Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              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, inter-jurisdictional
fish, wetlands, and certain marine mammals. The
Service also enforces federal wildlife laws and international treaties
on importing and exporting wildlife, assists with state fish and
wildlife programs, and helps other countries develop wildlife
conservation programs.
The National Wildlife Refuge System and its Mission
The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and
waters set aside specifically for conserving wildlife and protecting
ecosystems. More than 525 national wildlife refuges, in every state
and a number of U.S. Territories, protect more than 93 million acres.
More than 34 million visitors annually hunt, fish, observe and
photograph wildlife, or participate in environmental education and
interpretive activities on refuges.
In 1997, Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act, establishing a unifying mission for the Refuge
System, and a new process for determining compatible public use
activities on refuges. It also requires that we prepare a CCP for each
refuge. The act states that, first and foremost, the Refuge System
must focus on wildlife conservation. It further states that the mission
of the Refuge System, coupled with the purpose(s) for which each
refuge was established, will provide 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 hand-fed
at Sachuest Point Refuge. Many people fear fox and other
mammals because they can carry rabies. These predators are
particularly troublesome when their populations exceed natural
levels. Control measures for each species are controversial, and may
include lethal removal, visual and audio deterrents, or destroying
eggs, nests, or den sites.
The alternatives in the draft CCP/EA compared different strategies
for managing invasive species. Addressing this issue will help
achieve Goal 1: Protect and enhance Federal trust resources and
other species and habitats of special concern, and Goal 2: Maintain
and/or restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy,
functioning ecosystems.
6. Protection of biologically significant areas through
acquisition and/or cooperative management.
Public meetings, partner meetings, and workbook responses
expressed a great deal of support for the protection of additional fish
and wildlife habitat in southern Rhode Island. That support runs
across the State, as Rhode Islanders consistently vote ballot
measures 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 non-wildlife-
dependent activities, to those who want to close refuges to all
public use to maintain an undisturbed sanctuary for wildlife.
The alternatives in the draft CCP/EA compared different levels and
combinations of wildlife-dependent public use. Addressing this issue
will help achieve Goal 4: Provide opportunities for high quality,
compatible, wildlife-dependent public use with particular emphasis
on environmental education and interpretation.
9. Hunting.
Hunting surfaced late in the scoping process as a key issue, perhaps
because, initially, few viewed it as a possibility on the Refuge
Complex. This issue was raised by Service personnel, by RI DEM
biologists, and by individuals both for and against expanding hunting
opportunities on the Refuge Complex. Those in support primarily
are interested in deer hunting on all refuges, waterfowl hunting on
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 hunter-gatherer
with little agriculture; broad changes to landscape
vegetation probably did not occur.
During the Woodland Period (3000 - 450 years ago), larger, semi-permanent
or recurrently occupied camps became coastal
settlements. Fortified villages are known to have existed in some
locations. Maize horticulture became prominent, which likely
resulted in small clearings. Larger clearings and burnings to control
the movement of deer and upland birds may have occurred, and the
first pronounced clearing of land along the coast for settlements,
game management, and agriculture. Much of this land was cleared
by cutting and burning, which favored resprouting by hardwood
species like oak, hickory, and red maple.
The role fire may have played in shaping landscape vegetation is not
well known. Evidence of fire has been observed in charcoal layers at
Ninigret Refuge. Soil cores dug at most points on the refuge reveal
charcoal below the historic farmers plow zone, approximately 10
inches soil depth. The dates attributed to these fires, coupled with
their locations, suggest early Native Americans used fire extensively
and purposefully.
Although small areas of land were cleared and more or less
permanently settled by early Native Americans, it was European
settlement and expansion in the 1600’s that exponentially escalated
the conversion of forests to agriculture. The eighteenth century
Rhode Island plantation era “…required massive land clearing of the
forests that had dominated the landscapes for the last 8,000 years”
(USFWS 1999). During the mid-nineteenth century, an estimated 85
percent of southern New England was converted to field and
pasture. Any woods remaining often were managed for firewood
(Jorgensen 1977).
A detailed report on the archeological history of the Refuge
Complex is available from the Refuge Complex office on request
(Jacobson USFWS).
Contemporary Influences on the Landscape
The major natural disturbances affecting the coastline today are
hurricanes and winter ice-storms. Hurricanes have the greatest
impact, by far. The straight border of barrier beaches separated
from the mainland by tidal wetlands and coastal salt ponds
characterizes a coastline influenced by frequent storms. Wind and
waves pick up loose sand and sediment and move it along the
shoreline or back out to sea, allowing occasional overwash of barrier
beaches and breaching of coastal ponds. Overwash, tidal currents,
longshore currents, and rip currents are all mechanisms transporting
sediment along the barrier beaches (RI CRMC 1998).
Fall and winter storms combining wind, rain, and waves are the
predominant physical process shaping this landscape today.
“Nor’easters” are well known along the New England coast in
winter, winds generated offshore from the southeast, can actually be
Chapter 3
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 non-native
species like larch and autumn olive. Between 1945 and 1973,
107 acres at the center of the Sachuest Point peninsula were used as
an Army Coastal Defense site and a Navy firing range. Around a
more recent Naval communications center, mowing and the use of
herbicides maintained the vegetation in a low shrub-grasslands
structure. A separate report on the history of the Sachuest Point
Naval facility, entitled “Historical Perspectives on Establishing
Sachuest Point Refuge” (Walker 1995), is available upon request at
the refuge visitor center.
Introducing non-native, invasive plants, diverting or draining coastal
wetlands for development, converting uplands for residential use,
and spilling oil are other significant human impacts on the coastal
landscape. 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 water-associated
recreation are the primary attractions for visitors with
destinations along the Rhode Island coast.
Current travel and tourism literature does not feature the Refuge
Complex. According to Ms. O’Neill, its refuges are not well known as
tourist destinations, although many visitors discover them during
their visit and enjoy the scenery and open space they provide. They
are small enough to explore in one day, and generally do not prompt
an additional night’s lodging. Ms. O’Neill stated that, since the
Tourism Council is trying to showcase a greater mix of outdoor
recreational opportunities in South County, the Refuge Complex will
figure more prominently in future promotional material.
The greatest contribution by the Refuge Complex to the local
economy comes from the values attributed to the preservation of
open space (NPS 1992). We represent those values using three
indicators, below: Cost of Community Services; Property Values;
and Public Willingness to Pay.
Cost of Community Services compares the cost per dollar of revenue
generated by residential or commercial development to that of
revenue generated by an open space designation. On the one hand,
residential development expands the tax base, but the costs of
increased infrastructure and public services (schools, utilities,
emergency services, etc.) often offset any increase in revenue. On
the other hand, undeveloped land requires few town services and
places little pressure on the local infrastructure. The cost per dollar
of revenue generated by commercial land typically falls between
those of residential and open space.
The American Farmland Trust (1989, 1992, and 1993) and the
Commonwealth Research Group (1995) evaluated community
revenues and expenses associated with open space vs. residential
and commercial development. All available information on the New
England States shows that open space and commercial development
produced more revenues than costs, while the opposite was true for
residential land.
Conversations with local realtors and appraisers helped us evaluate
the refuges’ influence on property values. Two South County realtors
and one realtor/appraiser confirmed that properties adjacent to
refuges generally are valued higher (Gross, et al. 1998). That value is
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, short-eared
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 4 2 2 3 - - - -
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 - - - - 1 1 - -
King eider - - - - - - 1 -
Oldsquaw 1 - - - 3 3 1 1
Black scoter - - - - 3 - - -
Surf scoter 1 - 1 5 3 - - 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, town-managed
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 concrete-reinforcing
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 long-term
conservation of migratory and resident native wildlife
populations, and the recovery of endangered and threatened species.
These refuges offer research opportunities and provide an
outstanding showcase of habitat management for other
landowners.”
“The Refuge Complex is the premiere destination for visitors to
coastal Rhode Island to engage in high quality, wildlife-dependent
recreation. Hundreds of thousands of visitors are rewarded each
year with inspiring vistas and exceptional opportunities to view
wildlife in native habitats. Innovative environmental educational
and interpretive programs motivate visitors to engage in better
stewardship of coastal resources.”
“Through partnerships and extensive outreach efforts, Refuge
Complex staff are committed to accomplishing refuge goals and
significantly contributing to the Mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System. This commitment will strengthen with the future,
revitalizing the southern New England ecosystem for generations
to come.”
Refuge Complex Goals
Our planning team developed the following goals for the Refuge
Complex after reviewing applicable laws and policies, regional plans,
the Refuge Complex vision statement, the purpose of each refuge,
and public comments. All the goals fully comply with Service policy
and national and regional mandates.
Our Refuge Complex goals are intentionally broad, descriptive
statements of purpose. They highlight specific elements of our vision
statement and provide the foundation for our management emphasis.
We identified Goal 1 as the top priority for the Refuge Complex;
Goals 2-5 are not presented in any particular order.
Each goal is further refined by a series of objective statements.
Objectives are incremental steps to be taken toward achieving a goal
and define the management emphasis in measurable terms, where
possible. Some of our objectives relate directly to habitat
management, while others strive to meet population targets tied to
species’ recovery plans, or state or regional species plans. The
strategies for each objective are specific actions, tools, techniques,
Chapter 4
4-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Freshwater wetland. USFWS photo.
considerations, or a combination of these, which may be used to
achieve the objective. Objectives will be used directly in respective
step-down plans, while strategies may be revised or modified to
achieve the desired outcome.
Together, the goals and objectives are unifying elements of successful
refuge management. They identify and focus management priorities,
provide a context for resolving issues, and offer a critical link between
refuge purpose(s), and the National Wildlife Refuge System Mission.
Integral to all the objectives under Goal 1 and Goal 2 is development
in 2003 of a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for the Refuge
Complex. This will be the highest priority step-down plan to
accomplish. We will write the plan using current resource
information, but will update it based on new information, as needed.
The purpose of the HMP will be to prevent the loss or degradation of
habitat types, species assemblages, or natural processes significant
to the Refuge Complex. It will identify habitat management actions
that, to the extent practicable, restore and sustain viable populations
of our focus species. The objectives and strategies identified below
will all be incorporated into the HMP.
Once the HMP is developed, the Refuge Complex will develop a
Species and Habitat Inventory and Monitoring Plan in 2004.
Critical elements of the biological program to be inventoried or
monitored will be identified, prioritized, and scheduled. This plan
will also describe inventory and monitoring procedures, determine
where data will be stored, and identify the interim and final reports
to include. It will provide a critical connection between the HMP and
credible, adaptive refuge management.
In addition, the Region is currently developing a Regional National
Wildlife Refuge System Strategic Resources Plan (SRP). This plan
will establish Regional goals and objectives for species and habitats
based on landscape-scale analyses. Each refuge staff will then
determine their respective refuge’s contribution to implementing
these objectives. As such, once the SRP is completed, the objectives
and strategies outlined below may be modified.
The following goals, objectives, and strategies provide management
direction for the refuge over the next 15 years. Unless otherwise
noted, all work will be accomplished by the Service, primarily by
Refuge Complex staff.
Goal 1: Protect and enhance federal trust resources and other
species and habitats of special concern.
Objective 1.1
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 cover-type
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 a