wilson's

phalarope G5 M A r r NAWCA priority

Tryngites

subruficolis

buff-breasted

sandpiper G4 M A r r NAS Watchlist

Pluvialis

squatarola

black-bellied

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

Scolopax minor American

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

ISS declining/R5 Refuge

List/PIF SNE globally

important

Sterna antillarum least tern G4 S2B,S2

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

Sterna dougallii roseate tern G5 E SHB,S2

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

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

concern

CUCULIFORMES (Cuckoos and Allies):

Coccyzus

erythropthalmus

black-billed

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

A-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Scientific Name Common

Name(s) Global Federal R IRank

R I

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

STRIGIFORMES (Owls):

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

concern/NAS Watchlist

PICIFORMES (Woodpeckers and Allies):

Colaptes punctigula northern flicker G5 B/M/W N,T,S,C y c c c u 118 non-game bird man.

concern

Melanerpes

erythrocephalus

red-headed

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

PASSERIFORMES (Perching Birds):

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

important

Catharus

fuscescens veery G5 B / M N,T,C y o o o 86 non-game bird man.concern

Hylocichla

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

Vireo flavifrons yellow-throated

vireo G5 B / M ? NAWCA Priority

Dendroica

caerulescens

black-throated

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

Dendroica cerulea cerulean

warbler G4 S1B,S2N ST B / M 2

former candidate/NAS

Watchlist/PIF SNE

globally important

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

globally important

Helmitheros

vermivorus

worm-eating

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

non-game bird man.

concern/NAS

Watchlist/PIF SNE

globally important

Protonotaria citrea prothonotary

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

Seiurus motacilla Louisiana

waterthrush G5 B / M 1 9

non-game bird man.

concern/PIF SNE

regionally important

Vermivora

chrysoptera

golden-winged

warbler G4 SXB,S2N SH M A r r r

non-game bird man.

concern/NAS

Watchlist/PIF SNE

globally important

Vermivora pinus blue-winged

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

non-game bird man.

concern/PIF SNE

regionally important

Wilsonia

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

Icteria virens yellow-breasted

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

Spizella pusilla field sparrow G5 B / M N,T,C,S y u u u o 72

non-game bird man.

concern/PIF SNE

regionally important

Ammodramus

caudacutus

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

globally important

Ammodramus

henslowii

Henslow's

sparrow

G4 SX SH(194

0 )

former candidate/PIF SNE

globally important

Ammodramus

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

Ammodramus

nelsoni

Nelson's sharptailed sparrow G5 M NAS Watchlist
Appendix A 

Draft CCP/EA Executive Summary– December, 2000 A-11

Scientific Name Common

Name(s) Global Federal R IRank

R I

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

Ammodramus

savannarum

grasshopper

sparrow

G4 S1B,S1

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

Dolichonyx

oryzivorus bobolink G5 B / M T,S,N y u c u 30

non-game bird man.

concern/NAS

Watchlist/PIF SNE

globally important

Sturnella magna eastern

meadowlark G5 B / M / W S,T,N,C y c c c u 33 non-game bird man.concern

Pheucticus

ludovicianus

rose-breasted

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

MAMMALS

Terrestrial mammals

Sylvilagus

transitionalis

New England

cottontail rabbit G4 S2 C R former candidate

Microtus

pennsylvanicus

provectus

Block Island

meadow vole G5T1 G5T2Q R former candidate

Whales

Balaenoptera

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

Eubalaena glacialis northern right

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

Megaptera

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

Seals

Halichoerus

grypus gray seal G4 W marine mammal occurringon refuge

Phoca groenlandica harp seal G5 W marine mammal occurring

on refuge

Phoca vitulina harbor seal G5 W marine mammal occurring

on refuge

VASCULAR PLANTS

ANGIOSPERMS (Flowering Plants):

Carex polymorpha variable sedge G3 S1 SE 1 former candidate

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

Scleria pauciflora

var. caroliniana

few-flowered

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

Scleria

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

Isotria medeoloides small whorled

pogonia G2G3 E S1 FE 1 fed. listed

Platanthera

ciliaris

yellow fringed

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

A-12 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Scientific Name Common

Name(s) Global Federal R IRank

R I

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

Amaranthus

pumilus

seabeach

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

Polygonum

glaucum

seabeach

knotweed G3 S1 3 NEPCoP regionally rare,occurs on refuge

Cardamine longii Long's

bittercress G3G4Q S1 SE 1 former candidate

Eupatorium

leucolepis var.

novae-angliae

New England

boneset G5T1 S1 SE 5 former candidate

Liatris scariosa

var. novae-angliae

New England

blazing-star G5?T3 S1 SE 4 former candidate

Helianthemum

dumosum bushy rockrose G3 S1 SE 4 former candidate

Hypericum

adpressum

creeping St.

John's-wort G2G3 S2 ST 4 former candidate

Agalinis acuta sandplain

gerardia G1 E S1 FE 1 fed. listed

NATURAL COMMUNITIES

Coastal Salt

Pond/Marsh G4 S3

Southern New

England Salt

Marsh

G5 S4

Sea Level Fen G2G3 S1

Coastal Sand

Dune Community G5 S3

Morainic

Grassland G2 S1

New England

Coastal Plain

Pondshore

G3 S2

New England

Pitch Pine Scrub

Oak Barren

G2 S1

ANIMAL CONCENTRATION AREAS

Anadromous Fish

Concentration

Migratory

Shorebird

Concentration

Area

Seal Haulout

Area

Waterbird

Nesting Colony

Waterfowl

Concentration

Area

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

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

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

Pop./BBA =known occurences or populations in state from Natural Heritage Program; for breeding birds = number of probable or confirmed breeding bird atlas blocks in state.
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 B-1

Appendix B

Relevant Federal Laws
Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986 

This Act authorized the purchase of wetlands from

Land and Water Conservatio Fund moneys,

removing a prior prohibition on such acquisitions.

The Act also requires the Secretary to establish a

National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan,

requires the States to include wetlands in their

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, and

transfers to the Migratory Bird Conservation

Fund amount equal to import duties on arms and

ammunition. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-

1544, 87 Stat. 884), as amended

Public Law 93-205, approved December 28, 1973,

repealed the Endangered Species Conservation

Act of December 5, 1969 (P.L. 91-135, 83 Stat. 275).

The 1969 act had amended the Endangered

Species Preservation Act of October 15, 1966 (P.L.

89-669, 80 Stat. 926).

The 1973 Endangered Species Act provided for the

conservation of ecosystems upon which threatened

and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants

depend, both through Federal action and by

encouraging the establishment of State programs.

The Act:

• Authorizes the determination and listing of

species as endangered and threatened;

• Prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale,

and transport of endangered species;

• Provides authority to acquire land for the

conservation of listed species, using land and

water conservation funds;

• Authorizes establishment of cooperative

agreements and grants-in-aid to States that

establish and maintain active and adequate

programs for endangered and threatened

wildlife and plants;

• Authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal

penalties for violating the Act or regulations; and

• Authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone

furnishing information leading to arrest and

conviction for any violation of the Act of any

regulation issued thereunder.

Environmental Education Act of 1990 (20 USC

5501-5510; 104 Stat. 3325)

Public Law 101-619, signed November 16, 1990,

established the Office of Environmental Education

within the Environmental Protection Agency to

develop and administer a Federal environ.

education program.

Responsibilities of the Office include developing

and supporting programs to improve

understanding of the natural and developed

environment, and the relationships between

humans and their environment; supporting the

dissemination of educational materials; developing

and supporting training programs and

environmental education seminars; managing a

Federal grant program; and administering an

environmental internship and fellowship program.

The Office is required to develop and support

environmental programs in consultation with other

Federal natural resource management agencies,

including the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management

The purpose of this Executive Order, signed May

24, 1977, is to prevent Federal agencies from

contributing to the “adverse impacts associated

with occupancy and modification of floodplains”

and the “direct or indirect support of floodplain

development.” In the course of fulfilling their

respective authorities, Federal agencies “shall take

action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize

the impact of floods on human safety, health and

welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural

and beneficial values served by floodplains.

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978

This act was passed to improve the administration

of fish and wildlife programs and amends amends

several earlier laws, including the Refuge

Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge

Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act

of 1956. It authorizes the Secretary to accept gifts

and bequests of real and personal property on

behalf of the United States. It also authorizes the

use of volunteers on Service projects and

appropriations to carry out volunteer programs.

Appendix B

B-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Historic Preservation Acts 

There are various laws for the preservation of

historic sites and objects.

Antiquities Act (16 USC 431 - 433) – The Act of

June 8, 1906, (34 Stat. 225) authorizes the

President to designate as National Monuments

objects or areas of historic or scientific interest on

lands owned or controlled by the United States.

The Act required that a permit be obtained for

examination of ruins, excavation of archaeological

sites and the gathering of objects of antiquity on

lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of

Interior, Agriculture, and Army, and provided

penalties for violations.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16

U.S.C. 470aa - 470ll) — Public Law 96-95,

approved October 31, 1979, (93 Stat. 721) largely

supplanted the resource protection provisions of

the Antiquities Act for archaeological items.

This Act established detailed requirements for

issuance of permits for any excavation for or

removal of archaeological resources from Federal

or Indian lands. It also established civil and

criminal penalties for the unauthorized excavation,

removal, or damage of any such resources; for any

trafficking in such resources removed from

Federal or Indian land in violation of any provision

of Federal law; and for interstate and foreign

commerce in such resources acquired, transported

or received in violation of any State or local law.

Public Law 100-588, approved November 3, 1988,

(102 Stat. 2983) lowered the threshold value of

artifacts triggering the felony provisions of the Act

from $5,000 to $500, made attempting to commit

an action prohibited by the Act a violation, and

required the land managing agencies to establish

public awareness programs regarding the value of

archaeological resources to the Nation.

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act (16

USC 469-469c) — Public Law 86-523, approved

June 27, 1960, (74 Stat. 220) as amended by Public

Law 93-291, approved May 24, 1974, (88 Stat. 174)

to carry out the policy established by the Historic

Sites Act (see below), directed Federal agencies to

notify the Secretary of the Interior whenever they

find a Federal or Federally assisted, licensed or

permitted project may cause loss or destruction of

significant scientific, prehistoric or archaeologic

data. The Act authorized use of appropriated,

donated and/or transferred funds for the recovery,

protection and preservation of such data.

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (16

USC 461-462, 464-467) — The Act of August 21,

1935, (49 Stat. 666) popularly known as the

Historic Sites Act, as amended by Public Law 89-

249, approved October 9, 1965, (79 Stat. 971)

declared it a national policy to preserve historic

sites and objects of national significance, including

those located on refuges. It provided procedures

for designation, acquisition, administration and

protection of such sites.

Among other things, National Historic and

Natural Landmarks are designated under

authority of this Act. As of January, 1989, 31

national wildlife refuges contained such sites.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16

U.S.C. 470-470b, 470c-470n) — Public Law 89-665,

approved October 15, 1966, (80 Stat. 915) and

repeatedly amended, provided for preservation of

significant historical features (buildings, objects

and sites) through a grant-in-aid program to the

States. It established a National Register of

Historic Places and a program of matching grants

under the existing National Trust for Historic

Preservation (16 U.S.C. 468-468d).

The Act established an Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation, which was made a

permanent independent agency in Public Law 94-

422, approved September 28, 1976 (90 Stat. 1319).

That Act also created the Historic Preservation

Fund. Federal agencies are directed to take into

account the effects of their actions on items or sites

listed or eligible for listing in the National Register.

As of January, 1989, 91 historic sites on national

wildlife refuges have been placed on the National

Register.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1948 

This act provides funding through receipts from

the sale of surplus federal land, appropriations

from oil and gas receipts from the outer

continental shelf, and other sources of for land

acquisition under several authorities.

Appropriations from the fund may be used for

matching grants to states for outdoor recreation

projects and for land acquisition by various federal

agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Appendix B

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 B-3
Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16

U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e,715f-715r)

This Act established the Migratory Bird

Conservation Commission which consists of the

Secretaries of the Interior (chairman), Agriculture,

and Transportation, two members from the House

of Representatives, and an ex-officio member from

the state in which a project is located. The

Commission approves acquisition of land and

water, or interests therein, and sets the priorities

for acquisition of lands by the Secretary for

sanctuaries or for other management purposes.

Under this Act, to acquire lands, or interests

therein, the state concerned must consent to such

acquisition by legislation. Such legislation has

been enacted by most states.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp

Act (16 U.S.C. 718-718j, 48 Stat. 452), as amended

The “Duck Stamp Act,” as this March 16, 1934,

authority is commonly called, requires each

waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or older to possess

a valid Federal hunting stamp. Receipts from the

sale of the stamp are deposited in a special Treasury

account known as the Migratory Bird Conservation

Fund and are not subject to appropriations.

National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42

USC 12401; 104 Stat. 3127)

Public Law 101-610, signed November 16, 1990,

authorizes several programs to engage citizens of

the U.S. in full- and/or part-time projects designed

to combat illiteracy and poverty, provide job skills,

enhance educational skills, and fulfill environmental

needs. Several provisions are of particular interest

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

American Conservation and Youth Service Corps

— As a Federal grant program established under

Subtitle C of the law, the Corps offers an

opportunity for young adults between the ages of

16-25, or in the case of summer programs, 15-21, to

engage in approved human and natural resources

projects which benefit the public or are carried out

on Federal or Indian lands.

To be eligible for assistance, natural resources

programs will focus on improvement of wildlife

habitat and recreational areas, fish culture, fishery

assistance, erosion, wetlands protection, pollution

control and similar projects. A stipend of not more

than 100 percent of the poverty level will be paid

to participants. A Commission established to

administer the Youth Service Corps will make

grants to States, the Secretaries of Agriculture

and Interior and the Director of ACTION to carry

out these responsibilities.

National and Community Service Act — Will make

grants to States for the creation of full-time and/or

part-time programs for citizens over 17 years of

age. Programs must be designed to fill unmet

educational, human, environmental, and public

safety needs. Initially, participants will receive

post-employment benefits of up to $1000 per year

for part-time and $2500 for full-time participants.

Thousand Points of Light — Creates a non-profit

Points of Light Foundation to administer programs

to encourage citizens and institutions to volunteer

in order to solve critical social issues, and to

discover new leaders and develop institutions

committed to serving others.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L.

91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, 83

Stat. 852) as amended by P.L. 94-52, July 3, 1975,

89 Stat. 258, and P.L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, 89

Stat. 424).

Title I of the 1969 National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) requires that all Federal agencies

prepare detailed environmental impact statements

for “every recommendation or report on proposals

for legislation and other major Federal actions

significantly affecting the quality of the human

environment.”

The 1969 statute stipulated the factors to be

considered in environmental impact statements,

and required that Federal agencies employ an

interdisciplinary approach in related decisionmaking and develop means to ensure that

unquantified environmental values are given

appropriate consideration, along with economic

and technical considerations.

Title II of this statute requires annual reports on

environmental quality from the President to the

Congress, and established a Council on

Environmental Quality in the Executive Office of

the President with specific duties and functions.

Appendix B

B-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration

Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) as amended

This Act defines the National Wildlife Refuge

System as including wildlife refuges, areas for

protection and conservation of fish and wildlife

which are threatened with extinction, wildlife

ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas,

and waterfowl production areas. The Secretary is

authorized to permit any use of an area provided

such use is compatible with the major purposes for

which such area was established. The purchase

consideration for rights-of-way go into the

Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for the

acquisition of lands. By regulation, up to 40% of

an area acquired for a migratory bird sanctuary

may be opened to migratory bird hunting unless

the Secretary finds that the taking of any species

of migratory game birds in more than 40% of such

area would be beneficial to the species. The Act

requires an Act of Congress for the divestiture of

lands in the system, except (1) lands acquired with

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission funds,

and (2) lands can be removed from the system by

land exchange, or if brought into the system by a

cooperative agreement, then pursuant to the terms

of the agreement. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement

Act of 1997

Public Law 105-57, amends the National Wildlife

System Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee), providing

guidance for management and public use of the

Refuge System. The Act mandates that the

Refuge System be consistently directed and

managed as a national system of lands and waters

devoted to wildlife conservation and management.

The Act establishes priorities for recreational uses

of the Refuge System. Six wildlife-dependent uses

are specifically named in the Act: hunting, fishing,

wildlife observation and photography, and

environmental education and interpretation.

These activities are to be promoted on the Refuge

System, while all non-wildlife dependant uses are

subject to compatibility determinations. 

A compatible use is one which, in the sound

professional judgement of the Refuge Manger, will

not materially interfere with or detract from

fulfillment of the Refuge System Mission or refuge

purpose(s).

As stated in the Act, “The mission of the System is

to administer a national network of lands and

waters for the conservation, management, and

where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife,

and plant resources and their habitats within the

United States for the benefit of present and future

generations of Americans.”

The Act also requires development of a

comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge

and management of each refuge consistent with

the plan. When writing CCP, planning for

expanded or new refuges, and when making

management decisions, the Act requires effective

coordination with other Federal agencies, state fish

and wildlife or conservation agencies, and refuge

neighbors. A refuge must also provide

opportunities for public involvement when making

a compatibility determination or developing a CCP.

North American Wetlands Conservation Act (103

Stat. 1968; 16 U.S.C. 4401-4412)

Public Law 101-233, enacted December 13, 1989,

provides funding and administrative direction for

implementation of the North American Waterfowl

Management Plan and the Tripartite Agreement

on wetlands between Canada, U.S. and Mexico.

The Act converts the Pittman-Robertson account

into a trust fund, with the interest available

without appropriation through the year 2006 to

carry out the programs authorized by the Act,

along with an authorization for annual

appropriation of $15 million plus an amount equal

to the fines and forfeitures collected under the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Available funds may be expended, upon approval

of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission,

for payment of not to exceed 50 percent of the

United States share of the cost of wetlands

conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the

United States (or 100 percent of the cost of

projects on Federal lands). At least 50 percent and

no more than 70 percent of the funds received are

to go to Canada and Mexico each year.

Appendix B

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 B-5
A North American Wetlands Conservation Council

is created to recommend projects to be funded

under the Act to the Migratory Bird Conservation

Commission. The Council is to be composed of the

Director of the Service, the Secretary of the

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, a State fish

and game agency director from each Flyway, and

three representatives of different non-profit

organizations participating in projects under the

Plan or the Act. The Chairman of the Council and

one other member serve ex officio on the

Commission for consideration of the Council’s

recommendations.

The Commission must justify in writing to the

Council and, annually, to Congress, any decisions

not to accept Council recommendations.

Oil Pollution Act of 1990

Public Law 101-380 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.; 104

Stat. 484) established new requirements and

extensively amended the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1301 et. seq.) to provide

enhanced capabilities for oil spill response and

natural resource damage assessment by the

Service. It required Service consultation on

developing a fish and wildlife response plan for the

National Contingency Plan, input to Area

Contingency Plans, review of Facility and Tank

Vessel Contingency Plans, and to conduct damage

assessments associated with oil spills. The

following are the pertinent provisions.

Title I, section 1006, provided that Federal

trustees shall assess natural resource damages for

natural resources under their trusteeship. Federal

trustees may, upon request from a State or Indian

tribe, assess damages to natural resources for

them as well. Trustees shall develop and

implement a plan for the restoration,

rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of the

equivalent of natural resources under their

trusteeship.

Title I, section 1011, provides that trustees are to

be consulted on the appropriate removal action to

be taken in connection with any discharge of oil.

Title I, section 1012, provided for the uses of the

oil pollution fund. In addition to response costs,

the fund may be used without appropriations to

pay the costs of assessments, as well as to pay

claims for natural resource damages if there are

no funds or insufficient funds from a responsible

party. (A claims procedure was to be developed

under section 1013.) 

This section also stipulated deadlines for the

submission of removal cost claims and damage

claims.

Title IV, section 4202, amended subsection 311(j) of

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with

respect to the National Planning and Response

System. It defined area committees and area

contingency plans, and requirements and deadlines

for agencies. Under this section, the Service is

required to generate a list of all equipment,

including fire fighting equipment, as well as

personnel and any other equipment and supplies

that could be used to expedite the removal of oil or

mitigation of a spill.

One aspect of particular interest to the Service

involves the identification of ecologically sensitive

areas and the preparation of scientific monitoring

and evaluation plans. Research conducted by the

Service is to be directed and coordinated by the

National Wetland Research Center.

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962

This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior

to administer refuges, hatcheries, and other

conservation areas for recreational use, when such

uses do not interfere with the area’s primary

purposes. It authorizes construction and

maintenance of recreational facilities and the

acquisition of land for incidental fish and wildlife

oriented recreational development or protection of

natural resources. It also authorizes the charging

of fees for public uses.

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s)

Section 401 of the Act of June 15, 1935, (49 Stat.

383) provided for payments to counties in lieu of

taxes, using revenues derived from the sale of

products from refuges.

Public Law 93-509, approved December 3, 1974,

(88 Stat. 1603) required that moneys remaining in

the fund after payments be transferred to the

Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for land

acquisition under provisions of the Migratory Bird

Conservation Act.

Public Law 95-469, approved October 17, 1978, (92

Stat. 1319) expanded the revenue sharing system

to include National Fish Hatcheries and Service

research stations. It also included in the Refuge

Revenue Sharing Fund receipts from the sale of

salmonid carcasses. Payments to counties were

established as:

Appendix B

B-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
1) on acquired land, the greatest amount calculated

on the basis of 75 cents per acre, three-fourths

of one percent of the appraised value, or 25

percent of the net receipts produced from the

land; and

2) on land withdrawn from the public domain, 25

percent of net receipts and basic payments

under Public Law 94-565 (31 U.S.C. 1601-1607,

90 Stat. 2662), payment in lieu of taxes on

public lands.

This amendment also authorized appropriations to

make up any difference between the amount in the

Fund and the amount scheduled for payment in

any year. The stipulation that payments be used

for schools and roads was removed, but counties

were required to pass payments along to other

units of local government within the county which

suffer losses in revenues due to the establishment

of Refuges.

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife

Conservation purposes Act of 1948

This Act provides that upon determination by the

Administrator of the General Services

Administration, real property no longer needed by

a Federal agency can be transferred, without

reimbursement, to the Secretary of the Interior if

the land has particular value for migratory birds,

or to a State agency for other wildlife

conservation purposes.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794 )as

amended

Title 5 of P.L. 93-112 (87 Stat. 355), signed October

1, 1973, prohibits discrimination on the basis of

handicap under any program or activity receiving

Federal financial assistance.

Youth Conservation Corps Act (16 U.S.C. 1701-

1706, 84 Stat. 794)

Public Law 91-378, approved August 13, 1970,

declares the YCC pilot program a success and

establishes permanent programs within the

Departments of Interior and Agriculture for young

adults who have attained the age of 15, but not the

age of 19, to perform specific tasks on lands and

waters administered under jurisdiction of these

Secretaries. Within the Fish and Wildlife Service,

YCC participants perform various tasks on

National Wildlife Refuges, National Fish

Hatcheries, research stations, and other facilities.

The legislation also authorizes the Secretary of

Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to

establish a joint grant program to assist States

employing young adults on non-Federal public

lands and waters throughout the U.S.

Requires the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture

to prepare a joint report to the President and

Congress prior to April 1 of each year.

Wilderness Act of 1964

Public Law 88-577, approved September 3, 1964,

directed the Secretary of the Interior, within 10

years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 or

more acres and every roadless island (regardless

of size) within National Wildlife Refuge and

National Park Systems for inclusion in the

National Wilderness Preservation System.

Appendix B

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 B-7
Appendix B

B-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 C-1

Appendix C

Refuge Cover Type Maps
Appendix C

C-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Appendix C

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 C-3
Appendix C

C-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Appendix C

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 C-5
Appendix C

C-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 E-1

Appendix E

Compatibility Determinations
Compatibility Determination 

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge

Complex 

Uses

Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and

photography, and environmental education and

interpretation were identified as priority, wildlifedependent recreational uses by the National

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

(Refuge Improvement Act; P.L. 105-57). This

compatibility determination addresses all of these

uses.

Refuge names, establishing and

acquisition authorities, and purposes

Each National Wildlife Refuge is established

under specific legislation. Similarly, each refuge

has one or more specific legal purposes for which it

was established. The establishing legislation and

purposes for each refuge in the Rhode Island

National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Rhode Island

Refuge Complex) are given below.

Block Island National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: November 2, 1973

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Block

Island National Wildlife Refuge (Block Island

Refuge) was established under 16 USC 667b,

Public Law 80 - 537, an Act Authorizing the

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife, or

other Purposes. 

Purpose for which Refuge was Established: Lands

acquired under 16 USC 667b, Public Law 80-537

were for...”particular value in carrying out the

national migratory bird management program.” 

Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 12 August 1970

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Ninigret

National Wildlife Refuge (Ninigret Refuge) was

established on 12 August, 1970 under 16 USC

667b, Public Law 80 - 537, An Act Authorizing the

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife, or

other Purposes. Remaining parcels of land were

established under the Migratory Bird

Conservation Act 16 USC. 715d.

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was Established:

Lands acquired under 16 USC 667b, Public Law

80- 537 were for...”particular value in carrying out

the national migratory bird management

program.” Additional lands acquired under the

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d)

were ...”for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for

any other management purpose, for migratory

birds.”

John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: November 5, 1988 (originally

established as Pettaquamscutt Cove National 

Wildlife Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Amendment to the Emergency Wetlands

Resources Act (102 Stat. 3177) and the National

Wildlife Refuge Administrative Act of 1966, as

amended (16 USC 668dd - 668ee; 80 STAT 927). 

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was Established:

The purposes for which the Refuge was

established and managed are: “(1) to protect and

enhance the populations of black ducks and other

waterfowl, geese, shorebirds, terns, wading birds,

and other wildlife using the refuge; (2) to provide

for the conservation and management of fish and

wildlife within the refuge; (3) to fulfill the

international treaty obligations of the United

States respecting fish and wildlife; and (4) to

provide opportunities for scientific research,

environmental education, and fish and wildlifeoriented recreation” (102 Stat. 3177). 

Appendix E

E-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: November 3, 1970

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge (Sachuest

Point Refuge) was established on November 3,

1970 under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, and

the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962. 

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was Established:

Sachuest Point Refuge was established “... for the

development, management, advancement,

conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife

resources” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) and for

“(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented

recreational development; (2) protection of natural

resources, and; (3) conservation of endangered or

threatened species” (Refuge Recreation Act of

1962).

Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: August 15, 1974

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Trustom

Pond National Wildlife Refuge was established on

15 August 1974 under the authority of the

Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 USC 715-

715R and by the Refuge Recreation Act, 16 USC c

- 1.

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was Established: For

lands acquired under the Migratory Bird

Conservation Act, as amended, the purpose of the

acquisition is “... for uses as an inviolate sanctuary,

or for any other management purpose, for

migratory birds.” 16 USC 715d (Migratory Bird

Conservation Act) and for “... (1) incidental fish

and wildlife-oriented recreational development; (2)

the protection of natural resources; and (3) the

conservation of endangered or threatened

species...” as authorized by the Refuge Recreation

Act, 16 USC. c - 1.

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

The Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge

System is “to administer a national network of

lands and waters for the conservation of,

management, and where appropriate, restoration

of fish, wildlife, and plant resource and their

habitats within the United States for the benefit of

present and future generations of Americans.”

Description of Uses

Environmental education

Environmental education includes activities which

seek to increase public knowledge and

understanding of wildlife and the importance of

habitat protection and management. Typical

activities include teacher or Refuge staff guided

onsite field trips, offsite programs in classrooms,

and nature study, such as teacher and student

workshops and curriculum structured instruction,

and interpretation of wildlife resources.

Additionally, environmental education utilizes

interpretive infrastructure such as kiosks, sign

panels and support facilities such as trails, visitor

contact station, and visitor centers (see

Interpretation section). 

Under the Service’s Proposed Action in the draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), a

Visitor Services Plan for the entire Refuge

Complex would be developed with cooperating

partners to identify mutual goals for

environmental education and interpretive

opportunities. Measures would include a piping

plover program education and outreach plan,

distribution of associated literature through

RIDEM beach use channels and their permitting

process at State beach and park entrance stations,

development of major piping plover and grassland

restoration exhibits at the new Rhode Island

Refuge Complex Visitor Center (RIVC), and

integration of the program into local school

curriculums. Also, the Refuge staff would actively

Appendix E

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 E-3
cooperate in an extension service for local

landowners interested in grassland work. 

Block Island Refuge

Due to the remoteness of the Refuge, no formal

environmental education activities currently occur

at Block Island Refuge. An unknown number of

educational walks are led each year by The Nature

Conservancy (TNC) on Block Island. An

unknown number of teacher-led school group trips

also occur on the Refuge. 

The CCP Proposed Action would initiate a formal

partnership with TNC to facilitate the sharing of

resources, assist in curriculum development and

implementation, develop the Beane Point facility as

a classroom laboratory or for housing seasonal

educators, and develop a Refuge Complex Visitor

Services Plan to provide strategic guidance for

developing environmental education programs.

Ninigret Refuge 

Currently, much of the environmental education is

conducted by the Frosty Drew Nature Center

under a Memorandum of Agreement. Frosty

Drew is a private non-profit education facility

located adjacent to the Refuge in Charlestown’s

Ninigret Park. The Center’s interpretive and

environmental education programs are based at

the Refuge and consist of outdoor classroom

activities held throughout the year for school and

scout groups, regularly scheduled public nature

tours, and a nature day camp (“Nature Week”) for

children during the summer. 

All environmental education programs on the

Refuge are conducted by naturalists from this

organization and knowledgeable members of the

Refuge Complex’s volunteer cadre. During the

last several years, approximately 2500 students

from local schools have participated in outdoor

classroom activities in any given year. Group

numbers average 42 students per class, but

teachers will take up to 50 students. More often

than not, organized groups use the Refuge only for

access to Ninigret Pond.

The CCP proposed action would increase the

program substantially. While we would continue

the cooperative venture with Frosty Drew, to

encompass the entire program, we would construct

an outdoor classroom site featuring grassland and

salt pond ecology, further develop the Volunteer

environmental education corps to help with

program implementation (shared with Trustom

Pond) and develop resource management

education sites along the “Trail Through Time” at

Ninigret Refuge. In addition, development of a

Refuge Complex Visitor Services Plan would

provide strategic direction for environmental

education programs.

Chafee Refuge

No environmental education activities are known

to occur on this unstaffed refuge. However, we

consider Chafee Refuge to have outstanding

environmental educational potential, especially

considering local conservation partners such as:

the Narrow River Preservation Association, the

South County Land Trust, the University of Rhode

Island, and numerous public and private schools.

Environmental education would compliment

ecotourism-related uses, as well as kayaking and

canoeing, which are becoming increasingly

popular in the waters on and adjacent to the

Refuge.

The CCP Proposed Action includes cooperation

with RI DEM to educate the public on the impacts

of excessive motorboat and jet ski speed on the

Refuge shoreline and wildlife. Additionally, we

would cooperate with local schools and partners to

develop a curriculum for classroom use featuring

the Narrow River estuary and Pettaquamscutt

Cove, and develop a formal partnership with the

South County Museum to conduct curriculumbased environmental education programs. In

addition, development of a Refuge Complex Visitor

Services Plan would provide strategic direction for

environmental education programs.

Appendix E

E-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Sachuest Point Refuge

Environmental education activities at Sachuest

Point Refuge include numerous visits by students

and the general public. In 1988, approximately

seventeen presentations on such topics as

endangered species, the National Wildlife Refuge

System, marine shore life, and bird natural history

were conducted. Nearly 650 students participated

in Refuge programs that year, but that level of

involvement has not held in recent years, due to a

lack of staffing. Currently, an unknown number of

teacher-led school groups take advantage of the

three miles of trails on the Refuge. 

The CCP Proposed Action would increase this

program substantially. The Visitor Center would

be rehabilitated to increase its effectiveness as an

environmental education facility. Renovations

would include improved exhibits. We would also

develop a formal partnership with the Norman

Bird Sanctuary to facilitate sharing of resources.

Finally, we would cooperate with local Middletown

and Newport schools to develop curriculum-based

programs (featuring Refuge resources), and

establish a Sachuest Point Volunteer

Environmental Education Corps. In addition,

development of a Refuge Complex Visitor Services

Plan would provide strategic direction for

environmental education programs.

Trustom Pond Refuge

Environmental education activities at Trustom

Pond Refuge currently include general public use

and student visits. In 1993, seventeen classes were

held at Trustom Pond. An outdoor education area

was established on Moonstone Beach to educate

visitors and school children about endangered

species and barrier beach management. The trail

system is also used by school groups to learn about

Refuge resources. In the past, school groups

sampled aquatic plant and animal communities

with dip nets from the dock at Farm Pond.

The CCP Proposed Action provides for

development of a volunteer environmental

education corps to help with program

implementation at Trustom Pond Refuge. In

addition, development of a Refuge Complex Visitor

Services Plan would cover topics such as:

curriculum-based programs for local schools,

programs for grassland restoration and coastal

salt pond ecology, and additional outdoor classroom

sites. In addition, development of a Refuge

Complex Visitor Services Plan would provide

strategic direction for environmental education

programs.

Fishing

Fishing includes the following activities: surf

fishing, shoreline fishing, rock fishing, spear

fishing, crabbing and shellfish harvesting (both

commercial and recreational). There is no fresh

water fishing on any of the Rhode Island Complex

Refuges.

Block Island Refuge

Due to the small acreage of the Refuge, surf

fishing is limited to small sections of the West

Beach, the north end of the island (Sandy Point)

and on or near the Beane Point parcel. Access to

these areas are by foot, boat, or along the beach in

off-road vehicles (ORVs). 

The CCP Proposed Action would close (to ORV

access) portions of Block Island Refuge beach

above the mean high tide line from March 1 - Sept.

30 each year to protect nesting and migrating

shorebirds and to reduce physical impacts to beach

and dunes. Only pedestrian traffic would be

allowed. Other proposals include determining

human disturbance to colonial nesting birds by

surf fishing presence and adapting a

comprehensive public use policy after completion

of a monitoring study. 

Ninigret Refuge

Surf fishing occurs on the barrier beach parcel and

is accessible by 4WD and foot traffic. Additionally,

Appendix E

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 E-5
salt water fishing and shellfish harvesting is

popular in Ninigret Pond from both boats and the

Refuge shoreline. Commercial harvesters access

the Pond at entry points after crossing the Refuge

by foot from both U.S. Route 1 and the East

Parking Lots.

The CCP Proposed Action would continue to allow

access for recreational and commercial shellfishing

in Ninigret Pond on designated trails only, and in

accordance with state regulations. Those engaged

in commercial shellfishing would be required to

obtain a special use permit. Shoreline fishing in

Ninigret Pond would be allowed at certain

established access points to prevent wildlife

disturbance and shoreline erosion.

Chafee Refuge

Saltwater fishing occurs in the marsh coves of the

Narrow River from recreational users, and, to a

limited extent, from accessible shoreline areas

(Middlebridge Road). It is likely that, while the

waters of Narrow River are currently closed to

shellfish harvesting, the potential for this use in

the future exists.

The CCP Proposed Action would provide fishing

from boats or from the shoreline, but only from

designated access points to reduce erosion and

impact on Refuge saltmarsh. Additionally, a

barrier-free fishing structure would be built, and

we would work with RI DEM to educate the public

on the impact of excessive motorboat and jet ski

speed on Refuge shoreline and wildlife.

Sachuest Point Refuge

Surf fishing is popular along the Refuge perimeter

(approximately 3.5 miles) in the Atlantic Ocean and

the Sakonnet River for striped bass, bluefish,

tautog, and scup. Approximately 8,817 fishing

visits were recorded in 1990, 17% of all public use

on the Refuge. More recent counts of fishing visits

are not available. Species like striped bass and

bluefish are migratory and fishing pressure is

linked to presence of fish, whereas scup and tautog

are resident to the area and fishing pressure is

fairly constant from Spring through the Fall. 

Since the State of Rhode Island owns all tidal land

below mean high water, fishing technically occurs

on state land, while only access is provided

through the Refuge. Surf fishers have been

granted 24 hour access to the Refuge for the

purpose of fishing. The exception to this policy is

spear fishing, where divers utilize the Refuge to

access the rocky shoreline to “hunt” fish with what

is essentially an underwater firearm. Under the

CCP Proposed Action, spearguns would have to

unloaded and encased while being transported

across the Refuge.

The CCP Proposed Action would continue to allow

surf fishing, day and night, in the Atlantic Ocean

and the Sakonnet River from Refuge land in

accordance with state regulations. Shoreline

access points would be designated and established

to control erosion impacts and better enforce

restrictions. Additionally, we would initiate a study

to determine the impacts to wildlife from night

time fishing, and we would also construct a

barrier-free fishing platform, if feasible. 

Trustom Pond Refuge

Surf fishing occurs along the shoreline on the

barrier beach section of the Refuge. Also,

crabbing is popular in both Mud Pond and Cards

Pond. Trustom Salt Pond is closed to fishing and

there is no known, unauthorized use for fishing or

shellfish harvesting. 

The CCP Proposed Action would continue to

authorize surf fishing from September 16 to

March 31, in accordance with state regulations

and by pedestrian traffic only. Trustom Pond

itself would remain closed to fishing. No vehicles

are allowed on the Refuge beach, above mean high

tide, at any time.

Appendix E

E-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Hunting, deer

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) exist in

45 of the contiguous United States. Climatically

speaking, they are remarkably adaptive and

tolerant of people and their practices. This

adaptability is reflected in the diversity of their

browser/grazer diet. Hessleton (1987) states that

deer management is accomplished through three

general methods: (1) manipulation of populations

via hunting season length or bag limits; (2)

manipulation of habitat to increase, decrease, or

maintain deer abundance; and (3) people

management. Of the three options, “people

management” presents the greatest challenges to

wildlife managers today. 

Deer are present on a regular basis at all five

Refuges in the Complex, though the numbers

fluctuate depending upon season and adjacent land

activities. There have been incidents of deer

poaching on or near Refuge lands, but the problem

is sporadic, at worse. Currently, there are no

controlled hunts on any of the Rhode Island

Complex Refuges. Deer management plans, as

outlined below, would be implemented if hunting is

recommended as a future management program.

A separate Environmental Assessment and full

compatibility determination would need to be

completed for deer hunting. 

The CCP Proposed Action includes: 

Block Island Refuge: cooperate with partners to

develop a deer management plan for the Block

Island Focus Area. This plan would need to

address deer population control based on limits of

acceptable change to habitat objectives (i.e. tick

control, vehicle collisions, etc.). Once impacts

exceed habitat objectives, deer population

objectives would be sought in cooperation with

adjacent land owners, local government, RI DEM,

and partner organizations.

Ninigret Refuge: work with adjacent landowners

to develop a comprehensive deer management plan

for the greater Charlestown area. This plan would

identify the need for deer population control based

on established limits of acceptable change to

habitat objectives. Once impacts exceed habitat

objectives, deer population objectives would be

sought in cooperation with adjacent land owners,

local government, RIDEM and partner

organizations.

Chafee Refuge: work with adjacent landowners to

develop a comprehensive deer management plan

for the Foddering Farms tract (128 acres) with a

proposal similar to the other Complex Refuges.

Sachuest Point Refuge: none planned

Trustom Pond Refuge: develop a comprehensive

deer management plan similar to the one proposed

for the other Refuges. 

Hunting, Migratory Bird (waterfowl)

Migratory birds are managed on a flyway basis.

Hunting regulations are established in each state

based on flyway data. Currently, waterfowl

hunting occurs on or adjacent to Ninigret, Chafee,

and Trustom Pond Refuges.

Ninigret Refuge

Currently, the only authorized hunting that occurs

near Ninigret Refuge is state-regulated waterfowl

hunting in the waters of Ninigret Pond. The CCP

Proposed Action would allow waterfowl hunting

and associated dog retrieval in Coon Cove and in

the marshes along the barrier beach parcel, by boat

access only. This hunting would be administered by

RI DEM under Refuge regulations. 

Chafee Refuge

Waterfowl hunting is a traditional public use in the

waters of Pettaquamscutt Cove. While no hunting

is as yet authorized on Refuge property, the

proposed action in the CCP addresses a

cooperative effort with RI DEM to establish the

Appendix E

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 E-7
entire Pettaquamscutt Cove as a waterfowl

management area. Oportunities to provide a

watchable waterfowl “rest area”, while also

providing areas for hunting, would be evaluated in

a management area plan. The Service would

consider boat hunting of waterfowl, if

recommended in the Waterfowl Management Plan,

allowing RI DEM to administer a limited

waterfowl hunt, subject to Refuge regulations. 

Sachuest Point Refuge

Waterfowl (sea duck) hunting by boat is a

traditional public use in the Atlantic

Ocean/Sakonnet River waters adjacent to Sachuest

Point Refuge. Currently, there is limited use,

although over the past two years, there has been

an increased interest by the public to utilize a

State law that allows hunting from land below the

mean high water line. This essentially opens areas

along the rocky shoreline of the Refuge from

which numerous sea duck species (including

harlequin) can be effectively hunted. 

The CCP Proposed Action would work with RI

DEM, to designate a “no hunting” zone off the

eastern side of the Refuge, or approximately 200

yds off Island Rocks, other promontories and

shoreline, to provide a sufficient rest area for sea

ducks and as a watchable wildlife opportunity, as

observing harlequin ducks is a main attraction of

this Refuge. Additionally, we would begin

monitoring shoreline use by Refuge Visitors under

to determine if general public use of the trails

disturbs wintering waterfowl, particularly

harlequin ducks.

Trustom Pond

Specific details regarding the hunting program at

Trustom Pond Refuge are contained in the

Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge Hunting

Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1989), which

also includes a Compatibility Determination,

Environmental Assessment, and Section 7

Consultation (endangered species). Hunting of

migratory birds, primarily Canada geese, occurs

on 20 acres of Refuge uplands, (cool season grass).

The hunted parcel is closed to the public, with the

exception of migratory bird hunting. Geese tend

to use the fields as feeding and resting areas, as

well as migratory corridors. Canada geese are

usually found on the above mentioned fields, or on

Trustom Pond and in fields east of the pond (which

are both closed to hunting). Bag limits and

seasons are determined by Federal and State

regulations, which allow two split seasons for

geese. The number of ducks and other species of

geese taken is usually quite minimal. 

Opening a portion of Trustom Pond Refuge to

migratory bird hunting provides the public with a

limited, high quality, wildlife oriented, recreational

experience. Additionally, hunting is an acceptable,

traditional form of wildlife-oriented recreation that

can be used as a management tool to effectively

manipulate wildlife populations. The resident subpopulation of Canada geese has seen significant

increases within the last ten years (Trost and

Malecki 1985, Hindman and Ferrigno 1990).

Increases in resident Canada geese have currently

reached “nuisance” status along the east coast

(Atlantic Waterfowl Council 1981). A well

managed and well timed hunt is one method being

used to reduce the numbers of resident geese

(Hestbeck et al. 1990).

The CCP Proposed Action would continue to allow

RI DEM to administer waterfowl hunting on 20

upland acres of grassland fields. 

Environmental Interpretation

Interpretation includes those activities and

supporting infrastructure that translates

management activities and cultural history to

laymen public users. Interpretive programs are

planned for all five Refuges to explain habitat

management and restoration activities and

processes. In addition, the planned Coastal

Rhode Island Visitor Center (CRI VC) and the

rehabilitated Sachuest Point Visitor Center,

Appendix E

E-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
complete with cutting edge exhibitry, will act as

“interpretive centers of excellence”. Development

of the Visitor Services Plan will guide related

activities and projects for the next 10 to 15 years,

including cooperation with partners to identify

mutual goals for interpretive opportunities.

Block Island Refuge

The CCP Proposed Action at Block Island

includes opportunities to develop interpretive

exhibits at Cresent Beach, North Light, on the

ferry, at the ferry landing, town center and

Settler’s Rock. Additionally, an orientation and

introduction to the Service and the Refuge will be

developed to present to Island visitors at the Town

theater. Also, an interpretive walk on Clayhead

Trail would be planned and developed.

Ninigret Refuge

Currently, foot travel is allowed all year on two 1-

mile trails which lead to Foster Cove and a

platform overlooking Ninigret Pond, as well as the

70 acres of asphalt runways and interior

maintenance roads. The Refuge trail system is

also used by non-profit organizations to conduct

outings and interpretive programs. The 22 acre

barrier beach parcel is open to foot traffic with the

exception of piping plover nesting areas and the

salt marsh shoreline along Ninigret Pond. The

upper berm of the barrier beach is closed to public

use from April 1st to September 15th to provide

nesting habitat for the federally threatened piping

plover and State threatened least tern. 

Interpretation of habitat and wildlife use will

continue along Refuge trails, at road side pull-offs,

trail overlooks, and at parking areas, visitor

contact sites and at the barrier beach areas.

Development of a Visitor Services Plan will include

evaluation of new pamphlets, trail maps, species

checklists and interpretive signs at current

platforms as well as at the proposed Foster Cove

observation platform.

The CCP Proposed Action would continue

completion of a barrier-free 3.8 miles of trail

system “Trail Through Time”. Existing trails,

kiosks and platforms would be upgraded or

completely replaced, including improved

interpretive panels and signs. The Refuge would

continue to participate in local festivals and other

special events and use volunteers to lead

interpretive programs. 

Chafee Refuge

No interpretive opportunities currently exist at

Chafee Refuge. The CCP Proposed Action would

develop interpretive exhibits and a kiosk at the

South County Museum in Narragansett. We

would also design and construct a kiosk and

barrier-free trail and observation platform at

Bridgeport Commons. Cooperating with RI DOT,

we would construct a kiosk and pullout overlook at

Middlebridge, plan and designate canoe and kayak

water routes; consider the use of a concessionaire

to run a canoe and kayak rental operation; and

ensure that RI DOT constructs an interpretive

kiosk and overlook on the South County Bike Trail.

Sachuest Point Refuge

The Visitor Center is currently being renovated

and one kiosk exists on the three mile trail system.

The CCP Proposed Action would develop new

exhibits in the Sachuest Point Visitor Center. As

part of an expanded interpretive program, we

would develop the trail system to include points at

which resource management and natural history,

and cultural resources are interpreted. At least

one segment of the trail system would be barrierfree. We would also develop additional kiosks;

improve signage; create “watchable wildlife”

pamphlets, multi lingual literature, and signs;

coordinate with the Town of Middletown to develop

interpretive signs, kiosks, and/or exhibits on

Second and Third beaches; and plan an exhibit for

the Newport Visitor Center.

Trustom Pond Refuge

Appendix E

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 E-9
A staffed Visitor Contact Station and kiosks are

established on Trustom Pond Refuge. The CCP

Proposed Action would reduce unnecessary trail

sections and restrict public access to trails only. A

barrier-free trail would provide access to the Pond,

where interpretation would be augmented with a

self-guided trail pamphlet and species checklist.

We would also construct interpretive signs for the

grassland restoration project, barrier beach

management and salt pond ecology.

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Block Island Refuge

This Refuge has not been formally opened to

public use, therefore a trail system has not been

established. However, walking, amateur

photography and observation of wildlife occurs

year-round along the beach shoreline, foot paths,

through the sand dunes, and the right-of-way

leading to the North Lighthouse. 

The CCP Proposed Action would formally open

Block Island Refuge to allow wildlife observation

and photography on designated travel ways. The

only exception would be to restrict public access if

piping plover are observed displaying territorial

behavior or in other sensitive nesting and roosting

areas. We would also designate trails to protect

dunes, and enforce restriction to trails.

Ninigret Refuge

Interpretation of habitat and wildlife would occur

along Refuge trails and at road side pull-offs, trail

overlooks, parking areas, visitor contact sites and

barrier beach areas.

Foot travel is allowed all year on two 1-mile trails

which lead to Foster Cove and a platform

overlooking Ninigret Pond, as well as the 70 acres

of asphalt runways and interior maintenance

roads. Occasional amateur photography is

allowed in conjunction with wildlife observation.

Interpretive programs for the general public are

conducted by Refuge staff, volunteers and the

Frosty Drew Nature Center during the year.

These programs include owl walks, plant walks,

waterfowl walks, Refuge walks and salt pond

interpretation. The Refuge trail system is also

used by non-profit organizations to conduct

outings and interpretive programs.

The 22 acre barrier beach parcel is open to foot

traffic with the exception of piping plover nesting

areas and the salt marsh shoreline along Ninigret

Pond. The upper berm of the barrier beach is

closed to public use from April 1st to September

15th to provide nesting habitat for the federally

threatened piping plover and State threatened

least tern. The CCP Proposed Action would

complete the 3.8 mile “Trail through Time” to

facilitate wildlife observation and photography.

Chafee Refuge

Currently, there are no authorized uses at Chafee

Refuge. The CCP Proposed Action would include

cooperation with the Town of Narragansett and RI

DOT to construct a barrier-free observation

platform at Middle Bridge. Also, a second

platform at Bridgeport Commons would be

constructed, and we would designate an

interpretive kayak and canoe route.

Sachuest Point Refuge

Foot travel is allowed all year on 3 miles of

designated trails which lead to three platforms

overlooking the Refuge and surrounding ocean

waters. Interpretive programs for the general

public are conducted by Refuge staff and

volunteers during the year. These programs

include owl walks, plant walks, waterfowl walks,

and Refuge walks. The Refuge trail system is

also used by non-profit organizations to conduct

outings and interpretive programs.

Wildlife photography along refuge trails is open to

the public and by Special Use Permit in closed

areas. Common photographic subjects at Sachuest

Appendix E

E-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Point Refuge are wintering Harlequin Ducks

(October-March) and shorebirds. Red foxes at

their dens are also a sought after subject. Access

is allowed one hour before sunrise to one hour

after sunset. Special Use Permittees are allowed

to build two temporary photography blinds to be

removed at the end of the season.

The CCP Proposed Action would eliminate

redundancy in trail system and designate and

enforce shoreline access points. We would develop

a barrier-free platform and trail section, and also

develop watchable wildlife pamphlets, species

check off lists and self-guided trail maps.

Trustom Pond Refuge

Foot travel is allowed all year on 3.5 miles of

designated trails which lead to three observation

platforms; two along the shore of Trustom Pond

and one platform on the half-acre farm pond.

Occasional amateur photography is allowed in

conjunction with wildlife observation. Between

September 15th and April 1st, foot travel is

allowed on the barrier beach. Interpretive

programs for the general public are conducted by

Refuge staff and volunteers during the year.

These programs include owl walks, plant walks,

waterfowl walks, and Refuge walks. The Refuge

trail system is also used by non-profit

organizations to conduct outings and interpretive

programs.

The CCP Proposed Action would reduce

unnecessary trails, restrict pub use to trails only,

ensure barrier-free access to at least one

observation platform, reconstruct the eastern most

trail to make it barrier-free, and develop watchable

wildlife pamphlets, species check off lists and selfguided trail maps. 

Availability of Resources

Environmental Education

Refuge Complex Recreation Funding Analysis for

Environmental Education (proposed projects):

Coastal RI Visitor Center Constuction 6500K

Sachuest Point VC Renovation 600K

Middlebridge VCS 25K

Middlebridge turn-off 250K

Bike Path (So. Co. Bike Path) Tract Kiosk 5K

Kiosk panels 3K

Bike Path along sewage ROW Tract 11 ???

Possible Visitor Center at turn-off 

(similar to TPVCS) 25K

Sachuest Point Kiosks (2) 10K

Sachuest Point Improve/upgrade trails 125K

Sachuest Point Observation platforms (3) 30K

Improve Sachuest Point VC exhibits 40K

Trustom Pond Improve/upgrade trails 50K

Trustom Pond Observation platforms (2) 20K

Trustom Pond Kiosks (2) and panels 15K

Fishing

Complex-wide Recreation Act Funding Analysis:

Funding/annual costs required to administer and

manage fishing activities

Maintenance of 3 Parking Area $15 K

3 Law Enforcement Officers 21K 

Signs for all 5 Refuges 5K

Refuge Complex Administration 5K

TOTAL $ 46K

Hunting

Funding/annual costs required to administer and

manage waterfowl hunting activities:

Maintenance of Parking Area on 4 Refuges $12K

3 Law Enforcement Officers 21K

Deer exclosures on all 5 Refuges 25K

Signs on 4 Refuges 4K

Program Administration 8K

Studies to support activity 40K

TOTAL $110K

Appendix E

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 E-11
Some costs would be significantly reduced due to

State management of the program. Law

enforcement officers from the Complex would have

limited involvement.

Interpretation

(Incorporated into Environmental Education and

Wildlife Observation/Photography sections)

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Funding Requirements in Support of Wildlife

Observation and Photography:

Maintaining Trails $5K 

Maintain Platforms 1K

Design/construct observation platforms 50K

Photo-related Brochures 5K

Photo-related Signs 5K

TOTAL $66K

Anticipated Impacts of Proposed Actions 

Environmental Education

Onsite environmental education activities by

groups of up to 50 students and teachers may

impose a low level of impact on sites used for these

activities. These low level impacts may include

trampling of vegetation and temporary

disturbance to wildlife in the immediate area

during the activity. These minor impacts occur in

areas already impacted by public use and private

ownership. In the event of disturbance to trust

resources (i.e. piping plover nesting or territorial

behavior) the activities would be curtailed or

prohibited altogether.

Fishing

Potential and actual refuge impacts include over

harvest of fisheries, trampling of vegetation,

creation of unauthorized trails and subsequent

erosion from unauthorized trails. Some

disturbance to roosting and feeding shorebirds

probably occurs (Burger 1981) but is considered

minimal. Discarded fishing line and other fishing

litter can entangle migratory birds and marine

mammals and cause injury and death (Gregory

1991). Additionally, litter impacts the visual

experience of refuge visitors (Marion and Lime

1986). Several enforcement issues involving

fishing also impact the refuge, including: illegal

taking of fish (undersized, over limit), littering,

illegal fires at night, and disorderly conduct. Many

ethnic groups use the Refuges to fish, Sachuest

Point in particular, but cannot read the current

regulatory signs printed in English, further

exacerbating the above-mentioned problems.

Sachuest Point, while having a Visitor’s Center,

lacks permanent staff to provide a continuous

presence. Contact between Refuge staff with

visitors is minimal, occurring mainly through

volunteers who staff the visitor center, or law

enforcement officers working evenings.

Hunting, Migratory Bird

Direct disturbance to doves and geese (at Trustom

Pond) and other waterfowl (at Sachuest Point,

Ninigret and Chafee Refuges) would occur from

hunting. Current numbers of such birds would be

reduced, within allowable limits, as determined by

State and Federal agencies. Additional

disturbance would occur to wintering birds and

other wildlife using the lands, fields, open waters

and marshes where hunting would occur. Noise

from shotguns would cause some birds to flush and

go elsewhere. These impacts are of a temporary

nature and would also be reduced by the presence

of adjacent Refuge habitat where hunting does

not occur, and birds can feed and rest relatively

undisturbed.

Appendix E

E-12 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Wildlife Observation and Photography and

Environmental Interpretation

Possible impacts may involve disturbing wildlife,

removing plants, trampling vegetation, littering,

vandalism, and entrance into closed areas.

Human activity during migration and /or nesting

may need to be addressed in the future (Pfister et

al. 1992, Burger 1986) At Sachuest Point Refuge,

visitor activities may impact the harlequin ducks, a

species of management concern, that winter at

Island Rocks located east of the Refuge (Cassirer

et.al. 1993). Additional impacts from these

activities might include:

•Increased disturbance to harlequin ducks,

red fox and their kits, and other resident

wildlife; 

•Loss of habitat from construction of

observation blinds;

•Trampling of vegetation in interpretation

areas (including blinds and along trails).

Public Review and Comment

Public review and comments will be solicited in

conjunction with the CCP/Environmental

Assessment for the Rhode Island Refuge Complex,

in order to comply with the National

Environmental Policy Act and Service Policy.

Determination

The use is compatible X .

The use is not compatible

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure

Compatibility

Environmental Education

Activities would be held on sites where minimal

impact would occur. Periodic evaluation of sites

and programs would be conducted to assess

whether objectives are being met and to prevent

site degradation. If evidence of unacceptable

adverse impacts appear, the location of the outdoor

classroom would be rotated with secondary sites.

The known presence of a threatened or

endangered species in the vicinity of the

environmental education activity or site would

preclude use of that site until the Refuge Manager

determines otherwise.

Regulations to ensure the safety of all participants

would be issued in writing to the teacher

responsible for the activities and would be

reviewed before the students begin.

Fishing

Each Refuge needs a consistent Service presence

to be able to adequately manage a quality fishing

program. Sachuest Point refuge should be staffed

year-round. Adequate funding to provide seasonal

law enforcement presence at night on Sachuest

Point would be required during the peak of the

fishing season (particularly April-October).

Enforcement would help to curb illegal fires,

disorderly conduct, littering, illegal taking of fish,

and creation of unauthorized trails. Law

enforcement officers would also serve as a direct

contact to the fishing public to communicate and

enforce Refuge regulations. 

Creation of fishing access points using stairs would

reduce unauthorized trails and subsequent erosion.

Additional regulatory signs, printed literature, and

additional signs printed in the languages of the

various ethnic groups using the Refuge would also

help to educate users about Refuge policy and

fishing regulations. Public meetings with local

fishing clubs and interested individuals might also

be required to educate the public on Refuge

regulations. We could also develop a regulation to

ensure fishing spears are unloaded and encased.

Appendix E

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 E-13
Hunting, Migratory Bird

The Refuge hunting program would be

administered by RI DEM, who also manage goose

hunting on adjacent areas in what is known as the

South Shore Management Area (SSMA). Canada

goose hunting permits for the Refuge would be

issued by RI DEM through a reservation system.

Hunting would be limited to no more than four

consecutive days per week. The exact days of the

week would be assigned by RI DEM in the SSMA.

Hunting parties in the goose fields may not consist

of more than four persons. 

If population levels of either doves or Canada geese

were to decline significantly below Service

objectives, as set in the Regional Resource Plan

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984) and the North

American Waterfowl Management Plan (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service 1986), then hunting of these

species would be incompatible with Refuge purposes

and would be discontinued. Hunter compliance to

current migratory bird and refuge regulations would

be achieved through a combination of printed

information provided by RI DEM and enforcement

of regulations by Refuge officers.

Environmental Interpretation

A more consistent Service presence, especially

during peak visitation, will help ensure quality

interpretive programs. Law enforcement patrol of

public use areas should continue to minimize

vandalism, littering, and unauthorized use of trails.

The current “Refuge open fi hour before sunrise to

fi hour after sunset” regulation, on all Refuges

except Sachuest Point, restricts entry after daylight

hours, and should be maintained along with “Public

Use Restricted to Trails Only”. Periodic evaluation

of trails will be held to assess visitor impacts on

habitat and nesting to evaluate disturbance to

plants and animals. If evidence of unacceptable

adverse impacts begins to appear, Refuge

regulations will be posted and enforced. Closed

areas will be established, posted and enforced. The

known presence of any threatened or endangered

species likely to be disturbed by trail activity would

preclude use of that site as a trail.

Trustom Pond Refuge

New interpretive facilities would be constructed in

areas that would not diminish the undisturbed

shoreline, coves, and islands which allow waterfowl

to distance themselves from the visitors. These

undisturbed areas are particularly important to

migrating waterfowl when they first arrive and are

more sensitive to human disturbance (Klein 1989).

Shorebird roosting and nesting sites at the

Trustom Pond and Card Pond breachway would

remain closed to public entry during fall and

spring migration. Refuge staff would consider

daily monitoring during this time. Shorebird

surveys are conducted during migration and would

be expanded to document human use of the

intertidal zone and berm. Negative impacts from

human activity in these areas will be addressed if

needed. Access to the dunes of the barrier beach

and adjacent salt marsh area is prohibited all year

and is posted as a “Closed Area”.

Wildlife Observation and Photography

An increased Service presence on each Refuge

would improve the quality of these programs. In

particular, a permanent, year-round presence on

Sachuest Point Refuge is needed to manage visitor

use. Law enforcement patrol of public use areas

should continue to minimize the above-mentioned

types of violations. The current “Refuge open fi

hour before sunrise to fi hour after sunset”

regulation restricts entry after daylight hours, on

all Refuges but Sachuest Point, and should be

maintained along with “Public Use Restricted to

Trails Only”. 

All Refuges will have designated trails and use will

be restricted to those trails. Periodic evaluation of

paths will be held to assess visitor impacts on the

habitat and species of concern. If evidence of

unacceptable adverse impacts begins to appear,

Refuge regulations will be posted and enforced.

Closed areas may be established, posted and

enforced. The known presence of any threatened or

endangered species likely to be disturbed by trail

activity would preclude use of that site as a trail.

All photographers must follow refuge regulations.

Photographers in closed areas must follow the

conditions outlined in the Special Use Permit

which normally include: notification of the Refuge

Manager or Designee each time a blind is moved,

use of area should be restricted to inside blinds to

reduce disturbance to wildlife, no baits or scents of

any kind may be used, all litter must be removed

Appendix E

E-14 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
each day, no food can be left in the blind overnight,

and all blinds will be removed at the end of the

photographic season.

All wildlife observation and photography

structures will be placed to minimize impacts to

habitat, and species of concern. To minimize

disturbance, development of permanent trails and

facilities will either avoid, or be placed on the

perimeter of sensitive areas where wildlife can

anticipate a consistent human presence. Structure

will be built to conform to the landscape to the

extent practicable, in order to maintain a natural

setting.

Justification

Environmental Education

Environmental education is a public use

management tool used to develop a resource

protection ethic within a society. Environmental

education activities generally support refuge

purposes and impacts can largely be mitigated

(Goff et al. 1988). The minor resource impacts

attributed to these activities are generally

outweighed by the benefits gained by educating

present and future generations about refuge

resources (Dufus and Dearden 1990).

While environmental education targets school age

children, it is not limited to them. It allows us to

instruct Refuge visitors on endangered and

threatened species, wildlife management and

ecological communities. A secondary benefit is the

“ownership mentality” instilled in Refuge visitors,

which probably decreases vandalism, littering, and

poaching. Environmental education also increases

the Service’s visibility in the local community.

Environmental education (outdoor classroom) is

listed in the Refuge Manual (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1985) as the highest priority

visitor activity throughout the National Wildlife

Refuge System.

Fishing

Fishing is a priority wildlife-oriented activity that

provides substantial recreational benefits to the

public (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992 and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997). The Rhode

Island Refuge Complex technically has no fisheries

resources on its property, but is providing access

to fishing. In this region, surf fishing and shellfish

harvesting are traditional forms of outdoor

recreation. 

Hunting, Migratory Bird

Hunting is another priority wildlife-oriented

activity that provides outstanding recreational

benefit to the public. Hunting of Canada geese on

Trustom Pond Refuge promotes an appreciation of

wildlife and the outdoors. Recreational hunting is

also a valid means of population control, and can

serve to keep populations of wildlife in check.

Current population levels of mourning doves in

New England show significant increases within the

past ten years (Dolton and Kendall 1993).

Currently, Rhode Island is the only state in New

England which conducts a dove hunt. While the

Canadian breeding population of migratory

Canada geese have declined dramatically in the

last ten years, the resident sub-population of

Canada geese continues to increase (Trost and

Malecki 1985, Hindman and Ferrigno 1990). 

In Rhode Island, resident Canada geese derived

from the “maxima” subspecies have increased

steadily since the mid ‘60s (Allin 1980). Current

population levels show approximately 4,500 geese

from the mid-winter inventory (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1994). These current population

levels of resident Canada geese have reached

“nuisance” status along the east coast (Atlantic

Waterfowl Council 1981) and damage gardens,

golf courses, winter cover crops, and cause water

quality problems in public water reservoirs

(Hindman and Ferrigno 1990). Presently,

complaints regarding Canada geese are the

number one animal damage problem faced by RI

DEM. 

A study currently underway on the Atlantic coast

is attempting to determine optimum timing of

harvest of Atlantic Flyway Canada geese by

determining when the majority of migratory

geese(which are declining) have passed through an

area in order to increase the harvest on the nonmigratory, resident Canada geese (Hestbeck et al.

1990). The results of this study will have a direct

impact on the timing and numbers of resident

geese harvested at Trustom Pond Refuge. The

current direction of the hunting program at

Trustom Pond Refuge will contribute to the

Appendix E

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 E-15
reduction of local resident Canada geese and

reduce the public nuisance of these birds.

Wildlife Observation and Photography and

Environmental Interpretation

The majority of visitors to the Refuge are there to

view the wildlife of the upland, salt pond and

beach. This visitation is a wildlife-oriented activity

which is compatible with Refuge purposes. 

While there is a degree of visitor impacts on trail

vegetation (Kuss 1991) and disturbance to wildlife

near trails (Klein 1989, Burger 1981), visitors gain

an understanding of management, and an

appreciation for the environment of the Refuge.

Long-term gains resulting from positive visitor

experiences outweigh the short-term disturbance

caused by visitors. Visitor education and law

enforcement will reduce the incidence of negative

impact activities while providing high visitor

satisfaction (Goff 1988).

Wildlife observation and photography are wildlifeoriented uses that benefits not only the

photographer, but the Refuge as well. Some

photographers donate photographs and slides of

Refuge resources which help the Refuge better

communicate its mission and resources through

slide presentations and photo displays. 

Some research shows that photographers can be

extremely invasive to wildlife, causing disturbance

to nesting birds and rare species (Klein 1989).

Impacts of photographers to wildlife at Sachuest

Point Refuge has yet to be determined, though sea

duck species, such as harlequin ducks, seldom

frequent the shoreline, preferring rugged surf for

foraging and the safety of several rocky islands

offshore for roosting.

Signature – Refuge Manager: _____________

Date: _____________ 

Concurrence – Regional Chief: _____________ 

Date: _____________ 

Mandatory 10 or 15-year Reevaluation Date: 

__________ 

Appendix E

E-16 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
References

Allin, C.C. 1980. Canada geese in Rhode Island.

Rhode Island Dept. of Env. Manage. Div. Fish and

Wildl. Pam. no:12. 46pp.

Atlantic Waterfowl Council. 1981. Canada goose

subcommittee nuisance goose flock evaluation and 

management plan. AWC minutes 10pp.

Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds

at a coastal bay. Biol. Conserv. 21: 231-241.

Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on

shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern United

States. Env. Cons. 13(2): 123-130.

Burger, J. and J. Galli. 1987. Factors affecting

distribution of gulls (Larus spp.) on two New Jersey

coastal bays. Env. Cons. 14(1): 59-64.

Cassirer, E.F., A. Breault, P. Clarkson, D.L. Genter,

R.I. Goudie, B. Hunt, S.C. Lata, G.H. Mittelhouser, M.

McCollough, G. Schirato, and R.L. Wallen. 1993.

Status of Harlequin Ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus)

in North America. Rept. of the Harlequin Duck

Working Group. 83pp

Dufus, D.A. and P.A. Dearden. 1990. Nonconsumptive wildlife-oriented recreation: a conceptual

framework. Bio. Cons. 53: 213-231.

Goff, G.R., D.J. Decker, and G. Pomerantz. 1988. A

diagnostic tool for analyzing visitor impacts on

wildlife refuges: A basis for a systematic approach to

visitor management. Trans. Northeast Sect. Wildl.

Soc. 45: 82.

Gregory, M.R. 1991. The hazards of persistent marine

pollution: Drift plastics and conservation islands. J.

Royal Soc. New Zealand. 21(2):83-100.

Hesselton, W.T., and R.M. Hesselton. 1987. “White

tailed deer”. Wild Mammals of North America.

Edited by J.A. Chapman, and G.A. Feldhamer, 3rd

printing, copyright 1987. John Hopkins University

Press, Baltimore, MD

Hestbeck, J.B., D.H. Rusch, and R.A. Malecki. 1990.

Estimating population parameters for geese. Trans.

N.A. Wildl. Nat. Res Conf. 55:350-373.

Hindman, L.J., and F. Ferrigno. 1990. Atlantic flyway

goose population status and management. Trans. N.A.

Wildl. Nat. Res Conf. 55:293-311.

Klein, M.L. 1989. Effects of high levels of human

visitation on foraging waterbirds at J.N. “Ding”

Darling National Wildlife Refuge. Final research

report. Florida Coop. Fish Wildl. Res. Unit, Univ.

Florida, Gainsville, Florida. FCFWRU Work Order

No. 42. vii+103.

Kuss, F.R. and C.N. Hall. 1991. Ground flora

trampling studies: Five years after closure. Environ.

Manage. 15(5): 715-727.

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to

human disturbances. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:31-39.

Marion, J.L. and D.W. Lime. 1986. Recreational

resource impacts: visitor perceptions and management

responses. pp 229-235. Kulhavy, D.L. and R.N.

Conner, eds. in Wilderness and natural areas in the

eastern United States: a management challenge.

Center for Applied Studies, Austin State Univ.

Nacogdoches, TX. 416pp.

Pfister, C., B.A. Harrington, and M. Lavine. 1992.

The impact of human disturbance on shorebirds at a

migration staging area. Bio. Cons. 60: 115-126.

Trost, R.E. and R.A. Malecki. 1985. Population

trends in Atlantic flyway Canada geese: implications

for management. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13:502-508.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985.

Refuge Manual. Wash. D.C.: U.S. Govt. Print. Off

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Hunting Plan

for Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge. 

Ninigret NWR. Charlestown, RI. 39pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992.

Fisheries USA. The Recreational Fisheries Policy of

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Wash. D.C. 11pp.

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

waterfowl survey-Atlantic Flyway. in press. 10pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of

1997. Public Law 105-57-OCT. 9, 1997.

Appendix E

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 E-17
Pre-Acquisition Compatibility

Determination 

(For use on lands proposed for acquisition)

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge

Complex 

Use

This pre-acquisition compatibility determination

essentially serves a s a statement of intent for

allowing priority, wildlife-dependent public uses

(hunting, fishing, environmental education and

interpretation, wildlife observation and

photography) to continue on lands proposed for

future Service acquisition outside of the current

acquisition boundaries for the Rhode Island

National Wildlife Refuges, assuming the identified

stipulations can be met. 

Refuge names, establishing and

acquisition authorities, and purposes:

Block Island National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: November 2, 1973

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Block

Island National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was

established under 16 U.S. Code 667b, Public Law

80 - 537, an Act authorizing the transfer of certain

real property for wildlife, or other purposes. 

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was Established:

Lands acquired under 16 U.S. code 667b, Public

Law 80-537 were for. . . “particular value in

carrying out the national migratory bird

management program.”

Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 12 August 1970

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Ninigret

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established

on 12 August, 1970 under 16 U.S. Code 667b,

Public Law 80 - 537, an Act authorizing the

transfer of certain real property for wildlife, or

other purposes. Remaining parcels of land were

established under the Migratory Bird

Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715d.

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was Established:

Lands acquired under 16 U.S. code 667b, Public

Law 80-537 were for. . . “particular value in

carrying out the national Migratory Bird

Management Program.” Additional lands acquired

under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16

U.S.C. ss 715d) were. . . “for use as an inviolate

sanctuary, or for any other management purpose,

for migratory birds.”

John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: November 5, 1988 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Amendment to the Emergency Wetlands

Resources Act (102 Stat. 3177) and the National

Wildlife Refuge Administrative Act of 1966, as

amended (16 USC 668dd - 668ee; 80 STAT 927). 

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was Established:

“The purpose for which the Refuge was

established and managed for were: (1) to protect

and enhance the populations of black ducks and

other waterfowl, geese, shorebirds, terns, wading

birds, and other wildlife using the refuge; (2) to

provide for the conservation and management of

fish and wildlife within the refuge; (3) to fulfill the

international treaty obligations of the United

States respecting fish and wildlife; and (4) to

provide opportunities for scientific research,

environmental education, and fish and wildlifeoriented recreation.” 102 Stat. 3177. 

Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: June 30, 1973

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Sachuest Point Refuge was established in 1970,

under the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 and the

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. 

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was Established:

“...for the development, management,

advancement, conservation, and protection of fish

and wildlife resources” and for “(1) incidental fish

and wildlife-oriented recreational development; (2)

protection of natural resources, and (3)

conservation of endangered or threatened

species.” 

Appendix E

E-18 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: August 15, 1974

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: The

Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge was

established on August 15, 1974 under the authority

of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 USC

715-715R and by the Refuge Recreation Act, 16

USC c - 1.

Purpose(s) for which Refuge was Established: For

lands acquired under the Migratory Bird

Conservation Act, as amended, the purpose of the

acquisition is “. . . for uses as an inviolate

sanctuary, or for any other management purpose,

for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory

Bird Conservation Act) and for “. . . (1) incidental

fish and wildlife-oriented recreational

development; (2) the protection of natural

resources; and (3) the conservation of endangered

or threatened species. . .” as authorized by the

Refuge Recreation Act, 16 USC. c - 1.

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

“To administer a national network of lands and

waters for the conservation, management, and

where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and

plant resources and their habitats within the

United States for the benefit of present and future

generations of Americans.”

Description of Use

The Level 1 Focus Areas presented in Chapters 1

and 3 of the draft CCP/EA for the Rhode Island

Refuge Complex identify general areas in which

the Service would seek to acquire land from willing

sellers outside of current Refuge acquisition

boundaries. Since individual tracts are not

identified at this time, we are not able to address

which priority public uses exist and should be

allowed to continue, and at what levels, in specific

locations. As most of the Focus Areas are

currently unimproved and in private ownership,

we assume there are low to moderate levels of

existing public use. However, our intent is to

allow existing priority public uses to continue on

newly acquired tracts, assuming the stipulations

outlined below can be met. 

Availability of Resources

No additional Refuge resources would be devoted

to these uses; that is, no additional infrastructure

would be developed to accommodate these new

areas until a final compatibility determination is

completed or they are addressed in the Visitor

Services Plan. Any proposed expenditures for

improving public use opportunities in these areas

would be identified as projects in the a Visitor

Services Plan. This would include volunteer

projects as well

Before the priority public uses can be allowed

under this pre-acquisition compatibility

determination, properties must be acquired and

posted. Acquisition and posting would occur

regardless of the potential for wildlife-dependent

public uses at a site.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Within the proposed expansion areas, current

levels of use are not known for the six priority,

wildlife-dependant recreational uses defined in The

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement

Act of 1997 (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife

observation and photography, and environmental

education and interpretation). Impacts of such

uses are expected to be minimal, provided that the

uses are only allowed in accordance with the

stipulations listed below (see Stipulations

Necessary to Ensure Compatibility).

Public Review and Comment

As part of the CCP/EA process for the Rhode

Island Refuge Complex, this compatibility

determination will undergo extensive public

review, including a comment period of at least 30

days following the release of the Draft CCP/EA.

Determination

The use is compatible X .

The use is not compatible .

Appendix E

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 E-19
Stipulations Necessary to Ensure

Compatibility

The Refuge Manager is responsible for evaluating

whether the conditions stipulated below are met

prior to acquisition, transfer, or donation. In

addition, all other Refuge regulations would apply

to the new lands.

The following conditions must all be met before

allowing existing, priority, wildlife-dependent

public use to continue on an interim basis on newly

acquired lands:

1) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative

threat anticipated to human health or safety;

2) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative

threat anticipated to natural or cultural resources;

3) The use is consistent with management of

existing Rhode Island Refuge Complex lands; in

particular, existing Refuge regulations would not

be compromised;

4) The newly acquired lands represent a

meaningful unit within which to manage the

activity;

5) There are no anticipated conflicts between or

among priority public uses; and,

6) The land is acquired by the Service and the

boundaries are posted. 

This pre-acquisition compatibility determination is

in effect until a formal compatibility determination

is completed. A formal compatibility

determination will be done when conditions under

which the use was first allowed change

significantly, or if there is significant new

information regarding the effects of the use or,

with revision of the CCP, whichever comes first.

However, at any time, the Refuge Manager retains

the authority to modify or cancel any public uses in

order to insure compatibility with the Refuge

purpose or to insure the conditions above are met. 

Justification

Existing priority, wildlife-dependant recreational

uses should be allowed to continue on newly

acquired tracts of land. In general, priority,

wildlife-dependant recreational uses are compatible

with, and can help contribute to, the Mission of the

Refuge System and the purposes for which each of

the Rhode Island Refuges was established.

Signature – Refuge Manager: ____________ 

Date: ____________ 

Concurrence – Regional Chief: ____________ 

Date: ____________ 

Mandatory 10 or 15-year Reevaluation Date: 

____________ 

Appendix E

E-20 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 G-1

Appendix G

Glossary
adaptive ecosystem management- Use of the findings

of ecology to manage natural resources, not for

maximum commodity production (a traditional

industrial forest), or for preservation of current

conditions (a traditional reserve), but for the

perpetuation of patterns and processes that allow the

ecosystem to persist. This management style stresses

experimentation, collaboration, and re-evaluation.

adaptive management- responding to changing

ecological conditions so as to not exceed productivity

limits of a specific place. For example, when crop

growth slows, a good farmer learns to recognize

ecological signs that tell either to add more manure or

to allow a field to lie fallow. Adaptive management

becomes impossible when managers are forced to meet

the demands of outsiders who are not under local

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

alternative – a reasonable way to fix the identified

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

also management alternative below].

amphidromous fish – fish that can migrate from

fresh water to the sea, or vice versa, not for the

purpose of breeding, but at other times during the life

cycle of the fish.

anadromous – fish that spend a large proportion of

their life cycle in the ocean and return to freshwater to

breed.

appropriate use – a proposed or existing use of a

national wildlife refuge that (1) supports the Refuge

System Mission, the major purposes, goals or objectives

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

conduct of a priority general public use on the refuge;

(3) is otherwise determined under Service Manual

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

Refuge Supervisor to be appropriate.

aquatic barrier – any obstruction to fish passage.

aquatic – growing in, living in, or dependent upon water.

barrier free – improved area designed to be accessible

to people with physical disabilities.

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

body of water.

biological integrity – biotic composition, structure,

and function at the genetic, organism, and community

levels consistent with natural conditions, and the

biological processes that shape genomes, organisms,

and communities.

biological or natural diversity – the abundance,

variety, and genetic constitution of animals and plants in

nature. Also referred to as “biodiversity.”

breeding habitat – habitat used by migratory birds or

other animals during the breeding season. 

buffer zones – protective land borders around critical

habitats or water bodies that reduce runoff and

nonpoint source pollution loading; areas created or

sustained to lessen the negative effects of land

development on animals and plants and their habitats.

candidate species – those species for which the Service

has on file sufficient information on biological

vulnerability and threats to propose them for listing. 

carrying capacity – the size of the population that can

be sustained by a given environment.

catadromous fish – fish that spend most of their lives

in fresh water but migrate to sea to reproduce.

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

category of actions that do not individually or

cumulatively have a significant effect on the human

environment and have been found to have no such effect

in procedures adopted by a Federal agency pursuant to

the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.4).

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations.

Challenge Cost Share Program – a grant program

administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service providing

matching funds for projects supporting natural resource

education, management, restoration and protection on

Service lands, other public lands and on private lands.

community - the area or locality in which a group of

people resides and shares the same government.

community type – a particular assemblage of plants

and animals, named for the characteristic plants.

compatible use – an allowed use that will not materially

interfere with, or detract from, the purposes for which

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

compatibility determination – a compatibility

determination is required for a wildlife-dependant

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

compatible use is one which, in the sound professional

judgement of the Refuge Manager, will not materially

interfere with or detract from fulfillment of the Refuge

System Mission or refuge purpose(s)

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) – a

document that describes the desired future conditions of

a refuge or planning unit and provides long-range

guidance and management direction to achieve the

purposes of the refuge, help fulfill the mission of the

System, maintain and, where appropriate, restore the

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of

each refuge and the System, and meet other mandates.

concern – see issue.

conservation – the management of natural resources to

prevent loss or waste. Management actions may

include preservation, restoration, and enhancement.

Appendix G

G-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
conservation agreements – written agreements

reached among two or more parties for the purpose of

ensuring the survival and welfare of unlisted species of

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

other specified conservation goals. Participants

voluntarily commit to implementing specific actions that

will remove or reduce the threats to these species.

conservation easement – a legal agreement between a

landowner and a land trust (a private, nonprofit

conservation organization) or government agency that

permanently limits a property’s uses in order to protect

its conservation values.

cool-season grass – introduced grass for crop and

pastureland that grows in spring and fall and is

dormant during hot summer months.

cooperative agreement – the legal instrument used

when the principal purpose of the transaction is the

transfer of money, property, services or anything of

value to a recipient in order to accomplish a public

purpose authorized by Federal statute and substantial

involvement between the Service and the recipient is

anticipated.

cultural resources – evidence of historic or prehistoric

human activity, such as buildings, artifacts,

archaeological sites, documents, or oral or written

history.

cultural resource inventory – a professionally

conducted study designed to locate and evaluate evidence

of cultural resources present within a defined geographic

area. Inventories may involve various levels, including

background literature search, comprehensive field

examination to identify all exposed physical

manifestations of cultural resources, or sample inventory

to project site distribution and density over a larger area.

Evaluation of identified cultural resources to determine

eligibility for the National Register follows the criteria

found in 36 CFR 60.4 (Service Manual 614 FW 1.7).

cultural resource overview – a comprehensive

document prepared for a field office that discusses,

among other things, its prehistory and cultural history,

the nature and extent of known cultural resources,

previous research, management objectives, resource

management conflicts or issues, and a general

statement on how program objectives should be met

and conflicts resolved. An overview should reference or

incorporate information form a field offices background

or literature search described in Section VIII. of the

Cultural Resource Management Handbook (Service

Manual 614 FW 1.7).

database – a collection of data arranged for ease and

speed of analysis and retrieval, usually computerized.

diadromous – fish that migrate from freshwater to

saltwater or the reverse: a generic term that includes

anadromous, catadromous and amphidromous fishes.

digitizing – the process of converting information from

paper maps into geographically referenced electronic

files for a geographic information system (GIS). 

early successional stage - a vegetated area that is in the

primary stages of ecological succession.

easement – an agreement by which a landowner gives

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

example, a landowner may donate a right of way across

his/her property to allow community members access. 

ecological integrity – the integration of biological

integrity, natural biological diversity, and environmental

health; the replication of natural conditions.

ecological succession - the orderly progression of an

area through time from one vegetative community to

another in the absence of disturbance. For example, an

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

ecosystem – a biological community together with its

environment, functioning as a unit. For administrative

purposes, the Service has designated 53 ecosystems

covering the United States and its possessions. These

ecosystems generally correspond with watershed

boundaries and vary in their sizes and ecological

complexity. 

ecotourism – a type of tourism that maintains and

preserves natural resources as a basis for promoting

economic growth and development resulting from

visitation to an area.

ecosystem approach – a way of looking at socioeconomic and environmental information based on

ecosystem boundaries, rather than town, city, or county

boundaries.

ecosystem-based management – an approach to

making decisions based on the characteristics of the

ecosystem in which a person or thing belongs. This

concept takes into consideration interactions between

the plants, animals, and physical characteristics of the

environment when making decisions about land use or

living resource issues.

ecosystem services - the benefits human populations

derive, directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions

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

formation, pollination, raw materials).

emergent wetland – wetlands dominated by erect,

rooted, herbaceous plants. 

endangered species – a federally protected species

which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a

significant portion of its range. 

Appendix G

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 G-3
environmental education – education aimed at

producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable concerning

the biophysical environment and its associated problems,

aware of how to help solve these problems, and motivated

to work toward their solution (Stapp et al. 1969).

environmental health – abiotic composition, structure,

and functioning of the environment consistent with

natural conditions, including the natural abiotic

processes that shape environment.

Environmental Assessment (EA) – A concise public

document, prepared in compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the

purpose and need for an action, alternatives to such

action, and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of

impacts to determine whether to prepare an

environmental impact statement or finding of no

significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9).

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – A detailed

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

National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the

environmental impacts of a proposed action, adverse

effects of the project that cannot be avoided, alternative

courses of action, short-tern uses of the environment

versus the maintenance and enhancement of long-term

productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable

commitment of resources (40 CFR 1508.11).

estuaries – deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal

wetlands that are usually semi-enclosed by land but

have open, partly obstructed, or sporadic access to the

open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least

occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land.

estuarine wetlands – “The Estuarine system consists

of deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands

that are usually semienclosed by land but have open,

partly obstructed, or sporadic access to the open ocean,

and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted

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

1979)

exemplary community type – an outstanding example

of a particular community type. 

extirpated – no longer occurring in a given geographic

area.

federal land – public land owned by the Federal

government, including lands such as National Forests,

National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges.

federally listed species – a species listed under the

federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended,

either as endangered, threatened or species at risk

(formerly candidate species).

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) – A

document prepared in compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act, supported by an

environmental assessment, that briefly presents why a

Federal action will have no significant effect on the

human environment and for which an environmental

impact statement, therefore, will not be prepared (40

CFR 1508.13).

focus areas – Within each Areas of Biological

Significance, focus areas further delineate

concentrations or “hot spots” for species and habitats of

special concern (see Appendix A).

forbs – A flowering plant, excluding grasses, sedges,

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

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

forested land – land dominated by trees. For the

purposes of the impacts analysis in this document, all

forested land was assumed to have the potential to be

occasionally harvested, and forested land owned by

timber companies was assumed to be harvested on a

more intensive, regular schedule. 

forested wetlands – wetlands dominated by trees.

frugivory – feeding on fruit.

Geographic Information System (GIS) – a

computerized system used to compile, store, analyze

and display geographically referenced information. Can

be used to overlay information layers containing the

distributions of a variety of biological and physical

features.

goal – descriptive, open-ended, and often broad

statement of desired future conditions that conveys a

purpose but does not define measurable units.

grant agreement – the legal instrument used when the

principal purpose of the transaction is the transfer of

money, property, services or anything of value to a

recipient in order to accomplish a public purpose of

support or stimulation authorized by Federal statute

and substantial involvement between the Service and

the recipient is not anticipated.

habitat fragmentation – breaking up of a specific

habitat into smaller unconnected areas. A habitat area

that is too small may not provide enough space to

maintain a breeding population of the species in question.

habitat conservation – the protection of an animal or

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

the animal or plant is not altered or reduced.

habitat – the place where a particular type of plant or

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

the basic requirements for life and should be free of

harmful contaminants.

Appendix G

G-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
hydrologic or flow regime – characteristic fluctuations

in river flows. 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) - sustainable

approach to managing pests by combining biological,

cultural, physical, and chemical tools in a way that

minimizes economic, health, and environmental risks.

interjurisdictional fish – populations of fish that are

managed by two or more states or national or tribal

governments because of the scope of their geographic

distributions or migrations.

interpretive facilities – structures that provides

information about an event, place or thing by a variety

of means including printed materials, audiovisuals or

multimedia materials. Examples of these would be

kiosks which offer printed materials and audiovisuals,

signs and trailheads.

interpretive materials – any tool used to provide or

clarify information, explain events or things, or serve to

increase awareness and understanding of the events or

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

materials such as brochures, maps or curriculum

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

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

multimedia materials, such as cd–rom and other

computer technology.

invasive species – non-native species which have been

introduced into an ecosystem, and, because of their

aggressive growth habits and lack of natural predators,

displace native species. 

grassroots conservation organization – any group of

concerned citizens who come together to actively

address a conservation need.

habitat macrosites - an area important because of the

presence of rare species, ecological communities, and

functioning ecosystems.

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

standing posts immediately before and immediately

after your position. You are not necessarily able to see

the whole boundary from one position.

issue – any unsettled matter that requires a management

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

management problem, a threat to the resources of the

unit, a conflict in uses, a public concern, or the presence of

an undesirable resource condition. Issues should be

documented, described, and analyzed in the CCP even if

resolution cannot be accomplished during the planning

process (Service Manual 602 FW 1.4). See also: key issue.

key issue – an issue meeting the following three criteria:

1.Falls within the jurisdiction of the Service;

2. Can be addressed by a reasonable range of 

alternatives;

3. Influences the outcome of the project.

land trusts – organizations dedicated to conserving

land by purchasing land, receiving donations of lands, or

accepting conservation easements from landowners.

limiting factor – an environmental limitation that

prevents further population growth. 

local agencies – generally referring to municipal

governments, regional planning commissions or

conservation groups.

long term protection – mechanisms such as fee title

acquisition, conservation easements or binding

agreements with landowners that ensure land use and

land management practices will remain compatible with

maintenance of the species population at the site.

management alternative – a set of objectives and the

strategies needed to accomplish each objective (Service

Manual 602 FW 1.4).

management concern – see issue.

management opportunity – see issue.

management plan – a plan that guides future land

management practices on a tract of land. In the context

of this environmental impact statement, management

plans would be designed to produce additional wildlife

habitat along with the primary products, such as timber

or agricultural crops. See cooperative agreement.

management strategy – a general approach to meet unit

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

detailed enough to guide implementation through specific

actions, tasks, and projects (Service Manual 602 FW 1.4).

migratory game birds - birds regulated under the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and state laws, that are

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

migratory nongame birds of management concern –

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

have undergone significant population declines; (b) have

small or restricted populations; or (c) are dependent

upon restricted or vulnerable habitats.

mission statement – succinct statement of the unit’s

purpose and reason for being (Region 7 Planning Staff).

Appendix G

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 G-5
mitigation – actions taken to compensate for the

negative effects of a particular project. Wetland

mitigation usually takes the form of restoration or

enhancement of a previously damaged wetland or

creation of a new wetland.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) –

requires all agencies, including the Service, to examine

the environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate

environmental information, and use public participation

in the planning and implementation of all actions.

Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with other

planning requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA

documents to facilitate better environmental decision

making (from 40 CFR 1500).

National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) – “A designated

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

within the System, but does not include Coordination

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

System in the current Annual Report of Lands Under

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

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) –

all lands and waters and interests therein administered

by the Service as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges,

wildlife management areas, waterfowl production areas,

and other areas for the protection and conservation of

fish and wildlife, including those that are threatened

with extinction.

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission – “The

mission of the System is to administer a national

network of lands and waters for the conservation,

management and, where appropriate, restoration of the

fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats

within the United States for the benefit of present and

future generations of Americans.”

native plant – a plant that has grown in the region

since the last glaciation and occurred before European

settlement.

natural conditions – conditions thought to exists from

the end of the Medieval Warm Period to the advent of the

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

upon scientific study and sound professional judgement.

non-consumptive, wildlife-oriented recreation –

photographing or observing plants, fish and other wildlife.

non-point source pollution – nutrients or toxic

substances that enter water from dispersed and

uncontrolled sites.

nonforested wetlands – wetlands dominated by shrubs

or emergent vegetation.

Notice of Intent (NOI) – a notice that an environmental

impact statement will be prepared and considered (40

CFR 1508.22). Published in the Federal Register.

objective – a concise statement of what we want to

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

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

work. Objectives derive from goals and provide the

basis for determining strategies, monitoring refuge

accomplishments, and evaluating the success of

strategies. Make objectives attainable, time-specific,

and measurable.

occurrence site – a discrete area where a population of

a rare species lives or a rare plant community type

grows.

old field – an area that was formerly cultivated or

grazed and where woody vegetation has begun to

invade. If left undisturbed, it will eventually succeed

into a forest. Many old fields occur at sites marginally

suitable for crop production or pasturing. Old fields are

highly variable in the Northeast, depending on soil, land

use history, and management.

Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM) - a

mosquito control technique that improves habitat

conditions in salt marshes for mosquito-eating fish by

creating ponds that will maintain the fish between

lunar tides. 

palustrine wetlands – “The Palustrine system includes

all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs,

persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens, and

all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas where

salinity due to ocean–derived salts is below 0%.”

(Cowardin et al. 1979)

Partners for Wildlife Program – a voluntary habitat

restoration program undertaken by the Fish and Wildlife

Service in cooperation with other governmental agencies,

public and private organizations, and private landowners

to improve and protect fish and wildlife habitat on

private lands while leaving the land in private ownership.

partnership – a contract or agreement entered into by

two or more individuals, groups of individuals,

organizations or agencies in which each agrees to

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

labor, for a mutually beneficial enterprise.

population monitoring – assessments of the

characteristics of populations to ascertain their status

and establish trends related to their abundance,

condition, distribution, or other characteristics.

prescribed fire – the application of fire to wildland fuels

to achieve identified land use objectives (Service Manual

621 FW 1.7), either from natural or intentional ignition.

priority public uses – see wildlife-dependant

recreational uses.

private land – land that is owned by a private individual,

group of individuals, or non– governmental organization.

Appendix G

G-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
private landowner – any individual, group of individuals

or non–governmental organization that owns land.

private organization – any non–governmental

organization.

Proposed Action (or Alternative) – activities for which

an Environmental Assessment is being written; the

alternative containing the actions and strategies

recommended by the planning team. The proposed

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

the refuge.

protection – mechanisms such as fee title acquisition,

conservation easements or binding agreements with

landowners that ensure land use and land management

practices will remain compatible with maintenance of

the species population at the site.

public – individuals, organizations, and groups; officials

of Federal, State, and local government agencies; Indian

tribes; and foreign nations. It may include anyone

outside the core planning team. It includes those who

may or may not have indicated an interest in the

Service issues and those who do or do not realize that

Service decisions may affect them. 

public involvement – a process that offers impacted

and interested individuals and organizations an

opportunity to become informed about, and to express

their opinions on Service actions and policies. In the

process, these views are studied thoroughly and

thoughtful consideration of public views is given in

shaping decisions for refuge management.

public involvement plan – broad long term guidance

for involving the public in the comprehensive planning

process. 

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

Federal government.

rare species – species identified in Appendix 3–6 as

Species of Special Emphasis due to their uncommon

occurrence within the watershed.

rare community types – plant community types

classified as rare by any of the four state Natural

Heritage Programs. As used in this environmental

impact statement, is inclusive of the exemplary

community types. 

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

decision prepared by the Federal agency, pursuant to

NEPA, that contains a statement of the decision,

identification of all alternatives considered, identification

of the environmentally preferable alternative, a

statement as to whether all practical means to avoid or

minimize environmental harm from the alternative

selected have been adopted (and if not, why they were

not), and a summary of monitoring and enforcement

where applicable for any mitigat CFR 1505.2).

refuge goals – descriptive, open-ended and often broad

statements of desired future conditions that convey a

purpose but do not define measurable units (Writing

Refuge Management Goals and Objectives: A

Handbook).

refuge purposes – the purposes specified in or derived

from the law, proclamation, executive order, agreement,

public land order, donation document, or administrative

memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a

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

subsequent modification of the original establishing

authority for additional conservation purposes (Service

Manual 602 FW 1.4). 

refuge lands – those lands in which the Service holds

full interest in fee title, or partial interest such as

easements. 

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) – the Refuge

Operating Needs System is a national database which

contains the unfunded operational needs of each refuge.

We include projects required to implement approved

plans, and meet goals, objectives, and legal mandates.

restoration – the artificial manipulation of a habitat to

restore it to something close to its natural state.

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

Restoration usually involves the planting of native

grasses and forbs, and may include shrub removal and

prescribed burning.

runoff – water from rain, melted snow, or agricultural

or landscape irrigation that flows over the land surface

into a water body.

Service presence – the existence of the Service through

its programs and facilities which it directs or shares

with other organizations; the public awareness of the

Service as a sole or cooperative provider of programs

and facilities.

species of concern – Species present in the watershed

for whom the Refuge has a special management

interest. The following criteria were used to identify

“species of concern”:

1. Federally listed as threatened or endangered;

2. migratory birds, especially declining species, 

Neotropical migrants, colonial waterbirds, 

shorebirds, or waterfowl;

3. certain marine mammals;

4. sea turtle;

5. interjurisdictional fish;

6. State-listed as threatened, endangered, or 

special concern.

Appendix G

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 G-7
state land – public land owned by a state such as state

parks or state wildlife management areas.

step-down management plans – step-down

management plans describe management strategies and

implementation schedules. Step-down management

plans are a series of plans dealing with specific

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

fire) (Service Manual 602 FW 1.4).

stopover habitat – habitat used during bird migration

for rest and feeding.

strategy – a specific action, tool, technique, or

combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to

meet unit objectives.

succession – an orderly sequence of changes in plant

species and community structure over time, leading to a

hypothesized stable climax community.

threatened species – a federally protected species

which is likely to become an endangered species within

the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant

portion of its range.

tiering – the coverage of general matters in broader

environmental impact statements with subsequent

narrower statements of environmental analysis,

incorporating by reference, the general discussions and

concentrating on specific issues (40 CFR 1508.28).

tributary – a stream or river that flows into a larger

stream, river or lake.

trust resource – one that through law or administrative

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

federal trust resource is one for which trust

responsibility is given in part to the federal government

through federal legislation or administrative act.

Generally, federal trust resources are those considered

to be of national or international importance no matter

where they occur, such as endangered species and

species such as migratory birds and fish that regularly

move across state lines. In addition to species, trust

resources include cultural resources protected through

federal historic preservation laws, nationally important

and threatened habitats, notably wetlands, navigable

waters, and public lands such as state parks and

National Wildlife Refuges.

unfragmented habitat – large blocks of unbroken

habitat of a particular type.

unit objective – desired conditions which must be

accomplished to realize a desired outcome. Objectives

are the basis for determining management strategies,

monitoring refuge accomplishments, and measuring the

success of the strategies. Objectives should be attainable

and time-specific and may be stated quantitatively or

qualitatively (Service Manual 602 FW 1.4).

upland – dry ground; other than wetlands.

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

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

enhance fish and wildlife, and their habitat for the

continuing benefit of the American people.”

vegetation association – a plant community type

having definitive floristic composition and existing in

similar physical environments.

vernal pool – depressions holding water for a

temporary period in the spring and used by a variety of

amphibians for egg laying.

viable population – a population that will continue to

occur in the area for the foreseeable future. In

population modeling, minimum viable population (MVP)

is the smallest number of individuals that are needed to

maintain a species population in the long term.

vision statement – concise statement of what the unit

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

Staff) .

visitor center – a permanently staffed building offering

exhibits and interpretive information to the visiting

public. Some visitor centers are co-located with refuge

offices, other include additional facilities such as

classrooms or wildlife viewing areas.

visitor contact station – compared to a visitor center, a

contact station is a smaller facility which may not be

permanently staffed.

warm-season grass – native prairie grass that puts on

the most growth during summer when cool-season

grasses are dormant.

watchable wildlife – all wildlife is watchable. A

watchable wildlife program is a strategy to help

maintain viable populations of all native fish and wildlife

species by building an effective, well– informed

constituency for conservation. Watchable wildlife

programs are tools by which wildlife conservation goals

can be met while at the same time fulfilling public

demand for wildlife recreational activities (other than

sport hunting, trapping or sport fishing).

watershed – the geographic area within which water

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

A watershed includes both the land and the body of

water into which the land drains.

wet meadow – meadows located in moist low-lying

areas, most often dominated by large colonies of reed

canary grass. They are often created by collapsed

beaver dams and exposed old pond bottoms. Salt marsh

meadows are subject to daily coastal tides.

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

of wetlands states that “Wetlands are lands transitional

between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water

table is usually at or near the surface or the land is

covered by shallow water.” (Cowardin et al 1979)

Appendix G

G-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
wildlife-dependent recreational use – “A use of a

refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation

and photography, or environmental education and

interpretation.” These are the six priority public uses

of the System as established in the National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act, as amended.

Wildlife-dependent recreational uses, other than the six

priority public uses, are those that depend on the

presence of wildlife. We also will consider these other

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

priority public uses always will take precedence.

wildlife management – the practice of manipulating

wildlife populations, either directly through regulating

the numbers, ages, and sex ratios harvested, or

indirectly by providing favorable habitat conditions and

alleviating limiting factors.

Appendix G

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 G-9

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Proposed Staffing for Alternative A, Current Management

Refuge Manager

Refuge Operations Specialist

SCEP

Biological Trainee

Maintenance

Mechanic

Maintenance

Worker (term)

Biologist Volunteer/Partnership

Coordinator

Office Administrator

Office

Automation

Seasonal: 3 Law Enforcement

1 Biotech

10 FTE’s

4 (1/2) FTE’s

Outreach Specialist
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Proposed Staffing for Alternative B, the Service’s Proposed Alternative

(* supervisory structure is tentative)

Refuge Manager

Refuge Operations Specialist

Wildlife Biologist

Refuge Complex

Program Coordinator

ORP

Refuge Complex

Program Coordinator

Assistant Refuge

Ops. Specialist

SCEP

Biological Trainee

Biologist

(field)

Biotech

(field support)

Law Enforcement

Officer

ORP

Visitor Center Coord.

Facilities/Equipment 

Manager

Maintenance

Worker

Law Enforcement

Officer

Maintenance

Assistant

ORP

Field Programs

ORP

Visitor Center Support

Assistant Refuge Ops. Specialist

Law Enforcement

Officer

ORP

Maintenance

Sachuest Point Refuge

Volunteer/Partnership

Coordinator

Office Administrator

Office

Automation

Biotech

Seasonal: 4 Law Enforcement

5 Biotechs (1 at Block Island)

5 Park Aid (2 at Sachuest Pt, 1 with LE authority)

1 Maintenance Worker

2 Botanist/Ecologists

26 FTE’s

17 (1/2) FTE’s

Outreach Specialist

Biotech

(field support)
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Proposed Staffing for Alternative C

(* supervisory structure is tentative)

Refuge Manager

Refuge Operations Specialist

Assistant Refuge

Ops. Specialist

SCEP

Biological Trainee

Biologist

(field)

Biotech

(field support)

Law Enforcement

Officer

ORP

Visitor Center Coord.

Facilities/Equipment 

Manager

Maintenance

Worker

Law Enforcement

Officer

Maintenance

Assistant

ORP

Env. Ed. Specialist

Law Enforcement

Officer

ORP

Maintenance

Sachuest Point Refuge

Office Administrator

Office

Automation

Biologist

Seasonal: 4 Law Enforcement

5 Biotechs (1 at Sachuest Pt, 1 at Block Island)

5 Park Aid (1 at Sachuest Pt with LE authority)

1 Maintenance Worker

27 FTE’s

15 (1/2) FTE’s

Resource Specialist Outreach Specialist

Plant Ecologist

Wildlife Biologist

Refuge Complex

Program Coordinator

ORP

Refuge Complex

Assistant Refuge Ops. Specialist Program Coordinator

Volunteer/Partnership

Coordinator

ORP

Visitor Center Reception

ORP

Field Programs

Coordinator
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Proposed Staffing for Alternative D

(* supervisory structure is tentative)

Refuge Manager

Refuge Operations Specialist

Assistant Refuge

Ops. Specialist

SCEP

Biological Trainee

Biologist

(field)

Biotech

(field support)

Law Enforcement

Officer

ORP

Visitor Center Coord.

Facilities/Equipment 

Manager

Maintenance

Worker

Law Enforcement

Officer

Maintenance

Assistant

ORP

Visitor Center Reception

Assistant Refuge Ops. Specialist

Law Enforcement

Officer

ORP

Maintenance

Sachuest Point Refuge

Office Administrator

Office

Automation

Seasonal: 4 Law Enforcement

3 Biotechs 

4 Park Aids (1 at Block Island & 1 at Sachuest Pt)

24 FTE’s

11 (1/2) FTE’s

Wildlife Biologist

Refuge Complex

Program Coordinator

ORP

Refuge Complex

Program Coordinator

Volunteer/Partnership

Coordinator

ORP

Field Programs

Coordinator

Outreach Specialist
Appendix I 

I-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Protection of piping

plover Hire at least 5 seasonal personnel: 3 Law Enforcement and 2 Biotechs yes/no

Least tern protection Continue use of wire fence at Trustom Pond site, but adapt design to target smaller

mammals (mink and weasel) yes/no

Contaminant sites Sachuest Point Refuge: Implement site closure plan for Middletown landfill, if completed yes/no

Expand land protection

program

With partners, begin active cooperative land protection and acquisition of 3,200 acres

from willing sellers within selected Focus Areas. yes/no

Cultivate relationship

with Friends group

Conduct semi-annual meetings with the Friends group to promote communication and

evaluate implementation of the MOU yes/no

Manage non-wildlife

dependent activities

Ninigret Refuge: implement outreach program and begin to enforce restrictions on dog

walking and bicycling (which had been allowed while the old runways were in place). yes/no

Manage non-wildlife

dependent activities Sachuest Point Refuge: initiate intensive effort to phase out dog walking and jogging. yes/no

Resource Issue Alternative B (the Service’s Proposed Action) Was the project

completed on time?

Target initiation date: 2001

Protection of piping

plover

Refuge Biologist will coordinate with Plover Recovery Team and other scientists to share

research and management techniques and results yes/no

Protection of piping

plover

Actively manage nesting sites on Ninigret, Trustom Pond, and Block Island Refuges. Erect

fencing as proposed. Monitor active nest sites throughout nesting season. Implement

restrictions on public use at nesting sites. Monitor off-Refuge nesting beaches.

yes/no

Management of mute

swans

Implement the Service's policy (Memo FWS/MBMO/98-00043; based on Flyway Council

recommendations) to prevent the establishment of or to eliminate mute swans. Adapt

strategies as needed to pursue zero productivity on the Refuge Complex

yes/no

Hunting opportunities Trustom Pond Refuge: continue with 20 acre upland field hunt for waterfowl. yes/no

Resource Issue Alternative B (the Service’s Proposed Action) Was the project

completed on time?

Ongoing projects

Piping plover protection Close Block Island Refuge to vehicles above mean high tide line from April 1 to Sept. 15

each year. yes/no

Piping plover protection Develop written cooperative agreements with at least 5 South Shore landowners with

existing plover nesting sites yes/no

Piping plover protection Work with RI DEM to move State campground near Ninigret Refuge away from plover

breeding habitat yes/no

Piping plover protection Develop education & outreach plan for plover programs yes/no

Harlequin duck

protection

Work with RI DEM to regulate a shoreline hunting closure. Standardize protocol for

weekly harlequin duck counts. yes/no

Landbird management Evaluate recommendations in final Partners in Flight Plan, identify species of concern for

Refuge, and develop management strategies to include in Habitat Management Plan. yes/no

Resource Issue Alternative B (the Service’s Proposed Action) Was the project

completed on time?

Target initiation date: 2002
Appendix I

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 I-3

Manage deer

populations

Block Island Refuge: cooperate with Block Island partners and the Town of New

Shoreham to develop a comprehensive deer management plan for the Block Island

Focus Area

yes/no

Fishing opportunities

Sachuest Point Refuge: designate access points to shoreline to control impacts and

better enforce restrictions. Increase law enforcement and monitoring of public use to

control access and littering. Initiate study to evaluate impact to wildlife from night

fishing.

yes/no

Fishing opportunities

Sachuest Point Refuge: develop a regulation requiring spear fishing gear to be

unloaded and encased while on Refuge land. Monitor this activity to evaluate its

impact on other wildlife-dependent uses.

yes/no

Hunting opportunities Ninigret Refuge: allow RI DEM to administer waterfowl hunt, from boat only, in Coon

Cove and the marshland in the barrier beach parcel. yes/no

Manage non-wildlife

dependent activities

Hire an additional law enforcement officer to work between Sachuest Point and Block

Island Refuges. yes/no

Curriculum-based

environmental

education

Sponsor Teach the Teacher workshops at Ninigret and Trustom Pond Refuges. yes/no

Service visibility Establish a consistent Service presence on Sachuest Point Refuge by assigning

permanent staff to the station. yes/no

Resource Issue Alternative B (the Service’s Proposed Action) Was the project

completed on time?

Target initiation date: 2002 (continued)

Piping plover protection Reassess nesting carrying capacity (Ninigret & Trustom Pond Refuges) yes/no

Piping plover protection Begin cooperative monitoring of gull colony to ascertain whether gulls are limiting

piping plover nesting on Block Island yes/no

Piping plover protection

Formalize agreement with the Town of New Shoreham (Block Island Refuge) to ensure

that beach would remain closed to ORVs during plover nesting, if active plover nests are

located.

yes/no

Piping plover protection Prioritize plover-related research needs yes/no

Protect and restore

American burying

beetle population

(Block Island Focus Area)

Participate in annual efforts to monitor American burying beetle on southern Block Island

(led by RI DEM, The Nature Conservancy, and the Service's New England Field Office) yes/no

Protect and restore

beach strand

communities

Work with partners to initiate an intensive outreach campaign targeting beach front

landowners and designed to increase protection of barrier beach habitat and piping

plover nesting areas (2 seasonal park aids would be needed to implement this project)

yes/no

Monitoring and

protection of bald

eagle, piping plover,

and American burying

beetle on Block Island

Hire a seasonal biological technician to monitor roosting eagles, nesting piping plover,

colonial waterbirds, and American burying beetle populations. Also, identify threats or

opportunities for land acquisition.

yes/no

Protection of black duck

at Trustom Pond and

Chafee Refuges

Treat at least 5 acres/year of invasive wetland plants yes/no

Resource Issue Alternative B (the Service’s Proposed Action) Was the project

completed on time?

Target initiation date: 2003
Appendix I 

I-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Maintain biological

integrity of natural

communities

Develop a Refuge Complex Habitat Management Plan yes/no

Collect baseline

biological information

Establish a priority list of baseline biological inventory needs to better understand and

document the biodiversity on the Refuge Complex. Priorities: determine the distribution

of species and habitat types listed in Appendix A, and survey the aquatic resources in

Trustom Pond. (Use Regional CENSUS database or other regional database with GIS

capabilities).

yes/no

Manage deer

populations

Ninigret Refuge: cooperate with RI DEM and adjacent landowners to develop a

comprehensive deer management plan for the greater Charlestown area. yes/no

Manage waterfowl With RI DEM, develop a waterfowl Management Plan for Pettaquamscutt Cove and

lower Narrow River. yes/no

Fishing opportunities

Ninigret Refuge: designate access trails to shoreline for fishing on Ninigret pond to

minimize impact on habitat. Actively enforce restrictions. Require commercial shell

fishermen to operate under special use permit.

yes/no

Wildlife observation and

photography

opportunities

Ninigret Refuge: complete construction of "Trail Through Time" yes/no

Wildlife observation and

photography

opportunities

Trustom Pond: reduce unnecessary trails and restruct public use to trails only. yes/no

Curriculum-based

environmental

education opportunities

Sponsor "Teach the Teacher" workshops at Sachuest Point Refuge. yes/no

Curriculum-based

environmental

education opportunities

Block Island Refuge: initiate formal partnership with The Nature Conservancy to facilitate

sharing of resources, and assist in curriculum development and implementation. Hire a

seasonal Park Aid for assistance. Use Beane Point as a classroom laboratory or housing

for educators.

yes/no

Interpretive

opportunities

Chafee Refuge: ensure that RI DEM constructs interpretive kiosk along South County

Bike Trail according to Refuge stipulations. yes/no

Resource Issue Alternative B (the Service’s Proposed Action) Was the project

completed on time?

Target initiation date: 2003 (continued)

Piping plover protection Hire a Rhode Island Piping Plover Coordinator yes/no

Piping plover protection Develop integrated Predator Management, Monitoring, and Evaluation Plan for Refuge

Complex yes/no

Protection of Harlequin

duck at Sachuest Point

Refuge

Monitor public use to determine impacts of shoreline public use activities on ducks. yes/no

Management of rare

plant habitats Ninigret Refuge: develop a Site Plan and monitoring program for rare plant sites yes/no

Restore early sucessional

habitat

Complete restoration of 385 total acres between Ninigret, Trustom Pond, and Sachuest

Point Refuges. Develop and implement a maintenance and monitoring schedule for

these projects. Evaluate and document opportunities for restoring sandplain gerardia,

bushy rockrose, and New England blazing star in restored areas.

yes/no

Restore early sucessional

habitat Restore additional 15 acres of grassland on private land near Trustom Pond Refuge yes/no

Restore early sucessional

habitat

Develop and implement a plan to maintain an additional 40 acres of early successional

shrub and grasslands habitat on Sachuest Point Refuge. yes/no

Resource Issue Alternative B (the Service’s Proposed Action) Was the project

completed on time?

Target initiation date: 2004
Appendix I

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 I-5

Collect baseline

biological information

Begin inventories on highest priority projects. Use regional CENSUS database or other

database with GIS capabilities yes/no

Manage invasive plant

species Identify and map current distribution of invasive plant species on the Refuge Complex. yes/no

Manage deer

populations in the South

Shore ABS

Chafee Refuge: cooperate with RI DEM, adjacent landowners, and the Town of

Narragansett to develop a comprehensive deer management plan for the "Foddering

Farms" parcel

yes/no

Ensure clean up of

existing and no new

acquisition of

contaminated sites

Certify at least one staff member in Level I environmental site assessment in

accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). yes/no

Monitoring and

Inventory Plan Develop a Refuge Complex Monitoring and Inventory Plan yes/no

Block Island Focus Area

resource management

Cooperate with Block Island partners in developing a Cooperative Resource Protection

Plan and Public Use and Access Plan. yes/no

Improve visitor services Complete a Visitor Services Plan for the Refuge Complex to establish strategic goals

and priorities. Hire 2 new outdoor rec. planners to implement. yes/no

Interpretive

opportunities Complete renovation of Sachuest Point Visitor Center. yes/no

Curriculum-based

environmental

education opportunities

Ninigret Refuge: update existing MOA with Frosty Drew to ensure compatibility with

Refuge Complex Visitor Services Plan. Also, evaluate compatibility of for-profit

operations.

yes/no

Wildlife observation and

photography

opportunities

Sachuest Point Refuge: eliminate redundancy in trails. Designate and enforce shoreline

access points yes/no

Manage non-wildlife

dependent activities

Trustom Pond: hire additional law enforcement personnel to provide more consistent

and thorough outreach and enforcement of incompatible, non-wildlife dependent

activities.

yes/no

Manage non-wildlife

dependent activities

Ninigret Refuge: hire an additional seasonal law enforcement officer to provide more

consistent, thorough outreach and enforcement of incompatible activities. yes/no

Resource Issue Alternative B (the Service’s Proposed Action) Was the project

completed on time?

Target initiation date: 2004 (continued)

Piping plover protection Implement highest priority research projects. yes/no

American Burying Beetle

restoration Assess opportunities for expanding distribution of beetles in Block Island Focus Area yes/no

Bald Eagle

management Develop site plans if eagle usage of Refuge warrants management yes/no

Protection of marsh and

wading bird habitat Inventory high probability sites on the Refuge Complex yes/no

Protection of shorebird

concentration areas

Map key staging and feeding areas in South Shore ABS. Develop and implement a

Monitoring Plan yes/no

Protection of

amphibians and reptiles

Develop environmental education and interpretation programs. Work with Friends and

volunteers to reduce amphibian and reptile road mortality during spring migration. yes/no

Protection of

amphibians and reptiles

Develop Inventory and Monitoring Plan for amphibians and reptiles on the Refuge

Complex. yes/no

Resource Issue Alternative B (the Service’s Proposed Action) Was the project

completed on time?

Target initiation date: 2005
Appendix I 

I-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Protection of seal haulout aresDetermine if human disturbance is a threat. If necessary, reduce human disturbance

through public outreach efforts or restricted access. yes/no

Management of rare

plant habitats Trustom Pond Refuge: develop a Site Plan for rare plant sites. yes/no

Promote grassland

restoration through

outreach and education

Establish native grassland interpretive/demonstration areas on both Ninigret and Trustom

Pond Refuges, develop exhibit at new Visitor Center, and conduct interpretive

programs using volunteers and staff.

yes/no

Develp habitat plan and

improve water quality in

Trustom and Cards

Ponds

With partners and adjacent landowners, develop Site Management and Monitoring

Plan for Trustom and Cards Ponds. The plan would include monitoring and inventory

efforts for species of management concern, invasive plants and animals, and

submerged aquatic vegetation.

yes/no

Manage deer

populations

Trustom Pond Refuge: cooperate with RI DEM, Town of South Kingstown, and adjacent

landowners to develop a comprehensive deer management plan. yes/no

Manage invasive plant

species

Prioritize treatment acres to prevent new invasions or eradicate plants recently

established where they don't have a stronghold yet. yes/no

Manage invasive plant

species

Treat at least 25 acres/year of invasive exotic species, including at least 5 acres of

wetlands plants, using chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire and biological treatments.

Hire maintenance worker licensed for herbicide use.

yes/no

Ensure protection of

cultural resources on the

Refuge Complex

Initiate a cultural resource overview of Refuge complex. Conduct field investigations of

Ninigret and Trustom Pond Refuges. Record sites in a GIS database. Train at least one

law enforcement officer in regulations associated with Archeological Resources

Protection Act (ARPA)

yes/no

Ensure protection of

cultural resources on the

Refuge Complex

Develop a partnership with the Narragansett Tribal Council to cooperate on site

interpretation and protection. yes/no

Protect water quality of

Narrow River

Watershed/Pett Cove

Become actively involved in interagency partnership recommended in the 1998

Coastal Resources Management Council, Narrow River Special Area Management Plan.

Group would develop a comprehensive plan for the Narrow River watershed and set

research and management priorities.

yes/no

Protect water quality of

Narrow River

Watershed/Pett Cove

Work with RI DEM, CRMC, and Towns of Narragansett and South Kingstown to create a

"no wake' zone in Pettaquamscutt Cove to reduce erosion and destruction of salt

marshes.

yes/no

Ensure clean up of

contaminated sites Obtain Refuge project funding to clean up military debris at Ninigret Refuge yes/no

Manage non-wildlife

dependent activities

Block Island Refuge: develop cooperative agreement with Town of New Shoreham law

enforcement yes/no

Manage non-wildlife

dependent activities Refuge Complex: Eliminate all inappropriate, incompatible uses yes/no

Manage non-wildlife

dependent activities

Chafee Refuge: develop a strategy to consolidate shoreline access easement of

adjacent landowners. yes/no

Manage non-wildlife

dependent activities

Chafee Refuge: cooperate with the Town of Narragansett and RI DOT to construct

handicapped accessible observation platforms at Middle Bridge. Construct a second

platform at Bridgeport Commons. Designate an interpretive kayak/canoe trail.

yes/no

Interpretive

opportunities

Trustom Pond Refuge: make eastern-most trail handicapped-accessible. Develop

watchable wildlife pamphlet, species checklist, and self-guided trail maps. yes/no

Improve public use

partnerships

Develop formal cooperative agreements with current partners to identify cost sharing ,

technical exchange, environmental education and interpretive opportunities. yes/no

Curriculum-based

environmental

education

Chafee Refuge: cooperate with local schools and partners to develop a classroom

curriculum featuring the Narrow River estuary and Pettaquamscutt Cove. yes/no

Curriculum-based

environmental

education

Sachuest Point Refuge: Develop formal partnership with Norman Bird Sanctuary to

facilitate sharing of resources. Cooperate with towns of Middletown and Newport and

local schools to develop programs featuring Refuge resources.

yes/no

Resource Issue Alternative B (the Service’s Proposed Action) Was the project

completed on time?

Target initiation date: 2005 (continued)
Appendix I

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 I-7

Curriculum-based

environmental

education

Ninigret Refuge: establish classroom sites featuring grassland restoration and salt pond

ecology. Develop an EE facility for the Refuge Complex. Develop a volunteer EE Corps

to help implement programs at Ninigret and Trustom Pond Refuges.

yes/no

Curriculum-based

environmental

education

Trustom Pond Refuge: work with partners to develop an environmental education

program featuring Pond and restoration work yes/no

Interpretive

opportunities Develop interpretive programs for each Refuge of the Rhode Island Refuge Complex yes/no

Interpretive

opportunities

Construct interpretive exhibit and kiosk at the South County Museum, near Chafee

Refuge. yes/no

Visitor facilities

Complete construction of Visitor Center/Headquarters for Refuge Complex. Implement

recommendations for interior facility design from August 1999 Project Identification

Document. Hire a Visitor Service Specialist and Receptionist to manage the new center.

yes/no

Wildlife observation and

photography

opportunities

Chafee Refuge: designate interpretive canoe and kayak routes. Consider use of

guided trips using a concessionaire. yes/no

Wildlife observation and

photography

opportunities

Sachuest Point Refuge: ensure at least one trail is reconstructed to allow for

handicapped accessibility. Develop additional interpretive kiosks, improve signage, and

create "watchable wildlife" pamphlets and multi-lingual literature.

yes/no

Wildlife observation and

photography

opportunities

Trustom Pond Refuge: reduce unnecessary trails, make at least one platform barrier-free,

and restrict public use to trails only. yes/no

Fishing opportunities

Ninigret Refuge: if determined feasible, construct up to two additional observation

platforms and/or viewing blinds at grassland restoration project area, and on Ninigret

Pond at Coon Cove.

yes/no

Improve road and entry

signs Complete a Refuge Complex Facilities and Sign Plan yes/no

Resource Issue Alternative B (the Service’s Proposed Action) Was the project

completed on time?

Target initiation date: 2005 (continued)

Manage rare plant

habitats

Survey and map rare plant sites on the Refuge Complex (outside of Ninigret and

Trustom Pond Refuges) yes/no

Resource protection Chafee Refuge: allow fishing from boats and shoreline, but designate access points to

shore to reduce impact to marsh. Create barrier-free fishing structures. yes/no

Visibility of Service Chafee Refuge: finish posting all Refuge boundaries. yes/no

Resource Issue Alternative B (the Service’s Proposed Action) Was the project

completed on time?

Target initiation date: 2006

Wetlands protection Chafee Refuge: work with RI DEM to create a "no wake zone" in Pettaquamscutt Cove

to minimize impacts to the salt marshes and shoreline. yes/no

Fishing opportunities Construct a barrier-free fishing platform at Chafee Refuge yes/no

Target initiation date: 2007

Resource Issue Alternative B (the Service’s Proposed Action) Was the project

completed on time?
Potential reintroduction

of northeastern beach

tiger beetles in South

Shore ABS

Develop a Site Plans and/or Monitoring Plans, if reintroduction sites exist on Refuge

Complex. yes/no

Resource Issue Alternative B (the Service’s Proposed Action) Was the project

completed on time?

Target initiation date: 2012

Appendix I 

I-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Shorebird management Develop a Habitat Management Plan and a Wildlife Monitoring and Inventory Plan for

shorebirds concentration areas on the Refuge Complex yes/no

Amphibians and reptiles Complete baseline inventory for amphibians and reptiles on Trustom Pond, Ninigret, and

Sachuest Point Refuges yes/no

Restoration of wetlands Develop Site Plans and initiate restoration of the following top wetland projects: 25

acres at Sachuest Point and 70 acres at Ninigret Refuge. yes/no

Restore grassland

communities & promote

restoration through

education, outreach,

and interpretation

Develop a proposal for grassland restoration on Sachuest Point, Chafee, and Block island

Refuges. Restoration proposals should evaluate opportunities for regal fritillary butterfly

reintroduction.

yes/no

Restore grassland

communities & promote

restoration through

education, outreach,

and interpretation

Establish "cooperative extension" outreach program and materials to provide technical

support for interested landowners. yes/no

Management of rare

plant habitats

Assess potential for establishing or restoring seabeach amaranth, sandplain gerardia,

small whorled pagonia, bushy rockrose, New England blazing star, and other former

candidate plant species with potential habitat

yes/no

Wildlife observation and

photography

Sachuest Point Refuge: develop a barrier free platform and trail. Develop watchable

wildlife pamphlets, species checklists, and self-guided trail maps yes/no

Wildlife observation and

photography Trustom Pond Refuge: evaluate opportunity to construct two photo blinds yes/no

Visitor facilities Construct a visitor contact facility on Ninigret Refuge. Hire at least one seasonal Park Aid

to help manage the visitor contact station and the Visitor Center. yes/no

Increase Service visibility

and recognition Complete boundary posting on Chafee Refuge and on any new Refuge acquisitions. yes/no

Target initiation date: 2008

Resource Issue Alternative B (the Service’s Proposed Action) Was the project

completed on time?

Potential reintroduction

of northeastern beach

tiger beetles in South

Shore ABS

Cooperate with USFWS New England Field Office and RI DEM to evaluate habitat

potential for reintroduction within South Shore ABS. yes/no

Potential reintroduction

of regal fritillary butterfly

Cooperate with USFWS New England Field Office and RI DEM to evaluate grassland

restoration projects for butterfly reintroduction. yes/no

Cultural resources plan Develop a Cultural Resources Protection Plan for the Refuge Complex. yes/no

Resource Issue Alternative B (the Service’s Proposed Action) Was the project

completed on time?

Target initiation date: 2010
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 J-1

Appendix J

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

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

Allin, Charles. 2000. Personal communications. RI

DEM. South Kingstown, RI.

Amaral, Michael J. 1999 and 2000. Personal

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

England Field Office. Concord, NH. 

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

Disturbance of beach sediment by off-road vehicles.

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

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

Effects of off-road vehicles on coastal foredunes at Fire

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

pp. 45-52. 

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

Survey: Some Preliminary Results. Univ. of RI,

Department of Resource Economics. Unpub. Rept.

17pp.

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

1999. Amphibian Community Structure at the Rhode

Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Univ. of RI,

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

Charlestown, RI. 21pp.

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

Shrubland, and Forest Birds in Eastern North America.

Current Ornithology 11:1-34.

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

Northeastern United States: Implications for Bird

Conservation. Pp. 119-136 in Grasslands of

Northeastern North America (Peter D. Vickery and

Peter W. Dunwiddie, eds.). Massachusetts Audubon

Society, Lincoln, MA.

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

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

Agriculture. Misc Publ. No. 1391 (rev) 

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

1976. Effect of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on

backshore vegetation and dune development. Final

report to Office of Natural Science, Southwest Region,

National Park Service. 69 pp.

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

and Natural History Survey of Connecticut. Hartford, CT.

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

Contaminants in Long Island Sound. Univ. of Conn.

M.S. Thesis. 168pp.

Comings, Scott. 1999 and 2000. Personal

Communications. The Nature Conservancy on Block

Island. Block Island, RI.

Commonwealth Research Group, Inc. Cost of

Community Services in Southern New England.

Southern New England Forest Consortium, Inc.,

Boston, MA. 102pp.

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

National Wildlife Refuge System and the Doctrine of

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

Defenders of Wildlife. 1998. Science-Based

Stewardship: Recommendations for Implementing the

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act.

Washington, D.C. 26pp.

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

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

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

Northeastern North America (Peter D. Vickery and

Peter W. Dunwiddie, eds.). Massachusetts Audubon

Society, Lincoln, MA.

Eddleman, W.R. 1993. Monitoring Avian Productivity

and Survivorship Site Additions, Ninigret National

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

Rept.17pp.

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

Island’s Maritime Nesting Birds.

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

Island Piping Plover Restoration Project. Rhode Island

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

Flores, R. 1998. Continuity Document for Rhode Island

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

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

Rept. 

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

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

Flores, R. 1998. Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge

Grasslands Program Progress Report. U.S. Fish &

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

Flores, R. 1998. Wetland Restoration Plan for Ninigret

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

NWR Complex, Unpub. Rept. 

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

Island Piping Plover Restoration Project: 1998. RI

NWR Refuge Complex, Charlestown, RI. 39pp.

Appendix J

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

Survey Check List of the Native and Naturalized

Plants, Shrubs and Trees of Rhode Island by Counties,

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

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

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

ecosystems. Pages 581-600 in Proceedings of the

Symposium on Technical, Environmental Socioeconomic

and Regulatory Aspects of Coastal Zone Planning and

Management. San Francisco, California. 

Goldin, Meryl Rose. 1993. Effects of Human

Disturbance and Off-Road Vehicles on Piping Plover

Reproductive Success and Behavior at Breezy Point,

Gateway National Recreation Area, NY, Department of

Forestry and Wildlife Management. 128 pp.

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

Chick Behavior, Habitat Use, and Reproductive Success

of Piping Plovers at Goosewing Beach, RhodeIsland. J.

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

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

Grant, Univ. of RI.

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

Distribution and Abundance of Submerged Aquatic

Vegetation in Trustom Pond, Rhode Island. Dept. of

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

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

Effects of Disturbance to Migratory Shorebirds at

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

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

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

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

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

Memo.

Hecht, Anne. 2000. Memo to Atlantic Coast Piping

Plover Field Stations with preliminary 1999 results of

piping plover populations and productivity. U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Weir Hill Road, Sudbury, MA

01776. Unpubl. Memo, January 24, 2000. 

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

Rhode Island. Country Roads Press, Castine, ME.

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

Effects of human recreation on piping plover foraging

ecology and chick survival at Ninigret NWR Final

Report. USFWS. 23 pp.

Hoopes, E.M. 1993. Relationships Between Human

Recreation and Piping Plover Foraging Ecology and

Chick Survival, University of Massachusetts, Department

of Forestry and Wildlife Management. 106 pp.

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

volatile irritants at reducing consumption of eggs by

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

Jacobson, Victoria. 1999. Cultural Resource Overview

for the Rhode Island Refuge System, USFWS,

Northeast Region, Unpubl. Report.

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

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

Effects of management practices on grassland birds:

Grasshopper sparrow. Northern Prairie Wildlife

Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 12 pages.

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

populations in relation to plant succession on the

Piedmont of Georgia. Ecology 37:50-62.

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

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

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

analysis and site characteristics of a rare plant

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

Rept. 18pp.

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

Rare plant abundance in an endangered species “hot

spot”. New England Naturalist. In press.

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

Distribution and natural history of the American

burying beetle, (Nicrophorus americanus) on Block

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

Boston University. 17pp. 

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

conterminous U.S. American Geographical Society

Publication 36. 116 p.

Leatherman, Stephen and Paul Godfrey. 1979. The

impact of off-road vehicles on coastal ecosystems in Cape

Cod National Seashore. An overview. National Park

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

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

Island Coast. A selective guide to parks, wildlife

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

and views along Rhode Island’s coast. University of

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

Appendix J

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 J-3
Loegering, J.P., J.D. Fraser. 1995. Factors affecting

piping plover chick survival in different brood-rearing

habitats. The Journal of Wildlife Management,

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

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. 1996.

Conservation plan for piping plovers in Massachusetts.

Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Westborough, MA. 35 pp.

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

Plover Mortalities Caused by Off-Road Vehicles on

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

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

Recovery Strategies for Piping Plovers in Managed

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

21-34.

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

Piping Plover Nest Predation. J. Wildl. Manage.

54(3):p. 443-447.

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

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

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

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

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

Ecology and Management of Neotropical Migratory

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

University Press, New York, NY. 

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

An archaeological assessment of the Trustom Pond

National Wildlife Refuge. Rhode Island College,

Providence, RI. 93 pages.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

Rhode Island Department of Environmental

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

Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Restoration plan and

environmental assessment for the January 19, 1996

North Cape oil spill. Draft Environmental Assessment. 

National Park Service. 1992. Economic Impacts of

Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenways. The Rivers,

Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program of the

National Park Service. Washington, D.C. 

Nature Conservancy, The. 1997. Queen River

Watershed Conservation Plan. TNC Rhode Island Field

Office, Providence, RI. 26pp.

Nature Conservancy, The. 1997. Rhode Island

Preserves. An illustrated guide to The Nature

Conservancy’s Rhode Island preserves, as well as some

of the land the Conservancy has helped other

conservation agencies to protect. 36pp.

Nature Conservancy, The. 1998. Upper Wood River

Conservation Plan. TNC Rhode Island Field Office,

Providence, RI. 17pp.

Nature Conservancy, The. 1998. Southern Pawcatuk

Conservation Plan. TNC Rhode Island Field Office,

Providence, RI. 23pp.

North American Waterfowl Committee. 1988. North

American Waterfowl Management Plan. 32 pp.

Office of Technology Assessment. 1995. Technologies

to Benefit Shoreline Property and Rare Species

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

Oneill, Anne. 1999. Personal communications. South

County Economic Tourism Bureau. Charlestown, RI.

Parrish, Jeffrey D. 1999. Patterns of frugivory and

energetic condition in Nearctic landbirds during

autumn migration. The Condor 99: 681-697.

Partners in Flight. 1998. Landbird Conservation Plan:

Physiographic Area 9: Southern New England (draft,

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

Paton, P. 1996. Monitoring avian productivity and

survivorship site additions, Ninigret National Wildlife

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

Paton, P. 1994. Monitoring avian productivity and

survivorship site additions, Ninigret National Wildlife

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

Paton, P. 1997. Monitoring avian productivity and

survivorship site additions, Ninigret National Wildlife

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

Paton, P. 1998. Monitoring avian productivity and

survivorship site additions, Ninigret National Wildlife

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

Pawcatuk Watershed Partnership. 1997. The Pawcatuk

Watershed Report. EPA, Narragansett, RI.

Porter, Ellen M., Environmental Specialist. 1999.

Personal communication, Regional Planners

Conference, Denver, CO.

Appendix J

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

Communications. Rhode Island Department of

Environmental Management, Division of Fish and

Wildlife. Charlestown, RI.

Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council.

1995. Narrow River Special Area Management Plan,

Public Review Document. Wakefield, Rhode Island.

186 pp.

Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council.

1998. Salt Pond Region Special Area Management Plan

Public Review Document. 199 pp.

Rhode Island Department of Administration and Rhode

Island Department of Environmental Management. 1992.

Ocean State Outdoors: Rhode Island’s Comprehensive

Outdoor Recreation Plan. Providence, RI.

Rhode Island Department of Environmental

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

Strategic Plan for the Restoration of Atlantic Salmon to

the Pawcatuck River, Rhode Island. Division of Fish

and Wildlife. Unpub. Report.

Rhode Island Department of Environmental

Management. 1996. Protecting our Land Resources.

Division of Planning and Development. 37 pp.

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 1999.

Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge Least Tern

Management Report. Rhode Island NWR Complex,

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

Rhode Island State Historic Preservation Commission,

1974. A historic, architectural and archeological

investigation of the former Charlestown Naval Air

Station and vicinity. Rhode Island Historic

Preservation Commission, 150 Benefit St. Providence

RI 02903. 28pp.

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

and terns in Rhode Island 1899-1961. Narragansett

Naturalist.

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

MacPhee. 1997. Restoration of the Sachuest Point salt

marsh (Middletown, RI): Pre-restoration ecological

baseline information. Univ. of Rhode Island. Graduate

School of Oceanography. 155 pp.

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

Defenders - The Conservation Magazine of Defenders

of Wildlife. p. 6-15. 

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

nongame birds of management concern in the

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

Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 400pp.

Trust for Public Lands. 1998. Local Parks, Local

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

Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge. 1999. Piping

Plover Management Report. Ninigret NWR, Route 1A,

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

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

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

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

regarding disposition of the Beane Property. Unpubl.

Rept. 10pp.

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

petition finding to list the Harlequin Duck

(Histrionicus histrionicus) in Eastern North America

as endangered or threatened. Federal Register vol 63

No. 88 p. 25177-25178.

University of Rhode Island. 1996. Elevation profiling

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

September 1995 to August 1996. Graduate School of

Oceanography. Unpubl. Rept. 

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

Assessment. Trustom Pond NWR. South Kingstown,

RI. 73pp.

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

Assessment. Trustom Pond NWR. South Kingstown,

RI. 45pp.

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

Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands of Rhode Island. Boston,

MA. 77pp. 

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

Joint Venture. 107 pp.

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

Wetlands Concept Plan, Emergency Wetlands

Resources Act. Northeast Region. Newton Corner, MA.

100pp.

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

Management for 1990, A Compatibility Determination

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

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

Coastal Areas Study: Significant Coastal Habitats of

Southern New England and Portions of Long Island,

New York. Charlestown, RI. 249pp.

Appendix J

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 J-5
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. American

Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) Recovery

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

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

Assessment for Sachuest Point. Unpubl. Rept. 

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

approach to fish and wildlife conservation. 14pp.

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

Beach Tiger Beetle (Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis)

Recovery Plan. Hadley, MA 45pp.

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

(Charadrius melodius) Revised Recovery Plan. Hadley,

MA 45pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Environmental

Assessment for Habitat Restoration Project. Ninigret

NWR, Charlestown, RI. 25pp.

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

Nature: The Enconomic Benefits to Local Communities

of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. 118pp.

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

finding on a petition to list the Eastern North American

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

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

Habitat at Risk. Service pamphlet.

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

River Watershed/Long Island Sound Invasive Plant

Control Initiative Strategic Plan. Turners Falls, MA.

15 pp.

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

Archeological and Cultural History of Rhode Island

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

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

The Impact of Different Predator Exclosures on Piping

Plover Nest Abandonment. J. Field Ornithol.,

65(2):201-209.

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

harlequin ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus) wintering

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

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

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

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

Effects of habitat area on the distribution of grassland

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

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

Birds: Managing agricultural lands including hayfields,

crop fields, and pastures for grassland birds.

Massachusetts Audubon Society. Lincoln, MA. 17 pages.

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

Birds: Managing large grasslands including

conservation lands, airports, and landfills over 75 acres

for grassland birds. Massachusetts Audubon Society.

Lincoln, MA. 17 pages.

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

Birds: Managing small grasslands including

conservation lands, corporate headquarters, recreation

fields, and small landfills for grassland birds. Lincoln,

MA. 16 pages.

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

Population Status of Grassland Birds in Massachusetts.

Pp. 187-200 in Grasslands of Northeastern North

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

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

von Oettingen, Susanna L. 1998. Personal

communications. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service New

England Field Office. Concord, NH. 

Walker, Ret. Colonel A. 1995. Historical Perspectives

on Establishing Sachuest Point NWR, Middletown, RI.

Unpublished Report.

Wallace, M. 1995. Monitoring avian productivity and

survivorship site additions, Ninigret National Wildlife

Refuge. USFWS. Unpub. Report. 17 pp.

Whitmore, R.C. 1981. Structural characteristics of

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

811-814.

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

Leatherman. 1979. The ecological effects of off-road

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

Cod national Seashore, Massachusetts. Univ. Mass.

National Park Service Cooperative Research Unit,

report No. 29. 67 pp. 

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

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

beach processes: Nauset Spit, Cape Cod National

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

9:240-248.

Appendix J

J-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 K-1

Appendix K

Areas of Biological

Significance and Focus Area

Descriptions
Descriptions of Areas of Biological

Significance and Focus Areas

The Focus Areas, as described in Chapter 3,

contain a variety of habitats, including barrier

beaches, coastal salt ponds, rivers, wetlands,

forests, morainal shrublands and grasslands. Most

of these areas had previously been identified as

protection priorities by one or more of the

following planning efforts:

•Northeast Coastal Area Study (FWS 1991)

•North American Waterfowl Management

Plan–Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (FWS 1988)

•Regional Wetlands Concept Plan (FWS 1990)

•Unique Wildlife Ecosystem Concept Plan—

State of Rhode Island (FWS 1979)

•Protecting our Land Resources (Rhode Island

Dept of Environmental Management 1996)

•Priority Wetlands in New England (EPA 1987)

•United Nations Education, Scientific, and

Cultural Organization (Bioreserve

designation)

Habitat Description

Block Island falls within Bailey’s Mid Atlantic

coastal plain ecoregion, which includes Long

Island and southern New Jersey. This ecoregion is

typified by hemlock-white pine forests and

maritime dune complexes. However, in the mid1700’s, the whole Island was clearcut for pasture

and cropland. The isolation of the Island from

mainland seed sources and its windy climate have

inhibited the regrowth of forests. Today, the Focus

Area is dominated by coastal shrubland, made up

of shadbush, northern bayberry, arrowwood, and

black cherry, interspersed with freshwater wetland

habitats. The brackish Sachem Pond is located at

the northern end of the Focus Area, and the Great

Salt Pond is located just south of the Focus Area.

An additional 360 freshwater ponds are scattered

throughout the Island. Other habitats found

within the Focus Area include morainal grasslands,

beaches, and sand dunes. 

The Sakonnet-Westport Rivers ABS and South

Shore ABS are classified in Bailey’s Ecoregion as

the Narragansett/Bristol Lowland and Islands

subsection. The Focus Areas within these ABS’s

contain morainal salt ponds, brackish estuaries,

maritime dune communities, tidal salt marshes,

small rivers, freshwater ponds and islands,

morainal grasslands, forested and scrub shrub

wetlands, and upland forests. 

The morainal salt ponds are unique geologic

features that only occur in southwestern

Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Narrow, wavewashed sand or gravel beaches dominated by

beachgrass separate the ponds from the ocean.

Historically, seasonal breaching opened the salt

ponds to periodic tidal flushing and maintained the

ponds in brackish conditions. Today, most of the

coastal salt ponds in Rhode Island have permanent

breachways to the ocean. Trustom and Cards

Ponds, located within and adjacent to Trustom

Pond NWR, respectively, are the only two coastal

salt ponds without permanent breachways. The

dune complexes associated with the salt ponds

include sand or gravel beaches, dunes dominated

by beachgrass, seaside goldenrod, and beach rose,

and tidal mud and sand flats. 

Forested and shrub wetlands in the Focus Areas

are mainly dominated by red maple, viburnum,

high bush blueberry, sweet pepperbush, dogwood,

alder and willow. The upland forests are primarily

dominated by mixed black and white oak, with

pitch pine and scrub-shrub thickets. Much of the

historic morainal grassland was converted to

agriculture with early settlement. The Service is

successfully restoring some of these same lands

back to native grasses on the Ninigret and

Trustom Pond Refuges, and on neighboring private

lands under a cooperative venture.

The Wood–Pawcatuck Rivers ABS is located at

the intersection of Bailey’s North Atlantic Coast

and Lower New England ecoregions. As such, the

communities found in this ABS reflect both coastal

and inland influences. The Pawcatuck River is a

meandering river system with a mainstem length

of 50 kilometers. The Wood-Pawcatuck Focus

Areas include several large unfragmented wetland

and forested ecosystems, including the three

largest wetland complexes in Rhode Island. Most

wetlands are palustrine forests dominated by red

maple followed by white pine. Associated with the

red maple-white pine swamps are black gum,

Atlantic white cedar, hemlock, sweet pepperbush,

swamp azalea, common winterberry, and

spicebush. Other wetland types include marshes

Appendix K

K-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
and scrub-shrub wetlands. Communities found in

upland habitats vary with soil type, hydrology, and

other factors, but are generally dominated by oakhemlock-hickory forests, with associated species of

white pine, white ash, American beech, black birch,

sugar maple, and black gum. The WoodPawcatuck Rivers Focus Areas also supports a

number of globally rare natural communities,

including pitch pine-scrub oak barrens, and

Atlantic white cedar bogs. 

Major Wildlife Values

Block Island ABS, including the Block Island

NWR expansion Area

Block Island hosts significant occurrences of rare

and declining species and is among the most

important refugia for globally rare plants and

animals in New England. The lack of predatory

mammals provides a safe haven for various species

whose populations have been devastated by mesopredators on the mainland, including many ground

nesting bird species and the only breeding

population of the Federally endangered American

burying beetles east of the Mississippi. Block

Island is extremely important to the survival and

recovery of the American burying beetle. As the

only surviving population in the East, it will serve

as the source of animals in all efforts to reestablish the species to historic localities east of

the Mississippi River. 

Other Federally listed species found within the

Focus Area include the piping plover (threatened),

American bald eagle (threatened), and sea beach

amaranth (threatened). 

Block Island is a critical stepping stone for many

bird species migrating between southern New

England and eastern Long Island. The relatively

undeveloped nature and north-south orientation of

the Island make it one of the most important

migratory bird habitats on the East Coast. Annual

bird surveys by The Nature Conservancy

documented as many as 250 species of waterfowl,

raptors, shorebirds and Neotropical landbirds

during migration, including 20 Nongame Species of

Management Concern, and eleven NAWCA

Priority Waterfowl Species. 

Block Island is particularly important to

Neotropical migrants. Annual mist net surveys

conducted by The Nature Conservancy at two

locations within the Focus Area sampled

approximately 6000 individuals and documented 95

species of Neotropical songbirds. The Focus Area

hosts the largest gull colony in the State, and a

wading bird colony that consists of the State-listed

black crowned night heron, yellow crowned night

heron, American oyster catcher, great egret, and

snowy egret. Block Island has three times the

density of breeding American woodcocks than the

mainland, has a wintering population of common

loons that number in the hundreds, and is one of

the few places where American black ducks are

more numerous than mallards.

Other noteworthy species within the Focus Area

include salt marsh sharp-tailed sparrow , northern

harrier, sea-beach knotweed, and the only cliffnesting barn owls known to occur in the United

States. The geographic isolation of the Island is

promoting speciation and have given rise to the

Block Island meadow vole (subspecies) and

genetically distinct populations of northern water

snake and eastern garter snake. Research is

currently ongoing to determine if these genetic

differences warrant reclassification to species and

sub-species.

South Shore ABS and Sakonnet-Westport Rivers

ABS, including Ninigret NWR, Sachuest NWR,

and Trustom Pond NWR expansion areas

Focus Areas within the South Shore and SakonnetWestport Rivers ABSs support high

concentrations of our Trust resources. Federally

listed species found within these ABSs include the

small-whorled pogonia (endangered), sandplain

gerardia (endangered), piping plover (threatened),

bald eagle (threatened), roseate tern (endangered),

and seabeach amaranth (threatened). The

northeastern beach tiger beetle (threatened)

historically bred on the barrier islands and

beaches within the Focus Areas. 

Approximately 50 species of shorebirds feed or

nest on barrier beaches, mud flats, marshes and

small islands in the Focus Areas. The Federally

listed piping plover and roseate tern, and the State

threatened least tern nest in several of the Focus

Areas. The Service currently manages seven

nesting areas within the South Shore ABS that

support approximately 70 percent of Rhode

Island’s piping plover population, primarily

through cooperative agreements with private

Appendix K

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 K-3
landowners and partners. Focus Areas in the

Sakonnet-Westport Rivers ABS support the

remaining population, where Audubon Society of

Rhode Island has taken the lead in their protection

and management. Permanent protection of these

nesting sites is critical to plover recovery in Rhode

Island as breeding pairs rotate among these sites

in response to changes in beach physiology,

weather conditions, and public use pressures. 

Several of the South Shore Focus Areas are also

potential reintroduction sites for the Federally

threatened northeastern beach tiger beetle. The

Service was recently successful in reintroducing

tiger beetles to a site on Monomoy Refuge in

Massachusetts. Napatree Point, one of the South

Shore Focus Areas, has been identified as the

highest priority for reintroduction in Rhode Island

if permanent protection is secured. Reintroduction

of the tiger beetle to beaches in Rhode Island

would significantly contribute to the recovery of

the species (Susi von Oettingen, pers. comm.)

The salt ponds, barrier beach, salt marshes and

associated upland habitats provide nesting,

feeding, spawning, migration and wintering habitat

for waterfowl, wading and shore birds, passerines,

raptors, fish, and shellfish. The coastal salt pond

habitat supports at least 300 species of migratory

birds, including all thirteen species of NAWCA

Priority Waterfowl Species and 25 nongame

Species of Management Concern. During the

winter months when freshwater ponds are frozen,

the coastal ponds provide food and open water for

waterfowl. Nutrients from the salt ponds benefit

nearshore ocean habitats and support numerous

species of diving seaducks, including the harlequin

duck, common eider, grebes, scaups, and scoters.

The coastal salt ponds also provide important

feeding and nurseries for Anadromous fish and

commercially important shellfish, including

Atlantic salmon, American eel, striped bass,

blueback herring, alewife, American shad, Atlantic

sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, blue crab, lobster,

scallops, hard- and soft-shelled clams, and mussels. 

The morainal shrublands and grasslands provide

important stopover and breeding habitat for

migratory species, particularly Neotropical

landbirds. The morainal grassland habitat in the

South Shore has experienced drastic declines over

the last century. Service efforts to restore

grasslands has brought back several regionally

declining and nongame species of management

concern, including upland sandpiper, grasshopper

sparrow, Henslow’s sparrow, eastern meadowlark,

and bobolink. 

Wood-Pawcatuck Rivers ABS, including Trustom

Pond NWR expansion area

The Wood–Pawcatuck Rivers ABS is geologically

and biologically linked to the South Shore ABS

through the Charlestown moraine north of U.S.

Route 1. Although the Focus Areas in the

Wood–Pawcatuck Rivers ABS do not support high

concentrations of our Trust species, they contain

approximately 70 percent of the globally rare

species found in the State. The pristine, diverse

habitats in these Focus Areas support a high

diversity of species, including forest nesting

Neotropical migrants, Federally listed and globally

rare plants and invertebrates, anadromous fish

species, and numerous species of mammals,

amphibians, and reptiles. Some notable species

include the small whorled pogonia (Federally

threatened), northern parula warbler, cerulean

warbler, prothonotary warbler, eastern spadefoot

toad, ringed boghaunter (former candidate), regal

fritillary butterfly (former candidate), spatterdock

darter, eastern pearlshell mussel, pale green pinion

moth, yellow fringed orchid, and New England

blazing star.

The extensive network of riverine systems in the

Wood–Pawcatuck Rivers Focus Areas provide

spawning and feeding habitats for anadromous fish

species such as Atlantic salmon, American eel,

alewife, American shad, and Atlantic and shortnose

sturgeon. 

Appendix K

K-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Appendix K

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 K-5
Appendix K

K-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Appendix K

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 K-7
Appendix K

K-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Appendix K

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 K-9
Appendix K

K-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex