Rhode Island National

Wildlife Refuge Complex

Draft Comprehensive Conservation

Plan and Environmentatal Assessment

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Vision Statement

“The Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex protects

a unique collection of thriving coastal sandplain and beach

strand communities, which represents some of the last

undeveloped seacoast in southern New England. Leading the

way in the protection and restoration of wetlands and early

successional coastal habitats, the Refuge Complex insures longterm sustainability of migratory and resident native

populations, and contributes to the recovery of threatened and

endangered species. These refuges offer research

opportunities and provide a showcase of habitat management

for other landowners.”

“The Refuge Complex is the premiere destination for visitors to

coastal Rhode Island to engage in high quality, wildlifedependent recreation. Hundreds of thousands of visitors are

rewarded each year with inspiring vistas and exceptional,

barrier-free opportunities to view wildlife in native habitats.

Innovative environmental educational and interpretive programs

effectively promote better stewardship of coastal resources.”

“Through partnerships and extensive outreach efforts, Refuge

staff are committed to accomplishing Refuge goals and

significantly contributing to the Mission of the National

Wildlife Refuge System. This commitment will strengthen

with the future, revitalizing the southern New England

ecosystem for generations to come.”

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Division of Planning

Northeast Regional Office

300 Westgate Center Drive

Hadley, MA 01035

December 2000

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 1-1

White water lily

USFWS photo

■ Introduction and Background

■ Purpose of and Need for a CCP

■ Analysis Area

■ Decision to be Made

■ National and Regional Mandates Guiding the Project

■ Establishing Legislation

■ Refuge Land Acquisition Histories

■ Refuge Operational Plans (”Step-down” plans)

■ Rhode Island Refuge Complex Vision

■ Rhode Island Refuge Complex Goals

■ The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

■ Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities

■ Issues Outside the Scope of this EA

Chapter 1

Purpose of and Need 

for Action
Introduction and Background

This draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental

Assessment (draft CCP/EA) for the Rhode Island National Wildlife

Refuge Complex (Refuge Complex) combines two documents

required by federal law: a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP),

required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act

of 1997 (Refuge Improvement Act; Public Law 105-57); and an

Environmental Assessment (EA), required by the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; Public Law 91-190).

Chapter 1, Purpose of and Need for Action, sets the stage for

Chapters 2 through 4. It...

■ Describes the purpose and need of a CCP/EA for the 

Refuge Complex

■ Identifies national, regional, and state plans that influenced 

this draft

■ Highlights the purpose for which each of the five refuges in the

Refuge Complex was established and its land acquisition history

■ Presents the vision and goals for the Refuge Complex

■ Explains the planning process for developing this draft CCP/EA, and

■ Describes its key issues, concerns, and opportunities

Chapter 2, Description of the Affected Environment, describes the

existing physical, biological, and human environment.

Chapter 3, Alternatives, describes alternative management

strategies for meeting goals and responding to key issues and

compares them to current management.

Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, evaluates the

environmental consequences of implementing each of the proposed

management alternatives.

Chapter 5, List of Preparers, credits Service and non-Service

contributors.

Chapter 6, Consultation and Coordination with Others, summarizes

each public involvement activity.

Eleven appendices provide additional references and information

used in compiling this draft CCP/EA.

The Purpose of and Need for a CCP

Our goal is a CCP for each refuge in the Refuge Complex that

attains its vision and goals; best achieves each refuge’s purpose;

contributes to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System

(Refuge System); addresses key issues and relevant mandates; and

uses sound principles of fish and wildlife science.

Chapter 1 

1-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
As NEPA requires, this draft CCP/EA evaluates a reasonable range

of alternatives and the predictable socio-economic, physical, and

biological impacts of implementing each alternative. We designed

each alternative with the potential to develop into a CCP for each of

the five refuges (see Analysis Area). Those plans will guide our

management decisions and actions over the next 15 years, and help

the public and our partners understand and support them.

Developing a CCP is vital to the management of each refuge. The

final CCPs will provide strategic management direction over the next

15 years, by...

■ Providing a clear statement of desired future conditions for

habitat, wildlife, visitor services, and facilities;

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

understanding of the reasons for management actions;

■ Ensuring refuge management reflects the policies and goals of the

Refuge System and legal mandates;

■ Ensuring the compatibility of current and future public use;

■ Providing long-term continuity and direction for refuge

management; and

■ Providing direction for staffing, operations, maintenance, and

developing budget requests.

The need to develop CCPs for the Refuge Complex is two-fold. First,

the Refuge Improvement Act requires that all national wildlife

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

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

that establishes priorities and ensures consistent, integrated

management among its five refuges.

Our vision statement and Refuge Complex-wide goals, management

strategies, and actions will help us effectively manage natural

resources and priority, wildlife-dependent recreational uses. By

involving the public and conservation partners, it will help us resolve

persistent issues of non-wildlife-dependent public use, beach access,

and management for threatened and endangered species. It will

help us develop criteria for evaluating available sites for a new

Refuge Complex headquarters and visitor center. Finally, it will help

us consider expanding each of the five refuges to ensure their

sustained biological integrity. All of these reasons clearly underscore

the need for the type of strategic direction a CCP provides.

Chapter 1 

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 1-3
Analysis Area

The Refuge Complex comprises five national wildlife refuges. 

Map 1-1 shows their locations.

■ Block Island National Wildlife Refuge (Block Island Refuge) on

Block Island, Town of New Shoreham;

■ Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge (Ninigret Refuge), in the Town

of Charlestown; 

■ John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge (Chafee Refuge), in the

Towns of South Kingstown and Narragansett;

■ Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge (Sachuest Point Refuge),

in the Town of Middletown; and 

■ Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge (Trustom Pond Refuge), in

the Town of South Kingstown.

Our planning team not only evaluated current refuge lands, but also

evaluated significant habitats within five Areas of Biological

Significance (ABS) in southern Rhode Island, southeastern

Connecticut, and southwestern Massachusetts. Those ABS

represent contiguous coastal landscapes, typically defined by

watersheds or other landscape-level, geomorphologic features, where

trust species and other species and habitats of special management

concern occur. They also represent the ecosystems in which those

resources primarily flow, move, or are transported. Appendix A lists

the species and habitats of management concern used in defining the

ABS. Map 1-2 depicts their boundaries, drawn to link existing

protected lands.

Decision to Be Made

Based on the Service mission, the Refuge System mission, the

purposes for which each of the refuges was established, other legal

mandates, public and partner responses to this draft CCP/EA, and

completion of a final CCP/EA, the Regional Director will select a

preferred alternative and issue a Finding of No Significant Impact

(FONSI). The Regional Director’s selected alternative could be the

proposed action in the draft CCP/EA, the no action alternative, or a

combination of actions or alternatives presented. The final decision

will identify the desired combination of species protection, habitat

management, public use and access, administration, and new land

acquisition for the Refuge Complex. A FONSI certifies that we have

met agency compliance requirements and that the CCPs, when

implemented, will achieve the purposes of the refuge and help fulfill

the Refuge System mission. Once the Regional Director has signed

the FONSI and we have completed stand-alone CCPs for each

refuge, we will notify the public in the Federal Register, and

implementation can begin. 

Chapter 1 

1-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Freshwater wetland.

USFWS photo
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 1-5

Map 1-1
1-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Map 1-2
National and Regional Mandates Guiding this Project

This section highlights Service policy, legal mandates, and existing

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

directly influenced development of this draft CCP/EA.

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

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

national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries. By law,

Congress entrusts national resources to the Service for conservation

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

Service also enforces federal wildlife laws and international treaties

on importing and exporting wildlife, assists with state fish and

wildlife programs, and helps other countries develop wildlife

conservation programs.

The National Wildlife Refuge System and its Mission

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

waters set aside specifically for conserving wildlife and protecting

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

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

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

photograph wildlife, or participate in environmental education and

interpretive activities on refuges. 

In 1997, Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act, establishing a unifying mission for the Refuge

System, and a new process for determining compatible public use

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

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

System must focus on wildlife conservation. It further states that

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

which each refuge was established, will provide the foundation for

management direction for each refuge.

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

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

wildlife-dependent public uses as priorities that all CCPs must

evaluate: environmental education and interpretation, fishing,

hunting, and wildlife observation and photography. Each refuge

manager determines the compatibility of an activity by evaluating its

potential impact on refuge resources, insuring that the activity

supports the Refuge System mission, and ensuring that the activity

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

Chapter 1 

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 1-7

“...working with others, to

conserve, protect and

enhance fish wildlife, and

plants and their habitats

for the continuing benefit

of the American people.”

– Mission, U.S. Fish &

Wildlife Service

“...to administer a

national network of lands

and waters for the 

conservation, 

management, and where

appropriate, restoration

of the fish, wildlife, and

plant resources and their 

habitats within the

United States for the 

benefit of present and

future generations of

Americans.”

– Refuge System Mission,

Refuge Improvement Act;

Public Law 105-57
Fulfilling the Promise

“This report on the National Wildlife Refuge System is the

culmination of a year-long process involving teams of Service

employees who examined the Refuge System within the framework

of Wildlife and Habitat, People, and Leadership. The report was the

focus of the first-ever System Conference held in Keystone, Colorado

in October 1998, attended by every refuge manager in the country,

other Service employees, and scores of conservation organizations....

The heart of the report is the collection of vision statements and 42

recommendations....” Those recommendations helped guide the

development of goals, strategies and actions in this draft CCP/EA.

Other Legal and National Policy Mandates

While the purpose for their establishment provides the foundation

for managing refuges, they must also comply with a variety of other

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

regulations on conserving and protecting natural and cultural

resources. Appendix B summarizes some important federal laws

governing refuge management. Chapter 4, Environmental

Consequences, specifically evaluates each alternative’s compliance

with the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, the National Historic

Preservation Act, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and

the Endangered Species Act. This draft CCP/EA is written to fulfill

compliance with NEPA. The Service Manual and Refuge Manual

contain Service policies and guidance on planning and day-to-day

refuge management.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

NAWMP outlines the strategy among the United States, Canada,

and Mexico to restore waterfowl populations by protecting,

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

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

Duck. Partnerships among federal, state and provincial

governments, tribal nations, local businesses, conservation

organizations, and individual citizens protect that habitat. The

Refuge Complex lies within the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (U.S.

regional), which has identified 13 priority focus areas totaling 3,226

acres of both wetlands and adjacent uplands for protection in Rhode

Island (Atlantic Coast Joint Venture 1988). Three priority focus

areas in the Refuge Complex are Trustom Pond, Ninigret Pond, and

the Pettaquamscutt (Narrow) River.

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

the Black Duck Joint Venture (species) apply to managing the

Refuge Complex. The Black Duck Joint Venture has identified the

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

most important wintering habitat. One priority focus area in that

Joint Venture includes Chafee Refuge.

Goals and objectives of the Sea Duck Joint Venture are also relevant

to this plan. Many sea duck species winter in Rhode Island coastal

waters, including a population of harlequin ducks off of Sachuest

Point Refuge.

Chapter 1 

1-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

“Protect and manage 

priority wetland habitats

for migration, wintering,

and production of 

waterfowl, with special

consideration to black

ducks, and to benefit

other wildlife in the joint

venture area.”

– Goal, Atlantic Coast

Joint Venture
Partners In Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: Physiographic 

Area 9, Southern New England (unfinished draft, October 20, 1998)

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

international coalition of government agencies, conservation

organizations, academic institutions, private industry, and other

citizens dedicated to reversing the downward trends of declining

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

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

scientifically based Landbird Conservation Plans. The goal of each

PIF Landbird Conservation Plan is to ensure long term maintenance

of healthy populations of native landbirds. 

The Partners in Flight Program is developing a plan for the

Southern New England Physiographic Area, using existing data on

habitat loss, landbird population trends, and the vulnerability of

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

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

type from which population and habitat objectives and conservation

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

list of priority species to consider in management. A final plan,

which will include management recommendations, will help direct

future landbird management on the Refuge Complex.

Northeast Areas Study: Significant Coastal Habitats of Southern

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

Recognizing the biological and economic importance of the coast’s living

resources and natural values to the region and the Nation, in 1990

Congress funded a study to identify coastal areas in southern New

England and Long Island whose fish and wildlife habitat need

protection and whose natural diversity needs preservation. The

Northeast Coastal Study identifies species of regional importance, and

describes regionally significant habitat complexes. It specifically

describes significant or unique habitat, threats to sustaining the habitat

complex, and considerations for conserving and protecting it. We

utilized this study in the development of our land protection strategies.

The study identifies these habitat complexes in Rhode Island:

1. Fishers Island Sound (located in Suffolk and New London

Counties, CT, and Washington County, RI)

2. Block Island (Washington County, RI) 

3. Chapman Swamp/Pawcatuck River (Washington County, RI)

4. Maschaug Pond and Beach (Washington County, RI)

5. Areas North and East of Trustom Pond and Green Hill Swamp

(Washington County, RI)

6. Hundred Acre Cove/Palmer River 

(Bristol and Providence Counties, RI)

7. Rhode Island Sound/Buzzards Bay Beach 

(Newport and Bristol Counties, RI)

Chapter 1 

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 1-9
Connecticut River/Long Island Sound Ecosystem Priorities, 1997

During the last decade, we have emphasized ecosystem conservation,

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

affect the long-term conservation of natural resources. Implementing

an ecosystem approach to resource management is one of our top

national priorities. We have initiated new partnerships with private

landowners, state and federal agencies, corporations, conservation

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

country, typically using large river watersheds to define ecosystems.

Those teams work on developing goals and priorities for research and

management within each ecosystem.

The Refuge Complex lies within our Connecticut River/Long Island

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

Service personnel and representatives from six State Fish and Wildlife

Departments developed a Priority Resources Plan (July 1996) that

identifies seven priorities, each involving numerous action strategies.

1. Protect, restore, and enhance listed and candidate

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

coastal sandplain habitat, and Connecticut River species.

2. Protect, restore, and enhance anadromous and interjurisdictional

migratory fish populations...with special emphasis on Atlantic

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

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

on grassland and forest interior species.

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

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

coastal areas and major rivers.

5. Protect, restore, and enhance wetland habitats. 

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

communities and trust resources.

7. Develop a public that values the fish and wildlife

resources...understands events and issues related to these

resources, and acts to promote fish and wildlife conservation.

Chapter 1 

1-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 1-11

Map 1-3
“Reduce the immediacy

of the threat of extinction

to the American burying

beetle, and the longer

range objective is to

improve its status so that

it can be reclassified

from endangered to

threatened.”

– American Burying Beetle

Recovery Plan objective

Chapter 1 

1-12 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), Atlantic Coast Population,

Revised Recovery Plan, 1996

The piping plover is the only federally-listed endangered or

threatened species that currently breeds on Refuge lands within the

Rhode Island Refuge Complex. The primary objective of the revised

recovery program is to remove the Atlantic coast piping plover

population from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and

Plants by: 

■ Achieving well-distributed increases in numbers and productivity

of breeding pairs; and

■ Providing for long-term protection of breeding and wintering

plovers and their habitats.

The Revised Recovery Plan describes detailed “Recovery Tasks”

needed to meet the recovery objective. The Rhode Island Refuge

Complex is specifically mentioned in the following tasks:

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

feeding habitat available.

■ Reduce disturbance of breeding plovers from humans and pets.

■ Develop mechanisms to provide long-term protection of plovers

and their habitat. 

The Recovery Plan incorporates guidelines developed in 1994 by our

Ecological Services Division, which include guidelines for managing

recreational activities in piping plover breeding habitat. While not

regulatory, these recommendations continue to serve as our best

professional advice for complying with the Endangered Species Act.

We utilized these same guidelines in developing management actions.

American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus)

Recovery Plan, 1991

The American burying beetle is a federally listed species

(endangered) that is known to breed on southern Block Island, but

no breeding behavior has yet been observed on Block Island Refuge.

One female was recorded on the Beane tract, but was not seen on

subsequent visits. No extensive surveys have been conducted on the

Refuge; interest has focused on southern Block Island, where the

core population is assumed to breed. Since the island supports the

only known occurrence east of the Mississippi River, any opportunity

to protect or enhance habitat for this species is a priority.

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

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

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

from endangered to threatened.” It outlines nine specific Recovery

Tasks for protecting and managing the existing populations,

searching for new populations, re-introducing populations,

conducting natural history studies, and starting an environmental

education program.

Piping plover chick. USFWS photo
Chapter 1 

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 1-13

Regional Wetlands Concept Plan – Emergency Wetlands Resources

Act 9 (USFWS 1990)

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act to

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

the Department of Interior to develop a National Wetlands Priority

Conservation Plan identifying the location and types of wetlands that

should receive priority for acquisition by federal and state agencies

using Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations. In 1990,

the Service’s Northeast Region completed a Regional Wetlands

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

warranting consideration for acquisition due to wetland values.

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

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

Protecting Our Land Resources: 

A Land Acquisition and Protection Plan, Rhode Island Department

of Environmental Management, May 1996

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

Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) in

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

the integrity of natural resources essential to the environmental,

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

framework provides strategies to permanently protect five critical

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

natural heritage and biodiversity. It includes evaluation criteria for

selecting and prioritizing lands.

Special Area Management Plans – Salt Pond Region and Narrow

River, November 1998

These plans detail management strategies for implementing the

program standards of the State of Rhode Island Coastal Resources

Management Council (CRMC) in the Salt Pond Region and Narrow

River Watershed. The Salt Pond Region SAMP includes eight

objectives. Six relate to our CCP:

1. To maintain the exceptional scenic qualities of the Salt Pond

Region, and a diversity in the mix and intensity of the activities

they support.

2. To prevent expansion near areas of the salt ponds that are

contaminated by potentially harmful bacteria or eutrophic

conditions.

3. To ensure the groundwater will be unpolluted.

4. To preserve and enhance the diversity and abundance of fish and

shellfish.

5. To restore the barrier beaches, salt marshes, and fish and wildlife

habitats damaged by past construction or present use.

6. To create a decision-making process appropriate to the

management of the region as an ecosystem.
The Narrow River SAMP defines these objectives relevant to our CCP:

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

CRMC responsibility for preserving, protecting, and restoring

coastal resources.

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

the watershed functions as an ecosystem.

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

new technologies.

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

recommendations to municipalities and federal and state agencies.

5. Update all maps using the Rhode Island Geographic Information

System, and modify SAMP boundaries as needed to manage for

erosion and water quality pollution.

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

Establishing Legislation

Refuges can be established under a variety of legislative and

administrative authorities: by Congress through special legislation;

by the President through Executive Order; or administratively by

the Secretary of Interior (delegated to the Director of the Service),

who is authorized by Congress through the following legislation:

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended, established a

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission to approve areas

recommended by the Secretary of the Interior for acquisition with

Migratory Bird Conservation Funds.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended, authorizes

the acceptance by the Service of funds or lands for wildlife purposes

provided that land donations received the consent of the State in

which they are located.

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended, authorizes the Secretary

to acquire lands and waters or interests therein for the development,

management, advancement, conservation, and protection of fish and

wildlife resources, using Land and Water Conservation Fund monies.

Chapter 1 

1-14 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended, authorizes acquisition of

land for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational

development; (2) protection of natural resources; and (3)

conservation of endangered or threatened species. It further

authorizes the Secretary to accept and use donations of funds and

real or personal property to assist in carrying out its purposes.

In the latter situation, we use the NEPA process to notify and consult

with the public. Every new national wildlife refuge is established

with a stated purpose and an acquisition boundary. We are authorized

to purchase land within the acquisition boundary without further

NEPA documentation. The purpose for which a refuge was

established provides the foundation for making management

decisions. All activities must be compatible with its purpose.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as

amended, authorizes the Secretary to acquire and manage land using

donated funds or by exchange of land.

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation

Purposes Act of 1972, as amended, authorizes the transfer of real

property no longer needed by a Federal agency 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. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, authorizes acquisition

of land for the conservation of listed species using Land and Water

Conservation Funds.

Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986, authorizes the purchase

of wetlands which are not covered under the authority of the

Migratory Bird Conservation Act, using Land and Water

Conservation Funds.

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989, created the

North American Wetlands Conservation Council to recommend

projects to be funded under the Act to the Migratory Bird

Conservation Commission.

Chapter 1 

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 1-15
Chapter 1 

1-16 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Refuge Land Acquisition Histories

Chafee Refuge was established through legislation in 1988. The

other four refuges were established administratively. Their

purpose(s) and land acquisition histories follow.

Block Island Refuge

Established in 1973, Block Island Refuge is located approximately 12

miles off the mainland on Block Island, Town of New Shoreham 

(see Map 1-1). The transfer of 28.7 acres from the U.S. Coast Guard

created the Refuge. Subsequently, we have acquired other lands

under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 

(see Map 1-4). The Refuge now owns all the land within its current,

approved acquisition boundary (102 acres).

Thirty percent of Block Island is currently in conservation status,

including lands owned or administered by the Service, The Nature

Conservancy, Block Island Land Trust, Block Island Conservancy,

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

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

referendum that transfers 3 percent of property taxes into a land

acquisition fund administered by the Block Island Land Trust.

The establishment purpose for

Block Island Refuge is:

“...particular value in

carrying out the national

migratory bird

management program.”

– Transfer of Certain Real

Property for Wildlife

Conservation Purposes 

Act of 1972, as amended

Table 1-1. Summary of land acquisition for Block Island Refuge.

Total acreage = 102

Date

1973

1984

1994

1998

1999

Acres Transferred

28.7

-

-

-

-

Acres Purchased

20 (easement,

minus 2.4 acres

traded fee title)

21.8

24.4

9.7

Comments

from USCG

adjacent to North

Light

Beane Point

O’Toole, NevusGreenburg

Kurz
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 1-17

Map 1-4
Chapter 1 

1-18 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Ninigret Refuge

Ninigret Refuge is located in Charlestown, Rhode Island, 30 miles

south of Providence (see Map 1-1). Transfers of land from the U.S.

Navy to the Service primarily established and expanded the Refuge:

In 1970, 27.5 acres of the Ninigret Pond barrier beach; in 1979, 316.4

acres of the Naval Landing Field; and in 1982, an additional 60 acres.

The Refuge now owns all the land within its current, approved

acquisition boundary (see Map 1-5). Table 1-2 summarizes its land

acquisition history.

Two different parcels compose Ninigret Refuge. Its mainland parcel,

bordered on the west by Foster’s Cove, on the south by Ninigret

Pond, on the east by Ninigret Park (Town of Charlestown), and on

the north by U.S. Route 1, contains 382 acres with 3 miles of

shoreline on Ninigret Pond. The mainland parcel is the largest piece

of open space around Ninigret Pond, and soon may be an island of

protected natural habitat surrounded by development. The barrier

beach parcel contains 27.5 acres between Ninigret Pond and Block

Island Sound.

The establishment purposes for

Ninigret Refuge are:

“[of] use as an inviolate

sanctuary, or for any

other management

purpose, for migratory

birds”

– Migratory Bird

Conservation Act of 1929 and

Public Law 80-537

“...particular value in

carrying out the national

migratory bird

management program”

– Transfer of Certain Real

Property for Wildlife

Conservation Purposes 

Act of 1972, as amended

Total acreage = 409

Date

1970

1979

1982

1984

1996

Acres Transferred

27.5

316.4

60

-

-

Acres Purchased

-

-

-

3.31

1.38

Comments

Navy

Navy

Navy

-

-

Table 1-2. Summary of land acquisition for Ninigret Refuge.
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 1-19

Map 1-5
Chapter 1 

1-20 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chafee Refuge

Originally established as Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife

Refuge, Chafee Refuge is the newest addition to the Refuge

Complex. Located in the Towns of South Kingstown and

Narragansett and centered in Middlebridge, the Refuge is mainly

surrounded by private land. Most of its parcels border the Narrow

River, a navigable public waterway. 

In 1988, Senator John H. Chafee proposed legislation designating

600 acres of Pettaquamscutt Cove and its associated uplands for the

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

another bill revised the Refuge acquisition boundary to include the

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

Congress recognized Senator John H. Chafee’s significant

contributions to natural resource protection by renaming

Pettaquamscutt Cove Refuge in his honor. Chafee Refuge currently

includes 329 acres; an additional 398 acres have been approved for

acquisition (see Map 1-6).

The establishment purposes for

Chafee Refuge 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 international

treaty obligations of the

U.S. respecting fish and

wildlife;

(4) To provide 

opportunities for scientific

research, environmental

education, and fish and

wildlife-oriented 

recreation.

– 102 Stat. 3177, Nov. 5, 1988

(Public Law 100-610)

Total acreage = 328

Date

1989

1990

1991

1992

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

2000

Gift Acreage

21.7

-

-

-

-

2.6

-

0.6

17.1

-

Acres Purchased

9.5

44.2

84.6

3.7

5.7

11.7

12.6

111.4

1.0

1.2

Table 1-3. Summary of land acquisition for Chafee Refuge.
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 1-21

Map 1-6
Chapter 1 

1-22 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Sachuest Point Refuge

Sachuest Point Refuge is located in the Town of Middletown,

Newport County, Rhode Island, about 23 miles southeast of

Providence and 5 miles east of Newport (see Map 1-1). To the

northeast, the Sakonnet River bounds the Refuge; to the southwest,

Sachuest Bay. Located immediately northwest are a Town of

Middletown campground, the Norman Bird Sanctuary, Gardiner

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

owned and maintained by the Town of Middletown.

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

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

An exchange of land between the Service and the Town of

Middletown brought the Refuge total to 242 acres. Sachuest Point

Refuge now owns all the land within its current, approved acquisition

boundary (see Map 1-7).

The establishment purposes for

Sachuest Point Refuge are:

“...for the development,

management, 

advancement, 

conservation, and 

protection of fish and

wildlife resources.”

and for

“(1) incidental fish and

wildlife-oriented 

recreational development; 

(2) protection of natural

resources, and 

(3) conservation of

endangered or threatened

species.” 

– Fish and Wildlife Act 

of 1956 and Refuge

Recreation Act of 1962

Date

1970

1976

1979

1985

Gift or Transfer

71

50

107

-

Acres Purchased

-

-

-

13.9

Comments

Audubon Society of

RI

Navy

Navy

exchange w/ Town

of Middletown

Table 1-4. Summary of land acquisition for Sachuest Point Refuge.

Total acreage = 242
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 1-23

Map 1-7
Chapter 1 

1-24 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Trustom Pond Refuge

Trustom Pond Refuge is located on the south coast of Rhode Island

in South Kingstown, Washington County (see Map 1-1). The main

body of the Refuge is bordered by private land and the community of

Green Hill to the west; by Matunuck Schoolhouse Road to the north;

and by private land to the northeast and east. Two privately owned

parcels lie inside its northern boundary. East of its main body, the

Refuge also owns a separate, 52-acre parcel, bordered by private

farmland to the west and east, Matunuck Schoolhouse Road on the

north, and Card Ponds Road on the south.

In 1974, Mrs. Ann Kenyon Morse donated the first 365 acres to the

Refuge. In 1980, an approved Environmental Assessment expanded

the acquisition boundary to 1,000 acres. In 1982, The Audubon

Society of Rhode Island donated 151 acres. The Refuge now includes

787 acres (Map 1-8). Now, with adjacent landowners and the Refuge

cooperatively managing grasslands habitat, virtually all the land in

its current acquisition boundary falls under conservation

management.

The establishment purposes for

Trustom Pond Refuge are:

“...for use as an inviolate

sanctuary, or for any

other management 

purpose, for migratory

birds,” and for 

“(1) incidental fish and

wildlife-oriented 

recreational development; 

(2) protection of natural

resources, and 

(3) conservation of

endangered or threatened

species.” 

– Migratory Bird

Conservation Act 

of 1929 and 

Refuge Recreation 

Act of 1962

Table 1-5. Summary of land acquisition for Trustom Pond Refuge.

Total acreage = 787

Date

1974

1982

1982

1985

1986

2000

Gift or Transfer

365

151

-

10

-

-

Acres Purchased

-

-

63

-

62

136

Comments

Ann Kenyon Morse

Audubon Society of

RI

-

-

-

conservation

easement
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 1-25

Map 1-8
Step-Down Management Plans

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

Step-Down Management Plans generally required on most refuges.

Step-down plans describe specific management actions refuges will

follow to achieve objectives or implement management strategies.

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

schedule. Some require additional NEPA analysis, public involvement,

and compatibility determinations before they can be implemented. A

status list of Refuge Complex step-down plans follows.

These plans are current and up-to-date: 

■ Fire Management Plan, 1995 (Refuge Complex)

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

be incorporated into Habitat Management Plan (Refuge Complex)

■ Continuity of Operations Plan, 1998 (Refuge Complex)

■ Animal Control Plan, 1995 (Refuge Complex)

These plans are now in draft form or being prepared:

■ Upland Management Plan (Ninigret Refuge); will be incorporated

into Habitat Management Plan (Refuge Complex)

■ Safety Program and Operations Plan (Refuge Complex)

■ Law Enforcement Plan (Refuge Complex)

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

revisions as indicated: 

■ Water Management Plan (Trustom Pond Refuge); need to expand

to Refuge Complex

■ Hunting Plan (Trustom Pond Refuge)

■ Sign Plan (Refuge Complex)

■ Disease Prevention and Control Plan (Refuge Complex)

■ Croplands Management Plan (Trustom Pond Refuge); incorporate

into Habitat Management Plan (Refuge Complex)

Chapter 1 

1-26 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
These step-down plans need to be initiated:

■ Land Protection Plan (Refuge Complex)

■ Cultural Resources Management Plan (Refuge Complex)

■ Habitat Management Plan (Refuge Complex) 

■ Visitor Services/Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Use Plan 

(Refuge Complex)

■ Fishing Plan (Refuge Complex)

■ Wildlife Population Management Plan (Refuge Complex)

■ Integrated Pest Management Plan (Refuge Complex)

■ Invasive Species Management Plan (Refuge Complex)

Vision Statement

Early in the planning process, our team developed this vision

statement to provide a guiding philosophy and sense of purpose for

the CCP. It qualitatively describes the desired future character of

the Refuge Complex through 2015 and beyond. We wrote in the

present tense to provide a more motivating, positive, and compelling

statement of purpose. It has guided, and will continue to guide

program emphases and priorities at the Refuge Complex.

“The Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex protects a

unique collection of thriving coastal sandplain and beach strand

communities, which represents some of the last undeveloped

seacoast in southern New England. Leading the way in the

protection and restoration of wetlands and early successional

coastal habitats, the Refuge Complex insures long-term

sustainability of migratory and resident native populations, and

contributes to the recovery of threatened and endangered species.

These refuges offer research opportunities and provide a showcase of

habitat management for other landowners.”

“The Refuge Complex is the premiere destination for visitors to

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

recreation. Hundreds of thousands of visitors are rewarded each year

with inspiring vistas and exceptional, barrier-free opportunities to

view wildlife in native habitats. Innovative environmental

educational and interpretive programs effectively promote better

stewardship of coastal resources.”

“Through partnerships and extensive outreach efforts, Refuge staff

are committed to accomplishing Refuge goals and significantly

contributing to the Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

This commitment will strengthen with the future, revitalizing the

southern New England ecosystem for generations to come.”

Chapter 1 

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 1-27

Brackish wetland. USFWS photo

Moonstone Beach in winter. USFWS

photo
Chapter 1 

1-28 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Refuge Complex Goals

Our planning team developed the following goals for the Refuge

Complex after reviewing applicable laws and policies, regional plans,

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

and public comments. All the goals fully comply with and support

national and regional mandates and policy.

The goals are intentionally broad, descriptive statements of purpose.

They highlight specific elements of our vision statement that future

Refuge Complex management will emphasize. Our planning team

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

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

Goal 1: Protect and enhance federal trust resources and other

species and habitats of special concern. 

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

promote healthy, functioning ecosystems.

Goal 3: Establish a land protection program that fully supports

accomplishment of species, habitat, and ecosystem goals.

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

education and interpretation.

Goal 5: Provide Refuge staffing, operations, and maintenance

support to effectively accomplish Refuge goals and objectives. 

The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

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

for each national wildlife refuge, our Northeast Regional Office

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

began the planning process for the Refuge Complex when its

planning team of Region 5 and Refuge Complex staff first convened

in February 1998. Figure 1-1 displays the steps of the planning

process and how they incorporate NEPA requirements.

First, we focused on collecting information on natural resources and

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

and preliminary goals, including issues associated with each of its

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

organizations and individuals, to ensure we would be contacting a

diverse sample of the interested public.

Recognizing that not everyone could attend the Open Houses

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

March, to encourage even more people to provide their written

comments on topics related to managing the Refuge Complex. We

offered the workbooks to everyone on our mailing list, including

adjacent landowners, and made workbooks available at refuge

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

Home Page (http://www.Northeast.fws.gov). We received 150

completed workbooks. Those responses and public input at our

meetings have influenced our formulating issues and developing

alternatives on resource protection and public use.
Chapter 1 

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 1-29

Figure 1-1. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process and NEPA compliance.
In April and May 1998, we began a series of public meetings: five

Open Houses in the communities of Middletown, South Kingstown,

Charlestown, and Block Island invited public comments on goals and

issues. We advertised the meetings through news releases, radio

broadcasts, and notices to our mailing list. From 15 to 40 people

attended each meeting. We also organized 15 informational meetings

with state and federal agencies, non-profit conservation groups, town

planners, conservation commissions, and sporting clubs.

Public responses suggested more than 50 additional areas where

lands warranted protection, typically along the coast. We evaluated

those lands for their potential as national wildlife refuges, using

criteria such as the presence of threatened, endangered, or other

trust species and their habitats, the presence of wetlands, our ability

to manage or restore the areas, existing threats to their integrity,

and their size and location, particularly their coincidence with the

ABS discussed above. Each alternative in Chapter 3 discusses new,

prospective land acquisition it would pursue.

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

September 1998. This newsletter summarized public comments from

meetings and workbooks, described policy guidelines for managing

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

for the Refuge Complex.

Once the key issues had firmed up, we developed alternative

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

strategies from public comment, from follow-up contacts with

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

Planning Update newsletter in May 1999, updating everyone on our

planning timelines and our decision to start a separate Environmental

Assessment for a visitor center/headquarters. Since then, we have

been compiling the information into this draft CCP/EA.

Our follow-up meetings in August and September 1999, developed

and shared management alternatives. Chapter 6, Consultation

With Others, presents a detailed summary of each public

involvement activity.

Following a public 45-day review of this draft CCP/EA, we will

compile and respond to public comments in an Appendix to a final

EA. The final EA and CCPs will be submitted to the Regional

Director for concurrence and approval of the preferred alternative.

The Regional Director will then issue a decision in the FONSI. The

final product of the CCP process is 5 stand-alone CCPs, one for each

Refuge. Implementation of the decision can occur once the FONSI

is signed and we publish a Notice of Availability of the final

documents in the Federal Register. We will then distribute final

documents to interested parties. 

Each year, we will evaluate our accomplishments under the CCPs;

more intensive monitoring is proposed for each program area,

depending on the alternative selected. Monitoring or new

information results may indicate the need to change our strategies.

We will modify the CCP documents and associated management

activities as needed, following the procedures outlined in Service

policy and NEPA requirements. The CCPs will be fully revised

every 15 years, or sooner if necessary.

Chapter 1 

1-30 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Responses from Issues

Workbooks and meetings

have been influential in

helping us formulate

issues and develop 

alternatives related to

resource protection and

public use. 

The public recommended

over 50 areas along the

coast for possible 

inclusion in the Refuge

System
Chapter 1 

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 1-31

Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities 

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

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

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

management decision. Then we sorted them into two categories: Key

issues; and Issues and concerns considered outside the scope of this

analysis.

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

comparing the different management alternatives. A range of

opinions on how to resolve these key issues and meet goals

generated the different alternatives presented in Chapter 3.

Issues and concerns considered outside the scope of this analysis do

not fall within the scope of the Purpose of and Need for Action and

the Decision to be Made. Our CCP/EA does not further address

issues within this category.

Key Issues

Public and partner meetings and further team discussions produced

the key issues briefly described below. (Refuges affected by the

issue are identified in parentheses.)

1. Protection of endangered and threatened species and other

species and habitats of special concern (Refuge Complex).

This is the most important issue facing the Refuge Complex.

Protecting federally listed endangered and threatened species is

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

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

Other federal trust species are also of primary concern, including

migratory birds, anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals.

In the forefront of this issue is management for piping plover, a

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

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

Narrow River estuary near Chafee Refuge. Block Island Refuge has

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

unsuccessful.

Threats from coastal development, disturbance by humans and pets,

and predation are the major factors contributing to the species

decline (Piping Plover Atlantic Coast Population, Revised Recovery

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

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

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

environmental education and interpretation about the natural history

of piping plover and barrier beach protection.

American Redstart. USFWS photo
Chapter 1 

1-32 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Consistently each year, predators are one of the most significant

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

humans have caused three incidents of piping plover nest

destruction: two were acts of vandalism directed at destroying nests

and eggs; the third may have resulted from joyriding on the beach.

Campers often leave trash, which attracts predators to a nesting

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

Some responses raised the continuing issue of restricting public

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

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

Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) to close beach

intertidal areas.

Service staff help coordinate piping plover monitoring on nine

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

requires tremendous time and resources, both presently limited.

Funding for plover work along the South Shore is inconsistent from

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

typically foundation grants. However, the benefits derived are

clearly evident in increased nesting attempts and productivity on

many sites. The alternatives compare different strategies for

protecting piping plover and managing important habitat areas on

the South Shore.

Other federally listed species discussed are the seabeach amaranth

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

that may be considered for future reintroduction. The American

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

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

Chapter 3 includes alternatives for expanding the burying beetle

population. Current levels of Refuge management also emphasize

other federal trust resources: Neotropical migratory birds,

waterfowl, and colonial wading birds. Chapter 3 describes different

alternatives for managing them, as well.

Appendix A lists species and habitats of special management

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

rare natural communities known to occur in Rhode Island that are

federally listed as endangered or threatened, were candidates for

listing, or are otherwise of management concern. Combined with

location information, we used that list to identify additional land

protection needs and opportunities. We know very little about many

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

alternatives differ in their strategies for managing these species and

habitats. Addressing this issue will help achieve Goal 1: Protect and

enhance federal trust resources and other species and habitats of

special concern.

Other species of special

management concern

Piping plover. USFWS photo.
Chapter 1 

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 1-33

2. Restoration and maintenance of coastal sandplain natural

communities, particularly grasslands (Refuge Complex). 

While it is true that the Northeast landscape was primarily forested

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

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

Grassland-dependent species responded in kind and became

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

other early successional coastal habitats, including natural maritime

and sandplain grasslands and shrublands, and agricultural fields and

pastures, have been in rapid decline in New England due to a

combination of development, changes in agricultural technology,

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

disturbance such as fire (Vickery 1997). In Rhode Island, the State’s

farmland dropped nearly 50 percent between 1964 and 1997, from

103,801 to 55,256 acres. An additional 3,100 acres of farmland will be

lost in the next 20 years if current sprawl patterns continue

(Common Ground 2000). As a result, few large, contiguous

grasslands are left; only smaller, fragmented, and isolated grassland

habitats remain (<75 acres). These smaller grasslands are

unsuitable for many focus species, including once-common grassland

birds such as grasshopper sparrows and upland sandpipers.

Grasshopper sparrows have declined by 69 percent in the past 25

years, according to Breeding Bird Survey data (Vickery 1997).

Other grassland-dependent species have declined dramatically as

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

are grassland-dependent. Other grassland species continue to

decline, and could be listed in the future.

Tremendous potential exists for refuge staff to become involved in

restoring habitat on private lands. Grasslands restoration offers

opportunities for our staff to provide technical expertise to local

communities. The alternatives compare different levels of restoring

and maintaining grassland habitats and providing technical

assistance to private landowners. Addressing this issue will help

achieve Goal 2: Maintain and/or restore natural ecological

communities to promote healthy, functioning ecosystems.

3. Protection and restoration of the beach strand ecological

community (Block Island, Ninigret, and Trustom Pond Refuges). 

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

degradation by development and shoreline de-stabilization.

Meanwhile, the demand for recreational uses in these areas

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

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

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

northeastern beach tiger beetle, and seabeach amaranth depend on

this habitat. Alternatives include different strategies for protecting

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

restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy,

functioning ecosystems.

Trustom Pond Refuge. USFWS photo

Northern waterthrush. USFWS photo.
Chapter 1 

1-34 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

4. Management of Trustom Pond (Trustom Pond Refuge). 

Many consider Trustom Pond one of the jewels of Rhode Island’s

South Shore because of its aesthetic and ecological values. This 160-

acre pond, which lies fully within Trustom Pond Refuge, is the only

coastal pond in Rhode Island not flanked by development. Diverse

waterfowl and wading birds use the pond year round. Many

shorebird species use its shoreline during migrating and breeding

seasons. Despite its apparent habitat values, important long-term

concerns about water quality, invasive species, and the quality of

shoreline habitat remain. Most of the sources suspected of

contributing to increased nitrogen and coliform bacteria levels in

Trustom Pond are off the Refuge. 

Resolving these remaining concerns will require a cooperative,

watershed-based approach. Although we focus on Trustom Pond,

these same water quality and habitat degradation concerns pervade

all the coastal salt ponds in Rhode Island. Cooperating with state

agencies, local towns, land trusts, and non-governmental groups such

as the Coastal Salt Pond Coalition, would provide opportunities for

Refuge staff involvement and technical exchange to manage similar

issues in other coastal salt ponds. Future management of Trustom

Pond will be ecosystem-based, recognizing that the health of adjacent

upland vegetation contributes to its viability and ecological integrity.

Some responses supported active management of Trustom Pond to

improve its habitat quality for certain species; however, there could

be trade-offs with other species. For example, increasing open

mudflats to promote foraging habitat for piping plover and other

shorebirds, may reduce the habitat quality for anadromous fish and

certain waterfowl. These trade-offs need to be further evaluated and

their implications understood. The alternatives evaluate different

strategies to better understand and balance competing concerns and

opportunities for resolving this issue. Addressing this issue will help

achieve both Goal 1: Protect and enhance federal trust resources and

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

and/or restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy,

functioning ecosystems.

5. Protection and restoration of wetlands (Sachuest Point, Trustom

Pond, Chafee, and Ninigret Refuges). 

The well documented values of healthy wetlands include fish and

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

maintenance. Despite laws and regulations to protect them,

wetlands throughout Rhode Island have been rapidly declining since

the 1960’s through conversion to agriculture, residential and

industrial development. Rhode Island has developed more land in

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

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

near the remaining wetlands.

Estuarine wetlands consisting of tidal salt and brackish waters are of

particular concern. Wetlands were lost or diminished on both Ninigret

Refuge and Sachuest Point Refuge as a result of military facilities and

operations. A former landfill for the Town of Middletown lies in a

wetland on Sachuest Point Refuge. Invasive species are dominating

refuge wetlands and threatening their biodiversity. 

Trustom Pond in winter. USFWS photo

Brackish wetland. USFWS photo
Chapter 1 

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 1-35

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

quality and the health and productivity of these wetlands. The

alternatives include different levels of management for restoring

wetlands and for cooperatively managing entire watersheds.

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

restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy,

functioning ecosystems.

6. Maintenance of water quality in the Narrow River 

(Chafee Refuge). 

The Narrow River provides many values beneficial to a diverse array

of wildlife and to the surrounding communities. Many wildlife

species use the estuary and adjacent wetlands as a primary food

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

spawning grounds.

The quality of both groundwater and surface water continues to

deteriorate as a result of residential and commercial development

within the watershed and the associated contribution of non-point

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

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

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

degraded water quality threatens wetland habitats in Chafee Refuge,

constraining their ability to fulfill the Refuge purpose. The

alternatives evaluate different levels of involvement in cooperatively

managing and protecting the watershed. Addressing this issue will

help achieve Goal 2: Maintain and/or restore natural ecological

communities to promote healthy, functioning ecosystems.

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

wildlife species (Refuge Complex). 

Each of the five refuges has an extensive distribution of invasive

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

plant and animal species, degrade wetlands and other natural

communities, and reduce natural diversity and wildlife habitat

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

and nutrient resources. Once established, getting rid of invasive

plants is expensive and labor-intensive. Unfortunately, their

characteristic abilities to establish easily, reproduce prolifically, and

disperse readily, make eradication difficult. Many of these plants

cause measurable economic impacts, particularly in agricultural

fields. Preventing new invasions is extremely important for

maintaining biodiversity and native plant populations. The control of

existing, affected areas will require extensive partnerships with

adjacent landowners, state, and local governments.

Thirteen invasive plant species affecting the natural communities

within the Refuge Complex are considered of high management

concern. The most prevalent are Phragmites, purple loosestrife,

Asian bittersweet, autumn olive, and Japanese honeysuckle. Other

species such as Japanese knotweed and multiflora rose are increasing

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

alternatives consider different levels of management intensity and

address management details such as partnership opportunities,

budget and staffing needs, and species control methods.

Autumn olive. USFWS photo
Chapter 1 

1-36 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

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

or suspected to be, adversely affecting natural diversity. Issues

surface when these species directly impact federal trust species or

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

species that aggressively drive native waterfowl and shorebirds away

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

quality when they spend extended periods of time molting on coastal

ponds, and are sometimes aggressive towards humans. 

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

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

their populations exceed the range of natural fluctuation and the

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

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

excessive browse lines are evident on two refuges. Adjacent

landowners are also concerned about deer impacts on landscaping,

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

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

can adversely impact other native wildlife populations. Occurrences

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

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

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

mammals because they can carry rabies. These predators are

particularly troublesome when their populations exceed natural

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

include lethal removal, visual and audio deterrents, or destroying

eggs, nests, or den sites. The alternatives compare different

strategies for managing these target species. Addressing this issue

will help achieve Goal 1: Protect and enhance Federal trust resoirces

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

Maintain and/or restore natural ecological communities to promote

healthy, functioning ecosystems.

8. Protection of biologically significant areas through acquisition

and/or cooperative management (Refuge Complex). 

Public meetings, partner meetings, and workbook responses

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

and wildlife habitat in southern Rhode Island. That support runs

across the State, as Rhode Islanders consistently vote ballot

measures to maintain open space and protect fish and wildlife

habitats. Many people mentioned that their support stems from

their concern over the rapid pace of development on the South

Shore. As we stated earlier, development in non-urban areas of

Rhode Island has increased dramatically over the last 30 years. It is

now the second most densely populated State in the country. One

estimate predicts that current sprawl patterns will ensure the loss of

all its rural areas before 2100 (Common Ground 2000). The Rhode

Island Office of The Nature Conservancy has noted that the

conservation actions taken during the next 5 to 10 years will be the

most important for the majority of Rhode Island towns (The Nature

Conservancy 2000).

Overabundant native

species
Chapter 1 

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 1-37

This dramatic increase in development has changed land use

patterns and practices, significantly modifying natural landscapes.

As natural lands (those with sustainable native species populations

and intact ecological processes) become isolated and fragmented into

smaller pieces disconnected from other natural areas, their ability to

support a full complement of native species is adversely affected.

Cut off from larger populations, species and plant communities

within these natural areas face the problems of limited genetic

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

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

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

this diminished ability of natural areas to support diverse species

with different habitat requirements that leads to a decline in

biodiversity. While some species can tolerate fragmentation as they

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

species, require larger, contiguous natural areas or functional

corridors linking patches of natural habitat. This ability to protect

and sustain larger natural areas and corridors, coupled with the

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

maintaining biodiversity.

A landscape or ecosystem approach to protecting land is also critical

in the recovery of threatened and endangered species. Piping plover

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

certain nesting areas and typically return to them most years.

Shifting of pairs between nesting areas has been observed when

disturbances or habitat conditions affect their ability to nest. Barrier

beaches are dynamic ecosystems, and their nesting conditions can

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

nesting year on Moonstone Beach (Trustom Pond Refuge), this year

the beach consists entirely of cobble with virtually no sand for

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

to the Ninigret Conservation Area. Without consideration of these

shifts in habitat use across a landscape, management for these

species would be ineffective.

Some individuals preferred that the Service acquire and manage

federal trust resources, and that the Refuge Complex continue to

acquire these sites. Others emphasized partnerships to

cooperatively protect and manage important habitats not currently

on refuge land. Still others recommended a combination of Service

acquisition and cooperative management to provide the greatest

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

workbooks, many responses suggested specific areas needing

protection, particularly wetlands threatened by development. Some

individuals we spoke with especially supported our acquiring land

occupied by endangered or threatened species.

The alternatives offer various levels of Service land acquisition,

ranging from lands within the currently approved acquisition

boundaries only, to a considerable expansion of each refuge’s

acquisition boundary. They also evaluate our increased involvement

in cooperative land protection off-refuge. Addressing this issue will

help achieve Goal 3: Establish a land protection program that fully

supports accomplishment of species, habitat, and ecosystem goals.
9. Assurance of access to credible information about resources

regarding the Refuge Complex to ensure management decisions are

based on the best available science (Refuge Complex). 

We need to determine and prioritize what information reasonably

could be collected to facilitate decision-making using the best

available science. In particular, many individuals expressed concern

over the lack of information available to fully evaluate impacts to

wildlife and habitats from excessive public use. Others questioned

the effectiveness of management actions that have not been

adequately monitored and evaluated. Several university researchers

and other partners encouraged our staff to prioritize baseline

inventory needs, establish monitoring protocols to better evaluate

management actions, and identify information needed to determine

each refuge’s contribution to the ecosystem.

Implementing Service policy on ecological integrity (draft March

2000), will require us to ascertain the natural conditions for each

refuge and identify the natural communities, species, and ecological

processes that are rare, declining, or unique. Opportunities to

cooperate in collecting this information could be developed once the

priorities have been identified. The alternatives offer different levels

of pursuing this information. Addressing this issue will help achieve

all the Goals identified for the Refuge Complex.

10. Management of public use and access (Refuge Complex). 

The Refuge Improvement Act and Service policy require our enhanced

consideration of opportunities for six priority wildlife-dependent uses

(see above). Some level of each occurs on the Refuge Complex. Only

those uses that are compatible with a refuge’s purpose may be allowed.

According to Service policy, all refuges are closed to any use until it is

formally opened through the compatibility determination process.

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

expeditiously as practicable, existing uses determined to be not

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

some have been occurring for years. Examples include jogging,

sunbathing and swimming, bicycling, and dog walking.

Public meetings input and workbook responses make it clear that

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

than 90 percent ranked environmental education and interpretation

and wildlife observation and photography very high as desirable

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

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

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

public use to maintain an undisturbed sanctuary for wildlife.

The alternatives compare different levels and combinations of

wildlife-dependent public use. Addressing this issue will help achieve

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

education and interpretation.

Chapter 1 

1-38 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
11. Hunting (Refuge Complex). 

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

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

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

biologists, and by individuals both for and against expanding hunting

opportunities on the Refuge Complex. Those in support primarily

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

Chafee Refuge and Ninigret Refuge, and pheasant hunting on Block

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

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

refuge planning and management” (Act 1997).

Parts of Trustom Pond Refuge, Chafee Refuge, and Block Island

Refuge were hunted prior to acquisition by the Service. Only 20

acres of upland field on Trustom Pond Refuge remain open to

hunting. The RI DEM has expressed its interest in any new

opportunities for hunting because rapid residential development in

Rhode Island is confining public hunting opportunities to fewer and

fewer areas.

The Service views managed or administrative hunts in areas where

there are overabundant deer populations as an effective tool for

regulating them. Responses generally agree that the overabundance

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

of vehicle-deer collisions, increased complaints about deer browsing

on commercial and residential landscape plantings, visible impacts on

native vegetation, and higher concern about contracting Lyme

disease.

Those opposed to hunting cited concerns with public safety,

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

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

results from the likelihood that significant portions of the refuges,

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

activities during hunting. Some expressed the opinion that the

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

hunting is incongruous with that function.

The alternatives offer varying levels of hunting opportunities, from

no hunting at all, to opening four refuges during State-regulated

seasons for deer, waterfowl, and pheasant. Addressing this issue will

help achieve both Goal 2: Maintain and/or restore natural ecological

communities to promote healthy, functioning ecosystems, and Goal 4:

Provide opportunities for high quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent

public use with particular emphasis on environmental education and

interpretation.

Chapter 1 

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 1-39
12. Opportunities for environmental education (Refuge Complex). 

Responses so frequently mentioned increasing environmental

educational opportunities across the Refuge Complex that our

planning team decided it warranted special recognition. More than

90 percent of the workbook responses ranked environmental

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

alternatives compare different levels of environmental educational

opportunities and the different levels of partnerships so integral to

implementing them on each of the five refuges. Addressing this

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

compatible, wildlife-dependent public use with particular emphasis

on environmental education and interpretation.

13. Provision of staffing, operations, and maintenance support

sufficient to accomplish goals and objectives (Refuge Complex). 

The Refuge Complex lacks adequate funding and personnel to

provide the programs and services desired by the public and to

effectively meet the goals for this CCP. The alternatives compare

different funding and staffing levels based on their proposed

management strategies for dealing with the issues. Addressing this

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

operations, and maintenance support to effectively accomplish

Refuge goals and objectives.

14. Increasing the visibility of the Fish and Wildlife Service

(Refuge Complex). 

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

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

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

increase resource protection and improve visitor services. Other

recommendations to increase visibility included more visitor contact

stations, increasing wildlife interpretation and environmental

educational opportunities, a better location for a headquarters office,

developing a Refuge Complex visitor center, improving existing

visitor facilities (e.g., kiosks, Sachuest Point Refuge visitor center,

interpretive signs on trails, etc.), increasing support for a volunteer

program, and increasing community involvement.

Some people expressed an interest in seeing refuge staff enforce

public use policy more consistently. Others argued it was

unnecessary for Service personnel to be armed while patrolling

beaches. The alternatives compare different levels of promoting our

visibility and providing these services. Addressing this issue will

help achieve both Goal 2: Maintain and/or restore natural ecological

communities to promote healthy, functioning ecosystems, and Goal

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

education and interpretation.

Chapter 1 

1-40 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
15. Need for improved facilities (Refuge Complex). 

The Refuge Complex lacks a facilities plan establishing current and

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

current facilities are inadequate. Its headquarters does not have

enough office space to accommodate even current staff, and the

visitor services area is limited to one rack of literature in the

reception area. The Sachuest Point Refuge visitor facility has

structural problems and lacks interior exhibits. The alternatives

compare opportunities for new or improved facilities to

accommodate staff work space, increase the visibility of the Service

and the Refuge Complex, and improve visitor services, including

environmental education and interpretation. Addressing this issue

will help achieve Goal 5: Provide Refuge Complex staffing,

operations, and maintenance support to effectively accomplish

refuge goals and objectives.

Issues Outside the Scope of this 

Environmental Assessment

Proposals for new, non-wildlife-dependent public uses

Service policy, as well as the Refuge Improvement Act, states that

incompatible or non-wildlife-dependent recreation will be eliminated

as expeditiously as practicable, with few exceptions. Our Refuge

Manual (8 RM 9.1, 04/82) specifically mentions the need to phase out

non-wildlife-dependent activities such as swimming, sunbathing,

surfing, motorized boating, jogging, bicycling, and horseback riding.

In-line skating (roller-blading), which became popular after the 1982

policy reference above, also falls into this category. Following public

review and comment, we published our final compatibility policy in

Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 202, pp. 62484-62496 (603 FWM 2) on

October 18, 2000. That final rule provides additional detail on our

process for determining which activities are compatible with a

refuge’s establishment purpose and management goals. This draft

CCP/EA addresses non-wildlife-dependent activities that already

occur on the Refuge Complex.

Some responses suggested golf courses, conference centers, schools,

and aquaculture facilities as potential uses. This draft does not

evaluate new proposals for these uses because their establishment

would contradict the Refuge System mission, Service policy, and the

purposes for which the refuges were established.

Chapter 1 

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 1-41

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-1

Chapter 2

Description of the 

Affected Environment

Prescribed burn at Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge

USFWS photo

Part 1: Describing the Refuge Complex

■ Landscape-level Features

■ Socio-Economic Factors

■ Refuge Complex Administration 

Part 2: Describing the Refuges

■ Block Island Refuge

■ Ninigret Refuge

■ Chafee Refuge

■ Sachuest Point Refuge

■ Trustom Pond Refuge
This chapter describes in two parts the physical, biological, socioeconomic, and administrative environments of the Rhode Island

National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Refuge Complex). It emphasizes

those resources most affected by, or having the greatest influence on,

the design of the management alternatives in Chapter 3.

Part 1 of this chapter describes the entire Refuge Complex:

landscape-level features (landscape formation, climate, air quality,

and ecosystem delineations), socio-economic factors, and

administrative resources. Part 2 describes, for each of the five

refuges in the Refuge Complex, physical, biological and cultural

resources, and current public uses.

Part 1: Describing the Refuge Complex

Landscape-level Features

Landscape Formation

The movement of glaciers across New England created the land

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

occurred during the Wisconsin glacial period. Approximately 15,000-

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

melting rate of ice equaled the glacial rate of movement (Bell 1985).

As the climate warmed 12,000-15,000 years ago, the glacier began its

retreat, depositing pronounced land forms along its outermost edge.

The southern coast of Rhode Island, including Block Island, is the

farthest point the Wisconsin glacier reached in its southeastern

frontal movement. The retreating glacier deposited rocks pushed by

the front of its ice sheet in piles called moraines. These terminal or

end moraines formed sinuous ridges up to 200 feet high. Block

Island is part of the terminal moraine that includes Nantucket and

parts of Long Island.

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

the Charlestown or Watch Hill moraine, stretching east to west

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

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

hole ponds, glacial lake deposits, deltas, and submerged gravel

shoals. Prominent headlands like Sachuest Point are composed of

glacial till, a mixture of silt-sized grains to boulder-sized deposits by

the melting glacier.

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

and Rhode Island Sounds until it reached its present level

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

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

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

between the headlands and the ocean, forming coastal lagoons

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 2 

2-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
The bedrock formations of southern Rhode Island include the

Blackstone series of metamorphic rock along its southern coastal

border (including most of Westerly, Charlestown and South

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

Narragansett and Middletown and parts of Westerly and

Charlestown), and Pennsylvanian sedimentary rock in most of south

central Rhode Island (including Richmond, much of South

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

refuges are fine sandy loams or silt loams.

Historical Influences on Landscape Vegetation

The upland forests of southern Rhode Island are classified by

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

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

practices promoted this forest type.

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

area. Documented evidence places the first intensive occupation of

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

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

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

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

vegetation probably did not occur.

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

settlements. Fortified villages are known to have existed in some

locations. Maize horticulture became prominent, which likely

resulted in small clearings (USFWS 1999). Larger clearings and

burnings to control the movement of deer and upland birds may have

occurred, and the first pronounced clearing of land along the coast

for settlements, game management, and agriculture. Much of this

land was cleared by cutting and burning, which favored resprouting

by hardwood species like oak, hickory, and red maple.

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

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

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

charcoal below the historic farmers plow zone, approximately 10

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

their locations, suggest early Native Americans used fire extensively

and purposefully.

Although small areas of land were cleared and more or less

permanently settled by early Native Americans, it was European

settlement and expansion in the 1600’s that exponentially escalated

the conversion of forests to agriculture. The eighteenth century

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

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

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

percent of southern New England was converted to field and

pasture. Any woods remaining often were managed for firewood

(Jorgensen 1977).

Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-3

Historic grasslands. This early photo

from the Charlestown area shows what

historic grasslands may have looked

like. Photo courtesy of Cross Mills

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

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

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

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

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

and the construction of fishing ports and associated villages”

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

on the island before extensive land clearing included white oak

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

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

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

sassafras (Sassafras albidum) were present, but less common

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

the Refuge Complex is available from the Refuge Complex office on

request (Jacobson USFWS).

Contemporary Influences on the Landscape

The major natural disturbances affecting the coastline today are

hurricanes and winter ice-storms. Hurricanes have the greatest

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

from the mainland by tidal wetlands and coastal salt ponds

characterizes a coastline influenced by frequent storms. Wind and

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

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

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

longshore currents, and rip currents are all mechanisms transporting

sediment along the barrier beaches (RI CRMC 1998).

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

predominant physical process shaping this landscape today.

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

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

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

open ocean. The draft Salt Pond Region Special Area Management

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

Shore, including details on how sediment movement constantly

reshapes this dynamic landscape (RI CRMC 1998).

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

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

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

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

magnitude are suspected to have occurred only four other times in

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

hurricanes are less powerful but more frequent than the hurricane of

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

in 1991 each left its mark on the coastline.

Human influences on sustaining the form and function of coastal

landscapes and ecosystems over the long term are predominantly

negative. Attempts to stabilize the beach system by constructing

jetties or breach ways and planting beach grass have greatly affected

the natural dynamics of this system by interrupting the natural flow

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

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

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

Chapter 2 

2-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Military installations directly impacted the landscapes that include

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

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

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

were cleared and maintained as asphalt runways and taxiways.

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

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

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

more recent Naval communications center, mowing and the use of

herbicides maintained the vegetation in a low shrub-grasslands

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

Naval facility, entitled “Historical Perspectives on Establishing

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

the Refuge visitor center.

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

wetlands for development, converting uplands for residential use,

and spilling oil are other significant human impacts on the coastal

landscape. On Block Island, studies in 1990 and 1996 implicated boat

sewage discharge in contributing to excessive fecal coliform bacteria

levels in Great Salt Pond. Recent studies indicate that the greatest

threats to Rhode Island’s estuaries and coastal salt ponds are septic

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

to establish the extent to which each of these factors influences

Refuge Complex ecosystems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

converted to residential areas (RI DEM 1996).

Ecosystem Delineations

As described in Chapter 1, we emphasize an ecosystem approach to

conservation, typically using large river watersheds to define

ecosystems. Rhode Island falls within our Connecticut River/Long

Island Sound Ecosystem (Map 1-3).

Another commonly used delineation of ecosystems was developed by

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

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

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

subsection. Each level defines in greater detail its geomorphology,

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

human use. Each of these resource attributes has implications for

resource management. For example, opportunities to restore native

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

extent of human impacts on the natural environment. Rhode Island

falls within the Humid Temperate Domain, Hot Continental Division,

Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province, and Lower New England Section.

Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-5

Restoring old runways at Ninigret

Refuge. USFWS photo
Climate

Cold winters and warm summers with a moderating ocean influence

characterize Rhode Island’s climate. Winter temperatures average

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

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

precipitation averages 44 to 48 inches, evenly distributed

throughout the year. Thunderstorms occur throughout the summer

(USFWS 1989).

Air Quality

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

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

geographic areas. Examples of criteria air pollutants are smog

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

monoxide. Class I areas allow very little additional deterioration of

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

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

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

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the entire

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

resulted in stricter automobile emissions standards designed to

reduce emissions by 24 percent between 1990 and 1999.

Socio-economic Factors

The Refuge Complex lies close to some of the largest population

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

which includes Ninigret Refuge , Trustom Pond Refuge , and Chafee

Refuge , has the fastest growing population and the highest number

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

population figures between 1990 and 1996 increased 7.4 percent, 4.6

percent, and 5.3 percent respectively in Charlestown, Narragansett,

and South Kingstown, while Middletown’s population decreased by

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

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

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

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

Chapter 2 

2-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
The Refuge Complex directly contributes to the economies of

Charlestown, South Kingstown, Narragansett, Middletown, and New

Shoreham through refuge revenue sharing payments. The Federal

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

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

market value of refuge lands. The revenue sharing formula calculates

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

the maximum amount payable each year. An appraisal updated every

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

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

of the maximum amount Congress appropriates that year (rarely the

maximum). Figure 2-1 depicts refuge revenue sharing payments to

those towns for the fiscal year 2000.

The University of Rhode Island Department of Resource Economics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Between 1987 and 1997, the services industry increased by 37

percent, while the manufacturing industry decreased by 37 percent.

In all the communities surrounding the refuges, travel and tourism

and the services that support them contribute substantially to local

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

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

through October, with peak activity during the summer months.

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

destinations along the Rhode Island coast.

Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-7

Figure 2-1. Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments made to towns in 2000.

Fiscal year 2000 Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments

paid to towns

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Charlestown

(Ninigret Refuge)

South Kingstown

(Chafee & Trustom

Pond Refuges)

New Shoreham

(Block Island

Refuge)

Narragansett

(Chafee Refuge)

Middletown

(Sachuest Point

Refuge)

Dollars (thousands)
Current travel and tourism literature does not feature the Refuge

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

tourist destinations, although many visitors discover them during

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

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

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

Tourism Council is trying to showcase a greater mix of outdoor

recreational opportunities in South County, the Refuge Complex will

figure more prominently in future promotional material.

The greatest contribution by the Refuge Complex to the local

economy comes from the values attributed to the preservation of

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

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

and Public Willingness to Pay.

Cost of Community Services compares the cost per dollar of revenue

generated by residential or commercial development to that of

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

residential development expands the tax base, but the costs of

increased infrastructure and public services (schools, utilities,

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

the other hand, undeveloped land requires few town services and

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

of revenue generated by commercial land typically falls between

those of residential and open space.

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

Commonwealth Research Group (1995) evaluated community

revenues and expenses associated with open space vs. residential

and commercial development. All available information on the New

England States shows that open space and commercial development

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

residential land.

Conversations with local realtors and appraisers helped us evaluate

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

and one realtor/appraiser confirmed that properties adjacent to

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

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

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

those properties sell. Properties with views protected by their

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

realtors estimated, but none with any certainty, that properties

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

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

adjacency to a refuge as an important advertising asset.

Public Willingness to Pay is a method for estimating the monetary

value of ecosystem goods and services by determining how much the

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

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

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

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

Chapter 2 

2-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Rhode Islanders consistently and overwhelmingly vote for bond

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

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

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

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

for protecting open space (RI CRMC 1998).

Refuge Complex Administration

Staffing and Budget

Annual budget appropriations are highly variable, and

commensurately affect our staffing levels. Table 2-1 summarizes

budget and staffing levels from 1995 to 1999. Fluctuations reflect

funding for special projects, moving costs for new employees, or

large equipment purchases. Most of the funding is earmarked; very

little discretionary funding is available.

Land Acquisition

The Director of the Service must approve all lands to be acquired,

and they must be acquired in compliance with NEPA. With the

establishment of a new refuge, land acquisition planning typically

identifies important wildlife habitat. An environmental assessment

establishes an acquisition boundary, with approval to acquire land

within that boundary. Transfers of land from the Navy established

Ninigret and Sachuest Point Refuges. No additional lands have

been identified for acquisition. Only Block Island, Chafee, and

Trustom Pond Refuges have unacquired lands within their

acquisition boundaries (see Chapter 1). Recent land acquisition at

the Refuge Complex has focused on those three refuges. The

Refuge Complex has acquired a total of 1,717 acres through

transfers, donations, and purchases.

Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-9

Fiscal year

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Operations

$216,299

355,715

350,700

428,400

441,900

Maintenance

$85,700

23,900

97,700

171,000

28,000

Full time staff

7

7

8

8

9

Seasonal staff

3

3

4

4

2

Table 2-1. Refuge Complex staffing levels and budgets between 1995 - 1999.
Resource Protection and Visitor Safety

Law enforcement officers, with full authority to enforce federal

regulations, are required to ensure resource protection and visitor

safety. Three permanent refuge staff have been assigned collateral

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

operations, but those collateral duties draw staff time and resources

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

seasonal staff with law enforcement authority each year.

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

year. They typically involved vehicle and pedestrian trespass,

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

verbal warnings are also given each year, typically for inadvertently

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

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

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

documenting violations. Wardens also inform visitors of public use

policy and permitted activities.

Refuge Complex Office

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

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

Division of Ecological Services Southern New England/New York

Bight Coastal Ecosystem Program five-member staff, an Atlantic

Coast Joint Venture staff person, and Friends of the National Wildlife

Refuges of Rhode Island.

We have rented the office and property from a private individual

through a General Services Administration contract since 1985. But

we have always considered the location temporary for its several

inadequacies. First, it does not comply with the accessibility

requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Second,

the building lacks space for visitor contact services, environmental

education, or interpretation. Visitor contact space is limited to one

rack of pamphlets displaying information on the refuges. Third,

storage space is wholly inadequate, and personal work space and

library space are very tight.

Also, the current location is not readily visible or easily accessible for

most visitors to South County. They regularly complain about

getting lost on the way to the office. Signs on U.S. Route 1 and to

the Refuge Complex office, as well as directional signs at all five

refuges are inadequate, and do not meet the sign standards of the

Refuge System.

The Trustom Pond Refuge Master Plan (1988) includes a decision to

construct a new Refuge Complex headquarters and public contact

center. It selects a location adjacent to the Refuge Complex

maintenance facility on the Refuge, because that location best met

the site selection criteria, including a location on-Refuge where “...a

large amount of management activity (present and projected) is

planned,” and its proximity to a public road. An architectural firm

completed a conceptual design, but the project was never funded.

Chapter 2 

2-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
In 1997, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

(otherwise known as TEA-21) earmarked $5 million to fund a

combined Refuge Complex office and visitors center for refuges staff

and the other programs co-located in the strip mall. We are now

investigating prospective locations for the new visitor center and

office. A site selection committee has detailed criteria for evaluating

prospective sites:

■ On or easily accessible from U.S. Route 1

■ Reasonable development costs

■ Proximity to refuges and administrative buildings

■ Low ecological and aesthetic impacts

■ Sufficient acreage to support the facility and contribute to land 

protection efforts

■ Land use compatibility

■ Land ownership and availability

■ Ability to support onsite environmental education

Once the committee has determined potential sites, an environmental

assessment will assess the impacts of the project. A Visitor Center

Project Identification Document completed in August 1999 will guide

the design of the building.

Partnerships

The Refuge Complex staff is proud of its long history of

partnerships. More than 45 partnerships have supported the

refuges, including four universities and colleges, numerous

departments within Rhode Island State government, town

administrations, conservation commissions, school districts,

conservation groups and land trusts, environmental education

centers, historic preservation groups, adjacent landowners, and

other federal agencies. These partnerships have resulted in

biological research, cooperative management of threatened and

endangered species and declining habitats, protection of open space,

and environmental education programs.

Refuge staff were particularly delighted by the establishment in 1998

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

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

supporting Refuge Complex goals within the community through

public education and interpretation, project funding, and volunteer

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

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

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

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

Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-11
Volunteer Program

Volunteers are vital to accomplishing all Refuge Complex goals. For

example, 65 volunteers donated more than 6,000 hours in 1998 to

assist in environmental education programs, monitoring public use,

maintaining facilities, and managing habitat and species. This

translated into more than $70,000 in benefits to the refuges.

Volunteers are also largely responsible for staffing and maintaining

exhibits at the Sachuest Point Refuge Visitor Center and for staffing

the visitor contact station at Trustom Pond Refuge.

In 1999 we hired a permanent staff Volunteer Coordinator to

improve the quality of the program through better coordination,

supervision, and training of volunteers, and to improve outreach to

the local community. The coordinator compiles and distributes a

quarterly newsletter to volunteers, refuge partners, and interest

groups, keeping them informed about management activities and

upcoming interpretive programs on the Refuge Complex.

Facilities and Maintenance 

The Beane Point cabin on Block Island Refuge, the Sachuest Point

Refuge Visitor Center, and the storage and maintenance buildings on

Trustom Pond Refuge are the primary facilities on the Refuge

Complex, and require the most extensive maintenance. Maintaining

roads, parking lots, and trails are also a recurring need on each

refuge. Appendix F lists current maintenance needs.

Through disbursements under the Transportation Equity Act of

1997, in 1998 the Refuge Complex was awarded $75,000 for

improving road access and $300,000 for removing asphalt runways at

Ninigret Refuge; $200,000 for improving access to Sachuest Point

Refuge; and $500,000 for improving the Sachuest Point Refuge

Visitor Center.

Coordinating Oil Spill Response

In 1977, the Refuge Complex

Manager was designated the

interagency Oil Spill Field

Response Coordinator for the

eastern coastline from the

Connecticut/New York State line

up to and including Buzzards

Bay in Massachusetts. In 1992,

that area of responsibility was

redrawn to correspond with the

U.S. Coast Guard Captain-ofthe-Port Providence Area.

Between 1978 and 1996, 16 oil

spills occurred in that area.

Chapter 2 

2-12 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Waterfowl casualties of the North Cape Oil Spill. USFWS photo
The largest of the 16 was the 1996 North Cape Oil Spill.

Approximately 828,000 gallons of #2 heating oil spilled just offshore

from Trustom Pond Refuge. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, Department of the Interior, Rhode Island

Department of Environmental Management, and the Service

completed a joint Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment

(November 1999). A copy is available at the Refuge Complex office.

Contaminants

Contaminant sites occur on Trustom Pond Refuge (one site),

Sachuest Point Refuge (one site), and on or immediately adjacent to

Ninigret Refuge (four sites). Contaminant issues have been

coordinated by a combination of refuge staff, our contaminant

biologists, our Pollution Control Office, the EPA, U.S. Army Corp of

Engineers, and RI DEM. Five of the sites are listed in the EPA

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and

Liability Information System database (CERCLIS) (see below).

Contaminants – Sachuest Point Refuge

The Town of Middletown operated a municipal landfill at Sachuest

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

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

marsh and barrier beach system between Second Beach and Third

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

Federal Facilities Compliance Docket and published on February 12,

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

RI4143690010).

In 1994, Refuge staff completed a Preliminary Assessment of the

ecological and human health risks associated with the site, providing

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

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

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

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

rank high enough to require EPA Superfund Program cleanup

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

Remediation (RI DEM).

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

voluntarily began the next phase of studies needed to determine the

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

Site Investigation from Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation,

completed in April 1998. Its results indicated widespread

distribution of several chemical compounds within the landfill area,

including polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides,

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), petroleum hydrocarbons, and

metals. The contaminants detected and their concentration ranges

are typical of those commonly found at municipal landfills known to

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

that most consistently exceeds RI DEM criteria, especially in the

surface soil.

Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-13
We will close the site under RI DEM Site Remediation regulations.

In February 1999, Foster Wheeler completed a Remedial Action

Work Plan incorporating comments from RI DEM. A RI DEMapproved Remedial Action Design will be completed in Fall 2000.

Remedial Alternatives Analysis indicates the preferred alternative is

excavating and relocating waste, followed by capping the

consolidated wastes contained on site. We hope to begin closing the

site in Fall 2000 and to complete all work in 2001, assuming adequate

funding is available. Depending on the final, approved Remedial

Action Design, we estimate construction costs between $2 million and

$4 million.

Contaminants – Trustom Pond Refuge

While conducting field surveys in a wooded portion of Trustom Pond

Refuge, a University of Rhode Island biology class discovered an old

farm dump that had gone undetected until 1982. The initial

inspection found small piles of debris, discarded DDT canisters, and

one container of pink liquid thought to be fuel. No analysis was

conducted at that time. The site subsequently was listed on the

Federal Facilities Compliance Docket as CERCLIS No.

RID980915599.

Our Ecological Services Division began its Preliminary Assessment

in the fall of 1995. They conducted a focused sampling and

geophysical survey to determine if the old dump was a potential

source of contamination, and an electromagnetic survey to search out

buried wastes. One partly buried, rusted-out drum containing soil

was found, removed, and its contents analyzed.

Their survey found trace-to-low concentrations of organochlorine

pesticides sporadically present in surface soils in only one of the two

small debris areas at the site. DDT slightly exceeded screening

levels for ecological risk. None of the contaminants, including DDT,

exceeded any screening levels for human health. The Preliminary

Assessment concluded that the site did not pose a significant threat

to human health or the environment (March 1996).

RI DEM requested some additional ground water analysis. Initial

results on ground water sampling found slightly elevated lead levels

in unfiltered samples. Subsequent analysis of filtered ground water

samples found no elevated lead levels. RI DEM agreed at that point

that the site did not warrant further cleanup.

On April 2, 1998, the site was archived (removed) from the EPA

CERCLIS database. On April 21, 1998, EPA determined that a “No

Further Federal Remedial Action Planned” decision was appropriate.

EPA at that point considered RI DEM to be the lead agency

overseeing hazardous waste compliance at the site. EPA did note in

their April 21, 1998 decision that archived sites could be returned to

the CERCLIS database if additional information or substantially

altered site conditions warranted.

Chapter 2 

2-14 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Contaminants – Ninigret Refuge

Department of Defense activities left four potential contaminant

sites at the Refuge. EPA lists them collectively as CERCLIS No.

RI9143530260. Three of the four sites (Eastern Area Landfill,

Burnpit Area, and Ninigret Wildlife Refuge Landfill) are located

entirely on the Refuge, while the On-site Landfill is located partly on

Ninigret Park (Town of Charlestown). The U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (ACOE) has coordinated contaminant sampling and

analysis at the sites since 1986. Various ACOE contractors have

completed several different sampling and analysis studies. Each

study has documented varying levels of contamination. The Burnpit

Area, which served as a firefighter training site while the airfield

was active appears to be the least contaminated.

The three landfills resulted from closure and demolition of the

airfield prior to transfer of the property to the Service. Known

contaminants include volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile

organic compounds, pesticides, and metals. ACOE is continuing to

assess the need to conduct additional sampling and environmental

assessments, and is addressing EPA and RI DEM concerns, which

may eventually lead to site remediation where necessary.

Research/Special Use Permits

A detailed summary of Special Use Permits issued for research,

commercial, and special events since 1988 is available upon request

from the Refuge Complex office (Andres 1999). Researchers under

permit are required to submit a completed report to the Refuge.

Their reports are also available upon request. An impressive

diversity of research is conducted on the Refuge, primarily through

the University of Rhode Island. In 1998 and 1999, for example,

studies evaluated changes in beach profile, biological control of deer

ticks, the movement of white-tailed deer, songbird habitat, and the

distribution of a moth suspected of being a biological control agent

for an invasive plant species.

Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-15

Research. Sampling for invertebrates

on the beach helps to determine what

piping plover are feeding on. This data

will help the Refuge make sound

management decisions regarding

plover management. USFWS photo
Part 2: Describing the Refuges

Block Island Refuge

Physical Resources 

Topography, Soils and Hydrology

Glaciers deposited approximately 60 feet of New Shoreham drift,

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

were formed by finely sorted alluvial sands and wave and tidal

shifting and deposition.

Terrain on the northern parcel,

around the North Light

lighthouse, is rolling dunes and

swales averaging 5- to 10-percent

slopes; soils are primarily sand.

Beane Point is a 21-acre upland

with <5-percent slopes

composed of Paxton, very stonyfine sandy loams. The 13-acre

Nevuus-Greenburg tract and

O’Toole tract are primarily

upland with <10-percent slopes

also composed of Paxton, very

stony-fine sandy loams.

Block Island’s groundwater

supply depends entirely on

rainfall, with kettle ponds and

wetlands perched on compacted,

clay soils. The NevuusGreenberg tract contains two

very small ponds; otherwise, no

freshwater lakes or ponds lie on

Refuge property. Adjacent to

Refuge lands, however, are

several small freshwater ponds, and the brackish Sachem Pond and

saline Great Salt Pond. More than 365 ponds and emergent wetlands

on the island provide a critical resource for many species.

Biological Resources

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

its biological resources. In 1991, The Nature Conservancy selected

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

western hemisphere, primarily due to its ecological significance.

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

natural resources on Block Island:

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

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

migration of many birds, particularly raptors and passerines,

between southern New England and eastern Long Island, and points

north and south.”

Chapter 2 

2-16 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Block Island. The North Light lighthouse, maintained by the town and

surrounded by the Refuge, is the most popular destination point on northern Block

Island. Access to the lighthouse is across approximately 500 feet of Refuge beach,

via a right-of-way. USFWS photo
The Nature Conservancy considers Block Island an internationally

significant biodiversity reserve due to the presence of rare and

endemic species and habitats, and because of the concentrations and

diversity of songbirds, shorebirds, and raptors that migrate through

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

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

reproduce on the island. Many additional rare birds pass through the

island during migration.

Vegetation

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

Block Island Refuge. Appendix C displays this graphically, based on

Rhode Island Geographic Information System (RIGIS) land use-land

cover data. Block Island Refuge is primarily upland, except for beach

habitat at Cow Cove, Sandy Point, West Beach, and Beane Point.

Beach habitat includes bare sand, beach grass (Ammophila

brevigulata), poison ivy (Rhus radicans), bayberry (Myrica

pennsylvanica), wild rose (Rosa rugosa), and beach plum (Prunus

maritima). Upland shrub habitat includes northern arrowwood

(Viburnum recognitum), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana),

Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and bayberry. A list

of plant species is available upon request from the Refuge office

(George 1999).

Japanese black pine (Pinus thunbergii) has been planted extensively

along eastern seashores since the 1940’s because of its remarkable

ability to withstand salt spray. But the future of the black pines on

Block Island is uncertain. A mixture of bayberry and non-native

Japanese black pine with a poison ivy understory dominates Beane

Point. Those black pines provide important nesting habitat for a

colony of wading birds, namely, black-crowned and yellow-crowned

night-herons. Approximately 25

percent of the black pine on

Beane Point has already been

lost to an infestation of the black

turpentine beetle (Dendroctonus

terebrans). No attempts to treat

the beetle have been made.

Native pitch pine (Pinus rigida)

is also susceptible to black

turpentine beetles and thus, is

not a good replacement tree.

Correspondence with Cornell

University Cooperative

Extension and Cape Cod

Cooperative Extension suggest

that chemical control of black

turpentine beetle is not an option

because of the proximity to

water. At present, no native tree

species resistant to the black

turpentine beetle and tolerant of

saline, shoreline environmental

conditions is known.

Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-17

Dominant 

cover-type

Agriculture

Beaches

Brushland

Developed

Forest Upland

Sandy Areas 

(not beaches)

Water

Wetlands (not classified)

Total

Acreage

0.4

7.8

20.8

5.6

16.8

34.6

2.2

3.3

91.5

Percentage

0.5%

8.5

22.8

6.1

18.3

37.8

2.4

3.6

100

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

Washington County, RI. (source: RI GIS)

Bayberry. 
Both the Nevuus-Greenberg and O’Toole tracts are characterized as

shrub vegetation dominated by bayberry, arrowwood, winterberry,

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

dry upland shrub.

Threatened and Endangered Species

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

American burying beetle (endangered) and piping plover

(threatened). We have a Recovery Plan for the American burying

beetle (1991) and for the piping plover (Atlantic Coast Population,

Revised Recovery Plan 1996).

Block Island harbors one of only a handful of American burying

beetle populations, and the only population known east of the

Mississippi River. The western populations occur in a limited

distribution in western Arkansas, eastern Oklahoma, western

Kansas, central Nebraska, and southern South Dakota.

Unfortunately, the American burying beetle remains absent from

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

years found the majority of the Block Island burying beetle breeding

population in the grassland habitat on the southern end of the island,

and have twice documented beetles on or adjacent to Refuge land,

including near Beane Point and just north of Great Salt Pond. In

1998, the town owned fields just south of Sachem Pond were

surveyed and American burying beetle were captured in low

numbers. The beetles are highly mobile on the island, and in fact,

could be found foraging in any of its fields today (Amaral 1999).

Beetles on the Refuge are likely foraging primarily on dead pheasant

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

chicks. Annual surveys and monitoring of the breeding population

have concentrated on the southern portion of the island. Its northern

portion, including the Refuge, have not been surveyed as intensively.

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

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

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

burying beetle observations on the Refuge have been recorded. In

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

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

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

Office recommends further evaluating areas of suitable soil on the

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

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

that never hatched. Field examination revealed the eggs had

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

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

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

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

two young on a town beach south of Beane Point. These have been

the only documented nesting attempts in the last 15 years. No one

has yet determined why plovers are unsuccessful here, although

human disturbance and gull predation are possible contributing

factors. The remoteness of potential source populations may also

hinder reestablishment of breeding plovers in this nesting area.

Chapter 2 

2-18 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Most of the suitable beach habitat for plover lies between Settlers

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

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

cooperative management strategy with the Town, the beach between

the North Light and Sandy Point will be fenced, using symbolic

fencing, to public use if piping plover are seen exhibiting territorial

behavior. We are alerted to this behavior by staff of The Nature

Conservancy-Block Island who monitor this beach at least weekly

during the breeding season. We will erect nest exclosures around

any areas suspected to be the actual nest site. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

enter and exit, but excludes most predators.

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

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

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

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

The 1994 Recovery Plan for the northeastern beach tiger beetle

(threatened) identifies Block Island as a low potential reintroduction

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

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

Crescent Beach. The nearest population of northeastern beach tiger

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

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

northeastern beach tiger beetle outside of Massachusetts for

approximately 10 years. A source population to begin reintroduction

has not been established. Also, the highest priority reintroduction

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

and Napatree Point areas, where the beaches generally are wider

(vonOettingen 1998).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adjacent landowners have informed us that, before nesting in the

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

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

nesting structure provided by the black pine.

Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-19

Symbolic fencing. USFWS photo

Predator exclosures. USFWS photo
Three to five American oystercatchers (Haematopus palliatus)

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

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

(endangered RI) is sometimes found near Sandy Point.

Block Island is the only place in Rhode Island where northern

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

owls in Rhode Island.

Reptiles and Amphibians

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

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

island’s scattered freshwater ponds. Reptiles include common

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

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

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

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

occasional diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin). No

surveys have been conducted on the Refuge. There is speculation

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

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

Birds

Appendix D lists birds known to occur on each refuge. With the

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

data exists on bird species and their abundance specific to Block

Island Refuge.

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

since 1981 (Comings 2000). Refuge staff, The Nature Conservancy

on Block Island, and RI DEM have been monitoring the colony

because of a concern the gulls could impact other native species

through increased predation or physical displacement as they

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

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

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

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

transfer station in 1990 probably contributed to this decline.

Although it is important to note that gull populations are down

statewide, great black-backed gulls are systematically displacing

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

have forced herring gulls into the less hospitable shrub habitat for

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

other native birds because they are a more aggressive predator than

herring gulls.

Chapter 2 

2-20 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Green frog.
While no formal surveys have been conducted for songbirds on

Refuge lands, The Nature Conservancy has two permanent banding

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

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

year. This banding provides valuable information on the diversity of

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

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

Block Island is internationally famous among birders for its

spectacular fall songbird migration. Data reveals that the island

provides crucial habitat for both spring and fall migratory shorebirds

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

large concentrations of fall migrants. Thousands of Neotropical

migrants, representing 70 species, have been documented. Of

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

juveniles. Studies indicate that juvenile birds are severely

dehydrated by the time they reach Block Island, and that its ~365

small ponds and abundance of fruit-bearing shrubs provide lifesaving rehydration. Many typically omnivorous migrants forage

exclusively on berries while on Block Island (Parrish 1999).

Northern arrowwood, northern bayberry, and pokeweed were the

predominate fruit-bearing shrubs used by birds. Shrub habitat also

provides resting shelter for migrating birds.

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

noted that fruit-bearing shrubs important to migratory birds are

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

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

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

ranged from 25 percent to 40 percent at individual sites.

Shorebirds pass through in large numbers during midsummer and

early fall. Typically, 40 different shorebird species have been

observed using the mudflats and saltmarshes and wrack lines on

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

Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-21

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

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

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

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

Great black-backed

Herring

*

Great black-backed gulls

Herring gulls
Mammals

Block Island is unique regarding mammals, because no native,

terrestrial mammalian predators reportedly occur on the island.

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

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

implemented on the Refuge.

Seals occasionally haul out on the Refuge shoreline near Sandy

Point; however, no formal surveys have been conducted. The Block

Island meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus provectus) is

considered endemic to Block Island. Other small mammals include

the white- footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), introduced muskrat

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

(Rattus norvegicus). Since no surveys of bats have been conducted,

we do not know what species, if any, use the Refuge.

The overabundant population of white-tailed deer has been an

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

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

The Town of New Shoreham and RI DEM administer a hunt

program to substantially reduce the deer herd on portions of the

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

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

not known, and hunting is not permitted.

Cultural Resources

When English settlers first encountered Native Americans on Block

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

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

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

accounts of the settlers’ enslavement of Native Americans to

expedite clearing and construction. Native Americans disappeared

from the census in 1875 (USFWS 1999).

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

we have not conducted any formal archaeological surveys. We

consider the entire Refuge highly sensitive for archeological

deposits. The North Light lighthouse, formerly on the Refuge but

now on town property, is listed on the National Register of Historic

Places. Archeologists have examined a 19th-20th century fishing

village site on Refuge property that has been impacted by coastal

erosion and dune migration.

Public Use

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

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

be stationed on the island during peak summer season. The

opportunities for public contact are extensive, and include

environmental education and interpretation.

Chapter 2 

2-22 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

White-footed mouse.
Based on informal visitor counts (The Nature Conservancy 1998), we

estimate annual public use on Block Island Refuge between Settlers

Rock and Sandy Point Beaches at 200,000 total visitor days. No

formal counts have been done. The Refuge Complex has not

established a systematic strategy for collecting and documenting

visitor use.

Principal wildlife-dependent public use on Refuge lands includes surf

fishing, wildlife observation, environmental education, and

photography. We opened the Refuge to surf fishing under State

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

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

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

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

In 1994, Refuge staff completed a compatibility determination for

wildlife observation and interpretation, formally establishing these

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

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

No other compatibility determinations have been completed.

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

public use enforcement occurs. 

Current non-wildlife-dependent uses on the northern portion of the

island include swimming, sunbathing, driving off-road vehicles (ORV)

picnicking, jogging, and dog walking. On Beane Point, it is fairly

common for boaters to land on the Point and walk, often with dogs,

along the shoreline.

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

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

crosses Refuge lands. The North Light lighthouse, maintained by

the town but surrounded by the Refuge, is the most popular visitor

destination on northern Block Island. Access to the lighthouse

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

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

fishing sites.

Cooperative management of public use on the northern portion of

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

New Shoreham closed Sandy Point Beach from the lighthouse to the

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

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

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

property nor the Refuge beach was closed.

Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-23
Ninigret Refuge

Physical Resources

Geology and Hydrology

Most of Ninigret Refuge has a

very high water table (6’-10’

below the surface). Military

excavations created several

ponds as a result. Most of these

man-made ponds are small and

fairly unproductive, with steep

sides and gravel bottoms. No

natural streams exist on the

Refuge. The Navy constructed a

series of ditches designed to

direct runoff from the runways

into Ninigret Pond. These

ditches are responsible for

reducing the salinity in at least

two salt marshes, allowing an

invasive plant species

(Phragmites spp.) to take over

these wetlands.

Some evidence suggests that the creation of runways and the

resulting compaction of the underlying silt created a barrier

impervious to water, causing runoff. After the recent removal of

asphalt runway, some ponds are still forming, indicating this

compacted silt layer still exists, and might need to be broken through

to prevent frost-heaving of newly planted native grasses.

Topography and Soils 

Most of the 409-acre Refuge is located on a coastal outwash plain

emanating from the base of the Charlestown Moraine. The Refuge

area is typical of coastal sandplain characterized by relatively flat

terrain and sandy soils derived from sorted silt, sand, and gravel that

flowed out from glacial meltwaters. Most soils on the Refuge are

fine sand and silt loams in the Bridgehampton series and have very

low levels of nutrients and organic matter. A high gravel content

also characterizes Refuge subsoil.

Biological Resources

Wetlands 

Approximately 16 percent of Ninigret Refuge is wetland, including

salt marsh, small, man-made ponds, forested and scrub-shrub

wetlands, and emergent wetlands with varying amounts of open

water. Most natural freshwater wetlands on the Refuge are glacial

kettle holes. The Refuge contains at least 13 permanent ponds.

Some tidal ponds on its mainland portion have restricted tidal flow

due to siltation, and have become increasingly fresh. Most of the salt

marsh acreage exists on the barrier beach parcel.

Chapter 2 

2-24 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Former Runways. Remnants of the former Charlestown Naval Auxiliary Land

Facility (pictured here in this 1977 aerial photo; before restoration) continue to

dominate the landscape at Ninigret Refuge. Even after restoration, vestiges of

three asphalt runways and two taxiways, encompassing at least 70 acres, leave

distinctive linear patterns on the landscape. USFWS photo.
Unfortunately, most of the wetlands have diminished wildlife value

because of the presence of Phragmites. Phragmites indicate a

disturbed wetland, especially where the natural flushing of salt water

has been altered, salinity has declined, or where sediment loading

has occurred. The monotypic, virtually impenetrable stands of

Phragmites choke out native plants, and provide little suitable food

or cover for wildlife. Besides Phragmites, other dominant plants in

the emergent freshwater wetlands are broad-leaved cattail (Typha

latifolia), and a variety of sedges and rushes (Juncus spp.,

Eleocharis spp., Scirpus spp.). A portion of a red maple swamp lies

on the western edge of the Refuge. Several scrub-shrub wetlands

are scattered throughout the area, dominated by buttonbush

(Cephalanthus occidentalis), swamp rose (Rosa palustris), and

swamp loosestrife (Decodon verticillatus).

Buried wetlands

Upon removal of the first segments of asphalt runway, evidence of

several small wetlands, former vernal pools, were found buried

under their gravel base. Aerial photographs in 1939 identified a total

of five original wetland sites, which predate runway construction. At

least two sites were located in 1997 by the presence of hydric soils

and the remains of wetland seeds and plants. One of these wetlands

had remnants of pinnate-leaved water milfoil (Myriophyllum

pinnatum), a species that has not been reported in Rhode Island

since 1913. Both sites have hydric soils about 40 inches below the

surface and have scattered bulrush seeds and stems and other native

wetland plant parts. Based on the 1939 aerial photographs, there

appears to be at least one more site that remains buried underneath

the runways.

The Refuge biologist completed a management plan to restore the

wetlands (1998) that includes mechanically removing layers of silt

until the hydric soils are reached. The area to be disturbed is shaped

roughly like a large footprint approximately 370 feet long and 110

feet at its widest point. Removed soils would be stockpiled on two

adjacent sites and graded to create sloping mounds. The wetland

edges would be seeded with native grasses. This project has not

been funded. 

Land use and dominant land cover types 

(see Table 2-3)

Ninigret Pond: The open water of Ninigret Pond is not technically

part of the Refuge; however, the Refuge does include approximately

3 miles of its shoreline, and another mile of shoreline along Foster’s

Cove. The presence of Ninigret Pond is a significant attraction to

wildlife and Refuge visitors and thus, has a direct influence on use

and management of Refuge land. For example, most Refuge trails

for viewing wildlife and scenery access the pond.

Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-25
Ninigret Pond is the largest of

the South Shore salt ponds, with

an area of 1,711 acres and an

average depth of 4 feet. It also

has the largest associated

watershed, 6,025 acres. The

construction of a permanent

breachway in 1962 to stabilize

the pond radically changed its

ecology, as evidenced by a

depletion of the formerly

productive estuarine fisheries.

Habitat degradation includes the

loss of 40 percent of its eelgrass

beds over the last 32 years due

to sedimentation and nutrient

loading (RI CRMC 1998).

Water quality in Ninigret Pond is

poor, as evidenced by elevated

levels of nitrogen and fecal

coliform bacteria (RI CRMC

1998). Symptoms of

eutrophication from excessive

nutrient loading include surface

algal scum and discolored water.

In 1996, the eastern portion of

Ninigret Pond (where it connects

to Green Hill Pond) was

permanently closed to shell

fishing due to the health risks

associated with elevated fecal

coliform bacteria.

Vegetation

Table 2-3 displays the dominant land cover types for Ninigret

Refuge. Appendix C presents this graphically, based on 1995 aerial

photo interpretation completed by the Refuge. A mosaic of diverse

vegetation types covers the Refuge, composed of approximately 84

percent upland and 16 percent wetland. More than 400 species of

plants have been identified on the Refuge, and recent plant surveys

have rediscovered several species of plants which had not been

recorded in Rhode Island for many years. A plant species list for

Ninigret Refuge is available upon request from the Refuge office

(George 1999).

Chapter 2 

2-26 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Table 2-3. Land use/dominant land cover types on Ninigret Refuge.

Cover type

Developed

Native emergent wetland

Native forest upland

Native forest wetland

Native grass

Native shrub upland

Native shrub 

wetland

Non-native 

emergent wetland

Non-native shrub upland

Sand

Vegetated sand dunes

Water

Total

Acreage

64.5

9.8

126.9

4.6

40.6

88.4

10.6

32.2

16.3

9.6

4.6

7.6

415.7

Percent

15.5%

2.4

30.5

1.1

9.8

21.3

2.6

7.7

3.9

2.3

1.1

1.8

100%
Grasslands

The Rhode Island Natural Heritage Program identifies coastal

sandplain grasslands as a globally rare community (G2 & G3) under

its ranking system. Only remnant patches of these native grasslands

exist on Ninigret Refuge, and much of what remains is overgrown by

shrubs and trees or dominated by forbs. The suitability of the

Refuge to many grassland-dependent species has declined or has

been eliminated as a result of the succession to shrubs and trees.

Approximately 10 percent of the Refuge currently consists of

herbaceous vegetation dominated by switchgrass (Panicum

virgatum) and rough-leaved goldenrod (Solidago rugosa).

In July 1997, an environmental assessment was approved for habitat

restoration at the Refuge. Its stated goals are to restore native

coastal sandplain grassland habitat and associated wildlife, especially

those declining regionally, and to sustain the biological communities.

The project would restore 60 acres of asphalt runway and 10 acres of

stabilized gravel to native grasslands, and create an ADA-accessible

trail system.

An additional 150 acres of grassland are currently maintained or will

be created from shrubland through mowing and hydroaxing.

Mowing and hydroaxing serve to keep woody vegetation from

getting established in existing grasslands, or to set back succession

in shrublands in an attempt to simulate the structure of grasslands.

We began the runway restoration project in 1997. Eighteen acres of

runway were removed in a cooperative venture with the Army

Reserve Unit during 1997 and 1998; Refuge staff removed an

additional 9 acres, and Navy Seabee Reserves removed an additional

15 acres in 1999. The original plan was to complete the asphalt

removal in 2000.

To prepare for planting, rocks were windrowed and dumped into an

excavated hole, or piled to the side. Approximately 5 acres were

prepared in 1998 using a York rake on a farm tractor. The 5 acres

were then fertilized and seeded with native grasses (predominantly

little bluestem and switchgrass). So far, the restoration has been

successful. Pennsylvanian sedge (Carex pensylvanica), sheep fescue

(Festuca filiformis), switchgrass, blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium

atlanticum), slender blue flag (Iris prismatica), and numerous

goldenrods have established themselves in the restored sites. An

additional 18 acres of native grasslands were planted in 1999. The

area will be maintained through mechanical and chemical treatments. 

Encroaching woody vegetation is continually a problem in the

restored areas. Fifteen acres of red cedar and shrubs adjacent to

the runways were hydroaxed in 1998. Another small field was

prescription-burned in May 1998 to determine if this was a viable

method for controlling woody vegetation in grasslands. Garlon 3A,

an herbicide, was also tested on woody vegetation. The burned and

herbicide areas are still being monitored to determine effectiveness.

The Coastal Sandplain Grassland Restoration EA and the Ninigret

Refuge Upland Management Plan (draft) describe additional

strategies for restoring grassland habitat. A 1998 Progress Report

on the restoration project makes several recommendations for

maintaining restored areas (Flores 1998).

Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-27
Restoring the grasslands may offer the opportunity to reintroduce

plant species of concern, such as sandplain gerardia (federal-listed

endangered), bushy rockrose (former federal candidate and

endangered RI), and New England blazing star (former federal

candidate and endangered RI).

A unique rare plant site, containing six species the State considers

rare or endangered, lies within the grassland habitat on Ninigret

Refuge. The rare species include colicroot (Aletris farinosa),

slimspike three-awn (Aristida longespica), yellow-fringed orchids

(Platanthera ciliaris), tall- and few-flowered nutrushes (Scleria

triglomerata, S. paucifolia), and Indiangrass (Sorgastrum nutans).

This unique assemblage resulted in a study recently published in

Northeastern Naturalist (Killingbeck, et al. 1998). Extensive

vegetation analysis and evaluation of site characteristics were done

in 1996. Permanent vegetation monitoring transects were

established as well (Killingbeck and Deegan 1996). Woody

vegetation covered an average 56 percent of the quadrants sampled.

Evidence from soil data indicates the site was previously disturbed

because the topsoil and organic matter were non-existent in the core

area. The site evaluation indicated a significant increase in the

percent cover of Drosera, lichens, moss, and unvegetated soil within

the core area, as opposed to adjacent sites without rare plants.

Shrublands

Approximately 25 percent of the Refuge is upland shrub habitat.

Shrubland communities vary in height and composition but are

usually dominated by northern arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum),

sumacs (Rhus spp.), bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica), highbush

blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), or shadbush (Amelanchier

canadensis). Most shrubs average 9’ to 12’ tall. Non- native plants

such as Asian bittersweet dominate about 15 acres and have affected

upland areas by crowding out native trees and shrubs.

Forests

The forest cover type has increased the most in the past 15 years, and

now totals 132 acres, or 32 percent of the Refuge. Red maple and

black cherry (Prunus serotina) dominate upland forest cover,

followed by eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), quaking aspen

(Populus tremuloides), and gray birch (Betula populifolia). Red

maple dominates the forested wetlands. Some remnant pitch pine

(Pinus rigida) is also found on the Refuge. The oldest forest stands

occur on the western edge of Ninigret Refuge and within an isolated

peninsula near the shrub wetland in the center of the Refuge.

Invasive Plants

Intensive surveys have shown invasive plants to be wide-spread on

Ninigret Refuge at varying densities. Most of these are strong

pioneer species that establish quickly and reproduce prolifically.

Since they are so prolific, they will out-compete native vegetation

and create a monoculture. While some of these species provide cover

and food for wildlife, their dominance of the landscape will ultimately

decrease biodiversity on the Refuge.

Chapter 2 

2-28 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Red maple
Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-29

Asian bittersweet and Phragmites are two of the most common

invasive plants on the refuge, and dominate cover on 15 and 32 acres,

respectively. The Refuge is currently working with the University of

Rhode Island on an experimental release of a European moth to

control Phragmites. Autumn olive is also fairly common on the

Refuge, and was actually planted during the 1980’s along the

runways as wildlife food. This species occupies about 4 acres and

continues its aggressive spread. Autumn olive will have to be

controlled if the grasslands restoration project is to succeed.

Several species of honeysuckle are also found throughout Refuge

lands, comprising about 14 acres total. Honeysuckles exist at lower

densities than the other invasive species, and are found in more

shaded areas.

Threatened and Endangered Species 

All threatened and endangered species and other species of concern

for the Refuge Complex are listed in Appendix A, Trust Species and

Other Species and Habitats of Management Concern.

Federal-listed: The bald eagle can be found at Ninigret Refuge

during fall migration. Piping plover, a threatened species, have

nested either on the barrier beach portion of the Refuge or on the

adjacent Ninigret Conservation Area every year since 1993. Piping

plover typically breed on beaches from April through July, and into

August if they re-nest after losing an early clutch. Symbolic fencing

and nest exclosures are put in place each April. Fencing is taken

down once chicks fledge.

State-listed: Appendix A also lists the status of State species of

concern. Two State-listed grassland-dependent bird species, the

grasshopper sparrow and the upland sandpiper, are focus species for

grasslands management on Ninigret Refuge. The Refuge was

historical nesting habitat for both species (Enser 1999; Schneider

and Pence 1992). Both species require large expanses of grassland

for breeding and foraging. One study indicates grasshopper

sparrows require 30 acres minimum breeding habitat (preferably 100

acres or greater) (Vickery, et al. 1994). Records for upland

sandpiper suggest 150 acres are required (Schneider and Pence

1994). These species have different tolerances for interspersed

patches of shrubland, the grasshopper sparrow being more tolerant.

Their presence would validate the success of grasslands restoration.

Invertebrates

Surveys for deer ticks are the only invertebrate studies conducted on

the Refuge. Deer tick surveys indicate that Ninigret Refuge is a

hotspot for ticks carrying Lyme disease, erlichiosis, and babesiosis.

The Refuge intends to coordinate with TNC’s 5-year atlas project

begun in 1998 to document dragonflies and damselflies throughout

the State.

Bald eagle.
Amphibians and Reptiles

A report entitled “Amphibian Community Structure at the Rhode

Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex” (Paton, et al. February

1999) focused primarily on Trustom Pond Refuge, but offers

information on amphibians using Ninigret Refuge as well. The red

maple swamp and the small pools scattered throughout the Refuge

likely provide the best habitats for amphibians. Amphibians

generally do not occur within tidal waters because salt water dries

their skin. Gray tree frogs (Hyla versicolor), spring peepers

(Pseudacris crucifer) and green frogs (Rana clamitans) are the

most abundant frog species. Red-backed salamanders (Plethodon

cinereus) were the only members of that group found on the Refuge,

but other salamander species probably occur in the area. The report

states that the amphibian communities at both Trustom Pond Refuge

and Ninigret Refuge are relatively rich and thriving, and states the

Refuges are vital and critical to the conservation of amphibians in

Rhode Island.

Snapping, painted, and spotted turtles (C. guttata) are abundant in

most of the ponds on the Refuge. They are also known to occur in

brackish water and may venture out into estuaries. Recently,

eastern box turtles (Terrepene carolina) have been found in the

uplands. Six species of snakes have also been observed on the

Refuge: eastern garter snake, ribbon snake (T. sauritus), northern

water snake (Natrix sipedon), black racer (Coluber constrictor),

eastern milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum), and northern brown

snake (Storeria dekayi).

Birds

The wide variety of habitats have contributed to the great diversity

of birds found on Ninigret Refuge. Appendix D lists birds found on

the Refuge Complex by season. Approximately 70 species are known

to nest on the Refuge. Recent mist-netting on Refuge lands has

shown that gray catbirds (Dumetella carolinensis), common

yellowthroats (Geothlypis trichas), and red- winged blackbirds

(Agelaius phoeniceus) are the most abundant nesting birds in the

shrub community (Eddleman 1993, 1994; Wallace 1995; Paton 1996,

1997, 1998). Breeding Bird Survey data indicates that the Refuge

may have one of the highest densities of nesting yellow-breasted chat

in Rhode Island (Enser1998). Other birds using early successional

shrub and grassland vegetation for nesting include white-eyed vireo,

black-billed cuckoo, willow flycatcher, northern bobwhite, prairie

warbler, and American woodcock. Recently, bobolink, eastern

meadowlark, eastern bluebirds, and wild turkey have been found

nesting on the Refuge.

Birds using the wetlands include green herons, wood ducks, Virginia

rails, swamp sparrows, and marsh wrens. The coastal location of the

Refuge Complex provides vital stopover habitat for migratory birds

seeking to quickly and safely accumulate energy stores. According

to Moore, coastal scrub/shrub and dune/scrub habitats provide very

high species richness and abundance (Moore, et al. 1995). Birds are

primarily foraging on berries and insects. As residential

development along the coast continues, maintaining and enhancing

these habitats will become even more important.

Chapter 2 

2-30 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Spring peeper.
Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-31

Table 2-4. Peak waterfowl numbers on Ninigret Pond from 1992 to 1999.

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Mute swan 32 34 7 22 12 20 26 29

Snow goose - 5 - - 1 1 - 0

Brant 12 1 - 9 - 15 - 5

Canada goose 72 61 14 12 150 95 133 145

Wood duck - 2 - 5 2 - - 0

Green-winged teal 4223 ----

Blue winged teal 3 5 ------

American black duck 102 497 346 224 155 237 188 168

Mallard 5 10 4 8 40 8 34 36

Gadwall 1 22 - 5 - 8 - -

American wigeon - 2 - - 2 - - -

Canvasback 1 20 5 27 - - -

Redhead - 2 2 -----

Ring-necked duck - 520 ------

Greater scaup 37 346 200 400 350 534 172

Lesser scaup - - 1 - 15 225 306 4

Common eider - - - - 11- -

King eider - - - - - - 1-

Oldsquaw 1 - - - 3311

Black scoter - - - - 3- - -

Surf scoter 1 - 153- - 1

White-winged scoter 8 24 - 3 ----

Common goldeneye 2 750 401 252 310 159 81 225

Bufflehead 401 699 1725 700 949 924 864 815

Hooded merganser 2 2 1 4 9 26 34 16

Red-breated merganser 2 250 211 365 415 370 325 413

Ruddy duck - - 2 15 - - - 12

Northern pintail -------1

Common merganser - 22 290 - 14 9 15 11

Red breasted merganser
Winter birds present on the Refuge include northern harrier, shorteared owl, eastern bluebird, and a variety of sparrows. Waterfowl

include black duck, mallard, American wigeon, and green-winged

teal. Ninigret Pond is an important wintering area for bufflehead,

common goldeneye, greater scaup, and red-breasted merganser.

Recent surveys for wintering greater scaup reveal that many of the

waterfowl that feed in Ninigret Pond will rest at Trustom Pond

during the day (Cohen 1998). Table 2-4 summarizes waterfowl

numbers at Ninigret Pond from 1992 to 1999.

Mammals

Twenty-two species of mammals have been observed on the Refuge.

Large mammals include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus),

coyote (Canus latrans), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus),

red fox (Vulpes fulva), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk

(Mephites mephites), and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus).

Mink (Mustella vison) and river otter (Lutra canadensis) have been

observed on or adjacent to the Refuge. Small mammals include

eastern meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), white-footed

mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) and woodland jumping mice

(Napaeozapus insignis).

We suspect from the evidence of high browse line along trails and

habitat edges that the white-tailed deer population is near or above

carrying capacity at Ninigret Refuge. Deer are a potential threat to

managing the rare native plant site. Although we have not begun

studies to substantiate this concern, the sheer numbers and

distribution of deer make it an eventuality. Permanent monitoring

points at the rare plant site will allow further investigation of this issue.

Fish

Since Ninigret Pond is not technically part of the Refuge, Refuge

staff do not manage the fisheries resource. According to the Coastal

Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan, more than 100 species of

finfish and shellfish utilize coastal salt ponds at some stage of their

life cycle. The fisheries in Ninigret Pond are diverse, although

quantitative information is scarce. It is widely perceived today that

stocks of the most popular species such as quahogs, scallops, oysters,

and flounder are all declining (RI CRMC 1998).

Cultural Resources

Past military activities have also affected archeological resources at

Ninigret Refuge. Only a few areas have intact soils. Construction of

the Charlestown Naval Auxiliary Landing Facility required massive

earth moving, which would have impacted the integrity of many

archeological sites. One is listed on the National Register of Historic

Places for its historic use as a shellfish gathering site by the

Narragansett Indians. Another, a burial site for the Narragansett

Indians, was discovered during the runway construction and was

recorded with the Rhode Island Historic Preservation and Heritage

Commission (RI HPHC). The intact areas are considered highly

sensitive for archeological resources. Studies of these sites have

been limited in area and scope. No comprehensive archeological

surveys have been done on the Refuge.

Chapter 2 

2-32 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Coyote.
Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-33

The RI HPHC (1974) conducted a historical, architectural, and

archeological investigation of the former Charlestown Naval

Auxiliary Landing Facility, after a proposal to construct a nuclear

power plant had been submitted to the State. Its findings conclude

that “...the existing buildings at the former Naval Air Station have

little historic or architectural importance.”

Public Use

Each year, Refuge staff estimate public use for Ninigret Refuge.

However, no consistent method for collecting and documenting that

data exists. Much incidental use occurs through spillover from

activities and events at adjacent Ninigret Park. We estimate the

number of visitors to Ninigret Refuge in 1998 at 35,000.

We expect future visits to increase dramatically once the barrier-free

trail system has been completed. Known public use activities vary

seasonally, and include wildlife-dependent activities such as birding,

nature observation and photography, environmental education and

interpretation, recreational fishing, and access for recreational and

commercial shell fishing in Ninigret Pond.

No hunting occurs on Refuge lands. We officially opened the barrier

beach of Ninigret Refuge to surf fishing in a Federal Register Notice

in 1998 (50 CFR 32). The same notice allowed saltwater fishing and

shell fishing from Refuge lands at Ninigret Pond between sunrise

and sunset, in accordance with State regulations.

In 1994, environmental education and wildlife observation and

interpretation were formally determined compatible with Refuge

purposes. The Refuge Manager also determined dog walking,

bicycling, and jogging not compatible with the Refuge purposes, citing

unacceptable impacts from those activities on its biological resources.

Non-wildlife-dependent use that now occurs on the Refuge includes

dog walking, bicycling, jogging, using ORVs on the barrier beach,

berry picking, and horseback riding. In-line skating now occurs on

the runways, and at least five aircraft have landed since 1986.

Completing the runway restoration project should eliminate the

possibility of unauthorized aircraft landings.

An important Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the

Service and Frosty Drew Nature Center, a non-profit organization

with a facility in Ninigret Park, offers wildlife observation and

environmental education for up to 2,500 people each year. Students

range from school-aged children to senior citizens, but this

partnership provides a particularly valuable opportunity to reach

young students. The Center operates on a first-come, first-served

basis, and consistently has more demand for programs than it can

handle with current staff.
Trail System

Until 1997, the three asphalt runways and two taxiways from the

former naval air station composed approximately 5 miles of an 8-mile

trail system on the Refuge. All three runways provided visitors

access to the shoreline of Ninigret Pond. The grasslands restoration

project began removing the old runway in 1997, except for an 8’-wide

swath that forms the base of the new trail system, which will be 3.8

miles in length. In addition to runways, the trail comprises old roads

from the former Champlin Farm and from the naval base.

We also plan interpretive displays and kiosks to share information on

landscape formation by glaciers, Native American use, naval aviation

history, and colonial farming. Once completed, this “Trail Through

Time” will involve a partnership among the Narragansett Indian

Tribe, the Charlestown Airfield Memorial Committee, and the Frosty

Drew Memorial Fund. One viewing platform overlooks Ninigret

Pond at Grassy Point. A second viewing platform planned for the

Foster Cove area has not been funded. Two kiosks stand along the

east and west entrance and parking areas.

We have scheduled improvements to the Refuge entrance road in

2000, using Transportation Equity Act funds. Improved signs

directing visitors to Ninigret Refuge are needed on U.S. Route 1.

Current signs do not meet Refuge System standards, and visitors

have commented that the existing highway sign, which reads

“Ninigret Park Wildlife Refuge”, causes confusion with the adjacent,

town-managed Ninigret Park.

Contaminants and Military Debris 

In addition to the CERCLIS sites listed in Part 1, a tremendous

amount of miscellaneous military debris exists on Ninigret Refuge,

including the concrete light fixtures along the runways, the concrete

hard stand (machine gun backstop), small buildings like the cinder

block pump house and hydrant and several old bunkers, the

explosives magazine, a number of telephone poles, an old gate, and

concrete-reinforcing mesh.

Of particular interest is a simulated wooden aircraft carrier deck,

complete with steel catapult rail. Shrubs have overgrown the deck,

except for one portion intersected by a trail, and many of its timbers

are rotting in the ground, but the catapult is still visible. Aviation

interest groups have proposed it as a feature worthy of

interpretation. The Aviation Historical Society (RI) has suggested

that this simulated deck may be the only one of its type remaining.

We may include it as a stop on an interpretive trail.

Military construction moved a lot of earth on Ninigret Refuge,

leaving scattered piles of dirt and boulders. One of the runways was

extended by backfilling between Hunter’s Island and the mainland.

Much of that fill was never capped, and is exposed in many areas.

Chapter 2 

2-34 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-35

Chafee Refuge

Physical Resources

Topography and Hydrology

The Narrow River, which forms

Pettaquamscutt Cove, has a

geologically complex origin. In

general, the tidal river and

surrounding uplands are

remnants of an ancient river

valley carved out by glaciation

approximately 10,000 years ago.

Technically, the Narrow River is

an estuary or a lagoon (RI

CRMC 1998).

The eastern side of Chafee

Refuge slopes sharply down to

the Narrow River, with 15-

percent (or greater) slopes along

Tower Hill Road. Terrain on the

eastern side slopes more gradually, averaging 5 to10 percent. In

Pettaquamscutt Cove, the relief is low and near sea level. Bedrock is

very close to the surface, the soil layer is thin, and depth to the water

table is usually less than 3 feet (RI CRMC 1998). The channel

between Narragansett Bay and Pettaquamscutt Cove is called “The

Narrows.”

Narrow River Watershed: A significant source of information on the

Narrow River watershed is the Narrow River Special Area

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

Water quality in the Narrow River, including Pettaquamscutt Cove,

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

Watershed Watch program has been conducting at least bi-weekly

water quality monitoring since 1992. Three of their monitoring

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

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

River Preservation Association. Numerous other water quality

studies have been conducted in the Narrow River watershed and are

referenced in the Special Area Management Plan.

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

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

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

CRMC 1998) and remains closed today.

Excessive nitrogen loading is another concern for the Narrow River;

however, no State standards for nitrogen exist. Improperly

functioning household septic systems are a major, documented

source of both nitrogen and bacteria. Nitrogen and bacteria leach

into groundwater, potentially affecting both private and public

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

of the freshwater flowing into the system originates as groundwater

(RI CRMC 1998).

Pettaquamscutt Cove. USFWS photo
Chapter 2 

2-36 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Topography and Hydrology (continued)

Storm water runoff, commercial and residential fertilizer

applications, and petroleum hydrocarbons from boating are all

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

CRMC 1998). These sources will continue to increase with

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

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

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

been developed is primarily residential. Approximately 14 percent of

the watershed is designated open space, including the Refuge.

Biological Resources

Vegetation

Table 2-5 displays the various

cover types dominating Chafee

Refuge. Appendix C depicts this

graphically, using information

from the RI GIS land use-land

cover database.

In the tidal salt marsh portions

of the Refuge, the dominant

vegetation types are salt meadow

grass (Spartina patens), salt

marsh cordgrass (Spartina

alterniflora), spike grass

(Distichlis spicata), saltwort

(Salicornia sp.), and sea

lavender (Limonium nashii).

Several islands in the salt marsh

are composed of black oak

(Quercus velutina), with a poison

ivy (Rhus radicans) understory.

The uplands adjacent to the west

side of the river are primarily

forested by black oak and red

maple, while the uplands on its

east side are dominated by red maple. A detailed plant list is

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

Threatened and Endangered Species

Piping plover, a federally listed species (threatened), and least tern, a

State-listed species (threatened), nest at the mouth of the Narrow

River, but have a limited presence on the Refuge. No other animals

that are federal- or State-listed as threatened or endangered are

found within the watershed.

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

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

have been conducted to verify its presence on the Refuge.

Cover-type

Agricultural

Brushland

Developed

Forest upland

Water

Emergent 

wetland

Forest wetland

Scrub-scrub 

wetland

Upland

Total

Acreage

8.2

6.5

7.6

115.3

3.7

79.1

74.8

22.8

1.8

319.8

Percentage

2.6%

2.0

2.4

36.1

1.1

24.7

23.4

7.1

0.6

100%

Table 2-5. Land use/land cover at Chafee Refuge, Washington County, RI. (source:

RIGIS)
Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-37

Birds

Appendix D identifies bird species at Chafee Refuge. We lack formal

surveys, which need to be done in the future, especially waterfowl

surveys. Although the Refuge was established primarily to protect

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

about black duck populations and use around the Refuge. Other

waterfowl that commonly winter in the Narrow River watershed are

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

the non-native mute swan.

Completion of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan

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

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

protection of essential migrating and wintering habitats paramount.

The Black Duck Atlantic Coast Joint Venture Plan identifies the

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

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

Rhode Island. Annual midwinter black duck population trend

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

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

information, black duck populations have declined by an estimated 83

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

Other common salt marsh species found on the Refuge include

sharp-tailed sparrows and red-winged blackbirds. Snowy egrets are

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

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

forage there. 

The uplands contain a diversity of nesting and migratory songbirds,

including common yellowthroat, eastern pewee, gray catbird,

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

Invertebrates, Reptiles, Amphibians, and Mammals 

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

The Narrow River Special Area Management Plan lists vertebrate

species common to the Narrow River estuary.

Fish 

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

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

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

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

using the watershed. The Narrow River provides the largest

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

Cultural Resources

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

considered highly sensitive for both prehistoric and historic

archeological resources.

Black Duck. Chafee Refuge was

established as a haven for black ducks.

USFWS photo
Public Use

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

number of visitors in 1998 at 5,000. Saltwater fishing was officially

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

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

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

and enforcement of public use policy is difficult because the entire

Refuge boundary has not been posted. Visitors and Refuge staff alike

are not always certain whether they are on Refuge lands.

Although Chafee Refuge has not been opened officially to any

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

activities vary seasonally, but include wildlife-dependent activities

such as birding, nature observation and photography, and

recreational fishing. There are only a few vantage points within

Pettaquamscutt Cove, and the most accessible ones are on private

land. Popular viewing spots are the Town of Narragansett nature

trail at the south end of the Cove near South County Museum, the

Middle Bridge pull-out, and the Sprague bridge on Route 1A where

it crosses the neck of the Narrow River inlet. Two waterfowl hunting

blinds adjacent to Refuge lands in the cove may cause some activities

incidental to hunting (e.g., retrieving birds) on Refuge lands, but

none have been documented.

Non-wildlife-dependent activities suspected of impacting the Refuge

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

Motorized water craft operating in State waters within the cove

likely contribute to shoreline erosion and disturb wildlife.

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

several unimproved trails that access the shoreline. Several residents

adjacent to Chafee Refuge have a legal easement to go across the

Refuge from their properties to the Narrow River. Ideally, Refuge

staff would like to consolidate these easements into a location that will

reduce impact to sensitive areas along the shoreline.

The RI Department of Transportation is developing a South County

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

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

South Kingstown and Narragansett, and will be designed to

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

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

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

400 users a day.

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

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

third segment links Wakefield to Narragansett; and the fourth links

Sprague Park to the Narragansett coast.

The proposed location of the third segment crosses approximately

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

discussing design alternatives to minimize impacts to Refuge lands.

They have not yet reached a conclusion.

Chapter 2 

2-38 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Canoeing.
Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-39

Sachuest Point Refuge

Physical Resources

Topography and Soils

Formerly an island, Sachuest

Point is now a prominent

headland separating Sachuest

Bay to the west from Sakonnet

River to the east. The uplands

are gently sloping and appear

generally flat, but dip sharply to

the shoreline. The Refuge has

the appearance of a

hammerhead, with Sachuest

Point to the southeast and Flint

Point to the northwest (Map 1-1).

Upland soils at Sachuest Point

are a thin mantle of broken-down

outcropping bedrock, mixed with

deposits of sand and silt,

producing loose, acidic soil of

poor fertility. Underlying the soil are Carboniferous Period rocks

containing outcrops of Dighton Conglomerate of the Rhode Island

formation, volcanic schists, and white quartz intrusions. Most soils

are Newport and Pittstown silt loams, very poorly drained and

varying in slope from 0 to 15 percent. Also present on the Refuge

are areas of Newport very stony loams. Rocky outcrops ring the

perimeter of the Refuge, and several areas of fill are located in the

salt marsh on its northwest corner. 

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

although no seriously compacted soils or expanses of soil loss have

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

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

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

became an Army Coastal Defense site, including a Navy firing

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

Receiver Site there.

Hydrology 

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

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

Groundwater on Aquidneck Island generally moves east towards the

Sakonnet River, or west towards Narragansett Bay. The

groundwater moves from areas of recharge to areas of discharge,

unless intercepted by wells. Areas of discharge include springs and

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

reservoirs.

Harlequin duck. The rocks off Sachuest Point have the largest wintering

population of harlequin ducks in southern New England. USFWS photo
Chapter 2 

2-40 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Biological Resources

Salt marsh

Approximately 40 acres of Sachuest Point are salt marsh wetlands.

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

Refuge, but have been severely impacted by the landfill and a road.

The southern, largely freshwater portion of the salt marsh has been

overtaken by the invasive plant Phragmites. In 1997, extensive

baseline data was collected on the Phragmites patch and adjacent

vegetation community in anticipation of salt marsh restoration

(Roman, et al. 1997). The primary goal of the restoration was to

restore a natural tidal flow into the salt marsh and thus, reduce the

domination of Phragmites in the plant community.

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

between Second and Third Beaches. Initial monitoring shows native

plants returning to areas where Phragmites was mechanically

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

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

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

still highly impacted by

freshwater, as freshwater from

the brook is being pushed up the

tidal channels during high tide.

It will be more difficult to control

Phragmites there.

Vegetation

Table 2-6 displays the dominant

land cover types for the Refuge.

Appendix C displays this same

information graphically, based on

interpretation of 1995 aerial

photos. Compared with other

locations in Rhode Island,

vegetation on Sachuest Point

Refuge is relatively

homogeneous, with an estimated

150 plant species. A detailed

plant list for the Refuge is

available upon request from the

Refuge Office (George 1999).

Principal vegetation types are

shrub land dominated by the

invasive exotic, Asian bittersweet

(Celastrus orbiculatus), and

open fields dominated by forbs

like goldenrod. Small patches of

switchgrass also occur

throughout the Refuge.

Table 2-6. Land cover at Sachuest Point Refuge, Newport County, Rhode Island

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

Cover-type

Cobble beach

Developed

Exposed rock

Native emergent wetland

Native forest upland

Native grass

Native shrub upland

Native shrub 

wetland

Non-native 

emergent wetland

Non-native forest upland

Non-native grass

Non-native shrub upland

Sand

Vegetated sand dunes

Water

Total

Acreage

5.0

16.1

4.8

9.5

0.4

17.4

70.3

1.2

28.1

0.4

10.1

64.8

6.6

13.3

8.1

256.1

Percentage

1.9%

6.3

1.9

3.7

0.2

6.3

27.5

0.5

11.0

0.2

4.0

25.3

2.6

5.2

3.2

100%
Of the 150 estimated documented plant species for Sachuest Point

Refuge, an incredible 40 percent are invasive species covering

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

invasive plants is probably its most significant management concern.

So far, little control of invasive species has occurred.

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

deal with Phragmites on this Refuge. Informal monitoring has

indicated a reduction in the vigor and amount of Phragmites. 

In 1998, prescribed burning was conducted on three acres to

determine if this was a viable tool for controlling Asian bittersweet.

Asian bittersweet is present on virtually every acre of upland.

Results were poor, due to lack of dry fuels. In 1999, approximately

15 acres of Asian bittersweet were hydroaxed and mowed as an

experimental control technique to be monitored. It is too soon to

interpret results for these projects; monitoring will continue. 

Also in 1998, approximately 6,000 beetles were released as a

biological control agent for purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria).

Threatened and Endangered Species 

No State- or federal-listed threatened or endangered animal species

are known to breed in the immediate area. A 1990 survey for

American burying beetles at Sachuest Point Refuge found other

Nicrophorus species there, but not the burying beetle.

Sachuest Point Refuge is a historic site for sea beach amaranth

(Amaranthus pumilus), a federally listed plant species (threatened).

No State-listed plants are known.

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

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

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

nesting habitat for grasshopper sparrows and upland sandpipers,

both of which are State-listed (Ferren, in press). The peregrine

falcon (Falco peregrinus), formerly federal-listed, sometimes uses

the Refuge for roosting or foraging during migration. None of these

species are known to breed on the Refuge.

Birds

Appendix D presents the bird species that use Sachuest Point

Refuge during each season. Bird diversity varies little among

habitat types during the breeding season. Abundant nesting species

include red-winged blackbird, yellow warbler, song sparrow,

American robin, and common yellowthroat. As shrubs have

continued to dominate the landscape, breeding bird communities

have changed. Gray catbird, northern oriole, brown thrasher, rufoussided towhee, and American redstart have been detected on recent

breeding bird surveys, yet these same species could not be found on

the Refuge 3 years ago. Island Rocks, just off the eastern point, is

habitat for common terns.

Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-41

Invasive plants. Asian bittersweet, a

non-native, invasive species, is found

on virtually every acre of uplands at

Sachuest Point Refuge. USFWS photo
Chapter 2 

2-42 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Birds (continued)

Few formal surveys for wintering or migratory landbirds have been

conducted for this Refuge. Migrants vary yearly, but typically

include thousands of tree swallows, snow buntings, and various

warblers, thrushes, and vireos. Remaining grasslands and trails

provide foraging areas for a variety of wintering and migratory

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

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

migration. Migrant raptors typically observed include peregrine

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

The Refuge shoreline is also an important place for migrating and

wintering shorebirds, including sanderlings, purple sandpipers,

dunlin, and semipalmated plovers. Disturbance of feeding

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

little habitat for these species remains on Aquidneck Island.

Wintering songbirds include yellow-rumped warblers, white-throated

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

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

Wintering sea ducks are perhaps the most popular attraction for

visitors to the Refuge. Sachuest Point boasts the second largest

winter population of eastern harlequin ducks on the Atlantic coast.

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

concentration. Annual surveys at Sachuest Point Refuge indicate the

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

October through March each year (see Table 2-7).

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

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

inaccessible and remote habitats in the northern hemisphere (Alaska

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

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

area known as Island Rocks. Since they expend considerable energy

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

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

gathered from rocks and ocean-bottom close to shore. 

Throughout their range, harlequin duck populations have increased

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

Canada. Recent attempts to list their Eastern States population were

determined unwarranted (USFWS 1998). Studies are now underway

to better understand habitat use and impacts at nesting locations in

Canada and at wintering locations along the eastern seaboard.

Table 2-8 summarizes peak numbers for the incredible diversity of

waterfowl observed off Sachuest Point over the last eight years.

Year

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Peak count

64

77

77

82

82

84

107

105

Table 2-7. Peak winter counts for

harlequin duck at Sachuest Point

Refuge from 1994 - 1999.

Osprey
Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-43

Mammals

Nine species of mammals have been observed on the Refuge,

including white-tailed deer, red fox, raccoon, striped skunk , eastern

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

Mink (Mustella vison) have also been seen on Refuge trails, and

harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) are frequently seen hauled out on

rocks along the shoreline. Overly friendly fox have been an issue on

the Refuge, as visitors have been observed feeding them.

Table 2-8. Peak waterfowl numbers at Sachuest Point Refuge from 1992 to 1999.

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Mute swan 2 3 10 22145

Brant 75 20 34 7 58 3 20 3

Canada goose 40 2 1 - - 37 - -

American black duck 37 35 65 61 160 116 26 -

Mallard - - - - 4- 2-

Gadwall - - - - - - 16 11

American wigeon 2 - 2 - - 2 - -

Greater scaup 36 44 33 28 34 57 53 63

Lesser scaup - - - - - 80 - -

Common eider 207 77 1030 550 762 76 3011 312

King eider - - 1 - - 27 - -

Harlequin duck 64 77 77 82 82 84 107 105

Oldsquaw - - 3 - - 1 - 2

Black scoter - 57 300 58 28 29 21 32

Surf scoter - 101 167 88 102 319 368 53

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

Common goldeneye 28 106 78 132 78 87 - 143

Barrow's goldeneye 111- - - - -

Bufflehead 7 29 26 38 62 44 117 165

Common merganser - - - - - - 27 97

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

Ruddy duck 4 - 23 - - 30 - 43

Red fox. Red fox can become easily

habituated to human activity.

USFWS photo.

Red breasted merganser
Chapter 2 

2-44 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Reptiles and Amphibians

No formal surveys of reptiles and amphibians have been conducted on

the Sachuest Point Refuge. Most sightings have been opportunistic,

and therefore represent an incomplete list of what is found on the

Refuge. Eastern milk snake, northern brown snake, and eastern

garter snake have been observed on Refuge trails. Recently,

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

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

wetlands; no salamanders or turtles have been documented.

Cultural Resources

No archaeological sites on Sachuest Point have been recorded, but

we consider Sachuest Point Refuge highly sensitive. No

comprehensive surveys have been conducted for this Refuge, but two

prehistoric archeological sites have been submitted to our Regional

Historic Preservation Officer for designation.

Public Uses

Estimated public use for Sachuest Point Refuge in 1998 was 65,000

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

the Refuge Complex for collecting and documenting visitation data.

Estimating night surf fishing is particularly challenging.

Renovations to the visitor center will include exterior and interior

redesigns with significant improvements, especially to exhibits. The

impressive number of visitors offers great potential to educate and

inform them about the Refuge Complex and the Refuge System.

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

Although we need to station one permanent staff and at least one

seasonal staff there to establish a year-round presence and to meet

the tremendous number of requests for environmental education and

interpretive programs, there has been no funding to support fulltime staff at Sachuest Point Refuge.

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

environmental education and interpretation, and salt water fishing.

Birdwatching is the year-round primary attraction. Salt water

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

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

not open to hunting.

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

jogging, swimming and sunbathing. Second Beach and Third Beach

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

over onto the Refuge, sometimes unknowingly, since boundary signs

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

shoreline are constant issues.

Tree rings
Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-45

In 1994, the Refuge Manager formally determined dog walking,

bicycling, jogging, swimming and using the beach were not

compatible with Refuge purposes. Because of the lack of a

permanent Service presence, enforcement against these

incompatible public uses has been inconsistent.

The Norman Bird Sanctuary is located adjacent to the Sachuest

Point Refuge. Refuge staff and volunteers work closely with the

Sanctuary, occasionally sharing volunteer hours. The Sanctuary

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

and family programs.

Trail System

Approximately 3 miles of trail exist on the Refuge, none of them

ADA-accessible. Trails maintenance includes extensive mowing,

brushing, and repairing erosion damage. One kiosk stands at the

junction of several trail heads just off the parking lot. The Flint

Point trail, Island Rocks trail, and the Sachuest Point trail each

have one observation platform. We need to evaluate the Sachuest

Point Refuge trail system to determine whether all of its current

trails are necessary.

The entrance road to the Refuge will be improved with Transportation

Equity Act funding. We expect repaving to begin in 2000.
Trustom Pond Refuge

Physical Resources

Topography and Soils 

The terrain at Trustom Pond

Refuge is gently rolling and

slopes south to the ocean. Slopes

are generally less than 5 percent.

The Refuge is located on a

coastal outwash plain created by

glacial meltwater carrying and

depositing unsorted till and

sorted sand, gravel, silts, and

clay. Most soils on the Refuge

are silt loams in the

Bridgehampton and Enfield

series. Other areas, which were

maintained as pasture but were

not cultivated, are stony loams in

the Charlton series.

Hydrology and Water Quality

Trustom Pond is a 160-acre brackish coastal pond that serves as the

centerpiece of the Refuge, and has the distinction of being the only

coastal pond in Rhode Island without houses on its shoreline. It is

also the only coastal salt pond in Rhode Island that lies entirely

within a national wildlife refuge, and whose waters are fully managed

by the Service. The pond varies between 1 to 6 feet in depth, with

substrates varying from mud to coarse sands. There is no

permanent breachway; however, we mechanically breach the pond at

least once a year, usually in early April, primarily to provide foraging

habitat for piping plovers and other shorebirds. Natural breaching

occurs periodically as an overland sheet flow during periods of

extreme high water. The watershed feeding Trustom Pond is

estimated at 794 acres (RI CRMC 1998).

During high water, Trustom Pond flows into adjacent Card’s Pond, a

43-acre brackish coastal pond. Card’s Pond averages 1.5 feet in depth.

The Refuge boundary includes roughly the southwestern one-sixth of

its perimeter. There is no permanent breachway in Cards Pond;

however, we breach it mechanically eight to ten times throughout the

year, primarily in response to landowners’ concerns about the high

water table backing up into their septic and well systems. The

watershed feeding Card’s Pond, estimated at 1,820 acres is much

larger than Trustom Pond’s watershed (RI CRMC 1998).

Rhode Island Salt Pond Watchers, a volunteer group, has been

monitoring water quality on Trustom Pond for at least 10 years.

Other water quality studies have also been done, including a study

conducted by the RI Department of Health (1991). Both nitrogren

and bacterial contamination in the pond are concerns. The RI DOH

study found concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria that exceeded

shell fishing standards in both Trustom Pond and Card’s Pond.

Chapter 2 

2-46 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Trustom Pond. USFWS photo
In both ponds’ watersheds, most of the residential and commercial

development lacks sewer systems, relying instead on individual

septic systems, as is the case with Ninigret Pond. Older, failing

septic systems are suspected of being the leading cause of nitrate,

nitrogen, and bacteria loading in coastal ponds (RI CRMC 1998).

Other likely causes include storm water runoff in the watershed,

domestic pets, and the summer populations of Canada geese and

mute swans, who are confined to the ponds while molting. A single

mute swan can produce about 2 lbs. of manure a day!

Nitrogen loading results in extensive macro algae buildup. During

the summer, both ponds are thick with macro algae and

phytoplankton, which cover the bottom in a thick mat and form an

anoxic zone (RI CRMC 1998). One significant impact of algal blooms

is that they reduce the abundance and density of submerged aquatic

vegetation (SAV) by decreasing the amount of light transmitted

through the water column. SAV is a critical food source for an array

of aquatic and terrestrial animals (see Vegetation, below). Since 1978,

SAV beds have been declining in Trustom Pond (Harlin, et al. 1995).

Biological Resources

Wetlands 

Freshwater wetlands of various types account for about 70 acres, or

11 percent, of Trustom Pond Refuge. Five freshwater ponds totaling

about 8 acres occur on the Refuge. The largest of these, the 4-acre

“mud pond,” lies along Moonstone Beach Road. The only man-made

pond is a small farm pond created when the former owners of the

farm dammed a small creek drainage near the present Refuge

maintenance facility.

Barrier beach habitat (also referred to as “beach strand” habitat):

Coastal development and shoreline stabilization have been the major

causes of sand dune loss and the rapid decline of barrier beaches

along the Rhode Island coast. One of the State’s few remaining

undeveloped barrier beaches is Moonstone Beach, 1.3 miles long.

Changes in its width have been an increasing concern since 1985,

when it began steadily declining (URI 1996). Without the natural

processes of sand removal and replenishment, beach loss occurs.

Since 1961, beach profile surveys at Moonstone and other beaches on

the South Shore have documented widespread decline in sand

volume. When dune habitat is lost, the barrier beaches cannot

absorb large waves, and lack the volume of sand required by

adjustments in beach profile during storms.

Intense summer recreational use of Moonstone Beach and other

barrier beaches exacerbates the impacts on these fragile ecosystems.

People continue to walk on the dunes at Moonstone Beach, despite

Refuge signs that prohibit it. Pedestrian traffic destroys stabilizing

vegetation and contributes to dune erosion. The beach also provides

important nesting habitat for piping plovers and least terns. In

order to protect these species, Moonstone Beach, above the mean

high tide line, is closed to public use from April 1 to September 15

each year. (See piping plover, below.)

Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-47
Chapter 2 

2-48

Vegetation

Trustom Pond Refuge contains a diverse collection of vegetation

cover-types (Table 2-9). Appendix C contains a cover-type map.

Red maple swamp is the dominant freshwater forested wetland cover

type. A detailed plant list for the Refuge is available from the

Refuge Office upon request (George 1999).

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)

Widgeon grass and sago pondweed dominate in the aquatic

vegetation of Trustom Pond (Harlin & Thorne-Miller 1978 and

Harlin, et al. 1995). A 1995 survey found that these plant

populations had decreased drastically since the original survey in

1978. In 1996, researchers found an increase in SAV abundance and

diversity over 1995 levels. We need to continue monitoring SAV

levels to determine the reasons for fluctuations, and outline the

relationships among nutrient loading, breaching cycle, and turbidity.

Grasslands

Following completion of the

Trustom Pond Refuge Grasslands

Management Plan (1995), the

Refuge has systematically

converted former hayfields and

crop lands (corn and potato) to

native grasses for the benefit of

grassland nesting birds. We have

now restored 85 acres of a

targeted 125 acres of little

bluestem and big bluestem

grasslands on the Refuge. Under

a cooperative agreement with the

Meyer family, 40 acres were

restored on adjacent private

property, with plans to restore

another 15 acres within 2 years.

The restoration process converts

old fields by discing (with an

offset harrow), plowing,

harrowing, packing (using a

roller), fertilizing, and seeding

them before June. The original

seed mix used was typically big

bluestem (50 percent), little

bluestem (20 percent), Indian

grass (20 percent), and

switchgrass (10 percent).

Recently, the seed mix is

primarily little bluestem, using

the other species more sparingly

depending on the topography,

soils and hydrology. Weeds are

chemically treated with

herbicides, generally soon after

germination.

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Table 2-9. Land cover at Trustom Pond Refuge, Washington County, Rhode Island

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

Cover-type

Agriculture

Developed

Exposed rock

Native emergent wetland

Native forest upland

Native forest 

wetland

Native grass

Native shrub upland

Native shrub 

wetland

Non-native 

emergent wetland

Non-native forest upland

Non-native shrub upland

Sand

Vegetated sand dunes

Water

Total

Acreage

18.9

5.0

4.2

5.1

209.3

34.8

94.6

26.2

7.8

25.0

0.1

13.4

18.0

12.1

168.0

642.5

Percentage

2.9%

0.8

0.7

0.8

32.6

5.4

14.7

4.1

1.2

3.9

-

2.1

2.8

1.9

26.1

100%
Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-49

A combination of mowing and burning has maintained the newly

established grasslands. An experimental burn in Field 6 in 1998 had

very promising results. The burn was designed to consume dead

vegetation and control weeds. Established fields are mowed twice in

the first year for weed control. Horseweed and ragweed are the

principle problem species. Current management strategies require

that restored grasslands be mowed or burned every 3 to 5 years to

control woody vegetation. We monitor during both the growing and

dormant seasons using photo points and Robel pole readings. A

Trustom Pond Grasslands Progress Report (1998) makes several

recommendations about the mix of seed and the timing of burning,

mowing, and herbicide application (Flores 1998).

Shrublands and Forest

Shrublands and forest compose 39 percent of Trustom Pond Refuge,

mostly on its western portion. Shrublands are dominated by

shadbush, northern arrowwood, and bayberry, whereas forests are

dominated mainly by red maple and black oak. We brush-hog

approximately 5 acres of old field brush land (formerly sheep

pasture), primarily composed of Autumn olive and black cherry. It is

too rocky to maintain as grasslands, and is being maintained as early

successional shrub habitat.

Invasive Plants

Invasive species have several strongholds on the Refuge.

Phragmites is found around much of the edge of Trustom Pond, and

is impacting the population there of State-listed sea pink (Sabatia

stellaris, endangered); autumn olive is found on the edges of most

fields; honeysuckle are found on the edges of shrublands and forest;

and Asian bittersweet is found along hedgerows adjacent to fields.

Phragmites dominates approximately 25 acres of emergent wetland;

invasive plants dominate at least 14 acres of upland on the Refuge. 

Herbicide treatments and mechanical control on approximately 5

acres of Phragmites on the eastern side of Trustom Pond involved

spraying with Rodeo and removing dead vegetation by mowing and

burning. Follow-up treatments have been inconsistent, and some

regrowth has occurred.

We have attempted to control autumn olive in recent years by using a

farm tractor to push the shrubs over and then burning them. We have

also applied cambial treatments of Garlon 3A directly to the stems.

Bayberry.
Chapter 2 

2-50 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Threatened and Endangered Species

Piping plover is the only federally-listed species breeding on

Trustom Pond Refuge. Other endangered species use the Refuge

during migration: bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), roseate

tern (Sterna dougalli), and the recently de-listed peregrine falcon.

Management and protection for piping plovers is a priority for the

Refuge Complex. Tremendous resources are channeled into

protecting and monitoring nesting beach habitats, both on Moonstone

Beach and non-Refuge beaches along the South Shore. It is important

to recognize that many other shorebird species benefit from piping

plover management as well, especially the State-listed least tern

(threatened). A description of plover management programs both on

the Refuge and on other South Shore beaches follows.

Refuge Plover Program

Since 1982, Refuge staff have protected nesting piping plover and

least tern on Moonstone Beach by using different combinations of

beach closures, law enforcement, biological monitoring, predator

exclosures, and predator control. The colorful history of those

management techniques spans public acceptance, support, protests,

and lawsuits. The Compatibility Determination for Piping Plover

Management on Trustom Pond Refuge (1990) and the Refuge Annual

Narratives of the 1980’s describe that management in detail.

Before 1982, the Refuge owned

2,640 feet of beachfront, but did

not record nesting details,

although observations in May of

nesting plover have been

documented. No restrictions on

public use were in force at that

time. In 1982, the Audubon

Society transferred its former

Moonstone Waterfowl Refuge to

the Service, extending the

Refuge beachfront to 1 mile.

During the 1982 nesting season,

we fenced individual, active nest

sites in that mile of beach with

oak posts and single strand wire,

and posted warning signs. We

allowed public use, including

sunbathing, to continue on the

remainder of the beach. During

the breeding season, sunbathers would lie right up against the

fencing, and both beach users and their dogs frequently trespassed

in the fenced areas. All three plover pairs abandoned their nests.

In 1982, the New England Naturist Association filed a lawsuit in

federal court against closing Moonstone Beach. The lawsuit was

dismissed, but protests by this group and other beach users

continued for several seasons.

Peregrine falcon.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

Year

nesting pairs

# fledge/pair

Figure 2-3. Nesting pairs and fledging rate per pair of piping plovers on

Moonstone Beach, Trustom Pond Refuge. In 1999, the estimated carrying capacity

of this site was 10 nests (Hecht 1999).
Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-51

In 1983, 1984, and 1985, we closed three-quarters of a mile of the

entire beach, fencing it with double strand wire mounted on posts to

prevent public use from the western Refuge boundary to the

eastern edge of Trustom Pond breachway. The beach closure

extended from May 1 through August 31 (nesting season). We hired

a Biologist Aide to monitor nest sites and inform the public about

the closure. Law enforcement personnel were present on weekends.

In 1985, we replaced the wire strand fencing with wire mesh

fencing, to ensure that the public and their dogs would stay out, and

began trapping predators.

In 1986 and 1987, we posted 800 feet of beach east of the Trustom

Pond breachway, in addition to the three-quarters of a mile already

posted. In 1986, the piping plover became a federally listed species

under the Endangered Species Act. That listing increased

management concern for plover, legally obligating the Refuge to

ensure plover protection and restoration.

A Master Plan for Trustom Pond Refuge (January 1988) stipulates

that all public use activities cease on Moonstone Beach above the

mean high tide line. That plan also proposes “...to seek a

management agreement with the State of Rhode Island prohibiting

public use of the intertidal zone adjacent to the Refuge between

April 1 and August 31.”

In 1988 and 1989, we fenced all of the Refuge beach from April 6 to

August 31, except a 137-foot section under permit to the Town of

South Kingstown to operate a public beach. The RI CMRC issued

the Refuge a Notice of Violation for constructing a fence without

filing a consistency determination. The New England Naturists

Association also filed a request for a preliminary injunction in federal

court to stop the fencing. The court denied the injunction (C.A. No

88-0218T). A new group, Taxpayers for Access to Moonstone Beach,

surfaced with a petition requesting that the Service reopen

Moonstone Beach. The beach, however, remained closed.

A Piping Plover Management Compatibility Determination (1990) for

Trustom Pond Refuge acknowledged that the Master Plan of 1988

had not been fully implemented. Its findings determined that

Moonstone Beach be closed to all public entry above the mean high

tide line, from April 1 through September 15; that fencing be erected

around the closure area; that no sunbathing or other non-wildlifedependent recreational activities be permitted; and, that no permit

be issued to the Town of South Kingstown to operate a public beach

on Refuge land.
Chapter 2 

2-52 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

The current plover management strategy at Moonstone Beach began

in 1990, and includes:

■ Erecting symbolic fencing to close the beach to public use above

the mean high tide line from April 1 to September 15;

■ Providing an outdoor exhibit with information on plover and their

management;

■ Erecting observation platforms for monitoring nests;

■ Erecting predator exclosures around nests;

■ Erecting predator drift fencing on the back side of the dunes to

direct predators away from the beach nesting sites;

■ Using law enforcement officers to patrol the beach during the

closure period;

■ Monitoring the activities of piping plover nests and chicks; and 

■ Controlling mammalian predators like red fox, coyote, mink, longtailed weasel, skunk, opossum, and raccoon through selective

trapping.

The Town of South Kingstown owns a 50’-wide section of beach,

directly out from the end of Moonstone Beach Road.

Since 1982, when plover management began on Trustom Pond Refuge,

plover nesting has increased from a low of 2 pairs to a high of 11 pairs.

However, fledgling rates per pair have stayed relatively constant.

In 1999, we assessed the current condition of piping plover habitat in

a field review of Moonstone Beach, Maschaug Beach (a.k.a. East

Beach, Watch Hill), and approximately one-third of Ninigret Beach,

including all of the Ninigret Refuge barrier beach 

(Hecht, et al. 1999). They ranked those beaches using the “Habitat

Ranks and Provisional Density Objectives for Breeding Piping

Plovers in Massachusetts (Mass DFW 1996). Rankings were

assigned solely on physical and vegetative attributes of habitat,

without regard to observed or reported sources of human

disturbance or predation.

They estimated that Trustom Pond had a “provisional abundance

objective” of 10 nesting pairs. This should be interpreted as a

maximum carrying capacity based on physical attributes only. Hecht

noted the carrying capacity is subject to rapid change due to storms,

changes in sand deposition and erosion patterns, and other beachforming processes. The Revised Recovery Plan (1996) also lists an

estimated carrying capacity of 10 pairs.

Significant information needs for effectively managing plover

remain, primarily related to the control of mammalian predators,

which are the suspected major cause of plover loss at Moonstone

Beach. Information on control methods, predator populations, the

effects of aversive conditioning on predators, the effectiveness of

dawn and dusk “guarding” of nest sites, and the seasonal availability

of food for plover are all critical information needs.
Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-53

South Shore Plover Program

Since 1992, Refuge staff have helped monitor sites and protect piping

plover on as many as nine other beaches along the South Coast. This

highly successful cooperative management has resulted in a dramatic

increase in the number of nesting plover and fledged chicks. The offRefuge plover protection program relies primarily on grants and

cooperative funding with RI DEM. An annual report summarizes

each year’s statistics for nesting pairs and productivity and other

relevant information on nesting sites, disturbance, and losses. It also

recommends improvements in the program. These annual reports

are available from the Refuge Complex office upon request. The

latest is “Rhode Island Piping Plover Restoration Project:1999.”

Off-refuge management resembles the on-Refuge program, with

symbolic fencing of areas around the nest sites, exclosure fencing

around each nest, monitoring nest activity, and educating the public

on plovers and the problems associated with unleashed pets and

litter. Since off-refuge management began in 1992, the number of

nesting pairs has increased significantly at some sites. Figure 2-4

provides a summary of each site.

The field evaluation conducted by Hecht, et al. in 1999, determined

that Ninigret Beach (referred to in Figure 2-4 as East Beach) has a

provisional abundance objective of 20 pairs; Maschaug Beach

(referred to in Figure 2-4 as Watch Hill) has a provisional abundance

objective of nine pairs. The Revised Recovery Plan (1996) listed

estimated carrying capacities of 10 pairs and 8 pairs for Ninigret and

Maschaug Beaches, respectively. 

Least tern (Sterna antillarium), a State-listed species (threatened),

has also benefitted from and responded favorably to strategies to

protect nesting piping plover. At Moonstone Beach, exclosures

around an entire tern colony and solar-powered electric fencing has

been used to deter predators. Tern numbers on the beach have been

increasing; RI DEM counted 160 individuals in 1998. Despite

predator trapping, however, small mammalian predators like mink

and red fox continue to significantly affect tern fledgling rates and

adult survival. The fencing appears to be effective only against dogs;

small mammals are able to get through. Terns do not always nest in

the fenced area, further complicating their protection.

A variety of State-listed species are also found on the Refuge,

predominately plants. These include wild coffee (Triosteum

aurantiacum), hyssop-leaved hedge nettle (Stachys hyssopifolia),

dragon’s mouth orchid (Arethusa bulbosa), Indian grass, sea pink,

and wood lily (Lilium philidelphicum). State-listed vertebrates

found on the Refuge include four-toed salamander (Hemidactylus

scutullatum) and osprey (Pandion haliaetus). 

Birds

The diversity of vegetation and habitat types within Trustom Pond

Refuge gives rise to a very diverse avian fauna. Appendix D lists, by

season, resident and migratory birds using the Refuge.
Chapter 2 

2-54 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Figure 2-4. Nesting success of piping plovers in coastal Rhode Island from 1992 to 1999. See Figure 2-3 for nesting sucess at

Trustom Pond.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Nesting pairs

Fledging rate

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Napatree Point

East Beach Watch Hill

Narrow River Green Hill

Charlestown Beach Quonochontaug

nesting pairs

chicks/pair
Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-55

Waterfowl

Trustom Pond is well known in southern New England as a premiere

migrating and wintering spot for waterfowl. It is one of the few

coastal ponds in Rhode Island where minimal public use near the

pond offers an undisturbed resting area for waterfowl. For its size,

the pond attracts a significant diversity of waterfowl, some species in

very large numbers. Table 2-10 displays peak numbers for

waterfowl for the last eight years.

Shorebirds

Other than piping plover and least tern, many shorebird species also

benefit from the seasonal closure of Moonstone Beach, particularly

during fall migration. Appendix D lists species that stop on the

Refuge during migration. Maintaining a beach closure through

September 15 ensures that migrating shorebirds have an

undisturbed rest area on Moonstone Beach.

Mute Swans

Mute swans are a non-native,

invasive species of waterfowl

introduced from Europe in the

late 1800’s. This species is very

aggressive during nesting

season, and will kill the young of

other waterfowl nesting nearby.

Adult swans produce about 2

pounds of manure per day,

significantly increasing nutrient

loading in the pond. Although it

has not been proven conclusively,

it is surmised that mute swans

are a significant contributor to

Trustom Pond water quality

problems (see SAV, above). 

Mute swan populations on Trustom Pond typically average five pair

during nesting season, but increase dramatically during the summer,

when the birds use the pond for molting. The swans remain

flightless for several weeks until they grow new flight feathers. As

depicted in Figure 2-5, mute swan numbers have been widely

erratic, but generally have been declining since 1993.

Nesting mute swans have been actively controlled on Trustom Pond

by addling eggs on the nest. RI DEM uses this method across the

State to control swan numbers.

Figure 2-5. Peak mute swan use at Trustom Pond from 1968 to 1998.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997

Number of S

wans
Chapter 2 

2-56 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Table 2-10. Peak waterfowl numbers on Trustom Pond Refuge from 1992 to 1999.

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Snow goose 1 200 4 - 1 40 33 2

Brant - - - - - 1- -

Canada goose 885 1000 581 342 1115 1000 775 1106

Wood duck 16 18 12 27322

Green-winged teal 24 25 51 52 16 39 81 96

Blue-winged teal 14 5 20 2 - 2 - 20

American black duck 249 309 360 200 104 235 210 215

Mallard 92 185 193 78 41 406 73 93

Northern pintail 4 7 2 9 12 4 18 17

Northern shoveler - 5 2 - - - 3-

Gadwall 72 35 9 15 10 5 8 11

American wigeon 46 30 37 7 20 4 8 3

Canvasback 13 82 8 7 275 54 252 44

Redhead - 3 - 1 - 18 12 2

Ring-necked duck 3 9 2 5 4 10 7 2

Greater scaup 1260 801 332 375 420 551 470 500

Lesser scaup 1 1 - 265 196 250 568 -

Common eider 4 - - 800 2500 75 300 75

King eider - - - - - - 11

Harlequin duck - - - 1- - - -

Oldsquaw 1 - - - 2- - -

Black scoter 18 - 35 1 275 63 90 17

Surf scoter 180 - - 30 35 20 30 1

White-winged scoter 5 2 40 3 130 56 140 77

Common goldeneye 37 69 51 46 102 236 285 195

Barrow's goldeneye - - - - - - 5-

Bufflehead 1 22 6 33 5 8 15 57

Hooded merganser 10 39 50 46 10 48 45 89

Common merganser - 9 1 330 21 6 98 2

Red-breated merganser 15 116 187 50 55 197 325 134

Ruddy duck 36 285 448 685 398 1097 776 1244

Mute swan 194 225 60 32 11 54 22 15

Red-breasted merganser
Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-57

Grassland Birds

Trustom Pond Refuge is one of the few protected places left in

Rhode Island where bobolink and eastern meadowlark still nest. In

1995, the Refuge began a grasslands management program aimed at

restoring up to 200 acres of former old fields, shrub lands, and crop

lands to native grasslands. Both eastern meadowlark and bobolink

are target species for the grassland restoration program. Upland

sandpiper and grasshopper sparrow are also very desirable, but the

amount of acres probably limits the ability to support breeding

populations of these species. In 1997, an upland sandpiper was

observed for the first time in one restored field, but we have not

documented nesting. To increase nesting opportunities for grassland

birds, Refuge staff developed the following objectives for the

grasslands program:

■ Achieve at least 90-percent coverage by native grasslands plants;

■ Maintain less than 1-percent coverage by shrubs;

■ Achieve a 25-percent increase in total numbers of nesting pairs of

any of the following grassland nesting species: mallard, American

black duck, gadwall, green-winged teal, field sparrow, eastern

meadowlark, eastern bluebird, bobolink, American woodcock, and

bobwhite quail.

Objectives for both vegetation and wildlife use were based on all

grassland acreage over a 3-year period. Occupancy by grassland birds

will depend on the maturation of the fields into suitable nesting cover.

This past year, we began to reevaluate our targeted species

composition for grassland plants. Historic, early successional, native

coastal sandplain habitat was likely a mosaic of young shrublands and

grasslands. As we develop our Habitat Management Plan, we will

continue to consider habitat patchiness and the habitat implications for

bird species.

Neotropical Migrants

Since 1993, the Refuge has cooperated with the University of Rhode

Island to monitor Neotropical species of interest in a red maple

swamp on the Refuge, using the Monitoring Avian Productivity

Station (MAPS) program. Each year during the nesting season, 10

mist nets are used for 6 hours every 10 days to catch birds. This

project has demonstrated that the swamp is important nesting

habitat for wood thrush, veery, northern water thrush, Canada

warbler, and a variety of other Neotropical species. MAPS results

are available at the Refuge Complex office.
Chapter 2 

2-58 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Mammals

A study by Paton, et al. (1998) found nine species of small mammals

on the Refuge. The most abundant species was the masked shrew,

followed by the short tailed shrew, red-backed vole, meadow vole,

meadow jumping mouse, star-nosed vole, water shrew, and smoky

shrew. Large mammals include the usual common species: deer, fox,

raccoon, mink, coyote, cottontail rabbit, woodchuck, and skunk.

In March 1999, an aerial reconnaissance of approximately threequarters of the Refuge counted 22 deer. This number was

surprisingly low, since the high browse line along trails and openings

indicates a much greater density, near or exceeding carrying

capacity. We need additional surveys of deer population, and an

evaluation of Refuge carrying capacity.

Under a partnership agreement with the Mystic Marine Aquarium,

Trustom Pond Refuge has been designated the official burial site for

stranded marine mammals in Rhode Island. Burial sites have all

been mapped and catalogued by Mystic Aquarium for future

scientific research.

Fish

Approximately 10 species of fish currently inhabit Trustom and

Card’s Ponds, although relative abundance cannot be determined. It

is important to recognize the ecology of fish in Trustom and Card’s

Ponds has changed dramatically over the years with the reduction in

breaching that has occurred. The large populations of smelt, oysters,

white perch, and alewife that supported a commercial industry are no

longer there. Some white perch, alewife, and flounder will use

Trustom Pond if breaching coincides with their runs. Other species in

Trustom Pond include Atlantic silver-sides, mummichogs, sheepshead

minnows, banded killifish, striped killifish, herring, mullet, and

pipefish (Trustom Pond draft EA/Master Plan May 1987).

Invertebrates

Information on the availability of intertidal invertebrates is

significant for shorebird management. Systematic surveys of

invertebrates have been done on certain portions of Trustom Pond

Refuge. A 1997 summer sample of invertebrates collected at

Moonstone Beach was compared to other beaches to determine

seasonal abundance of invertebrates in the intertidal zone and on the

beach itself. A beach invertebrate survey was also conducted during

the North Cape Oil Spill Damage Assessment (1998) and during a

piping plover behavior/disturbance study (Hoopes, et al. 1989). A

study to determine the presence of northeastern beach tiger beetle

occurred in 1996. No northeastern tiger beetles were found, but two

other species of beach tiger beetle occur on the Refuge.

White tailed Deer.
Chapter 2

Draft CCP/EA – December 2000 2-59

Since 1993, several tick surveys have been done in the forested

uplands of the Refuge to document the presence of deer ticks

carrying Lyme disease. One survey showed that Trustom Pond had

the second highest density of deer ticks in the state. Surveys of

Trustom Pond benthos were done during the 1970’s by Refuge staff.

Surveys were also conducted during the North Cape Oil Spill

Damage Assessment, and by the Greater Scaup Contaminants Study

(Cohen 1998). Reports are on file at the Refuge Complex office.

Reptiles and Amphibians

Two studies of reptiles and amphibians on Trustom Pond Refuge

have been done (Johnson 1994; Paton, et al. 1998). Johnson found 11

species of amphibians and 5 species of reptiles. Paton, et al. found

10 species of amphibian and 4 species of reptiles. Species richness

results were identical in the two studies. Both are on file at the

Refuge office.

The significance of the Refuge Complex for amphibians should not be

underestimated. Paton, et al. (1998) states that “...the Rhode Island

Refuge Complex provides critical habitat for amphibians in southern

Rhode Island.” These may be the only lands where these species can

exist south of Route 1 due to suburbanization. Further, Chris Raithel

(RI DEM) has stated that Route 1 is a complete barrier to amphibian

movement, reaffirming the importance of the Refuge Complex in

sustaining meta-populations of amphibians and reptiles.

An interesting result of the Paton study is that Trustom Pond Refuge

has some of the largest populations of amphibians documented in

Rhode Island, including four-toed salamander, spotted salamander

(Ambystoma maculatum), and red-spotted newt (Notophthalumus v.

viridescens). 

Cultural Resources

A 1982 archaeological survey (Morenon, et al. 1983) found Trustom

Pond to be of minor importance to understanding precolonial history

in the area. Nine out of 19 sites examined contained evidence of

prehistoric activity, but the densities were low. No sites were

deemed important enough for inclusion in the National Register of

Historic Places. However, areas not surveyed are considered highly

sensitive for archeological deposits. Service archaeologists identified

additional sites in 1996 and 1999, but neither site was investigated

further, or included in the National Register.

Frog
Public Uses

Estimated public use for Trustom Pond Refuge in 1998 was 45,000

total visitor days. As stated earlier, the Refuge Complex has not

established a consistent process for collecting and documenting

visitation data.

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

environmental education and interpretation. Waterfowl and dove

hunting occurs on approximately 20 acres of upland field on the eastern

portion of the Refuge. About 24 percent of the Refuge (151 acres) is

closed to hunting through an Audubon Society deed restriction.

Of all these activities, only environmental education, wildlife

observation and interpretation, photography, and waterfowl and dove

hunting formally have been determined compatible with Refuge

purposes. Non-wildlife-dependent activities that now occur on the

Refuge include jogging, berry picking, horseback riding, swimming,

and sunbathing.

In 1994, the Refuge Manager formally determined that dog walking,

jogging, swimming, and using the beach were incompatible with

Refuge purposes. Except during the plover nesting season, its

enforcement has been inconsistent.

Vandalism to signs, noncompliance with the piping plover beach

closure, loitering in parking lots, inappropriate sexual behavior, and

the threat of Lyme disease are all current issues for managing public

use at Trustom Pond Refuge.

The visitor contact station was completed in 1998 through a

Challenge Cost Share grant. Refuge Complex staff, volunteers, and

the Friends Group designed and built the facility. It will offer a

location to disseminate information to visitors, provide a base of

operations for trail wardens and law enforcement staff, and provide

an environmental education and interpretive site. Volunteers have

staffed the visitor contact station since the summer of 1999.

School groups use the farm pond as an outdoor classroom to study

pond ecology. A wooden dock with benches is available. Also, an

outdoor exhibit is set up on Moonstone Beach during the plover

nesting season to share information on barrier beach and dune

ecology and piping plover management.

Trail System

Two trails compose the 3-mile trail system. Viewing platforms at

Osprey Point and Otter Point offer wonderful opportunities to

observe and photograph wildlife. Unfortunately, neither trail is

completely barrier-free; a portion of one trail is ADA-accessible as

far as the farm pond. We need to provide ADA accessibility on at

least one trail.

Chapter 2 

2-60 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-1

American burying beetle

Christopher Raithel, RI DEM

■ Formulating Alternatives

■ Features Common to all Alternatives 

■ Clarifiying Terms or References

■ Developing Land Protection Strategies 

■ Description of Alternatives Fully Developed 

■ Alternative A: No Action (Current Management)

■ Alternative B: The Service’s Proposed Action 

■ Alternative C 

■ Alternative D 

■ Alternatives or Actions Considered, but Eliminated from

Further Consideration 

■ RONS/MMS Projects Associated with each Alternative 

■ Staffing Charts Associated with each Alternative 

■ Compatibility Determinations

■ Monitoring

■ Alternatives Comparison Matrix

Chapter 3

Alternatives, Including the

Service’s Proposed Alternative
This chapter describes and fully evaluates four alternatives spanning

a reasonable range of actions for managing the Rhode Island

National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Refuge Complex) and addressing

the key issues identified in Chapter 1. It explains how we formulated

the four alternatives, describes each one in detail, and also discusses

some other management actions that we considered but did not fully

develop into alternatives.

One of our primary objectives is to clearly define the differences

among the alternatives. At the end of this chapter, you will find a

matrix that compares and contrasts the alternatives by their specific

management actions and strategies in tabular format (Table 3-2). We

organized that matrix to associate actions and strategies with their

function in addressing key issues.

NEPA also requires our analysis of a No Action Alternative, which

can be defined or presented in one of two ways: (1) continue current

management activities; or (2) take no action (literally, don’t do

anything). In this draft CCP/EA, Alternative A fulfills the first

definition; it continues our current management activities. In the

analysis that follows, we refer to Alternative A as Current

Management. It provides the baseline for comparing and

contrasting the other alternatives.

Formulating Alternatives

Alternatives are packages of complementary management strategies

and specific actions for achieving the missions of the National

Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) and the Service, the vision

and goals of the Refuge Complex, and the purpose for establishing

each refuge. Primarily, they propose different ways of supporting

the goals and responding to key issues, and secondarily, different

ways of dealing with the other issues, management concerns, and

opportunities identified during the planning process. While those

elements underlie every alternative, each is distinguished by its

intensity and timing in committing the resources necessary to

achieve desired future conditions.

We began developing alternatives by evaluating and addressing each

key issue and relating its relationship with our stated goals for the

Refuge Complex. We considered a range of management actions for

resolving each key issue, from a minimum that requires little funding

and staffing, to a maximum that requires considerable funding,

staffing, infrastructure, and partnership development. We also

considered how the strategies of each alternative would interact,

whether they would be compatible with the purposes for establishing

each Refuge, and the reality of accomplishing each set of projects or

administrative activities during the next 15 years.

3-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 
Features Common to all Alternatives

Existing Refuge Plans

All of the alternatives incorporate the completed EAs, management

plans, and current step-down plans listed below. Some of the

alternatives build on these documents, but do not fundamentally

change their original decisions.

■ 1990 Piping Plover Management (A Compatibility Determination

for Trustom Pond Refuge)

■ 1994 Grasslands Management Plan for Trustom Pond Refuge

■ 1995 Fire Management Plan for the Refuge Complex, EA 

■ 1995 Animal Damage Control Plan for the Refuge Complex

■ 1997 Habitat Restoration Project: Ninigret Refuge, EA

■ 1998 Continuity of Operations Plan for the Refuge Complex

We need to complete the following step-down plans, which are

necessary components of implementing each of the alternatives

(future Service policy may require additional plans):

■ Hunt Plan (update to include waterfowl on Ninigret Refuge) by 2002

■ Habitat Management Plan (highest priority step down plan) by 2003

■ Habitat and Species Inventory and Monitoring Plan by 2003

■ Integrated Predator Management Plan by 2004

■ Visitor Services Plan by 2004

■ Fishing Plan by 2005

■ Facilities and Sign Plan by 2005

■ Cultural Resources Protection Plan by 2010

■ Compatibility Determinations for Wildlife-Dependent Recreational

Uses (Appendix E includes revised compatibility determinations)

Two research projects previously determined compatible would

remain in effect under any alternative: the Moonstone Beach Profile

Study on Trustom Pond Refuge (URI); and the Lyme Diseasebearing Tick Study on Ninigret Refuge (URI). The conditions under

which they were initiated have not changed; thus, they are still

determined to be compatible.

Tribal Coordination

Increasing communication with the Narragansett Indian Tribal

Council is common to all alternatives. They recommend developing a

partnership agreement to establish a mutually beneficial working

relationship that includes cooperating in environmental education

and interpretation and protecting cultural resources.

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-3

Chapter 3 

Moonstone Beach, Trustom Pond

Refuge. Public use was quite high

before enforcement of the seasonal

closure in 1982. USFWS photo
Protecting and Managing Cultural Resources

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

and historic resources. Under all of the alternatives, we will comply

with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act before

disturbing any ground. Compliance may require any or all of the

following: a State Historic Preservation Records survey, literature

survey, or field survey.

Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments

Annual refuge revenue sharing payments to Middletown, New

Shoreham, Narragansett, South Kingstown, and Charlestown will

continue under each alternative (Ch. 2, Figure 2-1). Future

increases in payments will be commensurate with increases in the

appraised fair market values of Refuge Complex lands, new

acquisitions of land, and new Congressional appropriations.

Partnerships and Volunteer Opportunities

All alternatives support partnerships and volunteer opportunities to

the fullest extent possible. These are vital to successfully managing

the Refuge Complex. Each alternative in particular cultivates our

relationship with the Friends of the National Wildlife Refuges of

Rhode Island. With its mission goals so closely aligned with the

goals of the Refuge Complex, the Friends of the Refuges will be

indispensable in outreach, education, and project support.

Contaminant Sites Remediation

Contaminants and military debris: See Chapter 2 for a full history

and description of the five sites affecting the Refuge Complex.

These sites need remediation because of their obvious impacts on

wildlife, habitats, human health and safety. In all of the alternatives,

Refuge Complex staff would continue coordinating with the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Rhode Island Department

of Environmental Management (RI DEM), Army Corps of

Engineers (ACOE), or delegated authorities, to finalize remediation

plans and begin cleaning up CERLIS sites. All of the alternatives

also include a Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) project

(Appendix F) to clean up military debris on Ninigret Refuge and the

farm dump site on Trustom Pond Refuge.

Adaptive Management

Common to all alternatives is a strategy of adaptive management to

keep the CCP relevant and current through scientific research and

management. We acknowledge that our information on species and

ecosystems is incomplete, provisional, and subject to change as our

knowledge base improves. The need for adaptive management is all

the more compelling today.

“The earth’s ecosystems are being modified in new ways and at

faster rates than at any other time in their nearly 4 billion year

history. These new and rapid changes present significant challenges

to our ability to predict the inherently uncertain responses and

behaviors of ecosystems.” (Christensen, et al. 1996)

3-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 
Chapter 3 

Objectives and strategies must be adaptable in responding to new

information and spatial and temporal changes. We will continually

evaluate management actions, both formally and informally, through

monitoring or research to reconsider whether their original

assumptions and predictions are still valid. In this way, management

becomes an active process of learning what really works. It is

important that the public understand and appreciate the adaptive

nature of natural resource management.

The Refuge Manager is responsible for changing management

actions if they do not produce the desired conditions. Significant

changes may warrant additional NEPA analysis; minor changes will

not, but will be documented in annual monitoring, project evaluation

reports, or the Annual Refuge Narrative.

Maintaining Existing Facilities

Periodic maintenance and renovation of existing facilities is a critical

need, regardless of the alternative finally selected, to ensure safety

and accessibility for Refuge Complex staff and visitors. Existing

facilities include the Sachuest Point Refuge visitor center, Block

Island-Beane Point facility, Trustom Pond Refuge visitor contact

station, Refuge Complex maintenance compound, and numerous

parking areas, observation platforms, and trails. Many of these

facilities are not currently Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)

compliant; upgrading is needed. Appendix F displays the fiscal year

(FY) 2000 Maintenance Management System (MMS) database list of

backlogged maintenance entries for the Refuge Complex.

Future maintenance needs will vary among the alternatives, since they

differ in the amount of new facility construction. Appendix F also

identifies new construction in the project listing for each alternative.

Controlling Mosquitos

Within the past 2 years, fatalities from mosquito-borne Eastern

Equine Encephalitis and West Nile virus have elevated public health

concerns about mosquito control in the Middle Atlantic States.

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

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

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

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

Regional Contaminants Specialist pre-approved those applications.

All of the alternatives handle this issue similarly. In general, we

would not use larvicides on the Refuge Complex to control

mosquitos. However, in cooperation with neighboring towns and the

Mosquito Abatement Office, we would consider applying larvicides

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

health risk. Region 5 is now evaluating this issue in preparation for

an EIS. This effort may result in Service policy or Regional

guidelines being incorporated into CCPs as warranted.

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-5
Trapping

The Refuge Complex will continue its administrative trapping

program for predator population management purposes only. It

emphasizes reducing the threat of predators to nesting piping plover

and least tern and removing animals that pose a risk to human

health and safety. None of the alternatives propose a recreational or

commercial trapping program.

Permitting Special Use (including Research)

Under all alternatives, requests for special use permits will be

evaluated for appropriateness and compatibility on a case-by-case

basis. Those requests with the potential to provide a benefit to the

Refuge Complex would generally be approved, once they have been

determined appropriate and compatible. To maintain the natural

landscapes of the refuges, any proposals for permanent or semipermanent structures would not be allowed, except under

extenuating circumstances unforseen at this time. Research on

species of concern and their habitats will continue to be a priority.

Existing, approved special use permits will continue in all

alternatives. Alternatives do differ, however, in shell fishing permit

requirements at Ninigret Refuge.

Additional NEPA Analysis

The National Environmental Policy Act requires a site-specific

analysis of impacts for all federal actions. These impacts are to be

disclosed in either an EA or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Many of the actions and associated impacts that the four alternatives

propose are described in enough detail to comply with NEPA, and

would not require additional environmental analysis. Although this

is not an all-inclusive list, the following examples fall into this

category: protecting piping plover; restoring area-defined

grasslands and wetlands; implementing priority wildlife-dependent

public use programs (except hunting); acquiring land; and controlling

invasive plants.

Other proposed actions that are not described in enough detail to

comply with the site-specific analysis requirements of NEPA or

Service policy require separate NEPA documents. Examples of

actions that will require a separate EA include: construction of the

visitor center and headquarters; new hunting opportunities; and

future wetlands restoration projects that have not been fully

developed or delineated in this document.

Clarifying Terms or References

Unless otherwise indicated, the Refuge Complex staff will be

responsible for coordinating and implementing the management

actions and strategies presented in each alternative.

We use the term “barrier free” when we are referring to structures

that are ADA compliant. 

3-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 
Chapter 3 

The South Shore Piping Plover Restoration Project refers to the offrefuge monitoring and management of nine piping plover nesting

sites along the South Shore of Rhode Island. These sites include: 1)

Napatree Point, 2) Quonochontaug Beach Conservation Area, 3) East

Beach - Ninigret Conservation Area, 4) East Beach - Watch Hill, 5)

Green Hill Beach, 6) Charlestown Beach, 7) East Matunuk State

Beach, 8) Narrow River, and 9) Scarborough Beach.

We frequently use the term “partners”. All of the alternatives

involve our volunteers and the following key partners:

■ Southern New England/New York Bight Coastal Ecosystems

Office (FWS)

■ Ecological Services, New England Field Office (FWS)

■ Friends of the National Wildlife Refuges of Rhode Island

■ Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM)

■ The Nature Conservancy, Rhode Island and Block Island Offices

■ University of Rhode Island, Department of Natural Resources

Science (URI)

■ Audubon Society of Rhode Island

■ Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council (RI CRMC)

■ Local land trusts

■ Narragansett Indian Tribal Council

■ Norman Bird Sanctuary

■ Frosty Drew Nature Center

Developing Land Protection Strategies

Developing a land protection strategy for each alternative was one of

the most time-consuming and complicated aspects of this draft

CCP/EA. This effort warrants separate, detailed discussion before

presenting the alternatives.

Table 3-1 associates proposed Service acquisition (in acres, by Refuge)

with each Alternative. Maps 3-1 to 3-5 show the boundaries of Level

1 and Level 2 Focus Areas. Estimated Service acquisition in Table 3-1

assumes fee title acquisition from willing sellers, although we would

consider purchasing conservation easements on a case-by-case basis.

Our land acquisition policy is to obtain the minimum interest

necessary to satisfy refuge objectives. Conservation easements can

sometimes be more cost-effective than acquisition in fee title. In

general, however, any conservation easement must preclude

destruction or degradation of habitat, and allow refuge staff to

adequately manage uses of the area for the benefit of wildlife.

Because the purchase of development rights also must be included,

the cost of purchasing conservation easements often approaches that

of fee title purchase, thus rendering an easement less practical.

Nevertheless, we encourage donations of easements and voluntary

deed restrictions prohibiting habitat destruction.

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-7
3-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 

Table 3-1. Land acquisition strategies by Alternative.

Refuge

Block Island Refuge

Ninigret Refuge

Chafee Refuge

Sachuest Point

Refuge

Trustom Pond

Refuge

Total

Focus Area Level

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

Alternatives A & D

(acres to be acquired)*

(0 acres)

–

(0 acres)

–

(377 acres)

–

(0 acres)

–

(358 acres)

–

(735 acres)

–

Service’s Proposed

Action; Alt. B**

100 acres

$7 million

–

500 acres

$10 million

–

1,000 acres

$20 million

–

300 acres

$8 million

–

1,300 acres

$26 million

–

3,200 acres

$71 million

–

Alternative C**

150 acres

$10 million

–

700 acres

$14 million

2,400 acres

$24 million

3,000 acres

$60 million

0 acres

300 acres

$8 million

1,200 acres

$45 million

1,700 acres

$34 million

2,100 acres

$21 million

5,850 acres

$126 million

5,700 acres

$90 million

* Acres in ( )’s represent those not yet acquired within the existing, approved acquisition boundaries.

** These acres and costs are inclusive of the lands not yet acquired within the existing, approved

acquisition boundaries.
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-9

Map 3-1
3-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Map 3-2
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-11

Map 3-3
3-12 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Map 3-4
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-13

Map 3-5
In addition, the Service could negotiate management agreements with

local and State agencies, accept conservation easements, and pursue

cooperative partnerships or voluntary land donations, all of which

would lower the estimated costs predicted in Table 3-1.

At the outset of our planning process in Spring 1998, we identified a

study area of ecologically connected habitats in southern Rhode

Island and similar, contiguous habitats in Connecticut and

Massachusetts (see Ch. 1 and 2). Using the expertise of our Southern

New England/New York Bight Coastal Ecosystems Program office,

we determined areas of high biodiversity important to our trust

resources or other rare or declining species or plant communities.

First, we mapped all known occurances of trust species, other

species of management concern, their habitats, and significant

natural communities (in particular, those documented as declining in

the Northeast). Appendix A lists the species and plant communities

of management concern on which we focused our attention. We also

mapped larger ecological landscapes, typically watersheds, in which

these resources reside, migrate, or are transported. Second, we

consulted with conservation organizations, local land trusts, state

and local governments, the Narragansett Indian Tribal Council, and

the public to hear their opinions on lands in need of protection

throughout southern Rhode Island.

We used all of the information above to map a two-tiered hierarchy of

biologically significant lands. We called the first tier Areas of

Biological Significance (ABS) and the second tier Focus Areas. Their

definitions follow.

ABS – a large, contiguous area delineated by watershed or other

landscape-level geographic feature, which includes areas of similar

biodiversity importance, or which provides travel corridors and interconnectivity between large, protected habitat patches. These ABS

are delineated regardless of their current land protection or land use

status. One ABS may contain many Focus Areas.

Focus Area – an area of particularly high biodiversity within an

ABS, with documented concentrations of federally listed or globally

rare species, migratory birds, anadromous fish habitat, rare plant

communities, or wetlands. Focus Areas may include significant

wildlife travel corridors or provide a critical link between protected

lands to create contiguous, unfragmented habitat areas. Further,

they include lands that would contribute to the integrity of existing

refuge lands. There may be more than one Focus Area in an ABS. 

We mapped five ABS, all connected with coastal ecosystems: (1)

South Shore; (2) Narragansett Bay; (3) Wood-Pawcatuck Rivers; (4)

Sakonnet-Westport Rivers; and (5) Block Island. (See Chapter 1,

Map 1-2 for their locations.)

We did not delineate any Focus Areas within the Narragansett Bay

ABS, because RI DEM and other conservation partners have

already established protection for the majority of islands, significant

wetlands, and shoreline habitats in Narragansett Bay. In the Block

Island Focus Area, our strong partnerships would allow the Service

to influence 100 percent of this 1,440-acre Focus Area by financially

investing in only 200 acres (existing and proposed Refuge land).

3-14 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000

In addition to routine maintenance of

Refuge facilities, Maintenance Workers

Art McDonald (not shown in picture)

and Jason Ringler (above) assist in

habitat management. USFWS photo
Our planning team evaluated each Focus Area to determine where

and how the Service could have the greatest impact in protecting

important resources. Our evaluation began with mapping

unprotected and low density or undeveloped lands within each Focus

Area. We looked at biologically significant parcels that would create

opportunities for connecting large habitat areas to create contiguous,

unfragmented habitat blocks. We also identified lands that would

buffer and further protect the integrity of existing Refuge lands. In

addition, we evaluated the current level of conservation partner

involvement in these areas.

Finally, we categorized Focus Areas as Level 1 or Level 2 

(Maps 3-1 to 3-5). Although detailed resource inventories have not

been done on private lands throughout the Focus Areas, Appendix K

describes the major habitat values of the ABS. The alternatives

differ in the extent of Service involvement in protecting Level 1 and

Level 2 Focus Areas.

The distinction between Level 1 and Level 2 reflects our

recommendation on where the Service would logically be the leader

in coastal land and water quality protection in southern Rhode

Island, with the existing Complex refuges serving as anchors.

Expanding existing refuges would significantly increase the

ecological values of current refuge land, and provide an additional

buffer against the impacts of land development. Continued

acquisition along the South Shore and on Block Island would provide

a better distribution of protected, significant coastal habitat and

potential restoration habitat for migratory birds and federally listed

threatened and endangered species. Further, this ecosystem

approach to management provides for the dynamic fluctuations in

habitat quality and quantity associated with coastal ecosystems—in

particular, changes to beach strand habitats.

Implementing Alternative A (Current Management) or Alternative D

would not change our current strategy of acquiring from willing

sellers the 735 acres remaining within the Refuge Complex’s existing

acquisition boundaries. Neither Alternative A nor Alternative D

uses the concept or delineation of Focus Areas.

Under Alternative B (our Proposed Action), the Service would take a

lead role in protecting Level 1 Focus Areas, with particular emphasis

on Service acquisition of unprotected, undeveloped parcels. Our

methods would include fee title acquisition from willing sellers only,

conservation easements, and cooperative management agreements

with interested landowners. The overall objective would be to assemble

biologically significant, administratively effective management units

that enhance and contribute to sustaining the existing Refuge Complex

and the federal trust resources over the long term. 

Where the conservation efforts of our partners is consistent with the

Mission of the Refuge System, we would provide technical or

resource support, outreach, and education. Under Alternative B, we

would generally not acquire land in Level 2 Focus Areas in fee title.

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-15

Chapter 3 
In implementing Alternative B, we would acquire an additional 3,200

acres at an estimated cost of $71 million. Those 3,200 acres would

include the 735 un-acquired acres within current Refuge Complex

boundaries, as well as acreage within the Level 1 Focus Areas. Our

priorities for land acquisition within Level 1 Focus Areas would be

based on the following criteria (in order of priority):

1. Has documented occurrence of federally listed threatened or

endangered species or other federal trust resource;

2. Lies contiguous to existing refuge land, which could further

enhance or protect the integrity of these areas by assembling the

land base necessary to accomplish refuge goals;

3. Connects refuge land with other protected lands within the South

Shore and Block Island Focus Areas to help restore and promote

the ecological integrity of the coastal wetland and beach strand

complexes of the refuge; or

4. Protects and sustains important natural communities that can be

managed in cooperation with other land management

conservation partners in a manner that will contribute toward

refuge goals for our federal trust resources.

Alternative C would notably increase the acres of Service acquisition,

particularly in Level 2 Focus Areas. We would consider acquiring

land in fee title or purchasing conservation easements when our

conservation partners did not have the resources or funds to

adequately protect habitat important to federal trust species.

Alternative C also identifies Level 2 land acquisition to provide the

Service with the flexibility to acquire land in these areas should

significant habitats come under threat, or a manageable tract of land

important to trust resources become available. 

Under Alternative C, the Service would acquire 11,550 acres at an

estimated cost of $216 million. This increased amount stems from

acquiring more undeveloped, unprotected land within Level 1 Focus

Areas, and enhancing conservation ownership and protection in Level

2 Focus Areas. The criteria to establish priorities for acquisition

within Focus Areas would be the same as in Alternative B, above. 

A more detailed land acquisition plan, identifying specific tracts

proposed for acquisition, will be prepared with the final CCP/EA.

This detailed land acquisition plan must be reviewed and approved

by the Director before implementation. The Director’s approval

would authorize the Service to acquire lands within each Focus Area

up to the number of acres each identified. Lands would be acquired

under the authority of the Emergency Wetlands Restoration Act of

1986, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 as amended, or the

following three acts, which allow acquisition using Land and Water

Conservation Fund money: The Endangered Species Act of 1973 as

amended, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, and the Refuge

Recreation Act of 1962 as amended.

At this time, none of the alternatives propose establishing a new

national wildlife refuge in Rhode Island. However, nothing in this

EA precludes designating a new refuge in the future, should

conditions warrant.

3-16 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-17

Description of Alternatives Fully Developed 

The four alternatives developed in detail are presented below. After

a brief narrative description of each alternative, we provide a list, by

Refuge, of the management strategies and actions designed to

support our goals and address the key issues identified in Chapter 1.

Maps depicting habitat management and public use actions follow

each alternative discussion. Alternative A (Current Management)

actions are presented in their entirety; the other alternatives are

presented relative to their respective differences from Alternative A. 

Following these descriptions, Table 3-2 provides a side by side

comparison of how the alternatives address the key issues. The

principal federal actions and strategies for each alternative are

highlighted in this table. Table 3-2 is designed to give the reader a

quick overview of the actions that distinguish alternatives and their

relationship to the key issues. The environmental consequences of

implementing all the proposed actions is described in detail in

Chapter 4. 

Alternative A: No Action (Current Management)

This alternative describes current management activities and serves

as the baseline against which all other alternatives are compared.

Projects planned, funded, and/or underway are described in this

alternative, including site selection criteria for the new Refuge

Complex Headquarters/Visitor Center, funded by the 1997

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. The species and

habitat management priorities would continue to be piping plover

nest site protection and early successional grasslands and shrublands

restoration. The current public use programs, which emphasize

wildlife observation, environmental education and interpretation,

would be maintained across the Refuge Complex. No significant

increases over what is currently planned would occur in any of these

program areas. Permanent staffing would continue at 10 full-time

equivalents (FTEs).

Intensive management of active piping plover nest sites would

continue as a priority on the Refuge Complex. In addition, Refuge

staff would continue to be involved in managing the other nine active

South Shore piping plover sites. A second habitat priority would be

to continue the 345 acres of grassland restoration work between

Ninigret and Trustom Pond Refuges. 

We estimate a 10% increase in Refuge Complex visitation associated

with the Visitor Center/Headquarters currently being planned for

2003. This is based on 1999 RI DEM statistics showing a similar

increase in visitation to state park and beach visitor facilities

compared to previous years. Increases in visitation on individual

Refuges are not a targeted objective of this alternative. However, a

few currently planned projects which strive to improve the quality of

existing programs would likely increase visitation (e.g. “Trail

through Time” project at Ninigret Refuge, staffed visitor contact

facility at Trustom Pond Refuge).

Alternative A
3-18 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 

Across the Refuge Complex, fishing and hunting opportunities would

not change; the only hunting opportunity is on a 20 acre upland field

on Trustom Pond Refuge. All Refuges would remain open to fishing;

Chafee Refuge, in fact, would only be open to fishing and would

remain closed to all other public uses. Limited outreach, education,

and enforcement addressing nonwildlife-dependent public uses would

continue. Service presence on both Chafee and Block Island Refuges

would continue to be limited.

Acquisition of 735 acres would continue within the approved Refuge

acquisition boundaries, as funding and willing sellers allow. Existing

partnerships would be maintained, including the Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) with the Friends of the National Wildlife

Refuges of Rhode Island and the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

with Frosty Drew Nature Center. Involvement by volunteers would

continue on Ninigret, Sachuest Point, and Trustom Pond Refuges. 

Chapter 2 provides details on the existing social, physical, and

biological settings of the Rhode Island Refuge Complex, and includes

a description of the management actions currently implemented on

each Refuge. Chapter 4 describes the environmental consequences

of maintaining the current programs.

Issue 1: Protection of endangered and threatened species and

other species and habitats of special concern

How will piping plover nesting sites be protected at Trustom 

Pond Refuge?

On Trustom Pond’s Moonstone Beach our primary objective has been

to protect all active piping plover nesting sites from direct impacts

and to increase productivity and fledging rates to meet the recovery

goal of an average 1.5 fledged chicks/pair. In particular we have

been focused on: 

1. Protecting all known piping plover nest sites on Moonstone Beach

from physical destruction;

2. Minimizing disturbance to adults and chicks from humans, pets,

and predators; and

3. Minimizing direct loss of adults, chicks, and eggs from predators. 

Alternative A would continue to implement “Piping Plover

Management for 1990: A Compatibility Determination at Trustom Pond

National Wildlife Refuge.” These actions exceed the 1994 Service

guidelines for managing plover beaches. Specific actions include: 

■ Each year, continue to install symbolic fencing along the entire

length of beach to exclude public access above mean high tide from

April 1 to Sept. 15 (symbolic fencing is described in Chapter 2,

under the Block Island Refuge description). 

■ Continue to exclude vehicles from the beach year-round.

■ Install protective fencing (predator exclosures) around immediate

nest sites, as they are located. 

■ Continue to hire up to 3 seasonal employees to monitor piping

plover and least tern nest sites and manage public use.
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-19

How will piping plover nesting sites be protected at Ninigret Refuge

barrier beach and on other active sites throughout the South Shore

of Rhode Island?

The Ninigret Refuge piping plover nesting area extends beyond the

Refuge and includes the adjacent state-administered Ninigret

Conservation Area. Nine other active or potential piping plover

nesting sites occur on Rhode Island’s South Shore, off refuge lands,

and are monitored as a cooperative venture between the Refuge and

the landowner. As with Trustom Pond Refuge, our primary objective

has been to protect all active piping plover nesting sites from direct

impacts and to increase productivity and fledging rates to meet the

recovery goal of an average 1.5 fledged chicks/pair. On Ninigret

Refuge, we exceed the 1994 Service guidelines; off-Refuge, we are

striving to meet them. 

■ Each year, we would continue to monitor piping plover and habitat

beginning in early April and install symbolic fencing around

potential territories (above mean high tide line) to exclude public

access. Fencing would remain in place until birds have fledged

(typically by August 15). Predator fence exclosures would be

placed around immediate nest sites. 

■ Each year, we and the Friends Group would continue to install

informational signs and interpretive displays at seven nesting

beach locations (six of these are off-Refuge) and continue to

monitor nine potential nesting sites along the South Shore of RI. 

■ We would continue to support RI DEM’s seasonal (April 1 - Sept 15)

vehicle closure on Ninigret Conservation Area’s beach. 

■ Each year, we would continue annual coordination with the Friends

Group to provide oversight, conduct public outreach and

education, and help secure non-Service funding for the South

Shore Piping Plover Program.

How will piping plover nesting sites be protected in the Block

Island Focus Area?

Under current management, our objective is to meet the 1994

Service guidelines for managing piping plover beaches.

■ Each year, by April 1 we would install posts or symbolic fencing

around suitable nesting habitat on the Refuge to restrict public

access. Also by April 1, we would monitor potential nesting sites

at least twice each week, switching to three times each week after

May 1. If an actual nest is located, nest exclosures would be

erected, and vehicles would be restricted from the entire beach,

just prior to chick hatching. We would continue to work with the

Town of New Shoreham to exclude public use in active nesting

territories on town beaches.

How will piping plover predators be managed on Rhode Island

Refuge Complex nesting sites? 

■ Refuge staff would continue to implement the 1995 Animal Control

Plan, which allows for both lethal and non-lethal control methods,

as necessary. Trapping would continue to occur by a licensed state

trapper or Refuge staff immediately before and briefly into the

plover nesting season at both Ninigret and Trustom Pond Refuges. 

Alternative A
3-20 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 

How can piping plover habitat be improved at Trustom Pond Refuge?

■ We are not planning any habitat improvements associated with

piping plover management. 

■ We would continue to breach Cards Pond, at the request of

adjacent landowners, and breach Trustom Pond once a year in

early spring. Breaching of the ponds temporarily creates exposed

mud flats on which the chicks and adults may feed.

How will the Service coordinate with other agencies and private

landowners to protect potential piping plover sites throughout the

South Shore of Rhode Island?

■ We would continue to attend the annual meeting with piping plover

recovery cooperators and continue efforts on the nine sites off-refuge.

How will the Refuge Complex increase public awareness of piping

plover issues through outreach and education?

■ Continue to maintain two interpretive panels on Refuge beaches

(and a mock nest exclosure explaining its design and purpose) and

install informational signs restricting public use. 

■ Continue to develop a barrier beach education kit for teachers. 

■ Continue coordination with the Friends Group and use of

seasonal biological technicians and volunteers to meet and

educate beach visitors.

How will the Refuge Complex ensure that piping plover

management practices are based on sound science?

■ We would continue to consult on three studies occurring on active

South Shore nest sites, including a Misquamicut Beach predator

study and a Napatree Point public use study.

How will the Refuge Complex contribute to the protection and

restoration of the American burying beetle population within the

Block Island Focus Area?

■ There is currently no special management emphasis on American

burying beetle populations. 

■ We would continue mowing the small grassland area around the

house at Beane Point, which is where beetles were previously

observed.

How will the Refuge Complex protect bald eagle habitat within the

Block Island Focus Area?

■ There is currently no special management emphasis on bald eagle.

The Nature Conservancy periodically monitors roosting

individuals on Block Island.

How will the Refuge Complex contribute to establishing populations

of northeastern beach tiger beetles within the South Shore Area of

Rhode Island?

■ There is currently no management emphasis on northeastern

beach tiger beetles. 
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-21

How will the Refuge manage habitat to benefit black duck at Chafee

and Trustom Pond Refuges?

■ There is currently no special emphasis on black duck at either

Refuge; although there are actions that indirectly benefit black

duck and their habitat. 

■ We would continue the hunting closure on Chafee Refuge on

Refuge lands above the mean high tide line*, as well as the

hunting closure on Trustom Salt Pond, since both areas provide

resting habitat for black duck. 

* It is important to note that the Service has jurisdiction only over

lands above mean high tide line, and does not have jurisdiction or

authority over state-owned, navigable waters. 

■ A limited Phragmites control program would continue, using

chemical and mechanical treatments, as funding and personnel

support allows. We would also continue addling eggs for mute

swan control on Trustom Salt Pond. Both of these species

negatively impact the quality of black duck habitat.

How will the Refuge protect wintering harlequin duck at Sachuest

Point Refuge?

■ There is currently no special management emphasis on harlequin

duck. Volunteers would continue weekly counts of harlequin and

other wintering sea ducks between September and April each

year. The Refuge is not open to hunting.

How will we manage waterfowl concentration areas on the

Refuge Complex?

■ We would continue habitat improvement work related to

Phragmites control on Trustom Pond and Ninigret Refuges, and

continue with the 15-acre wetland restoration project at

Sachuest Point. 

■ Each year we would continue to addle mute swan eggs on

Trustom Pond. In addition, we would continue to breach Cards

Pond at the request of adjacent landowners, and Trustom Pond

once each spring.

How will we protect important marsh and wading bird habitat

areas on the Refuge Complex?

■ There is currently no special emphasis for these species. Each

year, The Nature Conservancy and RI DEM would continue to

monitor the Block Island Refuge heron/egret rookery; the only

known rookery on the Refuge Complex.

How will least tern nesting sites be protected on the Rhode Island

Refuge Complex?

■ Each year, we would continue to place a wire fence around the

colony on Moonstone Beach, Trustom Pond Refuge, for predator

control. We would continue least tern surveys in conjunction with

annual piping plover surveys.

Alternative A
3-22 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 

How will the Service protect and improve feeding and staging

shorebird concentration areas along the South Shore of Rhode

Island and on Block Island?

■ There is currently no management emphasis. Incidental

protection is afforded through piping plover management and land

acquisition programs. 

■ We would continue to annually survey shorebirds on Sachuest

Point Refuge in the winter and submit the information on the

International Shorebird Survey forms coordinated by Manomet

Bird Observatory.

How will the Refuge Complex protect and manage other landbirds of

management concern on the Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

■ We would continue annual bird monitoring associated with the

grassland restoration work at Ninigret and Trustom Pond Refuges.

These occur bi-weekly during May and June of each year. 

■ We would also continue coordination with the University of RI to

conduct the Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship

(MAPS) project. 

■ In addition, we would continue to conduct Refuge wide Breeding

Bird Surveys on a 3- to 5- year interval, occurring biweekly during

the breeding season.

How will the Refuge Complex protect seal haul-out areas on

Refuge lands?

■ There is currently no management emphasis on seal haul-out areas.

Sachuest Point and Block Island Refuges have the only known,

consistently used seal haul-out areas on the Refuge Complex. 

How will the Refuge Complex improve anadromous fish habitat in

Pettaquamscutt Cove (Narrow River), Trustom Pond, and the WoodPawcatuck Rivers?

■ There is currently no management emphasis on anadromous

fish habitat.

How will the Refuge Complex protect amphibian and reptile

populations and habitats on the Refuge Complex?

■ There is currently no management emphasis on amphibian or

reptile populations. The University of RI has recently conducted

amphibian surveys at Trustom Pond and Ninigret Refuges.
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-23

How will Refuge staff protect and manage rare plant habitats on the

Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

■ We would continue coordination with the University of RI to

monitor and map existing rare plant sites at Ninigret Refuge. We

would continue with plans to complete the trail relocation project

at Ninigret Refuge which will steer public use away from the

sensitive plant sites.

Issue 2: Restoration and maintenance of coastal sandplain natural

communities, including grasslands

Early successional, native coastal sandplain communities are in

dramatic decline throughout New England, especially the native

grasslands. Many coastal grassland dependent species are suffering

significant population declines as a result, to the point they are being

considered for state and/or federal listing. The Rhode Island

Refuges provide a unique opportunity to manage early successional

coastal sandplain grasslands and shrublands and contribute to the

protection of species associated with these vegetative communities.

Where will Refuge staff restore grassland communities on the Rhode

Island Refuge Complex?

■ We would continue managing a total of 220 contiguous acres at

Ninigret Refuge to maintain or restore the biological diversity and

the natural physical components associated with early

successional, coastal sandplain grasslands and shrublands.

Actions would include converting 70 acres of asphalt runway to

native coastal sandplain grasslands and maintaining 150-acres of

early successional, native coastal shrublands. 

■ The 70 acres of asphalt runway would be restored to sandplain

grasslands as outlined in the 1997 Environmental Assessment:

Habitat Restoration Project, Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge.

Once completed, the restored former runway areas would be

dominated by native species, in the following approximate

proportions: little bluestem (75%), big bluestem (10%),

Indiangrass (5%), and switchgrass (10%). Work is being

accomplished gradually, given limits in funding, staffing, and the

availability of Army and Navy Reserve Units to help remove the

asphalt from the runways. 

■ We would also continue to manage the 125-acre early successional

shrub and grassland restoration project on Trustom Pond Refuge

and 42 acres of early successional shrub and grassland habitat,

including intensive invasive plant control, on Sachuest Point

Refuge. This work is conducted as current funding and staffing

levels have allowed. As outlined in the 1995 Trustom Pond Refuge

Grassland Management Plan, the work on Trustom Pond Refuge is

restoring former pasture and cropfields to a little bluestem

dominated grasslands similar to Ninigret Refuge, or using a

sculpted seeding method, using big bluestem, Indiangrass, and

switchgrass depending on soils, topography, and hydrology in

areas where little bluestem does not establish.

Big bluestem. USFWS photo

Alternative A
3-24 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 

How will grassland restoration be implemented on the Rhode Island

Refuge Complex?

■ We would continue to implement the strategies in the 1995

Trustom Pond Refuge and 1997 Ninigret Refuge Grassland

Management Plans, which include use of mechanical manipulation

(primarily brushhogging or hydroaxing woody vegetation, and

discing, harrowing, plowing, packing, and drilling grassland

fields), prescribed fire, biological controls, and chemical herbicide

treatments. All prescribed fires would adhere to stipulations in

the 1995 Fire EA. All herbicides used are on an approved Service

list, and their use on the Refuge is approved annually by the

Regional Environmental Contaminants Specialist. These same

treatments would continue to be utilized in the early successional

habitat work on Sachuest Point Refuge.

How will the Refuge Complex promote grassland restoration on

private lands?

■ We would continue with the private land cooperative grassland

habitat work on 40 acres adjacent to Trustom Pond Refuge.

Herbicide treatments, fertilizing, mowing, and some reseeding

with a big bluestem dominated mixture would occur for

maintenance. These acres enhance the restoration work on the

Refuge by creating a larger complex of grasslands for those

grassland dependent species that require larger contiguous

grasslands. In addition, we would maintain the grassland

restoration interpretive sign at Ninigret Refuge trailhead as an

outreach tool.

Issue 3: Management of the beach strand ecological community

How will Refuge staff protect and restore beach strand

communities?

■ We would continue to acquire beach strand habitat within

approved acquisition boundaries from willing sellers as funding

allows. Our highest acquisition priority will remain beach strand

habitat proximal to other undeveloped areas, whose size and

condition permits us to maintain or restore their biological

integrity. 

■ The Refuge Manager would also continue to serve as Oil Spill

Field Response Coordinator for the U.S. Coast Guard’s Captainof-the-Port, Providence Area.

Issue 4: Management of Trustom Salt Pond

How should Trustom and Cards Ponds be managed to improve

water quality and benefit species of concern?

■ We would continue to breach Trustom Pond once a year to improve

water quality and breach Cards Pond at the request of

landowners. Land acquisition from willing sellers within the

Trustom Pond Refuge acquisition boundary would continue, as

funding allows.
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-25

Issue 5: Protection and restoration of wetlands

How will Refuge staff restore and promote wetland ecosystems on

the Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

■ We would continue to work with USGS Biological Resources

Division to monitor 15 acres of recently restored tidal salt marsh

on Sachuest Point Refuge. That restoration realigned a culvert to

restore tidal flow to a creek and mechanically scarified

Phragmites.

■ We would continue to coordinate with the ACOE, who have begun a

feasibility study on restoring natural hydrology to an additional 25

acres of Phragmites-dominated marsh at Sachuest Point Refuge.

■ We would continue to cooperate with the EPA or its delegated

authority, in restoring the CERCLIS site at Sachuest Point

Refuge (the former Middletown landfill).

■ Current management does not emphasize restoring any other

wetlands, other than controlling less than 5 acres per year of

Phragmites on Trustom Pond Refuge and Ninigret Refuge by

mowing, burning, and applying the herbicide Rodeo, annually

approved by the Regional Contaminants Specialist.

Issue 6: Improving water quality in the Narrow River

How will Refuge staff contribute to improving and protecting the water

quality of Pettaquamscutt Cove and the Narrow River Watershed?

■ There is currently no management emphasis on protecting water

quality. Protection of water quality is one of the desired results of

our land acquisition efforts in this watershed. We would continue

land acquisition from willing sellers within the approved

acquisition boundary for Chafee Refuge.

Issue 7: Control of invasive, non-native, or overabundant plant and

wildlife species

How will Refuge staff control non-native and/or invasive plant

species on the Refuge Complex?

■ We would continue limited Phragmites control at Trustom Pond

Refuge, as funding and personnel allow. Over the last 5 years, a total

of 5 acres of Phragmites has been treated at Trustom Pond Refuge. 

■ Chemical, fire and mechanical treatments would continue to be

used with the limited control efforts targeting Phragmites, autumn

olive, Japanese honeysuckle, and Asian bittersweet across the

Refuge Complex.

■ We would continue to annually monitor the biological control test

site where beetles were released to control purple loosestrife on

Sachuest Point Refuge.

How will Refuge staff manage non-native, invasive mute swan on

the Rhode Island Refuge Complex to reduce adverse effects on

waterfowl and water quality?

■ We would continue annual efforts with RI DEM to addle mute

swan eggs on Trustom Pond with an objective of zero productivity. 

Alternative A
3-26 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 

How will Refuge staff manage deer populations within and adjacent

to the Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

■ There is no current management for deer. Browsing at Ninigret

and Trustom Pond Refuges indicates an overabundant population;

however, deer populations have not been monitored. The

incidence of Lyme-disease-bearing deer ticks continues at high

levels on the refuges.

Issue 8: New Refuge Complex land acquisition and cooperative

protection of sensitive habitat sites

How will the Service’s land acquisition program be expanded to

protect species and habitats of special concern?

■ We would continue to acquire land from willing sellers within the

approved individual Refuge acquisition boundaries, as funding

allows. The remaining acreage to be acquired within approved

acquisition boundaries is 735 acres. Additional details are

provided in Table 3-1 and in the “Land Protection Alternative

Development” section earlier in this chapter.

■ Working with partners to identify and protect important habitat

areas would continue to be extremely valuable to resource

protection in Rhode Island. We would continue to consult with

local land trusts, The Nature Conservancy, Audubon Society, RI

DEM, and respective town planners and conservation

commissions to identify important habitat areas.

Issue 9: Access to credible resource information on the Refuge

Complex to ensure management decisions are based on the best

available science

How will Refuge staff establish needs for and begin to collect baseline

biological information across the Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

■ We would continue with the annual Breeding Bird Survey and

would maintain the Monitoring Avian Productivity and

Survivorship station as a cooperative effort with University of RI.

Continued research collaboration with University of RI is yielding

studies on Neotropical migrants, amphibians and reptiles, deer,

and rare plants. 

■ We would continue other monitoring and inventory work related to

piping plover and least tern, wintering waterfowl, biological

control agents on invasive plants, and the grassland restoration

projects. Some of this information is available in a digital format,

but most is not. Not all information collected to date follows

Regional Service protocols for habitat inventory and monitoring.

How will Refuge staff insure that the biological integrity of

natural communities will be maintained on the Rhode Island

Refuge Complex? 

■ Currently, no special management actions address this question

except our recent consultations with plant ecologists as we work to

define the desired future character and distribution of coastal

sandplain and maritime plant communities. 
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-27

Issue 10: Management of public use and access (except hunting and

environmental education which are discussed as separate issues)

The Refuge Complex lacks a strategic plan for visitor services. Public

use management has emphasized programs for wildlife observation,

and environmental education and interpretation. The overall objective

of Alternative A is to improve the quality of existing programs.

How will we improve visitor services?

■ We would continue public use projects currently scheduled to

benefit visitor services, including the 3.8-mile Trail through Time,

staffing the visitor contact facility on Trustom Pond, renovating the

Sachuest Point visitor facility, and completing the plans for the

Complex visitor center and headquarters.

How will we improve our existing partnerships for public use on the

Refuge Complex?

■ We would continue to meet annually with the Friends of the

Refuges under our current MOU, and maintain our MOA with

Frosty Drew Nature Center. 

■ Our informal cooperation with the South County Museum,

Narragansett Indian Tribal Council, Norman Bird Sanctuary,

South County Tourism Council, and local chambers of commerce

would also continue.

What fishing opportunities will be available at Block Island Refuge?

■ We would continue to allow surf fishing in accordance with State

regulations from the Refuge shoreline. Off-road vehicle (ORV) use

that occurs in conjunction with surf fishing is generally not

restricted, except travel must occur outside of posted piping plover

areas. However, if piping plover actively nest, vehicles would be

restricted from the beach from when chicks hatch to 35 days of age. 

What fishing opportunities will be available at Ninigret Refuge?

■ Surf fishing would continue on the barrier beach, but vehicles

would be restricted above mean high tide where the Service has

jursidiction. We would continue to support RI DEM’s annual

vehicle closure of the adjacent Ninigret Conservation Area beach

from April 1 to Sept. 15. Other access restrictions may be imposed

if nesting plovers are found. We would continue recreational

fishing and recreational and commercial shell fishing in Ninigret

Pond, under State and Refuge regulations, with access by foot only

across the Refuge to the pond.

What fishing opportunities will be available at Chafee Refuge?

■ Saltwater fishing would continue in accordance with State regulations.

Current management provides no designated trail access.

What fishing oportunities will be available at Sachuest Point

Refuge?

■ Surf fishing, including night fishing, would continue from Refuge

shorelines on the Atlantic Ocean and Sakonnet River, under State

regulations.

Alternative A
3-28 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 

What fishing opportunities will be available at Trustom 

Pond Refuge?

■ Surf fishing from Refuge shorelines on the Atlantic Ocean would

continue from September 16 to March 31, in accordance with State

regulations. This open season falls outside the piping plover

nesting season and shorebird migrating season (April 1 to

September 15). No vehicles are allowed on the beach year-round. 

■ Trustom Pond itself is closed to fishing year-round to maintain its

highest and best use as a wildlife sanctuary.

What kind of interpretive opportunities will be available at Block

Island Refuge?

■ The Nature Conservancy would continue its interpretive programs

on the Refuge. The Refuge has no interpretive signs.

What kind of interpretive opportunities will be available at

Ninigret Refuge?

■ We would continue to maintain its two kiosks. We would continue

to participate in local, Chamber of Commerce-sponsored events,

and continue to use volunteers to lead interpretive programs.

What interpretive opportunities will be available at Chafee Refuge?

■ Current management provides no interpretive program.

What kind of interpretive opportunities will be available at Sachuest

Point Refuge?

■ We would continue to maintain the kiosk on the Refuge, and use

volunteers to staff the visitor center and conduct interpretive

programs. We would improve the visitor center and its exhibits as

funding allows.

What kind of interpretive opportunities will be available at Trustom

Pond Refuge?

■ We would continue to maintain the two existing kiosks. Volunteers

would continue to staff the visitor contact station and conduct

interpretive programs.

What kind of wildlife observation and photography opportunities

will be available at Block Island Refuge?

■ No infrastructure is in place for wildlife observation or photography;

the Refuge has not been opened to these activities. We would

continue to maintain the Refuge as undeveloped until the Service

acquires enough appropriate land for development and

infrastructure. We would also continue to restrict public use in areas

where piping plover are observed showing territorial behavior.

What kind of wildlife observation and photography opportunities

will be available at Ninigret Refuge?

■ We would maintain the existing platform at Grassy Point, and

continue construction of the 3.8-mile, barrier-free Trail Through

Time as funding and current staffing allow. This would reduce the

current trail system from approximately 8.0 miles.
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-29

What kind of wildlife observation and photography opportunities

will be available at Chafee Refuge?

■ Current management offers no opportunities for wildlife

observation, except from public roads. We would continue to

maintain Chafee Refuge as undeveloped until the Service acquires

enough appropriate land for development and infrastructure.

What kind of wildlife observation and photography opportunities

will be available at Sachuest Point Refuge?

■ We would maintain the existing 3-mile trail network and viewing

platform, with unrestricted access to the shoreline.

What kind of wildlife observation and photography opportunities

will be available at Trustom Pond Refuge?

■ We would maintain the current two-trail system with one trail head

and kiosk. We would also maintain the three observation

platforms, two of which are on Trustom Pond.

How will we manage nonwildlife-dependent activities at Block

Island Refuge?

■ Enforcement of nonwildlife-dependent activities is virtually nonexistent. Primary nonwildlife-dependent uses of concern are using

off-road vehicles (ORVs), dog walking, swimming and sunbathing,

jogging, and kite flying.

How will nonwildlife-dependent activities be managed at

Ninigret Refuge?

■ The current staff conducts limited law enforcement against

nonwildlife-dependent activities, primarily bike riding, roller

blading, dog walking, jogging, kite flying, using ORVs, swimming,

and sunbathing.

■ Walking dogs on leash and bicycling have previously been allowed

on runways under a decision in 1997 (Habitat Restoration Project

EA: Ninigret Refuge) that these uses would be eliminated once the

runways had been removed.

How will nonwildlife-dependent activities be managed at 

Chafee Refuge?

■ The Refuge is currently closed to all activities except fishing, with

very limited enforcement of prohibitions on nonwildlife-dependent

activities. The primary nonwildlife-dependent use is unauthorized

access across the Refuge using unmaintained, non-designated trails.

How will nonwildlife-dependent activities be managed at Sachuest

Point Refuge?

■ Limited enforcement of nonwildlife-dependent uses would continue,

as staffing and budgets allow. Primary nonwildlife-dependent uses

at the Refuge are jogging, dog walking, swimming, sunbathing,

bicycling, horseback riding, and setting bonfires.

How will nonwildlife-dependent activities be managed at Trustom

Pond Refuge?

Alternative A
3-30 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 

■ Law enforcement would continue to focus on keeping people and

dogs out of the Moonstone Beach piping plover closure area, and

on enforcing against inappropriate behavior on beaches, parking

areas, and trails. Other primary nonwildlife-dependent uses of

concern are swimming and sunbathing, bike riding, horseback

riding, using ORVs, and flying kites.

What priority public uses would be allowed on newly acquired

Refuge lands?

■ At the time of acquisition, the Refuge Manager evaluates existing

public uses of the tract. Those determined to be compatible are

allowed to continue. If no public uses have been established, the

new tract remains closed to public use until a formal compatibility

determination has been completed.

How will the Complex promote and cultivate the relationship with

the Friends of the National Wildlife Refuges of Rhode Island?

■ We would continue to implement the 1999 Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) and Cooperative Agreement established

between the Service and the Friends of the Refuges, which

includes providing the Friends of the Refuges with technical,

administrative, and resource support. 

■ We would continue to provide the Friends of the Refuges an office

at the Refuge Complex Headquarters.

Issue 11: Hunting on the Complex

Neither current nor past management has promoted a hunting

program. The limited contiguous land base to support an effective

hunt area is problematic for Chafee and Block Island Refuges. The

proximity of human habitation and town facilities is a concern for

Chafee, Ninigret, and Trustom Pond Refuges. The 151 acres deedrestricted from hunting on Trustom Pond Refuge further limit

possibilities. On Sachuest Point Refuge, the impenetrable vegetation

precludes hunting altogether. These factors, combined with our small

staff size, has hampered our ability to plan and implement a high

quality hunt program. We define quality not only by the hunter’s

experience (e.g. safety, ethical behavior, uncrowded conditions,

diversity of experience), but also by the effect of hunting on wildlife

populations, ecological integrity and aethestics, and minimizing

conflicts with other wildlife-dependent recreational users (unpublished

draft Service policy on hunting Part 605 FW 2). 

We know little about huntable wildlife populations and their influence

on refuge habitats. Further, local communities are divided in their

support for a hunting program and there is the perception that a

hunting program would reduce other priority, wildlife-dependent

public use opportunities, such as wildlife observation and

environmental education, disproportionate to local needs and interests. 

What hunting opportunities will be available on Block Island,

Ninigret, and Chafee Refuges?

■ Given the circumstances presented above, Refuge staff have not

pursued a hunt program and these three refuges would remain

closed to hunting under Alternative A.
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-31

What hunting opportunities will be available at Sachuest Point?

■ A quality public hunt program is not feasible, due to the

preponderance of thick, impenetrable, shrub vegetation and the

lack of huntable populations of wildlife.

What hunting opportunities will be available at Trustom 

Pond Refuge?

■ Given the circumstances presented above, except for a 20-acre

upland field, refuge staff have not pursued a hunt program and

Trustom Pond Refuge would remain closed to hunting under

Alternative A. 

■ We would continue to maintain the 20-acre upland field in cool

season, non-native grasses and open to migratory bird hunting. 

■ RI DEM would continue to administer the hunt program under

Refuge regulations. 

Issue 12: Opportunities for environmental education

What curriculum-based environmental education opportunities will

be available at Block Island Refuge?

■ The Nature Conservancy would continue to conduct environmental

education on Refuge land, but current management does not

provide financial or staff support.

What curriculum-based environmental education opportunities will

be available at Ninigret Refuge?

■ Under its existing MOA, Frosty Drew Nature Center would

continue its environmental education trips to the Refuge. 

■ A for-profit group would also continue to conduct environmental

education on the Refuge.

What curriculum-based environmental education opportunities will

be available at Chafee Refuge?

■ Due to the limited number of staff specializing in environmental

education, and the relative newness of this Refuge, we are just

beginning to establish a relationship with its neighboring

communities. Current management provides no environmental

education on the Refuge.

What curriculum-based environmental education opportunities will

be available at Sachuest Point Refuge?

■ The Norman Bird Sanctuary, which has a land base adjacent to the

Refuge, conducts environmental education on the Refuge. We

would continue to work with the Sanctuary on an informal basis.

What curriculum-based environmental education opportunities will

be available at Trustom Pond Refuge?

■ Volunteers would continue environmental education at the mock

nest exclosure, barrier beach, and farm pond. We would maintain

these sites and their materials for use each year. We would

continue to work with the Friends of the Refuges to develop a

barrier beach education kit for teachers.

Alternative A
3-32 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 

Issue 13: Ability to provide staffing, operations, and maintenance

support needed to accomplish goals and objectives

How does the Alternative A change the funding requirements of

the Complex?

■ Our fiscal year 1999 operations budget was $441,000.00, plus

$28,000.00 for maintenance. Appendix F contains the projects

currently identified in the Refuge Operating Needs System

(RONS) and Management Maintenance System (MMS) for

FY2000.

What will be the staffing needs of the Complex?

■ To operate at existing staffing levels: nine full time personnel, one

student trainee, and four seasonal personnel (see Appendix H).

How will the Service ensure the protection of cultural resources on

the Complex?

■ We would continue to survey Refuge projects as needed to comply

with Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act. We

would also continue to plan interpretive opportunities on the

Ninigret Refuge Trail Through Time, which will include signs

interpreting Native American and U.S. Naval Aviation History.

Issue 14: Increased visibility of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

How will we increase Service visibility and recognition of the

National Wildlife Refuge System?

■ Continue boundary posting as funding allows. None of the

Complex is completely posted. 

Issue 15: Need for improved facilities

What facilities are needed to improve administrative and visitor

contact services on the Complex?

■ We would maintain existing administration and visitor contact

facilities. We would maintain and staff the existing visitor contact

station at Trustom Pond Refuge with volunteers. We would continue

to renovate the Sachuest Point visitor center as funding allows.

■ Under Alternative A, we would also continue with site selection

and planning for the Complex visitor center and headquarters. We

would begin an EA once a final list of prospective sites has been

determined. Construction should be completed by 2003.

When will the Complex improve road and entry signs to meet

national standards and better serve visitors?

■ Only one sign on U.S. Route 1 directs visitors to any of the

refuges. None of the Refuge Complex signs meet Refuge System

standards. No other directional signs are planned.
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-33

Map 3-6
3-34 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Map 3-7
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-35

Map 3-8
3-36 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Map 3-9
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-37

Map 3-10
3-38 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Map 3-11
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-39

Map 3-12
3-40 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Map 3-13
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-41

Alternative B: The Service’s Proposed Action

Alternative B, as our Proposed Action, is the alternative we

recommend for consideration and approval by our Regional Director.

It combines management actions from Alternatives A, C, and D

which, in our best professional judgment, actively work toward

achieving the vision and goals for the Complex, the Connecticut

River/Long Island Sound Ecosystem, State and regional biodiversity

plans, the purposes for which the refuges were established, and most

effectively addresses the key issues. In some program areas, it

enhances the quality and sustainability of current resource programs

by increasing staff, developing long-range and strategic step-down

plans, promoting partnerships, and restoring habitat and species on

each of the Refuges.

Alternative B would notably increase our land acquisition and

cooperative land protection, including 3,200 additional acres

approved for acquisition. It would increase protection for

threatened, endangered, and other species of management concern,

and expand the existing, early successional coastal sandplain and

maritime habitat projects and wetlands restoration. We would

develop an integrated ecosystem plan for Trustom Pond;

incorporating restoration needs of the adjacent uplands that

influence the pond with restoration of the aquatic system. Our

treatment of invasive, non-native plants would notably increase. It

would also increase biological inventories and monitoring to improve

our understanding of the biodiversity on the Complex. 

Alternative B would improve substantially the quality of existing,

priority, wildlife-dependent public uses, especially in environmental

education and interpretation. Fishing would continue on all refuges.

We would develop new opportunities across the Complex for hunting,

wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education

and interpretation. We expect Alternative B to increase the number

of Complex visitors by approximately 20 percent as a result of

increased public use programs, improvements to the Sachuest Point

visitor center, and construction of the new Refuge Complex visitor

center and headquarters by 2005.

While overall public use opportunities would increase, Alternative B

would impose limits on access and enforce the use of designated

travel ways in some sensitive areas. We would establish a yearround Service presence at Sachuest Point Refuge and a seasonal

presence on Block Island Refuge. Increased outreach, education,

and enforcement would assist in phasing out nonwildlife-dependent

and incompatible activities by 2005 (using ORVs, walking dogs,

swimming and sunbathing, jogging, kite flying, bicycling, roller

blading, horseback riding, and setting bonfires).

Increasing involvement by volunteers, partners, and the Friends of

the Refuges would strengthen our support in the local community.

The visibility of the Service in general, and the Complex in

particular, would be elevated. Fully implemented, Alternative B

would more than double current staffing, and notably increase

budget allocations over their current levels.

Alternative B
Chapter 3 

3-42 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Issue 1: Protection of endangered and threatened species and

other species and habitats of special concern

How will piping plover nesting sites be protected at Trustom 

Pond Refuge?

The Proposed Action builds on Alternative A for increased piping

plover nest protection. Our objective is to meet or exceed a 5-year

average of 1.5 fledged chicks/pair per year (1996 Revised Piping

Plover Recovery Plan). An additional annual objective is to meet or

exceed the site’s estimated nesting carrying capacity (10 pairs in

1999), which may vary from year to year given the dynamics of the

beach ecosystem. In general, we hope to achieve this by increasing

the amount and duration of protection and monitoring of nesting

sites, and through habitat improvements, as outlined below.

In addition to Alternative A, we would:

■ By 2003, hire a minimum of three seasonal law enforcement

personnel to manage public use in plover nesting areas, and hire

two seasonal biological technicians to increase biological

monitoring of all nest sites. Not all seasonal staff would be

supported through Refuge funding; some would be funded from

other sources procured by the Piping Plover Coordinator (see

below). Refuge-funded seasonal staff may also support other

priority biological program activities. 

■ By 2003, we would reassess the nesting carrying capacity for

Moonstone Beach; last evaluated in 1999. This information would

then be used to assess potential habitat improvements as

recommended under Issue 4 below.

How will piping plover nesting sites be protected at Ninigret Refuge

barrier beach and active sites in the South Shore of Rhode Island?

As mentioned above for Trustom Pond, the Proposed Action would

afford increased protection for piping plover nest sites. Our objective

is to meet or exceed a 5-year average of 1.5 fledged chicks/pair per

year (1996 Revised Piping Plover Recovery Plan). An additional

annual objective is to meet or exceed the site’s estimated nesting

carrying capacity (20 pairs in 1999), which may vary from year to

year given the dynamics of the beach ecosystem. 

In addition to Alternative A, actions would include:

■ By 2002, work with RI DEM to move the State campground,

currently located near Ninigret Refuge, towards the breachway to

concentrate human activities and reduce direct and indirect

human associated impacts in nesting areas. Trash is often

implicated in attracting predators to a nesting area. Campers in

the area often bring dogs. Unleashed dogs have been documented

chasing adult plover off nest sites. 

■ By 2002, develop written cooperative agreements with at least five

South Shore landowners with existing plover nesting sites. This

is to document formal acknowledgment of permission to access

and manage piping plover nest sites. 
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-43

■ By 2003, reassess nesting carrying capacity on Ninigret Refuge

barrier beach and adjacent Ninigret Conservation Area. Continue

reassessments on a three year basis.

■ By 2004, we would hire a Rhode Island Piping Plover Coordinator

who would provide visibility and oversight to the South Shore and

Refuge Complex piping plover programs, and facilitate

interagency funding and cooperative management of the South

Shore nesting areas.

The Rhode Island Piping Plover Coordinator would a) coordinate

outreach and education; b) complete cooperative agreements with

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

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

research on the Refuges; e) hire seasonal biological technicians; f)

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

coordinate habitat evaluations and monitoring (e.g. determine

nesting carrying capacities, habitat parameters to monitor, and

predator trapping effectiveness). 

Active support and coordination by Ecological Services, RI DEM,

and local landowners would be required to ensure success. 

How will piping plover nesting sites be protected in the Block Island

Focus Area?

Under the Proposed Action our objective is to sustain a 5-year

average of 1.5 fledged chicks/pair per year (1996 Revised Piping

Plover Recovery Plan) on at least one site in the Block Island Focus

Area. Our priority would be to reestablish nesting on the Refuge.

We hope to achieve this by increasing protection and monitoring of

suitable habitat and determining limiting factors, as outlined below.

■ Suitable piping plover habitat on the Refuge would be symbolically

fenced by April 1 each year through September 15. 

■ Nest exclosures would be erected as soon as a nests are located.

■ By 2002, close Refuge beaches above the mean high tide line to

vehicles from April 1 to September 15 each year to reduce

disturbance to nesting and migrating shorebirds and to reduce

physical impacts to the barrier beach. 

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

would work with The Nature Conservancy to monitor suitable

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

Block Island Focus Area. 

■ By 2003, Refuge staff would monitor gull populations, in

cooperation with ongoing RI DEM and The Nature Conservancy

surveys, to ascertain whether gulls are limiting plover nesting.

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

New Shoreham, through use of a cooperative agreement, to insure

continued implementation of town beach restrictions on public use

when active piping plover nesting occurs. Determine where

symbolic fencing could be placed on town beach by April 1 of each

year on an experimental basis, with the objective of enhancing the

potential nesting habitat on the adjacent Refuge. 

Measures proposed for beach strand protection (Issue 3) would

provide additional protection for piping plover.

Alternative B
Chapter 3 

How will piping plover predators be managed on Rhode Island

Refuge Complex nesting sites?

Under the Proposed Action our objective is to minimize predation of

piping plover at each nesting site through the use of exclosures or

removal of animals where its warranted and feasible. We would

continue to document statistics on predation at each site in annual

piping plover reports. Specific actions would include: 

■ Continue the current predator control program at piping plover

and least tern nesting sites each year, as identified in

Alternative A, until 2004, when we would complete an

Integrated Predator Management Plan. This plan would include

an evaluation of the effectiveness of predator management

practices used at these nesting sites. We would adapt current

strategies, as needed, to minimize the impact of predators on

nesting piping plover and least tern.

■ The Fur Resources Committee of the International Association of

Fish and Wildlife Agency’s technical report on “Best Management

Practices for Trapping Furbearers” once completed, would be

utilized in developing the Integrated Predator Management Plan. 

How can piping plover habitat be improved at Trustom Pond Refuge?

Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to take an ecosystembased approach to managing Trustom Pond, recognizing the natural

coastal formation processes and dynamism that shaped the pond, and

the relationship with species, including piping plover, dependent on

these processes. 

■ By 2005, working with partners, we would develop an integrated

habitat management, monitoring and evaluation plan for Trustom

and Cards Salt Ponds based on consideration of all the significant

natural resource values provided by these ponds. The

development of this plan, with respect to piping plover and

shorebirds, would include the following:

• Evaluate potential for creating additional shorebird habitat 

through mechanical dune scarification and other techniques, 

along with the frequency and timing of breaching on Trustom

Pond Refuge (refer to Recovery Plan tasks 1.242 and 1.243). 

• Investigate other potential strategies for managing the Trustom

Pond breachway to maximize habitat benefits for piping plover.

We would utilize the nesting capacity habitat assessment to

evaluate habitat potential. 

• Identify an implementation schedule for the proposed projects. 

How will the Service coordinate with other agencies and private

landowners to protect piping plover throughout the South Shore of

Rhode Island?

Under the Proposed Action our objective is to increase cooperative

management of nesting areas, including proactive planning and

management of potential nesting sites (e.g. those not yet occupied).

In addition to actions in Alternative A, and those proposed for the

Piping Plover Coordinator above, we would:

3-44 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-45

■ By 2007, coordinate with private landowners and towns to develop

contingency plans in anticipation of unexpected events such as oil

spills at nesting sites or the “pioneering” of new nest sites on

recreational beaches.

How will the Refuge Complex increase public awareness of piping

plover issues through outreach and education?

The Proposed Action would build on the actions included in

Alternative A to further increase public awareness of piping plover

issues. Our objective is to develop a piping plover outreach and

education program specifically targeted at the people using these

Rhode Island beaches. Actions would include: 

■ By 2002, develop an education and outreach plan for the piping

plover program, which would include:

• identification of target audiences (e.g. beach front landowners,

elected officials, tourists, and local school children)

• distribution of literature with RI DEM beach use permits, at

beach entrance stations, and other focal points;

• a major exhibit at the new Visitor Center; and

• integration with local school curriculums.

■ Utilize the Friends Group and other partners to develop and

implement the plan.

■ By 2003, we would hire two additional seasonal park aids to

conduct outreach and education on-site or in the communities

directly affected by piping plover management.

How will the Refuge Complex ensure that piping plover

management practices are based on sound science?

Research efforts over the last 20 years have substantially increased

our understanding of piping plover protection needs and the

effectiveness of conservation efforts throughout its range; however,

specific factors influencing nest or chick loss can vary considerably

from site to site. Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to gain

a better understanding of the site-specific factors affecting Rhode

Island nesting sites and to undertake management actions

recommended or accepted by the piping plover scientific community. 

■ The Refuge Biologist would coordinate annually with the Plover

Recovery Team and other scientists to obtain new research results

and share the effectiveness of management techniques. 

■ By 2003, work with partners to establish piping plover research

needs for the Refuge Complex, with highest priority given to

determining those factors most-influencing chick survival on

the Refuges. 

■ By 2005, we would obtain funding to initiate the highest

priority project.

Alternative B
Chapter 3 

How will the Refuge Complex contribute to the protection and

restoration of the American burying beetle population within the

Block Island Focus Area?

Under the Proposed Action our objective would be for Refuge staff

to gain a better understanding of American burying beetle ecology

on Block Island in order to evaluate the possibility of expanding the

island population to Refuge land. 

■ By 2003, we would actively participate in ongoing annual

monitoring, led by RI DEM, The Nature Conservancy, and our

New England Field Office, of American burying beetles on

southern Block Island.

■ By 2005, we would work with these partners to assess

opportunities for beetle inventory and management within the

Focus Area with an objective to expand the distribution of the

existing population on Block Island. Efforts to protect waterbirds

(see below) will also benefit the American burying beetle through

increased availability of carrion. 

■ Once the Refuge land base has increased, and the potential for

burying beetles has been determined, we would evaluate up to 50

acres for conversion from shrubland to grassland to benefit the

beetle. We would coordinate restoration work with RI DEM and

The Nature Conservancy. 

How will the Refuge Complex protect bald eagle habitat within the

Block Island Focus Area?

Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to increase monitoring

of bald eagle use on the Refuge and follow-up with protection

measures if warranted. Actions would include:

■ By 2003, a seasonal biological technician would monitor roosting

eagles observed on Block Island. We would also coordinate with

The Nature Conservancy to identify potential threats to roosting

eagles, such as human disturbance and/or habitat degradation. 

■ By 2005, we would develop site management and monitoring plans,

if such plans are warranted by consistent bald eagle use of Refuge

lands.

How will the Refuge Complex contribute to establishing

populations of northeastern beach tiger beetles in the South Shore

Area of Rhode Island?

Under the Proposed Action our objective is to contribute to the

recovery of the northeastern tiger beetle through reintroduction

efforts initiated by the Service’s New England Field Office. Actions

would include: 

■ By 2010, we would coordinate with the New England Field Office

and RI DEM to determine the feasibility of reintroducing the

beetles on the Rhode Island Refuge Complex. In addition, we

would identify and prioritize habitat for reintroduction within the

South Shore Focus Areas. Napatree Point has specifically been

identified as a prospective site. Potential reintroduction sites for

the species would be identified as a high priority for land

acquisition if long term protection measures are not in place. 

3-46 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Draft CCP/EA – August, 2000 3-47

■ By 2012, we would develop site management and monitoring plans

for prospective reintroduction sites on the Refuge Complex.

How will the Refuge manage habitat for black duck at Chafee and

Trustom Pond Refuges?

Under the Proposed Action our objective is to maintain high quality

black duck wintering habitat where it occurs on the Refuge Complex

through management of public use and control of invasive, nonnative plant and animal species. Actions would include:

■ Maintain the current, limited public access to the 160-acre

Trustom Pond to minimize human disturbance and facilitate its

highest and best use as a wildlife sanctuary, including its

importance to migrating and wintering waterfowl.

■ By 2001, pursue zero productivity of mute swan by addling eggs

and lethal and non-lethal removal of some adults.

■ By 2003, work with RI DEM to develop a waterfowl management

area plan for the entire Pettaquamscutt Cove and Lower Narrow

River. The plan would evaluate and designate waterfowl resting

habitat while also continuing hunting opportunities in the area.

■ If the plan recommends a public hunt on Refuge land, it would be

by boat, designated trail access, or from blinds, administered in

cooperation with RI DEM under Refuge regulations. 

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

invasive wetland plants across the Complex through mechanical,

chemical, or biological treatments to improve habitat for black

duck and other waterfowl. Particular emphasis would be at

Trustom Pond.

How will the Refuge protect wintering harlequin duck at Sachuest

Point Refuge?

Harlequin ducks congregate during the winter just offshore of

Sachuest Point Refuge. Since they typically forage and rest in open

water or on offshore rocks, they are not on Refuge land and we have

not directly managed for them. Under the Proposed Action our

objective is to take advantage of this unique viewing attraction to

educate Refuge visitors on the plight of harlequin duck and to

promote coastal resource stewardship. We would also increase

monitoring of harlequin duck activities to ensure shoreline visitors

are not affecting their behavior. 

In addition to standardizing the weekly counts identified in

Alternative A, specific actions include: 

■ By 2002, work cooperatively with RI DEM to regulate a shoreline

hunting closure from the Sachuest Point Refuge boundary to the low

water line. This action would enhance Sachuest Point as a Watchable

Wildlife Area for observing harlequin duck and reduce conflicts

between shoreline sea duck hunters and other Refuge visitors. 

■ By 2004, begin monitoring public use to determine if the amount

or timing of shoreline visitors on the Refuge affects the activities

of wintering harlequin duck.

Alternative B
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 

How will waterfowl concentration areas be managed on the

Refuge Complex?

Under the Proposed Action our objective is to build on the actions

included in Alternative A to further enhance existing waterfowl

concentration areas, including:

■ By 2005, work with partners to develop an integrated habitat

management, inventory and monitoring plan for Trustom Salt Pond. 

■ In addition, see above proposals for managing black duck on

Trustom Pond and Chafee Refuges.

How will important marsh and wading bird habitat areas be

protected on the Refuge Complex ?

Under the Proposed Action our objective is to protect and sustain

the one rookery on Block Island, evaluate historic sites across the

Refuge Complex, and identify prospective new sites to determine if

rookeries can reestablish or expand. 

■ By 2003, we would utilize a seasonal technician to participate in

annual monitoring of the Block Island rookery site. Monitoring is

currently conducted by RI DEM and The Nature Conservancy. 

■ By 2003, we would work with these partners to identify threats to

the rookery and evaluate the pine stand supporting the rookery on

Beane Point to determine whether or not to replant native

vegetation and maintain existing nesting capability.

■ By 2005, we would initiate an inventory for marsh and wading

birds at high probability sites on the Refuge Complex to

determine seasonal occupancy and nesting sites.

How will least tern nesting sites be protected on the Refuge Complex?

Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to increase nesting

productivity in the least tern colony on Trustom Pond Refuge’s

Moonstone Beach, primarily through increased predator

management. Additional protection would result from activities

proposed for piping plover management. In addition to current

management, actions would include:

■ By 2001, adapt the predator fencing design to target smaller

mammals (e.g. weasels) striving to minimize the loss of least tern

from predators. Predator control measures proposed for piping

plover under this Alternative would also benefit least tern.

3-48
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-49

How will the Service protect and improve feeding and staging

shorebird concentration areas along the South Shore of Rhode

Island and on Block Island?

Under the Proposed Action our objective is to protect shorebird

staging areas on the Refuge Complex beaches through management

of public use and access. Actions would include: 

■ By 2002, close Block Island Refuge beaches to vehicles from

April 1 to September 15 above the mean high tide line to reduce

disturbance to nesting and migrating shorebirds. 

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

update management strategies based on any newly indentified

imperiled species (draft Shorebird Prioritization System 1999).

■ By 2005, map key staging and feeding areas in the South Shore ABS.

■ Develop and implement a plan for evaluating potential threats and

disturbances for key areas on the Complex. Use outreach and

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

How will the Refuge Complex protect and manage other landbirds of

management concern on the Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

Under the Proposed Action our objective is to identify and manage

for those landbirds considered by Partners In Flight a priority and

for which the Refuge Complex could significantly contribute to their

conservation. In addition to Alternative A, actions would include:

■ By 2002, utilize the “Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation

Plan for Southern New England” (draft Oct 1998), or the Service’s

Region 5 Regional Resources Assessment to identify and prioritize

those landbirds of highest management concern on the Refuge

Complex, and assess how current management practices are

impacting them.

■ By 2004, determine which of these landbirds should be a focus for

future management on each Refuge. Incorporate objectives into

the Refuge Complex Habitat, Monitoring, and Inventory Plans

after determining each species’ habitat requirements and the

desired mix, size, and distribution of cover types required to

sustain them.

How will the Refuge Complex protect seal haul-out areas on

Refuge lands?

There are no significant concentrations of seals on Refuge lands;

haul-out areas on these Refuges generally are used by only small

groups of two to six seals. Block Island Refuge’s Beane Point and

Sachuest Point Refuge’s shoreline are two areas where seals are

frequently observed. Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to

begin to monitor seal use on the Refuge Complex to ascertain

whether or not management actions are needed.

■ Beginning in 2005, we would work with partners to survey seal

haul-out areas on the Refuge Complex and determine if human

disturbance is a threat. We would attempt to reduce human

disturbance through public outreach efforts. Access would be

restricted if necessary.

Alternative B

Harbor Seal
Chapter 3 

Brown snake. USFWS photo

3-50 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

How will the Refuge Complex improve anadromous fish habitat in

Pettaquamscutt Cove (Narrow River), Trustom Pond, and the

Wood-Pawcatuck Rivers?

Our ability to directly improve conditions for anadromous fish habitat

is currently limited to Trustom Pond, of which we know little about

current fish populations or the condition of its other aquatic

resources. Under the Proposed Action our objective is to work with

aquatic experts to understand what resources we should evaluate and

monitor in Trustom Pond, and which management actions would be

most effective in improving conditions. 

■ By 2005, we would work with partners to develop an integrated

management plan for Trustom Salt Pond. Opportunities to

provide spawning and nursery habitat, waterfowl and shorebird

habitat, and water quality would be evaluated and prioritized.

■ Also by 2005, we would become an active participant in the RI

CRMC proposed Narrow River Working Group, once established,

and/or the South County Watershed Partnership to promote

increased watershed protection.

How will the Refuge Complex protect amphibian and reptile

populations and habitats on Refuge lands?

Recent studies conducted by the University of RI have revealed that

Ninigret and Trustom Pond Refuges are very important to the

reptile and amphibian population in the South County area; in fact,

the highest density of two amphibian species known for Rhode Island

occurs on the Refuges. Unfortunately, we know little about how

these amphibians and reptiles utilize Refuge habitats seasonally, in

particular during the spring amphibian migrations. Under the

Proposed Action, our objective is to promote an appreciation of

amphibian and reptile conservation, and to actively manage to

protect and sustain current populations on the Refuge. 

We would do the following:

■ By 2005, develop environmental education and interpretation

programs to promote the significance of the Complex to Rhode

Island’s herptofauna. Work with Friends of the Refuges and

volunteers to identify opportunities to reduce amphibian and

reptile road mortality during spring migration.

■ By 2005, evaluate and incorporate recommendations (pending)

made by Partners for Amphibian and Reptile Conservation

(PARC) as warranted into refuge management.

■ By 2005, implement an inventory and monitoring strategy for

amphibians and reptiles on the Complex. (In cooperation with the

University of RI, we have already begun inventories at Trustom

Pond and Ninigret Refuges; we need to begin baseline inventories

on Sachuest Point and Block Island Refuges.)

How will Refuge staff protect and manage rare plant habitats on the

Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to develop site-specific

plans to protect, reestablish, and sustain rare plant habitats on Refuge

lands. In addition to current management, actions would include:
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-51

■ By 2004, develop, with partners, a site management plan for

Ninigret Refuge rare plant sites, including the orchid and globally

ranked shadbush sites. Plans would cover desired vegetation

structure and composition, deer control treatments, proposed

vegetative treatment methods (e.g. fire, mechanical, and chemical)

and additional research needs.

■ By 2005, develop, with partners, a management, inventory, and

monitoring plan for the Trustom Pond Refuge sea pink and other

rare plant sites.

■ By 2006, survey and map other rare plant sites known for the

Rhode Island Refuge Complex. 

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

and other partners, assess the potential for establishing or

restoring federal and state listed species such as seabeach

amaranth, sandplain gerardia, bushy rockrose, New England

blazing star, and other former candidate plant species with

potential habitat on the Refuge Complex.

Issue 2: Restoration and maintenance of coastal sandplain natural

communities, including grasslands

Where will Refuge staff restore early successional communities on

the Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

Refuge staff are actively involved in restoring early successional

grasslands and shrublands on several refuges. Under the Proposed

Action our objective would be to manage each area to restore its

native vegetative structure and composition and to maintain the

natural physical components and processes associated with a coastal

sandplain community, or maritime community on Sachuest Point

Refuge. Since current habitat conditions are highly altered from

historic conditions, continuous evaluation of project effectiveness and

an adaptive management response would be imperative. With the

acreage targeted, an additional objective would be to increase

nesting habitat for bobolinks and eastern meadowlarks. Less likley,

but very desirable, would be sustained nesting by upland sandpipers

and grasshopper sparrows. 

■ By 2004, we would secure funding to complete restoration work on

220 contiguous acres on Ninigret Refuge, 125 acres on Trustom

Pond Refuge, and 42 acres on Sachuest Point Refuge, as identified

in Alternative A. Each project is discussed separately below. In

addition, a maintenance and monitoring schedule would be

developed for each project area. 

Specific objectives for Ninigret Refuge would include: 

■ Convert 70 acres of asphalt runway to predominantly grasslands

as outlined in the 1997 Environmental Assessment: Habitat

Restoration Project, Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge. In

addition, we would manipulate 150 acres of adjacent mid-seral

mixed shrubland to create a mosaic of early successional habitat. 

■ By 2015, 85% of the 220 acre project area would be in an early

successional, native coastal sandplain community with invasive

plant species dominating less than 15% of the project area. 

Alternative B
Chapter 3 

3-52 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

■ Native coastal grassland plant species would include, but not be

limited to: little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), big

bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), Indian grass (Sorghastrum

nutans), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), common hairgrass

(Deshampsia flexuosa), poverty-grass (Danthonia spicata),

Pennsylvanian sedge (Carex pennsylvanica), rush (Juncus

greenei), wild indigo (Baptisia tinctoria), native asters (Aster spp),

goldenrods (Solidago spp.), butterfly weed (Asclepias tuberosa),

and dewberry (Rubus hispidis and R. flagellaris). 

■ Native shrub species would include, but not be limited to, such

species as northern arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum), sumacs

(Rhus spp), bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica), high bush blueberry

(Vaccinium corymbosum), and shadbush (Amelanchier

canadensis).

Specific objectives for Trustom Pond Refuge would include: 

■ By 2015, maintain 85% of the 125 acre restoration project in early

successional, native coastal sandplain habitat, with invasive species

dominating less than 15% of the area. Target native species are

the same as those identified above for Ninigret Refuge.

Specific objectives for Sachuest Point Refuge would include: 

■ By 2015, create early successional maritime grassland and

shrubland habitat on the 42 acre project area with invasive species

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

established on over 50% of the area. On Sachuest Point Refuge

the restoration work is more problematic due to the epidemic of

invasive species. 

■ Maritime grassland species include, but are not limited to, such

plants as field goldenrods (Euthamia graminifolia and E.

tenuifolia), bitter milkwort (Polygala polygama), white-topped

aster (Asster paternus), rush (Juncus greenei). Maritime

shrubland species include, but are not limited to, such species as

bayberry, sand rose (Rosa rogosa), beach plum (Prunus

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

poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), eastern red cedar

(Juniperus virginiana), and highbush blueberry . 

■ Also by 2004, develop and implement a plan to maintain an

additional 40 acres (82 acres total) of early successional maritime

grassland and shrubland habitat on Sachuest Point Refuge. 

Other objectives for the Refuge Complex would include:

■ By 2008, develop an early successional restoration plan for Chafee

and Block Island Refuges. 

■ By 2010, evalute restoration areas for their potential as regal

fritillary butterfly reintroduction sites.

How will grassland restoration be implemented on the Rhode Island

Refuge Complex?

Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to implement the most

effective and efficient treatments for sustaining the vegetative

structure and composition described above. 
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-53

Actions would include the following:

■ Treatments would be the same as proposed for Alternative A.

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

and chemical herbicide treatments. Mechanical treatments

include brushhogging or hydroaxing woody vegetation, and

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

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

on the Refuge is approved annually by the Regional

Environmental Contaminants Specialist. 

How will the Refuge Complex promote grassland restoration on

private lands?

Native grasslands and grassland-dependent species are a concern

because they are dramatically declining throughout the Northeast,

especially large contiguous grasslands over 100 acres. The Refuge

Complex offers relatively few areas on which to maintain large

expanses of this habitat. As such, opportunities on private lands

could provide an important contribution. Under the Proposed Action,

our objective is to enhance Refuge restoration projects and contribute

to regional conservation efforts by working with adjacent landowners. 

To achieve this objective, we would: 

■ Continue with the private land cooperative grassland habitat work

on 40 acres adjacent to Trustom Pond Refuge. Herbicide

treatments, fertilizing, mowing, and some reseeding with a big

bluestem-dominated mixture would occur for maintenance. These

acres enhance the restoration work on the Refuge by creating a

larger complex for those grassland dependent species that require

more than 50 acres of contiguous habitat. 

■ By 2004, cooperate in the restoration of an additional 15 acres of

farm field to a bluestem-dominated community adjacent to

Trustom Pond using the same treatments described above. 

■ By 2005, establish native grassland demonstration areas on both

Ninigret and Trustom Pond Refuges. We would also develop

exhibits at the new Visitor Center, and conduct interpretive

programs using volunteers and staff. In addition, we would

maintain the grassland restoration interpretive sign at Ninigret

Refuge trailhead as an outreach tool. 

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

and develop materials to provide technical support for interested

landowners and conservation partners. The program may also

include on-the-ground assistance.

Alternative B
Chapter 3 

3-54 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Issue 3: Management of the beach strand ecological community

How will Refuge staff contribute to the protection and restoration of

beach strand communities?

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

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

combined impacts of development and recreation. Many species

associated with this habitat type are either federal or state listed as

threatened or endangered. Management of these areas is extremely

complex and controversial, especially if restrictions on beach use

occurs. Under the Proposed Action, our objective would be to

promote stewardship of these areas throughout the South Shore,

seek opportunities for new Refuge acquisition, and increase

protection of beach strand habitats, where they occurs on the Refuge

Complex. Specific actions would include: 

■ Each year, evaluate any opportunities to acquire beach strand

property from willing sellers in the South Shore Focus Areas.

Beach strand habitat proximal to other undeveloped areas, or of a

size and condition which allow us to maintain or restore biological

integrity, will continue to be the highest acquisition priority.

■ By 2002, in combination with piping plover outreach and

education, initiate an intensive outreach and education campaign

with the Friends of the Refuges and other partners to target

beach front landowners, elected officials, and beach visitors, to

promote increased protection and stewardship of beach strand

habitat.

■ By 2002, close Block Island Refuge beaches above the mean high

tide line to vehicles from April 1 to September 15 to ensure

protection of nesting and migratory shorebirds, and to reduce

physical impacts to beaches and dunes.

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

■ By 2004, cooperate with the Town of New Shoreham, Block Island

Land Trust, Block Island Conservancy, and The Nature

Conservancy to develop a cooperative resource protection and

public use and access plan for the Block Island Focus Area. The

Plan would establish limits on both pedestrian and vehicle use in

an attempt to protect sensitive areas (shorebird and waterbird

nesting areas and native dune vegetation) while also providing for

public use. A permit system and/or designated access and travel

ways should be evaluated. Implementation would require a formal

cooperative agreement among all partners.

Issue 4: Management of Trustom Salt Pond

How should Trustom and Cards Ponds be managed to improve

water quality and benefit species of concern?

Trustom Pond is considered by many to be the “crown jewel” of the

Refuge Complex. Its incredible resource values to shorebirds and

waterfowl are well known. However, Trustom Pond has not been

evaluated from an ecosystem perspective; that is, understanding how

the aquatic system functions and is influenced by the adjacent

wetland and terrestrial communities. 
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-55

Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to utilize local expertise

to develop an ecosystem-based plan that sustains biological diversity,

water quality, and other resource values of importance. In addition

to actions proposed in Alternative A, we would:

■ By 2005, work with partners to develop an integrated management

plan for Trustom and Cards Salt Ponds. This plan would evaluate

and prioritize management, monitoring and inventory efforts for

waterfowl and shorebirds, including piping plover, anadromous

fish, invasive plants and animals, submerged aquatic vegetation,

and factors affecting water quality.

Issue 5: Protection and restoration of wetlands

How will Refuge staff restore and promote wetland ecosystems on

the Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

Wetlands are another habitat type dramatically declining in area and

quality in Rhode Island. Wetlands are lost permanently through

development, while existing areas are degraded by pollutants and

invasive plants. The Proposed Action would build on Alternative A

with an objective to restore wetland ecosystems on the Refuge

through invasive plant control, reestablishing natural hydrologic flow,

and reducing pollution sources. Specific actions would include:

■ Beginning in 2005, treat at least five acres of Phragmites and

other invasive wetland plants on the Refuge Complex each year,

using chemical, biological, mechanical or prescribed fire

treatments as needed. 

■ By 2008, develop site plans and implement restoration of the

following top wetland projects: 25 acres at Sachuest Point Refuge

(Corps of Engineers project) and 70 acres at Ninigret Refuge.

The Ninigret wetlands project includes treating Phragmites,

restoring wetlands under runways, and attempting to restore as

natural a hydrologic flow as possible to ditched and filled areas.

■ By 2008, evaluate wetland restoration potential at Chafee Refuge.

Issue 6: Improving water quality in the Narrow River

How will Refuge staff contribute to improving and protecting 

the water quality of Pettaquamscutt Cove and the Narrow 

River Watershed?

The Narrow River, including Pettaquamscutt Cove, is an incredibly

important natural resource benefitting both wildlife and people in

the South County area. Unfortunately, water quality continues to fall

below state standards with development and recreational pressures

remaining high. Because areas below mean high tide are outside the

jurisdiction of the Service, the Refuge has little direct influence.

Under the Proposed Action our objective is to work in partnership to

promote stewardship of the area and identify and reduce pollution

sources. Specific actions would include:

■ By 2005, work with RI DEM, RI CRMC, and the Towns of

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

Pettaquamscutt Cove and the lower Narrow River to reduce

erosion and destruction of salt marshes on the Refuge. 

Alternative B
Chapter 3 

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

■ By 2005, work toward watershed-based solutions to the water

quality problems impacting the Narrow River. We would

become actively involved in an interagency partnership (yet to

be established), as recommended in RI CRMC’s Narrow River

Special Area Management Plan. This interagency working

group would be organized to develop a comprehensive plan for

the Narrow River watershed and to set research and

management priorities. 

■ Also by 2005, Refuge staff would become involved in the South

County Watershed Partnership to promote protection and

stewardship of watersheds influencing the Refuges. 

Issue 7: Control of invasive, non-native, or overabundant plant and

wildlife species

How will Refuge staff control non-native and/or invasive plant

species on the Refuge Complex?

Each of the Refuges has an extensive distribution of non-native,

invasive plant species severely impacting our ability to maintain

native biodiversity. Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to

increase treatment to cover at least 25 acres/year, eliminate new

invasions, and control the spread of already established non-native,

invasive plants. Actions would include: 

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

invasive plant species on each Refuge.

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

eradicate recently established plants. Also of high priority are

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

exemplary vegetative communities” (March 1999 Invasive Plant

Control Initiative, Strategic Plan for the Connecticut River

Watershed/Long Island Sound).

■ By 2005, establish a program to treat at least 25 acres/year of

invasive, non-native species, including at least five acres of

wetlands plants, using chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire and

biological treatments as necessary. Strategies would be adapted

based on monitoring and new information. A maintenance worker

would be hired to administer treatments.

How will Refuge staff manage non-native, invasive mute swan on

the Rhode Island Refuge Complex to reduce adverse effects on

waterfowl and water quality?

Mute swan also impact our ability to maintain native biodiversity as

they aggressively drive native waterfowl and shorebirds away from

nesting sites, and compete with them for food. Under the Proposed

Action, our objective is to eliminate mute swan from the Refuge

Complex, with particular emphasis on eliminating nesting activity. 

3-56
3-57

■ By 2001, we would 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.

Strategies would be adapted as needed to pursue zero productivity

of mute swans on the Refuge Complex. Each year, addling eggs

would continue. Adult populations would be controlled using lethal

and non-lethal techniques, if warranted, when habitat degradation is

a concern or numbers become excessive.

How will Refuge staff manage deer populations within and adjacent

to the Refuge Complex? 

Excessive deer numbers are a concern when they degrade habitat or

increase risks to human health and safety through increased vehicle

collisions and incidences of Lyme disease. Since deer are highly

mobile, it is difficult to effectively control a population unless they are

managed throughout most or all of their range. The Refuge has not

closely monitored deer populations, their movements, or impacts to

habitats, nor have we established thresholds beyond which active

management of deer populations should occur. Under the Proposed

Action, our objective is to work with RI DEM and adjacent

landowners to establish a coordinated management strategy for areas

including and surrounding the Refuges. 

■ By 2002, we would cooperate with RI DEM, adjacent landowners,

and other Block Island partners to develop a deer management

plan for the Block Island Focus Area. The Plan would identify

habitat objectives as well as public health and safety objectives,

and would establish the need to control deer populations if stated

objectives are not being reached (e.g. excessive browse line,

impacts to rare plants, increasing Lyme-disease-bearing deer ticks

or increased incidence of Lyme disease, increased deer-vehicle

collisions, etc.)

■ By 2003, we would cooperate with RI DEM, adjacent landowners,

and the Town of Charlestown to develop a deer management plan for

an area including and surrounding Ninigret Refuge.

■ By 2004, we would cooperate with RI DEM, adjacent landowners,

and Town of Narragansett to develop a deer management plan for

the area including and surrounding the Foddering Farms parcel on

Chafee Refuge.

■ By 2006, we would cooperate with RI DEM and Town of South

Kingstown to develop a deer management plan for the area

including and surrounding Trustom Pond Refuge.

■ We will evaluate deer hunting as a management tool on any refuge,

if its deer management plan recommends reducing the deer

population, since it would also promote a priority public use. A

separate EA, including public involvement, is required before

opening any refuge to deer hunting. 

Issue 8: New Refuge Complex land acquisition and cooperative

protection of sensitive habitat sites.

How will we expand our land acquisition program to protect species

and habitats of special concern?

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000

Alternative B
Chapter 3 

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Acquiring important habitat from willing sellers is one of the most

effective ways the Service can contribute to sustaining ecological

integrity and conserving rare and declining species. Under the

Proposed Action, our objective is to protect, through acquisition, an

additional 3,200 acres. Specific actions include: 

■ By 2001, with partners, increase cooperative land protection and

acquisition from willing sellers in Level 1 Focus Areas on the

South Shore and on Block Island (See “Developing Land

Protection Strategies,” above).

■ Determine at the time we acquire it whether any new acquisition

warrants designation as a new refuge. Nothing in this draft

CCP/EA precludes establishing a new refuge.

■ By 2004, develop with partners a cooperative resource protection and

public use and access plan for the entire Block Island Focus Area

(also see Issue 3).

Issue 9: Access to credible natural resource information on the

Refuge Complex to ensure management decisions are based on the

best available science

How will Refuge staff establish needs for and begin to collect

baseline biological information across the Rhode Island Refuge

Complex?

While the Proposed Action targets management for certain species

and plant communities, we also need to improve our general

knowledge base of other Refuge resources and the interactions

sustaining biological diversity and ecosystem health. Under the

Proposed Action, our objective is to prioritize our information needs

and establish a schedule for collecting the information. 

Specific actions would include: 

■ By 2003, we would have a priority list of baseline biological

inventory needs to better understand and document the

biodiversity on the Refuge Complex. One priority would be to

identify the presence and distribution of species and habitat types

listed in Appendix A. Also, it would be a priority to survey the

aquatic resources in Trustom Pond. 

■ By 2004, we would begin inventories on the highest priority

projects, incorporating the CENSUS database or other regional

databases with GIS capabilities to facilitate future analyses.

How will Refuge staff insure that biological integrity of natural

communities will be maintained on the Rhode Island Refuge

Complex? 

The Proposed Action includes management actions and strategies for

certain habitats and species which would be further refined in a

Refuge Complex Habitat Management Plan. The objective of the

Habitat Management Plan would be to prevent the loss or

degradation of habitat types, species assemblages, or natural

processes significant to the Complex. It would identify actions that,

to the extent practicable, restore and sustain viable populations of

species dependent on priority habitats. Specifically we would: 

3-58
3-59

■ By 2003, develop a Refuge Complex Habitat Management Plan

which is our highest priority step-down plan to complete. The

Plan would incorporate relevant Service policies. Also by 2003,

develop a Monitoring and Inventory Plan to support habitat and

species priorities.

■ The plan would define the full array of physical habitats on the

Complex, evaluate their condition, and determine their context

and significance within the greater ecosystem. The plan would

also prioritize habitat management on the Complex according to

these habitat types. 

Issue 10: Management of public use and access (except hunting

and environmental education which are presented separately)

How will we improve Visitor Services?

A coordinated strategy for implementing a high quality visitor

services program is currently lacking on the Refuge. Under the

Proposed Action our objective is to develop a Refuge Complex

Visitor Services Plan by 2004, which would accomplish the following : 

■ Establish strategic goals and priorities for Visitor Services across

the Refuge Complex;

■ Identify target audiences and partnership opportunities for

each Refuge;

■ Establish a methodology for determining visitor numbers, capacity

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

means for assessing quality of visitor experiences;

■ Evaluate recreational fee opportunities; and

■ Establish an implementation schedule for priority Visitor

Service’s projects.

In addition to the plan: 

■ By 2004, we would hire at least two additional Outdoor Recreation

Planners to help write and implement the Plan. 

How will Refuge staff improve existing partnerships with groups

involved in or influencing public use activities on the Refuges?

Partnerships are vital for public support and management of public

use activities. Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to

formalize our existing partnerships to promote coordinated

management and facilitate sharing of resources. 

■ By 2005, we would develop formal agreements with current

partners, such as the South County Museum, Norman Bird

Sanctuary, South County Tourism Council, to identify mutual

goals, cost sharing, technical exchange, and environmental

education and interpretation opportunities.

What fishing opportunities will be available at Block Island Refuge?

Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to provide a compatible,

high quality fishing experience on Block Island Refuge, while

reducing impacts to natural resources. 

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000

Alternative B
Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

■ By 2002, we would close Refuge beaches above the mean high tide

line to vehicles from April 1 to September 15 to protect nesting

and migrating shorebirds and reduce physical impacts to beach

and dunes. Other than the vehicle restriction, the Refuge would

remain open to surf fishing year round. 

■ By 2004, we would work with the Town of New Shoreham, The

Nature Conservancy, and other partners to develop a cooperative

resource protection and public use and access plan for the Block

Island Focus Area. The plan would establish limits on both

pedestrian and vehicle use, attempting to protect sensitive areas

(shorebird and waterbird nesting areas and vegetation), while also

providing for public use. A permit system and/or designated

access and travel ways would also be evaluated.

■ By 2005, we would implement a monitoring plan in vicinity of

the colonial waterbird rookery to evaluate disturbance by surf

fishing. If necessary, public access would be adapted in

response to monitoring results.

What fishing opportunities will be available at Ninigret Refuge?

Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to provide a compatible,

high quality fishing experience on Ninigret Refuge, while reducing

impacts to natural resources. Actions would include: 

■ By 2003, designate and maintain access trails for shoreline

fishing at Ninigret Pond to minimize impacts on habitat.

Actively enforce use of trails. 

■ By 2003, require commercial shell fishermen to have a Refuge

special use permits, to allow us to better document use and impacts.

What fishing opportunities will be available at Chafee Refuge?

Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to provide a compatible,

high quality fishing experience on Chafee Refuge, while reducing

impacts to natural resources. 

■ We would continue to allow fishing from boats and the shoreline,

but, by 2005, trail access would be designated to reduce impacts to

marsh. 

■ By 2007, we would construct at least one barrier-free, accessible

fishing structure. 

What fishing opportunities will be available at Sachuest Point Refuge?

Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to provide a compatible,

high quality fishing experience on Sachuest Point Refuge, while

reducing impacts to natural resources. Actions would include: 

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

erosion and to better enforce Refuge regulations against littering

and bonfires. In addition, we would initiate a study to evaluate

impacts to wildlife from night fishing. Of particular concern is the

potential impact from the large lanterns or spotlights kept lit

while fishing at night. 

3-60

Chapter 3 
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-61

■ Also by 2002, we would develop and enforce a regulation requiring

spear-fishing gear to be unloaded and encased while on Refuge

land to avoid intimidating other Refuge visitors and to ensure

their safety. 

What fishing opportunities will be available at Trustom Pond Refuge?

Same as Alternative A.

What kind of interpretive opportunities will be available at Block

Island Refuge?

Under the Proposed Action our objective is to increase opportunities

for a compatible, high quality interpretive experience on Block

Island Refuge. 

■ By 2005, we would develop an interpretive program for Block

Island Focus Area tiered to the Visitor Services Plan. The plan

would evaluate opportunities for interpretive exhibits at Cresent

Beach, North Light, on the ferry, at the ferry landing, at town

center, at Settler’s Rock, or at the “welcome center” in the town

theater. We would also consider cooperating with The Nature

Conservancy on an interpretive walk along Clayhead Bluffs trail.

What kind of interpretive opportunities will be available at

Ninigret Refuge?

Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to increase opportunities

for a compatible, high quality interpretive experience on Ninigret

Refuge. In addition to current management, we would implement

the following:

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

Services Plan. Evaluate needs for new pamphlets, including a

self-guided interpretive pamphlet, trail maps, and interpretive

signs at the current and proposed (Foster Cove) barrier free

observation platforms.

What kind of interpretive opportunities will be available at

Chafee Refuge?

Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to establish

opportunities for compatible, high quality interpretive experiences on

Chafee Refuge. Actions would include:

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

along South County Bike Trail according to Refuge stipulations. 

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

the Visitor Services Plan. Evaluate the opportunities to cooperate

on an interpretive exhibit and kiosk at South County Museum and

construct a kiosk and pullout at Middle Bridge.

■ Evaluate opportunities for constructing a kiosk and barrier-free

trail and observation platform at Bridgeport Commons, and

designating interpretive canoe and kayak routes. We would also

consider guided trips using a concessionaire.

Alternative B
Chapter 3 

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

What kind of interpretive opportunities will be available at

Sachuest Point Refuge?

Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to increase opportunities

for a compatible, high quality interpretive experience on Sachuest

Point Refuge. In addition to current management, we would

implement the following: 

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

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

Services Plan, including development of an interpretive trail

describing the natural and cultural history of the area. At least

one trail would be reconstructed to allow for barrier-free

accessibility. We would also develop additional interpretive kiosks

and demonstration areas, improve signage, create a watchable

wildlife pamphlet, and provide multi-lingual literature.

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

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

beaches, and an exhibit at Newport Visitor Center.

What kind of interpretive opportunities will be available at

Trustom Pond Refuge?

Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to increase opportunities

for a compatible, high quality interpretive experience on Trustom

Pond Refuge. In addition to current management we would

implement the following actions:

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

Services Plan. 

■ Also by 2005, construct a barrier- free trail to Trustom Pond with

self-guided trail literature, and construct interpretive signs for the

grassland restoration project, barrier beach, and salt pond ecology.

What kind of wildlife observation and photography opportunities

will be available at Block Island Refuge?

Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to increase opportunities

for a compatible, high quality wildlife observation and photography

experience on Block Island Refuge. We would implement the following: 

■ By 2005, formerly “open” all of the Refuge to wildlife observation

and photography in conjunction with the cooperative resource

protection and public use and access plan for the Block Island

Focus Area. Travelways would be designated. We would continue

to restrict access if piping plover are observed showing territorial

behavior, and continue to restrict access seasonally in sensitive

areas such as Beane Point. All proposed activities on Beane Point

would occur outside of the sensitive nesting period for wading

birds, approximately May 1 to August 1. 

■ Also by 2005, hire a seasonal park aid to provide guided walks

outside of sensitive shorebird and wading bird nesting and

migration seasons.

3-62
3-63

What kind of wildlife observation and photography opportunities

will be available at Ninigret Refuge?

Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to increase opportunities

for a compatible, high quality wildlife observation and photography

experience on Ninigret Refuge. In addition to current management

we would implement the following: 

■ By 2003, secure funding to complete construction of the 3.8 mile

“Trail Through Time” and construction of a new observation

platform on Ninigret Pond at Foster Cove. This new trail amounts

to a reduction from the original 8.0 miles, mostly comprised of

asphalt runway. Public access would be restricted to designated

trails and shoreline access points.

■ By 2005, if determined feasible, construct up to two additional

barrier-free observation platforms and/or viewing blinds at the

grassland restoration project area and/or on Ninigret Pond.

■ We would also develop watchable wildlife literature and a

species checklist.

What kind of wildlife observation and photography opportunities

will be available at Chafee Refuge?

Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to establish

opportunities for compatible, high quality wildlife observation and

photography experiences on Chafee Refuge. 

■ By 2005, we would cooperate with the Town of Narragansett,

adjacent landowners, and RI DOT to construct a barrier-free

accessible observation trail and platform at Middle Bridge. A

second barrier-free trail and platform would be constructed at

Bridgeport Commons. We would also designate an interpretive

kayak/canoe trail.

What kind of wildlife observation and photography opportunities

will be available at Sachuest Point Refuge?

Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to improve opportunities

for a compatible, high quality wildlife observation and photography

experience on Sachuest Point Refuge, while minimizing impacts to

natural resources. In addition to current management, we would

implement the following: 

■ By 2004, modify or eliminate unnecessary and redundant trails or

trails likely to impact future habitat restoration project areas.

Shoreline access points would also be designated and enforced to

minimize erosion. Access would be restricted to designated trails.

■ By 2008, reconstruct one trail to provide barrier-free access to an

observation platform. We would also develop watchable wildlife

pamphlets and species’ checklists.

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000

Alternative B
Chapter 3 

Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

What kind of wildlife observation and photography opportunities

will be available at Trustom Pond Refuge?

Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to improve opportunities

for a compatible, high quality wildlife observation and photography

experience on Trustom Pond Refuge, while minimizing impacts to

natural resources. In addition to current management, we would

implement the following: 

■ By 2003, we would eliminate unnecessary, redundant trails and

restrict public use to trails only. 

■ By 2005, we would reconstruct the eastern-most trail to make it

barrier-free accessible. At least one existing platform accessed by

this trail would be made barrier free. We would also develop a

watchable wildlife pamphlet and species checklist.

■ By 2008, we would evaluate opportunities to construct two barrier

free photo blinds.

How will nonwildlife dependent activities be managed at Block

Island Refuge?

Nonwildlife dependent, incompatible activities are affecting the

quality of experience for other Refuge visitors. They often degrade

habitat quality and directly impact species of concern. In short,

these activities detract from fulfillment of Refuge purposes. Under

the Proposed Action, our objective is to eliminate existing nonwildlife

dependent, inappropriate or incompatible activities by 2005. Specific

actions would include:

■ By 2002, increase resource protection and management of public

use by hiring a seasonal law enforcement officer to work between

Block Island and Sachuest Point Refuges. Enforce restrictions on

incompatible and nonwildlife-dependent uses or other public use

concerns identified in the cooperative plan for the Block Island

Focus Area (see Issue 2). This includes the annual seasonal

closure on ORV’s from April 1 to September 15. 

■ By 2005, eliminate all inappropriate, incompatible, or nonwildlifedependent activities specifically targeting ORV recreational driving,

dog walking, swimming and sunbathing, jogging, and kite flying.

■ By 2005, develop a cooperative agreement with Town of New

Shoreham to share law enforcement responsibilities.

How will nonwildlife dependent activities be managed at

Ninigret Refuge?

As stated above for Block Island, nonwildlife dependent,

incompatible activities detract from our ability to fulfill Refuge

purposes. Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to eliminate

these activities from the Refuge by 2005. Certain activities are

targeted sooner. 

■ By 2001, we would implement an outreach and education program

to begin to phase out dog-walking and bicycling. These activities

were previously allowed by Refuge staff on the existing runways

with a decision in 1997 (Habitat Restoration Project EA: Ninigret

Refuge) that these uses would be eliminated once the runways

were removed. 

3-64
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-65

■ By 2003, an additional seasonal law enforcement officer would be

hired to provide more consistent, thorough outreach and

enforcement to deal with incompatible activities.

■ By 2005, we would eliminate all inappropriate, incompatible,

and/or nonwildlife dependent activities specifically targeting bike

riding, roller blading, dog walking, jogging, kite flying, ORV use,

swimming, and sunbathing. 

How will nonwildlife dependent activities be managed at Chafee

Refuge?

As stated above for Block Island, nonwildlife dependent,

incompatible activities detract from our ability to fulfill Refuge

purposes. Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to eliminate

these activities from the Refuge by 2005. 

Actions would include: 

■ By 2005, finish posting all Refuge boundaries. We would also

develop and implement a strategy to consolidate shoreline access

easement of adjacent landowners. 

■ Also by 2005, we would attempt to minimize the impacts from offRefuge recreational water activities by working with RI DEM to

create a “no wake zone” in Pettaquamscutt Cove and the Lower

Narrow River. The purpose of this action is to reduce the rate of

erosion to shoreline and salt marshes and minimize the

disturbance to Refuge wildlife from these activities.

■ By 2005, increase monitoring and enforcement against

unauthorized access across the Refuge.

How will nonwildlife dependent activities be managed at Sachuest

Point Refuge?

As stated above for Block Island, non-wildlife dependent,

incompatible activities detract from our ability to fulfill Refuge

purposes. Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to eliminate

these activities from the Refuge by 2005. Certain activities are

targeted sooner. 

■ Beginning in 2001, we would initiate an intensive outreach and

education effort to begin to phase out dog walking and jogging on

the Refuge.

■ By 2002, we would establish a consistent Service presence by

assigning permanent staff to this station and by staffing the

Visitor Center.

■ By 2003, we would increase resource protection and management

of public use by utilizing law enforcement personnel to provide

more consistent and thorough outreach and enforcement of

incompatible, nonwildlife dependent activities.

■ By 2005, we would eliminate all inappropriate, incompatible,

and/or nonwildlife dependent activities specifically targeting

jogging, dog walking, swimming, sunbathing, bicycling, horseback

riding, and bonfires. 

Alternative B
3-66 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 

How will nonwildlife dependent activities be managed at Trustom

Pond Refuge?

As stated above for Block Island, nonwildlife dependent,

incompatible activities detract from our ability to fulfill Refuge

purposes. Under the Proposed Action, our objective would be to

eliminate these activities from the Refuge by 2005. Certain activities

are targeted sooner. 

■ By 2004, we would increase resource protection and management of

public use by utilizing law enforcement personnel to provide more

consistent and thorough outreach and enforcement of incompatible,

nonwildlife dependent activities. Law enforcement efforts would

continue to focus on keeping people and dogs out of the Moonstone

Beach piping plover closure area and on enforcing against

inappropriate behavior on beaches, parking areas, and trails. 

■ By 2005, we would eliminate all inappropriate, incompatible and/or

nonwildlife dependent activities specifically targeting swimming and

sunbathing, bike riding, horseback riding, ORV use, and kite flying. 

What priority public uses would be allowed on newly acquired

Refuge lands?

Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to allow priority public

uses to continue on an interim basis on newly acquired Refuge lands,

unless the activities do not meet the criteria stipulated in the Interim

Compatibility Determination in Appendix E. 

■ These interim compatibility determinations would be in effect until

formal compatibility determinations are completed.

■ Before any new wildlife-dependent activity is allowed, a

compatibility determination would be required. In addition,

opening up newly acquired lands to hunting and fishing require

notification in the Federal Register. Hunting programs also

require preparation of an EA and an Annual Hunt Plan.

■ All nonwildlife dependent activities existing on newly acquired

Refuge lands would be phased out as soon as practicable.

How will the Refuge promote and cultivate the relationship with the

Friends of the National Wildlife Refuges of Rhode Island?

Our partnership with the Friends Group is vitally important to us for

community relations and for support in implementing our resource

programs. Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to build on

current management and strengthen our relationship with the

Friends Group. 

■ By 2001, we would conduct at least semi-annual meetings with the

Friends Group to promote communication and evaluate

implementation of the MOU. We would continue to actively

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

and implementing outreach and environmental education

programs which enhance our ability to meet Refuge goals.
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-67

Issue 11: Hunting on the Refuges

What hunting opportunities will be available at Block Island Refuge? 

Neither past nor current Refuge management has promoted a

hunting program for several reasons (see discussion under

Alternative A, Issue 11). Under the Proposed Action, we would not

propose hunting on Block Island Refuge. We would consider deer

hunts in the future to control overabundant populations (see

discussion under Alternative B, Issue 7). 

What hunting opportunities will be available at Ninigret Refuge?

Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to slightly increase

waterfowl hunting opportunities on Ninigret Refuge as outlined

below. We would consider deer hunts in the future to control

overabundant populations (see discussion under Alternative B,

Issue 7). 

Actions would include:

■ By 2002, allow waterfowl hunting from boat only in Coon Cove and

in the marshland within the barrier beach parcel. Arguably, this is

not a significant expansion of hunting opportunity, as Coon Cove

would probably only accommodate one party at a time. The hunt

would be cooperatively administered with RI DEM under Refuge

regulations. No other hunting season is proposed at this time for

Ninigret Refuge.

What hunting opportunities will be available at Chafee Refuge?

Neither past nor current Refuge management has promoted a

hunting program for several reasons (see discussion under

Alternative A, Issue 11). Under the Proposed Action, we would not

propose hunting on Chafee Refuge. We would consider deer hunts in

the future to control overabundant populations (see discussion under

Alternative B, Issue 7). 

What hunting opportunities will be available at Sachuest 

Point Refuge?

Neither past nor current Refuge management has promoted a

hunting program for several reasons (see discussion under

Alternative A, Issue 11). Under the Proposed Action we would not

propose hunting on Sachuest Point Refuge primarily because the

impenetrable shrub vegetation and lack of a huntable wildlife

population precludes a quality hunt program.

Alternative B
Chapter 3 

What hunting opportunities will be available at Trustom 

Pond Refuge? 

Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to maintain the limited

hunting opportunity on Trustom Pond Refuge, as outlined below. We

would consider deer hunts in the future to control overabundant

populations (see discussion under Alternative B, Issue 7). 

■ Each year, we would continue to allow RI DEM to administer a

waterfowl hunt on 20 upland acres. Habitat management to

promote this hunting opportunity would occur as outlined in a

1999 habitat management plan completed by RI DEM for this 20

acre tract. The plan would be annually reviewed and strategies

updated as needed. No other hunting on Trustom Pond Refuge is

proposed as this time.

Issue 12: Increased opportunities for environmental education

What curriculum-based environmental education opportunities will

be available at Block Island Refuge?

Under the Proposed Action our objective is to increase opportunities

for compatible, high quality environmental educational experiences

on Block Island Refuge. In addition to current management we

would implement the following:

■ By 2003, initiate a formal partnership with The Nature Conservancy

to facilitate sharing of resources and assist in curriculum

development and implementation. A seasonal Park Aid would be

hired for assistance. Beane Point would be used as a classroom

laboratory or housing for educators and researchers. 

■ All proposed environmental education activities in the vicinity of

Beane Point would occur outside of the sensitive nesting period for

wading birds, approximately May 1 to August 1.

What curriculum-based environmental education opportunities will

be available at Ninigret Refuge?

Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to increase opportunities

for compatible, high quality environmental educational experiences

on Ninigret Refuge. In addition to current management, we would

implement the following:

■ By 2002, sponsor a “Teach the Teacher” workshop as an effective

way to reach many students to advocate protection and

stewardship of natural resources.

■ By 2004, update the existing MOA with Frosty Drew to insure

compatibility with the Visitor Services Plan. The for-profit

program currently operating on the Refuge would be evaluated for

its compatibility with other environmental education programs. If

determined compatible, the for-profit group would be required to

obtain a Refuge special use permit.

3-68 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
3-69

■ By 2005, with partners, develop an environmental education

program tiered to the Visitor Services Plan. We would establish

outdoor classroom sites featuring grassland restoration and salt

pond ecology. We would pursue a volunteer environmental

education corps to help with implementation on both Ninigret and

Trustom Pond Refuges.

What curriculum-based environmental education opportunities will

be available at Chafee Refuge?

Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to establish

opportunities for compatible, high quality environmental educational

experiences on Chafee Refuge. 

■ By 2004, we would sponsor a “Teach the Teacher” workshop.

■ By 2005, we would cooperate with local schools and partners to

develop a curriculum for classroom use featuring the Narrow

River estuary and Pettaquamscutt Cove. We would develop a

formal partnership with South County Museum to conduct

curriculum based programs.

What curriculum-based environmental education opportunities will

be available at Sachuest Point Refuge?

Under the Proposed Action our objective would be to increase

opportunities for compatible, high quality environmental educational

experiences on Sachuest Point Refuge. In addition to current

management, we would implement the following:

■ By 2003, sponsor a “Teach the Teacher” workshop.

■ By 2005, develop a formal partnership with the Norman Bird

Sanctuary to facilitate sharing of resources.

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

and local schools to develop curriculum based program featuring

Refuge resources. A volunteer environmental education corps

would be established to help implement programs.

What curriculum-based environmental education opportunities will

be available at Trustom Pond Refuge?

Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to increase opportunities

for compatible, high quality environmental educational experiences

on Trustom Pond Refuge. In addition to current management we

would implement the following:

■ By 2002, sponsor a “Teach the Teacher” workshop.

■ By 2005, with partners, develop an environmental education

program tiered to the Visitor Services plan. We would work with

local schools to develop a curriculum associated with the existing

outdoor farm pond and barrier beach classroom sites. We would

also improve outdoor classroom facilities.

■ We would hire an additional Outdoor Recreation Planner to

develop and implement programs across the Refuge Complex.

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000

Alternative B
■ By 2010, we would develop other curriculum-based, outdoor

programs featuring coastal salt pond and grassland restoration. A

volunteer environmental education corps, to be shared with

Ninigret Refuge, would help with implementation.

Issue 13: Ability to provide staffing, operations, and maintenance

support needed to accomplish goals and objectives

How does the proposed alternative change the funding requirements

of the Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

Successful implementation of the Proposed Action relies on the

ability to secure funding, personnel, infrastructure, and other

resources to accomplish the actions identified. Under the Proposed

Action, our objective is to obtain the funding as outlined below: 

■ By 2003, funding would increase substantially, commensurate with

the staffing and project lists outlined for Alternative B in

Appendix F and Appendix H. Full implementation of this

alternative would require an annual increase of $569,000 for salary,

and a total increase of $10.3 million in RONS projects (not

including recurring costs).

What will be the staffing needs of the Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

Successful implementation of the Proposed Action relies on the

ability to secure funding, personnel, infrastructure, and other

resources to accomplish the actions identified. Under the Proposed

Action, our objective is to obtain the staffing level outlined below: 

■ 26 full time personnel, and

■ 17 seasonals

■ Some staff would be assigned to Sachuest Point and Block Island

Refuges as depicted on the staffing charts (Appendix H), the rest

would be stationed at the current office pending completion of the

new Refuge Complex Headquarters/Visitor Center.

■ New positions emphasize an increase in visitor services, biological

expertise, and visibility of the Service on Refuge lands.

How will the Service ensure protection of cultural resources on the

Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

Under the Proposed Action, our objective is to develop and

implement a cultural resources management and protection plan that

meets federal and state requirements and increases public awareness

and stewardship of these resources. Specific actions include: 

■ By 2005, increase the available data on cultural resources, to

afford better protection, by initiating a cultural resources

overview of the Refuge Complex. 

■ Conduct field investigations of Ninigret and Trustom Pond

Refuges as these Refuges have the greatest likelihood of finding

cultural resources with any integrity. 

■ Record all sites in a GIS data base. 

3-70 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 
3-71

■ Train at least one law enforcement officer on the Refuge in

regulations associated with the Archeological Resources

Protection Act (ARPA).

■ Also by 2005, develop a partnership agreement with the

Narragansett Indian Tribal Council to facilitate cooperation on

environmental education and interpretation, to improve our

understanding of the context for these resources, and to increase

site identification and protection. 

■ By 2010, develop a Cultural Resources Protection Plan for

recorded sites.

Issue 14: Increased visibility of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

How will the Refuge increase Service visibility and recognition of

the National Wildlife Refuge System?

Visibility and recognition of the Service, the National Wildlife Refuge

System, and the Rhode Island Refuge Complex are extremely

important for gaining support to achieve our vision and goals. Under

the Proposed Action, our objective is to increase visibility and

recognition through the following actions: 

■ By 2005, complete construction of the new Visitor Center and

Headquarters and reconstruction of the Visitor Center for

Sachuest Point Refuge. In both visitor centers, we would provide

exhibits which tie the Rhode Island Refuge Complex to the

national system. Both Visitor Centers would increase the

Service’s visibility within local communities through outreach,

education and interpretive programs.

■ By 2008, complete boundary posting on Chafee Refuge and

boundary posting on any new acquisitions on other Refuges. On

an annual basis, we would replace and maintain boundary posts as

necessary to insure visibility of Refuge lands.

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000

Alternative B
Issue 15: Need for improved facilities

What facilities are needed to improve administrative and visitor

contact services on the Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

Successful implementation of the Proposed Action relies on our

ability to secure funding, personnel, infrastructure, and other

resources to accomplish the actions identified. Under the Proposed

Action, our objective is to obtain visitor contact and administrative

facilities as outlined below: 

■ By 2005, we would complete construction of the Visitor

Center/Headquarters for the Refuge Complex. We would

implement recommendations for interior facility design from the

August 1999 Project Identification Document for the Refuge

Complex Visitor Center. At least one Visitor Services Specialist

would be hired to administer the new facility.

■ By 2008, we would construct a visitor contact facility on Ninigret

Refuge. At least one seasonal Park Aid would be utilized to help

manage visitor contact stations and assist in the Visitor Center.

When will the Rhode Island Refuge Complex improve road and

entry signs to meet national standards and better serve visitors? 

As stated above, visibility and recognition of the Refuge Complex

improve our chances of gaining local support for our vision, goals,

and resource programs. Under the Proposed Action, our objective is

to meet national standards for our signs. Specific actions include:

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

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

sign directing visitors “To Moonstone Beach,” and directional

signs to Ninigret Refuge which are confused with Ninigret Park.

■ By 2005, we would complete a Refuge Complex Facilities and

Sign Plan.

■ At a minimum, by 2005, the new Headquarters and Ninigret

Refuge signs (on U.S. Route 1) should meet national standards.

3-72 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-73

Map 3-14
3-74 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Map 3-15
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-75

Map 3-16
3-76 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Map 3-17
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-77

Map 3-18
3-78 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Map 3-19
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-79

Map 3-20
3-80 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Map 3-21
Alternative C

This alternative is similar to Alternative B in its emphasis on

protecting piping plover and other species of concern, increasing

baseline biological inventories and monitoring, and grassland and

wetlands habitat restoration on Refuge lands. Alternative C

generally goes a step further, however, in increasing the involvement

of Refuge staff in watershed or ecosystem-based land and resource

planning and implementation efforts with partners throughout

Rhode Island. For example, this alternative proposes that Refuge

staff take the lead in implementing the Piping Plover Recovery Plan

tasks in Rhode Island, take the lead in implementing Ecosystem

Team priority actions related to piping plover, grasslands and

invasive plants, and to actively participate in watershed-based

partnerships in the Wood-Pawcatuck Rivers, Narrow River, and

South Shore watersheds. Cooperative land protection and land

acquisition on up to 11,550 acres is significantly greater than

proposed in Alternatives A, B or D. 

This alternative would improve the quality of existing public use

opportunities beyond what is proposed in Alternative A, but

generally does not expand opportunities nor promote an increase in

visitation as in Alternatives B and D. The only public use expansion

proposed would be to improve the quality of existing environmental

education programs and sponsor “Teach the Teacher” workshops to

promote an increased understanding of and stewardship for species

and habitats of special management concern. 

Implementation of Alternative C would result in a decrease in

current fishing opportunities and would restrict public access to

designated areas. The only hunting opportunity on Trustom Pond

would be effectively eliminated with restoration of the 20 acre upland

site to native, warm season grasses. Overall visitation to the Refuge

Complex would be expected to increase slightly (approximately 15%)

as a result of improvements to existing public use programs and as a

result of the new Visitor Center. All nonwildlife dependent and

incompatible activities would be phased out by 2002, more quickly

than Alternatives A, B, or D. These activities include recreational

ORV use, dog walking, swimming and sunbathing, jogging, kite

flying, bicycling, roller blading, horseback riding, and bonfires.

Involvement by volunteers, partners, and The Friends of the

National Wildlife Refuges of Rhode Island would be strengthened,

similar to Alternatives B and D. Considerably more partnerships

would be established, emphasizing ecosystem or watershed-level

planning. The visibility of the Service and the Refuges would

increase over Alternative A, but less resources would be committed

to this as compared to Alternatives B and D. Implementation of

Alternative C would also more than double current staffing and

notably increase budget levels over what is currently appropriated. 

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-81

Alternative C
Issue 1: Protection of endangered and threatened species and

other species and habitats of special concern

How will piping plover nesting sites be protected at Trustom

Pond Refuge?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to increase protection for

piping plover chicks by minimizing human-associated disturbances

during the most critical stage of the nesting period. Specifically, by

2002, we would cooperate with RI CRMC and RI DEM to implement

the following:

■ Annually, from April 1 until chicks hatch (approx. late May), place

symbolic fencing 10 feet above mean high tide line. This would

provide for additional wildlife-dependent public beach use during

a less vulnerable nesting period. Individual nest exclosures would

be placed according to current practices. 

■ After hatching, work with RI DEM and RI CRMC to close the

entire beach to public use, including the intertidal area to the

water, until fledging has occurred (this can occur as late as midAugust). This would reduce the vulnerability of chicks to

trampling, disturbance by dogs, and unnecessary, excessive

energy expenditures while fleeing. It is important to note that the

Service has no jurisdiction below the mean high tide line, and as

such, implementation of this alternative would require cooperation

with RI DEM and RI CRMC. 

■ From fledging to Sept. 15, we would place symbolic fencing at the

original location; 10 feet above mean high tide. This enclosed area

would continue to provide protection to fledged chicks and

migrating shorebirds. 

■ To support the program, we would hire personnel similar to those

identified in Alternative B.

How will piping plover nesting sites be protected at Ninigret Refuge

barrier beach and active sites in the South Shore of Rhode Island?

Same as Alternative B.

How will piping plover nesting sites be protected in the Block Island

Focus Area?

Under Alternative C, in addition to that stated for Alternative B, our

objective would be to eliminate the risk of vehicles impacting piping

plover or habitat suitability by implementing the following action:

■ By 2003, we would close Refuge beaches above the mean high tide

line to vehicles year round to eliminate impacts from vehicles to

nesting and migrating shorebirds and to minimize physical

destruction to the barrier beach, dunes, and vegetation.

How will piping plover predators be managed on Rhode Island

Refuge Complex nesting sites?

Same as Alternative B.

3-82 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 
How can piping plover habitat be improved at Trustom Pond Refuge?

Same as Alternative B.

How will the Service coordinate with other agencies and private

landowners to protect piping plover throughout the South Shore

Focus Areas?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to maximize interagency

coordination and cooperation in managing piping plover in Rhode

Island. We would implement the following action, in addition to

Alternative B:

■ By 2005, initiate a Piping Plover Working Group to implement

Recovery Plan tasks in Rhode Island.

How will the Refuge Complex increase public awareness of piping

plover issues through outreach and education?

Same as Alternative B.

How will the Refuge Complex ensure that piping plover

management practices are based on sound science?

Same as Alternative B.

How will the Refuge Complex contribute to the protection and

restoration of the American burying beetle population within the

Block Island Focus Area?

Same as Alternative B.

How will the Refuge Complex protect bald eagle habitat within the

Block Island Focus Area?

Same as Alternative B.

How will the Refuge Complex contribute to establishing populations

of northeastern beach tiger beetle in the South Shore of Rhode Island?

Same as Alternative B.

How will the Refuge manage habitat for black duck at Chafee and

Trustom Pond Refuges?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to work cooperatively to

increase the quality of Pettaquamscutt Cove and Trustom Pond

Refuge as a waterfowl rest areas and maximize opportunities for

wildlife viewing.

■ By 2003, we would work with the Town of South Kingstown, RI

DEM and Audubon Society of Rhode Island to designate a nohunting “rest area” for all waterfowl in Pettaquamscutt Cove and

lower Narrow River. Currently, the Narragansett-side of the cove

is closed to hunting while the South Kingstown-side is open. 

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-83

Alternative C
■ Closure of the entire cove to hunting would establish a rest area

during migration and wintering when concentrations of black duck

and other waterfowl are greatest. This effort would also facilitate

development of a Watchable Wildlife Area. It is important to

recognize that the Service has no jurisdiction over lands and waters

below mean high tide, or open navigable waters, thus, implementation

of this action would require cooperation with RI DEM. 

■ No hunting would occur on Trustom Pond Refuge. 

■ By 2003, in addition to mute swan control during the nesting

season as proposed in Alternative B, we would remove all adult

swans, to the extent practicable, throughout the year.

How will the Refuge protect wintering harlequin duck at Sachuest

Point Refuge?

Same as Alternative B.

How will waterfowl concentration areas be managed on the Refuge

Complex?

Same as Alternative B.

How will important marsh and wading bird habitat areas be

protected on the Refuge Complex ?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to increase interagency and

partner coordination to promote the protection of wading bird

nesting sites. In addition to actions in Alternative B, we would

implement the following:

■ By 2002, work cooperatively with RI DEM, RI Heritage Program,

and The Nature Conservancy to identify active, inactive or

historical marsh and wading bird nesting sites in South Shore

Focus Areas and determine potential for re-colonization. 

■ Identify opportunities to acquire important marsh and wading bird

habitats within Focus Areas.

How will least tern nesting sites be protected on the Rhode Island

Refuge Complex?

Same as Alternative B.

How will the Service protect and improve feeding and staging

shorebird concentration areas along the South Shore of Rhode

Island and on Block Island?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to eliminate the risk of vehicles

impacting shorebirds on Block Island Refuge. In addition to

Alternative B, we would: 

■ By 2003, close Block Island beaches above mean high tide to

vehicles year round to protect nesting, migrating, and wintering

shorebirds.

3-84 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 
How will the Refuge Complex protect and manage other landbirds of

management concern on the Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

Same as Alternative B.

How will the Refuge Complex protect seal haul-out areas on

Refuge lands?

Same as Alternative B.

How will the Refuge Complex improve anadromous fish habitat in

Pettaquamscutt Cove (Narrow River), Trustom Pond, and the WoodPawcatuck Rivers?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to increase interagency and

conservation partnerships in all watersheds affecting the Refuges to

promote watershed protection. In addition to Alternative B, we

would implement the following: 

■ By 2002, the Refuge would become an active participant in the

Pawcatuck Watershed Partnership, the RI CRMC proposed

Narrow River Interagency Working Group, and the South County

Watershed Partnership to promote anadromous fisheries

management and improved water quality. Each of these groups is

involved in watershed protection with proposed Focus Areas.

How will the Refuge Complex protect amphibian and reptile

populations and habitats on Refuge lands?

Same as Alternative B.

How will Refuge staff protect and manage rare plant habitats on the

Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

Same as Alternative B.

Issue 2: Restoration and maintenance of coastal sandplain natural

communities, including grasslands

Where will Refuge staff restore grassland communities on the Rhode

Island Refuge Complex?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to eliminate continued

maintenance of non-native grasslands on Trustom Pond and expand

our influence on promoting grasslands restoration throughout the

South Shore. We would implement the following actions in addition

to Alternative B:

■ By 2004, convert the 20 upland acres at Trustom Pond Refuge,

currently in non-native cool season grasses, to early successional

native coastal sandplain habitat. 

■ By 2005, work with partners to prioritize sandplain grassland

restoration opportunities within the South Shore and Sachuest

Point Focus Areas. 

■ We would also determine the Refuge’s role in projects off-Refuge

and develop partnership agreements to share resources.

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-85

Alternative C
How will grassland restoration be implemented on the Rhode Island

Refuge Complex?

Same as Alternative A.

How will the Refuge Complex promote grassland restoration on

private lands?

Same as Alternative B.

Issue 3: Management of the beach strand ecological community

How will Refuge staff contribute to the protection and restoration of

beach strand communities?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to champion beach strand

protection measures recommended by the Ecosystem team and

eliminate vehicle impacts to the beach strand habitat on Block Island

Refuge. We would implement the following actions in addition to

Alternative B:

■ By 2002, we would begin work on action items identified in the 1996

CT River/Long Island Sound Ecosystem team’s Strategic Plan

related to beach strand communities in Rhode Island. Action items

include prioritizing beach strand sites, identifying and mapping

current and historical populations of target species, determining

threats at each site, and implementing site protection plans.

■ By 2003, we would close Block Island Refuge beaches above the

mean high tide line to vehicles year round to protect nesting and

migrating shorebirds and to minimize physical impacts to the

barrier beach and dune structure and vegetation.

Issue 4: Management of Trustom Salt Pond

How should Trustom and Cards Ponds be managed to improve

water quality and benefit species of concern?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to increase public awareness,

and interagency and conservation partnerships in the Trustom Pond

watershed to promote watershed protection. 

■ By 2005, we would initiate a watershed based, landscape-level

approach to improving water quality and habitat conditions for

Trustom and Cards Ponds. We would work towards identifying

the significant sources of pollution directly impacting the ponds

and follow with outreach and education within the community. 

■ We would also participate in a South Shore Area Working Group

(yet to be organized) recommended in the 1998 RI CRMC Special

Area Management Plan, and in the established South County

Watershed Partnership.

3-86 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 
Issue 5: Protection and restoration of wetlands

How will Refuge staff restore and promote wetland ecosystems on

the Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to increase interagency and

conservation partner involvement in the identification and

implementation of wetland restoration projects throughout the

South Shore. 

■ By 2010, we would develop with partners a list of top priority

wetlands restoration projects and implementation plans

throughout the South Shore and Sakonnet River-Westport River

Focus Areas. We would also determine the roles of Refuge staff in

the top priority restoration projects and develop partnership

agreements to facilitate sharing of resources.

Issue 6: Improving water quality in the Narrow River

How will Refuge staff contribute to improving and protecting the

water quality of Pettaquamscutt Cove and the Narrow River

Watershed?

Same as Alternative B.

Issue 7: Control of invasive, non-native, or overabundant plant and

wildlife species

How will Refuge staff control non-native and/or invasive plant

species on the Refuge Complex?

Same as Alternative B.

How will Refuge staff manage non-native, invasive mute swan on

the Rhode Island Refuge Complex to reduce adverse effects on

waterfowl and water quality?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to eliminate the presence of

mute swan on the Refuge Complex. Strategies to accomplish this

goal would be the same as those identified in Alternative B.

How will Refuge staff manage deer populations within and adjacent

to the Refuge Complex?

Same as Alternative B.

Issue 8: New Refuge Complex land acquisition and cooperative

protection of sensitive habitat sites

How will the Service’s land acquisition program be expanded to

protect species and habitats of special concern?

Under Alternative C our objective is to increase interagency and

conservation partnerships in cooperatively protecting and managing

important conservation areas throughout the South Shore and Block

Island Focus Areas. 

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-87

Alternative C
■ By 2001, with partners, we would begin active cooperative land

protection and acquisition from willing sellers. Acquisition of

11,550 acres within Level 1 and Level 2 Focus Areas would be

approved. Parcels would be acquired using the same priority

criteria proposed for Alternative B. A new Refuge may be

established if significant land acquisition occurs within the WoodPawcatuck and/or Sakonnet River/Westport River Focus Areas. 

■ By 2004, we would work with Block Island partners to develop a

comprehensive land and resource protection plan for the entire

Block Island Focus Area.

■ By 2008, with partners, we would develop land and resource

protection plans for all other Focus Areas.

Additional details are provided in the “Land Protection Alternative

Development” section earlier in this chapter.

Issue 9: Access to credible natural resource information on the

Refuge Complex to ensure management decisions are based on the

best available science

How will Refuge staff establish needs for and begin to collect baseline

biological information across the Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

Same as Alternative B.

How will Refuge staff insure that biological integrity of natural

communities will be maintained on the Rhode Island Refuge

Complex? 

Same as Alternative B.

Issue 10: Management of public use and access (except hunting

and environmental education which are discussed separately) 

How will Refuge staff improve Visitor Services?

Same as Alternative A.

How will Refuge staff improve existing partnerships with groups

involved in or influencing public use activities on the Refuges?

Same as Alternative B.

What fishing opportunities will be available at Block Island Refuge?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to minimize the impacts of

fishing to wildlife during sensitive nesting periods and eliminate the

impacts of vehicles on wildlife and beach strand habitats. 

■ By 2002, we would close all Refuge beaches above the mean high tide

line, including Beane Point, to surf fishing during shorebird, heron,

and other waterbird nesting seasons, and shorebird migration

(approx. April 1 to September 15 each year), but allow fishing the

remainder of the year, in accordance with state regulations. 

■ By 2003, vehicles would be restricted from beaches year round to

minimize physical impacts to the barrier beach, dune structure

and vegetation.

3-88 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 
■ Beane Point would be closed to all public uses, including surf

fishing above the mean high tide line, except for seasonal

environmental education programs.

What fishing opportunities will be available at Ninigret Refuge?

Same as Alternative B.

What fishing opportunities will be available at Chafee Refuge?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to eliminate shoreline erosion

caused by fishing. 

■ By 2002, we would close the Refuge shoreline to reduce erosion

impacts. Fishing would be allowed from boats only, in accordance

with state regulations.

What fishing opportunities will be available at Sachuest Point Refuge?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to protect Refuge resources

and infrastructure by eliminating impacts caused by night fishing. 

■ By 2002, we would close the Refuge to night fishing to eliminate the

enforcement issues associated with night time use of the Refuge

including littering, bonfires, and vandalism of signs and structures.

What fishing opportunities will be available at Trustom Pond Refuge?

Same as Alternative A.

What kind of interpretive opportunities will be available at Block

Island Refuge?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to focus interpretive

opportunities off-Refuge at sites where the majority of Block Island

visitors would be reached. 

■ By 2003, we would work with The Nature Conservancy to develop

interpretive programs at off-refuge sites including the North

Light, Settlers Rock, and on the ferry. These are locations likely

to reach the greatest number of visitors with the least impact on

Refuge resources.

What kind of interpretive opportunities will be available at

Ninigret Refuge?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to focus limited resources on

the following interpretive opportunities: 

■ By 2002, we would complete construction of the 3.8 mile, barrierfree “Trail through Time”.

What kind of interpretive opportunities will be available at

Chafee Refuge?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to focus limited resources on

the following interpretive opportunities:

■ By 2003, we would ensure that RI DOT constructs an interpretive

kiosk on the Refuge, along the proposed South County Bike Trail.

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-89

Alternative C
What kind of interpretive opportunities will be available at

Sachuest Point Refuge?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to focus limited resources on

the following interpretive opportunities:

■ By 2004, we would complete renovation of the Visitor Center and

exhibitry. We would construct kiosks to interpret wetland and

grassland restoration efforts, and the invasive plant control

program on the Refuge.

What kind of interpretive opportunities will be available at Trustom

Pond Refuge?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to focus limited resources on

the following interpretive opportunities:

■ By 2005, construct interpretive signs along the trail at the

grassland restoration site, barrier beach and salt pond. 

What kind of wildlife observation and photography opportunities

will be available at Block Island Refuge?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to maintain wildlife and

photography opportunities while minimizing the risk of impact to

other resources. 

■ By 2005, we would designate trails for pedestrian use only.

Vehicles would be restricted year round from Refuge beaches.

The public use closure on Beane Point would be maintained,

except for seasonal environmental education programs.

What kind of wildlife observation and photography opportunities

will be available at Ninigret Refuge?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to focus limited resources on

the following wildlife and photography opportunity:

■ By 2002, secure funding to complete construction of the 3.8 mile,

barrier-free “Trail Through Time”. Public access would be

restricted to designated trails and shoreline access points.

What kind of wildlife observation and photography opportunities

will be available at Chafee Refuge?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to focus limited resources on

the following wildlife and photography opportunity:

■ By 2005, restore the Bridgeport Commons subdivision to native

grassland and replace existing asphalt with a universally

accessible trail system.

What kind of wildlife observation and photography opportunities

will be available at Sachuest Point Refuge?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to maintain wildlife and

photography opportunities while minimizing the risk of impact to

other resources. 

3-90 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 
■ By 2004, we would close and restore unnecessary and degraded

trails. We would also restrict shoreline access to designated points

and evaluate charging entrance fees to the Refuge to support

maintenance of observation facilities.

What kind of wildlife observation and photography opportunities

will be available at Trustom Pond Refuge?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to maintain wildlife and

photography opportunities while minimizing the risk of impact to

other resources. 

■ By 2003, we would reduce unnecessary trails and restrict public

use to trails only. 

How will nonwildlife dependent activities be managed at Block

Island, Chafee, Sachuest Point, and Trustom Pond Refuges?

Under Alternative C, our objective is the same as Alternative B,

except that we would implement restrictions sooner. Specifically, we

would: 

■ By 2002, eliminate all inappropriate, incompatible, and/or

nonwildlife dependent activities.

How will nonwildlife dependent activities be managed at

Ninigret Refuge?

Under Alternative C, our objective would be the same as Alternative

B, except that we would implement restrictions sooner. Specifically,

we would: 

■ By 2001, implement outreach program and begin enforcement of

“no dog-walking and bicycling” (which have been allowed while

runways were in place). 

■ By 2001, hire an additional seasonal law enforcement officer to

provide more consistent, thorough outreach and enforcement to

deal with incompatible activities.

■ By 2002, we would eliminate all inappropriate, incompatible,

and/or nonwildlife dependent activities, such as those described for

Alternative A.

What priority public uses would be allowed on newly acquired

Refuge lands?

Same as Alternative B.

How will the Refuge promote and cultivate the relationship with the

Friends of the National Wildlife Refuges of Rhode Island?

Same as Alternative B.

Issue 11: Hunting on the Refuges

What hunting opportunities will be available at Block Island,

Chafee, and Ninigret Refuges? 

Same as Alternative B.

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-91

Alternative C
What hunting opportunities will be available at Sachuest Point

Refuge?

Same as Alternative A.

What hunting opportunities will be available at Trustom Pond Refuge?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to restore the hunting field to

native grasslands, while continuing to allow hunting to the extent

practicable. 

■ By 2001, we would convert the 20 acre upland field to native

grasslands, which would effectively eliminate the field as good

waterfowl foraging habitat and reducing the quality of this

hunting area. Similar to Alternative B, no additional hunting is

proposed at this time on Trustom Pond Refuge.

Issue 12: Increased opportunities for environmental education

What curriculum-based environmental education opportunities will

be available at Block Island?

Same as Alternative B.

What curriculum-based environmental education opportunities will

be available at Ninigret Refuge?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to focus limited resources on

the following environmental education opportunities. In addition to

actions identified for Alternative A, we would: 

■ By 2002, sponsor “Teach the Teacher” workshops featuring

grassland restoration and pond ecology linked to the outdoor

classroom sites. 

What curriculum-based environmental education opportunities will

be available at Chafee Refuge?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to focus limited resources on

the following environmental education opportunities. In addition to

actions identified for Alternative A, we would: 

■ By 2004, sponsor “Teach the Teacher” workshops that feature the

natural resources in the Narrow River and Pettaquamscutt Cove. 

What curriculum-based environmental education opportunities will

be available at Sachuest Point Refuge?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to focus limited resources on

the following environmental education opportunities. In addition to

actions identified for Alternative A, we would: 

■ By 2003, we would sponsor “Teach the Teacher” workshops

featuring grasslands and wetlands restoration work and invasive

plant control. By 2005, we would develop a formal partnership

with the Norman Bird Sanctuary to facilitate sharing of resources.

3-92 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 
What curriculum-based environmental education opportunities will

be available at Trustom Pond Refuge?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to focus limited resources on

the following environmental education opportunities. In addition to

actions identified for Alternative A, we would: 

■ By 2002, sponsor “Teach the Teacher” workshops featuring pond

and barrier beach ecology, and grassland restoration work linked

to the existing outdoor classroom.

Issue 13: Ability to provide staffing, operations, and maintenance

support needed to accomplish goals and objectives

How does the proposed alternative change the funding requirements

of the Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

Successful implementation of Alternative C relies on our ability to

secure funding, personnel, infrastructure, and other resources to

accomplish the actions identified. Under Alternative C, our

objective is to obtain the funding outlined below: 

■ By 2003, funding would increase substantially, commensurate with

the staffing and project lists outlined for Alternative C in

Appendices F and H.

■ Full implementation of this alternative would require an annual

increase of $569,000 for salary, and a total increase of $8.9 million

in RONS projects (not including recurring costs). An additional

$3.8 million is identified in the MMS database. 

What will be the staffing needs of the Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

As stated above for funding, successful implementation of

Alternative C relies on our ability to secure funding, personnel,

infrastructure, and other resources to accomplish the actions

identified. Under Alternative C, our objective is to increase staffing

as outlined below: 

■ 27 full time personnel, and

■ 15 seasonal personnel

■ By 2003, we would assign some staff to Sachuest Point and Block

Island Refuges as depicted on the staffing charts (Appendix H). The

rest would be stationed at the current office, pending completion of

the new Refuge Complex Headquarters/Visitor Center.

How will the Service ensure protection of cultural resources on the

Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

Under Alternative C, our objective is to vastly increase our

knowledge of and protection for cultural resources on the Refuge

Complex. 

■ By 2005, we would substantially increase our commitment of

resources toward increasing and improving available information

on cultural resources. We would initiate a field investigation on all

Refuges and record all information in a GIS database. We would

also develop curriculum for local schools tied specifically to

cultural resources. 

3-93

Alternative C

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000

■ By 2005, we would train all staff with collateral law enforcement

duties in ARPA regulations. 

■ Similar to Alternative B, by 2005, we would develop a partnership

agreement with the Narragansett Indian Tribal Council to

facilitate cooperation on environmental education and

interpretation, to improve our understanding of the context of

these resources, and to increase site identification and protection. 

■ By 2010, we would develop a Cultural Resources Protection Plan

for recorded sites.

Issue 14: Increased visibility of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

How will the Refuge increase Service visibility and recognition of

the National Wildlife Refuge System?

Same as Alternative B.

Issue 15: Need for improved facilities

What facilities are needed to improve administrative and visitor

contact services on the Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

Same as Alternative B.

When will the Rhode Island Refuge Complex improve road and

entry signs to meet national standards and better serve visitors? 

Under Alternative C, our objective is to focus limited resources on

improving signs at two locations. 

■ By 2003, we would focus efforts on ensuring directional signs at

the Complex Headquarters and for Ninigret Refuge (on US Route

1) meet national standards.

3-94 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 

Trustom Pond Refuge. USFWS photo
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-95

Map 3-22
3-96 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Map 3-23
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-97

Map 3-24
3-98 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Map 3-25
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-99

Map 3-26
3-100 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Map 3-27
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-101

Map 3-28
3-102 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Map 3-29
3-103

Alternative D

Without a significant compromise to the National Wildlife Refuge

System’s “Wildlife First” mandate and the legal purposes for which

each Refuge was established, Alternative D would direct a greater

commitment of resources toward enhancing the quality and

increasing the quantity of compatible, priority wildlife-dependent

public uses compared to Alternatives A, B, or C. 

Most species and habitat management actions are the same as

Alternative A (Current Management) with priority to protect piping

plover nest sites, manage rare plant sites, and complete planned

wetlands and grasslands restoration projects on the Refuge Complex.

The principle difference compared with Alternative A species

priorities are that Alternative D would focus piping plover

management efforts on Refuge land only, dropping participation in

the South Shore Piping Plover Program, and would implement the

alternate seasonal closure on Moonstone Beach proposed in

Alternative C. In addition, Alternative D would not utilize herbicides

or prescribed fire as habitat management tools, eliminating potential

risks to human health and safety from these activities. 

This alternative would promote a highly visible Service presence,

engaging visitors at either a Visitor Center or staffed Visitor Contact

facility on each Refuge, or through increased environmental

education and interpretive programs. In response, visitation to the

Refuge Complex would be expected to increase by 25% over the next

15 years. Alternative D would implement the modified beach closure

proposed in Alternative C for Moonstone Beach to allow for greater

public access during early and late-summer. Also, similar to

Alternative B, an increased emphasis on inventories for landbirds of

concern and development of an integrated plan for Trustom Salt

Pond would increase available information and improve the quality of

environmental education and interpretation, wildlife observation and

photography. Fishing opportunities would remain as they currently

are on Block Island, Ninigret, Sachuest Point, and Trustom Pond

Refuges. Better access for fishing would be provided at Chafee

Refuge. New opportunities for hunting would be provided on Block

Island, Ninigret, Chafee, and Trustom Pond Refuges. Nonwildlife

dependent activities would be phased out by 2005, similar to

Alternative B. These activities include recreational ORV driving,

dog walking, swimming and sunbathing, jogging, kite flying,

bicycling, roller blading, horseback riding, and bonfires.

Land acquisition and cooperative land protection would be similar to

Alternative A, with 735 acres left to acquire within existing Refuge

acquisition boundaries. 

Involvement by volunteers, partners, and Friends of the National

Wildlife Refuges of Rhode Island would improve and be

strengthened as these relationships are formalized. Implementation

of Alternative D would more than double current staffing levels and

notably increase budget levels over what is appropriated currently. 

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000

Alternative D
Issue 1: Protection of endangered and threatened species and

other species and habitats of special concern

How will piping plover nesting sites be protected at Trustom 

Pond Refuge?

Same as Alternative C.

How will piping plover nesting sites be protected at Ninigret Refuge

barrier beach and active sites in the South Shore of Rhode Island?

Under Alternative D, our objective is to focus limited resources on

managing piping plover on Refuge lands only. With the exception of

the following change, we would manage similar to Alternative A: 

■ By 2002, we would drop coordination of South Shore Piping Plover

Program and concentrate resources on Rhode Island Refuge

Complex lands only. 

How will piping plover nesting sites be protected in the Block Island

Focus Area?

Same as Alternative A.

How will piping plover predators be managed on Rhode Island

Refuge Complex nesting sites? 

Same as Alternative A.

How can piping plover habitat be improved at Trustom 

Pond Refuge?

Same as Alternative A.

How will the Service coordinate with other agencies and private

landowners to protect piping plover on private lands?

Same as Alternative A.

How will the Refuge Complex increase public awareness of piping

plover issues through outreach and education?

Same as Alternative B.

How will the Refuge Complex ensure that piping plover

management practices are based on sound science?

Same as Alternative A.

How will the Refuge Complex contribute to the protection and

restoration of the American burying beetle population within the

Block Island Focus Area?

Same as Alternative A.

How will the Refuge Complex protect bald eagle habitat within the

Block Island Focus Area?

Same as Alternative A.

3-104 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 
How will the Refuge Complex contribute to establishing populations

of northeastern beach tiger beetles in the South Shore of Rhode Island?

Same as Alternative A.

How will the Refuge manage habitat for black duck at Chafee and

Trustom Pond Refuges?

Same as Alternative A. 

How will the Refuge protect wintering harlequin duck at Sachuest

Point Refuge?

Same as Alternative A.

How will waterfowl concentration areas be managed on the

Refuge Complex?

Same as Alternative B.

How will important marsh and wading bird habitat areas be

protected on the Refuge Complex?

Same as Alternative A.

How will least tern nesting sites be protected on the Rhode Island

Refuge Complex?

Same as Alternative A.

How will the Service protect and improve feeding and staging

shorebird concentration areas along the South Shore of Rhode

Island and on Block Island?

Same as Alternative A.

How will the Refuge Complex protect and manage other landbirds of

management concern on the Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

Same as Alternative B.

How will the Refuge Complex protect seal haul-out areas on

Refuge lands?

Same as Alternative A.

How will the Refuge Complex improve anadromous fish habitat in

Pettaquamscutt Cove (Narrow River), Trustom Pond, and the WoodPawcatuck Rivers?

Same as Alternative A.

How will the Refuge Complex protect amphibian and reptile

populations and habitats on Refuge lands?

Same as Alternative A.

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-105

Alternative D
How will Refuge staff protect and manage rare plant habitats on the

Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

Same as Alternative A.

Issue 2: Restoration and maintenance of coastal sandplain natural

communities, including grasslands

Where will Refuge staff restore grassland communities on the Rhode

Island Refuge Complex?

Same as Alternative A.

How will grassland restoration be implemented on the Rhode Island

Refuge Complex?

Under Alternative D, our objective is to continue to restore

grassland areas as identified in Alternative A, only we would

minimize any potential risk to human health and safety. Specifically

we would:

■ By 2002, implement grassland restoration projects using

mechanical or biological treatments only; eliminating any potential

risk to human health and safety from prescribed fires and

chemical treatments.

How will the Refuge Complex promote grassland restoration on

private lands?

Same as Alternative B.

Issue 3: Management of the beach strand ecological community

How will Refuge staff contribute to the protection and restoration of

beach strand communities?

Same as Alternative A.

Issue 4: Management of Trustom Salt Pond

How should Trustom and Cards Ponds be managed to improve

water quality and benefit species of concern?

Same as Alternative B.

Issue 5: Protection and restoration of wetlands

How will Refuge staff restore and promote wetland ecosystems on

the Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

Same as Alternative A.

3-106 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 
Issue 6: Improving water quality in the Narrow River

How will Refuge staff contribute to improving and protecting 

the water quality of Pettaquamscutt Cove and the Narrow 

River Watershed?

Same as Alternative A.

Issue 7: Control of invasive, non-native, or overabundant plant and

animal species

How will Refuge staff control non-native and/or invasive plant

species on the Refuge Complex?

Under Alternative D, our objective is to continue to control invasive,

non-native species in areas identified in Alternative A, only we would

minimize any potential risk to human health and safety. Specifically

we would:

■ By 2003, control 5 acres of invasive plant/year through use of

mechanical and biological treatments only to reduce all risk to

human health and safety from prescribed fire and chemical

treatments.

How will Refuge staff manage non-native, invasive mute swan on

the Rhode Island Refuge Complex to reduce adverse effects on

waterfowl and water quality?

Same as Alternative A.

How will Refuge staff manage deer populations within and adjacent

to the Refuge Complex?

Under Alternative D, our objective is to minimize deer impacts on

Refuge habitats and contribute to reducing risks of Lyme disease

and vehicle collisions in the South County area by reducing deer

herds through a quality hunt program. Specifically we would: 

■ By 2005, develop a quality deer hunt program, including barrierfree opportunities, administered by RI DEM under Refuge

regulations on Block Island and Ninigret Refuges, the Foddering

Farms tract on Chafee Refuge, and on Trustom Pond Refuge, in

areas not deed restricted from hunting. 

■ Refuge regulations would meet or exceed state regulations on deer

hunting, and archery only areas would be a priority consideration,

to ensure that the safety of Refuge visitors, Ninigret Park users,

and adjacent landowners would not be compromised. 

■ We would first prepare a Federal Register Notice and an annual

hunt plan. 

Issue 8: New Refuge Complex land acquisition and cooperative

protection of sensitive habitat sites

How will the Service’s land acquisition program be expanded to

protect species and habitats of special concern?

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-107

Alternative D
Same as Alternative A. Additional details are provided in the “Land

Protection Alternative Development” section earlier in this chapter.

Issue 9: Access to credible natural resource information on the

Refuge Complex to ensure management decisions are based on the

best available science

How will Refuge staff establish needs for and begin to collect baseline

biological information across the Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

Same as Alternative A.

How will Refuge staff insure that biological integrity of 

natural communities will be maintained on the Rhode Island

Refuge Complex? 

Same as Alternative A.

Issue 10: Management of public use and access (except hunting

and environmental education which are discussed as separate

issues below)

How will Refuge staff improve Visitor Services?

Same as Alternative B.

How will Refuge staff improve existing partnerships with groups

involved in or influencing public use activities on the Refuges?

Same as Alternative B.

What fishing opportunities will be available at Block Island,

Ninigret, and Trustom Pond Refuges?

Same as Alternative A.

What fishing opportunities will be available at Chafee Refuge?

Same as Alternative B.

What fishing opportunities will be available at Sachuest Point Refuge?

Under Alternative D, our objective is to maintain the existing fishing

opportunities, but reduce potential safety risks to other visitors from

spear fishing. In addition to actions indentified under Alternative A,

we would implement the following:

■ By 2001, develop and enforce a regulation requiring spear fishing

gear to be unloaded and encased while on Refuge land. This

would minimize any safety hazard and reduce intimidation to other

Refuge visitors. Monitor this activity to evaluate its impact on

other wildlife-dependent uses. 

■ By 2005, construct a barrier-free fishing platform, if technically

and economically feasible.

3-108 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 
What kind of interpretive opportunities will be available

throughout the Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

Same as Alternative B.

What kind of wildlife observation and photography opportunities

will be available at Block Island Refuge?

Under Alternative D, our objective is to further provide quality

opportunities for wildlife observation and photography. Specifically,

we would: 

■ By 2008, cooperate with partners to construct at least one “barrier

free”photography blind and observation platform. We would also

develop watchable wildlife pamphlets and species checklists. 

■ By 2009, cooperate with partners to designate a trail to Beane

Point from North Light through West Beach, and link to trail

systems off-Refuge. This trail would be seasonally closed at

Beane Point during wading bird nesting season, approximately

May 1 to August 1.

What kind of wildlife observation and photography opportunities

will be available at Ninigret, Chafee, Sachuest Point, and Trustom

Pond Refuges?

Same as Alternative B.

How will nonwildlife dependent activities be managed across the

Refuge Complex?

Same as Alternative B.

What priority public uses would be allowed on newly acquired

Refuge lands?

Same as Alternative B.

How will the Refuge promote and cultivate the relationship with the

Friends of the National Wildlife Refuges of Rhode Island?

Same as Alternative B.

Issue 11: Hunting on the Refuges

What hunting opportunities will be available at Block Island Refuge? 

Under Alternative D, our objective is to create new opportunities for

a quality hunting experience on Block Island. 

■ By 2005, we would allow RI DEM to administer a deer hunt and a

pheasant hunt by permit under Refuge regulations.

■ Refuge regulations would meet or exceed (i.e. be more restrictive

than) state regulations to ensure the safety of Refuge visitors. 

■ We would first prepare a Federal Register Notice and an annual

hunt plan 

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-109

Alternative D
What hunting opportunities will be available at Ninigret Refuge?

Under Alternative D, our objective is to create new opportunities for

a quality hunting experience on Ninigret Refuge. 

■ By 2002, we would allow waterfowl hunting, from boat only, in

Coon Cove and in the marshland within the barrier beach parcel.

This waterfowl hunt would be administered by RI DEM under

Refuge regulations. 

■ By 2005, we would allow RI DEM to administer a deer hunt by

permit under Refuge regulations and we would evaluate

opportunities for a small game hunt.

■ Refuge regulations would meet or exceed (i.e. be more restrictive

than) state regulations to ensure the safety of Refuge visitors. 

■ We would first prepare a Federal Register Notice and an annual

hunt plan

What hunting opportunities will be available at Chafee Refuge?

Under Alternative D, our objective is to create new opportunities for

a quality hunting experience on Chafee Refuge. 

■ By 2002, we would provide a waterfowl hunting opportunity, by

boat access only, administered by RI DEM under Refuge

regulations. We would also evaluate the potential for temporary

floating blinds if there is interest. 

■ Also by 2002, we would initiate a deer hunting opportunity on the

Foddering Farms tract, administered by RI DEM under Refuge

regulations. 

■ Refuge regulations would meet or exceed (i.e. be more restrictive

than) state regulations to ensure the safety of Refuge visitors. 

■ We would first prepare a Federal Register Notice and an annual

hunt plan

What hunting opportunities will be available at Sachuest Point

Refuge?

For the reasons identified in Alternative A; we would not provide a

hunting opportunity on Sachuest Point Refuge.

What hunting opportunities will be available at Trustom Pond

Refuge?

Under Alternative D, our objective is to improve the existing

opportunity and create new opportunities for a quality hunting

experience on Trustom Pond Refuge. 

■ By 2001, we would continue to allow RI DEM to administer a

waterfowl hunt on the 20 upland acres maintained in cool season

grasses. We would implement the 1999 Habitat Management Plan

developed by RI DEM for this tract.

3-110 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 
■ By 2005, we would allow RI DEM to administer a deer hunt, by

permit, under Refuge regulations. We would also evaluate

opportunities to provide for small game hunting. The former

Audubon tract (151 acres) would continue to be deed-restricted

from hunting.

■ Refuge regulations would meet or exceed (i.e. be more restrictive

than) state regulations to ensure the safety of Refuge visitors. 

■ We would first prepare a Federal Register Notice and an annual

hunt plan

Issue 12: Increased opportunities for environmental education

What curriculum-based environmental education opportunities will

be available at Block Island Refuge?

Under Alternative D, we would build on the objective stated for

Alternative B and create an additional outdoor classroom program.

Specifically we would:

■ By 2006, develop an outdoor classroom site on the Refuge

featuring the barrier beach and the island’s unique ecology.

What curriculum-based environmental education opportunities will

be available at Chafee, Ninigret, Sachuest Point, and Trustom Pond

Refuges?

Same as Alternative B.

Issue 13: Ability to provide staffing, operations, and maintenance

support needed to accomplish goals and objectives

How does the proposed alternative change the funding requirements

of the Rhode Island Refuge Complex? 

Successful implementation of Alternative D relies on our ability to

secure funding, personnel, infrastructure, and other resources to

accomplish the actions identified. Under Alternative D, our objective

would be to obtain the funding outlined below: 

■ By 2003, funding would increase substantially, commensurate with

the staffing and project lists outlined for Alternative D in

Appendices F and H.

■ Full implementation of this alternative would require an annual

increase of $509,000 for salary, and a total increase of $9.2 million

for RONS projects (not including recurring costs), and $3.8 million

in MMS projects.

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-111

Alternative D
What will be the staffing needs of the Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

As stated above for funding, successful implementation of Alternative

D relies on our ability to secure funding, personnel, infrastructure,

and other resources to accomplish the actions identified. Under

Alternative D, our staffing objective would be as follows:

■ 24 full time personnel, and

■ 11 seasonals

■ Some staff would be assigned to Sachuest Point and Block Island

Refuges as depicted on the staffing charts (Appendix H), the rest

would be stationed at the current office pending completion of the

new Refuge Complex Headquarters/Visitor Center.

How will the Service ensure the protection of cultural resources on

the Refuge Complex?

Under Alternative D, our objective is to improve cultural resource

identification, interpretation, and site protection over current

management. 

■ By 2005, we would implement a partnership agreement with the

Narragansett Indian Tribal Council to facilitate cooperation on

environmental education and interpretation, to improve our

understanding of the context for these resources, and to increase

site identification and protection. 

■ Also by 2005, we would develop an environmental education

curriculum for use in local schools emphasizing local resources,

their identification, protection, and management. Interpretive

materials would also be developed in conjunction with the Visitor

Centers and trails. 

Issue 14: Increased visibility of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

How will the Refuge increase Service visibility and recognition of

the National Wildlife Refuge System?

Same as Alternative B.

Issue 15: Need for improved facilities

What facilities are needed to improve administrative and visitor

contact services on the Rhode Island Refuge Complex?

Under Alternative D, our objective is to dramatically improve

administrative and visitor services and opportunities for visitor

contact. In addition to the actions proposed in Alternative B, we

would:

■ By 2010, work with partners to construct a small

interpretive/visitor contact facility for Block Island Refuge

(location may be off-Refuge).

When will the Rhode Island Refuge Complex improve road and

entry signs to meet national standards and better serve visitors? 

Same as Alternative B.

3-112 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-113

Map 3-30
3-114 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Map 3-31
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-115

Map 3-32
3-116 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Map 3-33
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-117

Map 3-34
3-118 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Map 3-35
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-119

Map 3-36
3-120 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Map 3-37
Alternatives or Actions Considered, but Eliminated From

Further Consideration

Custodial Management

This alternative would minimize refuge management, providing only

those activities mandated by policy or regulation, such as fire

suppression, non-native or invasive plant control, providing for public

health and safety, or protecting threatened or endangered species.

Public use opportunities would be drastically reduced or eliminated

on some refuges, commensurate with reduced staffing and budgets.

The Service presence on refuges and in the communities would be

minimal. Under this alternative, resource issues would not be

resolved, nor would the Complex achieve its goals.

During our public scoping, a few responses called for a much-reduced

Service presence or no presence at all, primarily because it imposed

on their nonwildlife-dependent activities. Some were specifically

concerned about our law enforcement presence on Moonstone Beach

during the piping plover nesting season. They objected to armed

Service personnel patrolling the beach. While we received these

comments from a few individuals, we did not otherwise hear

recommendations for a custodial approach to management.

Therefore, we determined it did not need detailed evaluation.

Relaxing Public Use Restrictions on Moonstone Beach, 

Trustom Pond Refuge

Several individuals, either at our CCP Open Houses or in Planning

Workbook responses, wanted the Service to relax restrictions on

public use at Moonstone Beach. The beach is closed to public use

above the mean high tide line from April 1 to September 15 to

protect nesting piping plover and least tern. Managing public use on

Moonstone Beach has had a colorful history since the first

restrictions were imposed in 1982. (See the discussion in Chapter 2,

“Trustom Pond Refuge, Piping Plover Program” on the evolution of

management strategies.)

Federal laws and Service policy require refuges to maximize

protection for threatened and endangered species. The Revised

Recovery Plan for the Atlantic Coast Population of Piping Plover

states, “On many national wildlife refuges, where protection of

wildlife is the paramount purpose of Federal ownership, complete

closures of plover habitat during the breeding season should be

continued.” (USFWS 1996, p. 71) The Recovery Plan requires that

all management actions at breeding sites strive to maximize

occupancy, survival, and productivity in order to ensure recovery. It

has established goals for sustaining nesting carrying capacity at each

site and for achieving a 5-year average nest fledgling rate of 1.5

chicks per pair.

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-121

Chapter 3 
Piping plover nesting at Trustom Pond has only reached its

estimated nesting carrying capacity of 10 pairs in 1997 and 1998, and

the average 5-year productivity rates are below the Recovery goal of

1.5 fledged chicks per pair. In summary, piping plover have not been

consistently nesting at capacity, nor have chicks fledged at a rate to

achieve recovery goals. We determined that an alternative relaxing

public use restrictions on Moonstone Beach during the nesting

season would conflict with our mandates to protect threatened and

endangered species, and need not be developed in detail.

Completely closing Moonstone Beach during plover nesting

season, in cooperation with RI CRMC

Both the Trustom Pond Refuge Master Plan (1988) and the Piping

Plover Compatibility Determination for Trustom Pond Refuge (1990)

proposed working with the RI CRMC to close the entire Moonstone

Beach, including the area below the mean high tide line, to public use

during the piping plover nesting season (c. April 1 to Sept 15). For

reasons stated below, this action was never implemented and will not

be further considered in this document.

At Moonstone Beach, the Service has jurisdiction only above the

mean high tide line. The remainder of the shoreline, below mean high

tide, is “...considered by common law to be public land, held in trust

for the public by the State.” (RI CRMC 1993) The Rhode Island

Constitution specifically protects citizens’ rights to fish from the

shore, to gather seaweed, to leave the shore to swim in the sea, and

to walk along the shore (Article 1, Section 17). Access along the shore

has been a common expectation and legal right for generations of

Rhode Islanders (RI CRMC 1993). Shoreline restrictions are a very

contentious issue.

We have received little support from State agencies to close the

beach entirely, in part because public demand is so great for access

to the shoreline. However, in support of Service concerns with public

use, the State does not identify Moonstone Beach in its publication,

“Public Access to the Rhode Island Coast”(1993). Some State

representatives have suggested that closing Moonstone Beach below

the mean high tide may require an amendment to the State

Constitution (Brandwine 1999). 

While piping plover and least tern nesting habitat generally occurs

above the mean high tide line, the intertidal area is critical for

feeding. The alternatives developed in detail in this draft CCP/EA

propose additional research on piping plover feeding activity in the

intertidal zone, propose increasing foraging habitat along Trustom

Pond and Cards Pond shorelines through management, and propose

working with RI CRMC to close the intertidal zone during part of

the nesting season (late May to mid-August). For these reasons, we

determined that recommending closure of the entire Moonstone

Beach to all public use activities throughout the nesting season need

not be developed in detail at this time. Should future events warrant

our reconsideration, nothing in this CCP/EA would preclude

implementing this strategy at a later time.

3-122 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 
Non-lethal Predator Management Only

We now manage predators on the Complex only in conjunction with

protecting piping plover and least tern, just prior to and during the

nesting season. Trapping is only one of several tools used. Others

include predator exclosures, auditory and visual intimidation

techniques, scent marking, planting egg deterrents, electric fencing,

and visitor outreach and education on how not to attract predators.

Between 1985 and 1992, we intermittently used an live-trapping and

relocation program that live-trapped predators on the Complex and

relocated them elsewhere in the State. In 1993, the State passed a

law prohibiting relocation of most of the predators targeted in the

plover program (e.g., racoon, skunk, fox), primarily due to a concern

about spreading rabies. At that time, the Complex began a lethal

trapping program.

Loss of piping plover and least tern adults and chicks to predators

continues to be the primary reason for nest failure and chick

mortality (Rhode Island Piping Plover Restoration Project Report

1999). Foxes, coyotes, feral cats, Norway rats, domestic dogs, skunks,

racoons, gulls, crows, and grackles are all fairly common,

documented predators on nesting beaches. Piping plover on some

beaches, like Napatree Point, recently have had very low to zero

productivity due to fox predation.

It is important to recognize that the targeted predator populations

far exceed their historic levels, primarily due to the loss of even

larger predators such as mountain lion and gray wolf. Also, many of

these species have adapted very well to human habitation and,

combined with the loss of large predators, their populations have

exploded outside the range of natural fluctuations. 

Complex refuges were established primarily to protect migratory

birds and threatened and endangered species. The Revised Atlantic

Coast Piping Plover Recovery Plan (1996) promotes predator

removal through whatever responsible means necessary, including

trapping. An integrated, adaptive predator management program,

using all the management tools at our disposal, is essential to

fulfilling those mandates. For these reasons, we determined that an

alternative that precludes removing predators would contradict our

mandate to protect threatened and endangered species, and need not

be developed in detail.

RONS and MMS Projects Associated with each Alternative 

Appendix F presents the Refuge Operating Needs (RONS) project

list and the Maintenance Management System (MMS) list for each

alternative. The costs for each project are based on our current

knowledge of its scope. Full implementation of each alternative

assumes funding for RONS and MMS projects over the next 15 years.

Staffing Charts Associated with each Alternative

Appendix H presents each alternative’s staffing charts. Full

implementation of each alternative assumes meeting staffing levels

over the next 15 years.

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-123

Chapter 3 
Compatibility Determinations

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 states

that no refuge use or activity may be allowed unless it is first

determined to be compatible. It defines a compatible use as one

which, in the sound professional judgement of the respective Refuge

Manager, will not materially interfere with or detract from the

fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes for

which each Refuge was established. It further defines sound

professional judgement as a decision that is consistent with principles

of fish and wildlife management and administration, is supported by

available science and resources, and complies with the law.

Compatibility determinations have been completed or recertified for

the six priority, wildlife-dependent public uses proposed in

Alternative B. We have included those determinations in Appendix E

for public review and comment. Any stipulations within the

compatibility determinations are included as part of Alternative B.

Two existing compatibility determinations for ongoing research

would remain in effect for all alternatives. Conditions have not

changed under which the original determinations were made so they

are still considered valid. These research projects are being

conducted by the University of Rhode Island and involve a

Moonstone Beach profile study on Trustom Pond Refuge and a Lyme

bearing tick study on Ninigret Refuge. These compatibility

determinations are available upon request from the Refuge office.

Appendix E also presents an Interim Compatibility Determination

that will guide public use management on newly acquired lands.

The Interim Compatibility Determination will remain effective until

new information becomes available or until a formal compatibility

determination is completed.

While Alternatives A, C, and D do not require formal compatibility

determinations at this time according to policy, for all practical

purposes, the environmental consequences described in Chapter 4

for these alternatives depict potential compatibility conflicts.

3-124 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Chapter 3 
Monitoring

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

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

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

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

by using the checklist in Appendix I (under Alternative B, The

Proposed Action).

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

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

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

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

objectives?”

Effectiveness monitoring evaluates an individual action, a suite of

actions, or an entire resource program. This approach is more

analytical in evaluating management affects on species, populations,

habitats, and predetermined indicators of ecosystem integrity and

the socio-economic environment, using evaluation criteria established

in step-down, individual project, or partnership plans identified in

each alternative.

Each of these plans would have a monitoring and evaluation

component. Ecosystem teams could establish further monitoring and

evaluation criteria. Alternatives B and C would establish a

comprehensive effectiveness monitoring program through

development of a Complex Monitoring and Inventory Plan. The

following projects or programs are listed in order of priority for

establishing monitoring and evaluation strategies: the piping plover

program, grasslands restoration, wetlands restoration, and public

use (including the impacts to the natural resource programs).

Complex staff would be responsible for completing the monitoring

under the time frames and conditions called for in respective plans.

Effectiveness monitoring would provide the basis for an adaptive

management response.

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 3-125

Chapter 3 

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-1

Green frog

USFWS photo

Part 1: Refuge Complex Consequences

■ Air quality

■ Socio-economic factors

■ Staffing and budget

■ Contaminant Sites

Part 2: Individual Refuge Consequences

■ Block Island Refuge

■ Ninigret Refuge

■ Chafee Refuge

■ Sachuest Point Refuge

■ Trustom Pond Refuge

Cumulative Impacts

Short Term Use versus Long Term Productivity

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Irreversible and Irretrieveable Commitments of Resources

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences
This chapter predicts the impacts of implementing the management

actions and strategies proposed under each of the four alternatives in

Chapter 3 - Alternatives. Where detailed information is available,

we present a scientific and analytic comparison among alternatives.

In the absence of detailed information, we make comparisons based

on professional judgment and experience. We predict impacts for all

alternatives, including Alternative A (Current Management), the

baseline for comparing the other alternatives.

We also discuss in more detail the environmental resources described

in Chapter 2 - Description of the Affected Environment, associated

with the goals and key issues identified in the Chapter 1 section -

Purpose of and Need for a CCP. Within our 15-year planning

horizon, we identify direct and indirect impacts. Beyond the 15-year

horizon, we give a more speculative description of direct, indirect,

and cumulative impacts. Table 4-1 summarizes environmental

consequences for each alternative.

Please keep in mind the small size of the Refuge Complex in

geographic proportion to its larger ecological region when reviewing

proposed management actions and our description of their impacts.

The Refuge Complex now comprises 1,710 acres–a relatively small

land base compared to the entire Connecticut River/Long Island

Sound Ecosystem or the breeding ranges of most of Rhode Island’s

species. We generally describe impacts on a relatively fine

geographic scale, for example, within a refuge. In actuality, the

Refuges are not isolated, and we may not have recognized the

influence of the surrounding landscape on the duration and extent of

impacts. We may have overstated both positive and negative impacts

within their larger geographic context.

Although the Refuges are small, the actions we propose take

proactive steps toward achieving conservation goals in a larger

geographic context. The majority of proposed actions are consistent

with the State, Regional, Ecosystem Team, and watershed

conservation plans identified in Chapter 1, and make positive, albeit

incremental, contributions to their larger landscape goals.

In the absence of reliable, quantitative information, we use the terms

“positive”, “negative”, and “neutral” as qualitative measures of how

an action could impact resources of concern. A positive impact

implies an action we predict will enhance or benefit the resources

under consideration and help accomplish goals and objectives over

the short (<15 years) or long (>15 years) term. A negative impact

implies an action we predict will be detrimental to a resource over

the short or long term, thereby failing to achieve goals and

objectives. A neutral impact means either (a) there would be no

discernible effect, positive or negative, on the resources under

consideration; or (b) predicted positive and negative effects would

cancel each other out.

We have arranged this chapter’s discussion of resources in the same

sequence we discussed them in Chapter 2. Resources we describe

on a larger geographic scale in Chapter 2, like air quality and socioeconomic factors, are discussed in Part 1 as they relate to the entire

Refuge Complex. Following that discussion, we describe predicted

impacts on the remaining resources in Part 2, by Refuge.

Chapter 4

4-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Air Quality

Poor air quality contributes to the acidification of lakes, streams, and

soils, the eutrophication of lakes, decreased plant reproduction,

increased accumulation of metals and organics in the food chain, and

“regional haze” (Porter 1999, pers. com). Refuge operations impact

air quality primarily through the management-ignited prescribed fire

program. Prescribed fires directly impact air quality in three

principal ways: decreased visibility, increased particulates, and

increased pollutants.

Alternative A (Current Management)

Alternative A proposes management-ignited, prescribed fires to

facilitate grasslands and wetlands restoration, manage for

threatened and endangered species, reduce hazardous fuels and

debris, or control invasive plant species. Typically, we use fire in

combination with mechanical, biological, and chemical treatments to

meet a stated objective. Alternative A would implement the

following planned projects using prescribed fire over the next 15

years. Consider these figures annual maximums.

■ 345 acres/year of grassland restoration and maintenance;

■ 15 acres/year of wetlands restoration and maintenance;

■ 5 acres/year of invasive plant control, and;

■ 3 acres/year (est.) for boundary maintenance or debris removal

around structures and facilities.

In April 1997, Refuge Complex staff completed an environmental

assessment (EA) of a wildfire suppression and fire program. All

alternatives in this draft CCP/EA incorporate the decision of that

Fire EA. It stipulates no maximum acreage limit for prescribed fire,

but sets forth required conditions under which prescribed fires would

occur, to minimize or eliminate impacts on visibility and to reduce the

potential for adding particulates and pollutants from prescribed

fires. The following measures would minimize the impacts from

prescribed fires to air quality.

1. We will identify and address smoke-sensitive areas in an Annual

Prescribed Fire Burn Plan. The wind vector selected will

transport smoke and other particulate emissions away from

sensitive areas.

2. We will conduct burns only when visibility exceeds 4 miles, when

the fire weather forecast indicates the presence of an unstable

airmass, and when mixing heights are greater than 1500 feet and

ventilation rates (mixing rates  ̆ transport wind speed) are 3000

or greater. A minimum of 2 m.p.h. of wind speed is required.

3. We will conduct no burning if any government agency has issued

an air pollution health advisory, alert, warning, or emergency for

the area surrounding the Refuges.

4. We will use backing and flanking fires when possible to minimize

particulate emissions.

Part 1: Refuge Complex Consequences

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-3
As stated in Chapter 2, ozone levels are the primary air quality

concern in Rhode Island. The State is dealing with this problem

through programs to reduce automobile emissions. While Refuge

visitors’ automobiles directly contribute emissions, their contribution

is negligible compared to that of urban and industrial centers within

a 100-mile radius. Most Refuge visitors are either local residents, or

summer vacationers who are in the area already. Most visitors will

travel less than 20 miles to the Refuges or Visitor Center from their

permanent or vacation residence. We should note that we predict

visitation to the Refuge Complex to increase by 10 percent, or an

additional 35,000 visitors, as a direct result of the new Visitor Center

and planned improvements to the existing visitor service programs

(O’Neill 1999, pers com). We expect most of the additional visitation

to occur during the summer and fall months, when families seek an

alternative to the beaches.

While difficult to quantify, it is important to recognize that Refuge

vegetation and wetlands offset pollution levels by acting as pollution

filters (Porter 1999). Given that fact, and since no Class I air quality

areas would be affected, and assuming the prescribed fire stipulations

above, adverse direct and indirect impacts on air quality from

Alternative A should be of relatively short duration and light intensity.

Alternative B (The Proposed Action)

The types of air quality impacts and concerns stated for Alternative

A are the same for this alternative. However, Alternative B has a

slightly increased potential to adversely affect air quality because we

would use prescribed fire on more acres proposed for habitat

restoration. The following planned projects, with their potential use

of prescribed fire, would occur under Alternative B. Consider these

figures annual maximums.

■ 500 acres/year total of early successional restoration and

maintenance (includes the existing restoratioon projects on

Ninigret and Trustom Pond Refuges and the future possibility of

155 additional acres among Sachuest Point, Chafee, and Block

Island Refuges);

■ 135 total acres/year of wetlands restoration and maintenance

(includes the future possibility of 20 acres at Chafee Refuge);

■ 25 acres/year of invasive plant control; and

■ 10 acres/year (est.) for boundary maintenance or debris removal

around structures and facilities.

Under Alternative B, we expect visitation to increase approximately

20 percent over current levels (70,000 additional visitor use days)

within the next 15 years as a result of the new Visitor Center and

respective increases in priority public use programs across the

Refuge Complex. Auto emissions related to refuge visitation would

increase commensurately, to a level greater than Alternative A.

The greater acreage of habitat restoration proposed in Alternative B

would, over the long term, provide more land with an increased

ability to filter out pollutants. Alternative B would also implement

the Fire EA, with its stipulations on environmental conditions for

using prescribed fire as a management tool.

Chapter 4

4-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Considering the increased use of prescribed fire and increased

visitation versus the increased acreage of restored vegetation and

improved wetlands, we predict Alternative B would result in adverse

air quality direct and indirect impacts of short duration and intensity,

but at a level greater than Alternative A.

Alternative C

The impacts would be the same as those described for Alternative B.

Alternative D

Alternative D does not propose the use of prescribed fire for any

restoration or habitat project. General broadcast burning would not

occur, reducing potential risks to human health or safety from smoke

emissions. However, we could burn as many as 3 acres/year to

remove debris piles or remove brush along boundaries. These

smaller, debris-pile fires would occur only under the stipulations in

the Fire EA.

We predict visitation would increase approximately 25 percent over

current levels (87,500 additional visitor use days), due to the Visitor

Center and the significant expansion in priority public use services

and programs across the Refuge Complex. Refuge-related

automobile emissions would increase proportionately more than

projected for Alternatives A, B, or C. The additional emissions

contributed would be relatively low, compared with urban and

industrial centers elsewhere in Rhode Island. Overall however,

because no prescribed fires would occur, Alternative D would impact

air quality the least of the four alternatives.

Summary

Alternative D impacts air quality the least, followed by Alternative

A, and then equally, Alternatives B and C. No Class I air sheds

would be impacted, and all alternatives would comply with the Clean

Air Act.

Socio-Economic Factors

Alternative A (Current Management)

Alternative A would result in relatively small changes to the local

socio-economic environment affected by the Refuge Complex.

Property tax revenue, refuge revenue sharing payments, cost of

community services, and tourism revenue would all be impacted as

described below. Other impacts on the social environment, as they

relate to public use opportunities, are discussed for each Refuge in

Part 2 of this chapter.

Continuing our acquisition of the 735 acres now within approved land

acquisition boundaries would reduce property tax revenue to towns,

since the land would become non-taxed Federal property. We predict

the greatest loss in towns where properties zoned residential become

Refuge lands. Most of those 735 acres lie in South Kingstown, and

are zoned either residential or farm/forest/open space.

Part 1: Refuge Complex Consequences

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-5
However, positive adjustments to annual refuge revenue sharing

payments, and savings in the cost of community services would

partially offset the loss in property tax revenue. The cost of

community services includes police, fire and school facilities, and

other infrastructure needs.

Under our current land acquisition strategy, refuge revenue sharing

payments to the towns of South Kingstown and Narragansett would

increase the most. Approximately 735 acres have been approved for

our purchase from willing sellers within these two towns. Assuming we

acquire these acres at an estimated average market value of

$20,000/acre in South Shore towns, and assuming the 1998 refuge

revenue sharing payment amount ($4.70 per $1,000 of market value), an

additional $69,000/year in refuge revenue sharing payments would be

distributed between the towns of South Kingstown and Narragansett

after we have purchased all land within the acquisition boundary.

While difficult to quantify for these towns alone, in general, land

acquired for the Refuge System has a positive economic impact

through savings in the cost of community services. A cost of

community service analysis is one way to compare a town’s revenues

with its expenditures at a specific point in time. It also determines the

costs and financial contributions of various types of land use. A study

commissioned by the Southern New England Forest Consortium, Inc.

determined the average expense/revenue ratio for Rhode Island

towns: $1.20 for residential, $0.42 for commercial/ industrial, and $0.38

for open space (Commonwealth Research Group, 1995).

In other words, for every dollar of revenue from the residential

sector, Rhode Island towns spent an average $1.20 on residential

public services. For every dollar of revenue from the

commercial/industrial sector, towns spent an average of $0.42 on that

sector. In the forest/farm/open space sector, they spent $0.38. In

summary, lands in the forest/farm/open space sector provide the

greatest positive expense/revenue ratio.

We also should note that, although commercial

development appears positive, “...the ratio does

not take into account other costs associated with

commercial/industrial development...the potential

to attract new residential development, increased

traffic and noise pollution, and the loss of open

space land for filtering pollutants in water and air,

and to provide recreation opportunities.”

(Commonwealth Research Group 1995)

That study also found that the fastest growing

towns in Rhode Island, like those on the South

Shore, suffered greater than average losses when

their land was developed into residential areas,

compared to towns with more stable populations.

This is primarily because the speed and intensity

of development makes it difficult to maintain

adequate infrastructure and public services.

Rhode Island is sixth in the Nation in its rate of

land development

(www.state.ri.us/dem/demrep99/open 2000).

Chapter 4

4-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Figure 4-1. Cost per dollar of revenue from open space,

commercial, and residential development in Rhode Island.

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Little Compton

W. Greenwich

Hopkinton

Open space Commercial Residential
Small towns with national wildlife refuges realize positive socioeconomic benefits through increased private property values,

estimated at 1 percent to 4 percent of market value. That real estate

premium generally applies to properties adjacent to refuge lands

(Readybough 1999, pers com). Further, refuge lands provide

aesthetic benefits to Rhode Islanders by maintaining open space and

the rural character of the South Shore.

Rhode Islanders have consistently passed local and State bond

measures to protect open space. In 1999, Governor Lincoln Almond

proposed another $50-million bond measure for 2000 to protect

35,000 acres of open space, recreation and wildlife habitats by 2010.

On March 1, 2000, an article in The Providence Journal summarized

a recent survey of Rhode Island residents. The article stated,

“...Rhode Islanders consistently valued environmental concerns

more than economic growth or transportation...safeguarding natural

and historic resources all ranked above attracting new business and

having enough good jobs.” Although we have not quantified the

Refuges’ contribution to these benefits, there has been very little

public opposition to our continuing to acquire land.

On Block Island, the situation is similar to the mainland. Most Block

Island residents support land protection, evidenced by their passing a

3-percent property transfer tax and creating the Block Island Land

Trust to administer the fund (1987). Island residents were

responding to the dramatic increase in new construction on the island

during the mid-1980’s, which continues in today’s strong economy.

Block Island residents have not opposed Service land acquisition in

the past. The Nature Conservancy in particular has encouraged

Service land acquisition on the island.

Another positive socio-economic benefit the Refuges provide is their

contribution to ecologically based tourism in South County. Tourism

associated with the natural and historic resources of Rhode Island is

a $2.1 billion/year industry (www.state.ri.us/dem/demrep99/open).

Attendance at State parks and beaches increased by 15 percent

between 1998 and 1999. In 1999, nearly 6 million visitors enjoyed

State parks and beaches. The South County Tourism Council has

recently begun marketing the Refuges as part of a public

“Greenway.” Its brochures identify and describe alternative

recreational opportunities provided by the Refuges, State and local

parks, and other open space. Ann O’Neill, of the South County

Tourism Council, suggests that the potential to attract visitors will

continue to grow (O’Neill 1999, pers com).

We predict the greatest potential of Alternative A to directly impact

the local socio-economic environment is through the development of

a new Visitor Center for the Refuge Complex. While we have not yet

selected the site, one selection criteria is to locate a site easily

accessible from Route 1 in South County, where more than 2 million

visitors enjoyed South County Tourism Council festivals and events

in 1998 (O’Neill 1999). While we do not expect the Visitor Center to

be a trip destination in and of itself, we do predict it would prompt

many visitors to spend an additional day on the South Shore.

Part 1: Refuge Complex Consequences

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-7
It is difficult to quantify the increased direct and indirect

contributions to the local economy from visitors. Five of the six

priority public uses, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,

and environmental education and interpretation, occur on Block

Island, Ninigret, Sachuest Point and Trustom Pond Refuges. Chafee

Refuge limits public use to fishing only. These activities spin off

economic benefits that have not been specifically quantified.

Hunting, the sixth priority public use, occurs only on 20 acres at

Trustom Pond Refuge. That Canada goose hunt typically

accommodates approximately 14 hunters.

If we can expect an additional 35,000 annual visitors who spend an

estimated $20/day in pursuit of activities associated with their

Refuge trip, that amounts to approximately $700,000 in additional

revenue each year to affected communities. We derived the $20/day

average estimated expenditure from our publication, “Banking on

Nature” (July 1997), which states that the non-consumptive

recreation expenditure per day on Refuges in the Northeast (Region

5) averaged $20/day for residents and nonresidents.

Alternative B (The Proposed Action)

Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative B would result in

the second greatest direct positive change to the local socio-economic

environment. Its proposed land acquisition (approximately 2,465

acres more than Alternative A), coupled with the new Visitor Center,

and the expansion of the quality and quantity of visitor services on

all Refuges, would lead to substantial increases in refuge revenue

sharing payments, reduced cost of community services, increased

property values, more protected open space, and increased visitor

revenue to local economies.

Inclusive of the acres predicted for Alternative A, the 3,200 acres of

new acquisition would result in an estimated increase of

$291,000/year in refuge revenue sharing payments to southern

Rhode Island towns, including $47,000 to the Town of New

Shoreham. More South Shore towns, in addition to those now

receiving payments, would realize that benefit as well, since we

propose acquisition throughout southern Rhode Island. These

payments partially offset the loss in property tax revenue, since

Federal lands are non-taxable. 

We predict the construction of a Visitor Center and the increase in

family-oriented environmental and interpretive opportunities on all

five Refuges will increase overall visitation by 20 percent, attracting

an estimated 70,000 additional visitors each year. These visitors,

spending an average $20/day, would contribute $1.4 million in

additional annual revenue to affected communities. The annual

Canada goose hunt on 20 acres at Trustom Pond Refuge would

continue, with only a negligible contribution to the local economy. All

the Refuges would remain open to saltwater fishing.

Less tangible positive benefits would also be realized from increased

land acquisition. During public scoping, many residents expressed

support for acquisition to maintain the area’s rural character. While

we predict the increased land acquisition proposed in Alternative B

would contribute to maintaining the rural aesthetic character; we

have no analysis that quantifies the value of that benefit.

Chapter 4

4-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
One controversial aspect of land acquisition is the price we have paid

for land on Block Island. Land on the island has cost up to

$100,000/acre over the last 10 years. Alternative B proposes to

increase our land acquisition on Block Island by an additional 100 acres

at an estimated cost of $7 million. Our cost estimate assumes we would

not necessarily pay $100,000/acre on all 100 acres, but would acquire

some of that land through means like donations or conservation

easements. These are some of the highest prices paid for land in the

National Wildlife Refuge System. However, we have continued to

support acquisition and cooperative land protection on Block Island

because of its significant, unique biological values, and because the

dramatic increase in development over the last 10 years has

underscored the need for expeditious action. In fact, the Town of New

Shoreham commissioned a build-out analysis, which determined that at

the present rate, the island would be built out within the next 12 years.

We noted the unique natural resources on Block Island in our report

entitled “Northeast Coastal Areas Study”(1991). [Block Island is]

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

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

migration of many birds, particularly raptors and passerines,

between southern New England and eastern Long Island, and points

north and south.” 

The increased land protection in Alternative B would be the most

effective way of directly benefitting the diversity of natural resources

on Block Island, protecting threatened and endangered State and

Federal species, and maintaining open space.

The acres targeted for acquisition from willing sellers lie within the

Block Island Focus Area on the northern half of the island. The

proposed 100 acres, in addition to the 102 acres of existing Refuge

lands, would make us one of the largest landowners in the Focus

Area. This may raise concerns with some island residents who are

engaged in activities we would not consider a priority public use.

However, we predict most island residents would support continued

Service acquisition. We will gauge the extent of public concern

during the comment period following release of this draft CCP/EA.

Alternative C

Alternative C would provide the greatest direct contribution to the

local economies, compared to the other alternatives, when

considering the gain from refuge revenue sharing payments and

visitor services, and more indirectly, with savings from the cost of

community services.

Including the acres proposed in Alternative A, 11,550 acres of refuge

land acquisition would provide an estimated $1.07 million in refuge

revenue sharing payments to affected towns in southern Rhode

Island, and $70,500 to the Town of New Shoreham. As with

Alternative B, additional South Shore towns would receive refuge

revenue sharing payments, since acquisition would occur throughout

southern Rhode Island.

Alternative C proposes to acquire 150 acres total on Block Island, 50

acres more than Alternative B. Other impacts noted above for

Alternative B would be the same.

Part 1: Refuge Complex Consequences

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-9
Many residents of Rhode Island wish to maintain its rural character

by slowing residential and commercial development. They would

realize the most positive impacts under Alternative C, since the

acreage proposed for acquisition far exceeds Alternatives A, B and D

(see Table 3-1, Chapter 3). We have not attempted to quantify this

aesthetic, indirect benefit.

Alternative C would not provide the increase in visitor services

proposed for Alternatives B and D, and is more closely related to

Alternative A in this regard. A slight increase in environmental

education and interpretation would occur associated with barrier

beach protection, migratory bird management, and piping plover

protection and management. We expect a 15-percent increase in

visitation, partially attributable to the new Refuge Complex Visitor

Center. An estimated additional 52,500 visitors spending $20/day

would invest approximately $1.05 million in local economies each year.

Alternative D 

Alternative D ranks third highest among the alternatives when

comparing socio-economic benefits to affected communities. Its land

acquisition program is the same as Alternative A, so revenues

provided to towns from refuge revenue sharing payments and

savings in the cost of community services would be similar. However,

in comparison to the other alternatives, Alternative D proposes the

most expansive visitor services program for the Refuge Complex.

Included in this expansion is the provision for new deer hunting

programs on Block Island, Ninigret, Chafee, and Trustom Pond

Refuges and a pheasant hunt on Block Island Refuge. We would

evaluate opportunities for small game hunting as well. According to

our publication, “National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and WildlifeAssociated Recreation” (1996), hunters in Rhode Island averaged $75

in trip-related expenses for each individual hunting trip. These

included food, lodging, and transportation, all of which directly

contribute to the local economy. Should Alternative D be selected, a

subsequent environmental assessment, compatibility determination,

and annual hunt plant would determine the number of hunters to

permit on the Refuges.

In addition to the new Refuge Complex Visitors Center, visitors would

be attracted to major increases in opportunities for all priority,

wildlife-dependent recreational uses on each of the five Refuges. With

a predicted 25-percent increase in visitation, 87,500 visitors, spending

$20/day, would invest approximately $1.75 million in local economies.

Summary

Considering the factors described above, compared to the other

alternatives, Alternative C would provide the greatest socioeconomic benefit to affected communities in southern Rhode Island,

primarily because its larger land protection proposal saves in the

cost of community services, increases refuge revenue sharing

payments, and provides for a modest increase in visitation. Second

highest in benefits would be Alternative B, followed by Alternative

D, then Alternative A. 

Chapter 4

4-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Staffing and Budgets

Alternative A (Current Management)

Alternative A would maintain the existing, approved staff positions

over the next 15 years. A total of nine permanent, full-time staff and

one student trainee are in place. We expect to hire four seasonal

staff in 2000. We do not expect substantial increases in the budget

for salaries. The seasonal positions are covered through Refuge

Operating Needs System (RONS) project funding discussed below.

We assume other fixed costs will not change significantly until the

new Visitor Center/Headquarters has been completed in 2003.

RONS project funding for our entire Region (Region 5) has been

approximately $1 million annually for the last 2 years. Thirteen

projects for the Rhode Island Refuge Complex, totaling $7.01 million,

are now in the RONS database for funding consideration by the

Regional Office (Appendix F). In FY2000, only the top priority

RONS project for the Refuge Complex was funded.

Discretionary funding for general operations has decreased

significantly in the last 2 years and will likely remain minimal.

Maintenance dollars will continue to fluctuate as priority projects are

funded and new structural work is completed. Appendix F also

presents the current backlog of maintenance projects listed for the

Rhode Island Refuge Complex in the Maintenance Management

System (MMS) database.

Alternative B (The Proposed Action)

Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would result in sizeable

increases over the next 15 years in new permanent and seasonal

staff, and a doubling of RONS projects submitted for funding

consideration. A total of 26 permanent, full-time staff and 17

seasonal staff would be in place. The budget would increase by

$569,000/year to cover the salary of the new permanent positions.

We would continue to fund the seasonal positions through RONS

project requests. Other fixed costs would remain at current levels in

the short term. The design of the new Headquarters facility would

support the proposed increase in staff. In addition to the 13 projects

now in the RONS database, we would submit 15 new projects to

RONS, for a total request of $10.3 million (Appendix F). Adequate

staffing and funding support for projects over the next 15 years

would be crucial to achieving full implementation of this alternative. 

Alternative C

Similar to Alternative B, Alternative C recommends significant

increases in permanent and seasonal staff over the next 15 years.

Alternative C proposes 27 permanent, full-time staff and 15 seasonal

staff. The budget would increase by $617,000/year to cover the

salary of the permanent positions. Other fixed costs would be

comparable to Alternative B.

Part 1: Refuge Complex Consequences

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-11
RONS project proposals would increase over Alternative A to

support habitat restoration and species work, but would not match

Alternative B’s increases in visitor services projects. Alternative C

would not request all of the projects now in RONS. As depicted in

Appendix F, we would submit a total of 24 projects totaling $8.97

million to RONS. As under Alternative B, adequate staffing and

funding support for projects over the next 15 years would be crucial

to achieving full implementation of this alternative.

Alternative D

Alternative D also proposes a significant increase in staffing over the

next 15 years. A total of 24 permanent, full time staff and 11 seasonal

staff would be in place. The budget would increase by $509,000/year

to cover the salary of the new permanent positions. Other fixed

costs would be comparable to Alternatives B and C.

Proposed RONS project costs would exceed Alternative A and C, but

would be less than Alternative B. We would submit 22 projects

totaling $9.21 million to RONS. As with Alternatives B and C,

adequate staffing and funding support for projects would be critical

to achieving full implementation of this alternative.

Summary

Alternatives B, C, and D are comparable, in that their proposed

staffing and RONS projects would support full implementation of

each alternative. Alternative C would have the highest staffing cost,

followed by Alternatives B, then D, then A. RONS project costs

would be highest for Alternative B, followed by Alternatives D, then

C, then A. All alternatives include the $3.8 million in the MMS data

base. However, Alternative B would best meet the intent of Goal 5

by increasing the quality and depth of all Refuge programs through

increased staffing and projects.

Contaminant Sites

Alternative A (Current Management)

Alternative A proposes to continue coordination with the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the agency with primary

jurisdiction on CERCLIS site clean-up on Ninigret, Sachuest Point,

and Trustom Pond Refuges. No actions are proposed to clean up the

extensive military debris on Ninigret Refuge. With little to no

change over the short term, impacts should be neutral.

Alternative B (The Proposed Action)

In addition to continued coordination with the EPA, or delegated

authority, these alternatives would seek Service and outside funding

to clean up the military debris at Ninigret Refuge and train Refuge

personnel in Level 1 environmental site assessments. Personnel would

then be trained to conduct additional surveys and would be able to

monitor existing sites. These actions would directly reduce the

adverse impact from contaminants and debris on Ninigret Refuge and

would indirectly benefit the other Refuges through staff training.

Chapter 4

4-12 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Alternative C

Same as Alternative B.

Alternative D

Same as Alternative B.

Summary

Alternatives B, C, and D equally reduce impacts from contaminants

and military debris, particularly on Ninigret Refuge. Alternative A

maintains the status quo; it would not improve the current situation.

Part 2: Individual Refuge Consequences

Block Island

Physical Resources–Soils, Hydrology, or Wetlands 

None of the alternatives propose to alter soils, hydrology, or

wetlands on existing Refuge lands. We predict no direct, indirect, or

cumulative impacts on these resources. All alternatives would comply

with the Clean Water Act.

Biological Resources–Vegetation

Alternative A (Current Management)

The only active management of vegetation on Block Island Refuge is

the occasional lawn mowing/shrub cutting associated with routine

maintenance of the Beane Point facility. The lawn is approximately

1/4 acre in size and has been maintained since the 1940’s when the

Beane Point house was first built. Overall, the impacts on other

vegetation from managing this habitat are insignificant. Further, this

small patch of grasslands may provide foraging opportunities for the

American burying beetle, which prefers the combination of

grasslands with a soil type in which it can dig and bury prey. There

is one documented occurrence of the American burying beetle’s

foraging in this area, but no documented breeding.

Refuge staff and the Nature Conservancy have expressed a concern

about visitors, pedestrians and recreational off-road vehicles (ORVs)

trampling native beach strand and dune vegetation, reducing or

destroying the wrack line, and physically damaging the dune

structure. There has been no monitoring to determine the extent of

damage. Alternative A would not propose any new protection,

monitoring, or restoration.

We estimate 200,000 visitors to Block Island Refuge each year. The

majority walk half a mile from the Settlers Rock parking lot, across

the Refuge, to the North Light lighthouse. We predict long-term

negative impacts on vegetation from unrestricted access, including

direct damage to or complete loss of native vegetation in some areas.

Unfortunately, the lack of monitoring prevents a more accurate

prediction of how much damage would occur.

Part 2: Individual Refuge Consequences

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-13
Over the long term, this negative trend could be reversed by

concentrating or restricting public access or revegetating the area.

Both of these techniques have proved successful in dune vegetation

recovery at East Beach-Watch Hill on the South Shore. However,

Alternative A would not manage public use restrictions or initiate a

revegetation project. We foresee no other direct or indirect impacts

on vegetation from Alternative A.

Alternative B (The Proposed Action)

Similar to Alternative A, Alternative B would maintain the lawn at

the Beane Point facility with minimal impacts on other vegetation

and, perhaps, provide some benefits to the Federal-listed American

burying beetle.

Protection of native beach strand and dune vegetation would be a

priority under Alternative B. It proposes designating public access

routes to avoid sensitive areas and minimize the trampling of

vegetation. No ORVs would be allowed on Refuge beaches and

dunes, above the mean high tide line, from April 1 to September 15

each year. Suitable piping plover nesting habitat would also be

symbolically fenced each year by April 1. These actions are intended

to reduce direct impacts on dune structure and vegetation and the

wrack line, and to minimize disturbance to shorebirds, including the

threatened piping plover, during nesting and migration. It is entirely

possible on Block Island that, with current public use levels on such a

narrow beach, there is competition for space between humans and

shorebirds. We would impose this restriction during the time of year

when vehicle and pedestrian activity is the highest. 

Also, Alternative B proposes mapping and monitoring vegetation and

the distribution of public use in these areas. We would replant native

vegetation if monitoring shows that restoration is needed. This

action would directly increase protection and management of native

vegetation on the beach strand and dunes, and thus provide a

positive impact over the long term.

Approximately 38 percent of the Refuge (35 acres) is vegetated beach

strand and dunes. Native dune vegetation is critical to maintaining

the integrity of the beach strand ecosystem, as plants trap sand, build

and stabilize dunes, and provide cover for wildlife (USDI 1998). We

consider beach strand habitats, sand dunes, and their dependent

species a priority resource concern (Connecticut River/Long Island

Sound Ecoteam 1997). Dunes and dune vegetation are the

community types most vulnerable to motor vehicle traffic, followed by

salt marshes, the dune/marsh interface, sand flats, backshore,

foreshore, and intertidal areas (Godfrey, Leatherman, and Buckley

1978; Leatherman and Godfrey 1979). ORVs on the beach can cause

erosion, accelerating movement of sand seaward and by wind

transport, and can cause compaction up to 20 cm. below the surface

(Anders and Leatherman). Accelerated seaward movement of beach

sand likely negatively affects the development of future dunes and

increases the vulnerability of the existing dunes to storms.

Compaction, which can occur after as few as 10 vehicle passes, has

been known to kill subsurface roots of beach grass, resulting in the

loss of stabilizing vegetation and erosion of sand, rather than

accretion (Anders and Leatherman 1987; Behrens et al. 1976).

Chapter 4

4-14 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
ORVs are also known to negatively impact wrack and drift lines,

which are also critical to the ecological processes on barrier beaches.

Wrack lines are areas on the beach where vegetation and other

organic debris are deposited by high tides, especially storm and high

lunar tides. The organic debris within the wrackline is important

foraging habitat for shorebirds, as it attracts insects and amphipods.

According to several studies (Elias et al. 2000; Goldin 1993; Hoopes

1993), the wrackline is the preferred foraging habitat for piping

plover chicks. These authors noted that chicks avoided that

preferred habitat when ORVs were present, and that destruction of

the wrackline by ORVs forced chicks to use less productive foraging

areas, including areas even more susceptible to human disturbance,

such as intertidal areas.

Also, the wrackline includes live plant fragments that are important to

the establishment of dune plants. Ten motor vehicle passes can

heavily impact the wrackline by breaking up the organic debris and

killing regenerating plants (Zaremba et al. 1979; Zaremba et al. 1980). 

We predict some public concern would occur with designating access

routes for ORVs and pedestrians and limiting the season for vehicle

use to late fall and winter. Few restrictions have been placed on

visitors in the past, and because the area is so popular and accessible,

any restrictions would be unpopular. The level of opposition is not

known, and would be determined during the comment period

following release of this draft CCP/EA.

Other actions proposed in Alternative B to directly protect or restore

native vegetation include monitoring the loss of Japanese black pine

on Beane Point and evaluating ways to maintain the pine’s vegetative

structure. These pines have supported heron and egret nests for

many years; in fact, black-crowned night-herons have been

documented since 1976 (Ferren, et al. 1998). Any new plantings

would be native vegetation to help ensure sustainability of the habitat.

We would also evaluate opportunities to expand the habitat for the

American burying beetle in cooperation with our New England Field

Office, RI DEM, and the ad hoc Recovery Team. The northern end

of Block Island, within the Focus Area, has fewer acres of suitable

habitat for the American burying beetle, compared with the southern

end of the island. Despite that fact, other physical characteristics

make habitat within the Focus Area potentially suitable for this

beetle (Amaral, pers com. 2000). Whenever we acquire new land on

Block Island, we would evaluate it for American burying beetle

habitat suitability. We would restore, create, or maintain grasslands

and other early successional habitat on newly acquired lands if they

have potential to expand the current burying beetle population. 

Part 2: Block Island Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-15
Habitat suitability would be based on an assessment of the prey

base, whether a suitable soil type is present allowing beetles to bury

prey, and the ability to sustain the area in early successional habitat,

namely, grasslands. Alternative B presumes we would convert up to

50 acres of mid-seral shrub habitat to early successional grasslands

or shrub lands if the soil types and prey base are adequate to

support breeding burying beetles. Treatments could include use of a

brush hog, hydroaxe, mower, herbicides, or prescribed fire to

establish and maintain early successional habitat required by the

burying beetle. We would schedule these activities outside the

breeding and migrating season for landbirds of management concern

and outside the breeding season for burying beetle to minimize

impacts on other wildlife.

One concern with creating early successional shrub and grassland

habitats is the potential impact on nesting birds and birds migrating

through the island that require the use of mature shrub habitat.

Management for early successional habitats would directly affect

some species. For example, blue-winged and golden-winged warbler,

field sparrow, and woodcock are species of concern that use mature

shrubs for nesting and foraging on Block Island. Many more species

use the berries produced by mature shrubs during fall migrations.

According to Parrish (1999) and Comings (2000), approximately 70

species of landbirds migrate through northern Block Island in the

fall and forage voraciously on berries produced by northern

arrowwood, northern bayberry, and pokeberry. However, Parrish

(1999) noted the availability of fruits was “superabundant” on Block

Island based on three observations: (1) in 3 years of survey, birds

never removed entire fruit crops and large volumes of fruit dropped

and rotted or dessicated on the shrub; (2) there was little to no

inter- or intraspecific aggression observed; and (3) no more than 40

percent of any one shrub was depleted of berries. We do not predict

a significant impact on foraging habitat from managing 50 acres of

early successional habitat.

Further, the positive impacts of creating and maintaining up to 50

acres of a regionally declining habitat type for an endangered species

and supporting other grassland dependent species of concern,

outweigh the negative impacts of losing mature shrub habitat;

notwithstanding the importance of shrub habitat to many landbirds

during migration and breeding. Our determination is based on the

knowledge that shrub habitat would remain a dominant habitat type

on Block Island. Considered in context, 50 acres is a relatively small

area compared to the remaining shrub habitat across the island. 

Positive impacts would be realized by grassland bird species such as

bobolink, savannah sparrow, and eastern meadowlark. These are

species of concern that would benefit from10- to 50-acre grassland

habitats (Vickery 1997). Also, in the fall, these grasslands would

provide foraging habitat for many migrating birds feeding on insects

or seeds. Birds of prey such as kestrels, northern harriers, and

short eared owls are species of concern which would directly benefit

from the open foraging habitat, which supports small mammal

populations throughout the year.

Chapter 4

4-16 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Overall, the biggest positive impact on vegetation from Alternative B

would be realized through the 100 acres proposed for Service

acquisition. Large-lot (>3 acres) residential development has

increased dramatically in the last decade on Block Island, with buildout expected within 12 years. We would maintain land we acquire in

native habitats that would protect important components of the

unique biological diversity of the island, and would also promote a

natural setting.

Alternative C

Alternative C implements the same actions as Alternative B with

respect to vegetation on Block Island with two exceptions: (1)

Alternative C would implement a year round ORV closure on Refuge

beaches, above the mean high tide line, to avoid the ORV impacts

noted in Alternative B above. That action would provide both direct

and indirect benefits and increased protection over the long term to

native dunes and beach vegetation and shorebird foraging habitat;

and (2) the additional 150 acres of land acquisition on Block Island

would further maintain native habitats, protect important

components of the unique biological diversity of the island, and

promote a natural setting. Otherwise, impacts would be similar to

those described in Alternative B. 

Alternative D

Alternative D would designate pedestrian and ORV access trails to

reduce direct trampling to dune structure and vegetation, but would

not otherwise manage public use. Closures for piping plover would

be implemented as described for Alternative A. Also, Alternative D

does not propose extensive monitoring of native dune vegetation or

the black pine stand. As a result, the long-term sustainability of both

native dunes and beach vegetation and the black pine stand would be

at greater risk.

Summary

Alternative C slightly exceeds Alternative B in providing the best

long-term protection to the ecological integrity and biological

diversity within the Block Island Focus Area through management

and new land acquisition. These alternatives best meet the intent of

Goals 1 and 2 on Block Island Refuge. Alternatives A and D are

comparable to each other, but do not offer the same level of longterm protection as Alternatives B and C.

Biological Resources–Threatened and Endangered Species and

Other Species of Management Concern

Alternative A (Current Management) 

Federal-listed species known to breed on Block Island are the

endangered American burying beetle and the threatened piping

plover. Federal-listed threatened bald eagles have consistently been

observed roosting and foraging during the summer months, without

nesting. Alternative A does not propose any management for the

American burying beetle, although maintaining the lawn at the

Beane Point facility may provide minor benefits to foraging beetles.

Part 2: Block Island Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-17
Alternative A would continue to monitor suitable piping plover

habitat on the Refuge at least 3 times/week beginning by April 1.

Symbolic fencing will be placed by April 1 around suitable habitat on

the Refuge to exclude pedestrian and ORV traffic in that immediate

area. Pedestrian and ORV access would still occur around the fenced

area to reach Sandy Point tip. Once a nest has been located, we

would erect a predator nest exclosure. Refuge beaches would be

closed to vehicles just prior to chicks hatching. If the nest is on town

beach, we would work with the Town of New Shoreham to protect

the nest site and manage public use. 

There have been only two known piping plover nesting attempts

within the Focus Area over the last 15 years. Opinions by piping

plover experts as to why these numbers are so low include: (1) the

threat of gull predation from the established gull colony; (2)

excessive disturbance from human activities; (3) the beach profile has

become narrower over the last decade; and (4) the remoteness of a

source population to draw birds from (Raithel 1999; Taylor 1999, pers

com). Alternative A addresses none of these potential concerns.

Despite these concerns, we continue to regard Block Island Refuge

as having potential nesting habitat for piping plover. It should also

be noted that this nesting season (2000), a piping plover pair

successfully fledged two young on a town-owned beach south of the

Focus Area. According to The Nature Conservancy on Block Island,

this is a quiet section of beach, more difficult to access, with much

less human disturbance than the other beaches with historic plover

use (Comings, pers com 2000). 

With the exception of piping plover management described above, we

would not direct any additional actions specifically at benefitting

resident or migratory birds. Limited information on landbird use at

Block Island Refuge would continue. Only the gull colony on West

Beach and the heron/egret rookery on Beane Point would continue to

be monitored by RI DEM and The Nature Conservancy. Since no

habitat manipulations would occur under this alternative, we predict

neutral impacts on breeding birds.

This alternative does not propose any actions directed toward

management for reptiles or amphibians. We know very little about

their population levels and habitat use within the Refuge. However,

most of the species known on Block Island are associated with water,

which would not be affected under Alternative A. We predict no

direct or indirect impacts on amphibians and reptiles.

This alternative does not propose any actions directed toward habitat

management for mammals. We know very little about their

population levels and habitat use within the Refuge. However, we

suspect most of the mammals known on the island also occur on the

Refuge. The Nature Conservancy describes most of them as

ubiquitous on the island. The majority are upland species, with the

exception of muskrat. Deer are prevalent on the island, but their

population on the Refuge is not known. With no habitat management

proposed, we predict negligible to no impact overall on mammals

under Alternative A .

Chapter 4

4-18 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Overall, Alternative A does not directly or indirectly impact the

American burying beetle or piping plover in a negative way; we predict

no positive gains or improving conditions over the short or long term.

We also predict no impacts on amphibians, reptiles, and mammals.

Overall, the impacts are neutral, and maintain the status quo.

Alternative B (The Proposed Action) 

Alternative B would implement several actions designed to directly

improve habitat conditions for the American burying beetle, provided

the habitat is suitable upon detailed evaluation, and increase

protection for the piping plover. Further, Alternative B would

increase our understanding of the threats and limitations for these

species on Block Island. In addition, this alternative proposes to

monitor the seasonal activities of bald eagles in the Focus Area.

One important objective of this alternative is to work with our New

England Field Office, RI DEM, and the ad hoc Recovery Team to try

to expand the American burying beetle breeding population into the

Focus Area. As discussed under “Vegetation” above, Alternative B

proposes to evaluate all current and new land acquisition for

potential American burying beetle habitat. We may convert up to 50

acres of shrub habitat to grasslands if suitable lands become

available. Conversion of shrub habitat to grasslands supporting

burying beetle has proven successful on shrub dominated fields on

southern Block Island, so there is precedence (Amaral, pers com.

2000). Alternative B proposes that Refuge staff become actively

involved in ongoing burying beetle monitoring on the southern part

of the island and significantly increase inventories in the Focus Area.

These actions would directly benefit burying beetle over both the

short and long terms.

Alternative B proposes to increase protection and management for

piping plover by hiring staff to survey for piping plover earlier in the

season, to monitor public use in nesting areas, to monitor public use

in potential nesting areas, and to monitor the interaction with the

established gull colony. Each of these actions would help Refuge

staff understand factors limiting piping plover production.

Alternative B also proposes to work with the Town of New Shoreham

to explore the possibility of installing symbolic fencing on a portion

of Sandy Point beach on an experimental basis before and during the

piping plover nesting season (April 1 to September 15) in order to

enhance the closure on Refuge beach. Visitors and their dogs would

be restricted from the area enclosed by symbolic fence. This would

help determine if human disturbance is limiting use of the area by

piping plover.

In addition, Alternative B proposes a restriction on ORV use on

Refuge beaches, above the mean high tide line, from April 1 to

September 15 each year, in part to protect nesting and migrating

shorebirds, and to work toward reestablishing an active piping plover

nest area. According to the Revised Recovery Plan for the Atlantic

Coast Piping Plover, “Unrestricted use of motorized vehicles on

beaches is a serious threat to piping plover and their habitats.” Piping

plover have not nested successfully in the Focus Area since 1978.

Part 2: Block Island Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-19
During migration, the principle activities for shorebirds are feeding

and resting. Frequent disturbance causes shorebirds to abandon or

reduce use of an area and reduces the amount of time resting and

foraging, thus impacting energy reserves needed for migrating.

Roosting semipalmated sandpipers and feeding sanderlings flush

more frequently in response to ORVs than to pedestrians on sandy

beaches (Harrington et al. 1996).

While it could be argued that pedestrian traffic is at least as

disturbing to foraging or resting shorebirds throughout the year, the

risk of inadvertent nest destruction and direct impacts on chicks is

higher from ORVs for a variety of reasons. In fact, direct mortality

from vehicles has been documented on several New England beaches

(Hecht, pers com. 2000). The birds’ cryptic coloring and the exposed

nature of piping plover and other shorebird nests often precludes a

driver from seeing and avoiding them. Further, multiple studies have

found that piping plover chicks “freeze” when a vehicle approaches,

instead of running off as they do when disturbed by pedestrians

(Goldin et al. 1989; Melvin et al. 1994). Chicks also tend to travel

down tire ruts, and have difficulty crossing or getting out of deep

ruts and out of the way of an oncoming vehicle. 

In summary, there are several instances in New England where

restrictions on public use and vehicles have resulted in increased

piping plover nesting (Hecht, pers com. 2000). We can not predict

this with certainty on Block Island where we are proposing symbolic

fencing and seasonally closing the entire Refuge beach above mean

high tide to ORV use. However, these actions certainly increase the

likelihood of occupancy and successful fledging over what current

management offers. These actions are both recommended in the

Revised Recovery Plan. The Recovery Plan promotes “very

intensive” management actions for piping plover on national wildlife

refuges, especially when their purpose for establishment is

protection of threatened and endangered species, as is the case for

Block Island Refuge.

We predict public opposition to these changes in public beach use and

access. Our experience with piping plover management on Block

Island shows that residents and visitors accept the restrictions on

public use if the birds are present and visible. We expect fewer

residents to embrace pre-emptive restrictions on an experimental basis.

We do not know the level of opposition, which we would determine

during the comment period following release of this draft CCP/EA.

Alternative B proposes hiring additional staff, in part to conduct the

increased monitoring of species and habitats on each of the Refuges

and to increase Service presence on Block Island. Besides the work

on burying beetle and piping plover, staff would also monitor the

seasonal bald eagle roost sites in the Focus Area, and identify

potential threats and land acquisition opportunities for the sites.

Alternative B also proposes to develop site management plans by

2005, if necessary. These actions would positively impact bald eagles,

over both the short and long terms, by increasing the biological

information from which Refuge Staff can make informed decisions to

protect this species.

Chapter 4

4-20 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
In addition, Refuge staff would monitor the heron/egret rookery to

identify threats and determine if it is possible to maintain the

rookery or sustain the population in other parts of the Focus Area

over the long term. These actions would directly benefit wading

birds on the island.

Refuge staff would also develop habitat, monitoring, and inventory

plans for landbirds and shorebirds of concern throughout the Refuge

Complex. Measures identified above for piping plover would directly

benefit species of concern on Block Island, like black oystercatcher,

least tern, common tern, and black skimmer. The proposed plans

would indirectly benefit landbird and shorebird focus species by

increasing baseline information. Direct benefits would occur over

the long term when specific actions are implemented.

As described above for the American burying beetle, we could convert

up to 50 acres of shrub land to grassland and early successional shrub

habitat to provide breeding sites. To avoid direct impacts, habitat

work would occur outside the breeding seasons for songbirds and the

beetle. The negative impacts on shrub nesting species were noted

above in the Alternative B discussion on vegetation.

Alternative B would develop an inventory and monitoring plan for

amphibians and reptiles on the Refuge Complex. This action would

indirectly benefit these species by increasing the biological

information available to Refuge Staff for management decisions.

With little information on how amphibians and reptiles are using the

Refuge, it is difficult to determine for certain how they would be

impacted during potential habitat manipulations proposed for the

American burying beetle. We predict short-term displacement of

some species that use upland habitats, such as garter and northern

brown snakes, during the habitat work. However, over the long

term, these species would move to adjacent suitable habitat or would

use created grassland areas. We expect, at most, to lose only a few

individuals of each species. The garter and northern brown snake

are common reptile species in Rhode Island, and their local

populations would not be at risk of extirpation.

Alternative B provides the greatest potential benefit to reptiles and

amphibians, through Service acquisition of as many as 100 acres in

the Focus Area otherwise at risk for development. Habitats existing

on most of these acquired lands would not be changed through

management, so the habitat quality for these species would be

maintained. Reptiles and amphibians would directly benefit from

this land protection. Further, Alternative B would not directly

manipulate wetlands, nor do we predict indirect impacts on wetlands

from other management activities.

Part 2: Block Island Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-21
Alternative B proposes to work with RI DEM, the Town of New

Shoreham, and adjacent landowners to develop a deer management

plan for the Focus Area. That plan would set habitat, human health

and safety objectives, and other management objectives to ensure

that deer populations are within the carrying capacity of the habitat.

RI DEM, the Town of New Shoreham, and many island residents are

concerned about excessive deer populations. Vehicle-deer collisions

have increased, as have impacts on residential landscaping. We

would acquire 100 acres of deer habitat, which might otherwise be

developed as low-density residential housing. We may recommend a

deer hunt in the future, but would base its objectives on maintaining

deer numbers within an established carrying capacity and reducing

threats to human health and safety. Opening the Refuge to deer

hunting would require a separate environmental assessment

outlining specific actions, a compatibility determination, a public

review and comment period, and an annual hunt plan.

Refuge staff would monitor the seal haul out areas near the Refuge,

indirectly benefitting them by increasing our biological information

on seals. With little information on how other mammal species are

using the Refuge, it is difficult to determine for certain how they

would be impacted during potential habitat manipulations proposed

for the American burying beetle. We predict that some species, such

as the meadow vole and the white-footed mouse, would be displaced

in the short term during the habitat work. However, over the long

term, these species could use created grassland areas or move to

adjacent suitable habitat. We expect, at most, to lose only a few

individuals of each species; local populations would remain viable.

Overall, Alternative B would result in increased biological

information on a variety of species. Most species would directly

benefit from Service land acquisition, which prevents habitat

fragmentation. Over the long term, we expect the benefits to

continue to increase with the implementation of habitat plans.

Alternative C

The impacts identified for threatened, endangered and other species

of concern under Alternative B would be slightly more positive under

Alternative C. It would initiate a Piping Plover Working Group for

Rhode Island, whose increased coordination would indirectly benefit

piping plover throughout Rhode Island. How it would benefit piping

plover specifically on Block Island is uncertain. The year-round ORV

closure on Refuge beaches above mean high tide under Alternative C

would enhance habitat quality for beach-dwelling species throughout

the year. Further, the additional 50 acres of land acquisition provides

the same types of benefits described for Alternative B, only at a

slightly greater level.

Alternative D

Same as Alternative A.

Chapter 4

4-22 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Summary

Alternative C slightly exceeds Alternative B in providing the most

positive, direct, long-term impacts on threatened and endangered

species and other species of concern on Block Island, followed

equally by Alternatives A and D. Alternatives B and C would best

achieve the intent of Goal 1 on Block Island Refuge. We will begin

Section 7 consultation, to ensure compliance with the Endangered

Species Act, with release of this draft CCP/EA.

Cultural Resources

Alternative A (Current Management)

No management actions proposed with these alternatives would

increase cultural resource information or management on Block

Island Refuge. We would survey any future ground-disturbing

projects in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act. We predict neutral impact on cultural resources

over the short and long terms.

Alternative B (The Proposed Action)

Alternative B proposes to do a cultural resources overview of the

Refuge Complex and to train more Refuge staff in Archeological

Resource Protection Act enforcement. These actions would increase

the information available to Refuge staff and would improve

enforcement of known sites listed by the Historic Preservation

Office, although we know of none on Block Island Refuge. As with

Alternative A, all future ground-disturbing projects would be

surveyed in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act. This alternative would indirectly benefit cultural

resources over the long term on Block Island.

Alternative C

Alternative C proposes to conduct cultural resource field surveys on

the Refuge in addition to the cultural resource overview, and would

provide increased enforcement, and develop an environmental

education curriculum associated with cultural resources. By

conducting field surveys, establishing additional enforcement, and

educating the local community, cultural resources on Block Island

would directly benefit over the long term.

Alternative D

Same as Alternative A.

Summary

Alternative C would provide the greatest benefit to the cultural

resources program on Block Island through increased field surveys

on the Refuge. Alternative B would conduct a records overview but

would not involve extensive field surveys. Alternatives A and D

would not implement either action. All alternatives would comply

with the Archeological Resources Protection Act. We will begin

Section 106 review, to ensure compliance with the National Historic

Preservation Act, with release of this draft CCP/EA.

Part 2: Block Island Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-23
Public Use

Alternative A (Current Management)

Five of the six priority public uses occur on Block Island Refuge.

These include fishing, wildlife observation and photography,

environmental education and interpretation. Non-wildlife-dependent

uses, like driving ORVs, dog walking, swimming and sunbathing,

jogging, and kite flying, are also occurring on the Refuge.

We do not expect changes in public use activities under Alternative

A; priority public use programs would continue to be minimal and

the Service presence would be limited. We predict a 10-percent

increase in visitor numbers, considering historic increases and the

increased visibility of the Refuge through the Refuge Complex

Visitors Center.

No visitor service or public use infrastructure is in place on the

Refuge. Of the priority public uses occurring on the Refuge, only

fishing was formally declared open, in accordance with State

regulations, through a Federal Register Notice. Alternative A would

continue to allow The Nature Conservancy of Block Island to conduct

environmental education on Refuge lands, unassisted by Refuge staff

or funding. All of Beane Point would remain closed to public access.

Alternative A would also continue to restrict public use, through the

use of symbolic fencing, on Refuge beaches where suitable piping

plover habitat occurs as described above. Additional restrictions on

ORV use would be imposed if piping plover nest. No other public use

management actions would be implemented under Alternative A.

We would continue to evaluate public uses on newly acquired lands

on a case-by-case basis. In general, we would allow existing priority

public uses to continue if they were found compatible. We would not

allow new uses until we had completed a formal compatibility

determination. Since most of the land to be acquired is now in

private ownership, we predict negligible impacts on current public

uses overall.

ORV use on Block Island Refuge creates the most user conflicts and

management issues of any non-wildlife-dependent use. It is an even

larger management issue when it is not conducted in support of surf

fishing. ORVs are using the beach from the town parking lot at

Settlers Rock, around Sandy Point, and down West Beach to the

junction with West Beach Road. These areas combine to create a

continuous 2.25 mile stretch of beach. The two entry points for

vehicles are Settlers Rock and West Beach Road. Of that 2.25 mile

stretch of beach, approximately one-half mile total, in non-continuous

sections, lies on Refuge lands. Refuge staff have observed a dramatic

increase in the number of ORVs visiting Block Island over the past 5

years. Since the Sandy Point/West Beach Area is the only beach open

to daytime driving on Block Island, we predict the level of ORV use

would slightly increase over the next few years, commensurate with

the 10-percent increase in visitation we are predicting and because of

the continued popularity of sport utility vehicles. The demand for this

form of recreation remains strong, and other opportunities for beach

driving are very limited throughout Rhode Island. Any increase in

ORV traffic on this limited stretch of beach would escalate conflicts

between pedestrians and ORVs at Sandy Point and West Beach.

Chapter 4

4-24 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Staff shortages have limited our ability to address that activity and

other non-wildlife-dependent public uses at Block Island Refuge.

Alternative A would not increase staffing or operating funds.

Inconsistent enforcement of inappropriate, incompatible activities

would continue. That lack of monitoring and enforcement would

benefit non-wildlife-dependent users at the expense of a quality

experience for visitors engaged in priority public uses. Further, as

noted above under the biological discussions, we predict an increased

adverse ecological impact on wildlife and habitat values over the long

term as a result of public use activities, especially ORV use.

Alternative B (The Proposed Action) 

Alternative B proposes to increase public use opportunities on Block

Island Refuge in several ways. It would develop a Refuge Complex

Visitor Services Plan to address program needs, opportunities,

visitor capacities and thresholds of change, identify target audiences,

and determine how to evaluate success. It also proposes to establish

formal partnerships to address visitor service planning and funding.

All inappropriate and incompatible, non-wildlife-dependent public use

activities would be phased out on Refuge lands by 2005. Activities

like dog walking, jogging, swimming and sunbathing, and kite flying

do not support a priority public use, nor are they required to meet the

goals of the Refuge, nor do they contribute to the purpose for which

the Refuge was established. ORV use at Block Island Refuge is

another example, except where it is used in surf fishing outside of the

proposed shorebird seasonal closure period. This activity is discussed

separately below. Further, these activities diminish the quality of

experience for visitors engaged in a priority public use, and in the

case of dog walking, can adversely impact habitat conditions for many

species of wildlife. None of these activities are compatible with the

Refuge purpose, and would be eliminated.

At this time, no public hunting is proposed. After completion of a

cooperative deer management plan for the Focus Area by 2002, we

may recommend a public hunt. We would base the objectives for a

deer hunt on the need to maintain deer populations within an

established carrying capacity and to reduce threats to human health

and safety. However, a separate environmental assessment, a

compatibility determination, and an annual hunt plan would be

required before a new hunting opportunity is implemented.

While Alternative B does not propose any changes to the area open

to fishing on Block Island Refuge, it would impact surf fishing by

closing the Refuge beach (approximately half a mile) above the mean

high tide line to ORVs from April 1 to September 15. By 2002, we

would implement that restriction to protect nesting and migrating

birds and reduce impacts on the dunes. We noted the biological

issues and impacts regarding ORV use above, under the biological

discussion for each Alternative. This action would negatively impact

all visitors who drive on the beach, including those who use ORVs for

surf fishing access. However, Alternative B would mitigate that

impact on Refuge visitors by establishing a parking area next to the

North Light. From the proposed parking area, visitors could access

all of the beach around Sandy Point without having to walk more

than one-quarter of a mile.

Part 2: Block Island Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-25
In addition, by 2004, we would cooperate with the Town of New

Shoreham to develop a resource protection and public use and access

plan to reduce wildlife and habitat impacts while assuring

appropriate public use of the northern tip of the island. One

objective of that comprehensive, cooperative approach would be to

ensure long-term protection of resources and public support for

proposed management action.

Past experiences with restricting public access on Block Island

Refuge for piping plover management has shown public opposition to

restricting access. We will not know the full extent of opposition

until after the comment period for this draft CCP/EA.

Alternative B proposes expanding the environmental education

program currently implemented by The Nature Conservancy. This

proposal would provide Service resources and staff to cooperatively

develop and implement an environmental education program with

The Nature Conservancy for Block Island. Alternative B would

utilize the Beane Point facility to support environmental education

efforts. This would result in a positive impact on the environmental

education program on Block Island.

Alternative B would also develop and fund an interpretive plan for the

Block Island Focus Area. This would greatly expand the

opportunities for environmental interpretation on Block Island, which

are now non-existent. Environmental interpretation would target

Island residents and visitors with a goal of promoting increased

environmental stewardship. Alternative B would result in a positive

impact on Refuge visitors who enjoy environmental interpretation.

On newly acquired lands, we would allow priority, wildlife-dependent

public use to continue on an interim basis unless the activities do not

meet the criteria stipulated in the Interim Compatibility

Determination (Appendix E). We would phase out as soon as

possible all non-wildlife-dependent activities that may have existed

before acquisition.

Overall, Alternative B would result in a positive impact on wildlifedependent public use over the long term by increasing opportunities

and improving the quality of visitor experience by eliminating

conflicts with non-wildlife-dependent public uses.

Alternative C

Alternative C would reduce the overall level of public use on Block

Island Refuge in order to focus limited resources on improving the

wildlife and habitat values on Refuge lands. Opportunities for

environmental education, only, would increase from current levels,

with the primary objective of promoting better stewardship of

wildlife and habitat. Alternative C would also:

■ close Refuge beaches year round to ORVs above the mean high

tide line;

■ designate pedestrian access and trails; and

■ eliminate use of Beane Point, except for environmental

education programs.

Chapter 4

4-26 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Similar to Alternative B, no hunting is proposed at this time, and

would be considered only after completion of the cooperative deer

plan. A separate environmental assessment, compatibility

determination, and annual hunt plan would also be required.

Alternative C proposes to close the Refuge shoreline above the mean

high tide line, including Beane Point, to all fishing during the piping

plover and waterbird nesting season and during shorebird migration

season (April 1 to September 15 each year) to reduce human

disturbance to shorebirds. We would allow fishing during the rest of

the year. Since most of the fishing from the Refuge shoreline occurs

during the proposed closure months, this alternative would result in

a sizeable reduction in fishing opportunities, and a negative impact

on visitors who engage in saltwater fishing. This action would be the

biggest concern for public use under Alternative C. We will not

know the full extent of opposition until after the comment period for

this draft CCP/EA.

Alternative C would also restrict wildlife observation and photography

to designated trails in order to protect fragile dune habitat.

Restricting access would limit areas of the Refuge open to public use

and negatively impact those visitors used to traversing the Refuge.

Beane Point would remain closed to all public use except

environmental education (outside of the seasonal closure for

shorebirds and wading birds, March 1 to September 15) by foot

access only. Since Beane Point is not open to public access, this

action provides a new opportunity at Beane Point and would benefit

visitors engaged in these wildlife-dependent activities.

Alternative C proposes the most aggressive schedule for eliminating

all inappropriate and non-wildlife-dependent use at Block Island

Refuge. By 2002, all non-wildlife-dependent activities would be

eliminated. Increased staffing, including law enforcement, would

ensure compliance with the changes in public use. Our visibility and

interactions with visitors would markedly increase.

On newly acquired lands, we would allow existing priority wildlifedependent public uses to continue on an interim basis unless the

activities do not meet the criteria stipulated in the Interim

Compatibility Determination (Appendix E). We would phase out as

soon as possible all non-wildlife-dependent activities that may have

existed before our acquisition.

Overall, Alternative C would affect current public uses more than the

other alternatives, restricting many activities to minimize human

disturbance to wildlife and habitats. We predict this proposal would

result in some public opposition, the extent of which will be

determined upon release of this draft CCP/EA.

Part 2: Block Island Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-27
Alternative D 

Alternative D proposes to substantially increase resources directed

towards improving priority public use on Block Island Refuge, while

working within our legal framework and compatibility mandates. It

would implement a public deer and pheasant hunt, administered by

RI DEM, under regulations to be established by the Refuge (Refuge

Regulations 50 CFR 32). The hunting public would positively benefit

from this new opportunity, as hunting elsewhere on Block Island is

limited and confined to small tracts. In fact, hunting opportunities

throughout Rhode Island continue to diminish as land is developed

and habitat is lost. As natural habitats diminish through

development, deer will increase their use of Refuge land, and

providing opportunities to control deer populations consistent with

habitat capability will become more important. Opening the Refuge

to hunting would help keep deer within the carrying capacity of the

habitat, ensuring deer do not over-browse native vegetation or

impact residential landscaping. Further, reducing the deer herd

would help reduce vehicle-deer collisions. Archery only areas would

reduce the perceived threat by the general public that hunting is a

risk to human health and safety. We would coordinate the Refuge

hunt with adjacent lands that are open to hunting.

Not only does hunting support one of the priority public uses

identified in the Refuge System Improvement Act, but an

established, annual hunting program would provide a direct benefit

to the local economy. As described in our publication, “National

Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation”

(1996), hunters in Rhode Island invest an average of $75/trip directly

into the local economy for food, lodging, transportation, licenses and

equipment. That figure may be slightly higher on Block Island, due

to the need for ferry service.

We heard both support and opposition to hunting during public

scoping for this draft CCP/EA. Service policy requires a separate

environmental assessment, public comment period, compatibility

determination, and annual hunt plan to address those concerns

before implementing a new hunt program. An environmental

assessment would outline the details of the hunt program, evaluate

negative impacts on other non-target wildlife and their habitats, and

consider impacts on visitors engaged in other priority, wildlifedependent uses.

Fishing opportunities on Block Island would not change from the

existing ones. We would allow year-round surf fishing from the

shoreline, although we would designate an access route across

the dunes.

Similar to Alternative B, Alternative D proposes to eliminate

current, non-wildlife-dependent uses by 2005. Impacts would be

similar, resulting in reduced use of the Refuge by many people

engaged in these activities. However, the quality of experience for

priority wildlife-dependent users would increase as a result.

Chapter 4

4-28 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
On newly acquired lands, we would allow existing, priority, wildlifedependent public uses to continue on an interim basis unless the

activities do not meet the criteria stipulated in the Interim

Compatibility Determination (Appendix E). We would phase out as

soon as possible all non-wildlife-dependent activities that may have

existed before our acquisition.

Overall, Alternative D would result in the greatest expansion of

priority, wildlife-dependent public use programs. It would dedicate a

dramatic increase in funding and staffing to that expansion.

However, this alternative would result in the greatest potential risk

of disturbance to wildlife and habitats from public use activities.

Successful implementation would require intensive monitoring of

activities. An important aspect of this alternative is the development

of the Refuge Complex Visitor Services Plan. Among other things, it

would establish thresholds or limits on visitor impacts on wildlife and

habitats. This would ensure that public use activities would remain

compatible with the Refuge’s purpose.

Summary

Alternative B provides the best balance in meeting Goals 1 and 4,

increasing priority public use opportunities at minimal risk to wildlife

and habitats. Alternative D would provide the greatest positive

impact on priority public uses because of the increases in program

breadth and depth. However, there would be a greater potential risk

from disturbance to wildlife and habitats. The extent of this risk is

not known, but monitoring and evaluation would be an important

part of implementation. Alternative B would result in a moderate

increase in opportunities to priority public use, but would continue to

implement wildlife and habitat projects as a higher priority.

Alternative C would provide the fewest benefits to public use,

focusing almost exclusively on wildlife and habitat projects.

Alternative A would continue current public use opportunities at risk

to long-term wildlife and habitat quality.

Part 2: Block Island Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-29
Ninigret Refuge

Physical Resources – Soils, Hydrology, and Wetlands

Alternative A (Current Management)

Machine-piled dirt and boulders, buildings, and human-made ponds

are evidence of the tremendous amount of earth-moving that

occurred on Ninigret Refuge with construction of the Charlestown

Naval Auxiliary Landing Facility in the early 1940’s (see Chapter

2–Affected Environment). The Navy backfilled between Hunters

Island and the mainland to extend one of the runways, and

constructed a series of ditches to direct runoff from the runways to

Ninigret Pond. Where these ditches dump fresh water into Ninigret

Pond, and in the Hunters Island area, the salinity of the water has

decreased, as evidenced by the invasion of Phragmites, an invasive

plant species not tolerant of brackish water.

These drainage ditches were effective at transporting runoff until

recent restoration work removed 25 acres of asphalt runway. Refuge

staff have since observed that the ditches carry very little water,

receiving runoff only from adjacent Ninigret Park. Another

noticeable change of runway removal has been the ponding of water

in a few areas where asphalt used to be. Although most precipitation

is percolating subsurface, the ponding suggests an artificially

compacted silt layer remains in some areas. None of these

observations have been monitored or quantified.

Reducing freshwater flow from the drainage ditches into Ninigret

Pond would likely result in increased salinity levels in the immediate

pond areas. We expect Phragmites to decline as a result. No

modifications to the drainage ditches, the man-made ponds, the

smaller natural ponds, or the backfilled area connecting Hunters

Island are proposed under Alternative A. With the exception of the

reduced freshwater flow, no direct or indirect impacts are predicted

for Ninigret Pond.

Alternative A proposes to continue the original plan of restoring 60

acres of asphalt runway and 10 acres of adjacent gravel shoulder to

native grasslands. In order to protect seedling grassland plants

from succumbing to frost heave, the soil would be aerated or

otherwise mechanically treated to increase percolation. Seeding is

accomplished with a seed drill pulled behind a tractor. Seed beds are

fertilized for up to 2 years with potassium and phosphorus, using a

truck-mounted fertilizer distributor.

Alternative A proposes to treat an additional 150 acres of woody

vegetation or natural grasslands to maintain early successional

habitat or to keep shrubs from encroaching on the restored

grasslands. Mechanical, chemical, and prescribed fire treatments

would be used on this project, potentially affecting soils or wetlands.

Mechanical treatments typically include use of a hydroaxe, brushhog,

or root rake to manage woody vegetation. This equipment has

already been used on the Refuge with no irreparable impacts on soils

or wetlands. No heavy equipment would travel on wetlands or

hydric soils, and off-runway travel would be kept to a minimum.

Chapter 4

4-30 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
The Regional Contaminants Specialist, who is responsible for

ensuring we comply with Federal requirements, annually reviews our

use of chemical herbicides. We expect only minimal impacts on soils

or wetlands from mechanical or chemical treatments over both the

short and long terms.

Management-ignited prescribed fire would occur under the

stipulations required by the Fire Management Plan (1995). While

prescriptions do not allow burning under extreme conditions that

would “cook” soils to the point where soil productivity is adversely

impacted, small hot spots might occur. However, these would likely

be small, isolated areas. We predict no negative impact on soils,

hydrology, or wetlands over the long term.

Overall, the projects proposed in Alternative A are designed to

remove asphalt runways in order to establish a native ground cover

and begin to restore a more natural hydrologic flow. Short-term

impacts on soils, in the form of compaction and burn spots, may

occur during restoration work. However, these impacts would be

limited in duration and intensity. Over the long term, Alternative A

would improve conditions for soils, hydrology, and wetlands on

Ninigret Refuge.

Alternative B (The Proposed Action)

The benefits to soils and hydrology described for Alternatives A and

D would also occur under Alternative B. Alternative B, however,

proposes additional projects designed to further benefit soils and

restore the health and diversity of wetlands.

One project would re-establish a small wetland (approximately 1

acre) that existed before runway construction. An evaluation of

exposed soils, after recent runway removal, combined with a review

of 1939 aerial photos, revealed that at least five small vernal pools

existed before runway construction. The proposed restoration would

mechanically remove the layers of silt from approximately one acre

(370’ ̆110’) until we reach hydric soils at an estimated depth of 6 feet.

We would stockpile and grade removed soils to create sloping

mounds on two adjacent sites, then seed the mounds and the

wetland’s edges with native grasses.

We will evaluate opportunities and develop plans to restore and

maintain a more natural hydrologic flow to: (1) the backfilled area

now connecting Hunters Island to the mainland; (2) the areas

affected by drainage ditches; (3) the Phragmites-dominated wetlands

on the Refuge; and (4) the natural ponds. We would also evaluate

breaching the backfilled area and filling in all, or sections of, the

ditch network. Approximately 70 acres would be impacted.

Alternative B’s land protection strategy would benefit water quality

in Ninigret Pond by acquiring up to 500 acres from willing sellers

within this pond’s watershed. Service acquisition would preclude

further residential development in the vicinity, help maintain

groundwater recharge areas, and partially protect inputs to the salt

pond and wetlands. Water quality in Ninigret Pond is poor, with high

nitrogen and fecal coliform bacteria levels (CRMC 1998). Older,

failing septic systems are suspected to be the leading cause of nitrate

and bacterial loading in coastal salt ponds.

Part 2: Ninigret Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-31

Contaminants. Contaminants

Specialist Tim Prior checks the soil

beneath the former Naval runways at

Ninigret Refuge. USFWS photo
During restoration work, large equipment and prescribed fire may

impact soils, similar to Alternative A. That risk would be slightly

higher with the additional 70 acres of wetlands restoration proposed

under Alternative B. Restoration projects close to Ninigret Pond

could temporarily increase sedimentation, although none has been

documented thus far in the asphalt removal project. We predict that

short-term impacts would be limited in scope and intensity and, over

the long term, these projects would provide greater positive impacts

than Alternatives A or D, thereby substantially benefitting soils,

hydrology, and wetlands on the Refuge.

Alternative C

Impacts from implementing Alternative C would be similar to

Alternative B. Indirect benefits would increase proportionately, as

approximately 3,100 acres of new Refuge in the pond’s watershed are

established over the long term. Compared to the other alternatives,

this level of land protection offers the greatest potential benefits to

water quality in the watershed, plus the ability to better protect

groundwater sources, wetlands, and tributaries to Ninigret Pond.

Alternative D

Same as Alternative A, except we would not use herbicides and

prescribed fire to control invasive plants or maintain early

successional habitat. Eliminating these tools reduces threats from

habitat work to human health and safety. However, the loss of these

tools would greatly hamper our ability to manage vegetation over the

long term. Given the aggressive nature of invasive plants and their

dominant presence on the Refuge, we would typically use all tools and

techniques in combination to establish and maintain successful habitat

areas in a cost-effective, timely manner. The success of the habitat

projects would be compromised without the use of these tools, as

would the our ability to properly manage the proposed acreage.

Summary

Alternative C would provide the greatest long-term beneficial

impact on soils, wetlands, and hydrology, and would best meet the

intent of Goal 2 on Ninigret Refuge. Alternative B would provide the

second-greatest long-term benefit to water resources, followed by

Alternatives A and D. All Alternative would comply with the Clean

Water Act.

Biological Resources–Vegetation 

Alternative A (Current Management)

Alternative A would impact vegetation through actions designed to

protect a rare plant site, control invasive plant species, and manage

grasslands and shrub lands. Alternative A proposes to relocate a

section of Refuge trail to minimize the risk of trampling the rare

plant site. This action would directly benefit the rare plant

population over both the short and long terms.

Chapter 4

4-32 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
We would continue to manage invasive shrub species in conjunction

with the grasslands project, and we would continue sporadic

treatments over a limited area to reduce Phragmites on the Refuge.

Mechanical, chemical, biological, and prescribed fire would all be

used to control invasive plants. Control of invasive species supports

a priority goal of the Connecticut River/Long Island Sound

Ecosystem Team.

Alternative A would create or maintain a total of 220 acres of early

successional coastal sandplain habitat, including grasslands.

Approximately 70 acres of early successional habitat would be

created from asphalt and gravel as described above. An additional

150 acres of predominantly shrubs and pole-sized trees, with some

grasslands intermixed, would be treated over time to create and

maintain early successional habitat, to minimize encroachment of

woody vegetation into established grasslands, or to protect sensitive

plant communities. Creating and maintaining sandplain grassland

areas is a priority goal of our Connecticut River/Long Island Sound

Ecosystem Team. No other actions are designed to manage the

shrub and forest habitat types.

Approximately 20 percent of the shrubs impacted consist of nonnative species such as Asian bittersweet, honeysuckle and autumn

olive. The native shrub species include northern arrowwood, sumac,

bayberry, and highbush blueberry. Affected trees would include

eastern red cedar, larch, black cherry, or red maple, with maximum

diameters of 6 to 8 inches.

Shrub nesting bird species of concern, such as blue-winged warbler,

golden-winged warbler, yellow breasted chat, field sparrow, and

American woodcock would be directly impacted by the loss of

habitat. We would also negatively impact many berry foraging bird

and mammal species and edge-associated species using shrubs for

resting, cover, or perching. None of these edge or shrub-using

wildlife species are Federal-listed as threatened or endangered.

Because of their mobility and the extensive shrub habitat available in

adjacent areas, we predict these wildlife species would relocate as

treatments progress. We would not expect to eliminate any wildlife

species, or even reduce local populations to the point where their

viability is threatened by the treatments.

While we predict the frequency or percentage cover of shrubs and

trees would decrease over the long term, the objective is not to

eliminate shrub species entirely in the treatment areas. Rather,

most shrubs would be set back to lower growing, younger, nonberry-producing plants in order to maintain an early successional

structural stage.

Negative impacts on shrub-associated wildlife species would be a

long-term loss, but grassland-associated species would directly

benefit from the treatments. Grasslands have been drastically

declining in New England, both in quantity and quality, over the last

100 years (Vickery 1997). According to Vickery et al., in the past 60

years the amount of hectares of hayfield and pasture in New

England and New York has declined by 60 percent. The remaining

grasslands are smaller and more isolated and may not support

grassland birds or viable populations of other grassland species with

limited dispersal capabilities (Vickery and Dunwiddie 1997).

Part 2: Ninigret Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-33

Rare plants. Ninigret Refuge has the

greatest concentration of yellow-fringed

orchid in Rhode Island. USFWS photo
Vickery (1997) suggests that grassland patches larger than 100 acres

provide the greatest opportunity to support a wide array of breeding

grassland bird species, including species of concern such as the upland

sandpiper and grasshopper sparrow. Smaller patches, up to 10 acres,

would provide breeding and foraging habitat for species of concern

such as bobolinks, eastern meadowlarks, and savannah sparrows.

Migrating sparrows, horned lark, and warblers could also use these

smaller fields. Alternative A would create 220 acres of early

successional habitat, predominantly grasslands, in a fairly contiguous

patch, allowing for the greatest complement of grassland species.

Alternative B (The Proposed Action)

Alternative B would implement the same grassland restoration

projects proposed in Alternative A, but because these projects would

be elevated in priority, they would be accomplished sooner than

proposed for Alternative A. In addition, this alternative would

develop a maintenance and monitoring strategy to ensure success of

projects. Further, Alternative B proposes to increase the control of

invasive plant species and evaluate the possible reintroduction of

several rare grassland plant species extirpated from the area.

Finally, we would work with partners to develop a habitat

management plan for the rare plant site to ensure that the rare

plants are sustained over the long term.

Actions in Alternative B would have the same impacts as Alternative

A. However, through better planning, increased monitoring and

evaluation, and increased invasive plant control, this alternative

ensures more successful grassland restoration and better long-term

protection of the rare plant site.

Alternative C

Same as Alternative B 

Alternative D

Alternative D proposes the same acres for grassland restoration as

Alternative A, but proposes only biological or mechanical treatments.

This would address public concerns about the use of chemicals in the

environment and the potential impacts of fire on air quality. With the

aggressive nature of invasive plants and their dominant presence on

the Refuge in the past, all techniques are typically used in

combination to establish and maintain successful habitat areas in a

timely, cost-effective manner. Invasive plants have become so

pervasive in these ecosystems that they need frequent, thorough

treatments. With only mechanical and biological treatments available

to maintain early successional habitat and treat invasive plants, we

predict controlling invasive plant species would be severely

hampered, and the failure of maintaining the proposed 220 acres in

early successional habitat. Labor intensity/acre is much greater with

mechanical treatments compared to prescribed fire. Limitations in

the equipment would restrict access to some areas that can only be

reached with fire or chemicals. We predict that relying on mechanical

treatment alone would reduce the treatment area by 30 percent, to

154 acres. Success of the habitat projects would be compromised

without the use of all tools, as would the ability to manage all the

acres proposed within the given time frames.

Chapter 4

4-34 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Using only mechanical and biological treatments, we also predict a

greater patchwork of habitats would result, as areas inaccessible to the

tractor would become shrub or forest. In general, more edge habitat

would be created. While some species favor edge habitat, such as deer,

increased patchiness would limit the ability of the restoration area to

provide for target grassland birds, such as the upland sandpiper and

grasshopper sparrow, which need large (>100-acre) contiguous

grassland patches for nesting. Edge habitats are already widely

distributed in this area and are favored habitats for predatory species,

such as brown-headed cowbirds, foxes, and raptors.

As stated under Alternative A, direct and indirect benefits to

grassland dependent species would occur over the long term. Many

grassland bird species which breed in grassland patches less than

100 acres, such as bobolink and eastern meadowlark, would directly

benefit. Shrub and edge dependent species would not be impacted to

the extent predicted for Alternatives A, B and C, since Alternative D

would likely result in a more patchy habitat mosaic.

Similar to Alternative A, this alternative would relocate the Refuge

trail that threatens the rare plant site. This action would minimize

the direct impact from trampling, but does not otherwise plan for

long-term protection and maintenance of the site.

Summary 

Alternatives B and C would equally provide the greatest benefit to

establishing and sustaining a grassland restoration program and

protecting rare plant habitat on Ninigret Refuge. These alternatives

best meet the intent of Goal 2 for Ninigret Refuge and work to

support the Connecticut River/New York Bight priority tasks of

increasing coastal sandplain grasslands and reducing invasive plants.

Alternative A restores the same number of grassland acres, but

would not provide for the long-term sustainability of the restoration.

Alternative D provides the least assurance of providing and

sustaining expansive grassland habitats.

Biological Resources–Threatened and Endangered Wildlife

Species and Other Species of Management Concern

Alternative A (Current Management)

The only Federal-listed species known to occasionally breed on or

immediately adjacent to the Refuge is the piping plover. In recent

years, the nest sites have actually been on the adjacent Ninigret

Conservation Area (NCA) which, along with the Refuge beach, are

managed as one site and recognized in the Recovery Plan as one

piping plover nesting area. Eight piping plover pairs nested in 1999,

with an average fledgling rate of 3.1 fledglings/nesting pair (USFWS

1999). These numbers represent the highest occupancy and

productivity rate on this site since 1992. The long-term Recovery

Plan goal is to maintain a 5-year average of 1.5 chicks fledged/nesting

pair. A field evaluation determined the maximum provisional piping

plover nesting capacity on this site is 20 pairs (Hecht 1999).

Part 2: Ninigret Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-35
Alternative A would continue the current strategy of installing

symbolic fencing around potential territories and restricting public

access once courtship behavior is observed. The fence would remain

until the young have fledged. Predator fence exclosures would be

placed around the immediate nest site. ORV use would continue to be

restricted from beaches under State regulations. These are all actions

recommended in the 1996 Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Revised

Recovery Plan. While these actions directly afford protection to

nesting piping plover over the short term, they do not otherwise

enhance foraging or nesting habitat at this site over the long term.

Alternative A would continue to improve the quality and quantity of

existing grasslands on the Refuge. Grassland birds, including the

State-listed upland sandpiper and grasshopper sparrow, are focal

species of concern for the 220-acre grassland restoration project.

These and other grassland associated species have realized dramatic

declines in conjunction with the regionally significant declines in

large grassland complexes. Robert Askins (1997) states that, in

comparison to forest associated birds, “...grassland bird species,

some of which are Neotropical migrants, generally have shown more

consistent and severe declines” in the Northeast. Breeding Bird

Survey results indicate a 38-percent decline in bobolinks and a 69-

percent decline in grasshopper sparrows in New England over the

last 25 years (Vickery 1997).

Other wildlife which would benefit from creating grassland habitat

include certain mammals, butterflies, and other invertebrates which

use these areas during all or part of their life cycle. Grasslands

support high populations of small mammals, such as meadow voles

and meadow jumping mice which, in turn, provide an important food

source for raptors including kestrels, northern harriers, and owls.

Larger mammals such as deer and red fox would use the fields for

foraging. Grasslands and other early successional habitats support

butterflies such as tiger swallowtails, monarchs, and fritillaries, due

to the increased proportion of wildflowers.

We recognize that some wildlife species would be directly impacted

over the short term, while major restoration and maintenance

work is occurring. Mobile species would be displaced temporarily,

while less mobile species would be directly impacted. Species that

cling to vegetation would be affected the most. No treatment

method, including mechanical and prescribed fire, would impact

species that occur below 16 inches of soil. None of the known, less

mobile small mammals and invertebrates are Federal-listed as

threatened or endangered.

Chapter 4

4-36 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
While the probability is low, amphibians may be impacted by the

asphalt removal project if they are using the drainage ditches.

Unfortunately, the ditches have not been surveyed extensively for

amphibians. However, we do know the flow of water in the ditches is

inconsistent and, with steep vegetated banks and a rock bottom, the

probability of amphibians relying on the ditches is low. The drainage

ditches are designed to carry runoff from the runway to Ninigret

Pond. With asphalt removal, we predict that water would either

pond or percolate directly on site and the ditch flow would be

drastically reduced. In rare instances, some individual amphibians

may be impacted to the point they migrate to more suitable locations.

The freshwater ponds on the Refuge, which provide a more reliable

water source and better quality habitat for amphibians, would not be

impacted (Paton 1998).

Considering the above factors, the overall impact on amphibians

would be very limited in scope and intensity, with only poor or

marginal quality habitat in the drainage ditches to be altered. The

highest quality habitat in the freshwater ponds would not be altered.

Alternative B (The Proposed Action)

Alternative B would maintain the piping plover nest protection

strategy outlined in Alternative A, but would implement additional

actions designed to decrease the likelihood of predation and human

disturbance to nesting piping plover.

Predators remain one of the top two causes of nest failure,

abandonment, and direct chick loss on South Shore beaches

(USFWS 1999). Alternative B would develop an integrated piping

plover predator management plan to comprehensively evaluate

predator management, including outreach to adjacent landowners

(who may inadvertently contribute to increased predator

populations), lethal and non-lethal control techniques, and increased

monitoring for predator activity at plover nest sites. Until the

integrated plan has been completed, Alternative B would continue

trapping predators near nest sites in an attempt to directly benefit

piping plover nest productivity. The extent of opposition to trapping

is not known, but would be determined during the public comment

period upon release of this draft CCP/EA.

To further reduce direct impacts from predators and human

disturbance on nest sites, we would also recommend to RI DEM that

they move a campground from State land near suitable nesting

habitat on the Refuge and Ninigret Conservation Area towards the

Charlestown Breachway and other concentrated human activity.

Trash and food scraps left behind at campsites attract predators like

fox, crow, and racoon. Those three species were implicated in the

high nest failure at the East Beach-Watch Hill nesting site in 1999

(USFWS 1999). Unleashed pets from campsites can also wreak

havoc at nesting sites. We do not predict adverse public reaction to

moving the campground, as long as the same number of camping

sites can be established in the new location.

Part 2: Ninigret Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-37
These measures strive to maintain or exceed the occupancy and

productivity rates of 1999, which were the highest at the Ninigret

site since 1992. They would directly benefit piping plover nesting on

this site over both the short and long terms, assuming other factors

affecting piping plover remain relatively constant (e.g., wintering

habitat conditions, unusual storms, an explosion in predator

populations, etc.)

Declining grassland birds, including the State-listed upland sandpiper

and grasshopper sparrow, are focal species for the grassland

restoration project. Alternative A, above, describes impacts on these

species, and corresponding impact on shrub species. Alternative B

would not directly impact waterfowl, but its wetland improvement

projects would indirectly impact them as noted above.

The wetland restoration project proposed for approximately 1 acre of

asphalt runway would directly benefit amphibians. The restored

wetlands would also contribute to the existing network of freshwater

ponds, providing new dispersal or breeding habitat for amphibians.

Mammals, especially those that rely on early successional habitat,

would benefit from the restoration of asphalt runway to native

habitats. Alternative B proposes to work with RI DEM, the Town of

Charlestown, and adjacent landowners to develop a deer

management plan for the area including and surrounding the

Refuge. We expect deer to increase their use of the Refuge and its

edge with continued residential development in South County. This

alternative would set habitat, human health and safety objectives and

other management objectives to ensure that deer populations stay

within the carrying capacity of the habitat. 

Without management of deer populations, we expect excessive

browsing on native vegetation, impacts on residential landscaping,

and increased threats to human health and safety from Lyme disease

or vehicle-deer collisions. We may recommend a deer hunt in the

future, but would base it on population objectives to maintain deer

numbers within habitat limits or to directly reduce human health and

safety threats. Opening the Refuge to a deer hunt would require a

separate environmental assessment with specific proposals,

compatibility determination, public comment and review, and an

annual plan.

Alternative B proposes we acquire from willing sellers, or

cooperatively protect with conservation partners, up to 500 acres of

land within Focus Areas associated with Ninigret Refuge. We

delineated the Focus Areas for their biological or ecological

importance. They either support a concentration of species of

concern, or provide an important habitat link to larger, protected

conservation areas.

Chapter 4

4-38 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
The Focus Area surrounding Ninigret Refuge links the Refuge to the

RI DEM-managed Burlingame State Park, Burlingame Wildlife

Management Area (State), and the Audubon Society’s Kimball Refuge.

Protecting extensive (greater than 100 acres), contiguous forested

habitat would provide significant benefits to forest interior species,

especially those with large home ranges, and would provide breeding

habitat for several mature forest landbirds of concern, such as

cerulean and worm-eating warbler, wood thrush, and Louisiana water

thrush. These positive impacts would occur over the long term, as this

habitat is protected from development and further fragmentation.

Alternative C

Alternative C is designed to increase the probability that piping

plover would nest in the area by installing symbolic fencing from

mean high tide inland to the dunes along the Refuge beach from

April 1 to September 15 each year. This action would fence off a

much larger section of beach than proposed under Alternatives A

and B, and would install fencing regardless of courtship behavior

early in the season. All other benefits to piping plover from

increased predator management and moving the State campground

would be similar to Alternative B. The predicted public reaction to

moving the campground would be the same as Alternative B, while

fencing the beach regardless of piping plover courtship behavior

might raise a small amount of public opposition.

Impacts on grassland birds, waterfowl, and amphibians would be

similar to Alternative B. The proposed deer management plan

identified in Alternative B would also occur under Alternative C.

Alternative C would seek to acquire up to 760 acres from willing

sellers in the Focus Areas associated with Ninigret Refuge, with

emphasis on barrier beach and salt pond protection, and to maintain

contiguous forested habitat. Benefits to forest interior species, as

described in Alternative B above, would occur over the long term as

land is protected from development.

Alternative D

Same as Alternative A, except that habitat management actions

would not include the use of herbicides or prescribed fire (see

Vegetation under Alternative D, above).

Summary

Alternative C provides the greatest benefit to species of

management concern, and best meets the intent of Goal 1 for

Ninigret Refuge. Alternative B would rank second, followed by

Alternative A, then Alternative D. Section 7 consultation, to ensure

compliance with the Endangered Species Act, is being undertaken

with release of this draft CCP/EA.

Part 2: Ninigret Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-39
Cultural Resources

Alternative A (No Action)

Native American cultural resources have been considerably affected

by the extensive construction that occurred with developing and

maintaining the Charlestown Naval Auxiliary Landing Facility. Only

a few areas on Ninigret Refuge still have intact soils. One site is

listed on the National Register of Historic Places for its significance

as a Narragansett Indian shellfishing site. A second site was

recorded with the Rhode Island Historic Preservation and Heritage

Commission because it was considered a burial site for the

Narragansett Indians. Surveys have been limited in area and scope.

No management actions are proposed that would adversely impact

the integrity of known sites.

Alternative A proposes no management actions that would enhance

our knowledge of cultural resources or improve management on

Ninigret Refuge. We would survey all future, ground-disturbing

projects in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act. We expect neutral impacts on cultural resources

over the short and long terms.

Alternative B (The Proposed Action)

Alternative B proposes to conduct a cultural resources overview of

the Refuge Complex, train more Refuge staff in Archeological

Resource Protection Act enforcement, and conduct an extensive field

investigation of Ninigret Refuge. In addition, Alternative B

proposes to develop a partnership agreement with the Narragansett

Indian Tribal Council. These actions would directly benefit cultural

resources over both the short and long terms by increasing

information available to Refuge staff, identifying new sites, and

improving protection of recorded sites.

As with Alternative A, we would survey all future, ground-disturbing

projects to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act.

Alternative C

The impacts noted for Alternative B would be the same under

Alternative C. In addition, Alternative C would indirectly increase

cultural resource protection through development of an

environmental education curriculum for use in local schools and

development of interpretive programs on the Refuge. We would

survey all future ground-disturbing projects in compliance with

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Alternative D

Alternative D would indirectly benefit the cultural resources

program through the development of a partnership agreement with

the Narragansett Indian Tribe and through development of an

environmental curriculum for use in local schools. Interpretive

materials on the Refuge would also be improved. Each of these

actions would improve the ability of Refuge staff to disseminate

information on the protection of cultural resources.

Chapter 4

4-40 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Summary

Alternative C provides the greatest benefit to the Cultural

Resources program, followed by Alternative B, then Alternative D

and, least of all, Alternative A. All alternatives would comply with

the Archeological Resources Protection Act. A Section 106 review, to

ensure compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act,

would be undertaken with release of this draft CCP/EA.

Public Use

Alternative A (Current Management)

A few changes to current public use would occur as a result of

implementing existing, approved plans. Specifically, as current

funding and staffing allows, the barrier-free “Trail Through Time”

would be completed. The trail system would be reduced from more

than 5 miles to 3.8 miles with elimination of unnecessary, redundant

trails and the portion that impacted rare plant habitat. With trail

completion, the 1997 environmental assessment decision was to

eliminate biking and dog walking on the Refuge.

That change in trail use would negatively impact visitors who are

used to biking and dog walking in the area. However, many other

visitors would positively benefit, especially those who require a

barrier-free accessible trail. Visitors requiring a wheelchair or

walking aid would realize an improved experience in the absence of

bicyclists and dogs, who may compromise their safety. Very few

opportunities along the coast of Rhode Island provide barrier-free

accessibility in a natural environment.

We expect a 10-percent increase in of visitor use on the Refuge,

commensurate with the estimated 10-percent increase overall on the

Refuge Complex following completion of the Visitor Center in 2003.

Other public uses would remain unchanged under Alternative A.

Surf fishing from the Refuge shoreline on the barrier beach would

continue, with a seasonal closure if piping plovers nest on the Refuge

beach. Access for recreational fishing and shellfishing in Ninigret

Pond would continue in accordance with State and Refuge

regulations. Hunting would not be allowed. The current cooperative

partnerships for environmental education would continue.

There would not be any additional Refuge staff or funds available to

assist in public use or visitor services. Environmental interpretation,

wildlife observation and photography would continue on existing

facilities until the “Trail Through Time” has been completed, at

which time unnecessary trails would be eliminated.

The most prevalent non-wildlife-dependent uses at Ninigret Refuge

are dog walking, bicycling, jogging, swimming and sunbathing, and

ORV use on the barrier beach portion of Refuge property. Additional

non-wildlife-dependent uses identified at Ninigret Refuge include

kite flying, berry picking, fireworks, and model rocket launches.

Part 2: Ninigret Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-41
Staff shortages have limited our ability to address non-wildlifedependent activities. Alternative A would continue limited

enforcement of these unauthorized uses since no additional staff or

operating funds would be provided to address non-wildlife-dependent

uses. We predict an increase in the level of non-wildlife-dependent

uses, corresponding with the 10-percent increase in overall visitation

on the Refuge Complex. Continued lack of enforcement would

benefit non-wildlife-dependent users, however, we expect an

increasingly negative impact on the quality of experience visitors

engaging in wildlife-dependent uses.

Overall, Alternative A would result in very little change to the types

of activities occurring on or planned for the Refuge. Limited

enforcement of non-wildlife-dependent activities would continue, and

is predicted to result in an increase in user conflicts and a decrease

in the quality of visitor experiences.

Alternative B (The Proposed Action)

Alternative B proposes to increase public use opportunities on

Ninigret Refuge in several ways. In addition to actions outlined in

Alternative A, we would develop a Refuge Complex Visitor Services

Plan to address program needs, opportunities, identify target

audiences, establish thresholds for impacts on wildlife and habitats,

and determine how to evaluate success. We would also establish

formal partnerships to address visitor service planning and funding.

A new public waterfowl hunting opportunity would be provided by

opening of Coon Cove and the barrier beach marshlands (Ninigret

Pond side) to hunting. Hunting, by boat access only, would occur

according to State regulations and cooperatively administered with

RI DEM. Since Federal governments establish waterfowl seasons

and limits by flyway, and because the proposed area would

accommodate only a few hunters each day, we expect no adverse

impacts on waterfowl populations. We predict no impact on nontarget species, due to the season and location of use. We do not

expect this activity to impact other wildlife-dependent users on the

Refuge, because these areas are not adjacent to portions of the

Refuge with trails.

This CCP/EA serves as the environmental document and

compatibility determination for the hunting proposal. If this

alternative is selected, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register

and prepare an annual plan to allow hunting in the Fall 2001 season.

This alternative does not propose public deer hunting. After

completion of a deer management plan with RI DEM, the Town of

Charlestown, and adjacent landowners, we would reevaluate the

need for a deer hunt. We would base the objectives of the deer hunt

on the need to maintain deer populations within an established

carrying capacity and to reduce threats to human health and safety.

However, a separate environmental assessment, compatibility

determination, public review and comment, and annual hunt plan

would be completed before implementation.

Chapter 4

4-42 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
While Alternative B does not propose any changes to fishing

opportunities at Ninigret Refuge, it proposes to designate trails to

fishing access points on Ninigret Pond. Designating trails would not

change the current access points on the mainland shoreline on

Ninigret Pond, and would have no effect on the fishing use of

Ninigret Refuge. Alternative B would require commercial shell

fishermen to operate under a special use permit for access through

the Refuge, as required by Service policy. There have been no

problems with existing, known levels of commercial use. However,

the use of permits would allow for a better determination of use and

monitoring of impacts. We do not expect compliance with that policy

to negatively affect commercial shellfishing.

Alternative B proposes expanding the environmental education

opportunities at Ninigret Refuge by developing outdoor classroom

sites that would feature grassland restoration and salt pond ecology.

Alternative B would continue the formal partnership for

environmental education with the non-profit Frosty Drew Nature

Center, but proposes to evaluate the current commercial use of

Ninigret Refuge for environmental education by the private, forprofit “Biomes” company. We would also develop an environmental

education facility for the Refuge Complex. The combination of the

proposed actions would result in a positive impact on the

environmental education programs on Ninigret Refuge.

Alternative B would develop and fund an interpretive plan for

Ninigret Refuge to address the need for better quality interpretive

pamphlets and displays along trails. This would greatly expand

opportunities for environmental interpretation and would improve

the visitor experience at Ninigret Refuge.

Under Alternative B, the Trail Through Time would be funded and

completed by 2002, and would include one or more new observation

platforms along the trail. We would also develop watchable wildlife

literature and a self-guided wildlife interpretive pamphlet. These

would combine to greatly enhance the wildlife observation experience

for Refuge visitors and would have a positive impact on public use.

On newly acquired lands, we would allow the six priority wildlifedependent public uses to continue on an interim basis unless the

activities do not meet the criteria stipulated in the Interim

Compatibility Determination (Appendix E). We would phase out as

soon as possible all non-wildlife-dependent activities that may have

occurred before acquisition.

Under Alternative B, all inappropriate and incompatible non-wildlifedependent public use on the Refuge would be phased out by 2005.

An outreach campaign to eliminate dog walking and bicycling would

occur starting in 2001. Dog walking, as observed on Ninigret

Refuge, can be very disturbing to wildlife. Dog walkers on the

Refuge often let their dogs run free, and Refuge volunteers

frequently observe dogs chasing wildlife on the Refuge. In addition,

many Refuge visitors do not like to be confronted by dogs, or their

feces, while observing wildlife on Refuge trails.

Part 2: Ninigret Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-43
Bicycles pose a safety problem for pedestrians, in particular those in

wheelchairs or with walking aids. Refuge policy has allowed bicycles

on the former runway because they are 200 feet wide and potential

conflicts with the walking public were minimal. The newly

refurbished wildlife observation trail is not wide enough to safely

accommodate bicycles and pedestrians. While prohibiting bicycles

would impact those visitors used to riding, we expect that the change

would improve the quality of experience for other Refuge visitors.

In addition to bicycling and dog walking, incompatible or nonwildlife-dependent activities like jogging, swimming and sunbathing,

kite flying, berry picking, firework use, and model rocket launches

would be eliminated by 2005. None of these activities support a

priority public use, nor do they meet the goals of the Refuge or

contribute to the purposes for which Ninigret Refuge was

established. Further, these activities diminish the quality of

experience for visitors engaged in priority public use activities, and

in the case of dog walking, could have an adverse impact on wildlife

and habitat quality. None of these activities are compatible with the

Refuge purpose, and would be eliminated. Overall, Alternative B

would improve priority, wildlife-dependent public uses, while

eliminating all non-wildlife-dependent public use and providing for

increased wildlife and habitat values at Ninigret Refuge.

Alternative C

Alternative C would reduce the overall level of public use on Ninigret

Refuge in order to minimize the risk of disturbance to wildlife and

habitats on Refuge lands. While Alternative C proposes to reduce

many wildlife and non-wildlife-dependent uses, it emphasizes

interpretation and educational opportunities to make Refuge visitors

better stewards of wildlife and habitat. We would improve

environmental education opportunities at Ninigret Refuge by

developing outdoor classrooms and a curriculum-based education

program for schools, featuring grassland restoration and salt pond

ecology. These actions would result in a positive impact on

environmental education at Ninigret Refuge.

Alternative C also restricts environmental interpretation, wildlife

observation, and photography to the newly constructed Trail Through

Time in order to reduce disturbance to wildlife in other areas of

Ninigret Refuge. This would result in fewer opportunities for public

use but would increase wildlife and habitat values of the Refuge.

Like Alternative A, this alternative proposes to continue to allow

public use without a visitor services plan and would propose only a

few new public use projects for Ninigret Refuge. Hunting and

fishing opportunities and associated impacts would be similar as

those proposed in Alternative B.

Alternative C proposes the most aggressive schedule of eliminating all

inappropriate and non-wildlife-dependent uses. By 2001, dog walking

and bicycling would be eliminated. By 2002, all other non-wildlifedependent activities would be eliminated. Increased law enforcement

would ensure compliance with the changes in public use. We expect

this proposal to generate a lot of public concern about restricted use of

the Refuge. The extent of public concern will be determined during

the public comment period upon release of this draft CCP/EA.

Chapter 4

4-44 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
On newly acquired lands, we would allow priority wildlife-dependent

public use to continue on an interim basis unless the activities do not

meet the criteria stipulated in the Interim Compatibility

Determination (Appendix E). We would phase out as soon as

possible all non-wildlife-dependent activities that may have existed

before our acquisition.

Overall, Alternative C would reduce public use opportunities on the

Refuge to minimize the risk of disturbance to wildlife and habitats.

Alternative D

Alternative D proposes to substantially increase resources for

improving priority public uses, while working within our legal

framework and compatibility mandates for Ninigret Refuge.

In addition to the actions proposed in Alternative B, a public deer

hunt would be implemented under special regulations established by

the Refuge (Refuge Regulations 50 CFR 32). We would also evaluate

the potential for small game hunting at Ninigret Refuge.

These actions would substantially increase hunting opportunities,

since none currently exist on the Refuge. The hunting public would

directly benefit from this proposal, especially since areas open to

hunting are declining throughout Rhode Island.

As natural habitats diminish, deer use on the Refuge will increase

and active management of deer populations will become even more

important. Opening Ninigret Refuge to deer hunting would help to

keep deer within their habitat carrying capacity, ensuring that they

do not damage native vegetation or residential landscaping. Further,

a reduction of the deer herd would help reduce vehicle-deer collisions

and the public health concern from deer ticks and Lyme disease.

Not only does hunting support one of the six priority public uses

identified in the Refuge System Improvement Act, but an

established, annual hunting program would provide direct benefits to

the local economy. As described in our publication “National Survey

of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation” (1996),

hunters in Rhode Island contribute an average of $75/trip directly to

the local economy in the form of food, lodging, and transportation

purchases, not to mention the purchase of licenses and equipment.

However, other Refuge visitors would likely be impacted. We predict

that other activities would be restricted during hunting season, to

avoid a safety hazard and user conflicts. Archery only areas would

reduce the perceived threat by the general public that hunting is a

risk to human health and safety. In addition, during public

involvement for this draft CCP/EA, some individuals expressed

opposition to any form of hunting on the Refuge. We do not know

the extent of that opposition. However, Service policy requires

preparation of a separate environmental assessment with specific

actions and locations, a compatibility determination, public review

and comment, and an annual hunt plan before a new hunt can be

implemented. That separate assessment would determine the level

of public concern and the potential impacts on other Refuge visitors.

We would begin the environmental assessment in 2001.

Part 2: Ninigret Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-45
Opportunities for environmental education, environmental

interpretation, and wildlife observation and photography are the

same as those proposed in Alternative B. These actions would

greatly enhance the quality and quantity of public use opportunities.

Like Alternative B, Alternative D proposes to eliminate current nonwildlife-dependent uses. Consequences of this action are similar to

Alternative B; some visitors would be impacted, but the quality of

experience for most visitors engaged in wildlife-dependent activities

would be enhanced over the long term.

On newly acquired lands, we would allow priority wildlife-dependent

public use to continue on an interim basis, unless the activities do not

meet the criteria stipulated in the Interim Compatibility

Determination (Appendix E). We would phase out as soon as

possible all non-wildlife-dependent activities that may have existed

before our acquisition.

Summary

Alternative D would provide the greatest positive impact on priority

public uses because of the increases in all program areas. It would

dedicate a major increase in funding and staffing resources to those

programs. However, that emphasis would result in a greater

potential risk of disturbance to wildlife and habitats. The extent of

that risk is not known, but monitoring and evaluation would be an

important part of implementation. Alternative B would also result in

increased opportunities for priority public use, but would continue to

implement wildlife and habitat projects as a higher priority.

Alternative C would provide the fewest benefits to public use,

focusing almost exclusively on wildlife and habitat projects.

Alternative A would not change current public use opportunities or

wildlife and habitat values. Alternative B provides the best balance

in meeting Goals 1 and 4 by increasing public use opportunities at

minimal risk to wildlife and habitat values.

Chapter 4

4-46 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Chafee Refuge

Physical Resources–Soils, Hydrology, and Wetlands

Alternative A (Current Management)

Alternative A would not alter soils. We predict no direct or indirect

impacts on this resource.

Land acquisition under Alternative A would provide a positive

impact through restoration and protection of the hydrology and

wetlands of the area. An additional 377 acres have been approved

for Service acquisition within the watershed. Service land

acquisition would preclude residential development, including roads

and other infrastructure. Failing septic systems have been

implicated as one of the most significant contributions to water

quality problems in the river. Our acquisition of undeveloped

uplands and wetlands is helping to protect the integrity of the

watershed over the long term.

Improving water quality in the Narrow River continues to be a State

priority. The State conducts water quality monitoring twice a year.

A March 22, 2000 article in the Narragansett Times states “...[the]

river has consistently failed to meet RI DEM standards for fecal

coliform, an indicator of bacterial contamination.” Pettaquamscutt

Cove is one of two areas having the highest concentrations of fecal

coliform bacteria in the watershed. As a result, portions of the river

are closed to shellfishing and recreational uses like swimming.

Alternative B (The Proposed Action) 

Alternative B would not directly alter soils. Indirectly, however, we

would attempt to minimize shoreline erosion by working with RI

DEM and the Town of South Kingstown to implement a “no wake”

zone in Pettaquamscutt Cove and the lower Narrow River. The

waves created by motor boats and jet skis are having a noticeable,

negative impact on the river banks.

Our land protection strategy would help protect the integrity of the

watersheds. Approximately 1,000 acres within the Narrow River and

Point Judith Pond watersheds would be acquired from willing sellers.

As with Alternative A, our acquisition would preclude residential

development. Failing septic systems, animal wastes, and lawn

chemicals are suspected as the leading causes of poor water quality

and degraded habitat conditions in the Narrow River and Salt Pond

Region (CRMC 1998). Staff participation in the interagency

watershed planning recommended by CRMC would also indirectly

contribute to long-term watershed protection.

Alternative C

Under Alternative C, we would acquire 3,000 acres more within the

Narrow River and Point Judith Pond watersheds, proportionately

increasing potential benefits. The increased protection for

undeveloped uplands and wetlands would greatly enhance our ability

to maintain or improve the integrity of these watersheds over the long

term. Service acquisition would preclude residential development, the

leading cause of poor water quality conditions in these watersheds.

Part 2: Chafee Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-47
Alternative D

Same as Alternative A.

Summary

Alternative C would provide the greatest, positive long-term benefits

to watersheds, hydrology and soils, primarily through land

acquisition. Alternative B would provide the next greatest benefit,

followed equally by Alternatives A and D. All alternatives would

comply with the Clean Water Act.

Biological Resources–Vegetation

Alternative A (Current Management)

No specific actions would change the existing vegetation on Chafee

Refuge. Alternative A would maintain the status quo (no impacts

on vegetation).

Alternative B (The Proposed Action)

With the exception of invasive plant control, Alternative B does not

propose specific actions to change the existing vegetation in the near

future. We would develop a grasslands plan by 2008 to identify

future restoration possibilities. We would also pursue opportunities

for cooperative grasslands management with adjacent landowners

and consider further grasslands restoration opportunities with new

acquisition of grassland habitat.

Invasive plant control would be actively pursued with these

alternatives, directly improving the vegetative condition over the

long term. Control of invasive plants such as Phragmites, autumn

olive, and Asian bittersweet provide the greatest challenge.

Mechanical, chemical, prescribed fire, and biological treatments

would all be implemented. These treatments would occur under

conditions that would minimize their impact on other resources.

Mechanical treatments would avoid putting heavy equipment in

wetlands or hydric soils. The Regional Contaminants Specialist

would review and approve our use of chemical herbicides. We would

use prescribed fire only under the stipulations in the 1995 Fire

Management Plan. Biological treatments would use species with a

known, negligible risk to native vegetation and native invertebrates.

None of these treatments would occur under conditions that would

adversely affect native vegetation or other natural resources on

Chafee Refuge.

Alternative C

Same as Alternative B, except that the increased land acquisition

proposed would serve to maintain more acres in undeveloped, native

habitat types, further protecting biological diversity.

Alternative D

Same as Alternative A.

Chapter 4

4-48 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Summary

Alternative C would provide the greatest potential benefit to

vegetation on Chafee through invasive plant treatments, habitat

restoration, and Service land acquisition and protection. Alternative

B would provide the second greatest benefit, followed equally by

Alternatives A and D.

Biological Resources–Threatened and Endangered Species and

Other Species of Management Concern

Alternative A (Current Management)

No Federal-listed threatened or endangered species occur on Chafee

Refuge. The nearest documented occurrence is the piping plover

nesting site at the mouth of the Narrow River.

Current management is not directed towards specific species or

habitats, and includes only minimal monitoring and inventorying (see

Alternatives Comparison Matrix, Chapter 3). The Refuge would

continue to have very little information about population levels,

distribution, and habitat use. Since no specific management actions

are proposed to benefit species of concern, Alternative A would

maintain the status quo, with no direct impacts on species and

habitats of concern.

Indirectly, however, the 377 acres proposed for Service acquisition

from willing sellers would result in long-term positive benefits to

wildlife through habitat protection. Land protection precludes a

direct loss of upland and wetlands habitat from residential

development. Protecting and managing threatened and endangered

species and wetlands would be a priority for future land acquisition.

Aquatic and estuarine resources in the Narrow River and

Pettaquamscutt Cove would indirectly benefit as well.

Alternative B (The Proposed Action)

Similar to Alternative A, no management actions are proposed that

would directly impact species and habitats of management concern.

Indirectly, however, Alternative B would benefit wildlife and habitat

through actions related to increased land protection, increased

baseline biological surveys, and development of a cooperative

waterfowl management plan.

Alternative B proposes we acquire up to 1,000 acres within the

Narrow River and Point Judith watersheds. Protection and

management for threatened and endangered species and other trust

resources would be a priority of future land acquisition. That

appreciable increase in acres over Alternative A would contribute to

protection of wildlife habitat over the long term. We would prioritize

and implement baseline biological inventories. Chafee Refuge would

be a priority, since we know very little about the quality of habitat

and the presence of many of the species identified in Appendix A.

Part 2: Chafee Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-49
Alternative B proposes to cooperate with RI DEM on a waterfowl

management plan in the lower Narrow River and Pettaquamscutt

Cove. The plan would evaluate the quantity and quality of habitat,

primarily for wintering waterfowl, seek to ensure that adequate

resting areas are available to waterfowl, in particular black duck, and

evaluate the potential for appropriate hunting opportunities.

Pettaquamscutt Cove was designated a focus area for black duck

protection and management in the North American Waterfowl

Management Plan– Black Duck Joint Venture (NAWMP 1988).

Wintering black duck and other waterfowl would realize long-term,

indirect benefits from comprehensive evaluation of habitat.

Alternative B also proposes to cooperate with RI DEM, Town of

South Kingstown and adjacent landowners on a deer management

plan for the area including and surrounding the 120-acre “Foddering

Farms” parcel. We expect increased deer use on the Refuge as

residential development diminishes habitat. That plan would set

habitat, human health and safety objectives, and establish the

carrying capacity of the habitat to support deer. Excessive browse

on vegetation, impacts on residential landscaping, increased threats

to human health and safety from Lyme bearing deer ticks, and

vehicle-deer collisions are possible without managing deer

populations. The management plan may recommend a deer hunt,

based on population objectives related to habitat carrying capacity or

to directly reduce health and human safety threats. If

recommended, opening the Refuge to a deer hunt would require a

separate environmental assessment outlining specific actions, a

compatibility determination, public review and comment, and an

annual hunt plan before implementation.

Alternative C

Alternative C proposes the greatest level of Service land acquisition

and cooperative watershed-level planning, further increasing

protection and management for species and habitats of management

concern in the Narrow River and Pt. Judith watersheds.

Alternative C proposes we acquire up to 3,000 acres in the Narrow

River and Point Judith Pond watersheds. As stated above, land

protection indirectly benefits many resources in these watersheds,

since it precludes residential development and associated impacts.

Alternative C proposes to cooperate with RI DEM on closing all of

Pettaquamscutt Cove to waterfowl hunting to establish a year-round

waterfowl rest area. The area is already recognized as significant to

wintering waterfowl, most notably black ducks, a species of special

management concern.

Alternative D 

Same as Alternative A.

Chapter 4

4-50 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Summary

None of the alternatives propose management actions to directly

benefit species of concern. Alternative C provides the greatest

indirect benefits over the long term to species and habitats of

management concern through increased land protection and a

proposal for a waterfowl rest area. Alternative B provides the

second greatest level of indirect benefits, followed equally by

Alternatives A and D. Section 7 consultation, to ensure compliance

with the Endangered Species Act, is being undertaken with release

of this draft CCP/EA.

Cultural Resources

Alternative A (Current Management)

No proposed management actions would enhance cultural resource

information or management on Chafee Refuge. We would survey

any future ground-disturbing projects in compliance with Section 106

of the National Historic Preservation Act. We expect neutral

impacts on cultural resources over the short and long terms.

Alternative B (The Proposed Action)

Alternative B proposes a cultural resources overview of the Refuge

Complex and training of more Refuge staff in Archeological

Resources Protection Act enforcement. These actions would

increase the information available to Refuge staff and would improve

enforcement of known sites listed by the Historic Preservation

Office. We know of none on the Refuge. As with Alternative A, we

would survey all future, ground-disturbing projects in compliance

with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. These

actions would indirectly benefit cultural resources over the long term

on Chafee Refuge.

Alternative C

Alternative C proposes to conduct cultural resource field surveys on

the Refuge in addition to the cultural resources overview, and would

provide greater protection of sites through increased law enforcement.

Alternative C would also develop an environmental education

curriculum associated with cultural resources of Pettaquamscutt Cove.

Each of these actions would result in a positive, indirect, long-term

benefit to the cultural resources program.

Alternative D

No proposed management actions would directly benefit cultural

resources. However, Alternative D would indirectly benefit these

resource over the long term through increased environmental

education and interpretive materials, and through a formal

partnership with the Narragansett Indian Tribe.

Part 2: Chafee Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-51
Summary

Alternative C provides the greatest level of direct and indirect benefits

to cultural resources over the long term. Alternative B would result in

the second greatest level, providing indirect benefits only, followed by

Alternative D and Alternative A. All alternatives would comply with

the Archeological Resources Protection Act. A Section 106 review, to

ensure compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, would

be undertaken with release of this draft CCP/EA.

Public Use 

Alternative A (Current Management)

Chafee Refuge has the least public use of all the Complex Refuges.

This is primarily due to the fact that the Refuge is comprised of

small, disjunct tracts of land without boundary markers, and is

predominantly wetlands. The lack of visibility and the extent of

wetland make access difficult for most visitors. The Refuge has no

designated trails or travelways.

Although we predict a 10-percent increase in visitation across the

Refuge Complex, Alternative A would not change the type of

activities allowed. No new public uses would be authorized on the

Refuge, primarily because no infrastructure is in place, or planned.

Of the six priority public uses, only saltwater fishing is now

authorized, in accordance with State regulations. Further,

Alternative A would not provide any additional Refuge staff or funds

to assist in public use or visitor services.

We would evaluate priority, wildlife-dependent public uses on newly

acquired lands on a case-by-case basis as lands are acquired. We

would allow existing priority public uses to continue if found to be

compatible. We would not allow new uses unless a formal

compatibility determination has been completed.

The most prevalent, recurring, unauthorized use on Chafee Refuge is

hiking across Refuge lands to reach the Narrow River shoreline.

Some shoreline erosion problems have been noted, but have not been

monitored to date. Other unauthorized and inappropriate uses, such

as illegal dumping of household garbage and lawn debris, occur

periodically. None of these concerns are addressed in Alternative A.

An adjacent off-Refuge public use has created a concern for the

Refuge. We have identified a potential impact from the use of jet

skis in open water adjacent to the Refuge. That activity creates

considerable disturbance to wildlife. The speed and noise associated

with jet skis cause waterfowl, wading birds, and other wetland

species to flush from a considerable distance. In addition, other

Refuge visitors are impacted by both the noise and disturbance to

wildlife, especially if fishing from the shoreline. We have no

jurisdiction over open water and jet skiing in the area, and can only

make recommendations to the State. Alternative A would not

address this concern.

Chapter 4

4-52 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Staff shortages have limited our ability to address non-wildlifedependent activities. Alternative A would continue limited

enforcement since no additional staff or operating funds are

proposed. This would result in a negative impact on the quality of

experience for wildlife-dependent Refuge visitors.

Another public use management issue at Chafee Refuge is the fact

that none of the Refuge boundary is posted with standard Refuge

boundary signs. The public has no way of distinguishing Refuge

property. Under Alternative A, we would continue to post boundaries

as funding and staff levels allow. No additional staff or funding would

be available to properly post the boundary of Chafee Refuge.

Overall, Alternative A would result in very little change to the types

of activities occurring on the Refuge. Limited law enforcement of

non-wildlife-dependent activities would continue and would result in

increased user conflicts. The Refuge boundary would remain

virtually invisible to the public.

Alternative B (The Proposed Action)

Alternative B would increase priority public use opportunities on

Chafee Refuge in several ways. We would develop a Refuge

Complex Visitor Services Plan to address program needs,

opportunities, identify target audiences, determine thresholds for

impacts on wildlife and habitats, and determine how to evaluate

success. We would also establish formal partnerships to address and

facilitate visitor service planning and funding.

No hunting is proposed at this time. We would evaluate the potential

for providing a new waterfowl hunting experience on the Refuge,

following completion of the waterfowl area plan identified in

Alternative B under its biological resources discussion. The purpose

of the plan would be to evaluate the quantity and quality of habitat,

primarily for wintering waterfowl. The plan would seek to ensure

adequate resting areas are available to waterfowl, in particular black

duck, and evaluate the potential for hunting opportunities

commensurate with the quality and quantity of habitat protection.

Pettaquamscutt Cove was designated a focus area for black duck

protection and management in the North American Waterfowl

Management Plan– Black Duck Joint Venture (NAWMP 1988).

Specifically, we would develop this plan for the lower Narrow River

and Pettaquamscutt Cove with RI DEM, the Audubon Society of RI,

and the towns of South Kingstown and Narragansett. Waterfowl

hunting is taking place on the South Kingstown side of

Pettaquamscutt Cove and on State waters. The Narragansett side of

the river is closed to hunting.

Refuge lands are relatively small, and even if they are opened to

hunting, they could accommodate perhaps only two hunting blinds.

Refuge lands alone would not provide a substantial increase in

hunting opportunities. However, with fewer and fewer acres

available for waterfowl hunting, RI DEM has expressed their

continued interest in this activity on Refuge lands (Allin 1999 pers.

com). While hunters would appreciate the increase, we recognize

that a large segment of the Rhode Island population opposes hunting

at Chafee Refuge. We heard several individuals state their

opposition to hunting during the scoping phase of this draft CCP/EA.

Part 2: Chafee Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-53
In the future, another new opportunity for public hunting may arise

as a result of the deer management plan proposed for Alternative B.

That plan would evaluate the needs for deer population management

in the area including and surrounding the “Foddering Farm” tract.

We would base the objectives for any deer hunt on the need to

maintain deer populations within an established habitat carrying

capacity and reduce threats to human health and safety.

Service policy requires preparation of a separate environmental

assessment, compatibility determination, public review and comment,

and an annual hunt plan before implementing either a new waterfowl

or deer public hunt. The environmental assessment would evaluate

the level of public opposition to hunting as well as impacts on nontarget wildlife and visitors engaged in other wildlife-dependent uses.

Alternative B would benefit the fishing public by designating and

promoting fishing access points to the shoreline, and would create a

barrier-free fishing platform either on Refuge land or cooperatively

with adjacent landowners, RI DOT, and RI DEM.

Alternative B would also cooperate with the RI DEM to develop a

“no wake” zone in the Pettaquamscutt Cove and Narrow River to

reduce shoreline erosion and minimize impacts on wildlife. It is

important to recognize that we have no jurisdiction over open,

navigable waters, and a “no wake” regulation is entirely at the

State’s discretion. In conjunction, Refuge staff would develop a

public education program to publicize the impacts of excessive

motorboat and jet ski speed on Refuge resources. Wildlifedependent public users and adjacent landowners would also benefit

from reduced physical and noise impacts.

Alternative B proposes developing a curriculum-based environmental

education program for classroom use, featuring the Narrow River

estuary and Pettaquamscutt Cove. We would develop a formal

partnership with South County Museum to conduct these programs.

These actions would result in a positive impact on environmental

education opportunities at Chafee Refuge.

Alternative B would develop environmental interpretation

opportunities, since none now exist. The Refuge Complex Visitor

Services plan would explore opportunities to improve literature and

pamphlets available to the public, cooperate with partners on kiosks,

barrier-free trails and viewing platforms, and canoe and kayak trails.

Specifically, we would evaluate opportunities for an interpretive kiosk

at the South County Museum, a kiosk and pullout at Middlebridge,

and a kiosk and barrier-free trail at the former Bridgepoint

Commons subdivision tract. Alternative B also would designate an

interpretive canoe and kayak route through the Narrow River and

Pettaquamscutt Cove to increase environmental interpretation of the

estuary. Combined, these actions would greatly expand the

opportunities for environmental interpretation, and would result in a

positive impact on environmental interpretation, wildlife observation

and photography.

Chapter 4

4-54 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
On newly acquired lands, we would allow priority wildlife-dependent

public use to continue on an interim basis if they meet the criteria

stipulated in the Interim Compatibility Determination (Appendix E).

We would phase out as soon as possible all existing, non-wildlifedependent activities on new Refuge lands. We would post all Refuge

boundaries by 2005. This would raise the visibility of Refuge lands,

minimize trespassing issues, and facilitate law enforcement.

Consolidating shoreline access easements with adjacent landowners

would also avoid current trespass problems.

We would phase out all inappropriate, incompatible, or non-wildlifedependent public use on the Refuge by 2005. However, few

individuals would be impacted, since current use is relatively low. Our

primary concern is locating unauthorized trails and monitoring use.

Overall, Alternative B would result in a positive change to wildlifedependent public uses by increasing opportunities in all programs

and raising the visibility of the Service and the Refuge.

Alternative C

This alternative proposes only a few new priority public use projects

related to environmental education and interpretation. These

programs would focus on promoting better stewardship of natural

resources. Other priority public uses would decrease or remain

closed in order to minimize impacts on wildlife and habitats on

Refuge lands.

Chafee Refuge would remain closed to all public hunting.

Alternative C would also close the Refuge shoreline to fishing in

order to avoid additional shoreline erosion and wetland trampling

caused by the fishing public. We would allow fishing only from boats,

in accordance with State regulations. That restriction would result

in a negative impact on a few fishers that access the shoreline by

crossing the Refuge.

Alternative C would implement the same environmental education

programs proposed in Alternative B. Environmental interpretation

would only be promoted through coordination of the proposed kiosk

on the South County Bike Path where it traverses the south portion

of Chafee Refuge. We predict hundreds of people a day would see

the kiosk, which would be a significant increase in environmental

interpretation.

Alternative C proposes eliminating all inappropriate and nonwildlife-dependent uses at Chafee Refuge by 2002, the most

aggressive schedule of all the alternatives. This proposal would

generate the most public concern, although the number of individuals

directly affected would be relatively small, based on our current

knowledge of public use. Alternative C would also provide staffing

and funding to complete the boundary posting at Chafee Refuge so

that the public could readily identify Refuge lands.

On newly acquired lands, we would allow priority wildlife-dependent

public use to continue if they meet the criteria stipulated in the

Interim Compatibility Determination (Appendix E). We would phase

out as soon as possible all non-wildlife-dependent activities that may

have existed before our acquisition.

Part 2: Chafee Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-55
Alternative D

Alternative D proposes to substantially increase resources for

improving priority public uses while working within our legal

framework and compatibility mandates for Chafee Refuge. Similar

to Alternative B, we would develop a Refuge Complex Visitor

Services Plan to strategically develop and implement priority public

use programs.

We predict visitation increases of 25 percent over current levels.

This would result from dramatically expanded priority public use

programs, and because the new Refuge Complex Visitors Center

would raise the visibility of this Refuge considerably.

In addition to the actions proposed in Alternative B, Alternative D

would implement a new waterfowl hunting opportunity. We would

open Chafee Refuge to waterfowl hunting by boat access only,

administered by the RI DEM under Refuge regulations. We may

consider temporary floating blinds, but Refuge lands have limited

capacity. This action would directly benefit the hunting public. Since

Federal governments establish waterfowl seasons and limits by flyway,

and because the area proposed would accommodate only a few hunters

each day, we expect no adverse impacts on waterfowl populations.

Nor, because of the locations of these proposed areas, the season of

use, and the requirement of boat access only, do we predict an impact

on non-target species. Further, we do not expect this activity to impact

other wildlife-dependent users on the Refuge, because these areas are

not adjacent to portions of the Refuge with trails.

We would implement a public deer hunt under special regulations

established by the Refuge (Refuge Regulations 50 CFR 32) on

the120-acre “Foddering Farms” parcel. That area was hunted before

we acquired it. This action would substantially increase hunting

opportunities, since none exist on the Refuge. Areas open to hunting

throughout Rhode Island are declining; thus, this proposal would

directly benefit the hunting public.

As natural habitats diminish, use by deer on the Refuge will increase,

and active management of deer populations will be even more

important. Opening a portion of Chafee Refuge to deer hunting would

help to keep deer within their habitat carrying capacity, reducing

damage to native vegetation or residential landscaping. Further,

reducing the deer herd would help reduce vehicle-deer collisions and

the public health concern about deer ticks and Lyme disease.

Not only is hunting one of the six priority public uses identified in

the Refuge System Improvement Act, but an established, annual

hunting program would provide direct benefits to the local economy.

As described in our publication, “National Survey of Fishing,

Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation” (1996), hunters in

Rhode Island invest an average of $75/trip directly into the local

economy in food, lodging, transportation, licenses, and equipment.

Chapter 4

4-56 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Hunting would not conflict with other priority uses, since the Refuge

is not open to any other uses. However, during public involvement

for this planning process, some individuals have expressed opposition

to any form of hunting on the Refuge. Service policy requires

preparation of a separate environmental assessment with specific

actions and locations, a compatibility determination, public review

and comment, and an annual hunt plan before a new hunt would be

implemented. That separate assessment would involve public

scoping indicating the level of public concern, and also evaluating the

potential impacts on non-target wildlife and other Refuge visitors.

With Alternative D, we would begin an environmental assessment to

establish both waterfowl and deer hunts in 2001.

On newly acquired lands, we would allow priority wildlife-dependent

public uses to continue on an interim basis unless they do not meet

the criteria stipulated in the Interim Compatibility Determination

(Appendix E). We would phase out as soon as possible all nonwildlife-dependent activities that may have existed before acquisition.

Overall, it is difficult to predict impacts on wildlife and habitat, or to

evaluate a potential for conflict among different users, since

information is so limited for this Refuge. We would develop a

monitoring program in conjunction with the Refuge Complex Visitor

Services Plan, to ensure activities do not result in unacceptable

disturbances to wildlife and habitat over the short or long term.

However, because of the expansive change to public use, Alternative D

would cause the greatest potential disturbance to wildlife and habitats.

Summary 

Alternative D would provide the greatest positive impact on priority

public uses because of the increases in all program areas. However,

that emphasis would result in a greater potential disturbance to

wildlife and habitats. The extent of risk is not known, but monitoring

and evaluation would be an important part of implementation.

Alternative B would result in increased opportunities for priority

public uses, but would continue to implement wildlife and habitat

projects as a higher priority. Alternative C would provide the fewest

benefits to public use, focusing almost exclusively on wildlife and

habitat projects. Alternative A would not change current public use

opportunities or wildlife and habitat values. Alternative B provides

the best balance in meeting Goals 1 and 4 by increasing opportunities

at minimal risk to wildlife and habitat values.

Part 2: Chafee Refuge 

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-57
Sachuest Point Refuge

Physical Resources – Soils, Hydrology, and Wetlands 

Alternative A (Current Management) 

Soils, hydrology, and wetlands have all been impacted with historic

practices. The former Town of Middletown dump site and the road

to Third Beach both impacted wetlands, while the construction and

maintenance of the Sachuest Point Defense Communications Facility

and Firing Range impacted upland soils. Current habitat

management practices are impacting soils as described below.

This alternative proposes to continue managing approximately 42

acres of early successional uplands through mowing, brush hogging,

hydroaxing, prescribed burning, and chemical treatments. The soil

types in these uplands sites are not susceptible to compaction, except

under saturated conditions. Operations typically occur in late fall

when these conditions are unlikely. No compaction from past

mechanical treatments has been noted to date.

Prescribed fire has been used on a limited basis, but has not burned

hot enough to meet the objective of invasive shrub reduction. All

future burning would be conducted under the stipulations of the 1995

Fire Management Plan to ensure meeting resource objectives.

Herbicides, namely Garlon 4, have been used with limited success in

these upland areas to treat invasive plant species such as Asian

bittersweet. The Regional Contaminants Specialist, who is

responsible for upholding Federal standards for water quality and

soil protection, annually reviews and approves chemical herbicide

use. Considering all potential treatment methods, we expect

negligible impacts on upland soils, limited in duration and intensity,

and confined to the project area. We expect none of the proposed

actions to adversely impact soils over the long term.

Alternative A proposes to continue work with the U.S. Geological

Survey, Biological Resource Division, to monitor the 15 acre wetlands

restoration project initiated in 1998. The project involved

manipulating a culvert and tidal creek channel to restore tidal flow to

the area, and the mechanical scarification of Phragmites, an invasive

plant species that dominated the area. The 1999 Monitoring report

indicates that with one year of restored saltwater flow, Phragmites

was greatly reduced in height, density and vigor, and native fish like

mummichog and silversides returned (USGS 1999). We are planning

a second year of monitoring. These results suggest a direct, positive

impact on the wetlands in the project area.

We would also continue coordination with the Corps of Engineers,

who have initiated a feasibility study to restore saltwater flow to an

additional 25 acres of former saltmarsh, also dominated by

Phragmites. No specific recommendations are known at this time.

However, the overall objective to restore tidal flow and reduce

Phragmites is similar to the 1998 project.

Chapter 4

4-58 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Alternative A would also continue cooperation with the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or their delegated

authority, to resolve the CERCLIS site clean-up at the former Town

of Middletown land fill. The current plan is to remove approximately

3 acres of fill in former wetlands dominated by Phragmites. We

expect EPA to release a detailed project plan by March 2000 for

public review. While short-term impacts on adjacent wetlands may

occur during restoration work, this project would directly improve

the condition of wetlands, soils, and hydrology over the long term.

In a separate effort to control purple loosestrife, another invasive

plant that invades moist soils, approximately 6,000 exotic

Galerucerla beetles were released as a biological control agent in

1998. We would continue to monitor this project to determine if the

beetles are effective in reducing the density and reproductive success

of purple loosestrife. Since its release in the United States in 1992,

there have been no reports of Galerucerla feeding on native plants.

Monitoring will determine whether the project is successful in

eliminating purple loosestrife from the areas and restoring native

plant diversity, and more beetles would be released if needed.

Alternative B (The Proposed Action)

The impacts noted for upland soils in Alternative A, above would be

the same, except another 40 acres of predominantly invasive shrub

land would be managed to promote an early successional shrub or

grassland habitat. Treatment methods would be the same as

proposed above, under the same conditions. No long-term, adverse

impacts would be expected to soils.

Alternative B would add to the acres of restored wetlands, with the

expectation that the Corps of Engineers’ recommendation would be

designed and implemented (see Alternative A). With the

combination of the Corps project, the CERCLIS site clean-up, and

the 1998 saltmarsh project, virtually all of the saltmarsh habitat on

the Refuge would be included in a restoration project. While

restoration work may have short-term impacts on wetlands, these

projects would directly improve wetlands habitat over the long term.

Alternative C

Same as Alternative B.

Alternative D

Alternative D proposes the same wetlands restoration project as

Alternative A, except that we would use only biological or mechanical

treatments, in response to public concerns about the use of chemicals

in the environment and the potential impacts of fire on air quality

and human health. However, precluding use of Federally approved

herbicides and prescribed fires would severely hamper the ability of

Refuge staff to control invasive plants. Both of these treatment

methods have been used on Sachuest Point Refuge at various times

to reduce invasive plants and to establish and maintain successful

habitat areas in a cost-effective or timely way. 

Part 2: Sachuest Point Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-59
Invasive plants have become incredibly pervasive on the Refuge,

dominating 40 percent of Refuge habitats. Their aggressive and

resilient nature requires frequent, thorough treatments. With only

mechanical and biological treatments available, Refuge staff would

not be able to effectively control these species. Labor intensity/acre

is much greater with mechanical treatments compared to prescribed

fire and herbicides. Limitations in equipment would restrict access

to some areas that could only be reached with fire or chemicals. In

particular, access to invasive wetlands plants can be difficult, and

limit mechanical treatments. The success of wetlands restoration

over the long term would be compromised without the use of all

treatment methods available, as would the ability to manage all the

acres proposed within the given time frames.

Summary

Alternatives B and C equally would provide the greatest benefit to

wetlands and hydrology over both the short and long terms, and best

meet the intent of Goal 2 for Sachuest Point Refuge. Alternative A

would not restore as many acres of wetlands. Alternative D would

restore fewer acres than Alternative A without the use of prescribed

fire or herbicides. All of the alternatives would comply with the

Clean Water Act.

Biological Resources – Vegetation

Alternative A (Current Management)

The dominance of invasive plant species, particularly Asian

bittersweet, has severely degraded the habitat value of uplands on

the Refuge. Forty percent of the plant species on the Refuge are

invasive, exotic species covering 80 percent of its uplands.

Alternative A would continue current management to treat

approximately 42 acres of uplands to maintain early successional,

native shrub land and grassland habitats. As described in the soils

discussion above, treatment methods have included mowing, brush

hogging, hydroaxing, prescribed fire, and chemical treatments. 

It is important to note that while Sachuest Point Refuge was a military

installation, much of the upland was maintained as early successional

shrub land and grassland. Over the last 25 years, much of the upland

has converted to older, mature shrub land, except in a few small mowed

areas around the building and along trails. As you would expect, the

change in habitat has brought a change in the bird community. Over

the last 5 years of monitoring breeding birds, the Refuge has noted an

increase in landbirds that prefer shrub habitat. Species such as the

gray catbird, northern oriole, brown thrasher, rufous-sided towhee, and

American redstart, have all been increasing (Flores 1997).

Current vegetative treatments are designed to accomplish two

objectives: (1) create or maintain early successional habitat, ideally

native grasslands, which are in severe decline in New England; and

(2) control invasive plant species. Our Connecticut River/Long

Island Sound Ecosystem Team identified both of these objectives as

priority actions.

Chapter 4

4-60 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
The success of treatments has been mixed for a variety of reasons.

Past experience has shown that mechanical treatments, especially in

shrub lands, are most effective at reducing vegetation when used in

combination with prescribed fire or chemical treatments, both of

which help eliminate vegetative litter. The projects on the Refuge

have not had ideal conditions for conducting combined treatments in

a timely manner. We attempted to use prescribed fire under weather

conditions that were too cool and wet to be effective. Further, the

ability of the Refuge staff to purchase and apply herbicides is

limited. Monitoring in the project area continues to help evaluate

the best possible combination of treatments.

No Federal- or State-listed plant species are known on the Refuge.

The Refuge is, however, a historic site for sea beach amaranth, a

Federal-listed threatened species.

Alternative B (The Proposed Action)

Alternative B would create or maintain a total of 82 acres in early

successional shrub land or grassland habitat on the Refuge. We

would not expect to eliminate shrub habitat with the proposed

treatments, but would maintain them in a younger, lower growing,

non-berry-producing stage of growth in order to promote habitat for

early successional species. The remaining unmanaged uplands exist

as shrub land with approximately 1 acre of trees mixed in.

Overall, Alternative B proposes to alter 82 acres of older, mature

shrub habitat, converting it to either grasslands or an early

successional shrub stage. The remaining unmanaged uplands,

consisting mostly of mature shrub habitat, would be modified only by

invasive plant treatments. This would reduce the availability of

mature shrubs for some wildlife species, but not enough to risk the

viability of any species present, and no Federal-listed species would

be impacted. Any impacts would be offset by the ecological benefits

of increasing the amount of early successional habitat, which has

been in severe decline throughout New England.

Alternative C

Same as Alternative B.

Alternative D

Same as Alternative A, except herbicides or burning would not be

used as management tools for maintaining early successional habitat.

Eliminating these tools would greatly hamper success, and would

force us to rely exclusively on less cost-effective strategies. Using

only biological and mechanical treatments would jeopardize our

ability to sustain quality early successional habitat over the long term.

Summary

Alternatives B and C equally provide the greatest benefit to

vegetation and best meet the intent of Goal 2 for Sachuest Point

Refuge. Alternative A would not restore grasslands or treat invasive

plants to the level proposed in Alternatives B and C. Alternative D

would provide even less certainty of restoring grassland habitats

over the long term without the use of herbicides and prescribed fire.

Part 2: Sachuest Point Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-61
Biological Resources – Threatened and Endangered Species and

other Species of Management Concern

Alternative A (Current Management)

No Federal- or State-listed threatened or endangered wildlife species

breed on Sachuest Point Refuge. No Federal-listed plants are now

known on the Refuge.

Occasionally, Federal-listed species such as the bald eagle pass

through during migration. The harlequin duck, which was proposed

for Federal listing, winters each year just off the Refuge shoreline in

numbers up to 107. That winter population is the second highest

documented off the U.S. Atlantic coast. Only a population off the

coast of Maine generally has higher numbers. These harlequin ducks

are a major attraction for bird watchers who come from throughout

New England to observe them. Peregrine falcon, which were recently

delisted, also pass through the Refuge during migration.

The current grassland management and invasive plant control

program on 40 acres may be directly impacting shrub dependent

birds such as the brown thrasher, northern oriole, gray catbird and

American redstart. These birds rely on shrubs for nesting and

foraging. Many other birds rely on the berries produced by shrubs

during migration. Besides birds, small mammals such as eastern

cottontail use the dense shrub land for shelter and dens. These

species would be displaced by the habitat work. However, the

remaining 120 acres of unmanaged upland on the Refuge is shrub

habitat and shrub lands are prevalent in the landscape adjacent to

the Refuge. We do not predict a threat to the viability of any of these

species’ populations on Aquidneck Island over the short or long term.

None of these shrub dependent species are Federal- or State-listed

as threatened or endangered. Further, the proposed vegetative

treatments would create or maintain a habitat type that supports a

species assemblage that is drastically declining in New England

(Vickery 1997), as described previously for Ninigret Refuge.

Species associated with early successional habitat would be positively

impacted with the proposed restoration work. A primary objective of

the project would be to create habitat to support breeding

grasshopper sparrows, a State-listed species which are suspected to

have nested historically in the area. Raptors would directly benefit

as well, such as the State-listed northern harrier, and short-eared

owls, which migrate through and winter on the Refuge. Vegetative

treatments would also reduce the dominance of invasive plant

species, a priority action for the Ecosystem team.

No formal surveys have been conducted for amphibians and reptiles.

Casual observations have noted common species of snakes and frogs,

but no salamanders or turtles have been documented. We predict

amphibians and reptiles would be displaced during restoration work,

but would benefit over the long term with improved habitat conditions.

With no Federal- or State-listed species occurring on the Refuge, no

direct impacts are predicted under Alternative A. Over the long

term, the early successional upland habitat project on 42 acres may

provide habitat for State-listed species such as the northern harrier

and grasshopper sparrow.

Chapter 4

4-62 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Alternative B (Proposed Action)

The impacts from implementing Alternative B is similar to

Alternative A except that the additional 40 acres (82 acres total) of

early successional habitat work would increase the likelihood of

attracting State-listed grassland bird species such as the

grasshopper sparrow, the upland sandpiper, and the northern

harrier. The increased habitat work would also work towards further

reducing invasive plants.

In addition, Alternative B proposes that Refuge staff work with

partners to identify, map, and monitor shorebird concentration areas.

We consider Sachuest Point Refuge a shorebird concentration area

during migration, but it has not been sufficiently monitored and

compared with other sites along the New England coast. Alternative

B would increase the Refuge information base, indirectly improving

management for shorebirds on Refuge lands.

Alternative B proposes working with RI DEM to issue new hunting

regulations that would restrict seaduck hunting from the intertidal

area on Sachuest Point. While hunting harlequin duck is already

restricted and Refuge lands are closed to all hunting; hunters access

the intertidal shoreline which lies outside of the jurisdiction of the

Service, to hunt eiders and other legal seaducks. This new

regulation would reduce conflicts with Refuge visitors engaged in

viewing the harlequin ducks and allow us to continue to promote

Sachuest Point as a Watchable Wildlife Viewing Area. Refuge staff

would increase monitoring of harlequin duck activities off Sachuest

Point to evaluate whether increased numbers of wildlife observers

affect their behavior. 

Alternative B would implement inventories for landbirds of

management concern, and for amphibians and reptiles on Sachuest

Point Refuge. Following publication of a final Partners in Flight

Landbird Plan for this region and a final Partnership for Amphibians

and Reptiles Conservation Plan, we would complete Refuge-specific

habitat management plans. These actions would provide direct, longterm benefits to landbirds, amphibians and reptiles on the Refuge.

The current trail system would be evaluated for redundancy and

possibly reduced under Alternative B. Approximately threequarters of a mile of redundant trail may be closed to public use and

maintained as either native shrub land or grassland. Direct impacts

from human disturbance would be reduced, thus directly benefitting

wildlife susceptible to these impacts.

Part 2: Sachuest Point Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-63
Alternative C

The impacts identified for Alternative B are the same with the

exception of harlequin duck. Alternative C proposes to work with RI

DEM to implement a “no hunting” zone in open water off the eastern

shore of Sachuest Point to reduce the potential for disturbance to the

local population of wintering harlequin duck. As stated under

Alternative B, there is no hunting season for harlequin duck, but

they are often found in rafts with other sea ducks, such as common

eider, which are hunted. Incidental harvest of harlequin duck is

extremely rare in Rhode Island; we know of only one confirmed over

the last decade. However, harlequin duck are disturbed when eiders

in the area are hunted, causing them to scatter and disperse. 

No studies have been conducted to quantify the extent or frequency

of that disturbance, so we are unable to describe the full beneficial

impact on harlequin duck that would be expected from a hunting

closure. Implementing this action is subject to the approval by the

State of Rhode Island as the Service has no jurisdiction over open

water. Similar to Alternative B, we would actively promote Sachuest

Point Refuge as a Watchable Wildlife Area for harlequin duck

viewing and use the opportunity to promote stewardship of our

natural resources. 

Alternative D

Same as Alternative A.

Summary

Alternatives B and C equally provide the greatest benefit to species

of management concern over the long term; these alternatives best

meet the intent of Goal 1 on Sachuest Point Refuge. Alternatives A

and D maintain the status quo and the impacts are neutral. Section

7 consultation, to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species

Act, would be undertaken upon release of this draft CCP/EA.

Cultural Resources

Alternative A (Current Management)

No archeological sites have been recorded on Sachuest Point Refuge,

although two sites have been submitted to the State Historic

Preservation Officer for designation. No comprehensive surveys

have been conducted on the Refuge, and none are proposed under

Alternative A. No management actions are proposed that would

adversely impact the integrity of known sites. Immediate project

areas would be surveyed to ensure compliance with Section 106 of

the National Historic Preservation Act.

Alternative A proposes no management actions that would enhance

our knowledge of cultural resources or improve management on

Sachuest Point Refuge. We predict neutral impacts on cultural

resources over the short and long terms.

Chapter 4

4-64 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Alternative B (The Proposed Action)

Alternative B proposes a cultural resources overview of the Refuge

Complex and training more Refuge staff in Archeological Resource

Protection Act enforcement. We would also develop a partnership

agreement with the Narragansett Indian Tribal Council. These

actions would indirectly benefit cultural resources, over both the short

and long terms, by increasing information available to Refuge staff,

and improving protection of significant sites. As with the other

alternatives, we would survey all future ground-disturbing projects in

compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Alternative C

The impacts noted for Alternative B would be the same under

Alternative C. The only difference is that Alternative C would

initiate a field investigation on the Refuge to further increase

information available to Refuge staff and ensure protection of

cultural resources. In addition, these resources would indirectly

benefit through development of environmental education and

interpretive programs for local use.

Alternative D

Impacts from implementing Alternative D are the same as

Alternative A, except for positive impacts resulting from a

partnership agreement with the Narragansett Indian Tribal Council.

That agreement would increase our understanding of Native

American use and history of the area.

Summary

Alternative C provides the greatest positive, indirect and direct impacts

on cultural resources over the long term, followed by Alternatives B,

then D; Alternative A would provide the least benefit to cultural

resources on Sachuest Point Refuge. All alternatives would comply

with the Archeological Resources Protection Act. A Section 106 review,

to ensure compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, will

be undertaken with release of this draft CCP/EA.

Public Use 

Alternative A (Current Management)

Although we expect a 10-percent increase in the amount of visitor

use across the Refuge Complex, there would not be any changes in

public use programs. Fishing would continue from the shoreline;

hunting would not be allowed. Current levels of environmental

education and interpretation, and wildlife observation and

photography would also continue. The Sachuest Point Visitor Center

facility and interpretive exhibits would be upgraded as funding

becomes available. No additional Refuge staff or funds would be

provided to assist in public use or visitor services.

Part 2: Sachuest Point Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-65
We predict an increase in the level of non-wildlife-dependent uses,

roughly corresponding with the 10-percent increase in overall

visitation on the Refuge Complex. The most prevalent, recurring

non-wildlife-dependent uses at Sachuest Point are dog walking,

jogging, swimming and sunbathing. Additional non-wildlifedependent uses documented on Sachuest Point Refuge include

bicycle trail riding, horseback riding, kite flying, berry picking,

fireworks, and bonfires. Staff shortages have limited our ability to

effectively address these activities. Alternative A would not increase

our law enforcement capability. With continued, limited

enforcement, we predict a negative impact on priority public uses,

due to conflicts with non-wildlife-dependent public uses.

Alternative B (The Proposed Action) 

In addition to current activities, Alternative B would develop a

Refuge Complex Visitor Services Plan to address program needs and

opportunities, identify target audiences, define threshold limits on

impacts on wildlife and habitats, and determine how to evaluate

success. We would also establish formal partnerships to address

visitor service planning and funding.

Public hunting would continue not to be allowed on Refuge land

under Alternative B. In addition, we would request that RI DEM

change hunting regulations to preclude shoreline hunting in the

intertidal area on Sachuest Point. The purpose of this action is to

reduce user conflicts between shoreline hunters and wildlife

observers at Sachuest Point Refuge. Refuge visitors travel from all

over New England to view the harlequin ducks on Sachuest Point.

Many birders express their dismay at traveling to the Refuge to

observe harlequin ducks disturbed and scattered by hunters

shooting at the eiders. In combination with the hunting closure area,

Sachuest Point Refuge would be promoted as a Watchable Wildlife

Viewing Area. These actions would directly benefit visitors engaged

in wildlife observation. On the other hand, a hunting closure would

negatively impact the hunting public, exacerbating a decline in

hunting opportunities that is occurring throughout Rhode Island.

Increased residential shoreline development has had a major impact

on waterfowl hunting opportunities.

Alternative B would slightly modify current shoreline fishing

opportunities on Sachuest Point Refuge. Designated pedestrian

access points would be established from the main trail down to the

shoreline rocks, in order to reduce shoreline bank erosion and

trampling of vegetation from angler foot traffic. Despite the

designated access points, virtually all of the fishing spots on the

shoreline rocks would still be accessible. We would continue to allow

night fishing, and develop a regulation requiring spear fishing gear

be unloaded and encased while on Refuge lands. These actions

would combine to ensure compliance with Service policy, reduce

safety hazards and intimidation of other users, and protect shoreline

habitats. Overall, a direct, positive impact on the quality of fishing

opportunities on Sachuest Point Refuge would result.

Chapter 4

4-66 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Interpretation. Information kiosks

provide the public with basic

information about a refuge. 

USFWS photo
Alternative B proposes expanding the environmental education

opportunities at Sachuest Point Refuge by developing a formal

partnership with the Norman Bird Sanctuary to facilitate sharing of

educational resources. Additionally, curriculum based environmental

education programs would be developed for the Newport and

Middletown school systems, and a volunteer environmental education

corps would be established to implement programs. The combination

of the proposed actions would result in a direct, positive impact on

environmental education opportunities at Sachuest Point Refuge.

Alternative B proposes to develop and fund an interpretive plan to

address the need for interpretive pamphlets and interpretive

displays along trails. We would develop an interpretive trail to

describe the natural and cultural history of the Refuge, and

interpretive exhibits for Second Beach, Third Beach, and the

Newport Visitor Center. This would greatly expand the

opportunities for environmental interpretation and would provide

Refuge staff with the ability to reach hundreds of thousands of

people with an environmental stewardship message.

Under Alternative B, we would evaluate for elimination

approximately three-quarters of a mile of redundant trail in the

central portion of the uplands. This may inconvenience some

visitors, but we do not expect significant public concern from visitors

engaged in priority public use activities, since all the destination

points on Sachuest Point Refuge would still be accessible. We would

also construct a barrier-free trail, with one or more accessible

observation platforms, and develop watchable wildlife literature and

a self-guided wildlife interpretive pamphlets. These actions would

combine to greatly enhance the quality and diversity of experience

for Refuge visitors.

On newly acquired lands, we would allow priority wildlife-dependent

public use to continue on an interim basis unless the activities do not

meet the criteria stipulated in the Interim Compatibility

Determination (Appendix E). We would phase out as soon as

possible all non-wildlife-dependent activities that may have existed

before our acquisition.

Alternative B would eliminate all non-wildlife-dependent public use

by 2005, including dog walking, jogging, swimming and sunbathing,

bicycling, horseback riding, and bonfires. None of these activities

support a priority public use; they are not required to meet the goals

for the Refuge, nor are they compatible with the purposes for which

the Refuge was established.

Eliminating the two most prevalent of these activities, dog walking

and jogging, would cause the greatest public reaction. Outreach and

education to eliminate these particular activities would begin

immediately, with the availability of Refuge staff and resources.

These two activities are well established on the Refuge and many

people come to the Refuge solely to engage in them.

Part 2: Sachuest Point Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-67
Dog walking is one of the most disturbing activities, to wildlife and

visitors alike, occurring on Sachuest Point Refuge. Volunteers

continually observe dog walkers on the Refuge allowing their dogs to

run free and chase wildlife. Volunteers also consistently observe

dogs leaving feces on Refuge trails. Dog feces carry pathogens that

can introduce diseases to Refuge wildlife; they also detract from a

pleasant, wildlife-oriented experience. Further, many Refuge visitors

do not like to be confronted by a dog while walking on trails, and are

frustrated when dogs disturb their wildlife observation and

photography opportunities.

Several towns in Rhode Island, including the Town of Middletown,

have recently enacted regulations prohibiting dogs from town-owned

public places for the reasons cited above. Unfortunately, these town

restrictions have resulted in increased dog walking on Sachuest Point

Refuge. Eliminating dog walking would have a negative impact on

many current Refuge visitors, but would tremendously improve the

quality of experience for Refuge visitors engaged in wildlife-dependent

activities, and would also benefit the wildlife that dogs disturb.

Jogging is another non-wildlife-dependent recreational use at

Sachuest Point that disturbs wildlife and those visitors attempting to

observe or photograph them. Jogging is extremely popular on

Sachuest Point trails; the Refuge is a specific destination for many

joggers. Conflicts between wildlife-dependent Refuge visitors and

joggers would increase without enforcement, since we expect

visitation to increase. We predict strong opposition from the local

jogging community to closing the Refuge to this activity. However,

while eliminating jogging on Refuge trails would adversely impact

joggers, it would directly benefit visitors engaged in priority wildlifedependent activities.

Because of the present level of non-wildlife-dependent use, effective

implementation of Alternative B would require permanent staff

assigned to Sachuest Point Refuge to provide consistent resource

protection, outreach and enforcement of Refuge regulations. This

would result in a positive benefit to the priority, wildlife-dependent

users at Sachuest Point Refuge.

Alternative C

Alternative C proposes to reduce the overall level of public use on

Sachuest Point Refuge in order to minimize impacts on wildlife and

habitat. We would, however, emphasize environmental interpretation

and education, in the hope of making Refuge visitors better stewards

of wildlife and habitat.

We would request that RI DEM establish a “no hunting” zone in

open water off the eastern point of Sachuest Point. Present seaduck

hunting is occurring by boat. The purpose of this action is to

minimize disturbance to wintering harlequin ducks, and reduce user

conflicts between hunters off-shore and wildlife observers at

Sachuest Point Refuge. Although Federal regulations protect

harlequin ducks from hunting, they tend to feed and rest in rafts

with common eider, who are hunted off Sachuest Point. 

Chapter 4

4-68 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Refuge visitors travel from all over New England to view the

harlequin ducks on Sachuest Point. Many birders express their

dismay at traveling to the Refuge to observe harlequin ducks

disturbed and scattered by hunters shooting at the eiders. In

combination with the hunting closure area, Sachuest Point Refuge

would be promoted as a Watchable Wildlife Viewing Area. These

actions would directly benefit visitors engaged in wildlife observation. 

On the other hand, a hunting closure would negatively impact the

hunting public, exacerbating a decline in hunting opportunities that

is occurring throughout Rhode Island. Increased residential

shoreline development has had a major impact on waterfowl

hunting opportunities.

Alternative C would close the Refuge shoreline to night surf fishing.

This action would help eliminate the current law enforcement

problems associated with bonfires and parties after dark. Also, this

proposal would eliminate any possible impacts on wildlife associated

with the bright lights used by anglers. These impacts have never been

monitored, and we only presume they alter the nocturnal behavior of

some wildlife. Night surf fishing is an extremely popular activity. We

expect much opposition from the angling public to this proposal.

Similar to Alternative B, Alternative C proposes to enhance

environmental education opportunities at Sachuest Point by

developing a formal partnership with Norman Bird Sanctuary. This

would allow Refuge staff to share in developing and implementing a

curriculum and to better use the Sachuest Point Visitor facility.

These actions would result in a direct, positive impact on

environmental education opportunities at Sachuest Point Refuge.

Environmental interpretation would also be improved, through

renovation of the Sachuest Point Visitor Center’s interpretive

exhibits and construction of interpretive kiosks describing wetland

and grassland restoration to the visiting public.

Wildlife observation and photography would be impacted slightly by

reducing approximately three-quarters of a mile of redundant

interior trail. Some visitors would be inconvenienced, but we would

still provide access to all the various habitat types present and to all

the destination points on the Refuge. On the other hand, eliminating

an interior trail would reduce disturbance to wildlife, and provide a

larger patch of contiguous habitat.

Alternative C proposes the most aggressive schedule for eliminating

inappropriate and non-wildlife-dependent use (by 2002) at Sachuest

Point Refuge and proposes hiring a law enforcement officer to assure

compliance with the changes in public use. There is no doubt this

proposal would result in a high level of public concern about

restrictions on the Refuge.

Part 2: Sachuest Point Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-69
Alternative D

Alternative D would maintain or enhance priority public use

opportunities within the legal framework and compatibility mandates

of Sachuest Point Refuge. Similar to Alternative A, we would

continue to prohibit hunting on the Refuge, but we would not pursue

a sea duck hunting closure off Sachuest Point. Refuge visitors who

come to view the wintering harlequin ducks would continue to be

impacted by sea duck hunting on State waters. However, the

hunting public would continue to enjoy an opportunity that is in

decline in Rhode Island.

We would establish a regulation to require spear fishing gear to be

unloaded and encased. We would also construct a barrier-free

fishing platform by 2005, if it is technically and economically feasible.

No other changes to fishing would occur. Overall, the impacts on

anglers would be negligible, or slightly positive, with the introduction

of barrier-free accessibility.

Opportunities for environmental education, environmental

interpretation, wildlife observation, and photography are the same as

proposed in Alternative B. These actions would greatly enhance

public use opportunities, resulting in a positive impact on public use.

Alternative D would eliminate current non-wildlife-dependent uses

by 2005, similar to Alternative B. This would negatively impact some

users, but would also enhance opportunities for priority, wildlifedependent uses.

Summary

Alternative D would provide the greatest positive impact on priority

public uses, with increases in most program areas. However, that

emphasis would result in a greater potential disturbance to wildlife

and habitats. The extent of risk is not known, but monitoring and

evaluation would be an important part of implementation. Alternative

B would result in increased opportunities for priority public use, but

would continue to implement wildlife and habitat projects as a higher

priority. Alternative C would provide the fewest benefits to public

use, focusing almost exclusively on wildlife and habitat projects.

Alternative A would not change current public use opportunities; it

would have negligible impacts on current uses. Alternative B

provides the best balance in meeting Goals 1 and 4 by increasing

opportunities at minimal risk to wildlife and habitat values.

All the alternatives would allow priority, wildlife-dependent public

use to continue on an interim basis on newly acquired lands, unless

the activities do not meet the criteria stipulated in the Interim

Compatibility Determination (Appendix E). We would phase out as

soon as possible all non-wildlife-dependent activities that may have

existed before our acquisition.

Chapter 4

4-70 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Trustom Pond Refuge

Physical Resources – Soils, Hydrology, and Wetlands

Alternative A (Current Management)

Similar to the other Refuges, historical land use practices at Trustom

Pond Refuge, namely agriculture, have significantly affected soils,

hydrology, and wetlands. Most of the uplands were grazed by sheep

during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s or were intensively managed

croplands. Just before our acquisition, approximately 55 acres of

Refuge land were actively hayed and another 90 acres were managed

in corn and potatoes. These fields were maintained intensively

through plowing, discing, fertilizing, and chemical treatments.

Approximately 125 acres of former agriculture fields are planned for

or actively managed as native, early successional coastal sandplain

habitat. Another 20 acres of former agricultural field are in

ryegrass, cooperatively managed with RI DEM for an annual

Canada goose hunt. The Refuge is cooperating with an adjacent

family farm to manage an additional 40 acres of coastal sandplain

grassland. No additional grassland restoration is proposed under

Alternative A.

Refuge staff established native, early successional coastal sandplain

grasslands by discing, plowing, harrowing, rolling, fertilizing, and

seeding. Future maintenance of these fields under Alternative A

would involve mowing, prescribed fire, and chemical treatments for

invasive plant species. No heavy equipment would travel on

wetlands or hydric soils. Prescribed fire treatments would follow the

stipulations required in the Fire Management Plan (1995). Chemical

treatments would be approved annually by the Regional

Contaminants Specialist, who ensures all Federal requirements for

the type of herbicide and application rate are met. While historical

land use practices and the current maintenance of native, coastal

sandplain grasslands have undoubtedly affected soils, there have

been no indications of soil compaction, soil loss, or loss of soil

productivity on current Refuge lands, nor do we predict that

proposed management actions would negatively impact soils over the

long term. Phragmites eradication on 5 acres of wetland, using

chemical, mechanical, and prescribed burning, has been the only

habitat management on the Refuge’s 70 acres of wetland.

For the past five spring seasons, we have mechanically breached

Trustom Pond using a backhoe, typically in April. We typically

breach Cards Pond 8 to 10 times a year, when landowners become

concerned about high water backing into their septic and well

systems, or when high water threatens roads and agricultural fields.

Part 2: Trustom Pond Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-71
We would continue to breach the ponds as described above. The

objectives of spring breaching Trustom Pond are:

■ Provide increased foraging opportunities in the mudflats for

shorebirds, including piping plover;

■ Expose an island for common tern nesting;

■ Introduce saltwater back into the aquatic system;

■ Increase production of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), a

principle food source for wintering waterfowl;

■ Maintain the current invertebrate and finfish populations; and

■ Help to alleviate summer eutrophic conditions (see Chapter 2,

Affected Environment).

Although not quantified, we also expect the breaching to benefit

alewife, an anadromous fish and Federal trust resource.

The draft Trustom Pond Master Plan describes the following impacts

from spring breaching of Trustom Pond:

“Spring breaching temporarily exposes 120 acres of mudflats. The

water level rises through the summer, resuming its pre-breaching

area of 160 acres by mid-summer. Salinity rises sharply immediately

after breaching, decreasing slowly as the pond refills, until it reaches

its pre-breaching low of 4 to 5 parts per thousand by early autumn.

With the influx of cold water, the temperature of the pond decreases

4 to 5C at the breachway and 2 to 3C at the north end of the pond.

Dissolved oxygen content of the water increases with the decrease in

water temperature, then decreases when the pond warms later in the

summer. Nitrogen and phosphorus decrease with the influx of sea

water after breaching, but each replenishes as the pond refills.

Algae is flushed from the pond after breaching, but increases along

with the increases in nitrogen and phosphorus as the pond refills.

The decrease in algae growth increases light penetration, and

benefits the production of SAVs like sago pondweed (Potomogeton

pectinatus) and widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima)” (USFWS 1987).

Summer breaching may better alleviate eutrophic conditions and

reduce bacterial contamination, but has not been practiced at

Trustom Pond because of concerns about public safety, impacts on

public beach use, and management for piping plover (CRMC 1998).

Summer breaching may also adversely impact SAV growth at its

summer peak. Breaching the pond in the spring, rather than

summer, may have adverse water quality consequences, but also

alleviates some of the concerns listed above.

Overall, Alternative A would impact soils from the grasslands

restoration projects proposed, but the impacts would be limited in

duration and intensity and should not reduce soil productivity over

the long term. We would continue to breach Trustom Pond once a

year, benefitting shorebirds and other animals that use exposed

mudflats. We expect that breaching would also benefit most of the

saltwater-dependent native fish in Trustom Pond. Very little

information is available about the impacts on other aquatic resources

like invertebrates and plant life, since they are not easily monitored.

Chapter 4

4-72 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Alternative B (The Proposed Action) 

The impacts on soils, hydrology, and wetlands described for

Alternative A are similar to Alternative B because the same coastal

sandplain habitat projects would continue. The same 125 acres of

grassland restoration work on the Refuge is proposed in Alternative

B. No work is planned that would directly or indirectly affect the

smaller freshwater ponds or emergent wetlands.

In addition to Alternative A, we would initiate strategic planning to

improve the water quality and habitat conditions in Trustom Pond and

Cards Pond. We would work with partners and local experts to

develop and implement an integrated management plan establishing a

desired future condition. The plan would determine the best shortand long-term actions needed to maintain ecological integrity and to

manage for species of highest concern, with due consideration given to

piping plover and other shorebirds, wintering waterfowl, anadromous

fish, rare plants, and the other desirable aquatic resources.

The integrated management plan would explore the location and

timing for increased breaching of Trustom Pond. Breaching at

different times of year and different locations is often suggested as a

means of improving habitat for shorebirds and waterfowl and as a

solution for improving water quality. Some experts disagree,

however, and suggest that more information is needed on the

cumulative impacts of breaching in what are now highly impacted

aquatic systems. For example, the Special Area Management Plan

for Coastal Salt Ponds states, “Although it is a popular belief that

greater water exchange between the lagoons and the ocean will

enhance water quality... increased flushing can have many

undesirable effects on the ecology and use of the ponds” (Olsen and

Lee 1982). The dramatic changes to salinity, water temperature, and

amount of exposed mud flats could be affecting invertebrates or other

aquatic resources, not easily monitored, with unknown consequences.

The cooperative, integrated plan proposed in Alternative B would

bring together varied expert opinions on whether these concerns

apply to Trustom Pond and Cards Pond, and whether there is any

agreement on actions that should be pursued. The integrated

planning proposed for Alternative B would indirectly benefit

management and protection of the ponds over the short term

through increased technical information exchange. With

implementation of the integrated plan, we predict direct benefits to

the aquatic resources in the ponds over the long term.

Alternative C

Same as Alternative B, except Alternative C proposes to develop a

coalition of partners to initiate watershed planning and protection

throughout the entire Trustom Pond and Cards Pond watersheds.

That partnership, yet to be organized, was recommended in the

Special Area Management Plan for the Salt Pond Region (CRMC

1998). Through outreach and education, this additional action would

provide additional, indirect benefits to aquatic resources in the

Trustom Pond and Cards Pond watersheds.

Part 2: Trustom Pond Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-73
Alternative D

Same as Alternative A, except no herbicides or prescribed fire would

be used for habitat work. This proposal responds to people who

believe these activities threaten human health and safety. Without

herbicides or use of prescribed fire, our ability to control invasive

wetland plants would be greatly hampered. Invasive plants are well

established on the Refuge, and their hardiness and resilience pose a

significant challenge to controlling them. Mechanical treatments are

very labor-intensive and expensive, especially in aquatic ecosystems,

and often are ineffective because much of the plant is underground.

We would be able to treat fewer acres, even while maintaining

current personnel and funding levels. In effect, our ability to control

the spread of invasive wetlands plants would be jeopardized without

the use of all reasonable treatment methods available, including

herbicides and prescribed fire.

Summary

Alternative C slightly exceeds Alternative B in providing the

greatest long-term benefits to wetlands and watershed protection.

These two alternatives best meet Goals 1 and 2 related to species of

concern and natural ecological communities. Alternative A follows

with must less improvement to wetlands, and Alternative D provides

the least potential benefit.

Biological Resources–Vegetation

Alternative A (Current Management)

Alternative A primarily affects vegetation through maintaining

grasslands and early successional shrub habitat. We would continue

restoration and maintenance of the 125 acres of native coastal

sandplain grasslands or early successional shrub lands as described

above in the “Soils” discussion. We would continue to brush-hog an

additional 11 acres of “old field” or upland shrub habitat

approximately every 2 years. These actions support the Connecticut

River/Long Island Sound Ecoteam priority goal of creating and

maintaining native coastal sandplain communities. We would

continue to maintain the 20 acres of upland field open to migratory

bird hunting in non-native grasses, according to the plan developed

by RI DEM (1999). We predict negligible impacts on vegetative

structure in restored areas from continued maintenance of the 125

acres. Species composition and overall biological diversity, however,

would improve on these treated areas as we restore them from nonnative species to a native, early successional coastal sandplain

grassland community. The proposed treatments would not eliminate

any shrub species; rather, we would maintain species in an earlier

successional stage than their present one.

Chapter 4

4-74 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Restoration techniques would include discing, plowing, harrowing,

rolling, fertilizing, and seeding. Future maintenance of these fields

under Alternative A would involve mowing, prescribed fire, and

chemical treatments for invasive plant species. No heavy equipment

would travel on wetlands or hydric soils. Prescribed fire treatments

would follow the stipulations required in the Fire Management Plan

(1995). Chemical treatments would be approved annually by the

Regional Contaminants Specialist, who upholds Federal guidelines on

pesticides and application rates. Following these stipulations and

Federal regulations associated with chemical and prescribed fire

treatments, we predict negligible adverse environmental impacts.

We would also continue limited treatment of invasive plants,

primarily through chemical, prescribed fire, and mechanical

treatments, as funding and staff levels allow. Loss of shallow

wetlands to Phragmites would continue to negatively impact habitat

for black duck, a focus species, and other dabbling ducks that

frequent Trustom Pond.

We know of several sites on the Refuge with populations of unique

and rare plants, and suspect others. No management actions are

proposed to benefit these sites.

Alternative B (The Proposed Action)

This alternative proposes the same grassland and shrub restoration

projects as Alternative A. However, we would increase control

measures for invasive plant species to treat at least 25 acres/year,

using mechanical, biological, chemical, and prescribed fire as needed

across the Refuge Complex. Trustom Pond Refuge would be a

priority area for treatment, especially the Phragmites along the edge

of both Trustom Pond and Cards Pond.

Impacts on upland vegetation would be positive, similar to

Alternative A, because the projects are designed to convert existing

non-native habitat to a native coastal sandplain community type. We

would also develop an inventory, management, and monitoring plan

for the rare plant sites on the Refuge. Plans would be cooperatively

developed using expertise from RI DEM, University of Rhode

Island, The Nature Conservancy, and State botanical organizations.

This action would directly benefit these rare plant sites over the

short and long terms.

Alternative C

Alternative C would result in the same impacts on vegetation

described for Alternative B, with the exception of the 20-acre upland

field cooperatively managed with RI DEM. Alternative C would close

that field to hunting and convert it from non-native grasses to a native,

early successional coastal sandplain community type. This action

would best implement the Connecticut River/Long Island Sound

Ecoteam goal of increasing native coastal sandplain grasslands.

Part 2: Trustom Pond Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-75
Alternative D

Actions proposed are the same as Alternative A, except that the use

of herbicides and prescribed fire would not occur. We estimate that

at least 30 percent fewer acres would effectively be restored and

maintained in native habitats without the use of these tools (see

previous discussion under “Physical Resources, Alternative D”).

Summary

Alternative C would best meet Goal 2 for Trustom Pond and

Connecticut River/Long Island Sound Ecosystem Team priorities,

through maintenance of native, early successional coastal sandplain

habitats, increased invasive plant control, and inventory,

management, and monitoring of rare plant sites. Alternative B

would restore 20 acres less of native grassland, but is otherwise

identical to Alternative C. Alternative A would rank third, and

Alternative D would do the least to control invasive plants, restore

native plant communities, and manage rare plant sites.

Biological Resources–Threatened and Endangered Species and

Other Species of Management Concern 

Alternative A (Current Management)

The only Federal-listed species known to breed on the Refuge is the

threatened piping plover. Other species of concern on Trustom Pond

Refuge that have been a management focus are discussed below,

including black duck, grassland birds, shorebirds, amphibians and

reptiles. The current monitoring programs for landbirds would

continue, using established protocol to collect baseline information on

species occurrence, productivity, and survival during the breeding

season. Once completed, the Partners In Flight–Landbird

Conservation Plan for Physiographic Area 9 (Southern New

England) may identify additional management for certain species

(Rosenberg 1999).

Piping plover management activities on Trustom Pond Refuge, both

historic and current, are described in depth in Chapter 2. Chapter 2

also describes the involvement of Refuge staff in piping plover

management along the entire South Shore of Rhode Island.

To put the Refuge-managed piping plover population into perspective,

we offer the following. The estimated population of the Atlantic Coast

piping plover in the New England Region for 1999 was 634 pairs; 39

pairs nested in the State of Rhode Island; 17 pairs were on South

Shore beaches off the Refuge, and an additional 9 pairs were on

Trustom Pond Refuge (Hecht 2000). While the Rhode Island nesting

sites contributed only 6% of the population in 1999, they are

geographically important for distributing nesting plovers in the New

England Region. Rhode Island is situated halfway between two piping

plover population centers; Cape Cod to the north and Long Island to

the south. A well-distributed population is vital to full recovery. 

Chapter 4

4-76 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Loss and degradation of habitat due to development and shoreline

stabilization, disturbance by humans and pets, and predation are the

principle factors cited by the Revised Recovery Plan as causing a

decline in piping plover populations (USFWS 1996). All of these

factors are relevant for Trustom Pond Refuge.

The Revised Recovery Plan also states, “The USFWS believes that

top priority should be placed on maximizing productivity and

abundance of plovers of Federal lands.” Intensive management on

Refuge lands to protect breeding piping plovers was identified as a

specific recovery task (USFWS 1996). All of the current piping

plover management activities conducted by Refuge staff are

specifically recommended by the Recovery Team to support recovery

goals. However, despite the current level of intensive management

on Trustom Pond Refuge, and some of the other South Shore

beaches, recovery goals have not been met.

Chapter 2 presents figures for historic nesting on Trustom Pond

Refuge and other South Shore beaches and annual productivity

levels. Since 1989, nesting piping plover pairs on Trustom Pond

Refuge have steadily increased from a low of 4 pairs in 1989 to a high

of 11 pairs in 1998. Productivity was the highest it has been in over a

decade, at 1.8 chicks fledged/pair in 1998. Despite a relatively high

number of pairs nesting for the site (10 pairs) in 1999, the nesting

productivity/pair at Trustom Pond Refuge was the lowest in 10 years

at 0.5 chicks fledged/pair. Mammalian and avian predators were

cited in the Trustom Pond Piping Plover Management Report (1999)

as the number one factor limiting productivity. These inconsistent

results occurred despite the same levels of management intensity.

Predator populations are unpredictable, and exacerbate the

complexity of managing for this species.

Alternative A would continue the current management strategies on

Trustom Pond Refuge. These include the seasonal beach closure to

all public use above the mean high tide line, predator control, nest

fencing, and nest monitoring. We do not expect the number of piping

plover nesting pairs to dramatically increase above the 11 pair high,

since the estimated carrying capacity of the beach (based on physical

attributes only) was determined to be 10 pairs (Hecht 1999). Our

management objective is to increase the productivity of individual

nest sites to meet the Recovery Plan goal of maintaining at least a 5-

year average of 1.5 fledged/pair.

Alternative A also would continue Refuge staff involvement in the

South Shore piping plover program in cooperation with the Friends

Group. That involvement includes providing oversight, nest

protection equipment, grant writing, and education and outreach

materials to ensure adequate protection and management of all other

South Shore piping plover breeding sites. These actions directly

benefit piping plover nesting in Rhode Island.

Part 2: Trustom Pond Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-77
Management for piping plover also benefits the State-listed threatened

least tern, which also nests on the beach at Trustom Pond Refuge.

Eighty-four pairs nested in 1999 along the overwash area adjacent to

the breachway. This is the largest colony of least tern in Rhode Island.

Only 5 to 10 chicks survived to fledging on Moonstone Beach, despite

protective fencing, lethal and non-lethal predator control, and nest

monitoring. Most of the loss was due to predation (Trustom Pond

Least Tern Report 1999). Alternative A proposes to continue fencing

and combined predator control techniques. Least tern productivity

would remain unpredictable, and will depend on predator populations

and the effectiveness of current control measures.

With regard to other species of concern, limited public access on

Trustom Pond would continue to afford resting habitat to wintering

black duck. Treating Phragmites along the pond fringes and mute

swan control also improve habitat for black duck. No other

management actions are directed specifically at benefitting black duck.

Many grassland birds and other grassland associated species would

continue to directly benefit from the ongoing restoration and

maintenance of 125 acres of early successional habitat. Those 125

acres comprise several fields of 40 acres or less. Opportunities for

upland sandpiper and grasshopper sparrow, two species experiencing

dramatic declines in the Northeast, may be limited, due to their

requirement for fields larger than 75 acres. Other grassland and

early successional bird species of concern using smaller fields,

including eastern kingbird, bobolink, and meadowlark, would benefit.

While grassland birds would benefit, according to Biologists with RI

DEM, the grasslands restoration work has adversely impacted

resident and wintering waterfowl and created conflicts with adjacent

landowners. When Refuge fields consisted of corn, waterfowl used

to flock to the area. With the conversion to grasslands, these

waterfowl have been displaced onto adjacent agricultural fields and

turf farms on the South Shore and into Connecticut, where

waterfowl nuisance complaints are on the rise. 

Paton (1999) suggests that the freshwater ponds on Trustom Pond

Refuge provide important habitat for amphibians. Large numbers of

spotted salamanders, green frogs, pickerel frogs, and red spotted

newts were identified. One of the largest populations in Rhode

Island of four-toed salamanders was found on the Refuge.

Alternative A would not directly impact any of the freshwater ponds.

Reptiles and migrating amphibians may be impacted during habitat

restoration as equipment works the fields. While some direct loss of

individuals would occur, we do not predict the population would be

impacted so that viability is jeopardized.

Continuing to acquire 358 acres within the current acquisition

boundary, as proposed in Alternative A, would also indirectly benefit

all species of concern by precluding additional development in

watershed habitat.

Chapter 4

4-78 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Alternative B (The Proposed Action)

Alternative B would enhance current management by implementing

measures to improve habitat quality for piping plover and least tern,

black duck, and other species associated with Trustom Pond. In

addition, Alternative B proposes that the Refuge hire a Rhode Island

Piping Plover Coordinator to more effectively manage and

coordinate protection at all plover sites along the South Shore.

These sites account for 75 percent of the breeding piping plover

population in Rhode Island.

Specifically, Alternative B would increase management of public use,

education and outreach at piping plover and least tern nesting sites

along the South Shore. Alternative B would also develop an

Integrated Predator Management Plan, which would comprehensively

review success of predator management strategies, promote outreach

to adjacent landowners (who may inadvertently contribute to

increased predator populations), evaluate lethal and non-lethal control

techniques, and increase monitoring for predator activity at nest sites.

Until the integrated plan has been completed, Alternative B would

continue the current trapping program to control predators near

piping plover and least tern nest sites on Refuges, in an attempt to

directly increase nest productivity at individual sites. These measures

would directly and indirectly benefit nesting piping plover and least

tern over the short and long terms.

Alternative B would maintain the current public use seasonal beach

restrictions at Moonstone Beach to protect nesting piping plover and

least tern. Those restrictions have been in place for several years,

and are generally recognized and accepted by the public. Only 20

citations were issued among the thousands of people that used this

beach during the 1999 season.

Areas adjacent to Trustom Pond would be identified as a priority for

increased invasive plant control work, especially for Phragmites.

Reducing Phragmites would directly improve habitat for wintering

black duck and other dabbling ducks who use the pond fringes and

mudflats for foraging. It would also help reduce the exotic mute

swans, which out-compete other waterfowl for food and space and

adversely affect water quality.

Alternative B proposes to convene a group of local experts and

partners to develop an integrated habitat management plan for

Trustom Pond. The purpose of that plan and potential impacts are

described above for Alternative B under the wetlands discussion.

The impacts described for grassland birds and waterfowl from the

early successional habitat restoration would be the same as those

described for Alternative A. 

Part 2: Trustom Pond Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-79
Amphibians and reptiles would indirectly benefit from early

successional habitat restoration work designed to increase biological

diversity. Indirect benefits would accrue as our integrated planning

for Trustom Pond improves its water quality. Direct benefit would

result from our proposal to identify migration corridors and

implement actions to reduce road mortality. None of the smaller

ponds or wetland habitats would be impacted, so existing habitat

conditions would be maintained in these areas. We would continue to

encourage and support research on amphibians and reptiles

conducted through the University of Rhode Island.

Native mammal populations would also benefit from habitat

restoration work and improvements to water quality. We would work

with RI DEM, the Town of South Kingstown, and adjacent

landowners to develop a deer management plan for the area including

and surrounding the Refuge. We may recommend a deer hunt in the

future, based on deer population objectives commensurate with

habitat capability, or to address threats to human health and safety.

Opening the Refuge to a new hunting opportunity would require a

separate environmental assessment with specific actions,

compatibility determination, public review and comment, and annual

hunt plan before it would be implemented. Excessive browse on

native vegetation, impacts on residential landscaping, increased

concern about Lyme bearing ticks and vehicle-deer collisions are

possible outcomes of not managing deer populations.

The aquisition of an additional 3,200 acres would indirectly benefit all

species of concern. In general, by precluding development and

managing public use, species would benefit. 

Alternative C

Alternative C would implement the same actions as Alternative B,

plus additional measures for piping plover and least tern recovery.

We would modify seasonal beach closure to increase piping plover and

least tern productivity, while also allowing for greater public access to

Moonstone Beach at the beginning and end of each nesting season.

The basic assumption with the modified seasonal restriction is that

the most critical time period in the life of a newly hatched piping

plover chick is the period between hatching and fledging. Piping

plover chicks leave the nest within hours of hatching to begin feeding

on their own, primarily in the intertidal zone. Of particular concern

are their first 12 days. Chicks that fail to double their weight by that

age are least likely to survive, and most likely to succumb to

predation (USFWS 1996).

Feeding in the intertidal zone and in the debris wrackline, chicks are

very vulnerable to human disturbance (including pets) and predation.

When chicks are disturbed, they often head towards the dunes,

where much less food is available. Chicks will not return to the

intertidal area until well after the disturbance has passed. When the

disturbance happens repeatedly, as it does on public beaches with

high use, the chicks go into energy deficit, and either starve to death

or easily succumb to predators. Since 1990, loss of piping plover

chicks at Trustom Pond Refuge has typically occurred during their

first 10 days of life.

Chapter 4

4-80 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
To afford the greatest level of protection from human disturbance,

Alternative C proposes to establish an undisturbed feeding area on

Moonstone Beach by closing the entire beach during the chick

rearing period each summer. That period runs generally from late

May until mid-July. We would close the beach to all public entry

during that time. From April 1 to late May and from mid-July to

September 15, the remainder of the piping plover nesting season, we

would place symbolic fencing approximately 10 feet above the mean

high tide line to allow for increased wildlife-dependent public use in

the intertidal zone. All other management strategies proposed in

Alternative B for piping plover and least tern would be implemented,

including increased predator management and hiring additional

personnel to increase the level of outreach and education.

We expect mixed public reaction to this modified seasonal closure.

Some local people have expressed a desire for a modified beach

closure because it would provide a larger area to access for walking

along the beach during periods of high tide early and late in the

summer. Under current management, people are restricted from

walking above the mean high tide line, which is the Refuge boundary,

during the entire nesting season (April 1 to September 15). High

tides during the summer often rise above the mean high tide line,

thus preventing people from walking along the beach. Increased

access would benefit individuals engaged in wildlife observation and

photography, both of which are priority wildlife-dependent uses.

On the other hand, many of the current beach users are not engaged

in wildlife-dependent activities. We predict a new seasonal closure

would cause confusion among the public. It took several years for

returning beach users to accept and adapt to the current closure. We

recognize that another change could potentially increase negative

public perception of piping plover management.

The modified seasonal closure would also involve slightly more work

on the part of Refuge staff, who would need to install and maintain

additional symbolic fencing between the mean high tide line and the

water. To alert visitors to the changes, increased outreach and

education would be needed during the first two seasons.

We recognize that we cannot implement this action independently.

Since the State owns the intertidal zone, a proposal to close it would

require State approval. We would work with the RI CRMC and the

RI DEM to implement Alternative C modified closure.

Overall, Alternative C would benefit piping plover and least tern at

Trustom Pond Refuge over the long term by providing undisturbed

feeding sites during the critical chick rearing period. We hope this

action would result in increased fledging rates, but we are not

certain, since other, uncontrollable factors affect chick survival.

Public support of this change would likely be mixed. This action

provides increased access for walking along the shoreline above the

mean high tide line at the beginning and end of the nesting season,

but would fully restrict public access to the water from late May to

mid-July, when chicks are hatched but not fledged.

Part 2:Trustom Pond Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-81

Plover eggs. Like most shorebirds,

piping plover lay their eggs in shallow

depressions on exposed sand The eggs

are extremely vulnerable to any

vehicles travelling on the beach.

USFWS photo
Alternative C also proposes to dramatically increase land acquisition

by adding and additional 11,550 acres to the Refuge Complex. As

stated with Alternative B, land acquisition indirectly benefits species

as habitat is precluded from development and sensitive areas would

be actively managed and restored to benefit species of concern. 

Alternative D

Alternative D would result in all the same impacts on species of

concern stated for Alternative A, except for additional protection for

piping plover and least tern populations. Alternative D would

implement the modified seasonal beach closure proposed in

Alternative C, providing direct benefits to piping plover and least

tern chicks during the most critical stage of nesting.

As described for Alternative C, this modified seasonal closure would

have mixed public results. Some individuals would appreciate the

increased access during parts of the season, while others would be

adverse to another change in management direction. We would

evaluate the extent of public opposition from responses received

during the public comment and review period following release of

this draft CCP/EA.

Summary

Alternative C best meets the intent of Goal 1, providing the greatest

protection to species of concern on Trustom Pond Refuge.

Alternative B follows with increased protection for species of

concern, but not quite to the extent of Alternative C. Alternative D

would provide increased protection to piping plover and least tern,

but not to other species of concern to the extent of Alternative B.

Alternative A maintains the status quo, providing no change to

current management. We will begin Section 7 consultation to ensure

compliance with the Endangered Species Act following release of this

draft CCP/EA.

Cultural Resources

Alternative A (Current Management)

Existing surveys of cultural resources have been limited in area and

scope. While no management actions are proposed that would

adversely impact the integrity of known sites, also no management

actions are proposed that would enhance our knowledge of cultural

resources or improve management for cultural resources on Trustom

Pond Refuge. We would survey all future, ground-disturbing

projects in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act. We expect neutral impacts on cultural resources

over the short and long terms.

Chapter 4

4-82 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Alternative B (The Proposed Action)

Alternative B proposes a cultural resources overview of the Refuge

Complex, training more Refuge staff in Archeological Resource

Protection Act enforcement, and conducting an extensive field

investigation of Trustom Pond Refuge. In addition, Alternative B

proposes to develop a partnership agreement with the Narragansett

Indian Tribal Council to encourage cooperation in interpretation,

identification, and protection of cultural resources. These actions

would directly benefit cultural resources over both the short and

long terms by increasing information available to Refuge staff,

identifying new sites, and improving protection and interpretation of

recorded sites.

As with Alternative A, we would survey all future, ground-disturbing

projects in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act.

Alternative C 

The impacts noted for Alternative B would be the same under

Alternative C, except that Alternative C would develop both a

cultural resources environmental education curriculum for use in local

schools, and a cultural resource interpretive programs on the Refuge.

These would indirectly benefit cultural resources on the Refuge by

raising public awareness, understanding, and appreciation.

Alternative D

The impacts noted for Alternative A on cultural resources would be

the same under Alternative D, except for indirect benefits from

establishing a partnership agreement with the Narragansett Indian

Tribal Council and developing environmental education and

interpretive materials.

Summary

Alternative C provides the greatest direct and indirect benefits to

cultural resources on Trustom Pond Refuge. Alternative B provides

slightly less, while Alternative D follows with no direct benefits, but

increased indirect benefit. Alternative A proposes no change to current

management. All alternatives would comply with the Archeological

Resources Protection Act, and we would survey all future grounddisturbing projects in compliance with Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act under every alternative. We will begin a

Section 106 review following the release of this draft CCP/EA.

Public Use

Alternative A (Current Management)

Although we expect a 10-percent increase in the number of visitors

across the Refuge Complex, current public use activities would not

change under Alternative A. No additional Refuge staff or funds

would be allocated for public use or visitor services. We would

evaluate public uses on newly acquired lands on a case-by-case basis

after the lands are acquired. We would continue existing priority

public uses if found to be compatible (see Appendix E).

Part 2: Trustom Pond Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-83
Staff shortages have limited our ability to address non-wildlifedependent activities. Enforcement has been inconsistent and limited.

The most problematic, recurring, non-wildlife-dependent uses at

Trustom Pond Refuge are jogging on trails, and swimming and

sunbathing on Moonstone Beach. While we closely monitor

swimming and sunbathing during the piping plover nesting season,

after September 15, up to 200 people can been seen sunbathing on the

beach during warm days in the fall. Other non-wildlife-dependent

uses on Trustom Pond Refuge trails include bicycle riding, horseback

riding, and dog walking. Alternative A would not provide additional

law enforcement or operating funds to deal with these uses.

While difficult to quantify, we predict a 10-percent increase in the

level of non-wildlife-dependent uses, corresponding with the 10-

percent increase in overall visitation on the Refuge Complex. We

expect that the limited staff and resources available to deal with nonwildlife-dependent users would result in increasingly negative

impacts on the quality of experience for priority wildlife-dependent

Refuge visitors.

Overall, Alternative A would result in very little change to the types

of activities occurring on the Refuge, and would continue limited

enforcement on non-wildlife-dependent activities, resulting in

increased user conflicts. Although difficult to quantify, we predict

diminished wildlife and habitat values over the long term as a result

of non-priority public use activities.

Alternative B (The Proposed Action)

Alternative B proposes to increase priority public use opportunities

on Trustom Pond Refuge in several ways. In addition to actions

outlined in Alternative A, Alternative B would develop a Refuge

Complex Visitor Services Plan to address program needs and

opportunities, identify target audiences, and determine how to

measure and evaluate success. Alternative B also proposes to

establish formal agreements with existing partners to address visitor

service planning and funding.

We would complete a deer management plan, which might

recommend a public hunt. We would base the objectives for a deer

hunt on the need to maintain deer populations within the habitat

carrying capacity or to reduce threats to human health and safety.

Service policy requires a separate environmental assessment,

compatibility determination, public review and comment, and annual

hunt plan before implementation.

Alternative B does not propose any changes to fishing opportunities

at Trustom Pond Refuge. This would result in a neutral impact on

the fishing public.

Chapter 4

4-84 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Alternative B proposes expanding environmental education

opportunities by developing curriculum-based programs using the

improved outdoor classroom sites at Trustom Pond Refuge. We

would develop additional educational programs featuring the

grassland restoration and salt pond ecology sites on the Refuge, and

establish a volunteer environmental education corps to help develop

and implement the program. The combination of these proposed

actions would result in a positive impact by improving the quality of

environmental education opportunities at Trustom Pond Refuge.

Alternative B would eliminate portions of redundant trail and

restrict access to designated trails. Less than half a mile of

redundant trail in the existing 3-mile trail system would be

eliminated. Some visitors may be inconvenienced by the reduction,

but the remaining trail system would continue to access the key

destination points on the Refuge. In addition, Alternative B would

benefit visitors requiring barrier-free access by developing a barrierfree trail and observation platform on Trustom Pond.

Alternative B would improve interpretive pamphlets and interpretive

displays along trails. We would construct interpretive exhibits to

describe grassland restoration, barrier beach management, and salt

pond ecology. A self-guided wildlife interpretive pamphlet, watchable

wildlife pamphlets, and species checklists would be developed to

enhance the wildlife observation experience for Refuge visitors.

Each of these actions and would greatly expand the opportunities for

environmental interpretation and would improve the quality of

visitor experience at Trustom Pond Refuge.

On newly acquired lands, we would allow priority wildlife-dependent

public use to continue on an interim basis unless they do not meet

the criteria stipulated in the Interim Compatibility Determination

(Appendix E). We would phase out as soon as possible all nonwildlife-dependent activities that may have existed before our

acquisition. This could result in a negative impact on some

individuals now using these lands for non-wildlife-dependent

activities, but the action would support Refuge goals.

Alternative B would eliminate all inappropriate and incompatible

public uses by 2005. Jogging, swimming and sunbathing, and dog

walking are the most prevalent of these activities. Additional nonwildlife-dependent uses on trails include bicycle riding and horseback

riding. None of these activities support a priority public use, nor are

they needed to meet Refuge goals, nor do they contribute to the

purpose for which the Refuge was established. Further, these

activities diminish the quality of experience for visitors engaged in

priority public uses.

Eliminating swimming and sunbathing would be the biggest

challenge to increased compliance against non-wildlife-dependent

activities, and would be ineffective until adequate resources are

available. Beginning in 2001, we would dedicate increased staff time

to beginning an outreach and education program. While most of the

thousands of summer sunbathers are technically on State or Town of

South Kingstown lands, up to 200 people can be found after

September 15 on Refuge land at Moonstone Beach on sunny

weekends. Public outcry and the difficulty of enforcing this proposal

to close the Refuge to sunbathing should not be underestimated.

Part 2: Trustom Pond Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-85
An education and outreach campaign to eliminate dog walking would

also begin in 2001. Dog walking, as observed on Trustom Pond

Refuge, can be very disturbing to wildlife. Dog walkers on the

Refuge often let their dogs run free, and Refuge volunteers

frequently observe dogs chasing wildlife on the Refuge. In addition,

many Refuge visitors do not like to be confronted by dogs, or their

feces, while observing wildlife on Refuge trails. Dog feces carry

pathogens that can introduce diseases to Refuge wildlife; they can

also detract from a pleasant, wildlife-oriented experience.

The presence of joggers and bicyclists on trails compromises safety,

especially for people using wheelchairs or walking aids. Trail width

and visibility can often make group passage unsafe. These activities

can diminish the quality of experience for visitors engaged in wildlife

observation and photography, since wildlife are more likely to flee

from these activities than from walking. While bicyclists and joggers

would lose opportunities, we predict this action would improve the

quality of experience for Refuge visitors engaged in priority, wildlifedependent public uses.

Overall, Alternative B would eliminate all non-wildlife-dependent

uses, but would maintain or increase opportunities for several

priority public uses. Waterfowl hunting would continue on the 20-

acre upland site; wildlife observation and photography opportunities

would improve for visitors with barrier-free needs; and,

environmental education and interpretation would dramatically

increase. Fishing would remain the same. The proposals in

Alternative B would directly benefit visitors engaged in priority

wildlife-dependent activities.

Alternative C

Alternative C proposes to reduce the overall level of public use on

Trustom Pond Refuge in order to minimize disturbance to wildlife

and habitat. While Alternative C proposes to reduce many wildlifedependent and non-wildlife-dependent uses, it emphasizes

interpretation and educational opportunities to make Refuge visitors

better stewards of wildlife and habitat.

Alternative C would eliminate public hunting. We would restore the

20-acre upland field that is now used for waterfowl hunting to native

coastal sandplain grasslands, to complement adjacent restored

grasslands. In the past, this area accommodated up to 14 hunters.

The hunting public would be adversely affected, since areas open to

hunting in Rhode Island continue to decline. Alternative C would not

change current fishing opportunities, resulting in a neutral impact on

the fishing public.

We would enhance environmental education opportunities at Trustom

Pond Refuge, similar to Alternative B, by developing a curriculumbased education program using improved outdoor classroom sites.

Alternative C would also develop a volunteer environmental

education corps to implement the programs. These actions would

result in a positive impact on environmental education opportunities

at Trustom Pond Refuge.

Chapter 4

4-86 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Alternative C would restrict environmental interpretation, wildlife

observation, and photography to designated trails in order to reduce

disturbance to wildlife on Trustom Pond. We would construct

interpretive signs along the trails, describing grassland restoration,

barrier beach management, and salt pond ecology. The goal of these

programs would be to improve the stewardship of wildlife and

habitats in coastal Rhode Island.

Alternative C proposes the most aggressive schedule to eliminate all

inappropriate and non-wildlife-dependent uses by 2002, as described

above in Alternative B on Trustom Pond Refuge. Increased Service

visibility and enforcement would ensure compliance. There is no

doubt that this proposal would result in a high level of public concern

about restrictions on popular activities.

On newly acquired lands, we would allow priority wildlife-dependent

public use to continue on an interim basis unless the activities do not

meet the criteria stipulated in the Interim Compatibility

Determination (Appendix E). We would phase out as soon as

possible all non-wildlife-dependent activities that may have existed

before our acquisition.

Overall, Alternative C would reduce public use more than the other

alternatives on Trustom Pond Refuge, thus generating the most

public concern. We do not know the extent of public concern at this

time, but we would evaluate it during the comment period following

release of this draft CCP/EA.

Alternative D

With the exception of fishing, Alternative D proposes to increase

priority, wildlife-dependent public use opportunities within our legal

framework and the compatibility mandates of the National Wildlife

Refuge System on Trustom Pond Refuge.

Fishing opportunities at Trustom Pond Refuge would not change

from current management. We would continue to allow surf fishing

outside the plover nesting season on Moonstone Beach. Trustom

Pond would remain closed to fishing. With maintaining the status

quo, we predict a neutral impact on fishing opportunities.

RI DEM would administer a public deer hunt on Trustom Pond

Refuge under special regulations established by the Refuge (Refuge

Regulations 50 CFR 32). We would also evaluate the potential for

small game hunting at Trustom Pond Refuge. These actions would

substantially increase hunting opportunities, since only the 20-acre

waterfowl hunt now exists on the Refuge. Increasing residential

development on the South Shore has resulted in fewer areas

available for hunting. RI DEM and hunting and sporting clubs

encourage new opportunities.

As natural habitats diminish, deer use on the Refuge will increase,

and active management of deer populations will become even more

important. Opening Trustom Pond Refuge to deer hunting would

help keep deer within the habitat carrying capacity, and help reduce

damage to native vegetation or residential landscaping. Reducing

the deer herd would also help reduce vehicle-deer collisions and the

public health concern about deer ticks carrying Lyme disease.

Part 2: Trustom Pond Refuge

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-87
An established, annual hunting program would provide direct

benefits to the local economy. As described in our publication,

“National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated

Recreation” (1996), hunters in Rhode Island invest an average of

$75/trip directly into the local economy for food, lodging,

transportation, licenses and equipment.

However, other Refuge visitors would likely be impacted. We predict

that other priority public use activities would be restricted during

hunting season to address safety concerns and avoid user conflicts.

Archery only areas would reduce the perceived threat by the general

public that hunting is a risk to human health and safety. During

public involvement for this planning process, some individuals

expressed their opposition to any form of hunting on the Refuge. We

do not know the extent of public opposition.

Service policy requires preparation of a separate environmental

assessment with specific actions and locations, a compatibility

determination, public review and comment, and an annual hunt plan

before implementing a new hunt. That separate assessment would

help identify public concern, and would further evaluate potential

impacts on other Refuge visitors. Under Alternative D, we would

begin the environmental assessment in 2001.

Opportunities for environmental education, environmental

interpretation, and wildlife observation and photography would be

the same as proposed in Alternative B. These actions would greatly

enhance the quality and quantity of public use opportunities,

resulting in positive impacts to Refuge visitors.

Like Alternative B, Alternative D proposes to eliminate non-wildlifedependent uses by 2005. The consequences of this action are similar to

Alternative B; they would adversely impact some users, but would

directly increase the quality of experience for wildlife-dependent users.

On newly acquired lands, we would allow priority wildlife-dependent

public use to continue on an interim basis unless the activities do not

meet the criteria stipulated in the Interim Compatibility

Determination (Appendix E). We would phase out as soon as

possible all non-wildlife-dependent activities that may have existed

before our acquisition.

Summary

Alternative D would provide the greatest positive impact on priority

public uses because of the increases in all program areas. However,

this emphasis would result in a greater potential disturbance to

wildlife and habitats. The extent of this risk is not known, but

monitoring and evaluation would be an important part of

implementation. Alternative B would increase opportunities for

priority public use, but would continue to implement wildlife and

habitat projects as higher priorities. Alternative C would provide

the least benefit to public use, focusing almost exclusively on wildlife

and habitat projects. Alternative A would not change current public

use opportunities or wildlife and habitat values. Alternative B

provides the best balance in meeting Goals 1 and 4 by increasing

opportunities at minimal risk to wildlife and habitat values. 

Chapter 4

4-88 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts are those impacts on the physical, biological, and

human environment resulting from the incremental impact of the

proposed actions when added to other past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts can result from

individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place

over a period of time.

This cumulative impacts assessment includes other agencies’ or

organizations’ actions if they are inter-related and influence the same

environment. Thus, this analysis considers the interaction of

activities at the Refuge Complex with other actions occurring over a

larger spatial and temporal frame of reference. Potential cumulative

impacts for the proposed alternatives are described below.

Air Quality

None of the proposed alternatives are expected to have significant

cumulative adverse impacts on air quality in southern Rhode Island.

Some short-term deterioration in air quality would be expected from

management-ignited prescribed burns and from Refuge visitors’

automobile emissions. However, management-ignited prescribed fire

would only occur under the stipulations of the Fire EA (1995)

completed by the Refuge. These stipulations are specifically

designed to minimize air quality impacts. Further, while visitors

would primarily access the Refuges by automobile, most would drive

less than 20 miles.

These Refuge-related activities are relatively insignificant to overall

air quality in Rhode Island, minimally compounding the

contributions of the industrial centers and automobiles in the greater

Providence metropolitan area. Further, we predict no impacts on

Class 1 air sheds, since none occur in the area. The closest Class I

air sheds are in northern Maine (Moosehorn Wilderness Area) and

southern New Jersey (Brigantine Wilderness).

Soils, Hydrology, Wetlands, and Water Quality

The greatest past, present, and foreseeable future adverse impact on

these resources in southern Rhode Island is from increasing

residential development. As development along the Rhode Island

coast continues, the threats to Refuge resources, coastal salt ponds,

and barrier beach habitats will increase dramatically. In particular,

deteriorating water quality in coastal Rhode Island has become a

priority issue for State agencies and local communities. A

cooperative, watershed-level approach to protecting and managing

these resources offers the greatest opportunity to cumulatively

improve conditions.

The Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) has published

Special Area Management Plans (SAMP 1982, 1998) for managing

and protecting the Salt Pond Region and Narrow River watersheds.

These plans recommend establishing interagency Watershed

Working Groups to address and manage water quality issues.

Alternatives B and C, in particular, promote active Service

involvement in watershed-level protection.

Cumulative Impacts

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-89
We can also contribute to improved watershed conditions in three

ways: Refuge acquisition of uplands and wetlands threatened

with development, cooperative land protection of important

habitat, and technical information exchange with landowners

throughout these watersheds.

All alternatives propose to increase Service land acquisition.

Alternative C proposes the most ambitious land acquisition strategy,

with a proposal to acquire from willing sellers 11,550 acres

throughout southern Rhode Island and Block Island. In particular,

we have been active in acquiring lands adjacent to existing Refuges,

which would remain a priority for acquisition.

We work with other conservation partners to cooperatively develop

protection strategies for ecologically significant lands. The Nature

Conservancy, six local land trusts, and RI DEM all actively facilitate

land protection and cooperative land management near Refuges.

Local town governments are active as well. A partnership among

the towns of North Kingstown, South Kingstown, and Narragansett

has established the Narrow River Watershed Advisory Council and

the Narrow River Land Trust. These groups work together to help

protect the water quality, associated wildlife, and habitats in the

Narrow River watershed. The Aquidneck Island Land Trust is

actively working with the Town of Middletown and other

conservation partners to identify and implement a land protection

strategy in the watershed (which includes Sachuest Point Refuge).

Further, the towns of Charlestown, South Kingstown and

Narragansett are supporting conservation by adopting CRMC’s

recommendation of a 2-acre minimum lot size in the coastal zone to

reduce nutrient loading. This would benefit the watersheds

associated with Ninigret, Chafee, and Trustom Pond Refuges. Also,

each of these towns has very active land trusts.

On Block Island, the cumulative benefits of cooperative land protection

are particularly noteworthy. The Town of New Shoreham, the Block

Island Land Trust, the Block Island Conservancy, the Audubon

Society of Rhode Island, The Nature Conservancy, and the Service

work together to prioritize and implement land protection strategies.

This coalition, with support of the local citizenry, has successfully

protected approximately 30 percent of the island from development.

Each of the alternatives proposes various levels of participation in

ongoing, watershed-based partnerships. One of their objectives is to

share technical information on things like restoration and habitat

management techniques. When combined with actions by other

Federal, State, and local organizations working in southern Rhode

Island and Block Island, we expect all of the alternatives to have a

positive cumulative effect on soils, hydrology, wetlands, and water

quality within their respective watersheds.

Chapter 4

4-90 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Biological Resources

All alternatives are intended to maintain or improve biological

resources on the Refuge, in Rhode Island, and within the

Connecticut River/Long Island Sound Ecosystem. The combination

of Refuge actions with other organizations’ actions could result in

significant, beneficial cumulative effects by: (1) increasing protection

and management for threatened and endangered species; (2)

improving grasslands and wetlands habitats that are regionally

declining; and (3) reducing invasive, exotic plants and animals.

The Refuge Complex staff, in conjunction with volunteers and the

Friends group, now manages 70 percent of active piping plover nesting

sites in Rhode Island. The alternatives propose varying levels of

increased protection and management for the Rhode Island breeding

population. Despite the fact that the Rhode Island population is a

small proportion (6 percent at 41 pairs) of the New England Atlantic

piping plover population, any loss or degradation of these nesting

areas would have an adverse cumulative effect on the overall Atlantic

coast population. Loss of habitat in Rhode Island would further

isolate the two nesting concentration areas: the Massachusetts

population, which has the highest number of nesting pairs (508 pairs),

from the New York population (243 pairs). Further, it is significant

that in 1999, the Rhode Island piping plover productivity level (chicks

fledged/pair) was 1.7, second only to Massachusetts (at 2.67 chicks

fledged/pair) in success along the Atlantic coast.

All alternatives propose to restore and maintain more than 450 acres

of grassland or early successional shrub and grassland habitats.

Alternatives B and C also propose to establish educational and

outreach programs to promote grassland restoration throughout

southern Rhode Island. Given the small percentage of grassland in

the area, we expect these actions to significantly increase early

successional shrub and grassland habitats with minimal impacts on

other vegetation and wildlife. A primary objective of this

management is to increase habitat for nesting grassland bird species.

Invasive plants are a problem throughout the Connecticut

River/Long Island Sound Ecosystem. Combined with other groups,

including other refuges and Ecological Services Field Offices, the

invasive plant control actions proposed in each alternative would

result in a cumulative impact that decreases their abundance.

Alternatives B and C would contribute the greatest cumulative

impact through more aggressive, direct control and public outreach

and education.

Cultural Resources

We expect none of the alternatives to have significant adverse

cumulative impact on cultural resources in Rhode Island. Beneficial

impacts would occur at various levels, depending on the alternative,

because of proposed environmental education and interpretation

programs on all Refuges, increased field surveys, and development

of a formal partnership with the Narragansett Indian Tribe.

Cumulative Impacts

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-91
Human Resources

We expect none of the alternatives to have a significant adverse

cumulative impact on the economy of southern Rhode Island.

Although Federal land acquisition reduces property tax revenue,

affected towns are compensated with refuge revenue sharing

payments, and also should realize a reduction in cost of community

services. In addition, the proposed acquisitions make up only a small

portion of any town. We expect increased visitation to the Refuge to

bring revenue to local communities through increased tourism to the

South County area, but we do not predict a significant increase in

overall revenue in any area.

The land protection strategy in Alternatives B and C would facilitate

the South Kingstown Land Trust’s plan to develop a greenway

corridor and establish a hiking trail between the Great Swamp

Management Area and Trustom Pond Refuge.

The State and towns all offer non-wildlife-dependent public uses on

their lands; thus, we do not expect the proposed alternatives to

cumulatively affect non-wildlife-dependent public uses in Rhode

Island. The exception is dog walking at Sachuest Point. Middletown

now restricts dog walking from all public areas. The proposed

elimination of dog walking would further reduce options for people

seeking this activity, restricting them more to private lands or roads.

The proposed alternatives would cumulatively increase priority,

wildlife-dependent recreation in southern Rhode Island. This would

supplement recreational opportunities offered by other State and

private organizations. However, the Refuges would provide an

experience unique from other parks and open spaces, because they

provide natural settings with unmatched wildlife observation

experiences.

Aesthetics

As the Rhode Island coastal communities continue to expand,

development pressure and recreational demands on the coastal

ecosystem increase. State and town parks and beaches already

receive most of the recreational use. Converting open space to

residential housing threatens the capacity of the existing State and

town lands to provide outdoor recreation. The Refuges provide

additional open space perpetually maintained as natural habitat, and

provide an alternative destination for those looking to escape the

everyday bustle. In this way, they become refuges not only for

wildlife, but for humans as well.

Chapter 4

4-92 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Relationship Between Short-term Uses of the Human

Environment and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity

This section evaluates the relationship between local, short-term

uses of the human environment and maintaining long-term

productivity of the environment. By long-term we mean that the

impact would extend beyond the 15-year planning horizon of this

draft CCP/EA. Short-term means less than 15 years.

All of the alternatives are clearly aimed at enhancing the long-term

productivity and sustainability of natural resources on the Refuges.

To varying degrees, the alternatives propose actions that promote

watershed- or ecosystem-wide partnerships, planning, and land

protection. Outreach and environmental education are a priority in

each alternative to encourage Refuge visitors to be better stewards

of our environment.

All alternatives propose eliminating existing non-wildlife-dependent

uses determined to be incompatible (Appendix E) in order to reduce

impacts on wildlife and habitats. Alternative C proposes the most

aggressive time frame for eliminating these uses. It would enhance

long-term productivity on the Refuge Complex, with a corresponding

tradeoff of non-wildlife-dependent public use. Alternative A would

provide the least support for maintaining long-term productivity

since it does not provide staffing or funding to enforce restrictions on

incompatible public uses.

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

None of the alternatives would result in an unavoidable adverse

environmental impact. We will undertake biological monitoring as

part of all Alternatives, to enable Refuge staff to adapt management

actions and address any unforeseen situations.

Potential Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitments of Resources

Irreversible commitments of resources are those which cannot be

reversed, except perhaps in the extreme long term or under

unpredictable circumstances. An example of an irreversible

commitment is an action which contributes to a species’ extinction.

Once extinct, it can never be replaced.

In comparison, irretrievable commitments of resources are those

which can be reversed, given sufficient time and resources. An

example of an irretrievable commitment is the conversion of shrub

land to grassland. If for some reason conversion were to terminate,

the grassland would gradually revert to shrub land.

Only a few actions proposed in the alternatives would result in an

irreversible commitment of resources. One is committing land to the

construction of the new Refuge Complex Headquarters/Visitor

Center. All alternatives propose this action. A separate

environmental assessment will evaluate the site-specific impacts of

constructing this facility.

Chapter 4

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-93
Refuge land acquisition results in another irreversible commitment

of resources impacting affected communities. Land acquisition is

considered an irreversible commitment because it is exceptionally

rare that Refuge lands revert to any other ownership. In the

relatively small communities in Rhode Island, when we acquire land

it affects land-use patterns, local businesses, and municipal tax

revenues. Refuge land acquisition removes acreage from private

ownership and town property tax rolls, impacting local property tax

revenue and associated secondary revenue that would result from

development. However, Refuge lands provide long-term public

benefits by creating public use areas, protecting open space,

watersheds, and view sheds, decreasing the cost of community

services, and increasing the value of homes adjacent to Refuge lands.

Several proposed actions would result in an irretrievable

commitment of resources. The grassland habitat restoration is one

example. Species assemblages may shift as a result of the habitat

work; grassland-associated species may be recruited into the area,

while edge- and shrub-using species may move elsewhere. Other

actions proposed to manage wildlife populations, including hunting

and predator control, would affect local populations of these species;

however, they are designed to enhance habitat quality for species of

concern or other native species. All alternatives propose invasive

plant control to promote a shift back to natural vegetative

communities. None of these actions would adversely impact the

viability of any species or plant communities on the Refuge, in Rhode

Island, or in the Connecticut River/Long Island Sound Ecosystem.

Proposed wildlife and habitat management actions would result in an

irretrievable loss of public use. All Alternatives except Alternative A

(Current Management) would eliminate non-wildlife-dependent

public uses. Management of piping plover, migrating shorebirds,

nesting colonial wading birds, and rare plant sites would restrict

public access to certain parts of the Refuges either seasonally or

permanently. Management of black duck and harlequin duck would

also result in some irretrievable loss of hunting opportunities.

However, each of the actions mentioned are designed to protect

natural resources over the long term and fulfill the Mission of the

National Wildlife Refuge System and the purposes for which the

Refuges were established.

Chapter 4

4-94 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Alternative B,

Proposed Alternative

Alternative C Alternative D

Chapter 4

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-95

Table 4-1. A summary of the environmental consequences for the Refuge Complex.

Alternative A, 

Current Management

Air Quality

Socio-economic

Factors

Cultural Resources

Prescribed fire: potential

short-term pollution from

burning up to 670 acres

per year

Vehicle emissions:

projected increase of

70,000 visitors

Greater indirect benefits

from protecting up to

3,200 additional acres of

open space and vegetated

areas

Loss of annual property

tax revenue from

acquisition of up to 3,200

acres

$338,000/year increase in

Refuge Revenue Sharing

Payments

$1.4 million/year increase

in local, visitation-related

spending 

Positive impacts from

Cultural Resources

Overview, partnerships,

training, and protection of

known sites

Prescribed fire: potential

short-term pollution from

burning up to 370 acres

per year

Vehicle emissions:

projected increase of

35,000 visitors

Indirect benefits from

maintaining existing

Refuge habitats and

protecting up to 735

additional acres of open

space and vegetated areas,

which act as pollution filters

Loss of annual property

tax revenue from

acquisition of up to 735

acres

$69,000/year increase in

Refuge Revenue Sharing

Payments

$70,000/year increase in

local, visitation-related

spending 

Neutral impacts (ground

disturbing project areas

are surveyed in

compliance with the

National Historic

Preservation Act)

Prescribed fire: potential

short-term pollution from

burning up to 670 acres

per year

Vehicle emissions:

projected increase of

52,000 visitors

Greater indirect benefits

from protecting up to

11,500 additional acres of

open space and vegetated

areas

Loss of annual property

tax revenue from

acquisition of up to 11,500

acres

$1.1 million/year increase

in Refuge Revenue

Sharing Payments

$1.0 million/year increase

in local, visitation-related

spending 

In addition to benefits in

Alternative B, increased

field surveys in high

probability areas would

improve available

information

Prescribed fire: negligible

impacts from burning less

than 3 acres/year

Vehicle emissions:

projected increase of

87,500 visitors

Indirect benefits from

maintaining existing

Refuge habitats and

protecting up to 735

additional acres of open

space and vegetated areas

Loss of annual property

tax revenue from

acquisition of up to 735

acres

$69,000/year increase in

Refuge Revenue Sharing

Payments

$1.7 million/year increase

in local, visitation-related

spending

Same as Alternative A

Refuge Complex
Alternative A, 

Current Management

Alternative B,

Proposed Alternative

Alternative C

Chapter 4

Alternative D

4-96 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Table 4-1. A summary of the environmental consequences of the alternatives (continued).

Physical Resources

Soils, Hydrology,

and Wetlands

Biological Resources

Vegetation

Federally listed

threatened and

endangered species

Other species of

management concern

Public Use

Priority public uses

Other uses

Positive impact from

protecting up to 100

additional acres

Seasonal restriction would

reduce negative ORV

impacts to dune vegetation 

Indirect benefits from

increased vegetation

monitoring

Piping plover: increased

protection through

seasonal ORV restriction.

Increased monitoring of

plovers and public use in

suitable Refuge habitat 

American burying beetle

and bald eagle: indirect

benefits from increased

monitoring and

involvement in recovery

efforts on the Island

Direct benefits to heron

rookery from development

of a site plan

Increased indirect benefits

to landbirds, reptiles, and

amphibians from

inventories and monitoring

Deer populations would be

managed in partnership

with adjacent landowners,

RI DEM, and Town of

New Shoreham

Increased opportunities for

environmental education

and interpretation

Seasonal ORV restriction

would decrease access for

surf fishing

Seasonal staff will increase

Service presence, and

ensure consistent

enforcement and outreach

to control incompatible

activities

No impacts

No vegetation

management

Piping plover: suitable

habitat protected

according to 1994 Service

guidelines

No management

No impacts to fishing,

wildlife observation and

photography opportunities;

they would continue,

unsupported by the Refuge.

No ADA-compliant

infrastructure is in place

Negative impacts –

minimal enforcement to

control incompatible

activities

Positive impact from

protecting up to 150

additional acres

Year-round restriction

would eliminate ORV

impacts to dune vegetation 

Indirect benefits from

increased vegetation

monitoring

Piping plover: increased

protection through yearround ORV restriction.

Increased monitoring of

plovers and public use in

suitable Refuge habitat

Indirect benefits from

initiating a Piping Plover

Working Group for Rhode

Island

American burying beetle

and bald eagle: indirect

benefits from increased

monitoring and

involvement in recovery

efforts on the Island

Same as Alternative B 

Increased opportunities for

environmental education

and interpretation

Year-round ORV restriction

would further reduce

access for surf fishing

Same as Alternative B,

except incompatible uses

would be eliminated sooner

No impacts

No vegetation

management

Same as Alternative A

Same as Alternative A

Increased opportunities for

environmental education,

interpretation, and hunting

Same as Alternative B

Block Island Refuge
Alternative A, 

Current Management

Alternative B,

Proposed Alternative

Alternative C Alternative D

Chapter 4

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-97

Table 4-1. A summary of the environmental consequences of the alternatives (continued).

Physical Resources

Soils, Hydrology,

and Wetlands

Biological Resources

Vegetation

Federally listed

threatened and

endangered species

Other species of

management concern

Public Use

Priority public uses

Other uses

Wetlands: in addition to

positive impacts from 70

acre runway project, an

additional 70 acres of

wetlands would be restored

Indirect, positive impacts

from protecting up to 500

additional acres in

watershed

Same as Alternative A,

with additional benefits

from up to 25 acres/year

invasive plant control

Positive impacts to rare

plant sites from

development of site

management plans

Piping plover: in addition

to Alternative A, increased

benefits from predator

control

In addition to Alternative A:

Increased indirect benefits

to landbirds, retiles, and

amphibians from

inventories and monitoring

Deer populations would be

managed in partnership

with adjacent landowners,

RI DEM, and Town of

Charlestown

Increased opportunities for

all priority public uses,

including a limited-access

waterfowl hunt

Commercial shellfishing will

be negatively impacted by

special use permit system

Increased Service presence

would ensure consistent

enforcement and outreach

to control incompatible

activities

Wetlands: positive impacts

from runway removal on

70 acres (increased

percolation, more natural

hydrologic flow, reduced

freshwater input to

Ninigret Pond)

Negligible impacts to soils

and hydrology from

prescribed fire and

mechanical treatments

Positive impacts from

converting 70 acres of

runway to early

successional, native

vegetation

Treatment of 150 acres of

mid-late seral shrub to

early successional habitat

would create additional

habitat diversity

Piping plover: suitable

habitat protected

according to 1994 Service

guidelines, with additional

year-round restriction on

ORV travel above mean

high tide line

Positive impacts to early

successional (e.g.

grassland) dependent

species with runway

removal and 150 acre early

successional treatment

Negative impact to

mature-shrub dependent

species in the 150 acre

treatment area

No impact to existing

opportunities for wildlife

observation, photography,

fishing, or environmental

education and

interpretation 

Recent trail construction

is ADA compliant

Negative impact – limited

enforcement to control

incompatible activities

Wetlands: impacts similar

to Alternative B; up to

3,100 additional acres

would be protected in the

watershed

Same as Alternative B

Same as Alternative B

Same as Alternative B

Increased opportunities in

environmental education,

emphasizing teacher

training

Commercial shellfishing

will be impacted by special

use permit system

Same as Alternative B,

except that incompatible

uses would be eliminated

sooner

Same as Alternative A

Same as Alternative A,

except that our ability to

sustain restored areas and

control invasive plants

would be hindered without

use of prescribed fire or

herbicides

Same as Alternative A

Same as Alternative A,

plus a Refuge deer hunt to

actively manage

populations

Same as Alternative B,

with the addition of a deer

hunt

Same as Alternative B

Ninigret Refuge
Alternative A, 

Current Management

Alternative B,

Proposed Alternative

Alternative C

Chapter 4

Alternative D

4-98 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Table 4-1. A summary of the environmental consequences of the alternatives (continued).

Physical Resources

Soils, Hydrology,

and Wetland

Biological Resources

Vegetation

Federally listed

threatened and

endangered species

Other species of

management concern

Public Use

Priority public uses

Other uses

Indirect positive impact

from protecting up to 1,000

additional undeveloped

acres in the watershed

Positive impact to native

vegetation from up to 25

acres/year invasive plant

control

None documented on the

Refuge

Positive impact to

waterfowl from

development of cooperative

waterfowl plan

Indirect benefits to

landbirds, reptiles, and

amphibians from increased

baseline inventories and

monitoring

Deer populations would be

managed in partnership

with adjacent landowners,

RI DEM, and the Towns

of South Kingstown and

Narragansett

Positive impact – increased

opportunities for

environmental education

and interpretation, wildlife

observation, and

photography through

better access, including

ADA compliant

infrastructure

Boundary posting and staff

monitoring would ensure

consistent enforcement and

outreach to control

incompatible activities

Indirect positive impact

from protecting up to 375

additional undeveloped

acres in the watershed

No vegetation

management

None documented on the

Refuge

No management

Current levels of fishing

would continue,

unsupported by the

Refuge

No infrastructure exists to

support public use

Negative impact – limited

enforcement to control

incompatible activities

Indirect positive impact

from protecting up to 3,000

additional undeveloped

acres in this watershed

Same as Alternative B

None documented on the

Refuge

Same as Alternative B

Increased opportunities in

environmental education,

emphasizing teacher

training

Negative impact to fishing

opportunities, which

would be limited to control

shoreline erosion

Same as Alternative B,

except that incompatible

uses would be eliminated

sooner

Same as Alternative A

Same as Alternative A

None documented on the

Refuge

Same as Alternative A,

plus a Refuge deer hunt to

actively manage

populations

Same as Alternative B,

with the addition of deer

and pheasant hunts

Same as Alternative B

Chafee Refuge
Physical Resources

Soils, Hydrology,

and Wetland

Biological Resources

Vegetation

Federally listed 

T & E species

Other species of

management concern

Public Use

Priority public uses

Other uses

Alternative A, 

Current Management

Alternative B,

Proposed Alternative

Alternative C Alternative D

Chapter 4

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-99

Table 4-1. A summary of the environmental consequences of the alternatives (continued).

Increased benefit through 25

acre saltmarsh restoration

project in addition to 15 acre

wetland restoration project

Positive impact from

controlling shoreline access

to minimizing erosion

Negligible impacts to soils

from mechanical and

prescribed fire treatments in

82 acre upland restoration

area

Indirect benefits from

protecting up to 300

additional acres in the

watershed

In addition to Alternative A:

Increased benefit with

expansion of restoration

project to include 82 acres

Indirect positive benefit

from protecting up to 300

additional acres in the

watershed

None documented on the

Refuge

Positive impact to early

successional-dependent

species in 82 acre project area

Corresponding negative

impact to dependent on

mature shrub habitat

Indirect benefits to

landbirds, reptiles, and

amphibians from monitoring

and inventories

Positive impacts to public use

opportunities – increased

funding and staffing, and

ADA compliant trails

We would pursue a regulation

from RI DEM to close the

intertidal zone to hunting,

negatively impacting this use

Permanent staff stationed at

the Refuge would provide

consistent enforcement and

outreach to control

incompatible uses

Positive impact from 15

acre wetland restoration

project (re-establishing

freshwater flow and

reducing Phragmites)

Negligible impacts to

soils from mechanical

and prescribed fire

treatments in 42 acre

upland restoration area

Positive impact from

restoring early

successional habitat and

controlling invasive

plants on 42 acres, which

will increase native

habitat diversity

None documented on

the Refuge

Positive impact to early

successional-dependent

species in 42 acre

project area

Corresponding negative

impact to dependent on

mature shrub habitat

Environmental

education and

interpretation

opportunities would

improve with renovation

of the Sachuest Point

Visitor Center

No ADA compliant

public use infrastructure

exists, outside of the

Visitor Center

Negative impact –

limited enforcement to

control incompatible

activities

In addition to 

Alternative B, up to 1,500

additional acres would be

protected in the

watershed

Same as Alternative B

None documented on the

Refuge

Same as Alternative B

Increased opportunities for

environ. education, with

teacher-training emphasis

Restriction on night

fishing would negatively

impact fishing

opportunities 

Wildlife observation and

photography would be

minimally impacted by

closure of 3/4 mile of trail

Same as Alternative B,

except that incompatible

uses would be eliminated

sooner

Same as Alternative A

Same as Alternative A,

except that our ability to

sustain restored areas

and control invasive

plants would be

hindered without use of

prescribed fire or

herbicides

None documented on

the Refuge

Same as Alternative A

Same as Alternative B,

except that shoreline

hunting closure would

not be pursued

Same as Alternative B

Sachuest Point

Refuge
Alternative A, 

Current Management

Alternative B,

Proposed Alternative

Alternative C

Chapter 4

Alternative D

4-100 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Table 4-1. A summary of the environmental consequences of the alternatives (continued).

Trustom Pond

Refuge

Physical Resources

Soils, Hydrology,

and Wetland

Biological Resources

Vegetation

Federally listed

threatened and

endangered species

Same as Alternative A,

plus indirect benefits from

development of an

Integrated Resource Plan

for Trustom Pond

Indirect benefits from

protecting up to 1,300

additional acres in the

watershed

In addition to Alternative

A, benefits from up to 25

acres/year of invasive

plant control

Indirect benefits to rare

plant sites from

development of site

management plans

Piping plover: Same as

Alternative A, with

additional benefits from

increased predator control

and outreach

Benefits throughout the

South Shore from funding

a Rhode Island Piping

Plover Coordinator

Negligible impacts to soils

from mechanical and

prescribed fire treatments

on 136 acre project area

Positive impacts to aquatic

resources from breaching

Trustom Pond (once each

spring) and Cards Pond

(at adjacent landowners’

request)

Indirect, positive impact

from protecting up to 358

acres in watershed

Negligible positive impact

from limited invasive plant

control work completed

each year

Positive impact from

restoring early successional

habitat and controlling

invasive plants on 136

acres, which will increase

native habitat diversity

Corresponding negative

impact to existing mid-late

seral shrub habitat in

restoration area

Piping plover: current

management on

Moonstone Beach would

continue to exceed 1994

Service guidelines

Piping plover nesting

areas in the South Shore

would continue to benefit

from Refuge resource

support and coordination,

to the extent funding has

allowed each year

In addition to 

Alternative B, up to 3,800

additional acres would be

protected in the watershed

In addition to Alternative

B, additional benefit from

converting 20 acres of nonnative grasses to early

successional native habitat

Piping plover: Same as

Alternative B, with

additional benefits from

modified closure on

Moonstone Beach (chicks

should be better protected

during most critical

nesting stage)

Same as Alternative B

Same as Alternative A,

except that our ability to

sustain restored areas and

control invasive plants

would be hindered without

use of prescribed fire or

herbicides

Positive impact from

modified closure on

Moonstone Beach; larger

negative impact from

dropping Refuge support

for the South Shore

Piping Plover Program
Alternative A, 

Current Management

Alternative B,

Proposed Alternative

Alternative C Alternative D

Chapter 4

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 4-101

Table 4-1. A summary of the environmental consequences of the alternatives (continued).

Trustom Pond

Refuge

Biological Resources

Other species of

management concern

Public Use

Priority public uses

Other uses

In addition to 

Alternative A:

Indirect benefits to species

of management concern

through development of

Integrated Resource Plan

for Trustom Pond

Benefits to black duck and

other waterfowl from

increased swan control

Indirect benefits to

landbirds, amphibians, and

reptiles from inventories

and monitoring

Deer populations would be

managed in partnership

with adjacent landowners,

RI DEM, and Town of

South Kingstown

Same as Alternative A,

with expanded

environmental education

and interpretive

opportunities

Decreased access through

elimination of 1/2 mile of

redundant trail;

opportunities for ADA

compliant construction of

certain trails

Increased Service

presence would ensure

consistent enforcement

and outreach to control

incompatible uses

Increased opportunities

for research

Positive impacts to early

successional-dependent

species with 136 acre

project area

Limited benefits to those

species requiring >100

acres contiguous habitat

Mature shrub-dependent

species would be

negatively impacted by the

project

Least tern would benefit

from nest area fencing and

predator control

Black duck and other

waterfowl benefit from

limited public access to

Trustom Pond and

continued addling of mute

swan eggs 

No impacts to existing

opportunities for wildlife

observation and

photography, seasonally

restricted surf fishing,

environmental education

and interpretation, and

hunting on 20 acres of

upland field

Visitors would continue to

benefit from the Visitor

Contact Station

No ADA compliant public

use infrastructure exists

Negative impact – limited

enforcement to control

incompatible activities

Same as Alternative B

Increased environmental

education opportunities,

emphasizing teacher

training

Negative impact to

hunters from closure of 20

acre upland hunting

opportunity

We would expect mixed

reactions to the modified

closure on Moonstone

Beach

Same as Alternative B,

except that incompatible

uses would be eliminated

sooner

Same as Alternative A

Increased opportunities

for all priority uses except

fishing, which would

remain the same

A deer hunt would benefit

hunters

We would expect mixed

reactions to the modified

closure on Moonstone

Beach

Same as Alternative B 
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 5-1

Nancy McGarigal, Regional Planner

Planning team leader

Education: BS Forestry and Wildlife

Experience: 16 years U.S. Forest Service, Wildlife Biologist

2 years USFWS

Phone: 413/253 8562

Email: nancy_mcgarigal@fws.gov

Nancy Pau, Endangered Species Biologist

(former Land Acquisition Planner)

Region 1, Sacramento, CA

Education: BS Natural Resources,

Experience: 2 years USFWS

Phone: 916/414 6494

Email: nancy_pau@fws.gov

Leon Latino, Assistant Planner

Education: BS Environmental Science,

BA Anthropology

Experience: 2 years USFWS

Phone: 413/253 8663

Email: leon_latino@fws.gov

Chapter 5

List of Preparers

Planner Nancy McGarigal at a CCP Open House

USFWS photo

Core Planning Team
Charlie Hebert, Environmental Contaminant Specialist 

(former Refuge Manager)

Region 1 – Portland, OR

Education: BS Forest Management

MS Wildlife Management

Experience: 20 years USFWS

Phone: 503/231 6223

Email: charlie_hebert@fws.gov

Gary Andres, Assistant Refuge Manager

Education: BA Government/Natural Resource Management

Experience: 12 years USFWS

Phone: 401/364 9124

Email: gary_andres@fws.gov

Andrew MacLachlan, Wildlife Biologist/GIS Specialist

Assisted in developing land protection strategies

Education: MS Zoology

Experience: 5 years field work and environmental education

1 year Audubon Society, Refuge Manager

4 years URI and State of RI

8 years USFWS

Phone: 401/364 9124

Email: andrew_maclachlan@fws.gov

Andrew Milliken, Atlantic Coast Joint Venture Coordinator

Education: BA Northern Studies/Biology

MS Biological Oceanography

Experience: 3 years NY State

3 years URI

2 years USEPA

7 years USFWS

Phone: 413/253 8269

Email: andrew_milliken@fws.gov

Chapter 5

5-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Core Planning Team

Assisting in Land

Protection Strategies
Norma Kline, Refuge Biologist

Education: BS Political Science

MS Biology

Experience: 3.5 years EPA Ecologist

1.5 years Natural Heritage Ecologist

5 years consulting ecologist

1 year USFWS

Phone: 401/364 9124

Email: norma_kline@fws.gov

Janis Nepshinsky, Outdoor Recreation Planner

Education: BS Environmental Technology 

MS Environmental Engineering 

Experience: 15 years St. Johns River Water Management District 

1.5 years Department of Defense, Environmental 

Health Technician

3.5 years Hobe Sound Nature Center, Director

5 years USFWS

Phone: 401/364 9124

Email: janis_nepshinsky@fws.gov

Greg Thompson, Biologist/GIS specialist

Education: BS Wildlife and Fisheries Biology

Experience: 8 years USFWS

Phone: 508/253 8587

Email: greg_thompson@fws.gov

Susan Fuller, Biologist/GIS specialist

Education: BS & MS Wildlife and Fisheries Biology

Experience: 2 years USFWS

Phone: 508/253 8533

Email: sue_fuller@fws.gov

Victoria Jacobson, Archeaologist

Cultural resources overview

Education: BA Anthropology

MA Archeaology

Experience: 2 years USFWS

3 years Project Archeaologist

10 years archeaological field work

Phone: 413/253 8531

Email: victoria_jacobson@fws.gov

Chapter 1 

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 5-3

Other USFWS personnel

contributing to or

consulting on the plan
Janith D. Taylor, Regional Biologist, Refuges and Wildlife

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

336 Nimble Hill Road

Newington, NH 03801

Education: BS Wildlife Biology

Experience: 1 year USFS

18 years USFWS

Phone: 603/431 5581

Email: jan_taylor@fws.gov

Anne Hecht, Endangered Species Biologist

Consulted on piping plover alternatives

Education: BA philosophy

MF forestry

Experience: 4 years USFS

16 years USFWS

Phone: 978/443 4325

Email: anne_hecht@fws.gov

Northeast Regional Office

Refuges and Wildlife

300 Westgate Center

Hadley, MA 01035

Phone: 413/253 8200

Fax: 413/253 8468

Rhode Island Refuge Complex Headquarters 

Route 1A, Shoreline Plaza

PO Box 307

Charlestown, RI 02813

Phone: 401/364 9124

Fax: 401/364 0170

Ecological Services Southern New England – New York Bight

Coastal Ecosystems Program

Route 1A, Shoreline Plaza

PO Box 307

Charlestown, RI 02813

Phone: 401/364 9124

Fax: 401/364 0170

Chapter 5

5-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Other USFWS personnel

contributing to or

consulting on the plan

Addresses
Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 6-1

Chapter 6

Turk’s cap lily and swallowtail butterfly

USFWS photo

Consultation and

Coordination with Others
Some Terms Used in this Chapter

The purpose of this chapter is to summarize public

outreach that occurred during development of this

document, including open houses, public meetings,

planning update mailings. In addition, we have

summarized the consultation and coordination with

partners. We begin by defining a few terms used in the

chapter. 

adjacent land owners - addresses of adjacent property

owners were kept separate from the refuge mailing list,

on the assumption that this group would want to know

about the CCP process, but would not wish to receive

future mailings, nor review the draft and final CCPs.

People on this list were instructed to contact the

planning team if they wished to be further included in

the planning process. Anyone who subsequently

contacted the Refuge or planning team was added to

the refuge mailing list.

focus groups - potential partners or organizations with

special interests in (or information pertaining to) the

Refuge Complex. 

Issues Workbook - a packet of questions distributed in

order to solicit public comments on the Refuge Complex

and the planning process. Basic information on the

Refuge Complex was bundled with the Issues

Workbooks. Workbooks were not randomly distributed,

nor were questions intended to have statistical

significance.

Planning Updates - newsletters distributed, primarily

through mailing lists, in order to update the interested

public on the status of the CCP project.

Refuge mailing list - the “original” RI Refuge

Complex mailing list which preceded the CCP process.

This list contained names and addressed of people with

an interest in the Refuge. As part of the planning

process, the list was continually updated to include

conservation agencies, sporting clubs, Congressionals,

workbook respondents, open house/focus group

attendees, etc.

Chronologically-listed activities

May 28 - 31, 1996

Outreach activity: planning workshop, Charlestown

Purpose: set goals and objectives for future

management of the Rhode Island Refuges

Number of non-FWS participants: 7

Audience: The Nature Conservancy (TNC), RI DEM,

URI Dept. of Natural Resource Science, Audubon

Society of RI, Coastal Resources Management Council,

Norman Bird Sanctuary

Topics included: objective setting process, RI Refuges

introduction, biological programs on Refuges, biological

objectives, current public use, public use objectives,

outreach, roles and responsibilities, administrative

objectives

March 19, 1998

Outreach activity: Notice of Intent published in

Federal Register

Purpose: notify the public of the intent to produce a

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Audience: public

April 3, 1998 (initial mailing - distribution continued

through June 15)

Outreach activity: “Issues Workbook”

Purpose: educate public on mission and responsibilities

of the Service, explain the CCP process, and solicit

public comments on potential issues

Audience: Refuge mailing list (400+ names), adjacent

landowners (Trustom Pond area; 1000+ names), visitors

to Refuge office (150 copies printed), open house and

focus group attendees

Topics included: CCP planning process, overview of

the Service, overview of RI NWR Complex, summary

of NWRS Improvement Act, refuge establishment

purposes and key habitats, planning schedule, Issues

Workbook soliciting comments/information on:

visitation, activities taking place on refuges, public

values of RI coast, problems facing RI coast, role of the

Service in protecting habitats outside of RI NWR

Complex, feelings on land acquisition, habitat-related

concerns, non-wildlife dependant public uses, and

wildlife dependant public uses

April 3, 1998

Outreach activity: Issues Workbook and cover letter

sent to Congressional Aides

Purpose: inform Congressional Aides of the CCP

process, solicit comments, extend invitations to open

houses

Audience: aides to Rhode Island’s Congressional

Offices

Topics included: Issues Workbook (see preceding

“outreach activity” for content), informal invitation to

open houses, dates available for briefings

Chapter 6

6-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
April 13, 1998

Outreach activity: Open house, Sachuest Point NWR

visitor center

Purpose: allow refuge volunteers to critique open house

presentation and share comments and concerns on the

RI NWR Complex CCP project

Number of non-FWS participants: 21

Audience: refuge volunteers, Friends of RI NWR

Complex

Topics discussed: open house presentation, Web page,

newsletter, condition of trails at Sachuest Point,

contacting Disabled American Veterans Group

April 15, 1998

Outreach activity: Open house, Crossmills Firehouse

Purpose: educate public on mission and responsibilities

of the Service, explain the CCP process, and solicit

public comments on potential issues

Number of non-FWS participants: 17

Audience: public

Topics discussed: parking at Moonstone Beach w/

relation to env. education programs, off-refuge bike path

from Ninigret to Trustom, possible erosion of trails at

Trustom, horses on Trustom trails, hunting on (small)

refuges, land acquisition, education/outreach 

April 20, 1998

Outreach activity: Open house, South Kingstown High

School

Purpose: educate public on mission and responsibilities

of the Service, explain the CCP process, and solicit

public comments on potential issues

Number of non-FWS participants: 36

Audience: public

Topics discussed: invasive plants, seasonal horseback

riding on beach/trails, control of coyote population

through hunting, historic structures, continuation of

hunting access, public use, refuge visitation (Trustom

Pond), emergency communication system at Moonstone

Beach, opening of the beach during summer, flexibility

of plan regarding problem species, affect of beach

opening on nesting plovers and terns, wildlife

inventories to monitor management, deer enclosures,

aesthetics of seasonal plover fencing, mute swan

control, habitat restoration, communication between

refuge staff and community, gun-wielding law

enforcement, disturbance of plovers by staff, citizen’s

review board for compatibility determinations,

sunbathing at Trustom Pond Refuge.

April 21, 1998

Outreach activity: Meeting, Block Island Town Hall

Purpose: discuss planning process, partnership

opportunities, land protection and other issues with

interested groups

Number of non-FWS participants: 14

Audience: The Nature Conservancy on Block Island,

Block Island Land Trust, Block Island Conservancy,

Town of New Shoreham

Topics discussed: Refuge “house” on Beane Point, path

to West Beach, plover fencing, land acquisition, hunting

north of Great Salt Pond, fishing, support for

conservation on Block Island, education, pine trees

along beach at Ninigret, coordinating habitat

management for Block Island

April 23, 1998

Outreach activity: Meeting, Audubon Society,

Smithfield

Purpose: discuss planning process, partnership

opportunities, land protection and other issues with

interested group

Number of non-FWS participants: 7

Audience: Audubon Society of Rhode Island

Topics discussed: land protection - Rose Island, Dyer

Island, Wickman Point, United Nuclear site, Run Point,

headwaters of Saugatucket River, East Beach, Sandy

Point Island, Napatree Point, Watch Hill, beach west of

Misquamicut, coastal ponds; use of Napatree Point by

boaters (vs. shorebirds), survey for small whorled

begonia and other listed plant species, env. education,

protection of listed species on southern Block Island,

focusing protection effort along coast, visitor center

staffing and displays, visitor services, review of state

management plans

April 23, 1998

Outreach activity: Open house, Sachuest Point NWR

visitor center

Purpose: educate public on mission and responsibilities

of the Service, explain the CCP process, and solicit

public comments on potential issues

Number of non-FWS participants: 17

Audience: public

Topics discussed: hunting at Sachuest Point, abundant

crows in Newport area, grassland restoration,

breeching of Trustom Pond, jogging on trails, one-time

public events on refuge

May 11, 1998

Outreach activity: Open house, USFWS Northeast

Regional Office, Hadley, MA

Purpose: Explain the CCP process and seek issues and

concerns to be addressed in the CCP.

Number of non-FWS participants:

Audience: Service employees

Topics discussed: emphasizing fish and aquatic

resources, Regional Resources Assessment, lead

sinkers, protection of salt ponds, hunting opportunities,

public involvement in setting goals and objectives,

wildlife-conservation emphasis of Improvement Act

Chapter 6

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 6-3
June 1, 1998

Outreach activity: letter mailed to addresses on

mailing list

Purpose: extend “deadline” for workbook responses

(originally set at June 1), remind people to send in

workbooks

Audience: mailing list (with newly-added open house

attendees)

June 8, 1998

Outreach activity: Meeting, University of Rhode

Island

Purpose: discuss planning process, partnership

opportunities, land protection and other issues with

interested groups

Number of non-FWS participants: 7

Audience: URI faculty (Natural Resources

Department), RI Costal Resource Management Council,

RI Natural Heritage Database 

Topics discussed: responses to Issues Workbooks,

public education/outreach, public use (surveying,

preventing illegal uses), student research projects on

Refuges, biological monitoring (for baseline data and to

evaluate management practices), research as a potential

Refuge activity 

June 8, 1998

Outreach activity: Meeting, University of RI

Purpose: discuss planning process, partnership

opportunities, land protection and other issues with

interested groups

Number of non-FWS participants: 5

Audience: Westerly Land Trust, Narrow River Land

Trust, Land Conservancy of North Kingstown,

Charlestown Conservation Commission, Town of

Narragansett, South Kingstown Land Trust

Topics discussed: fragmented land protection efforts,

protection based on watersheds, grassland maintenance

and restoration, restoration at Sachuest Point, invasion

by Autumn Olive, education/outreach, possibility of

South County visitor center, United Nuclear site,

Ninigret restoration (runway & building removal),

protection of Narrow River/Pettaquamscutt Cove

June 8, 1998

Outreach activity: Meeting, Middletown

Purpose: discuss planning process, partnership

opportunities, land protection and other issues with

interested group

Number of non-FWS participants: 5

Audience: Middletown Conservation Commission

Topics discussed: monitoring of CCPs, hunting on

refuges, foxes, stocking of game/native species, cleanup

of landfill on Sachuest Point, protecting people from

wildlife, education/outreach (spreading the Service’s

message), land acquisition funding, Navy Land,

celebrity spokesmen for the Refuge System, protection

of inland farms/open space

June 9, 1998

Outreach activity: Meeting, S. Kingstown Town Hall

Purpose: discuss planning process, partnership

opportunities, land protection and other issues with

interested group

Number of non-FWS participants: 2

Audience: South Kingstown Town Planners

Topics discussed: open space preservation, land

acquisition funding, potential sites for

protection/acquisition

June 9, 1998

Outreach activity: Meeting, TNC State Office,

Providence

Purpose: discuss planning process, partnership

opportunities, land protection and other issues with

interested group

Number of non-FWS participants: 4

Audience: The Nature Conservancy

Topics discussed: wildlife dependant public uses, public

input process, TNC’s land protection priorities, TNC

focus areas and land protection efforts, expansion of

Trustom Pond and Block Island NWRs,

educational/conservation potential of corridor

protection, focusing protection on Block Island’s north

end, education center on Block Island, linking

protection efforts along CT/RI border, United Nuclear

site, vehicle use on beaches, 

June 9, 1998

Outreach activity: Meeting, Save the Bay!, Providence

Purpose: discuss planning process, partnership

opportunities, land protection and other issues with

interested group

Number of non-FWS participants: 4

Audience: Save the Bay!

Topics discussed: oil spill money, Save the Bay’s focus

systems: anadromous fish runs, wetlands, coastal salt

marshes; land acquisition recommendations, restoration

programs, education, research, outreach, water quality

at Pettaquamscutt Cove

June 10, 1998

Outreach activity: Meeting, RI DEM

Purpose: discuss planning process, partnership

opportunities, land protection and other issues with

interested group

Number of non-FWS participants: 9

Audience: RI DEM

Topics discussed: representation of hunting groups,

public input, land acquisition: sites, prices, funding,

partnerships; goose hunting vs. restoration at Trustom,

cooperative farming, implementation of CCP, breeching

of coastal ponds, visitor centers (DEM’s, Sachuest, new

Complex visitor center), sharing of equipment for

habitat management, deer overpopulation on Block

Island, hunting on Block Island

Chapter 6

6-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
July 20, 1998

Outreach activity: Meeting, Sachuest Point NWR

visitor center

Purpose: discuss planning process, partnership

opportunities, land protection and other issues with

interested groups

Number of non-FWS participants: 4

Audience: Aquidneck Island Land Trust, Coastal

Resource Management Council

Topics discussed: protection of Sakonet Greenway,

public input, land acquisition, Aquidneck Island

planning group, identification/mapping of: critical

habitat, farmland, historic/scenic/recreational areas,

watersheds

August 17, 1998

Outreach activity: Meeting, Little Rhody Beagle Club

Purpose: discuss planning process, partnership

opportunities, land protection and other issues with

interested groups

Number of non-FWS participants: 16

Audience: RI Federated Sportsman Club

Topics discussed: hunting opportunities, public use

activities, overabundant species

August 29, 1998

Outreach activity: Meeting, Community Partnership

Kickoff, URI Narragansett Bay Campus

Purpose: involve Service in Partnership, inform

partnership of CCP process

Number of non-FWS participants: 20

Audience: land protection agencies with interests in

South Kingstown

Topics discussed: purpose of the Partnership, RI CCP,

land protection efforts, land acquisition funding, water

quality, preservation of natural/historic/cultural

resources, tax benefits of land donation, public use in

open areas,

September 4, 1998 (2nd mailing to adjacent landowners

on Sept. 9)

Outreach activity: “Planning Update” mailed to

addresses on mailing lists

Purpose: update the public on the status of the CCP

project, share comments gathered from Issues

Workbooks, open houses, and focus group meetings

Audience: Refuge mailing list (600+ names), adjacent

landowners (Narragansett/Pett. Cove area; 450+

names)

Topics included: Service’s Mission, CCP process,

summary of public involvement, planning schedule,

summary of workbook responses, public use:

priority/wildlife dependant vs. non-wildlife dependant

and compatibility determination; summary of open

house and focus group comments, Refuge Complex

vision statement, instructions for requesting a draft

CCP (rather than an executive summary) 

February 23, 1999

Outreach activity: Meeting, Narragansett Indian

Tribe, Charlestown

Purpose: inform tribe of CCP process

Number of non-FWS participants: 3

Audience: Narragansett Tribal Council

Topics discussed: explain CCP planning process, how

tribe might contribute issues/concerns, partnership

possibilities

March 4, 1999

Outreach activity: letter to Narragansett Tribal

Council

Purpose: solicit follow-up input from the tribe

Audience: Narragansett Tribal Council

Topics discussed: specific questions for the Council to

address, suggestions for a partnership agreement

June 21, 1999

Outreach activity: 2nd Planning Update mailed to

addresses on Refuge mailing list

Purpose: update the public on the status of the CCP

process, explain the delay in publishing the draft CCP

Audience: Refuge mailing list (600+ names)

Topics included: updated planning schedule,

information on new visitor center: funding, site

selection, expected facilities, separate EA

July 20, 1999

Outreach activity: Meeting

Purpose: discuss range of land protection strategies

proposed in the alternatives

Audience: RI TNC, Audubon Society of RI, RI DEM,

USFWS Coastal Program (Ecological Services),

Heritage Program

Topics included: Areas of Biological Significance and

Focus Areas for land protection.

August 27, 1999

Outreach activity: Meeting

Purpose: discuss highlights of the tentative Proposed

Action

Audience: RI DEM

Topics included: proposed actions, focus on waterfowl

manaegment and hunting proposals

September 9, 1999

Outreach activity: Meeting

Purpose: discuss highlights of the tentative Proposed

Action

Audience: RI DEM (T&E coordinator) and The Nature

Conservancy of Block Island

Topics included: proposed actions on threatened and

endangered species and actions on Block Island.

Chapter 6

Draft CCP/EA – December, 2000 6-5
September 20, 1999

Outreach activity: Meeting

Purpose: discuss highlights of the Proposed Action

Audience: Friends of the RI NWR Complex

Topics included: proposed staffing and funding levels,

plover programs, Focus Areas (land protection)

September 23, 1999

Outreach activity: Meeting

Purpose: discuss highlights of the Proposed Action,

pertaining to Block Island

Number of non-FWS participants: 15

Audience: Block Island Joint Conservation Association,

RI DEM, Audubon Society of RI, Town of New

Shoreham

Topics included: Areas of Biological Significance and

Focus Areas for land protection on Block Island,

highlights of the tentative Proposed Action, land

protection efforts by conservation partners on Block

Island

October 19, 1999

Outreach activity: Meeting

Purpose: discuss land protection strategies

Audience: Charlestown Conservation Commission

October 28, 1999

Outreach activity: Meeting

Purpose: discuss land protection strategies

Audience: South Kingstown Land Trust, TNC, RI

DEM, Champlain Foundation, Town of South

Kingstown, Narrow River Land Trust

October 1999

Outreach activity: Meeting

Purpose: discuss highlights of the proposed land

acquisition strategy

Audience: South County Conservancy

Topics included: proposed land protection and

acquisition within ABS’s and Focus Areas

March 16, 2000

Outreach activity: Meeting

Purpose: briefing on release of Draft CCP

Audience: Friends of the RI NWR Complex 

July 7, 2000

Outreach Activity: Meeting

Purpose: briefing on release of Internal Review Draft

CCP

Audience: Congressional staff for Senators Chafee and

Wegen. 

August 29, 2000

Outreach Activity: Meeting

Purpose: briefing on the Proposed Action

Audience: Connecticut River/New York Bight

Ecosystem team

September 6, 2000

Outreach Activity: submitted draft CCP/EA for

Section 106 (cultural resources) consultation

Audience: Rhode Island State Historic Preservation

Office

September 11, 2000

Outreach Activity: Section 7 consultation (endangered

species) for draft CCP/EA

Audience: USFWS New England Field Office

October 11, 2000

Outreach Activity: Meeting

Purpose: discuss proposed actions in draft CCP/EA

Audience: RI DEM, Division of Fish and Wildlife

Chapter 6

6-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex