Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmentatal Assessment

              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 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.”
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, inter-jurisdictional
fish, wetlands, and certain marine mammals. The
Service also enforces federal wildlife laws and international treaties
on importing and exporting wildlife, assists with state fish and
wildlife programs, and helps other countries develop wildlife
conservation programs.
The National Wildlife Refuge System and its Mission
The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and
waters set aside specifically for conserving wildlife and protecting
ecosystems. More than 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, Nevus-
Greenburg
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, wildlife-dependent
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 hand-fed
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 non-wildlife-
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, wildlife-dependent
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, wildlife-dependent
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, socio-economic,
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 hunter-gatherer
with little agriculture; broad changes to landscape
vegetation probably did not occur.
During the Woodland Period 3000-450 years ago, larger, semi-permanent
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 non-native
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 water-associated
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-of-the-
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 DEM-approved
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 wind-deposited
silt loess overlies glacial till deposits. Parts of Sandy Point
were formed by finely sorted alluvial sands and wave and tidal
shifting and deposition.
Terrain on the northern parcel,
around the North Light
lighthouse, is rolling dunes and
swales averaging 5- to 10-percent
slopes; soils are primarily sand.
Beane Point is a 21-acre upland
with <5-percent slopes
composed of Paxton, very stony-fine
sandy loams. The 13-acre
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 Nevuus-
Greenberg tract contains two
very small ponds; otherwise, no
freshwater lakes or ponds lie on
Refuge property. Adjacent to
Refuge lands, however, are
several small freshwater ponds, and the brackish Sachem Pond and
saline Great Salt Pond. More than 365 ponds and emergent wetlands
on the island provide a critical resource for many species.
Biological Resources
Block Island is unique from many perspectives, not least of which are
its biological resources. In 1991, The Nature Conservancy selected
Block Island as one of its 12 initial “Last Great Places” in the
western hemisphere, primarily due to its ecological significance.
Our report, “Northeast Coastal Areas Study”(1991) noted the unique
natural resources on Block Island:
“…one of the most important migratory bird habitats on the East
Coast… [as it]…provides a critical link or stepping stone in the
migration of many birds, particularly raptors and passerines,
between southern New England and eastern Long Island, and points
north and south.”
Chapter 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