Ninigret National

Wildlife Refuge

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Comprehensive

Conservation Plan

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Ninigret 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: Spring peeper, 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

Ninigret 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 1-11

Chapter 2, Planning Process 2-1

The CCP Process 2-2

Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities 2-3

Chapter 3, Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-1

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting 3-2

Socio-economic Setting 3-5

Refuge Complex Administration 3-8

Refuge Resources 3-9

Public Uses 3-19

Special Management Areas 3-20

Chapter 4, Management Direction 4-1

Refuge Complex Vision 4-2

Refuge Complex Goals (and Ninigret Refuge goals and objectives) 4-2

General Refuge Management 4-24

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. Ninigret Refuge 1-4

Map 1-3. Connecticut River/Long Island Sound Ecosystem 1-8

Map 4-1. Ninigret Refuge Habitat Improvements 4-17

Map 4-2. Ninigret Refuge Public Use 4-23
Ninigret Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-1

Native bluestem grass

USFWS photo

■ Refuge Overview

■ Purpose of and Need for a CCP

■ Mission

■ Refuge Purpose

■ National and Regional Mandates Guiding this CCP

■ Existing Partnerships

Chapter 1

Introduction and Background
Introduction

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) is the culmination of a

planning process that began in February 1998. Numerous meetings

with the public, the state, and conservation partners were held to

identify and evaluate management alternatives. A draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

(CCP/EA) was distributed in December 2000. This CCP presents the

management goals, objectives, and strategies that we believe will best

achieve our vision for the refuge, contribute to the National Wildlife

Refuge System Mission, achieve refuge purposes and legal mandates,

and serve the American public.

Refuge Overview

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

south of Providence (see maps 1-1 and 1-2). Transfers of land from

the U.S. Navy to the Service primarily established and expanded the

refuge, including: 27.5 acres of the Ninigret Pond barrier beach in

1970, 316.4 acres of the Naval Landing Field in 1979, and an

additional 60 acres 1982. With the recent acquisition of two large

tracts of mature deciduous forest north of U.S. Route 1, the refuge

now owns 701 acres. There are 390 unacquired acres within the

newly expanded refuge acquisition boundary (see Appendix E, Land

Protection Plan).

Ninigret Refuge is composed of a mainland parcel and a barrier

beach parcel. Its mainland parcel contains 674 acres, including 3

miles of shoreline on Ninigret Pond. The barrier beach parcel

contains 27.5 acres between Ninigret Pond and Block Island Sound.

The Purpose of and Need for a CCP

Developing a CCP is vital to refuge management. The purpose of

the CCP is to provide strategic management direction over the next

15 years, by...

■ Providing a clear statement of desired future conditions for

habitat, wildlife, visitor services, and facilities;

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

understanding of the reasons for management actions;

■ Ensuring refuge management reflects the policies and goals of the

Refuge System and legal mandates;

■ Ensuring the compatibility of current and future public use;

■ Providing long-term continuity and direction for refuge

management; and

■ Providing direction for staffing, operations, maintenance, and

developing budget requests.

The need to develop a CCP for Ninigret Refuge is two-fold. First,

the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Refuge

Improvement Act) requires that all national wildlife refuges have a

CCP in place by 2012 to help fulfill the mission of the Refuge

System. Second, the refuge lacks a master plan that establishes

priorities and ensures consistent, integrated management among the

five refuges in the Rhode Island Refuge Complex.

Chapter 1 

1-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex


Chapter 1 

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-5

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

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

wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries. By law, Congress

entrusts national resources to the Service for conservation and

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

Service also enforces federal wildlife laws and international treaties

on importing and exporting wildlife, assists with state fish and

wildlife programs, and helps other countries develop wildlife

conservation programs.

The National Wildlife Refuge System and its Mission

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

waters set aside specifically for conserving wildlife and protecting

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

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

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

photograph wildlife, or participate in environmental education and

interpretive activities on refuges. 

In 1997, Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act, establishing a unifying mission for the Refuge

System, and a new process for determining compatible public use

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

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

must focus on wildlife conservation. It further states that the mission

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

refuge was established, will provide 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 Ninigret Refuge are:

“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management

purpose, for migratory birds,”

– Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929

“... particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird

management program”

– Transfer of Certain Real Property for 

Conservation Purposes Act of 1972

“...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 Project

This section highlights Service policy, legal mandates, and existing

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

directly influenced development of this 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

the plan was released in October 2000, and we will use the final plan,

when finished, to further guide management.

Chapter 1 

1-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Black duck. USFWS photo.
Connecticut River/Long Island Sound Ecosystem Priorities, 1997

During the last decade, we have emphasized ecosystem conservation,

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

affect the long-term conservation of natural resources. Implementing

an ecosystem approach to resource management is one of our top

national priorities. We have initiated new partnerships with private

landowners, state and federal agencies, corporations, conservation

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

country, typically using large river watersheds to define ecosystems.

Those teams work on developing goals and priorities for research and

management within each ecosystem.

The Refuge Complex lies within our Connecticut River/Long Island

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

Service personnel and representatives from six State Fish and Wildlife

Departments developed a Priority Resources Plan (July 1996) that

identifies seven priorities, each involving numerous action strategies.

1. Protect, restore, and enhance listed and candidate

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

coastal sandplain habitat, and Connecticut River species.

2. Protect, restore, and enhance anadromous and interjurisdictional

migratory fish populations...with special emphasis on Atlantic

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

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

on grassland and forest interior species.

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

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

coastal areas and major rivers.

5. Protect, restore, and enhance wetland habitats. 

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

communities and trust resources.

7. Develop a public that values the fish and wildlife

resources...understands events and issues related to these

resources, and acts to promote fish and wildlife conservation.

Northeast Areas Study: Significant Coastal Habitats of Southern

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

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

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

Congress funded a study to identify coastal areas in southern New

England and Long Island whose fish and wildlife habitat need

protection and whose natural diversity needs preservation. The

Northeast Coastal Study identifies species of regional importance, and

describes regionally significant habitat complexes. It specifically

describes significant or unique habitat, threats to sustaining the habitat

complex, and considerations for conserving and protecting it. We

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

Chapter 1 

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-7

The study identifies these habitat complexes in Rhode Island:

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

Counties, CT, and Washington County, RI)

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

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

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), Atlantic Coast Population,

Revised Recovery Plan, 1996

The piping plover is the only federally-listed endangered or

threatened species that currently breeds on refuge lands within the

Rhode Island Refuge Complex. The primary objective of the revised

recovery program is to remove the Atlantic coast piping plover

population from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and

Plants by: 

■ Achieving well-distributed increases in numbers and productivity

of breeding pairs; and

■ Providing for long-term protection of breeding and wintering

plovers and their habitats.

The Revised Recovery Plan describes detailed “Recovery Tasks”

needed to meet the recovery objective. The Rhode Island Refuge

Complex is specifically mentioned in the following tasks:

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

feeding habitat available.

■ Reduce disturbance of breeding plovers from humans and pets.

■ Develop mechanisms to provide long-term protection of plovers

and their habitat. 

The Recovery Plan incorporates management guidelines for

recreational activities in piping plover breeding habitat, which were

developed by our Ecological Services Division in 1994. While not

regulatory, these recommendations continue to serve as our best

professional advice for complying with the Endangered Species Act.

We utilized these same guidelines in developing management actions.

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.

Chapter 1 

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-9
Chapter 1 

1-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Protecting Our Land Resources: 

A Land Acquisition and Protection Plan, Rhode Island Department

of Environmental Management, May 1996

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

Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) in

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

the integrity of natural resources essential to the environmental,

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

framework provides strategies to permanently protect five critical

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

natural heritage and biodiversity. It includes evaluation criteria for

selecting and prioritizing lands.

Special Area Management Plan – Salt Pond Region, November 1998

This plan details management strategies for implementing the

program standards of the State of Rhode Island Coastal Resources

Management Council (CRMC) in the Salt Pond Region. The Salt

Pond Region SAMP includes eight objectives; the following six relate

to Ninigret Refuge:

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

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

they support.

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

contaminated by potentially harmful bacteria or eutrophic

conditions.

3. To ensure the groundwater will be unpolluted.

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

shellfish.

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

habitats damaged by past construction or present use.

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

management of the region as an ecosystem.
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

■ Frosty Drew Nature Center

Chapter 1 

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May, 2002 1-11
Ninigret 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 Rhode Island Refuge Complex in

February 1998. Figure 2-1 displays the steps of the planning process

and how they incorporate National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) requirements.

First, we focused on collecting information on natural resources and

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

and preliminary goals, including issues associated with each of its

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

organizations and individuals, to ensure we would be contacting a

diverse sample of the interested public.

Recognizing that not everyone could attend the Open Houses

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

March to encourage even more people to provide their written

comments on topics related to managing the Refuge Complex. We

offered the workbooks to everyone on our mailing list, including

adjacent landowners, and made workbooks available at refuge

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

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

completed workbooks. Those responses and public input at our

meetings have influenced our formulating issues and developing

alternatives on resource protection and public use.

In April and May 1998, we began a

series of public meetings: five

Open Houses in the communities

of Middletown, South Kingstown,

Charlestown, and Block Island

invited public comments on goals

and issues. We advertised the

meetings through news releases,

radio broadcasts, and notices to

our mailing list. From 15 to 40

people attended each meeting. We

also organized 15 informational

meetings with state and federal

agencies, non-profit conservation

groups, town planners,

conservation commissions, and

sporting clubs.

Public responses suggested more

than 50 additional areas where

lands warranted protection,

typically along the coast. We

evaluated those lands for their

potential as national wildlife

refuges, using criteria such as the

presence of threatened,

endangered, or other trust species

and their habitats, the presence of

wetlands, our ability to manage or

restore the areas, existing threats

to their integrity, and their size

and location.

Chapter 2 

2-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

A. Preplanning:

Plan the Plan

E. Prepare Draft 

Plan & NEPA 

Document

NEPA

• purpose and need

NEPA

• prepare & distribute draft CCP 

and NEPA documentation

• public comment & review

H. Review & 

Revise Plan

NEPA

• NEPA compliance & 

public involvement 

when applicable

NEPA

• notify the public

• involve the public

• scope the issues

B. Initiate Public 

Involvement& 

Scoping

NEPA

• NEPA compliance & public 

 involvement when applicable

C. Review Vision 

Statement & Goals, 

& Determine 

Significant Issues

NEPA

• identify significant issues

F. Prepare & 

Adopt Final Plan

NEPA

• respond to public comment

• identify preferred alternative

• prepare & distribute final CCP 

and NEPA documentation

• prepare & distribute FONSI 

for EA or ROD for EIS

NEPA

• reasonable range of alternatives

• No Action alternative

• assess environmental effects

• the Proposed Action

D. Develop & 

Analyze 

Alternatives

G. Implement 

Plan, Monitor, & 

Evaluate

The Comprehensive 

Conservation 

Planning Process & 

NEPA Compliance

Figure 2-1. NEPA and the CCP Process
We distributed a Planning Update to everyone on our mailing list in

September 1998. This newsletter summarized public comments from

meetings and workbooks, described policy guidelines for managing

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

for the Refuge Complex.

Once the key issues had firmed up, we developed alternative

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

strategies from public comment, follow-up contacts with partners,

and ideas from the planning team. We distributed a second Planning

Update newsletter in May 1999, updating everyone on our planning

timelines and our decision to start a separate Environmental

Assessment for the visitor center/headquarters. 

We released a draft CCP/EA in December of 2000 for a 51-day

comment period. We held public hearings and open houses in

February of 2001. A summary of public comments is included in

Appendix B. The land acquisition component of this planning

process is contained in the Land Protection Plan (Appendix E).

Each year, we will evaluate our accomplishments under this CCP,

including the completion of more detailed step down plans.

Monitoring or new information results may indicate the need to

change our strategies. We will modify the CCP documents and

associated management activities as needed, following the

procedures outlined in Service policy and NEPA requirements. This

CCP will be fully revised every 15 years, or sooner if necessary.

Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities 

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

planning team discussions, we developed 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 in the draft

CCP/EA. 

Issues and concerns outside the scope of this analysis were

discussed in the draft CCP/EA but will not be addressed futher in

this final CCP.

Key Issues

Public and partner meetings and further team discussions produced

the key issues briefly described below. 

1. Protection of endangered and threatened species and other

species and habitats of special concern. 

This is the most important issue facing the Refuge Complex.

Protecting federally listed endangered and threatened species is

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

Chapter 2

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-3
purpose for which each of the five refuges was established. Other

federal trust species are also of primary concern, including

migratory birds, anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals.

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

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

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

River estuary near Chafee Refuge. Block Island Refuge has potential

nesting habitat; so far, nesting attempts there have been unsuccessful.

Threats from coastal development, disturbance by humans and pets,

and predation are the major factors contributing to the species

decline (Piping Plover Atlantic Coast Population, Revised Recovery

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

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

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

environmental education and interpretation about the natural history

of piping plover and barrier beach protection.

Consistently each year, predators are one of the most significant

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

humans have caused three incidents of piping plover nest

destruction: two were acts of vandalism directed at destroying nests

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

Campers often leave trash, which attracts predators to a nesting

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

Some responses raised the continuing issue of restricting public

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

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

Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) to close beach

intertidal areas.

Service staff help coordinate piping plover monitoring on nine

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

requires tremendous time and resources, both presently limited.

Funding for plover work along the South Shore is inconsistent from

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

typically foundation grants. However, the benefits derived are clearly

evident in increased nesting attempts and productivity on many sites. 

Other federally listed species discussed are the seabeach amaranth

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

that may be considered for future reintroduction. Current levels of

refuge management also emphasize other federal trust resources:

Neotropical migratory birds, waterfowl, and colonial wading birds.

Appendix A lists species and habitats of special management

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

rare natural communities known to occur in Rhode Island that are

federally listed as endangered or threatened, were candidates for

listing, or are otherwise of management concern. Combined with

location information, we used that list to identify additional land

protection needs and opportunities. We know very little about many

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.

Chapter 2 

2-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
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 because of increased predation and other factors,

productivity and survival is severly limited. 

Other grassland and shrubland species have declined dramatically as

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

are dependent on these habitat types.

Tremendous potential exists for refuge staff to become involved in

restoring habitat on private lands. Grassland and shrubland

restoration offers opportunities for our staff to provide technical

expertise to local communities. The alternatives in the draft CCP/EA

compared different levels of restoring and maintaining these habitats

and providing technical assistance to private landowners. Addressing

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

ecological communities to promote healthy, functioning ecosystems.

3. Protection and restoration of the beach strand ecological

community. 

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

degradation by development and shoreline de-stabilization. Meanwhile,

the demand for recreational uses in these areas intensifies. The result

is an alarmingly high rate of habitat loss and the decline of virtually all

beach strand plant and animal species. Federally listed species such as

the piping plover, roseate tern, northeastern beach tiger beetle, and

seabeach amaranth depend on this habitat. Alternatives in the draft

CCP/EA included different strategies for protecting it. Addressing this

issue will help achieve Goal 2: Maintain and/or restore natural

ecological communities to promote healthy, functioning ecosystems.

Chapter 2

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-5
4. 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.

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

wildlife species. 

Each of the five refuges has an extensive distribution of invasive

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

plant and animal species, degrade wetlands and other natural

communities, and reduce natural diversity and wildlife habitat

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

and nutrient resources. Once established, getting rid of invasive

plants is expensive and labor-intensive. Unfortunately, their

characteristic abilities to establish easily, reproduce prolifically, and

disperse readily, make eradication difficult. Many of these plants

cause measurable economic impacts, particularly in agricultural

fields. Preventing new invasions is extremely important for

maintaining biodiversity and native plant populations. The control of

existing, affected areas will require extensive partnerships with

adjacent landowners, state, and local governments.

Thirteen invasive plant species affecting the natural communities

within the Refuge Complex are considered of high management

concern. The most prevalent are Phragmites, purple loosestrife,

Asian bittersweet, autumn olive, and Japanese honeysuckle. Other

species such as Japanese knotweed and multiflora rose are increasing

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

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

or suspected to be, adversely affecting natural diversity. Issues

surface when these species directly impact federal trust species or

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

species that aggressively drive native waterfowl and shorebirds away

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

quality when they spend extended periods of time molting on coastal

ponds, and are sometimes aggressive towards humans. 

Chapter 2 

2-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Native species such as deer, red fox, gull, and small predatory

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

their populations exceed the range of natural fluctuation and the

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

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

excessive browse lines are evident on two refuges. Adjacent

landowners are also concerned about deer impacts on landscaping,

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

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

can adversely impact other native wildlife populations. Occurrences

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

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

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

mammals because they can carry rabies. These predators are

particularly troublesome when their populations exceed natural

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

include lethal removal, visual and audio deterrents, or destroying

eggs, nests, or den sites. 

The alternatives in the draft CCP/EA compared different strategies

for managing invasive species. Addressing this issue will help

achieve Goal 1: Protect and enhance Federal trust resources and

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

and/or restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy,

functioning ecosystems.

6. Protection of biologically significant areas through

acquisition and/or cooperative management. 

Public meetings, partner meetings, and workbook responses

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

and wildlife habitat in southern Rhode Island. That support runs

across the State, as Rhode Islanders consistently vote ballot

measures to maintain open space and protect fish and wildlife

habitats. Many people mentioned that their support stems from

their concern over the rapid pace of development on the South

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

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

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

estimate predicts that current sprawl patterns will ensure the loss of

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

Island Office of The Nature Conservancy has noted that the

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

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

Conservancy 2000).

This dramatic increase in development has changed land use

patterns and practices, significantly modifying natural landscapes.

As natural lands (those with sustainable native species populations

and intact ecological processes) become isolated and fragmented into

smaller pieces disconnected from other natural areas, their ability to

support a full complement of native species is adversely affected.

Cut off from larger populations, species and plant communities

within these natural areas face the problems of limited genetic

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

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

Chapter 2

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-7
species declines and exotic species gain a stronghold. It is

precisely this diminished ability of natural areas to support diverse

species with different habitat requirements that leads to a decline

in biodiversity. While some species can tolerate fragmentation as

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

dependent species, require larger, contiguous natural areas or

functional corridors linking patches of natural habitat. This ability

to protect and sustain larger natural areas and corridors, coupled

with the protection of unique or rare species or communities, is

critical to maintaining biodiversity.

A landscape or ecosystem approach to protecting land is also

critical in the recovery of threatened and endangered species.

Piping plover serve to illustrate this point. They have a fairly

strong fidelity to certain nesting areas and typically return to them

most years. Shifting of pairs between nesting areas has been

observed when disturbances or habitat conditions affect their

ability to nest. Barrier beaches are dynamic ecosystems, and their

nesting conditions can change dramatically from year to year.

While 1999 was a good nesting year on Moonstone Beach (Trustom

Pond Refuge), in 2000, the beach consisted entirely of cobble with

virtually no sand for nesting. The piping plover pairs there in 1999

appeared to have shifted to the Ninigret Conservation Area.

Without consideration of these shifts in habitat use across a

landscape, management for these species would be ineffective.

Some individuals preferred that the Service acquire and manage

federal trust resources, and that the Refuge Complex continue to

acquire these sites. Others emphasized partnerships to

cooperatively protect and manage important habitats not currently

on refuge land. Still others recommended a combination of Service

acquisition and cooperative management to provide the greatest

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

workbooks, many responses suggested specific areas needing

protection, particularly wetlands threatened by development.

Some individuals we spoke with especially supported our acquiring

land occupied by endangered or threatened species.

The alternatives in the draft CCP/EA offered various levels of

Service land acquisition, ranging from lands within the currently

approved acquisition boundaries only, to a considerable expansion

of each refuge’s acquisition boundary. They also evaluated our

increased involvement in cooperative land protection off-refuge.

Addressing this issue will help achieve Goal 3: Establish a land

protection program that fully supports accomplishment of species,

habitat, and ecosystem goals.

7. Assurance of access to credible information about

resources regarding the Refuge Complex to ensure

management decisions are based on the best available

science. 

We need to determine and prioritize what information reasonably

could be collected to facilitate decision-making using the best

available science. In particular, many individuals expressed

concern over the lack of information available to fully evaluate

Chapter 2 

2-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
impacts to wildlife and habitats from excessive public use. Others

questioned the effectiveness of management actions that have not

been adequately monitored and evaluated. Several university

researchers and other partners encouraged our staff to prioritize

baseline inventory needs, establish monitoring protocols to better

evaluate management actions, and identify information needed to

determine each refuge’s contribution to the ecosystem.

Implementing the Service’s Policy on Maintaining the Biological

Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health of the National

Wildlife Refuge System will require us to ascertain the natural

conditions for each refuge and identify the natural communities,

species, and ecological processes that are rare, declining, or unique.

Opportunities to cooperate in collecting this information could be

developed once the priorities have been identified. The alternatives

in the draft CCP/EA offered different levels of pursuing this

information. Addressing this issue will help achieve all of our goals

for the Refuge Complex.

8. Management of public use and access. 

The Refuge Improvement Act and Service policy require our enhanced

consideration of opportunities for six priority wildlife-dependent uses

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

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

According to Service policy, all refuges are closed to any use until 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 nonwildlife-dependent activities, to those who want to close refuges to all

public use to maintain an undisturbed sanctuary for wildlife.

The alternatives in the draft CCP/EA compared different levels and

combinations of wildlife-dependent public use. Addressing this issue

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

compatible, wildlife-dependent public use with particular emphasis

on environmental education and interpretation.

9. Hunting. 

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

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

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

biologists, and by individuals both for and against expanding hunting

opportunities on the Refuge Complex. Those in support primarily

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

Chapter 2

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-9
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 RefugeImprovement Act).

None of Ninigret Refuge is currently open to hunting, but RI DEM

has expressed its interest in any new opportunities for hunting

because rapid residential development in Rhode Island is confining

public hunting opportunities to fewer and fewer areas.

The Service views managed or administrative hunts in areas where

there are overabundant deer populations as an effective tool for

regulating them. 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 explored varying levels of

hunting opportunities, from no hunting at all, to opening four refuges

during State-regulated seasons for deer, waterfowl, and pheasant.

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

restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy,

functioning ecosystems, and Goal 4: Provide opportunities for high

quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent public use with particular

emphasis on environmental education and interpretation.

10. Opportunities for environmental education. 

Responses so frequently mentioned increasing environmental

educational opportunities across the Refuge Complex that our

planning team decided it warranted special recognition. More than 90

percent of the workbook responses ranked environmental education

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

in the draft CCP/EA compared different levels of environmental

educational opportunities and the different levels of partnerships so

integral to implementing them on each of the five refuges. Addressing

this issue will help achieve Goal 4: Provide opportunities for high

quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent public use with particular

emphasis on environmental education and interpretation.

11. Provision of staffing, operations, and maintenance

support sufficient to accomplish goals and objectives. 

The Refuge Complex lacks adequate funding and personnel to

provide the programs and services desired by the public and to

effectively meet the goals for this CCP. The alternatives in the draft

CCP/EA compared different funding and staffing levels based on

their proposed management strategies for dealing with the issues.

Chapter 2 

2-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Addressing this issue will help achieve Goal 5: Provide Refuge

Complex staffing, operations, and maintenance support to effectively

accomplish refuge goals and objectives.

12. Increasing the visibility of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

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

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

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

increase resource protection and improve visitor services. Other

recommendations to increase visibility included more visitor contact

stations, increasing wildlife interpretation and environmental

educational opportunities, a better location for a headquarters office,

developing a Refuge Complex visitor center, improving existing

visitor facilities (e.g., kiosks, interpretive signs on trails, etc.),

increasing support for a volunteer program, and increasing

community involvement.

Some people expressed an interest in seeing refuge staff enforce

public use policy more consistently. Others argued it was

unnecessary for Service personnel to be armed while patrolling

beaches. The alternatives in the draft CCP/EA compared different

levels of promoting our visibility and providing these services.

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

restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy,

functioning ecosystems, and Goal 4: Provide opportunities for high

quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent public use with particular

emphasis on environmental education and interpretation.

13. Need for improved facilities. 

The Refuge Complex lacks a facilities plan establishing current and

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

current facilities are inadequate. Its headquarters does not have

enough office space to accommodate even current staff, and the visitor

services area is limited to one rack of literature in the reception area.

The alternatives in the draft CCP/EA compared opportunities for new

or improved facilities to accommodate staff work space, increase the

visibility of the Service and the Refuge Complex, and improve visitor

services, including environmental education and interpretation.

Addressing this issue will help achieve Goal 5: Provide Refuge

Complex staffing, operations, and maintenance support to effectively

accomplish refuge goals and objectives.

Chapter 2

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-11
Ninigret Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-1

Piping plover

USFWS photo

■ Geographic/Ecosystem Setting

■ Socioeconomic Setting

■ Refuge Complex Administration

■ Refuge Resources

■ Cultural Resources

■ Public Uses

Chapter 3

Refuge and Resource

Descriptions
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting

Landscape Formation

The movement of glaciers across New England created the land

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

occurred during the Wisconsin glacial period. Approximately 15,000

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

the melting rate of ice equaled the glacial rate of movement (Bell

1985). As the climate warmed 12,000 - 15,000 years ago, the glacier

began its retreat, depositing pronounced land forms along its

outermost edge. The southern coast of Rhode Island, including

Block Island, is the farthest point the Wisconsin glacier reached in

its southeastern frontal movement. The retreating glacier deposited

rocks pushed by the front of its ice sheet in piles called moraines.

These terminal or end moraines formed sinuous ridges up to 200 feet

high. Block Island is part of the terminal moraine that includes

Nantucket and parts of Long Island.

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

the Charlestown or Watch Hill moraine, stretching east to west parallel

to U.S. Route 1. Glacial action also created other features in today’s

landscape: recessional moraines, outwash plains, kettle hole ponds,

glacial lake deposits, deltas, and submerged gravel shoals. Prominent

headlands like Sachuest Point are composed of glacial till, a mixture of

silt-sized grains to boulder-sized deposits by the melting glacier.

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

and Rhode Island Sounds until it reached its present level

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

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

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

between the headlands and the ocean, forming coastal lagoons

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

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

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

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

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

The bedrock formations of southern Rhode Island include the

Blackstone series of metamorphic rock along its southern coastal

border (including most of Westerly, Charlestown and South

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

Narragansett and Middletown and parts of Westerly and

Charlestown), and Pennsylvanian sedimentary rock in most of south

central Rhode Island (including Richmond, much of South

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

refuges are fine sandy loams or silt loams.

Historical Influences on Landscape Vegetation

The upland forests of southern Rhode Island are classified by

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

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

practices promoted this forest type.

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

area. Documented evidence places the first intensive occupation of

Chapter 3 

3-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
the salt pond region during the late Archaic period (5,000 to 3,000

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

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

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

vegetation probably did not occur.

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

settlements. Fortified villages are known to have existed in some

locations. Maize horticulture became prominent, which likely

resulted in small clearings. 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

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-3
more destructive to the south shore, because of its exposure to the

open ocean. The draft Salt Pond Region Special Area Management

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

Shore, including details on how sediment movement constantly

reshapes this dynamic landscape (RI CRMC 1998).

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

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

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

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

magnitude are suspected to have occurred only four other times in

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

hurricanes are less powerful but more frequent than the hurricane of

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

in 1991 each left its mark on the coastline.

Human influences on sustaining the form and function of coastal

landscapes and ecosystems over the long term are predominantly

negative. Attempts to stabilize the beach system by constructing

jetties or breach ways and planting beach grass have greatly affected

the natural dynamics of this system by interrupting the natural flow

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

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

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

Military installations directly impacted the landscapes that include

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

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

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

were cleared and maintained as asphalt runways and taxiways.

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

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

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

more recent Naval communications center, mowing and the use of

herbicides maintained the vegetation in a low shrub-grasslands

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

Naval facility, entitled “Historical Perspectives on Establishing

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

the refuge visitor center.

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

wetlands for development, converting uplands for residential use,

and spilling oil are other significant human impacts on the coastal

landscape. 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

Ninigret 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 waterassociated recreation are the primary attractions for visitors with

destinations along the Rhode Island coast.

Current travel and tourism literature does not feature the Refuge

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

tourist destinations, although many visitors discover them during

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

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

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

Tourism Council is trying to showcase a greater mix of outdoor

recreational opportunities in South County, the Refuge Complex will

figure more prominently in future promotional material.

The greatest contribution by the Refuge Complex to the local

economy comes from the values attributed to the preservation of

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

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

and Public Willingness to Pay.

Cost of Community Services compares the cost per dollar of revenue

generated by residential or commercial development to that of

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

residential development expands the tax base, but the costs of

increased infrastructure and public services (schools, utilities,

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

the other hand, undeveloped land requires few town services and

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

of revenue generated by commercial land typically falls between

those of residential and open space.

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

Commonwealth Research Group (1995) evaluated community

revenues and expenses associated with open space vs. residential

and commercial development. All available information on the New

England States shows that open space and commercial development

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

residential land.

Conversations with local realtors and appraisers helped us evaluate

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

and one realtor/appraiser confirmed that properties adjacent to

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

Chapter 3

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-7
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 Complex Administration

Staffing and Budget

Annual budget appropriations

are highly variable, and

commensurately affect our

staffing levels. Table 3-1

summarizes budget and staffing

levels from 1995 to 1999.

Fluctuations reflect funding for

special projects, moving costs for

new employees, or large

equipment purchases. Most of

the funding is earmarked; very

little discretionary funding is

available.

Resource Protection and Visitor Safety

Law enforcement officers, with full authority to enforce federal

regulations, are required to ensure resource protection and visitor

safety. Three permanent refuge staff have been assigned collateral

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

operations, but those collateral duties draw staff time and resources

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

seasonal staff with law enforcement authority each year.

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

year. They typically involved vehicle and pedestrian trespass,

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

verbal warnings are also given each year, typically for inadvertently

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

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

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

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.
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

Geology and Hydrology

Most of Ninigret Refuge has a very high water table (6’-10’ below the

surface). Military excavations created several ponds as a result.

Most of these man-made ponds are small and fairly unproductive,

with steep sides and gravel bottoms. No natural streams exist on the

refuge. The Navy constructed a series of ditches designed to direct

runoff from the runways into Ninigret Pond. These ditches are

responsible for reducing the salinity in at least two salt marshes,

allowing an invasive plant species (Phragmites spp.) to take over

these wetlands.

Some evidence suggests that the creation of runways and the

resulting compaction of the underlying silt created a barrier

impervious to water, causing runoff. After the recent removal of

asphalt runway, some ponds are still forming, indicating this

compacted silt layer still exists, and might need to be broken through

to prevent frost-heaving of newly planted native grasses.

Topography and Soils 

Most of the 701-acre refuge is located on a coastal outwash plain

emanating from the base of the Charlestown Moraine. The refuge

area is typical of coastal sandplain characterized by relatively flat

terrain and sandy soils derived from sorted silt, sand, and gravel that

flowed out from glacial meltwaters. Most soils on the Refuge are

fine sand and silt loams in the Bridgehampton series and have very

low levels of nutrients and organic matter. A high gravel content

also characterizes refuge subsoil.

Biological Resources

Wetlands 

Approximately 9% of Ninigret Refuge is wetland, including salt

marsh, small, man-made ponds, forested and scrub-shrub

Chapter 3

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-9
wetlands, and emergent wetlands with varying amounts of open

water. Most natural freshwater wetlands on the refuge are glacial

kettle holes. The refuge contains at least 13 permanent ponds.

Some tidal ponds on its mainland portion have restricted tidal flow

due to siltation, and have become increasingly fresh. Most of the salt

marsh acreage exists on the barrier beach parcel.

Unfortunately, most of the wetlands have diminished wildlife value

because of the presence of Phragmites. Phragmites indicate a

disturbed wetland, especially where the natural flushing of salt water

has been altered, salinity has declined, or where sediment loading

has occurred. The monotypic, virtually impenetrable stands of

Phragmites choke out native plants, and provide little suitable food

or cover for wildlife. Besides Phragmites, other dominant plants in

the emergent freshwater wetlands are broad-leaved cattail (Typha

latifolia), and a variety of sedges and rushes (Juncus spp.,

Eleocharis spp., Scirpus spp.). A portion of a red maple swamp lies

on the western edge of the refuge. Several scrub-shrub wetlands are

scattered throughout the area, dominated by buttonbush

(Cephalanthus occidentalis), swamp rose (Rosa palustris), and

swamp loosestrife (Decodon verticillatus).

Buried wetlands

Upon removal of the first segments of asphalt runway, evidence of

several small wetlands, former vernal pools, were found buried

under their gravel base. Aerial photographs in 1939 identified a total

of five original wetland sites, which predate runway construction. At

least two sites were located in 1997 by the presence of hydric soils

and the remains of wetland seeds and plants. One of these wetlands

had remnants of pinnate-leaved water milfoil (Myriophyllum

pinnatum), a species that has not been reported in Rhode Island

since 1913. Both sites have hydric soils about 40 inches below the

surface and have scattered bulrush seeds and stems and other native

wetland plant parts. Based on the 1939 aerial photographs, there

appears to be at least one more site that remains buried underneath

the runways.

The refuge biologist completed a management plan to restore the

wetlands (1998) that includes mechanically removing layers of silt

until the hydric soils are reached. The area to be disturbed is shaped

roughly like a large footprint approximately 370 feet long and 110

feet at its widest point. Removed soils would be stockpiled on two

adjacent sites and graded to create sloping mounds. The wetland

edges would be seeded with native grasses. This project has not

been funded. 

Land use and dominant land cover types 

(see table 3-2, following page)

Ninigret Pond: The open water of Ninigret Pond is not technically

part of the refuge; however, the refuge does include approximately 3

miles of its shoreline, and another mile of shoreline along Foster’s

Cove. The presence of Ninigret Pond is a significant attraction to

wildlife and refuge visitors and thus, has a direct influence on use

and management of refuge land. For example, most refuge trails for

viewing wildlife and scenery access the pond.

Chapter 3 

3-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Ninigret Pond is the largest of the South Shore salt ponds, with an

area of 1,711 acres and an average depth of 4 feet. It also has the

largest associated watershed, 6,025 acres. The construction of a

permanent breachway in 1962 to stabilize the pond radically

changed its ecology, as evidenced by a depletion of the formerly

productive estuarine fisheries. Habitat degradation includes the loss

of 40 percent of its eelgrass beds over the last 32 years due to

sedimentation and nutrient loading (RI CRMC 1998).

Water quality in Ninigret Pond is poor, as evidenced by elevated

levels of nitrogen and fecal coliform bacteria (RI CRMC 1998).

Symptoms of eutrophication from excessive nutrient loading include

surface algal scum and discolored water. In 1996, the eastern portion

of Ninigret Pond (where it connects to Green Hill Pond) was

permanently closed to shell

fishing due to the health risks

associated with elevated fecal

coliform bacteria.

Vegetation

Table 3-2 displays the dominant

land cover types for Ninigret

Refuge. A mosaic of diverse

vegetation types covers the

refuge, composed of

approximately 91 percent upland

and nineq percent wetland.

More than 400 species of plants

have been identified on the

refuge, and recent plant surveys

have rediscovered several

species of plants which had not

been recorded in Rhode Island

for many years. A plant species

list for Ninigret Refuge is

available upon request from the

refuge office (George 1999).

Grasslands

The Rhode Island Natural

Heritage Program identifies

coastal sandplain grasslands as a

globally rare community (G2 &

G3) under its ranking system.

Only remnant patches of these native grasslands exist on Ninigret

Refuge, and much of what remains is overgrown by shrubs and trees

or dominated by forbs. The suitability of the refuge to many

grassland-dependent species has declined or has been eliminated as a

result of the succession to shrubs and trees. Approximately six

percent of the refuge currently consists of herbaceous vegetation

dominated by switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) and rough-leaved

goldenrod (Solidago rugosa).

In July 1997, an environmental assessment was approved for habitat

restoration at the refuge. Its stated goals are to restore native

Chapter 3

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-11

Cover type

Developed

Native emergent wetland

Native forest upland

Native forest wetland

Native grass

Native shrub upland

Native shrub 

wetland

Non-native 

emergent wetland

Non-native shrub upland

Sand

Vegetated sand dunes

Water

Total

Acreage

64.5

9.8

412.9

4.6

40.6

88.4

10.6

32.2

16.3

9.6

4.6

7.6

701.7

Percent

9.2%

1.4

58.8

0.7

5.8

12.6

1.5

4.6

2.3

1.4

0.7

1.0

100%

Table 3-2. Land use/dominant land cover types on Ninigret Refuge.

(Based on aerial photo interpretation by J. Stone)
coastal sandplain grassland habitat and associated wildlife, especially

those declining regionally, and to sustain the biological communities.

The project would restore 60 acres of asphalt runway and 10 acres of

stabilized gravel to native grasslands, and create an American with

Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible trail system.

An additional 150 acres of grassland are currently maintained or will

be created from shrubland through mowing and hydroaxing.

Mowing and hydroaxing serve to keep woody vegetation from

getting established in existing grasslands, or to set back succession

in shrublands in an attempt to simulate the structure of grasslands.

We began the runway restoration project in 1997. Eighteen acres of

runway were removed in a cooperative venture with the Army

Reserve Unit during 1997 and 1998; refuge staff removed an

additional 9 acres, and Navy Seabee Reserves removed an additional

15 acres in 1999. The original plan was to complete the asphalt

removal in 2000.

To prepare for planting, rocks were windrowed and dumped into an

excavated hole, or piled to the side. Approximately five acres were

prepared in 1998 using a York rake on a farm tractor. The five acres

were then fertilized and seeded with native grasses (predominantly

little bluestem and switchgrass). So far, the restoration has been

successful. Pennsylvanian sedge (Carex pensylvanica), sheep fescue

(Festuca filiformis), switchgrass, blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium

atlanticum), slender blue flag (Iris prismatica), and numerous

goldenrods have established themselves in the restored sites. An

additional 18 acres of native grasslands were planted in 1999. The

area will be maintained through mechanical and chemical treatments. 

Encroaching woody vegetation is continually a problem in the

restored areas. Fifteen acres of red cedar and shrubs adjacent to

the runways were hydroaxed in 1998. Another small field was

prescription-burned in May 1998 to determine if this was a viable

method for controlling woody vegetation in grasslands. Garlon 3A,

an herbicide, was also tested on woody vegetation. The burned and

herbicide areas are still being monitored to determine effectiveness.

The Coastal Sandplain Grassland Restoration EA and the Ninigret

Refuge Upland Management Plan (draft) describe additional

strategies for restoring grassland habitat. A 1998 Progress Report

on the restoration project makes several recommendations for

maintaining restored areas (Flores 1998).

Restoring the grasslands may offer the opportunity to reintroduce

plant species of concern, such as sandplain gerardia (federal-listed

endangered), bushy rockrose (former federal candidate and

endangered RI), and New England blazing star (former federal

candidate and endangered RI).

A unique rare plant site, containing six species the State considers

rare or endangered, lies within the grassland habitat on Ninigret

Refuge. The rare species include colicroot (Aletris farinosa),

slimspike three-awn (Aristida longespica), yellow-fringed orchids

(Platanthera ciliaris), tall- and few-flowered nutrushes (Scleria

triglomerata, S. paucifolia), and Indiangrass (Sorgastrum nutans).

This unique assemblage resulted in a study recently published in

Northeastern Naturalist (Killingbeck, et al. 1998). Extensive

Chapter 3 

3-12 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
vegetation analysis and evaluation of site characteristics were done

in 1996. Permanent vegetation monitoring transects were

established as well (Killingbeck and Deegan 1996). Woody

vegetation covered an average 56 percent of the quadrants sampled.

Evidence from soil data indicates the site was previously disturbed

because the topsoil and organic matter were non-existent in the core

area. The site evaluation indicated a significant increase in the

percent cover of Drosera, lichens, moss, and unvegetated soil within

the core area, as opposed to adjacent sites without rare plants.

Shrublands

Approximately 16 percent of the refuge is upland shrub habitat.

Shrubland communities vary in height and composition but are

usually dominated by northern arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum),

sumacs (Rhus spp.), bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica), highbush

blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), or shadbush (Amelanchier

canadensis). Most shrubs average 9’ to 12’ tall. Non- native plants

such as Asian bittersweet dominate about 15 acres and have affected

upland areas by crowding out native trees and shrubs.

Forests

The forest cover type has increased the most in the past 15 years,

and now totals 413 acres, or 59 percent of the refuge. On forested

refuge lands below Route 1, red maple and black cherry (Prunus

serotina) dominate upland forest cover, followed by eastern red

cedar (Juniperus virginiana), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides),

and gray birch (Betula populifolia). Red maple dominates the

forested wetlands. Some remnant pitch pine (Pinus rigida) is also

found on the refuge. The oldest forest stands occur on the western

edge of Ninigret Refuge and within an isolated peninsula near the

shrub wetland in the center of the refuge.

The two refuge tracts north of Route 1, totaling 292 acres, are upland

deciduous forest dominated by various oaks, hickory, and red maple,

followed by eastern red cedar and white pine.

Invasive Plants

Intensive surveys have shown invasive plants to be wide-spread on

Ninigret Refuge at varying densities. Most of these are strong

pioneer species that establish quickly and reproduce prolifically.

Since they are so prolific, they will out-compete native vegetation

and create a monoculture. While some of these species provide cover

and food for wildlife, their dominance of the landscape will ultimately

decrease biodiversity on the refuge.

Asian bittersweet and Phragmites are two of the most common

invasive plants on the refuge, and dominate cover on 15 and 32 acres,

respectively. The refuge is currently working with the University of

Rhode Island on an experimental release of a European moth to

control Phragmites. Autumn olive is also fairly common on the

refuge, and was actually planted during the 1980’s along the runways

as wildlife food. This species occupies about 4 acres and continues its

aggressive spread. Autumn olive will have to be controlled if the

grasslands restoration project is to succeed.

Chapter 3

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-13
Several species of honeysuckle are also found throughout refuge

lands, comprising about 14 acres total. Honeysuckles exist at lower

densities than the other invasive species, and are found in more

shaded areas.

Threatened and Endangered Species 

All threatened and endangered species and other species of

concern for the Refuge Complex are listed in Appendix A, Trust

Species and Other Species and Habitats of Management Concern.

Federal-listed: The bald eagle can be found at Ninigret Refuge

during fall migration. Piping plover, a threatened species, have

nested either on the barrier beach portion of the refuge or on the

adjacent Ninigret Conservation Area every year since 1993. Piping

plover typically breed on beaches from April through July, and into

August if they re-nest after losing an early clutch. Symbolic fencing

and nest exclosures are put in place each April. Fencing is taken

down once chicks fledge. Figure 3-2 displays nesting success of

piping plover on Rhode Island beaches.

State-listed: Appendix A also lists the status of State species of

concern. Two State-listed grassland-dependent bird species, the

grasshopper sparrow and the upland sandpiper, are focus species

for grasslands management on Ninigret Refuge. The refuge was

historical nesting habitat for both species (Enser 1999; Schneider

and Pence 1992). Both species require large expanses of grassland

for breeding and foraging. One study indicates grasshopper

sparrows require 30 acres minimum breeding habitat (preferably

100 acres or greater) (Vickery, et al. 1994). Records for upland

sandpiper suggest 150 acres are required (Schneider and Pence

1994). These species have different tolerances for interspersed

patches of shrubland, the grasshopper sparrow being more

tolerant. Their presence would validate the success of grasslands

restoration.

South Shore Plover Program

Since 1992, refuge staff have helped monitor sites and protect

piping plover on as many as nine other beaches along the South

Coast. This highly successful cooperative management has

resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of nesting plover and

fledged chicks. The off-refuge plover protection program relies

primarily on grants and cooperative funding with RI DEM. An

annual report summarizes each year’s statistics for nesting pairs

and productivity and other relevant information on nesting sites,

disturbance, and losses. It also recommends improvements in the

program. These annual reports are available from the Refuge

Complex office upon request. 

Off-refuge management resembles the on-refuge program, with

symbolic fencing of areas around the nest sites, exclosure fencing

around each nest, monitoring nest activity, and educating the public

on plovers and the problems associated with unleashed pets and

litter. Since off-refuge management began in 1992, the number of

nesting pairs has increased significantly at some sites. Figure 3-2

provides a summary of each site.

Chapter 3 

3-14 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Chapter 3

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-15

Figure 3-2. Nesting success of piping plovers in coastal Rhode Island from 1992 to 1999.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Nesting pairs

Fledging rate

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Napatree Point

East Beach Watch Hill

Narrow River Green Hill

Charlestown Beach Quonochontaug

nesting pairs

chicks/pair
The field evaluation conducted by Hecht, et al. in 1999, determined

that Ninigret Beach (referred to in Figure 3-2 as East Beach) has a

provisional abundance objective of 20 pairs; Maschaug Beach

(referred to in Figure 3-2 as Watch Hill) has a provisional

abundance objective of nine pairs. The Revised Recovery Plan

(1996) listed estimated carrying capacities of 10 pairs and 8 pairs

for Ninigret and Maschaug Beaches, respectively. These figures

should be interpreted as maximum carrying capacities, based on

physical attributes only. Hecht noted the carrying capacity is

subject to rapid change due to storms, changes in sand deposition

and erosion patterns, and other beach-forming processes.

Least tern (Sterna antillarium), a State-listed species (threatened),

has also benefitted from and responded favorably to strategies to

protect nesting piping plover. At Moonstone Beach, exclosures

around an entire tern colony and solar-powered electric fencing has

been used to deter predators. Tern numbers on the beach have

been increasing; RI DEM counted 160 individuals in 1998. Despite

predator trapping, however, small mammalian predators like mink

and red fox continue to significantly affect tern fledgling rates and

adult survival. The fencing appears to be effective only against

dogs; small mammals are able to get through. Terns do not always

nest in the fenced area, further complicating their protection.

Birds

The wide variety of habitats have contributed to the great diversity

of birds found on Ninigret Refuge. Approximately 70 species are

known to nest on the refuge. Recent mist-netting on refuge lands

has shown that gray catbirds (Dumetella carolinensis), common

yellowthroats (Geothlypis trichas), and red- winged blackbirds

(Agelaius phoeniceus) are the most abundant nesting birds in the

shrub community (Eddleman 1993, 1994; Wallace 1995; Paton 1996,

1997, 1998). Breeding Bird Survey data indicates that the refuge

may have one of the highest densities of nesting yellow-breasted

chat in Rhode Island (Enser1998). Other birds using early

successional shrub and grassland vegetation for nesting include

white-eyed vireo, black-billed cuckoo, willow flycatcher, northern

bobwhite, prairie warbler, and American woodcock. Recently,

bobolink, eastern meadowlark, eastern bluebirds, and wild turkey

have been found nesting on the refuge.

Birds using the wetlands include green herons, wood ducks,

Virginia rails, swamp sparrows, and marsh wrens. The coastal

location of the Refuge Complex provides vital stopover habitat for

migratory birds seeking to quickly and safely accumulate energy

stores. According to Moore, coastal scrub/shrub and dune/scrub

habitats provide very high species richness and abundance (Moore,

et al. 1995). Birds are primarily foraging on berries and insects.

As residential development along the coast continues, maintaining

and enhancing these habitats will become even more important.

Winter birds present on the refuge include northern harrier, shorteared owl, eastern bluebird, and a variety of sparrows. Waterfowl

include black duck, mallard, American wigeon, and green-winged

teal. Ninigret Pond is an important wintering area for bufflehead,

common goldeneye, greater scaup, and red-breasted merganser.

Table 3-3 summarizes waterfowl numbers at Ninigret Pond from

1992 to 1999.

Chapter 3 

3-16 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Chapter 3

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-17

Table 3-3. Peak waterfowl numbers on Ninigret Pond from 1992 to 1999.

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Mute swan 32 34 7 22 12 20 26 29

Snow goose - 5 - - 1 1 - 0

Brant 12 1 - 9 - 15 - 5

Canada goose 72 61 14 12 150 95 133 145

Wood duck - 2 - 5 2 - - 0

Green-winged teal 4223 ----

Blue winged teal 3 5 ------

American black duck 102 497 346 224 155 237 188 168

Mallard 5 10 4 8 40 8 34 36

Gadwall 1 22 - 5 - 8 - -

American wigeon - 2 - - 2 - - -

Canvasback 1 20 5 27 - - -

Redhead - 2 2 -----

Ring-necked duck - 520 ------

Greater scaup 37 346 200 400 350 534 172

Lesser scaup - - 1 - 15 225 306 4

Common eider - - - - 11- -

King eider - - - - - - 1-

Oldsquaw 1 - - - 3311

Black scoter - - - - 3- - -

Surf scoter 1 - 153- - 1

White-winged scoter 8 24 - 3 ----

Common goldeneye 2 750 401 252 310 159 81 225

Bufflehead 401 699 1725 700 949 924 864 815

Hooded merganser 2 2 1 4 9 26 34 16

Red-breated merganser 2 250 211 365 415 370 325 413

Ruddy duck - - 2 15 - - - 12

Northern pintail -------1

Common merganser - 22 290 - 14 9 15 11

Red breasted merganser
Recent surveys for wintering greater scaup reveal that many of the

waterfowl that feed in Ninigret Pond will rest at Trustom Pond

during the day (Cohen 1998). 

Mammals

Twenty-two species of mammals have been observed on the refuge.

Large mammals include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus),

coyote (Canus latrans), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus),

red fox (Vulpes fulva), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk

(Mephites mephites), and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus).

Mink (Mustella vison) and river otter (Lutra canadensis) have been

observed on or adjacent to the refuge. Small mammals include

eastern meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), white-footed

mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) and woodland jumping mice

(Napaeozapus insignis).

We suspect from the evidence of high browse line along trails and

habitat edges that the white-tailed deer population is near or above

carrying capacity at Ninigret Refuge. Deer are a potential threat to

managing the rare native plant site. Although we have not begun

studies to substantiate this concern, the sheer numbers and

distribution of deer make it an eventuality. Permanent monitoring

points at the rare plant site will allow further investigation of this issue.

Invertebrates

Surveys for deer ticks are the only invertebrate studies conducted on

the refuge. Deer tick surveys indicate that Ninigret Refuge is a

hotspot for ticks carrying Lyme disease, erlichiosis, and babesiosis.

The refuge intends to coordinate with The Nature Conservancy’s 5-

year atlas project begun in 1998 to document dragonflies and

damselflies throughout the State.

Amphibians and Reptiles

A report entitled “Amphibian Community Structure at the Rhode

Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex” (Paton, et al. February

1999) focused primarily on Trustom Pond Refuge, but offers

information on amphibians using Ninigret Refuge as well. The red

maple swamp and the small pools scattered throughout the refuge

likely provide the best habitats for amphibians. Amphibians generally

do not occur within tidal waters because salt water dries their skin.

Gray tree frogs (Hyla versicolor), spring peepers (Pseudacris

crucifer) and green frogs (Rana clamitans) are the most abundant

frog species. Red-backed salamanders (Plethodon cinereus) were the

only members of that group found on the refuge, but other salamander

species probably occur in the area. The report states that the

amphibian communities at both Trustom Pond Refuge and Ninigret

Refuge are relatively rich and thriving, and states the refuges are vital

and critical to the conservation of amphibians in Rhode Island.

Snapping, painted, and spotted turtles (C. guttata) are abundant in

most of the ponds on the refuge. They are also known to occur in

brackish water and may venture out into estuaries. Recently,

eastern box turtles (Terrepene carolina) have been found in the

uplands. Six species of snakes have also been observed on the

Chapter 3 

3-18 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
refuge: eastern garter snake, ribbon snake (T. sauritus), northern

water snake (Natrix sipedon), black racer (Coluber constrictor),

eastern milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum), and northern brown

snake (Storeria dekayi).

Fish

Since Ninigret Pond is not technically part of the refuge, we do not

manage the fisheries resource. According to the Coastal Salt Pond

Special Area Management Plan, more than 100 species of finfish and

shellfish utilize coastal salt ponds at some stage of their life cycle.

The fisheries in Ninigret Pond are diverse, although quantitative

information is scarce. It is widely perceived today that stocks of the

most popular species such as quahogs, scallops, oysters, and flounder

are all declining (RI CRMC 1998).

Cultural Resources

Past military activities have also affected archeological resources at

Ninigret Refuge. Only a few areas have intact soils. Construction of

the Charlestown Naval Auxiliary Landing Facility required massive

earth moving, which would have impacted the integrity of many

archeological sites. One is listed on the National Register of Historic

Places for its historic use as a shellfish gathering site by the

Narragansett Indians. Another, a burial site for the Narragansett

Indians, was discovered during the runway construction and was

recorded with the Rhode Island Historic Preservation and Heritage

Commission (RI HPHC). The intact areas are considered highly

sensitive for archeological resources. Studies of these sites have

been limited in area and scope. No comprehensive archeological

surveys have been done on the refuge.

Public Use

Until 1997, the three asphalt runways and two taxiways from the

former naval air station composed approximately 5 miles of an 8-

mile trail system on the refuge. All three runways provided

visitors access to the shoreline of Ninigret Pond. The grasslands

restoration project began removing the old runway in 1997, except

for an 8’-wide swath that forms the base of the new trail system,

which will be 3.8 miles in length. In addition to runways, the trail

comprises old roads from the former Champlin Farm and from the

naval base.

We also plan interpretive displays and kiosks to share information on

landscape formation by glaciers, Native American use, naval aviation

history, and colonial farming. Once completed, this “Trail Through

Time” will involve a partnership among the Narragansett Indian

Tribe, the Charlestown Airfield Memorial Committee, and the Frosty

Drew Memorial Fund. One viewing platform overlooks Ninigret

Pond at Grassy Point. A second viewing platform planned for the

Foster Cove area has not been funded. Two kiosks stand along the

east and west entrance and parking areas.

We completed improvements to the refuge entrance road in 2002,

using Transportation Equity Act funds. Improved signs directing

visitors to Ninigret Refuge are needed on U.S. Route 1. Current

Chapter 3

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-19
signs do not meet Refuge System standards, and visitors have

commented that the existing highway sign, which reads “Ninigret

Park Wildlife Refuge”, causes confusion with the adjacent, townmanaged Ninigret Park.

Special Management Areas

Contaminants

Department of Defense activities left four potential contaminant

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

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

Burnpit Area, and Ninigret Wildlife Refuge Landfill) are located

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

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

Engineers (ACOE) has coordinated contaminant sampling and

analysis at the sites since 1986. Various ACOE contractors have

completed several different sampling and analysis studies. Each

study has documented varying levels of contamination. The Burnpit

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

was active appears to be the least contaminated.

The three landfills resulted from closure and demolition of the

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

contaminants include volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile

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

assess the need to conduct additional sampling and environmental

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

may eventually lead to site remediation where necessary.

Military Debris 

In addition to the CERCLIS sites, a tremendous amount of

miscellaneous military debris exists on Ninigret Refuge, including

the concrete light fixtures along the runways, the concrete hard

stand (machine gun backstop), small buildings like the cinder block

pump house and hydrant and several old bunkers, the explosives

magazine, a number of telephone poles, an old gate, and concretereinforcing mesh.

Of particular interest is a simulated wooden aircraft carrier deck,

complete with steel catapult rail. Shrubs have overgrown the deck,

except for one portion intersected by a trail, and many of its timbers

are rotting in the ground, but the catapult is still visible. Aviation

interest groups have proposed it as a feature worthy of

interpretation. The Aviation Historical Society (RI) has suggested

that this simulated deck may be the only one of its type remaining.

We may include it as a stop on an interpretive trail.

Military construction moved a lot of earth on Ninigret Refuge,

leaving scattered piles of dirt and boulders. One of the runways was

extended by backfilling between Hunter’s Island and the mainland.

Much of that fill was never capped, and is exposed in many areas.

Chapter 3 

3-20 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Ninigret 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 longterm 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

Meet or exceed a 5-year average of 1.5 fledged chicks/pair per year

(1996 Revised Piping Plover Recovery Plan) on the Ninigret Refuge

barrier beach nesting site. An additional annual objective is to meet

or exceed the site’s estimated nesting carrying capacity (estimated

at 20 pairs in 1999 for the Ninigret Refuge-Ninigret Conservation

Area site), which may vary from year to year given the dynamics of

the beach ecosystem. 

Chapter 4

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-3
Background: 

The 1996 Revised Recovery Plan for the Atlantic Coast Population of

the Piping Plover (Federal-listed as threatened) describes the

species status, habitat requirements, and limiting factors. The major

factors contributing to the species’ decline is the loss and

degradation of habitat due to development and shoreline

stabilization. The recovery objective is to remove the species from

the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants by: 1)

achieving well-distributed increases in numbers and productivity of

breeding pairs, and 2) providing for long-term protection of breeding

and wintering plovers and their habitat. 

Objective 1.1 directly supports Recovery Criteria #1 and #3, which

relate to maintaining a wide distribution of breeding pairs, and a

consistent productivity and fledging rate. In general, we hope to

achieve this by increasing the amount and duration of protection and

monitoring of nesting sites, and through habitat improvements, as

outlined below. 

The Partners In Flight Bird Conservation Plan for Southern New

England (Physiographic Area #9; draft Oct 2000) (PIF Plan) also

lists several implementation strategies and management guidelines

to achieve habitat objectives for piping plover, including monitoring

and research, actively deterring predators, preventing human

disturbances at nesting sites, and public education. All of these are

incorporated as strategies in objectives 1.1 through 1.4 below. 

The Ninigret Refuge piping plover nesting area extends beyond the

refuge and includes the adjacent state-administered Ninigret

Conservation Area. The nesting area has been monitored and

managed in cooperation with both the Fish and Wildlife and State

Parks Divisions of RI DEM. Near suitable nesting habitat, but on

the back side of the dunes, is a small state campground. Refuge

staff have been concerned that the presence of campers during the

nesting season could pose a risk to nesting piping plover in the area.

Trash is often implicated in attracting predators to a nesting area.

In addition, campers in the area often bring dogs; at other nesting

sites, unleashed dogs have been observed chasing adult plover off

nest. However, in order to avoid the risk, we are proposing to work

with RI DEM to move the campground away from suitable habitat. 

Strategies:

■ Each year, continue to monitor for piping plover activities in

suitable habitat areas at the Ninigret site beginning in early April.

Install symbolic fencing around potential territories (above mean

high tide line) to exclude public access when courtship behavior is

observed. Fencing will remain in place until the birds have fledged

(typically by August 15). Monitoring and management actions will

meet or exceed the Service’s 1994 Guidelines for Managing

Recreational Activities in Piping Plover Breeding Habitat on the

U.S. Atlantic Coast To Avoid Take Under Section 9 of the

Endangered Species Act (Appendix G in the 1996 Recovery Plan). 

■ Each year, continue to coordinate with the Service’s Ecological

Services Division and RI DEM prior to the nesting season.

Chapter 4

4-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
■ Continue to support RI DEM’s seasonal (April 1 - Sept 15) vehicle

closure on Ninigret Conservation Area’s beach. 

■ In 2003, work with RI DEM to evaluate moving the State

campground away from suitable piping plover nesting habitat,

concentrating human activities in less sensitive areas, and thereby

reducing direct and indirect human impacts in nesting areas. 

■ In 2003, reassess nesting carrying capacity on Ninigret Refuge

barrier beach and adjacent Ninigret Conservation Area, last

evaluated in 1999; repeat assessments on a three year basis.

Objective 1.2

Meet or exceed a 5-year average of 1.5 fledged chicks/pair per year

(1996 Revised Piping Plover Recovery Plan) on at least six of the

cooperatively managed piping plover nesting sites along Rhode

Island’s South Shore. An additional annual objective is to meet or

exceed each site’s estimated nesting carrying capacity, which may

vary from year to year given the dynamics of the beach ecosystem. 

Background: 

In addition to the Trustom Pond, Block Island, and Ninigret refuge

nesting areas, nine other active or potential piping plover nesting

sites occur on Rhode Island’s South Shore, off refuge lands, and are

monitored as a cooperative venture between the refuge and the

landowner. Besides the refuges, six sites have had consistent nesting

attempts over the last 5 years. Our primary objective has been to

protect all active piping plover nesting sites from direct impacts and

to increase productivity and fledging rates to meet the recovery goal

of a five year average of 1.5 fledged chicks/pair (This objective is also

included in the Trustom Pond CCP because the South Shore

cooperative management program is integrated between the refuges). 

Strategies:

■ Each year, continue to monitor piping plover activities in suitable

habitat areas beginning in early April. Install symbolic fencing

around potential nesting sites to exclude public access when

courtship behavior is observed. Fencing will remain in place until

birds have fledged (typically by August 15). Monitoring and

management actions will meet or exceed the Service’s 1994

Guidelines for Managing Recreational Activities in Piping

Plover Breeding Habitat on the U.S. Atlantic Coast To Avoid

Take Under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (Appendix G

in the 1996 Recovery Plan). 

■ Prior to each nesting season, continue to coordinate with, and seek

support from, the Service’s Ecological Services Program, RI

DEM, and respective landowners. 

■ In 2004, develop written cooperative agreements with at least five

South Shore landowners with existing plover nesting sites, in

order to formalize access permissions and to promote consistent

management of piping plover nest sites. 

■ By 2004, hire a Rhode Island Piping Plover Coordinator* who will

provide visibility and oversight to the South Shore and Refuge

Complex piping plover programs, and facilitate interagency funding

and cooperative management of the South Shore nesting areas.

Chapter 4

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-5

Piping plover chick. USFWS photo.
■ By 2007, coordinate with private landowners and towns to develop

contingency plans in anticipation of unexpected events such as oil

spills at nesting sites or the “pioneering” of new nest sites on

recreational beaches.

*The Rhode Island Piping Plover Coordinator will a) coordinate

outreach and education; b) complete cooperative agreements with

private landowners (see above); c) coordinate with towns to develop

contingency plans (see below); d)coordinate piping plover research on

the refuges; e) hire seasonal biological technicians; f) seek outside

funding to help support the South Shore program; g) coordinate habitat

evaluations and monitoring (e.g. determine nesting carrying capacities,

habitat parameters to monitor, and predator trapping effectiveness).

Objective 1.3

Each year, minimize predation of piping plover at nesting sites in

support of nest productivity and fledging objectives.

Background: 

According to the 1996 Recovery Plan and experience at Rhode Island

nesting sites, predation is a major factor limiting piping plover

reproductive success. Predation is highly site-specific, but evidence

indicates that human activities are exacerbating natural predation

levels by influencing the types, numbers, and activity patterns of

predators. As a result, we are managing human activities as

described in Objectives 1.1 and 1.2, and also trying to influence

predator behavior at nesting sites. Our predator management

includes the use of non-lethal strategies (e.g. visual deterrents, scare

tactics, fenced exclosures), as well as the removal of animals. 

Strategies:

■ Continue to document statistics (productivity, fledging rates, nest

losses, predation, etc.) in annual piping plover reports, and share

information with Recovery Team Coordinator. 

■ Continue to minimize direct predation of piping plover at each

nesting site through the use of exclosures and other non-lethal

deterrents, and remove animals where it is warranted and

feasible. Utilize recommended techniques in “Best Management

Practices for Trapping Furbearers,” a technical report to be

completed by the Fur Resources Committee of the International

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, when available.

■ By 2005, evaluate predation statistics to determine the

effectiveness of predator management efforts at nesting sites.

Adapt management accordingly.

Objectives 1.4

Within three years of CCP completion, fully develop a piping plover

outreach and education program specifically targeting people using

Rhode Island beaches. 

Strategies:

■ Continue to maintain the interpretive display on the Ninigret

nesting site, including a mock nest exclosure display explaining its

design and purpose, and install informational signs restricting

public use. 

Chapter 4

4-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
■ Continue annual coordination with the Friends Group to provide

oversight, conduct public outreach and education, and help secure

non-Service funding for the South Shore Piping Plover Program.

■ Complete development of a barrier beach education kit for teachers. 

■ In 2003, develop an education and outreach plan for the piping

plover program, which will include:

• Identification of target audiences (e.g. beach front

landowners, elected officials, tourists, and local school

children);

• Distribution of literature with RI DEM beach use permits, at

beach entrance stations, and other focal points; and

• A major exhibit at the new Visitor Center; and 

• An educational program integrated with local school

curriculums.

■ Work with the Friends Group and other partners to develop and

implement the plan and secure funding for its initiatives.

■ By 2004, hire at least two additional seasonal park aids to conduct

outreach and education on-site or in the communities directly

affected by piping plover management.

Objective 1.5

Determine the site-specific factors affecting Rhode Island piping

plover nesting success and undertake actions recommended or

accepted by the piping plover scientific community.

Strategies:

■ Each year, the refuge biologist will coordinate with the Plover

Recovery Team and other scientists to obtain new research results

and share the effectiveness of management techniques.

■ By 2004, work with partners to identify piping plover research needs

for the Refuge Complex, with highest priority given to determining

those factors most influencing chick survival on the refuges.

■ By 2005, obtain funding to initiate the highest priority project.

Objective 1.6

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 (PIF) Area 9 Plan,

Southern New England, and for which the refuge could make an

important contribution to their conservation. 

Background:

PIF Bird Conservation Plans are written for physiographic

provinces with an overall goal to ensure the long term maintenance

of healthy populations of landbirds. Rhode Island Refuges lie within

PIF Physiographic 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. 

Chapter 4

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-7
The PIF Plan for Area 9 is not yet final, however, this CCP

incorporates habitat objectives for certain landbird species identified

in the draft PIF Plan (October 2000). These include piping plover

(objectives 1.1 to 1.5), 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 land bird management

objectives in the near future.

Strategies:

■ Continue annual bird monitoring associated with the 220 acre

shrubland/grassland restoration on the refuge; conduct bi-weekly

surveys during May and June of each year. 

■ Continue coordination with the University of RI to conduct the

Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) project. 

■ 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 Service’s Region 5 Regional Resources Assessment 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 covertype maps, adhering to National Vegetation Classification Standards.

Objective 1.7

Protect and sustain all marsh, wading and water bird breeding

habitat on the refuge, especially maritime high marsh habitat

capable of supporting salt marsh sharp-tailed sparrow. 

Background: 

According to the PIF Area 9 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 also 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. 

Strategies:

■ 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 on the

refuge to determine seasonal occupancy and nesting status. If

occupied habitat is located, develop site plan.

■ Use the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (once

completed) to update management and monitoring strategies for

species of conservation priority. 

Chapter 4

4-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Objective 1.8

Protect and improve habitat quality for shorebirds at feeding and

staging areas on the refuge. 

Background:

Shorebirds annually migrate hundreds or thousands of miles

between breeding and wintering grounds, often in one or a few longdistance non-stop flights. As such, migration staging areas, where

birds rest and accumulate fat reserves before and during flight, are

vitally important to many shorebird populations. Along the east

coast, beaches are key locations. Long-term declines of shorebird

numbers at migration staging areas along the Massachusetts coast

have been attributed to conflicts between shorebirds and heavy

human recreational use. Monitoring shorebirds during migration has

not occurred consistently on Ninigret Refuge’s barrier beach, so

information is limited on whether it is a key migration area. 

Strategies:

■ Use the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (once completed) to

update management and monitoring strategies based on any

newly identified imperiled species (draft Shorebird Prioritization

System 1999).

■ By 2005, determine if there are 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 1.9

Within 15 years of CCP completion, evaluate whether refuge lands

can contribute to the recovery of the northeastern tiger beetle

through reintroduction efforts initiated by the Service’s Ecological

Services Division, New England Field Office. 

Background:

A Recovery Plan for the Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle (Cicindela

dorsalis dorsalis) was completed in September 1994. This species,

which was described in the early 1900’s as occurring in “great

swarms”, along beaches from Martha’s Vineyard to New Jersey, is

now only known in the northeast at two sites in Massachusetts. This

beetle has been extirpated from the rest of Massachusetts, and all of

Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York (Long Island) and New Jersey.

This beetle is very vulnerable to disturbance while in its larval stage,

which lasts two years. The larvae live in vertical burrows, generally

in the beach intertidal zone, where they are sensitive to destruction

by high levels of pedestrian traffic, vehicles, and other factors which

alter the beach dynamic such as coastal development and beach

stabilization structures. Population growth seems to be hampered by

a lack of both undisturbed beaches and of nearby populations to

provide a source for colonizing new sites. 

Several sites in Rhode Island were identified as historic and extant

sites for this beetle in the recovery plan, and, while subject to

change, their future restoration and reintroduction potential was also

identified. Sites for Rhode Island include Napatree Point (lowmedium potential), Block Island (low potential), Narragansett Pier

Chapter 4

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-9
(low to no potential), Roger Williams Park (low to no potential), and

Newport (low to no potential). While not specifically mentioned,

Ninigret Refuge lies in proximity to Napatree Point and when

considered together with the Ninigret Conservation Area, it may

offer some future restoration potential. 

Strategies: 

■ By 2015, coordinate with the New England Field Office and RI

DEM to determine the feasibility of reintroducing the beetles on

the Rhode Island Refuge Complex or elsewhere along the South

Shore of Rhode Island. 

■ By 2016, develop site management and monitoring plans for

prospective reintroduction sites on the Refuge Complex.

Objective 1.10

Promote an appreciation of amphibian and reptile conservation,

and actively manage to protect and sustain current populations on

the refuge. 

Background: 

Recent studies conducted by the University of RI have revealed that

Ninigret and Trustom Pond refuges are very important to the reptile

and amphibian population in the South County area. In fact, the

highest density of two amphibian species known for Rhode Island

occurs on these refuges. Unfortunately, we know little about how

these amphibians and reptiles utilize refuge habitats seasonally, in

particular during the spring amphibian migrations. Many of them

appear to be relying on vernal pools, which are seasonal wetlands in

forested habitat that fill with water during fall and spring; critical

times in the life cycle of many frogs, toads, and salamanders. In

cooperation with the University of RI, we hope to continue

inventories at Trustom Pond and Ninigret refuges to gain

information that will allow for more informed management decisions. 

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 Complex to Rhode

Island’s herptofauna. 

■ By 2005, work with conservation partners, RI DEM, The Friends

Group, and volunteers to identify opportunities to reduce

amphibian and reptile road mortality during spring migration.

■ By 2005, evaluate and incorporate recommendations (pending)

made by Partners for Amphibian and Reptile Conservation

(PARC) into refuge management, as warranted.

■ By 2005, implement a monitoring plan for the reptile and amphibian

concentration areas identified in the University of RI study. 

Objective 1.11

Protect, restore, and sustain rare plant sites on the refuge. 

Chapter 4

4-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
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. Currently known on

the refuge is a unique rare plant site containing six species the State

considers rare or endangered. These include colic root, slimspike

three-awn, yellow-fringed orchid, tall- and few-flowered nutrushes,

and Indiangrass. As described in Chapter 3, this unique assemblage

was studied by Killingbeck et al., although more work is needed to

fully understand the dynamics at this site. 

Strategies:

■ By 2005, develop, with partners, a management, inventory, and

monitoring plan for the yellow orchid and other rare plants site.

Establish desired vegetation structure and composition, deer

control, vegetation treatment methods (e.g. mechanical, prescribed

fire, etc), and additional research needs.

■ By 2008, with the Service’s New England Field Office, RI DEM,

and other partners, assess the potential for establishing or

restoring Federal and State-listed species such as seabeach

amaranth, sandplain gerardia, bushy rockrose, New England

blazing star, and other former candidate plant species with

potential habitat on the refuge.

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

promote healthy, functioning ecosystems.

Objective 2.1

Within three years of CCP completion, design and implement a

baseline inventory on refuge lands to determine the occurrence of

species and habitats of management concern (Appendix A), and to

serve as a basis for future management decisions. 

Background: 

To keep the HMP relevant, we will need to improve our general

knowledge of important refuge resources, including their presence,

distribution, and condition, to insure management actions are geared

toward sustaining biological integrity, biological 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 of the

Refuge Complex, especially the presence and distribution of

species and habitat types listed in Appendix A. Incorporate

priorities into the HMP.

Chapter 4

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-11
■ In 2004, begin inventories on the highest priority projects,

incorporating the results into the CENSUS database, or other

regional databases with GIS capabilities, to facilitate future

analyses. Revise digital cover type maps as warranted. 

Objective 2.2

Within 15 years of CCP implementation, maintain at least 220 acres

as native, coastal sandplain grassland and shrubland (< 60 years old)

to provide nesting habitat for landbirds of conservation concern such

as bobolink, eastern meadowlark, and yellow-breasted chat.

Background: 

Refuge staff are actively involved in restoring native, coastal

sandplain grassland and shrubland (< 60 years old) on the refuge.

We are managing to restore native vegetative structure and

composition and to maintain the natural physical components and

processes associated with a coastal sandplain community. Since

current habitat conditions are highly altered from historic conditions,

continuous evaluation of project effectiveness and an adaptive

management response is imperative. All actively restored habitat

areas are at least in 40 acre patches. 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. 

With the 220 acres targeted, we expect to increase nesting habitat

for bobolinks, yellow breasted chat, and eastern meadowlarks. Less

likely, but very desirable, would be sustained nesting by grassland

bird species which require larger habitat patches, such as upland

sandpipers and grasshopper sparrows. 

Desired native coastal grassland plant species include, but are not

limited to: little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), big bluestem

(Andropogon gerardii), Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans),

switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), common hairgrass (Deshampsia

flexuosa), poverty-grass (Danthonia spicata), Pennsylvanian sedge

(Carex pennsylvanica), rush (Juncus greenei), wild indigo (Baptisia

tinctoria), native asters (Aster spp.), goldenrods (Solidago spp.),

butterfly weed (Asclepias tuberosa), and dewberry (Rubus hispidis

and R. flagellaris). 

Desired native shrub species include, but are not limited to: northern

arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum), sumacs (Rhus spp), bayberry

(Myrica pensylvanica), high bush blueberry (Vaccinium

corymbosum), and shadbush (Amelanchier canadensis).

Treatments to maintain these habitats includes the use of

mechanical, prescribed fire, biological, and chemical herbicide

treatments. All prescribed fires adhere to stipulations in the 1995

Fire EA. Mechanical treatments include brush hogging 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. 

Chapter 4

4-12 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Strategies:

■ Continue to implement the 1997 Environmental Assessment:

Habitat Restoration Project, Ninigret NWR. The primary

objective in the EA was to convert 70 acres of asphalt runway to

native, early successional habitat. Strategies include use of

mechanical manipulation (primarily brush hogging or hydroaxing

woody vegetation, and discing, harrowing, plowing, packing, and

drilling grassland fields), prescribed fire, biological controls, and

chemical herbicide treatments. 

■ Continue to manipulate an additional 150 acres of adjacent older

shrublands and juniper trees to create a mosaic of early

successional (< 60 year old) shrublands and grasslands.

■ By 2004, secure funding to complete principle restoration work on

the 220 acre combined project area, and develop a maintenance

and monitoring schedule for the project. All treatments will be

consistent with 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 for potential regal fritillary

butterfly sites in consultation with the Service’s Ecological

Services Division.

■ By 2015, 85% of the 220-acre restoration project should be

dominated (% cover) by native, early successional (< 60 year old)

shrubland and grassland habitats, with invasive species

dominating less than 15% of the area. Target native species are

identified above.

Objective 2.3

Augment refuge restoration projects and contribute to regional

conservation efforts by promoting shrubland and grassland habitat

management on private lands. 

Background: 

Native grasslands and shrublands (<60 years old), and those species

dependent on them, are a concern because they are dramatically

declining throughout the Northeast, especially large contiguous

grasslands over 100 acres. The Refuge Complex offers relatively few

areas on which to maintain large expanses of these habitats. As

such, cooperative management on adjacent ownerships enhances the

restoration work on the refuge by creating a larger habitat complex

for area-sensitive native species. 

Strategies:

■ Maintain the habitat restoration sign at the Ninigret Refuge

trailhead as an outreach tool.

■ By 2005, establish a native habitat demonstration area on the

refuge. Develop exhibits at the new Visitor Center, and conduct

interpretive programs using volunteers and staff.

■ 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.

Chapter 4

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-13
Objective 2.4

Increase protection and restoration of beach strand habitats on the

refuge, and promote their protection throughout South Shore

communities.

Background: 

Beach strand (also known as barrier beach) is one of the most

imperiled habitat types on or adjacent to the refuges because of the

combined impacts of development and recreation. Many species

associated with this habitat type are either Federal or State-listed as

threatened or endangered 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:

■ By 2003, in combination with piping plover outreach and

education, promote increased protection and stewardship of beach

strand habitat through an intensive outreach and education

campaign with the Friends Group and other partners to target

beach front landowners, elected officials, and beach visitors. 

■ By 2003, hire two seasonal park aides to implement the project

(same positions identified in Objective 1.4).

Objective 2.5

Restore natural conditions on 70 refuge acres to freshwater and tidal

saltmarsh wetlands. 

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 wetlanddependent, spending their entire lives in these wetlands. Many

waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and other migratory birds

utilize wetlands for feeding or resting, or to breed and raise their

young. Wetlands are also essential habitats for many rare species of

plants and animals. Wetlands function in ways that filter sediments

and pollutants, produce oxygen, and support healthy microbiota for

fish and wildlife. Socio-economic values include flood control, wave

damage protection, hunting, trapping, fishing and shellfishing,

aesthetics, education and research. 

As noted in objective 1.7 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 70 acres on refuge lands, when

coupled with the partnership effort described in objective 3.1,

significant ecosystem and socio-economic benefits are expected.

Chapter 4

4-14 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
The freshwater wetlands on the refuge also provide significant

habitat for many species of concern. Objective 1.10 describes the

importance of vernal pools to the diverse concentration of

amphibians on the refuge. In addition to providing breeding habitat

for amphibians, vernal pools support a food web rich in invertebrates

favored by many birds, mammals, and reptiles. 

Strategies:

■ By 2008, develop a plan to restore 70 wetland- acres on the

refuge. Include consideration of the 1998 proposal by a former

Refuge Biologist to restore wetlands (former vernal pools)

discovered after removing the asphalt runways. In addition,

evaluate all ditched and filled areas, including Hunters Island, to

determine the feasibility of restoring natural hydrological flow

through the refuge. 

Objective 2.5

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 5 in Chapter 1 describes the implications of invasive plants on

the refuges. These plants are a threat because they displace native

plant and animal species, degrade wetlands and other natural

communities, and reduce natural diversity and wildlife habitat

values. They out-compete 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 the current distribution of non-native,

invasive plant species on the refuge. 

■ By 2005, prioritize treatment sites to prevent new invasions or

eradicate recently established plants. Also of high priority are

threatened, endangered, or rare plant sites or “pristine rare and

exemplary vegetative communities” (March 1999 Invasive Plant

Control Initiative, Strategic Plan for the Connecticut River

Watershed/Long Island Sound).

■ By 2005, establish a program to treat an average of 5 acres/year of

invasive, non-native species on the refuge using chemical,

mechanical, prescribed fire and biological treatments as necessary.

Strategies will be adapted based on monitoring and new

information. A maintenance worker will be hired to administer

treatments; this position will be shared among the other Rhode

Island refuges.

Objective 2.6

Within 15 years of CCP completion, eliminate mute swan

productivity from the refuge, and significantly reduce the presence

of adults year round.

Chapter 4

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-15
Background: 

Non-native, invasive mute swan on the refuge adversely effect water

quality on coastal ponds. Mute swan also impact our ability to

maintain native biodiversity as they aggressively drive native

waterfowl and shorebirds away from nesting sites, and compete with

them for food. 

Strategies:

■ In 2002, we will begin to implement the Service’s policy (Memo

FWS/MBMO/98-00043; based on Flyway Council

recommendations) to prevent the establishment of, or to eliminate,

mute swans. Strategies will be adapted as needed to pursue zero

productivity of mute swans on the Refuge Complex. Each year,

addling eggs will continue. Adult populations will be controlled

using lethal and non-lethal techniques, particularly when habitat

degradation is a concern, or if native species are displaced. 

Objective 2.7

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,

RI DEM has reported that complaints from citizens have increased

in recent years about private property damage, worries of Lyme

disease, 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

4-16 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 resources

at risk throughout southern Rhode Island. 

Background:

Consistently mentioned in the PIF Area 9 Plan, the NAWMP, Joint

Venture Plans, relevant Species Recovery Plans, and Ecosystem

Plans is the need to protect, restore, and enhance additional high

quality coastal habitats to contribute to the conservation of federal

trust species. While land acquisition by the Service and other State,

Federal, and local partners is a primary strategy for species

conservation, each of these plans also recognizes the need to work in

cooperation with private landowners to achieve conservation

objectives. Technical and resource support, outreach, and education

will all compliment land acquisition efforts. 

The Draft CCP/EA (Chapter 3: Developing Land Protection

Strategies) described our method of identifying acquisition lands of

high conservation priority on Rhode Island’s South Shore. During

the planning process we determined that the Service is the logical

leader in coastal land and water quality protection along the South

Shore and on Block Island, with the existing refuges serving as

anchors. Refuge expansions will significantly increase protection of

the ecological values on current refuge lands, while also expanding

protection and restoration of significant coastal habitats. We

completed a Land Protection Plan for the Refuge Complex

(Appendix E), 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 conservation partners in identifying land

protection needs, opportunities, and priorities in southern RI.

■ Continue to help partners seek funding sources for their land

protection programs.

■ Beginning in 2002, expand the refuge acquisition boundary for

Ninigret Refuge by the acres approved in the Land Protection Plan

(LPP; Appendix E). Initiate acquisition from willing sellers, in

either fee purchase or conservation easement, of 390 acres of high

quality habitat. 

Chapter 4

4-18 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Goal 4: Provide opportunities for high quality, compatible, wildlifedependent 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, wildlifedependent uses identified in the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act

where they are compatible with protecting wildlife resources:

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and

environmental education and interpretation. The Visitor Service’s

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 fishing opportunities along the refuge shoreline,

while minimizing impacts to natural resources. 

Strategies:

■ Continue to allow surf fishing on the refuge’s barrier beach, with

vehicle access seasonally restricted from April 1 to September 15,

which represents the nesting and migration seasons for piping

plover and other shorebirds. 

■ Continue to support RI DEM’s annual vehicle closure of the

adjacent Ninigret Conservation Area beach from April 1 to

September 15. Other access restrictions may be imposed if

nesting piping plovers are found. 

■ Continue to allow recreational fishing from the shoreline and

access to recreational and commercial shell fishing in Ninigret

Pond, under State and refuge regulations, with access by foot only

across the refuge to the pond.

■ In 2003, designate and maintain access trails for shoreline fishing

at Ninigret Pond to minimize impacts on habitat. Actively enforce

use of trails. 

Chapter 4

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-19
■ In 2003, require commercial shell fishermen to have a refuge special

use permit to allow better documentation of use and impacts.

Objective 4.2

Increase opportunities for high quality interpretive experiences on

the refuge, which raise visitors awareness of the Refuge System and

Ninigret Refuge’s particular contribution to protecting trust

resources and significant habitats. 

Strategies:

■ Continue to maintain the two existing kiosks, updating information

to keep it relevant and current. 

■ Continue to use volunteers to assist in conducting interpretive

programs. 

■ Continue to participate in local Chamber of Commerce events,

especially those conducted on the adjacent Ninigret Town Park.

■ By 2005, develop an interpretive program tiered to the Visitor

Services Plan. Evaluate needs for new pamphlets, including a

self-guided interpretive pamphlet, trail maps, and interpretive

signs at the one current and two proposed barrier-free

observation platforms.

■ By 2005, develop watchable wildlife literature and a species

checklist.

■ By 2010, construct a visitor contact station, which will be

seasonally staffed by volunteers or seasonal employees.

Objective 4.3

Improve opportunities for high quality wildlife observation and

photography on the refuge, while minimizing impacts to natural

resources.

Strategies:

■ Continue to allow access for these and other priority public use

activities by means of foot travel, snowshoeing, cross country

skiing, canoe or kayak.

■ Continue to annually maintain the existing wildlife observation

platform at Grassy Point.

■ By 2003, secure funding to complete construction of the 3.8 mile

“Trail Through Time.” Public access will be restricted to the

designated trail and shoreline access points.

■ By 2005, if determined feasible, construct up to two additional

barrier-free observation platforms and/or viewing blinds at the

grassland habitat restoration project area and/or in the Foster

Cove area of Ninigret Pond.

Objective 4.4

Increase opportunities for high quality environmental educational

experiences on the refuge, while minimizing impacts to natural

resources. 

Chapter 4

4-20 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Strategies:

■ Continue to allow Frosty Drew Nature Center to conduct

environmental education trips on the refuge under a Memorandum

of Agreement. 

■ By 2003, annually sponsor at least one “Teach the Teacher”

workshop as an effective way to reach many students and advocate

protection and stewardship of natural resources.

■ By 2004, update the existing MOA with Frosty Drew to insure

compatibility with the Visitor Services Plan. In addition, the forprofit program currently operating on the refuge will also be

evaluated for its compatibility with other environmental education

programs. If determined compatible, the for-profit group will be

required to obtain a refuge special use permit.

■ By 2005, with partners, develop an environmental education

program tiered to the Visitor Services Plan. We will establish two

outdoor classroom sites featuring habitat restoration and salt

pond ecology. We will pursue a volunteer environmental

education corps to help with implementation on both Ninigret and

Trustom Pond refuges.

Objective 4.5

Within two years of CCP completion, provide high quality waterfowl

hunting opportunities on the refuge, and evaluate opportunities for

deer hunting across the refuge. 

Strategies:

■ In 2002, complete a deer management plan and environmental

assessment evaluating opportunities for deer hunting. A separate

public involvement process will be initiated. (Also refer to

objective 2.7)

■ By 2003, develop Hunt Plan and fulfill other Service requirements

to open the barrier beach portion of Ninigret Refuge to waterfowl

hunting, including associated dog retrieval, for the fall 2003

season. Hunting will be administered according to state and local

regulations, and will be by boat access only. Additional refuge

regulations may be determined necessary during development of

the Hunt Plan. The hunt program will be administered in

cooperation with RI DEM. 

■ Expand the waterfowl hunt area to include Coon Cove, for boat

access only, when habitat conditions are restored (e.g.

Phragmites is eliminated) such that the area provides a quality

hunting opportunity. 

Objective 4.6

Within three years of CCP completion, eliminate incompatible, nonwildlife dependent public uses on the refuge. 

Background: 

Incompatible, non-wildlife dependent activities detract from our ability

to fulfill refuge purposes and often conflict with priority public uses.

None of these uses are necessary for the safe, practical, or effective

conduct of a priority public use, and in fact, are often disruptive to

priority public uses. Limited refuge resources should not be expended

to manage activities that do not contribute to the public’s

understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s wildlife or cultural

resources, or to activities that do not directly benefit these resources. 

Chapter 4

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-21
Strategies:

■ In 2003, phase out dog walking and bicycling. Walking dogs on

leash and bicycling had previously been allowed on runways.

Under the decision for the 1997 “Habitat Restoration Project EA:

Ninigret Refuge”, these uses were to be eliminated once the

runways had been removed.

■ 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:

roller blading, jogging, kite flying, swimming and sunbathing.

■ By 2004, hire at least one additional law enforcement officer to

enforce refuge regulations for the Refuge Complex. 

Goal 5: Provide refuge staffing, operations, and maintenance

support to effectively accomplish refuge goals and objectives.

Staffing, operations, and maintenance needs are addressed in

Chapter 5.

Chapter 4

4-22 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex

General Refuge Management Direction

The following management direction applies to all of the refuge goals

and across all program areas. Some of this direction is required by

Service policy or legal mandates. 

Maintaining Biological Integrity, Diversity, and 

Environmental Health

The Service finalized its policy on Maintaining the Biological

Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health of the National

Wildlife Refuge System in January 2001 (FWS manual, Part 601,

Chapter 3). This policy directs us, first and foremost, to maintain

existing levels of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental

health on refuges. Secondarily, we will restore lost or severely

degraded elements of integrity, diversity, and environmental health

on refuges where it is feasible and supports refuge purpose(s). To

implement the policy on refuges, refuge managers are directed to

determine: each refuge’s relationship between refuge purpose(s)

and biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health; what

conditions constitute biological integrity, diversity, and environmental

health; how to maintain existing levels of all three; and how, and

when to appropriately restore lost elements of all three (Chapter 3,

section 3.9) 

The objectives and strategies laid out in this CCP generally improve

the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the

refuge. Management actions emphasize maintaining current species

and habitat diversity, recovering endangered and threatened species,

and restoring natural ecosystem processes and functions.

Implementation of the CCP will increase our understanding of the

refuge’s current resources, sustainable natural conditions, and the

effects of our management actions. In addition, our strategy of

adaptive management will provide continuous improvement toward

meeting this policy’s intent. 

Protecting and Managing Cultural Resources

By law, we must consider the effects of our actions on archeological

and historic resources. We will comply with Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act before disturbing any ground.

Compliance may require any or all of the following: a State Historic

Preservation Records survey, literature survey, or field survey.

In addition to basic compliance requirements, we will undertake the

following projects to better protect and interpret cultural resources

on the refuge:

■ By 2005, initiate a cultural resources overview of the Refuge

Complex to increase the available data on cultural resources. 

■ Also by 2005, develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

with the Narragansett Indian Tribal Council to facilitate

cooperation on environmental education and interpretation, to

improve our understanding of the context of natural resources,

and to increase site identification and protection. 

■ By 2006, train at least one law enforcement officer on the refuge in

regulations associated with the Archeological Resources

Protection Act (ARPA).

Chapter 4

4-24 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Tribal Coordination

Increasing communication with the Narragansett Indian Tribal

Council is very important for the Refuge Complex. As noted above,

we plan to develop an MOU by 2005 to establish a mutually beneficial

working relationship that includes cooperating in environmental

education and interpretation and protecting cultural resources.

Coastal Resources Management Council Coordination

The federal Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. §1451, as

amended) requires the Service to work with the State Coastal

Resources Management Council (CRMC) to insure refuge

programs and activities are consistent to the maximum extent

practicable with the enforceable policies adopted by the state. The

CRMC’s concurrence with the Service’s Federal Consistency

Determination on the CCP was predicated on meeting the following

management direction:

1) Provide Separate Consistency Determinations for Major

Construction Projects. Major construction projects such as

buildings, parking lots, roads, and boardwalks, which the Service

determines may effect coastal resources, will require separate

federal consistency determinations for each project.

2) Annual Coordination Meetings. Refuge Complex and CRMC staff

will meet at least once annually to review general plans and

projects which the Service has determined may effect coastal

resources. These meetings will cover proposals for the

forthcoming calendar year. The objective of these meetings will be

to provide CRMC staff with available details on what is being

proposed and to address their concerns. It is mutually

understood that some projects may not be fully developed at the

time of meeting. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments

Annual refuge revenue sharing payments to the Town of Charlestown

will continue. Future increases in payments will be commensurate

with increases in the appraised fair market values of refuge lands,

new acquisitions of land, and new Congressional appropriations.

Contaminant Site Remediation

The obvious concerns with human health and safety, and impacts to

wildlife from contaminants, requires timely and thorough

remediation of contaminated sites. Refuge Complex staff will

continue coordinating with the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management

(RI DEM), Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), or delegated

authorities, to finalize remediation plans and begin cleaning up the

four sites on Ninigret Refuge, collectively listed in the CERCLIS

database as site No. RI91435302601. 

Chapter 4

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-25
Controlling Mosquitos

Within the past few years, incidences of mosquito-borne Eastern

Equine Encephalitis and West Nile virus have elevated public health

concerns about mosquito control in the Middle Atlantic States.

Mosquito control has been very limited on the Refuge Complex, and

has occurred only at the direct request of the State’s Mosquito

Abatement Office. During the last 5 years, we used two very localized

applications of the larvicide Bti on two problem breeding sites. Our

Regional Contaminants Specialist pre-approved those applications.

In general, we will not use larvicides on the Refuge Complex to control

mosquitos. However, in cooperation with neighboring towns and the

Mosquito Abatement Office, we will consider applying larvicides on a

case-by-case basis, particularly when there is an elevated public health

risk. The Service is now evaluating this issue on a regional basis, and

has begun preparation for an environmental impact statement. This

may result in Service policy or Regional guidelines being developed

and incorporated into this CCP in the future. 

Permitting Special Use (including Research)

Requests for special use permits will be evaluated by the Refuge

Manager on a case-by-case. All permitted activities must be

determined appropriate and compatible through a compatibility

determination. At a minimum, all commercial activities and all

research projects require a special use permit. Research projects that

will improve and strengthen natural resource management decisions

on the Refuge Complex will generally be approved. The Refuge

Manager will encourage partnerships with local universities and

colleges to facilitate research that will help evaluate CCP objectives

and strategies, or the assumptions on which they are based. 

The Refuge Manager may also consider research not directly related

to refuge objectives, but which contributes to the broader

enhancement, protection, or management of native species and

biological diversity within the region. 

Each refuge will maintain a list of research needs to provide

prospective researchers or organizations upon request. The Refuge

Manager will determine on a case-by-case basis whether they can

directly support a project through funding, in-kind services (e.g.

housing or use of other facilities), field assistance, or through sharing

data and records. Research results will be shared within the Service,

and with RI DEM.

Chapter 4

4-26 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
All researchers on refuges, current and future, are required to

submit a detailed research proposal following Service policy in the

FWS Refuge Manual, Chapter 4 Section 6. Special use permits must

also identify a schedule for progress reports (at least annual), criteria

for determining when a project should cease, and publication or

other final reporting requirements. The Regional Refuge Biologists,

other Service divisions, and state agencies will be asked to review

and comment on research proposals.

Some projects, such as depredation and banding studies, require

additional Service permits. These projects will not be approved until

all Service permits and Endangered Species Act consultation

requirements are met. Also, to maintain the natural landscape of the

refuge, projects which require permanent or semi-permanent

structures will not be allowed, except for extenuating circumstances

unforseen at this time. 

Chapter 4

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-27
Ninigret Refuge CCP – May, 2002 5-1

Indian grass

USFWS photo

■ Refuge Complex Staffing

■ Refuge Complex Funding

■ Step-down Management Plans

■ Partnerships

■ Volunteer Program

■ Monitoring and Evaluation

■ Adaptive Management

■ Compatibility Determinations

■ Additional NEPA Analysis

■ Plan Amendment and Revision

Chapter 5

Implementation and

Monitoring
Refuge Complex Staffing

The five Rhode Island Refuges are managed as a Refuge Complex,

with centrally stationed staff taking on duties at multiple refuges. A

total of 26 full time personnel, one Student-to-Career Experience

Program (SCEP ) trainee, and 17 seasonal personnel, are needed to

fully implement all five Refuge CCPs. Permanent staff serving all

five refuges may be stationed at the Refuge Headquarters in

Charlestown, RI, or at Sachuest Point Refuge in Middletown, RI.

Some permanent and temporary staff may be stationed seasonally on

Block Island Refuge. Appendix G identifies currently filled

positions, recommended new positions, and the overall supervisory

structure. The new positions identified will increase visitor services,

biological expertise, and visibility of the Service on refuge lands.

Refuge Complex Funding

Successful implementation of the CCPs for each refuge relies on our

ability to secure funding, personnel, infrastructure, and other

resources to accomplish the actions identified. Full implementation

of the actions and strategies in all five Refuge Complex CCPs would

incur one-time costs of $8.9 million. This includes staffing, major

construction projects, and individual resource program expansions.

Most of these projects have been identified as Tier 1 or Tier 2

Projects in the National Wildlife Refuge System’s Refuge Operations

Needs System database (RONS). Appendix F lists RONS projects

and their recurring costs, such as salaries, following the first year.

Also presented in Appendix F is a list of projects in the Service’s

current Maintenance Management System (MMS) database for the

Refuge Complex. Currently, the MMS database lists $3.85 million in

maintenance needs for the Refuge Complex. 

Land acquisition costs are identified separately. The Land

Protection Plan (LPP, Appendix E) expanded the Refuge Complex

acquisition boundary by 2,681 acres, increasing the total unacquired

acreage to 3,130. We estimate the value of these lands to be $83

million at current, fair-market prices. In all probability, the Refuge

Complex will protect these lands at a lower cost, as some parcels

may be protected through conservation easements or acquired

through donation or land exchange. 

Step-Down Management Plans

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

Step-Down Management Plans generally required on most refuges.

Step-down plans describe specific management actions a refuge will

follow to achieve objectives or implement management strategies.

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

schedule. Some require additional NEPA analysis, public

involvement, and compatibility determinations before they can be

implemented. A status list of Rhode Island Refuge Complex stepdown plans follows.

Chapter 5

5-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
These plans are current : 

■ Fire Management Plan, 1995 (Refuge Complex); updated with

annual burn plans

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

be incorporated into the Habitat Management Plan for the Refuge

Complex in 2003

■ Continuity of Operations Plan, 1998 (Refuge Complex)

■ Animal Control Plan, 1995 (Refuge Complex); will be updated with

Integrated Predator Management and Trapping Plans for the

Refuge Complex

These plans are now in draft form or being prepared:

■ Safety Program and Operations Plan (Refuge Complex)

■ Law Enforcement Plan (Refuge Complex)

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

revisions as indicated: 

■ Water Management Plan (Trustom Pond Refuge); incorporate into

Habitat Management Plan by 2003

■ Hunting Plan (Trustom Pond Refuge); incorporate into Hunt Plan

for the Refuge Complex in 2003

■ Sign Plan (Refuge Complex); expand to Facilities and Sign Plan

by 2005

■ Croplands Management Plan (Trustom Pond Refuge); incorporate

into Habitat Management Plan for Refuge Complex in 2003

These step-down plans need to be initiated and will be completed by

the indicated dates:

■ Refuge Complex Habitat Management Plan (highest priority step

down plan) in 2003

■ Refuge Complex Hunt Plan in 2003

■ Refuge Complex Species and Habitat Inventory and Monitoring

Plan in 2004

■ Integrated Predator Management Plan in 2004

■ Refuge Complex Visitor Services Plan in 2004

■ Fishing Plan by 2005

■ Trapping Plan by 2004

Partnerships

The Refuge Complex staff is proud of its long history of

partnerships. More than 45 partnerships have supported the

refuges, including four universities and colleges, numerous

departments within Rhode Island State government, town

administrations, conservation commissions, school districts,

conservation groups and land trusts, environmental education

centers, historic preservation groups, adjacent landowners, and

other federal agencies. These partnerships have resulted in

Chapter 5

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May, 2002 5-3
biological research, cooperative management of threatened and

endangered species and declining habitats, protection of open space,

and environmental education programs.

Refuge staff were particularly delighted by the establishment in 1998

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

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

supporting Refuge Complex goals within the community through

public education and interpretation, project funding, and volunteer

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

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

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

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

We will strengthen and formalize refuge partnerships to promote

coordinated management and facilitate sharing of resources. Our

partnership with the Friends Group is vitally important to us for

community relations and for support in implementing our resource

programs. Partnerships help us build support for the refuge,

facilitate the sharing of information, and supplement the efforts of

refuge staff. 

Strategies:

■ By 2003, we will conduct at least semi-annual meetings with the

Friends Group to promote communication and evaluate

implementation of the MOU. We will continue to actively support

and promote the Friends Group’s vital efforts in funding and

implementing outreach and environmental education programs,

which enhance our ability to meet refuge goals.

■ By 2005, develop formal agreements with current partners, such

as the South County Tourism Council, local land trusts, and

conservation organizations, to identify mutual goals, and

opportunities for cost sharing, technical exchange and

environmental education and interpretation.

Volunteer Program

Volunteers are vital to accomplishing all Refuge Complex goals. For

example, in fiscal years 2000 and 2001, volunteers donated 9,332 and

10,000 hours respectively, assisting in environmental education

programs, monitoring public use, maintaining facilities, and

managing habitats. This translates to more than $110,000 worth of

services contributed to the refuges in 2000 and $117,900 in 2001.

Volunteers are also largely responsible for staffing the visitor contact

station at Trustom Pond Refuge. 

In 1999 we hired a permanent staff Volunteer Coordinator to

improve the quality of the program through better coordination,

supervision and training of volunteers, and to better integrate

volunteers into all refuge programs. The coordinator compiles and

distributes a quarterly newsletter to volunteers, refuge partners, and

interest groups, keeping them informed about management activities

and upcoming interpretive programs on the Refuge Complex.

Chapter 5

5-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Maintaining Existing Facilities

Periodic maintenance of existing facilities is critical to ensure safety

and accessibility for Refuge Complex staff and visitors. Existing

facilities include the Trustom Pond Refuge visitor contact station,

Refuge Complex maintenance compound, and numerous parking

areas, observation platforms, and trails. Many of these facilities are

not currently Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant;

upgrading is needed. Appendix F displays the fiscal year (FY) 2000

Maintenance Management System (MMS) database list of

backlogged maintenance entries for the Refuge Complex.

We will also undertake the following strategies to improve the

visibility of the Service:

■ By 2003, meet with RI DOT to modify existing U.S. Route 1

directional signs. At a minimum, propose changes to the existing

sign directing visitors “To Moonstone Beach”.

■ By 2005, complete construction of the Visitor

Center/Headquarters for the Refuge Complex, implementing

recommendations for interior facility design from the August 1999

Project Identification Document. At least one Visitor Services

Specialist will be hired to administer the new facility.

■ By 2005, complete a Refuge Complex Facilities and Sign Plan.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation for this CCP will occur at two levels. The

first level, which we refer to as implementation monitoring, responds

to the question, “Did we do what we said we would do, when we said

we would do it?” Annual implementation monitoring will be achieved

by using the checklist in Appendix H for the Refuge Complex. 

The second level of monitoring, which we refer to as effectiveness

monitoring, responds to the question, “Are the actions we proposed

effective in achieving the results we had hoped for?” Or, in other

words, “Are the actions leading us toward our vision, goals, and

objectives?” Effectiveness monitoring evaluates an individual action,

a suite of actions, or an entire resource program. This approach is

more analytical in evaluating management effects on species,

populations, habitats, refuge visitors, ecosystem integrity, or the

socio-economic environment. More often, the criteria to monitor and

evaluate these management effects will be established in step-down,

individual project, or cooperator plans, or through the research

program. The Species and Habitat Inventory and Monitoring Plan,

to be completed in 2004, will be based on the needs and priorities

identified in the Habitat Management Plan.

Adaptive Management

This CCP is a dynamic document. A strategy of adaptive

management will keep it relevant and current. Through scientific

research, inventories and monitoring, and our management

experiences, we will gain new information which may alter our

course of action. We acknowledge that our information on species,

habitats, and ecosystems is incomplete, provisional, and subject to

change as our knowledge base improves.

Chapter 5

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May, 2002 5-5
Objectives and strategies must be adaptable in responding to new

information and spatial and temporal changes. We will continually

evaluate management actions, through monitoring or research, to

reconsider whether their original assumptions and predictions are

still valid. In this way, management becomes an active process of

learning “what really works”. It is important that the public

understand and appreciate the adaptive nature of natural resource

management.

The Refuge Manager is responsible for changing management

actions or objectives if they do not produce the desired conditions.

Significant changes may warrant additional NEPA analysis; minor

changes will not, but will be documented in annual monitoring,

project evaluation reports, or the annual refuge narratives.

Compatibility Determinations

Federal law and policy provide the direction and planning framework

to protect the Refuge System from incompatible or harmful human

activities and to insure that Americans can enjoy Refuge System

lands and waters. The National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, is the key legislation on

managing public uses and compatibility. 

Before activities or uses are allowed on a National Wildlife Refuge,

we must determine that each is a “compatible use.” A compatible

use is a use that, based on the sound professional judgement of the

Refuge Manager, “ ...will not materially interfere with or detract

from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the

purposes of the refuge.” “Wildlife-dependent recreational uses may

be authorized on a refuge when they are compatible and not

inconsistent with public safety. Except for consideration of

consistency with State laws and regulations as provided for in section

(m), no other determinations or findings are required to be made by

the refuge official under this Act or the Refuge Recreation Act for

wildlife-dependent recreation to occur.” (Refuge Improvement Act)

Compatibility determinations were distributed (in the draft CCP/EA)

for a 51 day public review in early 2001. These determinations have

since been approved, and will allow the continuation of the following

public use programs: wildlife observation and photography,

environmental education and interpretation, fishing, and hunting. A

pre-acquisition compatibility determination was also reviewed and

completed, and identifies which existing public uses would be allowed

to continue on new properties acquired by the Refuge complex. Since

releasing the draft CCP/EA, we have also distributed compatibility

determinations for trapping and waterfowl hunting for a public

review period. All comments were considered and utilized in the

revision. These new compatibility determinations are now final and

included in Appendix D. 

Additional compatibility determinations will be developed when

appropriate new uses are proposed. Compatibility determinations

will be re-evaluated by the Refuge Manager when conditions under

which the use is permitted change significantly; when there is

significant new information on effects of the use; or at least every 10

years for non-priority public uses. Priority public use compatibility

Chapter 5

5-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
determinations will be re-evaluated under the conditions noted

above, or at least every 15 years with revision of the CCP.

Additional detail on the compatibility determination process is in

Parts 25, 26, and 29 of Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,

effective November 17, 2000.

Additional NEPA Analysis

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires a sitespecific analysis of impacts for all federal actions. These impacts are

to be disclosed in either an EA or Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS).

Most of the actions and associated impacts in this plan were

described in enough detail in the draft CCP/EA to comply with

NEPA, and will not require additional environmental analysis.

Although this is not an all-inclusive list, the following programs are

examples that fall into this category: protecting piping plover,

restoring area-defined grasslands and wetlands, implementing

priority wildlife-dependent public use programs (except deer

hunting), acquiring land, and controlling invasive plants.

Other actions are not described in enough detail to comply with the

site-specific analysis requirements of NEPA. Examples of actions

that will require a separate EA include: construction of a new visitor

center and headquarters, new deer hunting opportunities, and future

habitat restoration projects not fully developed or delineated in this

document. Monitoring, evaluation, and research can generally be

increased without additional NEPA analysis. 

Plan Amendment and Revision

Periodic review of the CCP will be required to ensure that objectives

are being met and management actions are being implemented.

Ongoing monitoring and evaluation will be an important part of this

process. Monitoring results or new information may indicate the

need to change our strategies. 

The Service’s planning policy (FWS Manual, Part 602, Chapters 1, 3,

and 4) states that CCPs should be reviewed at least annually to decide

if they require any revisions (Chapter 3, part 3.4 (8)). Revisions will be

necessary if significant new information becomes available, ecological

conditions change, major refuge expansions occur, or when we identify

the need to do so during a program review. At a minimum, CCPs will

be fully revised every 15 years. We will modify the CCP documents

and associated management activities as needed, following the

procedures outlined in Service policy and NEPA requirements. Minor

revisions that meet the criteria for categorical exclusions (550 FW

3.3C) will only require an Environmental Action Statement. 

Chapter 5

Ninigret Refuge CCP – May, 2002 5-7