Block Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Block Island National
Wildlife Refuge
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Block Island National
Wildlife Refuge
Prepared by:
Nancy McGarigal, Refuge Planner
Northeast Regional Office, Division of Planning
300 Westgate Center Drive
Hadley, MA 01035
(413) 253-8562
Local contact:
Charlie Vandemoer, Refuge Manager
3769 D Old Post Road
Charlestown, RI 02813
(401) 364-9124
Cover photo: American burying beetle, Chris Raithel, RI DEM
May 2002
This goose, designed by J.N. “Ding”
Darling, has become a symbol of the
National Wildlife Refuge System.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is the principal federal agency responsible for
conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for the
continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 93-million acre
National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of more than 500 national wildlife refuges
and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 65 national fish hatcheries
and 78 ecological services field stations. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws,
manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves
and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species Act,
and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the
Federal Aid program which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on
fishing and hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies.
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management
decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge
purposes; and, identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail
program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget
allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program
prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases,
operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
Table of Contents
Block Island National Wildlife Refuge CCP
Chapter 1, Introduction and Background 1-1
Refuge Overview 1-2
Purpose of and Need for a CCP 1-2
Mission 1-5
Refuge Purpose 1-5
National and Regional Mandates Guiding this CCP 1-6
Existing Partnerships 1-10
Chapter 2, Planning Process 2-1
The CCP Process 2-2
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities 2-3
Chapter 3, Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-1
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting 3-2
Socio-economic Setting 3-5
Refuge Complex Administration 3-8
Refuge Resources 3-9
Public Uses 3-15
Chapter 4, Management Direction 4-1
Refuge Complex Vision 4-2
Refuge Complex Goals (and Chafee Refuge goals and objectives) 4-2
General Refuge Management 4-19
Chapter 5, Implementation and Monitoring 5-1
Refuge Complex Staffing 5-2
Refuge Complex Funding 5-2
Step-Down Management Planning 5-2
Partnerships 5-3
Volunteer Program 5-4
Maintaining Existing Facilities 5-5
Monitoring and Evaluation 5-5
Adaptive Management 5-5
Compatibility Determinations 5-6
Additional NEPA Analysis 5-7
Plan Amendment and Revision 5-7
Maps
Map 1-1. Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex 1-3
Map 1-2. Block Island Refuge 1-4
Map 1-3. Connecticut River/Long Island Sound Ecosystem 1-8
Map 4-1. Block Island Refuge Public Use/Habitat Improvements 4-18
Block Island Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-1
North Light on Block Island
USFWS photo
  Refuge Overview
  Purpose of and Need for a CCP
  Mission
  Refuge Purpose
  National and Regional Mandates Guiding this CCP
  Existing Partnerships
Chapter 1
Introduction and Background
Introduction
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) is the culmination of a
planning process that began in February 1998. Numerous meetings
with the public, the state, and conservation partners were held to
identify and evaluate management alternatives. A draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
(CCP/EA) was distributed in December 2000. This CCP presents the
management goals, objectives, and strategies that we believe will best
achieve our vision for the refuge, contribute to the National Wildlife
Refuge System Mission, achieve refuge purposes and legal mandates,
and serve the American public.
Refuge Overview
Established in 1973, Block Island National Wildlife Refuge (Block
Island Refuge) is located approximately 12 miles off the mainland on
Block Island, Town of New Shoreham (see maps 1-1 and 1-2). The
transfer of 28.7 acres from the U.S. Coast Guard created the refuge.
The refuge now includes 103 acres in either fee title or conservation
easement. The Land Protection Plan (Appendix E) expanded the
refuge acquisition boundary by 95 acres; the refuge may now acquire
a total of 156 acres from willing sellers within the newly expanded
boundary.
Thirty percent of Block Island is currently in conservation status,
including lands owned or administered by the Service, The Nature
Conservancy, Block Island Land Trust, Block Island Conservancy,
Town of New Shoreham, Audubon Society of Rhode Island, and
individual private land owners. In 1989, New Shoreham passed a
referendum that transfers 3 percent of property taxes into a land
acquisition fund administered by the Block Island Land Trust.
The Purpose of and Need for a CCP
Developing a CCP is vital to refuge management. The purpose of
this CCP is to provide strategic management direction over the next
15 years, by…
  Providing a clear statement of desired future conditions for
habitat, wildlife, visitor services, and facilities;
  Providing refuge neighbors, visitors, and partners with a clear
understanding of the reasons for management actions;
  Ensuring refuge management reflects the policies and goals of the
Refuge System and legal mandates;
  Ensuring the compatibility of current and future public use;
  Providing long-term continuity and direction for refuge
management; and
  Providing direction for staffing, operations, maintenance, and
developing budget requests.
The need to develop a CCP for Block Island Refuge is two-fold.
First, the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
(Refuge Improvement Act) requires that all national wildlife refuges
have a CCP in place by 2012 to help fulfill the mission of the Refuge
Chapter 1
1-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Chapter 1
Block Island Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-5
System. Second, the refuge lacks a master plan that establishes
priorities and ensures consistent, integrated management among the
five refuges in the Rhode Island Refuge Complex.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its Mission
The Service, part of the Department of the Interior, manages national
wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries. By law, Congress entrusts
the following federal trust resources to the Service for conservation and
protection: migratory birds and fish, endangered species, inter-jurisdictional
fish, wetlands, and certain marine mammals. The Service
also enforces federal wildlife laws and international treaties on
importing and exporting wildlife, assists with state fish and wildlife
programs, and helps other countries develop wildlife conservation
programs.
The National Wildlife Refuge System and its Mission
The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and
waters set aside specifically for conserving wildlife and protecting
ecosystems. More than 534 national wildlife refuges, in every state
and a number of U.S. Territories, protect more than 93 million acres.
Over 34 million visitors annually hunt, fish, observe and photograph
wildlife, or participate in environmental education and interpretive
activities on refuges.
In 1997, Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act, establishing a unifying mission for the Refuge
System, and a new process for determining compatible public use
activities on refuges. It also requires that we prepare a CCP for
each refuge. The act states that, first and foremost, the Refuge
System must focus on wildlife conservation. It further states that
the mission of the Refuge System, coupled with the purpose(s) for
which each refuge was established, will provide management
direction for each refuge.
On public use, the act declares that all existing or proposed public
uses must be compatible with each refuge’s purpose. It highlights six
wildlife-dependent public uses as priorities that all CCPs must
evaluate: environmental education and interpretation, fishing,
hunting, and wildlife observation and photography. Each refuge
manager determines the compatibility of an activity by evaluating its
potential impact on refuge resources, insuring that the activity
supports the Refuge System mission, and ensuring that the activity
does not materially detract from or interfere with the refuge purpose.
Refuge Purpose
The establishment purposes for Block Island Refuge are:
“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management
purpose, for migratory birds,” and for
“(1) incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational development;
(2) protection of natural resources; and
(3) conservation of endangered or threatened species.”
– Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 and
Refuge Recreation Act of 1962
“...working with others, to
conserve, protect and
enhance fish wildlife, and
plants and their habitats
for the continuing benefit
of the American people.”
– Mission, U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service
“...to administer a
national network of lands
and waters for the
conservation,
management, and where
appropriate, restoration
of the fish, wildlife, and
plant resources and their
habitats within the
United States for the
benefit of present and
future generations of
Americans.”
– Refuge System Mission,
Refuge Improvement Act;
Public Law 105-57
National and Regional Mandates Guiding this CCP
This section highlights Service policy, legal mandates, and existing
resource plans, arranged from the national to the local level, that
directly influenced development of this CCP.
The Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the USFWS lists the
various federal laws, Executive Orders, treaties, interstate compacts,
and regulations on conserving and protecting natural and cultural
resources (online at http://laws.fws.gov/lawsdigest/indx.html). The
Service Manual and Refuge Manual contain Service policies and
guidance on planning and day-to-day refuge management. The draft
CCP/EA was written to fulfill compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
North American Waterfowl Management Plan (May 14, 1986)
This plan outlines the strategy among the United States, Canada,
and Mexico to restore waterfowl populations by protecting,
restoring, and enhancing habitat within 11 U.S. Joint Venture Areas
and three species Joint Ventures: Arctic Goose, Black Duck, and Sea
Duck. Partnerships among federal, state and provincial
governments, tribal nations, local businesses, conservation
organizations, and individual citizens protect that habitat. The
Refuge Complex lies within the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, which
has identified 13 priority focus areas totaling 3,226 acres of both
wetlands and adjacent uplands for protection in Rhode Island
(Atlantic Coast Joint Venture 1988).
Since black ducks winter in Rhode Island, the goals and objectives of
the Black Duck Joint Venture apply to managing the Refuge
Complex. The Black Duck Joint Venture has identified the coastal
salt marsh habitats along the mid-upper Atlantic coast as most
important wintering habitat.
Partners In Flight Landbird Conservation Plan:
Physiographic Area 9, Southern New England (draft, October 2000)
In 1990, Partners in Flight (PIF) was conceived as a voluntary,
international coalition of government agencies, conservation
organizations, academic institutions, private industry, and other
citizens dedicated to reversing the downward trends of declining
species and “keeping common birds common.” The foundation of
PIF’s long-term strategy for bird conservation is a series of
scientifically based Landbird Conservation Plans. The goal of each
PIF Landbird Conservation Plan is to ensure long term maintenance
of healthy populations of native landbirds.
The PIFProgram is developing a plan for the Southern New
England Physiographic Area, using existing data on habitat loss,
landbird population trends, and the vulnerability of species and
habitats to threats, to rank the conservation priority of landbird
species. The plan will identify focal species for each habitat type
from which population and habitat objectives and conservation
actions will be determined. We utilized this draft document for the
list of priority species to consider in management. A revised draft of
the plan was released in October 2000, and we will use the final plan,
when finished, to further guide management.
Chapter 1
1-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Black duck. USFWS photo.
Chapter 1
Block Island Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-7
Northeast Areas Study: Significant Coastal Habitats of Southern
New England And Portions of Long Island, New York (USFWS 1991)
Recognizing the biological and economic importance of the coast’s
living resources and natural values to the region and the Nation, in
1990 Congress funded a study to identify coastal areas in southern
New England and Long Island whose fish and wildlife habitat need
protection and whose natural diversity needs preservation. The
Northeast Coastal Study identifies species of regional importance,
and describes regionally significant habitat complexes. It specifically
describes significant or unique habitat, threats to sustaining the
habitat complex, and considerations for conserving and protecting it.
We utilized this study in the development of our land protection
strategies. The study identified Block Island as a regionally
significant habitat complex.
Connecticut River/Long Island Sound Ecosystem Priorities, 1997
During the last decade, we have emphasized ecosystem conservation,
particularly the role of refuges within ecosystems, and their ability to
affect the long-term conservation of natural resources. Implementing
an ecosystem approach to resource management is one of our top
national priorities. We have initiated new partnerships with private
landowners, state and federal agencies, corporations, conservation
groups, and volunteers, to form 52 ecosystem teams across the
country, typically using large river watersheds to define ecosystems.
Those teams work on developing goals and priorities for research and
management within each ecosystem.
The Refuge Complex lies within our Connecticut River/Long Island
Sound Ecosystem (Map 1-3). A team composed of Fish and Wildlife
Service personnel and representatives from six State Fish and Wildlife
Departments developed a Priority Resources Plan (July 1996) that
identifies seven priorities, each involving numerous action strategies.
1. Protect, restore, and enhance listed and candidate
populations…with special emphasis on beach strand species,
coastal sandplain habitat, and Connecticut River species.
2. Protect, restore, and enhance anadromous and interjurisdictional
migratory fish populations…with special emphasis on Atlantic
salmon, American shad, shortnose sturgeon, and river herring.
3. Reverse the decline of migrant landbirds…with special emphasis
on grassland and forest interior species.
4. Protect, restore, and enhance populations of colonial nesting
waterbirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl…with special emphasis on
coastal areas and major rivers.
5. Protect, restore, and enhance wetland habitats.
6. Manage refuge lands to protect, restore, and enhance native
communities and trust resources.
7. Develop a public that values the fish and wildlife
resources…understands events and issues related to these
resources, and acts to promote fish and wildlife conservation.
Chapter 1
1-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), Atlantic Coast Population,
Revised Recovery Plan, 1996
The piping plover is the only federally-listed endangered or
threatened species that currently breeds on refuge lands within the
Rhode Island Refuge Complex. In 2001 on Block Island, piping
plover nested on a contiguous stretch of beach immediately adjacent
to the refuge. The primary objective of the revised recovery
program is to remove the Atlantic coast piping plover population
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants by:
  Achieving well-distributed increases in numbers and productivity
of breeding pairs; and
  Providing for long-term protection of breeding and wintering
plovers and their habitats.
The Revised Recovery Plan describes detailed “Recovery Tasks”
needed to meet the recovery objective. The Rhode Island Refuge
Complex is specifically mentioned in the following tasks:
  Draw down or create coastal ponds where feasible to make more
feeding habitat available.
  Reduce disturbance of breeding plovers from humans and pets.
  Develop mechanisms to provide long-term protection of plovers
and their habitat.
The Recovery Plan incorporates management guidelines for
recreational activities in piping plover breeding habitat, which were
developed by our Ecological Services Division in 1994. While not
regulatory, these recommendations continue to serve as our best
professional advice for complying with the Endangered Species Act.
We utilized these same guidelines in developing management actions.
American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus)
Recovery Plan, 1991
The American burying beetle is a federally endngered species that is
known to breed on southern Block Island, but no breeding behavior
has yet been observed on Block Island Refuge. One female was
recorded on the Beane tract, but was not seen on subsequent visits.
No extensive surveys have been conducted on the refuge; interest
has focused on southern Block Island, where the core population is
assumed to breed. Since the island supports the only known natural
population east of the Mississippi River, any opportunity to protect
or enhance habitat for this species is a priority.
The Recovery Plan objective is “…[to] reduce the immediacy of the
threat of extinction to the American burying beetle, and the longer
range objective is to improve its status so that it can be reclassified
from endangered to threatened.” It outlines nine specific Recovery
Tasks for managing the existing populations, searching for new
populations, re-introducing populations, conducting natural history
studies, and starting an environmental education program.
Chapter 1
Block Island Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-9
Piping plover. USFWS photo.
Regional Wetlands Concept Plan – Emergency Wetlands Resources
Act 9 (USFWS 1990)
In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act to
promote the conservation of our nation’s wetlands. The Act directed
the Department of Interior to develop a National Wetlands Priority
Conservation Plan identifying the location and types of wetlands that
should receive priority for acquisition by federal and state agencies
using Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations. In 1990,
the Service’s Northeast Region completed a Regional Wetlands
Concept Plan identifying a total of 850 wetland sites in the Region
warranting consideration for acquisition due to wetland values.
Wetland values, functions, and potential threats for each site were
cited; 24 sites within the State of Rhode Island were listed.
Protecting Our Land Resources:
A Land Acquisition and Protection Plan, Rhode Island Department
of Environmental Management, May 1996
The purpose of this State plan is to assist agencies within the Rhode
Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) in
protecting land to support their primary mission, “…protection of
the integrity of natural resources essential to the environmental,
economic and social welfare of the citizens of Rhode Island.” Its
framework provides strategies to permanently protect five critical
State resources: agriculture, forestry, drinking water, recreation, and
natural heritage and biodiversity. It includes evaluation criteria for
selecting and prioritizing lands.
Existing partnerships
Throughout this CCP, we use the term “partners”. In addition to our
volunteers, we receive significant help from the following partners:
  Southern New England/New York Bight Coastal Ecosystems
Office (FWS)
  Ecological Services, New England Field Office (FWS)
  Friends of the National Wildlife Refuges of Rhode Island
  Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM)
  The Nature Conservancy, Rhode Island and Block Island Offices
  University of Rhode Island, Department of Natural Resources
Science (URI)
  Audubon Society of Rhode Island
  Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council (RI CRMC)
  Local land trusts
  Narragansett Indian Tribal Council
  Town of New Shoreham
  Block Island Conservancy
Chapter 1
1-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-1
Public Open House on CCP, Rhode Island
USFWS photo
  The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
  Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
Chapter 2
Planning Process
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Given the mandate in the Refuge Improvement Act to develop a CCP
for each national wildlife refuge, our Northeast Regional Office
began the planning process for the Refuge Complex in February
1998. Figure 2-1 displays the steps of the planning process and how
they incorporate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
requirements.
First, we focused on collecting information on natural resources and
public use at the Refuge Complex, and developed its long-term vision
and preliminary goals, including issues associated with each of its
refuges. Next, we compiled a mailing list of more than 2,000
organizations and individuals, to ensure we would be contacting a
diverse sample of the interested public.
Recognizing that not everyone could attend the open houses planned
for April and May 1998, we developed Issues Workbooks in March, to
encourage even more people to provide their written comments on
topics related to managing the Refuge Complex. We offered the
workbooks to everyone on our mailing list, including adjacent
landowners, and made workbooks available at refuge headquarters,
local libraries, and on the Internet from the Region 5 Home Page
(http://www.northeast.fws.gov). We received 150 completed workbooks.
Those responses and public input at our meetings have influenced our
formulating issues and developing alternatives on resource protection
and public use.
In April and May 1998, we began
a series of public meetings: five
open houses in the communities of
Middletown, South Kingstown,
Charlestown, and Block Island
invited public comments on goals
and issues. We advertised the
meetings through news releases,
radio broadcasts, and notices to
our mailing list. From 15 to 40
people attended each meeting.
We also organized 15
informational meetings with state
and federal agencies, non-profit
conservation groups, town
planners, conservation
commissions, and sporting clubs.
Public responses suggested more
than 50 additional areas where
lands warranted protection,
typically along the coast. We
evaluated those lands for their
potential as national wildlife
refuges, using criteria such as the
presence of threatened,
endangered, or other trust species
and their habitats, the presence of
wetlands, our ability to manage or
restore the areas, existing threats
to their integrity, and their size
and location.
Chapter 2
2-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
A. Preplanning:
Plan the Plan
E. Prepare Draft
Plan & NEPA
Document
NEPA
• purpose and need
NEPA
• prepare & distribute draft CCP
and NEPA documentation
• public comment & review
H. Review &
Revise Plan
NEPA
• NEPA compliance &
public involvement
when applicable
NEPA
• notify the public
• involve the public
• scope the issues
B. Initiate Public
Involvement&
Scoping
NEPA
• NEPA compliance & public
involvement when applicable
C. Review Vision
Statement & Goals,
& Determine
Significant Issues
NEPA
• identify significant issues
F. Prepare &
Adopt Final Plan
NEPA
• respond to public comment
• identify preferred alternative
• prepare & distribute final CCP
and NEPA documentation
• prepare & distribute FONSI
for EA or ROD for EIS
NEPA
• reasonable range of alternatives
• No Action alternative
• assess environmental effects
• the Proposed Action
D. Develop &
Analyze
Alternatives
G. Implement
Plan, Monitor, &
Evaluate
The Comprehensive
Conservation
Planning Process &
NEPA Compliance
Figure 2-1. NEPA and the CCP Process
We distributed a planning update to everyone on our mailing list in
September 1998. This newsletter summarized public comments from
meetings and workbooks, described policy guidelines for managing
public use on refuges, and identified the long-term vision and goals
for the Refuge Complex.
Once the key issues had firmed up, we developed alternative
strategies by May 1999 to resolve each one. We derived the
strategies from public comment, from follow-up contacts with
partners, or from the planning team. We distributed a second
Planning Update newsletter in May 1999, updating everyone on our
planning timelines and our decision to start a separate
Environmental Assessment for the visitor center/headquarters.
We released a draft CCP/EA in December of 2000 for a 51-day
comment period. We held public hearings and open houses in
February of 2001. A summary of public comments is included in
Appendix B. The land acquisition component of this planning
process is contained in the Land Protection Plan (Appendix E).
Each year, we will evaluate our accomplishments under this CCP,
including the completion of detailed step down plans. Monitoring
will reveal whether resource objectives are being met, and whether
we need to change strategies. We will modify the CCP documents
and associated management activities as needed, following the
procedures outlined in Service policy and NEPA requirements. This
CCP will be fully revised every 15 years, or sooner if necessary.
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
From the Issues Workbooks, public and focus group meetings, and
planning team discussions, we developed a list of issues, concerns,
opportunities, or any other items requiring a management decision.
Then we sorted them into two categories: “Key issues,” and “Issues
and concerns considered outside the scope of this analysis”.
Key issues, along with goals, formed the basis for developing and
comparing the different management alternatives that were analyzed
in the draft CCP/EA.
Some issues and concerns were outside the scope of this analysis.
These were identified in the draft CCP/EA, but we will not further
address them further in this final CCP.
Key Issues
Public and partner meetings and further team discussions produced
the following key issues:
1. Protection of endangered and threatened species and other
species and habitats of special concern.
This is the most important issue facing the Refuge Complex.
Protecting federally listed endangered and threatened species is
integral to the mission of the Refuge System, and is a common
purpose for which each of the five refuges was established. Other
federal trust species of primary concern include: migratory birds,
anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals.
Chapter 2
Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-3
In the forefront of this issue is management for piping plover, a
federally listed species (threatened). Piping plover nest on the
beaches at Trustom Pond Refuge and Ninigret Refuge, and on the
Narrow River estuary near Chafee Refuge. Block Island Refuge has
potential nesting habitat; so far, nesting attempts there have been
unsuccessful.
Threats from coastal development, disturbance by humans and pets,
and predation are the major factors contributing to the species
decline (Piping Plover Atlantic Coast Population, Revised Recovery
Plan, 1996). Protecting piping plover presently requires an intensive
effort by refuge staff who monitor plover nesting, manage public use
and access on beaches, control predators at nest sites, and provide
environmental education and interpretation about the natural history
of piping plover and barrier beach protection.
Consistently each year, predators are one of the most significant
factors affecting chick survival in Rhode Island. Also, since 1993,
humans have caused three incidents of piping plover nest
destruction: two were acts of vandalism directed at destroying nests
and eggs; the third may have resulted from joy-riding on the beach.
Campers often leave trash, which attracts predators to a nesting
area, and often unleash their dogs, who chase adult plover off nests.
Some responses raised the continuing issue of restricting public
beach use. Some feel we could do more to provide for piping
plover by restoring habitat, or by working with the Rhode Island
Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) to close beach
intertidal areas.
Service staff help coordinate piping plover monitoring on nine
beaches in southern Rhode Island, as well as on the refuges. This
requires tremendous time and resources, both presently limited.
Funding for plover work along the South Shore is inconsistent from
year to year, and totally dependent on non-Service funding sources,
typically foundation grants. However, the benefits derived are
clearly evident in increased nesting attempts and productivity on
many sites. The alternatives compared different strategies for
protecting piping plover and managing important habitat areas on
the South Shore.
Other federally listed species discussed are the seabeach amaranth
(threatened), and sandplain gerardia (endangered), two plant species
that may be considered for future reintroduction. The American
burying beetle (endangered), which is known to breed on southern
on Block Island, has yet to be found breeding on refuge land.
Current levels of refuge management also emphasize other federal
trust resources: Neotropical migratory birds, waterfowl, and colonial
wading birds.
Appendix A lists species and habitats of special management
concern. That list includes the status of all plants, wildlife, fish, and
rare natural communities known to occur in Rhode Island that are
federally listed as endangered or threatened, were candidates for
listing, or are otherwise of management concern. Combined with
location information, we used that list to identify additional land
protection needs and opportunities. We know very little about many
Chapter 2
2-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
of these species’ presence on or use of refuge habitats. The
alternatives in the draft CCP/EA differed in their strategies for
managing these species and habitats. Addressing this issue will
help achieve Goal 1: Protect and enhance federal trust resources
and other species and habitats of special concern.
2. Restoration and maintenance of coastal sandplain
natural communities, including grasslands and
shrublands (less than 60 years old).
While it is true that the Northeast landscape was primarily
forested prior to rapid agricultural settlement in the 1800’s,
grasslands quickly became a dominant part of the landscape in
the 19th century. Grassland-dependent species responded in kind
and became established. Over the last several decades, however,
coastal sandplain grasslands and shrublands, coastal maritime
grasslands and shrublands, and agricultural fields and pastures,
have been in rapid decline in New England due to a combination
of development, changes in agricultural technology, succession to
forest as farms were abandoned, and lack of a natural disturbance
such as fire (Vickery 1997).
In Rhode Island, the State’s farmland dropped nearly 50 percent
between 1964 and 1997, from 103,801 to 55,256 acres. An
additional 3,100 acres of farmland will be lost in the next 20 years
if current sprawl patterns continue (Common Ground 2000). As a
result, few large, contiguous grasslands and shrublands are left;
only smaller, fragmented, and isolated habitat patches remain
(<75 acres).
These smaller areas are unsuitable for many focus species,
including once-common grassland birds such as grasshopper
sparrow and upland sandpiper. Grasshopper sparrows have
declined by 69 percent in the past 25 years, according to Breeding
Bird Survey data (Vickery 1997). Our best available information
suggests that grasslands should ideally be managed in 100 acre or
larger patches. Smaller grassland habitat patches are much less
productive for grassland birds, and could serve as “sinks”, where
species try to nest, but because of increased predation and other
factors, productivity and survival is severely limited.
Other grassland and shrubland species have declined
dramatically as well. Many of Rhode Island’s State-listed plant
and animal species are dependent on these habitat types.
Tremendous potential exists for refuge staff to become involved in
restoring habitat on private lands. Grassland and shrubland
restoration offers opportunities for our staff to provide technical
expertise to local communities. The alternatives in the draft
CCP/EA compared different levels of restoring and maintaining
these habitats and providing technical assistance to private
landowners. Addressing this issue will help achieve Goal 2:
Maintain and/or restore natural ecological communities to
promote healthy, functioning ecosystems.
Chapter 2
Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-5
3. Protection and restoration of the beach strand ecological
community.
Beach strand habitat is in critically short supply due to its loss and
degradation by development and shoreline de-stabilization.
Meanwhile, the demand for recreational uses in these areas
intensifies. The result is an alarmingly high rate of habitat loss and
the decline of virtually all beach strand plant and animal species.
Federally listed species such as the piping plover, roseate tern,
northeastern beach tiger beetle, and seabeach amaranth depend on
this habitat. The draft CCP/EA alternatives included different
strategies for protecting it. Addressing this issue will help achieve
Goal 2: Maintain and/or restore natural ecological communities to
promote healthy, functioning ecosystems.
4. Control of invasive, non-native, or overabundant plant and
wildlife species.
Each of the five refuges has an extensive distribution of invasive
plant species. These plants are a threat because they displace native
plant and animal species, degrade wetlands and other natural
communities, and reduce natural diversity and wildlife habitat
values. They outcompete native species by dominating light, water,
and nutrient resources. Once established, getting rid of invasive
plants is expensive and labor-intensive. Unfortunately, their
characteristic abilities to establish easily, reproduce prolifically, and
disperse readily, make eradication difficult. Many of these plants
cause measurable economic impacts, particularly in agricultural
fields. Preventing new invasions is extremely important for
maintaining biodiversity and native plant populations. The control of
existing, affected areas will require extensive partnerships with
adjacent landowners, state, and local governments.
Thirteen invasive plant species affecting the natural communities
within the Refuge Complex are considered of high management
concern. The most prevalent are Phragmites, purple loosestrife,
Asian bittersweet, autumn olive, and Japanese honeysuckle. Other
species such as Japanese knotweed and multiflora rose are increasing
on the Refuge Complex, and likely to become an issue soon.
Several wildlife species occur on the Refuge Complex that are known,
or suspected to be, adversely affecting natural diversity. Issues
surface when these species directly impact federal trust species or
degrade natural communities. Mute swans are non-native, invasive
species that aggressively drive native waterfowl and shorebirds away
from nesting areas, compete with them for food, degrade water
quality when they spend extended periods of time molting on coastal
ponds, and are sometimes aggressive towards humans.
Native species such as deer, red fox, gull, and small predatory
mammals such as mink, skunk, and weasel can be a problem when
their populations exceed the range of natural fluctuation and the
ability of the habitat to support them. Excessive numbers of deer are
a threat to rare plant communities on the Refuge Complex, and
excessive browse lines are evident on two refuges. Adjacent
landowners are also concerned about deer impacts on landscaping,
the increase in vehicle-deer collisions, and the threat of Lyme disease.
Chapter 2
2-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Red fox, gull, and some small mammals are voracious predators that
can adversely impact other native wildlife populations. Occurrences
have been documented of herring and black-backed gull, red fox, and
weasel preying on piping plover and least tern, a State-listed species
(threatened). Fox easily habituate to humans, and were being 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 draft CCP/EA alternatives compared different strategies for
managing invasive species. Addressing this issue will help achieve
Goal 1: Protect and enhance Federal trust resources and other
species and habitats of special concern, and Goal 2: Maintain and/or
restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy,
functioning ecosystems.
5. Protection of biologically significant areas through
acquisition and/or cooperative management.
Public meetings, partner meetings, and workbook responses
expressed a great deal of support for the protection of additional fish
and wildlife habitat in southern Rhode Island. That support runs
across the State, as Rhode Islanders consistently vote ballot measures
to maintain open space and protect fish and wildlife habitats. Many
people mentioned that their support stems from their concern over the
rapid pace of development on the South Shore. As we stated earlier,
development in non-urban areas of Rhode Island has increased
dramatically over the last 30 years. It is now the second most densely
populated State in the country. One estimate predicts that current
sprawl patterns will ensure the loss of all its rural areas before 2100
(Common Ground 2000). The Rhode Island Office of The Nature
Conservancy has noted that the conservation actions taken during the
next 5 to 10 years will be the most important for the majority of Rhode
Island towns (The Nature Conservancy 2000).
This dramatic increase in development has changed land use patterns
and practices, significantly modifying natural landscapes. As natural
lands (those with sustainable native species populations and intact
ecological processes) become isolated and fragmented into smaller
pieces disconnected from other natural areas, their ability to support
a full complement of native species is adversely affected. Cut off from
larger populations, species and plant communities within these
natural areas face the problems of limited genetic exchange, a
decreased ability to support diverse populations, and lost capacity to
recruit new individuals. Ultimately, the number of native species
declines and exotic species gain a stronghold.
It is precisely this diminished ability of natural areas to support
diverse species with different habitat requirements that leads to a
decline in biodiversity. While some species can tolerate fragmentation
as they prefer “edge habitat,” many others, including “interior”
dependent species, require larger, contiguous natural areas or
functional corridors linking patches of natural habitat. This ability to
protect and sustain larger natural areas and corridors, coupled with
the protection of unique or rare species or communities, is critical to
maintaining biodiversity.
Chapter 2
Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-7
A landscape or ecosystem approach to protecting land is also critical
in the recovery of threatened and endangered species. Piping plover
serve to illustrate this point. They have a fairly strong fidelity to
certain nesting areas and typically return to them most years.
Shifting of pairs between nesting areas has been observed when
disturbances or habitat conditions affect their ability to nest. Barrier
beaches are dynamic ecosystems, and their nesting conditions can
change dramatically from year to year. While 1999 was a good
nesting year on Moonstone Beach (Trustom Pond Refuge), in 2000,
the beach consisted entirely of cobble with virtually no sand for
nesting. The piping plover pairs there in 1999 appear to have shifted
to the Ninigret Conservation Area. Without consideration of these
shifts in habitat use across a landscape, management for these
species would be ineffective.
Some individuals preferred that the Service acquire and manage
federal trust resources, and that the Refuge Complex continue to
acquire these sites. Others emphasized partnerships to
cooperatively protect and manage important habitats not currently
on refuge land. Still others recommended a combination of Service
acquisition and cooperative management to provide the greatest
long-term benefit to resources. At public meetings and in our
workbooks, many responses suggested specific areas needing
protection, particularly wetlands threatened by development. Some
individuals we spoke with especially supported our acquiring land
occupied by endangered or threatened species.
The alternatives in the Draft CCP/EA offered various levels of Service
land acquisition, ranging from lands within the currently approved
acquisition boundaries only, to a considerable expansion of each
refuge’s acquisition boundary. They also evaluated our increased
involvement in cooperative land protection off-refuge. Addressing this
issue will help achieve Goal 3: Establish a land protection program that
fully supports accomplishment of species, habitat, and ecosystem goals.
6. Assurance of access to credible information about resources
regarding the Refuge Complex to ensure management
decisions are based on the best available science.
We need to determine and prioritize what information reasonably
could be collected to facilitate decision-making using the best
available science. In particular, many individuals expressed concern
over the lack of information available to fully evaluate impacts to
wildlife and habitats from excessive public use. Others questioned
the effectiveness of management actions that have not been
adequately monitored and evaluated. Several university researchers
and other partners encouraged our staff to prioritize baseline
inventory needs, establish monitoring protocols to better evaluate
management actions, and identify information needed to determine
each refuge’s contribution to the ecosystem.
Implementing the Service’s Policy on Maintaining the Biological
Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health of the National
Wildlife Refuge System will require us to ascertain the natural
conditions for each refuge and identify the natural communities,
species, and ecological processes that are rare, declining, or unique.
Opportunities to cooperate in collecting this information could be
Chapter 2
2-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
developed once the priorities have been identified. Addressing this
issue will help achieve all the Goals identified for the Refuge Complex.
7. Management of public use and access.
The Refuge Improvement Act and Service policy require our
enhanced consideration of opportunities for six priority 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 most of the
refuges, and some have been occurring for years.
Public meetings input and workbook responses make it clear that
public use on refuges is extremely important to most people. More
than 90 percent ranked environmental education and interpretation
and wildlife observation and photography very high as desirable
public uses. Rarely, however, was there consensus on other public
uses or just how much of each type to allow. Public opinion spans the
entire spectrum from those wanting to open up refuges to non-wildlife-
dependent activities, to those who want to close refuges to all
public use to maintain an undisturbed sanctuary for wildlife.
The alternatives in the draft CCP/EA compared different levels and
combinations of wildlife-dependent public use. Addressing this issue
will help achieve Goal 4: Provide opportunities for high quality,
compatible, wildlife-dependent public use with particular emphasis
on environmental education and interpretation.
8. Hunting
Hunting surfaced late in the scoping process as a key issue, perhaps
because, initially, few viewed it as a possibility on the Refuge
Complex. This issue was raised by Service personnel, by RI DEM
biologists, and by individuals both for and against expanding hunting
opportunities on the Refuge Complex. Those in support primarily
are interested in deer hunting on all refuges, waterfowl hunting on
Chafee Refuge and Ninigret Refuge, and pheasant hunting on Block
Island. Advocates of hunting refer to its inclusion as one of the six
priority public uses that “...shall receive priority consideration in
refuge planning and management” (1997 Refuge Improvement Act).
None of Block Island Refuge is open to hunting, but RI DEM has
expressed its interest in any new opportunities for hunting because
rapid residential development in Rhode Island is confining public
hunting opportunities to fewer and fewer areas.
The Service views managed or administrative hunts in areas where
there are overabundant deer populations as an effective tool for
regulating them. The overabundance of deer is a concern in Rhode
Island, reflected in increased numbers of vehicle-deer collisions,
increased complaints about deer browsing on commercial and
residential landscape plantings, visible impacts on native vegetation,
and higher concern about contracting Lyme disease.
Chapter 2
Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-9
Those opposed to hunting cited concerns with public safety,
disturbance and harm to other wildlife species, and the impact to
visitors engaged in the other five priority public uses. The latter
results from the likelihood that significant portions of the refuges,
due to their small sizes and configurations, would be closed to other
activities during hunting. Some expressed the opinion that the
refuges should function as a sanctuary for all native species, and that
hunting is incongruous with that function.
The alternatives in the draft CCP/EA offered varying levels of
hunting opportunities, from no hunting at all, to opening four refuges
during State-regulated seasons for deer, waterfowl, and pheasant.
Addressing this issue will help achieve both Goal 2: Maintain and/or
restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy,
functioning ecosystems, and Goal 4: Provide opportunities for high
quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent public use with particular
emphasis on environmental education and interpretation.
9. Opportunities for environmental education.
Responses so frequently mentioned increasing environmental
educational opportunities across the Refuge Complex that our
planning team decided it warranted special recognition. More than 90
percent of the workbook responses ranked environmental education
and interpretation as one of their top three interests. The alternatives
in the draft CCP/EA compared different levels of environmental
educational opportunities and the different levels of partnerships so
integral to implementing them on each of the five refuges. Addressing
this issue will help achieve Goal 4: Provide opportunities for high
quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent public use with particular
emphasis on environmental education and interpretation.
10. Provision of staffing, operations, and maintenance
support sufficient to accomplish goals and objectives.
The Refuge Complex lacks adequate funding and personnel to
provide the programs and services desired by the public and to
effectively meet the goals for this CCP. The alternatives in the draft
CCP/EA compared different funding and staffing levels based on
their proposed management strategies for dealing with the issues.
Addressing this issue will help achieve Goal 5: Provide Refuge
Complex staffing, operations, and maintenance support to effectively
accomplish refuge goals and objectives.
11. Increasing the visibility of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Our lack of visibility on refuges was brought up repeatedly at public
meetings and in the workbooks. Many people felt strongly about the
need for more refuge staff to be present during peak visitation to
increase resource protection and improve visitor services. Other
recommendations to increase visibility included more visitor contact
stations, increasing wildlife interpretation and environmental
educational opportunities, a better location for a headquarters office,
developing a Refuge Complex visitor center, improving existing
visitor facilities (e.g., kiosks, interpretive signs on trails, etc.),
increasing support for a volunteer program, and increasing
community involvement.
Chapter 2
2-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Some people expressed an interest in seeing refuge staff enforce
public use policy more consistently. Others argued it was
unnecessary for Service personnel to be armed while patrolling
beaches. The alternatives in the draft CCP/EA compared different
levels of promoting our visibility and providing these services.
Addressing this issue will help achieve both Goal 2: Maintain and/or
restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy,
functioning ecosystems, and Goal 4: Provide opportunities for high
quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent public use with particular
emphasis on environmental education and interpretation.
12. Need for improved facilities.
The Refuge Complex lacks a facilities plan establishing current and
future needs for staff operations and visitor services. Many of its
current facilities are inadequate. Its headquarters does not have
enough office space to accommodate even current staff, and the visitor
services area is limited to one rack of literature in the reception area.
Alternatives in the draft CCP/EA compared opportunities for new or
improved facilities to accommodate staff work space, increase the
visibility of the Service and the Refuge Complex, and improve visitor
services, including environmental education and interpretation.
Addressing this issue will help achieve Goal 5: Provide Refuge
Complex staffing, operations, and maintenance support to effectively
accomplish refuge goals and objectives.
Chapter 2
Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-11
Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-1
Piping plover
USFWS photo
  Geographic/Ecosystem Setting
  Socioeconomic Setting
  Refuge Complex Administration
  Refuge Resources
  Cultural Resources
  Public Uses
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource
Descriptions
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting
Landscape Formation
The movement of glaciers across New England created the land
forms seen in Rhode Island today. The last of those great ice sheets
occurred during the Wisconsin glacial period. Approximately 15,000
- 20,000 years ago, the glacier was in a state of equilibrium, where
the melting rate of ice equaled the glacial rate of movement (Bell
1985). As the climate warmed 12,000 - 15,000 years ago, the glacier
began its retreat, depositing pronounced land forms along its
outermost edge. The southern coast of Rhode Island, including
Block Island, is the farthest point the Wisconsin glacier reached in
its southeastern frontal movement. The retreating glacier deposited
rocks pushed by the front of its ice sheet in piles called moraines.
These terminal or end moraines formed sinuous ridges up to 200 feet
high. Block Island is part of the terminal moraine that includes
Nantucket and parts of Long Island.
A second prominent moraine lies inland, the low ridge referred to as
the Charlestown or Watch Hill moraine, stretching east to west
parallel to U.S. Route 1. Glacial action also created other features in
today’s landscape: recessional moraines, outwash plains, kettle hole
ponds, glacial lake deposits, deltas, and submerged gravel shoals.
Prominent headlands like Sachuest Point are composed of glacial till,
a mixture of silt-sized grains to boulder-sized deposits from the
melting glacier.
Melting ice sheets caused the sea to rise rapidly across Block Island
and Rhode Island Sounds until it reached its present level
approximately 4,000 years ago. Wave action parallel to the shore
continued to erode glacial deposits, creating the barrier spits. As the
spits formed, they almost entirely sealed off the low-lying areas
between the headlands and the ocean, forming coastal lagoons
connected to the sea by narrow inlets. These became the coastal salt
ponds we see today. Through the 1700’s, all of the coastal salt ponds
had direct, seasonally open connections to the ocean (RI CRMC
1984). The effects of erosion through time have shifted the salt
ponds and barrier spits gradually landward (RI CRMC 1998).
The bedrock formations of southern Rhode Island include the
Blackstone series of metamorphic rock along its southern coastal
border (including most of Westerly, Charlestown and South
Kingstown), granite rock of various ages (including most of
Narragansett and Middletown and parts of Westerly and
Charlestown), and Pennsylvanian sedimentary rock in most of south
central Rhode Island (including Richmond, much of South
Kingstown, and most of Hopkinton). Most of the soils around the
refuges are fine sandy loams or silt loams.
Historical Influences on Landscape Vegetation
The upland forests of southern Rhode Island are classified by
Kuchler (1964) as oak-hickory forest; while most of northern Rhode
Island is classified as oak-pitch pine forest. Historic land use
practices promoted this forest type.
Chapter 3
3-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
As early as 12,000 years ago, Native Americans began occupying the
area. Documented evidence places the first intensive occupation of
the salt pond region during the late Archaic period (5,000 to 3,000
years ago). Native American camps from more than 4,000 years ago
are known to have existed at one location along the shore of Ninigret
Pond. However, societies of that time were primarily hunter-gatherer
with little agriculture; broad changes to landscape
vegetation probably did not occur.
During the Woodland Period (3,000 - 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. Larger clearings and burnings to control
the movement of deer and upland birds may have occurred, and the
first pronounced clearing of land along the coast for settlements,
game management, and agriculture. Much of this land was cleared
by cutting and burning, which favored resprouting by hardwood
species like oak, hickory, and red maple.
The role fire may have played in shaping landscape vegetation is not
well known. Evidence of fire has been observed in charcoal layers at
Ninigret Refuge. Soil cores dug at most points on the refuge reveal
charcoal below the historic farmers plow zone, approximately 10
inches soil depth. The dates attributed to these fires, coupled with
their locations, suggest early Native Americans used fire extensively
and purposefully.
Although small areas of land were cleared and more or less
permanently settled by early Native Americans, it was European
settlement and expansion in the 1600’s that exponentially escalated
the conversion of forests to agriculture. The eighteenth century
Rhode Island plantation era “…required massive land clearing of the
forests that had dominated the landscapes for the last 8,000 years”
(USFWS 1999). During the mid-nineteenth century, an estimated 85
percent of southern New England was converted to field and
pasture. Any woods remaining often were managed for firewood
(Jorgensen 1977).
Block Island is similar in its prehistory to the mainland, except that
occupation most likely began in the Middle Archaic period (7,000 to
5,000 BP). Human impact on the island’s vegetation began with
Native American settlement and accelerated during the 1600’s, with
“…European practices of land clearing for pasture and agriculture
and the construction of fishing ports and associated villages”
(USFWS 1999). Town records indicate the dominant species of trees
on the island before extensive land clearing included white oak
(Quercus alba), black oak (Quercus velutina), hickory (Carya spp.),
and eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). Beech (Fagus
grandifolia), tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica), red maple (Acer rubrum) and
sassafras (Sassafras albidum) were present, but less common
(Hammond 1998). A detailed report on the archeological history of
the Refuge Complex is available from the Refuge Complex office on
request (Jacobson USFWS).
Chapter 3
Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-3
Contemporary Influences on the Landscape
The major natural disturbances affecting the coastline today are
hurricanes and winter ice-storms. Hurricanes have the greatest
impact, by far. The straight border of barrier beaches separated
from the mainland by tidal wetlands and coastal salt ponds
characterizes a coastline influenced by frequent storms. Wind and
waves pick up loose sand and sediment and move it along the
shoreline or back out to sea, allowing occasional overwash of barrier
beaches and breaching of coastal ponds. Overwash, tidal currents,
longshore currents, and rip currents are all mechanisms transporting
sediment along the barrier beaches (RI CRMC 1998).
Fall and winter storms combining wind, rain, and waves are the
predominant physical process shaping this landscape today.
“Nor’easters” are well known along the New England coast in
winter, winds generated offshore from the southeast, can actually be
more destructive to the south shore, because of its exposure to the
open ocean. The draft Salt Pond Region Special Area Management
Plan describes the geologic, wave, and wind action for the South
Shore, including details on how sediment movement constantly
reshapes this dynamic landscape (RI CRMC 1998).
The Great New England Hurricane of 1938 was the most recent 100-
year storm, one of immense power along the coast. Not only did
winds reach speeds up to 240 miles per hour, but also a spring high
tide created a storm surge between 10 and 15 feet. Storms of this
magnitude are suspected to have occurred only four other times in
recorded history: 1635, 1683, 1815, and 1821 (Bell 1985). Smaller
hurricanes are less powerful but more frequent than the hurricane of
1938. Hurricanes in 1944, 1954, 1955, 1960, 1976, and Hurricane Bob
in 1991 each left its mark on the coastline.
Human influences on sustaining the form and function of coastal
landscapes and ecosystems over the long term are predominantly
negative. Attempts to stabilize the beach system by constructing
jetties or breach ways and planting beach grass have greatly
affected the natural dynamics of this system by interrupting the
natural flow of waves and sediment. In fact, the breach ways
connecting the ponds to the ocean and one pond to another are the
single greatest human impact on the ecology of coastal ponds (RI
CRMC 1984).
Introducing non-native, invasive plants, diverting or draining coastal
wetlands for development, converting uplands for residential use,
and spilling oil are other significant human impacts on the coastal
landscape. Recent studies indicate that the greatest threats to
Rhode Island’s estuaries and coastal salt ponds are septic systems
and road runoff (RI DEM 1996). More studies are needed to
establish the extent to which each of these factors influences Refuge
Complex ecosystems.
On Rhode Island’s upland landscape, a combination of management
and natural succession has allowed forests to make a comeback. The
State Division of Forest Environment estimates that 300,000 acres of
privately owned forest plus 45,000 acres of State-managed forest
make up 45 percent of the State’s land area. Their estimate places
80 percent of the privately owned forest in tracts from 1 to 10 acres
Chapter 3
3-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
in size, which are difficult to manage as forest and are rapidly being
converted to residential areas (RI DEM 1996).
Ecosystem Delineations
The Service emphasizes an ecosystem approach to conservation,
typically using large river watersheds to define ecosystems. Rhode
Island falls within our Connecticut River/Long Island Sound
Ecosystem (Map 1-3).
Another commonly used delineation of ecosystems was developed by
Bailey (USDA 1978, expanded 1995). These ecologically based map
units often are used in landscape-level analyses. An ecoregion is first
divided into a domain, then a division, a province, a section, and a
subsection. Each level defines in greater detail its geomorphology,
geology, soil, climate, potential vegetation, surface water, and current
human use. Each of these resource attributes has implications for
resource management. For example, opportunities to restore native
grasslands may be limited by soil types, potential vegetation, and the
extent of human impacts on the natural environment. Rhode Island
falls within the Humid Temperate Domain, Hot Continental Division,
Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province, and Lower New England Section.
Climate
Cold winters and warm summers with a moderating ocean influence
characterize Rhode Island’s climate. Winter temperatures average
30º F, with lowest temperatures ranging between -10º F and -20º F.
Summer temperatures average 70º F, and peak in the 90s. Annual
precipitation averages 44 to 48 inches, evenly distributed
throughout the year. Thunderstorms occur throughout the summer
(USFWS 1989).
Air Quality
The Clean Air Act establishes Class I, II, and III areas with limits on
the amount of “criteria air pollutants” that can exist in pre-defined
geographic areas. Examples of criteria air pollutants are smog
(primarily ground-level ozone), particulate matter, and carbon
monoxide. Class I areas allow very little additional deterioration of
air quality (e.g. Wilderness Areas); Class II areas allow for more
deterioration; and Class III areas allow even more. All of Rhode
Island is currently classified as a Class II area. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the entire
State a serious non-attainment area for ozone. That designation
resulted in stricter automobile emissions standards designed to
reduce emissions by 24 percent between 1990 and 1999.
Socio-economic Factors
The Refuge Complex lies close to some of the largest population
centers on the east coast. The New York City metropolitan area,
population 8.5 million, is 2.5 hours to the southeast. Metropolitan
Boston, population 3.2 million, is 2 hours to the north. Hartford, with
a population of 140,000, is 1.5 hours to the northwest, and
Providence, population 161,000, is 45 minutes to the north (U.S.
Census Bureau 1996 estimates; 1990 U.S. Census).
Chapter 3
Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-5
According to those estimates, the population of Rhode Island is about
1 million; 94 percent live in metropolitan areas (cf. the national
average of 80 percent) and 6 percent in rural areas. South County,
which includes Ninigret Refuge , Trustom Pond Refuge , and Chafee
Refuge , has the fastest growing population and the highest number
of building permits issued annually (RI CRMC 1998). South County
population figures between 1990 and 1996 increased 7.4 percent, 4.6
percent, and 5.3 percent respectively in Charlestown, Narragansett,
and South Kingstown, while Middletown’s population decreased by
1.4 percent. The Town of New Shoreham, which includes Block
Island, had a population increase of 10.8 percent. The population for
the entire state of Rhode Island decreased by 1.3 percent over the
same period (http://www.riedc.com).
The Refuge Complex directly contributes to the economies of
Charlestown, South Kingstown, Narragansett, Middletown, and New
Shoreham through refuge revenue sharing payments. The Federal
Government does not pay property tax; it does pay refuge revenue
sharing directly to cities and towns each year, based on the fair
market value of refuge lands. The revenue sharing formula calculates
three-quarters of 1 percent of the fair market value of refuge lands as
the maximum amount payable each year. An appraisal updated every
five years keeps their fair market value current. The actual amount
of revenue sharing paid each year varies, depending on what portion
of the maximum amount Congress appropriates that year (rarely the
maximum). Figure 3-1 depicts refuge revenue sharing payments to
those towns for the fiscal year 2000.
The University of Rhode Island Department of Resource Economics
(Spring 1997) reports that travel and tourism is the State’s fastest
growing industry. In 1996, it generated $1.7 billion. The number of
visitors to the State in 1997 increased at a rate twice the national
Chapter 3
3-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Figure 3-1. Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments made to towns in 2000.
Fiscal year 2000 Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments
paid to towns
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Charlestown
(Ninigret Refuge)
South Kingstown
(Chafee & Trustom
Pond Refuges)
New Shoreham
(Block Island
Refuge)
Narragansett
(Chafee Refuge)
Middletown
(Sachuest Point
Refuge)
Dollars (thousands)
average. Also in 1997, Rhode Island’s services industry, which
includes those in health, business, and education, comprised the
largest wage and salary employment at 34 percent (RI EDC 1997).
Between 1987 and 1997, the services industry increased by 37
percent, while the manufacturing industry decreased by 37 percent.
In all the communities surrounding the refuges, travel and tourism
and the services that support them contribute substantially to local
economies. According to Ann O’Neill, President of the South County
Tourism Council (O’Neill 1999), the tourist season lasts from April
through October, with peak activity during the summer months.
Responses to our workbooks confirm that beaches and water-associated
recreation are the primary attractions for visitors with
destinations along the Rhode Island coast.
Current travel and tourism literature does not feature the Refuge
Complex. According to Ms. O’Neill, its refuges are not well known as
tourist destinations, although many visitors discover them during
their visit and enjoy the scenery and open space they provide. They
are small enough to explore in one day, and generally do not prompt
an additional night’s lodging. Ms. O’Neill stated that, since the
Tourism Council is trying to showcase a greater mix of outdoor
recreational opportunities in South County, the Refuge Complex will
figure more prominently in future promotional material.
The greatest contribution by the Refuge Complex to the local
economy comes from the values attributed to the preservation of
open space (NPS 1992). We represent those values using three
indicators, below: Cost of Community Services; Property Values;
and Public Willingness to Pay.
Cost of Community Services compares the cost per dollar of revenue
generated by residential or commercial development to that of
revenue generated by an open space designation. On the one hand,
residential development expands the tax base, but the costs of
increased infrastructure and public services (schools, utilities,
emergency services, etc.) often offset any increase in revenue. On
the other hand, undeveloped land requires few town services and
places little pressure on the local infrastructure. The cost per dollar
of revenue generated by commercial land typically falls between
those of residential and open space.
The American Farmland Trust (1989, 1992, and 1993) and the
Commonwealth Research Group (1995) evaluated community
revenues and expenses associated with open space vs. residential
and commercial development. All available information on the New
England States shows that open space and commercial development
produced more revenues than costs, while the opposite was true for
residential land.
Conversations with local realtors and appraisers helped us evaluate
the refuges’ influence on property values. Two South County realtors
and one realtor/appraiser confirmed that properties adjacent to
refuges generally are valued higher (Gross, et al. 1998). That value is
realized through increased sales price/acre in properties adjacent to a
refuge, compared to otherwise similar properties, and by how quickly
those properties sell. Properties with views protected by their
proximity to a refuge exhibit an even greater difference. All the
Chapter 3
Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-7
Chapter 3
3-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
realtors estimated, but none with any certainty, that properties
adjacent to refuges may realize from 1- to 4-percent increases in
property value. All the realtors we spoke with use a property’s
adjacency to a refuge as an important advertising asset.
Public Willingness to Pay is a method for estimating the monetary
value of ecosystem goods and services by determining how much the
public would be willing to pay, either in taxes, fees, or opportunity
costs, to preserve ecosystem values. In Rhode Island, where coastal
ecosystems are threatened by development-at-large, we have used
Willingness to Pay to estimate the value of open space preservation.
Rhode Islanders consistently and overwhelmingly vote for bond
measures to protect open space. Local and State-wide bond
measures passed in 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1989, invested more than
$100 million in acquiring land for recreation and open space. A
State-wide bond in 1998 passed an additional $15 million specifically
for protecting open space (RI CRMC 1998).
Refuge Complex Administration
Staffing and Budget
Annual budget appropriations
are highly variable, and
commensurately affect our
staffing levels. Table 3-1
summarizes Refuge Complex
budget and staffing levels from
1995 to 2000. Fluctuations reflect
funding for special projects,
moving costs for new employees,
or large equipment purchases.
Most of the funding is
earmarked; very little
discretionary funding is available.
Resource Protection and Visitor Safety
Law enforcement officers, with full authority to enforce federal
regulations, are required to ensure resource protection and visitor
safety. Three permanent refuge staff have been assigned collateral
duties for law enforcement at any time during the course of refuge
operations, but those collateral duties draw staff time and resources
away from other important programs. We typically hire up to three
seasonal staff with law enforcement authority each year.
During the past 5 years, formal notices of violation averaged 15 per
year. They typically involved vehicle and pedestrian trespass,
vandalism, and waterfowl hunting in closed areas. Well over 100
verbal warnings are also given each year, typically for inadvertently
walking or driving in closed areas, littering, walking dogs in a closed
area or off-leash, bicycling in closed areas, and digging plants. In
1993, a Trail Warden program began using volunteers to assist in
documenting violations. Wardens also inform visitors of public use
policy and permitted activities.
Fiscal year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Operations
$216,299
355,715
350,700
428,400
441,900
Maintenance
$85,700
23,900
97,700
171,000
28,000
Full time staff
7
7
8
8
9
Seasonal staff
3
3
4
4
2
Table 3-1. Refuge Complex staffing levels and budgets between 1995 - 1999.
Refuge Complex Office
The Refuge Complex office lies in the Shoreline Plaza strip mall in
Charlestown. In addition to housing our staff, it also houses our
Division of Ecological Services Southern New England/New York
Bight Coastal Ecosystem Program five-member staff, an Atlantic
Coast Joint Venture staff person, and Friends of the National
Wildlife Refuges of Rhode Island.
An environmental assessment was written in 2000, which determined
a new location for a Refuge Headquarters and Visitor Center. The
new building will be located on Deer Run Road (off Route 1) in
Charlestown, RI. The building is currently being designed, with
construction to begin in 2003.
Refuge Resources
Physical Resources
Topography, Soils and Hydrology
Glaciers deposited approximately 60 feet of New Shoreham drift,
forming the island’s hilly, morainal topography. Up to 3 feet of 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 3
Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-9
The Nature Conservancy considers Block Island an internationally
significant biodiversity reserve due to the presence of rare and
endemic species and habitats, and because of the concentrations and
diversity of songbirds, shorebirds, and raptors that migrate through
the area. At least 15 rare, threatened, or endangered federal or
state listed species, including birds, insects, mammals, and plants,
reproduce on the island. Many additional rare birds pass through
the island during migration.
Vegetation
Table 3-2 presents the dominant vegetation types and acreage for
Block Island Refuge. Block Island Refuge is primarily upland,
except for beach habitat at Cow Cove, Sandy Point, West Beach, and
Beane Point.
Beach habitat includes bare
sand, beach grass (Ammophila
brevigulata), poison ivy (Rhus
radicans), bayberry (Myrica
pennsylvanica), wild rose (Rosa
rugosa), and beach plum
(Prunus maritima). Upland
shrub habitat includes northern
arrowwood (Viburnum
recognitum), pokeweed
(Phytolacca americana),
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia), and bayberry. A
list of plant species is available
upon request from the refuge
office (George 1999).
Japanese black pine (Pinus
thunbergii) has been planted
extensively along eastern
seashores since the 1940’s
because of its remarkable ability
to withstand salt spray. But the
future of the black pines on
Block Island is uncertain. A
mixture of bayberry and non-native Japanese black pine with a
poison ivy understory dominates Beane Point. Those black pines
provide important nesting habitat for a colony of wading birds,
namely, black-crowned and yellow-crowned night-herons.
Approximately 25 percent of the black pine on Beane Point has
already been lost to an infestation of the black turpentine beetle
(Dendroctonus terebrans). No attempts to treat the beetle have
been made.
Native pitch pine (Pinus rigida) is also susceptible to black
turpentine beetles and thus, is not a good replacement tree.
Correspondence with Cornell University Cooperative Extension and
Cape Cod Cooperative Extension suggest that chemical control of
black turpentine beetle is not an option because of the proximity to
water. At present, no native tree species resistant to the black
turpentine beetle and tolerant of saline, shoreline environmental
conditions is known.
Chapter 3
3-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Dominant
cover-type
Agriculture
Beaches
Brushland
Developed
Forest Upland
Sandy Areas
(not beaches)
Water
Wetlands (not classified)
Total
Acreage
0.4
7.8
20.8
5.6
16.8
34.6
2.2
3.3
91.5
Percentage
0.5%
8.5
22.8
6.1
18.3
37.8
2.4
3.6
100
Table 3-2. Land use/land cover at Block Island National Wildlife Refuge,
Washington County, RI. (source: RI GIS)
Both the Nevuus-Greenberg and O’Toole tracts are characterized as
shrub vegetation dominated by bayberry, arrowwood, winterberry,
and chokecherry. The O’Toole property has a higher proportion of
dry upland shrub.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Two federally listed species are known to breed on Block Island: the
American burying beetle (endangered) and piping plover (threatened).
The Service has completed recovery plans for both species.
Block Island harbors one of only a handful of American burying
beetle populations, and the only natural population known east of the
Mississippi River. This beetle is the largest of the North American
carrion beetles, whose numbers have so drastically declined that
they were federally-listed as endangered in 1989. As part of an
attempt to establish more beetle populations in the east, the Service
began a reintroduction effort in the early 1990’s. They released
captive-raised beetles on Penikese and Nantucket Islands in
Massachusetts, historical habitat for the species. The western
populations occur in a limited distribution in western Arkansas,
eastern Oklahoma, western Kansas, central Nebraska, and southern
South Dakota. Beetles have also been translocated from Arkansas to
southeastern Ohio in an effort to re-establish the species there.
Unfortunately, the American burying beetle remains absent from
more than 90% of its historic range (Amaral 2000).
Surveys in recent years found the majority of the Block Island
burying beetle breeding population in the grassland habitat on the
southern end of the island. However, beetles have twice been
documented on or adjacent to refuge land, including near Beane
Point and just north of Great Salt Pond. In 1998, the town-owned
fields just south of Sachem Pond were surveyed and American
burying beetle were captured in low numbers. The beetles are highly
mobile on the island, and in fact, could be found foraging in any of its
fields today (Amaral 1999).
Beetles on the refuge are likely foraging primarily on dead pheasant
chicks, and occasionally on dead gull and black-crowned night-heron
chicks. Carrion availability may be the single greatest factor
determining where the species can survive. Annual surveys and
monitoring of the breeding population have concentrated on the
southern portion of the island. Its northern portion, including the
refuge, have not been surveyed as intensively.
In 1991, biologists placed the carcass of a herring gull chick on the
Beane Point portion of the refuge, and later found an adult female
burying beetle preparing the carcass (Amaral 1999). No other
burying beetle observations on the refuge have been recorded. In
general, the lack of suitable prey items, poor soils for burying prey
items, and lack of grasslands underlie the inferior suitability of the
north end (Kozol, et al. 1986). However, our New England Field
Office recommends further evaluating areas of suitable soil on the
north end before dismissing it as poor habitat (Amaral 1999).
Piping plovers attempting to nest near Sandy Point in 1996 laid eggs
that never hatched. Field examination revealed the eggs had
hardened, as if the birds had been off the nest for an extended
Chapter 3
Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-11
Chapter 3
3-12 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
period. In 1997, a pair of piping plover initiated nesting behavior, but
never laid eggs. Piping plover briefly seen in the area in 1998 did not
attempt nesting. None were seen in 1999. In 2000, a pair fledged
two young on a town beach south of Beane Point. In 2001, a pair
attempted nesting 3 times near the refuge. In 2002, a pair attempted
to nest on Mason’s Beach. No one has yet determined why plovers
are unsuccessful here, although human disturbance and gull
predation are possible contributing factors. The remoteness of
potential source populations may also hinder reestablishment of
breeding plovers in this nesting area.
Most of the suitable beach habitat for plover lies between Settlers
Rock and the Sandy Point Tip. Other than a small stretch of refuge
beach, most is owned by the Town of New Shoreham. Under a
cooperative management strategy with the Town, areas of the beach
between the North Light and Sandy Point will be symbolically fenced
if piping plover are seen exhibiting courtship behavior. We will erect
nest exclosures around any suspected nest sites. The staff of The
Nature Conservancy-Block Island help monitor this beach during the
breeding season.
Symbolic fencing consists of intervisible, 5’- to 6’ high metal posts
spaced approximately 100’ apart. Each post holds a sign that reads
“Bird Nesting Area.” No physical barriers connect the posts. Nest
exclosures are welded 2”x4” wire-mesh cages 10’ in diameter that are
placed over nests (typically just a scrape in the sand). Exclosures
are topped with 1” black plastic mesh, and some sections have yellow
nylon rope connecting their posts. The wire mesh allows plover to
enter and exit, but excludes most predators.
A group of two to four immature bald eagles has been observed near
ponds through the past five summers, feeding on waterfowl and fish;
one roost site near Middle Pond’s west shore has been documented.
More monitoring is needed to document habitat use by these birds.
The 1994 Recovery Plan for the northeastern beach tiger beetle
(threatened) identifies Block Island as a low potential reintroduction
site (USFWS 1993). This species has not been documented in Rhode
Island since the 1950’s, but was known historically on Block Island’s
Crescent Beach. The nearest population of northeastern beach tiger
beetles is near Westport, MA. According to Susanna vonOettingen of
our New England Field Office, there are no plans to reintroduce the
northeastern beach tiger beetle outside of Massachusetts for
approximately 10 years. A source population to begin reintroduction
has not been established. Also, the highest priority reintroduction
site in Rhode Island would likely be the Weekapaug, Misquamicut,
and Napatree Point areas, where the beaches generally are wider
(vonOettingen 1998).
Some State-listed species also occur on the refuge. Thirty-seven
black-crowned night-heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) (endangered RI)
nests were documented in a colony on Beane Point in 1998, an
increase from the 29 nests counted in 1996 and 1997. This population
has been documented on Block Island since 1976; however, they did
not move to the Beane Point location until 1985. Prior to this, the
rookery was located on the south side of West Beach road and briefly
on the south shore of Sachem Pond. In both of these settings, the
rookery was in shrub habitat (Ferren and Myer 1998, Raithel pers
Chapter 3
Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-13
com 2000). Nesting with the black-crowned night-herons are one
pair of great egrets (Casmerodius albus) and one pair of snowy
egrets (Egretta thula) (endangered RI). A few yellow-crowned
night-herons (Nycticorax violacea) (endangered RI) nest nearby.
This is the only heron colony known on the island. As stated earlier,
these birds are nesting in a dying stand of Japanese black pine.
Adjacent landowners have informed us that, before nesting in the
black pine, the black-crowned night-herons used to nest in shadbush
on the island. This has implications for evaluating how to replace the
nesting structure provided by the black pine.
Three to five American oystercatchers (Haematopus palliatus)
(endangered RI) also nest on Beane Point and occasionally have been
found near Sandy Point. Sea beach knotweed (Polygonum glaucum)
(endangered RI) is sometimes found near Sandy Point.
Block Island is the only place in Rhode Island where northern
harriers (Circus cyaneus) (endangered RI) nest. A total of 15 nests
occur on the island; up to six nests occur near refuge lands, but none
have been documented on the refuge. Block Island is also one of
only two places in the world where barn owls (Tyto alba –
endangered, RI) nest in sea cliff cavities rather than in human-made
structures or inland cliff crevices; however, none of the four known
cliff sites are on refuge lands. No other nests are known for barn
owls in Rhode Island.
Reptiles and Amphibians
Green frog (Rana clamitans), peepers (Psuedacris crucifer), and
red-spotted newts (Notophthalumus v. viridescens) occur in the
island’s scattered freshwater ponds. Reptiles include common
snapping turtle (Chelydra s. serpentina), spotted turtle (Clemmys
guttata), eastern painted turtle (Chrysemys p. picta), northern
water snake (Nerodia sipedon), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis
s. sirtalis), northern brown snake (Storeria d. dekayi), and an
occasional diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin). No
surveys have been conducted on the refuge. There is speculation
that some of these may be distinct subspecies, since they have been
separated from mainland populations for at least 8,000 years.
Birds
With the exception of the gull colony and heron rookery, very little
survey data exists on bird species and their abundance specific to
Block Island Refuge.
The refuge gull colony, the largest in the State, has been surveyed
since 1981 (Comings 2000). RI DEM, Refuge staff and The Nature
Conservancy on Block Island have been monitoring the colony
because of a concern the gulls could impact other native species
through increased predation or physical displacement as they
dominate nesting sites. Gulls are known to prey on piping plover
chicks, and thus pose a threat to management for that species.
Figure 3-2 shows that overall gull populations have been gradually
decreasing. Closing the landfill on West Beach and switching to a
transfer station in 1990 probably contributed to this decline.
Although it is important to note that gull populations are down
Chapter 3
3-14 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
statewide, great black-backed gulls are systematically displacing
herring gulls (Raithel 1999). In recent years, the black-backed gulls
have forced herring gulls into the less hospitable shrub habitat for
nesting. Unfortunately, black-backed gulls pose a greater threat to
other native birds because they are a more aggressive predator than
herring gulls.
While no formal surveys have been conducted for songbirds on
refuge lands, The Nature Conservancy has two permanent banding
stations on Clayhead Preserve on the northern end of the island.
More than 6,000 birds representing 95 species are banded in a given
year. This banding provides valuable information on the diversity of
species breeding and migrating on the northern tip of the island.
The habitat consists of shrub-scrub pine and kettle ponds.
Block Island is internationally famous among birders for its
spectacular fall songbird migration. Data reveals that the island
provides crucial habitat for both spring and fall migratory shorebirds
and songbirds. Its northern tip, in particular, consistently supports
large concentrations of fall migrants. Thousands of Neotropical
migrants, representing 70 species, have been documented. Of
interest is the fact that the vast majority of these fall migrants are
juveniles. Studies indicate that juvenile birds are severely
dehydrated by the time they reach Block Island, and that its
approximately 365 small ponds and abundance of fruit-bearing
shrubs provide life-saving rehydration. Many typically omnivorous
migrants forage exclusively on berries while on Block Island (Parrish
1999). Northern arrowwood, northern bayberry, and pokeweed
were the predominate fruit-bearing shrubs used by birds. Shrub
habitat also provides resting shelter for migrating birds.
In his 3-year study of frugivory in landbirds on Block Island, Parrish
noted that fruit-bearing shrubs important to migratory birds are
superabundant on Block Island, evidenced by: (1) the fact birds
never removed entire fruit crops; (2) interspecific and intraspecific
aggression were uncommon; and (3) estimates of fruit removal
ranged from 25 percent to 40 percent at individual sites.
Figure 3-2. Number of active gull nests at Block Island Refuge for select years between 1981 - 1998. (Data for 1993 represents
only a partial count of the colony. No surveys were done for intervening years.)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1988 1990 1993 1994 1995 1998
Great black-backed
Herring
*
Great black-backed gulls
Herring gulls
Chapter 3
Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-15
Shorebirds pass through in large numbers during midsummer and
early fall. Typically, 40 different shorebird species have been
observed using the mudflats and saltmarshes and wrack lines on
open beach, including piping plover and whimbrel (Comings 2000).
Mammals
Block Island is unique regarding mammals, because no native,
terrestrial mammalian predators reportedly occur on the island.
Feral cats and Norway rats are the biggest threat to small mammals,
bird eggs, and chicks. No predator control measures have been
implemented on the refuge.
Seals occasionally haul out on the refuge shoreline near Sandy Point;
however, no formal surveys have been conducted. The Block Island
meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus provectus) is considered
endemic to Block Island. Other small mammals include the white-footed
mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), introduced muskrat (Ondatra
zibethicus), house mouse (Mus musculus), and Norway rat (Rattus
norvegicus). Since no surveys of bats have been conducted, we do
not know what species, if any, use the refuge.
The overabundant population of white-tailed deer has been an
important issue in recent years because deer are not native to the
island, and there are no natural predators to control the population.
The Town of New Shoreham and RI DEM administer a hunt
program to substantially reduce the deer herd on portions of the
island. Huntable acreage is limited on the island, due to limited
access on private and public lands. Deer numbers on the refuge are
not known, and hunting is not currently permitted on the refuge, but
will be evaluated as described in chapter 4.
Cultural Resources
When English settlers first encountered Native Americans on Block
Island in 1661, they described two large, permanent villages of 60
wigwams each and 100 acres of agricultural fields. Within the year,
the settlers had surveyed and divided the island into lots. There are
accounts of the settlers’ enslavement of Native Americans to
expedite clearing and construction. Native Americans disappeared
from the census in 1875 (USFWS 1999).
No prehistoric sites have been recorded on Block Island Refuge, and
we have not conducted any formal archaeological surveys. We
consider the entire refuge highly sensitive for archeological deposits.
The North Light lighthouse, formerly on the refuge but now on town
property, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Archeologists have examined a 19th-20th century fishing village site
on refuge property that has been impacted by coastal erosion and
dune migration.
Public Use
We do not maintain a Service presence on Block Island, although
refuge staff recognize the need for at least one seasonal employee to
be stationed on the island during peak summer season. The
opportunities for public contact are extensive, and include
environmental education and interpretation.
Based on informal visitor counts (The Nature Conservancy 1998), we
estimate annual public use on Block Island Refuge between Settlers
Rock and Sandy Point Beaches at 40,000 total visitor days. No
formal counts have been done. The Refuge Complex has not
established a systematic strategy for collecting and documenting
visitor use.
Principal wildlife-dependent public use on refuge lands includes surf
fishing, wildlife observation, environmental education, and
photography. We opened the refuge to surf fishing under State
regulations through a Federal Register Notice in 1998 (50 CFR 32).
That notice did not specify any geographic limits for surf fishing, and
thus, the Beane Point tract was inadvertently included. With the
exception of surf fishing, the Beane Point, O’Toole, and Nevuus-
Greenberg tracts are not officially open to any other public use.
In 1994, refuge staff completed a compatibility determination for
wildlife observation and interpretation, formally establishing these
activities as compatible uses on the northern tract, near Sandy Point.
That determination also found dog-walking a non-compatible use.
Because of the lack of Service presence on the island, very little
public use enforcement has occured in the past.
No public-use infrastructure is maintained by refuge staff. A short
section of an unofficial, 5-mile hiking trail in the West Beach area
crosses refuge lands. The North Light lighthouse, maintained by the
town but surrounded by the refuge, is one of the most popular visitor
destinations on northern Block Island. Access to the lighthouse
crosses approximately 500 feet of refuge beach via a right-of-way.
Vehicles use this right-of-way to access both the lighthouse and surf
fishing sites.
Cooperative management of public use on the northern portion of
Block Island strives to protect nesting piping plover. The Town of
New Shoreham closed Sandy Point Beach from the lighthouse to the
Point in 1996 and 1997, in conjunction with closures on the refuge
beach after nesting piping plover had been observed. In 1998 and
1999, no nesting behavior was observed, and neither the town
property nor the refuge beach was closed.
Chapter 3
3-16 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-1
Redstart
USFWS photo
  Refuge Complex Vision
  Refuge Complex Goals
  General Refuge Management
Chapter 4
Management Direction
Refuge Complex Vision
We developed this vision statement to provide a guiding philosophy
and sense of purpose for the five refuge CCPs. It qualitatively
describes the desired future character of the Refuge Complex
through 2015 and beyond. We wrote in the present tense to provide
a more motivating, positive, and compelling statement of purpose. It
has guided, and will continue to guide, program emphases and
priorities for each refuge in Rhode Island.
“The Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex protects a
unique collection of thriving coastal sandplain, coastal maritime,
and beach strand communities, and represents some of the last
undeveloped seacoast in southern New England. Leading the way in
the protection and restoration of coastal wetlands, shrubland, and
grassland habitats, the Refuge Complex contributes to the long-term
conservation of migratory and resident native wildlife populations,
and the recovery of endangered and threatened species. These
refuges offer research opportunities and provide an outstanding
showcase of habitat management for other landowners.”
“The Refuge Complex is the premiere destination for visitors to
coastal Rhode Island to engage in high quality, wildlife-dependent
recreation. Hundreds of thousands of visitors are rewarded each
year with inspiring vistas and exceptional opportunities to view
wildlife in native habitats. Innovative environmental educational
and interpretive programs motivate visitors to engage in better
stewardship of coastal resources.”
“Through partnerships and extensive outreach efforts, Refuge
Complex staff are committed to accomplishing refuge goals and
significantly contributing to the Mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System. This commitment will strengthen with the future,
revitalizing the southern New England ecosystem for generations
to come.”
Refuge Complex Goals
Our planning team developed the following goals for the Refuge
Complex after reviewing applicable laws and policies, regional plans,
the Refuge Complex vision statement, the purpose of each refuge,
and public comments. All the goals fully comply with Service policy
and national and regional mandates.
Our Refuge Complex goals are intentionally broad, descriptive
statements of purpose. They highlight specific elements of our vision
statement and provide the foundation for our management emphasis.
We identified Goal 1 as the top priority for the Refuge Complex;
Goals 2-5 are not presented in any particular order.
Each goal is further refined by a series of objective statements.
Objectives are incremental steps to be taken toward achieving a goal
and define the management emphasis in measurable terms, where
possible. Some of our objectives relate directly to habitat
management, while others strive to meet population targets tied to
species’ recovery plans, or state or regional species plans. The
strategies for each objective are specific actions, tools, techniques,
considerations, or a combination of these, which may be used to
Chapter 4
4-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
achieve the objective. Objectives will be used directly in respective
step-down plans, while strategies may be revised or modified to
achieve the desired outcome.
Together, the goals and objectives are unifying elements of successful
refuge management. They identify and focus management priorities,
provide a context for resolving issues, and offer a critical link between
refuge purpose(s), and the National Wildlife Refuge System Mission.
Integral to all the objectives under Goal 1 and Goal 2 is development
in 2003 of a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for the Refuge
Complex. This will be the highest priority step-down plan to
accomplish. We will write the plan using current resource
information, but will update it based on new information, as needed.
The purpose of the HMP will be to prevent the loss or degradation of
habitat types, species assemblages, or natural processes significant
to the Refuge Complex. It will identify habitat management actions
that, to the extent practicable, restore and sustain viable populations
of our focus species. The objectives and strategies identified below
will all be incorporated into the HMP.
Once the HMP is developed, the Refuge Complex will develop a
Species and Habitat Inventory and Monitoring Plan in 2004.
Critical elements of the biological program to be inventoried or
monitored will be identified, prioritized, and scheduled. This plan
will also describe inventory and monitoring procedures, determine
where data will be stored, and identify the interim and final reports
to include. It will provide a critical connection between the HMP and
credible, adaptive refuge management.
In addition, the Region is currently developing a Regional National
Wildlife Refuge System Strategic Resources Plan (SRP). This plan
will establish Regional goals and objectives for species and habitats
based on landscape-scale analyses. Each refuge staff will then
determine their respective refuge’s contribution to implementing
these objectives. As such, once the SRP is completed, the objectives
and strategies outlined below may be modified.
The following goals, objectives, and strategies provide management
direction for the refuge over the next 15 years. Unless otherwise
noted, all work will be accomplished by the Service, primarily by
Refuge Complex staff.
Goal 1: Protect and enhance federal trust resources and other
species and habitats of special concern.
Objective 1.1
Sustain at least a 5-year average of 1.5 fledged chicks/pair per year
(1996 Revised Piping Plover Recovery Plan) on at least one site on
northern Block Island, with priority given to reestablishing
successful nesting on the refuge.
Background:
The 1996 Revised Recovery Plan for the Atlantic Coast Population of
Piping Plover describes the species status, habitat requirements, and
limiting factors. The major factors contributing to the species’
decline is the loss and degradation of habitat due to development and
shoreline stabilization. The recovery objective is to remove the
Chapter 4
Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-3
species from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants by: 1) achieving well-distributed increases in numbers and
productivity of breeding pairs, and 2) providing for long-term
protection of breeding and wintering plovers and their habitat.
Objective 1.1 directly supports Recovery Criteria #1 and #3, which
relate to maintaining a wide distribution of breeding pairs, and a
consistent productivity and fledging rate. In general, we hope to
achieve this by increasing the amount and duration of protection and
monitoring of nesting sites, and through habitat improvements, as
outlined below.
In addition, the Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan for
Southern New England (Physiographic Area 9; draft Oct 2000) (PIF
Plan) lists several implementation strategies and management
guidelines to achieve habitat objectives, including: monitoring and
research, actively deterring predators, preventing human
disturbance at nesting sites, and public education. All of these are
incorporated as strategies or guidelines in Objectives 1.1 to 1.4 below.
No nesting has been documented on refuge lands within the last 5
years; however, nesting has been attempted on lands immediately
adjacent to the refuge. While refuge lands will continue to be
managed to promote nesting activity on the refuge, achievement of
this objective necessitates a cooperative management strategy with
adjacent landowners on the northern part of Block Island.
Strategies:
  Each year prior to the piping plover nesting season, continue to
coordinate with and seek support from the Service’s Ecological
Services Division, RI DEM, and the U.S. Coast Guard.
  Each year, continue to monitor for piping plover in suitable habitat
on refuge lands beginning in early April. Install symbolic fencing
around potential territories (above the mean high water mark) to
exclude public access when courtship behavior is observed. Place
predator exclosure fencing around nest sites. Fencing will remain
in place until birds have fledged (typically by August 15).
Monitoring and management actions will meet or exceed the
Service’s 1994 Guidelines for Managing Recreational Activities in
Piping Plover Breeding Habitat on the U.S. Atlantic Coast To
Avoid Take Under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act
(Appendix G in the 1996 Recovery Plan).
  In 2003, annually close refuge beaches above the mean high water
line to vehicles from April 1 to September 15 to reduce
disturbance to nesting and migrating shorebirds and to reduce
physical impacts to the barrier beach.
  By 2003, hire a biological technician, to be stationed locally, who
will work with The Nature Conservancy to monitor suitable plover
habitat, potential habitat, and public use activities in the Block
Island Focus Area. This technician may also support other
biological program activities.
  By 2003, refuge staff will monitor gull populations, in cooperation
with ongoing RI DEM and The Nature Conservancy surveys, to
ascertain whether gulls are limiting plover nesting.
  By 2003, formalize the current verbal agreement with Town of
Chapter 4
4-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
New Shoreham, through use of a cooperative agreement, to insure
continued implementation of town beach restrictions on public use
when active piping plover nesting occurs. While developing this
agreement, consider whether symbolic fencing could be placed on
town lands on an experimental basis, in order to enhance potential
nesting habitat on the adjacent refuge.
  By 2004, hire a Rhode Island Piping Plover Coordinator* who will
provide visibility and oversight to the Refuge Complex and South
Shore piping plover programs, and facilitate interagency funding
and cooperative management of off-Refuge nesting areas.
*The Rhode Island Piping Plover Coordinator will a) coordinate
outreach and education; b) complete cooperative agreements with
private landowners (see above); c) coordinate with towns to develop
contingency plans (see below); d)coordinate piping plover research
on the refuges; e) hire seasonal biological technicians; f) seek
outside funding to help support the South Shore program; g)
coordinate habitat evaluations and monitoring (e.g. determine
nesting carrying capacities, habitat parameters to monitor, and
predator trapping effectiveness).
Objective 1.2
Each year, minimize predation of piping plover at nesting sites in
support of nest productivity and fledging objectives.
Background:
According to the 1996 Recovery Plan and experience at Rhode Island
nesting sites, predation is a major factor limiting piping plover
reproductive and fledging success. Predation is highly site-specific,
but evidence indicates that human activities are exacerbating natural
predation levels by influencing the types, numbers, and activity
patterns of predators. As a result, we are managing human activities
as described in Objectived 1.1 and 1.3, and also trying to influence
predator behavior at nesting sites. Our predator management
includes the use of non-lethal strategies (e.g. visual deterrents, scare
tactics, fenced exclosures), as well as the removal of animals.
Strategies:
  Continue to document statistics (productivity, fledging rates, nest
losses, predation, etc.) in annual piping plover reports, and share
information with Recovery Team Coordinator.
  Continue to minimize direct predation of piping plover at each
nesting site through the use of exclosures and other non-lethal
deterrents, in combination with the removal of animals where it is
warranted and feasible. Utilize recommended techniques in
“Best Management Practices for Trapping Furbearers,” a
technical report to be completed by the Fur Resources Committee
of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,
when available.
  By 2005, evaluate predation statistics on managed piping plover
nesting sites to determine the effectiveness of predator
management efforts at each nesting site. Adapt management
accordingly.
Chapter 4
Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-5
Objective 1.3
Within three years of CCP completion, develop a piping plover
outreach and education program specifically targeting people using
Rhode Island beaches.
Strategies:
  Continue annual coordination with the Friends Group to provide
oversight, conduct public outreach and education, and help secure
non-Service funding for the Piping Plover Program.
  Continue development of a barrier beach education kit for
teachers.
  In 2003, develop an education and outreach plan for the piping
plover program, which will include:
• Identification of target audiences (e.g. beach front
landowners, elected officials, tourists, and local school
children);
• Distribution of literature with RI DEM beach use permits,
and at beach access focal points;
• A major exhibit at the new Visitor Center; and,
• An educational program integrated with local school
curriculums.
  Work with the Friends Group and other partners to develop and
implement the plan and secure funding for its initiatives.
  By 2004, hire at least two additional seasonal Park Aides for the
Refuge Complex to conduct outreach and education on refuge
lands and in the communities directly affected by piping plover
management.
Objective 1.4
Within three years of CCP completion, determine the site specific
factors affecting Block Island piping plover nesting success and
undertake actions recommended or accepted by the piping plover
scientific community.
Strategies:
  Each year, the Refuge Biologist will coordinate with the Piping
Plover Recovery Team and other scientists to obtain new research
results and share the effectiveness of management techniques.
  By 2004, work with partners to identify piping plover research needs
for the Refuge Complex, with highest priority given to determining
those factors most influencing chick survival on the refuges.
  By 2005, obtain funding to initiate the highest priority project.
Objective 1.5
Within five years of CCP completion, evaluate the suitability of refuge
lands to support and sustain breeding American burying beetle.
Background:
The endangered American burying beetle breeds on southern Block
Island, but has yet to be documented breeding on the northern end
of the island. It has, however, been observed foraging on the refuge
Chapter 4
4-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
and adjacent lands. To date, the northern end of the island has not
been surveyed intensively for breeding habitat, and there is some
question as to whether or not breeding habitat exists there. The
Service’s New England Field Office recommends further evaluations
before dismissing the north end as poor habitat. High quality
habitat would consist of abundant prey (e.g. pheasant, gull or heron
chicks), suitable soils for burying prey, and grassland vegetation.
Efforts to protect waterbirds (see below) will also benefit the
American burying beetle through increased availability of carrion.
Strategies:
  By 2003, actively participate in ongoing annual monitoring of
American burying beetles on southern Block Island, led by RI
DEM, The Nature Conservancy, and our New England Field Office.
  By 2008, work with these partners to assess opportunities on the
refuge to manage for burying beetle breeding habitat and expand
the distribution of the island’s population. If determined feasible
and consistent with other biological objectives, initiate habitat
projects on up to 50 acres.
  As lands are acquired by the Service, evaluate their potential
suitability for breeding habitat.
Objective 1.6
Within five years of CCP completion, determine if specific
management actions are warranted to sustain bald eagle roosting
habitat on northern Block Island.
Background:
Over the past five summers, up to four immature bald eagles have
been observed roosting on pond shorelines in northern Block Island,
according to observations from The Nature Conservancy staff. They
are attracted to the ponds to feed on waterfowl and fish. Of
particular interest is the consistent observations on Middle Pond’s
west shore. More monitoring is needed to determine whether there
is an established roost site that would benefit from additional
management or protection.
Strategies:
  By 2003, a seasonal biological technician (recommended above for
piping plover) will annually monitor roosting eagles observed on
refuge lands on Middle Pond. Also, coordinate with The Nature
Conservancy to identify other high use areas, and potential
threats to roosting eagles, such as human disturbance and/or
habitat degradation.
  By 2005, develop site management and monitoring plans, if such
plans are warranted by consistent bald eagle use of refuge lands.
Objective 1.7
Within three years of CCP completion, determine if specific
management actions are warranted to protect and sustain the
wading bird rookery on the refuge.
Background:
Since approximately 1985, a heron and egret rookery has been
established in a Japanese black pine stand on refuge land at Beane
Chapter 4
Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-7
Point. Between 1976 and 1985, these birds apparently nested in
nearby shrub habitat, possibly shadbush. Up to 37 black-crowned
night herons nests, one snowy egret nest, and a few yellow-crowned
night herons nests were documented in 1998, All of these species are
State-listed as endangered. Also nesting in the rookery are great
egrets. This is the only known heron colony on the island. The
Japanese black pine stand appears to be dying.
Black- and yellow-crowned night heron, great egret, and snowy egret
are all species of conservation priority in the Partners in Flight Plan
for Area 9 (PIF Area 9).
Strategies:
  By 2003, utilize a seasonal biological technician (also recommended
above) to participate in annual monitoring of the refuge rookery
site on Beane Point. Monitoring is currently conducted by RI
DEM and The Nature Conservancy.
  In 2003, work with these partners to identify threats to the
rookery and evaluate the condition of the pine stand supporting
the nests. Determine what could be done to at least maintain the
existing nesting capability. Evaluate whether to replant native
vegetation. Identify and maintain prospective new sites so
rookeries can reestablish or expand.
  Use the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (once
completed) to update management and monitoring strategies for
these heron and egret species
Objective 1.8
Within two years of CCP completion, establish specific habitat
management objectives for those birds considered by PIF to be a
high conservation priority in PIF Area 9, Southern New England,
and for which the refuge could make an important contribution to
their conservation.
Background:
Partners in Flight (PIF) Bird Conservation Plans are written for
physiographic provinces with an overall goal to ensure the long term
maintenance of healthy populations of landbirds. These plans
identify species and habitats most in need of conservation, describe
desired habitat conditions for these species, develop biological
objectives, and recommend conservation actions. This plan covers
objectives and recommendations for breeding, migration, and
wintering habitats. Rhode Island Refuges lie within PIF Area 9,
Southern New England. This PIF Plan is still in draft.
Although a final PIF plan is not completed, this CCP incorporates
habitat objectives for certain landbird species identified as high
conservation priority in the draft PIF Area 9 plan (Oct 2000). These
include piping plover, shrub- and grassland-dependent coastal
Neotropical migrants, and maritime marshland species. Using
information from the surveys identified below, and the completed
PIF plan, we will be able to refine our landbird management
objectives in the near future.
Chapter 4
4-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Strategies:
  In 2003, utilize the “Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation
Plan for Southern New England (Area 9)” (draft Oct 2000), and
the Regional Strategic Resources Plan (in preparation) to identify
and prioritize those landbirds of highest management concern on
the refuge, and assess how current management practices are
impacting them. Determine which of these landbirds should be a
focus for future management on the refuge, and write landbird
objectives for the HMP.
  In 2003, initiate an annual monitoring strategy for American
oystercatcher nesting sites on Beane Point; identify potential
threats and incorporate management recommendations into HMP.
  In conjunction with HMP, update refuge cover type maps in a GIS
database, adhering to the National Vegetation Classification
Standards.
Objective 1.9
Protect and improve habitat quality for shorebirds at feeding and
staging areas on the refuge.
Background:
Shorebirds annually migrate hundreds or thousands of miles
between breeding and wintering grounds, often in one or a few long-distance
non-stop flights. As such, migration staging areas, where
birds rest and accumulate fat reserves before and during flight, are
vitally important to many shorebird populations. Along the east
coast, beaches are key locations. Long-term declines of shorebird
numbers at migration staging areas along the Massachusetts coast
have been attributed to conflicts between shorebirds and heavy
human recreational use. Monitoring shorebirds during migration has
not occurred on Block Island Refuge, so information is limited on
whether it is a key staging area for shorebirds.
Strategies:
  Use the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (once completed) to
update management and monitoring strategies based on any
newly identified imperiled species (draft Shorebird Prioritization
System 1999).
  By 2005, determine if there are any key staging and feeding areas
on the refuge, if so, map in a GIS database.
  By 2006, determine potential threats and disturbances for key areas
and implement a plan to reduce their impact. Use outreach and
education and, if necessary, restrictions on public use and access.
Objective 1.10
Within five years of CCP completion, determine if specific
management actions are warranted to insure seals are protected at
refuge haul out areas.
Background:
There are no significant concentrations of seals known on the refuge.
Generally, small groups of two to six seals will haul-out together.
Both harbor and gray seals are observed on Block Island Refuge’s
Beane Point. Neither of these species are imperiled, but they are
protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Chapter 4
Block Island Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-9
Strategies:
  Beginning in 2005, work with partners to survey seal haul-out
areas on the Refuge Complex and determine if human disturbance
is a threat. Reduce human disturbance through public outreach
efforts, and restrict access, if necessary.
Objective 1.11
Promote an appreciation of amphibian and reptile conservation, and
actively manage to protect and sustain current populations on the
refuge.
Background:
Recent studies conducted by the University of RI (URI) have
revealed that Ninigret and Trustom Pond refuges are very important
to the reptile and amphibian population in the South County area. In
fact, the highest density of two amphibian species known for Rhode
Island occur on these refuges. We suspect Block Island refuge could
be making an important contribution to the reptile and amphibian
populations on the island. We need more information on species’
presence, and their seasonal use of the refuge, before recommending
management actions.
Strategies:
  In 2003, conduct annual anuran call count surveys according to
Regional protocol.
  By 2005, develop environmental education and interpretation
programs to promote the significance of the refuges to Rhode
Island’s herptofauna.
  By 2005, evaluate and incorporate recommendations (pending)
made by Partners for Amphibian and Reptile Conservation
(PARC) as warranted into refuge management.
  By 2005, implement an inventory and monitoring plan for
amphibians and reptiles of conservation concern predicted for the
refuge.
Objective 1.12
Within 15 years of CCP completion, evaluate whether refuge lands
can contribute to the recovery of the northeastern tiger beetle
through reintroduction efforts initiated by the Service’s Ecological
Services Division, New England Field Office.
Background:
A Recovery Plan for the Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle
(Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis) was completed in September 1994.
This species, which was described in the early 1900’s as occurring in
“great swarms”, along beaches from Martha’s Vineyard to New
Jersey, is now only known in the northeast at two sites in
Massachusetts. This beetle has been extirpated from the rest of
Massachusetts, and all of Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York
(Long Island) and New Jersey. This beetle is very vulnerable to
disturbance while in its larval stage, which lasts two years. The
larvae live in vertical burrows, generally in the beach intertidal zone,
where they are sensitive to destruction by high levels of pedestrian
traffic, vehicles, and other factors which alter the beach dynamic
such as coastal development and beach stabilization structures.
Chapter 4
4-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Population growth seems to be hampered by a lack of both
undisturbed beaches and of nearby populations to provide a source
for colonizing new sites.
Several sites in Rhode Island were identified as historic and extant
sites for this beetle in the recovery plan, and, while subject to
change, their future restoration and reintroduction potential was also
identified. Sites for Rhode Island include Napatree Point (low-medium
potential), Block Island (low potential), Narragansett Pier
(low to no potential), Roger Williams Park (low to no potential), and
Newport (low to no potential).
Strategies:
  By 2015, coordinate with the New England Field Office and RI
DEM to determine the feasibility of reintroducing the beetles on
the Rhode Island Refuge Complex or elsewhere along the South
Shore of Rhode Island.
  By 2016, develop site management and monitoring plans for
prospective reintroduction sites on the Refuge Complex.
Goal 2: Maintain and/or restore natural ecological communities to
promote healthy, functioning ecosystems
Objective 2.1
Within three years of CCP completion, design and implement a
baseline inventory on refuge lands to determine the occurrence of
species and habitats of management concern (Appendix A), and to
serve as a basis for future management decisions.
Background:
To keep the HMP relevant, we will need to improve our general
knowledge of important refuge resources, including their presence,
distribution and condition, to insure management actions are
sustaining biological integrity, biological diversity, and ecosystem health
as required by Service policy (FWS Manual, Chapter 3, part 601).
Strategies:
  In 2004, develop a priority list of baseline biological inventory
needs to better understand and document the biodiversity on the
refuge, especially the presence and distribution of species and
habitat types listed in Appendix A. Incorporate these priorities
into the HMP.
  In 2004, begin inventories on the highest priority projects,
incorporating the results into the CENSUS database, or other
regional databases with GIS capabilities, to facilitate future
analyses. Revise digital cover type maps as warranted.
Objective 2.2
Increase protection and restoration of 10 acres of beach strand
habitat on the refuge, and promote the stewardship of these critical
areas throughout coastal Rhode Island.
Background:
Beach strand (also known as barrier beach) is perhaps the most
imperiled habitat type on or adjacent to the refuges because of the
combined impacts of development and recreation. Many species
Chapter 4
Block Island Refuge CCP ��� May 2002 4-11
associated with this habitat type are either Federal- or State-listed as
threatened or endangered. Protection, restoration, and enhancement
of beach strand habitat and dependent species was identified as the
number one priority in the Connecticut River/Long Island Sound
Ecosystem Team Plan (July 1996). Management of these areas is
extremely complex and controversial, especially when it includes
restrictions on beach use. Block Island Refuge includes
approximately 10 acres of beach strand habitat, with the potential for
more to be acquired within the approved refuge acquisition boundary.
Strategies:
  In 2003, close refuge beaches above the mean high water line to
vehicles from April 1 to September 15 to ensure protection of
nesting and migratory shorebirds, and to reduce physical impacts
to beaches and dunes. The seasonal closure would not preclude
emergency vehicles or use of the legal rights-of-way for the North
Light Commission to access the North Light for maintenance and
to provide access for visitors with impaired mobility.
  By 2003, in combination with piping plover outreach and
education, promote increased protection and stewardship of beach
strand habitat through an intensive outreach and education
campaign with the Friends of the Refuges and other partners to
target beach front landowners, elected officials, and beach visitors.
  By 2003, use two seasonal park aides to implement the project,
who will be shared across the Refuge Complex.
  In 2003, cooperate with the Town of New Shoreham, Block Island
Land Trust, Block Island Conservancy, The Nature Conservancy,
and Audubon Society of Rhode Island to develop a cooperative
resource protection and public use and access plan for northern
Block Island. The plan will identify strategies to protect sensitive
areas (shorebird and waterbird nesting areas and native dune
vegetation) while also providing for public use and access. It will
also identify infrastructure desired to support compatible activities
and evaluate a permit system and/or designated access and travel
ways. Implementation will require a formal cooperative
agreement among all partners. This plan will be incorporated
into the Refuge Complex’s Visitor Services Plan, to be completed
in 2004.
Objective 2.3
Within