John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              John H. Chafee National
Wildlife Refuge
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
John H. Chafee 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: Black duck, USFWS photo
May 2002
This goose, designed by J.N. “Ding”
Darling, has become a symbol of the
National Wildlife Refuge System.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is the principal federal agency responsible for
conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for the
continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 93-million acre
National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of more than 500 national wildlife refuges
and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 65 national fish hatcheries
and 78 ecological services field stations. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws,
manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves
and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species Act,
and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the
Federal Aid program which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on
fishing and hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies.
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management
decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge
purposes; and, identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail
program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget
allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program
prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases,
operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
Table of Contents
John H. Chafee 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 1-6
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 3-11
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 4-15
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. Chafee Refuge 1-4
Map 1-3. Connecticut River/Long Island Sound Ecosystem 1-8
Map 4-1. Chafee Refuge Public Use/Habitat Improvements 4-10
Chafee Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-1
Wood ducks
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
Originally established as Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife
Refuge, John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge (Chafee Refuge) is
the newest addition to the Refuge Complex. The refuge is located in
the Towns of South Kingstown and Narragansett, Washington
County, RI, and centered in the community of Middlebridge (see
maps 1-1 and 1-2). The refuge is mainly surrounded by private land.
Most of its parcels border the Narrow River, a navigable public
waterway.
In 1988, Senator John H. Chafee proposed legislation designating
600 acres of Pettaquamscutt Cove and its associated uplands for the
protection of black ducks, shorebirds, and other waterfowl. In 1996,
another bill revised the refuge acquisition boundary to include the
128-acre “Foddering Farm Acres,” purchased in 1997. In 1999,
Congress recognized Senator John H. Chafee’s significant
contributions to natural resource protection by renaming
Pettaquamscutt Cove Refuge the “John H. Chafee at Pettaquamscutt
Cove National Wildlfie Refuge”. The 2002 Land Protection Plan
(Appendix E) expanded the acquisition boundary by 878 acres. The
refuge currently owns 329 acres within a 1,342-acre refuge
acquisition boundary.
The Purpose of and Need for a CCP
Developing a CCP is vital to refuge management. The purpose of
the 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.
Chapter 1
1-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Chapter 1
Chapter 1
Chafee Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-5
The need to develop a CCP for Chafee 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
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 525 national wildlife refuges, in every state
and a number of U.S. Territories, protect more than 93 million acres.
More than 34 million visitors annually hunt, fish, observe and
photograph wildlife, or participate in environmental education and
interpretive activities on refuges.
In 1997, Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act, establishing a unifying mission for the Refuge
System, and a new process for determining compatible public use
activities on refuges. It also requires that we prepare a CCP for
each refuge. The act states that, first and foremost, the Refuge
System must focus on wildlife conservation. It further states that
the mission of the Refuge System, coupled with the purpose(s) for
which each refuge was established, will provide the foundation for
management direction for each refuge.
On public use, the act declares that all existing or proposed public
uses must be compatible with each refuge’s purpose. It highlights six
wildlife-dependent public uses as priorities that all CCPs must
evaluate: environmental education and interpretation, fishing,
hunting, and wildlife observation and photography. Each refuge
manager determines the compatibility of an activity by evaluating its
potential impact on refuge resources, insuring that the activity
supports the Refuge System mission, and ensuring that the activity
does not materially detract from or interfere with the refuge purpose.
“...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
Chapter 1
1-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Refuge Purpose
The establishment purposes for Chafee Refuge are:
(1) To protect and enhance the populations of black duck and other
waterfowl, geese, shorebirds, terns, wading birds, and other
wildlife using the refuge;
(2) To provide for the conservation and management of fish and
wildlife within the refuge;
(3) To fulfill international treaty obligations of the U.S. respecting
fish and wildlife;
(4) To provide opportunities for scientific research, environmental
education, and wildlife-oriented recreation.
– 102 Stat. 3177, Nov. 5, 1988 (Public Law 100-610)
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 National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (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
Regional Areas and three species Joint Ventures: Arctic Goose,
Black Duck, and Sea Duck. Partnerships among federal, state and
provincial governments, tribal nations, local businesses, conservation
organizations, and individual citizens protect that habitat. The
Refuge Complex lies within the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, which
has identified 13 priority focus areas totaling 3,226 acres of both
wetlands and adjacent uplands for protection in Rhode Island
(Atlantic Coast Joint Venture 1988). Three priority focus areas in the
Refuge Complex are Trustom Pond, Ninigret Pond, and the
Pettaquamscutt (Narrow) River.
Since black ducks winter in Rhode Island, the goals and objectives of
the Black Duck Joint Venture apply to managing the Refuge
Complex. The Black Duck Joint Venture has identified the coastal
salt marsh habitats along the mid-upper Atlantic coast as very
important wintering habitat.
Black duck. USFWS photo.
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 Partners in Flight Program is developing a plan for the
Southern New England Physiographic Area, using existing data on
habitat loss, landbird population trends, and the vulnerability of
species and habitats to threats, to rank the conservation priority of
landbird species. The plan will identify focal species for each habitat
type from which population and habitat objectives and conservation
actions will be determined. We utilized this draft document for the
list of priority species to consider in management. A revised draft of
the plan was released in October 2000, and we will use the final plan,
when finished, to further guide management.
Connecticut River/Long Island Sound Ecosystem Priorities, 1997
During the last decade, we have emphasized ecosystem conservation,
particularly the role of refuges within ecosystems, and their ability to
affect the long-term conservation of natural resources. Implementing
an ecosystem approach to resource management is one of our top
national priorities. We have initiated new partnerships with private
landowners, state and federal agencies, corporations, conservation
groups, and volunteers, to form 52 ecosystem teams across the
country, typically using large river watersheds to define ecosystems.
Those teams work on developing goals and priorities for research and
management within each ecosystem.
The Refuge Complex lies within our Connecticut River/Long Island
Sound Ecosystem (Map 1-3). A team composed of Fish and Wildlife
Service personnel and representatives from six State Fish and Wildlife
Departments developed a Priority Resources Plan (July 1996) that
identifies seven priorities, each involving numerous action strategies.
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.
Chapter 1
Chafee Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-7
1-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
6. Manage refuge lands to protect, restore, and enhance native
communities and trust resources.
7. Develop a public that values the fish and wildlife
resources…understands events and issues related to these
resources, and acts to promote fish and wildlife conservation.
Regional Wetlands Concept Plan – Emergency Wetlands Resources
Act 9 (USFWS 1990)
In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act to
promote the conservation of our nation’s wetlands. The Act directed
the Department of Interior to develop a National Wetlands Priority
Conservation Plan identifying the location and types of wetlands that
should receive priority for acquisition by federal and state agencies
using Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations. In 1990,
the Service’s Northeast Region completed a Regional Wetlands
Concept Plan identifying a total of 850 wetland sites in the Region
warranting consideration for acquisition due to wetland values.
Wetland values, functions, and potential threats for each site were
cited; 24 sites within the State of Rhode Island were listed.
Protecting Our Land Resources:
A Land Acquisition and Protection Plan, Rhode Island Department
of Environmental Management, May 1996
The purpose of this State plan is to assist agencies within the Rhode
Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) in
protecting land to support their primary mission, “…protection of
the integrity of natural resources essential to the environmental,
economic and social welfare of the citizens of Rhode Island.” Its
framework provides strategies to permanently protect five critical
State resources: agriculture, forestry, drinking water, recreation, and
natural heritage and biodiversity. It includes evaluation criteria for
selecting and prioritizing lands.
Special Area Management Plan – Narrow River, November 1998
This plan details management strategies for implementing the
program standards of the State of Rhode Island Coastal Resources
Management Council (CRMC) in the Narrow River Watershed. The
Narrow River SAMP defines these objectives relevant to our CCP:
1. Provide for a balance of compatible uses, consistent with the
CRMC responsibility for preserving, protecting, and restoring
coastal resources.
2. Provide a regional plan for the Narrow River that recognizes that
the watershed functions as an ecosystem.
3. Identify ways nitrogen can be reduced in the watershed through
new technologies.
4. Revise and update existing policies and standards as well as
recommendations to municipalities and federal and state agencies.
5. Update all maps using the Rhode Island Geographic Information
System, and modify SAMP boundaries as needed to manage for
erosion and water quality pollution.
6. Identify and prioritize future research agendas for the region.
Chapter 1
Chafee Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-9
Chapter 1
1-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
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
Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-1
Public Open House presenting 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
identified nine refuges for initial planning during 1998 and 1999. We
began the planning process for the Refuge Complex when its
planning team of Regional Office and Refuge Complex staff first
convened in February 1998. Figure 2-1 displays the steps of the
planning process and how they incorporate NEPA requirements.
First, we focused on collecting information on natural resources and
public use at the Refuge Complex, and developed its long-term vision
and preliminary goals, including issues associated with each of its
refuges. Next, we compiled a mailing list of more than 2,000
organizations and individuals, to ensure we would be contacting a
diverse sample of the interested public.
Recognizing that not everyone could attend the Open Houses
planned for April and May 1998, we developed Issues Workbooks in
March, to encourage even more people to provide their written
comments on topics related to managing the Refuge Complex. We
offered the workbooks to everyone on our mailing list, including
adjacent landowners, and made workbooks available at refuge
headquarters, local libraries, and on the Internet from the Region 5
home page (http://www.northeast.fws.gov). We received 150
completed workbooks. Those responses and public input at our
meetings have influenced our formulating issues and developing
alternatives on resource protection and public use.
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
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. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the CCP Process
restore the areas, existing threats to their integrity, and their size
and location.
We distributed a Planning Update to everyone on our mailing list in
September 1998. This newsletter summarized public comments from
meetings and workbooks, described policy guidelines for managing
public use on refuges, and identified the long-term vision and goals
for the Refuge Complex.
Once the key issues had firmed up, we developed alternative
strategies by May 1999 to resolve each one. We derived the
strategies from public comment, from follow-up contacts with
partners, or from the planning team. We distributed a second
Planning Update newsletter in May 1999, updating everyone on our
planning timelines and our decision to start a separate
Environmental Assessment for 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 and our response
to them is included in Appendix B. The land acquisition component of
the process is in the Land Protection Plan, Appendix E.
Each year, we will evaluate our accomplishments under this CCP,
including the completion of more detailed step down plans.
Monitoring or new information results may indicate the need to
change our strategies. We will modify the CCP documents and
associated management activities as needed, following the
procedures outlined in Service policy and NEPA requirements. 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 for each refuge a list of
issues, concerns, opportunities, or any other items requiring a
management decision. Then we sorted them into two categories:
“Key issues,” and “Issues and concerns considered outside the scope
of this analysis”.
Key issues, along with the goals, formed the basis for developing and
comparing the draft CCP/EA alternatives. Issues outside the scope
of our analysis were described in the draft CCP/EA, but will not be
addressed further in this final CCP.
Key Issues
Public and partner meetings and further team discussions produced
the key issues briefly described below.
1. Protection of endangered and threatened species and other
species and habitats of special concern.
This is the most important issue facing the refuge. Protecting
federally listed endangered and threatened species is integral to the
mission of the Refuge System. Other federal trust species are also of
primary concern, including migratory birds, anadromous fish, and
certain marine mammals.
Chapter 2
Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-3
Appendix A lists species and habitats of special management
concern. The list includes the status of all plants, wildlife, fish, and
rare natural communities known to occur in Rhode Island that are
federally listed as endangered or threatened, were candidates for
listing, or are otherwise of management concern. Combined with
location information, we used that list to identify additional land
protection needs and opportunities. We know very little about many
of these species’ presence on or use of refuge habitats. The
alternatives in the draft CCP/EA differed in their strategies for
managing these species and habitats. Addressing this issue will help
achieve Goal 1: Protect and enhance federal trust resources and
other species and habitats of special concern.
2. Restoration and maintenance of coastal sandplain natural
communities, including grasslands and shrublands (less than
60 years old).
While it is true that the Northeast landscape was primarily forested
prior to rapid agricultural settlement in the 1800’s, grasslands quickly
became a dominant part of the landscape in the 19th century.
Grassland-dependent species responded in kind and became established.
Over the last several decades, however, coastal sandplain grasslands and
shrublands, coastal maritime grasslands and shrublands, and
agricultural fields and pastures, have been in rapid decline in New
England due to a combination of development, changes in agricultural
technology, succession to forest as farms were abandoned, and lack of a
natural disturbance such as fire (Vickery 1997).
In Rhode Island, the State’s farmland dropped nearly 50 percent
between 1964 and 1997, from 103,801 to 55,256 acres. An additional
3,100 acres of farmland will be lost in the next 20 years if current
sprawl patterns continue (Common Ground 2000). As a result, few
large, contiguous grasslands and shrublands are left; only smaller,
fragmented, and isolated habitat patches remain (<75 acres).
These smaller areas are unsuitable for many focus species, including
once-common grassland birds such as grasshopper sparrow and
upland sandpiper. Grasshopper sparrows have declined by 69
percent in the past 25 years, according to Breeding Bird Survey data
(Vickery 1997). Our best available information suggests that
grasslands should ideally be managed in 100 acre or larger patches.
Smaller grassland habitat patches are much less productive for
grassland birds, and could serve as “sinks”, where species try to
nest, but becaused of increased predation and other factors,
productivity and survival is severely limited.
Other grassland and shrubland species have declined dramatically as
well. Many of Rhode Island’s State-listed plant and animal species
are dependent on these habitat types.
Tremendous potential exists for refuge staff to become involved in
restoring habitat on private lands. Grassland and shrubland
restoration offers opportunities for our staff to provide technical
expertise to local communities. The alternatives in the draft 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
2-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
3. Protection and restoration of wetlands.
The well documented values of healthy wetlands include fish and
wildlife habitat, flood protection, erosion control, and water quality
maintenance. Despite laws and regulations to protect them,
wetlands throughout Rhode Island have been rapidly declining since
the 1960’s through conversion to agriculture, residential and
industrial development. Rhode Island has developed more land in
the last 34 years than in its first 325 years (Common Ground
May/June 2000). Most recent sprawl occurs outside the urban areas,
near the remaining wetlands.
Estuarine wetlands consisting of tidal salt and brackish waters are of
particular concern. Invasive species are dominating refuge wetlands
and threatening their biodiversity.
Non-point pollution and sources off-refuge are impacting water
quality and the health and productivity of these wetlands. The
alternatives in the draft CCP/EA compared different levels of
management for restoring wetlands and for cooperatively managing
entire watersheds. Addressing this issue will help achieve Goal 2:
Maintain and/or restore natural ecological communities to promote
healthy, functioning ecosystems.
4. Maintenance of water quality in the Narrow River.
The Narrow River provides many values beneficial to a diverse array
of wildlife and to the surrounding communities. Many wildlife
species use the estuary and adjacent wetlands as a primary food
source, a migratory rest stop, and as breeding, nesting, and
spawning grounds.
The quality of both groundwater and surface water continues to
deteriorate as a result of residential and commercial development
within the watershed and the associated contribution of non-point
pollutants such as individual septic systems. Since 1959, the Narrow
River has failed to meet State standards for coliform bacteria, and
parts of the river have been closed to shell fishing since 1979. Its
degraded water quality threatens wetland habitats in Chafee Refuge,
constraining their ability to fulfill the refuge purpose. The alternatives
in the draft CCP/EA evaluated different levels of involvement in
cooperatively managing and protecting the watershed. Addressing
this issue will help achieve Goal 2: Maintain and/or restore natural
ecological communities to promote healthy, functioning ecosystems.
5. 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.
Chapter 2
Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-5
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.
Red fox, gull, and some small mammals are voracious predators that
can adversely impact other native wildlife populations. Occurrences
have been documented of herring and black-backed gull, red fox, and
weasel preying on piping plover and least tern, a State-listed species
(threatened). Fox easily habituate to humans, and were being hand-fed
at Sachuest Point Refuge. Many people fear fox and other
mammals because they can carry rabies. These predators are
particularly troublesome when their populations exceed natural
levels. Control measures for each species are controversial, and may
include lethal removal, visual and audio deterrents, or destroying
eggs, nests, or den sites.
The alternatives in the draft CCP/EA compared different strategies
for managing invasive species. Addressing this issue will help
achieve Goal 1: Protect and enhance Federal trust resources and
other species and habitats of special concern, and Goal 2: Maintain
and/or restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy,
functioning ecosystems.
6. 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
Chapter 2
2-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
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.
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 from 1999 appeared 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.
Chapter 2
Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-7
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.
7. 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
developed once the priorities have been identified. The alternatives
in the draft CCP/EA offered different levels of pursuing this
information. Addressing this issue will help achieve all the Goals
identified for the Refuge Complex.
8. 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 all the refuges, and
some have been occurring for years. Examples include jogging,
sunbathing and swimming, bicycling, and dog walking.
Input from public meetings 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
Chapter 2
2-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
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.
9. 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).
The Service views managed or administrative hunts in areas where
there are overabundant deer populations as an effective tool for
regulating them. Responses generally agree that the overabundance
of deer is a concern in Rhode Island, reflected in increased numbers of
vehicle-deer collisions, increased complaints about deer browsing on
commercial and residential landscape plantings, visible impacts on
native vegetation, and higher concern about contracting Lyme disease.
Those opposed to hunting cited concerns with public safety,
disturbance and harm to other wildlife species, and the impact to
visitors engaged in the other five priority public uses. The latter
results from the likelihood that significant portions of the refuges,
due to their small sizes and configurations, would be closed to other
activities during hunting. Some expressed the opinion that the
refuges should function as a sanctuary for all native species, and that
hunting is incongruous with that function.
The alternatives in the draft CCP/EA offered varying levels of
hunting opportunities, from no hunting at all, to opening four refuges
during State-regulated seasons for deer, waterfowl, and pheasant.
Addressing this issue will help achieve both Goal 2: Maintain and/or
restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy,
functioning ecosystems, and Goal 4: Provide opportunities for high
quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent public use with particular
emphasis on environmental education and interpretation.
10. 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
Chapter 2
Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-9
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.
11. 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.
12. Increasing the visibility of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Our lack of visibility on refuges was brought up repeatedly at public meetings
and in the workbooks. Many people felt strongly about the need for more
refuge staff to be present during peak visitation to increase resource
protection and improve visitor services. Other recommendations to increase
visibility included more visitor contact stations, increasing wildlife
interpretation and environmental educational opportunities, a better location
for a headquarters office, developing a Refuge Complex visitor center,
improving existing visitor facilities (e.g., kiosks, interpretive signs on trails,
etc.), increasing support for a volunteer program, and increasing community
involvement.
Some people expressed an interest in seeing refuge staff enforce public use
policy more consistently. Others argued it was unnecessary for Service
personnel to be armed while patrolling beaches. The alternatives in the draft
CCP/EA compared different levels of promoting our visibility and providing
these services. Addressing this issue will help achieve both Goal 2: Maintain
and/or restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy, functioning
ecosystems, and Goal 4: Provide opportunities for high quality, compatible,
wildlife-dependent public use with particular emphasis on environmental
education and interpretation.
13. Need for improved facilities.
The Refuge Complex lacks a facilities plan establishing current and future needs
for staff operations and visitor services. Many of its current facilities are
inadequate. Its headquarters does not have enough office space to accommodate
even current staff, and the visitor services area is limited to one rack of
literature in the reception area. The alternatives in the draft CCP/EA compared
opportunities for new or improved facilities to accommodate staff work space,
increase the visibility of the Service and the Refuge Complex, and improve
visitor services, including environmental education and interpretation.
Addressing this issue will help achieve Goal 5: Provide Refuge Complex staffing,
operations, and maintenance support to effectively accomplish refuge goals and
objectives.
Chapter 2
2-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Chafee 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 by the melting glacier.
Melting ice sheets caused the sea to rise rapidly across Block Island
and Rhode Island Sounds until it reached its present level
approximately 4,000 years ago. Wave action parallel to the shore
continued to erode glacial deposits, creating the barrier spits. As the
spits formed, they almost entirely sealed off the low-lying areas
between the headlands and the ocean, forming coastal lagoons
connected to the sea by narrow inlets. These became the coastal salt
ponds we see today. Through the 1700’s, all of the coastal salt ponds
had direct, seasonally open connections to the ocean (RI CRMC
1984). The effects of erosion through time have shifted the salt
ponds and barrier spits gradually landward (RI CRMC 1998).
The bedrock formations of southern Rhode Island include the
Blackstone series of metamorphic rock along its southern coastal
border (including most of Westerly, Charlestown and South
Kingstown), granite rock of various ages (including most of
Narragansett and Middletown and parts of Westerly and
Charlestown), and Pennsylvanian sedimentary rock in most of south
central Rhode Island (including Richmond, much of South
Kingstown, and most of Hopkinton). Most of the soils around the
refuges are fine sandy loams or silt loams.
Historical Influences on Landscape Vegetation
The upland forests of southern Rhode Island are classified by
Kuchler (1964) as oak-hickory forest; while most of northern Rhode
Island is classified as oak-pitch pine forest. Historic land use
practices promoted this forest type.
As early as 12,000 years ago, Native Americans began occupying the
area. Documented evidence places the first intensive occupation of
Chapter 3
3-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
the salt pond region during the late Archaic period (5,000 to 3,000
years ago). Native American camps from more than 4,000 years ago
are known to have existed at one location along the shore of Ninigret
Pond. However, societies of that time were primarily hunter-gatherer
with little agriculture; broad changes to landscape
vegetation probably did not occur.
During the Woodland Period 3000-450 years ago, larger, semi-permanent
or recurrently occupied camps became coastal
settlements. Fortified villages are known to have existed in some
locations. Maize horticulture became prominent, which likely
resulted in small clearings. Larger clearings and burnings to control
the movement of deer and upland birds may have occurred, and the
first pronounced clearing of land along the coast for settlements,
game management, and agriculture. Much of this land was cleared
by cutting and burning, which favored resprouting by hardwood
species like oak, hickory, and red maple.
The role fire may have played in shaping landscape vegetation is not
well known. Evidence of fire has been observed in charcoal layers at
Ninigret Refuge. Soil cores dug at most points on the refuge reveal
charcoal below the historic farmers plow zone, approximately 10
inches soil depth. The dates attributed to these fires, coupled with
their locations, suggest early Native Americans used fire extensively
and purposefully.
Although small areas of land were cleared and more or less
permanently settled by early Native Americans, it was European
settlement and expansion in the 1600’s that exponentially escalated
the conversion of forests to agriculture. The eighteenth century
Rhode Island plantation era “…required massive land clearing of the
forests that had dominated the landscapes for the last 8,000 years”
(USFWS 1999). During the mid-nineteenth century, an estimated 85
percent of southern New England was converted to field and
pasture. Any woods remaining often were managed for firewood
(Jorgensen 1977).
A detailed report on the archeological history of the Refuge
Complex is available from the Refuge Complex office on request
(Jacobson USFWS).
Contemporary Influences on the Landscape
The major natural disturbances affecting the coastline today are
hurricanes and winter ice-storms. Hurricanes have the greatest
impact, by far. The straight border of barrier beaches separated
from the mainland by tidal wetlands and coastal salt ponds
characterizes a coastline influenced by frequent storms. Wind and
waves pick up loose sand and sediment and move it along the
shoreline or back out to sea, allowing occasional overwash of barrier
beaches and breaching of coastal ponds. Overwash, tidal currents,
longshore currents, and rip currents are all mechanisms transporting
sediment along the barrier beaches (RI CRMC 1998).
Fall and winter storms combining wind, rain, and waves are the
predominant physical process shaping this landscape today.
“Nor’easters” are well known along the New England coast in
winter, winds generated offshore from the southeast, can actually be
Chapter 3
Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-3
more destructive to the south shore, because of its exposure to the
open ocean. The draft Salt Pond Region Special Area Management
Plan describes the geologic, wave, and wind action for 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
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
Chapter 3
3-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
grasslands may be limited by soil types, potential vegetation, and the
extent of human impacts on the natural environment. Rhode Island
falls within the Humid Temperate Domain, Hot Continental Division,
Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province, and Lower New England Section.
Climate
Cold winters and warm summers with a moderating ocean influence
characterize Rhode Island’s climate. Winter temperatures average
30º F, with lowest temperatures ranging between -10º F and -20º F.
Summer temperatures average 70º F, and peak in the 90s. Annual
precipitation averages 44 to 48 inches, evenly distributed
throughout the year. Thunderstorms occur throughout the summer
(USFWS 1989).
Air Quality
The Clean Air Act establishes Class I, II, and III areas with limits on
the amount of “criteria air pollutants” that can exist in pre-defined
geographic areas. Examples of criteria air pollutants are smog
(primarily ground-level ozone), particulate matter, and carbon
monoxide. Class I areas allow very little additional deterioration of
air quality (e.g. Wilderness Areas); Class II areas allow for more
deterioration; and Class III areas allow even more. All of Rhode
Island is currently classified as a Class II area. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the entire
State a serious non-attainment area for ozone. That designation
resulted in stricter automobile emissions standards designed to
reduce emissions by 24 percent between 1990 and 1999.
Socio-economic Factors
The Refuge Complex lies close to some of the largest population
centers on the east coast. The New York City metropolitan area,
population 8.5 million, is 2.5 hours to the southeast. Metropolitan
Boston, population 3.2 million, is 2 hours to the north. Hartford, with
a population of 140,000, is 1.5 hours to the northwest, and
Providence, population 161,000, is 45 minutes to the north (U.S.
Census Bureau 1996 estimates and 1990 U.S. Census).
According to those estimates, the population of Rhode Island is about
1 million; 94 percent live in metropolitan areas (cf. the national
average of 80 percent) and 6 percent in rural areas. South County,
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
Chapter 3
Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-5
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
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
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)
their visit and enjoy the scenery and open space they provide. They
are small enough to explore in one day, and generally do not prompt
an additional night’s lodging. Ms. O’Neill stated that, since the
Tourism Council is trying to showcase a greater mix of outdoor
recreational opportunities in South County, the Refuge Complex will
figure more prominently in future promotional material.
The greatest contribution by the Refuge Complex to the local
economy comes from the values attributed to the preservation of
open space (NPS 1992). We represent those values using three
indicators, below: Cost of Community Services; Property Values;
and Public Willingness to Pay.
Cost of Community Services compares the cost per dollar of revenue
generated by residential or commercial development to that of
revenue generated by an open space designation. On the one hand,
residential development expands the tax base, but the costs of
increased infrastructure and public services (schools, utilities,
emergency services, etc.) often offset any increase in revenue. On
the other hand, undeveloped land requires few town services and
places little pressure on the local infrastructure. The cost per dollar
of revenue generated by commercial land typically falls between
those of residential and open space.
The American Farmland Trust (1989, 1992, and 1993) and the
Commonwealth Research Group (1995) evaluated community
revenues and expenses associated with open space vs. residential
and commercial development. All available information on the New
England States shows that open space and commercial development
produced more revenues than costs, while the opposite was true for
residential land.
Conversations with local realtors and appraisers helped us evaluate
the refuges’ influence on property values. Two South County realtors
and one realtor/appraiser confirmed that properties adjacent to
refuges generally are valued higher (Gross, et al. 1998). That value is
realized through increased sales price/acre in properties adjacent to a
refuge, compared to otherwise similar properties, and by how quickly
those properties sell. Properties with views protected by their
proximity to a refuge exhibit an even greater difference. All the
realtors estimated, but none with any certainty, that properties
adjacent to refuges may realize from 1- to 4-percent increases in
property value. All the realtors we spoke with use a property’s
adjacency to a refuge as an important advertising asset.
Public Willingness to Pay is a method for estimating the monetary
value of ecosystem goods and services by determining how much the
public would be willing to pay, either in taxes, fees, or opportunity
costs, to preserve ecosystem values. In Rhode Island, where coastal
ecosystems are threatened by development-at-large, we have used
Willingness to Pay to estimate the value of open space preservation.
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).
Chapter 3
Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-7
Refuge Complex Administration
Staffing and Budget
Annual budget appropriations are
highly variable, and
commensurately affect our
staffing levels. Table 3-1
summarizes budget and staffing
levels from 1995 to 1999.
Fluctuations reflect funding for
special projects, moving costs for
new employees, or large
equipment purchases. Most of the
funding is earmarked; very little
discretionary funding is available.
Resource Protection and Visitor Safety
Law enforcement officers, with full authority to enforce federal
regulations, are required to ensure resource protection and visitor
safety. Three permanent refuge staff have been assigned collateral
duties for law enforcement at any time during the course of refuge
operations, but those collateral duties draw staff time and resources
away from other important programs. We typically hire up to three
seasonal staff with law enforcement authority each year.
During the past 5 years, formal notices of violation averaged 15 per
year. They typically involved vehicle and pedestrian trespass,
vandalism, and waterfowl hunting in closed areas. Well over 100
verbal warnings are also given each year, typically for inadvertently
walking or driving in closed areas, littering, walking dogs in a closed
area or off-leash, bicycling in closed areas, and digging plants. In
1993, a Trail Warden program began using volunteers to assist in
documenting violations. Wardens also inform visitors of public use
policy and permitted activities.
Refuge Complex Office
The Refuge Complex office lies in the Shoreline Plaza strip mall in
Charlestown. In addition to housing our staff, it also houses our
Division of Ecological Services Southern New England/New York
Bight Coastal Ecosystem Program five-member staff, an Atlantic
Coast Joint Venture staff person, and Friends of the National
Wildlife Refuges of Rhode Island.
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.
Chapter 3
3-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Fiscal year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Operations
$216,299
355,715
350,700
428,400
441,900
Maintenance
$85,700
23,900
97,700
171,000
28,000
Full time staff
7
7
8
8
9
Seasonal staff
3
3
4
4
2
Table 3-1. Refuge Complex staffing levels and budgets between 1995 - 1999.
Refuge Resources
Physical Resources
Topography and Hydrology
The Narrow River, which forms Pettaquamscutt Cove, has a
geologically complex origin. In general, the tidal river and
surrounding uplands are remnants of an ancient river valley carved
out by glaciation approximately 10,000 years ago. Technically, the
Narrow River is an estuary or a lagoon (RI CRMC 1998).
The eastern side of Chafee Refuge slopes sharply down to the
Narrow River, with 15-percent (or greater) slopes along Tower Hill
Road. Terrain on the eastern side slopes more gradually, averaging
5 to10 percent. In Pettaquamscutt Cove, the relief is low and near
sea level. Bedrock is very close to the surface, the soil layer is thin,
and depth to the water table is usually less than 3 feet (RI CRMC
1998). The channel between Narragansett Bay and Pettaquamscutt
Cove is called “The Narrows.”
Narrow River Watershed: A significant source of information on the
Narrow River watershed is the Narrow River Special Area
Management Plan, Public Review Document (RI CRMC 1998).
Water quality in the Narrow River, including Pettaquamscutt Cove,
has been a long-standing issue. The University of Rhode Island
Watershed Watch program has been conducting at least bi-weekly
water quality monitoring since 1992. Three of their monitoring
stations (NR-8, NR-9, and NR-10) lie immediately adjacent to the
refuge. Water quality has long been a focus issue for the Narrow
River Preservation Association. Numerous other water quality
studies have been conducted in the Narrow River watershed and are
referenced in the Special Area Management Plan.
Beginning in 1959, the Narrow River has failed to meet state
standards for total coliform bacteria levels. By 1994, the entire
expanse of the Narrow River had been closed to shell fishing (RI
CRMC 1998) and remains closed today.
Excessive nitrogen loading is another concern for the Narrow River;
however, no State standards for nitrogen exist. Improperly
functioning household septic systems are a major, documented
source of both nitrogen and bacteria. Nitrogen and bacteria leach
into groundwater, potentially affecting both private and public
supplies of drinking water. This is significant, since up to 75 percent
of the freshwater flowing into the system originates as groundwater
(RI CRMC 1998).
Storm water runoff, commercial and residential fertilizer
applications, and petroleum hydrocarbons from boating are all
implicated in the water quality problems in the Narrow River (RI
CRMC 1998). These sources will continue to increase with
development in the watershed. At present, 65 percent of the
watershed remains undeveloped, but it lies in one of the fastest
growing areas of the State. The 35 percent of the watershed that has
been developed is primarily residential. Approximately 14 percent of
the watershed is designated open space, including the refuge.
Chapter 3
Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-9
Biological Resources
Vegetation
Table 3-2 displays the various cover types dominating Chafee Refuge.
In the tidal salt marsh portions
of the refuge, the dominant
vegetation types are salt meadow
grass (Spartina patens), salt
marsh cordgrass (Spartina
alterniflora), spike grass
(Distichlis spicata), saltwort
(Salicornia sp.), and sea
lavender (Limonium nashii).
Several islands in the salt marsh
are composed of black oak
(Quercus velutina), with a poison
ivy (Rhus radicans) understory.
The uplands adjacent to the west
side of the river are primarily
forested by black oak and red
maple, while the uplands on its
east side are dominated by red
maple. A detailed plant list is
available from the Refuge Office
upon request (George 1999).
Threatened and Endangered
Species
Piping plover, a federally listed
species (threatened), and least tern, a State-listed species (threatened),
nest at the mouth of the Narrow River, but have a limited presence on
the refuge. No other animals that are federal- or State-listed as
threatened or endangered are found within the watershed.
The State endangered sea pink plant (Sabatia stellaris) is known in
the vicinity of the refuge along the Narrow River, but no surveys
have been conducted to verify its presence on the refuge.
Birds
Formal surveys will need to be done in the future, especially
waterfowl surveys. Although the refuge was established primarily to
protect wintering populations of black ducks, we in fact know very
little about black duck populations and their use of the refuge. Other
waterfowl that commonly winter in the Narrow River watershed are
mallards, canvasbacks, bufflehead, mergansers, Canada geese, and
the non-native mute swan.
Completion of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan
(1986) elevated concern about black ducks. The plan identifies them
as a species of “immediate, international concern,” and considers the
protection of essential migrating and wintering habitats paramount.
The Black Duck Atlantic Coast Joint Venture Plan identifies the
Narrow River estuary (which the plan refers to as “the
Pettaquamscutt River”) as the largest of 13 black duck focus areas in
Chapter 3
3-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Cover-type
Agricultural
Brushland
Developed
Forest upland
Water
Emergent
wetland
Forest wetland
Scrub-scrub
wetland
Upland
Total
Acreage
8.2
6.5
7.6
115.3
3.7
79.1
74.8
22.8
1.8
319.8
Percentage
2.6%
2.0
2.4
36.1
1.1
24.7
23.4
7.1
0.6
100%
Table 3-2. Land use/land cover at Chafee Refuge, Washington County, RI. (source:
RIGIS)
Rhode Island. Annual midwinter black duck population trend
surveys across Rhode Island have confirmed a steady, and marked,
decline in numbers since the 1950’s. Based on that trend
information, black duck populations have declined by an estimated 83
percent in Rhode Island between 1950 and 1998 (USFWS 1998).
Other common salt marsh species found on the refuge include sharp-tailed
sparrows and red-winged blackbirds. Snowy egrets are often
found foraging in tidal channels and salt marsh pools. There is at
least one osprey nest in the watershed and as many as three pairs
forage there.
The uplands contain a diversity of nesting and migratory songbirds,
including common yellowthroat, eastern pewee, gray catbird,
common grackle, American redstart, blue-winged warbler, and white-eyed
vireo.
Invertebrates, Reptiles, Amphibians, and Mammals
No surveys have been conducted for these species on refuge lands.
The Narrow River Special Area Management Plan lists vertebrate
species common to the Narrow River estuary.
Fish
Seventy-five species of fish have been documented to use the Narrow
River at some point in their life history; 28 fish species and 5
shellfish species use the lower section of the river adjacent to the
refuge (RI CRMC 1998). Appendix A identifies trust fish species
using the watershed. The Narrow River provides the largest
alewife run of any river in Rhode Island (RI CRMC 1998).
Cultural Resources
No archeological sites have been recorded on the refuge, but it is
considered highly sensitive for both prehistoric and historic
archeological resources.
Public Use
We have not monitored public use at Chafee Refuge; we estimate the
number of visitors at 5,000 annually. Saltwater fishing was officially
opened on the refuge, in accordance with State laws, through a
Federal Register Notice in 1998 (50 CFR 32). The refuge has not
been officially opened to any other public use. In general,
monitoring and enforcement of public use policy is difficult because
the entire refuge boundary has not been posted. Visitors and refuge
staff alike are not always certain whether they are on refuge lands.
Although Chafee Refuge has not been opened officially to any
activity but fishing, the refuge still gets visitors. Known public use
activities vary seasonally, but include wildlife-dependent activities
such as birding, nature observation and photography, and
recreational fishing.
Chapter 3
Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-11
There are only a few vantage points within Pettaquamscutt Cove, and
the most accessible ones are on private land. Popular viewing spots
are the Town of Narragansett nature trail at the south end of the
Cove near South County Museum, the Middle Bridge pull-out, and
the Sprague bridge on Route 1A where it crosses the neck of the
Narrow River inlet. Two waterfowl hunting blinds adjacent to refuge
lands in the cove may cause some activities incidental to hunting (e.g.,
retrieving birds) on refuge lands, but none have been documented.
Non-wildlife-dependent activities suspected of impacting the refuge
include canoeing, kayaking, and using motor boats and jet skis.
Motorized water craft operating in State waters within the cove
likely contribute to shoreline erosion and disturb wildlife.
The refuge has no public use facilities. Incidental use occurs on
several unimproved trails that access the shoreline. Several
residents adjacent to Chafee Refuge have a legal easement to go
across the refuge from their properties to the Narrow River. Ideally,
refuge staff would like to consolidate these easements into a location
that will reduce impact to sensitive areas along the shoreline.
The RI Department of Transportation is developing a South County
Bike Path along 7.2 miles of the old Narragansett Pier Railroad,
which crosses the refuge. The bike path will connect the towns of
South Kingstown and Narragansett, and will be designed to
accommodate cyclists, in-line skaters, walkers, joggers, and
skateboarders. A swath up to 40 feet wide will be cleared for the 12-
foot wide asphalt path. Its design is based on an expected peak of
400 users a day.
The Town of South Kingstown owns most of the old railroad right-of-way.
The first segment connects Kingston train station to Peace
Dale; the second segment connects Peace Dale to Wakefield; the
third segment links Wakefield to Narragansett; and the fourth links
Sprague Park to the Narragansett coast.
The proposed location of the third segment crosses approximately
600 feet of refuge land. Refuge staff and the RI DOT are now
discussing design alternatives to minimize impacts to refuge lands.
They have not yet reached a conclusion.
Chapter 3
3-12 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Chafee 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 become better
stewards of coastal resources.”
“Through partnerships and extensive outreach efforts, Refuge
Complex staff are committed to accomplishing refuge goals and
significantly contributing to the Mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System. This commitment will strengthen with the future,
revitalizing the southern New England ecosystem for generations
to come.”
Refuge Complex Goals
Our planning team developed the following goals for the Refuge
Complex after reviewing applicable laws and policies, regional plans,
the Refuge Complex vision statement, the purpose of each refuge,
and public comments. All the goals fully comply with Service policy
and national and regional mandates.
Our Refuge Complex goals are intentionally broad, descriptive
statements of purpose. They highlight specific elements of our vision
statement and provide the foundation for our management emphasis.
We identified Goal 1 as the top priority for the Refuge Complex;
Goals 2-5 are not presented in any particular order.
Each goal is further refined by a series of objective statements.
Objectives are incremental steps to be taken toward achieving a goal
and define the management emphasis in measurable terms, where
possible. Some of our objectives relate directly to habitat
management, while others strive to meet population targets tied to
species’ recovery plans, or state or regional species plans. The
strategies for each objective are specific actions, tools, techniques,
Chapter 4
4-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
considerations, or a combination of these, which may be used to
achieve the objective. Objectives will be used directly in respective
step-down plans, while strategies may be revised or modified to
achieve the desired outcome.
Together, the goals and objectives are unifying elements of successful
refuge management. They identify and focus management priorities,
provide a context for resolving issues, and offer a critical link between
refuge purpose(s), and the National Wildlife Refuge System Mission.
Integral to all the objectives under Goal 1 and Goal 2 is development
in 2003 of a habitat management plan (HMP) for the Refuge
Complex. This will be the highest priority step-down plan to
accomplish. We will write the plan using current resource
information, but will update it based on new information, as needed.
The purpose of the HMP will be to prevent the loss or degradation of
habitat types, species assemblages, or natural processes significant
to the Refuge Complex. It will identify habitat management actions
that, to the extent practicable, restore and sustain viable populations
of our focus species. The objectives and strategies identified below
will all be incorporated into the HMP.
Once the HMP is developed, the Refuge Complex will develop a
Species and Habitat Inventory and Monitoring Plan in 2004.
Critical elements of the biological program to be inventoried or
monitored will be identified, prioritized, and scheduled. This plan
will also describe inventory and monitoring procedures, determine
where data will be stored, and identify the interim and final reports
to include. It will provide a critical connection between the HMP and
credible, adaptive refuge management.
In addition, the Region is currently developing a 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. 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
Maintain high quality wintering and nesting habitat for American
black duck and other native, migratory waterfowl on Chafee Refuge
through management of public use and the control of invasive, non-native
plant and animal species.
Background:
Chafee Refuge was established primarily to protect and enhance the
populations of black ducks and other waterfowl. The 1986 North
American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) identified the
American black duck as a priority species of “immediate international
concern.” This plan considers the protection of essential migrating
Chapter 4
Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-3
and wintering habitat vitally important. The NAWMP’s Atlantic
Coast Joint Venture Plan identifies the Narrow River estuary,
including Chafee Refuge, as the largest of 13 Black Duck Focus Areas
in Rhode Island. Mid-winter waterfowl counts on the Narrow River,
conducted annually by the State since the late 1950’s, continue to
document some of the highest concentrations of wintering black duck
in Rhode Island. Bufflehead, hooded and common merganser, and
canvasback mid-winter numbers are also high for the State.
Unfortunately, the waterfowl habitat is threatened by invasions of
non-native plants and animals such as Phragmites and mute swan,
poor water quality, and by increased recreational pressures.
Invasive species are a threat because they displace native plants and
animals, reduce natural diversity, and degrade habitat conditions for
our focus species. Poor water quality, as evidenced by increased
coliform bacteria and nitrogen levels, impacts food resources for
waterfowl in the river. The increased recreational pressure may be
directly impacting black duck and other native waterfowl, especially
when it occurs during nesting and brooding seasons.
Treatments to control invasive species and improve water quality are
expensive and labor intensive and will require extensive partnerships
with adjacent landowners, State and Federal agencies, and the local
governments. The 1998 Narrow River Special Area Management
Plan (SAMP) identifies specific actions for addressing these issues
through interagency cooperation (also refer to objectives 2.3 and 2.4).
The Service will specifically work with RI DEM to develop
recommendations to improve habitat quality for black duck and other
native, wintering and nesting waterfowl.
Strategies:
  By 2003, treat at least 5 acres per year of Phragmites or other
invasive wetland plants on the refuge through mechanical,
chemical, or biological treatments to improve habitat for black
duck and other waterfowl (also see objective 2.3).
  In 2003, work with RI DEM and respective towns to develop a
Pettaquamscutt Cove (lower Narrow River) waterfowl
management area plan. Evaluate and designate waterfowl resting
areas, habitat restoration opportunities, and hunting
opportunities. Establish management actions to attain zero
productivity of mute swan.
Objective 1.2
Within two years of CCP completion, establish specific habitat
management objectives for those birds considered by Partners In
Flight (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:
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. Rhode Island Refuges lie within
PIF Area 9.
Chapter 4
4-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Although the final PIF Area 9 plan is not yet available, this CCP
incorporates habitat objectives for certain landbird species identified
in the draft PIF plan (Oct 2000) which occur on the refuge (also see
objective 1.3). Using information from the surveys identified below,
and the completed PIF plan, we will be able to refine our refuge
landbird management objectives in the near future.
Of particular note is the refuge staff ’s involvement in monitoring a
piping plover (Federal-listed as threatened) nesting area on Town of
Narragansett lands. The nesting area is located at the end of the
Narragansett Town Beach, where a wide sandy area has formed at
the mouth of the Narrow River. Piping plover have been
documented nesting in this area since 1997. Also associated at this
site are least tern (State-listed as threatened). Refuge staff monitor
this site along with nine other piping plover nesting sites on RI’s
South Shore. For more information on Service involvement in the
South Shore Piping Plover Program, refer to the Trustom Pond
Refuge CCP (May 2002).
Strategies:
  Each year, continue to cooperate with RI DEM, the Service’s
Ecological Services Program Office, and the Town of
Narragansett in the monitoring of the Narrow River piping plover
and least tern nest sites. 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 Piping Plover
Recovery Plan).
  In 2003, utilize the PIF Area 9 Plan, and the regional strategic
resources plan (in preparation), to identify and prioritize those
landbirds of highest management concern on the refuge, and assess
how current management practices are impacting them. Determine
which of these landbirds should be a focus for future management
on the refuge, and write landbird objectives for the HMP.
  In conjunction with developing the HMP, update refuge cover type
maps in a GIS database, adhering to National Vegetation
Classification protocol.
  Utilize the Shorebird Conservation Plan (once completed) to
develop management and monitoring strategies for shorebirds
based on any newly identified imperiled species (draft Shorebird
Prioritization System 1999).
Objective 1.3
Protect and sustain marsh, wading and water bird breeding habitat
on the refuge, especially maritime high salt marsh capable of
supporting salt marsh sharp-tailed sparrow.
Background:
According to the PIF Area 9 Plan, maritime marsh is the habitat in
most need of immediate conservation attention in this physiographic
area, due to the large number of priority species and the tremendous
pressure from human development along the coastline. Substantial
threats also exist in the form of human disturbance, pollution,
Chapter 4
Chafee Refuge CCP �� May 2002 4-5
increasing predator populations, and invasive, exotic species.
Reducing these threats is the highest conservation concern to be
addressed in the PIF plan. Active restoration of high salt marsh is
also a priority.
No bird surveys have been conducted on the refuge. However, the
1998 Narrow River SAMP identifies the presence of breeding sharp-tailed
sparrow, Virginia and clapper rail, and green heron in the area.
Great blue, little blue, and black-crowned night heron, American
bittern, great and snowy egret, and sora rail are all noted in the
SAMP as present during migration or winter.
Strategies:
  In 2003, begin to conduct salt-marsh sharp-tailed sparrow surveys
in suitable habitat according to Regional protocol.
  Use the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (once
completed) to identify management and monitoring strategies for
species of conservation priority.
  By 2005, initiate an inventory for all marsh and wading birds,
according to Regional protocol, at all high probability sites.
Determine seasonal occupancy and nesting status. If occupied
habitat is located, develop a site plan.
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 effective
in sustaining biological integrity, diversity, and ecosystem health as
required by Service policy (FWS Manual, Chapter 3, part 601).
As stated in the introduction for this chapter, a Species and Habitat
Inventory and Monitoring Plan will be completed in 2004. The
following strategies will be incorporated into this plan.
Strategies:
  By 2004, develop a priority list of baseline biological inventory
needs to better understand and document the biodiversity on the
refuge, especially the presence and distribution of species and
habitat types listed in Appendix A.
  In 2004, begin inventories on the highest priority projects,
incorporating the results into the CENSUS database, or other
regional databases with GIS capabilities, to facilitate future
analyses. Revise digital cover type maps as warranted.
Chapter 4
4-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Objective 2.2
Within 15 years of CCP completion, restore natural ecological
conditions to the 74 acres of salt-marsh and other emergent wetlands
on the refuge.
Background:
Wetlands are among the most productive ecosystems on earth, and
salt marsh wetlands rank among the highest of wetlands, in terms of
productivity. The tidal influence, including nutrient import, water
abundance, and vegetative growth, all contribute to this productivity.
Healthy wetlands function in ways that benefit the natural ecosystem
and provide socio-economic values. Ecosystem values include the
fact that certain fish, shellfish, birds, and mammals are wetland-dependent,
spending their entire lives in these wetlands. Many
waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and other migratory birds
utilize wetlands for feeding or resting, or to breed and raise their
young. Wetlands are also essential habitats for many rare species of
plants and animals. Wetlands function in ways that filter sediments
and pollutants, produce oxygen, and support healthy microbiota for
fish and wildlife. Socio-economic values include flood control, wave
damage protection, hunting, trapping, fishing and shellfishing,
aesthetics, education and research.
As noted in objective 1.3 above, maritime marsh is the habitat in
most need of immediate conservation attention in this physiographic
area due to the large number of priority species and the tremendous
pressure from human development along the coastline. While we
have identified restoration of only 74 acres on refuge lands, when
coupled with the partnership effort described in objective 2.4,
significant ecosystem and socio-economic benefits are expected.
Strategies:
  By 2005, conduct inventory of wetland vegetation on the refuge
according to Regional protocol. Develop digital map to serve as
a baseline for future inventories and monitoring. Identify
threats to refuge wetlands, including pollution sources, invasive
plants, impediments to natural hydrology, and impacts from
recreational activities.
  By 2006, work with partners to identify, prioritize, and begin to
implement wetlands restoration project on the refuge.
Objective 2.3
Within three years of CCP completion, treat at least 5 acres/year
dominated by invasive, non-native plants to (1) enhance native
habitat, (2) eliminate new invasions, and (3) control the spread of
established plants.
Background:
Issue 5 in Chapter 1 describes the implications of invasive plants on
the refuges. These plants are a threat because they displace native
plant and animal species, degrade wetlands and other natural
communities, and reduce natural diversity and wildlife habitat
values. They outcompete native species and can readily dominate a
site. Early detection and consistent efforts at eradication are critical
to maintain control over affected areas, or to prevent new invasions.
Chapter 4
Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-7
Strategies:
  By 2004, identify and map current distribution of non-native,
invasive plant species on the refuge.
  By 2005, prioritize treatment sites to prevent new invasions or
eradicate recently established plants. Also of high priority are
threatened, endangered, or rare plant sites or “pristine rare and
exemplary vegetative communities” (March 1999 Invasive Plant
Control Initiative, Strategic Plan for the Connecticut River
Watershed/Long Island Sound).
  By 2005, establish a program to treat at least 5 acres/year of
invasive, non-native species on the refuge, using chemical,
mechanical, prescribed fire and biological treatments as necessary.
Strategies will be adapted based on monitoring and new
information. A maintenance worker will be hired to administer
treatments; the position will be shared among the five Rhode
Island refuges.
Objective 2.4
Work in partnership to promote stewardship of the Lower Narrow
River Watershed, including Pettaquamscutt Cove, and improve water
quality, anadromous fish habitat, and other wetlands values by
identifying and reducing pollution sources.
Background:
The Narrow River, including Pettaquamscutt Cove, is an incredibly
important natural resource benefitting both wildlife and people in
the South County area. At least 75 species of fish are supported by
the area at some point during their life history. The Narrow River
provides the largest alewife run of any Rhode Island river (RI
CRMC 1998). Other resource and socio-economic values attributed
to wetlands are described in objective 2. 2. Unfortunately, water
quality in the Narrow River continues to fall below state standards
with development and recreational pressures remaining high.
Because areas below mean high water are the jurisdiction of the
State, the Service has only an indirect influence on the water and
tidal shoreline. It is primarily the Coastal Zone Management
Council (CRMC) that has regulatory authority. Through
development of SAMPs, the CRMC coordinates with other inland
regulatory authorities to take a comprehensive approach to
management of the watershed. In their1998 Narrow River SAMP,
the CRMC recommended an interagency working group of non-profit,
State, Federal, and municipal representatives. This group
would formulate a comprehensive plan for the watershed based on
existing scientific data. The plan would describe best management
practices to address storm drain outfalls, identify habitat restoration
possibilities, identify important fish habitats, and recommend actions
to curtail bacteria and nitrogen sources not addressed by existing
regulations. Along with other actions noted below, the Service will
become an active participant in this working group.
Strategies:
  In 2003, work with RI DEM, RI CRMC, and the Towns of
Narragansett and South Kingstown to create a “no wake” zone in
Pettaquamscutt Cove and the lower Narrow River to reduce
erosion and destruction of salt marshes on the refuge.
Chapter 4
4-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
  By 2005, work toward watershed-based solutions to the water quality
problems impacting the Narrow River. We will become actively
involved in an interagency working group, as recommended in RI
CRMC’s 1998 Narrow River SAMP. This interagency working group
will be organized to develop a comprehensive plan for the Narrow
River watershed and to set research and management priorities.
  Also by 2005, refuge staff will become involved in the South
County Watershed Partnership to promote protection and
stewardship of watersheds influencing the refuges.
  By 2006, identify watershed restoration projects for refuge lands;
also described in objective 2.2 and 2.3.
Objective 2.5
Within 15 years of CCP implementation, eliminate mute swan
productivity on the refuge, and significantly reduce the presence of
adults year-round.
Background:
Non-native, invasive mute swan on the refuge adversely effect water
quality on coastal ponds. Mute swan also impact our ability to
maintain native species biodiversity, as they aggressively drive native
waterfowl and shorebirds away from nesting sites and compete with
them for food resources.
Strategies:
  In 2002, we will begin to implement the Service’s policy (Memo
FWS/MBMO/98-00043; based on Flyway Council recommendations)
to significantly reduce or eliminate mute swans on the refuge.
Strategies will be adapted as needed to pursue zero productivity.
Each year, addling eggs will continue. Adult populations will be
controlled using lethal and non-lethal techniques, particularly when
habitat degradation is a concern, or if native species are displaced.
Objective 2.6
Within two years of CCP completion, develop a deer management
plan for the Refuge Complex to address overabundant deer
populations and evaluate recreational hunting opportunities.
Background:
Overabundant deer numbers are a concern on the refuge when they
degrade habitat through excessive browsing or threaten human
health and safety through increased vehicle collisions and incidences
of Lyme disease. Since deer are highly mobile, it is difficult to
effectively control a population unless they are managed throughout
most or all of their range. The refuge has not closely monitored deer
activities, including their impacts to refuge habitats. However, RI
DEM has reported that complaints from citizens have increased in
recent years about private property damage, worries of Lyme
disease, and vehicle collisions. RI DEM recommends deer hunting
as the most effective tool to manage deer populations on the refuge.
Strategies:
  In 2002, cooperate with RI DEM to develop a deer management
plan and environmental assessment for the Refuge Complex. The
plan will evaluate hunting to help manage deer numbers and
provide a priority public use opportunity. A separate public
involvement process will be initiated.
Chapter 4
Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-9
Goal 3: Establish a land protection program that fully supports
accomplishment of species, habitat, and ecosystem goals.
Objective 3.1
Actively strive towards permanent protection of all trust resources
at risk throughout southern Rhode Island.
Background:
Consistently mentioned in the PIF Area 9 Plan, the NAWMP, joint
venture plans, relevant species recovery plans, and ecosystem plans
is the need to protect, restore, and enhance additional high quality
coastal habitats to contribute to the conservation of federal trust
species. While land acquisition by the Service and other State,
Federal, and local partners is a primary strategy for species
conservation, each of these plans also recognizes the need to work in
cooperation with private landowners to achieve conservation
objectives. Technical and resource support, outreach, and education
will all compliment land acquisition efforts.
The Draft CCP/EA (Chapter 3: Developing Land Protection Strategies)
described our method of identifying acquisition lands of high
conservation priority on Rhode Island’s South Shore. During the
planning process we determined that the Service is the logical leader in
coastal land and water quality protection along the South Shore and on
Block Island, with the existing refuges serving as anchors. Refuge
expansions will significantly increase protection of the ecological values
on current refuge lands, while also expanding protection and restoration
of significant coastal habitats. We completed a Land Protection Plan
for the Refuge Complex which identifies specific tracts for Service
acquisition. The LPP incorporates the following acquisition priorities:
• Has documented occurrences of federally listed endangered or
threatened species, or other priority federal trust resources;
• Lies contiguous to existing refuge land, which could further
enhance or protect the integrity of refuges by assembling the
land base necessary to accomplish refuge goals;
• Connects refuge land with other protected lands withing the
South Shore and Block Island to help restore and promote
the ecological integrity of the coastal wetland and beach
strand complexes; and
• Protects and sustains important natural communities that
can be managed in cooperation with other conservation
partners in a manner that will contribute toward refuge goals
and the conservation of federal trust resources.
Strategies:
  Continue to assist conservation partners in identifying land
protection needs, opportunities, and priorities in southern
Rhode Island.
  Continue to help partners seek funding sources for their land
protection programs.
  Beginning in 2002, expand the refuge acquisition boundary for
Chafee Refuge according to the Land Protection Plan (Appendix
E). Initiate acquisition from willing sellers, in either fee purchase
or conservation easement, of 1,013 acres of high quality habitat.
Chapter 4
Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-11
Goal 4: Provide opportunities for high quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent
public use with particular emphasis on environmental
education and interpretation.
Integral to all of our public use objectives is development of a Visitor
Services Plan in 2004 for the Refuge Complex. This plan will provide
a coordinated strategy for implementing quality visitor services
programs. We will emphasize the following six priority, wildlife-dependent
uses identified in the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act
where they are compatible with protecting wildlife resources:
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental
education and interpretation. The visitor services plan will also
accomplish the following:
  Establish strategic goals and priorities for visitor services across
the Refuge Complex;
  Identify target audiences and partnership opportunities for each
refuge;
  Establish a methodology for determining visitor numbers,
capacity limits, limits on visitor impacts to wildlife and habitats,
and a means for assessing quality of visitor experiences;
  Evaluate recreational fee opportunities; and
  Establish an implementation schedule for priority visitor
services projects.
We will hire four outdoor recreation planners to implement the
visitor services plan and staff the planned Refuge Complex Visitor
Center (see Chapter 5- Staffing). As new lands are acquired,
opportunities to provide compatible, priority public uses will be
pursued according to the Pre-Acquisition Compatibility
Determination (Appendix D).
The objectives below are designed to enhance opportunities for
compatible, wildlife-dependent refuge activities.
Objective 4.1
Within two years of CCP completion, provide high quality waterfowl
hunting opportunities in the Pettaquamscutt Cove area of the refuge,
and evaluate opportunities for deer hunting across the refuge.
Strategies:
  In 2002, complete a deer management plan and environmental
assessment evaluating opportunities for deer hunting. A separate
public involvement process will be initiated. (Also refer to
objective 2.6)
  By 2003, develop hunt plan and fulfill other Service requirements
to open Chafee Refuge to waterfowl hunting, including associated
dog retrieval, for the fall 2003 season. Hunting will be
administered according to state and local regulations, and will be
by boat access only. Additional refuge regulations may be
determined necessary during development of the hunt plan. The
hunt program will be administered in cooperation with RI DEM.
Chapter 4
4-12 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Objective 4.2
Provide high quality fishing opportunities along the refuge shoreline,
while minimizing impacts to natural resources.
Strategies:
  Continue to allow fishing from boats and the shoreline, but by
2005, designate a trail to provide overland access to shoreline
fishing areas; minimize further bank erosion and trampling of
marsh habitat and other sensitive areas; and avoid trespassing on
private lands.
  By 2007, construct at least one barrier-free fishing platform on
refuge lands, if technically feasible. Otherwise, consider
cooperative project with RI DEM or adjacent landowners on
private or state lands near the refuge.
Objective 4.3
Increase opportunities for high quality interpretive experiences on
the refuge, which raise visitor awareness of the Refuge System and
Chafee Refuge’s particular contribution to protecting trust resources
and significant habitats.
Strategies:
  Continue to respond to requests for interpretive programs using
refuge staff and volunteers.
  By 2003, ensure that RI DOT constructs interpretive kiosk on refuge
along South County Bike Trail according to refuge stipulations.
  By 2005, develop an interpretive program for the refuge tiered to the
visitor services plan. Evaluate the opportunities to cooperate on an
interpretive exhibit at South County Museum and construct an
interpretive kiosk, pullout and accessible overlook at Middle Bridge.
  By 2006, evaluate opportunities for constructing an interpretive
kiosk and accessible trail and overlook at Bridgeport Commons.
  By 2006, designate an interpretive canoe and kayak trail along the
refuge shoreline.
Objective 4.4
Improve opportunities for compatible, high quality wildlife
observation and photography on the refuge, while minimizing
impacts to natural resources.
Strategies:
  By 2005, cooperate with the Town of Narragansett, adjacent
landowners, and RI DOT to evaluate opportunities to construct an
accessible pullout and overlook at Middle Bridge.
  By 2006, develop literature on seasonal wildlife observation and
photography opportunities in the lower Narrow River.
  Also by 2006, evaluate opportunities for constructing an
accessible observation overlook and trail at Bridgeport Commons.
The final trail would be located to avoid sensitive areas, minimize
erosion and avoid trespassing on private lands.
  Foot travel, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, canoes and
kayaks are approved means of access to engage in priority public
use activities.
Chapter 4
Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-13
Objective 4.5
Create new opportunities for compatible, high quality environmental
educational experiences on the refuge, while minimizing impacts to
natural resources.
Strategies:
  By 2004, sponsor at least one “Teach the Teacher” workshop, and
continue as an annual program.
  By 2005, with partners, develop an environmental education
program tiered to the visitors services plan. Work with local
schools to develop an outdoor-based curriculum featuring the
Narrow River estuary and Pettaquamscutt Cove.
  Also by 2005, develop a formal partnership with South County
Museum to conduct curriculum based environmental education
programs.
Objective 4.6
Within three years of CCP completion, eliminate incompatible, non-wildlife
dependent public uses on the refuge.
Background:
Incompatible, non-wildlife dependent activities detract from our ability
to fulfill refuge purposes and often conflict with priority public uses.
None of these uses are necessary for the safe, practical, or effective
conduct of a priority public use, and in fact, are often disruptive to
priority public uses. Limited refuge resources should not be expended
to manage activities that do not contribute to the public’s
understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s wildlife or cultural
resources, or to activities that do not directly benefit these resources.
Strategies:
  By 2004, increase resource protection and management of public use
by utilizing law enforcement personnel to provide more consistent
and thorough outreach and enforcement of refuge regulations.
  By 2004, hire at least one additional law enforcement officer for
the Refuge Complex.
Goal 5: Provide refuge staffing, operations, and maintenance
support to effectively accomplish refuge goals and objectives.
Staffing, operations, and maintenance needs are addressed in
Chapter 5.
Chapter 4
4-14 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
General Refuge Management Direction
The following management direction applies to all of the refuge goals
and across all program areas. Some of this direction is required by
Service policy or legal mandates.
Maintaining Biological Integrity, Diversity, and
Environmental Health
The Service finalized its policy on Maintaining the Biological
Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health of the National
Wildlife Refuge System in January 2001 (FWS manual, Part 601,
Chapter 3). This policy directs us, first and foremost, to maintain
existing levels of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental
health on refuges. Secondarily, we will restore lost or severely
degraded elements of integrity, diversity, and environmental health
on refuges where it is feasible and supports refuge purpose(s). To
implement the policy on refuges, refuge managers are directed to
determine: each refuge’s relationship between refuge purpose(s)
and biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health; what
conditions constitute biological integrity, diversity, and environmental
health; how to maintain existing levels of all three; and how, and
when to appropriately restore lost elements of all three (Chapter 3,
section 3.9)
The objectives and strategies laid out in this CCP generally improve
the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the
refuge. Management actions emphasize maintaining current species
and habitat diversity, recovering endangered and threatened species,
and restoring natural ecosystem processes and functions.
Implementation of the CCP will increase our understanding of the
refuge’s current resources, sustainable natural conditions, and the
effects of our management actions. In addition, our strategy of
adaptive management will provide continuous improvement toward
meeting this policy’s intent.
Protecting and Managing Cultural Resources
By law, we must consider the effects of our actions on archeological
and historic resources. We will comply with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act before disturbing any ground.
Compliance may require any or all of the following: a State historic
preservation records survey, literature survey, or field survey.
In addition to basic compliance requirements, we will undertake the
following projects to better protect and interpret cultural resources
on the refuge:
  By 2005, initiate a cultural resources overview of the Refuge
Complex to increase the available data on cultural resources.
  Also by 2005, develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with the Narragansett Indian Tribal Council to facilitate
cooperation on environmental education and interpretation, to
improve our understanding of the context of natural resources,
and to increase site identification and protection.
Chapter 4
Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-15
  By 2006, train at least one law enforcement officer on the refuge in
regulations associated with the Archeological Resources
Protection Act (ARPA).
Tribal Coordination
Increasing communication with the Narragansett Indian Tribal
Council is very important for the Refuge Complex. As noted above,
we plan to develop an MOU by 2005 to establish a mutually beneficial
working relationship that includes cooperating in environmental
education and interpretation and protecting cultural resources.
Coastal Resources Management Council Coordination
The federal Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. §1451, as
amended) requires the Service to work with the State Coastal
Resources Management Council (CRMC) to insure refuge
programs and activities are consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with the enforceable policies adopted by the state. The
CRMC’s concurrence with the Service’s Federal Consistency
Determination on the CCP was predicated on meeting the following
management direction:
1) Provide separate consistency determinations for major
construction projects. Major construction projects such as
buildings, parking lots, roads, and boardwalks, which the Service
determines may effect coastal resources, will require separate
federal consistency determinations for each project.
2) Annual coordination meetings. Refuge Complex and CRMC
staff will meet at least once annually to review general plans and
projects which the Service has determined may effect coastal
resources. These meetings will cover proposals for the
forthcoming calendar year. The objective of these meetings will be
to provide CRMC staff with available details on what is being
proposed and to address their concerns. It is mutually understood
that some projects may not be fully developed at the time of
meeting.
Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments
Annual refuge revenue sharing payments to the Towns of South
Kingstown and Narragansett will continue. Future increases in
payments will be commensurate with increases in the appraised fair
market values of refuge lands, new acquisitions of land, and new
Congressional appropriations.
Controlling Mosquitos
Within the past few years, incidences of mosquito-borne Eastern
Equine Encephalitis and West Nile virus have elevated public health
concerns about mosquito control in the Middle Atlantic States.
Mosquito control has been very limited on the Refuge Complex, and
has occurred only at the direct request of the State’s Mosquito
Abatement Office. During the last 5 years, we used two very localized
applications of the larvicide Bti on two problem breeding sites. Our
regional contaminants specialist pre-approved those applications.
Chapter 4
4-16 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
In general, we will not use larvicides on the Refuge Complex to control
mosquitos. However, in cooperation with neighboring towns and the
Mosquito Abatement Office, we will consider applying larvicides on a
case-by-case basis, particularly when there is an elevated public health
risk. The Service is now evaluating this issue on a regional basis, and
has begun preparation for an environmental impact statement. This
may result in Service policy or Regional guidelines being developed
and incorporated into this CCP in the future.
Permitting Special Use (including Research)
Requests for special use permits will be evaluated by the refuge
manager on a case-by-case. All permitted activities must be
determined appropriate and compatible through a compatibility
determination. At a minimum, all commercial activities and all
research projects require a special use permit. Research projects that
will improve and strengthen natural resource management decisions
on the Refuge Complex will generally be approved. The refuge
manager will encourage partnerships with local universities and
colleges to facilitate research that will help evaluate CCP objectives
and strategies, or the assumptions on which they are based.
The refuge manager may also consider research not directly related
to refuge objectives, but which contributes to the broader
enhancement, protection, or management of native species and
biological diversity within the region.
Each refuge will maintain a list of research needs to provide
prospective researchers or organizations upon request. The refuge
manager will determine on a case-by-case basis whether they can
directly support a project through funding, in-kind services (e.g.
housing or use of other facilities), field assistance, or through sharing
data and records. Research results will be shared within the Service,
and with RI DEM.
All researchers on refuges, current and future, are required to
submit a detailed research proposal following Service policy in the
FWS Refuge Manual, Chapter 4 Section 6. Special use permits must
also identify a schedule for progress reports (at least annual), criteria
for determining when a project should cease, and publication or
other final reporting requirements. The regional refuge biologists,
other Service divisions, and state agencies will be asked to review
and comment on research proposals.
Some projects, such as depredation and banding studies, require
additional Service permits. These projects will not be approved until
all Service permits and Endangered Species Act consultation
requirements are met. Also, to maintain the natural landscape of the
refuge, projects which require permanent or semi-permanent
structures will not be allowed, except for extenuating circumstances
unforseen at this time.
Chapter 4
Chafee Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-17
Chafee Refuge CCP – May, 2002 5-1
Freshwater wetland
USFWS photo
  Refuge Complex Staffing
  Refuge Complex Funding
  Step-down Management Plans
  Partnerships
  Volunteer Program
  Monitoring and Evaluation
  Adaptive Management
  Compatibility Determinations
  Additional NEPA Analysis
  Plan Amendment and Revision
Chapter 5
Implementation and
Monitoring
Refuge Complex Staffing
The five Rhode Island Refuges are managed as a Refuge Complex,
with centrally stationed staff taking on duties at multiple refuges. A
total of 26 full time personnel, one Student-to-Career Experience
Program (SCEP ) trainee, and 17 seasonal personnel, are needed to
fully implement all five Refuge CCPs. Permanent staff serving all
five refuges may be stationed at the Refuge Headquarters in
Charlestown, RI, or at Sachuest Point Refuge in Middletown, RI.
Some permanent and temporary staff may be stationed seasonally on
Block Island Refuge. Appendix G identifies currently filled
positions, recommended new positions, and the overall supervisory
structure. The new positions identified will increase visitor services,
biological expertise, and visibility of the Service on refuge lands.
Refuge Complex Funding
Successful implementation of the CCPs for each refuge relies on our
ability to secure funding, personnel, infrastructure, and other
resources to accomplish the actions identified. Full implementation
of the actions and strategies in all five Refuge Complex CCPs would
incur one-time costs of $8.9 million. This includes staffing, major
construction projects, and individual resource program expansions.
Most of these projects have been identified as Tier 1 or Tier 2
Projects in the National Wildlife Refuge System’s Refuge Operations
Needs System database (RONS). Appendix F lists RONS projects
and their recurring costs, such as salaries, following the first year.
Also presented in Appendix F is a list of projects in the Service’s
current Maintenance Management System (MMS) database for the
Refuge Complex. Currently, the MMS database lists $3.85 million in
maintenance needs for the Refuge Complex.
Land acquisition costs are identified separately. The Land
Protection Plan (LPP, Appendix E) expanded the Refuge Complex
acquisition boundary by 2,681, increasing the total unacquired
acreage to 3,130. We estimate the value of these lands to be $83
million at current, fair-market prices. In all probability, the Refuge
Complex will protect these lands at a lower cost, as some parcels
may be protected through conservation easements or acquired
through donation or land exchange.
Step-Down Management Plans
The Refuge System Manual (Part 4 Chapter 3) lists more than 25
Step-Down Management Plans generally required on most refuges.
Step-down plans describe specific management actions a refuge will
follow to achieve objectives or implement management strategies.
Some require annual revision, others are revised on a 5- to 10-year
schedule. Some require additional NEPA analysis, public
involvement, and compatibility determinations before they can be
implemented. A status list of Rhode Island Refuge Complex step-down
plans follows.
Chapter 5
5-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
These plans are current :
  Fire Management Plan, 1995 (Refuge Complex); updated with
annual burn plans
  Grasslands Management Plan, 1994 (Trustom Pond Refuge); will
be incorporated into the Habitat Management Plan for the Refuge
Complex in 2003
  Continuity of Operations Plan, 1998 (Refuge Complex)
  Animal Control Plan, 1995 (Refuge Complex); will be updated with
Integrated Predator Management and Trapping Plans for the
Refuge Complex
These plans are now in draft form or being prepared:
  Safety Program and Operations Plan (Refuge Complex)
  Law Enforcement Plan (Refuge Complex)
These plans exist, but we consider them out-of-date and needing
revisions as indicated:
  Water Management Plan (Trustom Pond Refuge); incorporate into
Habitat Management Plan by 2003
  Hunting Plan (Trustom Pond Refuge); incorporate into Hunt Plan
for the Refuge Complex in 2003
  Sign Plan (Refuge Complex); expand to Facilities and Sign Plan
by 2005
  Croplands Management Plan (Trustom Pond Refuge); incorporate
into Habitat Management Plan for Refuge Complex in 2003
These step-down plans need to be initiated and will be completed by
the indicated dates:
  Refuge Complex Habitat Management Plan (highest priority step
down plan) in 2003
  Refuge Complex Hunt Plan in 2003
  Refuge Complex Species and Habitat Inventory and Monitoring
Plan in 2004
  Integrated Predator Management Plan in 2004
  Refuge Complex Visitor Services Plan in 2004
  Fishing Plan by 2005
  Trapping Plan by 2004
Partnerships
The Ref