Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Sachuest Point National
Wildlife Refuge
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Sachuest Point 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: Harlequin 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
Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge CCP
Chapter 1, Introduction and Background 1-1
Refuge Overview 1-2
Purpose of and Need for a CCP 1-2
Mission 1-5
Refuge Purpose 1-5
National and Regional Mandates Guiding this CCP 1-6
Existing Partnerships 1-9
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 Management 3-8
Refuge Resources 3-9
Public Uses 3-14
Chapter 4, Management Direction 4-1
Refuge Complex Vision 4-2
Refuge Complex Goals (and Sachuest Point Refuge goals and objectives) 4-2
General Refuge Management 4-20
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. Sachuest Point Refuge 1-4
Map 1-3. Connecticut River/Long Island Sound Ecosystem 1-8
Map 4-1. Sachuest Point Refuge Habitat Improvements 4-13
Map 4-2. Sachuest Point Refuge Public Use 4-19
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-1
Harlequin duck off Sachuest Point
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 Mision, achieve refuge purposes and legal
mandates, and serve the American public.
Refuge Overview
Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge (Sachuest Point Refuge) is
located in the Town of Middletown, Newport County, Rhode Island,
about 23 miles southeast of Providence and 5 miles east of Newport
(see maps 1-1and 1-2). To the north and east, the Sakonnet River
bounds the refuge; to the south, the Atlantic Ocean; and to the west,
Sachuest Bay. Located immediately northwest are a Town of
Middletown campground, the Norman Bird Sanctuary, Gardiner
Pond (supplying water to Newport), and Second and Third Beaches,
owned and maintained by the Town of Middletown.
In 1970, The Audubon Society of Rhode Island donated 71 acres.
The U.S. Navy transferred 50 acres in 1976, and 107 acres in 1979.
An exchange of land between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) and the Town of Middletown brought the refuge total to
242 acres. The 2002 Land Protection Plan (Appendix E) expanded
the refuge acquisition boundary by 35 acres. These acres may now
be acquired fom willing sellers.
The Purpose of and Need for a CCP
Developing a CCP is vital to refuge management. The purpose of
this CCP is to provide strategic management direction over the next
15 years, by…
  Providing a clear statement of desired future conditions for
habitat, wildlife, visitor services, and facilities;
  Providing refuge neighbors, visitors, and partners with a clear
understanding of the reasons for management actions;
  Ensuring refuge management reflects the policies and goals of the
Refuge System and legal mandates;
  Ensuring the compatibility of current and future public use;
  Providing long-term continuity and direction for refuge
management; and
  Providing direction for staffing, operations, maintenance, and
developing budget requests.
The need to develop a CCP for Sachuest Point Refuge is two-fold.
First, the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
Chapter 1
1-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
(Refuge Improvement Act) requires that all national wildlife refuges
have a CCP in place by 2012 to help fulfill the mission of the Refuge
System. Second, the Refuge Complex lacks a master plan that
establishes priorities and ensures consistent, integrated management
among its five refuges.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its Mission
The Service, part of the Department of the Interior, manages
national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries. By law,
Congress entrusts the following federal trust resources to the
Service for conservation and protection: migratory birds and fish,
endangered species, inter-jurisdictional fish, wetlands, and certain
marine mammals. The Service also enforces federal wildlife laws
and international treaties on importing and exporting wildlife, assists
with state fish and wildlife programs, and helps other countries
develop wildlife conservation programs.
The National Wildlife Refuge System and its Mission
The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and
waters set aside specifically for conserving wildlife and protecting
ecosystems. More than 534 national wildlife refuges, in every state
and a number of U.S. Territories, protect more than 93 million acres.
Over 34 million visitors annually hunt, fish, observe and photograph
wildlife, or participate in environmental education and interpretive
activities on refuges.
In 1997, Congress passed theRefuge Improvement Act, establishing
a unifying mission for the Refuge System, and a new process for
determining compatible public use activities on refuges. The act
states that, first and foremost, the Refuge System must focus on
wildlife conservation. It further states that the mission of the
Refuge System, coupled with the purpose(s) for which each refuge
was established, will provide management direction for each refuge.
On public use, the act declares that all existing or proposed public
uses must be compatible with each refuge’s purpose. It highlights six
wildlife-dependent public uses as priorities that all CCPs must
evaluate: environmental education and interpretation, fishing,
hunting, and wildlife observation and photography. Each refuge
manager determines the compatibility of an activity by evaluating its
potential impact on refuge resources, insuring that the activity
supports the Refuge System mission, and ensuring that the activity
does not materially detract from or interfere with the refuge purpose.
Refuge Purposes
The establishment purposes for Sachuest Point Refuge are:
“... for the development, management, advancement, conservation,
and protection of fish and wildlife resources,” and for
“(1) incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational development;
(2) protection of natural resources; and
(3) conservation of endangered or threatened species.”
– Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and Refuge Recreation Act of 1962
Chapter 1
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-5
“...working with others, to
conserve, protect and
enhance fish wildlife, and
plants and their habitats
for the continuing benefit
of the American people.”
– Mission, U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service
“...to administer a
national network of lands
and waters for the
conservation,
management, and where
appropriate, restoration
of the fish, wildlife, and
plant resources and their
habitats within the
United States for the
benefit of present and
future generations of
Americans.”
– Refuge System Mission,
Refuge Improvement Act;
Public Law 105-57
National and Regional Mandates Guiding this CCP
This section highlights Service policy, legal mandates, and existing
resource plans, arranged from the national to the local level, that
directly influenced development of this CCP.
The Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the USFWS lists the
various federal laws, Executive Orders, treaties, interstate compacts,
and regulations on conserving and protecting natural and cultural
resources (online at http://laws.fws.gov/lawsdigest/indx.html). The
Service Manual and Refuge Manual contain Service policies and
guidance on planning and day-to-day refuge management. The draft
CCP/EA was written to fulfill compliance with NEPA.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan (May 14, 1986)
This plan outlines the strategy among the United States, Canada,
and Mexico to restore waterfowl populations by protecting,
restoring, and enhancing habitat within 11 U.S. Joint Venture Areas
and three species Joint Ventures: Arctic Goose, Black Duck, and Sea
Duck. Partnerships among federal, state and provincial
governments, tribal nations, local businesses, conservation
organizations, and individual citizens protect that habitat. The
Refuge Complex lies within the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, which
has identified 13 priority focus areas totaling 3,226 acres of both
wetlands and adjacent uplands for protection in Rhode Island
(Atlantic Coast Joint Venture 1988). 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 important
wintering habitat.
Partners In Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: Physiographic Area
9, Southern New England (draft, October 2000)
In 1990, Partners in Flight (PIF) was conceived as a voluntary,
international coalition of government agencies, conservation
organizations, academic institutions, private industry, and other
citizens dedicated to reversing the downward trends of declining
species and “keeping common birds common.” The foundation of
PIF’s long-term strategy for bird conservation is a series of
scientifically based Landbird Conservation Plans. The goal of each
PIF Landbird Conservation Plan is to ensure long term maintenance
of healthy populations of native landbirds.
The PIF 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
Chapter 1
1-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Black duck. USFWS photo.
Chapter 1
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-7
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, all of which are relevant to the Rhode Island refuges.
1. Protect, restore, and enhance listed and candidate
populations…with special emphasis on beach strand species,
coastal sandplain habitat, and Connecticut River species.
2. Protect, restore, and enhance anadromous and interjurisdictional
migratory fish populations…with special emphasis on Atlantic
salmon, American shad, shortnose sturgeon, and river herring.
3. Reverse the decline of migrant landbirds…with special emphasis
on grassland and forest interior species.
4. Protect, restore, and enhance populations of colonial nesting
waterbirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl…with special emphasis on
coastal areas and major rivers.
5. Protect, restore, and enhance wetland habitats.
6. Manage refuge lands to protect, restore, and enhance native
communities and trust resources.
7. Develop a public that values the fish and wildlife
resources…understands events and issues related to these
resources, and acts to promote fish and wildlife conservation.
Regional Wetlands Concept Plan – Emergency Wetlands Resources
Act 9 (USFWS 1990)
In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act to
promote the conservation of our nation’s wetlands. The Act directed
the Department of Interior to develop a National Wetlands Priority
Conservation Plan identifying the location and types of wetlands that
should receive priority for acquisition by federal and state agencies
using Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations. In 1990,
the Service’s Northeast Region completed a Regional Wetlands
Concept Plan identifying a total of 850 wetland sites in the Region
warranting consideration for acquisition due to wetland values.
Wetland values, functions, and potential threats for each site were
cited; 24 sites within the State of Rhode Island were listed.
Protecting Our Land Resources:
A Land Acquisition and Protection Plan, Rhode Island Department
of Environmental Management, May 1996
The purpose of this State plan is to assist agencies within the Rhode
Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) in
protecting land to support their primary mission, “…protection of
the integrity of natural resources essential to the environmental,
economic and social welfare of the citizens of Rhode Island.” Its
framework provides strategies to permanently protect five critical
State resources: agriculture, forestry, drinking water, recreation, and
natural heritage and biodiversity. It includes evaluation criteria for
selecting and prioritizing lands.
Existing partnerships
Throughout this CCP, we use the term “partners”. In addition to our
volunteers, we receive significant help from the following partners:
  Southern New England/New York Bight Coastal Ecosystems
Office (FWS)
  Ecological Services, New England Field Office (FWS)
  Friends of the National Wildlife Refuges of Rhode Island
  Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RI
DEM)
  The Nature Conservancy, Rhode Island and Block Island Offices
  University of Rhode Island, Department of Natural Resources
Science (URI)
  Audubon Society of Rhode Island
  Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council (RI CRMC)
  Local land trusts
  Narragansett Indian Tribal Council
  Norman Bird Sanctuary
Chapter 1
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-9
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-1
Public Open House on CCP, Rhode Island
USFWS photo
  The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
  Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
Chapter 2
Planning Process
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Given the mandate in the Refuge Improvement Act to develop a CCP
for each national wildlife refuge, our Northeast Regional Office
began the planning process for the Refuge Complex in February
1998. Figure 2-1 displays the steps of the planning process and how
they incorporate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
requirements.
First, we focused on collecting information on natural resources and
public use at the Refuge Complex, and developed its long-term vision
and preliminary goals, including issues associated with each of its
refuges. Next, we compiled a mailing list of more than 2,000
organizations and individuals, to ensure we would be contacting a
diverse sample of the interested public.
Recognizing that not everyone could attend the open houses planned
for April and May 1998, we developed Issues Workbooks in March, to
encourage even more people to provide their written comments on
topics related to managing the Refuge Complex. We offered the
workbooks to everyone on our mailing list, including adjacent
landowners, and made workbooks available at refuge headquarters,
local libraries, and on the Internet from the Region 5 Home Page
(http://www.northeast.fws.gov). We received 150 completed
workbooks. Those responses and public input at our meetings have
influenced our formulating issues and developing alternatives on
resource protection and public use.
In April and May 1998, we began
a series of public meetings: five
Open Houses in the communities
of Middletown, South Kingstown,
Charlestown, and Block Island
invited public comments on goals
and issues. We advertised the
meetings through news releases,
radio broadcasts, and notices to
our mailing list. From 15 to 40
people attended each meeting.
We also organized 15
informational meetings with
state and federal agencies, non-profit
conservation groups, town
planners, conservation
commissions, and sporting clubs.
Public responses suggested more
than 50 additional areas where
lands warranted protection,
typically along the coast. We
evaluated those lands for their
potential as national wildlife
refuges, using criteria such as
the presence of threatened,
endangered, or other trust
species and their habitats, the
presence of wetlands, our ability
to manage or restore the areas,
Chapter 2
2-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
A. Preplanning:
Plan the Plan
E. Prepare Draft
Plan & NEPA
Document
NEPA
• purpose and need
NEPA
• prepare & distribute draft CCP
and NEPA documentation
• public comment & review
H. Review &
Revise Plan
NEPA
• NEPA compliance &
public involvement
when applicable
NEPA
• notify the public
• involve the public
• scope the issues
B. Initiate Public
Involvement&
Scoping
NEPA
• NEPA compliance & public
involvement when applicable
C. Review Vision
Statement & Goals,
& Determine
Significant Issues
NEPA
• identify significant issues
F. Prepare &
Adopt Final Plan
NEPA
• respond to public comment
• identify preferred alternative
• prepare & distribute final CCP
and NEPA documentation
• prepare & distribute FONSI
for EA or ROD for EIS
NEPA
• reasonable range of alternatives
• No Action alternative
• assess environmental effects
• the Proposed Action
D. Develop &
Analyze
Alternatives
G. Implement
Plan, Monitor, &
Evaluate
The Comprehensive
Conservation
Planning Process &
NEPA Compliance
Figure 2-1. NEPA and the CCP Process
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 a visitor center/headquarters.
We released a draft CCP/EA in December of 2000 for a 51-day
comment period. We held public hearings and open houses in
February of 2001. A summary of public comments is included in
Appendix B. The land acquisition component of this planning
process is contained in the Land Protection Plan (Appendix E).
Each year, we will evaluate our accomplishments under this CCP,
including the completion of detailed step down plans. Monitoring
will reveal whether resource objectives are being met, and whether
we need to change strategies. We will modify the CCP documents
and associated management activities as needed, following the
procedures outlined in Service policy and NEPA requirements. This
CCP will be fully revised every 15 years, or sooner if necessary.
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
From the Issues Workbooks, public and focus group meetings, and
planning team discussions, we developed a list of issues, concerns,
opportunities, or any other items requiring a management decision.
Then we sorted them into two categories: “Key issues,” and “Issues
and concerns considered outside the scope of this analysis”.
Key issues, along with goals, formed the basis for developing and
comparing the different management alternatives that were analyzed
in the draft CCP/EA.
Some issues and concerns were outside the scope of this analysis.
These were identified in the draft CCP/EA, but we will not further
address them here.
Key Issues
Public and partner meetings and further team discussions produced
the following key issues:
1. Protection of endangered and threatened species and other
species and habitats of special concern.
This is the most important issue facing the refuge. Protecting
federally listed endangered and threatened species is integral to the
Chapter 2
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-3
fundamental mission of the Refuge System. Other federal trust
species are also of primary concern, including migratory birds,
anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals.
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 and
maritime 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
Chapter 2
2-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
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.
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 included 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. Control of invasive, non-native, or overabundant plant and
wildlife species.
Each of the five refuges has an extensive distribution of invasive plant
species. These plants are a threat because they displace native plant
and animal species, degrade wetlands and other natural communities,
and reduce natural diversity and wildlife habitat values. They
outcompete native species by dominating light, water, and nutrient
resources. Once established, getting rid of invasive plants is expensive
and labor-intensive. Unfortunately, their characteristic abilities to
establish easily, reproduce prolifically, and disperse readily, make
eradication difficult. Many of these plants cause measurable economic
impacts, particularly in agricultural fields. Preventing new invasions is
extremely important for maintaining biodiversity and native plant
populations. The control of 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
Chapter 2
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-5
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.
5. Protection of biologically significant areas through
acquisition and/or cooperative management.
Public meetings, partner meetings, and workbook responses
expressed a great deal of support for the protection of additional fish
and wildlife habitat in southern Rhode Island. That support runs
across the State, as Rhode Islanders consistently vote ballot
measures to maintain open space and protect fish and wildlife
habitats. Many people mentioned that their support stems from
their concern over the rapid pace of development on the South
Shore. As we stated earlier, development in non-urban areas of
Rhode Island has increased dramatically over the last 30 years. It is
now the second most densely populated State in the country. One
estimate predicts that current sprawl patterns will ensure the loss of
all its rural areas before 2100 (Common Ground 2000). The Rhode
Island Office of The Nature Conservancy has noted that the
conservation actions taken during the next 5 to 10 years will be the
most important for the majority of Rhode Island towns (The Nature
Conservancy 2000).
This dramatic increase in development has changed land use
patterns and practices, significantly modifying natural landscapes.
Chapter 2
2-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
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 consists entirely of cobble with virtually no sand for
nesting. The piping plover pairs there in 1999 appear to have shifted
to the Ninigret Conservation Area. Without consideration of these
shifts in habitat use across a landscape, management for these
species would be ineffective.
Some individuals preferred that the Service acquire and manage
federal trust resources, and that the Refuge Complex continue to
acquire these sites. Others emphasized partnerships to
cooperatively protect and manage important habitats not currently
on refuge land. Still others recommended a combination of Service
acquisition and cooperative management to provide the greatest
long-term benefit to resources. At public meetings and in our
workbooks, many responses suggested specific areas needing
protection, particularly wetlands threatened by development. Some
individuals we spoke with especially supported our acquiring land
occupied by endangered or threatened species.
The alternatives in the draft CCP 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 evaluate our increased
involvement in cooperative land protection off-refuge. Addressing
this issue will help achieve Goal 3: Establish a land protection
program that fully supports accomplishment of species, habitat, and
ecosystem goals.
Chapter 2
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-7
6. Assurance of access to credible information about
resources regarding the Refuge Complex to ensure
management decisions are based on the best available science.
We need to determine and prioritize what information reasonably
could be collected to facilitate decision-making using the best
available science. In particular, many individuals expressed concern
over the lack of information available to fully evaluate impacts to
wildlife and habitats from excessive public use. Others questioned
the effectiveness of management actions that have not been
adequately monitored and evaluated. Several university researchers
and other partners encouraged our staff to prioritize baseline
inventory needs, establish monitoring protocols to better evaluate
management actions, and identify information needed to determine
each refuge’s contribution to the ecosystem.
Implementing Service 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. Addressing this
issue will help achieve all the goals identified for the Refuge Complex.
7. Management of public use and access.
The Refuge Improvement Act and Service policy require our
enhanced consideration of opportunities for six priority wildlife-dependent
uses (see above). Some level of each occurs on the Refuge
Complex. Only those uses that are compatible with a refuge’s
purpose may be allowed. According to Service policy, all refuges are
closed to any use until they are formally opened through the
compatibility determination process.
The act also directs refuges to terminate immediately or phase out as
expeditiously as practicable, existing uses determined to be not
compatible. Non-wildlife-dependent uses exist on all the refuges, and
some have been occurring for years. Examples include jogging,
sunbathing and swimming, bicycling, and dog walking.
Public meetings input and workbook responses make it clear that
public use on refuges is extremely important to most people. More
than 90 percent ranked environmental education and interpretation
and wildlife observation and photography very high as desirable
public uses. Rarely, however, was there consensus on other public
uses or just how much of each type to allow. Public opinion spans the
entire spectrum from those wanting to open up refuges to non-wildlife-
dependent activities, to those who want to close refuges to all
public use to maintain an undisturbed sanctuary for wildlife.
The alternatives 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.
Chapter 2
2-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
8. Hunting.
Hunting surfaced late in the scoping process as a key issue, perhaps
because, initially, few viewed it as a possibility on the Refuge
Complex. This issue was raised by Service personnel, by RI DEM
biologists, and by individuals both for and against expanding hunting
opportunities on the Refuge Complex. Those in support primarily
are interested in deer hunting on all refuges, waterfowl hunting on
Chafee Refuge and Ninigret Refuge, and pheasant hunting on Block
Island. Advocates of hunting refer to its inclusion as one of the six
priority public uses that “...shall receive priority consideration in
refuge planning and management” (1997 Refuge Improvement Act).
None of Sachuest Point Refuge is currently open to hunting, but RI
DEM has expressed interest in any new opportunities for hunting
because rapid residential development in Rhode Island is confining
public hunting opportunities to fewer and fewer areas.
The Service views managed or administrative hunts in areas where
there are overabundant deer populations as an effective tool for
regulating them. Responses generally agree that the overabundance
of deer is a concern in Rhode Island, reflected in increased numbers of
vehicle-deer collisions, increased complaints about deer browsing on
commercial and residential landscape plantings, visible impacts on
native vegetation, and higher concern about contracting Lyme disease.
Those opposed to hunting cited concerns with public safety,
disturbance and harm to other wildlife species, and the impact to
visitors engaged in the other five priority public uses. The latter
results from the likelihood that significant portions of the refuges,
due to their small sizes and configurations, would be closed to other
activities during hunting. Some expressed the opinion that the
refuges should function as a sanctuary for all native species, and that
hunting is incongruous with that function.
The alternatives in the draft CCP/EA offered varying levels of
hunting opportunities, from no hunting at all, to opening four refuges
during State-regulated seasons for deer, waterfowl, and pheasant.
Addressing this issue will help achieve both Goal 2: Maintain and/or
restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy,
functioning ecosystems, and Goal 4: Provide opportunities for high
quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent public use with particular
emphasis on environmental education and interpretation.
9. Opportunities for environmental education.
Responses so frequently mentioned increasing environmental
educational opportunities across the Refuge Complex that our
planning team decided it warranted special recognition. More than 90
percent of the workbook responses ranked environmental education
and interpretation as one of their top three interests. The alternatives
in the draft CCP/EA compared different levels of environmental
educational opportunities and the different levels of partnerships so
integral to implementing them on each of the five refuges. Addressing
this issue will help achieve Goal 4: Provide opportunities for high
quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent public use with particular
emphasis on environmental education and interpretation.
Chapter 2
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-9
10. Provision of staffing, operations, and maintenance
support sufficient to accomplish goals and objectives.
The Refuge Complex lacks adequate funding and personnel to
provide the programs and services desired by the public and to
effectively meet the goals for this CCP. The alternatives in the draft
CCP/EA compared different funding and staffing levels based on
their proposed management strategies for dealing with the issues.
Addressing this issue will help achieve Goal 5: Provide Refuge
Complex staffing, operations, and maintenance support to effectively
accomplish refuge goals and objectives.
11. Increasing the visibility of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Our lack of visibility on refuges was brought up repeatedly at public
meetings and in the workbooks. Many people felt strongly about the
need for more refuge staff to be present during peak visitation to
increase resource protection and improve visitor services. Other
recommendations to increase visibility included more visitor contact
stations, increasing wildlife interpretation and environmental
educational opportunities, a better location for a headquarters office,
developing a Refuge Complex visitor center, improving existing
visitor facilities (e.g., kiosks, interpretive signs on trails, etc.),
increasing support for a volunteer program, and increasing
community involvement.
Some people expressed an interest in seeing refuge staff enforce
public use policy more consistently. Others argued it was
unnecessary for Service personnel to be armed while patrolling
beaches. The alternatives in the draft CCP/EA compared different
levels of promoting our visibility and providing these services.
Addressing this issue will help achieve both Goal 2: Maintain and/or
restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy,
functioning ecosystems, and Goal 4: Provide opportunities for high
quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent public use with particular
emphasis on environmental education and interpretation.
12. Need for improved facilities.
The Refuge Complex lacks a facilities plan establishing current and
future needs for staff operations and visitor services. Many of its
current facilities are inadequate. Its headquarters does not have
enough office space to accommodate even current staff, and the
visitor services area is limited to one rack of literature in the
reception area. The Sachuest Point Visitor Contact Facility has
structural problems and the current exhibits are inadequate. 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
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-1
Gull
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
Sachuest Point 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 coastal areas,
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).
Military installations directly impacted the landscapes that include
Ninigret Refuge and Sachuest Point Refuge . From the 1940’s
through the 1960’s, Ninigret Refuge was a U.S. Naval Auxiliary
Landing Field. More than 70 acres of tree and shrub vegetation
were cleared and maintained as asphalt runways and taxiways.
Adjacent areas maintained as grasslands were planted with non-native
species like larch and autumn olive. Between 1945 and 1973,
107 acres at the center of the Sachuest Point peninsula were used as
an Army Coastal Defense site and a Navy firing range. Around a
more recent Naval communications center, mowing and the use of
herbicides maintained the vegetation in a low shrub-grasslands
structure. A separate report on the history of the Sachuest Point
Naval facility, entitled “Historical Perspectives on Establishing
Sachuest Point Refuge “ (Walker 1995), is available upon request at
the Refuge Complex visitor center.
Introducing non-native, invasive plants, diverting or draining coastal
wetlands for development, converting uplands for residential use,
and spilling oil are other significant human impacts on the coastal
landscape. 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).
Chapter 3
3-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Ecosystem Delineations
The Service emphasizes an ecosystem approach to conservation,
typically using large river watersheds to define ecosystems. Rhode
Island falls within our Connecticut River/Long Island Sound
Ecosystem (Map 1-3).
Another commonly used delineation of ecosystems was developed by
Bailey (USDA 1978, expanded 1995). These ecologically based map
units often are used in landscape-level analyses. An ecoregion is first
divided into a domain, then a division, a province, a section, and a
subsection. Each level defines in greater detail its geomorphology,
geology, soil, climate, potential vegetation, surface water, and current
human use. Each of these resource attributes has implications for
resource management. For example, opportunities to restore native
grasslands may be limited by soil types, potential vegetation, and the
extent of human impacts on the natural environment. Rhode Island
falls within the Humid Temperate Domain, Hot Continental Division,
Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province, and Lower New England Section.
Climate
Cold winters and warm summers with a moderating ocean influence
characterize Rhode Island’s climate. Winter temperatures average
30º F, with lowest temperatures ranging between -10º F and -20º F.
Summer temperatures average 70º F, and peak in the 90s. Annual
precipitation averages 44 to 48 inches, evenly distributed
throughout the year. Thunderstorms occur throughout the summer
(USFWS 1989).
Air Quality
The Clean Air Act establishes Class I, II, and III areas with limits on
the amount of “criteria air pollutants” that can exist in pre-defined
geographic areas. Examples of criteria air pollutants are smog
(primarily ground-level ozone), particulate matter, and carbon
monoxide. Class I areas allow very little additional deterioration of
air quality (e.g. Wilderness Areas); Class II areas allow for more
deterioration; and Class III areas allow even more. All of Rhode
Island is currently classified as a Class II area. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the entire
State a serious non-attainment area for ozone. That designation
resulted in stricter automobile emissions standards designed to
reduce emissions by 24 percent between 1990 and 1999.
Socio-economic Factors
The Refuge Complex lies close to some of the largest population
centers on the east coast. The New York City metropolitan area,
population 8.5 million, is 2.5 hours to the southeast. Metropolitan
Boston, population 3.2 million, is 2 hours to the north. Hartford, with
a population of 140,000, is 1.5 hours to the northwest, and
Providence, population 161,000, is 45 minutes to the north (U.S.
Census Bureau 1996 estimates 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,
Chapter 3
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-5
which includes Ninigret Refuge , Trustom Pond Refuge , and Chafee
Refuge , has the fastest growing population and the highest number
of building permits issued annually (RI CRMC 1998). South County
population figures between 1990 and 1996 increased 7.4 percent, 4.6
percent, and 5.3 percent respectively in Charlestown, Narragansett,
and South Kingstown, while Middletown’s population decreased by
1.4 percent. The Town of New Shoreham, which includes Block
Island, had a population increase of 10.8 percent. The population for
the entire state of Rhode Island decreased by 1.3 percent over the
same period (http://www.riedc.com).
The Refuge Complex directly contributes to the economies of
Charlestown, South Kingstown, Narragansett, Middletown, and New
Shoreham through refuge revenue sharing payments. The Federal
Government does not pay property tax; it does pay refuge revenue
sharing directly to cities and towns each year, based on the fair
market value of refuge lands. The revenue sharing formula calculates
three-quarters of 1 percent of the fair market value of refuge lands as
the maximum amount payable each year. An appraisal updated every
five years keeps their fair market value current. The actual amount
of revenue sharing paid each year varies, depending on what portion
of the maximum amount Congress appropriates that year (rarely the
maximum). Figure 3-1 depicts refuge revenue sharing payments to
those towns for the fiscal year 2000.
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)
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, refuges are not well known as
tourist destinations, although many visitors discover them during
their visit and enjoy the scenery and open space they provide. They
are small enough to explore in one day, and generally do not prompt
an additional night’s lodging. Ms. O’Neill stated that, since the
Tourism Council is trying to showcase a greater mix of outdoor
recreational opportunities in coastal areas, 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.
Chapter 3
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-7
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).
Refuge Management
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.
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.
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 currently lies in the Shoreline Plaza strip
mall in Charlestown. In addition to housing our staff, it also houses
our Division of Ecological Services Southern New England/New
York Bight Coastal Ecosystem Program five-member staff, an
Atlantic Coast Joint Venture staff person, and Friends of the
National Wildlife Refuges of Rhode Island.
An environmental assessment was written in 2000, which determined
a new location for a Refuge Headquarters and Visitor Center. The
new building will be located on Deer Run Road (off Route 1) in
Charlestown, RI. The building is currently being designed, with
construction to begin in 2003.
Refuge Resources
Physical Resources
Topography and Soils
Formerly an island, Sachuest Point is now a prominent headland
separating Sachuest Bay to the west from Sakonnet River to the
east. The uplands are gently sloping and appear generally flat, but
dip sharply to the shoreline. The Refuge has the appearance of a
hammerhead, with Sachuest Point to the southeast and Flint Point to
the northwest (map 1-2).
Upland soils at Sachuest Point are a thin mantle of broken-down
outcropping bedrock, mixed with deposits of sand and silt, producing
loose, acidic soil of poor fertility. Underlying the soil are
Carboniferous Period rocks containing outcrops of Dighton
Conglomerate of the Rhode Island formation, volcanic schists, and
white quartz intrusions. Most soils are Newport and Pittstown silt
loams, very poorly drained and varying in slope from 0 to 15 percent.
Also present on the Refuge are areas of Newport very stony loams.
Rocky outcrops ring the perimeter of the Refuge, and several areas
of fill are located in the salt marsh on its northwest corner.
Historical land use practices likely impacted the soils of the refuge,
although no seriously compacted soils or expanses of soil loss have
been noted. From the mid-1600’s until the early 1900’s, Sachuest
Point was used for farming, including sheep grazing. This continued
until World War II, when approximately 107 acres of the property
became an Army Coastal Defense site, including a Navy firing
range. More recently, the U.S. Navy operated a Naval Radio Station
Receiver Site there.
Chapter 3
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-9
Hydrology
Sachuest Point is apparently the remnant of a drumlin, and was at
one time an island separated from the mainland by shallow marshes.
Groundwater on Aquidneck Island generally moves east towards the
Sakonnet River, or west towards Narragansett Bay. The
groundwater moves from areas of recharge to areas of discharge,
unless intercepted by wells. Areas of discharge include springs and
seeps located along the bottom of streams, ponds, lakes, and
reservoirs.
Biological Resources
Salt marsh
Approximately 40 acres of Sachuest Point are salt marsh wetlands.
Remnants of a salt marsh are found on the northeast end of the
Refuge, but have been severely impacted by a former Town of
Middletown landfill and a road. The southern, largely freshwater
portion of the salt marsh has been overtaken by the invasive plant
Phragmites. In 1997, extensive baseline data was collected on the
Phragmites patch and adjacent vegetation community in anticipation
of salt marsh restoration (Roman, et al. 1997). The primary goal of the
restoration was to restore a natural tidal flow into the salt marsh and
thus, reduce the domination of Phragmites in the plant community.
Actual restoration work began in 1998 on the south side of the road
between Second and Third Beaches. Initial monitoring shows native
plants returning to areas where Phragmites was mechanically
scarified or exposed to a more natural tidal flow of salt water. Some
of the Phragmites is dying and showing signs of poor vigor. The
upper reaches of the salt marsh along Paradise Brook, however, are
still highly impacted by freshwater, as freshwater from the brook is
being pushed up the tidal channels during high tide. It will be more
difficult to control Phragmites there.
Vegetation
Table 3-2 displays the dominant land cover types for the refuge.
Compared with other locations in Rhode Island, vegetation on
Sachuest Point Refuge is relatively homogeneous, with an estimated
150 plant species. A detailed plant list for the Refuge is available
upon request from the Refuge Office (George 1999). Principal
vegetation types are shrubland, dominated by the invasive exotic,
Asian bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), and open fields dominated
by forbs like goldenrod. Small patches of switchgrass also occur
throughout the refuge.
Of the 150 estimated documented plant species for Sachuest Point
Refuge, an incredible 40 percent are invasive species covering
approximately 80 percent of the refuge. The issue of how to control
invasive plants is probably its most significant management concern.
So far, little control of invasive species has occurred.
Restoring salt marsh tidal flows in 1997 was the first real effort to
deal with Phragmites on this refuge. Informal monitoring has
indicated a reduction in the vigor and amount of Phragmites.
Chapter 3
3-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
In 1998, approximately 6,000
beetles (Garucerla spp.) were
released as a biological control
agent for purple loosestrife
(Lythrum salicaria), another
invasive wetland plant.
Monitoring continues on this
project.
Also in 1998, prescribed burning
was conducted on three acres of
upland to determine if this was a
viable tool for controlling Asian
bittersweet. Asian bittersweet is
present on virtually every acre of
upland. Results were poor, due
to lack of dry fuels. In 1999,
approximately 15 acres of Asian
bittersweet were hydroaxed and
mowed as an experimental
control technique to be
monitored. The results show
promise and will continue to be
monitored.
Threatened and Endangered
Species
No State- or Federal-listed
threatened or endangered animal
species are known to breed in
the immediate area. A 1990
survey for the Federal-endangered
American burying
beetle at Sachuest Point Refuge
found other Nicrophorus species
there, but not the burying beetle.
Sachuest Point Refuge is a historic site for sea beach amaranth
(Amaranthus pumilus), a Federal-threatened plant species. No
State-listed plants are known.
Several State-listed wildlife species are known to forage in the area,
including northern harrier, great blue heron, snowy egret, great
egret, and glossy ibis. Sachuest Point Refuge was probably historical
nesting habitat for grasshopper sparrow and upland sandpiper, both
of which are State-listed. The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus),
formerly Federal-listed, sometimes uses the refuge for roosting or
foraging during migration. None of these species are known to
breed on the Refuge.
Birds
Bird diversity varies little among habitat types during the breeding
season. Abundant nesting species include red-winged blackbird,
yellow warbler, song sparrow, American robin, and common
yellowthroat. As shrubs have continued to dominate the landscape,
Chapter 3
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-11
Table 3-2. Land cover at Sachuest Point Refuge, Newport County, Rhode Island
(source: aerial photo interpretation by J. Stone).
Cover-type
Cobble beach
Developed
Exposed rock
Native emergent wetland
Native forest upland
Native grass
Native shrub upland
Native shrub
wetland
Non-native
emergent wetland
Non-native forest upland
Non-native grass
Non-native shrub upland
Sand
Vegetated sand dunes
Water
Total
Acreage
5.0
16.1
4.8
9.5
0.4
17.4
70.3
1.2
28.1
0.4
10.1
64.8
6.6
13.3
8.1
256.1
Percentage
1.9%
6.3
1.9
3.7
0.2
6.3
27.5
0.5
11.0
0.2
4.0
25.3
2.6
5.2
3.2
100%
breeding bird communities have changed. Gray catbird, northern
oriole, brown thrasher, rufous-sided towhee, and American redstart
have been detected on recent breeding bird surveys, yet these same
species could not be found on the refuge 5 years ago. Island Rocks,
just off the eastern point, is habitat for common terns.
Few formal surveys for wintering or migratory landbirds have been
conducted for this refuge. Migrants vary yearly, but typically
include thousands of tree swallows, snow buntings, and various
warblers, thrushes, and vireos. Remaining grasslands and trails
provide foraging areas for a variety of wintering and migratory
raptors. No raptors currently nest on the refuge, but because of
Sachuest Point’s location, a large diversity of raptors are seen during
migration. Migrant raptors typically observed include peregrine
falcon, American kestrel, merlin, broad-winged hawk, osprey, red-tailed
hawk, sharp-shinned and Cooper’s hawks.
The refuge shoreline is also an important place for migrating and
wintering shorebirds, including sanderlings, purple sandpipers,
dunlin, and semipalmated plovers. Disturbance of feeding
shorebirds along Second and Third Beaches is a concern, since very
little habitat for these species remains on Aquidneck Island.
Wintering songbirds include yellow-rumped warblers, white-throated
sparrows, and dark-eyed juncos. Sachuest Point is a reliable spot for
viewing wintering snowy and short-eared owls and northern harrier.
Wintering sea ducks are perhaps the most popular attraction for
visitors to the refuge. Sachuest Point boasts the second largest
winter population of eastern harlequin ducks on the Atlantic coast.
Only one site off the coast of Maine has a larger winter
concentration. Annual surveys at Sachuest Point Refuge indicate the
number of harlequin ducks fluctuates from 50 to a high of 107 from
October through March each year.
The harlequin duck is one of the least studied ducks in North
America, because it breeds and winters in some of the most
inaccessible and remote habitats in the northern hemisphere (Alaska
Deparment of Fish and Game 1994). Harlequin ducks congregate off
the eastern side of Sachuest Point, feeding and roosting near the
area known as Island Rocks. Since they expend considerable energy
feeding in rough waters, they can often be seen perching on rocks to
rest or sleep. They forage on a variety of intertidal invertebrates
gathered from rocks and ocean-bottom close to shore.
Throughout their range, harlequin duck populations have increased
slightly over the last 10 years, but they remain endangered in
Canada. Recent attempts to list their Eastern States population were
determined unwarranted (USFWS 1998). Studies are now underway
to better understand habitat use and impacts at nesting locations in
Canada and at wintering locations along the eastern seaboard.
Table 3-3 summarizes peak numbers for the incredible diversity of
waterfowl observed off Sachuest Point over an eight year period.
Chapter 3
3-12 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Chapter 3
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-13
Table 3-3. Peak waterfowl numbers at Sachuest Point Refuge from 1992 to 1999.
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Mute swan 2 3 10 2 2 1 4 5
Brant 75 20 34 7 58 3 20 3
Canada goose 40 2 1 - - 37 - -
American black duck 37 35 65 61 160 116 26 -
Mallard - - - - 4 - 2 -
Gadwall - - - - - - 16 11
American wigeon 2 - 2 - - 2 - -
Greater scaup 36 44 33 28 34 57 53 63
Lesser scaup - - - - - 80 - -
Common eider 207 77 1030 550 762 76 3011 312
King eider - - 1 - - 27 - -
Harlequin duck 64 77 77 82 82 84 107 105
Oldsquaw - - 3 - - 1 - 2
Black scoter - 57 300 58 28 29 21 32
Surf scoter - 101 167 88 102 319 368 53
White-winged scoter - 57 115 5 10 20 61 62
Common goldeneye 28 106 78 132 78 87 - 143
Barrow's goldeneye 1 1 1 - - - - -
Bufflehead 7 29 26 38 62 44 117 165
Common merganser - - - - - - 27 97
Red-breated merganser 77 51 61 49 37 70 43 47
Ruddy duck 4 - 23 - - 30 - 43
Red breasted merganser
Mammals
Nine species of mammals have been observed on the refuge,
including white-tailed deer, raccoon, mink, striped skunk , eastern
cottontail, eastern meadow vole, and white-footed mouse. Overly
friendly red fox have been an issue on the Refuge, as visitors have
been observed feeding them. Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) are
frequently seen hauled out on rocks along the shoreline.
Reptiles and Amphibians
No formal surveys of reptiles and amphibians have been conducted
on the Sachuest Point Refuge. Most sightings have been
opportunistic, and therefore represent an incomplete list of what is
found on the refuge. Eastern milk snake, northern brown snake, and
eastern garter snake have been observed on Refuge trails. Recently,
northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) were observed near the salt
marsh on the refuge. Spring peepers have been heard in the Refuge
wetlands; no salamanders or turtles have been documented.
Cultural Resources
No archaeological sites have been recorded on Sachuest Point, but
we consider the refuge a high probability site. No comprehensive
surveys have been conducted, but two prehistoric archeological sites
have been submitted to our Regional Historic Preservation Officer
for designation.
Public Uses
Estimated annual public use for Sachuest Point Refuge is 65,000
total visitor days. As stated earlier, there is no consistent process on
the Refuge Complex for collecting and documenting visitation data.
Estimating night surf fishing is particularly challenging.
Renovations to the visitor center will include exterior and interior
redesigns with significant improvements, especially to exhibits. The
impressive number of visitors offers great potential to educate and
inform them about the Refuge Complex and the Refuge System.
Volunteers primarily have staffed the center since the 1980’s. We plan
to station one permanent staff and at least one seasonal staff there to
establish a year-round presence and to meet the tremendous number
of requests for environmental education and interpretive programs.
Known public use activities vary seasonally, but include wildlife-dependent
activities such as nature observation and photography,
environmental education and interpretation, and salt water fishing.
Birdwatching is the year-round primary attraction. Salt water
fishing includes striped bass and bluefish in late summer and fall.
Other fish taken include flounder, tautog, and scup. The refuge is
not open to hunting.
Non-wildlife-dependent activities now occurring include dog walking,
jogging, swimming and sunbathing. Second Beach and Third Beach
are immediately adjacent to the refuge, and beach users often spill
over onto the refuge, sometimes unknowingly, since boundary signs
have a way of disappearing. Litter and random access to the
shoreline are constant issues.
In 1994, the Refuge Manager formally determined dog walking,
bicycling, jogging, swimming and using the beach were not
compatible with Refuge purposes. Because of the lack of a
permanent Service presence, enforcement against these
incompatible public uses has been inconsistent.
The Norman Bird Sanctuary is located adjacent to the Sachuest
Point Refuge. Refuge staff and volunteers work closely with the
Sanctuary, occasionally sharing volunteer hours. The Sanctuary
operates a summer camp, a visitor center, and provides nature walks
and family programs.
Trail System
Approximately 3 miles of trail exist on the refuge. Trails
maintenance includes extensive mowing, brushing, and repairing
erosion damage. One kiosk stands at the junction of several trail
heads just off the parking lot. The Flint Point trail, Island Rocks
trail, and the Sachuest Point trail each have one observation
Chapter 3
3-14 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
platform. We plan to evaluate the Sachuest Point Refuge trail
system to determine whether all of its current trails are necessary.
The entrance road to the refuge will be improved with
Transportation Equity Act funding.
Special Management Areas
Contaminants
The Town of Middletown operated a municipal landfill at Sachuest
Point from 1958 to 1973. The site then operated as a transfer station
until 1975. The 21-acre landfill was constructed in a coastal salt
marsh and barrier beach system between Second Beach and Third
Beach on the east side of Sachuest Point. It was listed on the
Federal Facilities Compliance Docket and published on February 12,
1988, in Federal Register Volume 53, Number 29 (CERCLIS No.
RI4143690010).
In 1994, Refuge staff completed a Preliminary Assessment of the
ecological and human health risks associated with the site, providing
the basis for EPA to score the site for inclusion in the EPA
Superfund Program National Priority List (NPL) for cleanup, as
required by CERCLA. The EPA determined that the site did score
high enough to be rated as an NPL site, but that its score did not
rank high enough to require EPA Superfund Program cleanup
oversight. Instead, EPA deferred oversight to the Division of Site
Remediation (RI DEM).
Because the site is located on a national wildlife refuge, we
voluntarily began the next phase of studies needed to determine the
extent and characteristics of contamination. In 1995, we contracted a
Site Investigation from Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation,
completed in April 1998. Its results indicated widespread
distribution of several chemical compounds within the landfill area,
including polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), petroleum hydrocarbons, and
metals. The contaminants detected and their concentration ranges
are typical of those commonly found at municipal landfills known to
have operated during the 1950’s and 1960’s. Lead is the contaminant
that most consistently exceeds RI DEM criteria, especially in the
surface soil.
We will close the site under RI DEM Site Remediation regulations.
In February 1999, Foster Wheeler completed a Remedial Action Work
Plan incorporating comments from RI DEM. A RI DEM-approved
Remedial Action Design is expected to be completed soon. We hope
to complete all work in 2003, assuming adequate funding is available.
Depending on the final, approved Remedial Action Design, we
estimate construction costs between $2 million and $4 million.
Chapter 3
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-15
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-1
Redstart
USFWS photo
  Refuge Complex Vision
  Refuge Complex Goals
  General Refuge Management
Chapter 4
Management Direction
Refuge Complex Vision
We developed this vision statement to provide a guiding philosophy
and sense of purpose for the five refuge CCPs. It qualitatively
describes the desired future character of the Refuge Complex
through 2015 and beyond. We wrote in the present tense to provide
a more motivating, positive, and compelling statement of purpose. It
has guided, and will continue to guide, program emphases and
priorities for each refuge in Rhode Island.
“The Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex protects a
unique collection of thriving coastal sandplain, coastal maritime,
and beach strand communities, and represents some of the last
undeveloped seacoast in southern New England. Leading the way
in the protection and restoration of coastal wetlands, shrubland,
and grassland habitats, the Refuge Complex contributes to the long-term
conservation of migratory and resident native wildlife
populations, and the recovery of endangered and threatened species.
These refuges offer research opportunities and provide an
outstanding showcase of habitat management for other
landowners.”
“The Refuge Complex is the premiere destination for visitors to
coastal Rhode Island to engage in high quality, wildlife-dependent
recreation. Hundreds of thousands of visitors are rewarded each
year with inspiring vistas and exceptional opportunities to view
wildlife in native habitats. Innovative environmental educational
and interpretive programs motivate visitors to engage in better
stewardship of coastal resources.”
“Through partnerships and extensive outreach efforts, Refuge
Complex staff are committed to accomplishing refuge goals and
significantly contributing to the Mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System. This commitment will strengthen with the future,
revitalizing the southern New England ecosystem for generations
to come.”
Refuge Complex Goals
Our planning team developed the following goals for the Refuge
Complex after reviewing applicable laws and policies, regional plans,
the Refuge Complex vision statement, the purpose of each refuge,
and public comments. All the goals fully comply with Service policy
and national and regional mandates.
Our Refuge Complex goals are intentionally broad, descriptive
statements of purpose. They highlight specific elements of our vision
statement and provide the foundation for our management emphasis.
We identified Goal 1 as the top priority for the Refuge Complex;
Goals 2-5 are not presented in any particular order.
Each goal is further refined by a series of objective statements.
Objectives are incremental steps to be taken toward achieving a goal
and define the management emphasis in measurable terms, where
possible. Some of our objectives relate directly to habitat
management, while others strive to meet population targets tied to
species’ recovery plans, or state or regional species plans. The
strategies for each objective are specific actions, tools, techniques,
Chapter 4
4-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Freshwater wetland. USFWS photo.
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 Regional National
Wildlife Refuge System Strategic Resources Plan (SRP). This plan
will establish Regional goals and objectives for species and habitats
based on landscape-scale analyses. Each refuge staff will then
determine their respective refuge’s contribution to implementing
these objectives. As such, once the SRP is completed, the objectives
and strategies outlined below may be modified.
The following goals, objectives, and strategies provide management
direction for the refuge over the next 15 years. Unless otherwise
noted, all work will be accomplished by the Service, primarily by
Refuge Complex staff.
Goal 1: Protect and enhance federal trust resources and other
species and habitats of special concern.
Objective 1.1
Protect and improve the habitat quality for shorebirds at feeding and
staging areas on the refuge.
Background:
Shorebirds annually migrate hundreds or thousands of miles
between breeding and wintering grounds, often in one or a few long-distance
non-stop flights. As such, migration staging areas, where
birds rest and accumulate fat reserves before and during flight, are
vitally important to many shorebird populations. Along the east
coast, beaches are key locations. Long-term declines of shorebird
Chapter 4
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-3
numbers at migration staging areas along the Massachusetts coast
have been attributed to conflicts between shorebirds and heavy
human recreational use. Monitoring shorebirds during migration
has not occurred consistently on Sachuest Point Refuge, so
information is limited on whether it is a key staging area.
Strategies:
  Use the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (once completed) to
update management strategies based on any newly identified
imperiled species (draft Shorebird Prioritization System 1999).
  By 2005, determine if there are key staging areas on the refuge; if
so, map in a GIS database.
  By 2006, determine potential threats and disturbances for key areas
and implement a plan to reduce their impact. Use outreach and
education, and if necessary, restrictions on public use and access.
Objective 1.2
Promote resting and feeding of wintering harlequin ducks off
Sachuest Point,and to the extent possible, maintain public viewing
opportunities.
Background:
In 1998, the Service was petitioned to list the Eastern States
population of the harlequin duck due to concerns that population
levels were very low. While the Service determined listing was
“unwarranted” at this time, studies were initiated to better
understand habitat use and impacts at nesting locations in Canada,
and at wintering sites along the northern U.S. Atlantic coast. Just
off Sachuest Point Refuge each winter, up to 105 harlequin ducks
have congregated to feed and roost near Island Rocks. This
congregation is the second largest winter population off the U.S.
East Coast. Since they typically forage and rest in open water or on
offshore rocks, opportunities to manage on their behalf is limited.
Further, while on open water, they are not on refuge lands and any
undertaking would necessarily be a joint effort with RI DEM.
This congregation of harlequin ducks attracts significant visitation
to the refuge, especially during October through March. The refuge
is well known by birding afficionados who come from all over to view
the birds so rarely seen from shore.
Strategies:
  Refuge staff or volunteers will continue weekly counts of harlequin
and other wintering sea ducks between September and April each
year. Refuge staff will develop standard protocol for counts by 2003.
  In 2003, work cooperatively with RI DEM to regulate a shoreline
waterfowl (sea duck) hunting closure, including both refuge lands
(above high water mark) and state lands (below mean high water).
This action will enhance Sachuest Point Refuge as a Watchable
Wildlife Area for observing harlequin duck and will reduce conflicts
between shoreline sea duck hunters and other refuge visitors.
  By 2004, begin monitoring public use in association with harlequin
duck viewing, to determine if the amount or timing of refuge
visitors affects the activities of wintering harlequin duck.
Chapter 4
4-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Objective 1.3
Within two years of CCP completion, establish specific habitat
management objectives for those birds considered to be a high
conservation priority in the Partners In Flight Area 9 (PIF) Plan,
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. Rhode Island refuges lie within
PIF Area 9, Southern New England. 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.
Although the final PIF Plan for Area 9 is not yet available, this CCP
incorporates habitat objectives for certain landbird species identified
in the draft PIF Plan (October 2000). These include shrub and
grassland dependent coastal Neotropical migrants, and maritime
marshland species. Using information from the surveys identified
below and the completed PIF Plan, we will be able to refine our
landbird objectives in the near future.
Strategies:
  Continue to conduct refuge-wide Breeding Bird Surveys on a 3- to
5- year interval, biweekly during the breeding season according to
established protocol.
  In 2003, utilize the ��Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation
Plan for Southern New England (Area 9)” (draft Oct 2000), and
the Regional Strategic Resources Plan (in preparation) to identify
and prioritize those landbirds of highest management concern on
the refuge, and assess how current management practices are
impacting them. Determine which of these landbirds should be a
focus for future management on the refuge, and write landbird
objectives for the HMP.
  In conjunction with development of the HMP, update refuge
cover-type maps, adhering to the National Vegetation
Classification Standards.
Objective 1.4
Protect and sustain all marsh, wading, and waterbird breeding
habitat on the refuge, especially maritime high marsh habitat
capable of supporting salt marsh sharp-tailed sparrows.
Background:
According to the PIF Plan, maritime marsh habitat is the habitat most
in 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 exist in the form of human disturbance, pollution, increasing
predator populations, and invasive, exotic species. Reducing these
threats is the highest conservation concern to be addressed.
Restoration of high salt marsh is also a priority.
Chapter 4
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-5
Strategy:
  Use the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (once
completed) to update management and monitoring strategies for
species of conservation priority.
  By 2003, conduct saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow surveys in
suitable habitat according to Regional protocol.
  By 2005, initiate an inventory for 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.
Objective 1.5
Within five years of CCP completion, determine if specific
management actions are warranted to insure seals are protected at
refuge haul out areas.
Background:
There are no significant concentrations of seals known on the refuge.
Generally, small groups of two to six seals will haul-out together.
Both harbor and gray seals are observed on Block Island Refuge’s
Beane Point and Sachuest Point Refuge’s rocky shoreline. Neither of
these species are imperiled, but they are protected under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act. Neither refuge site has been monitored to
determine the extent and timing of use by seals, or whether activities
are occurring that may be discouraging full use by seals.
Strategies:
  Beginning in 2005, work with partners to survey seal haul-out
areas on the Refuge Complex and determine if human disturbance
is a threat. Reduce human disturbance through public outreach
efforts and, restrict access if necessary.
Objective 1.6
Promote an appreciation of amphibian and reptile conservation,
and actively manage to protect and sustain current populations on
the refuge.
Background:
Increasingly, there are concerns about declining amphibian and
reptile populations throughout the United States. This is especially
troubling as amphibians are recognized as biological indicators of
ecosystem health. Recent studies conducted by the University of RI
have revealed that Ninigret and Trustom Pond refuges are very
important to the reptile and amphibian populations in southern
Rhode Island. The investigators suggest that one reason these
species are concentrated here is because the refuges offer contiguous
habitat in a landscape that is becomingly increasingly fragmented by
suburbanization (Paton, et al. 1998). We know very little about
amphibian and reptile populations on Sachuest Point Refuge. It is
desirable to know how amphibians and reptiles utilize refuge habitats
seasonally, in particular during the spring amphibian migrations, and
during the breeding seasons.
In cooperation with the University of Rhode Island, we hope to
continue reptile and amphibian inventories on the refuges.
Chapter 4
4-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Strategies:
  By 2003, conduct annual anuran call counts according to Regional
protocol.
  By 2005, develop environmental education and interpretation
programs to promote the significance of the refuges to Rhode
Island’s herptofauna.
  By 2005, work with conservation partners, RI DEM, and the
Friends Group to identify opportunities to reduce amphibian and
reptile road mortality during spring migration.
  By 2005, evaluate and incorporate applicable recommendations
(pending) made by Partners for Amphibian and Reptile
Conservation (PARC) into refuge management, as warranted.
  By 2005, implement monitoring plan for reptile and amphibian
concentration areas identified by inventories.
Objective 1.7
Protect, reestablish, and sustain rare plant sites on the refuge.
Background:
The Service has established new policy which provides guidance for
maintaining and restoring, where appropriate, the biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuges (FWS
Manual, Chapter 3, part 601). One goal of the policy is to prevent
the further loss of natural biological features and natural processes
on refuges and within their respective landscapes. Included in this
goal is the focus on sustaining native species and natural
communities, such as those found under historic conditions, including
single plant species or communities that may now be rare.
Sachuest Point Refuge is an historic site for sea beach amaranth
(Amaranthus pumilus), a Federal-listed threatened species, but has
not been observed in well over a decade.
Strategies:
  By 2006, survey and map all historic or potential rare plant sites
on the refuge.
  By 2008, with the Service’s New England Field Office, RI DEM,
and other partners, assess the potential for establishing or
restoring Federal and State listed, or former candidate, plant
species on the refuge.
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,
Chapter 4
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-7
distribution, and condition, to insure management actions are
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 results into the CENSUS database, or other
regional databases with GIS capabilities, to facilitate future
analyses. Revise digital cover type maps as warranted.
Objective 2.2
Within 15 years of CCP completion, maintain at least 100 acres as
native, coastal maritime grassland and shrubland (< 60 years old), to
provide nesting habitat for landbirds of conservation concern (PIF
Plan 10/00) such as bobolink, eastern meadowlark, and yellow-breasted
chat.
Background:
Refuge staff are actively involved in restoring native, coastal
maritime grassland and shrubland (< 60 years old) on 42 refuge
acres. We are managing to restore native vegetation structure and
composition and to maintain the natural physical components and
processes associated with a coastal maritime community. The
current vegetative communities on the refuge are highly altered
from historic, natural conditions; they are drastically affected by past
land use practices and the epidemic of invasive species.
Approximately 40% of the plant species documented on the refuge
are invasive plants and they cover 80% of the refuge. Restoring this
refuge to native, maritime grassland and shrubland will improve the
biological integrity and diversity of the refuge.
While the objective emphasizes the importance of nesting habitat, the
grassland-shrubland mosaic will also provide important foraging and
resting habitat during landbird and Monarch butterfly migrations.
This is especially true with many of the shrub species producing
berries, a staple of many migrating birds. Sachuest Point Refuge
offers an opportunity for migrating birds to rest and accumulate fat
reserves, and provide protected areas for migrating butterflies.
Native, coastal maritime grassland species include, but are not
limited to, such plants as field goldenrods (Euthamia graminifolia
and E. tenuifolia), bitter milkwort (Polygala polygama), white-topped
aster (Asster paternus), rush (Juncus greenei). Native,
coastal maritime shrubland species include, but are not limited to,
such species as bayberry, sand rose (Rosa rogosa), beach plum
(Prunus maritima), wild rose (Rosa virginiana), shadbush,
arrowood , poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), and highbush blueberry .
Chapter 4
4-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
All actively restored habitat areas will be at least 40 acres in size.
Ideally we are working towards contiguous areas of 100 acres or
larger to provide the greatest benefit to the widest diversity of
grassland and shrubland dependent species. Restoration treatments
include the use of mechanical, prescribed fire, biological, and
chemical herbicide treatments. Mechanical treatments include
brushhogging or hydroaxing woody vegetation, and discing,
harrowing, plowing, packing, and drilling grassland fields. All
herbicides used are on an approved Service list, and their use on the
refuge is approved annually by the Regional Environmental
Contaminants Specialist. All prescribed fires adhere to stipulations
in the 1995 Fire EA.
Since the refuge habitats are in a highly altered landscape,
continuous evaluation of project effectiveness and an adaptive
management response is imperative.
Strategies:
  Continue to monitor the 42-acre habitat restoration project.
Expand treatment area or change treatment method to insure
success, and if warranted by monitoring.
  By 2004, develop and implement a plan to maintain an additional
40 acres (82 acres total) of native, coastal maritime grassland and
shrubland habitat (< 60 years old) on the refuge. Utilize
management tools identified above. All treatments will be detailed
in the HMP.
  By 2005, hire a second maintenance worker for the Refuge Complex
to implement the habitat restoration programs for the refuges.
  By 2010, evaluate restoration acres as potential regal fritillary
butterfly reintroduction sites in consultation with the Service’s
Ecological Services Division.
  By 2015, maintain at least 100 acres of contiguous, native coastal
maritime shrubland and grassland habitats, with invasive species
dominating less than 50% of the area and with native species
established on over 50% of the area. Target native vegetative
species are identified above.
Objective 2.3
Augment refuge restoration projects and contribute to regional
grassland and shrubland landbird conservation efforts by working
with adjacent landowners.
Background:
Native grasslands and shrublands (< 60 years old), and those species
dependent on them, have been dramatically declining throughout the
Northeast, especially large contiguous grasslands over 100 acres.
The Refuge Complex offers relatively few areas on which to maintain
large expanses of this habitat. As such, cooperative management on
adjacent ownerships enhances the restoration work on the refuge by
creating a larger complex for area-sensitive species requiring habitat
patches greater than 40 acres.
Chapter 4
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-9
Strategies:
  By 2008, implement a “cooperative extension” outreach program
and develop materials to provide technical support for interested
landowners and conservation partners. The program may also
include on-the-ground assistance.
Objective 2.4
Increase protection and restoration of beach strand habitats on the
refuge, and promote their protection throughout coastal Rhode Island.
Background:
Beach strand (also known as barrier beach) is one of the most
imperiled habitat types on or adjacent to the Refuge Complex
because of the combined impacts of development and recreation.
Many species associated with this habitat type are either Federal or
State-listed as threatened or endangered due to the associated
impacts of human disturbance and habitat loss. Management of
these areas is extremely complex and controversial, especially when
it includes restrictions on beach use. Protection, restoration, and
enhancement of beach strand habitat and dependent species was
identified as the number one priority in the Connecticut River/Long
Island Sound Ecosystem Team Plan (July 1996).
Strategies:
  Each year, evaluate any opportunities to acquire beach strand
property from willing sellers within our approved acquisition
boundary. Beach strand habitat proximal to other undeveloped
areas, or of a size and condition which allow us to maintain or
restore biological integrity, will continue to be the highest
acquisition priority.
  By 2003, promote increased protection and stewardship of beach
strand habitat through an intensive outreach and education
campaign with the Friends Group and other partners targeting
beach front landowners, elected officials, and beach visitors.
  By 2003, hire two seasonal park aides to implement the project;
they will also be shared amongst the other refuge programs.
Objective 2.5
Within 15 years of CCP completion, restore natural ecological
conditions to 50 acres of salt marsh 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
Chapter 4
4-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
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 1.4 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 50 acres on refuge lands, when
coupled with the partnership effort described in objective 3.1,
significant ecosystem and socio-economic benefits are expected.
Strategies:
  Continue to work with USGS Biological Resources Division to
monitor the 15 acre tidal salt marsh restoration project on the
refuge. The project included realigning a culvert to restore tidal
flow to a creek and treatment of Phragmites. Refine or expand
project if warranted by monitoring.
  Continue to coordinate with the EPA, or delegated authority, in
restoring the 21 acre CERCLIS site (the former Town of
Middletown landfill) on the refuge, at least 10 acres of which lie in
tidal salt marsh.
  By 2008, develop site plan and implement restoration of an
additional 25 acres of Phragmites-dominated tidal salt marsh on
the refuge. Utilize the Corps of Engineer’s feasability study for
restoring the natural hydrologic flow to the area. This project may
be affected by the other wetlands projected noted above, as these
areas are adjacent and subject to the same hydrologic influences.
Objective 2.6
Within three years of CCP completion, treat at least 5 acres/year
dominated by invasive, non-native plants on the refuge to (1) enhance
native habitat, (2) eliminate new invasions, and (3) control the spread
of established plants.
Background:
Issue 4 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.
Strategies:
  By 2004, identify and map current distribution of invasive, non-native
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
Chapter 4
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-11
Watershed/Long Island Sound).
  By 2005, establish a program to treat at least 5 acres/year 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; this position will be shared among
the other Rhode Island refuges.
Objective 2.7
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 on refuge habitats. However, the
RI DEM has reported that complaints from citizens have increased
in recent years about private property damage and worries of Lyme
disease and vehicle collisions. RI DEM recommends 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
4-12 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
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 resource 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 tin 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 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
Sachuest Point Refuge by the 35 acres approved in the Land
Chapter 4
4-14 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Protection Plan (LPP) (Appendix E). Pursue acquisition from
wiling sellers, in either fee purchase or conservation easement, as
identified in the LPP.
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, environmental education and interpretation, and
wildlife observation and photography. 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 Service’s
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, following guidance in the Pre-acquisition Compatibility
Determination (Appendix D).
The objectives below are designed to enhance existing, compatible,
wildlife-dependent activities.
Objective 4.1
Provide high quality surf fishing opportunities along the refuge
shoreline, while minimizing impacts to natural resources.
Strategies:
  Continue to allow surf fishing, including night fishing, from refuge
shorelines on the Atlantic Ocean and Sakonnet River, under State
regulations. Access is on foot using designated trails.
  In 2002, designate access points to the shoreline to minimize
erosion and to better enforce refuge regulations against littering
Chapter 4
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-15
and bonfires.
  In 2002, develop and enforce a regulation requiring spear-fishing
gear to be unloaded and encased while on refuge land to avoid
intimidating other refuge visitors and to ensure their safety.
  In 2002, implement a fee permit system for fishing after sunset.
Permits will allow only anglers to park in the refuge parking lot
and access refuge lands between sunset and sunrise. This is a
solution to the problem of non-wildlife dependent activities (e.g.
bonfires, refuse dumping, parties, etc) occurring in the refuge
parking lot after sunset.
  In 2004, evaluate the effectiveness of the present system in
controlling non-wildlife dependent activities.
Objective 4.2
Increase opportunities for high quality interpretive experiences on
the refuge, which raise visitor’s awareness of the Refuge System and
Sachuest Point Refuge’s particular contribution to protecting trust
resources and significant habitats.
Strategies:
  Continue to maintain the existing kiosks, updating information to
keep it relevant and current.
  Continue to use volunteers and the Friends Group to help staff the
Visitor Center and conduct interpretive programs.
  By 2004, complete renovation of Visitor Center and exhibitry.
  By 2005, develop an interpretive program tiered to the Visitor
Services Plan, including development of an interpretive trail
describing the natural and cultural history of the area. Develop
two additional interpretive kiosks, and provide multi-lingual
literature to explain refuge resources and regulations.
  By 2008, coordinate with the Town of Middletown to develop
interpretive signs, kiosks, and/or exhibits on Second and Third
Beaches, and an exhibit at Newport Visitor Center.
Objective 4.3
Improve opportunities for high quality wildlife observation and
photography on the refuge, while minimizing impacts to natural
resources.
Strategies:
  Continue to maintain the existing Flint Point observation
platform.
  In 2002, designate shoreline access points and enforce their use to
minimize erosion. Foot travel on the uplands will also be
restricted to designated trails. Foot travel, snowshoeing, and
cross-country skiing are allowed in support of priority public uses.
  By 2004, modify or eliminate Trails 3 and 4 where determined to
be redundant with other trails and likely to impact future habitat
restoration project areas. Move impacted observation platforms
as necessary.
  By 2004, develop watchable wildlife pamphlets and species
checklists for the refuge.
Chapter 4
4-16 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
  By 2008, reconstruct the trail to Flint Point to provide barrier-free
access to the observation platform.
Objective 4.4
Increase opportunities for high quality environmental educational
experiences on the refuge, while minimizing impacts to natural
resources.
Strategies:
  Continue to work in partnership with staff from The Norman Bird
Sanctuary (NBS), which is located adjacent to the refuge, in
conducting environmental education on the refuge. By 2005,
develop a formal partnership with NBS to facilitate sharing of
resources and cooperate in developing curriculums.
  By 2005, sponsor at least one “Teach the Teacher” workshop/year.
  Also by 2005, cooperate with towns of Middletown and Newport
and local schools to develop a curriculum-based program featuring
refuge resources. A volunteer environmental education corps will
be established to help implement programs. Develop two low-impact
outdoor education sites to interpret the grassland,
shrubland and wetlands restoration projects.
Objective 4.5
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:
See objective 2.7.
Strategies:
  In 2002, complete a deer management plan and environmental
assessment evaluating opportunities for deer hunting across the
Refuge Complex. A separate public involvement process will be
initiated.
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 other
management priorities. 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:
  Beginning in 2002, we will initiate an intensive outreach and
education effort to phase out dog walking and jogging on the refuge.
  In 2002, we will establish a consistent Service presence by
Chapter 4
Sachuest Point Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-17
assigning permanent staff to this station and by staffing the
Visitor Center.
  In 2002, we will begin implementing a fee permit system for
fishing after official sunset. Only anglers with permits will be
allowed to park in the refuge parking lot and access the refuge
after sunset. The purpose is to reduce the continual problem of
non-wildlife activities (e.g. bonfires, refuge dumping, parties, etc)
occurring on the refuge after dark.
  In 2004, evaluate the effectiveness of the present system in
controlling non-wildlife dependent activities.
  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. In particular, the following activities will be targeted
on the refuge